theamericanconservative--2020-09-22--Meet the Flack Who Bridges Trumpworld and Big Porn

NEW YORK , NY - JUNE 14 : CEO 5W Public Relations Ronn Torossian speaks during 5WPR 15th Anniversary Event at Catch Rooftop on June 14 , 2017 in New York City .
( Photo by Eugene Gologursky/Getty Images for DuJour ) Earlier this month , Business Insider reported that a number of Pornhub ’ s top executives probably don ’ t exist .
For all of the company ’ s most-quoted officials , no information , record , or verification can be found outside of scattered press releases and media quotes .
Their social media profiles are either non-existent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ official lines of communication are either dead ends or red herrings .
When Business Insider called one phone number listed as a Pornhub VP ’ s , it connected them somewhere else entirely : 5W PR , a New York firm headed up by Ronn Torossian .
If those names sound familiar to you , you ’ re not alone .
5W is the agency of record for Pornhub , yes—but the pornography monolith is far from their highest-profile client .
You ’ re more likely to have heard Torossian ’ s name @ @ @ @ @ @ @ divergent places .
Maybe you remember him from the Mueller probe .
Torossian was called to testify about professional conversations he had held with Paul Manafort and Rick Gates in the spring of 2012 .
These particular talks didn ’ t develop into a business relationship , but they were far from the PR executive ’ s only interactions with Donald Trump ’ s inner circle .
Torossian has represented Jay Sekulow—a member of President Trump ’ s personal legal team—and brushed elbows with a horde of other Trump orbiters , including Rudy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Torossian ’ s services were retained by the Eric Trump Foundation after reports that donated funds were not going where the president ’ s son said they were .
An assistant to Eric Trump did not respond to The American Conservative ‘ s inquiries about the PR rep ’ s other clients .
“ It has been revealed that the 5W PR firm and its CEO Ron Torossian have been partnering with , and defending Pornhub and its parent company MindGeek , a mega-corporation publicly exposed for complicity in child trafficking and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mickelwait , founder of the # TraffickingHub campaign , told TAC .
“ For any company to participate in defending those who profit from child exploitation is both debased and unacceptable .
Torossian and 5W should be ashamed of their actions.
” Torossian also garnered a good bit of attention for his work with Sinclair Broadcast Group in 2017 .
Sinclair is a conservative , pro-Trump media conglomerate that came under fire for allegations that it had compelled its local affiliates to broadcast a statement condemning fake news .
Torossian got to work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ renowned for his aggressive approach—against the broadcasting company ’ s critics .
Sinclair is one of the biggest names to the right of center in the media world , and in their moment of need Torossian seems to have come through for them .
Sinclair Broadcast Group has not responded to TAC ‘ s request for comment .
Jon Schweppe , director of policy and government affairs at the American Principles Project , saw no gray area here .
“ You can ’ t be a conservative and support Pornhub .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The American Conservative .
“ Few companies have done more to undermine the American family .
Anyone on the Right who cares — or even claims to care — about protecting the family should immediately sever all ties with this individual.
” 5W PR ’ s client list is hardly limited to the rich and powerful of right-wing politics , though .
Their catalogue of corporate customers is enormous .
A few names jump out .
Topps , a decades-old company known mostly for its baseball cards , is touted on 5W PR @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sports collectibles and memorabilia means , of course , that Topps markets mostly to children and nostalgics .
Likewise , Welch ’ s , a well-known peddler of grape-based products , makes use of Torossian ’ s firm .
“ Farmer owned .
Family grown , ” their website prominently boasts .
Their PR campaigns are almost exclusively targeted towards families , with marketing materials generally featuring and aimed at children .
Speaking of children—there are a surprising number of companies who make their money in childcare products on the 5W client list @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mackin and nursery furniture firm Delta Children ( who 5W has tweeted about this month ) , among others .
One wonders if such family-friendly companies might have misgivings about sharing a public relations firm with the world-leader in the pornography industry .
But we can ’ t know for sure—not one of them responded to TAC ‘ s requests for comment .
A glance further back into Ronn Torossian ’ s history will reveal that he was a longtime contributor to the New York Observer .
Over a number of years , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Israel-related politicalconcerns , but occasionally digressed into culture , economy , and the workings of the PR industry .
( The subheading of a January , 2015 article : “ Odious clients who present a moral hazard should be rejected , no matter how lucrative the contract.
” ) Throughout this period , the now-defunct weekly newspaper was owned and published by one Jared Kushner .
A number of notable Christian televangelists have also hired 5W PR .
These include such names as Creflo Dollar and Israeli-born “ faith healer ” Benny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ others in Torossian ’ s orbit are influential peddlers of the “ prosperity gospel ” —the belief that financial wealth is a sign of God ’ s blessing—a doctrine used by its advocates to justify amassing substantial personal fortunes .
Trinity Broadcasting Network , also known and criticized for its prosperity gospel advocacy , has made us of Torossian ’ s services as well .
TBN is the largest religious TV network in the entire world .
( With the top evangelists and the top pornographers , Torossian really has his bases covered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to TAC ‘ s request for comment .
The prosperity gospel has served Torossian well .
The New York Post—where Torossian has also been known to contribute in the past—reported in 2018 on his acquisition of a condo on NYC ’ s Park Avenue for just under $ 17 million .
On Twitter , Torossian recently posted a picture of himself seated in a vintage Jeepster Commando with the caption “ New hamptons [ sic ] toy.
” ( In Torossian ’ s profile bio , sandwiched between two professional self-praises— “ CEO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” and “ PR Executive of the Year ” —is a different kind of boast : “ Proud dad.
” ) Just how much of Torossian ’ s very public prosperity is thanks to a lucrative contract with Pornhub is unclear .
Also unclear is where Pornhub ’ s own fortune has come from .
The general thrust of the industry should be controversial enough , but Pornhub—which maintains a near-monopoly on online pornography streaming—is the subject of far more troubling accusations .
Many have raised concerns , for instance , about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pornography .
( In this area , Torossian has a bit of experience .
“ Girls Gone Wild ” retained his services after allegedly doing the same thing a few years ago . )
Simulated rape is the stock-in-trade of Pornhub and the broader porn industry , but there have been numerous incidents in which the site published videos of actual rape .
To make matters worse , the company has even verified the accounts some offenders , welcoming pedophiles , rapists , and human traffickers behind their paywall—allowing both Pornhub and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sexual crimes .
Anti-trafficking activists like Laila Mickelwait have attempted to raise the alarm about Pornhub ’ s most vicious practices .
You ’ re unlikely to have heard about any of it , though—their PR outfit is top-notch .
Torossian did not respond to our questions as of press time .

Earlier this month, Business Insider reported that a number of Pornhub’s top executives probably don’t exist. For all of the company’s most-quoted officials, no information, record, or verification can be found outside of scattered press releases and media quotes. Their social media profiles are either non-existent or completely devoid of details. Even official lines of communication are either dead ends or red herrings.
When Business Insider called one phone number listed as a Pornhub VP’s, it connected them somewhere else entirely: 5W PR, a New York firm headed up by Ronn Torossian. If those names sound familiar to you, you’re not alone. 5W is the agency of record for Pornhub, yes—but the pornography monolith is far from their highest-profile client. You’re more likely to have heard Torossian’s name in any of a number of widely divergent places.
Maybe you remember him from the Mueller probe. Torossian was called to testify about professional conversations he had held with Paul Manafort and Rick Gates in the spring of 2012. These particular talks didn’t develop into a business relationship, but they were far from the PR executive’s only interactions with Donald Trump’s inner circle. Torossian has represented Jay Sekulow—a member of President Trump’s personal legal team—and brushed elbows with a horde of other Trump orbiters, including Rudy Giuliani. As recently as 2017, Torossian’s services were retained by the Eric Trump Foundation after reports that donated funds were not going where the president’s son said they were. An assistant to Eric Trump did not respond to The American Conservative‘s inquiries about the PR rep’s other clients.
“It has been revealed that the 5W PR firm and its CEO Ronn Torossian have been partnering with, and defending Pornhub and its parent company MindGeek, a mega-corporation publicly exposed for complicity in child trafficking and the monetization of child rape,” Laila Mickelwait, founder of the #TraffickingHub campaign, told TAC. “For any company to participate in defending those who profit from child exploitation is both debased and unacceptable. Torossian and 5W should be ashamed of their actions.”
Torossian also garnered a good bit of attention for his work with Sinclair Broadcast Group in 2017. Sinclair is a conservative, pro-Trump media conglomerate that came under fire for allegations that it had compelled its local affiliates to broadcast a statement condemning fake news. Torossian got to work quickly, waging a no-holds-barred campaign—he is renowned for his aggressive approach—against the broadcasting company’s critics. Sinclair is one of the biggest names to the right of center in the media world, and in their moment of need Torossian seems to have come through for them. Sinclair Broadcast Group has not responded to TAC‘s request for comment.
Jon Schweppe, director of policy and government affairs at the American Principles Project, saw no gray area here. “You can’t be a conservative and support Pornhub. It’s that simple,” Schweppe told The American Conservative. “Few companies have done more to undermine the American family. Anyone on the Right who cares — or even claims to care — about protecting the family should immediately sever all ties with this individual.”
5W PR’s client list is hardly limited to the rich and powerful of right-wing politics, though. Their catalogue of corporate customers is enormous. A few names jump out. Topps, a decades-old company known mostly for its baseball cards, is touted on 5W PR’s website. Their specialization in sports collectibles and memorabilia means, of course, that Topps markets mostly to children and nostalgics. Likewise, Welch’s, a well-known peddler of grape-based products, makes use of Torossian’s firm. “Farmer owned. Family grown,” their website prominently boasts. Their PR campaigns are almost exclusively targeted towards families, with marketing materials generally featuring and aimed at children. Speaking of children—there are a surprising number of companies who make their money in childcare products on the 5W client list. These include baby bottle company Perry Mackin and nursery furniture firm Delta Children (who 5W has tweeted about this month), among others. One wonders if such family-friendly companies might have misgivings about sharing a public relations firm with the world-leader in the pornography industry. But we can’t know for sure—not one of them responded to TAC‘s requests for comment.
A glance further back into Ronn Torossian’s history will reveal that he was a longtime contributor to the New York Observer. Over a number of years, Torossian’s writings there focused mainly on Israel-related political concerns, but occasionally digressed into culture, economy, and the workings of the PR industry. (The subheading of a January, 2015 article: “Odious clients who present a moral hazard should be rejected, no matter how lucrative the contract.”) Throughout this period, the now-defunct weekly newspaper was owned and published by one Jared Kushner.
A number of notable Christian televangelists have also hired 5W PR. These include such names as Creflo Dollar and Israeli-born “faith healer” Benny Hinn. Dollar, Hinn, and others in Torossian’s orbit are influential peddlers of the “prosperity gospel”—the belief that financial wealth is a sign of God’s blessing—a doctrine used by its advocates to justify amassing substantial personal fortunes. Trinity Broadcasting Network, also known and criticized for its prosperity gospel advocacy, has made us of Torossian’s services as well. TBN is the largest religious TV network in the entire world. (With the top evangelists and the top pornographers, Torossian really has his bases covered.) The network did not respond to TAC‘s request for comment.
The prosperity gospel has served Torossian well. The New York Post—where Torossian has also been known to contribute in the past—reported in 2018 on his acquisition of a condo on NYC’s Park Avenue for just under $17 million. On Twitter, Torossian recently posted a picture of himself seated in a vintage Jeepster Commando with the caption “New hamptons [sic] toy.” (In Torossian’s profile bio, sandwiched between two professional self-praises—“CEO @5W_PR, PR Agency of Year,” and “PR Executive of the Year”—is a different kind of boast: “Proud dad.”) Just how much of Torossian’s very public prosperity is thanks to a lucrative contract with Pornhub is unclear.
Also unclear is where Pornhub’s own fortune has come from. The general thrust of the industry should be controversial enough, but Pornhub—which maintains a near-monopoly on online pornography streaming—is the subject of far more troubling accusations. Many have raised concerns, for instance, about the site’s platforming of child pornography. (In this area, Torossian has a bit of experience. “Girls Gone Wild” retained his services after allegedly doing the same thing a few years ago.) Simulated rape is the stock-in-trade of Pornhub and the broader porn industry, but there have been numerous incidents in which the site published videos of actual rape. To make matters worse, the company has even verified the accounts some offenders, welcoming pedophiles, rapists, and human traffickers behind their paywall—allowing both Pornhub and the direct abusers to reap profit from violent sexual crimes. Anti-trafficking activists like Laila Mickelwait have attempted to raise the alarm about Pornhub’s most vicious practices.
You’re unlikely to have heard about any of it, though—their PR outfit is top-notch.
Torossian did not respond to our questions as of press time.


