A political party that needs to die

 On the same day that the select committee investigating January 6 began its hearings, the third-ranking House Republican - the one who got that position by replacing Liz Cheney - offered this pathetically lame attempt to put the onus for the insurrection on Nancy Pelosi:

Representative Elise Stefanik (R., N.Y.) on Tuesday claimed that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi “bears responsibility” for the January 6 Capitol riot and accused the “drooling media” of being “too petrified” to question the Democratic leader about it.

“The mainstream media serves as Lame Duck Nancy Pelosi’s loyal stenographers,” Stefanik wrote in a tweet. “No questions allowed about Speaker Pelosi! All off limits.”

“Speaker of the House clearly bears responsibility for not securing the US Capitol on Jan 6th – But the drooling media is too petrified to ask,” she added.

The tweet came after the congresswoman made similar accusations during a press conference on Tuesday morning. 

“The American people deserve to know the truth. That Nancy Pelosi bears responsibility, as speaker of the House, for the tragedy that occurred on January 6,” Stefanik said then. 

She said the Capitol Police expressed concerns about security ahead of January 6, when a mob of former President Trump’s supporters stormed the Capitol as Congress met to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election.

“Rather than providing them with the support and resources they needed and they deserved, she prioritized her partisan, political optics over their safety,” Stefanik said. 

Other Republican leaders, including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, have made similar claims.

McCarthy said that nearly a month before the uprising “the leadership knew there was a problem.”

Got that? The blame lies with Congressional leadership for having the temerity to assume that it could go about its Constitutional obligations free of violent invasion of its chambers rather than with the instigators themselves. Victim-blaming much?

Compare and contrast opening remarks at the hearing given the same day by Cheney, she who was replaced by Stefaniak:

Thank you very much, Chairman Thompson. Thank you to all of my colleagues on this committee, and thank you to each of the witnesses appearing before us today. It is because of you -- you held the line, you defended all of us, you defended the Capitol, and you defended the Constitution and our Republic, and every American owes you our undying gratitude. Every American, I hope, will be able to hear your testimony today and will watch the videos. The videos show the unbelievable violence and the inexcusable and intolerable cruelty that you all faced, and people need to know the truth.

I want to begin by reflecting briefly on the investigation that we are launching today. Every one of us here on the dais voted for and would have preferred that these matters be investigated by an independent non-partisan commission, composed of five prominent Americans selected by each party, and modeled on the 9/11 Commission. Although such a commission was opposed by my own leadership in the House, it overwhelmingly passed with the support of 35 Republican members, it was defeated by Republicans in the Senate. And that leaves us where we are today.

We cannot leave the violence of January 6th – and its causes – uninvestigated. The American people deserve the full and open testimony of every person with knowledge of the planning and preparation for January 6th. We must know what happened here at the Capitol. We must also know what happened every minute of that day in the White House – every phone call, every conversation, every meeting leading up to, during, and after the attack. Honorable men and women have an obligation to step forward. If those responsible are not held accountable, and if Congress does not act responsibly, this will remain a cancer on our Constitutional Republic, undermining the peaceful transfer of power at the heart of our democratic system. We will face the threat of more violence in the months to come, and another January 6th every four years.

I have been a conservative Republican since 1984 when I first voted for Ronald Reagan. I have disagreed sharply on policy and politics with almost every Democratic member of this committee. But, in the end, we are one nation under God. The Framers of our Constitution recognized the danger of the vicious factionalism of partisan politics – and they knew that our daily arguments could become so fierce that we might lose track of our most important obligation – to defend the rule of law and the freedom of all Americans. That is why our Framers compelled each of us to swear a solemn oath to preserve and protect the Constitution. When a threat to our constitutional order arises, as it has here, we are obligated to rise above politics. This investigation must be non-partisan.

While we begin today by taking the public testimony of these four heroic men, we must also realize that the task of this committee will require persistence. We must issue and enforce subpoenas promptly. We must get to objective truth. We must overcome the many efforts we are already seeing to cover up and obscure the facts.

On January 6th and in the days thereafter, almost all members of my party recognized the events of that day for what they actually were. One Republican, for example, said: “What is happening at the U.S. Capitol right now is unacceptable and un-American. Those participating in lawlessness and violence must be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.” No Member of Congress should now attempt to defend the indefensible, obstruct this investigation, or whitewash what happened that day. We must act with honor and duty, and in the interest of our nation.

