Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


Recommended Posts

06/26/2020 09:15:39

Trump Death Clock

Estimated U.S. COVID-19 Deaths Due To POTUS Inaction
In January 2020, the Trump administration was advised that immediate action was required to stop the spread of COVID-19. According to NIAID Director Dr. Anthony Fauci, “there was a lot of pushback” to this advice. President Trump declined to act until March 16th. Experts estimate that, had mitigation measures been implemented one week earlier, 60% of American COVID-19 deaths would have been avoided. (For further reading, click here).
Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice that Jake likes to post about statues a lot and 'rioters" in the streets and white Americans under attack.

Not a lot of postings here about covid 19, though, which has now killed more Americans than died in WW1.

When it comes to the election I have a feeling that more Americans will be casting a vote thinking of a virus which which Trump failed to control and the cry for social justice in the streets which he largely ignores than these kinds of distractions.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TomJH said:

I notice that Jake likes to post about statues a lot and 'rioters" in the streets and white Americans under attack.

Not a lot of postings here about covid 19, though, which has now killed more Americans than died in WW1.

When it comes to the election I have a feeling that more Americans will be casting a vote thinking of a virus which which Trump failed to control and the cry for social justice in the streets which he largely ignores than these kinds of distractions.

Yes, while Trump and his supporters carry on about stone and bronze statues tens of thousands of Americans are dying and they offer crickets and lies.

Trump was a wartime President for about two seconds then he turned his tail and fled when his own dementia brought him ridicule and scorn.  The USA would have surrendered to Japan the day after Pearl Harbor if Trump had been President.  No, I take that back.  He probably would have had America fighting alongside the fascists.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Federalist

Survey: Most U.S. Liberals Want To Rewrite Constitution, Impose Race Quotas On History Classes And Museums

'To find out how willing liberal Americans are to jettison the country’s cultural identity, I decided to ask what I thought were outlandish questions,' writes the survey author. 'The answers I received amazed me.'

Seventy percent of self-identified “liberals” want to rewrite the U.S. Constitution “to a new American constitution that better reflects our diversity as a people,” according to survey results published in Quillette this week. Seventy-nine percent of self-identified “very liberal” respondents agreed with this suggestion.

Seventy-six and 81 percent of “liberal” and “very liberal” respondents supported the idea to “Rebalance the art shown in museums across the country until an analysis of content shows that it reflects the demography of the population and perspective of Native people and citizens of color.” Seventy-one and 80 percent of these groups, respectively, supported this idea: “Move, after public consultation, to a new American anthem that better reflects our diversity as a people.”

These were the cultural upheavals that received the highest support among the survey’s 16 suggested options, but liberals in the survey also supported many others. The survey was run by Eric Kaufmann, a professor of politics at Birkbeck College in the University of London, and administered to 870 Americans recruited from the Amazon Mechanical Turk and Prolific Academic platforms that researchers frequently use for such surveys.

“In order to find out how willing liberal Americans are to jettison the country’s cultural identity, I decided, on May 7th, to ask what I thought were outlandish questions…” he wrote. “The answers I received amazed me. I then repeated the exercise on June 15th, after the George Floyd killing and subsequent protests to see whether things had gotten even crazier. It turns out they have.”

“Respondents on these platforms lean young, liberal, and white,” Kaufmann noted, but he wanted that, as these groups are the most politically extreme. After getting the survey results, he focused on the 414 respondents who identified themselves as “liberal” or “very liberal.”

He had asked them to disagree or agree with 16 questions that aimed to gauge support for “a radical blow to American cultural nationhood.” Besides the three mentioned above, the next most supported changes were, in order:

  • “Rebalance the history taught in schools until its voices and subjects reflect the demographics of the population and heritage of Native people and citizens of color” (60 percent support among liberals, and 60 percent support among very liberals);
  • “Allow our public parks to return to their natural state, before a European sense of order was imposed upon them” (58 percent support among liberals, and 68 percent support among very liberals);
  • “Remove existing statues of white men from public spaces until the stock of statues matches the demographics of the population” (51 percent support among liberals, and 60 percent support among very liberals);
  • and “Gradually replace many older public buildings with new structures that don’t perpetuate a Eurocentric order, until a more representative public space is achieved” (52 percent support among liberals, and 59 percent support among very liberals).

In addition, majorities of “very liberal” respondents supported destroying Mount Rushmore and renaming streets and neighborhoods according to racial quotas. So did significant percentages of “liberals,” as you can see in the below graph. A third or more supported renaming the United States of America something “that better reflects the contributions of Native Americans and our diversity as a people.”


Americans who have more recently emerged from U.S. education institutions were more likely to support these radical changes, Kaufmann noted: “Averaging across the 16 questions, and controlling for education and gender, 20-year-old liberals in the sample average an ‘agree’ response while 80-year-old liberals fall slightly toward the ‘disagree’ side of the ‘neither agree nor disagree’ category.”

