Datasets:

happybusinessperson

/

rightarticles

like 0

Just as masks mandates dropped in more than sixteen states and some Americans can breathe with ease again–literally and economically–Nancy Pelosi introduced a far more politically suffocating bill supposedly "for the people." Last week, the eighty-year-old hard left Speaker of the House attempted to gloss up and force-feed the American public the very damaging H.R.-1 "For The People Act" voting bill. Upon criticism, the Democratic party immediately pivoted to bills "addressing" systemic racism to distract American's from seeing how destructive HR-1 is, and also said opposition to the bill was racially motivated itself. Of course, this pattern is endemic, formulaic, and no surprise. The progressive hard left loves to bury its most invasive and flawed legislation by immediately pivoting to stoke the flames of injustice and racial and class division. Between the remaining masked states, the new legislation, and the Biden Brigade's barrage of constitution-violating, free-enterprise-infringing, and freedom-destroying executive orders–yes, Nancy, it has been hard to breathe the air of freedom lately. But stay tuned. No single act or piece of legislation would be more suffocating than H.R.-1 if it survives the Senate and Ole Harmless Joe signs it into law. As former New York Lt. Governor Betsy McCaughey so succinctly wrote in Newsmax, "Nancy Pelosi’s top priority is to turn America into a one-party nation ruled by Democrats. Her bill HR 1 trashes the U.S. Constitution in an attempt to rig the system and make it virtually impossible to elect a Republican president or Congress again. Simply put, it’s a power grab." But not according to Speaker Nancy after it was overwhelmingly passed over solid GOP opposition: "We are so pleased . . . we made just a giant step for democracy . . . we waved flags in honor of our democracy. This legislation is there to protect the right to vote . . . the first 300 pages were written by John Lewis, to remove voter suppression tactics from our political system." Really? Talk about framing something in a way that is exactly what it is not. You got to hand it to Ms. Nancy.'he’s damn good at it. Until you dig into the details like the Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA) did. It tells a radically different story. Per the (RNLA) what follows are the ten worst new federal mandates in H.R.-1's election administration section. These new requirements would apply to every state, regardless of existing state laws: Automatic voter registration, including using many colleges and universities as voter registration agencies and registering 16- and 17-year-olds. Abolish voter ID laws and only require a signature in the polling place to vote. Online voter registration without protections to verify the eligibility of the voter. Same-day registration during early voting and on Election Day. Fifteen days of early voting, including minimum hours and requirements for locations. Restricting election officials' efforts to maintain the accuracy of voter registration lists. Automatically restoring the right of felons to vote after release from prison. No-excuse absentee/mail voting with signature comparison verification available to all voters. Provisional ballots cast outside a voter's precinct must be counted. Congressional redistricting is done by an independent redistricting commission micromanaged by HR1's provisions. On top of that, many sections of the legislation demonstrate the increasing federal control of elections. They require federal control of election security, further centralizing election systems standards and numerous new reporting requirements for election officials, including the gathering data on voters' race and ethnicity. While one could argue some of the security provisions could be a good thing, the ugly truth is that they are only as good as the people and political party which enforces them. The beauty of a Republic–with each state having election autonomy–is that absolute election power is diffused among fifty states. Republicans in the Senate must take note, unite, and kill this travesty. Not only is democracy at stake with this bill, but freedom itself is on the line. You don’t have to look far to see kind of liberty crushing policies a permanently empowered Democratic left would inflict on speech, individual sovereignty and the right to bear arms. It will not only be difficult to breathe the fresh air of freedom; If H.R.-1, if it becomes law, is the kind of bill that will suck all the oxygen out of the room. Creator of #BPN, a conservative political news website, Judd Dunning is political author, pundit, and producer. Judd's has collaboratively hosted various political entertainment shows over his three-decade political journey from liberal to conservative activist. He recently published his latest book "13 1/2 Reasons Why NOT To Be A Liberal: And How to Enlighten Others,” via Humanix. Read Judd Dunning's Reports — More Here.

The Bishop of Rome recently held a historic meeting with the chief figure in Shia Islam, the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. One phrase was repeatedly used in press reports to describe the coming together of the Pope and Sistani, that being, “interfaith dialogue.” Interfaith dialogue is an organized effort to engage in a discussion of beliefs, along with a sharing of religious and/or cultural-community oriented practices, which takes place between people of differing faiths. The goal of such a dialogue is to break down barriers between adherents of differing faiths, and once accomplished purportedly leads to world peace. Any attempt to persuade others to one’s religious way of thinking, i.e., evangelization, is an unwelcome guest in the interfaith dialogue arena. In a very real way, it is seemingly a prerequisite that those involved in interfaith activities must first embrace the notion that no single religion could possibly lay claim to the “truth.” A religious ideology that asserts this sort of exclusivity with regard to truth is considered to be an obstacle to the attainment of harmony in the world. With this in mind, participants in interfaith dialogue must come to the discussion table with an open mind toward the acceptance of so-called multiple truths, as well as an openness with regard to the welcoming of multiple means of worshipping a deity or deities. So who wouldn’t want world peace? Well, it’s not what it appears to be. Back in early 2019, an interfaith agreement was signed by Pope Francis and a different Muslim leader, the Sunni Grand Imam of al-Azhar, Ahmed el-Tayeb. Their meeting produced a written document that states the “diversity of religions” that exist in the world were “willed by God.” The implication is that the hundreds of different religions in the world are all equally acceptable to the Creator of the Universe. Millions would beg to differ. In 2016 a video released by the Vatican appears to similarly indicate that different religions are all just assorted paths to God. In the footage, the Pontiff expresses that although faiths may be “seeking God or meeting God in different ways,” we are all “children of God.” Interfaith dialogue denies one crucially important reality, that being, there are incompatible fundamental distinctions between the deeply held beliefs of differing religions throughout the world. Because of this fact, it is impossible for religions to be combined or somehow blended together, without suffering the loss of the vital integrity of the respective faiths. In order to pursue the goals of interfaith dialogue, participants must act as though such differences do not exist. They must also accept and espouse that contradictory beliefs can be reconciled. Other thorny issues have arisen, which pose additional problems for the interfaith movement. There are so-called faith entities that have adopted the practice of worshipping an anti-deity or deities; in other words, they are involved in occult beliefs and practices. They, too, would like to be part of the movement. Don Frew provides an example. Frew is a Wiccan Elder and a high priest of a coven in Berkeley, California. He has been involved in interfaith work for more than 30 years. He has served on the Board of the Berkeley Area Interfaith Council and is also a National Interfaith Representative for one of the largest and oldest Wiccan organizations. Obviously, for those of the Jewish and Christian faiths, there could never be a reconciling of their beliefs with an organization such as Frew’s. It is literally the first of the Ten Commandments: No other gods before me. That pretty much ends the discussion on multiple truths. The bottom line is that the interfaith movement is a deceptive one. Its supposed goal is peace, but its hidden motive is to blend faiths together into a one world religion. A one-world religion would do away with the centuries-old religious tenets of millions. It would also be at odds with a belief system that is written on the hearts of human beings around the globe. And it totally conflicts with the essence of our souls to believe what we choose to believe. In the context of this so-called interfaith dialogue, these fundamental principles are non-negotiable. James Hirsen, J.D., M.A., in media psychology, is a New York Times best-selling author, media analyst, and law professor. Visit Newsmax TV Hollywood. Read James Hirsen's Reports — More Here.

Whether one calls it a crisis or a challenge, the U.S.-Mexico border has become a man-made disaster hand-crafted by President Joe Biden. Candidate Biden promised illegal aliens red-carpet treatment, amnesty, and citizenship. Message: Received. The Customs and Border Protection’s encounters with single adults on the southern frontier climbed 157% in January 2021 versus January 2020. CBP confronted 100,441 illegal immigrants last month, up 97% from February 2020. This included 9,000 unaccompanied children; 3,000 kids were under 12. On Tuesday, 3,250 children were in Biden’s custody, 1,360 of them beyond the 72-hour legal limit. As illegal-alien detention space dwindles, the administration might move these youths to a San Jose NASA facility. White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain calls this fine mess "one of the most vexing problems we face." None of this should surprise anyone. The Democrats’ no-borders calamity was entirely predictable and is easy to explain. Two huge jet engines power this metaphorical airplane. The first is Democrats’ Trump Derangement Syndrome: "DonaldTrump" favored it, so it must be demolished. This goes beyond Trump’s "evil, fascist border wall," whose construction Biden halted on Day One — contradicting his 2006 Senate vote for the Secure Fence Act. Biden also killed Trump’s Remain in Mexico policy and diplomatic pacts with El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. These initiatives stopped the illegal-alien caravans that previously invaded America with abandon. Trump ended these crises and resecured the border. But Trump’s approach bears his fingerprints. So, Biden reckoned, it must be obliterated. The second engine: Biden and his brethren consider these illegals Future Democrats of America. If they bust through the border, it might take eight years, perhaps 10, maybe 20. But, sooner or later, some Democrat government of tomorrow almost surely will grant them forgiveness, a "path to citizenship," and voter registration. Most of them likely will back Democrats. And that is the key motive for this madness. As their future majority kicks down the Golden Door, Democrats helpfully remove the hinges. Jennifer Palmieri, Hillary Clinton’s former communications director, revealed this family secret in a 2018 Center for American Progress memo. She called DACA recipients — whose parents illegally accompanied them into the U.S. — "a critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success." Palmieri added that if Democrats did not act accordingly, "the risk is that Latinos fail to see them as a true ally, and as a result sit out crucial elections." Meanwhile coyotes and other traffickers deploy children as human shields to help breach the border and fleece their parents for the privilege. Last week, an SUV crammed with 25 illegal immigrants crashed in California, killing 13. Most reportedly paid $10,000 each for this deadly ride. Several Guatemalans dropped $25,000 a piece for this lethal trip. Trump’s much-reviled "Kids in cages" are back! The same media who breathed fire at the former president for "warehousing" illegal-alien children in "cages" built by Obama-Biden are now remarkably relaxed as Biden’s "Kids in containers" languish in shelters made from steel intermodal-transit boxes. Also, in Brownsville, Texas, 185 of 1,553 illegals tested were COVID-19 virus positive. That’s an 11.9% infection rate! These folks were not deported. They were given bus tickets and whisked into the U.S. interior; the health of the American people be damned. Biden pledged to wipe out COVID-19. Instead, he literally imports people stricken by the China virus. Beyond abused children, Biden’s other victims are the millions of immigrants who arrived legally. Their path to citizenship involves delays, paperwork, ever-changing rules, legal bills, and other headaches — while being trapped on sluggish propeller planes. Meanwhile, illegal aliens whiz by overhead in jumbo-jets fueled by Democrats’ Trump-hatred and infinite craving for political control. Legal immigrants — who came to America with permission — have every reason to experience Joe Biden’s self-imposed cabin depressurization and lunge for their air-sickness bags. So does every U.S. citizen who watches this new president "unify" this country by plunging it into a tailspin. Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News Contributor, a contributing editor with National Review Online, and a senior fellow with the London Center for Policy Research. Read Deroy Murdock's Reports — More Here.

The 2020 election was a disaster by almost any standard. Whether you supported Donald Trump or Joe Biden, the uncertainty and confusion following the presidential race threatened the stability of our system of government. Now, with the passage of H.R. 1, Democrats in Congress are hoping to make 2020 the status quo. It’s not hyperbole to say that the bill represents a complete federal takeover of the state election process and a usurpation of the states’ most basic constitutional responsibilities. In fact, the better title for H.R. 1 should be the "Death of Democracy Act." If you cut through the jargon and legalese, the Death of Democracy Act would mandate mail-in balloting in all states, strip voter ID laws in 35 states, remove the ability for states to manage their own voting rolls, and register non-citizens to vote. Not stopping there, the bill would create a commission of unelected federal officials called the "Commission to Protect Democrat Institutions." If that title reminds you of old-fashioned Communist speak you’d be right, the commission will have the power require judges to testify regarding the rulings they issue. As the Heritage Foundation concluded, this commission "would be given the authority to compel judges to testify and justify their legal decisions, threatening their independent judgement and subjecting them to political pressure and harassment." And speaking of intimidation and harassment, the favorite tools of persuasion for the Left, the bill would also force some non-profits to publish the identities of their donors, subjecting private citizens to the machinations of Cancel Culture and the blacklisting mob. Reading the details of H.R. 1 one thing is quite obvious: D.C. has grown tired of having to respect the rights of state and local governments. Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., are moving to make the states nothing more than extensions of the federal government, existing solely to enforce the rulings of the D.C. insiders and bureaucrats. At least they aren’t hiding the ball anymore. The Death of Democracy Act is a blatant attempt to fully consolidate power at the federal level, and they’re telling us loud and clear that they view the states and the people as pawns in their political schemes. In a time of aggressive overreach from D.C., the states and the people must respond with equal force. First, we must push back using our most powerful tool provided us in the Constitution: An Article V Convention of States. The Founding Fathers foresaw a consolidation of power at the federal level, and they included in Article V a mechanism to stop it. A Convention of States is called and controlled by the states and has the power to propose constitutional amendments to rein in the federal government’s usurpation of state freedom and sovereignty. These amendments can limit federal power to a narrow set of topics. Secondly, even before a convention of states convenes it's imperative that states respond to an overtly aggressive Biden administration with equally aggressive measures. States forgoing mask mandates and lockdowns is a good start, as well as the states that are passing legislation overriding executive orders and protecting their citizens’ First and Second Amendment rights. In February, for example, the Missouri House passed a measure prohibiting state and local law enforcement from enforcing any unconstitutional federal gun laws. And just this week, 12 states filed suit against Biden’s climate change executive order by arguing it would cause severe economic harm in their states—not to mention the fact that it’s unconstitutional. As the lawsuit rightly points out, this executive order, "will destroy jobs, stifle energy production, strangle America’s energy independence, suppress agriculture, deter innovation, and impoverish working families. It undermines the sovereignty of the States and tears at the fabric of liberty." Ultimately, we as Americans have a simple choice to make: Do we want decisions made at the state and local level, where we know the politicians and they live in our neighborhoods and communities? Or do we want to be ruled by D.C. insiders and federal bureaucrats who hold average Americans in contempt and have rigged the system to eliminate accountability? If we choose the former, then now is the time to act and get involved. That starts by demanding our local and state leaders use every tool available to them to resist the federal takeover of our states. Then we must educate and encourage our representatives in state legislatures to use the power and authority given to them by our Constitution in Article V. If our local officials fail to use this power, our children and grandchildren will be left to suffer under a faraway centralized government. State and local governments will be swallowed up by a federal bureaucracy intent on consolidating power into the hands of a powerful minority that despises our freedoms and the principles that have made our nation great. We can avoid this future, but we must come together, take a stand against D.C.’s overreach, call the first-ever Article V Convention of States and restore the proper balance of power in our Republic. Mark Meckler is a constitutional activist who co-founded several grassroots organizations including Convention of States Action, Citizens for Self-Governance, and Tea Party Patriots. After many years in California, he, his wife Patty, and their two Great Danes now enjoy life in Texas. They have two adult children. Read Mark Meckler's Reports - More Here.

At CPAC 2021, in his first speech since leaving office, President Donald J. Trump warned that America is heading from energy dominance to energy dependence under the new administration. Sadly, President Joe Biden’s initial flurry of environmental actions, particularly shuttering the nearly-complete Keystone XL pipeline by executive order, is a net loss for the American public. Emblematic of Democratic hypocrisy, the Biden administration’s anti-energy directives result in higher energy prices and lower American productivity. But the greatest indictment on these 'America Last' energy policies is their empowerment of dictators overseas at the cost of our own citizens. The Biden regime’s protocol will have no substantial effect on reducing the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. China will remain the greatest environmental perpetrator globally, and our government will do nothing to hold Beijing to account. Instead, the proposed policies will decimate the American energy industry and ensure that much more of the world’s energy needs will be met by foreign adversaries. During his historic first term in office, President Trump recognized that a reduction in fuel prices would create tremendous economic value for American households. After nearly six decades of energy dependence, the U.S. at last achieved energy independence under the Trump administration. We were not beholden to friends or adversaries for our energy supply. Americans enjoyed low fuel prices for the full duration of his term. The President’s vision behind the Keystone XL pipeline was to provide a lower-cost path to transport oil already flowing from our Canadian neighbors to refineries in the Midwest. Without the pipeline, oil still flows south, but on a more circuitous path across older pipelines, trucks, and rail cars. This inevitably raises the price that Americans struggling through a pandemic have to pay at the pump. But now, Joe Biden’s leftist cabal will ensure that U.S. energy suppliers are stifled at every corner, increasing the world’s dependence on our not-so-neighborly trading partners in the MidEast and Russia. The irony is that self-proclaimed human-rights activists cheer as Biden diverts money from hard-working American energy workers into the coffers of absolute monarchies and sham republics where women are third-class citizens; where migrant workers from Asia and Africa are treated like slaves. When I worked in President Trump’s State Department, we considered it our patriotic duty to promote American values like free speech, religious liberty, and the protection of life around the world. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which loath these American values, earn trillions of dollars selling oil and gas. The political establishment in Washington claims that a secure commitment to human rights around the world, but consistently ignores the well-documented human rights violations committed regularly by the nations that have—and will soon again—supply our oil and gas. In fact, with the U.S, out of the way, Qatar is clamoring to be the global leader in liquefied natural gas exports for the next 20 years. One month of Biden’s pandering to certain billionaires may have not only reversed the tremendous gains made under President Trump, but also cost the U.S. decades of energy leadership and market share to come. Oil wells and pipelines that don’t make it into the ground in America will be drilled in other countries where environmental protection and human rights aren’t even an afterthought. Think of the message that sends to our great American entrepreneurs: Our federal government is willing to swoop in and shut down a project with millions invested for phony political optics, 42,000 jobs evaporate overnight, and the productive investment that should be in the U.S. will instead feed oil oligarchs around the globe—oligarchs who wish death to America as we know it. In declaring war on our own energy providers, the Biden administration will drive down productive American investments, push out American jobs, and increase the price of oil. The only winners of these destructive anti-energy policies are distant foreign governments, the zealots of the Green Left, the multimillion-dollar environmental lobbyists, and the renewable energy special interest groups in Washington. Say goodbye to America First; Biden has bought America a one-way ticket to last place on his diurnal solar-powered train. Catharine O'Neill served at the Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development from the first day to the last day of President Donald J. Trump's administration. The issues that she focused on included religious freedom, immigration, UN reform, and protecting life. Read Catharine O'Neill's Reports - More Here.

