Shall We Defend Our Common History?

Shall We Defend Our Common History?

February 2019 • Volume 48, Number 2

Roger Kimball
Editor and Publisher, The New Criterion

    The recent news that the University of Notre Dame, responding to complaints by some students, would “shroud” its twelve 134-year-old murals depicting Christopher Columbus was disappointing. It was not surprising, however, to anyone who has been paying attention to the widespread attack on America’s past wherever social justice warriors congregate.

    Notre Dame may not be particularly friendly to its Catholic heritage, but its president, the Rev. John Jenkins, demonstrated that it remains true to its jesuitical (if not, quite, its Jesuit) inheritance. Queried about the censorship, he said, apparently without irony, that his decision to cover the murals was not intended to conceal anything, but rather to tell “the full story” of Columbus’s activities.

Welcome to the new Orwellian world where censorship is free speech and we respect the past by attempting to elide it.

Over the past several years, we have seen a rising tide of assaults on statues and other works of art representing our nation’s history by those who are eager to squeeze that complex story into a box defined by the evolving rules of political correctness. We might call this the “monument controversy,” and what happened at Notre Dame is a case in point: a vocal minority, claiming victim status, demands the destruction, removal, or concealment of some object of which they disapprove. Usually, the official response is instant capitulation.

As the French writer Charles Péguy once observed, “It will never be known what acts of cowardice have been motivated by the fear of not looking sufficiently progressive.” Consider the frequent demands to remove statues of Confederate war heroes from public spaces because their presence is said to be racist. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, for example, has recently had statues of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson removed from a public gallery. In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio has set up a committee to review “all symbols of hate on city property.”

But it is worth noting that the monument controversy signifies something much larger than the attacks on the Old South or Italian explorers.

In the first place, the monument controversy involves not just art works or commemorative objects. Rather, it encompasses the resources of the past writ large. It is an attack on the past for failing to live up to our contemporary notions of virtue.

In the background is the conviction that we, blessed members of the most enlightened cohort ever to grace the earth with its presence, occupy a moral plane superior to all who came before us. Consequently, the defacement of murals of Christopher Columbus—and statues of later historical figures like Teddy Roosevelt—is perfectly virtuous and above criticism since human beings in the past were by definition so much less enlightened than we.

The English department at the University of Pennsylvania contributed to the monument controversy when it cheered on students who were upset that a portrait of a dead white male named William Shakespeare was hanging in the department’s hallway. The department removed the picture and replaced it with a photograph of Audre Lorde, a black feminist writer. “Students removed the Shakespeare portrait,” crowed department chairman Jed Esty, “and delivered it to my office as a way of affirming their commitment to a more inclusive mission for the English department.” Right.

High schools across the country contribute to the monument controversy when they remove masterpieces like Huckleberry Finn from their libraries because they contain ideas or even just words of which they disapprove.

    The psychopathology behind these occurrences is a subject unto itself. What has happened in our culture and educational institutions that so many students jump from their feelings of being offended—and how delicate they are, how quick to take offense!—to self-righteous demands to repudiate the thing that offends them? The more expensive education becomes the more it seems to lead, not to broader understanding, but to narrower horizons.

***

    Although there is something thuggish and intolerant about the monument controversy, it is not quite the same as the thuggishness of the Roman emperor Caracalla, who murdered his brother and co-emperor Geta and had statues of Geta toppled and his image chiseled off coins. Nor is it quite the same as what happened when Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin exiled Leon Trotsky, had him airbrushed out of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, and sent assassins to Mexico to finish the job.

Iconoclasm takes different forms. The disgusting attacks on the past and other religious cultures carried out by the Taliban, for example, are quite different from the toppling of statues of Saddam Hussein by liberated Iraqis after the Iraq War. Different again was the action of America’s own Sons of Liberty in 1776, who toppled a statue of the hated George III and melted down its lead to make 40,000 musket balls. It is easy to sympathize with that pragmatic response to what the Declaration of Independence called “a long train of abuses and usurpations.” It is worth noting, however, that George Washington censured even this action for “having much the appearance of a riot and a want of discipline.”

While the monument controversy does depend upon a reservoir of iconoclastic feeling, it represents not the blunt expression of power or destructiveness but rather the rancorous, self-despising triumph of political correctness. The exhibition of wounded virtue, of what we now call “virtue-signaling,” is key.

Consider some recent events at Yale University, an institution where preening self-infatuation is always on parade. Yale recently formed a Committee to Establish Principles on Renaming and a Committee on Art in Public Spaces. Members of the former prowl the campus looking for buildings, colleges, faculty chairs, lecture programs, and awards that have politically incorrect names. The latter police works of art and other images on campus, making sure that anything offensive to favored groups is covered or removed.

At the residential college formerly known as Calhoun College, for example—it’s now called Grace Hopper College—the Committee ordered the removal of stained glass windows depicting slaves and other historical scenes of Southern life. Statues and other representations of John C. Calhoun have likewise been slotted for removal. Calhoun, an 1804 Yale graduate, was a leading statesman and political thinker of his day. But he was also an apologist for slavery, so he has to be erased from the record.

Of course, impermissible attitudes and images are never in short supply once the itch to stamp out history gets going. Two years ago it was Calhoun and representations of the Antebellum South. More recently it was a carving at an entrance to Yale’s Sterling Memorial Library depicting an Indian and a Puritan. The Puritan, if you can believe it, was holding a musket—a gun! Who knows, perhaps he was a member of the NRA or at least could give inspiration to other members of that very un-Yale-like organization. According to Susan Gibbons, one of Yale’s librarian-censors, the presence of an armed Puritan “at a major entrance to Sterling was not appropriate.” Solution? Cover over the musket with a cowpat of stone—but leave the Indian’s bow and arrow alone!

Actually, it turns out that the removable cowpat of stone was only a stopgap. The outcry against the decision struck a chord with Peter Salovey, Yale’s president. “Such alteration,” he noted, “represents an erasure of history, which is entirely inappropriate at a university.” He’s right about that. But if anyone has mastered the art of saying one thing while doing the opposite it is President Salovey. He spoke against “the erasure of history.” But then, instead of merely altering the image, he announced that Yale would go full Taliban, removing the offending stonework altogether.

In the bad old days, librarians and college presidents were people who sought to protect the past, that vast storehouse of offensive attitudes and behavior that also just so happens to define our common inheritance. In our own more enlightened times, many librarians and college presidents collude in its effacement.

Someone might ask, “Who cares what violence a super-rich bastion of privilege and unaccountability like Yale perpetrates on its patrimony?” Well, we should all care. Institutions like Yale, Harvard, and Stanford are among the chief drivers of the “progressive” hostility to free expression and other politically correct attitudes that have insinuated themselves like a fever-causing virus into the bloodstream of public life. Instead of helping to preserve our common inheritance, they work to subvert it.

Spiriting away stonework in the Ivy League may seem mostly comical. But there is a straight line from those acts of morally righteous intolerance to far less comical examples of puritanical censure.

Consider the case of James Damore, the now former Google engineer who wrote an internal memo describing the company’s cult-like “echo chamber” of political correctness and ham-handed efforts to nurture “diversity” in hiring and promotion. When the memo was publicized, it first precipitated controversy—then it provided Google CEO Sundar Pichai a high horse upon which to perch, declare Damore’s memo “offensive and not OK,” and then fire him. For what? For expressing his opinion in a company discussion forum designed to encourage free expression!

    In one way, there was nothing new about Google’s actions. Large companies have always tended to be bastions of conformity. Decades ago, everyone at IBM had to wear a white shirt and was strongly encouraged to espouse conservative social values. Today, everyone in Silicon Valley has to subscribe to the ninety-five theses of the social justice warrior’s creed, beginning with certain dogmas about race, fossil fuels, sexuality, and the essential lovableness of jihadist Muslims. If you are at Google and dissent from this orthodoxy, you will soon find yourself not at Google.