When he asked these same questions soon after the George Floyd killing and subsequent riots, support for cultural revolution had increased and support for President Trump had dropped, among both self-described liberals and conservatives.

“All of these protest-driven changes are statistically significant,” Kaufmann writes. “…Far from being a disaster for the Left, as in the past, the protests and rioting seem to have invigorated it.”


Despite these depressing results, Kaufmann thinks it’s still possible to “resist the woke steamroller that’s trying to iron out American distinctiveness.” Yet it “will require a concerted movement to protect the content of cultural nationhood.”

“Faced with neglect or hostility from the media and educational establishment, conservatives should use civil society institutions, associations, and media to keep the country’s customs and traditions alive in recognizable form. This may extend to advocating for, or relocating, statues and other elements of heritage,” he says.

The main problem with this prescription is that the “commanding heights” of culture have already been wholly captured by the left. In the wake of the Floyd riots, Americans have been inundated with statements from big businesses and social institutions declaring their financial and rhetorical support for the Communist movement Black Lives Matter. The media and our education system is controlled by far-left ideologues who think conservatism equals bigotry.

To keep America’s traditions and principles alive requires boycotting, divesting from, and sanctioning the left’s sources of cultural power. It requires taking spoils after successful tactical operations, such as cutting off federal funding to higher education, enacting full-scale school choice at the state and local levels, buying American-made products from smaller businesses that don’t fund Marxist change agents, and starting and joining new cultural institutions to replace the formerly apolitical ones they’ve mind-hived, like the Boy Scouts and League of Women Voters.

It requires getting a real education so we know the whole truth about history and can inform friends snookered by ideologues backfilling trained ignorance with identity politics. It requires demanding that our police and mayors stop the rioting and punish rioters. It means raising Cain against representatives who prefer to virtue signal about the Constitution rather than take effective steps to ensure it’s not erased by mobs. It means not sending our kids to schools and our families to churches that aren’t consciously equipping minds and souls for the very obvious spiritual and intellectual battle afoot.

The culture war is coming for you. Right now, only one side appears to be really fighting to win. Stop scrolling on Twitter and Facebook and get a group of friends together to decide a course of action to commit to. Stop yelling at the TV and radio, and start making some phone calls and moving your money and time from wasteful ends to fruitful ones. The time is short.

Joy Pullmann is executive editor of The Federalist, a happy wife, and the mother of six children. Her newest ebooks are"Classic Books for Young Children" and "32 Classic Games You Can Play Anywhere." @JoyPullmann is also the author of "The Education Invasion: How Common Core Fights Parents for Control of American Kids," from Encounter Books.
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Federalist

We’re In A Cultural Civil War. It’s Time For Conservatives To Fight Back

The Black Lives Matter movement is not a majority. It’s radical agenda can be resisted and defeated. But not if ordinary Americans stay silent.


The daily spectacle of angry mobs pulling down statues, taunting police, attacking passersby, and taking over entire city blocks makes it seem like Black Lives Matter is a mass movement, that pretty much everyone except knuckle-dragging Trump supporters is on board with its radical agenda, and that the new national consensus is that you’re either anti-racist or racist.

Under these conditions, many ordinary Americans feel disoriented and discouraged. Confusion abounds. When did it become racist to like the national anthem and Mount Rushmore? At what point did we decide George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were moral monsters, or that all police are racist thugs? Why are rioters and looters allowed to terrorize people and destroy property with impunity? Why aren’t local elected leaders enforcing the law?

If you think what’s happening in America right now is crazy, you’re not alone. It’s true that something’s changed, that we’re in the middle of a crisis, that a cultural civil war is underway and escalating.

But it’s not true that this is a majoritarian movement. It’s not true that America fundamentally changed overnight. The hordes of protesters, impressive as them seem, don’t represent the country at large. According to Pew, only about 6 percent of U.S. adults have participated in a rally or protest in the past month, and they skew young, urban, and Democratic. That’s less than 20 million people—a lot, to be sure, but nothing close to a majority.

In some sense this is entirely psychological. A relatively small group of radical left-wing activists is using classic cult psychology to wage psychological war against the rest of us. They are the vanguard of what can only be described as a religious movement in America.

Indeed, Black Lives Matter and its attendant ideology contain all the elements of a religion: it promulgates doctrines that are explicitly normative, it has a cosmology and a morality, its claims are not subject to or consistent with scientific proofs. James Lindsay has gone further and described it as a cult, with recognizable and well-established features of a cult such as initiation, indoctrination, and cult reprogramming.

But this is a religious movement unlike any we’ve seen before, because unlike established religions it’s formally secular enough to be allowed into purely secular institutions of public life. This is why the Black Lives Matter agenda and The New York Times’ 1619 Project are being taught openly in our public schools. It’s why corporate America and professional sports have embraced the cult of wokeness. It’s why Hollywood is scrambling to figure out and adhere to the new doctrines, often in embarrassing and overtly racist ways.

