Friday, February 7, 2020

Some Dems see what is happening to their election-year chances

James Carville is not happy:

James Carville, a former top adviser to President Clinton, laid out a scathing critique of his party, arguing that it drifted way too far to the left and was on the way to failure as a result of pushing extreme policy ideas.
"We just had an election in 2018. We did great. We talked about everything we needed to talk about and we won," he said in a Vox interview published on Friday. "And now it’s like we’re losing our damn minds. Someone’s got to step their game up here."
Carville added that he considered himself a "liberal" rather than a centrist -- but Democrats went too far even for him.
"They’ve tacked off the damn radar screen," he said when asked if the party moved too far left.
His comments came just after another interview in which he said he was "scared to death" after Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., netted a large portion of the vote in Iowa's caucuses.
According to Carville, both Sanders and Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., were pushing "stupid" ideas about higher education.

"Democrats talking about free college tuition or debt forgiveness. I’m not here to debate the idea. What I can tell you is that people all over this country worked their way through school, sent their kids to school, paid off student loans. They don’t want to hear this s--t. And you saw Warren confronted by an angry voter over this. It’s just not a winning message," he said.
Carville was referring to a tense interaction in which a father blasted Warren for forgiving student debt after he and his daughter worked to pay off her loans. 
Carville also took a shot at Sanders for saying that he wanted to expand voting rights for people like the Boston bomber. Sanders, the well-known Democratic strategist suggested, would be ineffective as president and wasn't representative of the Democratic Party. Instead, Carville said, he is an "ideologue."
And Jonathan Chait, writing at New York magazine, is pretty gloomy, too:

It is always darkest, John McCain used to say, before it gets totally black. So it is for the American center-left right now. Bernie Sanders is currently favored to win the nomination, a prospect that would make Donald Trump a heavy favorite to win reelection, and open the possibility of a Corbyn-esque wipeout. While Sanders has not expanded beyond a minority of the party, he has consolidated support of the party’s left wing, and while its mainstream liberal wing is split between numerous contenders, it is hard to see how the situation is likely to improve soon. Indeed, it could get worse, much worse.

 What are the chances someone with the capability of exerting influence will get a clue?



 


Thursday, February 6, 2020

Two displays of his signature boorish behavior and it's only early afternoon

As regular LITD readers know, I've taken note that there is a cycle to the Very Stable Genius's way of operating: one good move, followed by two or three so egregious that they tarnish the good move.

Well, he's racked up two so far today.

At the National Prayer Breakfast this morning, he strutted onstage waving today's edition of USA Today, the headline "Acquitted" emblazoned above the fold. He then launched into one of his characteristic blends of whining and veiled threat:

“So many people have been hurt, and we can’t let that go on,” Trump said at the religious gathering.
He also appeared to reference Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah, the only Republican to vote to convict Trump on the abuse of power charge. Romney said on the Senate floor that his faith guided him toward his decision to vote for Trump’s removal from office.
“As everybody knows, my family, our great country and your president have been through a terrible ordeal by some very dishonest and corrupt people,” Trump said. “They have done everything possible to destroy us, and by so doing very badly hurt our nation. They know what they are doing is wrong, but they put themselves far ahead of our great country.”
“Weeks ago and again yesterday, courageous Republican politicians and leaders had the wisdom, fortitude and strength to do what everyone knows was right,” Trump said.
And then a bit later, back at the White House:

With little left to hold him back now, President Trump is airing his grievances and declaring victory over not just the impeachment saga that has forever marked his legacy, but over everyone and everything that has gotten in his way since he took office. 
The president declared a Thursday East Room event, surrounded by Republican members of Congress and other allies, a "celebration" not just because of his acquittal, but because of perseverance through the Mueller investigation, race against Hillary Clinton, and tenure of fired FBI director James Comey. 
"We went through hell unfairly, did nothing wrong," the president told his exuberant crowd, as he continued to insist his conduct regarding Ukraine was "very good." Several Republican senators have explicitly said what the president did was inappropriate or wrong. 
As we know, his attention span is not too long, so he's given to digressions like this one:

The president also went off on some strange tangents, including about House minority whip Steve Scalise, who nearly died when a man opened fire on a congressional baseball practice in 2017.

"He got whacked," the president said, going off for several minutes in the retelling of the horrific event.
Mr. Trump said Scalise's wife was a "total mess," and reacted differently than most wives, who wouldn't care. He went on to tell the gruesome story of that congressional baseball practice.  
The VSG, unleashed and emboldened. It's gonna be a long year.


 

Wednesday, February 5, 2020

Why I could never be a Trumpist - example number nine gazillion and seventeen

Look, Mitt Romney's vote was clearly, to anyone not viewing the situation through a tribe-defense lens, an act of conscience. He was not motivated by 2012 sour grapes or his personal interactions with Donald Trump through the years. He was stating a conclusion based on the evidence he'd seen. That's all. Trying to affix some underlying motive is a sleazy-ass waste of time.

But it's best not to dwell on that. There's been no shortage of vitriol hurled the Utah Senator's way as a result of his conviction vote in the impeachment trial.

