theamericanconservative--2020-10-06--Why Democrats Can’t Have Nice Things

Why Democrats Can’t Have Nice Things

Here ’ s why the Democrats can ’ t have nice things .
Like the White House .
Though by now the media has awarded Biden all 270 electoral votes and taped a transcript of his debate performance on the national refrigerator door , it is unclear Joe really wants to be president .
He barely campaigns and usually ends his working day at noon .
Since mid-August Biden logged 22 days where he didn ’ t make a public campaign appearance ( during the same period Trump visited 19 states . )
Biden has slept at home every night @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He simply presents his waxy self as the embodiment of the depressing strategy of Sorry , I ’ m the Lesser of Two Evils .
The Democratic party itself seems to feel much the same way .
After four years of complaining Trump is an old , white , draft-dodging man linked to corruption , the best the Dem process could cough up was an even older , white , draft-dodging man linked to corruption .
On a rare Biden visit outside his own yard to Charlotte , North Carolina , local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meet the candidate .
The chairwoman of the African American caucus only learned of the event from TV .
The party insists on its own demographic illusion .
Latinos , key in crucial states like Arizona and Florida , have shown less support for Biden than for past Democratic nominees , resistant to a campaign defining them as “ people of color.
” Some 98 percent of Latinos don ’ t want to be called “ Latinx ” even as the Democrats continue to do so , pandering to the two percent .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ not matter : a Telemundo poll shows 68.7 percent believe Trump won the first presidential debate , while 38 percent of Hispanic voters Democrats imagine they control in battleground states are ambivalent about voting at all .
In Michigan , Pennsylvania , and Wisconsin net Democratic registrations are down by 38 percent from 2016 .
More to the point , registration among whites without college degrees is up 46 percent while registration by people of color is up only four percent .
Turnout looks to be in trouble as well ; in Wisconsin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the 2012 general election , in 2016 it was down to 47 percent .
The risk of low turnout is even greater when one factors in age .
About 78 percent of blacks age 60+ are likely to vote , compared to only 29 percent for blacks age 18-29 .
Meanwhile , in this final stretch when they should be clawing for every vote , Dems are sending out scattered messages on in-person voting ( “ You might die of COVID but it ’ s so important you guys !
!
!
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a 19th-century mail-in system run by local yokels that works poorly under the best of circumstances .
Plan B is to claim the system they told everyone to use didn ’ t work so it ’ s all unfair .
If Democrats really wanted to win some swing states they should have found a way to fix the water in Flint .
They might have persuaded Mike Bloomberg to spend his money creating new jobs in Ohio instead of buying felons ’ votes in Florida .
Dems never talked to the voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , quite the opposite .
They stomped their feet in a four-year tantrum and called them racists when Midwesterners never got appropriately offended by Trump .
These people worked hard for what they have only to hear that dismissed as privilege .
The NYTcalls them “ the worst of us.
” Call them the missing whites on election day .
Democrats also believe their own self-illusion .
Instead of understanding social media as a winnowed , mob-enforced minority , Dem strategists believe it makes a difference .
They think listening to podcasts , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and liking , holding Pink Hat marches and flash mobs , making donations to GoFundMe , signing online petitions before going on Etsy to buy Lincoln Project merch , all while talking about NPR in line at Trader Joe ’ s , matters .
All the devices don ’ t add up to a single vote .
It isn ’ t a barometer , it ’ s a mirror .
Voting Dem may just be too much of an ask for thinking people .
Review the near-endless emotional hemophilia , hypocrisy , cognitive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voter is asked to ignore .
For example , a Trump rally , or a wedding , is a deadly super-spreader event but a BLM rally is not .
Schools and businesses are open or closed at the discretion of governors and mayors but Trump is to blame .
Demonstrations which devolve into riots are acceptable but a couple of rednecks open carrying at a statehouse is a precursor to civil war .
BLM when the killer is a cop , a lot less so when the killer is a black gang member @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our rights , except if they extend our 2A rights and then more rights are bad .
Kids in cages means Nazism but Biden bringing back the Obama national security advisers who created millions of refugees flowing out of Syria and Libya is no matter .
Choosing a Supreme Court justice “ too close ” to an election is the end of democracy but Dems promising revenge by adding states , deep-sixing the Electoral College , and packing the court to jam through their own one-party eternal majority is not .
A Muslim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adherence to sexist Islamic doctrine but a Catholic woman who honors her spouse is Handmaid ’ s Tale in Biblical proportions .
# BelieveWomen applies to accusers of Republicans but not of Democrats .
We must reawaken our democracy but if you vote for a third party you are working for Putin .
When the stock market was soaring it didn ’ t matter because most people did not own stock yet when it fell during COVID it was the end of the economy but when it recovered it no longer mattered again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war—Iran , China , North Korea , Venezuela , civil war in America—came to be .
No one did anything bad after the embassy moved to Jerusalem or the Iranian agreement ended .
All the things which were to disappear—the ACA , Roe , LGBT rights , same sex marriage—did not .
Martial law was not declared , though the MSM signaled numerous times they would be OK with a military coup to depose Trump .
Puerto Rico did not collapse .
Trump did not launch nukes in a fit of psychosis .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of miserable people who then had to be disowned like Michaels Avenatti and Cohen , Robert Mueller , James Comey , and every former general who was going to flip and tell all but didn ’ t .
I honestly have no idea anymore if Dr. Fauci is seen as a good guy or a bad guy by Dems .
The Democratic party claimed that insubordination by government officials is to be honored if it is called # Resistance .
Update : the Reichstag is still standing .
How can a thinking person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these are the people I want running the country.
” Too many readers will see this article as pro-Trump even though it does not praise Trump .
And that ’ s the last point .
Democrats and the MSM ( let ’ s call it MSDNC ) believe any criticism of the party means you love Trump , are a hater , racist , misogynist , or Russian bot .
You must accept the Dossier , Russiagate , Ukraine , whatever crazy story is “ reported by sources , ” and vote Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a threat .
Maybe if a little introspection had been allowed amid demands for conformity of thought , the Democratic party would not be imploring voters to believe the end justifies the means .
Maybe they would not have cried wolf until only the true crazies are still listening .
Maybe they would have foregone the public humiliation of the Mueller report and the failed impeachment .
Maybe they ’ d be running a candidate that represented , well , something to vote for .
Maybe they would not be so worried their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump wins again , it will be safe to say Dems lost this election in 2016 when they failed to see the change the nation wanted and pushed Bernie aside .
That gave Trump his first term .
But rather than learn anything in the cold morning and seek redemption , the Dems basically did the same thing in 2020 , albeit with the more likable Joe Biden .
But Biden carries most of the same old-school baggage , inherits the still open wounds from the Obama years , and has that stanky @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government .
Yes , Joe ’ ll win the popular vote , the Electoral College are racist cheaters , Mrs. Jones ’ ballot was lost in Raleigh , PutinFacebookPutinTwitterPutin , all a rich gumbo but whenever the end of the day comes , Trump will likely have his second term .
More because the Democrats lost than because he won .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A Novel of WWII Japan , and Ghosts of Tom Joad : A Story of the 99 Percent .