President Biden’s administration has announced plans to resume the United States’ association with the Palestinian Authority, including the restoration of humanitarian funding. The new president believes this is a necessary step on a path to peace between Israel and the Palestinians. While Former President Trump’s administration did not realize peace between Israel and the PA, it did make significant advancements in the greater region with the signing of the Abraham Accords, a normalization agreement between Israel and several Arab countries: the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan. The main reason this peace was accomplished is because these countries have leaders who were finally convinced that peace with Israel was better for their own countries and the region, something the Palestinian Authority has been unwilling or unable to consider. Israel has consistently proven that it desires peace as it has offered numerous concessions which were routinely rejected. Unfortunately, leaders of the PA and Hamas don’t share the same yearning for peace and they have never aspired to improve the lives of their people. These leaders have siphoned billions in humanitarian aid monies from the US, Europe and their Arab neighbors, and funneled these funds into manufacturing weapons to attack Israeli citizens, stipends to terrorists and their families as rewards for violence, and to line their own pockets. Former PA President Yasser Arafat diverted billions of dollars to support a lavish lifestyle with mansions and travel, while his people languished in abject poverty. A 2006 report in UK Parliament revealed that, at the time of his death, Arafat may have had as much as $6 billion in hidden bank accounts overseas. Despite claiming not to have funds to meet the needs of his people, several years ago, current PA President Mahmoud Abbas built a mansion worth $6 million which was widely criticized by many Palestinians while other Palestinian government officials live in luxury as well. An economic advisor to Arafat, Mohammed Rashid, claimed that Abbas was worth well over $100 million and it’s widely believed that his family is worth over $300 million. The leaders of Hamas place a different value on international aid as they continue diverting millions of dollars to the manufacturing of missiles and illegal tunnels leading into Israel – its sole desire to eradicate Israel. Even more disturbing, when opportunities for advancement do arise for Palestinians, the PA and Hamas sabotage them, claiming to the world that they want peace all while keeping their people underfoot and inciting violence through rhetoric in Arabic, especially in school curriculum and textbooks. But there is some hope. Palestinian businesses throughout Judea and Samaria, where my organization does the lion share of our work, partner with Israeli businesses, for the benefit of both. Yet, these business owners must keep it secretive or risk being arrested, tortured or killed. Today, industrial zones throughout Israeli-controlled Area C in Judea and Samaria, which afford Palestinian Arabs opportunities to work in Israeli owned businesses, allow them to earn wages two-three times greater than what they can earn working in their own communities and they’re in high demand. Numerous Israeli politicians would also like to see these numbers increase exponentially. Former Defense Minister and chairman of the Yamina Party, MK Naftali Bennett, has often spoken of the need to build peace from the ground up through economic advancements. He argues that improving relations between Israelis and Palestinians through economic opportunities will dynamically change the landscape. I’ve personally seen these industrial zones and spoken with Palestinian workers. There are many who would merely like to provide a livable wage for their families. If the PA would place greater emphasis on improving the lives of its people rather than the continuing incitement of violence against Israel, much could be solved. Many Palestinians have never wanted the so-called Two-State Solution, which, in my opinion, was never a viable solution at all. They view Israel as illegitimate and would like it wiped off the map. For those, it will take decades to undo the inbred hatred upon which they were raised. Yet, there are others who have expressed in anonymous polls that they don’t trust their own leadership and would actually prefer living under Israeli governance to improve their own lives. If President Biden truly wants to bring peace, I believe he would do well to take a step back before repeating the same failed policies of prior US administrations from Israel’s founding until President Donald Trump and his team. If he would like to achieve significant progress, he needs to convince the Palestinian leadership to institute monumental reforms and place their people over provocation. Paying its people for attacking and killing Israelis achieves nothing save for prolonging the tensions between the two peoples. Palestinian leaders need to begin prioritizing peace, unity and their people—not their personal bank accounts. Scott M. Feltman is the executive vice president of One Israel Fund, an American philanthropy that provides security and humanitarian aid for those living in Judea, Samaria, the Jordan Valley and the communities impacted by the Israeli disengagement from Gaza in 2005. Read Scott Feltman's Reports — More Here.

President Trump has set off what could end up becoming a full-blown trade war. As we go down this path, it is worth keeping something firmly in view: Tariffs don't work. I'm not spouting free-market theory; I'm simply making a practical observation.There have been many efforts in recent decades to help industries in decline in America. I can think of no case where tariffs have worked to reverse that decline, except temporarily. Take the most recent example before Trump — tariffs on tires put in place by President Obama. In 2009, after complaints from American companies about cheap Chinese imports, the Obama administration slapped a 35% tariff on Chinese tires. As many as 1,200 jobs were saved in the tire industry, according to the Peterson Institute. But the institute also estimates that consumers paid about $1.1 billion in higher prices, which caused 3,700 jobs to be lost in the retail sector. The cost per tire job saved was almost $1 million. In addition, China retaliated with tariffs on American chicken producers, which Peterson says led to $1 billion in lost sales. As for the long-term effect? In 2008, there were 60,000 Americans working in the tire industry. By 2017, there were 55,000. Robert Lighthizer, Trump's top trade negotiator, learned his tactics during the 1980s, back when Americans were worried that Japan was ravaging the U.S. economy with cheap imports. As Ronald Reagan's deputy trade chief, Lighthizer employed a variety of trade barriers to cut imports of Japanese goods like cars and steel. Doug Irwin recently noted in Foreign Affairs that two comprehensive studies by the International Trade Commission and the Congressional Budget Office concluded that these sorts of measures were ineffective. The CBO's conclusion was simple: "Trade restraints have failed to achieve their primary objective of increasing the international competitiveness of the relevant industries." Consider Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs. The pro-tariff Alliance for American Manufacturing claims that 12,700 jobs have been saved or added. But the Peterson Institute calculates that higher steel prices cost American companies about $11.5 billion a year, or about $1 million per steel job saved. U.S. aluminum production has risen slightly but is still well below 2015 levels. The United States occupies a central place in global supply chains, with many industries using it as a hub to produce goods and services. If it becomes a high-tariff fortress, it will lose that pivotal place in the international economy. The nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research released a paper in March observing that Trump has ushered in the largest return to protectionism since the Smoot-Hawley tariffs of the 1930s and the brief Nixon shock of 1971. The scholars calculated that Trump's tariffs last year cost American consumers and firms a staggering $68.8 billion a year. The U.S. now has the highest tariffs among the G-7, the group of the world's leading industrialized countries. Over time, other nations will surely become more protectionist as well. And history suggests that, once imposed, tariffs are hard to repeal since domestic lobbies that benefit will advocate fiercely for their retention. In 1964, retaliating for a European tax on American chickens, the U.S. placed a 25% tariff on light trucks. The chicken tax was long ago repealed, but the truck tariff remains in place. It's true that China has been something of a trade cheat, though more often than not it has been clever in using and manipulating the rules to its benefit. But to put things in perspective, according to a 2015 Credit Suisse tally, the country that imposed the most non-tariff protectionist measures since 1990 was the United States, with three times the number as China. And that was before Trump. More importantly, although Trump wants China to abide by World Trade Organization rules, many of his measures are either in contravention of those rules or a flagrant abuse of them — such as the use of the "national security exemption" to slow down imports from "threatening" countries like Canada and Germany. Many of Trump's demands on China have nothing to do with opening up markets. They are shopping lists presented to Beijing for goods mostly produced in states that the president wants to win in 2020. Think soybeans grown in the Midwest. It's less a trade strategy than a reelection strategy. In fact, it actually moves China in the direction of greater statism since the only way Beijing can fulfill Trump's wish list is to have the government or state-owned enterprises buy the goods. Trump's trade strategy might have started out well-intentioned, but it has turned into a highly politicized and out-of-control wrecking ball that could end up destroying a system that has brought peace and prosperity to the world for 75 years. Fareed Zakaria hosts CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS," and makes regular appearances on shows such as ABC's "This Week" and NBC's "Meet The Press." He has been an editor at large Time magazine since 2010, and spent 10 years overseeing Newsweek's foreign editions. He is a Washington Post (and internationally syndicated) columnist. He is author of "The Post-American World." For more of Fareed Zakaria's reports, Go Here Now.

"The Talk" staffers reportedly have turned on Sharon Osbourne following her heated discussion about racism with co-host Sheryl Underwood. Osbourne came under fire after defending her friend Piers Morgan and his controversial comments about Meghan Markle following her interview with Oprah Winfrey. Shortly after, former "The Talk" co-hosts Leah Remini and Holly Robinson Peete launched allegations of racism, but they are not the only ones who have turned against Osbourne, a source revealed to The Sun. "Everyone at the show has turned on her. The Leah Remini claims put them over the edge. They think she can't own her mistakes. They just want to distance themselves from her," the insider said. In response to the ordeal, CBS put "The Talk" on hold until next week and launched an investigation. The source said Osbourne believed the probe was to "find out who set her up" but it was really "an HR investigation into a racially insensitive and hostile work environment." Osbourne has maintained that the network instigated the exchange between her and Underwood. During their conversation, Underwood explained that some of Morgan's statements could be seen as racist, to which Osbourne argued that her co-host was suggesting she herself had been racist. Speaking with Variety, Osbourne claimed that CBS executives ordered producers of "The Talk" to have her co-hosts bring up questions about tweets she had posted supporting and defending Morgan. "I blame the network for it," she said. "I was blindsided, totally blindsided by the whole situation. In my 11 years, this was the first time I was not involved with the planning of the segment." The Sun’s source said producers were "furious" that they were now becoming the target. "The staff is so angry that their livelihoods have been taken away from them, and their jobs are in jeopardy," the source said. A CBS spokesperson addressed the controversy in a statement to Fox News. "CBS is committed to a diverse, inclusive and respectful workplace across all of our productions," the statement read. "We’re also very mindful of the important concerns expressed and discussions taking place regarding events on 'The Talk.'"

If Britney Spears decides to speak out about her past and controversial conservatorship battle, she knows to whom she'll be granting the tell-all interview: Oprah Winfrey. The pop singer has been the focus of attention following the release of The New York Times' "Framing Britney Spears" and, although she has received a wave of support in response to the unauthorized documentary, Britney feels she is the only person who should be telling her story, a source revealed to Entertainment Tonight. "Britney has considered speaking out about her past, mostly because she doesn't feel others should tell her story," the insider said. "She's always hated doing interviews, but if she ever takes that step, Oprah would most likely be her first choice. At this point, there is no plan in the works for her to do an interview, but when she does, there will be steps Britney would need to take before speaking out." The source added that the outpouring of love that Britney has received from fans and celebrities has had a positive effect on her mental health. "Britney has been much happier lately and those closest to her feel it's because she's received such tremendous support from her fans," the source continued. "The release of the documentary has inspired an outpouring of more love than ever. While she hasn't been able to make changes to her conservatorship, she's received millions of messages from fans on social media and she feels far more understood." Britney has been locked in a court battle with her father, Jamie, over her conservatorship for over a decade. Jamie has been in charge of her financial and personal affairs since 2008 but stepped down as her personal conservator in 2019 due to health issues. Jodie Montgomery, a professionally licensed conservator, temporarily took over the role upon Britney's request and on Wednesday the "Toxic" singer's lawyer announced that he would be filing a petition to make her Britney's permanent "care manager," according to Fox News. It is unclear whether the role will also apply to Britney's estate, which is jointly being overseen by Jamie Spears and Bessemer Trust, as ordered by a Los Angeles judge last month.

Drew Brees has revealed the reasons why he decided to retire. For 15 years, the former New Orleans Saints quarterback has given his all to the team, but after 20 seasons in the league realized "it was time." Speaking at a press conference Wednesday, Brees explained that injury, combined with family responsibilities, played a role in his decision to call it quits. "At the end of the day, the factors that go into this are, I’ve always said as long as I can play the game at a high level; I’m having fun doing it; and I’m able to stay healthy, then this is something I’ll do forever. Obviously, I’ve had some injuries the last two years that have been frustrating," he said via Pro Football Talk. "I don’t think they were injuries that were saying I was getting old. But nonetheless, I had the thumb that ruled me five games two years ago, and then had the ribs and the lung that holds me out for four games this past year," he said. "Could I keep playing? Yeah, I’m sure I could. But I’m also looking at my kids, my family, the age of my kids, and just gauging all of those things. There’s a balance there. I also just felt like I would just feel it. I would feel when it was time. I felt that it was time." Brees announced his retirement Sunday with the help of his four children- Baylen, 12, Bowen, 10, Callen, 8, and Rylen, 6. "After 15 years with the Saints and 20 years in the NFL, our dad is finally gonna retire, so he can spend more time with us! Yay!" they say in a video shared to Brees' official Instagram account. "I am only retiring from playing football, I am not retiring from New Orleans," he wrote in alengthy caption. "This is not goodbye, rather a new beginning. Now my real life's work begins!" Brees will appear as an analyst on "Football Night in America," and a commentator during Notre Dame football games, Fox News reported.

A 76-year-old Asian woman was not prepared to back down when a much younger man attacked her in the streets of San Francisco on Wednesday. Instead she fought back, leaving the assailant bloodied and in need of medical assistance. Speaking with KPIX-TV San Francisco, Xiao Zhen Xie explained that she had been standing by a traffic light when the suspect punched her in the face. Her natural reaction was to grab a nearby stick and hit him back. In video footage caught by the channel's sports director, Dennis O’Donnell, Xie is seen shouting and sobbing while holding an ice pack to her face. Her attacker lies on a stretcher with a bloodied mouth. He appears to be bewildered. "You bum, why did you hit me?" she shouts at the man in Chinese. Commenting on the scene, O’Donnell described coming across "a guy on a stretcher" and a "frustrated angry woman" with a stick in her hand. "The woman said that she was hit. She attacked back," he said. "From what I could see, she wanted more of the guy on the stretcher and the police were holding her back." Xie is the latest victim in a wave of attacks against Asians in the area. According to police, an 83-year-old Asian man was also assaulted Wednesday morning. A 39-year-old man is now under investigation for both attacks. It is unclear if racial bias is a motive. "We have to do our job and we have to investigate these cases with all resources brought to bear and we need to make arrests, and we’ve done that," said San Francisco Police Chief Bill Scott. Both Xie and the suspect were taken to hospital for treatment.

Mama June of "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo" has revealed that she spent $1M on drugs in just a year. The reality TV star, whose real name is June Shannon, made the confession while discussing her former addiction in a candid interview with Access Hollywood. "I was around drugs all my life, my brother-in-law had gotten busted several times for selling dope, my sisters have had pill addictions after surgery, so addiction does run in my family," she said. "When I was 20 years old, I went from nothing and started using meth — as it was known back in the day, crank." June explained that she abused drugs until 2015, when she went "cold turkey," but it was only a matter of time before she relapsed. In 2019, June was arrested on suspicion of drug possession and indicted later that year. She has since managed to get clean and will celebrate 14 months of sobriety at the end of March, but her final year of addiction has taken its toll on her family and finances. "[My] bank accounts [were] overdrawn tens of thousands of dollars," she said. "I would say the last year of our addiction, [we spent] probably a good $900 thousand." June said that she entered rehab with "a dollar 75 to my name" and "came out with nothing." She has since been rebuilding her life. Last year, June opened up about the dire consequences of her addiction in an episode of "Mama June: Family Crisis." She admitted to selling her house to support her drug habit, which was costing her about $2,500 a day. June's relationship with her daughters grew strained and she lost custody of her daughter, Alana "Honey Boo Boo" Thompson. Now she is doing what she can to make it up to regain their confidence, according to People. "I want to say that I'm sorry," June said in an episode of "Mama June: Road to Redemption" last month, "but I need to show that I'm sorry."

Tiger Woods is back at his South Florida home as he continues to recover from the multiple injuries he sustained in a horrific single-car crash. The golfing legend announced the news on Twitter in a statement that also acknowledged staff at the Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, which is where he was rushed after swerving off a Southern California road and rolling down a steep hillside. "I am so grateful for the outpouring of support and encouragement that I have received over the past few weeks," the statement read. "Thank you to all the incredible surgeons, doctors, nurses and staff at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. You have all taken such great care of me and I cannot thank you enough." Woods added that he would be "recovering at home and working on getting stronger every day." The 45-year-old suffered multiple fractures in the crash. Harbor-UCLA Medical Center chief medical officer Anish Mahajan detailed the extent of Woods' injuries in a statement posted to the golfer's Twitter account. "Mr Woods suffered significant orthopaedic injuries to his right lower extremity that were treated during emergency surgery by orthopaedic trauma specialists at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, a level 1 trauma center," said Dr Mahajan said. "Comminuted open fractures affecting the upper and lower of the tibia and fibula bones were stabilised by inserting a rod into the tibia. Additional injuries to the bones of the foot and ankle were stabilised with a combination of screws and pins. Trauma to the muscle and soft tissue of the leg required surgical release of the covering of the muscles to relieve pressure due to swelling." Earlier this month fellow PGA Tour players including Tony Finau, Rory McIlroy, Jason Day, Tommy Fleetwood, Justin Thomas, and Patrick Reed donned Woods' trademark red and black colors in the final round of the World Golf Championships-Workday Championship at The Concession in Bradenton, Fla., in support of the professional athlete. Thomas further expressed his support for Woods following his win of the Players Championship on Sunday, "I was replaying what he told me a lot in my head," he said, according to ESPN. "He likes to give me a lot of grief, especially when he's not here, and calling him, like Bryson said. ... We're all pulling for him. And I'm so glad to hear everything has been going well with him."

Nick Cannon is addressing the anti-Semitic comments and conspiracy theories he spread in June on his YouTube vlog. The Emmy-nominated producer was temporarily fired from Viacom as a result. He issued an apology at the time but during an appearance on "Soul Nation," Cannon has now said he is not looking for forgiveness. "I've always said that apologies are empty. Apologies are weightless," he said in a sneak peek of the interview made available by GMA. "In Hebrew they call it, you know, 'Teshuva,' the process of not only you know, repenting, but through that — if you're ever met with a similar situation that you make a different decision. That goes beyond apologizing. And I'm on this journey of atonement, not to get a job, not to gain any more money because that's not what's needed here. I'm doing this because it's the right thing to do." During his controversial podcast last year, Cannon and Richard "Professor Griff" Griffith, the former Public Enemy member, discussed racial bias. At one point Cannon stated that Black people are the true Hebrews and that Jews have usurped their identity. Speaking with "Soul Nation," Cannon said his remarks came from a place of ignorance, not hatred. "My journey's not gonna stop, whether the person watching this forgives me or not," he added. Cannon's comments come as he prepares to resume hosting VH1's "Wild 'N Out" following his temporary firing. MTV Entertainment Group said in a statement to USA Today that Cannon has "taken responsibility for his comments" and "worked to educate himself" through conversations with Jewish leaders.