But one expression of it that is worth noting and pondering is this from one of the Very Stable Genius's offspring:

Donald Trump Jr. posted a picture on Instagram calling Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) a “pussy” after the former GOP presidential candidate announced that he would be voting to convict President Trump on one of two impeachment charges. The picture featured Romney wearing high-waisted jeans, and was captioned: “Mom Jeans, Because you’re a pussy.” Trump Jr., who recently released a book titled Triggered, wrote: “Mitt Romney is forever bitter that he will never be POTUS. He was too weak to beat the Democrats then so he’s joining them now,” Trump Jr. ended his post by calling for Romney to be expelled from the GOP for being part of “the resistance.” On the Senate floor Wednesday, Romney announced that he would be the first Republican to vote to convict Trump of abuse of power. He said the president was “guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust.”
This is why you can talk all day long about the GDP and the stock market, minority unemployment numbers, and wage growth, you can talk about the momentary sum-total stability characterizing the world's hot spots, but there is quite obviously something very wrong when someone in this man's position sends this out because he knows it's going to resonate with a significant percentage of the citizenry. This is the level to which we have permitted ourselves to descend. This is Nancy-tearing-the-speech-in-half level free-falling.

There is no grace in Trumpism world. There is no room for someone to disagree on either a policy level or a level of making conclusions about Trump's character. There is no room to take the full measure of one's fellow human being, and grant him or her the space to make weighty decisions based on extremely difficult deliberation. You have to relate, if you are the Very Stable Genius, to someone like Mitt Romney like there isn't room for both of you on some imagined stage that you operate on. Consulting of one's conscience, unless it aligns with The Movement's aims, must be derided out of existence. 

I'm not saying anything here in either support for, or opposition to anyone vying for any office in our land. What I am saying is that we need to take an unflinching look at what we have made of our civilization.


SOTU thoughts

It was impressive by a couple of different standards. One, by comparison to the way Trump behaves when addressing his base exclusively, such as at his rallies. Two, by comparison to previous SOTU speeches from either party. Sure, like all SOTUs, it had its laundry-list-of-grand-vision policy initiatives that Congress will assuredly not make its priorities (the flag on Mars thing being a good example), but the moments informed by actual conservatism were ringing assertions of it.

There was some back-and-forth childishness. Donald Trump should have shaken Pelosi's hand. It's an interesting question to consider whether or not that would have affected her decisions to not include the "high privilege and distinct honor" portion of the customary introduction or to tear up her copy of his speech right behind his back as he bid those assembled good night. They're not buddies -  although the fact that the Very Stable Genius once had high regard for her, telling CNN in 2008 that he found her "very impressive" and saying he "like[d] her a lot" - and thought she should have impeached Bush!  - is emblematic of his erratic nature.

There was some audience childishness as well. The Republican "four more years!" chants did nothing to impart dignity to the proceedings. (But let's get real; this speech was most definitely crafted as a campaign salvo.) But the Women in White really need to give up their schtick. Women got the right to vote 100 years ago. There's no point to this stunt now (although I'm sure any one of them would give me an earful about why there is.) And the staged walkouts were grandstanding of the first order.

You know who served as a highly visible foil to the displays of polarization? A Democrat. Arizona's Kyrsten Sinema.  Now, that was impressive!

The speech had its moments of real conservatism:


  • "We will never let socialism destroy American health care."
  • support for choice in education
  • We've "rejected the downsizing of America's destiny"
  • "In America, we don't punish prayer. . . [or] muzzle our preachers and pastors"
This year's calling out of audience notables was outstanding.

100-year-old Tuskeegee Airman Charles McGee and his great-grandson, who aspires to be a Space Force cadet, gave us all a look at true American greatness. Ellie Schneider, the girl who had been one of the youngest fetuses ever to be delivered, effectively sent the message that everyone's life is sacred. Janiyah Davis, the Philadelphia girl who was awarded the opportunity scholarship right there on the spot drove home the point about educational choice. Sgt. Townsend Williams' surprise reunion with his family was a great touch.

The shoutout to Juan Guaido sent an unmistakable message to the world's socialist tyrants that the United States, at least at this time, will not appease them.

And then there was the conferring of the Congressional Medal of Freedom on Rush. Man, he's looking frail. Pugnacious optimist that he is, he's been sounding the right notes publicly since he announced his condition, but he's clearly quite sick.

I confess that, along with the nod to Mr. McGee, this one caused me to tear up a bit. As I said the other day in my Precipice piece about Rush's announcement, I'm not going to let his unfortunate Trumpist turn over the last five years unduly color my assessment of the overall arc of his career and contribution. His pioneering work as a conservative radio personality was essential to the growth of the conservative movement. He thrilled us with his courageous plain speaking. He made a lot of us who had been reading National Review in the privacy of our homes realize that we could forthrightly say this stuff in public. Rush Limbaugh is indeed a great American.

There was a fair amount of decidedly un-conservative content in the speech. There was no mention of the debt or deficit, but there sure was a resolute assurance that Trump deems Social Security and Medicare are untouchable on his watch - even as it's plain as day that those programs' unfunded liabilities are the cause of our grim fiscal outlook. His daughter has plainly gotten to him regarding this paid-family-leave business.

There was, of course, lots of braggadocio and comparison to previous administrations, particularly to that of his immediate predecessor, the Most Equal Comrade. It got more confrontational than was necessary, it seems to me. But some of it is clearly backed up by facts, such as the net worth of the bottom half of wage earners increasing by 47 percent, and minority unemployment at an all-time low.