Here’s why the Democrats can’t have nice things. Like the White House.
Though by now the media has awarded Biden all 270 electoral votes and taped a transcript of his debate performance on the national refrigerator door, it is unclear Joe really wants to be president. He barely campaigns and usually ends his working day at noon. Since mid-August Biden logged 22 days where he didn’t make a public campaign appearance (during the same period Trump visited 19 states.) Biden has slept at home every night. He has no signature policy initiative. He simply presents his waxy self as the embodiment of the depressing strategy of Sorry, I’m the Lesser of Two Evils.
The Democratic party itself seems to feel much the same way. After four years of complaining Trump is an old, white, draft-dodging man linked to corruption, the best the Dem process could cough up was an even older, white, draft-dodging man linked to corruption. On a rare Biden visit outside his own yard to Charlotte, North Carolina, local organizers only turned out 16 people to meet the candidate. The chairwoman of the African American caucus only learned of the event from TV.
The party insists on its own demographic illusion. Latinos, key in crucial states like Arizona and Florida, have shown less support for Biden than for past Democratic nominees, resistant to a campaign defining them as “people of color.” Some 98 percent of Latinos don’t want to be called “Latinx” even as the Democrats continue to do so, pandering to the two percent. Ideology over reality, though it may not matter: a Telemundo poll shows 68.7 percent believe Trump won the first presidential debate, while 38 percent of Hispanic voters Democrats imagine they control in battleground states are ambivalent about voting at all.
In Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin net Democratic registrations are down by 38 percent from 2016. More to the point, registration among whites without college degrees is up 46 percent while registration by people of color is up only four percent. Turnout looks to be in trouble as well; in Wisconsin while 79 percent of black voters participated in the 2012 general election, in 2016 it was down to 47 percent. The risk of low turnout is even greater when one factors in age. About 78 percent of blacks age 60+ are likely to vote, compared to only 29 percent for blacks age 18-29.
Meanwhile, in this final stretch when they should be clawing for every vote, Dems are sending out scattered messages on in-person voting (“You might die of COVID but it’s so important you guys!!! LOL”) and planning on relying on a 19th-century mail-in system run by local yokels that works poorly under the best of circumstances. Plan B is to claim the system they told everyone to use didn’t work so it’s all unfair.
If Democrats really wanted to win some swing states they should have found a way to fix the water in Flint. They might have persuaded Mike Bloomberg to spend his money creating new jobs in Ohio instead of buying felons’ votes in Florida. Dems never talked to the voters they need the most. In fact, quite the opposite. They stomped their feet in a four-year tantrum and called them racists when Midwesterners never got appropriately offended by Trump. These people worked hard for what they have only to hear that dismissed as privilege. The NYT calls them “the worst of us.” Call them the missing whites on election day.
Democrats also believe their own self-illusion. Instead of understanding social media as a winnowed, mob-enforced minority, Dem strategists believe it makes a difference. They think listening to podcasts, wearing cute #Resistance gear, retweeting and liking, holding Pink Hat marches and flash mobs, making donations to GoFundMe, signing online petitions before going on Etsy to buy Lincoln Project merch, all while talking about NPR in line at Trader Joe’s, matters. All the devices don’t add up to a single vote. It isn’t a barometer, it’s a mirror.
Voting Dem may just be too much of an ask for thinking people. Review the near-endless emotional hemophilia, hypocrisy, cognitive dissonance, and fake-news kudzu a Democratic voter is asked to ignore.
For example, a Trump rally, or a wedding, is a deadly super-spreader event but a BLM rally is not. Schools and businesses are open or closed at the discretion of governors and mayors but Trump is to blame. Demonstrations which devolve into riots are acceptable but a couple of rednecks open carrying at a statehouse is a precursor to civil war. BLM when the killer is a cop, a lot less so when the killer is a black gang member. The new Supreme Court will limit our rights, except if they extend our 2A rights and then more rights are bad. Kids in cages means Nazism but Biden bringing back the Obama national security advisers who created millions of refugees flowing out of Syria and Libya is no matter. Choosing a Supreme Court justice “too close” to an election is the end of democracy but Dems promising revenge by adding states, deep-sixing the Electoral College, and packing the court to jam through their own one-party eternal majority is not. A Muslim woman in Congress is revered for her adherence to sexist Islamic doctrine but a Catholic woman who honors her spouse is Handmaid’s Tale in Biblical proportions. #BelieveWomen applies to accusers of Republicans but not of Democrats. We must reawaken our democracy but if you vote for a third party you are working for Putin.
More?
When the stock market was soaring it didn’t matter because most people did not own stock yet when it fell during COVID it was the end of the economy but when it recovered it no longer mattered again. None of the desperate warnings of war—Iran, China, North Korea, Venezuela, civil war in America—came to be. No one did anything bad after the embassy moved to Jerusalem or the Iranian agreement ended. All the things which were to disappear—the ACA, Roe, LGBT rights, same sex marriage—did not. Martial law was not declared, though the MSM signaled numerous times they would be OK with a military coup to depose Trump. Puerto Rico did not collapse. Trump did not launch nukes in a fit of psychosis. The Democrats over and over made insta-heroes of miserable people who then had to be disowned like Michaels Avenatti and Cohen, Robert Mueller, James Comey, and every former general who was going to flip and tell all but didn’t. I honestly have no idea anymore if Dr. Fauci is seen as a good guy or a bad guy by Dems. The Democratic party claimed that insubordination by government officials is to be honored if it is called #Resistance. Update: the Reichstag is still standing.
How can a thinking person look at all that and conclude “these are the people I want running the country.”
Too many readers will see this article as pro-Trump even though it does not praise Trump. And that’s the last point. Democrats and the MSM (let’s call it MSDNC) believe any criticism of the party means you love Trump, are a hater, racist, misogynist, or Russian bot. You must accept the Dossier, Russiagate, Ukraine, whatever crazy story is “reported by sources,” and vote Biden or else. It’s almost a threat.
Maybe if a little introspection had been allowed amid demands for conformity of thought, the Democratic party would not be imploring voters to believe the end justifies the means. Maybe they would not have cried wolf until only the true crazies are still listening. Maybe they would have foregone the public humiliation of the Mueller report and the failed impeachment. Maybe they’d be running a candidate that represented, well, something to vote for. Maybe they would not be so worried their voters won’t vote.
If Trump wins again, it will be safe to say Dems lost this election in 2016 when they failed to see the change the nation wanted and pushed Bernie aside. That gave Trump his first term. But rather than learn anything in the cold morning and seek redemption, the Dems basically did the same thing in 2020, albeit with the more likable Joe Biden. But Biden carries most of the same old-school baggage, inherits the still open wounds from the Obama years, and has that stanky taint of corruption after 47 years in government.
Yes, Joe’ll win the popular vote, the Electoral College are racist cheaters, Mrs. Jones’ ballot was lost in Raleigh, PutinFacebookPutinTwitterPutin, all a rich gumbo but whenever the end of the day comes, Trump will likely have his second term. More because the Democrats lost than because he won.
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--2020-10-07--Amy Barrett’s Husband is the Real Hero Here

The self-sacrificial love required of a supportive spouse is often unacknowledged in our culture , especially when it comes to men .
President Donald J. Trump and First Lady Melania Trump pose for a photo with Judge Amy Coney Barrett , the President ’ s nominee for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States , her husband Jesse and their children Saturday , Sept. 26 , 2020 , in the Oval Office of the White House .
( Official White House Photo by Andrea Hanks ) Justice Amy Coney Barrett is already a fascinating figure and poised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own right , fulfilling the dream that Sarah Palin awakened for conservative young women of my generation over a decade ago .
A dream that inspired many of us to consider politics ourselves .
But , like her predecessor , her husband may turn out to be more intriguing , especially to those who appreciate the unseen realm and understand what goes into making a professional fairytale a real possibility .
Most of the time , the supporting spouse goes unnoticed , especially if it ’ s a supporting wife .
The few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this role ( like my personal favorite , Prince Albert ) —sometimes referred to as members of the “ Denis Thatcher Society , ” men whose wives “ have a job which deep in your heart you wish you had ” —pique our attention because they and their wives were outliers .
I can ’ t help but be curious of the man behind the curtain .
Any time there ’ s a strong married woman and mother in the spotlight , I ’ m always looking for the one making it happen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the duties at home to make the call on her life possible , the one who saw the extraordinary in her and chose her—the one who , perhaps unknowingly , but unenviably , chose all of this .
And for conservative , Christian , specifically Catholic , millennial women who see ACB as # Goals , the thought that often occurs for those paying attention to her reality is : where does one find a man like Jesse Barrett ?
Notre Dame Law School , apparently .
There ’ s something we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ have it all ’ without the right man .
There is not much information out there on husband Jesse Barrett , except that Amy admits she “ hit the jackpot when she married [ him ] .
” He , a lawyer in his own right , is apparently much ‘ cooler ’ than her—according to both her and her children—being a former prosecutor at war with bad guys .
He has also served as a high school mock trial coach , and has publicly said , “ it is humbling to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact , Justice Barrett gives credit to her husband every chance she gets .
When asked how she balances her demanding profession and full-time motherhood , she said , “ I think I have an awesome husband… We were open to either one of us staying home at different points when things were intense with the children… It ’ s a team effort .
We ’ ve gone in cycles.
” She also noted that living in a small town , having the flexibility of a family-friendly workplace , and extended family to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ full life ” easier to manage .
At her Supreme Court nomination , she shared what her husband of twenty years asks her every single morning : specifically , what he can do for her .
“ And while I almost always say nothing , he still finds ways to take things off my plate.
” Aside from clearly being a sacrificial and supportive husband , “ as well as the better cook , ” the most interesting part about Jesse Barrett is that he is also the spiritual leader and head of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Catholicism and affiliation with the charismatic group , People of Praise has ushered in controversy because , as was said in The New York Times , “ the group teaches that husbands are the heads of their wives and should take authority over the family.
” This is called spiritual leadership , and it ’ s actually attractive—not to mention very orthodox in Christian marriage .
The problem is that submission and headship are almost always misunderstood or simply not applied .
I doubt many have ever fully read Ephesians 5:21-33 .
Most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wives should be in submission to their husbands ” and conjure up some sexist and misogynistic mental image of a wife who has to be meek and mild and passive to an abusive and domineering husband .
The fact that this is so widely misunderstood , looked down upon , and controversial is exactly why we have a massive lack of authentic masculinity in the culture and the Church .
For greater context and unpacking , I would recommend reading John Paul II ’ s Theology of the Body , but for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means to freely relinquish the need to control and lead the relationship and family , and allow a man to fulfill his role .
When properly executed , this ultimately best serves the woman and their children .
By submitting to your husband ( who is submitted to Christ ) , you ’ re essentially saying to him , “ I trust you.
” And when a man knows that you trust him , out of his love for you ( a love that resembles Christ laying down His life for the Church @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do right by you .
In fact , the man ’ s call is greater : it is to lead his family to heaven and die for his bride like Christ died for His bride , the Church .
If that call does not cumulate in a literal death , it certainly constitutes a figurative death , a daily “ dying to self.
” This could be seen in a myriad of ways , including serving her so she can serve on the Supreme Court .
And since love is to will the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ St. Thomas Aquinas , both submitting and leading can be the ways in which we love , where the other person displaces our own egoism .
It seems Amy Coney Barrett ’ s predecessor knew something of sacrifice and teamwork in a marriage .
The most admirable thing Ruth Bader Ginsburg ever did ( aside from her being married and having a baby in law school at a time when women didn ’ t attend ) is a widely known act of great love .
When her husband Marty was diagnosed with cancer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to both his classes and her own , and typed his papers for him .
She added more to her plate .
She saw him being a gifted lawyer in the future as a good , and she willed it for him .
She even followed him to New York after he graduated from Harvard and finished her own schooling at Columbia for the sake of keeping her family together .
It was his genius in tax law that brought about a famous case that he suggested she take on , and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paved the way for her to be on the Supreme Court .
Ruth had once said , “ Meeting Marty was by far the most fortunate thing that has ever happened to me.
” He as kingmaker , “ tirelessly leveraging his network ” for her to reach the pinnacle of the field they both studied was never something he resented or envied her for ; he wanted it for her , he thought it was suited for her .
She once said he was the “ only boy she ever knew that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense that he ’ d want her to use it , and goes to show : often behind every exceptional woman is an even more exceptional man .
Jessica Kramer is a freelance video host for Media Research Center and writer and currently resides in the Washington , D.C. metro area .
You can follow her on Twitter @ JessKramer1776 or check out her budding YouTube channel .