America is great because we preserve our democratic institutions at all costs. Until January 6th, we were proof positive for the world that a nation conceived in liberty could long endure. But now, January 6th threatens our most sacred legacy. The question for every one of us who serves in Congress, for every elected official across this great nation, indeed, for every American is this: Will we adhere to the rule of law? Will we respect the rulings of our courts? Will we preserve the peaceful transition of power? Or will we be so blinded by partisanship that we throw away the miracle of America? Do we hate our political adversaries more than we love our country and revere our Constitution? I pray that that is not the case. I pray that we all remember, our children are watching, as we carry out this solemn and sacred duty entrusted to us. Our children will know who stood for truth, and they will inherit the nation we hand to them – a Republic, if we can keep it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Once testimony at the hearing got underway, it was gut wrenching indeed:

Tears and a frustrated slammed fist punctuated the testimony from four emotional Capitol Police and Metropolitan Police officers during the first House select committee hearing to investigate the Jan. 6 riot on Tuesday. 

Capitol Police Sgt. Aquilino Gonell teared up, taking a moment to compose himself, as he described realizing that his family members in the U.S. and abroad were "were frantically calling and texting me from 2 p.m. onward" while watching the violence on television. 

When he got home, he pushed away his wife when she came to give him a hug, because of the chemicals on his uniform. 

“We’re not asking for medals or recognition. We’re simply asking for justice and accountability,” Gonnell said.

Next up was Michael Fanone:

Fanone, normally a plain-clothes officer who put on his uniform in order to assist with the mob response, described being in a tunnel attempting to fend off the mob. He described being dragged from the line of officers and into the crowd. 

"I heard someone scream, 'I got one!'" Fanone said. "As I was swarmed by a violent mob, they ripped off my badge. They grabbed and stripped me of my radio. They seized ammunition that was secured to my body. They beat me with their fists and with what felt like hard metal objects.” 

“At one point, I came face-to-face with an attacker who repeatedly lunged for me and attempted to remove my firearm. I heard chanting from some in the crowd: ‘Get his gun, and kill him with his own gun,’” he said. “I was electrocuted again, and again, and again, with a taser. I’m sure I was screaming, but I don’t think I could even hear my own voice.” 

He said that he considered using his firearm on the attackers, but knew that he would be quickly overwhelmed. After yelling that he had children, someone helped him away from the mob. He was unconscious for about four minutes, and the hospital told him that he had suffered a heart attack and traumatic brain disorder. 

Fanone’s body camera caught the assault, and some of it was shown later in the hearing.

Daniel Hodges recounts his experience:

Metropolitan Police officer Daniel Hodges, who at one point was shown on video being crushed by a coordinated mob attempting to break into the Capitol, clearly called those in the mob “terrorists.” 

One rioter yelled at him “You will die on your knees,” he said. Another attempted to gouge his eye out with his thumb, but Hodges shook him off before any permanent damage was done. 

“To my perpetual confusion, I saw the ‘thin blue line’ flag,” Hodges said. 

Harry Dunn verifies that the insurrection had a racist element:

Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn described getting a screenshot from a friend showing rioter plans to target the Capitol, urging demonstrators to bring "trauma kits" and "gas masks" and to “keep your guns hidden.” But because he had not received any threat warnings from his chain of command, he did not believe the Capitol and officers were at risk. 

He described rioters calling other black officers and himself the n-word to their faces. “No one had ever — ever — called me a n***** while wearing the uniform of a Capitol Police officer,” Dunn said.

And yesterday,  a Texas political figure from one of America's most prominent political families discovered the price to be paid for sucking up to the Very Stable Genius:

On Monday night, Donald Trump issued his endorsement in next year’s race for Texas attorney general. You’ll never guess who he picked. Let me give you a hint: It was not the guy whose name rhymes with tush.

Thus concludes the single most craven political career in—honestly, I’m not even sure how long. Because no politician in my lifetime has brought more dishonor upon himself than George P. Bush.

Over the course of his five years in politics, Donald Trump insulted, disparaged, and slandered many decent Americans. One of them happened to be George P. Bush’s father, the former governor of Florida, Jeb Bush.

Is this just a case in which we should just shrug and chalk it up to the inherent rough-and-tumble of politics?

Now maybe you say that’s just the hurly-burly of politics. It’s just locker room talk. Nothing personal. Man in the arena. Whatever.

Except that Trump also insulted Jeb’s wife—this would be George P.’s own damn mother—and, even after a cooling off period, refused to apologize for it.