Demi Lovato has made some shocking revelations. The pop icon recounted her experiences of being raped as a teen and then sexually assaulted on the morning of her 2018 drug overdose in her new YouTube docuseries, "Dancing with the Devil." Speaking in the four-part documentary, which premiered at the virtual South by Southwest festival Tuesday, Lovato revealed that she lost her virginity when she was raped. "We were hooking up but I said, 'Hey, this is not going any farther, I'm a virgin and I don't want to lose it this way,'" she recalled, via USA Today. "And that didn't matter to them, they did it anyways. And I internalized it and I told myself it was my fault because I still went in the room with him, I still hooked up with him." At the time, Lovato's career was just taking off. She had been cast in Disney's "Camp Rock" in 2008 and was portrayed as a wholesome teen, much like her fellow Disney stars Miley Cyrus and the Jonas Brothers, who were prepared to wait until marriage before having sex. Because of her image, Lovato felt she could not speak out about what had happened and chose to remain silent. "I was a part of that Disney crowd that publicly said they were waiting till marriage," she said. "I didn't have the romantic first time with anybody, that was not it for me and that sucked. And then I had to see this person all the time, and so I stopped eating and coped in other ways: cutting, throwing up, whatever. And my bulimia got so bad that I started throwing up blood for the first time." Several years later, on the day of her drug overdose on July 23, 2018, Lovato said she was sexually assaulted by her drug dealer. The "Sorry Not Sorry" hitmaker had been partying with friends at her Los Angeles home that day. When they all left she contacted her dealer, who delivered oxycodone to her. Looking back, Lovato said she believed it was laced with fentanyl. "I didn't just overdose — I also was taken advantage of," Lovato explained of that early morning. "I've had my fair share of sexual trauma throughout childhood, teenage years. And when they found me, I was naked, I was blue. I was literally left for dead after he took advantage of me." Lovato recalled waking up in the hospital and being asked whether she had consensual sex. "There was one flash that I had of him on top of me. I saw that flash and I said, 'Yes,'" she continued. "It wasn't until a month after my overdose when I realized, 'Hey, you weren't in any state of mind to make a consensual decision.' That kind of trauma doesn't go away overnight." Lovato has been open about her drug overdose and previously revealed that she had suffered three strokes and a heart attack while in the hospital as a result. Speaking at the documentary's Television Critics Association panel last month, Lovato said the physical effects she suffered were detrimental. "I was left with brain damage, and I still deal with the effects of that today. I don't drive a car, because I have blind spots on my vision," she said, per People. "And I also for a long time had a really hard time reading. It was a big deal when I was able to read out of a book, which was like two months later because my vision was so blurry." Lovato added that the after-effects were a strong reminder of the traumatic experience. "I dealt with a lot of the repercussions and I feel like they are still there to remind me of what could happen if I ever get into a dark place again," she added. "I'm grateful for those reminders, but I'm so grateful that I was someone that didn't have to do a lot of rehabbing. The rehabbing came on the emotional side."

Yaphet Kotto, best known for his roles in "Live and Let Die" and "Alien," has died at age 81. The actor's wife, Tessie Sinahon, confirmed Kotto had died Monday in a Facebook post. "I'm saddened and still in shocked of the passing of my husband Yaphet of 24 years," she wrote. Born Nov. 15, 1939, in New York, Kotto was raised by his grandparents in the Bronx, according to IMDB. He first began acting in 1958 with a theatrical debut in the title role of "Othello." Several years later, he appeared in the Broadway production "The Great White Hope" as James Earl Jones' understudy. Kotto went on to appear in various films before landing his breakout role as the evil Kananga, also known as Mr. Big, in the 1973 James Bond thriller "Live and Let Die." Three years later, he was cast as Ugandan dictator Idi Amin in "Raid on Entebbe," followed by Nostromo engineer Parker in 1979's "Alien." Kotto's performance led to him being shortlisted for the role of Jean Luc Picard in "Star Trek: The Next Generation" (1987), as well as Lando Calrissian in Star Wars' "The Empire Strikes Back" but he turned them both down in fear of being typecast. "I wanted to get back down on Earth," he said in a 2003 interview. "I was afraid that if I did another space film after having done Alien, then I'd be typed. Once you get one of those big blockbuster hits, you better have some other big blockbuster hits to go with it too and be Harrison Ford, because if you don't … you place yourself right out of the business." In another memorable role, Kotto famously played Alphonse "Gee" Giardello in the NBC drama "Homicide: Life on the Street," which aired from 1993 to 2000. He also delivered sterling performances alongside Arnold Schwarzenegger in 1987's "The Running Man," and next to Robert De Niro in the 1988 comedy "Midnight Run." Other notable titles include "The Thomas Crown Affair," "Blue Collar," "Eye of the Tiger" and "Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare," The Hollywood Reporter noted. "One of the best actor in Hollywood a Legend," wrote Sinahon. "Rest in Peace Honey, I'm gonna miss you everyday, my bestfriend,my rock.I love you and you will always be in my heart.Till we meet again."

Karlie Kloss and Joshua Kushner have become parents. Kushner, whose brother Jared Kushner is married to Ivanka Trump, announced the birth of their first child on social media Sunday. "Welcome to the world," the 35-year-old businessman captioned a photo of their newborn in an Instagram post. Their baby's name and gender was not revealed. People confirmed the couple were expecting in October last year. "Karlie is overjoyed to be expecting her first child in 2021," a source told the outlet. "She will be the most amazing mother." Kloss and Kushner tied the knot in 2018, months after Kushner proposed to Kloss during a romantic weekend together in upstate New York. The couple have tried to stay out of the public eye but often find themselves thrust into the limelight because of their political relations. Kloss is often questioned on her political views and previously admitted to British Vogue the attention was tough. "It's been hard," she said. "But I choose to focus on the values that I share with my husband, and those are the same liberal values that I was raised with and that have guided me throughout my life." Kloss caused a stir when she endorsed President Joe Biden last year during his run on Instagram. "What's your voting plan?" Kloss captioned two photos of herself wearing a mask with Biden and Harris' campaign logo on the front. In her hand she is holding a sealed mail-in ballot. "This was mine — signed, sealed, (notarized), and delivered #voteBLUE #scienceoverfiction" Joshua is also a lifelong Democrat, a rep confirmed to Esquire.

The European Union is rebuffing British government calls to ship AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines produced in a factory in the Netherlands, an EU official said Sunday. Former EU member Britain has so far administered many more vaccines than EU countries in proportion to the population. "The Brits are insisting that the Halix plant in the Netherlands must deliver the drug substance produced there to them. That doesn't work," the official told Reuters. The Leiden-based plant which is run by sub-contractor Halix is listed as a supplier of vaccines in both the contracts that AstraZeneca has signed with Britain and with the European Union. "What is produced in Halix has to go to the EU," the official added. Britain has insisted that contracts must be respected. "The European Commission will know that the rest of the world is looking at the Commission, about how it conducts itself on this, and if contracts get broken, and undertakings, that is a very damaging thing to happen for a trading bloc that prides itself on the rules of law," Defence Minister Ben Wallace said on Sky News earlier in answer to a question about Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen's threat to block exports to Britain. The EU official said the EU was not breaking any contract. The European Union threatened Wednesday to block exports of COVID-19 vaccines to Britain to safeguard scarce doses for its own citizens, with Von der Leyen saying the epidemiological situation was worsening. AstraZeneca has not yet sought approval in the EU for Halix, but the official and a second EU source said the request was on its way. Without regulatory approval, vaccines produced at Halix cannot be used in the EU. An internal AstraZeneca document seen by Reuters shows that the company expects EU approval March 25. AstraZeneca has declined to comment on the amount of vaccines that are currently stockpiled at Halix. The EU official said the factory had already produced shots, but was not able to quantify the output. Under the EU contract with AstraZeneca, vaccines must be produced before approval and be delivered immediately afterwards. Two factories in Britain run by Oxford Biomedica and Cobra Biologics are also listed as suppliers to the EU in the contract with AstraZeneca, but no vaccine has so far been shipped from Britain to the EU, despite Brussels' earlier requests. Officials have said that Cobra is not fully operational. AstraZeneca told EU officials that the UK is using a clause in its supply contract that prevents export of its vaccines until the British market is fully served, EU officials said.

We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.

The New Right is the captain now. When the old guard goes out of its way to crush a new endeavor, you have to wonder what’s at stake. Nick Solheim and Saurabh Sharma of American Moment are young, devoted, and driven to “forge a cadre of aligned and dedicated young people to serve in government and public-policy organizations to support strong families, a sovereign nation, and prosperity for all.” Why should an editor of National Review—a publication whose very reason for being is ostensibly to energize and guide the conservative movement—want to undermine and discredit this exciting new endeavor in the eyes of his movement conservative audience? “If you believe the people behind the new organization American Moment,” writes Butler, “the main problem with the Swamp is simply that the wrong people have been in charge. In case you were wondering, they think they are the right people.” How dare they. I know it’s hard but imagine an organization on the right actually trying to “identify, educate, and credential young Americans who will implement public policy that supports strong families, a sovereign nation, and prosperity for all.” Imagine if that organization is “not adherent to the morally bankrupt system that is American higher education, so college degrees, as well as prior political experience, are not requirements for admission.” Imagine if it practices what it preaches, reaching out to find real talent outside of fancy schools or wealthy families: “generous funding is designed to make the fellowship livable with no external income, so young people of all economic means are encouraged to apply.” It’s—it’s exactly what we need. The implicit conceit here is that National Review, by contrast, has hardly any aspirations to influence public policy or install conservatives in positions of political power. Judging by the waning influence and failure of establishment conservatism over the last decade or two, we will not fault anyone for believing this to be true. But the clear implication of the snipe is that in the purity of their small-government piety, National Review simply wants to eliminate as many of those positions as possible. This is an impossibility, as well as a lie. Buckley’s main claim to fame was not to stand athwart other conservatives yelling stop, but to shape the Reagan coalition’s acquisition and use of political power. Indeed, the National Review Institute’s Burke to Buckley program was, in its own words, created to “build a network of talented, like-minded individuals who can assist one another professionally and personally for years to come.” The William F. Buckley Jr. Fellowship in Political Journalism was designed to exert the same sort of influence over the press. Like the Claremont Institute—like any movement organization that hopes to be remotely effectual—National Review’s organizations share an explicit interest in training up young conservatives and getting them into positions where they cannot just gatekeep but lead. The movement Buckley led was dynamic—intellectually nimble and responsive to the urgent concerns of its day. But some inheritors of that movement have gradually frozen conservatism in time, and frozen out conservatives painfully conscious of just what time it is. Faced with unprecedented threats to first-amendment rights on the part of digital conglomerates, the time has long passed for Cold War-era slogans about private enterprise. Faced with the staggering financial, strategic, and psychological cost of generations of interventionism, the time is past for scolding Americans about their “intolerance for the messy and unending business of preserving a general peace.” And faced with the rise of new generations unwilling to play the honorable loser, the time is past for snobs who can do little more than turn up their noses. The real reason some in the old guard feel threatened by American Moment is not that Solheim and Sharma want to influence politics. It’s that they accuse Conservative, Inc.—that dependable stable of campaign consultants, op-ed writers, and think tank wonks who have dominated intellectual conservatism since the ’80s—of having institutionalized failure. Those accusations hit home. In 2016, when Donald Trump stood poised to help sweep away the detritus of this “zombie Reaganism,” Conservative, Inc. took on its final boss form: hidebound, disdainful, and furiously resistant to change. Here’s Kevin Williamson in National Review’s March 2016 issue (a month after February’s Against Trump bonanza special) blaming Trump’s populist base for the problems they were desperate to get solved: If you spend time in hardscrabble, white upstate New York, or eastern Kentucky, or my own native West Texas, and you take an honest look at the welfare dependency, the drug and alcohol addiction, the family anarchy—which is to say, the whelping of human children with all the respect and wisdom of a stray dog—you will come to an awful realization. It wasn’t Beijing. It wasn’t even Washington, as bad as Washington can be. It wasn’t immigrants from Mexico, excessive and problematic as our current immigration levels are. It wasn’t any of that. Nothing happened to them. There wasn’t some awful disaster. There wasn’t a war or a famine or a plague or a foreign occupation. Even the economic changes of the past few decades do very little to explain the dysfunction and negligence—and the incomprehensible malice—of poor white America. In defense of this outrageous attack, David French said the quiet part out loud: “millions of Americans aren’t doing their best. Indeed, they’re barely trying.” Leave aside for a moment the pure blinkered prejudice of these astonishing statements—their blithe disregard for global economic trends, the ease with which they wave away the constant verbal abuse that poor white Americans receive from well-heeled Democrats and Republicans alike, their unwillingness to entertain the notion that any of this meaningfully contributes to the suffering of middle America. Bracket the evidence crashing down around downwardly-mobile Americans’ heads that their bipartisan elite has spent over twenty years putting their country at odds with their interests and at war with their identities. Even tabling all that, the fact remains: Americans—lots of them—are hurting. Badly. What do establishment conservatives propose to do about that? The answer is: nothing. No, really. They tell us that government and political leaders can do nothing. “Government Can’t Heal Us, Tucker Carlson,” Kyle Smith insisted in National Review in 2019—as if Carlson’s now-famous monologue suggesting maybe Republicans should craft policies that, you know, actually help their own voters was some form of sacrilege. Smith went on to say that leaders who actually care about us ackshually can’t help us. “Leaders may want” good things “for us, but we should have no illusion that they can provide those things for us,” chided Jim Geraghty. Shut up and lose, in other words. As we said a few years ago, “[t]his anti-politics of principled loserdom is a secular form of homiletics, preaching unheard to the unwashed.” So perhaps there is one thing that they have elected themselves to do: preach scornfully to demoralize and disparage Republican voters, hurrying up the day that so many have died, retired, or sunk into oblivion that their whole icky demographic has disappeared and been replaced. In other words, exactly what the woke-led Left is doing. But look, our superiors in Conservative, Inc. know they are better Christians and citizens than millions of their fellows, as they like to remind us all daily. For them, tough love for your actual citizen neighbors means telling them how they are responsible for everything bad in America, from racism to the spread of COVID-19. Oddly, among this set it often turns out that love of those who are not your actual citizen neighbors, from occupied Iraq to every impoverished immigrant group in the world, does require government intervention and leaders who “care.” For years, the Wall Street Journal has been gleefully calling for an onrush of low-wage immigrant labor: “The Recovery Needs Immigrants.” “To Grow the Economy, America Needs Immigrants.” “There’s no economic or health case for blocking all immigrants.” Reasonable minds can differ about how many new workers we should be letting onto our shores, but what about the ones who are already here? Are they completely incapable of “growing the economy” or driving its recovery? Are they unworthy of investment or training, devoid of potential to contribute to American life at all? The cumulative implication is that Americans should either abandon their cratering communities and head for the city, or else prepare to subsist on whatever meagre scraps of UBI we deign to give them until they die off. This suicidal “messaging” hasn’t worked electorally in the past and it won’t work in the future. Unless the Republican party prioritizes the ruled classes—not the ruling ones—in its campaigning and policy proposals, we risk squandering the major inroads Trump made, ones that won the Republican Party an unearned second chance at survival. The result will be obsolescence and irrelevance, which are exactly what Conservative, Inc. seems to welcome in its heart. Republicans can keep gaslighting and abusing their core constituency—that “credulous boomer rube demo,” those “childless single men who masturbate to anime”—but it’s not going to end well for the party. Why not do something for the people you’re supposed to be championing, for a change? Why not fight to claw back their trust? Perhaps because it’s just too late. Maybe Conservative, Inc. is simply too old, too tired, and too compromised to close its yawning credibility gap. In which case, the younger generation of conservative leaders like Sharma and Solheim are to be thanked, even celebrated, for stepping into the breach, and not a moment too soon. Here, on the front lines of restoring the Right to greatness in our time, we support their endeavor unreservedly. How tiresome that anyone who shows initiative of this kind is faced with vicious resistance from movement police lording shamelessly over decline. But if the old guard is really committed to its self-defeating obstructionism, so be it: we don’t need them anyway. In their hearts, conservatives know the new Right has already taken the lead. There are still a lot of good people working at places like National Review, some of whom acknowledge some of these truths, and the publication still does good work at times. They ran Mark Krikorian’s short defense of American Moment recently. But let’s stop pretending that at an organizational level, Conservative, Inc. has a clue as to the political landscape it is now operating within or what to do about it moving forward. Let’s stop pretending that the old Right has demonstrated any coherent, consistent plan moving forward, or any coherent, consistent response to Trump even now, well after he has left office. Spare us the mumbling about William F. Buckley. That was a long time ago now. What Buckley accomplished was to bring a coalition together and lead it forward into battle. When National Review publishes dumb and vindictive attacks on American Moment, the Claremont Institute, and all those mendacious poor whites voting for The Donald, it reveals it is incapable of that task today. This is no longer about “having the debate” or hosting various viewpoints. This is a rudderless ship. At first, we gave our detractors the benefit of the doubt—these are trying times, and people disagree about what is to be done. But it’s been five long years, and it is still not clear where they stand. It does not matter whose fault it is that NR doesn’t even seem to understand or be able to explain to its readers where the fault lines on the Right now are. We hope they eventually figure it out. But the upshot is this: Conservative, Inc. is no longer the gatekeeper or standard of anything, and everyone knows it. This American Moment has passed them by. If they remain alarmed and confused about the outlines of the consistent, coherent popular agenda the energetic young new Right is proposing and developing—if they continue to blindly oppose it—well, let the dead bury the dead.