Justice Amy Coney Barrett is already a fascinating figure and poised to become a feminist icon in her own right, fulfilling the dream that Sarah Palin awakened for conservative young women of my generation over a decade ago. A dream that inspired many of us to consider politics ourselves. But, like her predecessor, her husband may turn out to be more intriguing, especially to those who appreciate the unseen realm and understand what goes into making a professional fairytale a real possibility.
Most of the time, the supporting spouse goes unnoticed, especially if it’s a supporting wife. The few rare men in history who took on this role (like my personal favorite, Prince Albert)—sometimes referred to as members of the “Denis Thatcher Society,” men whose wives “have a job which deep in your heart you wish you had”—pique our attention because they and their wives were outliers.
I can’t help but be curious of the man behind the curtain. Any time there’s a strong married woman and mother in the spotlight, I’m always looking for the one making it happen behind the scenes—the one taking on more of the duties at home to make the call on her life possible, the one who saw the extraordinary in her and chose her—the one who, perhaps unknowingly, but unenviably, chose all of this.
And for conservative, Christian, specifically Catholic, millennial women who see ACB as #Goals, the thought that often occurs for those paying attention to her reality is: where does one find a man like Jesse Barrett? Notre Dame Law School, apparently.
There’s something we intuitively know: that you cannot ‘have it all’ without the right man.
There is not much information out there on husband Jesse Barrett, except that Amy admits she “hit the jackpot when she married [him].” He, a lawyer in his own right, is apparently much ‘cooler’ than her—according to both her and her children—being a former prosecutor at war with bad guys. He has also served as a high school mock trial coach, and has publicly said, “it is humbling to be married to Amy Barrett.”
Humility, check.
In fact, Justice Barrett gives credit to her husband every chance she gets. When asked how she balances her demanding profession and full-time motherhood, she said, “I think I have an awesome husband… We were open to either one of us staying home at different points when things were intense with the children… It’s a team effort. We’ve gone in cycles.” She also noted that living in a small town, having the flexibility of a family-friendly workplace, and extended family to help with childcare makes her “very full life” easier to manage.
At her Supreme Court nomination, she shared what her husband of twenty years asks her every single morning: specifically, what he can do for her. “And while I almost always say nothing, he still finds ways to take things off my plate.”
Aside from clearly being a sacrificial and supportive husband, “as well as the better cook,” the most interesting part about Jesse Barrett is that he is also the spiritual leader and head of their home.
Alpha, check.
The Barretts’ devout Catholicism and affiliation with the charismatic group, People of Praise has ushered in controversy because, as was said in The New York Times, “the group teaches that husbands are the heads of their wives and should take authority over the family.”
This is called spiritual leadership, and it’s actually attractive—not to mention very orthodox in Christian marriage. The problem is that submission and headship are almost always misunderstood or simply not applied.
I doubt many have ever fully read Ephesians 5:21-33. Most likely they catch the phrase, “wives should be in submission to their husbands” and conjure up some sexist and misogynistic mental image of a wife who has to be meek and mild and passive to an abusive and domineering husband. The fact that this is so widely misunderstood, looked down upon, and controversial is exactly why we have a massive lack of authentic masculinity in the culture and the Church.
For greater context and unpacking, I would recommend reading John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, but for a simple explanation, submission in this sense means to freely relinquish the need to control and lead the relationship and family, and allow a man to fulfill his role. When properly executed, this ultimately best serves the woman and their children.
By submitting to your husband (who is submitted to Christ), you’re essentially saying to him, “I trust you.” And when a man knows that you trust him, out of his love for you (a love that resembles Christ laying down His life for the Church), he will serve you and do right by you.
In fact, the man’s call is greater: it is to lead his family to heaven and die for his bride like Christ died for His bride, the Church. If that call does not cumulate in a literal death, it certainly constitutes a figurative death, a daily “dying to self.” This could be seen in a myriad of ways, including serving her so she can serve on the Supreme Court.
And since love is to will the good of the other, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, both submitting and leading can be the ways in which we love, where the other person displaces our own egoism.
It seems Amy Coney Barrett’s predecessor knew something of sacrifice and teamwork in a marriage. The most admirable thing Ruth Bader Ginsburg ever did (aside from her being married and having a baby in law school at a time when women didn’t attend) is a widely known act of great love. When her husband Marty was diagnosed with cancer while in law school, Ginsburg went to both his classes and her own, and typed his papers for him. She added more to her plate. She saw him being a gifted lawyer in the future as a good, and she willed it for him. She even followed him to New York after he graduated from Harvard and finished her own schooling at Columbia for the sake of keeping her family together. It was his genius in tax law that brought about a famous case that he suggested she take on, and it was his campaigning for her which ultimately paved the way for her to be on the Supreme Court.
Ruth had once said, “Meeting Marty was by far the most fortunate thing that has ever happened to me.” He as kingmaker, “tirelessly leveraging his network” for her to reach the pinnacle of the field they both studied was never something he resented or envied her for; he wanted it for her, he thought it was suited for her. She once said he was the “only boy she ever knew that cared she had a brain.” Makes sense that he’d want her to use it, and goes to show: often behind every exceptional woman is an even more exceptional man.
Jessica Kramer is a freelance video host for Media Research Center and writer and currently resides in the Washington, D.C. metro area. You can follow her on Twitter @JessKramer1776 or check out her budding YouTube channel.