theamericanconservative--2020-09-22--Trump and the Troops: The Media’s Latest Self-Satisfied Grift

US President Donald Trump ( R ) and US Vice President Mike Pence participate in a Wreath Laying Ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery to commemorate Memorial Day , and honor those who have died while serving in the US Armed Forces on May 25 , 2020 in Arlington , Virginia .
( Photo by NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP via Getty Images ) Watch how this is done : Joe Biden plans to resign after only one year in the White House , according to someone with direct knowledge of the Bidens ’ plans .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confirmed that Jill Biden reached out recently to see if she could resume teaching if her husband was elected—Dr .
Biden famously taught there while her husband served as vice president and had befriended the official .
The College immediately offered her a four-year cycle of classes .
She wanted , however , to make only a one-year commitment .
“ We won ’ t be in Washington for the full term , ” Biden reportedly explained .
“ Joe ’ ll stay in office for a year and work on some signature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be doing the heavy lifting from day one .
Joe will quietly resign and give her plenty of time to make the job her own .
It ’ s set in stone I ’ m afraid .
I wouldn ’ t let him run any other way given his health.
” I made that up .
See how easy it is ?
Start with a known bias , that many people believe Joe Biden won ’ t serve his whole term .
Play off the fear that he ’ s a Trojan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe : Harris is selected , not elected .
Include some truth ( Dr. Jill Biden did teach at Northern Virginia Community College during the Obama administration ) .
And then take advantage of the magic of anonymous sources .
This comes in the context of an article in The Atlantic by Jeff Goldberg , where anonymous sources claim the president disrespected America ’ s military .
Goldberg ’ s piece was followed by former Russiagate FBI agent Peter Strzok telling another Atlantic writer that Trump is controlled by the Russians .
Then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ powered by an anonymous source , er , “ whistleblower ” ) and excerpts from Bob Woodward ’ s book Rage claiming without details that Dan Coats and Jim Mattis planned “ collective action ” against the president .
Those are only a few recent examples .
Amid a four year tantrum , the media has recklessly published anything anti-Trump without concern for truth , little better than the minor celebs who take to Twitter to announce # TrumpisaPedo .
Journalism has become farce , its purpose not to inform but to advocate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s worth making an example out of Goldberg ’ s article because of its exclusive use of anonymous sources in pursuit of advocacy , in this case , trying to chip away at Trump ’ s pro-military base .
Though Goldberg talks about events from as long as four years ago , the actual article was released alongside a Military Times poll showing Biden gaining some support among service members , and dovetailed with fuzzy reporting that Trump ignored Russian bounties on Americans in Afghanistan .
The questions of timing and motive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more important .
How do we know Goldberg didn ’ t make things up , or at least allow himself to be used for a partisan end as he did in advocating for the whole false narrative of WMDs in Iraq ?
Unless you ’ re Goldberg ’ s mother or the town mayor from Jaws , credibility comes from sources , not a writer ’ s inner soul .
Goldberg is lacking .
As a diplomat , I staffed overseas presidential visits from Reagan to Obama .
I sat in on planning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Secret Service .
The president exists inside a series of bubbles , like Russian nesting dolls ( forgive me ) .
The innermost bubble , the one where someone might hear his personal thoughts , is reserved for very , very few people .
The universe of those who could have been physically close enough to Trump ( or any president ) to overhear such sensitive remarks is tiny .
So if we know the names of the sources , it will be easy to place them in that special group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easy to check photos to see if they were where they would have needed to be to overhear .
Fact-checkers could determine who else was around to confirm or deny the story ( 11 Trump officials deny it by name , zero confirm ) .
Knowing the names resolves the risk .
Trust but verify .
Goldberg ’ s sources say Trump remarked to former White House chief of staff and retired Marine General John Kelly , “ I don ’ t get it .
What was in it for them ?
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Bob Woodward in Rage is also guilty of this , dropping a turd quote in the public punch bowl and then moving on ) , asking what was said before and after the damning remarks .
It is not uncommon for civilians to respectfully inquire as to what motivates men to run into fires , to sacrifice themselves for a buddy , to stand in harm ’ s way .
Trump supposedly said this at the Arlington National Cemetery gravesite of Kelly ’ s son , a Marine killed in Afghanistan .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ two family members , Trump , and Pence .
This would have been the moment when Trump would have made his remark , and those are the only five people on earth who would have heard it .
Trump and Pence deny it ; the Kelly family has been silent .
The same photo set shows Trump meeting later with other Gold Star families , none of whom claim he made any disparaging remarks .
There is also a sniff test to be applied .
The credibility of journalism should not depend on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the domain of late-night Trump Sucks You Guys comedy .
Trump mocking Kelly ’ s son at graveside would be among the most horrible things anyone could do to a parent .
Who would say such a thing ?
There is no record of the worst humans in history , men like Hitler , Stalin , and Pol Pot , saying such things .
There is no record of concentration camp guards , men capable of killing children , saying such things .
Would Kelly , a blooded Marine , stand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their humiliation , then release the information only years later while hiding behind the skirt of a journalist to score a glancing political point ?
Though it got much less attention , The Atlantic followed up Goldberg with a piece that included a named source and allowed him to list out baseless accusations of treason .
Former FBI agent Peter Strzok sees grassy knolls everywhere .
The Atlantic helps him along , introducing a back-and-to-the-left theory by saying , “ Despite multiple investigations by the FBI , Congress , and Mueller ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the full story about the Trump campaign ’ s relationship with Russia.
” Like what ?
Well , Strzok says he doesn ’ t really know , but it must be hidden in Trump ’ s taxes ( which the IRS has reviewed for decades ) .
The writer feels it in her ample gut , too , stating in her best Kevin Costner voice , “ Strzok was getting too close to the truth.
” Ah , from Strzok : “ I do think the president is compromised , that he is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nation first , that he acts from hidden motives , because there is leverage over him , held specifically by the Russians but potentially others as well.
” That is a straight-up accusation of treason .
And there both the writer and the source leave it , no specifics , no follow-up questions , not even a pee tape .
We ’ re left to infer that They Are All In On It , everyone who could have blown this wide open is dummied up—FBI , CIA , NSA , DOJ .
Remember @ @ @ @ @ @ @ played by Donald Sutherland ?
Strzok wants to be him .
Problem is he ’ s not good enough for an Oliver Stone film , so he ’ s just out there pimping his book .
The Atlantic articles are sucked oranges .
Writing this after the hot takes have faded , it ’ s clear they had little lasting effect and thus weren ’ t even decent propaganda .
Goldberg ’ s article got far too much attention for how little it had to say .
But it has not gotten enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we had to end up when the media wholeheartedly advocated for the Iraq war based on lies , literally rewrote history with the 1619 Project for political ends , buried things of concern with Hillary , helped create Russiagate , and used its own freedom of speech to quash dissenting voices as unpatriotic in 2003 and as “ useful idiots ” and Russian bots since .
In defense of what they call advocacy , crappy journalists often cite Walter Cronkite ’ s late opposition to the Vietnam War or Ed Murrow ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are such gold-standard examples rare enough that the list often ends there , they ignore the negative examples above .
They also ignore how Cronkite ’ s and Murrow ’ s advocacy came at the end of dispassionate study and deep introspection .
Cronkite and Murrow broke the objectivity wall not for a favored candidate , but over issues of deep national importance .
And they understood the difference before acting .
Peter Van Buren , a 24-year State Department veteran , is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minds of the Iraqi People , Hooper ’ s War : A Novel of WWII Japan , and Ghosts of Tom Joad : A Story of the 99 Percent .

