At the National Conservatism conference in Washington, ambling amidst the crowd is James L. Buckley, much revered in these parts — and all parts of the conservative movement — hero-worshipped as he passes by, smiling and humble, some of us knowing we are in the presence of a truly great American. Earlier today, this correspondent was invited to a lunch at the headquarters of The Fund for the American Studies, featuring the retired federal jurist discussing federalism — referring to the remarks he gave at the recent NRI Ideas Summit — with a group of law students (he is pictured here with, to his left, TFAS president Roger Ream). It was a wonderful gathering, with His Honor making a profound defense of constitutional originalism, and in particular expressing his admiration for Justice Clarence Thomas.
Read his remarks to get a flavor of what he told the young lawyers. And if you cannot get enough of this unique American, and are inclined to nostalgia, you may enjoy this 1971 Firing Line episode, in which younger brother Bill interviews his recently elected older brother. It’s a terrific slice of American and conservative history.
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? If the federal deficit and federal debt are problems, but no one talks about them, do they cease to be problems?
We can ask the same about social-welfare entitlements, too.
A headline yesterday read, “WH projects $1 trillion deficit for 2019.” (Article here.) The federal debt is now at $22.5 trillion. (Check the clock.) Romney and Ryan warned about these things during the 2012 campaign. See the thanks they got?
Here is a nugget from a report on Sunday: “Trump recently told West Wing aides that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told him no politician had ever lost office for spending more money.” He is a canny ol’ bird, McConnell.
Here is a headline from late last year: “Trump is reportedly not worried about a massive US debt crisis as he’ll be out of office by then.” (Article here.)
But it’s not just Trump — it’s everybody, pretty much. Everyone is willing to “kick the can down the road” and let future generations deal with the mess. Romney called this “immoral.” (Typical moral preening by a goody-goody and spoilsport.)
Running for the presidency in 2016, there were 17 Republicans. Fifteen of them said that entitlements were a big problem, calling out for reform. The other two were Donald Trump and Mike Huckabee. Trump said that reform was unnecessary — that what we had to do was ferret out “waste, fraud, and abuse” in the federal government. Dukakis and others used to talk this way, and we conservatives laughed at them.
Huckabee was a little different. He said that we had promised citizens that they would have their Social Security. They had paid into the system. And we could not break our promise and let them down.
He did not really disagree with George W. Bush, the great Social Security reformer, or would-be reformer. Bush said over and over that his reforms would not affect people counting on their Social Security. He said that anyone could opt to remain in the current system. But he wanted to give younger workers different options — because those workers, not without reason, were doubtful that Social Security would be there for them.
Bush had touched the “third rail of American politics.” He did it with abandon, you might even say reckless abandon. The chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Joe Andrew, said that his party would “fry” Bush on that rail. Bush said that he was “runnin’ for a reason” — he wanted to effect necessary changes, not simply mark time in office.
I am speaking of the 2000 campaign. Bush won that year — but he almost lost Florida, owing in large part to his stance on Social Security. (You may remember a post-election battle, too.)
In his first term, Bush did not do much about entitlements. He had other priorities, chiefly a war on terror. When he won reelection, he said he had the wind at his back and political capital to spend. He chose to spend it on Social Security reform. That’s how important he thought it was. He got nowhere with it, however.
Democrats, of course, called him a would-be murderer of grandmothers, and Republicans were very anxious. They held back. I have long thought that Americans will not rouse themselves to do anything until the crisis hits. No one wants to repair the roof while the sun is shining. Then, when the storm hits, they scramble up, in desperation.
Almost certainly, 2020 will be a write-off year, where these matters are concerned. The Left, represented by the Democratic presidential nominee, won’t talk about them. And the nationalist-populist Right, represented by President Trump, won’t talk about them. So, in all likelihood, it’ll be another four years.
How about 2024? Who will be brave? Who will be truth-telling? In my view, George W. Bush and Mitt Romney — and Paul Ryan — were. And they are now seen, by the Right at large, as untrue conservatives. This relates to our ongoing debate: What is conservatism?