We All Have to Do Our Part

It’s long past time to fight back. That won’t be easy, in part because the radicals are largely in control of messaging. They have the sympathies—if not the outright allegiance—of the mainstream media, big tech, and corporate America. They also more or less control the Democratic Party and much of the petty bureaucracy, including public schools.

That seems like a lot, and it is. But it’s also less than it seems. This is a movement conceived and sustained mostly by elite white progressives. Some 20 million may have shown up to BLM rallies in the last month, but the hardcore activists behind these rallies—the true-believing cult members and leaders—are relatively small in number.

They have been successful thus far in part because their strategy relies on making everyone else feel alone, overwhelmed, afraid, and resigned. They have been able to do this because, unlike the rest of us, they’re highly organized and coordinated, which makes their efforts at psychological manipulation highly effective. That in turn erodes resistance to their tactics at every level. If you don’t believe others will fight alongside you, that you’re alone, then you’re less willing to fight. This is true even of police, as we’ve seen.

The problem to be solved, then, is one of coordination. It’s a big problem and not easily solved. If everyone in America who is horrified and outraged by the mobs pulling down statues and smashing storefronts could coordinate to stop all of it, to strip the mob of their power, they would do it in a heartbeat. The madness would stop overnight.

But the energy, momentum, and mood control lies with the radicals right now. They are optimistic, and optimism makes people aggressive and creative. Pessimism, which is what everyone else is feeling, does the opposite. We feel scattered and helpless—and for now, we are.

America Hangs In the Balance

It’s time to change that. We have to do it, each one of us. The Democrats who run our cities will not lift a finger to stop any of this. Some of them are sincere initiates into the cult of wokeness, others just think the chaos will help them win the White House in November. Either way, they are willing to go along with it.

Some Democratic members of Congress even said this week that federal authorities should not interfere with mobs pulling down statues. Blue-state governors have likewise ordered law enforcement to stand down in the face of the mob.

President Trump has at times sounded like he would stand up and fight. He has blustered and made threats, as usual. This week he announced that anyone caught trying to topple a monument on federal land would face up to ten years in prison. That’s a start, but it’s not enough.

It’s up to every one of us, in our towns and cities and communities, to pressure our local officials to enforce the law and stop the bedlam. We have to demand it. We have to insist on law and order, insist on due process, insist on equal treatment under the law. These are bedrock American principles, and they have majority and bipartisan support across the country. At least for now, we can be confident of that.

We also have to be optimistic about our country and our institutions. We have to be energetic and creative. We have to defend our Founding principles unapologetically. America is the greatest country on earth, where liberty and prosperity and equality have blossomed as never before in human history. We can recognize our faults and shortcomings without apologizing for all we have achieved. We can defend what is necessary, and what is best, without giving one inch to the radicals who deny the promise of America’s Founding and want to see it transformed into something unrecognizable.

We had better do so, and quickly. The future of the republic depends on it.

John is the Political Editor at The Federalist. Follow him on Twitter.
Photo General Andrew Jackson Statue
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Chronicles Magazine of American Culture

The Danger of Triangulating With the Left


My new anthology, The Vanishing Tradition: Perspectives in Conservatism (from the Cornell and Northern Illinois University presses) does not paint a flattering picture of the present conservative movement. The general impression conveyed by the contributors to this volume is that the movement is driven by the demands of sponsors who do not have a single conservative bone in their bodies. So-called conservative media stars have abandoned most of the significant social issues that defined the American right in the past and instead are seeking mainstream respectability.

The movement’s funders and stars have engaged in a game of triangulation in which they have labored to marginalize everyone and everything on their right while attempting to build bridges to the center-left. In politics, triangulation is the attempt to compromise your side’s political principles in order to find a common middle ground with its opponents. Fox News abounds in members of the friendly opposition, whose partisans accept payment and publicity from the establishment right. The same network rigorously excludes anyone associated with the socially conservative old right or anyone else who has not moved sufficiently to the left on certain social questions, such as gay marriage, the removal of Confederate memorial statues, immigration, and other social questions.

Further, when conservative publications or personalities point out leftist abuses, Fox invariably showcases on their discussion panels leftists who have been quarreling with other leftists. This is not just the case for Fox; the mainstream conservative movement is always looking to the left as a place to make influential friends. Not surprisingly, this reaching out to the left has always involved vigorous concessions toward leftist politics.

One telling but hardly isolated illustration of this befriending of leftists who haven’t kept pace with progressive politics can be found on the editorial page of the quintessentially neoconservative New York Post. A puff piece here celebrates the leftist author and feminist J. K. Rowling of Harry Potter fame. It seems Rowling “refuses to cave to the bullies” and boldly tweeted in the face of trans opposition that “biological sex is real.” The transgendered lobby is upset that Rowling believes that women are something more than “people who menstruate.” The same piece reassures the reader that Rowling “remains trans-affirming,” even though as a committed feminist she is concerned that trans ideology may condemn young women “to lives of regret or painful de-transitioning.”