I've said before that there's kind of a cyclical pattern to the Very Stable Genius's behavior. He'll make some great move, often a good speech like this, followed by two or three particularly egregious examples of his boneheadedness that sully the good move's effect. We actually got a bit of a taste of that a few hours before the speech, when he was in full swagger-and-bluster mode at the luncheon he hosted for an assemblage of TV news anchors.  It won't be long before he pulls another stunt like disregarding his own assertions about proper behavior during the national anthem at the Super Bowl party he hosted at Mar-a-Lago.  Count on it.

No mention of impeachment. Why would there be? That whole push is going to fizzle out, probably today.

The evening clarified a lot of things, most prominently the ever-deepening polarization in post-America. The above-mentioned Senator Sinema demonstrated a possible way to ameliorate that, but I doubt if it will be heeded. There are, as there have been for three-plus years now, three main forces in our nation's political life: progressivism, conservatism and Trumpism. At least we know the lay of the land as we venture out into that jungle that is 2020.

James Carville is one uneasy Dem

The Ragin' Cajun lets loose with some bracing candor:

James Carville is sounding the same alarm that a lot of Democrats have been sounding over the past month, but he’s doing it at full volume on national television. Appearing on MSNBC, Carville said things were not going well and wondered aloud why Tom Perez was still in charge of the DNC.
“The polling averages have not been very good the last 10 days and I’ve seen some pretty good polls that show enthusiasm among Democrats is not as high as we might like it,” Carville said. “This is not going particularly well, so far and why is Tom Perez still the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, I have no idea. This party needs to wake up,” he added. Later (see 3rd clip below) Carville said, “I know these donors and they’re not going to give a popsicle to the DNC right now. I can promise you that.”
Carville repeatedly suggested the Democratic Party was in danger of following the path of the Labour Party in Britain.
“Look at the British Labour Party,” Carville said. “We’re like talking about people voting from jail cells. Alright, we’re talking about not having a border. I mean, come on people,” he added.
“Of course I would vote for him [Sanders], but I don’t want the Democratic Party of the United States to be the Labour Party of United Kingdom.” 
In another segment from the same interview, Carville contrasted what he sees in 2020 with the result from 2018. “We had the highest turnout in 2018 since women were granted the right to vote,” Carville said. He continued, “We had the biggest margin. We ran a smart campaign and it worked. It matters who the candidate is. It matters what the party chooses to talk about.

“I mean, I’m 75 years old why am I here doing this? Because I am scared to death that’s why. Let’s get relevant, people, here for sure…All the Sanders people were taking pictures wishing Jeremy Corbyn the best.”
Later in this clip he said, “the press corps went AOC crazy…We got to decide what we want to be. Do we want to be an ideological cult or do we want to have a majoritarian instinct to be a majority party?…The urban core is not going to get it done. What we need is power. You understand? That’s what this is about. Without power you have nothing. You just have talking points.” 
I'm not holding my breath on his party heeding his warning, but it's there if they want to do so.

 


Tuesday, February 4, 2020

Desperation in the air


The smell of desperation wafts from several corners at the moment.

For all their current signs of good fortune - the impeachment acquittal, the Democrats' Iowa debacle, the bully pulpit that Trump will have in the form of tonight's State of the Union address, his current job approval number - there's a kind of desperation that can be detected among Trumpists. I wrote about it the other day in a Precipice newsletter:

. . . the dustup engendered by the Christianity Today editorial calling for Trump’s removal continues to reverberate. The argument that Trump-supporting evangelicals are fully aware of his flaws and pray for his spiritual maturation as well as applaud for his laudable policy moves is superficially compelling, but its plausibility withers in the face of the roaring indulgence the Very Stable Genius got at his rally at King Jesus Ministry in Miami of one of his most egregious character flaws: his establishing of himself as a kind of savior:
During Trump’s speech at El Rey Jesus, he said he’s been the most supportive president for Christians.
Christians “have never had a greater champion — not even close — than you have in the White House right now. Look at the record,” he said. “We’ve done things that nobody thought was possible. We’re not only defending our constitutional rights, we’re also defending religion itself, which is under siege.”
He said his administration has stood up to the pro-abortion lobby, defended the free speech rights of Christians on college campuses and promoted prayer in schools. He also claimed he “got rid” of the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits tax-exempt organizations such as churches from endorsing or opposing political candidates, to support the religious community.
Nice stuff, Mr. President, but what about you? The closest you came to saying anything about the real practice of faith at that rally was asserting that Americans worship God, not government. Beyond that, there’s nothing in your remarks that indicates that you have moved beyond your 2015 “I’m-not-sure-I’ve-ever-asked-for-God’s-forgiveness” observation. It looks like you still view everything through a transactional lens. It looks like your real message to that Miami crowd was “Never mind what’s going on in my heart and soul. Look what I’ve done for you on the policy level. I fight the worldly forces besieging you people. Now, turn out in November and vote for me.”
And the crowd eats it up.
That’s desperation, plain and simple. It’s opting to cast one’s lot with an incoherent charlatan who champions your cause even though his motivation is self-glorification, just because he can give you a little more breathing room in this temporal realm. That suffices in the quest for a leader to a lot of Christians these days.