We call them Marxists, but they have rejected collectivism. The collapse of the Soviet Union 30 years ago did not precipitate the destruction of Marxist energies; rather, it caused them to adopt new survival strategies in accordance with changes in the environment. What took place was not an “end of history” but simply another step in the dialectical process: a thesis and an antithesis collided, producing a synthesis. The thesis was Western Christianity and individual autonomy, and the antithesis was materialist, collectivist Marxism. Their synthesis is the Wokeism that bedevils us today. That this new ideology is quasi-religious in nature has already been widely observed. Wokeism is sometimes described as Christianity, except without forgiveness or redemption. As Robert Nisbet observed, socialist Bertrand Russell summed up Marxism “as follows: dialectical materialism is God; Marx the Messiah; Lenin and Stalin the apostles; the proletariat the elect; the Communist Party the Church; Moscow the seat of the Church; the Revolution the Second Coming; the punishment of capitalists Hell; Trotsky the Devil; and the communist commonwealth Kingdom Come.” But if religion is the opiate of the masses, then Wokeism is their methamphetamine—a new, cheap, and highly addictive new form of Marxism. What, then, about the dichotomy of individualism and collectivism? On the right, we dismiss the Woke Left’s economics as “Bolshevik” or “socialist.” But Wokeists are more focused on racial, sexual, and gender identity groups than they are on economic classes and their eternal struggle. The Woke seek to redistribute wealth, but only enough to repair the historical injustice of racist oppression—it’s not clear that they would mind having a rich overclass lording it over dispossessed whites. This shift from class to racial consciousness has been accounted for as a mere rearrangement of the furniture that does not alter the underlying ideology. But this assumption is mistaken. In swapping identity groups for economic groups, the modern Left substituted individualism for collectivism. Of course, collectivist, group-oriented rhetoric remains in vogue. But what determines membership in this era’s protected groups? Is it the actual fact of having this or that immutable characteristic or “lived experience”; or is it the individual’s act of self-identification? For gender and sexual orientation, it is undeniably the latter: in the minds of the Woke, thinking makes it so. Identifying (“I identify as”) takes precedence over simply being (“I am”). The latter formulation subordinates the individual to the group category. This is collectivism. The former is preferable because through it, the group category becomes a valuable accessory to the individual who can wield it, a potent weapon in the ongoing war for social and political power that supposedly undergirds all human interaction. This is Wokeism. Understood another way, what was once “I am a part of this group” has become “this group is a part of me.” The use of identity language serves as a kind of self-deification. Like the God of Genesis, whose creative instrument is the Logos, the Woke speak things into being (at least in their own imaginations). “God said x; therefore, x was” is readily analogized to “I identify as x; therefore, I am x.” Whereas Christianity arose in opposition to the pagan decadence of one man’s self-deification (“a decree went out from Caesar Augustus…”), we now have millions of self-anointed woke deities to contend with. In this light, the explosion in transgenderism among today’s teenage girls, cited by Abigail Shrier and others, is no wonder. Who would refuse all the praise, sacrifice, genuflection, and moral license that Olympus once received? How does this play out in the real world? Look no further than Canadian Bill C-16, by which “gender nonconforming people” are invited to deputize the power of the State in order to compel the speech of others. The same dynamic is at play with regard to the push for cash reparations for slavery, the Little Sisters of the Poor’s Supreme Court battles, and many other examples. As Spencer Klavan has recently pointed out, the goal of the Left is to align the might of the State with its own spiritual aims. But the religion in question is not merely that of social justice. Beneath the surface, it is the worship of the Self, each individual her own little deity, demanding penance and contrition. This has proven difficult for the Right to recognize because, with all our libertarianism, we thought we had exclusive rights to individualist doctrine. But whereas the Right’s economic individualism has been, for the most part, tempered by Judeo-Christian morality structures that limit the self, the Left’s new spirituality is characterized by its removal of limitations on the individual. Whereas the West’s idea of individual sovereignty grants each individual rule over the kingdom of his person and property, Wokeism encourages the transgression of these and many other natural borders, celebrating the annexation of neighboring territories, provided, of course, that the aggressors belong to a protected identity group. Invasion can be averted by accepting the terms of this theocracy. What to do? How to win? Know the Woke aren’t Marxists. They are no longer materialists or collectivists. The incessant Marxist epithet seems to mostly serve our impulse of self-satisfaction, because it connotes a failed ideological system. But, having won virtually no significant cultural battles for at least a half century, the Right is no position to be satisfied by its impulses or satisfied with itself. Perhaps that recognition will help reveal that the Woke, having abandoned all but the trappings of collectivism, have hijacked individualism and driven it to its logical conclusion: the self is a god. Any political culture that depends on an individualism of degrees will prove unpersuasive by comparison.

America’s unserious political class is totally unequipped to deal with the threat. The Chinese Communist Party is deathly serious in its pursuit of global hegemony, which, if achieved, would be a nightmare for all who believe in liberty and justice. By contrast, can it be said of our political class that it is deathly serious about anything fundamental to preserving our way of life? As 2021 dawns, contrast how the CCP ended last year, with how America’s leaders started this one. The CCP should have come out of 2020 badly wounded, withering under severe isolation and punishment from a newly resolute West spurred to action over China’s primary culpability in the cover-up and spread of the coronavirus pandemic. Instead, it rang in the new year with a diplomatic, economic, and strategic coup—all with the aid of the West. China and the European Union agreed in principle to an investment pact that the EU’s president described as “an important landmark in our relationship with China” that would “provide unprecedented access to the Chinese market for European investors.” This was quite a reward given China’s depredations—from the coronavirus casualties on Europe’s streets, to the victims of the crackdown on Hong Kong, to the prisoners in the mushrooming Xinjiang gulags. The agreement enabled China to drive a wedge between America and its putative allies and partners, reap the pecuniary benefits, and generate a golden opportunity to exert even greater leverage and therefore control over Europe by binding it ever-closer economically and, by necessity, politically and socially. All in all, China capped a year that could have proven catastrophic for its ambitions by notching a major victory as it continued its ruthless pursuit of global power and influence. Besides which, it exposed our friends’ stated devotion to the so-called liberal international order, and concerns about the environment and human rights, as hollow—particularly given China’s worst-in-class record on the last two counts. Above all, it revealed the EU’s, greed, cowardice, and most concerningly, its readiness to hedge should Communist China eclipse the U.S. as the dominant world power. What might give it such an idea? Consider what was happening in Washington, D.C. Joe Biden’s team’s reacted in toothless fashion to the then-impending EU-China investment pact, stating it “would welcome early consultations with our European partners on our common concerns about China’s economic practices.” Those concerns are not standing in the way of Team Biden’s desire, however, to “cooperate” with Beijing, the world’s largest polluter, on climate change—which Biden claims is a greater threat than China—nor to “engage” with it in the strategically vital realm of space. For the first time in his nearly 50-year career, Biden himself is acknowledging that China presents multiple challenges, but that is about the best that can be said of the arguably compromised, erstwhile loud and proud China cheerleader. One will search in vain for a single piece of evidence that would give the likes of the EU the impression that a Biden administration would be more serious about taking on China than a Trump one. For its part, Communist China has indicated it will welcome a President Biden with open arms. Meanwhile, Washington’s lack of seriousness on other matters showed too. Fresh off the heels of passing a pork-laden spending bill unmoored from its headline aim of providing relief from the economic hardship our political class inflicted upon us through its arbitrary, capricious, and draconian coronavirus response—a bill that lavished billions of dollars on projects ranging from “gender programs” in Pakistan, to failing Amtrak, to the closed Kennedy Center—Congress turned to other vital matters. The House Rules Committee proposed a slew of changes for the next Congress, including, according to a press release, “honor[ing] all gender identities by changing pronouns and familial relationships in the House rules to be gender neutral.” All of these events transpired before Congress demonstrated its overwhelming refusal to show even a modicum of interest in investigating the corruption of the 2020 presidential election (while telegraphing it would federalize its assault on election integrity going forward); endeavored to undertake another dubious and pathetic impeachment effort; and threatened to further exploit the Capitol Hill riot by violating the rights of Americans directly and via their adjuncts in Big Tech. Punishing and purging dissenters from the bipartisan establishment’s orthodoxy indeed seems to be the one thing of consequence the feds are truly serious about. In the spirit of the new rules package, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) concluded his opening prayer for the 117th Congress by saying “amen…and a-woman.” It would seem clear that in 2021, as concerns Congress, we can expect still-greater profligacy with a side of gender pronouns. Surely, one would think members of our political class would at least show some seriousness with respect to the coronavirus pandemic for which they advocated we upend our lives for months on end. Yet, demonstrating how unserious they were about the stringent epidemic-combatting standards they enthusiastically endorsed, several Democrat House members who recently tested positive for the coronavirus nevertheless returned to the nation’s capital to cast their vote to re-elect Speaker Pelosi. If you thought maybe things at the state level looked brighter, think again. On China, governor’s offices around the country responded with almost unanimous silence to my inquiries about what measures they were taking to combat the CCP’s malign influence. With respect to the not only economically disastrous, and socially ruinous, but liberty-imperiling state and local level coronavirus responses, the Empire State showed the potential for ever-greater tyranny on the horizon. A New York assemblyman put up a bill for consideration that would allow the governor or official of his choosing by order to detain and/or remove individuals or groups of individuals to a “medical facility or other appropriate facility” should the governor believe they “pose an imminent and significant threat to the public health resulting in severe morbidity or high mortality” during a pandemic. In sum, at every level, we see unseriousness among wide swathes of our political class: About the threats facing us, and the values and principles that we must rekindle if we are to be able to counter them. Many of our putative leaders refuse to take the China challenge remotely as seriously as China is taking its march to power. Many have put Climatism, Wokeism and pandemic hysteria over America’s interests, freedoms, prudence, and frankly, sanity. That not just the political class but the ruling class itself is literally and figuratively invested in China’s rise for decades, only makes the situation more grim. Nothing is preordained about China’s ascent, or America’s decline. But China’s rise will become a self-fulfilling prophecy if our most formidable adversary remains doggedly devoted to its cause, while America’s “elites” are devoted to any other cause but that of putting America, its people, and their liberty and justice first.

The U.S. military can work with the private sector to immunize efficiently. What happens when one of the best logistics organizations on earth—the United States military—is sidelined in the fight against a pandemic? On May 15, 2020, President Donald Trump announced the launch of “Operation Warp Speed,” the administration’s public-private partnership to develop, manufacture, and distribute vaccines for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). This disease is a result of infection with the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, which emerged from Wuhan, China in late 2019. On November 9th, just a few months on from the May 15 announcement, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer (and its Germany-based partner BioNTech SE) released the first results of its COVID-19 vaccine candidate. Moderna followed a week later on November 16th. This astonishingly fast rollout, shortened from the multiple years typical in vaccine development down to just a few months, will be remembered as one of the most remarkable scientific races in modern history. Per the Centers for Disease Control’s vaccine tracker (current as of January 5, 2021), close to 4.84 million people in the United States have received their first dosage of either Pfizer’s or Moderna’s vaccine, with 17 million doses distributed to the states. But this has fallen well short of the ambitious 40 million dose goal initially touted by Operation Warp Speed and the Trump administration as the target for December 31. Though the mainstream media largely continues to spin the delays wholly as an abject failure by the administration, the reality is much more complex than “Orange Man Dumb.” When the Operation Warp Speed team rolled out their distribution plan on September 16, my immediate commentary focused on two domains: Infrastructure and People. Quite simply, it’s because those two factors are nearly always the single points of failure in any logistical undertaking. Further, risk in supply chains scales exponentially as more complexity is introduced. Availability of raw materials, distance from manufacturing to delivery, human decision making, performance of machines, target markets and demographics, and countless other factors create a fluidity that only the most experienced and creative logistics experts can hope to successfully navigate in real time. In the specific case of the vaccines produced by Operation Warp Speed, three constraints have emerged as the most troublesome: temperature control, demand planning, and human error. And though the former challenge is predictably manageable when handling any “cold chain” product, it is the latter two issues that can make a logistics planner feel like he’s raising a Mogwai that just won’t stop taking showers and eating after midnight. Unfortunately, the specific framework of OWS’s distribution plan failed to sufficiently account for any of these domains, opening the door for political mischief, narrative war, and an orphan of a plan. “Not a Day Sooner” In an open letter released on December 15, 2020, Pfizer CEO Dr. Albert Bourla attempted to assuage concerns about the exceptional requirements imposed on logistics providers and caregivers by his company’s novel vaccine. Instead, he perfectly encapsulated the major chokepoint—a mismatch between need and capacity. His three key points can be paraphrased as follows: We revolutionized the way cold chain vaccines are transported and stored by designing improved cold chain packaging, We made the distribution process work in a very narrow, time-limited testing phase under controlled conditions, and Trust us, we have been doing this a long time. To the layman, the open letter reads as a reassuring, plausible list of reasons why everything will be just fine. But to a logistics expert—particularly one who has worked in a cold chain logistics operation—it’s a frightening whitewash of a likely failure to take accountability for inevitable issues. This denial of reality is best exemplified by Dr. Bourla’s statement that “our distribution approach involves sending shipments of our vaccine…when they need them, and not a day sooner.” What Dr. Bourla is saying is that Pfizer planned for a “just in time” supply chain in order to balance manufacturing capacity with the vagaries of transportation capacity, hoping to match production and distribution with the mishmash of next-in-line priorities received from the federal, state, and local governments. Under perfectly optimal conditions, this is a worthy goal. However, even under normal conditions, wastage rates for vaccines can range from 5-10% for vaccines packaged in the 5-10 doses/vial range, as both Pfizer’s and Moderna’s are. It is fair to say that these are less than optimal conditions, logistically speaking. And given the tumult of the post-election interregnum, many of the key stakeholders are wondering if, or how, the problems might ever be fixed. Ludicrous Speed When I initially set out to write this piece, I wanted to cover the full domain of issues facing the national vaccine rollout. However, the news space is flooded with these sorts of articles, each saying roughly the same thing: the states are struggling to plan and execute distribution because the federal plan is both too complex and too vague. Another rundown of complaints and data points contributes little and threatens to amplify noise over signal. Rather, I’ll offer what The American Mind is known for: a bold, effective proposal for a major challenge. Given the confusion and opacity surrounding the Phase 1A allocations of vaccines to each state, and the mixed messages about the role of the military and civilian logistics providers in distributing the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, it may be best to re-conceive the logistics domain of Operation Warp Speed altogether. The good news here is that this proposal would be workable to implement immediately as a way of getting vaccine distribution back on track. As of right now, Pfizer and Moderna have both indicated their goal is to produce more than one million doses per day each of their respective vaccines for the United States market through early 2021. This number is likely on the low side, as new contract manufacturers come online and begin churning out vaccines. Nonetheless, it’s a safe production goal to work forward from. Availability of production is the first variable, and is easily determined by run rate at each manufacturing point. Distribution of need is the second variable, and is a bit hazier. Each state has submitted its own requests to Operation Warp Speed and the manufacturers based on state-level interpretation of CDC’s guidance. Each day, Pfizer and Moderna then have to coordinate shipment of the vaccines to the designated states and distribution hub(s), apportioned by that manufacturing cycle’s availability. As of this moment, manufacturing and distribution are still largely hand-to-mouth, with states requisitioning daily and administering injections as fast as possible. Analysis of the CDC’s data overlaid with state populations shows that an average of 6.3% of each state’s population has been accounted for, with doses distributed by the manufacturers thus far in Phase 1A and 1B. A range of 5.5% to 7.5% fell within that requisition cycle. Alaska is the outlier at 12.74% of total vaccine requirements already received. Given that distribution of Phase 1A and 1B targets at the state level seems to be roughly in that 5-7% band across the board regardless of how the states are specifically allocating doses, we can begin to form some general macro-level assumptions. Rate Vaccines Received per 100,000 (data via CDC, current as of 1/9/21) Assumption A is that regardless of the specific demographics of each state in terms of ethnicity, age, income, job, essential or inessential employment, and so on, the states are ultimately receiving about the same percentage of doses relative to their population base. Contra CDC’s extremely complex guidance and models, this heuristic approach has the benefit of maintaining simplicity and avoiding lengthy debates about “who gets what” at a time we should be focusing on speed to market. Assumption B is that we can begin to “chunk” this data down to manageable clusters and build a scalable, high-speed network that focuses on connecting the manufacturers to regional, multi-state hubs, and from there shorten the final mile. The reason we want to do this is that the current model has too many nodes. Contracting UPS and FedEx as the primary carriers means the vaccines must move through those networks. These are optimized for lowest-cost, highest-speed sorting and distribution of a variety of freight, nearly all of which is non-perishable. And while UPS and FedEx claim to be masters of handling pharmaceutical and time-sensitive cargo, they primarily rely on the performance of the insulated shipping boxes at keeping cargo in good condition while it transits through the regular network. There is little, if any, direct transportation from vaccine manufacturer to a final distribution hub. More handling inside these logistics networks, then, means more opportunities for loss, breakage, or theft. Further, given the fog of war that naturally occurs during high-volume and high-stress supply chain operations, it is expected that shipments of vaccines are being riskily diverted or re-delivered in real time as a result of demand shift, logistics issues, or outright fraud. With these assumptions in mind, let’s sketch the distribution requirements. The US is broadly divided into four regions: the South (38% of total population), the West (24%), the Midwest (21%), and the Northeast (17%). US Regions per World Atlas Within these four regions, there’s a decided population skew as well. For example, in the Midwest, Ohio and Michigan alone are 31.7% of the total population for the region. Illinois and Wisconsin make up 27%. In the South, Florida and Georgia comprise 25.6%; Texas holds 23%. In the West, it’s even more stark, with California alone at 50.4% of the entire regional population. And in the Northeast, the three neighboring states of Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey are collectively 73.5% of the regional population. As one can see, a vaccine logistics operation could derive precision impact by focusing a majority of its effort on delivering supplies into just these relatively few locales. But how to do that with maximum efficiency and minimum friction? Fortunately, the United States government already has an inbuilt military and emergency mobilization infrastructure. Recall, the Interstate Highway System was originally built as a dual-use network of road arteries that could allow the military to move supplies and manpower rapidly between population centers in the event of a conflict on U.S. soil. In modern parlance, this capability is known as STRAHNET, or the Strategic Highway Network, which connects certain key military bases to one another via pre-designated routes on the United States’ road network. Conveniently, STRAHNET overlaps neatly with the most efficient means of airlifting and distributing vaccines to a majority of the U.S. population. With a bit of modification, STRAHNET can overnight become “VAXNET.” In so doing, we greatly mitigate all three constraints: infrastructure, demand planning, and human error. Here’s how we do it. VAXNET First, this proposal necessarily makes liberal use of United States military assets and personnel. The United States government has invoked every relevant act or statute—especially the Stafford Act and Defense Production Act—since the beginning of the pandemic to respond to the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. It beggars belief that we should not treat the vaccine rollout with a similar federalized approach, while still allowing the states and municipalities some flexibility in running their own vaccine campaigns. The key goals of implementing this model are to ease the strain on the domestic logistics network at a time of peak ecommerce logistics demand, streamline the flow of doses from manufacturing sites to the regional hubs, and reduce the number of “just in time” lanes that must be managed over long distances. Today, the structure of Operation Warp Speed is more akin to drop-shipping to consumers directly from China—it requires high speed, perfect execution, and a lot of luck to operate consistently at scale. Our goal should be to scale the logistics rollout to operate in a similar manner to Amazon’s network. This operation relies on four lanes of effort working concurrently. 1. Manufacturing and distribution to key military bases by a network of military and commercial aircraft; each base must be equipped with a runway capable of handling medium- and large-body cargo aircraft, sufficient logistics personnel and assets onsite to handle cold chain storage and management of vaccine inventory, and staging of vaccine transfer to commercial carriers for the final mile. VAXNET Hubs with 600-mile radii U.S Population Distribution (courtesy of Visual Capitalist) As one can see from these maps, the VAXNET operation endeavors to create overlapping zones of coverage for the most densely-populated areas, based on 600-mile transport zones. This number is chosen because it is roughly the standard number of miles that can be safely covered by an over-the-road truck driver in given day’s hours of service. Smaller vehicles such as box trucks or sprinter vans can cover even more ground. If team drivers are used, the truck or van need only stop for fuel or food. By airlifting multiple municipalities’ worth of doses from manufacturing to a single hub within one day’s transit to multiple cities or distribution points, the states gain “just in time” levels of flexibility and coordination in allocating doses throughout their areas of responsibility. Contrast this with the current Operation Warp Speed model of individual cities or states trying to maintain a constant supply chain of doses by relying on UPS or FedEx to deliver in a timely manner, through a complicated feeder network, from much further away. 2. Development of approved lanes from the bases to designated municipal distribution points, with properly-resourced truckload carriers to handle the volume of direct cold chain transport from hub to municipal distribution point. This is a core competency of many civilian and military logistics professionals, and as such, would not be a difficult task to coordinate immediately. The primary focus must be on clear, frequent communication between the on-base logistics coordinators and the supply chain managers working with each state’s point-of-care service providers in local and rural jurisdictions. Another key focus must be on transparency in demand planning between all stakeholders serviced by each base, and real-time visibility to on-hand and in-transit inventory. 3. “Surge” of training for all caregivers and professionals who may be needed to properly manage the local storage, handling, and injection of the vaccines in their zone. Logistics can be greatly simplified by understanding a few key heuristics. One I employ frequently is: “Humans are the single point of failure.” While it is true that machines may break down or adverse weather events may occur, it is nearly always human creativity, effort, mistakes, or inattention to detail that determines the success of a supply chain operation. In the case of vaccine distribution, one emerging bottleneck is an inadequate number of qualified technicians or caregivers to administer the vaccines to recipients. With a reduced burden arising from managing first-mile logistics, state healthcare managers will find additional time and budget to resource the vaccine delivery force. Initiatives could range from up-training paramedics and EMTs, to deploying qualified National Guardsmen, to re-allocating nurses and phlebotomists from COVID-19 testing to vaccine delivery by training secondary staff on the simpler tasks of swabbing and testing patients. By expanding the pool of qualified and trained vaccine-providing caregivers, states and municipalities can overcome a final-mile bottleneck that can produce huge delays further upstream by delaying timely delivery from hub to arm. 4. Ad-hoc network of vetted and trained pharmaceutical couriers who are capable of transporting small lots of the vaccine (5,000-10,000 doses per trip) from the local storage hubs to point-of-injection sites such as nursing homes, hospitals, schools, or health clinics. Here is where we draw from the strength of the private sector: individual ambition and technological innovation. The “gig economy,” powered by the rise of Uber, Lyft, eBay, and so many other companies, has created an entire ecosystem of capable, on-demand service providers. These drivers, flippers, handymen, and content creators are hard workers who are used to the shifting demands of a fickle user base. Combined with the existing base of courier companies who specialize in transporting cold chain or “white glove” medical products, the United States can easily scale city- or county-wide efforts to transport vaccines from local hub to injection sites. Moreover, thanks to the demand-matching capabilities of food delivery and rideshare platforms, the technology exists today to equip a vetted driver with a vaccine delivery unit and allow them to make “milk runs” to multiple facilities from a single hub that scales to the daily demand of each site. By partnering with these courier-enabling services, a national logistics model leveraging centralized hubs can provide high speed, accurate final mile services to any municipality or rural zone. Note, the goal here is not to perfectly optimize vaccine delivery for every state by diktat from the federal level. Quite simply, a fully nationalized response cannot possibly account for every local variable. If we cast too wide a net, many vulnerable and at-risk citizens will be overlooked. The goal of VAXNET should then be to act as an enabler and force multiplier for the local and state jurisdictions who are closer to the need, and mitigate as many points of friction as possible. This way, all stakeholders will be free to settle into their niches and begin making decisions based on simple, quantifiable metrics—and not political interest or scarcity. Plainly, federal and state governments always had these resources at their disposal. It was simply a failure of imagination and political will to do it right. Fortunately, it’s not too late.

