theamericanconservative--2020-07-14--Pay for Play? Heritage’s Cozy Ties With Foreign Weapons Maker Raises Concerns

The GOP think tank has been taking millions from a conglomerate while publicly promoting its landmines and autonomous machine guns .
U.S. Secretary of State during a Q & A at the Heritage Foundation , in May 2018 .
( Credit : US Department of State/public domain ) This article was co-published with Responsible Statecraft .
The conservative Heritage Foundation has consistently fought international treaties banning weapons that pose an outsized threat to civilians in war zones .
This would include anti-personnel landmines , cluster munitions , and “ killer robots ” —as well as regulations that would enforce arms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet , Heritage fails to disclose a possible financial incentive for taking these positions .
Heritage received at least $ 5.8 million from the Hanwha Group between 2007 and 2015 , according to the organization ’ s annual reports reviewed by Responsible Statecraft .
Between 2010 and 2014 , Hanwha—a South Korean conglomerate that has produced landmine and autonomous weapons systems—contributed a minimum of $ 1 million per year , making Hanwha one of the Heritage Foundation ’ s biggest donors .
Hanwha was not listed as a donor after 2015 , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Heritage and the Hanwha Group did not respond to questions about whether the funding arrangement continued after 2015 .
However , Korean media regularly reports on the close relationship between Heritage and Hanwha , and suggested their friendly relationship was alive and well , at least as recently as October 2018 when Heritage Foundation founder Edwin J. Feulner and Hanwha Group Chairman Kim Seung-youn met in Seoul .
This meeting was documented by The Korea Herald , a major South Korean English language newspaper .
Topics discussed included : “ difficulties faced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ despite the successful renegotiation of the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement.
” “ Feulner and the Hanwha chairman have maintained a working relationship for the past 30 years , holding regular meetings to discuss outstanding political and economic issues between the two countries , ” concluded The Korea Herald article .
Heritage ’ s work may have proven particularly beneficial for Hanwha .
In January of that same year , an op-ed by Heritage Senior Research Fellow Theodore R. Bromund took The New York Times editorial board to task for urging the U.S. to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agreement signed by 164 countries with the goal of eliminating anti-personnel landmines around the world .
His column laid out clearly the Heritage Foundation ’ s positions on arms control agreements that might impact Hanwa .
“ Why hasn ’ t the U.S. gotten rid of its land mines ?
” Bromund asked .
“ Because South Korea uses mines to defend itself against North Korea , and South Korea is an ally of ours.
” He continued : That was just one of many Heritageop-edsand reports over the years attacking efforts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of only 33 countries that has not acceded to the Mine Ban Treaty .
According to the International Committee to Ban Landmines ( ICBL ) .
“ I had no clue Hanhwa was giving [ Heritage ] money , ” said Mark Hiznay , associate director of the Arms Division at Human Rights Watch .
“ Hanwha for a long time was only producing ammunition and weapons for the South Korean military , but that changed in the mid-2000s when they started broadening their exports.
” The ICBL ’ s “ Stop Explosive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a diversified industrial conglomerate .
Its defence division makes munitions , guidance and delivery systems.
” In recent years the group has “ opened up to the export market , both exhibiting at international arms fairs and selling military equipment abroad.
” “ Heritage hasn ’ t been too hot on multilateral or humanitarian disarmament treaties dating back into the mid-90s , when the first efforts to ban mines start bubbling up on the international stage , ” said Hiznay .
Opposing international efforts to eliminate the manufacturing of products produced by one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a potential conflict of interest that no Heritage scholars disclosed in their condemnation of the Mine Ban Treaty .
That potential conflict of interest became even more glaring when Heritage defended autonomous weapon systems , including one manufactured by Hanwha , the SGR-A1 .
The SGR-A1 is an autonomous sentry designed to replace human guards on the DMZ between North and South Korea , complete with the capacity to identify humans through voice recognition and , if a person is unable to provide an access code , fire on an individual with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ machine gun or a grenade launcher .
Activists have expressed concerns about autonomous weapons systems lowering the threshold for initiating the use of deadly force , complicating the chain of accountability , and ignoring ethical concerns that a human operator might take under consideration .
Heritage Foundation Senior Research Fellow Steven Groves , appeared to share none of those concerns in two reports published after Hanwha ’ s December 2014 announcement of its acquisition of Samsung Techwin , the manufacturer of the SGR-A1 .
In a March 2015 report titled , “ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Attempt to Ban Autonomous Weapons , ” Groves mentions the SGR-A1 in the first paragraph as an example of autonomous weapons systems currently under development , and he urged the U.S. delegation to the 2015 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons ( CCW ) to , “ identify nations at the CCW that are inclined to support a ban on [ lethal autonomous weapons systems systems ] and persuade those nations against that course of action.
” Such an effort by the U.S. delegation would have benefited manufacturers of autonomous weapons systems , such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and potential export of systems like the SGR-A1 might be limited by such a ban .
In April 2016 , Groves , again referencing the SGR-A1 as an example of an autonomous weapon system , argued for the normalization of autonomous weapons and for the U.S. and “ like-minded nations ” to convene a “ group of experts drawn from advanced militaries , legal academia , robotics engineers , computer programmers , and ethicists ” to develop a manual on how law of armed conflict principles can be applied to autonomous weapons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goes against “ the momentum in U.N. Forums and among human rights and arms control activists [ … ] to ban [ autonomous weapons ] , not normalize them.
” Groves did not disclose Heritage ’ s funding from Hanwha in either of his reports defending autonomous weapons , which included explicit references to Hanwha ’ s SGR-A1 .
In 2017 , Groves departed Heritage to serve as Chief of Staff for then-U.N .
Ambassador Nikki Haley before moving to the Trump White House where he worked as an assistant special counsel .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ r ] epresented the White House in the investigation conducted by Robert Mueller into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election ” and later worked as deputy press secretary before returning to Heritage in June 2020 .
“ Neither [ Bromund nor Groves were ] aware of Hanwha ’ s donation or any relationship between Heritage and Hanwha , ” said a Heritage spokesperson .
“ Heritage ’ s authority rests on the rigor , depth , and independent nature of our research and analysis .
The Heritage Foundation ’ s broad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guarantees that no donor or group of donors has the ability to direct the views or activities of Heritage.
” Heritage did not provide a conflict of interest policy , when requested , but the spokesperson was adamant that the foundation refuses “ to engage in contract research , ” and “ takes no money from government—whether federal , state , local , tribal , or foreign—for any research activity or any other purpose.
” Heritage added that “ when a potential donor specifies conditions for the use of funds to be donated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conditions would compromise our research independence.
” While Heritage never mentions Hanwha in conjunction with any of its work touching on policies that could impact their donor ’ s business , Hanwha press releases and South Korean media regularly highlighted the close relationship between Heritage and Hanwha leadership .
Between 2012 and 2018 Hanwha published at least six press releases reporting on meetings between Hanwha and Heritage executives .
“ In 2011 , to thank [ Hanwha ] Chairman Kim [ Seung-Youn ] for his contribution to bilateral non-governmental diplomacy , the foundation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ floor of the Heritage Foundation Pennsylvania Avenue Building in Washington , D.C. , the ‘ Kim Seung Youn Conference Center , ’ ” said one such press release .
The Korea Herald published three articles on meetings between Heritage founder Edwin Feulner and Kim just in 2016 and 2017 .
Indeed , the relationship between Kim and Feulner , who chaired the Trump administration ’ s transition team , may have secured Kim a special invitation to Trump ’ s inauguration .
“ Hanwha Group Chairman Kim Seung-youn has been at the vanguard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States , years before uncertainties emerged upon the inauguration of U.S. President Donald Trump , who has expressed skepticism toward the two countries ’ free trade agreement , ” wrote The Korea Herald in June , 2017 .
“ Kim ’ s ties with leading business figures in the US , including Heritage Foundation President Edwin Feulner , has made him one of the rare South Korean business representatives who is able to bridge the differences between the two new administrations and seek mutual benefits.
” The paper later added , “ Kim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inauguration ceremony in January at the recommendation of Feulner.
” Neither the Heritage Foundation nor Hanwha responded to questions about whether the Korea Herald report was accurate and , if so , if Kim took Feulner up on the invitation .
While Heritage and Hanwha are not forthcoming about the details of their multi-million dollar relationship , including whether it is ongoing , several things are clear : Hanwha ’ s $ 5.8 million-plus in contributions to one of the most influential conservative think tanks in the U.S. coincided with high profile meetings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Seoul , a named conference room at Heritage ’ s Washington offices , and a flood of reports and analysis opposing arms control efforts that could have limited the market for several of Hanwha ’ s weapons products , and a potential conflict of interest that Heritage never disclosed in their research products .