It seems that Conservatism Inc. is now positioning itself somewhere among the moderate “trans-affirming” crowd as opposed to the more radical advocates of the trans ideology. This positioning may bring benefits, e.g., if such a “moderate conservative” is allowed to appear on network TV or is hired as “conservative” columnist for The New York Times or The Washington Post or as an article writer for The Atlantic. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, I can understand why virtue-signaling triangulators are doing what they do. Perhaps if I had the opportunity and were a lot younger, I would succumb to the same temptation. Fortunately, or perhaps unfortunately, I never faced that temptation.

But the days when this strategy could be gainfully pursued may be coming to an end. The American political situation has been radicalized by rioting mobs and the cultural left; the conservative movement cannot remain the talking partners of the center-left without having to reach out to Black Lives Matter and other anti-white activists. How much more ground can this by-now hopelessly compromised movement yield without looking ridiculous even to talk-show-junkies?

Should we follow National Review, perhaps over the cliff, and rename all army bases named for obscure Confederate commanders, pull down Confederate memorial statues, and remove from public view Confederate battle flags? National Review editor Rich Lowry doubled down again on his stance calling Confederate generals traitors as he applauds the ongoing work in Richmond  to remove Confederate statues and Battle Flags. Pat Buchanan has raised the highly relevant question of where this positioning ultimately leads, in an explosive column addressed to American political and civic leaders.

Significantly, the conservative movement has been running alongside the rest of the media in promoting cancel culture. It has hypocritically attributed to the left what its own movement is doing, each time the left lunges further leftward. This reflects the same kind of hypocrisy that Conservative Inc. has shown when it calls the left “intolerant.” In fact, it has been the conservative establishment which for decades has been purging and defaming dissenters, mostly on the old right. This practice and its payback recall “Chad Gad Ya,” an Aramaic Passover song in which weaker predators are swallowed up by more powerful ones. Conservative Inc. is receiving from leftist adversaries what it has been doing to an older right for many decades. So, pardon me if I tune out the conservative mainstream’s complaint about “leftist intolerance.”

The opportunities to continue triangulating with the left are diminishing, in any case. At some point, the conservative mainstream will have to choose between remaining “moderate” in the eyes of the respectable left and maintaining any credibility as truly conservative with the public. Until now Conservative Inc. has been able to have its cake and to eat it, too, because it has enjoyed the needed media resources to brand itself as conservative while marginalizing a more serious right. The left is becoming too frenetically radicalized for the conservative opportunists to continue taking moderate versions of leftist stands.

[Image by David Shane from United States of America / CC BY 2.0 via wikimedia commons, resized]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump admits it: He's losing

Amid a mountain of bad polling and stark warnings from allies, the president has acknowledged his reelection woes to allies.

".....What should have been an easy interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity on Thursday horrified advisers when Trump offered a rambling, non-responsive answer to a simple question about his goals for a second term.

In the same appearance, the normally self-assured president offered a tacit acknowledgment that he might lose when he said that Joe Biden is “gonna be your president because some people don't love me, maybe."

In the hours after the interview aired, questions swirled within his inner circle about whether his heart was truly in it when it comes to seeking reelection.

Trump has time to rebound, and the political environment could improve for him. But interviews with more than a half-dozen people close to the president depicted a reelection effort badly in need of direction — and an unfocused candidate who repeatedly undermines himself........

Trump advisers acknowledge that tearing down Biden will require a level of discipline he isn’t demonstrating. They have pleaded with Trump — who has used his Twitter account to vilify critics from MSNBC host Joe Scarborough to former National Security Adviser John Bolton

— to stop focusing on slights that mean little to voters.

Biden's low-profile during the pandemic has made it that much harder for Trump to land a punch, his advisers said.

But Republicans say he and his campaign need to figure out something soon...........




  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And Then They Came For The Duke

BY RICK MORAN JUN 28, 2020 11:00 AM EST
AP Photo

For decades, to many people around the world, John Wayne represented the best of America: strong, courageous, selfless, tough, and fair.

To some, John Wayne was America. But John Wayne was also a man of his times. He had stereotypical views of blacks, women, and other minorities. And in today’s woke culture, that’s reason enough to cancel him.

Democrats in Orange County, Calif., have passed a resolution demanding that John Wayne Airport be renamed and that Wayne’s “name and likeness” be removed from the Orange County airport.

Liberals have hated John Wayne for decades, despising his unabashed, pro-American patriotism. Now, they think they have the muscle to erase him from history.

Fox News:

The resolution, first reported by the Los Angeles Times, calls on the Orange County Board of Supervisors to reverse the 1979 decision to rename it after Duke, and cites remarks he made in a 1971 interview with Playboy.