theamericanconservative--2020-10-07--The Petty Tyranny of License Laws

The Petty Tyranny of License Laws

Gun control in America is a perpetual debate .
From Gun Confiscation Orders ( i.e .
Red Flag Laws ) , a national registry ( i.e .
universal background checks ) , prohibitions on standard-capacity magazines , age restrictions , licensing , and prohibitions on where a person may carry a firearm , governments at all levels are constantly attempting to reinterpret our Second Amendment rights .
Americans are expected to take these arguments at face value ; that they are intended to keep us safe .
But in reality , these laws are methods to control not the weapon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obvious recently in both the tone and severity of the response surrounding Kyle Rittenhouse , the teenager charged with fatally shooting two people amid the riots in Kenosha , Wisconsin .
Rittenhouse and his lawyer say he shot in self-defense .
But the narrative in both mainstream and social media has prejudged his guilt : the young Rittenhouse is a racist who wasn ’ t able to legally carry a firearm and acted on a premeditated plan to kill .
He even crossed state lines to do it .
The debate ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than grappling with why the riots were allowed to go on in the first place , it focuses exclusively on whether or not Rittenhouse had broken any gun laws .
Those opposed to what Rittenhouse had done tried to damage him in the court of public opinion by claiming he had broken some laws pertaining to the possession of firearms .
But what they were really saying is , because the state of Wisconsin had not given Rittenhouse a license to carry a firearm to defend himself , he must be in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state to decide which rights a person can exercise and which ones they can not .
When a government has the power to approve or deny a right , the citizen immediately loses the upper hand to that government .
The 2020 pandemic caused by the Chinese coronavirus is the most current and pressing example of how a government powerful enough to permit you to exercise a right is powerful enough to take that right away .
This power is felt acutely as state governments seek to compel individual behavior by leveraging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are supposed to keep business owners accountable for the products they sell and ensure that the states and federal government take their share of the businesses ’ profits in taxes .
The Chinese coronavirus , however , has given state governors leeway to invoke the power of the state against otherwise lawfully operating business .
In Texas , the Department of Licensing and Regulation considered penalizing businesses that defied the statewide order to remain closed .
Fortunately , the department dropped those cases , but only after Texas Governor Greg Abbott intervened because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The governor amended his order , but not before it was used to jail Shelley Luther , who reopened her salon in defiance of the governor ’ s orders .
The Texas licensing law was sold—like all licensing laws—as a way to protect innocent people from bad actors .
The people of Texas and their legislators could not have foreseen the licensing laws would be used in this way .
Similar threats have been made by other governors , with the same message : reopening a business without government permission could result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a license , a business can not legally operate .
In Pennsylvania , Democrat Governor Tom Wolf said counties that do not follow his executive orders could lose liquor licenses and other certifications .
In Michigan , Democrat Governor Gretchen Whitmer implied that business owners who defy her executive orders will lose their state-granted license to operate .
“ Most businesses in the state have a license that is granted by the state ” , she said .
She justified this threat by claiming that staying open was putting people at risk .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the young Kyle Rittenhouse used defensive force against three grown , male attackers and likely prevented dozens of other rioters from injuring or killing him .
Many of the public detractors focused on whether he violated any licensing law in possessing the firearm .
This deflects from the truth that Rittenhouse saved his own life from a violent mob , with a firearm , when the state wasn ’ t there to protect him .
Requiring licenses for firearms may sound like a way to keep dangerous individuals from acquiring means to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as we have seen in the case of the coronavirus lockdowns and the case of Kyle Rittenhouse , licenses are a way for governments to tyrannize us when we are at our most vulnerable .
Obtaining a firearm in 2020 , a little more than a month before a presidential election , means long waits that are doubling time from purchase to possession of the firearm .
In Washington , D.C. the wait is over a month to acquire a firearm after purchase .
The lessons are clear from the Rittenhouse trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus crisis .
When the state asks for new powers , it is under the guise of furthering a public interest .
But as we have seen , laws that appear mundane can be used to oppress Americans for otherwise legal , normal , and even ethical activities .
We must also scrutinize the details of all proposed legislation .
Laws must be carefully circumscribed to ensure that a future legislature , governor , or president can not read into the law more than the drafters of that law intended .
Laws must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state will abuse these laws , and abuse us , during the next time of crisis .
Phil Reboli is a former Senate aide and the Director of Government Affairs at the Conservative Partnership Institute .

Gun control in America is a perpetual debate. From Gun Confiscation Orders (i.e. Red Flag Laws), a national registry (i.e. universal background checks), prohibitions on standard-capacity magazines, age restrictions, licensing, and prohibitions on where a person may carry a firearm, governments at all levels are constantly attempting to reinterpret our Second Amendment rights.
Americans are expected to take these arguments at face value; that they are intended to keep us safe. But in reality, these laws are methods to control not the weapon, but the individual.
This became obvious recently in both the tone and severity of the response surrounding Kyle Rittenhouse, the teenager charged with fatally shooting two people amid the riots in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Rittenhouse and his lawyer say he shot in self-defense. But the narrative in both mainstream and social media has prejudged his guilt: the young Rittenhouse is a racist who wasn’t able to legally carry a firearm and acted on a premeditated plan to kill. He even crossed state lines to do it.
The debate’s framing is instructive, however. Rather than grappling with why the riots were allowed to go on in the first place, it focuses exclusively on whether or not Rittenhouse had broken any gun laws. Those opposed to what Rittenhouse had done tried to damage him in the court of public opinion by claiming he had broken some laws pertaining to the possession of firearms. But what they were really saying is, because the state of Wisconsin had not given Rittenhouse a license to carry a firearm to defend himself, he must be in the wrong.
Licenses are a way for the state to decide which rights a person can exercise and which ones they cannot. When a government has the power to approve or deny a right, the citizen immediately loses the upper hand to that government.
The 2020 pandemic caused by the Chinese coronavirus is the most current and pressing example of how a government powerful enough to permit you to exercise a right is powerful enough to take that right away. This power is felt acutely as state governments seek to compel individual behavior by leveraging their powers over licensing.
Licensing laws are supposed to keep business owners accountable for the products they sell and ensure that the states and federal government take their share of the businesses’ profits in taxes. The Chinese coronavirus, however, has given state governors leeway to invoke the power of the state against otherwise lawfully operating business.
In Texas, the Department of Licensing and Regulation considered penalizing businesses that defied the statewide order to remain closed. Fortunately, the department dropped those cases, but only after Texas Governor Greg Abbott intervened because of a national outcry by the GOP.
The governor amended his order, but not before it was used to jail Shelley Luther, who reopened her salon in defiance of the governor’s orders.
The Texas licensing law was sold—like all licensing laws—as a way to protect innocent people from bad actors. The people of Texas and their legislators could not have foreseen the licensing laws would be used in this way.
Similar threats have been made by other governors, with the same message: reopening a business without government permission could result in losing a business license. Without a license, a business cannot legally operate.
In Pennsylvania, Democrat Governor Tom Wolf said counties that do not follow his executive orders could lose liquor licenses and other certifications.
In Michigan, Democrat Governor Gretchen Whitmer implied that business owners who defy her executive orders will lose their state-granted license to operate. “Most businesses in the state have a license that is granted by the state”, she said. She justified this threat by claiming that staying open was putting people at risk.
This brings us back to the moments after the young Kyle Rittenhouse used defensive force against three grown, male attackers and likely prevented dozens of other rioters from injuring or killing him.
Many of the public detractors focused on whether he violated any licensing law in possessing the firearm. This deflects from the truth that Rittenhouse saved his own life from a violent mob, with a firearm, when the state wasn’t there to protect him.
Requiring licenses for firearms may sound like a way to keep dangerous individuals from acquiring means to do harm to the innocent. But, as we have seen in the case of the coronavirus lockdowns and the case of Kyle Rittenhouse, licenses are a way for governments to tyrannize us when we are at our most vulnerable.
Obtaining a firearm in 2020, a little more than a month before a presidential election, means long waits that are doubling time from purchase to possession of the firearm. In Washington, D.C. the wait is over a month to acquire a firearm after purchase.
The lessons are clear from the Rittenhouse trial and actions of governors during the Chinese coronavirus crisis. When the state asks for new powers, it is under the guise of furthering a public interest. But as we have seen, laws that appear mundane can be used to oppress Americans for otherwise legal, normal, and even ethical activities. We must also scrutinize the details of all proposed legislation. Laws must be carefully circumscribed to ensure that a future legislature, governor, or president cannot read into the law more than the drafters of that law intended. Laws must be narrow and specific. Otherwise the state will abuse these laws, and abuse us, during the next time of crisis.
Phil Reboli is a former Senate aide and the Director of Government Affairs at the Conservative Partnership Institute.


theamericanconservative--2020-10-08--The Quarantine Queen Versus Representative Democracy