Watch how this is done: Joe Biden plans to resign after only one year in the White House, according to someone with direct knowledge of the Bidens’ plans.
A senior official at Northern Virginia Community College confirmed that Jill Biden reached out recently to see if she could resume teaching if her husband was elected—Dr. Biden famously taught there while her husband served as vice president and had befriended the official. The College immediately offered her a four-year cycle of classes. She wanted, however, to make only a one-year commitment. “We won’t be in Washington for the full term,” Biden reportedly explained. “Joe’ll stay in office for a year and work on some signature issues like cancer research, but Kamala will be doing the heavy lifting from day one. Joe will quietly resign and give her plenty of time to make the job her own. It’s set in stone I’m afraid. I wouldn’t let him run any other way given his health.”
I made that up. See how easy it is? Start with a known bias, that many people believe Joe Biden won’t serve his whole term. Play off the fear that he’s a Trojan Horse. Tell people what they already believe: Harris is selected, not elected. Include some truth (Dr. Jill Biden did teach at Northern Virginia Community College during the Obama administration). And then take advantage of the magic of anonymous sources.
This comes in the context of an article in The Atlantic by Jeff Goldberg, where anonymous sources claim the president disrespected America’s military. Goldberg’s piece was followed by former Russiagate FBI agent Peter Strzok telling another Atlantic writer that Trump is controlled by the Russians. Then came the return of Alexander Vindman (powered by an anonymous source, er, “whistleblower”) and excerpts from Bob Woodward’s book Rage claiming without details that Dan Coats and Jim Mattis planned “collective action” against the president.
Those are only a few recent examples. Amid a four year tantrum, the media has recklessly published anything anti-Trump without concern for truth, little better than the minor celebs who take to Twitter to announce #TrumpisaPedo. Journalism has become farce, its purpose not to inform but to advocate. Influence ops. Propaganda.
It’s worth making an example out of Goldberg’s article because of its exclusive use of anonymous sources in pursuit of advocacy, in this case, trying to chip away at Trump’s pro-military base. Though Goldberg talks about events from as long as four years ago, the actual article was released alongside a Military Times poll showing Biden gaining some support among service members, and dovetailed with fuzzy reporting that Trump ignored Russian bounties on Americans in Afghanistan.
The questions of timing and motive make the validity of the sources ever more important. How do we know Goldberg didn’t make things up, or at least allow himself to be used for a partisan end as he did in advocating for the whole false narrative of WMDs in Iraq? Unless you’re Goldberg’s mother or the town mayor from Jaws, credibility comes from sources, not a writer’s inner soul. Goldberg is lacking.
As a diplomat, I staffed overseas presidential visits from Reagan to Obama. I sat in on planning meetings and got a pretty close-up view of the Secret Service. The president exists inside a series of bubbles, like Russian nesting dolls (forgive me). The innermost bubble, the one where someone might hear his personal thoughts, is reserved for very, very few people. The universe of those who could have been physically close enough to Trump (or any president) to overhear such sensitive remarks is tiny.
So if we know the names of the sources, it will be easy to place them in that special group, or not. It will be easy to check photos to see if they were where they would have needed to be to overhear. Fact-checkers could determine who else was around to confirm or deny the story (11 Trump officials deny it by name, zero confirm). Knowing the names resolves the risk. Trust but verify.
Goldberg’s sources say Trump remarked to former White House chief of staff and retired Marine General John Kelly, “I don’t get it. What was in it for them?” A real reporter would also provide context (Bob Woodward in Rage is also guilty of this, dropping a turd quote in the public punch bowl and then moving on), asking what was said before and after the damning remarks. It is not uncommon for civilians to respectfully inquire as to what motivates men to run into fires, to sacrifice themselves for a buddy, to stand in harm’s way.
Trump supposedly said this at the Arlington National Cemetery gravesite of Kelly’s son, a Marine killed in Afghanistan. This photo shows who was there—Kelly, two family members, Trump, and Pence. This would have been the moment when Trump would have made his remark, and those are the only five people on earth who would have heard it. Trump and Pence deny it; the Kelly family has been silent. The same photo set shows Trump meeting later with other Gold Star families, none of whom claim he made any disparaging remarks.
There is also a sniff test to be applied. The credibility of journalism should not depend on the reader’s biases; that’s the domain of late-night Trump Sucks You Guys comedy. Trump mocking Kelly’s son at graveside would be among the most horrible things anyone could do to a parent. Who would say such a thing? There is no record of the worst humans in history, men like Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot, saying such things. There is no record of concentration camp guards, men capable of killing children, saying such things. Would Kelly, a blooded Marine, stand silently with his family as accomplices in their humiliation, then release the information only years later while hiding behind the skirt of a journalist to score a glancing political point?
Though it got much less attention, The Atlantic followed up Goldberg with a piece that included a named source and allowed him to list out baseless accusations of treason. Former FBI agent Peter Strzok sees grassy knolls everywhere. The Atlantic helps him along, introducing a back-and-to-the-left theory by saying, “Despite multiple investigations by the FBI, Congress, and Mueller’s team, Americans have still never learned the full story about the Trump campaign’s relationship with Russia.” Like what?
Well, Strzok says he doesn’t really know, but it must be hidden in Trump’s taxes (which the IRS has reviewed for decades). The writer feels it in her ample gut, too, stating in her best Kevin Costner voice, “Strzok was getting too close to the truth.” Ah, from Strzok: “I do think the president is compromised, that he is unable to put the interests of our nation first, that he acts from hidden motives, because there is leverage over him, held specifically by the Russians but potentially others as well.” That is a straight-up accusation of treason.
And there both the writer and the source leave it, no specifics, no follow-up questions, not even a pee tape. We’re left to infer that They Are All In On It, everyone who could have blown this wide open is dummied up—FBI, CIA, NSA, DOJ. Remember Mr. X, the character in JFK played by Donald Sutherland? Strzok wants to be him. Problem is he’s not good enough for an Oliver Stone film, so he’s just out there pimping his book.
The Atlantic articles are sucked oranges. Writing this after the hot takes have faded, it’s clear they had little lasting effect and thus weren’t even decent propaganda. Goldberg’s article got far too much attention for how little it had to say. But it has not gotten enough review as a marker, the place we had to end up when the media wholeheartedly advocated for the Iraq war based on lies, literally rewrote history with the 1619 Project for political ends, buried things of concern with Hillary, helped create Russiagate, and used its own freedom of speech to quash dissenting voices as unpatriotic in 2003 and as “useful idiots” and Russian bots since.
In defense of what they call advocacy, crappy journalists often cite Walter Cronkite’s late opposition to the Vietnam War or Ed Murrow’s shaming of Joe McCarthy. Not only are such gold-standard examples rare enough that the list often ends there, they ignore the negative examples above. They also ignore how Cronkite’s and Murrow’s advocacy came at the end of dispassionate study and deep introspection. Cronkite and Murrow broke the objectivity wall not for a favored candidate, but over issues of deep national importance. And they understood the difference before acting.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People, Hooper’s War: A Novel of WWII Japan, and Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the 99 Percent.