***

    The violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017 was a godsend to the self-appointed hate police. In its immediate aftermath, companies around the country took pains to declare their rejection of “hate,” and ProPublica, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and other leftish thugs expanded their witch hunts beyond such targets as the “Daily Stormer”—a vile anti-Semitic website. After Charlottesville, for example, “Jihad Watch”—hardly a hate group website—was dropped by PayPal until a public outcry induced PayPal to reverse its decision. There have been other such casualties, and there will be many more.

Let’s step back and ask ourselves what motivates the left-wing virtuecrats attempting to enforce their new regime of political correctness. Christian theologians tell us that the visio beatifica—the beatific vision of God—is the highest pleasure known to man. Alas, that communion is granted to very few in this life. For the common run of mankind, I suspect, the highest earthly pleasure is self-righteous moral infatuation.

Like a heartbeat, moral infatuation has a systolic and diastolic phase. In the systolic phase, there is an abrupt contraction of sputtering indignation: fury, outrage, high horses everywhere. Then there is the gratifying period of recovery: the warm bath of self-satisfaction, set like a jelly in a communal ecstasy of unanchored virtue signaling.

The communal element is key. While individuals may experience and enjoy moral infatuation, the overall effect is greatly magnified when shared. Consider the mass ecstasy that at first accompanied Maximilien Robespierre’s effort to establish a Republic of Virtue during the French Revolution’s Reign of Terror in 1793.

The response to Donald Trump’s comments about the murderous violence that erupted in Charlottesville provides another vivid example. Trump’s chief crime was to have suggested that there was “blame on both sides” as well as “good people” on both sides of the protest. I am not sure there was an abundance of “good people” on either side of the divide that day, although Trump’s main point was to distinguish between lawful protest and hate-fueled violence. But forget about distinctions. The paroxysms of rage that greeted Trump were a marvel to behold, as infectious as they were unbounded. One prominent commentator spoke for the multitude when he described Trump’s response as a “moral disgrace.”

I didn’t think so, but then I thought that the President was correct when he suggested that the alt-Left is just as much a problem as the alt-Right. Indeed, if we needed to compare the degree of iniquity of the neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klanners, on the one hand, and Antifa and its fellow travelers on the other, I am not at all sure which would come out the worse. Real Nazis—the kind that popped up like mushrooms in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s—are scary. But American neo-Nazis? They are a tiny bunch of pathetic losers. The Ku Klux Klan was a terrorist group with millions of members in its earlier incarnations. Now it too is a tiny bunch—5,000 or 6,000 by most estimates—of impotent malcontents.

Antifa, on the other hand, has brought its racialist brand of violent protest to campuses and demonstrations around the country: smashing heads as well as property. I suspect that paid-up, full-time members of the group are few, but the ideology of identity politics that they feed upon is a gruesome specialty of the higher education establishment today.

I also thought that the President was right to ask where the erasure of history would end. At Charlottesville it was a statue of Robert E. Lee. But why stop there? Why not erase the entire history of the Confederacy? There are apparently some 1,500 monuments and memorials to the Confederacy in public spaces across the United States. According to one study, most of them were commissioned by Southern women, “in the hope of preserving a positive vision of antebellum life.” A noble aspiration, inasmuch as the country had recently fought a civil war that devastated the South and left more than 700,000 Americans dead. These memorials were part of an effort to knit the broken country back together. Obliterating them would also be an attack on the effort of reconciliation.

And what about Thomas Jefferson and George Washington? They both owned slaves, as did 41 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence. What about them? To listen to many race peddlers these days, you would think they regarded George Orwell’s warning in 1984 as a how-to manual: “Every record has been destroyed or falsified,” Orwell wrote,

every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped.

    Plato was right when he said that politicians are essentially rhetoricians. Rhetoric succeeds or fails not because of its logic or intellectual substance, but on the question of its emotional appeal. By that standard, I’d say that Donald Trump, though often rhetorically effective, missed an important rhetorical opportunity at Charlottesville. He didn’t understand that the politically correct dispensation that rules academia, the media, the Democratic Party, and large swathes of the corporate world requires a certain ritual homage to be paid to its reigning pieties about “racism” in America.

Doubtless there are things to criticize about Donald Trump. But being racist isn’t among them. What infuriates his critics—but at the same time affords them so many opportunities to bathe in the gratifying fluid of their putative moral superiority—is that Trump refuses to collude in the destructive, politically correct charade according to which “racism” is the nearly ubiquitous cardinal sin of white America. He is having none of that, and his refusal to go along with the attempted moral blackmail is driving his critics to a fever pitch. They scream “racism” but, unlike other politicians, Trump refuses to cower in the corner whimpering. That he goes against their script infuriates them.

Back in 1965, the Frankfurt School Marxist Herbert Marcuse wrote an essay called “Repressive Tolerance.” It is a totalitarian classic. Marcuse distinguished between two kinds of tolerance. First, there is what he called “bad” or “false” tolerance. This is the sort of tolerance that most of us would call “true” tolerance, the sort of thing your parents taught you and that undergirds liberal democracy. Second, there is what Marcuse calls “liberating tolerance,” which he defined as “intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left.”

So here we are. The old idea of tolerance was summed up in such chestnuts as, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” The new dispensation is: “I disapprove of what you say, therefore you may not say it.”

The Marxist-tinged ideology of the 1960s has had a few decades to marinate the beneficiaries of our free-market society, steeping them in the toxic nostrums that masquerade as moral imperatives in our colleges and universities. Today we find the graduates of those institutions manipulating the fundamental levers of political and corporate power.

The monument controversy shows the susceptibility of “liberating tolerance” to fanaticism. And it reminds us that in the great battle between the partisans of freedom and the inebriates of virtue, freedom is ultimately negotiable—until it rouses itself to fight back. At stake is nothing less than the survival of our common history.

The previous was adapted from a talk delivered on board the Crystal Symphony by Roger Kimball on July 19, 2018, during a Hillsdale College educational cruise to Hawaii.

    Roger Kimball is editor and publisher of The New Criterion and publisher of Encounter Books. He earned his B.A. from Bennington College and his M.A. and M.Phil. in philosophy from Yale University. He has written for numerous publications, including The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times Book Review, and is a columnist for The Spectator USA, American Greatness, and PJ Media. He is editor or author of several books, including The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America, The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art, Tenured Radicals: How Politics Has Corrupted Our Higher Education, and Vox Populi: The Perils and Promises of Populism.

Global Warming, Sanctuary Cities, Marijuana, Abortion, and the “Wall”