Eli Clifton is the research director of Quincy Institute ’ s Democratizing Foreign Policy Program and an investigative journalist who focuses on money in politics and U.S. foreign policy .
He previously reported for the American Independent News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Service .

This article was co-published with Responsible Statecraft.
The conservative Heritage Foundation has consistently fought international treaties banning weapons that pose an outsized threat to civilians in war zones. This would include anti-personnel landmines, cluster munitions, and “killer robots”—as well as regulations that would enforce arms embargoes on human rights offenders. And yet, Heritage fails to disclose a possible financial incentive for taking these positions.
Heritage received at least $5.8 million from the Hanwha Group between 2007 and 2015, according to the organization’s annual reports reviewed by Responsible Statecraft. Between 2010 and 2014, Hanwha—a South Korean conglomerate that has produced landmine and autonomous weapons systems—contributed a minimum of $1 million per year, making Hanwha one of the Heritage Foundation’s biggest donors. Hanwha was not listed as a donor after 2015, but Heritage permits donors to make anonymous contributions and Heritage and the Hanwha Group did not respond to questions about whether the funding arrangement continued after 2015.
However, Korean media regularly reports on the close relationship between Heritage and Hanwha, and suggested their friendly relationship was alive and well, at least as recently as October 2018 when Heritage Foundation founder Edwin J. Feulner and Hanwha Group Chairman Kim Seung-youn met in Seoul. This meeting was documented by The Korea Herald, a major South Korean English language newspaper. Topics discussed included: “difficulties faced by Korean businesses in the U.S., despite the successful renegotiation of the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement.”
“Feulner and the Hanwha chairman have maintained a working relationship for the past 30 years, holding regular meetings to discuss outstanding political and economic issues between the two countries,” concluded The Korea Herald article.
Heritage’s work may have proven particularly beneficial for Hanwha.
In January of that same year, an op-ed by Heritage Senior Research Fellow Theodore R. Bromund took The New York Times editorial board to task for urging the U.S. to join the Mine Ban Treaty, an agreement signed by 164 countries with the goal of eliminating anti-personnel landmines around the world. His column laid out clearly the Heritage Foundation’s positions on arms control agreements that might impact Hanwa.
“Why hasn’t the U.S. gotten rid of its land mines?” Bromund asked. “Because South Korea uses mines to defend itself against North Korea, and South Korea is an ally of ours.” He continued:
“But according to the Times, ‘given the North’s nuclear buildup, a mined DMZ seems to be a Cold War vestige of diminished value.’ So because North Korea has nuclear weapons, we should abandon our land mines? I’m glad the Times wasn’t advising NATO on how to defend Western Europe during the Cold War.”
That was just one of many Heritage op-eds and reports over the years attacking efforts to ban landmines.
South Korea is one of only 33 countries that has not acceded to the Mine Ban Treaty. According to the International Committee to Ban Landmines (ICBL).
“I had no clue Hanhwa was giving [Heritage] money,” said Mark Hiznay, associate director of the Arms Division at Human Rights Watch. “Hanwha for a long time was only producing ammunition and weapons for the South Korean military, but that changed in the mid-2000s when they started broadening their exports.”
The ICBL’s “Stop Explosive Investments” campaign describes Hanwha as “a diversified industrial conglomerate. Its defence division makes munitions, guidance and delivery systems.” In recent years the group has “opened up to the export market, both exhibiting at international arms fairs and selling military equipment abroad.”
“Heritage hasn’t been too hot on multilateral or humanitarian disarmament treaties dating back into the mid-90s, when the first efforts to ban mines start bubbling up on the international stage,” said Hiznay.
Opposing international efforts to eliminate the manufacturing of products produced by one of Heritage’s biggest donors poses a potential conflict of interest that no Heritage scholars disclosed in their condemnation of the Mine Ban Treaty. That potential conflict of interest became even more glaring when Heritage defended autonomous weapon systems, including one manufactured by Hanwha, the SGR-A1.
The SGR-A1 is an autonomous sentry designed to replace human guards on the DMZ between North and South Korea, complete with the capacity to identify humans through voice recognition and, if a person is unable to provide an access code, fire on an individual with a variety of possible weapons, including a machine gun or a grenade launcher. Activists have expressed concerns about autonomous weapons systems lowering the threshold for initiating the use of deadly force, complicating the chain of accountability, and ignoring ethical concerns that a human operator might take under consideration.
Heritage Foundation Senior Research Fellow Steven Groves, appeared to share none of those concerns in two reports published after Hanwha’s December 2014 announcement of its acquisition of Samsung Techwin, the manufacturer of the SGR-A1.
In a March 2015 report titled, “The U.S. Should Oppose the U.N.’s Attempt to Ban Autonomous Weapons,” Groves mentions the SGR-A1 in the first paragraph as an example of autonomous weapons systems currently under development, and he urged the U.S. delegation to the 2015 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) to, “identify nations at the CCW that are inclined to support a ban on [lethal autonomous weapons systems systems] and persuade those nations against that course of action.”
Such an effort by the U.S. delegation would have benefited manufacturers of autonomous weapons systems, such as Hanwha, whose development, sale, and potential export of systems like the SGR-A1 might be limited by such a ban.
In April 2016, Groves, again referencing the SGR-A1 as an example of an autonomous weapon system, argued for the normalization of autonomous weapons and for the U.S. and “like-minded nations” to convene a “group of experts drawn from advanced militaries, legal academia, robotics engineers, computer programmers, and ethicists” to develop a manual on how law of armed conflict principles can be applied to autonomous weapons. Groves acknowledged that such an effort goes against “the momentum in U.N. Forums and among human rights and arms control activists […] to ban [autonomous weapons], not normalize them.”
Groves did not disclose Heritage’s funding from Hanwha in either of his reports defending autonomous weapons, which included explicit references to Hanwha’s SGR-A1.
In 2017, Groves departed Heritage to serve as Chief of Staff for then-U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley before moving to the Trump White House where he worked as an assistant special counsel. Groves’ LinkedIn profile says he “[r]epresented the White House in the investigation conducted by Robert Mueller into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election” and later worked as deputy press secretary before returning to Heritage in June 2020.
“Neither [Bromund nor Groves were] aware of Hanwha’s donation or any relationship between Heritage and Hanwha,” said a Heritage spokesperson. “Heritage’s authority rests on the rigor, depth, and independent nature of our research and analysis. The Heritage Foundation’s broad base of more than a half-million members guarantees that no donor or group of donors has the ability to direct the views or activities of Heritage.”
Heritage did not provide a conflict of interest policy, when requested, but the spokesperson was adamant that the foundation refuses “to engage in contract research,” and “takes no money from government—whether federal, state, local, tribal, or foreign—for any research activity or any other purpose.” Heritage added that “when a potential donor specifies conditions for the use of funds to be donated, Heritage declines the donation if the conditions would compromise our research independence.”
While Heritage never mentions Hanwha in conjunction with any of its work touching on policies that could impact their donor’s business, Hanwha press releases and South Korean media regularly highlighted the close relationship between Heritage and Hanwha leadership.
Between 2012 and 2018 Hanwha published at least six press releases reporting on meetings between Hanwha and Heritage executives.
“In 2011, to thank [Hanwha] Chairman Kim [Seung-Youn] for his contribution to bilateral non-governmental diplomacy, the foundation named the conference center on the 2nd floor of the Heritage Foundation Pennsylvania Avenue Building in Washington, D.C., the ‘Kim Seung Youn Conference Center,’” said one such press release.
The Korea Herald published three articles on meetings between Heritage founder Edwin Feulner and Kim just in 2016 and 2017.
Indeed, the relationship between Kim and Feulner, who chaired the Trump administration’s transition team, may have secured Kim a special invitation to Trump’s inauguration.
“Hanwha Group Chairman Kim Seung-youn has been at the vanguard of fostering business cooperation with the United States, years before uncertainties emerged upon the inauguration of U.S. President Donald Trump, who has expressed skepticism toward the two countries’ free trade agreement,” wrote The Korea Herald in June, 2017.
“Kim’s ties with leading business figures in the US, including Heritage Foundation President Edwin Feulner, has made him one of the rare South Korean business representatives who is able to bridge the differences between the two new administrations and seek mutual benefits.”