theamericanconservative--2020-09-22--Trump’s Place in Pro-Life History

Trump’s Place in Pro-Life History

Life Is Winning : Inside the Fight for Unborn Children and Their Mothers , by Marjorie Dannenfelser , ( Humanix Books : August 2020 ) , 256 pages .
On May 22 , 2018 , President Donald J. Trump walked out onto the dais in front of a packed hall at the National Building Museum in Washington , D.C. to thunderous applause .
He was comfortable and relaxed , and seemed almost taken aback by the enthusiastic reception .
“ Thank you .
Wow .
Thank you very much .
Thank you , Marjorie .
Thank you , Marjorie , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ friends are out here.
” He had just been introduced to the crowd by Marjorie Dannenfelser , the president of America ’ s most powerful and influential pro-life organization , the Susan B. Anthony List .
In the 27 years since the SBA List was founded , they have grown from a tiny pro-life organization trying to combat the influence of abortion groups on Capitol Hill to a well-funded juggernaut with access to the halls of power .
In 2017 , Vice President Mike Pence was SBA List ’ s keynote gala speaker—in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nikki Haley .
In Life Is Winning : Inside the Fight for Unborn Children and Their Mothers ( published last month with an introduction by Mike Pence and a foreword by former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders ) , Dannenfelser tells the fascinating story of how the SBA List , founded with a mere $ 2,485 in 1993 , became the powerhouse that sent out 1,000 canvassers and knocked on a million doors for Trump during the 2016 election .
It is the story of how the political pro-life movement not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during a time when the GOP elites assumed that abortion was a losing issue .
Dannenfelser writes that she is sympathetic to politicians changing their minds on abortion because she was once pro-choice herself—even when , as a young woman , she campaigned for Reagan in the 1980s .
Her mind was changed on the issue by a confluence of deeply personal events , she writes—becoming Catholic and encountering the teachings of Pope John Paul II , the death of a childhood friend , and extensive personal research .
Her involvement in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she began working for West Virginia Democrat Alan Mollohan , co-chairman of the House Pro-Life caucus , working to organize pro-life Democrats .
The abortion movement had EMILY ’ S List , a political action committee solely dedicated to electing pro-choice women , but Dannenfelser soon realized that the pro-life movement had no equivalent .
Thus , the Susan B. Anthony List was born , named for the pro-life suffragette whose newspaper , the Revolution , had once referred to abortion as “ child murder.
” A range of disparate pro-life feminist groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was asked to serve as executive director .
The Capitol Hill launch raised $ 9,000 .
The first two tasks were simple : Find viable female pro-life candidates and connect them with the donor cash they needed to get across the finish line .
During the 1993-94 election cycle , SBA List raised $ 70,000 for pro-life candidates , while EMILY ’ s List raised nearly $ 6 million .
Still , eight of the initial fifteen candidates endorsed by the SBA List won , a success rate of 53 % .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an internal struggle within the organization , it was decided that they were a pro-life group rather than exclusively a women ’ s group .
SBA List would endorse both male and female pro-life candidates .
Meanwhile , Dannenfelser fundraised through coffee parties hosted by wealthy and influential supporters ( such as Kathleen and Quinton McManus , Joanne Kemp , Susan Baker , Mary Ellen Bork , and others . )
An essential first step was teaching GOP candidates how to campaign on being pro-life .
Republicans were embarrassed by their pro-life supporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ address the issue , opposed pitching pro-life policies in political advertising unless the ads were specifically targeted to a religious audience , and generally played awkward defence on the issue when it came up .
The GOP saw abortion as an issue that was useful for procuring votes , but had no intention of prioritizing pro-life policy .
In 1995 , however , pro-lifers flipped the script : A bill banning partial-birth abortion was put forward , with seven female congresswomen endorsed by the SBA List as co-sponsors .
It was a bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of late-term abortion , and it put the Democrats in the awkward position of defending something most Americans saw as barbaric .
It passed , with some Democrats joining their Republican colleagues in voting for it .
Bill Clinton vetoed it in April 1996 .
Ironically , the politically savvy Clinton understood the pro-life movement ’ s strategy better than his opponent in the 1996 presidential election , Bob Dole .
Clinton was livid at the bind he ’ d been forced into , growing red-faced and angry when asked about his veto @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an abortionist for the Senate in 1974 and winning narrowly by campaigning as a pro-lifer , refused to take advantage of the opportunity .
He backtracked on pro-life commitments , signaled his desire to soften the GOP ’ s platform on abortion , and avoided talking about the issue .
He had a “ basically perfect ” voting record , but like many Republicans of that era , abortion was a matter of political convenience rather than conviction .
Many believed that Dole could have used partial-birth abortion as a wedge issue to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were warning that the country was not with Clinton on the issue .
He vetoed the ban again in 1997 , and many Democrats joined the GOP in an attempt to override the veto—including , for a second time , Senator Joseph R. Biden .
In 2000 , the SBA List spent $ 3 million and won 17 out of 22 races .
George W. Bush was a genuinely pro-life president , but spoke vaguely about the issue at first—interestingly , Marvin Olasky told me that he met with Bush personally on pro-life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Buchanan ’ s entry in the race led Bush to soft-pedal the issue to avoid the perception of being “ pulled to the Right.
” Dannenfelser lists Bush ’ s many pro-life accomplishments—but still , she writes , the “ consulting class ” kept the movement out and relegated them to the “ back of the political bus.
” Similarly , in 2008 John McCain had a nearly 100 % pro-life voting record , but “ had never made the issue a priority.
” SBA List ’ s impact was growing nonetheless—in 2009 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ referred to them as “ the NRA of the Anti-Choice Movement.
” During the Obama years , SBA List honed their strategy , going into districts or states and engaging the grassroots by strengthening existing groups and supporting them with resources .
When Congressman Bart Stupak and 19 other pro-life Democrats caved on their commitment to insist on an amendment banning abortion funding in Obamacare , SBA List swung into action , launching a campaign to ensure that all politicians who had betrayed the movement would lose their seats .
Through radio ads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even a bus tour , SBA List ’ s campaign had a brutally effective outcome .
Stupak decided to retire , and twelve other pro-life Democrats were defeated—including Alan Mollohan , Dannenfelser ’ s old boss .
The message was clear : SBA List could help candidates win—and they could also make candidates lose .
They were playing to win .
Dannenfelser is still convinced that if the pro-life Democrats had held strong , Obama would have buckled—instead , as of 2020 , more than 700 subsidized healthcare plans directly subsidize abortion .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ was a turning point for SBA List.
” They spent $ 11 million in 90 races , and won 62 of them .
“ [ A ] pro-life Republican majority took control of the House of Representatives , ” she notes—and she wept with gratitude and relief at the results .
But immediately afterwards , the GOP appeared to be up to the same old tricks , with Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels suggesting a “ truce on the so-called social issues.
” SBA List showed up at the Republican National Convention , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro-life plank .
Still , Mitt Romney was a lukewarm supporter of the movement at best , especially as the infamous comments by Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock seemed to confirm his belief that the abortion issue was a losing one .
At the 2012 RNC , it was made clear to the pro-lifers that they were on the outside looking in .
At the DNC , on the other hand , NARAL and Planned Parenthood were front and center .
Ludicrously , the conclusion of the GOP elites after Romney ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much time talking about social issues .
The 2016 election changed everything .
As the primaries heated up , the SBA List took the same position held by nearly every pro-life leader in the country : Anybody but Trump .
Dannenfelser writes that the race was packed with pro-lifers : Jeb Bush was “ a true believer ” ; Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz had long committed to pro-life policies , and Carly Fiorina was pushing for an SBA List endorsement .
Dannenfelser watched with mounting dismay as Trump , a Manhattan outsider @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the opposition .
Trump was the nominee , and SBA List would have to play ball—especially when Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died , raising the stakes .
Dannenfelser began talking with Kellyanne Conway , who had done polling for SBA List , about what an endorsement might look like .
SBA List sent a pledge to the Trump campaign committing to a series of pro-life policies , and promised that if he signed the letter , they would campaign for him .
Trump not only agreed to sign the SBA List ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ I ’ ve talked to Mr. Trump , and he wants to sign .
But he thinks the letter should be stronger and begin with a description of how terrible Hillary is on life.
” The SBA List was happy to oblige , and with the selection of Mike Pence—a long-time favorite of the pro-life movement—the campaign was underway .
But it was Trump ’ s brutal description of late-term abortion at the presidential debates that persuaded Dannenfelser and other pro-life leaders that Trump might actually be for real : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month , on the final day .
And that ’ s not acceptable.
” It was a defining moment : For years pro-lifers had been begging GOP politicians to force their opponents to defend the barbarism of abortion .
Finally , one was—and it was Donald J. Trump .
For four years , Dannenfelser writes , Trump has defied skepticism and governed like a pro-life president .
He became the first president to speak at the March for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sources tell me , he actually pushes pro-life policies .
In response , many pro-life leaders feel that for the first time , they have a president who understands their strategy and knows what needs to be done .
It may just be Trump ’ s character—going on the offensive , after all , is his modus operandi .
But many pro-life leaders believe they finally have a president who is willing to do what it takes—and treating them like loyal allies to boot .
With the Trump administration , at long last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doors and taking a seat at the table after years of political betrayals and lukewarm support .
They are at the pinnacle of power , where the air is thin .
It is heady stuff .
With the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg , the stakes are higher than ever for the pro-life movement .
The SBA List is returning Trump ’ s loyalty by ignoring his character flaws and campaigning hard for him across the nation .
Marjorie Dannenfelser , for one , believes that his convictions are genuine—as she stood behind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Life , she writes that she was convinced that he was “ truly speaking from the heart.
” And who knows—she may be right .
For better or for worse , many believe that the fate of Roe v. Wade , the Supreme Court , and the abortion debate in America seems , for the moment , to be tied up with that of Donald J. Trump .
Jonathon Van Maren is a public speaker , writer , and pro-life activist .
His commentary has appeared in National Review , The European @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elsewhere .
Jonathon is the author of The Culture War and Seeing Is Believing : Why Our Culture Must Face the Victims of Abortion as well as the co-author with Blaise Alleyne of A Guide to Discussing Assisted Suicide .