Global Warming, Sanctuary Cities, Marijuana, Abortion, and the “Wall”
    In the summer heat of 1787, fearing the public majority — windows and doors closed for secrecy, the Framers studied history before drafting “the supreme law of the land”. The Constitution was framed based on the truths of science and history as they understood them at the time. Later, “the father of our country”, President Washington in his Farewell Address to Congress declared “. . . religion and morality are indispensable supports” for our form of government. Truth was intended to be the foundational binding on all our law. We have failed, and thus our governments must fail, because we elect those to represent us who choose to ignore and reject Truth. It is, indeed, Truth which shall set us free! “True freedom is found within the bounds of God’s intention. — . . . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
    The absolute lie presuming to give humanity any control over global warming has been used by corrupt politicians to attack our economy. Driven by greed and other unjust motives, they limit access to the energy required by our industry, while aiding and abetting our competitors. Coal miners are unemployed while natural gas is lost. Acknowledging cyclical climatic changes beyond control, this Committee has published definitive articles describing the realities concerning our atmosphere.
    Sanctuary cities are political entities choosing to violate the Constitution, while fomenting the evil and crime that infects their innocent neighbors. Whether illegal aliens raping, robbing, looting, vandalizing, murdering, etc. or just undeservedly availing themselves of benefits paid for by working Americans; drug dealers disseminating their poison from their sanctuary; socially dysfunctionals attacking the traditional nuclear family; or those the Framers were so fearful of electing — the morally and intellectually bankrupt disrupting and obstructing legislatures; sanctuary cities harbor no less enemies to our Union than the forces confronted in our great Civil War.
    A campaign of lies and deceptions emanating from the special interests seeking to reap the economic gains accompanying the legalization of marijuana has wrongly altered the public perception of the harm and unwanted costs associated with its use. Errant politicians violating their oath of office subject the misguided betrayed public to its addictive character.
    The Declaration of Independence, the ideologic preamble to the Constitution defines one of the “unalienable Rights . . . . endowed by our Creator” as “Life”. Moving far beyond reason, while exceeding and mimicking the horrendous atrocities perpetrated in the Nazi Holocaust’s medical experiments, vile and morally void politicians celebrate advocating murdering a child even minutes before birth. Calling to Lenin’s statement that  “Socialized medicine is a keystone to the establishment of a socialist state.”, Hitler implemented universal healthcare, without regard for conscience. Some Democrat politicians recently advocated violating the Constitution just as surely as killing a slave. The next move in disregarding the constitutionally imposed sanctity of life is to, like Hitler, “authorize physicians to end the sufferings of the incurable patient … in the interest of true humanity …”. Interestingly, Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda wrote in The Goebbels Diaries 1939-41, that Hitler “hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity.” Further, Albert Speer, the Third Reich’s Minister of Armaments and War Production, quoted Hitler as saying “The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity … with its meekness and flabbiness.”.
    The current platform of the Democratic Party openly promoting the violation of the original intention of the Constitution is so foreign to any common sense definition of right and decency that prior to the recent toleration of the lies and deceptions demanded by the false and destructive political correctness movements, its former leaders spoke against their evil and criminal agendas. Former President Jimmy Carter speaking on his book, Our Enduring Values-America’s Moral Crisis, 3 November, 2005, in Washington, D.C., said “I never have felt that any abortion should be committed — I think each abortion is the result of a series of errors. I have always thought it was not in the mainstream of the American public to be extremely liberal on many issues. I think our party’s leaders … are overemphasizing the abortion issue. I’ve never been convinced, if you let me inject my Christianity into it, that Jesus Christ would approve abortion.”
    Alveda King, niece of civil rights leader Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., founder of the National Black Pro-Life Coalition said “Abortion is … designed for population control … The numbers are higher in the African American community, so that’s certainly black genocide. . . . . We also discovered that once black people are made aware of the genocidal eugenics by abortion that the community will speak out.”
    All Americans of African descent ignoring the current Democratic platform when they vote as Democrats should also recall the evil words of the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, when they vote for those seeking to enslave them. “. . . .elimination of ‘human weeds’ … overrunning the human garden … and for the sterilization of genetically inferior races. The purpose of the American Baby Code shall be to provide for a better distribution of babies … and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit. Feeble minded persons … and others found biologically unfit by authorities … should be sterilized or, in cases of doubt, should be so isolated as to prevent the perpetuation of their afflictions by breeding. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child … without a permit.” Also, don’t forget that the Republican Party was founded to end slavery.
    No constitutional mandate is so universally accepted as the Framers’ intention to “provide for the common defense”. With our southern border open to terrorists, drug traffickers, sex slavers, human traffickers, rapists, murders, thieves, and on and on, and all the while the current barriers and resources fail or are inadequate in aiding in enforcing and upholding our immigration laws; “the common defense” border protection deficit stands in blatant violation of the original intention of the Constitution. All those charged with our border security, speaking openly and for the public record, support the need for a 237 mile interrupted wall and other major security improvements along our 1954 mile southern border. The Democrats’ obstructionism is de facto evidence that these politicians are our enemies willing to sacrifice the safety and security of American citizens to their unconstitutional agendas.
    All that said, the expressed intention of the Fourteenth Amendment was to insure and bring the protections and rights originally intended by the Framers to all citizens. Justice for all was not a choice be left to political maneuvering, interference, and denial. Sanctuary cities, those restricting free and just competition in American industry and business, drug peddlers addicting Americans, murderers killing babies capable of life outside the womb, and those aiding and abetting those seeking to harm America and its citizens need to be federally prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law — 1987 actions under the Fourteenth Amendment. Politicians voting to violate and complicit in violating the Constitution in those jurisdictions violating the Constitution need to be similarly prosecuted and removed from office. The word treason seems applicable and appropriate.

More Lies and Deceptions Exposed

Star Parker

January 30, 2019

     The media is having another field day at the alleged expense of President Donald Trump.

    Supposedly, per what we read, the president “caved,” “folded,” or “lost” in the government-shutdown showdown with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Except it’s not true.

Our elites spend so much time inside the Washington, D.C., bubble that they’re sealed off from any sense of, connection to, or interest in what this nation is about.

Ours is a democracy. Remember? In the end, the people decide. Trump, who these same pundits love to call a “dictator,” has not forgotten.

It’s a president’s job to lead, to put on the line what he believes is best for the nation. But ultimately, the people decide.

As our first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, noted: “In this age, and in this country, public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed. Whoever molds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes, or pronounces judicial decisions.

Sometimes at the first try, the message doesn’t get through. It means you try again a different way. This is exactly what Trump is doing.

In the words of Gen. Douglas MacArthur: “We are not retreating. We are advancing in another direction.”

The president must negotiate through the fog of a hostile media and now with a Democratic Congress more interested in inflicting political damage on the president than in implementing policy that serves our nation.

Trump tried to move negotiations forward after the shutdown by offering to extend DACA protections—protection against deportation of those who arrived illegally as children—and also for immigrants with temporary protected status.

What was the response from Democrats? No response. Counteroffer? None.

Why? Because the Democratic objective is inflicting damage, not advancing solutions for the American people.

Democrats sat back, actually enjoying the shutdown, while headlines like this from NBC ran: “The behavior of this administration while denying 800,000 people paychecks was as imperious as Marie Antoinette’s apocryphal offer of cake.”

Of course, no federal worker is being denied a paycheck. All pay will be made up. But it’s also important to keep in mind that federal worker compensation is on average higher than that of the private sector.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, federal employees earn on average 17 percent more in salary and benefits than their private-sector counterparts. And according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics data, private-sector employees are three times more likely to be fired and five times more likely to quit.

All in all, federal workers have a pretty cushy situation. One of the risks is a periodic shutdown disruption. But again, they receive back pay and overall receive good compensation to cover these rare inconveniences.

Now, rather than “caving,” Trump is making a new effort—advancing in another direction—to get the nation’s business done. He’s signed an order to re-open the government for three weeks to open the door for negotiation.

In his remarks, the president noted, “In the last two years, ICE officers arrested a total of 226,000 criminal aliens inside the United States.” In each of the past three months, he said, there were “60,000 apprehensions at our southern border.”

As of 2016, there were 10.7 million illegal immigrants in our nation, 7.8 million of which are in our workforce. Of the 10.7 million, two-thirds have been in the U.S. for more than 10 years.

A just released Wall Street Journal/NBC poll shows Trump’s approval at 43 percent and disapproval at 54 percent—exactly where he was last month. Pelosi’s approval stands at 28 percent and disapproval at 47 percent, up from 41 percent last month.

Trump deserves credit for courageous leadership regarding the need for a wall on our southern border to serve our security interests.

If he had a good-faith negotiating partner in congressional Democrats, we might be able to get somewhere.

     Star Parker is an author and president of CURE, Center for Urban Renewal and Education. Contact her at www.urbancure.org

Record Cold Forces Rethink on Global Warming

                                      Getty Images

     Headlines around the world are reporting exceptionally frigid conditions and unusually high levels of snowfall in recent weeks. They tout these events as records, but few people understand how short the record actually is — usually less than 50 years, a mere instant in Earth’s 4.6-billion year history. The reality is that, when viewed in a wider context, there is nothing unusual about current weather patterns.