And then there was the time that Trump talked about George P.’s uncle, George W. Bush, and literally accused him of treason.

George P. Bush surveyed all of this, thought about the family to which he owed everything—do you think this guy could have gotten elected dog catcher in Amarillo if his last name had been Jones?—and decided that he didn’t just want to be the Texas attorney general. He really, reeeealllllllyyyyyyyy wanted to be the Texas attorney general.

Still, George P. exuberantly tweeted a photo of himself with the VSG and gushed over "his friendship and kind words." 

What did it get him? Not the endorsement, which went to Ken Paxton, he of the request last December to the US. Supreme Court to block election results in four states that Joe Biden won. 

There is no room for anyone in the Republican Party who is not a wacko, coward or sycophant. 

Someone in a comfortably red state and county may raise a vehement objection, something along the lines of, "I know our local party chair, precinct committee people and office-holders on the city and county councils. They are solid citizens who volunteer in the community and are active in their churches. They are ethical businesspeople. They are the bedrock that ensures the party has a vibrant future."

Here's my question for such folks: what will your upstanding local leaders do when crunch time comes? When they can't avoid weighing in on the Arizona audit / Stefaniak's remarks today, and their contrast with the police officers' testimony / the censures earlier this year of Cheney, Ben Sasse, Barbara Cegavske, Brad Raffensperger, etc. / Mike Pence's pathetic lapdog want-to-thank-President-Trump-and-the-first-lady remarks on the Columbus Indiana Municipal Airport tarmac on January 20 / the Mar-a-Lago pilgrimages of Kevin McCarthy, Nikki Haley and Lindsey Graham?

I daresay they understand that to take the road dictated by integrity is political suicide, and that they will dance around the challenge with transparent poltroonery.

There is a small remnant of actual conservatives who reject every last subatomic particle of poison that the Trump phenomenon has injected into our politics. There are two such figures on the 1/6 committee. There is a handful of periodicals and websites dedicated to such a rejection. 

But no aspirant to elected office can take a forthrightly conservative stance that involves denouncing Trumpism out of the gate and expect to raise the funds and garner the support needed to be taken seriously. Consider the fate of Michael Wood. 

There's going to be a time in the wilderness for the non-infected. Alas, the wilderness is a big place and one can find a spot on which to avoid the debris from the inevitable implosion of the party that irreversibly opted to become a cult. Being a Republican is fast becoming a road to nowhere. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is racism, to whatever degree it exists in contemporary America, "structural" or "systemic"?

 David French is a national treasure. He brings a record of depth, heart and personal character to his self-identification as a real conservative in an age when so many have lost sight, in one way or another, of what that might mean. He'd finished his law education and embarked on a career when he decided, at age 37, to enlist in the Army Reserve, which led to a tour in Iraq. He has logged stints as senior counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice and Alliance Defending Freedom, both Christian organizations on the front lines of the effort to stem the cultural rot and persecution of the innocent in which identity politics militancy all too often manifests itself.

Given that, and the fact that his credentials as a pundit are an astronomical number of tiers above mine, it's not without hesitancy that I speak of him having a blind spot. It must be discussed, however. I saw it as least as far back as the spring of 2020, when he asked in a piece about George Floyd whether a white person being arrested would have been allowed to die with a cop's knee on his neck. I found such an indulgence in speculation unhelpful given the volatile moment.

Perhaps there were signs earlier. New York Post op-ed page editor Sohrab Amari, after all, penned an essay published at First Things a year earlier entitled "Against David French-ism," the gist of which was a complaint that French lacked a sufficient sense of urgency about signs of assault on bedrock institutions and conventions. The example of reading-hour drag queens in public libraries was Amari's immediate example.

The discussion has been sparked anew by the latest Sunday French Press at The Dispatch. The title, "Structural Racism Isn't Wokeness, It's Reality," makes pretty plain the point French is going to flesh out. 

As a master polemicist who prizes clarity, he is able to make a case worth grappling with. He uses the position taken by a couple of McLean Bible Church pastors to launch his argument:

[Congregants complained] that [David] Platt and his MBC colleague pastor Mike Kelsey marched in a Christian black lives matter march and that Kelsey has endorsed the “CRT concepts” of “systemic racism” and “white privilege.” They also condemn Platt for this comment, which argues that the absence of overt prejudice doesn’t absolve one of the problems of racism and racialization: 

A disparity exists. We can’t deny this. These are not opinions—they’re facts. It matters in our country whether one is white or black. Now, we don’t want it to matter, which is why I think we try to convince ourselves it doesn’t matter. We think to ourselves, “I don’t hold prejudices toward black or white people, so racism is not my problem.” But this is where we need to see that racialization is our problem. It’s all of our problem. We subtly, almost unknowingly, contribute to it.