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer at the Romney Building where her office is located in Lansing , Mich. , on May 18 , 2020 .
( Brittany Greeson for The Washington Post via Getty Images ) Does representative democracy matter during a pandemic ?
Or do we dispense with it in favor of unchecked rule by executives and health departments ?
Those questions recently came to a head in Michigan , when the state supreme court struck down emergency powers that had been wielded by an imperious governor .
Gretchen Whitmer , who seems to think she ’ s some kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had been granted sweeping authority back in March to fight the coronavirus under an emergency management law passed in 1976 .
But that statute also held that after 28 days she needed the approval of the Michigan legislature , which eventually declined to renew the state of emergency .
So she simply ignored them , citing a different 1945 law that allowed her to take “ reasonable ” action “ to protect life and property or to bring the emergency situation within the affected area under control.
” Under its auspices , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the name of public health .
By far the most audacious of these decrees came back in April , when with the stroke of a pen , Whitmer made it illegal to visit friends , relatives , even vacation homes .
All private and public gatherings of any size were prohibited .
Sales of carpeting , paint , and gardening supplies at large stores were all banned , though Michiganders could still purchase state-sold lottery tickets .
They couldn ’ t go golfing , motorboating , or hire lawn mowing services , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protests , as Whitmer herself did in June .
There was no logical consistency to any of it , because there rarely is logical consistency in an autocracy .
The only standard was the whim of Her Excellency the Governor , who believed it within her sole purview to decide whether other people could sell trowels .
The backlash was swift .
Retailers and farmers complained that they couldn ’ t make sense of the byzantine rules and received little help from the governor ’ s office .
Police departments refused to enforce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unconstitutional .
Whitmer later rescinded some of the measures , though she also continued to issue restrictions , creating more confusion .
The peasants began filing lawsuits , and after one initiated by several medical centers landed in a district court , the judge requested that the state supreme court clarify what the governor could and couldn ’ t do .
The supreme court hearings did not go well for Whitmer .
One of the justices accused her of making “ probably the largest claim of executive power that any governor has ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Another , a Democratic appointee , warned that “ once rights are forfeited or once rights are taken , they ’ re difficult if not impossible for people to reclaim them or get them back.
” The ruling came down last weekend and Whitmer ’ s scepter was predictably confiscated .
It ’ s been widely claimed , including by the governor herself , that the court ruled on partisan lines , four to three , with only Republican-appointed justices going against her .
But that ’ s misleading .
On the main @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the consent of the legislature to extend her state of emergency beyond 28 days—the court was unanimous , deciding against her seven to zero .
The narrower ruling was over whether the entire 1945 emergency law should be struck down , which it was .
It was a clear rebuke , yet there was the Countess of Kalamazoo herself on Saturday , insisting that she didn ’ t have to relinquish power for another three weeks .
This was contradicted by her own Democratic attorney general , who said the next morning that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ orders .
All of this has proven a mess for Michigan , not a state known for its volatile politics ( George Romney was once governor there ) .
And in fairness to Michiganders , the question was never whether the pandemic was a threat .
It also wasn ’ t whether the state needed a quarantine regulatory framework—it obviously did and does .
It was whether all that authority should be vested in one person .
Whitmer , almost from the start , behaved with complete impunity .
She ignored the concerns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her state of emergency ) .
She undermined her own public health rationale when she marched socially undistanced with BLM .
She stretched the government ’ s powers deep into the grooves of everyday life without any kind of accountability or democratic consultation .
She shrugged away anger from protesters and business owners , bragging about her “ thick skin.
” If Whitmer would now like to govern , then she can do what the rest of the known free world does : work with other lawmakers and competing interests to achieve consensus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Does representative democracy matter during a pandemic ?
Cheers to Michigan ’ s supreme court for affirming that it does .
Other states whose governors have been acting too singularly should take notice .
Yet there ’ s a broader issue in play here too , one that ’ s at the heart of that four-to-three decision .
The Michigan court struck down the 1945 emergency law under what ’ s known as the nondelegation doctrine .
This holds that one branch of government can ’ t transfer its assigned powers to another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statute , which allowed the governor unilateral authority during a disaster , was an improper delegation of the powers of the legislature to the executive .
The court ultimately said yes , citing a unanimously decided U.S. Supreme Court case , Whitman v. American Trucking Associations , which created a test : “ whether a delegation is unconstitutional depends on two factors—the amount of discretion and the scope of authority.
” Since the law allowed Whitmer to claim an immense scope of power ( over an entire economy , indefinitely ) , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justice , in a dissenting opinion , pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court had only invalidated statutes under the nondelegation doctrine twice in its history .
He noted that there were other avenues to rein Whitmer in : the legislature itself might have repealed the 1945 law .
That ’ s a good point ( though Whitmer would have vetoed any attempt to check her own power ) .
Nevertheless the problem of legislatures delegating their powers to executive agencies is very real , and exists at the national level too .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ rules than the president signs laws , government by unelected functionary .
In which case , maybe we should consider whether the Michigan justices have a point .
Maybe it ’ s time for the courts to start wielding the nondelegation doctrine less sparingly , to take Gretchen Whitmer ’ s royal waving as a cautionary tale .
Of course , the ideal solution would be for legislatures to reclaim their own authority , to stop the partisan squabbling and stand up for their greater institutions .
But if you think that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some Michigan lawn fertilizer to sell you .

Does representative democracy matter during a pandemic? Or do we dispense with it in favor of unchecked rule by executives and health departments?
Those questions recently came to a head in Michigan, when the state supreme court struck down emergency powers that had been wielded by an imperious governor. Gretchen Whitmer, who seems to think she’s some kind of Upper Midwest Holy Roman Emperor, had been granted sweeping authority back in March to fight the coronavirus under an emergency management law passed in 1976. But that statute also held that after 28 days she needed the approval of the Michigan legislature, which eventually declined to renew the state of emergency. So she simply ignored them, citing a different 1945 law that allowed her to take “reasonable” action “to protect life and property or to bring the emergency situation within the affected area under control.” Under its auspices, she issued more than 180 executive orders in the name of public health.
By far the most audacious of these decrees came back in April, when with the stroke of a pen, Whitmer made it illegal to visit friends, relatives, even vacation homes. All private and public gatherings of any size were prohibited. Sales of carpeting, paint, and gardening supplies at large stores were all banned, though Michiganders could still purchase state-sold lottery tickets. They couldn’t go golfing, motorboating, or hire lawn mowing services, though they could apparently attend Black Lives Matter protests, as Whitmer herself did in June. There was no logical consistency to any of it, because there rarely is logical consistency in an autocracy. The only standard was the whim of Her Excellency the Governor, who believed it within her sole purview to decide whether other people could sell trowels.
The backlash was swift. Retailers and farmers complained that they couldn’t make sense of the byzantine rules and received little help from the governor’s office. Police departments refused to enforce the executive orders, viewing them as unconstitutional. Whitmer later rescinded some of the measures, though she also continued to issue restrictions, creating more confusion. The peasants began filing lawsuits, and after one initiated by several medical centers landed in a district court, the judge requested that the state supreme court clarify what the governor could and couldn’t do. The supreme court hearings did not go well for Whitmer. One of the justices accused her of making “probably the largest claim of executive power that any governor has ever made in the history of Michigan.” Another, a Democratic appointee, warned that “once rights are forfeited or once rights are taken, they’re difficult if not impossible for people to reclaim them or get them back.”
The ruling came down last weekend and Whitmer’s scepter was predictably confiscated. It’s been widely claimed, including by the governor herself, that the court ruled on partisan lines, four to three, with only Republican-appointed justices going against her. But that’s misleading. On the main question—whether under the 1976 law Whitmer needed the consent of the legislature to extend her state of emergency beyond 28 days—the court was unanimous, deciding against her seven to zero. The narrower ruling was over whether the entire 1945 emergency law should be struck down, which it was. It was a clear rebuke, yet there was the Countess of Kalamazoo herself on Saturday, insisting that she didn’t have to relinquish power for another three weeks. This was contradicted by her own Democratic attorney general, who said the next morning that she would no longer enforce the executive orders.
All of this has proven a mess for Michigan, not a state known for its volatile politics (George Romney was once governor there). And in fairness to Michiganders, the question was never whether the pandemic was a threat. It also wasn’t whether the state needed a quarantine regulatory framework—it obviously did and does. It was whether all that authority should be vested in one person. Whitmer, almost from the start, behaved with complete impunity. She ignored the concerns of the legislature (which initially supported her state of emergency). She undermined her own public health rationale when she marched socially undistanced with BLM. She stretched the government’s powers deep into the grooves of everyday life without any kind of accountability or democratic consultation. She shrugged away anger from protesters and business owners, bragging about her “thick skin.”
If Whitmer would now like to govern, then she can do what the rest of the known free world does: work with other lawmakers and competing interests to achieve consensus within the confines of the law. Does representative democracy matter during a pandemic? Cheers to Michigan’s supreme court for affirming that it does. Other states whose governors have been acting too singularly should take notice.
Yet there’s a broader issue in play here too, one that’s at the heart of that four-to-three decision. The Michigan court struck down the 1945 emergency law under what’s known as the nondelegation doctrine. This holds that one branch of government can’t transfer its assigned powers to another branch. The question was whether the statute, which allowed the governor unilateral authority during a disaster, was an improper delegation of the powers of the legislature to the executive. The court ultimately said yes, citing a unanimously decided U.S. Supreme Court case, Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, which created a test: “whether a delegation is unconstitutional depends on two factors—the amount of discretion and the scope of authority.” Since the law allowed Whitmer to claim an immense scope of power (over an entire economy, indefinitely), it couldn’t stand.
Another Michigan justice, in a dissenting opinion, pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court had only invalidated statutes under the nondelegation doctrine twice in its history. He noted that there were other avenues to rein Whitmer in: the legislature itself might have repealed the 1945 law. That’s a good point (though Whitmer would have vetoed any attempt to check her own power). Nevertheless the problem of legislatures delegating their powers to executive agencies is very real, and exists at the national level too. The federal administrative state now passes more rules than the president signs laws, government by unelected functionary. In which case, maybe we should consider whether the Michigan justices have a point. Maybe it’s time for the courts to start wielding the nondelegation doctrine less sparingly, to take Gretchen Whitmer’s royal waving as a cautionary tale.
Of course, the ideal solution would be for legislatures to reclaim their own authority, to stop the partisan squabbling and stand up for their greater institutions. But if you think that’s going to happen, I have some Michigan lawn fertilizer to sell you.


