Feeds:
Posts
Comments

This article from American Spectator is surprisingly woke, in discussing why most Republicans are with Trump, even while a pundit class–which bears little in common with Republican voters–has defected from him and the party under the rubric of “Never Trump”:

This myopia has several causes. The first is a kind of cultural “capture” that occurs when conservatives live in blue districts and big cities too long. They become, in other words, clueless (RINOS). The second reason is more obvious: many of these people are paid to be openly hostile to Trump’s agenda. The free trade absolutists at AEI and Cato are on salary to oppose any protectionist trade policies. Likewise, hawkish interventionists such as Max Boot knew they had no professional future once Trump’s isolationist instincts became policy.

There is also a low-testosterone, dilettantish strain of conservatism that has overdeveloped in the “mainstream” media to create such sterile hybrids as Michael Gerson and George Will and David Brooks. Nothing sunk these so-called wise men lower in the estimation of their fellow conservatives than their blithe indifference to the Clintons’ gangsterism. While Trump threw wild verbal haymakers at Hillary at campaign rallies, these intellectuals were basically on TV announcing they would be accommodationists for the Clinton Machine’s inevitable victory. Trump’s base was fighting a war; these guys were sipping tea. The contrast in styles of conservatism was stark: it was the pugnacious billionaire against the stuffy wimps.

The greatest disconnect is religious and cultural: the Republican Party is overwhelmingly Caucasian and Christian and traditional on social issues, while its pundits skew Jewish and agnostic and libertarian. Krauthammer wanted to have it both ways, which is not unlike the hedging that Brooks and Goldberg have displayed. George Will went so far as to say: “I’m an atheist. An agnostic is someone who is not sure. I’m pretty sure. I see no evidence of God.” Meanwhile, Gerson is a liberal Episcopalian who took to the pages of the Atlantic to attack evangelicals for supporting Trump. In sum, the conservative intellectuals didn’t understand the base’s concerns about religious liberty because they hardly cared for religion — which should have disqualified them long ago.

Advertisements

uNtsU56

We’ve heard stories and personally seen a level of political and cultural friction in recent months that is remarkable.  A congressional intern screaming “f**k you” to the President.  FBI agents talking on official workplace computers about “Viva le Resistance.”  Career customs agents being threatened and having their personal information distributed by otherwise respectable college professors.

Why is this happening?   I think the reason is the different life experiences of conservatives and liberals.   Right wingers, even extreme ones, mostly have limited goals.  They want to be left alone, and they don’t want their country deliberately changed.  I’m one of the more far right people I know, but I can’t imagine getting angry or in the face of a liberal.  They do their thing, I do mine.

I think liberals especially younger ones are coddled and entitled.  They assume things are moving in a certain direction and that all decent people agree with them.  This is the implicit assumption of their adoption of the term “progressive.”

So Trump has caused them all to lose it.  Whereas conservatives, especially those not from super-conservative places like the Deep South, are used to lots of people disagreeing with them, the culture being hostile to them, and the fact that other smart people, such as their teachers and relatives who move to the “big city,” disagree with them.  It’s just something they’ve adjusted to.

I don’t think these liberals realize it or have encountered it as much, and they’re completely convinced of their righteousness.  Conservatives learn to argue and debate; it’s one of the reasons why talk radio is so popular.  Liberals, by contrast, say things like “wow, just wow” and “that’s racist” and feel as if they are saying something.  They’re in the same position as conservatives were when the 60s rolled along:  they are the establishment, the world around them is changing, and they’re confused and angry.

I’ve been doing writing elsewhere (and also got into a little brouhaha with the authorities at Twitter), so I’m giving a little attention to the blog with a roundup.

Great article on the criminality at the FBI–at least at the top–and how it’s increasingly on display, particularly with McCabe seeking immunity.  I can’t recommend enough the various takes at The Conservative Treehouse.

A powerful description of the wages of the Sex in the City lifestyle (hint: it doesn’t end happily).

Good piece on the impossibility of freedom and diversity, as evidenced by the recent Supreme Court cake decision. When you have a homogeneous and democratic society, the laws fall lightly and mostly on the margins.  They represent a preexisting consensus.  When you have dissensus about the most basic issues of how to live and what government should do, the laws will make a much larger fraction of society unhappy, as Christians who bake cakes have learned.

A book I recently bought: Bronze Age Mindset.  And you thought I was reactionary!  This twitter account is interesting, and his take on Darwinism, teleology, and science more generally, so far, seems profound and insightful.

Brett Stephens makes a modest proposal on immigration:  Ban Jews.  He’s joking; he’s Jewish.  And he thinks on balance the massive Jewish immigration of the early 20th Century was good.  But was that wave of immigration so good for the people already here?  Were we better off for the contributions of the Rosenbergs, Abbie Hoffmans, and Mark Ruuds of the world. Less dramatically, what about people like Chuck Schumer? No one misses the nonexistent wave of immigrants who didn’t come here back then, e.g., the Third World immigrants who dominate today.  And the immigrants, even then, created a lot of problems at the time, as I wrote about here. Would we be so worse off if the native stock were more dominant?  Places like Nashville, Dallas, and Omaha suggest it wouldn’t be so bad.  Dan Rather made this point recently on Twitter, and the comments are hilarious.   My point is simple: immigration is not the heart of America’s identity, it’s had costs as well as benefits, and it has changed our culture and political life mostly for the worse.