I do know one thing, I think — that, as Margaret Thatcher said, the facts of life are conservative. And they will reassert themselves, good and hard, whether we want to face them or not.
I like and admire our friend J. D. Vance, but I do want to throttle him just a little bit — just a little! — when he says things like this: “The question conservatives confront at this key moment is this: Whom do we serve? Do we serve pure, unfettered commercial freedom? Do we serve commerce at the expense of the public good? Or do we serve something higher, and are we willing to use political power to actually accomplish those things?”
Is there a conservative who actually endorses “pure, unfettered commercial freedom”? I know conservatives who want to make it a little easier to operate a hair-braiding business without a license and 500 hours of “professional education,” and I know conservatives who think you should be able to start a moving company without asking permission from a preexisting cartel of moving companies, and conservatives who want Americans to be able to work from home without having to file tax returns in multiple jurisdictions. Vance works in venture capital. He no doubt has been within smelling distance of the SEC. Conservatives do not (in the main; there’s always that one guy) propose to abolish the SEC, or to leave banks unregulated, in spite of the constant Democratic claims to the contrary. Who is the champion of “unfettered commercial freedom”? Who? It is nobody in the Republican party, and, as far as I can tell, nobody writing in National Review.
Vance worries about serving “commerce at the expense of the public good,” as indeed do most other conservatives. But that gets pretty complicated pretty quickly. On balance, commerce overwhelmingly serves the public good, and attempts to use the fat fingers and long nose of Washington to disentangle commerce and its social effects in a Goldilocks-satisfying manner historically have not gone very well. His complaint with Facebook et al. is that people enjoy using these products too much. I agree, though I’d argue that the real root of that evil is the mobile phone itself. (I’m in an airport lounge, listening to one of those cretins who insist on using a speaker phone in a public place. Brilliant conversation you’re having there, Caitlyn.) The press is full of panicked parents complaining about their children’s use of social media or, lately, Fortnite. I do not have a great deal of confidence in the parents of this country — I have met your children, America — but I nonetheless believe that they are better suited to deal with the addictive features of social media than is, say, Ilhan Omar.
But on the broader point: Who is it that Vance imagines is on the opposite side of that argument? We may disagree about how to go about best regulating business and nudging the profit motive toward service of the public good, but I can think of few conservatives, even radical libertarians such as myself, who in principle seek to serve commerce “at the expense of the public good” or who believe we should be indifferent to the question.
“Do we serve something higher,” Vance asks, “and are we willing to use political power to actually accomplish those things?” Our strange new nationalists (neopaleocons, I suppose we should call them) ask the strangest questions. Paul Ryan was often held up by conservatives of this stripe as the mascot for soulless, market-dominated, Chamber of Commerce conservatism. But would anybody say that Paul Ryan had no conception of the national good and no sense of higher moral purpose, or that he was unwilling to use political power to accomplish those things? Every Tom, Dick, and Hillary in our nation’s hideous capital has some high sentiment to share and zero hesitation about using political power in pursuit of their own often eccentric moral visions. Donald Trump and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are precisely alike in that much at least.
How does that work out in fact? American cities are governed by people who spend millions of dollars on inclusion-and-diversity programs while the roads have potholes of practically lunar circumference. The nice people in Washington are practically Jimi Hendrixing on fine and noble sentiment (’scuse me while I puke and die) and will talk your ear off about “serving something higher,” but they can’t balance the books, secure the border, or win a war to save their useless lives. They cannot manage the federal version of fixing potholes, and the potholes need fixing.
Is there someone who actually believes the things Vance here is criticizing? If so — who? Because it is a mystery to me, and you’d think I’d know, running dog of capitalism that I am.
If the situation is not as Vance describes it — if in fact we disagree about how rather than whether to serve the public good — then that is a different conversation. And that might be a good conversation to have. But if you are telling me that the problem is Mark Zuckerberg and the solution is Donald Trump, I’m moving to Switzerland.
Any GOP presidential primary challenge against Donald Trump is going to be the longest of long shots. From 2015 to today, Republicans who didn’t like Trump largely stopped thinking of themselves as Republicans, and the Republicans who remain are largely supportive, with the percentage expressing approval usually in the eighties. There just aren’t that many Republican primary voters who are eager to shop around for another option this cycle.