The dissenters argue that the “solution to the ‘race’ problem in America is more Bible, not more sociology books. It is not the Bible plus a secular reading list, but sola scriptura.” It’s not just unwise to rely on secular scholarship to address American racism, they argue: It’s unbiblical.

This argument echoes tenets of the secular right-wing consensus on race—that racism exists only when there is individual malign intent, that remedies for racism should be limited to imposing consequences on individual racists, and that there is no intergenerational obligation to remedy historic injustice (“I’m not responsible for my ancestors’ sins”). 

Under this mode of thinking, the concept of “equality under the law”—as mandated by the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act—is both necessary and largely sufficient to address the causes and consequences of centuries of slavery followed by generations of Jim Crow.   

But on the core issues of American racism, Platt is biblically and historically right, and it’s his detractors who are biblically and historically wrong. These “conservatives” have placed a secular political frame around an issue with profound religious significance. They’ve thus not just abandoned the whole counsel of scripture, they’ve even contradicted a core component of the secular conservatism they claim to uphold. 

Where he goes next will hopefully get an airing in the conversation that has ensued over this essay. He cites the scriptural books of 2 Samuel, Nehemiah and Leviticus to bolster his case that a reckoning before God is not only an individual matter but one that spans generations when a society (at least a chosen one) has collectively sinned against a demographic group within it. 

Again, as with pretty much any conservative-thinker bona fides, my grasp of theology is undoubtedly dwarfed by French's, but something in me insists that there is more to this than what is presented here. After all, individual responsibility is a cornerstone of the modern conservative movement. There's a basis for the resentment opponents of, say, reparations, feel when exhorted to pony up for long-dead people who may or may not have been ancestors, but share a melanin level.

French makes his most cogent case when he argues that the long-since-discontinued practice of redlining had much to do with neighborhoods and indeed communities being sequestered by race into our present day:

I’ll turn to perhaps the most commonly cited example (because it’s so significant) of how racism can be truly “structural” or “systemic” and thus linger for years even when the surrounding society over time loses much of its malign intent. 

Residential segregation, through redlining and other means—especially when combined with profound employment discrimination and educational disparities—resulted in the creation of large communities of dramatically disadvantaged Americans. Because of centuries of systematic, de jure (by law) oppression, they possessed fewer resources and less education than those who didn’t suffer equivalent discrimination.

While the passing of the Civil Rights Act meant that black Americans had the right to live elsewhere, they often lacked the resources to purchase homes or rent apartments in wealthier neighborhoods with better schools. Indeed, to this day, the median net worth of a black family ($17,150) is roughly one-tenth the median net worth of a white family ($171,000). That means less money for down payments, less money for security deposits, and overall fewer resources that enable social mobility.

The phrase "lacked the resources" strikes me as veering uncomfortably close to the denial of agency on the part of black Americans, and maybe even an indulgence in pity. After all, from whence did our black middle class and professional class come? The notion that most blacks are consigned to these communities is exactly why black conservative commentators have used the term "plantation" to describe the effect of dependency resulting from decades of public policy designed to provide material aid without an attendant assumption that it would lead to a more integrated American social fabric. 

French makes glancing reference to "conservative solutions" but ends the piece by steadfastly asserting that structural racism is a given that society must deal with. 

I encountered into a Twitter exchange about this via two tweets from the Washington Examiner's Kaylee McGhee White, which I was gratified to come across:

Kaylee McGhee White

@KayleeDMcGhee

·

19h

I have some thoughts on this, which I’ll probably write about. But for now I’ll just say this: if my pastor got up on Sunday morning and told me I needed to check my white privilege, I would leave that church.

Kaylee McGhee White

@KayleeDMcGhee

Replying to 

@KayleeDMcGhee

There is a huge difference between acknowledging racism as it exists today and catering to the narrative of systemic racism, which is toxic, false, and destructive. Any church pushing that narrative is not doing itself or its members any favors.