The recent news about Kate Spade, who I didn’t know or follow, left me kind of sad.  She is an impressive person who built a business empire through a quality, elegant product.  She was married, wealthy, and had a young daughter.  She had a great many things that others aspire to and envy.  And she killed herself.  How terrible.  While the focus will be on depression and her mental health, one wonders how much cases like this are emblematic of a broader sickness in our society.  One can say the same of nihilistic rages like school shootings.  The founder of modern sociology, Emile Durkheim, rose to fame, in part, by tracking suicides by various demographic characteristics, and attributed the rise of suicide to social atomism and the pressures of modern life.  In the age of social media and diversity, maybe the story is the same . . . and it’s worse.  

image

One has a sense that things are coming to a head on the shennanigans that occurred during the 2016 presidential election.

The New York Times ran a puff piece, and it buried the lede: namely, there was at least one FBI spy in the Trump campaign.  Editorial writers who laughed at Trump last year when he said this is what happened, now say it was for Trump’s own good (though they failed to inform him of this favor) and that wasn’t a spy, it was merely an informant.  Oh.  Nothing to see here.

The FBI and intelligence community did their usual redaction routine, claiming lives were at stake and thus they had to keep the whole business hidden.  Turns out it’s an old Deep State hand, Stefan Halper, who also spied on behalf of former CIA director George H.W. Bush back in 1980. The professor has not concealed his identity or his numerous government contracts.  Like the Plame Affair, the importance of his identity is that it may embarrass or incriminate some very powerful people.  It looks like the CIA, which spent much of the Cold War rigging elections and fomenting coups, has turned inward.

The basic facts are now apparent.  Thinking Hillary would win, the highest officials at FBI (Comey, Strzok, Lisa Page, McCabe), DNI (Clapper), NSA (Indirectly through Susan Rice), and CIA (Brennan) used the pretext of a Russian Collusion investigation to obtain dirt on Trump.  The exact origins and timeline of the beginning of this investigation have been kept deliberately vague, but the various cover stories have started to be exposed as false, such as the Australian diplomat meeting with Papadopolous, or the use of the Steele Dossier to look into Carter Page.

The mechanisms and purported reasons were all basic frauds, and one pretty obvious reason is that the FBI never looked seriously into the hacking of the DNC, which appears to be the result of John Podesta’s shoddy knowledge of internet security . . . and little more.

In a desperate attempt to cover things up, the Comey-Rosenstein engineered Mueller Investigation has brought some indictments on random tax offenses (against Manafort) and process crimes (against Flynn and Papadopolous).  Missing, during the election campaign and after, is any evidence of collusion by the Trump Campain with Russia.  Indeed, this evidence is missing even when they tried to gin it up with entrapment-oriented talks with Halper and possibly the infamous Russian Lawyer meeting, which I suspect the FBI or someone in on the conspiracy arranged to entrap the participants.

As far as collusion, it’s increasingly clear that it happened, but the guilty party is Hillary Clinton and her campaign.   We now know that her campaign, using various intermediaries, colluded with domestic intelligence agencies, foreign intelligence agencies (particularly in the UK), employed laundered money that Steele passed on to Russia to obtain dirt, and generally behaved with the sort of ethics one would expect from a super-leftist from the South Side of Chicago who “palled around with [Weather Underground] terrorists.”

In short, all of the normal unwritten restrains on the abuse of sensitive intelligence gathering tools were thrown out the window by Obama’s people, and now at least some of them appear guilty of genuine interference in an election and a presidency.

In other words, what has happened here is nothing short of treason.

Comey is the absolute worst:  self-promoting, dishonest, law-breaking, and totally in love with his image as “The Last Honest Man in Washington.”

His leaked memos are out; they show nothing, other than he tries to read minds, and doesn’t explain why he hides key facts from his boss, like the fact that the Steele Dossier was funded by the Clinton Campaign.  He also doesn’t explain a good reason, to either the President or anyone else, why he had to keep mum about the fact that the President wasn’t being investigated.

But the worst part is his utter cowardice. He has plenty of times to say, “I can’t do that” or “this is not how things are done” by he shares how he struggles and worries and feels sick and all the rest.  He’s clearly ill suited to be an FBI Director or have any other important jobs.  Trump had to fire him, one way or another.

Happy Easter

This has always been on my favorite hymns.  Happy Easter everyone.  He is Risen.

Things Afoot

Great comprehensive article on the entire scope of FBI corruption.

Some push back on the sacred Parkland Survivors and their abusive rhetoric here, here, and here.  It seems to me the Democrats are absolutely radical on this issue, many wanting to ban all guns, and this (along with immigration) will be the most important fault line issue in the years ahead.  It is a political loser, but the scales may tip, and also the driving force is more class resentment and hatred than it is good politics.

A takedown on the disappointing budget.  It almost looks to me like the entire GOP got nothing except pork, and then intends to hate on Trump for not vetoing it.  It’s one thing if it’s infrastructure, the Wall, and the like.  But it just seems like for a big defense budget and foreign policy dollars for the Middle East, the Democrats got whatever they wanted.  Sad.

It’s been a crazy week.  Trump has gone from one neocon to another with the replacement of McMaster with Bolton; it seems to me all of these guys do not share Trump’s minimalist instincts.  Trump is governing as a standard-issue Republican, with the notable exceptions of immigration and tariffs, but even there he has not followed through on a big tangible promise to Build the Wall.  Ann Coulter has been on his case about this, and she’s right.

Some interesting articles on tariffs here, here, here, and here.  Long story short, I think they’re a good policy, particularly when applied to essential goods for our national independence like steel and aluminium.  I wrote about why it was the key to Trump’s victory and also good policy here.