“I believe in white supremacy until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility. I don’t believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people,” he said in that interview nearly 50 years ago.

In that Playboy interview, Wayne declined to feel guilty as a white person for slavery, saying “I don’t feel guilty about the fact that five or 10 generations ago these people were slaves.”

This is a major problem. A white person refusing to feel guilty about something he didn’t do, didn’t take part in isn’t guilty of? How dare he!

Since no one can truly be held “responsible” for slavery, Jim Crow, and other oppressions of blacks – at least, no one alive today – a culture has grown up, now adopted by liberal whites, to promote the concept of “collective guilt.” In order to assign collective guilt to white people, black activists must invent an entire mythology and create new sins so that they can shoehorn their demands into some kind of moral crusade.

Renaming the airport is only the first step. Wayne’s persona is so embedded in the American consciousness the only way the cultural Nazis can accomplish their task of erasing Wayne’s memory from existence is to begin by demonizing him.

The Democratic resolution hails a “national movement to remove white supremacist symbols and names is reshaping American institutions, monuments, businesses, nonprofits, sports leagues and teams, as it is widely recognized that racist symbols produce lasting physical and psychological stress and trauma particularly to Black communities, people of color and other oppressed groups, and the removal of racist symbols provides a necessary process for communities to remember historic acts of violence and recognize victims of oppression.”

Anyone stressed or traumatized by the name on an airport needs serious psychological help. In fact, you could make the same argument about people who topple works of art. A lifeless statue means one thing to some people and another thing to others. That’s the point that’s been lost on the dullards who only think of destruction.

The activists are telling us, “You can’t think that way. Only our point of view is valid.” Used to be in America, it was perfectly alright to think a different way than everyone else. Everybody thinks what they want and even if it’s wrongheaded and objectionable, that’s what freedom is all about.

But “freedom” today is a relative term. The activists scream for freedom while trying to take it away from others. That they don’t realize that the irony in that makes them dangerous to human liberty.


  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites


Dear Donald: Thanks for the new immigration wall. Love, Canada
Editorial: “If American firms are unable to hire the best and bring them to the U.S., that will benefit their Canadian competitors. It may also motivate some U.S. firms to get around immigration restrictions by offshoring operations to Canada.”
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to see where Jake's priorities are. Posting about conservatives fighting back against Black Lives Matter and John Wayne's name at an airport.



  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Morning Briefing: Will the 2020 Rage Mob Survive a Trip to the Suburbs?

AP Photo/Alex Brandon
The Mob Meets a Little Resistance

I had my first couple of social trips out in public this past weekend since all of the shutdown fun began and, thankfully, didn’t run into any peacefully protesting mobs. Then again, it’s the time of year here when the sun keeps us from congregating much outdoors in any kind of mob, rage-filled or not. I also didn’t run into a lot of people wearing masks, but that’s another story.

A few weeks ago I wrote that the protest mobs wouldn’t go away until they started going near rich liberals’ residences. A friend of mine recently said that you-know-what was “gonna get real when they start going into neighborhoods.” Thus far, they’ve mostly stuck to downtown areas or big retail areas for looting. The libs running the most mob-filled cities have largely been ceding downtown areas. Our commie mayor here kept gleefully organizing clean-up parties in downtown Tucson to pick up after the “peaceful” BLM mobs vandalized and broke things. She kept posting pics on Instagram as if she was on vacation somewhere.

We got a little taste this past weekend of what happens when private property gets threatened by a BLM mob gone walkabout. Matt has the feel-good story about the married couple that brandished weapons posted at Townhall and it’s hilarious:

Yeah, again, this is called trespassing. It’s illegal. After days of seeing anarchy and chaos engulfing America’s cities after the officer-involved fatality of George Floyd ion May 25, there’s no wonder why law-abiding Americans are lining up to buy guns and ammo. The police are overwhelmed. They can’t help everyone. With mayhem taking over the streets at night, it’s no wonder why gun purchases have gone through the roof—and it’s not just conservatives lining out the doors of gun shops. The spike actually began during the coronavirus outbreak, but Floyd certainly injected steroids into the trend.

There’s video of the encounter in Matt’s post and it is worth noting that the couple’s gun safety etiquette is rather horrible. They’re brandishing the guns like they are in a video game and hopefully they’ll get some lessons on that before the next time they’re out in public with firearms.

There was a lot of brouhaha on social media about the mob being on public sidewalks — as if that makes it any better — but, again, this is a private neighborhood. This is also an isolated incident but it probably won’t be the last of its kind we see. The “defund police” anti-cop sentiment has, as we have mentioned here before, unwittingly ruined one of the left’s favorite arguments against gun ownership: that people should simply wait for the police to show up if there is trouble.