Her Examiner colleague Quin Hilyer chimed in with a useful elaboration:

Quin Hillyer

@QuinHillyer

Replying to 

@KayleeDMcGhee

I don't agree w/the definition of "racism" that French seems to use here. "Racism" is not power or results. Racism is an attitude. Current "inequity" may RESULT from past racism, but it isn't in itself racism, & the fix should thus be far more subtle than French seems to suggest.

If one is not extremely careful about the use of the term "racism," one invites the danger of the blind spot I mentioned above. While Trumpists and Neo-Trumpists have to an unfortunate degree boneheadedly co-opted the backlash against the encroachment of Critical Race Theory (and, yes, it is appropriate to use that term even as its definition has expanded beyond the original parameters set in the 1970s), that encroachment's reality is undeniable. Kids are being indoctrinated with it in your local school system. The idea that a post-racial society not only still eludes us but that to aspire to it is somehow pernicious has been mainstreamed. 

Then this morning I found a piece by Lee Siegal at City Journal which makes an important contribution to this conversation:

The curious thing is that, even with tens of thousands of Internet public prosecutors working night and day, very few examples of genuinely racist language surface in this turbulent, chaotic country of 330 million people. Excepting the tiny minority of people who belong to organized right-wing hate groups, anyone even fractionally socialized has known for decades that the N-word, to take the worst racist term, is taboo, along with most other pernicious slurs. And anyone with the slightest bit of emotional intelligence understands that people who do use the word when quoting other people or texts—as clueless or maybe arrogant as that may be in our current climate—do so because they themselves are not racists and have no fear of being perceived as such.

Siegel fleshes out the consequence of letting racialist wokeness cloud one's perception of the reality of one's own living circumstances:

Empty forms bespeak empty hearts. Cries of racism are the new white racism. Now, to use a hypothetical example, if a modestly middle-class white male resident of Montclair meets a wealthy black neighbor who makes more in six months than the white male has made in his whole working life, or if he runs into the jazz great who lives in town and who has won no fewer than seven Grammys, then the average white guy doesn’t have to feel that twinge of lower economic or social status in comparison with theirs. On the contrary: thanks to the 1619 Project and the totalizing framework of systemic white racism, he can regard these elevated figures with condescending pity. It turns out that they are, and always will be, dependent on his status as master of their fates.

I'll be on the lookout for further conversation about this. I'd be gratified indeed to see French clarify or modify his stance in the French Press essay. It just doesn't ring true, and several of his kindred spirits think so. 

Replying to 

@KayleeDMcGhee

There is a huge difference between acknowledging racism as it exists today and catering to the narrative of systemic racism, which is toxic, false, and destructive. Any church pushing that narrative is not doing itself or its m

The two latest fiasco moves by the Biden administration are unfortunately all too characteristic

 Biden foreign policy, in its own way, has been as damaging as that "guided" by the Very Stable Genius. In the current case, though, there's a consistent vision, and it's not a good one. Biden, Blinken et al think the world can come together in some kind of Great Reset mind-meld and make the lessons of history null and void. 

For instance, what in the hell is up with this?

On July 13, Blinken issued a “formal, standing invitation” to various U.N. functionaries to analyze “contemporary forms of racism” in the U.S. and applauded the U.N. Human Rights Council’s adoption of a “resolution to address systemic racism against Africans and people of African descent in the context of law enforcement.”

The reasoned mind recoils. The misnamed U.N. Human Rights Council is a festering blight, no more appropriate as a moral arbiter than the 1970s Soviet Politburo. 

Today’s Human Rights Council includes representatives of such murderous regimes of China, Russia, Venezuela, Cuba, Libya, and Somalia. Of the 47 member nations of the Human Rights Council, 11 are ranked “not free” at all by the respected arbiter Freedom House, and only 15 are rated as “free” (rather than only “partially” so). 

For the Human Rights Council, or indeed for the oft-benighted U.N. as a whole, to investigate or sit in judgment of U.S. practices is not just insult but abomination.

And then there's this:

The US announced Wednesday that it has reached a deal with Germany that would allow completion of the controversial Nord Stream 2 pipeline opposed by the Biden administration as a "malign influence project" that Russia could use to gain leverage over European allies.

"While we remain opposed to the pipeline, we reached the judgment that sanctions would not stop its construction and risked undermining a critical alliance with Germany, as well as with the EU and other European allies," a senior State Department official said Wednesday. 

The announcement is unlikely to end bitter divides over the pipeline, with US lawmakers condemning the agreement, Ukrainian officials immediately weighing in to say they are lodging diplomatic protests and even the US acknowledging their opposition to the project remains firm.