    Despite this fact, the media — directly, indirectly, or by inference — often attribute the current weather to global warming. Yes, they now call it climate change. But that is because activists realized, around 2004, that the warming predicted by the computer models on which the scare is based was not actually happening. Carbon dioxide (CO2) levels continued to increase, but the temperature stopped increasing. So, the evidence no longer fit the theory. English biologist Thomas Huxley commented on this dilemma over a century ago:

    “The great tragedy of science — the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”

    Yet, the recent weather is a stark reminder that a colder world is a much greater threat than a warmer one. While governments plan for warming, all the indications are that the world is cooling. And, contrary to the proclamations of climate activists, every single year more people die from the cold than from the heat.

    A study in British medical journal The Lancet reached the following conclusion:

     Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries.

    How did this bizarre situation develop? It was a deliberate, orchestrated deception. The results of the investigation of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were deliberately premeditated to focus on the negative impacts of warming. In their original 1988 mandate from the UN, global warming is mentioned three times, while cooling is not mentioned even once. The UN notes that:

      [C]ontinued growth in atmospheric concentrations of “greenhouse” gases could produce global warming with an eventual rise in sea levels, the effects of which could be disastrous for mankind if timely steps are not taken at all levels.

     This narrow focus was reinforced when the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, a body the IPCC is required to support, defined climate change as being caused by human activity.

 

     IPCC Working Group 1 (WG1) produced the evidence that human-created CO2 was causing global warming. That finding became the premise for Working Group 2 (WG2), which examined the negative impact, and Working Group 3 (WG3), which proposed mitigation policies and actions to stop the warming. The IPCC did not follow the mandatory scientific method of allowing for the null hypothesis; namely, what to do if evidence shows CO2 is not causing warming.

     As MIT professor emeritus of atmospheric meteorology Richard Lindzen said, they reached a consensus before the research even began. The consensus “proved” the hypothesis was correct, regardless of the evidence. To reinforce the point, the UK government hired Lord Nicholas Stern, a British economist, to produce an economic review of the impact of warming. Instead of doing a normal cost/benefit analysis as any non-political economist would do, he produced what became known as the 2006 Stern Review — which only examined the cost.

     If Stern and the IPCC did a proper study, they would find that the impact of cooling is much more deleterious to all life on Earth, especially humans. Anthropologists tell us two great advances in human evolution gave us more control of the cold. Fire and clothing both created microclimates that allowed us to live in regions normally inaccessible. Consider the city of Winnipeg, with three technological umbilical cords: the electricity from the north, the gas from the west, and the water pipeline from the east. Three grenades set off at 2:00 a.m. on a January morning with temperatures of -30°C would render the city frozen solid within hours.

     Between 1940 and 1980, global temperatures went down. The consensus by 1970 was that global cooling was underway and would continue. Lowell Ponte’s 1976 book The Cooling typified the alarmism:

     It is cold fact: the global cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species.

    Change the seventh word to warming, and it is the same threat heard today. The big difference is that cooling is a much greater threat. To support that claim, the CIA produced at least two reports examining the social and political unrest aggravated mainly by crop failure due to cooling conditions. The World Meteorological Organization also did several studies on the historical impact of cooling on selected agricultural regions, and projected further global cooling.

     The sad part about all this is that there was a strategy that governments could, and should, have adopted. It is called game theory, and it allows you to make the best decision in uncertain circumstances. It requires accurate information and the exclusion of a biased political agenda. The first accurate information is that cold is a greater threat and a more difficult adaptation than to warming. After all, if you prepare for warming, as most governments are now doing, and it cools, the problems are made ten times worse. However, if you prepare for cold and it warms, the adjustment is much easier.

    The current cold weather across much of the world should prompt us to re-examine climate realities — not the false, deceptive, and biased views created and promoted by deep state bureaucrats through their respective governments.

Border Security Versus Democrat Hypocrisy

In border security debate, policy should trump rhetoric

James Jay Carafano

    Politicians often clothe outrageous policies in reasonable rhetoric. Donald Trump sometimes does the opposite, wrapping reasonable policy in careless rhetoric.

    Remember his earlier call for a “Muslim travel ban?” The policy itself – temporary restrictions on travel from a half-dozen countries – was perfectly reasonable. As the ISIS Caliphate collapsed, its fighters began fleeing to those nations, and Trump wanted to have measures in place to make sure they did not then come here.

Yet the President’s rhetoric helped fuel a bitter, partisan debate which kept the policy in abeyance until a Supreme Court ruling restored common sense by upholding the ban.

AMERICA’S PROGRESSIVES ARE SO BUSY EXTOLLING VIRTUES OF SOCIALISM THAT THEY WANT YOU TO IGNORE THIS

    His call for more border wall, only 237 miles out of the 1954 mile border, has sparked a similar dynamic. The political rhetoric on both sides of the debate frequently flies over the top, obscuring the practical rationale for the policy.

    Border security needs have changed since Congress passed the Secure Fence Act of 2006. Then, Homeland Security’s focus was to catch illegal border crossers and remove them before they “melted” into the interior.

    Fences were erected in high-trafficked areas to deter or slow crossings, helping the border patrol to catch illegal immigrants within 100 miles of the border. (Deportation of those apprehended after being in the country more than two weekends or beyond 100 miles of the border is a much more laborious and costly process.)

The fencing was both an effective deterrent and a helpful enforcement tool, increasing the likelihood of expedited removal. As a result, illegal crossings declined.

But the threat to the border has evolved. Those crossing the border with children and claiming to be related as well as those claiming refugee status are not put in expedited removal. Both have become popular tactics to “beat” the system.

The only way to prevent abuse of the asylum process is to keep would-be immigrants on the other side of the border until 1) they submit formal asylum claims at official points of entry and 2) those claims have been evaluated.

Making that happen requires more and improved walls. Indeed, Trump’s wall policy reflects the advice of government’s border security professionals.

A similar request from any other president would be considered unremarkable. It’s controversial only because of the hyper-partisan, emotional political atmosphere that has characterized the Trump era.

Conversely, other arguments against the request don’t pass the common sense test.

One argument is that the border is not a problem. The real problem, they say, is visa overstays – people entering legally and then just not leaving.

Overstays have always been a huge problem and do, in fact, account for a large percentage of people here illegally. But part of the reason overstays are a larger share of the population is because border security is working better than it used to. And we should continue to make it work better.

One reason to worry more about border crossers than overstayers is because the latter at least got a visa to come here to begin with. That means they were screened for security, public safety, health, criminal and public charge risks. Those crossing illegally haven’t been screened at all – making them a potentially higher-risk population.

At the end of the day, illegal border crossings and overstays are both problems. It’s not an either/or issue; good policy must address both.

Another weak argument suggests walls aren’t needed because drugs and other bad stuff are mostly smuggled through the ports of entry. There is truth in that, but smuggling also occurs elsewhere along the border. Again, good policy must address both dangers.

We actually need more border security to channel more smuggling attempt to ports of entry, because that is where we are best equipped to screen for bad things.

Perhaps the weakest argument against border walls is that they create a humanitarian crisis. Right now, legitimate refugees suffer their cases are delayed due to the avalanche of false claims now clogging the system. Moreover, to take advantage of the “family” loophole, more and more children are being dragged to the border – often by a non-family member. This has created an epidemic of child endangerment.

Finally, wall opponents argue there are other things we should do to crack down on illegal immigration – from closing catch-and-release loopholes in the wall, to working with Latin American countries to stem the causes of illegal migration and combat criminal cartels.

Here, they are right. The administration should take all those steps. And it’s trying to do so. But the package proposed by the president compliments these efforts. It is not one or the other.

    James Jay Carafano is vice president of foreign and defense policy studies at The Heritage Foundation. He is a leading expert in national security and foreign policy challenges, E. W. Richardson fellow, and director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies. Read his research. Follow him on Twitter @JJCarafano.