If these liberal cities succeed in slashing police budgets and reducing manpower, the neighbors might all have guns soon. The further away from city centers the mob wanders, the more likely it is to bump into Mr. and Mrs. Gunslinger. Tucson is a liberal city but this is still Arizona and even my lefty friends here have several firearms. I know I used “suburbs” in the headline but I really meant any residential neighborhood.

I keep referring to the protesters as a mob because even on their quiet days the potential to get ugly is there. They’ve been emboldened by weak leaders and a lying press. Mob mentality is the reason we’ve seen the idiots tear down so many statues that have nothing to do with their anger.

Buy guns. Buy ammo.

And try not to accidentally point the gun at your neighbor’s car if a mob comes to your neighborhood.


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chronicles Magazine of American Culture
June 26, 2020

Biden's Basement Strategy: Just Say Nothing


Some polls now have Joe Biden running ahead of Donald Trump by 10 points and sweeping the battleground states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. This vindicates the strategy Biden's advisers have adopted: Confine Joe to his basement, no press conferences. Trot him out to recite carefully scripted messages for the cameras. Then lead him back to his stall.

This enables Biden to avoid the blazing questions that are dividing not only Democrats and Republicans but liberals and leftists. And most of these issues touch on the explosive subject of race.        

Consider. California's legislature just voted to put to a statewide ballot in November a return to the racial preferences that were banned as discriminatory in a statewide referendum, 25 years ago. The proposal would reverse the 1995 constitutional amendment, approved by 55% of voters, which outlawed "preferential treatment" based on "race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin." If the measure carries, California returns to a racial spoils system.        

Race preferences are being pushed because they are needed to bring about greater representation of blacks and Hispanics in the student bodies of elite schools of the state university system like UCLA and the University of California, Berkeley. Asian students are today "overrepresented" in these prestigious schools, because of their superior test scores. Where does Biden stand on anti-Asian discrimination?

Earlier this June, the California Assembly voted to establish a task force to make recommendations for reparations for slavery. Now, California did not enter the Union until 1850, and slavery was outlawed in the state constitution, though several thousand slaves were brought there during the 1849 Gold Rush. Where does Biden stand on reparations for slavery?

Many of the recent protests in the wake of George Floyd's death have involved the desecration and destruction of monuments. What does Biden think about tearing down statues of Christopher Columbus and Robert E. Lee? Where does Biden stand on destroying statues of Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Lincoln, Grant, and Theodore Roosevelt?

What did Biden think of the removal of the statue of Caesar Rodney, Delaware statesman and slave owner, who, despite a grave illness, rode to Philadelphia to sign Jefferson's Declaration of Independence and cast his lot with the American Revolution? Understandably, Biden would prefer not having to choose between Caesar Rodney and BLM.         

Black men are arrested and incarcerated more often than whites because of the systemic racism of law enforcement officials, we are told. Does Biden believe white cops are congenital racists?

In the great cities where the killing of black men is today all too common, the regimes that have ruled them for decades have been almost wholly Democratic. Does Biden believe there is systemic racism in the ruling circles of all these Democratic-run cities?         

Over the last month, there has been an explosion of shootings and killings. In Chicago, over Memorial Day, 84 people were shot, 24 mortally. Last weekend in Chicago, 106 people were shot and 14 killed. New York City is experiencing the worst shooting violence in a quarter century. Is there systemic racism in the police departments of our great cities? Again, who has been running those cities, if not Democrats?          

Is there inequality in wealth between black and white America because of systemic racism? If so, why did that inequality persist through two terms of our first black president, with Biden as his VP?        

Does Biden believe, with Elizabeth Warren, in wealth taxes on the rich and wealth transfers to close the black-white wealth gap?

Is there systemic racism in American media? Our dominant media institutions include the Washington Post, The New York Times, ABC, CBS, and NBC. All are controlled by liberals.

Is there systemic racism in our great universities and colleges? Yet, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, and the rest of the Ivy League have long been run by an entrenched liberal elite.       

Is our huge federal workforce permeated by racism? Though African Americans are 13 percent of the U.S. population, they occupy 18 percent of all federal jobs.          

Is there systemic racism in our public schools? Who controls the teachers’ unions? Who fills almost all of the teaching positions?

Is there systemic racism in California? If so, who is at fault? The governor, both senators, both houses of the legislature, all statewide offices, and 46 of 53 U.S. House seats in California are held by Democrats.        

If Biden emerges, then he will have to answer why all these institutions where his party and people are predominantthe media, Hollywood, the academic community, public schools, big-city governments, the big foundations, the federal bureaucracyare apparently shot through with systemic racism after decades of Democratic dominance. And, more precisely, what he intends to do about it.

Perhaps it's better to shelter in place in the basement.           

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.