America’s rising ethnic groups won’t settle for woke religion. During recent heated discussions in the Virginia state senate over admissions standards for selective high schools, State Senator Chap Peterson, who represents Fairfax City, sought to defend admissions practices at the highly-selective Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, where over 70 percent of incoming freshmen are of Asian origin (20 percent are white, 2.4 percent Hispanic and 1.5 percent black). Peterson noted that the school has significant minority representation, namely the substantial Korean, Indian, and Bengali composition of the student body. State Senator and President Pro Tempore Louise Lucas of Portsmouth shot back, “I would appreciate if you would put a better definition to minority. Because I know you’re not talking about people that look like me.” Lucas is African American and represents a majority black district in southern Virginia, with few Asians or Hispanics. Fairfax County, in wealthy Northern Virginia, is much more diverse (20 percent Asian, 16.5 percent Hispanic, and 10 percent black). Over a third of the county’s residents are foreign born. In the end, Northern Virginia’s white liberal Democratic senators voted with Republicans to reject dilution of the schools’ strict admissions policies advocated by African American Democrats and supported by Democratic Governor Northam. Concurrently, a wave of violent crime perpetrated against Asian Americans in cities across the country sparked high level media and political attention. Though most of the perpetrators of these hate crimes are nonwhite, rallies held in both California and New York in support of the Asian community specified their resolve against “White Supremacy.” “Even if perpetrators of violence are people of color,” Pulitzer Prize-winning novelist Viet Thanh Nguyen tweeted, “the solution is not to fallback on racist assumptions of our own but to hold the system of white supremacy responsible for dividing us.” Asian-American fashion designer Phillip Lim insisted that former President Trump is responsible for the rise in violence against Asians. “He is responsible,” said Lim. “He is the face of modern racism and doesn’t represent today’s America.” Contrary to Lim’s perspective, 90 percent of all anti-Asian hate crime arrests in New York City in 2020 involved black or Latino perpetrators. The prevalence of intercommunal racial hate crime that doesn’t involve white people reveals a complex reality at odds with the simplistic narrative of white oppression of blacks that dominates American discourse, especially since the death of George Floyd in May 2020. The term “people of color” was made current in an effort to gloss over the differences between nonwhites, suggesting a common experience as victims of discrimination and racism. More wish fulfillment than reality, the term has come in for criticism among “people of color” themselves, who see it, correctly, as reductive. Given America’s increasing diversity, one would expect our betters to move away from racialist rhetoric, embracing commonalities rather than differences among Americans, but the opposite has happened. It isn’t just that statues have come down but that the historic and institutional glue holding the American story together is under assault as never before. The enthusiastic adoption by corporate America, by high status affluent white liberals, and social media companies of the same leftist racialist ideology means that corrosive identity politics are here to stay. Instead of drawing together, we are being coerced to see everything through the lens of race, dividing into contending tribes disputing degrees of victimization. This is unlikely to end well, at least for those on the losing side. Nicholas Griffin’s excellent 2020 book The Year of Dangerous Days, about Miami in 1980, offers a glimpse into one possible American future. In 1980, a major riot broke out after white Miami policemen were acquitted by a Tampa jury in the killing of black insurance salesman Arthur McDuffie. But 1980 was also a key year in the consolidation of Hispanic, mostly Cuban-American, power over the city, pushing aside both the traditional Anglo power structure and an African-American underclass. Miami’s past is not America’s future— yet. But according to census trends, the United States will be a “minority white” population in 2045. Hispanics will be at least a fourth of the population. The native black population will retain its share of the population, but both Asians and Hispanics will experience explosive growth. Both those categories are broad artificial definitions: Mexicans and Cubans, Indians and Chinese are very different from each other. But they are also very different from white and black Americans. What will be the impact of the coming demographic earthquake on an America in thrall to Black Lives Matter, the “1619 Project,” Critical Race Theory, and all the other Manichean racial constructs of today? Acute demographic change coming on top of a charged social environment rife with identity politics will manifest itself in new and unexpected ways. In 1980s Miami, whites and blacks allied in a failed attempt to keep Cubans from power. In 2020, liberal pundits were distressed by surprising Latino support for President Trump. But there is no guarantee that new generations of immigrants will be on the political right. Asian Americans have moved left and there is a long history of progressive American politics driven by immigrant populations. Will the affluent liberal white elites in the forefront of woke politics retain both their privileges and their radicalism? Will we all learn to share or will it be the second coming of a racialized political spoils system, Tammany Hall on steroids? Anything is possible in an America which seems hellbent on political and social deconstruction followed by massive demographic shifts.

Despite hostility from the Biden Administration, the report stands as a guiding light for future generations. Former President Trump’s 1776 Commission has issued a report that summarizes “the principles of the American founding and how those principles have shaped our country.” It will be the only such report—President Biden swiftly dissolved the Commission by executive order after being sworn into office on Wednesday. Biden’s decision is regrettable because “the 1776 report calls for a return to the unifying ideals stated in the Declaration of Independence,” as Chairman Larry P. Arnn, Vice Chair Carol Swain, and Executive Director Matthew Spalding said in a statement. “It quotes the greatest Americans, black and white, men and women, in devotion to these ideals.” The report rejects the teachings of historians such as Howard Zinn, the New York Times’s 1619 Project, and other efforts aimed at fundamentally transforming how Americans view their country’s history. Neither hiding America’s flaws nor offering a triumphal account of American history, the 1776 Commission aimed to recover “our shared identity rooted in our founding principles”—which, its report argues, is “the path to a renewed American unity and a confident American future.” “Our country’s founding principles are the key to a peaceful, self-governing people,” Arnn stated, “and the 1776 Commission sets out to educate the American public about them. The Commission’s report is an approachable introduction to the historical facts of the founding and the principles that animate it.” Beginning with an overview of American founding principles and the constitutional architecture that the founders fashioned to secure them, the report then catalogues the various threats to republican government and proposes tools that Americans can use to recover a way of life conducive to republican citizenship. Though not denying that America was founded by a particular people with a particular history, religion, and virtues, the report stresses that the nation was nevertheless founded on the universal principles enunciated in the Declaration. This is why Abraham Lincoln argued by implication in the Gettysburg Address that the United States celebrates its birthday on July 4, 1776. Appealing to both human reason and biblical revelation—for example, the Declaration’s references to the Creator, Providence, and the Supreme Judge—the founders justified the government on the basis of eternal, universal principles. Frederick Douglass once described them as “saving principles” that were the “ring-bolt to the chain of” America’s “destiny.” It is always true that no human beings are picked by nature to rule others without their consent. It is always true as well that since all human beings are created equal, a just government can only be founded upon the consent of the governed. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, “the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.” In appealing to a universal standard of justice in separating from Great Britain, the founders did not destroy the concept of separate nations or cultures. Rather, as the report states, these principles “were asserted by a specific people, for a specific purpose, in a specific circumstance”: securing the “safety and happiness” of the American people. The founders’ task was possible only because a people of sufficient character and morality, grounded in broader civilizational inheritances and fortified in a tradition of rights, liberty, and law, already existed prior to 1776. The Constitution, in Lincoln’s formulation, is a picture of silver framed around an apple of gold, the Declaration; the Constitution is the document that secures the Declaration’s principles in practice. The 1776 Commission report sums up the dilemma that the founders confronted in creating a governing framework for the United States: “the new government needed to be strong enough to have the power to secure rights without having so much power as to enable or encourage it to infringe rights.” Based on the sovereignty of the people, the Constitution establishes a federal government of limited but energetic power overseen by the people’s representatives. Through “auxiliary precautions” such as the separation of powers, federalism, and the natural circumstances of a large republic, the people’s rights would be preserved and the threat of tyranny would be kept at bay. The report then turns to five major threats to republican government throughout our country’s history: slavery, progressivism, fascism, communism, and identity politics. Though slavery was by no means a unique evil to the United States, founders such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison clearly recognized that human bondage was incompatible with the principle that “all men are created equal.” Though the Constitution recognized slavery as an existing institution, the word slave is never mentioned in its text, and the slave trade was outlawed twenty years after its ratification. Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln understood the Constitution’s antislavery character and worked diligently to stop slavery’s spread and ultimately end the institution itself, at great cost to the nation. The Progressive movement rejected the idea of permanent truths in favor of constantly evolving group rights meted out by the administrative state, a fourth branch of government composed of independent agencies staffed with experts insulated from political accountability. Another challenge to free government is the barbarism of fascism and Communism (and its cousin, socialism). These modern ideologies constituted some of the deadliest threats to liberty and human dignity that the world has ever known. As President Ronald Reagan once argued, these ideologies deny that “God-given liberties…are the inalienable right of each person on this planet; indeed they deny the existence of God.” Today, identity politics strikes at the heart of republican government by demanding “equal results and explicitly sorting citizens into ‘protected classes’ based on race and other demographic categories.” Even worse, the purveyors of identity politics see people of certain races as evil not necessarily because of what they’ve done but simply because of their skin color. The 1776 Commission report states unequivocally that identity politics “makes it less likely that racial reconciliation and healing can be attained” because it rejects “Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream for America.” In order to preserve the blessings of liberty for future generations, families should raise “morally responsible citizens who love America and embrace the gifts and responsibilities of freedom and self-government”; state and local governments should produce curricula that convey an “enlightened patriotism” through reading primary sources; and songwriters, filmmakers, and social influencers should create content that speaks “to eternal truths” that “embody the American spirit.” In the words of Commission member Charles Kesler, the 1776 report intends to rebaptize American citizens in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, reinvigorating the American mind in the twenty-first century. President Biden’s move to dissolve the Commission does not change this imperative. Indeed, as Arnn, Swain, and Spalding have declared: “The Commission may be abolished, but these principles and our history cannot be. We will all continue to work together to teach and to defend them.”

We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.

We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.

We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.

We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.