The paper later added, “Kim was also invited to Trump’s inauguration ceremony in January at the recommendation of Feulner.”
Neither the Heritage Foundation nor Hanwha responded to questions about whether the Korea Herald report was accurate and, if so, if Kim took Feulner up on the invitation.
While Heritage and Hanwha are not forthcoming about the details of their multi-million dollar relationship, including whether it is ongoing, several things are clear: Hanwha’s $5.8 million-plus in contributions to one of the most influential conservative think tanks in the U.S. coincided with high profile meetings between Hanwha and Heritage’s leadership in Seoul, a named conference room at Heritage’s Washington offices, and a flood of reports and analysis opposing arms control efforts that could have limited the market for several of Hanwha’s weapons products, and a potential conflict of interest that Heritage never disclosed in their research products.
Eli Clifton is the research director of Quincy Institute’s Democratizing Foreign Policy Program and an investigative journalist who focuses on money in politics and U.S. foreign policy. He previously reported for the American Independent News Network, ThinkProgress, and Inter Press Service.


theamericanconservative--2020-07-14--The Shirking Pandemic: Everyone is Passing the Buck

An elderly couple in my home state of North Carolina , married for over fifty years , has been forcibly separated by their nursing home for three months .
The husband , now despondent , says he doesn ’ t want to live anymore if he can ’ t be with his bride .
When pressed about this inhumane policy by a N.C. legislator who also happens to be an M.D.
, Dr. Mandy Cohen , head of N.C. ’ s Department of Health and Human Services , claimed that the matter is out of her hands , alleging visitation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ It is our job , ” she said , “ to carry out those rules.
” It isn ’ t at all clear that this draconian policy is required or enforceable by the Federal government .
What is clear is that Dr. Cohen has little interest in pushing the matter .
We ’ ve seen a lot of buck-passing during this stressful time .
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo claims the Feds made him force nursing homes to take back thousands of COVID-positive residents , which resulted in over 6,000 deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Medicare and Medicaid Services directly contradicts his claim .
Months ago , Cuomo likewise insisted it was the responsibility of the Feds to provide his state with ventilators and respirators , until resistance from D.C. forced him to use the power he already had to redistribute equipment within NY .
It ’ s not just governors abdicating their authority ; officials in Charlotte , N.C. have called on our governor to enact a statewide mask requirement , yet haven ’ t exercised their own authority to require masks .
At the other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politicians who haven ’ t lifted a finger to amend or clarify Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act are up in arms about the recent Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County , GAextending its protections to gay and transgender citizens .
Their position seems to be that it ’ s the job of nine unelected judges to revise federal laws .
When our nation ’ s founders were stratifying authority between branches and levels of government , they assumed we would elect officials with the wisdom and moral courage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it appears we ’ ve achieved the opposite .
Rather than wield powers granted by the U.S. and their respective state constitutions on behalf of citizens , too many elected officials want to push decisions upstairs .
It ’ s a new Anti-Federalism .
Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse castigated his fellow legislators for this Constitution-eroding habit during Brett Kavanaugh ’ s Supreme Court confirmation hearings : “ The legislature is impotent .
The legislature is weak .
And most people here want their jobs more than they really want to do legislative work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the work to the next branch.
” Maine Senator Angus King calls this “ The Great Abdication.
” Scholars have long-noted this Congressional habit .
Congressmen pass vague laws , allow unelected federal bureaucrats to interpret and enforce them , then swoop in to aid select constituents caught up in the Federal gears .
The Mafia used to threaten to burn down your business if you didn ’ t pay protection ; Congress lights the fire and shows up with a bucket of water .
What ’ s newly troubling is evidence that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state and local level too .
North Carolina governor Roy Cooper , for example , recently promised the sister of George Floyd that he would work for justice in Mr. Floyd ’ s name .
Those of us with memories that extend past the last news cycle , however , will recall that Mr. Cooper was our state ’ s Attorney General for 16 years , yet it was the U.S. Department of Justice that had to investigate allegations of systemic racism against an Alamance County Sheriff ’ s Department that was arresting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This tendency to look to the Feds to solve problems is one reason local officials have allowed an intolerable persistence of police abuse for decades .
There ’ s no reason states can ’ t empower their attorneys general to investigate police departments .
They have the authority and the bully pulpit to stand up to police unions .
They are empowered to prohibit local agencies from using military-grade weapons from the Department of Defense , and participating in an unjust civil asset forfeiture program that incentivizes police departments to become outposts of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the authority to reform corrupt police departments , but too many of them lack the courage .
Not only is the new Anti-Federalism literally costing lives , it ’ s rapidly making states and cities mere adjuncts of Washington , D.C. States now get roughly a third of their revenue from Washington , and it comes with strings .
The scandal is that our elected officials make it their business not to scrutinize those strings .
When Oklahoma legislators advanced a bill requiring state agencies to report the extent to which federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mary Fallin vetoed it .
Nearly three-quarters of states require no legislative approval for agencies to accept grants—and all their strings—from the Feds .
A third of them don ’ t even require agencies to get approval from a central authority in their own executive branch .
Looking the Federal gift horse in the mouth might require us to start living within our means .
While acknowledging in NFIB v. Sebelius that Federal dollars can become coercive , Chief Justice Roberts made a powerful observation about where the buck actually stops : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Sometimes they have to act like it.
” Likewise , state and local officials have to act like they were elected to do something other than take orders from people higher up the food chain .
Every single one of them takes an oath to uphold their state constitutions in the service of we the people .
It ’ s high time they remember that .

An elderly couple in my home state of North Carolina, married for over fifty years, has been forcibly separated by their nursing home for three months. The husband, now despondent, says he doesn’t want to live anymore if he can’t be with his bride.
When pressed about this inhumane policy by a N.C. legislator who also happens to be an M.D., Dr. Mandy Cohen, head of N.C.’s Department of Health and Human Services, claimed that the matter is out of her hands, alleging visitation rules are set by the Federal government. “It is our job,” she said, “to carry out those rules.” It isn’t at all clear that this draconian policy is required or enforceable by the Federal government. What is clear is that Dr. Cohen has little interest in pushing the matter.
We’ve seen a lot of buck-passing during this stressful time. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo claims the Feds made him force nursing homes to take back thousands of COVID-positive residents, which resulted in over 6,000 deaths and counting. The head of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services directly contradicts his claim. Months ago, Cuomo likewise insisted it was the responsibility of the Feds to provide his state with ventilators and respirators, until resistance from D.C. forced him to use the power he already had to redistribute equipment within NY.
It’s not just governors abdicating their authority; officials in Charlotte, N.C. have called on our governor to enact a statewide mask requirement, yet haven’t exercised their own authority to require masks. At the other end of the political spectrum, Republican politicians who haven’t lifted a finger to amend or clarify Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act are up in arms about the recent Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, GA extending its protections to gay and transgender citizens. Their position seems to be that it’s the job of nine unelected judges to revise federal laws.
When our nation’s founders were stratifying authority between branches and levels of government, they assumed we would elect officials with the wisdom and moral courage to exercise that authority. Sadly, it appears we’ve achieved the opposite. Rather than wield powers granted by the U.S. and their respective state constitutions on behalf of citizens, too many elected officials want to push decisions upstairs. It’s a new Anti-Federalism.
Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse castigated his fellow legislators for this Constitution-eroding habit during Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings: “The legislature is impotent. The legislature is weak. And most people here want their jobs more than they really want to do legislative work. And so they punt most of the work to the next branch.” Maine Senator Angus King calls this “The Great Abdication.”
Scholars have long-noted this Congressional habit. Congressmen pass vague laws, allow unelected federal bureaucrats to interpret and enforce them, then swoop in to aid select constituents caught up in the Federal gears. The Mafia used to threaten to burn down your business if you didn’t pay protection; Congress lights the fire and shows up with a bucket of water.
What’s newly troubling is evidence that shirking has become a habit at the state and local level too. North Carolina governor Roy Cooper, for example, recently promised the sister of George Floyd that he would work for justice in Mr. Floyd’s name. Those of us with memories that extend past the last news cycle, however, will recall that Mr. Cooper was our state’s Attorney General for 16 years, yet it was the U.S. Department of Justice that had to investigate allegations of systemic racism against an Alamance County Sheriff’s Department that was arresting Latinos at double the statewide rate.
This tendency to look to the Feds to solve problems is one reason local officials have allowed an intolerable persistence of police abuse for decades. There’s no reason states can’t empower their attorneys general to investigate police departments. They have the authority and the bully pulpit to stand up to police unions. They are empowered to prohibit local agencies from using military-grade weapons from the Department of Defense, and participating in an unjust civil asset forfeiture program that incentivizes police departments to become outposts of the Federal drug war. State officials have the authority to reform corrupt police departments, but too many of them lack the courage.