theamericanconservative--2020-10-08--Promote Competition without Punishing Success

With declining public sentiment about the tech industry and its impact on society , we ’ ve witnessed a growing chorus of advocates and policymakers arguing that now is the time for the federal government to take drastic action .
Indeed , half of Americans now favor breaking up and more strictly regulating major technology companies , while only 11 % think the companies should be regulated less .
This punitive sentiment has been on full display in the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust , Commercial , and Administrative Law , which has undertaken a year-long investigation of Big Tech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the CEOs of Google , Apple , Facebook , and Amazon .
The effort reached its conclusion on Tuesday , with the publication of a 449-page report ( as well as a shorter minority report ) making recommendations for substantial legal changes that could pave the way to broad new enforcement and regulatory actions .
The committee ’ s effort has taken a great deal of time and thought , and in that respect is commendable for how Congress should approach issues of this complexity and magnitude .
There are also some good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data portability and interoperability , and making our antitrust agencies more capable .
Yet , I also worry the committee ’ s effort fundamentally gets its premises wrong , fixating on four companies with little in common but their size , and pursuing them with a single-minded focus worthy of Captain Ahab .
As a former YCombinator-backed startup founder and Senate committee staffer , I fear these “ break-them-up ” factions—from Sen. Elizabeth Warren to Tucker Carlson—are embracing the wrong idea about what American innovation and competition policy should strive for , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ negative consequences for the rest of the innovation ecosystem if they prevail .
I get the emotional appeal—as trust in institutions and actors big and small collapses , there ’ s something satisfying about knocking today ’ s Tech Titans down a peg .
Perhaps particularly so for conservatives , who fear their viewpoints are no longer tolerated in a digital public square managed by San Francisco liberals .
But the U.S. government shouldn ’ t aim to punish founders and entrepreneurs for being too successful , regardless of their ideological leanings .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ incumbents to startups—be more productive , create jobs , and operate in a competitive market under clear rules .
What we really need is a policy framework that helps all companies grow better , rather than arbitrarily punishing the top few .
Instead of seeking to break up or otherwise enforce heavy-handed action against a handful of big firms—tying up all sides in years of costly litigation—what if the better choice is to pursue regulatory reforms that would improve competition up and down , from market-dominant incumbents to scrappy startups ?
What choices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ view , from Stanford ’ s Mark Lemley and Andrew McCreary , argues that the blunt instruments of traditional antitrust remedies are too hard to get right , and too costly to mess up .
Even if we did break them up , we could be facing a new set of Big Tech firms a few years later .
Instead , they argue that systemic incentives that drive concentration should be addressed directly through regulatory changes .
Anyone who ’ s watched the startup market in recent years knows that Lemley and McCreary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can come up with a substantially better product than Facebook or Google , given the scale of these platforms and barriers like network effects , one ’ s prospects at an investor pitch meeting wouldn ’ t be strong , if you could even get a venture capitalist to take your call .
Instead , structural incentives push founders to pursue quick payoffs by getting acquired by larger firms ( which can then absorb or kill the acquisition ) , or even designing their startup with this in mind from day one .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ McCreary spell out some policy “ carrots and sticks ” to address this that are well worth exploring .
Another interesting regulatory reform approach to promoting tech competition comes from Cory Doctorow , who argues for policy changes to enable permissionless competition .
Doctorow ’ s argument harkens to a prelapsarian technological world ( i.e .
the 1980s and 1990s ) in which there were fewer policy barriers to new firms entering the market and competing with , or augmenting , the offerings of larger firms without their permission .
Think of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toner cartridges for your name-brand laser printer , or the mobile-phone spare-parts company that ’ s producing replacement screens for your unhappily fractured iPhone .
That ’ s competition that pushes prices down , and gives consumers more options .
Similarly , in the online platform space , the now defunct startup Power.com would have let users have more control over their social media feeds by aggregating them in one place , until a lawsuit by Facebook shut it down .
Doctorow ’ s key point is that competition enabled by interoperable systems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ encouraged , rather than hindered , by our policy frameworks—in particular , overbroad intellectual property laws and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act .
Fixing the anti-competitive effects of these laws would have to be a part of a public-policy commitment to establishing an “ interoperator ’ s defense , ” offering a unique approach to driving both the creation of new public-facing businesses and the revitalization ( through competition ) of older ones .
There are numerous approaches like these that aim to promote innovation and competition system-wide , outside of seeking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discussion and scrutiny in Congress and the administration , which has been altogether too fixated on a few prominent firms , and the emotionally satisfying but imprudent call for breaking them up .
Garrett Johnson is a co-founder and executive director of the Lincoln Network , a nonprofit working to bridge the gap between Silicon Valley and DC .
He also co-founded SendHub.com , a venture-backed YCombinator startup .

With declining public sentiment about the tech industry and its impact on society, we’ve witnessed a growing chorus of advocates and policymakers arguing that now is the time for the federal government to take drastic action. Indeed, half of Americans now favor breaking up and more strictly regulating major technology companies, while only 11% think the companies should be regulated less.
This punitive sentiment has been on full display in the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law, which has undertaken a year-long investigation of Big Tech, recently bringing together a hearing with the CEOs of Google, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon. The effort reached its conclusion on Tuesday, with the publication of a 449-page report (as well as a shorter minority report) making recommendations for substantial legal changes that could pave the way to broad new enforcement and regulatory actions.
The committee’s effort has taken a great deal of time and thought, and in that respect is commendable for how Congress should approach issues of this complexity and magnitude. There are also some good ideas in both reports, like promoting data portability and interoperability, and making our antitrust agencies more capable. Yet, I also worry the committee’s effort fundamentally gets its premises wrong, fixating on four companies with little in common but their size, and pursuing them with a single-minded focus worthy of Captain Ahab.
As a former YCombinator-backed startup founder and Senate committee staffer, I fear these “break-them-up” factions—from Sen. Elizabeth Warren to Tucker Carlson—are embracing the wrong idea about what American innovation and competition policy should strive for, and being altogether too dismissive about the likely negative consequences for the rest of the innovation ecosystem if they prevail.
I get the emotional appeal—as trust in institutions and actors big and small collapses, there’s something satisfying about knocking today’s Tech Titans down a peg. Perhaps particularly so for conservatives, who fear their viewpoints are no longer tolerated in a digital public square managed by San Francisco liberals.
But the U.S. government shouldn’t aim to punish founders and entrepreneurs for being too successful, regardless of their ideological leanings. Good competition policy should help every company—from incumbents to startups—be more productive, create jobs, and operate in a competitive market under clear rules. What we really need is a policy framework that helps all companies grow better, rather than arbitrarily punishing the top few.
Instead of seeking to break up or otherwise enforce heavy-handed action against a handful of big firms—tying up all sides in years of costly litigation—what if the better choice is to pursue regulatory reforms that would improve competition up and down, from market-dominant incumbents to scrappy startups?
What choices am I talking about exactly? One view, from Stanford’s Mark Lemley and Andrew McCreary, argues that the blunt instruments of traditional antitrust remedies are too hard to get right, and too costly to mess up. Even if we did break them up, we could be facing a new set of Big Tech firms a few years later. Instead, they argue that systemic incentives that drive concentration should be addressed directly through regulatory changes.
Anyone who’s watched the startup market in recent years knows that Lemley and McCreary have a point. Even if you can come up with a substantially better product than Facebook or Google, given the scale of these platforms and barriers like network effects, one’s prospects at an investor pitch meeting wouldn’t be strong, if you could even get a venture capitalist to take your call. Instead, structural incentives push founders to pursue quick payoffs by getting acquired by larger firms (which can then absorb or kill the acquisition), or even designing their startup with this in mind from day one. In a longer paper, Lemley and McCreary spell out some policy “carrots and sticks” to address this that are well worth exploring.
Another interesting regulatory reform approach to promoting tech competition comes from Cory Doctorow, who argues for policy changes to enable permissionless competition. Doctorow’s argument harkens to a prelapsarian technological world (i.e. the 1980s and 1990s) in which there were fewer policy barriers to new firms entering the market and competing with, or augmenting, the offerings of larger firms without their permission. Think of the third-party cartridge maker who’s producing toner cartridges for your name-brand laser printer, or the mobile-phone spare-parts company that’s producing replacement screens for your unhappily fractured iPhone. That’s competition that pushes prices down, and gives consumers more options. Similarly, in the online platform space, the now defunct startup Power.com would have let users have more control over their social media feeds by aggregating them in one place, until a lawsuit by Facebook shut it down.
Doctorow’s key point is that competition enabled by interoperable systems ought to be something that’s encouraged, rather than hindered, by our policy frameworks—in particular, overbroad intellectual property laws and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Fixing the anti-competitive effects of these laws would have to be a part of a public-policy commitment to establishing an “interoperator’s defense,” offering a unique approach to driving both the creation of new public-facing businesses and the revitalization (through competition) of older ones.
There are numerous approaches like these that aim to promote innovation and competition system-wide, outside of seeking forced breakups. Such approaches warrant greater discussion and scrutiny in Congress and the administration, which has been altogether too fixated on a few prominent firms, and the emotionally satisfying but imprudent call for breaking them up.
Garrett Johnson is a co-founder and executive director of the Lincoln Network, a nonprofit working to bridge the gap between Silicon Valley and DC. He also co-founded SendHub.com, a venture-backed YCombinator startup.