The Dangers of Democracy

The Covington Fiasco Is a Perfect Example of Why the Founders Distrusted Democracy

Jarrett Stepman / @JarrettStepman / January 22, 2019

A student from Covington Catholic High School stands in front of Native American Nathan Phillips in Washington, D.C., in this still image from a Jan. 18, 2019, video by Kaya Taitano. (Photo: Kaya Taitano/Social Media/via Reuters/Newscom)

    In the shallow world of modernity, we throw around a word like “democracy” as a stand-in for “things that I like.”

    Many in popular culture and elite institutions promote democracy as a cure for all that ails us—an unquestioned and unqualified blessing.

Still others turn on a dime and hope for its demise as soon as it produces outcomes they don’t like.

While democracy often plays a good and necessary role in a self-governing society, we have lost the healthy skepticism of its worst excesses that the Founding Fathers understood when they established the governing institutions of the United States.

These excesses were on full display over the weekend.

The frenzied hate mob unleashed on Catholic “Make America Great Again” hat-wearing teens—falsely accused of harassing a Native American at the March for Life over the weekend—is a shameful reminder of how fake news can destroy lives and perpetuate evil.

Particularly disturbing is how so many people—celebrities, politicians, and even some respected leaders who should have been more wary of grabbing their pitchforks before the facts had been unveiled—fell in with the scramble to condemn the students as hateful racists.

Many of these voices called for violence and other heinous actions against the Covington Catholic children. There could be no quarter, no forgiveness, no mercy. The mob needed its pound of flesh.

Celebrities and so-called thought leaders spun out articles and social media posts comparing the Covington Catholic students to segregationists and Ku Klux Klansman, condemning the Catholic Church for a “shameful history of Native American abuses,” and even angrily claiming that smirks and smiles are actually racist.

Even the students’ local diocese quickly rushed into the fray to condemn the students, in effect giving cover to the media outlets seeking to ruin the students’ lives and reputations.

The story was just too good to fact check, too easy to force into a cherished narrative: that white, male Christians are unleashing violence, bigotry, and harassment on minorities all over America.

The problem is, the entire narrative was based on a wild distortion of what occurred.

Media Mob Unleashed

The vicious and often unhinged diatribes we saw launched against the Covington Catholic students laid bare an irrational rage burning beneath the rule of law.

It is no stretch to think that left unchecked, the mob—especially the rage-fueled left—would have unjustly stripped these students of their basic freedoms and abandoned the notion of a presumption of innocence in a rush to judgment.

This is the same pattern we saw transpire in the confirmation battle over Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

So, is the problem our reckless and agenda-driven media? Yes, in part.

Media coverage of this incident was dreadful and shameful—a confirmation for many that even America’s most established and influential media institutions have become hopelessly biased and reckless in the age of Trump.

But the problem goes deeper than that. The truth is, fake news was every bit as much a problem in the late 1700s, when our country was formed, as it is today.

The use of the printing press allowed knowledge to travel like wildfire, but also gave hucksters and falsehood peddlers a new tool for spreading their wares more effectively.

True, our news today travels much faster, and social media can spread hysteria like a virus. But there’s also an upside.

Public intellectuals and members of the media continually decry the decentralized nature of the internet and its ability to generate “fake news” and misleading stories. They long for the day when America had just a few big outlets acting as responsible news arbiters.

Some even suggest that the answer is to create government agencies to sort through this information and tell us what the truth is, such as what Europe is experimenting with.

This is a terrible way to address the issue.

It was legacy media outlets in the first place—like The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN—that perpetuated the deceptive reporting we witnessed over the weekend and failed to follow basic journalistic practices, such as inquiring about both sides of a heated dispute.

News outlets point to foreign agents and anonymous Twitter accounts that promoted a slanted view of the controversy, but they are just using them as scapegoats. Their own journalistic malpractice is the heart of the problem.

This wouldn’t be the first time these outlets got a story massively wrong and deceived the American people, but now we at least have greater means to debunk falsehoods when they arise.

It was the skeptics who took the time to study the story from all angles, like Robby Soave at Reason, who blew the story up. Soave reviewed footage from the hours of amateur video taken of the incident. While legacy media outlets were still peddling the initial, deceptive narrative, it was collapsing with a simple review of easily obtainable evidence that refuted it.

As my colleague, Kelsey Harkness, noted on “Fox & Friends”: “Just imagine if there were no hourlong, or two-hourlong videos that could exonerate these high school exonerate these high school boys. Their lives could be ruined.”

The Dangerous Whims of Democracy

If anything, we need to learn a valuable lesson from this incident.

We should today heed the wisdom of John Adams, who wrote to his friend John Taylor about the excesses of democracy.

This lesson is especially important now as it’s clear that many—especially on the left—have deep and unrelenting contempt for their fellow citizens who disagree with them. He explained that while democracy is no worse than “monarchy or aristocracy,” it is often bloodier than either and “wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”

Jarrett Stepman is an editor and commentary writer for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast.

The “Wall” and Illegal Immigration

The “Wall” and Illegal Immigration
 
    The hypocrisy of the Democrats, liberals, etc. – all those failing to protect and defend the original intention of the Constitution, ignores the historical reality that the Framers and Founders based “the supreme law of the land” on the immutable Law(s) defined by the Bible. They studied history to five hundred years before Christ, and called to the truths of science as they understood them at the time.

     Our enemies, foreign and domestic, ignore and reject Truth, scientific and historical, as they attack America. Truth is defined not by what one chooses to believe, but by the order established by the Source and Creator of “the laws of Nature” endowing our “unalienable Rights”.
    Rather than contaminate and infect all that made America great with ideologies and cultures that exist contrary to immutable Law, Americans loyal to the original intention of the Constitution contribute to charitable endeavors such as Christian missionary efforts to share the Truth that sets mankind free and elevates the less fortunate in their own homelands. Rejecting government as their god, they use charitable contributions deducted from the taxes levied by politicians failing in their oath of office to feed the poor and aid those in need.
    The political divisiveness and injustice spewing from those supporting illegal immigration, partial birth abortion, and all the unconstitutional and morally bankrupt political agendas was seen in our legislatures just before the tragedy of our great Civil War as our enemies’ agenda was then to preserve slavery.
    The building of an interrupted 237 mile wall along fractions of the 1954 mile Mexican American border requires a part of the $5.7 billion requested by the President. Compared to the estimated over $150 billion dollar cost attributable to illegal immigration and the crimes associated with it, the cost to American safety and security far outweigh the cost of a wall. Looking a the hypocrisy of Senator Schumer’s previous support of the protections he and his fellow Democrats now fail to provide, those attacking America declare themselves.

a portion of all proceeds from Build the Wall Legos go to the Wounded Warrior Project

 
 
 
 
 
 

Those Without Disability Parking in Handicapped Parking

Those Without Disability Parking in Handicapped Parking

     Witnessing a man butt in line at a retail store checkout, and then seeing the same able bodied man get into his shiny new black truck with chromed rotating wheel covers parked in a handicapped parking space incensed a desire to uphold justice. Too far away to intervene, the violator drove off without confrontation. Knowing that the politically correct are more concerned about the use of the word “handicapped” than they are about justice, emphasizes what is terribly wrong in America today.

      Just as a child who has violated some minor rule and gets away with it moves on to bigger and greater transgressions unless they are held accountable, so liberals and progressives obviate truth and justice in our society substituting what they choose to believe. For example, they impart a demeaning and derogatory meaning to a word – handicapped, that was used to show empathy and concern. Regardless of how the word came into use, its meaning was perverted making its use politically incorrect just as those attempting to destroy all that made America great ridicule the commitment to service and sacrifice made by those whose cause is not acceptable them. Those who ignore history, destroy monuments, reject the Holocaust, subvert memories, fail to stand for the National Anthem and the Pledge of Allegiance, and on and on; unjustly feel they are the authorized to determine what is right or wrong, good or evil, true or untrue, fact or fiction, etc. Integrity has become self satisfaction, avarice, greed, and the quest for unjust political power.