Not only is the new Anti-Federalism literally costing lives, it’s rapidly making states and cities mere adjuncts of Washington, D.C. States now get roughly a third of their revenue from Washington, and it comes with strings. The scandal is that our elected officials make it their business not to scrutinize those strings. When Oklahoma legislators advanced a bill requiring state agencies to report the extent to which federal funds impinge on local autonomy, Governor Mary Fallin vetoed it. Nearly three-quarters of states require no legislative approval for agencies to accept grants—and all their strings—from the Feds. A third of them don’t even require agencies to get approval from a central authority in their own executive branch. Looking the Federal gift horse in the mouth might require us to start living within our means.
While acknowledging in NFIB v. Sebelius that Federal dollars can become coercive, Chief Justice Roberts made a powerful observation about where the buck actually stops: “The States are separate and independent sovereigns. Sometimes they have to act like it.” Likewise, state and local officials have to act like they were elected to do something other than take orders from people higher up the food chain. Every single one of them takes an oath to uphold their state constitutions in the service of we the people. It’s high time they remember that.
Tony Woodlief, Executive Vice President, State Policy Network


theamericanconservative--2020-07-14--Roger Stone’s Deal Is Chickenfeed Compared to Petraeus and Berger

Howls of outrage erupted among members of America ’ s political and media elites when President Trump commuted the prison sentence of his onetime political associate Roger Stone on Friday .
Even though Trump let Stone ’ s felony conviction stand , he criticized both the decision to prosecute and the sentence handed down as unjust .
To Trump and most of his followers , Stone ’ s plight was just the latest travesty arising from Robert Mueller ’ s probe into the “ Russia collusion ” allegations .
To the president ’ s critics , though , sparing Stone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence of Trump ’ s abuse of power and contempt for America ’ s constitutional system .
The ever-helpful Washington Post even noted that in making the decision about Stone , the White House bypassed more than 13,000 other federal inmates who were seeking pardons or commutations .
The implication was obvious : this was a corrupt payoff to a political crony involved in the Russia collusion plot .
Trump ’ s intervention is certainly controversial , and it suggests favoritism to an administration loyalist .
But it is hardly the worst case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more lenient , standard of justice existed with respect to a powerful , politically connected figure in the foreign policy arena .
Two other examples stand out as especially egregious : the sweetheart deals given to Bill Clinton ’ s former national security adviser , Samuel R “ Sandy ” Berger , and former CIA director David Petraeus .
After leaving the Clinton administration , Berger served as a top foreign policy adviser to Sen. John Kerry ( D-MA ) during Kerry ’ s 2004 run for president .
Indeed , Berger was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s short list to become secretary of state .
But evidence emerged during the campaign that in 2000 Berger had illegally removed classified documents on two separate occasions from the National Archives—reportedly by stuffing them down his pants before exiting a secure reading room .
The following year , after months of negotiations with federal prosecutors , he entered a guilty plea to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified material .
It was , to put it mildly , an extremely generous offer by the government .
Berger ’ s theft of highly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , evidence emerged that he did not merely steal the documents , he destroyed three of them—all , according to his testimony , copies rather than originals .
Treating such violations of law as a mere misdemeanor was the essence of a sweetheart deal .
But the penalty phase of the plea bargain was even worse .
Not only did Berger avoid having to serve any jail time , the penalties he did experience barely amounted to a slap on the wrist .
He paid a $ 50,000 fine and relinquished his security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also sentenced him to 100 hours of community service .
Someone with Berger ’ s economic status probably could pay $ 50,000 out of the family ’ s petty cash account .
And losing access to classified material for only three years instead of permanently was an insult to every government employee who had honored the rules connected with such access .
The Petraeus case appeared to be an even clearer example of the Washington establishment protecting one of its own .
His criminal conduct occurred when he served as the commander of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it did not come to light until later when he was head of the CIA during the Obama administration .
After a lengthy FBI investigation , Petraeus admitted that he gave highly-classified journals to his lover , Paula Broadwell , who was writing his biography .
The journals contained extremely sensitive information about the identities of covert officers , military strategy in the Afghan theater , intelligence capabilities and even discussions Petraeus had with senior government officials , up to and including President Obama .
Petraeus also admitted that he had lied to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when first questioned .
Despite such misconduct , he only had to plead guilty to a single misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified information .
Although , theoretically , the penalty for even that violation could be a year in jail , as part of the plea bargain , the general would not have to serve a single day behind bars .
His sentence consisted of two years ’ probation and a $ 100,000 fine .
Although the latter might seem to be a significant financial penalty , it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ single speaking engagement .
It was another example of a flagrant double standard that benefited a prominent member of Washington ’ s military and foreign policy establishment .
The Intercept ’ s Peter Maass fumed that the deal confirmed “ a two-tier justice system in which senior officials are slapped on the wrist for serious violations while lesser officials are harshly prosecuted for relatively minor infractions.
” There is ample evidence of such a double standard .
Maass noted that a year earlier Stephen Kim , a former State Department official , pled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1917 Espionage Act for merely discussing a classified report about North Korea with Fox News reporter James Rosen .
Maass emphasized that Kim did not hand over a copy of the report , he merely discussed it .
Moreover , the report itself “ was subsequently described in court documents as a ‘ nothing burger ’ in terms of its sensitivity.
” Yet , even with the plea deal , Kim was given a 13 month sentence in federal prison .
CIA agent John Kiriakou , who confirmed the name of a CIA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of blowing the whistle on U.S. government abuses ( the reporter never published it ) , received an even longer sentence—30 months in prison , and he did his time .
The double standard at play could scarcely be more blatant .
Another striking feature of the Berger and Petraeus episodes was the meager media outrage about such miscarriages of justice .
A handful of critics spoke out against the extraordinarily mild treatment of Petraeus , but it was a very small contingent .
Even supposedly critical articles in the mainstream press seemed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ send a mixed message .
A Washington Postarticle on the general ’ s guilty plea contended that Petraeus was “ considered one of the greatest military minds of his generation.
” Indeed , that comment was in the piece ’ s opening sentence .
Similarly , the first words in the ABC News account of the guilty plea were “ Decorated war veteran….
” The Miami Herald referred to the conviction as a “ humbling chapter of an exemplary career.
” Such comments stand in stark contrast to the vitriol the journalistic community @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to keep Roger Stone out of prison .
Stone ’ s case does warrant serious concerns about how Washington insiders benefit from their high-level political connections even when they violate the law .
But the questionable aroma arising from this new incident is mild compared to the stench associated with the Berger and Petraeus episodes and the mainstream media ’ s hypocritical treatment of them .
Ted Galen Carpenter , a senior fellow in security studies at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at The American Conservative , is the author of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 12 books , including The Captive Press : Foreign Policy Crises and the First Amendment ( 1995 ) .

Howls of outrage erupted among members of America’s political and media elites when President Trump commuted the prison sentence of his onetime political associate Roger Stone on Friday.
Even though Trump let Stone’s felony conviction stand, he criticized both the decision to prosecute and the sentence handed down as unjust. To Trump and most of his followers, Stone’s plight was just the latest travesty arising from Robert Mueller’s probe into the “Russia collusion” allegations.
To the president’s critics, though, sparing Stone from serving time in prison was more evidence of Trump’s abuse of power and contempt for America’s constitutional system. The ever-helpful Washington Post even noted that in making the decision about Stone, the White House bypassed more than 13,000 other federal inmates who were seeking pardons or commutations. The implication was obvious: this was a corrupt payoff to a political crony involved in the Russia collusion plot.
Trump’s intervention is certainly controversial, and it suggests favoritism to an administration loyalist. But it is hardly the worst case in which a very different, far more lenient, standard of justice existed with respect to a powerful, politically connected figure in the foreign policy arena. Two other examples stand out as especially egregious: the sweetheart deals given to Bill Clinton’s former national security adviser, Samuel R “Sandy” Berger, and former CIA director David Petraeus.