theamericanconservative--2020-10-09--The Coming Conservative Counter-revolution?

Connoisseurs of the history of American conservatism will recall that Russell Kirk first proposed to Henry Regnery that his book ultimately titled The Conservative Mind be called , instead , The Conservative Rout .
Consult your own feelings about today ’ s world , dear reader , and reflect with the wise author of Ecclesiastes that truly there is no new thing under the sun .
If Kirk could feel , circa 1953 , smack-dab in the middle of the Ozzie and Harriet era , that conservatives had been routed , what should we who live in the disastrous year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them ?
The word massacre strikes one as far too sunny .
Obliterated , perhaps ?
Annihilated ?
I suppose canceled might be the most temporally appropriate term .
Since late May , when America ’ s center-right institutions , already having proven themselves all but useless during the coronavirus pandemic , could not bring themselves to publicly condemn mob violence , cultural Maoism , and incipient revolution , the nation ’ s conservatives have been anxiously calling , texting , and emailing one another to ask : what the hell just happened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here ?
To both questions , but especially the latter , compelling answers have been hard to come by .
It ’ s not hard to understand why .
Kirk may have thought conservatives had it hard in the early 1950s , faced as they were with a new and powerful military-industrial complex , unprecedented economic and political centralization , and an increasingly pervasive mass culture .
But—such has been the success of their movement—70 years later conservatives are not only saddled with feckless center-right institutions .
They are still faced with all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overt and thoroughgoing hostility of , let ’ s see , the media , the education establishment ( at all levels , public and private ) , the entertainment industry , big business , big technology , big philanthropy , and virtually every professional association , and even , to a large extent , professional sports , the military , and the police .
In the face of such a Washington Generals-esque record of success , one naturally opens Andrew Bacevich ’ s new Library of America volume , American Conservatism : Reclaiming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than a heart brimming with hope .
Is it probable that the conservative intellectual tradition has the resources we need to mount what Daniel McCarthy has rightly referred to in these pages as a counter-revolution ?
Is there anything useful in conservatism ’ s past ?
Hasn ’ t conservatism failed ?
It is interesting to page through Bacevich ’ s anthology with these questions in mind .
Perhaps the best that can be said for the conservative tradition is that it delayed the Revolution for several generations .
Conservatives really did help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its costs , but it was certainly a victory .
Conservatives managed to mount a popular case against socialism ( although it must be confessed , as traditionalist conservatives have pointed out , that capitalism did much of socialism ’ s atomizing work for it , and more efficiently ) .
And conservatives managed to help hold the line somewhat in the field of law ; without their work , the deluge in our courtrooms would have come faster and more furiously .
But beyond that ?
America ’ s conservative intellectuals can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our cultural catastrophe , at best .
Conservatives could not even conserve the principle of two genders , for Pete ’ s sake .
Other ideals presented and defended in these pages—from Kirk ’ s contention that civilizational health requires “ many sorts of inequality ” to Eugene Genovese ’ s call for a conservatism that “ demands submission to a moral consensus rooted in elementary piety ” —would be considered by all but hard-core conservatives today as ranging from quaint to shockingly retrograde .
For 100-plus years ( if we accept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) American conservatives have been talking , organizing , fighting , and about the only ideas of theirs to take root in the fields of public life were those which had to do with economics , national defense , and private property .
Today , conservative ideas about all three are in trouble , much less conservative ideas about family , religion , community , and human nature .
And yet one is struck by how philosophically penetrating , how phenomenologically on-point , most of Bacevich ’ s selections are .
If American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spokesman , or spokeswoman , of real genius , it has certainly not failed to be shaped by profoundly insightful thinkers and powerful writers .
William F. Buckley ’ s prose continues to charm .
No one could craft a more lucid argument than Willmoore Kendall .
No one was more fearless than Zora Neale Hurston .
No one cut through the bullshit with more wit than Antonin Scalia , or with more wry precision than Joan Didion .
Yes , unexpectedly and delightfully , Didion and Hurston are both included here , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Patrick Deneen and writers who were not claimed by or lived outside the bounds of Conservatism Inc. , like Randolph Bourne , Christopher Lasch , Wendell Berry , and Charles Beard .
Libertarians , too , are given fair representation—perhaps a little too fair , in a volume devoted to conservatism—in the persons of Frank Chodorov , Murray Rothbard , Milton Friedman , and others .
The major neoconservatives and Straussians—Richard John Neuhaus , Harry Jaffa , Allan Bloom—are present and accounted for .
Only the paleoconservative wing of the tradition receives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who turned out to be right about almost everything , probably deserved inclusion ) .
Bacevich has done his job well .
In light of contemporary circumstances , the most resonant pieces are those from African Americans Glenn Loury and Shelby Steele .
Well before the advent of Twitter , that curse upon humanity , it took extraordinary courage for black men and women to buck progressive orthodoxies on matters of race .
Loury , writing in 1995 , explains that too many blacks are caught in a racial “ loyalty trap ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of communal self-reflection necessary for real social progress , a trap that spurs them too often to display a “ finely honed moral outrage concerning American racism ” that is sometimes placed in defense of the indefensible .
Steele , writing in 1991 , provides a moving meditation on affirmative action .
He gives affirmative action its logical and sentimental due .
Yet he does not shrink from the conclusion that , in practice , affirmative action “ indirectly encourages blacks to exploit their own past victimization as a source of power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inferiority , is what justifies preference , so that to receive the benefits of preferential treatment one must , to some extent , become invested in the view of one ’ s self as a victim .
In this way , ” Steele concludes , “ affirmative action nurtures a victim-focused identity in blacks.
” Even the most dull-witted observer can see that the same dynamic , 30 years later , has seeped well beyond racial borders .
Steele predicts as much .
“ The power to be found in victimization , like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lend itself to the creation of a new class of super-victims who can feel the pea of victimization under twenty mattresses , ” he prophesies .
As for reparations , Steele foresees more harm than good from the implementation of such a scheme .
“ Suffering can be endured and overcome , it can not be repaid .
Blacks can not be repaid for the injustice done to the race , but we can be corrupted by society ’ s guilty gestures of repayment.
” If anything lies at the core of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of mature understanding of the human heart .
Today Steele and Loury are associated with 1776 Unites , a project of mostly black intellectuals that is attempting to counteract and delegitimate the New York Times ’ s race-focused 1619 Project .
Here we get a glimmer of why conservatism failed .
1776 Unites recognizes the power of myth .
It is as a myth , as a master narrative , that liberalism has been so successful .
Myth and master narrative are the business of popular education and popular culture , and those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owned by liberalism since World War I , at least .
However perceptive its insights , conservatism has by contrast been too intellectual .
The overarching liberal narrative that happiness is the fruit of an individual ’ s achieving freedom by breaking loose from unchosen constraints was opposed by no conservative counternarrative of comparable strength , certainly not in popular education or popular culture .
Not even close .
What grand , overarching nonliberal myth America has had has been the nationalist myth of American exceptionalism—a myth , alas , that is easily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ short , stories have consequences .
More so , perhaps , than ideas .
Ah , well .
Even if , on the world ’ s terms , they failed , we ought to honor the conservative thinkers who preceded us .
After all , as American conservatism reminds us , conservatives have always thought their task a nearly impossible one .
Does that make them born losers , as some have maintained , or merely realists ?
It hardly matters .
What matters is that we never got the culturally powerful conservative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reap the whirlwind .
God help us .
Jeremy Beer is chairman of the American Ideas Institute .
He has worked in the nonprofit sector since 2000 .
He is the author of several volumes , including as co-editor of American Conservatism : An Encyclopedia , and his most recent book , Oscar Charleston : The Life and Legend of Baseball ’ s Greatest Forgotten Player .