As I say, much is going right at the moment for Trumpists. Victor Davis Hanson makes a case that Trump is having broad world-stage success in his column today.   Even its title - "Is Trump's Unorthodoxy Becoming Orthodox?" - suggests a coherence spontaneously emerging from Trump's winging-it style, which is what outlets like American Greatness (for which Hanson has written frequently) have been hoping for. (It saves them the heavy lifting of having to discern and prove a lineage of ideas and principles that have led to their ideology.) Hanson enumerates several examples that serve his point. According to Hanson, there is greater recognition now that China is indeed a totalitarian and expansionist nation due to Trump's protectionist stance. (Never mind that the tariffs have led to a rise in farm bankruptcies, and a bailout to address that that is bigger than Obama's auto-industry bailout circa 2009.) Iran does seem to be tamed as a result of the elimination of Suleimani. The proposal for the creation of a Palestinian state entirely within Israel's borders has had the effect of making plain to one and all that the Mideast has moved on from trying to placate Palestinian whining (whining often manifested as intifadas or rocket barrages). Trump's demand that NATO and bureaucratically and centrally governed Europe generally step up its defense and trade game has shone a spotlight on that continent's decreasing relevance.

Hanson readily admits that Trump's motive in all this is "money-making and win-win deals." But a desperation subtly underlies Hanson's view. He and those who are like-minded had better hope that the alignment of stars continues to favor this motive as a driver of global stability. Trump has stepped on a lot of toes along the way, and the United States, strong as it is, may need some help in some situation one of these days. The above-mentioned Europeans, for instance, are our closest and most natural allies. They are Western nations. If, as it's sometimes characterized, US-China relations constitute a new Cold War, a West with some sense of why it exists and why the world needs it is going to be essential to the task of countering China's decidedly un-Western ambitions.

There's nothing that anchors Trumpism in anything transcendent and immutable. It just seems to be working out somewhat favorably for the moment.

On the opposite side of the Trump Question, desperation also occasionally surfaces. The latest example is Bill Kristol's tweet from a couple of days ago:


Not presumably forever; not perhaps for a day after Nov. 3, 2020; not on every issue or in every way until then. But for the time being one has to say: We are all Democrats now.
Speaking of motives, there's been plenty of parsing of Kristol's, with the Trumpists, of course, claiming he is and always has been an "elitist" and "globalist" (two of the most vacuous terms I've seen in my decades of encountering polemical terminology).

I just think it's a sign of desperation. He has a conservative track record over the course of his adult life, and probably still, underneath this latest fit of intellectual kinkiness, pines for an actual conservative savior to ride in and miraculously alter the landscape. (Don't we all?) He just can't imagine any other alternative to being a provisional Democrat at the moment.

Then there is the readily apparent desperation of the Democrats. Even before their Iowa nightmare, facts such as the winnowing of the field to white candidates, and, increasingly, older white men had the identity-politics zealots despondent. Sanders captures the hearts of a lot of Democrats, but they understand, even if they can't admit it, that the country as a whole is not going to embrace his vision.

At various moments over the course of the next nine months, and certainly on November 3, one faction or another among those contending for the political brass ring will have occasion to raise champagne glasses and loudly cheer, "Well people, we got our cause across the finish line!"

But if what they wanted wasn't rooted in the transcendent, if it didn't provide the guidance and protection of immutable principles, that faction is going to continue to exhaustedly drag one more momentary victory over the finish line, and then one more.

They will still come up short regarding a credible response to the question, "What's your vision and how will it serve us beyond the next five minutes?"





Monday, February 3, 2020

Monday roundup

Great Allen Guezlo essay at Public Discourse on reconciling two views of America: creed and culture.

Pete Wehner at The Atlantic on how the GOP has been broken by Trump:

From a certain perspective, their timidity is understandable. They know that to publicly challenge Trump—to call out his ethical transgressions, cruelty, and indecency even as they support his policies—invites impassioned attacks from Trump supporters and, in some cases, a primary challenge. No one likes to be under attack, particularly by the base of one’s own party, and no one wants to lose a job.
Moreover, they will argue, they must defend the president in public so they can have influence in private. They have also convinced themselves that they are essential to the project of repairing the Republican Party post-Trump, and that this requires that they not be viewed as disloyal to Trump while he’s serving as president. “What good does it do to attack Trump?” they will ask. He won’t change his ways, and they will only weaken themselves in the process. (Many of them are happy to attack Trump in private conversations, citing, chapter and verse, things he has said or done that alarm them, showing that they both know better and are playing a cynical game.)
That, at least, is the story they tell themselves. Some of what they say is worth taking into account. But what they don’t tell themselves, probably because it would be too psychologically shattering, is that they have become fully complicit in a corrupt enterprise called the Trump presidency. (Romney is the rare exception.) They are defending actions they know are wrong and that, if they had been done by a Democratic president, they would be outraged by. More than that, they are validating Trump’s approach to politics—the hyper-aggression, the lawlessness, the mendacity, the shamelessness—and therefore guaranteeing imitators. It also happens that their influence on the president is far sm
aller than they tell themselves. They have made concession after concession after concession, justifying each one along the way. Then you look back at the road they’ve traveled, and it’s breathtaking. Donald Trump has changed them far more than they have changed Donald Trump.

Michael Strain, writing at Bloomberg, makes a point, focusing on economic policy, that LITD often makes in a broadly applied way: Yeah, we're facing a binary choice, and both options are rotten. That's especially so if the Dem candidate turns out to be Bernie Sanders.