[Image by Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America / CC BY-SA 2.0 via wikimedia commons, resized]

Patrick J. Buchanan

Link to post
Share on other sites
Chronicles Magazine of American Culture
July 2020

The Case for Economic Nationalism

above: a Chinese cargo ship is stacked with shipping containers in San Francisco Bay, California (National Geographic Image Collection/Alamy Stock Photo)

The current moment poses a range of social, political, and economic threats. As the institutions of globalism become exhausted, the time is ripe to marry immigration restriction, economic nationalism, and populism into a potent America First program.

Globalism is the ideological superstructure and linchpin of ruling class power. In practical terms, it depends upon the free movement of people, goods, and ideas. It seeks the diminution and ultimate abolition of borders and boundaries, and of national sovereignty itself.

Globalism is a vast interlocking system of technology, telecommunications, economics, culture, and politics that was constructed and imposed by a small, transnational elite. It is built on doctrines of individualism, autonomy, scientism, consumerism, and radical openness. As such, it is inherently destabilizing and revolutionary. It detaches and disembeds local economies and cultures, undermining existing customs and traditions. Free trade and open immigration are philosophical cousins of multiculturalism and gender fluidity. They are fruit of the same poisonous seed.

By its nature, globalism creates economic, border, cultural, and existential insecurities. Such a disruptive process is bound to have political consequences.

National populism, propelled and fueled by these anxieties, has arisen as a challenge to the globalist and neoliberal consensus imposed in the aftermath of the Cold War. The globalist revolution has longer roots, but its full flowering is of more recent vintage. And its failures are spectacular.

The events of the last months—the virus, the quarantine, the economic slump, and the riots—have inflamed the insecurities feeding nationalist and populist political movements. The institutions and ideology of globalism have been weakened further and their opponents emboldened. No one is turning to the World Health Organization or the United Nations for answers. The publics of Western nations have lost faith in global institutions.

Yet, former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger, aging and doddering ringleaders of the globalist posse, have taken to the pages of Time and The Wall Street Journal to agitate for the buttressing of the “liberal order” straining under the weight of the pandemic. “The pandemic has prompted an anachronism,” writes Kissinger, “a revival of the walled city in an age when prosperity depends on global trade and movement of people.”

Contra Kissinger, walls of various kinds are the future.

Moreover, the United States is a nation, not merely a market. Before the era of globalization, “prosperity” meant that an increasing gross domestic product (GDP) was paired with advances in productivity, increases in jobs, and higher wages. That is no longer the case.

The American economy continues to generate a lot of wealth. Between 2000 and late 2016, the estimated net worth of American households and nonprofit institutions more than doubled, from $44 trillion to $90 trillion. The mean net worth of American households rose to $692,007. But that average is skewed by the nation’s super wealthy. The richest 400 U.S. citizens now have more wealth than 185 million of their fellow Americans combined. The median U.S. net worth is a mere $97,300.

Though there has been significant growth and wealth creation, structural changes have produced an economy with a much wealthier upper class, while incomes for roughly the bottom 60 percent are essentially stagnant and unchanged since the late 1960s.

Since 1973, productivity and compensation have continued to diverge dramatically. As a consequence, America has been growing apart and that disparity was in progress long before the financial meltdown of 2008 and 2009.

Moreover, even economic growth has started to slow. The economy has grown much more slowly in the last two decades than in the post-WWII period. “With postwar, pre-21st-century rates for the years 2000–2016, per capita GDP in America would be more than 20 percent higher than it is today,” Nicholas Eberstadt writes in his Commentary article, “Our Miserable 21st Century.”

Labor force participation rates have also been declining. Peaking in early 2000 at 67.3 percent, America’s overall work rate for Americans aged 20 and older has undergone a near-continuous decline, falling more than 5 percentage points over that time to 62.7 percent in March of this year.

These structural economic problems have been aggravated by the coronavirus pandemic. Nearly 43 million Americans have filed for unemployment benefits since mid-March. Despite a better-than-expected jobs report for May, 21 million Americans remain unemployed as a result of the pandemic and subsequent state lockdowns, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. More than 100,000 small businesses have already closed permanently and commercial bankruptcies are up 26 percent from last year. The economic damage may be long-lasting and require a broader framework to address deeper technological, cultural, and economic changes.

Other authors in this issue offer laissez-faire and Christian distributist models as potential paths forward. I, too, drank von Mises and his disciples like mother’s milk and was seduced by distributists Röpke and Belloc. Free markets are, indeed, part of the good life. Federalism, state’s rights, and decentralism were blessings of the American constitutional order. Subsidiarity is a biblical principle endorsed by Christians of all stripes.

But these are fruits produced by a healthy tree—and the American economic tree is dying, poisoned by its ruling class. Supplanting this anti-Christian, globe-trotting aristocracy is a necessary precondition to cultural renewal. A political program to accomplish that goal requires an economic program that buttresses the cultural supports and people that are the foundation of its existence. I’ll try to describe what that program looks like.