      Whether, “domestic tranquility” is shattered by the anarchy of arson and looting caused by politicians not enforcing the 1st Amendment civil right to “peaceably . . . assemble”; respect for authority and the rule of law is rejected by children raised without the socialization benefits of a father; illegal drugs continuing to flow across our unprotected borders feed the addicted;  trust in government is lost by politicians not holding to campaign promises and their oath of office; national security is compromised by a president selling missile guidance secrets to the Chinese; foreign policy becomes distrusted by a president and secretary of state allowing terrorists to assassinate our ambassador and three U.S. citizens in Benghazi; intelligence agents are lost because a political candidate uses internet communication forbidden by law; our foundation of the order of law is eroded by a president not being held accountable for perjury; the fundamental doctrine of justice demanding a presumption of innocence until proven guilty under an equally applied order of law is obliterated by those holding themselves above the law; all the seemingly never ending assaults on the original intention of the Constitution by the various unjust political agendas, “special interests” of unbridled capitalism, the unjust discrimination of socialism, etc., continually mounted are tolerated; freedom and equal justice for all are sacrificed to a Congress and government not protecting and defending the Constitution from its “enemies, foreign and domestic”.

     Contrary to the movement of liberals and progressives to destroy the original intention of the Constitution in their move beyond reason, the Framers studied history in secret for 500 years before Christ before framing it. The Founders, enlightened by the Great Awakening of the 1730s, understood a reality and Truth defined, not by the constant error of human intention and invention, but by the Creator of immutable Law. As the ideologic preamble to the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence defines the foundation of unchanging indelible Law upon which the Constitution is based.

      Incorporated into the document that serves as the model for freedom and justice for all governments withstanding the tests in the unyielding crucible of time, our enemies seek to corrupt even the truths of science and history, that it contains. More, simply relying on reason and common sense, the inescapable reality is that any law must be held to the original intention of the maker of that law. Otherwise, situation or statistical ethics, judicial activism, prejudice, desire, public opinion, etc. – all of the constant human failures, would be able to amend the original intention of any law.

      Specifically, the Framers and Founders were expressly fearful of the public majority, and the power of government. The Constitution provides checks and balances, structures and mechanisms to address the unchanging failed erroneous patterns of human behavior revealed by valid history attached to our species as inseparable parasites of freedom and justice for all.

      Looking no further than our enemies desire to eliminate the Electoral College, lower the three fourths requirement to amend the “supreme law of the land”, the cancer of the administrative state, or the attempt to prevent the confirmation of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, the attack on America is hot, here, and now!

      The following article by Dr. Kesler repeats the foregoing, but lacks the immediacy of the call to “protect and defend this Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic”.

CftC

America’s Cold Civil War

Imprimis, October 2018 • Volume 47, Number 10

Charles R. Kesler
Editor, Claremont Review of Books

    Six years ago I wrote a book about Barack Obama in which I predicted that modern American liberalism, under pressures both fiscal and philosophical, would either go out of business or be forced to radicalize. If it chose the latter, I predicted, it could radicalize along two lines: towards socialism or towards an increasingly post-modern form of leadership. Today it is doing both. As we saw in Bernie Sanders’ campaign, the youngest generation of liberals is embracing socialism openly—something that would have been unheard of during the Cold War. At the same time, identity politics is on the ascendant, with its quasi-Nietzschean faith in race, sex, and power as the keys to being and meaning. In the #MeToo movement, for example—as we saw recently in Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation battle—the credo is, “Believe the woman.” In other words, truth will emerge not from an adversarial process weighing evidence and testimony before the bar of reason, but from yielding to the will of the more politically correct. “Her truth” is stronger than any objective or disinterested truth.

    In the Claremont Review of Books, we have described our current political scene as a cold civil war. A cold civil war is better than a hot civil war, but it is not a good situation for a country to be in. Underlying our cold civil war is the fact that America is torn increasingly between two rival constitutions, two cultures, two ways of life.

    Political scientists sometimes distinguish between normal politics and regime politics. Normal politics takes place within a political and constitutional order and concerns means, not ends. In other words, the ends or principles are agreed upon; debate is simply over means. By contrast, regime politics is about who rules and for what ends or principles. It questions the nature of the political system itself. Who has rights? Who gets to vote? What do we honor or revere together as a people? I fear America may be leaving the world of normal politics and entering the dangerous world of regime politics—a politics in which our political loyalties diverge more and more, as they did in the 1850s, between two contrary visions of the country.

    One vision is based on the original Constitution as amended. This is the Constitution grounded in the natural rights of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution written in 1787 and ratified in 1788. It has been transmitted to us with significant Amendments—some improvements and some not—but it is recognizable still as the original Constitution. To simplify matters we may call this “the conservative Constitution”—with the caveat that conservatives have never agreed perfectly on its meaning and that many non-conservatives remain loyal to it.

    The other vision is based on what Progressives and liberals, for 100 years now, have called “the living Constitution.” This term implies that the original Constitution is dead—or at least on life support—and that in order to remain relevant to our national life, the original Constitution must be infused with new meaning and new ends and therefore with new duties, rights, and powers. To cite an important example, new administrative agencies must be created to circumvent the structural limitations that the original Constitution imposed on government.

    As a doctrine, the living Constitution originated in America’s new departments of political and social science in the late nineteenth century—but it was soon at the very forefront of Progressive politics. One of the doctrine’s prime formulators, Woodrow Wilson, had contemplated as a young scholar a series of constitutional amendments to reform America’s national government into a kind of parliamentary system—a system able to facilitate faster political change. But he quickly realized that his plan to amend the Constitution was going nowhere. Plan B was the living Constitution. While keeping the outward forms of the old Constitution, the idea of a living Constitution would change utterly the spirit in which the Constitution was understood.

    The resulting Constitution—let us call it “the liberal Constitution”—is not a constitution of natural rights or individual human rights, but of historical or evolutionary right. Wilson called the spirit of the old Constitution Newtonian, after Isaac Newton, and that of the new Constitution Darwinian, after Charles Darwin. By Darwinian, Wilson meant that instead of being difficult to amend, the liberal Constitution would be easily amenable to experimentation and adjustment. To paraphrase the late Walter Berns, the point of the old Constitution was to keep the times in tune with the Constitution; the purpose of the new is to keep the Constitution in tune with the times.

    Until the 1960s, most liberals believed it was inevitable that their living Constitution would replace the conservative Constitution through a kind of slow-motion evolution. But during the sixties, the so-called New Left abandoned evolution for revolution, and partly in reaction to that, defenders of the old Constitution began not merely to fight back, but to call for a return to America’s first principles. By seeking to revolve back to the starting point, conservatives proved to be Newtonians after all—and also, in a way, revolutionaries, since the original meaning of revolution is to return to where you began, as a celestial body revolves in the heavens.

    The conservative campaign against the inevitable victory of the living Constitution gained steam as a campaign against the gradual or sudden disappearance of limited government and of republican virtue in our political life. And when it became clear, by the late 1970s and 1980s, that the conservatives weren’t going away, the cold civil war was on.

    Confronted by sharper, deeper, and more compelling accounts of the conservative Constitution, the liberals had to sharpen—that is, radicalize—their own alternative, following the paths paved by the New Left. As a result, the gap between the liberal and conservative Constitutions became a gulf, to the extent that today we are two countries—or we are fast on the road to becoming two countries—each constituted differently.

    Consider a few of the contrasts. The prevailing liberal doctrine of rights traces individual rights to membership in various groups—racial, ethnic, gender, class-based, etc.—which are undergoing a continual process of consciousness-raising and empowerment. This was already a prominent feature of Progressivism well over a century ago, though the groups have changed since then. Before Woodrow Wilson became a politician, he wrote a political science textbook, and the book opened by asking which races should be studied. Wilson answered: we’ll study the Aryan race, because the Aryan race is the one that has mastered the world. The countries of Europe and the Anglophone countries are the conquerors and colonizers of the other continents. They are the countries with the most advanced armaments, arts, and sciences.