For a presidential contender who makes her aversion to fossil fuels the centerpiece of her political life, Elizabeth Warren has some eye-opening connections to that industry:

So it’s worth noting that, for years, she and her husband reported modest income from natural-gas royalties in her native state of Oklahoma. Ms. Warren’s financial disclosure filed with the Senate in 2012 included $504 of income from “gas well royalty interests” in Latimer County. The next year it was $203. Drill a little deeper and the facts get even more interesting.
Ms. Warren’s campaign has posted 11 years of her tax returns, which show gas income from at least 2008. That year she filed jointly with her husband, Bruce Mann, who had $872 in royalties from gas wells in Oklahoma. There are smaller amounts—a few hundred dollars—reported over the next several tax returns, before the yearly earnings stop.
You might be thinking that we’re only talking about a few hundred dollars here and there, several years in the past, for someone who is a multimillionaire. What’s the big deal, right? Well, if you read on in the WSJ report, it goes deeper than what’s found on her tax returns. Property records show a 2011 sale of all the oil, gas and mineral rights for some of their property to none other than their own son, Alexander. (Keeping it in the family, I guess.)

The paper trail goes on further, including quite recent events. There’s a 2017 transfer of parcels of property in Hughes County, Oklahoma, including drilling rights, involving her son and three of her brothers. The agreements include the payment of royalties for any recovered resources. And those agreements were slated for three years, so they will still be in effect until at least this summer.

Paul Krause at The Imaginative Conservative says that revisiting Milton's Paradise Lost can broaden our sense of the full meaning of the term eros.

I seriously have not drawn a conclusion yet on this one. Was Nigel Farage's farewell address to the European Parliament, replete with Union Jack flag-waving, hours before Brexit became official, a gratuitous stunt that merely increased the sum total of yay-hoo-ism in the world, or was it the perfect outgoing message to send to Brussels? It sure brought out the pinched-face-schoolteacher in Parliament VP Mairead McGuinness. What do you all think?



 





The Barney & Clyde Show - Season Two Episode Three

I know the last two weeks have seemed like an eternity as you awaited Season Two, Episode Three of the Barney & Clyde podcast. Well, it's here! So welcome back to the Libation Station! Pull up a stool and let's pour you something bracing.
As you know, Clyde brings the libertarian perspective and I bring the conservative outlook. Some Venn diagram overlap, but also terrain outside of it.
In this episode we discuss:
1 - Trump Tariffs and Farm Bankruptcies, as well as Farm subsidies in general. 
2 - Coronavirus - The left never misses an opportunity to condescend to everyone and cry racism. 
3 - Nigel Farage of the UK Brexit Party has some choice last words for the EU
4 - Does the Senate have to call witnesses in the Impeachment inquiry?

Saturday, February 1, 2020

The (as it turns out, very limited) usefulness of talk radio in advancing conservatism

The inspiration for this post came from having run across this announcement of the speaker lineup for this year's CPAC while scrolling my Twitter feed. I retweeted it with the comment, "And to to think the great Dutch was a regular featured speaker in the early days."

Every stinking one of them is a Trumpist to one degree or another. My attention was particularly drawn to Mark Levin, to whom we'll return shortly.

The whole phenomenon of conservative talk radio was like manna from heaven when, in its present form, it took off in the late 1980s. (It has a longer history, but figures like Joe Pyne and Bob Grant never had anything like the impact of the figures that have peopled the last 30-plus years.) Even in the era of Reagan and Bush 41, the pressure, which has only intensified in the ensuing years, to keep the peace with one's left-leaning fellow citizens made conservatives feel like aliens in their own land.

The thrill of hearing Rush Limbaugh for the first time was palpable. He was coming right out and saying things that one could only otherwise avail oneself of in the pages of National Review, The American Spectator and Commentary in the privacy of one's own home.

In retrospect, one can see that his style was the prototype for today's own-the-libs approach to right-of-center opining. He relied heavily on segments he called "updates," which were devoted to aspects of the national landscape such as feminism, environmental activism, and peace activism. He had theme music for each one explicitly designed to get a rise out of any progressive who might encounter it. (Case in point, leading into the Feminist Update with Sandy Posey's "Born A Woman.")

It fired conservatives' imaginations because it was unprecedented. It was the first major pushback against the onslaught of "social change" that had been laying siege to our civilizational underpinnings for the previous 20-plus years. And Limbaugh could pull it off effectively, given that his background was the radio industry. He's spent years spinning pop records as Jeff Christy. He was an experienced showman.

But in retrospect it can be seen that it was to a large degree about giving space to conservatives to self-congratulate. "Hell, yeah, that's my brand." Since he was the first and he was so good at the schtick, he quickly gained entree into highbrow circles. He addressed Heritage Foundation events and was interviewed by William F. Buckley, Jr.

It must also be conceded that he was a loudmouth. While his interest in, and success at, carefully thinking out his positions and rooting them in actual principle was impressive compared to most who have followed in his wake, he reveled in delivering his message in the style of an overheated yay-hoo. It was not easy to see for the enthralled conservative at the time, given that there wasn't anyone or anything to compare him to.

The success he's enjoyed in the intervening decades, as manifested in the ever-more-hoity-toity circles he's run in, hanging with NFL team owners and golfing with - well, to hew to the point at hand, Donald Trump -  has undoubtedly had an effect on him. Still, until relatively recently, he made a point of distinguishing between conservatism's immutable principles and the rising and falling fortunes of the Republican Party. He wanted it to be clear that he was no figure's or party's water-carrier.