"I would just say emphatically that we still oppose Nord Stream 2, we still believe it's a Russian geopolitical malign influence project, none of that has changed," the senior official said.

These two moves send signals onto the world stage that are not at all good. In the case of the latter situation, consider that the Biden administration thinks fossil fuel pipelines within the North American continent are icky. But a Russian pipeline that is capable of enhancing Russia's ability to extort from Ukraine and any other European country it wants to is apparently just fine.  

 

 

LITD is no Pelosi fan by any stretch, but this was the right move

 Here's the Speaker's statement on why she's giving the big thumbs-down to having Jim Banks and Jim Jordan serve on the select committee being organized to look into January 6. It basically boils down to "C'mon, man, don't send us your most ate-up MAGA types. This is supposed to be a serious inquiry."

Yes, she will do what she can to tilt the investigation toward her presumptions. But for Republicans to have any credibility, they need to provide principled conservatives, not Kool-Aid guzzlers. A party as in thrall to a cult as the GOP perhaps can't be expected to give credence to such folks, but it's what ought to happen. The two names Kevin McCarthy ought to submit are those of Adam Kinzinger and Peter Meijer. 

Saturday roundup

 I won't deny it, people. This has been an ordeal. 

A layman such as myself is not equipped to parse how many of my symptoms are due to the infection itself and how many due to the antibiotic. I just know my bursts of energy and clarity have to be acted on; they're brief and only come along about twice daily. Otherwise it's sleep, eat a little something (my appetite, customarily voracious, is about one-tenth its normal level) do my physical therapy, read, get sick. 

But the world has not ceased to be a place that merits our attention. 

Forthwith some nuggets on various aspects of that world, for your reading pleasure:

Climate scientist Judith Curry asks a question that merits examination:

How would you explain the complexity and uncertainty surrounding climate change plus how we should respond (particularly with regards to CO2 emissions) in five minutes?

You might go about it like this:

Let me start with a quick summary of what is referred to as the ‘climate crisis:’

Its warming.  The warming is caused by us.  Warming is dangerous.  We need to urgently transition to renewable energy to stop the warming.  Once we do that, sea level rise will stop and the weather won’t be so extreme.

So what’s wrong with this narrative?  In a nutshell, we’ve vastly oversimplified both the problem and its solutions.  The complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguity of the existing knowledge about climate change is being kept away from the policy and public debate. The solutions that have been proposed are technologically and politically infeasible on a global scale.

Specifically with regards to climate science. The sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of carbon dioxide has a factor of three uncertainty.  Climate model predictions of alarming impacts for the 21st century are driven by an emissions scenario, RCP8.5, that is highly implausible. Climate model predictions neglect scenarios of natural climate variability, which dominate regional climate variability on interannual to multidecadal time scales.  And finally, emissions reductions will do little to improve the climate of the 21st century; if you believe the climate models, most of the impacts of emissions reductions will be felt in the 22nd century and beyond.

Whether or not warming is ‘dangerous‘ is an issue of values, about which science has nothing to say.  According to the IPCC, there is not yet evidence of changes in the global frequency or intensity of hurricanes, droughts, floods or wildfires.  In the U.S., the states with by far the largest population growth are Florida and Texas, which are warm, southern states.  Property along the coast is skyrocketing in value.  Personal preference and market value do not yet regard global warming as ‘dangerous.’ 

AEI fellow Max Eden has a bracing piece at Newsweek on why the teaching of critical race theory in public schools should indeed be banned:

In January 2021, OCR determined that the Evanston/Skokie school district violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act when it separated students and staff by race, publicly shamed students based on their race and told teachers to take student race into account in discipline.

But after President Biden issued his executive order on "racial equity," OCR took the nearly unprecedented step of suspending its own decision. No one should believe the decision would have been suspended if minority students were the ones being targeted. The simplest explanation: The federal government does not intend to enforce civil rights laws when white students or teachers are victimized.

This is what makes these "CRT bans" so necessary. In the 1960s, it became undeniable that some states wouldn't apply 14th Amendment protections to all citizens, so Congress passed the Civil Rights Act. Today, it has become apparent that the federal government is not equally and consistently enforcing the Civil Rights Act. It is, therefore, up to the states to step up to protect students from discrimination and racially hostile environments.