As Jack Crowe notes, former South Carolina governor and congressman Mark Sanford is thinking of running for president this cycle. Sanford told the Charleston Post and Courier that “he will take the next month to formulate whether he will mount a potential run against Trump as a way of pushing a national debate about America’s mounting debt, deficit and government spending.”
Not only would Sanford have a near-impossible time winning the nomination, not only would he have a hard time winning the state (Trump’s approval rating among south Carolina Republicans was at 79 percent in April), at this point it’s an open question if Sanford would win more votes in his old House district.
Down in South Carolina’s first Congressional District, Katie Arrington beat Mark Sanford in the 2018 House primary, making the primary fight almost a referendum on loyalty to the president. Sanford lost narrowly — 46.5 percent to Arrington’s 50.6 percent — and no doubt that loss was surprising and deeply disappointing to the incumbent. Sanford chose to not endorse her in the general election, and it is believed that a considerable number of Sanford donors and allies sat out the general election.
In November, Arrington lost to Democrat Joe Cunningham, 49.2 percent to Cunningham’s 50.6 percent. She explicitly blamed Sanford: “We lost because Mark Sanford could not understand that this race was about the conservative movement — and not about him.”
All of this assumes, of course, that South Carolina even has a GOP presidential primary next year. Since 2017, South Carolina Republicans have sounded skeptical about whether they would hold a primary, suggesting they would only hold one if Trump had serious competition. This morning, State GOP chairman Drew McKissick was already denouncing Sanford: “The last time Mark Sanford had an idea this dumb, it killed his governorship.”
This is all separate from the question of whether America’s mounting debt, deficit and government spending” is an issue that Republicans particularly care about at this moment. We can argue that they ought to, but the evidence is that by and large, they do not.
This isn’t to say Sanford’s announcement wouldn’t have any impact. He’s probably unnerving William Weld, former Massachusetts governor and Libertarian candidate for vice president, who announced a 2020 bid.
The “national conservatism” conference underway in D.C. is making a strong case that nationalism can be a benign force — but the nationalism the speakers are describing doesn’t sound a lot like President Trump’s version of it. At Bloomberg Opinion, I suggest that nationalists ought to address the difference.
SEN. HAWLEY: BREAK UP HIGHER EDUCATION MONOPOLY, PROVIDE MORE OPTIONS FOR CAREER TRAINING
U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) is introducing two pieces of legislation this week that will expand federal aid for people pursuing vocational education and will put higher education institutions on the hook for students unable to repay student loans.
It’s an odd definition of “monopoly” that encompasses a sector with thousands of competing options, but okay: Higher ed is pretty dysfunctional and these reforms target two big problems with it.
Hawley’s first bill will “make more job-training and certification programs, like employer-based apprenticeships and digital boot camps, eligible to receive Pell Grants through an alternative accreditation process.” This is a good idea. There’s no reason we should be subsidizing college to the exclusion of other ways to learn important skills.
His second bill requires “colleges and universities to pay off 50 percent of the balance of student loans accrued while attending their institution for students who default, and forbids them from increasing the cost of attendance to offset their liability.”
The idea of a “money-back guarantee” for college isn’t crazy; it forces schools to take responsibility for their students’ outcomes, rather than accepting students who don’t have the skills to graduate, collecting tuition for a few years, and then sending the kids along poorer, indebted, and lacking a credential.
But I’m not sold on the idea of forbidding colleges “from increasing the cost of attendance to offset their liability.” I’m not sure it’s possible to enforce such a rule — and while higher ed in general is inefficient, I’m not sure it’s possible for every college to shoulder a new liability without raising its prices at all. Further, if tuition hikes resulted from this legislation, they would basically “price in” half the school’s default risk, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
It would be better to require these payments — providing schools a big incentive to be careful about whom they admit and to teach students marketable skills — and let the market handle it from there. Rather than forcing schools to make cuts until they can cover the liability without a tuition hike, let them strike a balance between service cuts and price hikes and compete to see who figured out the best one.