Something changed in 2016. The stakes involved were no doubt a factor. Still, his giddiness at Trump's entry into the fray when there were still several appealing candidates couldn't be hidden. He tried his best to couch his remarks in an objective-analysis framework - an eyebrow-raising move, given that he was most definitely in the opining business - but there was no denying that when he would bellow about how Trump was going to swagger onto the debate stage and upend the board-game table, how Trump had no patience for the rules of the game, it was because he thought it was great. Since then, any remaining trace of his I'm-just-providing-objective-analysis-here posture is gone. He's one of the biggest shills for the Very Stable Genius barking and blustering today.

One of the next talk-radio stars to come along in his wake was Sean Hannity. He'd gotten into radio from a background of bartending and construction work. He brought an Irish Catholic Long Island sensibility to his radio work. He made it clear that his self-made-man route to success was the main formative factor in his embrace of conservatism.

He didn't - and doesn't - have much depth. He's a crummy polemicist. So many times leftists who were standing on shaky ground would call his show, and I'd want him to step back and let them expose their hollowness, let his audience get the full measure of leftism's inherent flaws. But no, he'd interrupt with some you-and-your-liberal-friends bluster and hang up.

So it was really no surprise that he became a Trumpist early on. He shares with the Very Stable Genius a tendency to drop a train of thought like a hot potato before anyone listening would have a chance to get a full picture of the point ostensibly being made.

Now, back to Mark Levin. When he first became a well-known figure, it was as the author of some very good, well-researched-and-argued books on the legal framework for defending liberty. He demonstrably had those chops in good working order. But on the radio, he was prone to shouting, at a decibel level even higher than that of his run-of-the-mill competitors. He was, like Hannity, a hanger-upper. "Get off my phone, you dope!" he'd bark.

Still, he seemed to have his wits about him as he informed his audience that he was an ardent supporter of Ted Cruz. He publicly declared himself a Never Trumper.  What a difference three years makes. He now calls Trump the first Jewish president. 

My point is that there seems to be a correlation between the degree of bombast in a talk radio host's style and the fullness of his conversion to Trumpism. The medium itself lends itself to the kind of brand-hustling and verbal swagger that is the VSG's hallmark. Thoughtful reflection and calm discourse don't play well on the AM airwaves.

For a while, talk radio had a role to play in advancing conservatism's three pillars. It could reach people and provoke thought in a way that highbrow magazines and think-tank conferences could not. But when the Very Stable Genius descended the escalator at Trump Tower and made his announcement, radio hosts saw way more potential for positive impact in a style of comportment with which they identified than was really possible. And now they're so inextricably tied to to the success of the project that they can't back away. For one thing, like Republican Senators who voted not to call witnesses in the impeachment trial, they have no interest in being the objects of the VSG machine's wrath.

They love this stuff at the modern iteration of CPAC, though. I notice that Dan Bongino is also among the speakers. Notice has been served that, whatever the "C" is supposed to stand for, this annual and once-important gathering has been reduced to a sewer of cult worship.

If you want to convene with actual conservatives, there are alternatives.

Talk radio's limitations are on full display in 2020 post-America. At this point, it's a medium best avoided.




Pure evil

It's been a long time since corporations adhered to Milton Friedman's assertion of why they exist: to show a return on investment to their owners. We've watched as they've gone all in on environmental suck-up-ism, panting like lapdogs as government told them to bend over backwards and forego efficiency in the name of reducing carbon emissions and "investing" in alternative energy forms and materials. We've watched as they've set up diversity-and-inclusion offices and affinity groups.

But getting on board with the extermination of fetal post-Americans?

Yup. It's here.

Abortion is good for business, according to a new report lauded by the media. But its argument fails to address a few key points, namely that a woman’s worth far exceeds her economic output and that abortion destroys millions of future employees and consumers.
On January 21, Rhia Ventures released a report called Hidden Value: The Business Case for Reproductive Health. The self-described social investment company that promotes “Women’s Reproductive Health” partnered with consulting firm FSG in an attempt to stress the “link between access to reproductive health care and business performance” by showing “why and how access to comprehensive reproductive health care is important to a company’s bottom line.”
Both the media and major companies appear to be taking it seriously.
For its findings, the report interacted with 39 companies, including 24 companies in the Fortune 500, and relied on research, including from the firm PerryUndem. It compiled five reasons why “reproductive health care should be a priority” for businesses: Attracting talent, keeping talent, offering “high-impact benefits” with “low-cost investments,” promoting diversity and inclusion, and preparing for scrutiny by Americans. 
That’s because Americans want abortion and the risks are actually “overstated for companies taking a public stand,” the report – in which companies notably remained anonymous – insisted. 
In their coverage, media outlets accepted the report without question. One Forbes headline declared, “Employees Want Reproductive Care. Smart Firms Will Ensure They Get It.”
Contributor Janet Burns wrote about the report that “offers practical insights” and “shows how much US workers value their reproductive care options, and how much employers stand to benefit, and save, by providing them.”
Rewire’s piece – by Equity Forward advisor Mary Alice Carter, Tara Health Foundation director Jen Stark, and UltraViolet director Sonja Spoo – agreed on “Why Businesses Should Support Reproductive Rights.”
Carter, Spoo, and Stark (who contributed to the report itself) pointed to businesses’ growing interest in abortion, from Netflix, Disney, WarnerMedia, and NBCUniversal opposing Georgia’s fetal heartbeat law to an ad published last year in The New York Times listing more than 180 business leaders declaring their support of abortion. 

One to keep an eye on. This poses problems for investors. Do I want any portion of my IRA making money for me through the promotion of popping holes in people's skulls and vacuuming their brains out?