Beginning in the 1980s, conservative intellectual Sam Francis used this journal, Chronicles, to sketch out a populist strategy to create class consciousness among middle-income voters. He wanted to wake up those who see themselves as dispossessed and exploited—the losers in the process of economic globalization, political centralization, and cultural managerialism. In the March 1996 issue of Chronicles, Francis wrote:

[T]he fundamental polarity in American politics and culture today is between a deracinated and self-serving Ruling Class centered on but not confined to the central state, on the one hand, and Middle American groups, on the other, with the latter constituting both the economic core of the nation through their labor and productive skills as well as the culturally defining core that sustains the identity of the nation itself. The economic interests as well as the cultural habits and ideologies of the Ruling Class drive it toward globalization—the managed destruction of the nation, its sovereignty, its culture, and its people—while those of Middle Americans drive them toward support for and reenforcement of the nation and its organic way of life.

The divide described by Francis in 1996 is still the primary pivot of American politics. An ongoing class war is directed at what Francis called Middle Americans by an overclass elite and their underclass clients, under the guise of neoliberalism and consensus politics. Middle America has watched communities depopulate and die as factories have disappeared to Asia. They have seen their towns transformed by immigration, which undermines their standing.

Economic nationalism is the formula that expresses the material interests and cultural values of Middle America and it can play a part (but only a part) in creating solidarity among otherwise disparate groups that have been systematically stripped of other identities.

In terms of tactical necessity, economic nationalism matches the moment in ways the other systems do not. The immediate goal is to coalesce the remnants of the historic American nation into a coherent social and political force, directing its wrath at the entrenched elite and displacing it from power. Different systems of political economy produce different wealth and power dynamics and shape family life and civic institutions. Economic theories such as distributism that are reflexively leery of large institutions and collective action are unable to organize on a large scale.

Economic nationalism is not an economic model or theory but a collection of practices, a body of knowledge evolving over time through trial and error. It is flexible and can utilize a range of tools. It can be libertarian in some contexts and more regulatory in others. It may employ free trade or protectionism, subsidies or free markets. The approach seeks to benefit the nation and sustain the culture and people that define it. It takes account of different regions seeking to balance the needs of rural and urban, capital and labor, farmers, manufacturers, and small businesses.

That being said, there are some specific policies a typical economic nationalist program would contain.

First, with unemployment approaching Depression-era levels, it is time to get serious about immigration control. In March, a Harvard-Harris poll found that 83 percent of respondents wanted to halt immigration from Mexico due to the threat from the COVID-19 virus. When even a pandering member of Conservative Inc. like Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA can advocate suspending employment visas, the time is ripe for an immigration freeze.

Second, with the Fed out of bullets, it’s time to consider a significant infrastructure spending program. President Donald Trump has proposed trillion dollar infrastructure programs. Infrastructure investments have a multiplier effect, enhancing accessibility, facilitating commerce, and boosting overall economic productivity. Another benefit is putting long-suffering working-class males back to work.

Third, a thoroughgoing effort to restore American manufacturing must be undertaken through a reinvigorated industrial policy. Tariffs and subsidies designed to re-shore key industries should be pursued immediately.

The rise of China as an economic and national security threat should precipitate a debate about the desirability and efficacy of industrial policy—not as a curb on private enterprise, but to spur it in directions vital to national interests, which markets alone may not be able to achieve. A 2018 White House report documented more than 280 major supply chain vulnerabilities and a frightening dependence on foreign nations, especially China.

To be sure, we should have a clear understanding of the pitfalls and dangers of industrial policy, including regulatory capture and de facto corporate welfare. But these problems exist already and are less a product of government intervention than a failure to produce a strategy that embraces economic and security realities.

At the very least, a restructuring of the tax code is in order. American jobs have disappeared to China not because they have been “stolen” but because corporations have off-shored manufacturing in pursuit of higher profits. Taxing corporations based on the geographic location where the value was added may restore domestic production.

Fourth, it may be prudent to consider more radical options in pursuit of traditional ends. For example, if the elimination of welfare is a practical impossibility, universal basic income (UBI) or wage subsidies should be considered. Charles Murray, among others, has argued that a properly implemented UBI could advance many worthy goals such as incentivizing women to leave the workforce, increasing fertility rates, and strengthening civic institutions.

The costs of globalism in financial and human terms are impossible to deny. It is time to build an economy designed to support families and the nation while securing a future for us and our posterity.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Joe Biden has slammed President Trump over a report about the commander in chief's alleged failure to protect U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The New York Times reported that a Russian military unit offered bounties for the killings of U.S. troops.
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites


Associated Press confirms: Trump knew “Intelligence officials told the AP that the president was briefed on the matter earlier this year”
Plus: “The administration discussed several potential responses, but the White House has yet to authorize any step.”
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TomJH said:

Of course, he was briefed on it.  He was just asleep or not paying attention as he does with 90% of what he gets briefed on.  By his own statements, he has proven he is the most ignorant president in American history.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
  • Create New...