Life Is Winning: Inside the Fight for Unborn Children and Their Mothers, by Marjorie Dannenfelser, (Humanix Books: August 2020), 256 pages.
On May 22, 2018, President Donald J. Trump walked out onto the dais in front of a packed hall at the National Building Museum in Washington, D.C. to thunderous applause. He was comfortable and relaxed, and seemed almost taken aback by the enthusiastic reception. “Thank you. Wow. Thank you very much. Thank you, Marjorie. Thank you, Marjorie, for that wonderful introduction. All my friends are out here.”
He had just been introduced to the crowd by Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of America’s most powerful and influential pro-life organization, the Susan B. Anthony List. In the 27 years since the SBA List was founded, they have grown from a tiny pro-life organization trying to combat the influence of abortion groups on Capitol Hill to a well-funded juggernaut with access to the halls of power. In 2017, Vice President Mike Pence was SBA List’s keynote gala speaker—in 2019, it was Mitch McConnell and Nikki Haley.
In Life Is Winning: Inside the Fight for Unborn Children and Their Mothers (published last month with an introduction by Mike Pence and a foreword by former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders), Dannenfelser tells the fascinating story of how the SBA List, founded with a mere $2,485 in 1993, became the powerhouse that sent out 1,000 canvassers and knocked on a million doors for Trump during the 2016 election. It is the story of how the political pro-life movement not only remained relevant but expanded its influence during a time when the GOP elites assumed that abortion was a losing issue.
Dannenfelser writes that she is sympathetic to politicians changing their minds on abortion because she was once pro-choice herself—even when, as a young woman, she campaigned for Reagan in the 1980s. Her mind was changed on the issue by a confluence of deeply personal events, she writes—becoming Catholic and encountering the teachings of Pope John Paul II, the death of a childhood friend, and extensive personal research. Her involvement in the pro-life movement followed soon after, and she began working for West Virginia Democrat Alan Mollohan, co-chairman of the House Pro-Life caucus, working to organize pro-life Democrats.
The abortion movement had EMILY’S List, a political action committee solely dedicated to electing pro-choice women, but Dannenfelser soon realized that the pro-life movement had no equivalent. Thus, the Susan B. Anthony List was born, named for the pro-life suffragette whose newspaper, the Revolution, had once referred to abortion as “child murder.” A range of disparate pro-life feminist groups were behind the founding, and Dannenfelser was asked to serve as executive director. The Capitol Hill launch raised $9,000. The first two tasks were simple: Find viable female pro-life candidates and connect them with the donor cash they needed to get across the finish line.
During the 1993-94 election cycle, SBA List raised $70,000 for pro-life candidates, while EMILY’s List raised nearly $6 million. Still, eight of the initial fifteen candidates endorsed by the SBA List won, a success rate of 53%. The following year, SBA List switched strategies—after an internal struggle within the organization, it was decided that they were a pro-life group rather than exclusively a women’s group. SBA List would endorse both male and female pro-life candidates. Meanwhile, Dannenfelser fundraised through coffee parties hosted by wealthy and influential supporters (such as Kathleen and Quinton McManus, Joanne Kemp, Susan Baker, Mary Ellen Bork, and others.)
An essential first step was teaching GOP candidates how to campaign on being pro-life. Republicans were embarrassed by their pro-life supporters, didn’t know how to address the issue, opposed pitching pro-life policies in political advertising unless the ads were specifically targeted to a religious audience, and generally played awkward defence on the issue when it came up. The GOP saw abortion as an issue that was useful for procuring votes, but had no intention of prioritizing pro-life policy. In 1995, however, pro-lifers flipped the script: A bill banning partial-birth abortion was put forward, with seven female congresswomen endorsed by the SBA List as co-sponsors. It was a bill that drew attention to the horrific nature of late-term abortion, and it put the Democrats in the awkward position of defending something most Americans saw as barbaric. It passed, with some Democrats joining their Republican colleagues in voting for it. Bill Clinton vetoed it in April 1996.
Ironically, the politically savvy Clinton understood the pro-life movement’s strategy better than his opponent in the 1996 presidential election, Bob Dole. Clinton was livid at the bind he’d been forced into, growing red-faced and angry when asked about his veto. Dole, despite having run against an abortionist for the Senate in 1974 and winning narrowly by campaigning as a pro-lifer, refused to take advantage of the opportunity. He backtracked on pro-life commitments, signaled his desire to soften the GOP’s platform on abortion, and avoided talking about the issue. He had a “basically perfect” voting record, but like many Republicans of that era, abortion was a matter of political convenience rather than conviction. Many believed that Dole could have used partial-birth abortion as a wedge issue to deprive Clinton of Catholic votes—even Democratic pollsters were warning that the country was not with Clinton on the issue. He vetoed the ban again in 1997, and many Democrats joined the GOP in an attempt to override the veto—including, for a second time, Senator Joseph R. Biden.
In 2000, the SBA List spent $3 million and won 17 out of 22 races. George W. Bush was a genuinely pro-life president, but spoke vaguely about the issue at first—interestingly, Marvin Olasky told me that he met with Bush personally on pro-life policy, but that he suspects Pat Buchanan’s entry in the race led Bush to soft-pedal the issue to avoid the perception of being “pulled to the Right.” Dannenfelser lists Bush’s many pro-life accomplishments—but still, she writes, the “consulting class” kept the movement out and relegated them to the “back of the political bus.” Similarly, in 2008 John McCain had a nearly 100% pro-life voting record, but “had never made the issue a priority.” SBA List’s impact was growing nonetheless—in 2009, Ilyse Hogue of NARAL Pro-Choice America referred to them as “the NRA of the Anti-Choice Movement.”
During the Obama years, SBA List honed their strategy, going into districts or states and engaging the grassroots by strengthening existing groups and supporting them with resources. When Congressman Bart Stupak and 19 other pro-life Democrats caved on their commitment to insist on an amendment banning abortion funding in Obamacare, SBA List swung into action, launching a campaign to ensure that all politicians who had betrayed the movement would lose their seats. Through radio ads, direct mail, billboards, and even a bus tour, SBA List’s campaign had a brutally effective outcome. Stupak decided to retire, and twelve other pro-life Democrats were defeated—including Alan Mollohan, Dannenfelser’s old boss. The message was clear: SBA List could help candidates win—and they could also make candidates lose. They were playing to win. Dannenfelser is still convinced that if the pro-life Democrats had held strong, Obama would have buckled—instead, as of 2020, more than 700 subsidized healthcare plans directly subsidize abortion.
Election Night 2010, Dannenfelser writes, “was a turning point for SBA List.” They spent $11 million in 90 races, and won 62 of them. “[A] pro-life Republican majority took control of the House of Representatives,” she notes—and she wept with gratitude and relief at the results. But immediately afterwards, the GOP appeared to be up to the same old tricks, with Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels suggesting a “truce on the so-called social issues.” SBA List showed up at the Republican National Convention, and all GOP leaders recommitted to the pro-life plank. Still, Mitt Romney was a lukewarm supporter of the movement at best, especially as the infamous comments by Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock seemed to confirm his belief that the abortion issue was a losing one. At the 2012 RNC, it was made clear to the pro-lifers that they were on the outside looking in. At the DNC, on the other hand, NARAL and Planned Parenthood were front and center. Ludicrously, the conclusion of the GOP elites after Romney’s defeat was that he had spent too much time talking about social issues.
The 2016 election changed everything. As the primaries heated up, the SBA List took the same position held by nearly every pro-life leader in the country: Anybody but Trump. Dannenfelser writes that the race was packed with pro-lifers: Jeb Bush was “a true believer”; Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz had long committed to pro-life policies, and Carly Fiorina was pushing for an SBA List endorsement. Dannenfelser watched with mounting dismay as Trump, a Manhattan outsider with a long pro-abortion record, demolished the opposition. Trump was the nominee, and SBA List would have to play ball—especially when Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died, raising the stakes. Dannenfelser began talking with Kellyanne Conway, who had done polling for SBA List, about what an endorsement might look like. SBA List sent a pledge to the Trump campaign committing to a series of pro-life policies, and promised that if he signed the letter, they would campaign for him.
Trump not only agreed to sign the SBA List’s pledge, but Conway wanted changes: “I’ve talked to Mr. Trump, and he wants to sign. But he thinks the letter should be stronger and begin with a description of how terrible Hillary is on life.” The SBA List was happy to oblige, and with the selection of Mike Pence—a long-time favorite of the pro-life movement—the campaign was underway. But it was Trump’s brutal description of late-term abortion at the presidential debates that persuaded Dannenfelser and other pro-life leaders that Trump might actually be for real: “Based on what she’s saying…you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month, on the final day. And that’s not acceptable.” It was a defining moment: For years pro-lifers had been begging GOP politicians to force their opponents to defend the barbarism of abortion. Finally, one was—and it was Donald J. Trump.
For four years, Dannenfelser writes, Trump has defied skepticism and governed like a pro-life president. He became the first president to speak at the March for Life. Behind closed doors, several sources tell me, he actually pushes pro-life policies. In response, many pro-life leaders feel that for the first time, they have a president who understands their strategy and knows what needs to be done. It may just be Trump’s character—going on the offensive, after all, is his modus operandi. But many pro-life leaders believe they finally have a president who is willing to do what it takes—and treating them like loyal allies to boot. With the Trump administration, at long last, pro-lifers find themselves walking through open doors and taking a seat at the table after years of political betrayals and lukewarm support. They are at the pinnacle of power, where the air is thin. It is heady stuff.
With the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the stakes are higher than ever for the pro-life movement. The SBA List is returning Trump’s loyalty by ignoring his character flaws and campaigning hard for him across the nation. Marjorie Dannenfelser, for one, believes that his convictions are genuine—as she stood behind him while he spoke at the March for Life, she writes that she was convinced that he was “truly speaking from the heart.” And who knows—she may be right. For better or for worse, many believe that the fate of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court, and the abortion debate in America seems, for the moment, to be tied up with that of Donald J. Trump.
Jonathon Van Maren is a public speaker, writer, and pro-life activist. His commentary has appeared in National Review, The European Conservative, the National Post, and elsewhere. Jonathon is the author of The Culture War and Seeing Is Believing: Why Our Culture Must Face the Victims of Abortion as well as the co-author with Blaise Alleyne of A Guide to Discussing Assisted Suicide.