Thursday, January 30, 2020

Three stories for the death-rattle-of-Western-civilization file

It's still a few minutes before 7 AM and I've just begun my perusal of news stories and analysis pieces. But in that short time I've already come across these stories:



In a time when the nation's focus is on how the impeachment process is going to conclude, and what a good economy means for this year's political twists and turns, it's important to remember that identity-politics jackbootery has not gone away. Those who would passively-aggressively assume the victim pose are still ruining the rollout of works of fiction - and serving notice to Oprah that she better examine her wokeness level, and quick - as well as further destroying the university's role as the transmitter of the works and ideas that make Western civilization a unique blessing to humankind, and creating an environment in which federal legislators are seriously deliberating whether proprietors of privately owned organizations can set their own standards for appearance.

They're able to do this without really getting very physical about it. No roving gangs a la Mao's Cultural Revolution, no reeducation camps al a Pol Pot's Khner Rouge regime, no firing squads a la Che Guevara's way of handling "diversity" in the early days of Cuba's revolutionary regime.

No, the bedrock institutions of American life are now so peopled with cowards that a little diversity-and-inclusion-speak on social media, at board meetings and faculty meetings and on the Senate floor is sufficient to intimidate them into complete acquiescence. And contrition. "Thank you for pointing out our blindness. We'll now take time for some soul-searching."

I want to close on this note, though: Trumpism is inadequate to address this. Not because Trump or his slavish devotees are racist - they're not - but because they actually elevate ignorance of history and the West's defining ideas to a virtue. They lack the core set of principles that would make it possible to mount a real resistance. You can't "own the libs" on social media and make this go away. The Left has rotted our culture beyond recognition, and there doesn't seem to be a bridge back to terrain on which it would be recognizable.

It is so very late in the day.





Wednesday, January 29, 2020

The Israel-Palestine peace plan - initial thoughts

The most interesting point to be made about it is that it looks like it was crafted and presented without  much interest in whether it would actually be implemented. When Jared Kushner held his first meetings about it, no Palestinians showed up. Since then, Palestinian weigh-in has consisted of denouncing it.

It seems to have been crafted with a recognition of two realities of the present-day Middle East:


  • The US is allied with Israel and therefore isn't going to assume the role of a neutral arbiter, and
  • The region has largely moved on from Israel-Palestine relations. A new bloc consisting of Israel and Sunni Arab nations has emerged, and countering the Iran-Turkey-Russia bloc is its main concern
The plan calls for a sovereign nation-state of Palestine. Its shape is rather distended, but what is to be done when this new country is going to be carved out of an existing sovereign nation-state? Jerusalem is, as Israeli politicians frequently point out, the eternal capital of the Jewish state. A portion of East Jerusalem that does not include the Temple Mount is about all that can be found for establishing a Palestinian capital. No existing Israeli settlements would be rolled back.

Some of its other terms are noteworthy as well. It calls for Hamas to be removed as the governing authority in Gaza, to be replaced by the Palestinian Authority. The right-of-return question is put to rest: there will be none.

The US has invited the Palestinians to sit at the negotiating table, using this plan as the basis for moving forward. My sense is that the US position is that it's no biggie if they don't accept:

President Trump’s posture is a classic take it or leave it. “Without (the Palestinians), we don't do the deal and that's okay,” he said. “If we do, it'll be a tremendous tribute to everybody. And if we don't, life goes on." For the Palestinians, life going on means diminishing control of territory, stifled economic development, faded relevance on the diplomatic stage, and generally watching as the world moves on without them.
The status quo is not ideal for the United States, Israel and the Arab states, but it is not intolerable either. The same cannot be said for the Palestinian Authority. Moving the peace plan forward to the negotiation stage would be a positive development for everyone involved. If the plan is DOA, the biggest losers will be the ones who are making peace impossible.
The plan doesn't depend upon specific political players for its implementation:

Although U.S. officials insist they’re not taking sides in the Israeli elections slated for March 2, the timing of the plan’s release is useful for Netanyahu, who was indicted today on charges of bribery, fraud, and breach of public trust. Given Netanyahu’s troubles (and the likely prospect that he’s not Prime Minister for much longer), the administration was committed to bringing Gantz on board with the plan as well. Kushner told me: “It’s good to see how two competitors in the Israel elections can put aside their differences to promote the interests of their country ahead of their political interests.” That wasn’t the Gantz’s initial position—he first publicly objected to the release of the plan before the election; after weeks of diplomacy he reversed his position and expressed support. Meanwhile, while Netanyahu will receive receive a temporary boost, he will have trouble guarding his right flank. The far-right parties on which he relies for political survival will decry his endorsement of a Palestinian state, whatever else the plan says.
I have to give Jared Kushner more credit than I did when he first announced this project. It takes into account the above-mentioned shifted regional dynamics. It's basically a message to the Palestinians that this is their best shot at getting something workable. The US and Israel are dealing from a position of strength; if the Palestinians take a pass, so be it. The real action is now elsewhere.

Also noteworthy is the fact that the Very Stable Genius basically delegated it to others. That generally works out best in any arena of US policy.






Tuesday, January 28, 2020

The archive of LITD posts about Donald Trump from September 2015 through June 2016

We don't even have him up to the convention, let alone the election, but LITD had already had plenty to say.

It's quite interesting to see how some of the players - people, magazines, think tanks - were viewing him t that point.