Couple other things: Might it encourage students to default if doing so will force their college to “pay off” half their loans, especially once they miss payments for a while and start getting close to that threshold? (The consequences of defaulting are pretty severe, so maybe not, but it’s worth thinking about.) And should colleges be liable for the interest their former students rack up, or just for the money they actually collected in tuition payments etc.?
ICYMI, most recent links are here, and include poorly translated English language T-shirts spotted in Asia, that time America air-dropped pianos for troops in battlefields, the evolution of the Army helmet, and the eating habits of Medieval peasants.
A three-point lead in New Hampshire, per this new poll, doesn’t exactly speak of dominance. The high favorable ratings of the other top candidates in the survey, Warren, Harris, and Buttigieg, indicate room for growth.
American has two assimilation problems. One is immigrants feeling only a tenuous connection to America, and getting isolated in ethnic enclaves. The other is immigrants like Omar — and some of her second-generation colleagues — assimilating into the America of identity politics and grievance.
They have learned to speak not just English, but the language of oppression. They understand our system (at least no less than the average officeholder), but hold it in low regard. They know our history, as taught by an instructor cribbing from Howard Zinn.
They may be citizens, but they are certainly outraged victims.
Washington, D.C. — In a talk this morning at the National Conservatism Conference, author J. D. Vance said the conservative movement needs to move “beyond libertarianism” to address the fact that the simple American dream of giving one’s family a better life than you had as a kid is “undoubtedly in decline.” His remarks focused on lamenting various social ills and criticizing libertarianism for failing to use political power to fix them.
“I believe that conservatives have outsourced our economic- and domestic-policy thinking to libertarians,” Vance said. He defined libertarianism as “the view that so long as public outcomes and social goods are produced by free individual choices, we shouldn’t be too concerned about what those goods ultimately produce.”
Vance gave the example of neuroscientists in Silicon Valley making more at tech companies such as Apple and Facebook to, as he put it, “addict our children to devices that warp their brains” than they do developing cures for diseases. According to Vance, libertarians aren’t concerned about that, because it is a situation produced by individual choices.
“Conservatives should be concerned about it,” he said. “We should care about a whole host of public goods and actually be willing to use politics and political power to accomplish some of those public goods.”
He returned to this theme later in his remarks after discussing the ravages of the opioid epidemic, which is the chief cause of declining life expectancies in the U.S.
“Libertarians are not heartless and I don’t mean to suggest that they are,” Vance conceded. “They often recognize many of the same problems that we recognize, but they are so uncomfortable with political power or so skeptical of whether political power can accomplish anything that they don’t want to actually use it to solve or even help address some of these problems.” He went on:
To me, ignoring the fact that we have political choices or pretending that there aren’t political choices to be made is itself a political choice. The failure to use political power that the public has given us a choice, and it’s a choice that increasingly has had and increasingly will have incredibly dire consequences for ourselves and our families.
Vance referenced someone whom he called “a very popular libertarian author,” but declined to name any names. The author, he said, talks a lot about isolation; the decline of community, family, and marriage; addiction to social media; and the skyrocketing rates of youth suicide.
“If you think those things are problems,” Vance said, “if you think children killing themselves are problems, if you think people not having families, not being married, feeling more isolated are problems, then you need to be willing to use political power when it’s appropriate to solve those problems.”
“If people are spending too much time addicted to devices that are designed to addict them, we can’t just blame consumer choice,” he added. “We have to blame ourselves for not doing something to stop it. If people are killing themselves because they’re being bullied in online chatrooms, we can’t just say parents need to exercise more responsibility.”
“We live in environment and in a culture that is shaped by our laws and public policy, and we can’t hide from that fact anymore,” Vance concluded. “The question conservatives confront at this key moment is this: Whom do we serve? Do we serve pure, unfettered commercial freedom? Do we serve commerce at the expense of the public good? Or do we serve something higher, and are we willing to use political power to actually accomplish those things?”