theamericanconservative--2020-09-23--Why Trump is the Catholic Choice for 2020

Pope Francis ( R ) meets with US President Donald Trump during a private audience at the Vatican on May 24 , 2017 .
/ AFP PHOTO / POOL / Alessandra Tarantino ( Photo credit should read ALESSANDRA TARANTINO/AFP via Getty Images ) The following is excerpted from the forthcoming book , A New Catholic Moment : Donald Trump and the Politics of the Common Good , by Brian Burch , out September 24 .
In 2016 there was a broad unease simmering in America—and the media and the entire political class , both Republican and Democrat , were completely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans knew in their bones that something was not right , but the reasons for this feeling were hard to articulate .
What Americans were really sensing was that our country ’ s leadership class had lost sight of the common good .
In America , the common good was suffering .
Viewed from Washington , D.C. , New York City , Silicon Valley , or Los Angeles , in 2016 everything in America seemed , if not great , then at least “ fine.
” America had survived the Great Recession and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic growth : the GDP numbers looked “ fine , ” the Dow Jones average looked “ fine.
” There was a consensus among the political class—again , of both parties—about the general contours of public policy to be pursued in the years ahead , which were more or less the same policies that had been pursued for years or even decades .
That consensus championed a frictionless globalized capitalism overseen by transnational expert-led institutions .
The ever-freer movement of goods , services , capital , information , jobs , and people would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While this fluid global economy might lead to job losses for some Americans , the economists said , that was more than compensated for by lower consumer prices for all ; in extreme cases there was always the welfare state .
And if some Americans were made uneasy by the dizzying pace of cultural transformation brought on by mass immigration , feeling no longer at home in the land of their own birth… well , they would just have to get used to it .
America , in this view , was primarily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and America was midwifing into being a whole new world order , a borderless order of cosmopolitan market freedom that would in time extend to every inch of the earth .
If there were nations that held out against the emerging global liberal consensus , they could be bribed or threatened into conformity through international aid ( either given or withheld ) .
Alternatively , American military power could be brought to bear to bring recalcitrant regimes to an end .
This last point seemed to be a deeply held commitment among the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been elected in 2008 in part on a promise to end America ’ s costly and evidently futile wars in the Middle East .
Nevertheless , after eight years of the Obama presidency , American troops remained in Afghanistan and Iraq ; American power had been used to end Muammar Gaddafi ’ s regime in Libya ; and American military assistance was owing to various groups opposing the Assad government in Syria .
All that on the watch of a “ peacemaker ” president who had himself rejected the militarized Washington foreign policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans and Democrats , unelected senior of officials in Washington—had become addicted to war .
One elementary aspect of Catholic social teaching is that the followers of Christ seek peace , not war .
While war is sometimes necessary and just , exacting conditions must be met .
As trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives—not to mention hundreds of thousands of our adversaries ’ lives—were expended in America ’ s “ wars of choice , ” the American people could sense that something was not right .
A nation fighting foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fractures in the common good at home .
Two other principles at the heart of Catholic social teaching are solidarity and subsidiarity .
Solidarity is an aspect of the virtue of charity .
It is willing the good of others as we sense a common bond that unites us .
In political terms , it is preeminently a kind of “ friendship ” among fellow citizens , carefully cultivated by statesmen .
Because we participate together in a political community , we share a common good , and so we spontaneously feel a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ community who are experiencing difficulty .
We want each part of the nation to contribute to the flourishing of the whole , and we want our fellow citizens to receive the respect due to that contribution .
And so , we support public policies to foster such participation .
Solidarity is “ normal ” in a well-functioning political community .
This principle of solidarity is sometimes in tension with the “ rugged individualism ” that is usually celebrated in America .
It is because of solidarity that Catholics were so prominent in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many aspects of America ’ s welfare state .
Both were initiatives to bind up an America fractured along lines of socio-economic class .
Subsidiarity is a principle that holds that matters of public concern should be addressed by the lowest competent authority .
In other words , responsibility for addressing a societal issue should be local whenever possible .
Responsibility should not be usurped by higher authorities unless absolutely necessary .
This principle is , in the first instance , rather closer to another often celebrated American ideal : suspicion of big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difference .
Subsidiarity is open to the involvement of higher authorities when lower authorities are failing to fulfill their ends : in fact , it demands it .
But the involvement of higher authority must aim at creating conditions for restoring the lower authority to its rightful role and healthy functioning .
The higher authority must not displace the lower .
The vision behind subsidiarity is of a vibrant civil society in which families , businesses , professional associations , unions , municipalities , and much more are each vigorous in making their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whole , the common good .
These principles of Catholic social teaching may seem very abstract , but they illuminate something about America ’ s predicament in 2016 .
While metropolitan elites thought the economy was doing “ fine , ” in fact for a generation globalizing trade agreements and the offshoring of industrial employment had shattered the lives and communities of millions of Americans .
But no one in charge had even noticed .
It was during the 2016 election that most Americans learned for the first time that an opioid epidemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with annual overdose deaths in recent years exceeding the total number of American dead during the Vietnam War , every year .
And it was about the same time that Americans learned that “ deaths of despair ” —from suicide , overdoses , and alcohol- related liver disease—had grown to an alarming level .
So much so that the life expectancy of white Americans had actually been declining for many years .
Even today , these quite shocking facts about our society seem to be of no particular interest to our news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poignant films about this American carnage .
Public policy to address the “ root causes ” of so many ruined lives has not been anywhere near the top of the agenda for Congress .
Again : in 2016 , barely anyone in authority in our country had even noticed that any of this was happening .
What this reveals is a crisis of solidarity .
The prosperous classes that have benefited materially from global supply chains and the financialization of our economy seem to feel no special obligation toward their countrymen who have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The “ winners ” of the economic system built to facilitate globalization effectively treat their working-class fellow citizens as expendable , as cogs in a worn-out machine that is being discarded .
It is difficult to imagine a deeper wound to the civic friendship that should animate the common good .
How can this be ?
How can this fracture have been allowed to happen ?
Well , one reason is that the propaganda offensive in favor of the “ high-tech economy ” was so great , and so self-flattering to urban @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
An America dedicated to free markets must not try to save the jobs of the past !
Americans must embrace the jobs of the future !
That had been the optimistic message for decades , and American schools and universities responded by greatly expanding STEM programs .
But most of the best tech jobs seemed to go to H-1B visa holders imported from India .
For too many Americans , the “ job of the future ” turned out to mean driving for Uber .
There is another reason why this socio-economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The attention of our political leaders was simply turned elsewhere .
Specifically , their attention was focused on—and our leaders were often obsessed by—identity politics .
When President Obama was first elected in 2008 , nearly all Americans , whatever their partisan differences , could celebrate together the harbinger of a “ post-racial ” America .
Slavery had been America ’ s original sin , and after the Civil War legal segregation continued to perpetrate a horrible injustice against African-Americans .
Such policies and the racist attitudes that went with them had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white Americans owed their fellow citizens , and this abuse went on for decades .
In recent decades , however , the country had rooted out the worst forms of racism and mandated legal equality , and even affirmative action , to draw the nation together .
Over the course of two generations , African-Americans had clearly advanced , as was just .
And now , America had elected a black man to the highest office in the land .
It was an optimistic time .
There was a sense of moral achievement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the United States of America .
But that sense of moral unity , of solidarity , of embracing the vision of a post-racial America did not last long .
For President Obama staffed his administration with leftist activists strongly aligned with the tenets of multiculturalism and the latest academic theories of “ intersectionality.
” These activists were keen to push identity politics as far as it could go , and in a Democratic administration they had their hands on the levers of power .
So while President Obama often gave voice to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in fact , the doctrines of identity politics demand the cultivation of racial and ethnic division , a prickly minority resentment against the majority culture .
Instead of a post-racial , color-blind America—e pluribus unum—identity politics demands a near obsession with race in every aspect of life .
Failure to recognize and honor racial difference is seen as a kind of cultural “ erasure , ” a crime against identity .
For the intersectional “ woke , ” there is no interest in integration : why , after all , would a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to integrate into an odious “ whiteness ” ?
Their only concern is to “ heighten the contradictions ” so as to eventually overthrow the “ power structures ” of American freedom and democracy .
What exactly they imagine will follow , and why exactly it will be better , is never quite clear .
While these strange , cultural Marxist notions had once been confined to certain less reputable corners of the ivory tower , during the Obama administration they became the basis for public policies that touched all Americans .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media ’ s understanding of the moral baselines of American politics .
As attention was turned to an ever-burgeoning list of “ identities ” and the markers of their “ recognition ” in society , America ’ s leadership class lost sight of the ordinary difficulties of working men and women , of all races and ethnic backgrounds , struggling to raise families under macroeconomic conditions that systematically disfavored their contributions to society .
Identity politics was thus a great distraction from the globalist economic disruptions that affected the lives of millions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ identity “ wounds ” —microaggressions—they felt entitled to give themselves a pass on binding up any systemic macroeconomic wounds .
As Senator Josh Hawley ( R-MO ) noted : More than that , however , it was also becoming clear in this heyday of multiculturalism that a basic assumption of identity politics is that there can be no common good between identity groups .
In the intersectional way of seeing the world , groups were necessarily caught up in a zero-sum game .
It was not enough that one group go up : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , identity must be reinforced by consciously rejecting any offer to come together ; identity is reinforced , always , by pushing apart .
In 2016 , American Catholics with ancestors who had built labor unions to heal the divisions caused by industrial capitalism knew , but could not quite articulate , that Americans needed a different deal than the globalist capitalism on offer from both parties .
American Catholics with ancestors who had embraced the melting pot knew , but could not quite articulate , that identity politics was a social poison @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American Catholics knew that somehow , someone needed to step forward to break with the policy consensus of recent decades and restore a common American commitment to the common good .