After leaving the Clinton administration, Berger served as a top foreign policy adviser to Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) during Kerry’s 2004 run for president. Indeed, Berger was widely thought to be on Kerry’s short list to become secretary of state. But evidence emerged during the campaign that in 2000 Berger had illegally removed classified documents on two separate occasions from the National Archives—reportedly by stuffing them down his pants before exiting a secure reading room. The following year, after months of negotiations with federal prosecutors, he entered a guilty plea to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified material. It was, to put it mildly, an extremely generous offer by the government. Berger’s theft of highly classified materials was brazen, and worse, evidence emerged that he did not merely steal the documents, he destroyed three of them—all, according to his testimony, copies rather than originals.
Treating such violations of law as a mere misdemeanor was the essence of a sweetheart deal. But the penalty phase of the plea bargain was even worse. Not only did Berger avoid having to serve any jail time, the penalties he did experience barely amounted to a slap on the wrist. He paid a $50,000 fine and relinquished his security clearance for three years. The court also sentenced him to 100 hours of community service. Someone with Berger’s economic status probably could pay $50,000 out of the family’s petty cash account. And losing access to classified material for only three years instead of permanently was an insult to every government employee who had honored the rules connected with such access.
The Petraeus case appeared to be an even clearer example of the Washington establishment protecting one of its own. His criminal conduct occurred when he served as the commander of U.S. military forces in Afghanistan, although it did not come to light until later when he was head of the CIA during the Obama administration. After a lengthy FBI investigation, Petraeus admitted that he gave highly-classified journals to his lover, Paula Broadwell, who was writing his biography. The journals contained extremely sensitive information about the identities of covert officers, military strategy in the Afghan theater, intelligence capabilities and even discussions Petraeus had with senior government officials, up to and including President Obama. Petraeus also admitted that he had lied to FBI and CIA investigators about his conduct when first questioned.
Despite such misconduct, he only had to plead guilty to a single misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified information. Although, theoretically, the penalty for even that violation could be a year in jail, as part of the plea bargain, the general would not have to serve a single day behind bars. His sentence consisted of two years’ probation and a $100,000 fine. Although the latter might seem to be a significant financial penalty, it is reportedly less than Petraeus charges for a single speaking engagement.
It was another example of a flagrant double standard that benefited a prominent member of Washington’s military and foreign policy establishment. The Intercept’s Peter Maass fumed that the deal confirmed “a two-tier justice system in which senior officials are slapped on the wrist for serious violations while lesser officials are harshly prosecuted for relatively minor infractions.”
There is ample evidence of such a double standard. Maass noted that a year earlier Stephen Kim, a former State Department official, pled guilty to one count of violating the 1917 Espionage Act for merely discussing a classified report about North Korea with Fox News reporter James Rosen. Maass emphasized that Kim did not hand over a copy of the report, he merely discussed it. Moreover, the report itself “was subsequently described in court documents as a ‘nothing burger’ in terms of its sensitivity.” Yet, even with the plea deal, Kim was given a 13 month sentence in federal prison. CIA agent John Kiriakou, who confirmed the name of a CIA agent to a reporter in the course of blowing the whistle on U.S. government abuses (the reporter never published it), received an even longer sentence—30 months in prison, and he did his time. The double standard at play could scarcely be more blatant.
Another striking feature of the Berger and Petraeus episodes was the meager media outrage about such miscarriages of justice. A handful of critics spoke out against the extraordinarily mild treatment of Petraeus, but it was a very small contingent. Even supposedly critical articles in the mainstream press seemed to go out of their way to send a mixed message. A Washington Post article on the general’s guilty plea contended that Petraeus was “considered one of the greatest military minds of his generation.” Indeed, that comment was in the piece’s opening sentence. Similarly, the first words in the ABC News account of the guilty plea were “Decorated war veteran….” The Miami Herald referred to the conviction as a “humbling chapter of an exemplary career.”
Such comments stand in stark contrast to the vitriol the journalistic community is directing at Trump’s decision to keep Roger Stone out of prison. Stone’s case does warrant serious concerns about how Washington insiders benefit from their high-level political connections even when they violate the law. But the questionable aroma arising from this new incident is mild compared to the stench associated with the Berger and Petraeus episodes and the mainstream media’s hypocritical treatment of them.
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in security studies at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at The American Conservative, is the author of more than 850 articles as well as 12 books, including The Captive Press: Foreign Policy Crises and the First Amendment (1995).


theamericanconservative--2020-07-16--Making Democrats Own Their “Summer of Love”

Let blue cities and their feckless leaders reckon with the destruction of the violence and looting .
Remember all those “ peaceful protestors , ” later amended to “ mostly peaceful protestors ” ?
You probably recall , also , the Main Stream Media ’ s determined effort to portray the people in the streets protesting the death of George Floyd as nothing but well-meaning reformers—until pictures and video made the spin wear thin .
Indeed , now even Democratic politicians are conceding that this wasn ’ t the “ summer of love.
” With costly reality staring him in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , on July 2 , sent a letter to President Trump , formally requesting $ 15.6 million in federal disaster assistance for the damage done to Minneapolis and St. Paul during the protests/violence over the last two months .
As Walz put it , “ Nearly 1,500 businesses were damaged by vandalism , fire , or looting.
” He added , “ These corridors provide lifeline services like food , pharmaceuticals , health care , housing , and transportation to thousands of Minnesotans.
” In fact , Walz estimated that the total cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 500 million ; he described the events in his state ’ s two largest cities as “ the second most destructive incident of civil unrest in United States history after the 1992 Los Angeles riots.
” Walz further observed , “ The social and economic impacts of this incident will be felt for years , if not decades.
” So who , exactly , did all this damage ?
Here , Walz had to walk a fine line .
Good progressive that he is , he couldn ’ t afford to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need their votes in his next election bid .
Indeed , back in May , he tried to argue that most of the violence was committed by non-Minnesotans .
This dubious assertion was quickly knocked down , and yet in his letter to Trump , Walz offered a different slant on the same outsiders-did-it argument , writing , “ Individuals bent on destruction infiltrated otherwise peaceful protests and began to incite violence and vandalism.
” We might pause to note that Walz seems to be de-emphasizing , here , a word that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looting .
Why ?
Perhaps because looting is so singularly unattractive ( to most people ) that it ’ s best minimized when looking for bailout .
Yet in fact , the looting was so brazen that even The Minneapolis Star Tribune felt obligated to detail it on July 10 ; as the newspaper put it , “ Near Hennepin Avenue and W. Lake Street , nearly 40 businesses were broken into or heavily looted , including large retailers like H & M , Timberland , an Apple store , Kitchen Window and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ added that Walz ’ s $ 500 million estimate might be on the low side : “ The full extent of damage to Twin Cities buildings—including residences , churches , non-profits and minority-owned businesses—could take weeks or months to calculate.
” Indeed , sometimes the damage done to a city in the wake of a riot unfolds over decades .
For instance , Detroit has never recovered from the riot of 1967 ; the population of Motown fell from 1.67 million in 1960 to 713,000 in 2010 .
In the meantime , on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump administration has turned down Walz ’ s aid request .
The report included a quote from Rep. Tom Emmer , a Republican representing exurban Minneapolis as well as rural areas ; it seems that Emmer had written a letter of his own to Trump two days earlier , asking the administration to “ undertake a thorough and concurrent review of my state ’ s response to the violence and provide recommendations so that every Governor , Mayor , and local official can learn from our experiences and ensure appropriate plans are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from ever happening again.
” In other words , Emmer was seeking , at minimum , to add strings to the aid .
As Emmer put it , the feds should analyze “ the actions that were—or were not—taken by local and state officials to prevent one of the most destructive episodes of civil unrest in our nation ’ s history.
” And to drill the point even harder , he cited news media headlines supporting his supposition of state and local fecklessness : “ ‘ They Have Lost Control ’ : Why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Tim Walz Laments ‘ Abject Failure ’ of Riot Response.
” Emmer , of course , is a conservative , not in tune with , for example , the Twin Cities ’ most famous lawmaker , Rep. Ilhan Omar , who has embraced “ defunding the police.
” By contrast , on July 11 , Emmer tweeted a poll showing that 81 percent of residents in the small city of St .
Cloud , in Emmer ’ s district , believe that the police there “ have an excellent relationship with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Emmer is more than just a Republican lawmaker representing a conservative district .
He is also the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee , the campaign arm of the House Republicans .
Not surprisingly , the NRCC Twitter feed regularly zings House Democrats , and it ’ s a safe bet that Emmer and his rapid responders are now poised to target those who might take a progressive position on the national response , including financial aid , to recently afflicted cities .
We can see the NRCC tweet now : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that looked the other way while their cities were vandalized and looted.
” In fact , between Trump ’ s opposition and Republicans on watch , it ’ s likely that the Democrats will say little about rebuilding vandalized and looted cities—at least until after the election .