Woke grievance is eating expert inquiry from the inside out. The parasite leucochloridium paradoxum, shown here infecting a snail, is a flatworm that takes over the brains of gastropods and forces them into self-destructive behaviors. As this essay demonstrates, woke social teaching has been known to do the same with academic departments. It was Franz Kafka meets Jabba the Hutt. Instead of a seraglio on Tatooine, the location was a hotel ballroom in Arlington, Virginia, at a large gathering of scientists and engineers brought together by the National Science Foundation (NSF). We were there to compete for a very large sum of money. At stake was funding for a “research center,” something akin to national laboratories like Brookhaven Labs or Livermore Labs. Research centers are built around a strategic theme, like nuclear physics, and are intended to provide a venue for scientists nationwide to come together to explore that theme. Research centers are high-stakes competitions, involving tens of millions of dollars doled out over a term of ten years or so. The prizes are big, and the prestige immense. They are intended to go to the best of the best. The competition for research centers takes place in two stages. The first stage winnows wheat from chaff. Hopeful teams of scientists apply for a “planning grant,” which supports the work involved in crafting the actual proposal for the center. If a team is awarded a planning grant, the next step is a “planning meeting,” where the NSF gathers the successful teams together to provide detailed guidance on what might make for a successful proposal. I was on one of those teams, and that is how I came to be in that hotel ballroom. At the opening session, we were told that proposals would be judged on four “foundational components,” or “pillars,” as they were styled in the PowerPoints. A successful proposal would be strong on all four: weakness in one would cast the proposal into the abyss, we were told, no matter how strong the other pillars might be. At the planning meeting, each pillar was to have a dedicated panel discussion, just to make clear to us what the NSF’s expectations were. Three of the four pillars were conventionally scientific and academic: innovation, training, etc. The remaining pillar was “Diversity and Culture of Inclusion” (DCI). That was where things took a bizarre turn. The DCI panel consisted of bureaucrats from the NSF’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion (ODI). Naturally, there were many questions from the floor about what the criteria for a strong DCI pillar would be. We are talking about engineers, remember, whose culture is: “give us ‘the specs’ and we will solve any problem.” The assembled engineers were looking for “the specs” they needed to build that DCI pillar. I remember the scene. Each team was seated at its own round table on the ballroom floor. The DCI panel was seated on a raised platform, looking down on us, as from thrones on high. They were, collectively, our Jabba. One engineer at a neighboring table kept trying to pin the DCI panel down on those DCI specs. Jabba kept deflecting the question. We’ll know it when we see it, was the blithe answer, issued with the monotonous imperiousness of the entitled ruler indulging inconvenient questioning from the proles. Engineering is too white and too male, was one panelist’s message to us, and that needed to be corrected. Irony alert: the engineer pressing the point was not white, but an Indian immigrant. Nor would Jabba provide the specs the engineers sought, and this is where Franz entered the chat. It became clearer with every question that the specs not only would not be laid out: they would in any event change according to inscrutable whim of the ODI bureaucrats. Foolish engineers, one might imagine Jabba chortling, the “specs” are not to help you solve a problem: they are there to keep you off-balance, uncertain, and in my power. It is enough for you to know you depend upon my mercy for funding. How Infection Spreads Speaking of mercy, the coffee break by then intervened to terminate the bizarre exchange—leaving me, Styrofoam cup and stale Danish in hand, to contemplate the message that had just been delivered. We, the diversicrats, not you, the scientists and engineers, will decide what science and engineering is worthy of support. And you will be glad of it when we do. All are familiar with the Left’s “long march” through the institutions. What might not be so well known is just how thorough the conquest has been. Evidence of this sometimes pops up into prominent public view, as in the recent exposure of “critical race theory” training in federal agencies (including places like Sandia National Labs, where one would expect such hokum to be laughed out the door). Such incidents, though quite frequent, are only the tips of a very large iceberg. In the academic sciences, where I have spent my career, “diversity, inclusion, and equity” (DIE) has become as pervasive as one might expect it to be in any grievance studies department. How did this happen? More to the point, how could it happen to the supposedly sensible people that scientists are generally thought to be? The concept of “zombie parasites” provides an apt metaphor for how things got to this point. These are parasites that colonize the brains and nervous systems of their hosts, taking the controls, so to speak, over the host’s behavior. One striking example of a zombie parasite is a worm that infects the brains of snails, which normally crawl around stealthily at night. A snail infected with the parasite crawls out onto a grass stalk during the day, where it is now visible to birds that gobble them up. The parasite then breeds in the bird’s digestive tract and deposits its eggs in the bird’s feces. When uninfected snails eat the feces, the parasite’s life cycle is completed. DIE has spread into the academic sciences as a kind of zombie parasite. It is not a real worm at work, of course, but a metaphorical “brainworm”—three of them, in fact, that together spread a kind of altered cognitive reality through any institution that is infected by them. The route of infection usually starts with a “study” that identifies a “problem” that no one knew existed: the overwhelming whiteness of, say, fishery science. Once an unwitting host takes the bait, the next phase of the infection kicks in: all are invited to contemplate with horror the dark future that awaits should fishery scientists not take immediate steps to correct the “problem.” In the final stage of the infection, the brainworm plants its “diversity is our strength” meme in the host’s nervous system. The infected now babble about solving the impending crisis through a crash outreach program to “under-represented” or “marginalized” groups, who, by virtue of their class membership, think differently about fisheries, and so can save the field from stultifying white maleness. As in those parasitized snails, the DIE brainworm induces a cognitive disconnect in the infected. None of the assertions planted by the DIE zombie parasite have a sound basis in fact or reason. The accusation of too much whiteness usually is based upon a simple observation that the ethnic, gender, and sexual orientation mix in, say, fishery science, departs from the statistical distributions found in the general population. Why this should be, where it is considered at all, is usually buried under a panoply of repetitive charts and diagrams of dubious critical value. Also lacking is any evidence of a future critical shortage of scientists and engineers that would put, say, fishery science at risk. Colleges and universities are turning out science graduates in far greater numbers than there are jobs that can usefully employ them, and they’ve been doing so for nearly 70 years. The “diversity is our strength” mantra, for its part, rests on some disturbingly racist presumptions. If “thinking differently” is an inherent attribute of race (or gender, or sexual orientation), this edges up very close to the forbidden argument that there might be inherent racial (or gender, or sexual orientation) disparities in, say, IQ. Both are cognitive attributes. Yet one is beyond the pale, and the other is almost a compulsory point of doctrine. Both cannot simultaneously be true. Tearing Families Apart What makes the DIE brainworm a zombie parasite is how it hijacks the host’s behavior to facilitate its spread, to the host’s ultimate detriment. Universities, where future scientists are trained, are a common target. Incubating a future scientist has traditionally involved a very close relationship between a professor and a student (“mentor” and “mentee,” in today’s clumsy parlance). It is not uncommon to speak of this relationship in familial terms: I am the academic “son” of my Ph.D. supervisor, for example, and in turn the academic “grandson” of his Ph.D. supervisor. I am thus the academic “brother” to all the students who studied under my PhD supervisor. Once the rite of Ph.D. passage is cleared, professors will use their “familial” networks to launch the newly minted scientist offspring in their new careers. I could go on, but you get the idea. Like all families, academic families have their ups and downs, their rifts and triumphs. Despite their imperfections, these familial networks have, for many years, reliably ensured the scientific future, largely because they are held together by a transcendent ideal. Not an ideal as lofty as justice, mind you, but something more elemental and earthy. Fishery scientists, to trot them out again, become fishery scientists because, well, they love fish. They want to devote their lives to getting to know fish better. The same may be said of nearly every scientific endeavor in academia: at the vital core is a love that can verge into obsession. The genius of the academy is that it provides a place where that love can give value to the society that supports it. Disrupt that elemental drive, and you degrade the real social value of the sciences. This almost primitive love provides a kind of immunity to the DIE brainworm, which makes it a particular target. To spread, the parasite must plant the idea that the familial network of relationships cloaks a hostile and dangerous climate, propped up by cronyism, privilege, racism, sexism, and hostility to the non-binary. The only way to make science “safe” for the marginalized, or excluded, or under-represented, is to disrupt the traditional mentoring family. Students and new faculty who are members of “under-represented” or “marginalized” groups are drawn from their intellectual families into self-referential bubbles of grievance: support groups, safe spaces, counseling services, etc., where the normal stresses of academic life can be transformed into evidence of the hostile climate without. At some point, earnest administrators, who know nothing about science and understand even less how it works, are brought in to “listen” to the newly aggrieved. At that point, discontent is turned into actionable grievance: committees and study groups are appointed, action plans formulated. Excluded from all this, of course, are the keepers of the academic traditions which, inconveniently for them, have already been condemned in absentia as the problem. Pressure is brought on these erstwhile traditionalists to conform, to “listen” to other voices, to “check your privilege,” to be “open” to different “perspectives.” If the brainworm has spread far enough to implant a DIE bureaucracy on campus, penalties for non-conformity will be quietly placed in a corner of the room, a visible reminder of the consequences of resistance to the brainworm. Once that happens, the path is open for the entire academic institution to become infected, triggering the next, and most dangerous, stage of the infection. Follow the Money Parasites do not simply invade a host: they require fertile ground and food. For the DIE brainworm, the mother’s milk is money. And it is the academic sciences, not the humanities, where the ground is lushest. Compare two sources of federal funds that are often tied to woke ideology on campuses: the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). These are NSF-style agencies that fund academic work in the arts and humanities, and in similar ways. Artists and scholars submit proposals, these are scrutinized by peers, and funds are doled out to the successful proposals. How much money? The NEA presently enjoys an annual appropriation of about $150 million. For the NEH, it is about $160 million. In contrast, the federal money directed to academic science in 2017 stood at around $40 billion: 250 times more. Over the course of the 50 years of its existence, the NEH has funded a cumulative total of roughly $4.7 billion dollars in grants. The cumulative tally of federal support of academic research over the same time span has been nearly $900 billion: about 200 times more. It is to the sciences, then, that the DIE brainworm has gone to feed, and there it has spread as if it were an epidemic. Evidence for this can be ferreted out from the NSF’s searchable databases of its grant awards, by searching for keywords such as “under-represented,” “minority,” or “marginalized” in the grant documents. Prior to 2010, no award carried these keywords. The first to do so was in 2010, when the NSF awarded a large research center grant to MIT, which contained within it a significant program of outreach to marginalized groups. Since that year, NSF expenditures on research grants containing the “woke” keywords have risen exponentially, doubling at a rate of about 50% each year, just as a novel virus would when spreading through a new population. In 2018, the last year for which a complete picture can be discerned, the NSF funded nearly a thousand research grants devoted in whole or part to DIE aims, to the tune of more than $1.3 billion. From 2010 to 2018, a total of more than $4 billion have been awarded to more than 2,200 DIE-oriented grants. Which is how we get to that scene in the Arlington hotel ballroom, where DIE now holds the trump card in deciding what science is worthy of funding. No matter how stellar the science, the message is clear: gobble up the DIE brainworm, or your funding will dry up, and your career along with it. Reason’s Last Stand Is there any hope? I’d like to offer another perspective. In my 40-year career in the academic sciences, I have spent significant time, by my rough count, in ten academic institutions, including post-doctoral fellowships, sabbatical leaves, and regular faculty appointments. The institutions I have inhabited have included a small liberal arts college, a medical school, two colleges in southern Africa, top-flight research universities, and finally, the college where I spent the bulk of my academic career. So, I have seen a pretty good cross-section of campus climates. Here is my impression, for what it’s worth. Academic family life can be a pretty rough affair, populated as it is by imperfect and sometimes difficult people. The ticket for admission to an academic family can be hard to win, the criteria inscrutable. One vice I have never witnessed, however, is bigotry. Among my colleagues, I have never seen the ticket for admission stamped for having the “right” skin color, gender, or sexual orientation. Rather, admission to the family has turned on whether there is a shared love and the commitment to sustain it. Where I have seen real bigotry, in contrast, is when the DIE brainworm is challenged. For questioning the DIE orthodoxy, I once was branded an “institutional terrorist” by a high-priced consultant brought in to heal our supposedly sick and bigoted campus culture. It is no surprise that the DIE brainworm has spread through the campuses to an alarming extent, spread largely by acquiescence to the altered cognitive states the worm wants us to accept. When the brainworm acquires the power of the purse and the HR department, the infection has become near-fatal. Can the patient be cured? The prognosis, as a physician might say, is clouded. “Chemotherapy” is a possibility, which in this instance means cutting off the tens of billions of dollars of federal money the zombie parasite feeds on. At this late stage, however, the infection is far advanced, and the realistic prospects for a successful course of treatment are slim. There is too much money and power at stake for the zombie parasite to passively accept doom. What hope remains emerges from the same dilemma that confronted those last human survivors in the classic novel about zombie parasites, Jack Finney’s Invasion of the Body Snatchers. The one thing that defeated that zombie parasite in the end was a superhuman assertion of will against the infection. The one ray of hope against the DIE zombie parasite streams from the few and isolated pockets of the uninfected still lingering in the academic ecosystem. It is there that the parasite will mount its fiercest attack. Can the academic sciences resist and recover? The flame is sputtering. If the wax rises high enough to extinguish the flame, the zombie parasite’s takeover will be complete.

Vice President Pence was not asked to reject electoral votes. In his letter of the morning of January 6, Vice President Mike Pence asserted that “[s]ome believe that as Vice President, [he] should be able to accept or reject votes unilaterally.” He repeated the claim later in the letter: “vesting the vice president with unilateral authority to decide presidential election contests would be entirely antithetical to [the] design” of separation of powers and checks and balances given to us by our founders. And then a third time, he wrote: “I do not believe that the Founders of our country intended to invest the vice president with unilateral authority to decide which electoral votes should be counted during the Joint Session of Congress.” And a fourth: “It is my considered judgment that my oath to support and defend the Constitution constrains me from claiming unilateral authority to determine which electoral votes should be counted and which should not.” With all due respect to the vice president, that is not what the president asked when all was said and done. But before I elaborate on that below, let’s explore just what constitutional authority the vice president has, by way of some hypothetical scenarios. Suppose a Democrat governor in a state Trump clearly won—North Carolina, perhaps, or Kansas—were to certify the Biden slate of electors and transmit that certificate and the subsequent electoral votes to the president of the Senate (that is, the vice president of the United States). Republican legislators in the state howl about the fraud, but because the governor refuses to call the Legislature into special session, they can do nothing about it except send a letter notifying the vice president of the fraud. Is it really the case that nothing can be done? Congress has asserted in section 15 of the Electoral Count Act of 1887 that it has the power to reject electoral votes if both houses determine that they were not “regularly given.” Yet there is no direct constitutional support for that assertion of power. The 12th Amendment merely assigns an observational role to the House and Senate during the Joint Session of Congress. Specifically, the relevant language of 12th Amendment provides that “the president of the Senate [that is, the vice president] shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted” (emphasis added). The actual counting of the electoral votes is in the passive voice. However, because the only affirmative role conveyed by the active voice—to open the certificates—is assigned to the vice president, legal scholars and political figures throughout history have contended that the counting is assigned to the vice president as well. The issue then is whether the power to “open” and to “count” the electoral votes is merely ministerial, as the vice president claimed in his letter of January 6, or whether it implies any power to determine the legitimacy of the votes. Here, another example—one rooted in two historical precedents—will help. The Vice President’s Role Suppose that, instead of the false certificates provided by the Governors of North Carolina and Kansas described in the hypothetical above, there were two slates of electors certified from each of those states—the erroneous certificate from the governor, and a certificate from the legislatures of each state that was issued in accord with the actual results of the election. The 12th Amendment specifies that the vice president “shall…open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted.” Read hyper-literally, that would require the vice president to open and count both sets of electoral votes. That cannot possibly be correct, so some judgement has to be made as to which slate of electors to count. Here again, the Congress has asserted authority to make that judgment. Section 15 of the Electoral Count Act provides that in the case of multiple slates of electors, the one to be counted is the one that the two houses of Congress (i.e., the House of Representatives and the Senate), “acting separately, shall concurrently decide” to count. If the House and the Senate cannot agree, Section 15 further provides that the slate “certified by the executive of the State” shall be dispositive—even though in our hypothetical it was clearly fraudulently given, and countermanded by the certification of the Legislature. A good number of legal scholars agree that Section 15’s provision of tie-breaking weight to the “executive” (as opposed to the legislatively-sanctioned slate) is a violation of Article II’s assignment to the Legislature of the power to choose the manner for choosing electors. But legal scholars, as well as historical political figures, have also contended that Congress’s claim of authority to make that determination at all is itself a usurpation of power that the 12th Amendment assigns solely and exclusively to “the president of the Senate.” This view was recently espoused most thoroughly by Vasan Kesavan,[1] who researched the article under the tutelage of prominent Yale Law Professors Bruce Ackerman and Akhil Amar, among others. University of California Law School Professor John Yoo took a similar view, arguing just last October: Though the 12th Amendment describes the counting in the passive voice, the language seems to envisage a single, continuous process in which the vice president both opens and counts the votes…. And if “counting” the electors’ votes is the vice president’s responsibility, then the inextricably intertwined responsibility for judging the validity of those votes must also be his. Yoo found this to be “the better reading” and urged “that Vice President Pence would decide between competing slates of electors chosen by state legislators and governors, or decide whether to count votes that remain in litigation.” “The check on error or fraud in the count is that the vice president’s activities are to be done publicly, ‘in the presence’ of Congress,” he added. Professor Edward Foley, the Director of the Election Law Center at Ohio State University Moritz College of Law,[2] has likewise acknowledged the plausibility of that argument, noting in a recent law review article: Despite [the Twelfth Amendment’s] ambiguity, or perhaps because of it, the peculiar passive-voice phrasing of this crucial sentence opens up the possibility of interpreting it to provide that the “President of the Senate” has the exclusive constitutional authority to determine which “certificates” to “open” and thus which electoral votes “to be counted.” This interpretation can derive support from the observation that the president of the Senate is the only officer, or instrumentality, of government given an active role in the process of opening the certificates and counting the electoral votes from the states. The Senate and House of Representatives, on this view, have an observational role only. The opening and counting are conducted in their “presence”—for the sake of transparency—but these two legislative bodies do not actually take any actions of their own in this opening and counting process. How could they? Under the Constitution, the Senate and the House of Representatives only act separately, as entirely distinct legislative chambers. They have no constitutional way to act together as one amalgamated corpus. Thus, they can only watch as the president of the Senate opens the certificates of electoral votes from the states and announces the count of the electoral votes contained therein. Edward B. Foley, Preparing for A Disputed Presidential Election: An Exercise in Election Risk Assessment and Management, 51 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 309 (2019). Foley also noted that this interpretative argument “has a significant historical pedigree,” albeit one that has also had “vociferous detractors.” Hitting Pause All this by way of background to show that whether or not Vice President Pence had the constitutional authority to determine that certain slates of electors were invalid remains an open question. Andrew McCarthy’s claim in a January 8 article in The Hill that “what the president pressured [Vice President Pence] to do was blatantly lawless” is therefore quite inaccurate, though it has certainly been regurgitated in one form or another by others in numerous other media outlets. But whether it is accurate or not, that was not what the vice president was asked. Here is the relevant portion of the president’s speech from the Ellipse on January 6: We’re supposed to protect our country, support our country, support our constitution, and protect our constitution. States want to revote. The States got defrauded. They were given false information. They voted on it. Now they want to recertify. They want it back. All Vice-President Pence has to do is send it back to the States to recertify, and we become president, and you are the happiest people (Emphasis added). That was consistent with my own remarks just prior to the president’s: “And all we are demanding of Vice President Pence is this afternoon at 1:00 he let the Legislatures of the States look into this so we get to the bottom of it and the American people know whether we have control of the direction of our government or not.” In other words, the vice president was not being asked to decide the matter himself, but to pause the proceedings long enough to give the couple of states whose legislators had asked for more time to assess whether the illegal conduct by their state election officials—illegal conduct that Pence himself twice acknowledged in his statement—was sufficient to warrant revoking the existing certification and submitting a new one that accurately reflected the state’s vote, just as Hawaii had done in 1960. Pence was thus being asked to let the matter be resolved by the State Legislatures—which is just where Andy McCarthy claimed it should be resolved. “In our system,” he wrote, it is the states that choose the president, and the Constitution gives them sovereign authority over the disposition of their electoral votes. There is no federal check—not Congress, not the vice president—over how the states, pursuant to their own laws, certify the elections they conduct and the electors they appoint to cast their electoral votes. The difficulty was that the existing slates of electors had not been certified after an election conducted “pursuant to [the states’] own laws.” Pence was simply being asked to provide the state legislatures in the contested states with the time necessary to properly assess the legitimacy of their electoral votes. (As an aside, McCarthy’s claim that there is “no federal check” in either Congress or the vice president ignores that the Electoral Count Act provides just such a check, allowing Congress itself, as noted above, to determine if the electoral votes transmitted to it were “regularly given.”) Obstructionism and the Road Ahead Why did such a request come so close to the designated date for counting electoral votes? Because the governors in each of the contested states simply refused to call the legislatures into special session back in December, when a more orderly and timely investigation might have been had. But as the legislatures were coming back into session in early January, numerous legislators begged Pence to hit the pause button and let them investigate, in a transparent way so that the American people could have the chance to learn the truth about the election, whatever it was. In a January 4 letter, 21 members of the Pennsylvania Senate, including the powerful president pro tem of the Senate, outlined the numerous instances of violations of state law by state election officials and even the judiciary in the conduct of Pennsylvania’s election, thereby usurping the sole power that the Legislature has pursuant to Article II of the federal constitution to determine the manner for choosing presidential electors. Because of those illegal actions, the Senators noted “that PA election results should not have been certified” and asked that the Congress “delay certification of the Electoral College to allow due process as we pursue election integrity in our Commonwealth.” Similar letters were sent from Pennsylvania house members, and from legislators in Arizona, Georgia, and Michigan. Arizona’s included this: “based upon the clear and convincing nature of the evidence [of illegality and fraud], we respectfully ask that you recognize our desire to reclaim Arizona’s Electoral College Electors and block the use of any Electors from Arizona until such time as the controversy is properly resolved through the pending litigation or a comprehensive forensic audit.” The Assembly in Wisconsin even passed a formal resolution. The vice president was apparently advised that he was obligated to allow a count of questionable elector votes to proceed because a minor subsection of the Electoral Count Act of 1887 provides that the “joint meeting [of Congress] shall not be dissolved until the count of electoral votes shall be completed,” and that no recess could be taken except for the separate houses of Congress to decide upon any objections that were raised. On this view, a minor procedural provision of the 1887 Act was so sacrosanct that it could not be suspended even to give the state legislatures time to ensure that illegal electoral votes did not determine the election of the next President of the United States. Ironically, Vice President Pence, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer all violated other provisions of that sacrosanct Electoral Count Act later in the evening when it served their purpose. Section 17 of that act limits debate on objections to two hours, at which point the presiding officer (that would be VP Pence in the Senate) “shall…put the main question without further debate.” That debate went about 2 hours and 40 minutes (not including the time in recess due to the incursion into the capital), in violation of the statute. The debate in the House went even longer, also in violation of the statute. And at the conclusion of the vote in the Senate, Majority Leader McConnell moved to take up other business and allow for additional debate, in violation of the provision of the Electoral Count Act that they shall “immediately” reconvene in joint session. So much for the sacrosanct set of procedures in the Electoral Count Act. A large portion of the American citizenry believes the illegal actions by partisan election officials in a few states have thrown the election. They saw it with their own eyes—in Fulton County, Georgia, where suitcases of ballots were pulled from under the table after election observers had been sent home for the night; in parts of Wayne County (Detroit), Michigan, where there are more absentee votes cast than had been requested; in Dane County (Madison), Wisconsin, where supposedly neutral election officials coordinated with the Biden campaign an illegal ballot harvesting scheme called “Democracy in the Park”; in Nevada, where people were paid with gift cards to vote; and perhaps most profoundly (if it is ultimately shown to have carried over to other counties and states) in Antrim County, Michigan, where votes were electronically flipped from Trump to Biden. The American people also saw state officials alter or ignore election law, such as Pennsylvania’s dispensing of signature verification requirements, or county clerks in Wisconsin who advised voters to illegally claim “indefinitely confined” status in order to avoid that state’s voter ID laws. That is what the American people know, or strongly suspect, and they are not fools. Yet at every turn, they have been thwarted in merely getting a full, independent forensic audit to confirm (or rebut) that these things happened. The anger over a possibly stolen election will not subside unless and until that investigation occurs, fully and transparently. Only then will the losing side be able to find solace in the fact that a fair and honest election had been conducted, whatever its outcome. Is that really too much to ask? [1] Vasan Kesavan, Is the Electoral Count Act Unconstitutional?, 80 N.C. L. Rev. 1653, 1688-90, 1699-1701 (2002) [2] See also Nathan L. Colvin & Edward B. Foley, The Twelfth Amendment: A Constitutional Ticking Time Bomb, 64 U. Miami L. Rev. 475 (2010). Correction: a previous version of this article incorrectly stated that there were more votes cast than registered voters in Wayne County, MI.