The following is excerpted from the forthcoming book, A New Catholic Moment: Donald Trump and the Politics of the Common Good, by Brian Burch, out September 24.
In 2016 there was a broad unease simmering in America—and the media and the entire political class, both Republican and Democrat, were completely out of touch with this reality. Americans knew in their bones that something was not right, but the reasons for this feeling were hard to articulate. What Americans were really sensing was that our country’s leadership class had lost sight of the common good. In America, the common good was suffering.
Viewed from Washington, D.C., New York City, Silicon Valley, or Los Angeles, in 2016 everything in America seemed, if not great, then at least “fine.” America had survived the Great Recession and there was sustained, if muted, economic growth: the GDP numbers looked “fine,” the Dow Jones average looked “fine.” There was a consensus among the political class—again, of both parties—about the general contours of public policy to be pursued in the years ahead, which were more or less the same policies that had been pursued for years or even decades. That consensus championed a frictionless globalized capitalism overseen by transnational expert-led institutions. The ever-freer movement of goods, services, capital, information, jobs, and people would generate greater and greater global wealth.
While this fluid global economy might lead to job losses for some Americans, the economists said, that was more than compensated for by lower consumer prices for all; in extreme cases there was always the welfare state. And if some Americans were made uneasy by the dizzying pace of cultural transformation brought on by mass immigration, feeling no longer at home in the land of their own birth… well, they would just have to get used to it.
America, in this view, was primarily not a nation but a marketplace, and America was midwifing into being a whole new world order, a borderless order of cosmopolitan market freedom that would in time extend to every inch of the earth. If there were nations that held out against the emerging global liberal consensus, they could be bribed or threatened into conformity through international aid (either given or withheld). Alternatively, American military power could be brought to bear to bring recalcitrant regimes to an end.
This last point seemed to be a deeply held commitment among the Washington policy elite. President Obama had been elected in 2008 in part on a promise to end America’s costly and evidently futile wars in the Middle East. Nevertheless, after eight years of the Obama presidency, American troops remained in Afghanistan and Iraq; American power had been used to end Muammar Gaddafi’s regime in Libya; and American military assistance was owing to various groups opposing the Assad government in Syria. All that on the watch of a “peacemaker” president who had himself rejected the militarized Washington foreign policy consensus. America’s political class—elected Republicans and Democrats, unelected senior of officials in Washington—had become addicted to war.
One elementary aspect of Catholic social teaching is that the followers of Christ seek peace, not war. While war is sometimes necessary and just, exacting conditions must be met. As trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives—not to mention hundreds of thousands of our adversaries’ lives—were expended in America’s “wars of choice,” the American people could sense that something was not right. A nation fighting foreign wars without end was not attending to fractures in the common good at home.
Two other principles at the heart of Catholic social teaching are solidarity and subsidiarity. Solidarity is an aspect of the virtue of charity. It is willing the good of others as we sense a common bond that unites us. In political terms, it is preeminently a kind of “friendship” among fellow citizens, carefully cultivated by statesmen. Because we participate together in a political community, we share a common good, and so we spontaneously feel a responsibility to assist those within our political community who are experiencing difficulty. We want each part of the nation to contribute to the flourishing of the whole, and we want our fellow citizens to receive the respect due to that contribution. And so, we support public policies to foster such participation. Solidarity is “normal” in a well-functioning political community. This principle of solidarity is sometimes in tension with the “rugged individualism” that is usually celebrated in America. It is because of solidarity that Catholics were so prominent in the early labor union movement and in developing many aspects of America’s welfare state. Both were initiatives to bind up an America fractured along lines of socio-economic class.
Subsidiarity is a principle that holds that matters of public concern should be addressed by the lowest competent authority. In other words, responsibility for addressing a societal issue should be local whenever possible. Responsibility should not be usurped by higher authorities unless absolutely necessary. This principle is, in the first instance, rather closer to another often celebrated American ideal: suspicion of big government. But there is also a difference. Subsidiarity is open to the involvement of higher authorities when lower authorities are failing to fulfill their ends: in fact, it demands it. But the involvement of higher authority must aim at creating conditions for restoring the lower authority to its rightful role and healthy functioning. The higher authority must not displace the lower. The vision behind subsidiarity is of a vibrant civil society in which families, businesses, professional associations, unions, municipalities, and much more are each vigorous in making their unique contributions to the good of the whole, the common good.
These principles of Catholic social teaching may seem very abstract, but they illuminate something about America’s predicament in 2016. While metropolitan elites thought the economy was doing “fine,” in fact for a generation globalizing trade agreements and the offshoring of industrial employment had shattered the lives and communities of millions of Americans. But no one in charge had even noticed. It was during the 2016 election that most Americans learned for the first time that an opioid epidemic had long been raging in our country, with annual overdose deaths in recent years exceeding the total number of American dead during the Vietnam War, every year. And it was about the same time that Americans learned that “deaths of despair”—from suicide, overdoses, and alcohol- related liver disease—had grown to an alarming level. So much so that the life expectancy of white Americans had actually been declining for many years.
Even today, these quite shocking facts about our society seem to be of no particular interest to our news media. Hollywood has not been producing poignant films about this American carnage. Public policy to address the “root causes” of so many ruined lives has not been anywhere near the top of the agenda for Congress. Again: in 2016, barely anyone in authority in our country had even noticed that any of this was happening. What this reveals is a crisis of solidarity. The prosperous classes that have benefited materially from global supply chains and the financialization of our economy seem to feel no special obligation toward their countrymen who have been left behind in this great transformation. The “winners” of the economic system built to facilitate globalization effectively treat their working-class fellow citizens as expendable, as cogs in a worn-out machine that is being discarded. It is difficult to imagine a deeper wound to the civic friendship that should animate the common good.
How can this be? How can this fracture have been allowed to happen? Well, one reason is that the propaganda offensive in favor of the “high-tech economy” was so great, and so self-flattering to urban elites, that it warped their vision. An America dedicated to free markets must not try to save the jobs of the past! Americans must embrace the jobs of the future! That had been the optimistic message for decades, and American schools and universities responded by greatly expanding STEM programs. But most of the best tech jobs seemed to go to H-1B visa holders imported from India. For too many Americans, the “job of the future” turned out to mean driving for Uber.
There is another reason why this socio-economic fracture had been allowed to develop. The attention of our political leaders was simply turned elsewhere. Specifically, their attention was focused on—and our leaders were often obsessed by—identity politics.
When President Obama was first elected in 2008, nearly all Americans, whatever their partisan differences, could celebrate together the harbinger of a “post-racial” America. Slavery had been America’s original sin, and after the Civil War legal segregation continued to perpetrate a horrible injustice against African-Americans. Such policies and the racist attitudes that went with them had been a grotesque violation of the solidarity that white Americans owed their fellow citizens, and this abuse went on for decades. In recent decades, however, the country had rooted out the worst forms of racism and mandated legal equality, and even affirmative action, to draw the nation together. Over the course of two generations, African-Americans had clearly advanced, as was just. And now, America had elected a black man to the highest office in the land. It was an optimistic time. There was a sense of moral achievement, the coming together of one nation, the United States of America.
But that sense of moral unity, of solidarity, of embracing the vision of a post-racial America did not last long. For President Obama staffed his administration with leftist activists strongly aligned with the tenets of multiculturalism and the latest academic theories of “intersectionality.” These activists were keen to push identity politics as far as it could go, and in a Democratic administration they had their hands on the levers of power. So while President Obama often gave voice to a stirring rhetoric of integration and unity, in fact, the doctrines of identity politics demand the cultivation of racial and ethnic division, a prickly minority resentment against the majority culture. Instead of a post-racial, color-blind America—e pluribus unum—identity politics demands a near obsession with race in every aspect of life. Failure to recognize and honor racial difference is seen as a kind of cultural “erasure,” a crime against identity. For the intersectional “woke,” there is no interest in integration: why, after all, would a black or brown or yellow American want to integrate into an odious “whiteness”? Their only concern is to “heighten the contradictions” so as to eventually overthrow the “power structures” of American freedom and democracy. What exactly they imagine will follow, and why exactly it will be better, is never quite clear.
While these strange, cultural Marxist notions had once been confined to certain less reputable corners of the ivory tower, during the Obama administration they became the basis for public policies that touched all Americans. They also became the common coin of the media’s understanding of the moral baselines of American politics. As attention was turned to an ever-burgeoning list of “identities” and the markers of their “recognition” in society, America’s leadership class lost sight of the ordinary difficulties of working men and women, of all races and ethnic backgrounds, struggling to raise families under macroeconomic conditions that systematically disfavored their contributions to society.
Identity politics was thus a great distraction from the globalist economic disruptions that affected the lives of millions. Because our leaders were focused on healing identity “wounds”—microaggressions—they felt entitled to give themselves a pass on binding up any systemic macroeconomic wounds. As Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) noted:
Corporate America and the celebrities that hawk their products talk up corporate social responsibility and social justice at home while making millions of dollars off the slave labor that assembles their products. Executives build woke, progressive brands for American consumers, but happily outsource labor to Chinese concentration camps.
More than that, however, it was also becoming clear in this heyday of multiculturalism that a basic assumption of identity politics is that there can be no common good between identity groups. In the intersectional way of seeing the world, groups were necessarily caught up in a zero-sum game. It was not enough that one group go up: another must go down. Above all, identity must be reinforced by consciously rejecting any offer to come together; identity is reinforced, always, by pushing apart.
In 2016, American Catholics with ancestors who had built labor unions to heal the divisions caused by industrial capitalism knew, but could not quite articulate, that Americans needed a different deal than the globalist capitalism on offer from both parties. American Catholics with ancestors who had embraced the melting pot knew, but could not quite articulate, that identity politics was a social poison that needed to be rejected utterly. American Catholics knew that somehow, someone needed to step forward to break with the policy consensus of recent decades and restore a common American commitment to the common good.
Brian Burch is the President and Co-Founder of CatholicVote.org (CV), a national faith-based advocacy organization headquartered in Madison, WI. CV was founded to organize, inspire and mobilize the Catholic vote through education, legislative advocacy, and direct political action. He is also the co-author of the American Catholic Almanac, and has appeared on FOX News, CNN, and has been covered in the New York Times, Washington Post, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal, Catholic News Agency, National Catholic Register, NPR, and other national publications.