However , if Joe Biden wins this November—and the polls show him nearly 10 points ahead , which suggests Democrats everywhere will do well—then it ’ s likely that a Biden administration will look more kindly on Walz ’ s request .
Indeed , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , starting with the Department of Housing and Urban Development , will seek to spend freely .
After all , Biden tweeted , just on July 5 , “ We won ’ t just rebuild this nation—we ’ ll transform it.
” And Sen. Bernie Sanders , fresh from his policy mind-meld with the Biden campaign , declares that Biden is shaping up to be the most progressive president since Franklin D. Roosevelt .
So one wonders : In such a heady ideological moment , how far could the Democrats go ?
Perhaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maybe a “ Marshall Plan ” for the Other America ?
And can the Green New Deal be focused on blue dot cities ?
Yet even if Republicans are out of power next year , they won ’ t be without a voice .
For his part , Emmer raises pointed questions about urban aid , and so some Democrats—especially those many now representing suburbs—will have to think twice about voting for blank checks to mayors and their lefty constituents .
That is , if the city council in Minneapolis votes , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the police , well , maybe most Americans will think that woke urbanites ought to be left to stew in their own crime juice .
Other Republicans , too , seem ready to pounce .
On the floor of the Senate on July 2 , Mike Lee of Utah blasted “ mob violence , ” including “ dimwitted , phony drama addicts.
” Lest he be misunderstood , Lee went on to rip “ a privileged , self-absorbed crime syndicate with participation trophy graduate degrees , trying to find meaning in empty lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spent honest , productive lives building.
” Then Lee got right down to the money issue : “ The whole garbage fire that is the woke ideology depends on federal money .
The mob that hates America on America ’ s dime .
It ’ s time to cut off their allowance !
” So put Lee down as a loud “ no ” on any big bailout .
Then on July 12 , Sen. Ted Cruz tweeted , “ Minnesota Dems willfully allowed Minneapolis to burn & then blamed the police whom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fed govt to pay the bill .
I ’ m introducing legislation to make local govt liable to private property owners if officials deliberately withhold police protection.
” Cruz ’ s bill won ’ t pass this year , nor the next , and yet a line has been drawn .
If Cruz and Republicans can figure out how to hold a vote on that liability legislation—or on other bills of a similar nature—they will be putting Democrats in a tough spot .
Of course , the typical legislative response to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to vote on it .
Indeed , both parties have grown skilled at the parliamentary art of obscuring unpopular items with “ omnibuses ” and “ continuing resolutions ” ; that is , the money gets spent , but with no specific fingerprints on any particular line item .
Yet in the long run , the voters will figure out who voted to bail out looter-friendly cities—and who didn ’ t .
Still , in the shorter term , Emmer , Lee , Cruz , & Co. will be dismissed as mere gadflies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this year .
Indeed , Biden is ahead in Texas , and credible pundits even speculate that he could win the biggest victory for a Democratic presidential nominee since 1964 .
And if Democrats were to win big this year , they ’ d be high in the water , indeed , in the 117th Congress convening next year .
Why they might even seek to emulate the 89th Congress , which convened in 1965 , and which did , indeed , dream big .
If so , then Republicans will have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Emmer , Lee , and Cruz .
One ’ s crystal ball for the future is , of course , cloudy , and yet the record of the past is clear enough , and so we can recall that in the mid 60s , when ebullient Democrats over-promised and under-delivered—on everything from urban renewal to Vietnam pacification— Republicans were ready with their counterstroke .
And the voters were ready with their backlash .
Thus just two years after their 1964 triumph , Democrats were drubbed in the 1966 midterm elections ; one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might recall , was that underrated actor-turned-underrated politician , Ronald Reagan .
Then in 1968 , just four years after they had been crushed in the national election , Republicans won the the presidency .
Thus a half-century ago , Democratic hubris met Republican nemesis .
Today , that ’ s something for Democrats to ponder as many plan , once again , to transform the nation .

Remember all those “peaceful protestors,” later amended to “mostly peaceful protestors”? You probably recall, also, the Main Stream Media’s determined effort to portray the people in the streets protesting the death of George Floyd as nothing but well-meaning reformers—until pictures and video made the spin wear thin.
Indeed, now even Democratic politicians are conceding that this wasn’t the “summer of love.”
With costly reality staring him in the face, Minnesota governor Tim Walz, on July 2, sent a letter to President Trump, formally requesting $15.6 million in federal disaster assistance for the damage done to Minneapolis and St. Paul during the protests/violence over the last two months. As Walz put it, “Nearly 1,500 businesses were damaged by vandalism, fire, or looting.” He added, “These corridors provide lifeline services like food, pharmaceuticals, health care, housing, and transportation to thousands of Minnesotans.”
In fact, Walz estimated that the total cost of the damage could be upwards of $500 million; he described the events in his state’s two largest cities as “the second most destructive incident of civil unrest in United States history after the 1992 Los Angeles riots.” Walz further observed, “The social and economic impacts of this incident will be felt for years, if not decades.”
So who, exactly, did all this damage? Here, Walz had to walk a fine line. Good progressive that he is, he couldn’t afford to be too critical of the protestors—because he might need their votes in his next election bid. Indeed, back in May, he tried to argue that most of the violence was committed by non-Minnesotans.
This dubious assertion was quickly knocked down, and yet in his letter to Trump, Walz offered a different slant on the same outsiders-did-it argument, writing, “Individuals bent on destruction infiltrated otherwise peaceful protests and began to incite violence and vandalism.” We might pause to note that Walz seems to be de-emphasizing, here, a word that he mentioned only once in the letter: looting. Why? Perhaps because looting is so singularly unattractive (to most people) that it’s best minimized when looking for bailout.
Yet in fact, the looting was so brazen that even The Minneapolis Star Tribune felt obligated to detail it on July 10; as the newspaper put it, “Near Hennepin Avenue and W. Lake Street, nearly 40 businesses were broken into or heavily looted, including large retailers like H&M, Timberland, an Apple store, Kitchen Window and Urban Outfitters.”
The Star Tribune further added that Walz’s $500 million estimate might be on the low side: “The full extent of damage to Twin Cities buildings—including residences, churches, non-profits and minority-owned businesses—could take weeks or months to calculate.”
Indeed, sometimes the damage done to a city in the wake of a riot unfolds over decades. For instance, Detroit has never recovered from the riot of 1967; the population of Motown fell from 1.67 million in 1960 to 713,000 in 2010.
In the meantime, on July 11, the Star Tribune reported that the Trump administration has turned down Walz’s aid request. The report included a quote from Rep. Tom Emmer, a Republican representing exurban Minneapolis as well as rural areas; it seems that Emmer had written a letter of his own to Trump two days earlier, asking the administration to “undertake a thorough and concurrent review of my state’s response to the violence and provide recommendations so that every Governor, Mayor, and local official can learn from our experiences and ensure appropriate plans are in place to prevent something like this from ever happening again.” In other words, Emmer was seeking, at minimum, to add strings to the aid.
As Emmer put it, the feds should analyze “the actions that were—or were not—taken by local and state officials to prevent one of the most destructive episodes of civil unrest in our nation’s history.” And to drill the point even harder, he cited news media headlines supporting his supposition of state and local fecklessness: “‘They Have Lost Control’: Why Minneapolis Burned,” and “Gov. Tim Walz Laments ‘Abject Failure’ of Riot Response.”
Emmer, of course, is a conservative, not in tune with, for example, the Twin Cities’ most famous lawmaker, Rep. Ilhan Omar, who has embraced “defunding the police.” By contrast, on July 11, Emmer tweeted a poll showing that 81 percent of residents in the small city of St. Cloud, in Emmer’s district, believe that the police there “have an excellent relationship with the community.”
We might also note that Emmer is more than just a Republican lawmaker representing a conservative district. He is also the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, the campaign arm of the House Republicans. Not surprisingly, the NRCC Twitter feed regularly zings House Democrats, and it’s a safe bet that Emmer and his rapid responders are now poised to target those who might take a progressive position on the national response, including financial aid, to recently afflicted cities. We can see the NRCC tweet now: “Rep. ___ supports bailout for mayors that looked the other way while their cities were vandalized and looted.”
In fact, between Trump’s opposition and Republicans on watch, it’s likely that the Democrats will say little about rebuilding vandalized and looted cities—at least until after the election.
However, if Joe Biden wins this November—and the polls show him nearly 10 points ahead, which suggests Democrats everywhere will do well—then it’s likely that a Biden administration will look more kindly on Walz’s request.