On Sunday, the New York Times ran an interesting op-ed by Michael Wear, who directed faith outreach for President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign and served as an adviser in the Obama White House. In his op-ed, Wear chastises the Democratic party’s presidential candidates for their leftward lurch on abortion. He points out that many voters — even a high percentage of Democratic voters — oppose taxpayer funding of abortion. Wear cites polling data showing that many racial minorities — a key Democratic constituency — support limiting abortion. He convincingly argues that the strident, uncompromising, and absolutist position taken by Democratic politicians on abortion may well hurt them with swing voters during the 2020 election.
He urges those politicians instead to take a moderate approach, specifically encouraging them to express moral reservations about abortion and be open to supporting limitations on abortion late in pregnancy, with certain exceptions. Wear also encourages presidential candidates to support a variety of policies with the purpose of reducing the abortion rate in the U.S., including paid family leave, workplace protections for pregnant women, increased access to contraception, and strengthened social programs. Wear says that this was President Obama’s approach and hints that these policy choices resulted in abortion rates being at a historic low when Obama left office.
Unsurprisingly, given that he worked for him, Wear gives Obama more credit than he deserves. Aside from signing appropriations bills with Hyde amendment protections to prevent direct federal funding of abortion, Obama never supported any legislation that would limit abortion. And he was never an abortion moderate. As a state senator in Illinois, he voted against the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which would’ve protected infants born alive in botched abortion procedures.
What’s more, there’s no definitive evidence that the policy tools Wear describes actually will lower abortion rates. Some research suggests that programs intended to increase contraception use tend to be either ineffective at best or counterproductive at worst. Additionally, multiple studies have found that few sexually active women say that they forgo contraception due either to high cost or lack of availability.
Similarly, while there is a body of research showing that various pro-life laws lowerabortionrates, there is no corresponding body of research showing that funding for social programs reduces the incidence of abortion. Indeed, many Democrats and progressive commentators give the Affordable Care Act credit for the decline in the U.S. abortion rate since 2010, but it should be noted that the U.S. abortion rate has been falling consistently since 1980. Indeed, the low abortion rates that Wear cites as evidence of the success of Obama’s policies are more likely a continuation of the consistent downward trend in the abortion rate that began in 1980.
Even so, Wear’s broader point is a good one. Obama offered pro-lifers very little in terms of either public policy or legislation, but he was rhetorically shrewd. He did not categorically denounce or castigate pro-lifers. He realized that many Americans had concerns about abortion and acknowledged the complexity of the issue. On multiple occasions, he even expressed an interest in trying to lower abortion rates. In short, he was trying to make voters with misgivings about legal abortion comfortable supporting him in both the 2008 and 2012 election.
These lessons appear to be lost on current crop of Democratic candidates. Of the more than 20 Democrats running for president, most have publicly opposed the Hyde amendment. Similarly, no Democratic presidential candidate has identified a legal limit on abortion that they would support. When New York senator Kristen Gillibrand met with the editorial board of the Des Moines Register, she said she would only appoint judges who would uphold Roe v. Wade saying that “there’s some issues that have such moral clarity that we have, as a society, decided that the other side is not acceptable.” What appears morally clear to Gillibrand is morally complex to many, and morally repugnant to countless others. Wear is correct that Democrats who espouse such an absolutist position do so at their peril.
In the ’90s, some of us said that there were so many scandals coming out of the Clinton administration, you could not keep track of them all, or concentrate on them all, which benefited the administration. “They just like to pick on us,” the administration could say. We see some of that in Washington now, too.
Putin’s Kremlin commits so many outrages, some are quickly forgotten, if they ever register at all. Do you remember the shootdown of the civilian airliner in the summer of 2014? It killed almost 300 people. Yesterday, RFE/RL published an excellent, disturbing piece on the matter. (Those initials, as you know, stand for “Radio Free Europe” and “Radio Liberty.” Last year, I wrote a piece on the organization, which, far from a Cold War relic, is newly vital.)