A stark assessment of the current state of affairs in Afghanistan:

"The important thing is how quickly [the U.S. withdrawal] has accelerated the disintegration of Afghanistan," D'Agata told CBS News chief Washington correspondent Major Garrett in this week's episode of "The Takeout" podcast. "There is a two-minute offense that the Taliban were starting to implement… it has stunned everybody — the Afghans, Americans, the White House — how quickly the Taliban advance in the offensive has gone on in the past six weeks or so." 

This one goes back a little, but I just ran across it. Sharon James, social policy analyst for the Christian Institute in the United Kingdom, writes at Tabletalk on how there is no basis for morality without God. 

Ted Campbell, a professor at Southern Methodist University's Perkins School of Theology, writing at Firebrand, on some context for the looming fissure of the United Methodist Church. 

Laura K. Field at The Bulwark on the sad descent of the Claremont Institute from highly esteemed think tank to Trumpist dumpster fire. 

 

McCarthy makes clear his vision of the GOP's future

 Recall that we could have had an investigation into 1/6 conducted by people from outside o government without political implications at stake, but that wasn't good enough for the Trumpists.

So now House Speaker Pelosi in forming a select committee of House members to look into it, and while Democrats on that committee will certainly bring an agenda to their work, credit must go to the speaker for including Liz Cheney, whose conservative bona fides are impeccable. 

It will make for a bit of balance, and set a precedent for others interested in being agents of balance to follow - except maybe not. Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy weighs in on that with an unmistakably intimidating tone:

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy on Wednesday issued a blanket threat during a meeting with freshmen members of his caucus that he would strip any Republican member of their committee assignments if they accept an offer from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to serve on the select committee to investigate the January 6 insurrection, according to two GOP sources with knowledge of the matter. 

McCarthy's threat comes after the House voted to establish the committee. Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois were the only two Republican members to vote in favor of its formation. Pelosi, who can appoint eight members to the committee, announced Thursday that Cheney will serve on the committee. 

McCarthy said Thursday that it's "shocking" that Cheney would accept an appointment to the select committee and did not deny that Cheney could lose her committee assignments as a result.

"I'm not making any threats about committee assignments, but you know how Congress works," McCarthy said when asked why Cheney would lose her committee assignments over the appointment. "You get elected by your district and you get your committees from your conference ... I don't know in history where someone would go get their committee assignments from the Speaker and expect to have them from the conference as well."

McCarthy sure seems less concerned with the events of January 6 and their ramifications with the distance of some time. As those events were unfolding, he minced no words in a phone conversation with the Very Stable Genius.

Alas, within a couple of weeks, McCarthy was making the pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago and the distancing from that day's intensity had begun.

I don't know what can be read into today's pronouncement other than the message that party unity is essential as the 2022 election cycle looms and that such unity is going to look like something that Donald Trump would approve of. That takes precedent over anybody's safety or dignity, or the party's traditional fealty to the Constitutional order.

Let's hope that someone among Liz Cheney's colleagues is also willing to put an interest in what happened that day before his or her political prospects. That would be the only hope for a possible rescue of the Republican Party's soul.

 

 

Great power competition definitely seems to be at an inflection point

 President Joe Biden used his recent European visit to codify a foreign-policy vision he'd been alluding to throughout the first six months of his administration - namely, the challenge of being prepared for an inflection point in a twenty-first century struggle between a democratic model for the world to aspire to and an autocratic one:

On his recent trip to Europe, President Joe Biden hammered home the defining theme of his foreign policy. The U.S.-Chinese rivalry, he said, is part of a larger “contest with autocrats” over “whether democracies can compete . . . in the rapidly changing twenty-first century.” It wasn’t a rhetorical flourish. Biden has repeatedly argued the world has reached an “inflection point” that will determine whether this century marks another era of democratic dominance or an age of autocratic ascendancy. Tomorrow’s historians, he has predicted, will be “doing their doctoral theses on the issue of who succeeded: autocracy or democracy?”

His current stance seems to have resulted from the geostrategic view that has been made available to him in his position as president:

Biden hasn’t always seen the world this way. In 2019, he mocked the suggestion that China was a serious competitor, let alone the leading edge of an epochal ideological challenge. But his claim that the central clash of our time is the contest between democratic and authoritarian systems of government appears genuine—and has profound implications for U.S. foreign policy and geopolitics.

He's not (currently) wrong that the autocrats aren't playing around. Consider Chinese president Xi's recent rhetoric:

XI JINPING has warned foreign nations will "get their heads bashed" if they attempt to interfere with China.