We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.

The Roe v. Wade of religious liberty arrived Monday. And it was delivered by the putatively conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, tapped in 2017 by Team Trump to replace the late Antonin Scalia. Chief Justice John Roberts tagged along, making a six-justice majority that included the high court’s liberals. The decision epitomizes the legal conservative movement’s sad-sack failure to deliver for conservatives. In Bostock v. Clayton County, the majority informed us that the interpretation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, held unchallenged between its enactment and the year 2017, was, in fact, erroneous. The statute’s prohibition against employment discrimination on the basis of sex, Gorsuch told us, extends to “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” This isn’t textualism. It’s ivory-tower liberalism. And it’s completely at odds with the Supreme Court’s longstanding dictum that Congress, in drafting statutes, won’t inscribe a hidden meaning in otherwise plain language: As Justice Samuel Alito sharply noted in dissent, “sex,” in 1964, meant biological sex — man and woman — not orientation and certainly not subjective gender identity. The tangible results will be harrowing. Following Bostock, can a Catholic school deny employment to a teacher whose sexual lifestyle blatantly flouts millennia of Catholic moral teaching? Can an Orthodox Jewish day school refuse to hire a male teacher who self-identifies as a woman, contravening traditional teaching rooted in Genesis? Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried to enact much of this agenda legislatively in 2019 with the so-called Equality Act — and failed. All it took was a Republican justice to impose it ­nationwide via judicial fiat. Religious employers’ conscience rights aside, long-settled employment law has now been thrown into chaos. The court concedes that such issues as sex-specific bathrooms, locker rooms and sports teams will be on the chopping block in future litigation. As my former boss, Judge James C. Ho of the Fifth Circuit, noted in a similar case last year, the underlying legal issues ­“affect every American who uses the restroom at any restaurant, buys clothes at any department store or exercises at any gym.” The substitution of subjective gender identity for embodied sex particularly threatens biological women, whose rights Congress specifically set out to protect with the 1964 act. The entire edifice of American anti-discrimination law, after all, rests on the principle that the bodily differences between men and women — in athletic competition, in private or sensitive spaces — mean something. Can that edifice survive if its cornerstone is ­removed? I don’t see how. Bostock is no joke, and it lays bare the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the conservative legal movement. Let’s say this in the bluntest possible terms: The conservative legal movement and its various institutional vessels, such as the Federalist Society, have failed conservatism. There is simply no avoiding that straightforward conclusion — not when the blow is delivered from the Federalist Society-vetted Neil Gorsuch. Generations of right-leaning law students have now been taught that the only proper way to interpret law is to obsess over the text while eschewing the thorny moral questions raised by cases. But as Bostock shows, even a conservative, “textualist” jurist can massage a text enough to divine a new meaning that simply wasn’t there when Congress framed a law like the 1964 act. Meanwhile, a more authentic textualist like Alito can reach the ­opposite conclusion. The result is that the legal left makes loud arguments about justice and the good, by its lights, and triumphs, while the legal right mutters about textualism. Something more is needed to stop a progressive judicial revolution that would upend natural law, counter popular preferences and further usurp the right of We the People to have our laws made in Congress, by elected representatives. The conservative legal eagles have failed to deliver that. What we need is a more forceful conservative legal movement, just as willing as the left to make moral arguments in court, based on principles of justice, natural law (the rules embedded in our very nature as human beings), the common good and the religious and moral traditions underlying Anglo-American constitutional order. Otherwise, the conservative legal movement deserves to perish. Josh Hammer is a syndicated columnist and former federal court of appeals law clerk. Twitter: @Josh_Hammer

Conservatives were bracing for the defection of Justice Gorsuch on the cases dealing with the “transgendered” and “sexual orientation.” But even the anticipation of the jolt did not diminish its depressing force. The reactions, coming with disbelief and anger, have not been understated. For make no mistake, this case of Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC will be the Roe v. Wade for transgenderism, with effects that will ripple out widely in our country, touching and disfiguring our private lives. After all, the Court has pronounced it quite wrongful to cast an adverse judgment, a disapproving judgment, on people who affect to shift their “genders.” As we saw in the case of same-sex marriage, children will have to be instructed in school on this new civic culture that the Court has ordered into place. The companion cases of Bostock v. Clayton County and Altitude Express v. Zarda bring the same force to the side of discriminations based on “sexual orientation” or homosexuality. What Congress failed persistently to add to the Civil Rights Act, Neil Gorsuch and John Roberts managed to accomplish in a stroke, with the reliable help of the four liberal justices, who could always be depended on to vote in a phalanx for the ethic of sexual liberation. But in his opening remarks on the Harris case, Justice Gorsuch already made a radical move that ran well beyond anything made explicit in the body of his opinion. He said that Aimee Stephens, the one who had been known to the world and his own wife as Anthony Stephens, had “presented as a male” when “she first got the job.” Without the slightest strain, Gorsuch had simply incorporated as his own the predicate of Stephens’s claim: that he had in fact become a woman. That this was no trifling move had been made clear in that graceful and compelling brief written for this case by Michael Hanby, David Crawford, and Margaret McCarthy of the John Paul II Institute. What was at issue, as they pointed out, was not the freedom of Anthony Stephens to dress as he wished and present himself as a woman. For the Court to come down on his side the judges would have to do nothing less than confirm, as a matter of controlling fact, that in the eyes of the law Stephens was indeed a woman if he regarded himself as a woman. And the effects would instantly radiate outward: Stephens’s colleagues would be obliged to accept his definition of himself, and the pronouns that came along. If they did not, they and their employer could be accused of sustaining a hostile work environment and put themselves at legal hazard. Justice Alito did not hold back from unfolding the ramifications here: There were about 100 statutes forbidding discriminations based on sex, whether in construction, housing, hospitals. Small religious schools may have a serious concern for the kinds of lives they model to their students in the people they hire, and yet for jobs other than ministers they could be punished from turning away from the transgendered. Gorsuch noted that this decision said nothing about locker rooms and bathrooms, for those matters were not raised in this case. But as Justice Alito pointed out, the Court had pronounced any turning away from the transgendered as a wrongful discrimination. What could be cited then by the people of either sex who professed to be deeply uncomfortable about sharing those private quarters with people of the other sex? What would they be able to say then that they could not have said even now if Justice Gorsuch and his colleagues had been willing to engage their awareness of what plausible and legitimate things ordinary people could indeed say to explain their discomfort, anchored by their dubiety, grounded in science, that people are free simply to will away their sex with a flick of their feelings? What makes the decision all the more disappointing and demoralizing for conservatives is that Justice Gorsuch was the highly celebrated successor to Justice Scalia. He was vetted and heralded as an “Originalist” and a “textualist” by the reigning authorities at the Federalist Society, along with votaries in the Administration. But the mirage of textualism should have been evident as we found liberal professors, who favored gays and the transgendered, quite content to argue on the basis of the text of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The statute has barred discriminations based on “sex” as well as race. As Justice Alito pointed out, virtually no one in 1964 could have dreamed that the statute barred those who would have an aversion to the homosexual life or the transgendered. But I warned myself, in an earlier piece, that it just would not do for the conservatives to cite the dictionaries on the meaning of sex in 1964. The liberals would be free to play the trump card of Lyman Trumbull. Trumbull had steered the Fourteenth Amendment to passage in the Senate, and he had to assure his colleagues up and down that there was nothing in the Equal Protection Clause that barred those laws in Illinois as well as Virginia that barred marriage across racial lines. But now we have an amplified and clearer sense of why that principle on racial discrimination would bar those laws on miscegenation. Judges could easily argue now in the same way that we must bring to the Civil Rights Act a more amplified view of what “sex” has come to mean. The only way to deal with that argument is to make the move that conservative judges have been so averse to making: to move beyond the text of the statute to those objective truths, confirmed in nature, on the differences that must ever separate males from females. That was the understanding of “sex” that Justice Alito had in mind as he countered every case and example cited by Gorsuch. Justice Gorsuch noted the many ways in which the meaning of discrimination on the basis of sex could extend to sexual harassment or simply treating people differently on the basis of sex. A woman is refused a job because she has children at home, while the job is not refused to a man with children at home. But as Alito points out, at every turn the discrimination pivots on the difference between men and women, as that difference has been plain enough for millennia. The Western States had long established policies barring discriminations based on “sex” in education, and the Nineteenth Amendment had drawn on the same understanding when it barred the denial of the right to vote “on account of sex.” It was understood in all cases that the laws were assuming the biological definition of sex. Ryan Anderson, drawing on the full range of texts in biology, condensed the truth of the matter in this way: “Sex, in terms of male or female, is identified by the organization of the organism for sexually reproductive acts.” The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith noted years ago that there has not always been an Italy or Hungary, but as long as there are human beings, there will be males and females. That is the purpose, or the telos, or the very reason that we have males and females. This was the understanding that Justice Alito was seeking so artfully to defend. But he defended it entirely as the meaning of sex contained in a long list of statutes and the Constitution. What he could not quite move himself to say was that this was indeed the inescapable truth of the matter, the only coherent way of explaining what sex must really mean. There is something, in the shaping of conservative judges, that makes them deeply reluctant to make that move beyond “tradition” and statutes to the moral truth of the matter. Our friend Carrie Severino declared that this decision by Gorsuch was “the highjacking of textualism.” But it was there to be hijacked by the liberals—along with anyone else—because it had no anchoring truth. She is left then to explain this: Gorsuch was recruited and vetted—and endorsed—by the most credentialed spokesmen for “textualism.” How did they not manage to see that his principles offered no barrier to this kind of judgment? What was it they neglected to ask him? In the aftermath of the wreckage, as we start assembling the pieces, we discover that we have now Originalists who defend the rights to abortion, same-sex marriage, and transgenderism, while others have long resisted these moral novelties. But if Originalism is divided on questions of this kind, is it indecorous to pronounce the plain truth?: That Originalism indeed has nothing to say on matters of real consequence. It is a morally empty jurisprudence. If there is any lingering doubt on this matter it was swept away by one young professor, who looked on the decision in these cases and pronounced it a proud day after all for conservative jurisprudence: “One can agree on method,” he cheerily said, “and still disagree in particular cases. That all the opinions were textualist is a huge victory in and of itself!” I suppose that if the justices had decided to take out pen and quill and write the opinions in longhand, he could have pronounced this a grand day for Penmanship. But to attend precisely to what he was saying, he has given us the latest, ringing affirmation of Justice Holmes: For what he celebrates is a style of jurisprudence, so serene now in its detachment from moral judgment, that it is proud to have nothing to say, as a system of jurisprudence, on the things that are right or wrong, just or unjust. Hadley Arkes is the Ney Professor of Jurisprudence Emeritus at Amherst College and the Founder/Director of the James Wilson Institute on Natural Rights & the American Founding in Washington, D.C. He was an architect of the Born-Alive Infants' Protection Act of 2002, and of the sequel, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. Among his books is, most notably, First Things (1986). First Things depends on its subscribers and supporters. Join the conversation and make a contribution today. Click here to make a donation. Click here to subscribe to First Things.

I rise today to offer a few thoughts about the Bostock case handed down by the Supreme Court yesterday. I have it here. I have now had the chance to read the case, the decision by the majority of the court, and the two dissenting opinions, and I have to say I agree with the news reports that have said that this is truly a seismic decision. It is truly a historic decision. It is truly a historic piece of legislation. This piece of legislation changes the scope of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It changes the meaning of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It changes the text of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In fact, you might well argue it is one of the most significant and far-reaching updates to that historic piece of legislation since it was adopted all of those years ago. Make no mistake: this decision, this piece of legislation, will have effects that range from employment law to sports to churches. There’s only one problem with this piece of legislation: it was issued by a court, not by a legislature. Make no mistake: this decision, this piece of legislation, will have effects that range from employment law to sports to churches. There’s only one problem with this piece of legislation: it was issued by a court, not by a legislature. It was written by judges, not by the elected representatives of the people. And it did what this Congress has pointedly declined to do for years now, which is to change the text and the meaning and the application and the scope of a historic piece of legislation. I think it’s significant for another reason, as well. This decision, and the majority who wrote it, represents the end of something. It represents the end of the conservative legal movement, or the conservative legal project, as we know it. After Bostock, that effort, as it has existed up to now, is over. I say this because if textualism and originalism give you this decision, if you can invoke textualism and originalism in order to reach such a decision—an outcome that fundamentally changes the scope and meaning and application of statutory law—then textualism and originalism and all of those phrases don’t mean much at all. And if those are the things that we’ve been fighting for—it’s what I thought we had been fighting for, those of us who call ourselves legal conservatives—if we’ve been fighting for originalism and textualism, and this is the result of that, then I have to say it turns out we haven’t been fighting for very much. Or maybe we’ve been fighting for quite a lot, but it’s been exactly the opposite of what we thought we were fighting for. Now, this is a very significant decision and it marks a turning point for every conservative. And it marks a turning point for the legal conservative movement. The legal conservative project has always depended on one group of people in particular in order to carry the weight of the votes to actually support this out in public, to get out there and make it possible electorally. And those are religious conservatives. I am one myself. Evangelicals, conservative Catholics, conservative Jews: let’s be honest, they’re the ones who have been the core of the legal conservative effort. The legal conservative project has always depended on one group of people in particular in order to carry the weight of the votes to actually support this out in public, to get out there and make it possible electorally. And those are religious conservatives. And the reason for that dates back decades now, back to the 1970s. The reason for that is these religious conservatives, from different backgrounds, have consistently worked together to seek protection for their right to worship, for their right to freely exercise their faith as the First Amendment guarantees, for the right to gather in their communities, for their right to pursue the way of life that their scriptures variously command and that the Constitution absolutely protects. That’s what they have asked for, that’s what they have sought, all these years. But, as to those religious conservatives, how do they fare in yesterday’s decision? What will this rewrite of Title VII mean for churches? What will it mean for religious schools? What will it mean for religious charities? Well, in the many pages of its opinion—thirty-three pages, to be exact—the majority does finally get around to saying something about religious liberty. On one page. What does it say? Here’s the substance of the court’s analysis: “How the doctrines protecting religious liberty interact with Title VII,” as reinterpreted now by the court, “are questions for future cases.” I’ll say that again. “How the doctrines protecting religious liberty interact with Title VII are questions for future cases.” Oh, no doubt they are. Huge questions. And we eagerly await the decisions of our super-legislators across the street in the Supreme Court building, there at 1 First Street, to see how they will legislate on this question. What will become of church hiring liberty? What will become of the policies of religious schools? What will become of the fate of religious charities? Who knows? Who’s to say? They’re questions for future cases. Now I will say this in defense of the court: it is difficult to anticipate in one case all future possible implications. That’s why courts are supposed to leave legislating to legislators. That’s why Article III does not give the United States Supreme Court or any federal court the power to legislate, but only the judicial power to decide cases and controversies, not to decide policies. But I will also say this: that everybody knows, every honest person knows, that the laws in this country today are made almost entirely by unelected bureaucrats and courts. They’re not made by this body. Why not? Because this body doesn’t want to make law. That’s why not. Every honest person knows that the laws in this country today are made almost entirely by unelected bureaucrats and courts. They're not made by this body. Why not? Because this body doesn't want to make law. That's why not. That’s because in order to make law, you have to take a vote. In order to vote, you have to be on the record. And to be on the record is to be held accountable. That’s what this body fears above all else. This body is terrified of being held accountable for anything on any subject. So can we be so surprised that where the legislature fears to tread, where the Article I body—this body—that is charged by the Constitution for legislating, refuses to do its job, courts rush in and bureaucrats, too? Are they accountable to the people? No, not at all. Do we have any recourse? Not really. Now what must we do? Well, now we must wait to see what the super-legislators will say about our rights in future cases. If this case makes anything clear, it is that the bargain that has been offered to religious conservatives for years now is a bad one. It’s time to reject it. If this case makes anything clear, it is that the bargain that has been offered to religious conservatives for years now is a bad one. It’s time to reject it. The bargain has never been explicitly articulated, but religious conservatives know what it is. The bargain is that you go along with the party establishment, you support their policies and priorities—or at least keep your mouth shut about it—and, in return, the establishment will put some judges on the bench who supposedly will protect your constitutional rights to freedom of worship, to freedom of exercise. That’s what we’ve been told for years now. We were told that we’re supposed to shut up while the party establishment focuses more on cutting taxes and handing out favors for corporations, multinational corporations who don’t share our values, who will not stand up for American principles, who were only too happy to ship American jobs overseas. But we’re supposed to say nothing about that. We’re supposed to keep our mouths shut because maybe we’ll get a judge out of the deal. That was the implicit bargain. We’re supposed to keep our mouths shut while the party establishment opens borders, while the party establishment pursues ruinous trade policies. We’re supposed to keep our mouths shut while those at the upper end of the income bracket get all of the attention. While working families and college students and those who don’t want to go to college but can’t get a good job, while they get what? What attention? Workers? Children? What about parents looking for help with the cost of raising children? Looking for help with the culture in which they have to raise children? Looking for help with the communities, rebuilding the communities in which they must carry out their family life? What about college students trying to find an education that isn’t ruinously expensive and then figure out some way to pay back that enormous debt? What about those who don’t have a college degree and don’t want one, but would like to get a good job? What about them? No, we’re supposed to stay quiet about all of that, and more, because there may be pro-Constitution, religious liberty judges. Except for that there aren’t. Except for that these judges don’t follow the Constitution. Except for these judges invoke “textualism” and “originalism” in order to reach their preferred outcome. Now I want to be clear, I am not personally criticizing any justice who joined the majority opinion or wrote it. I believe one hundred percent that the justices—the justice—who principally authored this opinion, Justice Gorsuch, and those who joined him are sincere and who were writing to the best of their ability, reasoning to the best of their ability. And the opinion is, whatever else you might say about it, is not sloppily reasoned. No, I think that they were doing what they thought was best and using all of the skills and gifts that they had. No, I question how we got here. I question how judges who hold to this philosophy ended up on that bench. I question the bargain that people of faith have been offered and asked to hold to for all of these years. And the truth is, to those who have objected to my own questioning of judicial nominees in this body, to those who said I was wrong to question judges who came for the Judiciary Committee, to those who chided me for asking tough questions even of nominees by a Republican president, for those who said that I was slowing the process down, that I was out of line, for the supposedly conservative groups who threatened to buy television time in my own state to punish me for asking questions about conservative judges, I just have this to say: this is why I asked questions. This is why I won’t stop. And I wish some more people would ask some harder questions. Because this outcome is not acceptable. And the bargain which religious conservatives have been offered is not tenable. So, I would just say, it’s not time for religious conservatives to shut up. No, we’ve done that for too long. No, it’s time for religious conservatives to stand up and to speak out. It’s not time for religious conservatives to shut up. No, we’ve done that for too long. No, it’s time for religious conservatives to stand up and to speak out. It’s time for religious conservatives to bring forward the best of our ideas on every policy affecting this nation. We should be out in the forefront leading on economics, on trade, on race, on class, on every subject that matters for what our founders called the “general welfare;” because we have a lot to offer, not just to protect our own rights, but for the good of all of our fellow citizens; because as religious believers, we know that serving our fellow citizens—of whatever their religious faith, whatever their commitments may be—serving them, aiding them, working for them, is one of the signature ways that we show a love of neighbor. It’s time for religious conservatives to do that. It’s time for religious conservatives to take the lead rather than being pushed to the back. It’s time for religious conservatives to stand up and speak out rather than being told to sit down and shut up. And because I’m confident that people of faith, of goodwill, all across this country are ready to do that, and want to do that, and have something to offer this country—and every person in this country, whatever their background or income or race or religion—because of that, I’m confident in the future. But I’m also confident that the old ways will not do. So, let this be a departure. Let this be a new beginning, let this be the start of something better. The above text was delivered as a floor speech by Senator Hawley on June 16th, 2020.