Only thing: It's exclusive content for paying members of the LITD Patreon community. But this one is worth joining for.

Monday, January 27, 2020

John Bolton

In Trump-era fashion, he now becomes the latest figure about which we must have a hot take.

As I said the other day, I think it would be enlightening for our nation to have him on the stand in the Senate. I think so even more now that some content from his book manuscript is becoming public knowledge due to leaks by somebody or other.

And now, to Twitter Trumpists, he's a RINO and a traitor. Federalist editor Sean Davis says that Bolton was "fired . . for trying to start new wars."  Jim Hoft, Dan Bongino and Jack Posobiec have had a busy morning.

The Pavlovian instantaneousness with which this bunch has staked out its position is unsurprising. They're keen to shepherd impeachment through to a Senate acquittal with as few complications as possible. The common theme to pretty much all of today's attempts to dismiss Bolton's impact is a president's prerogative in hiring and firing diplomatic, military and intelligence-gathering personnel as needed to support his policy vision. The problem is that, at least in the case of Ukraine, this business of policy vision is exactly what's being looked at. There's some pretty strong evidence out there that Donald Trump didn't much care about that particular nation, beyond its usefulness in gaining political advantage.

The Trumpist take is specious at best. If anybody has exhibited consistency over the years and shown that his career's been driven by a core set of principles, it's Bolton. John Podhoretz stated it well in a Commentary piece from last September:

John Bolton has never trimmed his sails in pursuit of power or authority. He is who he is and always has been. He believes in the efficacy of American power and the need to project it to make America safer and improve its position in the world. And he believes that we should confront antagonists rather than seek to find common ground with them.
He was this person the day before Donald Trump appointed him national security adviser, and he remained that person throughout his tenure. He argued internally for exactly the policies and ideas he had advocated before he was installed in the West Wing.
Love his views or hate his views, isn’t this what we want from our public servants—what might be called “intellectual transparency?” Those who disagree with Bolton’s worldview are right to celebrate his departure, but they only know they are right because Bolton is not a prevaricator or a careerist. I have had my differences with him in the past. In 2007, he spoke at a COMMENTARY dinner at which he went through the possibilities of salutary American military action in the Middle East without bothering to confront the argument that the mess in Iraq pretty much precluded any further action along the lines he was laying out.
That said, consider the difference between Bolton’s White House tenure and that of, say, Samantha Power—a person who rose to prominence arguing heatedly and with the zeal of an Old Testament prophet that failure to stop genocides was the moral stain of our age and who then sat there like a tower of Jell-O in the Obama White House as a genocide went on in Syria.
From what we can tell, Bolton never stopped pushing his positions on American strength and not coddling our enemies, on the reasonable assumption that this was what he was there for. Or perhaps because, as a man of integrity, he could do no other. At a time when people are twisting themselves into ideological pretzels to keep their jobs and stay in good with the boss, John Bolton kept his honor and his integrity. And in the end, what else does a public intellectual have but those?
The guy ran his high school's Students for Goldwater group in 1964.

At Yale Law School, his fealty to conservative principles was palpable according to a classmate:

 In his memoir, Justice Clarence Thomas credits Bolton with pushing him to question his liberal beliefs. "John was known as a conservative while I still thought of myself as being far left of center (when I wasn't just being cynical)," Thomas writes. He explains how Bolton challenged him. During one argument, Bolton said, "Clarence, as a member of a group that has been treated shabbily by the majority in this country, why would you want to give the government more power over your personal life?" Though it didn't instantly make Thomas a conservative, the justice writes, "John's question reverberated in my mind for a long time to come."

After some law-firm work, he joined the Reagan administration and over the next several years served in the departments of State and Justice, as well as at USAID. His foreign policy approach became well known. He understood the folly of appeasing rogue regimes like those in North Korea and Iran. He viewed the United Nations as basically worthless, which didn't help him at his acrimonious Senate confirmation hearings when President George W. Bush nominated him to be UN ambassador. Bush felt strongly enough about sending Bolton to the UN that he made a recess appointment when the Senate failed to confirm him.

Trump was keen on finding a place for Bolton in his administration, too. When he did, Bolton went right to work, reshaping the National Security Council, requesting the Pentagon to fashion a plan for striking Iran. He quite vocally castigated the International Criminal Court.

His alarm at what was happening regarding Ukraine - Guliani's shadow policy team, the Trump-Zelensky phone call - was of a piece with his positions through the years. In John Bolton's worldview, you strengthen alliances and thwart adversaries' designs.

The idea that he's just out to peddle his new book doesn't wash. He sincerely feels strongly about this. That said, he probably would tread very carefully under oath, not wanting to be the agent for bringing about the end of the administration that had zapped Suleimani.

An honest examination of his life, career and positions doesn't leave room for either of the characterizations that Trump-world is peddling: that he gets a gratuitous kick out of war, or that he's just another opportunistic Beltway bureaucrat hustling his own brand. He's a person who has thought hard and deeply about what would really keep America secure, and what would most effectively support the flourishing of freedom in the world.

Getting all worked up about the prospect of Bolton testifying at the Senate trial indicates a desire to gloss over what is plain even before we hear from Bolton: that Trump used his office in impeachable ways.

Harping on this the-president-has-the-right-to-hire-and-fire-executive-branch-personnel argument is a tacit acknowledgement that so many administration figures have left because they knew Trump's course, such as it is, was reckless. That's the essence of the matter that Trumpists don't want anyone contemplating for very long.