The Chinese premier made the comment during a speech on Thursday to mark the centenary of the ruling Communist Party (CCP). Addressing a crowd of people at Beijing’s Tiananmen Square, Mr Xi condemned foreign powers that are trying to “bully” his country.

“Only socialism can save China, and only socialism with Chinese characteristics can develop China,” he said.

“We will never allow anyone to bully, oppress or subjugate China.

“Anyone who dares try to do that will have their heads bashed bloody against the Great Wall of Steel forged by over 1.4 billion Chinese people.”

He added: “No one should underestimate the resolve, the will and ability of the Chinese people to defend their national sovereignty and territorial integrity.” 

Xi wasn't indulging in impulsive swagger. He sees his policy stance as being rooted in the Chinese identity forged by the now-72-year-old Communist revolution:

In his hour-long address, Xi said the CPC had helped China overcome "subversion, sabotage and armed provocation by imperialist and hegemonic powers."

The party was central in dismantling the "old world" and building a new one, he added. It was a callback to the famous Mao Zedong-era slogan that he would later also repeat: "Without the Communist Party, there would be no New China."

"Only socialism could save China. Only socialism with Chinese characteristics can develop China," Xi declared.

China's Communist Party chairman referenced the contributions of notable former leaders, including Mao, Deng, Jiang Zemin and his immediate predecessor Hu Jintao.

Russia, under Vladimir Putin, is likewise confident that the autocratic moment has arrived:

PUTIN has taunted the US, saying their world dominance is “over” and threatened to strike back if any “boundaries are crossed”.

The Russian president issued the stark warning during a televised Q&A on Wednesday, during which he also boasted that even if Russia had sunk HMS Defender it would not have caused World War Three.

Putin boldly claimed his navy could have attacked the ship in the Black Sea because the West knows "full well that they can't win in that war".

During his annual “Direct Line” call in show, in which citizens can submit queries for the president, he spoke of how the “period of unipolar world is over”.

“No matter what sanctions are imposed on Russia, no matter what the scaremongering, Russia is developing and in some respects our country has surpassed the European countries and even the US,” he said.

While Putin said the nation would not be taking steps that would be harmful to themselves, he said if boundaries were crossed, they would find “asymmetrical ways” to respond.

“I hope the United States will change this attitude not only towards us, but also towards their other allies,” he said.

Putin went on to say that the world was “changing dramatically” - something he said the United States understood.

Here's the problem. For Biden to move forward on the basis of the vision he outlined in that European address, there has to be an America capable of unity on levels beyond the military and strategic.  A United States that is going to lead a coalition of countries identifiable as members of a democratic bloc (I daresay we could keep alive the term "Western"; Israel, Japan and South Korea have enough experience with institutions such as orderly elections, balance of powers between three governmental branches, and some degree of free-market economies to qualify, it seems to me.) has to demonstrate unity on at least some broad cultural level. 

We don't currently have that. Far from it. One of our major political parties is driven by identity-politics militancy and climate alarmism - up to the level occupied by the above-discussed President Biden - and the other had become a cult that worships an incoherent "America First" mindset embodied by one figure but embraced by a horde of worshippers in elected office. We've completely jettisoned the underpinnings of our claim to a superior model for the world to follow. Our foundation is no longer one of a Judeo-Christian orientation, an approach to science based solely on objectivity and reason, and a common understanding of what a vibrant and humanity-affirming culture looks like. 

With what is Biden going to mount an effort to assure that the democratic bloc prevails over the autocratic bloc? If the above-mentioned levels are not overtly part of the strategy, we'll be looking at an undertaking confined to a military and intelligence class that seems far removed to the brunt of the country's populace. That sucks the very purpose of the whole enterprise right out of it.

If it sounds like what I'm saying is that Biden would have to abandon what his party has become and assert principles that had been time-honored until five minutes ago, you're getting my gist. 

And, as I say, the other party is so fatally infected with its desperate cling to a charlatan who insists on self-glorification that it is in no position to offer what is needed. This is true no matter how many fund-raising emails say that that party is dedicated to providing an alternative to leftist radicalism. Really? Do Matt Gaetz and the Arizona auditors Jim Jordan and Ted Cruz have the requisite stuff to bring post-America back together for the grand task of convincing the world that the democratic vision outshines the autocratic one?

So, count LITD as encouraged that Biden has at least a tenuous grasp on the current lay of the land, but discouraged that he is ill-equipped to act on what he has said is going to be necessary.