    Wilson was perhaps not a racist in the full sense of the term, because he expected the less advanced races over time to catch up with the Aryan race. But his emphasis was on group identity—an emphasis that liberals today retain, the only difference being that the winning and losing sides have been scrambled. Today the white race and European civilization are the enemy—“dead white males” is a favored pejorative on American campuses—and the races and groups that were oppressed in the past are the ones that today need compensation, privileges, and power.

    Conservatives, by contrast, regard the individual as the quintessential endangered minority. They trace individual rights to human nature, which lacks a race. Human nature also lacks ethnicity, gender, and class. Conservatives trace the idea of rights to the essence of an individual as a human being. We have rights because we’re human beings with souls, with reason, distinct from other animals and from God. We’re not beasts, but we’re not God—we’re the in-between being. Conservatives seek to vindicate human equality and liberty—the basis for majority rule in politics—against the liberal Constitution’s alternative, in which everything is increasingly based on group identity.

    There is also today a vast divergence between the liberal and conservative understandings of the First Amendment. Liberals are interested in transforming free speech into what they call equal speech, ensuring that no one gets more than his fair share. They favor a redistribution of speech rights via limits on campaign contributions, repealing the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, and narrowing the First Amendment for the sake of redistribution of speech rights from the rich to the poor. Not surprisingly, the Democratic Party’s 2016 platform called for amending the First Amendment!

    There is, of course, also a big difference between the liberal Constitution’s freedom from religion and the conservative Constitution’s freedom of religion. And needless to say, the liberal Constitution has no Second Amendment.

    In terms of government structure, the liberal Constitution is designed to overcome the separation of powers and most other checks and balances. Liberals consistently support the increased ability to coordinate, concentrate, and enhance government power—as opposed to dividing, restricting, or checking it. This is to the detriment of popular control of government. In recent decades, government power has flowed mainly through the hands of unelected administrators and judges—to the point that elected members of Congress find themselves increasingly dispirited and unable to legislate. As the Financial Times put it recently, “Congress is a sausage factory that has forgotten how to make sausages.”

    If one thinks about how America’s cold civil war could be resolved, there seem to be only five possibilities. One would be to change the political subject. Ronald Reagan used to say that when the little green men arrive from outer space, all of our political differences will be transcended and humanity will unite for the first time in human history. Similarly, if some jarring event intervenes—a major war or a huge natural calamity—it might reset our politics.

    A second possibility, if we can’t change the subject, is that we could change our minds. Persuasion, or some combination of persuasion and moderation, might allow us to end or endure our great political division. Perhaps one party or side will persuade a significant majority of the electorate to embrace its Constitution, and thus win at the polling booth and in the legislature. For generations, Republicans have longed for a realigning election that would turn the GOP into America’s majority party. This remains possible, but seems unlikely. Only two presidents in the twentieth century were able to effect enduring changes in American public opinion and voting patterns—Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. FDR inspired a political realignment that lasted for a generation or so and lifted the Democratic Party to majority status. Ronald Reagan inspired a realignment of public policy, but wasn’t able to make the GOP the majority party.

    Since 1968, the norm in America has been divided government: the people have more often preferred to split control of the national government between the Democrats and the Republicans rather than entrust it to one party. This had not previously been the pattern in American politics. Prior to 1968, Americans would almost always (the exceptions proved the rule) entrust the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Presidency to the same party in each election. They would occasionally change the party, but still they would vote for a party to run the government. Not so for the last 50 years. And neither President Obama nor President Trump, so far, has persuaded the American electorate to embrace his party as their national representative, worthy of long-term patriotic allegiance.

    Trump, of course, is new to this, and his party in Congress is basically pre-Trumpian. He did not win the 2016 election by a very large margin, and he was not able to bring many new Republicans into the House or the Senate. Nonetheless, he has the opportunity now to put his mark on the party. In trying to do so, his populism—which is not a word he uses—will not be enough. He will have to reach out to the existing Republican Party as he has done, adopt some of its agenda, adopt its electoral supporters, and gradually bring them around to his “America first” conservatism if he is to have any chance of achieving a political realignment. And the odds remain against him at this point.

    As for moderating our disagreements and learning to live with them more or less permanently, that too seems unlikely given their fundamental nature and the embittered trajectory of our politics over the last two decades.

    So if we won’t change our minds, and if we can’t change the subject, we are left with only three other ways out of the cold civil war. The happiest of the three would be a vastly reinvigorated federalism. One of the original reasons for constitutional federalism was that the states had a variety of interests and views that clashed with one another and could not be pursued in common. If we had a re-flowering of federalism, some of the differences between blue states and red states could be handled discreetly by the states themselves. The most disruptive issues could be denationalized. The problem is, having abandoned so much of traditional federalism, it is hard to see how federalism could be revived at this late juncture.

    That leaves two possibilities. One, alas, is secession, which is a danger to any federal system—something about which James Madison wrote at great length in The Federalist Papers. With any federal system, there is the possibility that some states will try to leave it. The Czech Republic and Slovakia have gone their separate ways peacefully, just within the last generation. But America is much better at expansion than contraction. And George Washington’s admonitions to preserve the Union, I think, still miraculously somehow linger in our ears. So secession would be extremely difficult for many reasons, not the least of which is that it could lead, as we Americans know from experience, to the fifth and worst possibility: hot civil war.

    Under present circumstances, the American constitutional future seems to be approaching some kind of crisis—a crisis of the two Constitutions. Let us pray that we and our countrymen will find a way to reason together and to compromise, allowing us to avoid the worst of these dire scenarios—that we will find, that is, the better angels of our nature.

Charles R. Kesler

    Charles R. Kesler is the Dengler-Dykema Distinguished Professor of Government at Claremont McKenna College and editor of the Claremont Review of Books. He earned his bachelor’s degree in social studies and his A.M. and Ph.D. in government from Harvard University. A senior fellow at the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy and a recipient of the 2018 Bradley Prize, he is the editor of several books, including Keeping the Tablets: Modern American Conservative Thought (with William F. Buckley Jr.), and the author of I Am the Change: Barack Obama and the Future of Liberalism.

    The above article is adapted from a lecture delivered at Hillsdale College on September 27, 2018, by Dr. Kesler during a two-week teaching residency as a Eugene C. Pulliam Distinguished Visiting Fellow in Journalism.

 

The First Amendment Lost To the Tolerance of Injustice

The First Amendment Lost To the Tolerance of Injustice

    “Liberty and justice for all” are inviolate standards imposed by the Framers and Founders in “the supreme law of the land” – the Constitution of the United States of America. Our enemies, foreign and domestic, reject those foundational tenets required of all successful governments and human interactions. Always manifest when the order of law is corrupted by discrimination and inequality, anarchy presents when injustice is tolerated in any degree or form.

      The innocent law-abiding citizens of Ferguson had every basic fundamental civil right violated by the anarchists tolerated by politicians soliciting the vote of the undeserving. The policeman attacked by a drug dealing thug became vilified for protecting his life by a liberal media guided by prejudice and injustice. Like the vast majority of crimes perpetrated on the innocent and the rejection of authority impacting law enforcement, the root cause of single parent homes lacking the righteous discipline of a father is never addressed. Sanctuary cities infecting their neighbors with criminals are tolerated by a government shackled by politicians not held accountable to their oath of office by voters ignoring platforms and voting records. A president attempting to fulfill all of his campaign promises is under constant attack by those seeking to sustain their injustice. Whether the administrative state or the judicial activists robbing us of our freedom, our enemies seek to enable their continued contamination of government, because they depend on that very injustice for their own existence.