American Conservatism: Reclaiming an Intellectual Tradition, Andrew J. Bacevich, ed., (Library of America: March 2020), 672 pages.
Connoisseurs of the history of American conservatism will recall that Russell Kirk first proposed to Henry Regnery that his book ultimately titled The Conservative Mind be called, instead, The Conservative Rout. Consult your own feelings about today’s world, dear reader, and reflect with the wise author of Ecclesiastes that truly there is no new thing under the sun.
If Kirk could feel, circa 1953, smack-dab in the middle of the Ozzie and Harriet era, that conservatives had been routed, what should we who live in the disastrous year of 2020 call what has happened to them? The word massacre strikes one as far too sunny. Obliterated, perhaps? Annihilated? I suppose canceled might be the most temporally appropriate term.
Since late May, when America’s center-right institutions, already having proven themselves all but useless during the coronavirus pandemic, could not bring themselves to publicly condemn mob violence, cultural Maoism, and incipient revolution, the nation’s conservatives have been anxiously calling, texting, and emailing one another to ask: what the hell just happened? And where do we go from here?
To both questions, but especially the latter, compelling answers have been hard to come by. It’s not hard to understand why. Kirk may have thought conservatives had it hard in the early 1950s, faced as they were with a new and powerful military-industrial complex, unprecedented economic and political centralization, and an increasingly pervasive mass culture. But—such has been the success of their movement—70 years later conservatives are not only saddled with feckless center-right institutions. They are still faced with all the problems of the 1950s plus the overt and thoroughgoing hostility of, let’s see, the media, the education establishment (at all levels, public and private), the entertainment industry, big business, big technology, big philanthropy, and virtually every professional association, and even, to a large extent, professional sports, the military, and the police.
In the face of such a Washington Generals-esque record of success, one naturally opens Andrew Bacevich’s new Library of America volume, American Conservatism: Reclaiming an Intellectual Tradition, with something less than a heart brimming with hope. Is it probable that the conservative intellectual tradition has the resources we need to mount what Daniel McCarthy has rightly referred to in these pages as a counter-revolution? Is there anything useful in conservatism’s past? Hasn’t conservatism failed?
* * *
It is interesting to page through Bacevich’s anthology with these questions in mind. Perhaps the best that can be said for the conservative tradition is that it delayed the Revolution for several generations. Conservatives really did help defeat Soviet communism; the victory had its costs, but it was certainly a victory. Conservatives managed to mount a popular case against socialism (although it must be confessed, as traditionalist conservatives have pointed out, that capitalism did much of socialism’s atomizing work for it, and more efficiently). And conservatives managed to help hold the line somewhat in the field of law; without their work, the deluge in our courtrooms would have come faster and more furiously.
But beyond that? America’s conservative intellectuals can claim to have effected some unquantifiable delay of our cultural catastrophe, at best. Conservatives could not even conserve the principle of two genders, for Pete’s sake. Other ideals presented and defended in these pages—from Kirk’s contention that civilizational health requires “many sorts of inequality” to Eugene Genovese’s call for a conservatism that “demands submission to a moral consensus rooted in elementary piety”—would be considered by all but hard-core conservatives today as ranging from quaint to shockingly retrograde. For 100-plus years (if we accept Bacevich’s dating of the tradition) American conservatives have been talking, organizing, fighting, and about the only ideas of theirs to take root in the fields of public life were those which had to do with economics, national defense, and private property. Today, conservative ideas about all three are in trouble, much less conservative ideas about family, religion, community, and human nature.
And yet one is struck by how philosophically penetrating, how phenomenologically on-point, most of Bacevich’s selections are. If American conservatism has not been blessed by a spokesman, or spokeswoman, of real genius, it has certainly not failed to be shaped by profoundly insightful thinkers and powerful writers. William F. Buckley’s prose continues to charm. No one could craft a more lucid argument than Willmoore Kendall. No one was more fearless than Zora Neale Hurston. No one cut through the bullshit with more wit than Antonin Scalia, or with more wry precision than Joan Didion.
Yes, unexpectedly and delightfully, Didion and Hurston are both included here, along with rising thinkers like Andrew Sullivan and Patrick Deneen and writers who were not claimed by or lived outside the bounds of Conservatism Inc., like Randolph Bourne, Christopher Lasch, Wendell Berry, and Charles Beard. Libertarians, too, are given fair representation—perhaps a little too fair, in a volume devoted to conservatism—in the persons of Frank Chodorov, Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman, and others. The major neoconservatives and Straussians—Richard John Neuhaus, Harry Jaffa, Allan Bloom—are present and accounted for. Only the paleoconservative wing of the tradition receives somewhat short shrift (Pat Buchanan, who turned out to be right about almost everything, probably deserved inclusion). Bacevich has done his job well.
In light of contemporary circumstances, the most resonant pieces are those from African Americans Glenn Loury and Shelby Steele. Well before the advent of Twitter, that curse upon humanity, it took extraordinary courage for black men and women to buck progressive orthodoxies on matters of race. Loury, writing in 1995, explains that too many blacks are caught in a racial “loyalty trap” that keeps them from engaging in the kind of communal self-reflection necessary for real social progress, a trap that spurs them too often to display a “finely honed moral outrage concerning American racism” that is sometimes placed in defense of the indefensible.
Steele, writing in 1991, provides a moving meditation on affirmative action. He gives affirmative action its logical and sentimental due. Yet he does not shrink from the conclusion that, in practice, affirmative action “indirectly encourages blacks to exploit their own past victimization as a source of power and privilege. Victimization, like implied inferiority, is what justifies preference, so that to receive the benefits of preferential treatment one must, to some extent, become invested in the view of one’s self as a victim. In this way,” Steele concludes, “affirmative action nurtures a victim-focused identity in blacks.”
Even the most dull-witted observer can see that the same dynamic, 30 years later, has seeped well beyond racial borders. Steele predicts as much. “The power to be found in victimization, like any power, is intoxicating and can lend itself to the creation of a new class of super-victims who can feel the pea of victimization under twenty mattresses,” he prophesies. As for reparations, Steele foresees more harm than good from the implementation of such a scheme. “Suffering can be endured and overcome, it cannot be repaid. Blacks cannot be repaid for the injustice done to the race, but we can be corrupted by society’s guilty gestures of repayment.”
If anything lies at the core of the conservative tradition, it is this sort of mature understanding of the human heart.
* * *
Today Steele and Loury are associated with 1776 Unites, a project of mostly black intellectuals that is attempting to counteract and delegitimate the New York Times’s race-focused 1619 Project. Here we get a glimmer of why conservatism failed. 1776 Unites recognizes the power of myth. It is as a myth, as a master narrative, that liberalism has been so successful. Myth and master narrative are the business of popular education and popular culture, and those spheres of life have been almost exclusively owned by liberalism since World War I, at least.
However perceptive its insights, conservatism has by contrast been too intellectual. The overarching liberal narrative that happiness is the fruit of an individual’s achieving freedom by breaking loose from unchosen constraints was opposed by no conservative counternarrative of comparable strength, certainly not in popular education or popular culture. Not even close. What grand, overarching nonliberal myth America has had has been the nationalist myth of American exceptionalism—a myth, alas, that is easily assimilable to the liberal-progressive story.
In short, stories have consequences. More so, perhaps, than ideas.
Ah, well. Even if, on the world’s terms, they failed, we ought to honor the conservative thinkers who preceded us. After all, as American conservatism reminds us, conservatives have always thought their task a nearly impossible one. Does that make them born losers, as some have maintained, or merely realists? It hardly matters. What matters is that we never got the culturally powerful conservative mythology we needed, and now we reap the whirlwind. God help us.
Jeremy Beer is chairman of the American Ideas Institute. He has worked in the nonprofit sector since 2000. He is the author of several volumes, including as co-editor of American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia, and his most recent book, Oscar Charleston: The Life and Legend of Baseball’s Greatest Forgotten Player.