theamericanconservative--2020-09-24--A Time to Fight

A Time to Fight

Donald Trump , his supporters say , is a man who fights .
Yet that supposed fighting can sometimes feel more like Punch and Judy-style slapstick theater .
In the Trump era , only the thinnest membrane separates politics from televisual spectacle , which can make it difficult to gauge how effective the president really is .
Is he beating back the left ?
Or is he just calling them names on Twitter while they pound the pavement to replace him ?
Whatever the answers to those questions , one thing is now abundantly clear : the vacancy of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opportunity to fight , really fight .
Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a titan of the law , a woman of deep culture and learning whose mind you had to respect even if you were at odds with it .
My condolences go out to her family .
But her formidable accomplishments make no more claim on her empty Supreme Court seat than Ted Kennedy ’ s work on health care did on his Senate desk .
The people of Massachusetts deserved full congressional representation and the people of America deserve a full Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more true as we approach what could be a tight and contested election , when judicial deliberation might unfortunately prove necessary .
The lawsuits fly…multiple lower courts declare multiple effective winners…for the sake of the republic , the Supreme Court can ’ t have an even number of justices .
So far , Trump has seemed to relish this fight .
He ’ s pledged to fill Ginsburg ’ s seat “ without delay ” and is expected to announce a nominee by week ’ s end .
He ’ ll likely name @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who ’ s expressed some skepticism over Roe v. Wade and who generally takes a Scalia-esque textualist approach to the law .
For all the fluff about how Trump was going to nominate Tom Cotton or Jeanine Pirro or the judge from My Cousin Vinny , he appears to be doing exactly as he should .
Barrett is careful , unflappable , and deeply professional .
She ’ s a native of New Orleans and a lover of Truman Capote .
A former professor and frequent tailgater at Notre Dame Law School , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was unanimously supported by her faculty colleagues .
Yet despite all that , she ’ s probably best known for sending Dianne Feinstein into a fit of ecclesiophobia .
After Trump nominated Barrett to serve on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals , Senator Feinstein grilled her about her Catholic beliefs and whether “ the dogma lives loudly within you.
” At issue was a law article Barrett had co-authored in 1998 with John Garvey , now the president of my alma mater , the Catholic University of America .
The essay is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Aristotelian consideration of how Catholic judges should handle capital punishment cases .
Barrett and Garvey distinguish between formal and material cooperation with evil .
The first is analogous to actually signing an execution order , while the second is more indirect and less clear , helping a wrongdoer without necessarily sharing his intent .
They note that Catholic judges must recuse themselves in cases of formal cooperation and apply a “ moral balancing test ” in cases of material cooperation .
The essay is cautious and analytical , a good-faith attempt to work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and not just Catholics .
What do you do when the law conflicts with your deeply held beliefs ?
Even Vox.com took it seriously .
Yet the article is also notable for what it doesn ’ t do .
According to Barrett and Garvey , “ Judges can not — nor should they try to — align our legal system with the Church ’ s moral teaching whenever the two diverge.
” Clearly Barrett is no Catholic integralist ; if she were , she ’ d be far more insufferable on Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progressives from trying to portray her as some kind of chanting theocrat .
And it ’ s here that political considerations enter the fight .
If Barrett is nominated , Democrats are going to spend the next month and a half saying stupid things about Catholics , a demographic they badly need to win on Election Day .
That doesn ’ t guarantee that a nomination battle won ’ t also hurt Republicans—polls find that Americans prefer that the election winner appoint the next justice—but it does provide a plausible method for piecing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump ’ s method has always been to crash down hard on one side of the culture war .
I ’ m not sure that can get you to 270 twice , but if you ’ re going to try , then a Barrett pick is as good a weapon as any .
Some Rust Belt Catholics might very well be lured back ; Trump ’ s conservative base will certainly be turbocharged .
Progressives do make one convincing argument here , not against Barrett per se but against any Trump nomination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans to ram through a justice would be hypocritical , since Mitch McConnell blocked Barack Obama ’ s elevation of Merrick Garland back in 2016 on the grounds that any confirmation should wait until after the election .
McConnell , they say , must now do the same thing .
If he doesn ’ t , he ’ ll erode our norms of governance , subordinating them to base partisanship .
The left has lately fallen in love with that word , “ norms , ” which they constantly accuse Trump of violating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Politics is circumscribed not just by promulgated laws but by unwritten codes and traditions—norms—that govern public servants ’ behavior .
Burke ’ s words , as always , haunt the air : “ Manners are of more importance than laws .
Manners are what vex or soothe , corrupt or purify , exalt or debase , barbarize or refine us , by a constant , steady , uniform , insensible operation , like that of the air we breathe in.
” Yet who ’ s really trampling on our norms here ?
Which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ packing as a political weapon ?
Which party scarcely bothered to veil their application of a religious test against Barrett ?
Which party threatened riots , arson , even civil war mere hours after Ginsburg had passed ?
Which party turned Brett Kavanaugh ’ s confirmation hearings into a sub-Oscar Wilde kangaroo court ?
And while we ’ re on the subject of norms , what in the world is “ normal ” about Roe v. Wade ?
Where is it inscribed that abortion is a constitutional right while things actually mentioned in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arms are not ?
Who thinks a magical legal penumbra conjured up by the Court ought to be able to bulldoze countless state abortion laws ?
Who really believes that nine ex-lawyers should decide the contours of such a controversial and extraconstitutional issue , rather than the states and the people themselves ?
None of this is remotely “ normal.
” So while I too worry about a culture war so violent it cracks the institutions around it , there will be other times to register those concerns .
On abortion , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ join their fight , appoint Barrett , and fasten the bulkhead doors .
And if Democrats threaten to pack the court , fine .
Write that into every campaign commercial .
Mention it on every doorstep .
This is the most important fight of Trump ’ s presidency .
Fortunately for once Republicans seem up to the challenge .

Donald Trump, his supporters say, is a man who fights. Yet that supposed fighting can sometimes feel more like Punch and Judy-style slapstick theater. In the Trump era, only the thinnest membrane separates politics from televisual spectacle, which can make it difficult to gauge how effective the president really is. Is he beating back the left? Or is he just calling them names on Twitter while they pound the pavement to replace him?
Whatever the answers to those questions, one thing is now abundantly clear: the vacancy of a Supreme Court seat has given Trump an opportunity to fight, really fight.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a titan of the law, a woman of deep culture and learning whose mind you had to respect even if you were at odds with it. My condolences go out to her family. But her formidable accomplishments make no more claim on her empty Supreme Court seat than Ted Kennedy’s work on health care did on his Senate desk. The people of Massachusetts deserved full congressional representation and the people of America deserve a full Supreme Court. That’s all the more true as we approach what could be a tight and contested election, when judicial deliberation might unfortunately prove necessary. The lawsuits fly…multiple lower courts declare multiple effective winners…for the sake of the republic, the Supreme Court can’t have an even number of justices.
So far, Trump has seemed to relish this fight. He’s pledged to fill Ginsburg’s seat “without delay” and is expected to announce a nominee by week’s end. He’ll likely name Amy Coney Barrett, a devout Catholic who’s expressed some skepticism over Roe v. Wade and who generally takes a Scalia-esque textualist approach to the law. For all the fluff about how Trump was going to nominate Tom Cotton or Jeanine Pirro or the judge from My Cousin Vinny, he appears to be doing exactly as he should. Barrett is careful, unflappable, and deeply professional. She’s a native of New Orleans and a lover of Truman Capote. A former professor and frequent tailgater at Notre Dame Law School, her prior nomination to an appellate court was unanimously supported by her faculty colleagues.
Yet despite all that, she’s probably best known for sending Dianne Feinstein into a fit of ecclesiophobia. After Trump nominated Barrett to serve on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Senator Feinstein grilled her about her Catholic beliefs and whether “the dogma lives loudly within you.” At issue was a law article Barrett had co-authored in 1998 with John Garvey, now the president of my alma mater, the Catholic University of America. The essay is cozily familiar to us Cardinals, an Aristotelian consideration of how Catholic judges should handle capital punishment cases. Barrett and Garvey distinguish between formal and material cooperation with evil. The first is analogous to actually signing an execution order, while the second is more indirect and less clear, helping a wrongdoer without necessarily sharing his intent. They note that Catholic judges must recuse themselves in cases of formal cooperation and apply a “moral balancing test” in cases of material cooperation.
The essay is cautious and analytical, a good-faith attempt to work through a conundrum faced by many judges, and not just Catholics. What do you do when the law conflicts with your deeply held beliefs? Even Vox.com took it seriously. Yet the article is also notable for what it doesn’t do. According to Barrett and Garvey, “Judges cannot — nor should they try to — align our legal system with the Church’s moral teaching whenever the two diverge.” Clearly Barrett is no Catholic integralist; if she were, she’d be far more insufferable on Twitter.
Yet that didn’t stop progressives from trying to portray her as some kind of chanting theocrat. And it’s here that political considerations enter the fight. If Barrett is nominated, Democrats are going to spend the next month and a half saying stupid things about Catholics, a demographic they badly need to win on Election Day. That doesn’t guarantee that a nomination battle won’t also hurt Republicans—polls find that Americans prefer that the election winner appoint the next justice—but it does provide a plausible method for piecing back together the Trump coalition of yore. Trump’s method has always been to crash down hard on one side of the culture war. I’m not sure that can get you to 270 twice, but if you’re going to try, then a Barrett pick is as good a weapon as any. Some Rust Belt Catholics might very well be lured back; Trump’s conservative base will certainly be turbocharged.
Progressives do make one convincing argument here, not against Barrett per se but against any Trump nomination at all. They say that for Republicans to ram through a justice would be hypocritical, since Mitch McConnell blocked Barack Obama’s elevation of Merrick Garland back in 2016 on the grounds that any confirmation should wait until after the election. McConnell, they say, must now do the same thing. If he doesn’t, he’ll erode our norms of governance, subordinating them to base partisanship.
The left has lately fallen in love with that word, “norms,” which they constantly accuse Trump of violating. And they have a point. Politics is circumscribed not just by promulgated laws but by unwritten codes and traditions—norms—that govern public servants’ behavior. Burke’s words, as always, haunt the air: “Manners are of more importance than laws. Manners are what vex or soothe, corrupt or purify, exalt or debase, barbarize or refine us, by a constant, steady, uniform, insensible operation, like that of the air we breathe in.”
Yet who’s really trampling on our norms here? Which party is now threatening to use court packing as a political weapon? Which party scarcely bothered to veil their application of a religious test against Barrett? Which party threatened riots, arson, even civil war mere hours after Ginsburg had passed? Which party turned Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings into a sub-Oscar Wilde kangaroo court? And while we’re on the subject of norms, what in the world is “normal” about Roe v. Wade? Where is it inscribed that abortion is a constitutional right while things actually mentioned in the Constitution like hate speech and bearing arms are not? Who thinks a magical legal penumbra conjured up by the Court ought to be able to bulldoze countless state abortion laws? Who really believes that nine ex-lawyers should decide the contours of such a controversial and extraconstitutional issue, rather than the states and the people themselves?
None of this is remotely “normal.” So while I too worry about a culture war so violent it cracks the institutions around it, there will be other times to register those concerns. On abortion, the pro-choicers fired first. Trump ought to join their fight, appoint Barrett, and fasten the bulkhead doors. And if Democrats threaten to pack the court, fine. Write that into every campaign commercial. Mention it on every doorstep.
This is the most important fight of Trump’s presidency. Fortunately for once Republicans seem up to the challenge.