On the homepage today, we publish the second in my two-part series on Mikhail Khodorkovsky: the richest man in Russia who became a political prisoner for ten years and now, in exile, devotes himself to human rights and the rule of law in his native country. Let me paste the final two paragraphs of the piece:
What does he want to accomplish with his Open Russia movement? He does not want “to accelerate Putin’s departure,” he says. Putin will eventually go, one way or another. “The key question is, What’s going to happen after his departure? We have a quite unpleasant tradition in Russia of getting rid of one czar, only to see him replaced by another. So what I want to do is try to change that tradition.”
In the eyes of many of us, this is a noble way to spend one’s time — and money — after 17 years in business (so brief a career) and another ten in Russian prisons. At this stage, Khodorkovsky could be putting his feet up, perhaps on a Caribbean island. No one would blame him. Instead, he is in the trenches, on the battlefield. He has his critics, who don’t do half as much good, or who, more likely, do none at all.
Mostly unnoticed beneath the storm of idiotic presidential tweets and the Democratic struggle session over exactly how minority legislators should behave, a 69-year-old man conducted a terrorist attack on a government facility this weekend.
Willem Van Spronsen, armed with a rifle and “incendiary devices”, set a car on fire and was shot and killed by police officers who were responding to the scene. He also attempted to light a propane tank on fire, which “could have resulted in the mass murder of staff and detainees housed at the facility had he been successful,” according to Shawn Fallah, head of the ICE Office of Professional Responsibility.
Van Spronsen reportedly had been arrested for lunging at and grabbing a police officer during a 2018 anti-immigration protest at the Tacoma facility. Presumably, he attacked the facility out of anger at ICE’s role in the crisis on the border.
This hardly registered in the national media. Granted, all the major outlets ran news stories — but there was no outcry of protest, no concern over political violence directed at government officials.
It is very easy to imagine how a similar attack, with political loyalties reversed, would have been reported. In fact, you don’t have to imagine it: Look to last year’s Cesar Sayoc “pipe bomb spree,” which became a referendum on whether President Trump’s “violent rhetoric” somehow encouraged violence of this kind. Conservatives warned then, and should say again now, that tying lone attacks by obvious lunatics to some kind of aura cast by controversial politicians is a toxic kind of discourse which needlessly and dangerously escalates the moral stakes of political disagreement.
So no one should be blaming any politician or political group for this assault (except possibly Antifa, of which Van Spronsen was a member — the Seattle branch posted a eulogy on Facebook). But the comparative lack of interest in this attempted bombing should be concerning.
I don’t think the downplaying of this story is malicious, but it’s a good example of how media bias manifests itself under the radar. Bias is less an attempt by journalists to impose beliefs and more journalists’ beliefs affecting which stories they cover.
In this case, attacks on Trump critics fit into a media worldview that sees Trump and his supporters as basically proto-fascist, ready to use violence against their adversaries. People like Cesar Sayoc fit into that narrative: They’re “stories” that help explain why Trump supporters are dangerous.
In contrast, Van Spronsen and Antifa are aberrations from the Left’s (and by extension, large sectors of elite media) own self-conception: peaceful, progressive, and ethical. Their actions, while worthy of basic reporting, aren’t worth covering in exhaustive detail. Not being representative of the Left, they don’t really “explain” anything about national politics.
Of course, the reasonable thing to say is that dangerous, violent, lunatics have always existed and will continue to exist, and attempting to attach the blame for bomb-throwing to Democrats or Republicans is absurd. But that wouldn’t drive traffic.
Representative Ayanna Pressley (D., Mass.) is the fourth member of “the squad,” that four-headed hydra of congressional freshmen rattling the cages of Nancy Pelosi and her centrist cohorts in the Democratic party. Pressley is more Ringo Starr than Paul McCartney in the Squad’s internal hierarchy; compared to her outspoken co-cavaliers Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar (and, to a lesser extent, Rashida Tlaib), Pressley is an afterthought, the obligatory fourth member of the quadrangle in Congress’s lower chamber.
Even Ringo had a few singles; Pressley, too, has had moments that serve to justify her inclusion in “the squad” that, as if overnight, has become a proper noun.