      Christians are attacked on every front by those espousing their own false religions. Whether humanists, atheists, or other congregants of the the multitude of isms lacking any credential of science or valid history, those rejecting truth and holding to untruth are threatened by reality and truth. Choosing what they want to believe beyond reason, those attacking America seek to deny the First Amendment rights of all citizens and sequester justice into an order of law founded on untruths, lies, and deceptions. 

CftC

The Fruits of College Indoctrination

Walter E. Williams / @WE_Williams / November 21, 2018

Fox News personality Tucker Carlson is one of the numerous recent targets of left-wing harassment. (Photo: Lucas Jackson/Reuters/Newscom)

    Much of today’s incivility and contempt for personal liberty has its roots on college campuses, and most of the uncivil and contemptuous are people with college backgrounds. Let’s look at a few highly publicized recent examples of incivility and attacks on free speech.

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and his wife, U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, were accosted and harassed by a deranged left-wing mob as they were leaving a dinner at Georgetown University. McConnell was harassed by protesters at Reagan National Airport, as well as at several venues in Kentucky.

    Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and his wife were harassed at a Washington, D.C., restaurant. Afterward, a group called Smash Racism DC wrote: “No—you can’t eat in peace—your politics are an attack on all of us. You’re [sic] votes are a death wish. Your votes are hate crimes.”

    Other members of Congress—such as Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., and Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Rand Paul, R-Ky.—have been physically attacked or harassed by leftists.

    Most recent is the case of Fox News political commentator Tucker Carlson. A leftist group showed up at his house at night, damaging his front door and chanting, “Tucker Carlson, we will fight! We know where you sleep at night! Racist scumbag, leave town!”

    Mayhem against people with different points of view is excused as just deserts for what is seen as hate speech. American Enterprise Institute scholar Charles Murray discovered this when he was shouted down at Middlebury College; the professor escorting him was sent to the hospital with injuries.

    Students at the University of California, Berkeley, shut down a controversial speaker and caused riot damage estimated at $100,000. Protesters at both UCLA and Claremont McKenna College disrupted scheduled lectures by Manhattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald.

    The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has discovered so-called bias response teams on hundreds of American college campuses. Bias response teams report to campus officials—and sometimes to law enforcement officers—speech that may cause “alarm, anger, or fear” or that might otherwise offend. Drawing pictures or cartoons that belittle people because of their beliefs or political affiliation can be reported as hate speech.

    Universities expressly set their sights on prohibiting constitutionally protected speech. As FIRE reported in 2017, hundreds of universities nationwide now maintain Orwellian systems that ask students to report—often anonymously—their neighbors, friends, and professors for any instances of supposed biased speech and expression.

    A recent Brookings Institution poll found that nearly half of college students believe that hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment. That’s nonsense; it is.

    Fifty-one percent of college students think they have a right to shout down a speaker with whom they disagree. Nineteen percent of students think that it’s acceptable to use violence to prevent a speaker from speaking. Over 50 percent agree that colleges should prohibit speech and viewpoints that might offend certain people.

    One should not be surprised at all if these visions are taught and held by many of their professors. Colleges once taught and promoted an understanding of Western culture. Today many professors and the college bureaucracy teach students that they are victims of Western culture and values.

    Benjamin Franklin wrote, “Whoever would overthrow the Liberty of a Nation, must begin by subduing the Freeness of Speech.”

    Much later, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said, “Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.”

    From the Nazis to Stalinists to Maoists, tyrants have always started out supporting free speech, just as American leftists did during the 1960s. Their support for free speech is easy to understand. Speech is vital for the realization of their goals of command, control, and confiscation. The right to say what they please is their tool for indoctrination, propagandizing, and proselytization.

    Once the leftists gain control, as they have at many universities, free speech becomes a liability and must be suppressed. This is increasingly the case on university campuses.

    Much of the off-campus incivility we see today is the fruit of what a college education has done to our youth.

Portrait of Walter E. Williams

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

Lincoln and Thanksgiving: The Origin of an American Holiday

Lincoln and Thanksgiving: The Origin of an American Holiday
Melanie Kirkpatrick
November 19, 2018

 

    In Plymouth, Massachusetts, in the autumn of 1621, 53 men, women and children celebrated their first harvest in the New World. The great Indian chief, Massasoit, brought 90 of his men to the three-day party. From all reports, a good time was had by all.

    How did this event, which happened almost 400 years ago, become a part of the American story and our oldest national tradition?

    Credit goes to many people, but two stand out. One you know, and one you should know: Abraham Lincoln and Sarah Josepha Hale.

    As a religious people, Americans have always had a keen sense they have been blessed by Providence. The pilgrims certainly felt this, and so did subsequent generations, including George Washington. Washington was the first president to declare a national day of public thanksgiving and praise. But it wasn’t until the Civil War that the idea of a national Day of Thanksgiving fully took hold.

    In the autumn of 1863—at the height of the Civil War, when Americans were bitterly divided—Abraham Lincoln nevertheless called for a day of national thanksgiving.

    Lincoln began his proclamation this way: “The year that is drawing toward its close has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies.” It was an extraordinary way to characterize 1863—the bloodiest year of the war.

    But even “in the midst of a civil war of unequaled severity and magnitude,” Lincoln continued, the nation had much to be thankful for and much to look forward to. The day was coming when America would again be united and experience, as Lincoln put it, “a large increase of freedom.” It was a profoundly hopeful message, reminding Americans of their nation’s capacity for renewal.

    Lincoln’s decision to call for a national Thanksgiving came at the urging of the far-sighted and persistent magazine editor of Godey’s Lady’s Book who believed such a celebration would have a “deep moral influence” on the American character. Her name was Sarah Josepha Hale. More than any single person, she is the reason we celebrate Thanksgiving today.

    By the 1840s, many states had established an annual day of thanksgiving, but the date varied widely from state to state. Hale saw the value of a day in which the entire nation celebrated as one.

    For two decades, she conducted a campaign to consolidate public support for her idea. As the influential editor of one of the most popular periodicals of the 19th century, year after year she wrote columns making the case for the holiday; she published fiction and poems with a Thanksgiving Day theme; and she offered her readers recipes for traditional Thanksgiving dishes such as roast turkey and pumpkin pie. And, by the way, she also wrote the nursery rhyme, “Mary Had a Little Lamb.”

    Presidents Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, and Franklin Pierce, to whom she had written letters, showed little interest in her cause. But Lincoln saw its potential. His proclamation was the first in what became an unbroken string of annual Thanksgiving proclamations by every subsequent president. 

    Congress finally sealed the deal in 1941, when President Franklin Roosevelt signed legislation making Thanksgiving an official national holiday.

    Lincoln and Hale believed the act of expressing gratitude had tremendous healing power. In his Thanksgiving proclamation, Lincoln spoke not as commander-in-chief of the Union forces, but as president of the entire nation—North and South. He made no reference to “rebels” or “enemies.” Rather, the president spoke of “the whole American people.”

    It’s a message that resonates today, when Americans, even within families, are divided over issues of politics and culture. Thanksgiving, our nation’s oldest tradition, brings us together just as it brought the pilgrims and Indians together in 1621. Lincoln said it best when he called on every American to celebrate Thanksgiving “with one heart and one voice.”

    Thanksgiving gives us a moment to focus on the blessings of being Americans, on the prosperity, security and freedom we enjoy. If Lincoln could focus on these blessings in the middle of the Civil War, we should certainly be able to do so today.

    Here’s a suggestion: at this year’s Thanksgiving table, ask everyone to spend a minute to say what they are grateful for. I suspect you’ll find your guests will have a long and eloquent list. And if they don’t, you can help them out: suggest they start with family, friends, and living in the freest country in the world.

    After all, if we don’t give thanks, what’s the point of Thanksgiving?

Melanie Kirkpatrick is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and author of Thanksgiving: The Holiday at the Heart of the American Experience.