Indeed, we could expect that the whole federal government, starting with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, will seek to spend freely. After all, Biden tweeted, just on July 5, “We won’t just rebuild this nation—we’ll transform it.” And Sen. Bernie Sanders, fresh from his policy mind-meld with the Biden campaign, declares that Biden is shaping up to be the most progressive president since Franklin D. Roosevelt.
So one wonders: In such a heady ideological moment, how far could the Democrats go? Perhaps another “Great Society”? Or maybe a “Marshall Plan” for the Other America? And can the Green New Deal be focused on blue dot cities?
Yet even if Republicans are out of power next year, they won’t be without a voice. For his part, Emmer raises pointed questions about urban aid, and so some Democrats—especially those many now representing suburbs—will have to think twice about voting for blank checks to mayors and their lefty constituents. That is, if the city council in Minneapolis votes, as it did, unanimously, to defund the police, well, maybe most Americans will think that woke urbanites ought to be left to stew in their own crime juice.
Other Republicans, too, seem ready to pounce. On the floor of the Senate on July 2, Mike Lee of Utah blasted “mob violence,” including “dimwitted, phony drama addicts.” Lest he be misunderstood, Lee went on to rip “a privileged, self-absorbed crime syndicate with participation trophy graduate degrees, trying to find meaning in empty lives by destroying things that other Americans have spent honest, productive lives building.”
Then Lee got right down to the money issue: “The whole garbage fire that is the woke ideology depends on federal money. The mob that hates America on America’s dime. It’s time to cut off their allowance!” So put Lee down as a loud “no” on any big bailout.
Then on July 12, Sen. Ted Cruz tweeted, “Minnesota Dems willfully allowed Minneapolis to burn & then blamed the police whom they demonized. Now, they want the fed govt to pay the bill. I’m introducing legislation to make local govt liable to private property owners if officials deliberately withhold police protection.”
Cruz’s bill won’t pass this year, nor the next, and yet a line has been drawn. If Cruz and Republicans can figure out how to hold a vote on that liability legislation—or on other bills of a similar nature—they will be putting Democrats in a tough spot.
Of course, the typical legislative response to a “poison pill” bill is not to vote on it. Indeed, both parties have grown skilled at the parliamentary art of obscuring unpopular items with “omnibuses” and “continuing resolutions”; that is, the money gets spent, but with no specific fingerprints on any particular line item.
Yet in the long run, the voters will figure out who voted to bail out looter-friendly cities—and who didn’t.
Still, in the shorter term, Emmer, Lee, Cruz, & Co. will be dismissed as mere gadflies, especially if the Democrats win big this year. Indeed, Biden is ahead in Texas, and credible pundits even speculate that he could win the biggest victory for a Democratic presidential nominee since 1964.
And if Democrats were to win big this year, they’d be high in the water, indeed, in the 117th Congress convening next year. Why they might even seek to emulate the 89th Congress, which convened in 1965, and which did, indeed, dream big.
If so, then Republicans will have to rely on smart Congressional critics such as Emmer, Lee, and Cruz. One’s crystal ball for the future is, of course, cloudy, and yet the record of the past is clear enough, and so we can recall that in the mid 60s, when ebullient Democrats over-promised and under-delivered—on everything from urban renewal to Vietnam pacification— Republicans were ready with their counterstroke. And the voters were ready with their backlash.
Thus just two years after their 1964 triumph, Democrats were drubbed in the 1966 midterm elections; one of the GOP winners that year, we might recall, was that underrated actor-turned-underrated politician, Ronald Reagan.
Then in 1968, just four years after they had been crushed in the national election, Republicans won the the presidency.
Thus a half-century ago, Democratic hubris met Republican nemesis. Today, that’s something for Democrats to ponder as many plan, once again, to transform the nation.


theamericanconservative--2020-07-16--Meet Your New Elites: The Woke Cancel Mobs

If only we could all lead pampered lives like Salman Rushdie .
Last week , several dozen writers and intellectuals published a letter in Harper ’ s Magazine that condemned—though they never used the term explicitly—cancel culture .
The signatories included Margaret Atwood and Martin Amis , Gloria Steinem and Steven Pinker , while the missive itself was a fairly routine statement of classical liberal principles .
“ The free exchange of information and ideas , ” it reads , “ the lifeblood of a liberal society , is daily becoming more constricted.
” Also : “ The restriction of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or an intolerant society , invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation.
” The political right under Donald Trump long ago grew illiberal , the signers say .
Now the resistance to Trump and the online woke are going the same way .
What happened next was utterly predictable .
Conservatives , despite being denounced as illiberal in the very first paragraph , did not attack the letter , demand consequences for the signers , sneer themselves into post-anoxic comas on Twitter ; mostly they praised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The left , meanwhile , began a four-alarm hissy fit that ’ s somehow still ongoing today .
The letter was accused of fanning a moral panic .
Cancel culture was dismissed as fake news , a repackaging of normal political passions and activism into a counterfeit bogey .
Mostly though , progressives just crammed the letter into their usual class war .
The signatories were tagged as elites desperately trying to safeguard their privilege , in contrast to their targets , the huddled masses of the Twitter woke .
The letter ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Huffington Post put it , were “ ordinary people ” who lack “ institutional power ” and “ point out the failures of those institutions.
” A woke response letter published at The Objective , which appears to have been penned by an illiterate—it may be that the real divide here is between those who can write and those who can ’ t—claimed of the first letter , “ The content of the letter also does not deal with the problem of power : who has it and who does not.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has decided to bestow its platform not to marginalized people but to people who already have large followings and plenty of opportunities to make their views heard.
” A few words on all this .
First , you don ’ t get more “ marginalized ” than having a fatwa declared against your novel by a national government , becoming the target of riots and book burnings , being forced into hiding , and dodging repeated attempts on your life , as happened to Salman Rushdie , one of the Harper ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was exiled from Russia for supporting democracy .
To be sure , this hardly compares to the tribulations undergone by your average Huffington Post staffer , who risks ennui-filled glances from her coworkers every time she shares the wrong Handmaid ’ s Tale GIF .
But it does seem like Rushdie and Kasparov might know something about standing up for free expression .
It may even be that we should consider what they have to say .
Second and more importantly , the reaction to the letter demonstrates just how oblivious the left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Back in the 1960s , to be a leftist was to be countercultural , smashing monogamy and fighting the man .
Today ’ s left wants that same rebellious aura , except that they ’ ve since marched through just about every major institution .
Academia swallows whole their assumptions ; so does the publishing industry , many corporate boards , much of the media , the federal bureaucracy , a healthy section of the internet .
Those who speak out against the Harper ’ s letter are thus not remotely “ marginalized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often .
Many of them have blue Twitter checkmarks , that garish amulet of the modern elite .
This is how power works now : money and rank matter less than they used to , visibility and influence count for more .
And by those yardsticks , the woke are plenty powerful .
This is why a social media mob—an aggregate of all that power—can be just as coercive , just as authoritarian , as an out-of-control government .
Yet the wokesters refuse to see this .
They act as though by participating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ merely exercising their own free speech , their right to critique authority , a far cry from the state shutting someone up .
In this , they make a mistake usually committed by only the most doctrinaire libertarians .
There ’ s a tendency among some libertarians to divide the world into the private sector and the public sector .
And right on—that bifurcation is healthy and necessary , even if these are imprecise and overlapping terms .
But emblazon that line too brightly and the division can become a moral one .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ side as suspect and worthy of criticism , while rationalizing away the bad on the private side .
That ’ s just business being business , you say .
You come to view Google , for example , as not just free to do as it likes , but fundamentally justified in its actions by mere virtue of its epistemological geography in the private sector .
The woke left is now falling into a similar trap .
So long as the government isn ’ t kicking down anyone ’ s door , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at work , since their angry letters and boycotts all fall under the umbrella of private expression .
Yet such private expression can be a bullying force all its own .
A professor who risks being fired from his position and permanently stigmatized on the internet because he says the wrong thing is not really free to speak his mind .
He may not receive a cease-and-desist order in the mail , but he ’ s still being suppressed .
Yet the left has willfully blindfolded itself to this .
Over at The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ When a speaker is denied or when staffers at a publication argue that something should not have been published , the rights of the parties in question haven ’ t been violated in any way.
” That ’ s technically true .
But the result can be close to the same .
The idea that the spirit of free speech can ’ t be squashed by private actors , by a culture or a crowd , is absurd .