Speaking at the NetRoots Nation Conference on Saturday, Pressley called on minority legislators to hew themselves to political opinions she deems appropriate for a legislator of their racial makeup, calling upon “brown” legislators to “be a brown voice” and “black” legislators to “be a black voice.” Her antediluvian remarks in full:
If you’re not prepared to come to that table and represent that voice, don’t come, because we don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice. We don’t need black faces that don’t want to be a black voice. We don’t need Muslims that don’t want to be a Muslim voice. We don’t need queers that don’t want to be a queer voice. If you’re worried about being marginalized and stereotyped, please don’t even show up because we need you to represent that voice.
A few layers to unpack here: if “brown/black faces” are compelled to be “brown/black voices,” and Muslims and “queers” are compelled to have “voices” that attend to their religious and sexual preferences, do the actual constituents who elected these individuals to public office get a “voice?” Or are they electing generic racial/religious/sexual “voices,” whose relative propriety as such is determined by Ayanna Pressley and supine approval of white liberals at the NetRoots Nation Conference? What even is a “black voice,” and who appointed Ayanna Pressley to decide?
Call it ideological phrenology, if you like: To be authentically black or brown, legislators must pledge their total and abiding obedience to Ayanna Pressley’s campus-radical flavor of politics. The new phrenologists, no less obsessed with racial purity and authenticity than the wooden-toothed clodhoppers they abhor, have simply replaced cranial measures with ideological ones.
“I think there has to be some moderation. I disagree with the candidates’ positions about providing health care to undocumented immigrants, when you have Americans who don’t have health care,” said Domingo Garcia, president of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC). . . “I think that was a snap decision by some of those candidates that wasn’t thought through.”
Cecilia Muñoz, a White House aide to President Barack Obama and a former policy advocate at the National Council of La Raza, a Latino advocacy group now known as UnidosUS, said decriminalizing unapproved border crossings would make it harder for Democrats to combat President Trump’s populist appeal.
The first two seasons of the Netflix sci-fi drama Stranger Things are among the finest television ever produced. Few shows manage to weave together multiple complex strands of compelling drama, juggle numerous captivating character types, and tell a deeply rewarding story quite like Stranger Things did in its ...
Democratic infighting reached a fever pitch last week with bickering and personal attacks between members of the “Squad” and other House Democrats. During that period, Squad members Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Pressley mostly avoided doing interviews. However, that all ...
Everybody already knows that Disney’s new remake of The Lion King is a sham; that its “live-action” selling point misrepresents the fact that the real-looking animals are actually digitally generated images. Only the casual acceptance of this blatant deception is new.
Disney’s “family ...
How confident should the Joe Biden team be right now?
Think about all of the factors that contributed to Hillary Clinton’s defeat in 2016. She was a figure who had been around a long time, among the best-known names in the party establishment. As a senator, she worked closely with her home state’s ...
Unionized campaign staffers working for Senator Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) are engaged in a dispute with management over the candidate's alleged failure to live up to his socialist ideals.
The field organizers have for months demanded an annual salary equivalent to a $15 hourly wage but have been met with ...
By next week at this time, Boris Johnson will be prime minister of the United Kingdom. Not since Margaret Thatcher has such an outsized personality resided in Number 10 Downing Street. Not since Winston Churchill has such a wit presided over Her Majesty’s Government. Wit is actually the chief reason for ...
Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D., Ariz.) has joined a bipartisan group of nine colleagues proposing a pilot program that would expedite the deportation of migrants who make invalid asylum claims.
The senators outlined the Operation Safe Return program, which would allow the deportation of migrants within 15 days if ...
Making a film of Cats is a bold endeavor — it is a musical with no real plot, based on T. S. Eliot’s idea of child-appropriate poems, and old Tom was a strange cat indeed. Casting Idris Elba as the criminal cat Macavity seems almost inevitable — he has always made a great gangster — but I think there was ...
A tragic photograph of the bodies of Oscar Alberto Martínez and his 23-month-old daughter, Angie Valeria, who drowned attempting to cross the Rio Grande River from Mexico into Texas, renewed outrage about the border crisis. Politicians expressed their indignation at the image while, predictably, blaming the ...