From here , the woke left issues another denial : cancel culture doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Harper ’ s letter frets about , they say , is just a smattering of incidents that hardly amount to a pattern .
Really ?
A University of Chicago economist was recently put on leave for criticizing Black Lives Matter and opposing efforts to defund police departments .
A political data analyst was fired for tweeting out academic research that found that riots in 1968 helped Richard Nixon .
A children ’ s author was sacked for saying she stood with J.K. Rowling .
A novelist stopped her own book from being published @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slavery .
Another novelist had his book yanked for the crime of being set during the Kosovo War .
Two professors at Yale stepped down as heads of a residential college because they ’ d suggested the university didn ’ t need a policy against offensive Halloween costumes .
A New York Review of Books editor resigned for publishing an essay by a broadcaster who ’ d been acquitted of sexual assault .
Conservatives like Charles Murray , Christina Hoff Sommers , and Ben Shapiro have been regularly attacked and disrupted when they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How much more needs to happen before we ’ re allowed to acknowledge a trend ?
This isn ’ t prudent maintenance of the Overton window , weeding out genuine hatred and bigotry ; it ’ s the enforcement of the whims of a neighing , infantile mob .
Its aim isn ’ t to inquire and improve , but to ossify and silence .
The Harper ’ s signers thus aren ’ t “ the real illiberals , ” as the woke have asserted .
Nothing in their letter suggests they want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ critics .
What they desire is the opposite : an end to hair-trigger punishments that have sent a chill through our intellectual life .
It shouldn ’ t be remotely surprising that artists and academics support free expression .
What should really flabbergast us is that the consensus in bohemia and the ivory tower is tilting in the other direction .
As I wrap up this column , Bari Weiss , one of the Harper ’ s signers , has just left the New York Times , citing a hostile woke work environment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has narrowly survived an attempt to cancel him .
The new orthodoxy is intolerant , hell-bent on enforcing its views , pathetically shadowboxing an elite it long ago joined .
It threatens nothing less than our essential ability to communicate .

If only we could all lead pampered lives like Salman Rushdie.
Last week, several dozen writers and intellectuals published a letter in Harper’s Magazine that condemned—though they never used the term explicitly—cancel culture. The signatories included Margaret Atwood and Martin Amis, Gloria Steinem and Steven Pinker, while the missive itself was a fairly routine statement of classical liberal principles. “The free exchange of information and ideas,” it reads, “the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted.” Also: “The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation.” The political right under Donald Trump long ago grew illiberal, the signers say. Now the resistance to Trump and the online woke are going the same way.
What happened next was utterly predictable. Conservatives, despite being denounced as illiberal in the very first paragraph, did not attack the letter, demand consequences for the signers, sneer themselves into post-anoxic comas on Twitter; mostly they praised the document and passed it around. The left, meanwhile, began a four-alarm hissy fit that’s somehow still ongoing today. The letter was accused of fanning a moral panic. Cancel culture was dismissed as fake news, a repackaging of normal political passions and activism into a counterfeit bogey.
Mostly though, progressives just crammed the letter into their usual class war. The signatories were tagged as elites desperately trying to safeguard their privilege, in contrast to their targets, the huddled masses of the Twitter woke. The letter’s critics, as Michael Hobbes of the Huffington Post put it, were “ordinary people” who lack “institutional power” and “point out the failures of those institutions.” A woke response letter published at The Objective, which appears to have been penned by an illiterate—it may be that the real divide here is between those who can write and those who can’t—claimed of the first letter, “The content of the letter also does not deal with the problem of power: who has it and who does not.” It continued, “Harper’s has decided to bestow its platform not to marginalized people but to people who already have large followings and plenty of opportunities to make their views heard.”
A few words on all this.
First, you don’t get more “marginalized” than having a fatwa declared against your novel by a national government, becoming the target of riots and book burnings, being forced into hiding, and dodging repeated attempts on your life, as happened to Salman Rushdie, one of the Harper’s signers. Another, Garry Kasparov, was exiled from Russia for supporting democracy. To be sure, this hardly compares to the tribulations undergone by your average Huffington Post staffer, who risks ennui-filled glances from her coworkers every time she shares the wrong Handmaid’s Tale GIF. But it does seem like Rushdie and Kasparov might know something about standing up for free expression. It may even be that we should consider what they have to say.
Second and more importantly, the reaction to the letter demonstrates just how oblivious the left has become to its own power. Back in the 1960s, to be a leftist was to be countercultural, smashing monogamy and fighting the man. Today’s left wants that same rebellious aura, except that they’ve since marched through just about every major institution. Academia swallows whole their assumptions; so does the publishing industry, many corporate boards, much of the media, the federal bureaucracy, a healthy section of the internet. Those who speak out against the Harper’s letter are thus not remotely “marginalized”; they are heard loudly and often. Many of them have blue Twitter checkmarks, that garish amulet of the modern elite. This is how power works now: money and rank matter less than they used to, visibility and influence count for more. And by those yardsticks, the woke are plenty powerful.
This is why a social media mob—an aggregate of all that power—can be just as coercive, just as authoritarian, as an out-of-control government. Yet the wokesters refuse to see this. They act as though by participating in cancel culture, they’re merely exercising their own free speech, their right to critique authority, a far cry from the state shutting someone up. In this, they make a mistake usually committed by only the most doctrinaire libertarians. There’s a tendency among some libertarians to divide the world into the private sector and the public sector. And right on—that bifurcation is healthy and necessary, even if these are imprecise and overlapping terms. But emblazon that line too brightly and the division can become a moral one. You start treating everything on the public side as suspect and worthy of criticism, while rationalizing away the bad on the private side. That’s just business being business, you say. You come to view Google, for example, as not just free to do as it likes, but fundamentally justified in its actions by mere virtue of its epistemological geography in the private sector.
The woke left is now falling into a similar trap. So long as the government isn’t kicking down anyone’s door, they say, there’s no censorship at work, since their angry letters and boycotts all fall under the umbrella of private expression. Yet such private expression can be a bullying force all its own. A professor who risks being fired from his position and permanently stigmatized on the internet because he says the wrong thing is not really free to speak his mind. He may not receive a cease-and-desist order in the mail, but he’s still being suppressed. Yet the left has willfully blindfolded itself to this. Over at The New Republic, Osita Nwanevu notes, “When a speaker is denied or when staffers at a publication argue that something should not have been published, the rights of the parties in question haven’t been violated in any way.” That’s technically true. But the result can be close to the same. The idea that the spirit of free speech can’t be squashed by private actors, by a culture or a crowd, is absurd.
From here, the woke left issues another denial: cancel culture doesn’t really exist. What the Harper’s letter frets about, they say, is just a smattering of incidents that hardly amount to a pattern. Really? A University of Chicago economist was recently put on leave for criticizing Black Lives Matter and opposing efforts to defund police departments. A political data analyst was fired for tweeting out academic research that found that riots in 1968 helped Richard Nixon. A children’s author was sacked for saying she stood with J.K. Rowling. A novelist stopped her own book from being published after it was attacked for depicting intra-racial slavery.
Another novelist had his book yanked for the crime of being set during the Kosovo War. Two professors at Yale stepped down as heads of a residential college because they’d suggested the university didn’t need a policy against offensive Halloween costumes. A New York Review of Books editor resigned for publishing an essay by a broadcaster who’d been acquitted of sexual assault. Conservatives like Charles Murray, Christina Hoff Sommers, and Ben Shapiro have been regularly attacked and disrupted when they try to speak on college campuses. How much more needs to happen before we’re allowed to acknowledge a trend? This isn’t prudent maintenance of the Overton window, weeding out genuine hatred and bigotry; it’s the enforcement of the whims of a neighing, infantile mob. Its aim isn’t to inquire and improve, but to ossify and silence.
The Harper’s signers thus aren’t “the real illiberals,” as the woke have asserted. Nothing in their letter suggests they want to use their power to silence their critics. What they desire is the opposite: an end to hair-trigger punishments that have sent a chill through our intellectual life. It shouldn’t be remotely surprising that artists and academics support free expression. What should really flabbergast us is that the consensus in bohemia and the ivory tower is tilting in the other direction. As I wrap up this column, Bari Weiss, one of the Harper’s signers, has just left the New York Times, citing a hostile woke work environment. Steven Pinker, another signatory, has narrowly survived an attempt to cancel him. The new orthodoxy is intolerant, hell-bent on enforcing its views, pathetically shadowboxing an elite it long ago joined. It threatens nothing less than our essential ability to communicate.