(mj0007/Getty Images) I’m still not sure which side is right, but they both approached the employment-discrimination cases the right way. The question of whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 covers sexual orientation or gender identity was always a closer one than either side made it out to be. And after reading Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion, as well as the dissents by Justices Sam Alito and Brett Kavanaugh, respectively, I’m still scratching my head at who is right. Advertisement On the one hand, it’s patently absurd to suggest that anyone in the 1964 Congress thought the bill they were voting on included such protections. Homosexuality was considered a psychological disorder at the time — and homosexual activity still criminalized in many states — while transgenderism wasn’t even “a thing,” as the kids would put it. Indeed, when various versions of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act came up for congressional hearings in the late 2000s and early 2010s, progressive groups and Obama administration civil-rights officials spoke of the urgent need to update Title VII to protect vulnerable sexual minorities. So it’s not bigoted reactionism to suggest that Title VII, as written, doesn’t contain so-called SOGI (sexual orientation/gender identity) protections. Advertisement On the other hand, the relevant statutory language refers to adverse employment actions taken “because of . . . sex.” “Sex,” as we know from many contexts, is a big, loaded word. Like Walt Whitman, it contains multitudes. One’s sexual orientation refers to whether someone is attracted to people of the same or opposite sex. Whether someone is transgender refers to whether the person thinks of himself, herself, or [insert pronoun here] as the sex “assigned at birth.” Lord knows that the people who draft statutory language don’t always have the precision of professional grammarians — and often leave purposeful ambiguities as a legislative compromise or to toss the tough line-drawing problems to the administrative state. So it’s not relativistic Humpty-Dumpty-ism to suggest that Title VII, as written, already contains those same SOGI protections. Instead, if we throw out both legislative-intent arguments and result-oriented ones based on the idea that the meaning of statutes changes with the times — living U.S. Code-ism? — what we’re left with is a case of statutory interpretation with no clear answer. That’s why my own Cato Institute — which filed briefs supporting constitutional rights for gay people in Lawrence v. Texas, United States v. Windsor, and Obergefell v. Hodges — sat out the three cases consolidated under the name Bostock v. Clayton County. But regardless, it’s gratifying that all the justices seemed to agree with Justice Gorsuch’s mode of analysis: “When the express terms of a statute give us one answer and the extratextual considerations suggest another, it’s no contest. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.” We’re all textualists now! Where the disagreement came was in Gorsuch’s textualist analysis that “it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex,” because an employer who fires someone for being gay or trans “fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex.” My colleague Walter Olson has characterized this approach as “surprise plain meaning,” in that it would indeed surprise time travelers from the 1960s, but it’s based on the plain meaning of the relevant words found in 1960s dictionaries. Advertisement Of course, Justice Alito, in a dissent joined by Justice Thomas, counters that Gorsuch’s opinion is a “pirate ship” sailing under a false “textualist flag.” That’s because “neither ‘sexual orientation’ nor ‘gender identity’ is tied to either of the two biological sexes.” An employer can implement a “no-LGBTQ employees” policy “without paying any attention to or even knowing the biological sex” of applicants. Moreover, Justice Kavanaugh points out, Gorsuch’s interpretation not only allows all those who would prefer SOGI protections codified into antidiscrimination law to do an end run around the separation of powers, it privileges a “literalist” statutory meaning over an “ordinary” one. Even if “sex” includes “sexual orientation, “the plaintiffs must also establish one of two other points . . . . [1] that courts, when interpreting a statute, adhere to literal meaning rather than ordinary meaning. Or alternatively, [2] that the ordinary meaning of ‘discriminate because of sex’ . . . encompasses sexual orientation discrimination.” Advertisement I rather think that Kavanaugh’s sophisticated analysis wins the day, but that’s because I read it last; I had previously been convinced by Gorsuch, and then Alito, until finally settling on the newest justice. Ask me tomorrow and I’ll surely have a different answer. But regardless of who got the better of the lawyering, Bostock shows that those who group all the “conservative” justices together are missing the boat. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are both committed textualists, and both were appointed not just by a Republican president but by the same one (Trump). Progressive critics who discount their independence or claim they’re just result-oriented reactionaries have egg on their face. And when they find a mirror in which to clean up, they should look deeper, because it’s actually the liberal justices who vote in lockstep. As a policy matter, it certainly would’ve been better for Bostock’s result to have come through legislative rather than judicial action. As someone who doesn’t like adding evermore regulations onto struggling business owners — and this is all about small business, not the woke corporations that long ago changed their employment practices —I’m uncomfortable extending further intrusions into the freedom of contract. That’s particularly so in a fraught area where courts are ill-equipped when making such close statutory calls to also consider and write rules regarding religious exemptions, women’s sports, and other hard cases that a legislative body would’ve hashed out. Over to you, Congress.

Much ink has been spilled about the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, in which Justice Neil Gorsuch held that the plain meaning of the relevant words in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 entails forbidding employment discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity as part of forbidding discrimination based on “sex.” The decision appears to be a major step toward bringing to completion the Court’s legal institutionalization of the sexual revolution that began in 1965 with its fabrication of a general right of privacy in matters concerning sexual intimacy. While the dissenting opinions of Justices Alito and Kavanaugh are sufficiently persuasive to defeat the majority’s inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity within Title VII’s understanding of “sex,” I wish to bring to light another feature of the issue before the Court in Bostock. This feature is the wider jurisprudential background that bears upon not merely the issue in these cases, but legal interpretation more generally. One can only hope that the approach offered in the majority opinion does not become the new normal, because such a move would trash more than two millennia of legal development. One can only hope that the approach offered in the majority opinion does not become the new normal, because such a move would trash more than two millennia of legal development. The Rules of Interpretation in Western Jurisprudence Justice Gorsuch’s opinion for the Court in Bostock has been hailed as an exercise in “textualism,” an “-ism” that is often touted for its apparent simplicity—a simplicity that is, sadly, most often illusory. The “textualism” employed by Justice Gorsuch in Bostock is not merely wrong (as Justice Kavanaugh effectively demonstrates), but a blatant circumvention of time-honored rules of statutory interpretation in the Western legal tradition. Mere analysis of the words in a legal text is not—and has never been—an end in itself for courts. Rather, it is a means of assisting courts in ascertaining the will of a lawgiver. In the section on “Powers and Duties of Judges,” Justinian’s Institutes declares that “[a]bove all he [the judge] must be sure not to depart from the statutes, imperial pronouncements, and custom.” Following Justinian, in the Anglo-American legal tradition the most important conventions for interpreting legal documents embody various mixtures of text, tradition and logic. All have the sole purpose of directing courts in their search for the legislative will. In other words, these rules are all “intentionalist”: they are premised on the idea that there is a “true” meaning underlying any written legal text, and that this meaning is founded on the historical intentions of the makers of that text. In the words of William Blackstone, the most influential legal commentator of the American Founding era, one must interpret the law “by signs the most natural and probable.” These signs include the words, not construed literally, but “understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.” Also included for consideration are the context, the subject-matter, the effects and consequences, and the reason and spirit of the law, or “the cause which moved the legislator to enact it.” On this last point, Blackstone adds that “when this reason ceases, the law itself ought to cease with it.” Blackstone did not invent these rules. They are based on a tradition that runs back at least as far as the Twelve Tables of Roman Law. Indeed, Blackstone relies on the Twelve Tables, Cicero, Samuel Pufendorf, and canon law in his exposition of the rules. In a formulation almost identical with Blackstone’s, the great seventeenth-century Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius says that the “measure of correct interpretation is the inference of intent from the most probable indications.” Likewise, Emmerich de Vattel insists that words “are only designed to express the thoughts; thus the true signification of an expression, in common use, is the idea which custom has affixed to that expression. . . . For, by a true interpretation, we endeavor to discover the thoughts of the persons speaking.” Thus “the reason of the law . . . that is to say, the motive which led to the making of it, and the object in contemplation at the time,—is the most certain clue to lead us to the discovery of its true meaning. When once we certainly know the reason which alone has determined the will of the person speaking, we ought to interpret and apply his words in a manner suitable to that reason alone.” Finally, Vattel concludes that “in unforeseen cases, that is to say, when the state of things happens to be such as the author . . . has not foreseen, and could not have thought of, we should rather be guided by his intention than by his words.” These are just a few of the most prominent examples in a seemingly endless train of commentary —with few if any contrary examples. They attest to a centuries-long agreement that the law cannot be read from the mere words of a legal text, but only from the will, or intention, of the lawgiver. Discernment of intent must begin from a consideration of the words used by the lawgiver to express the law, but it cannot end there. The object, end or purpose of the law—more precisely, the “mischief” that it was enacted to overcome—is crucial for determining its meaning. Any uncertainties in the meaning of the terms employed by the lawgiver must be resolved in accord with general custom and common usage at the time the law was enacted. This principled approach to determining the meaning of legal texts is not a mere convenience to be disregarded whenever it is found inconvenient by a judge or court. It is a set of universal rules developed by civilian and common lawyers alike over a long stretch of time from the dawn of civilized legal order in the West. It has never been disavowed even by a modern Supreme Court bent on imposing its will on the American people via an illegitimate “living constitution.” Rather, the Court simply ignores the tradition when it is inconvenient, and pays it lip service when convenient. To abandon this long-standing approach is to risk a descent into lawlessness, and that is exactly what the Court’s Bostock opinion portends. Bostock should not be regarded as law. Justice Alito calls it an act of pure legislation. I would add that it is an act of legislation the Court has no legitimate authority to make. Textual Literalism and Legal Positivism Textual literalism is an illicit preoccupation with the words of a writing divorced from consideration of the meaning being communicated by the writer. According to Vattel, it is a species of fraud: “Good-faith adheres to the intention; fraud insists on the terms, when it thinks that they can furnish a cloak for its prevarications.” Pushed to its logical extreme, as was done in the Bostock opinion, this kind of textual preoccupation generates meaninglessness—which is exactly what an interpreter wishing to attribute meanings not intended by the writer wants to do. Under this approach, words become mere empty vessels into which interpreters can pour anything they like. We have been heading down this road since legal positivism began its rise in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Prior to the onset of legal positivism, the judge’s art was universally conceded to be a process of discovery, and what is to be discovered is the ratio legis, the “reason of the law.” Recall that in the formulations of Blackstone and Vattel noted above, the reason of a law is the motive that impels the lawgiver to enact it, the mischief that is to be overcome. Since the ratio legis constitutes the main ground and justification of the law, it follows that the meaning of the law transcends the words and the text has a source outside itself. That meaning is the objective truth of the law that is to be discovered and applied by the court. Under positivism, however, there is no objective truth—legal or otherwise—and so the court can make up any meaning that it likes to fill the empty vessel that constitutes the text of the law. Thus textual literalism is simply a judicial variant of legal positivism in action. It is the logical outgrowth of a jurisprudence that has been emptied of objective truth, in which law is merely the command of a sovereign bully having the power to visit pain upon subjects. Ironically, it is also—at bottom—lawless. Thomas Aquinas says in his Treatise on Law that an unjust law is not fully law, except in a purely conventional or “perverse” sense. For a law to be just, it must be oriented to the common good, and it must be legislative. Thus judicial application of law is not law. After quoting Aristotle, who said that it is “better that law direct all things than that they be left to the decisions of judges,” Thomas goes on to explain why: First, indeed, it is easier to find the few wise persons sufficient to establish right laws than the many wise persons necessary to judge rightly about particular matters. Second, lawmakers consider over a long time what to impose by law, but judges reach decisions about particular deeds as cases spontaneously arise. And human beings can more easily perceive what is right by considering many instances than they can by considering only one deed. Third, lawmakers decide in general and about future events, but presiding judges decide current cases, and love or hatred or covetousness affects such decisions. And so their decisions are perverted. Therefore, since few embody the justice required of a judge, and since that justice can be perverted, it was necessary that law determine, whenever possible, what judges should decide, and commit very few matters to the decisions of human beings. This statement is no less true today than it was in the thirteenth century. The will of the lawgiver, not the will of the judge, is the law. It is the lawgiver who is charged with the job of advancing the common good through legislation. The common good cannot be advanced through adjudication, which is about advancing the good of particular individuals involved in cases and controversies by impartial administration of justice according to standing law. According to Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, “[t]he province of the court is, solely, to decide on the rights of individuals.” That is why the Constitution carefully limits the judicial power to “cases and controversies.” It is not the job of the courts to advance the common good, the public interest, the general welfare, or any such equivalent goal. But that is what the Court tries to do in Bostock, as it has been trying to do since the onset of the living constitution in the twentieth century, in derogation of the constitutional separation of powers and to the ruination of our culture. Hence Justice Alito is correct when he pejoratively describes the Court’s ruling as “legislation.” When the Court employs Bostock-style textual literalism, unmoored from the constraints imposed by a more rigorous originalism tied to the will of the lawgiver, it abdicates the judicial function and intrudes into the legislative domain, as salivating progressives began to envision on the very day of the decision. Bostock reminds us why faithful adherence to the traditional rules of interpretation is so important. When the Court employs Bostock-style textual literalism, unmoored from the constraints imposed by a more rigorous originalism tied to the will of the lawgiver, it abdicates the judicial function and intrudes into the legislative domain, as salivating progressives began to envision on the very day of the decision. As an illegitimate exercise of judicial supremacy, Bostock should not be regarded as law. Justice Alito calls it an act of pure legislation. I would add that it is an act of legislation the Court has no legitimate authority to make.

The intramural dialogue between the New York Post’s Sohrab Ahmari and National Review’s David French continues to unfold. Some may wonder when it will end—but there is no more important intellectual debate in all of contemporary political discourse, and it is crucial that we all grasp the stakes. There is much to be said about the procedural protections for a free citizenry that developed in the English common law system and were subsequently incorporated into the American constitutional order. But the right to a jury trial, habeas corpus, due process under law—these procedural niceties are not, contra Enlightenment apologists and Lockean purists, epistemologically “self-evident” due to unaided reason. The late Andrew Breitbart knew that our politics is ultimately downstream of culture, and so too is our Anglo-American legal and constitutional tradition downstream of culture. Vitiating the ties that attach our citizenry to the peculiar traditions we have inherited weakens the procedural protections we rightfully hold dear, empowering a new culture wherein self-appointed victims become their own judges and those targeted for summary “cancellation” have no appeal. If not carefully nourished, classical liberal procedural protections will be swept away. If we were to lose touch with our unique Anglo-American tradition, the lofty promises of the Declaration of Independence and the structural ingenuities of the Constitution alike would be broken. Recognizing that culture and tradition are necessary prerequisites for the genuine restoration and preservation of our procedural norms should make us comfortable nudging the levers of political power to reclaim cultural influence from the revanchist illiberal Left. From the Jacobin menagerie in the streets to the Woke, Inc. staffers on academic and corporate campuses, the illiberal Left rejects dialogue and preempts from the public square even the most anodyne right-of-center beliefs. Against that backdrop, procedural neutrality as a purported panacea to our culture war is a plea that rings hollow at best. Ahmari is fundamentally correct in his ongoing feud with French. A substantive and not strictly procedural political agenda oriented toward the highest good responds best to the crippling crises leftist illiberalism deepens: balkanization, mass despondency, and moral decay. Ahmari has offered more to directly confront these attacks on our heart and soul than French. But, crucially, Ahmari can also lay claim to more: better reflecting the Founders’ vision of America and its constitutional order. In crafting the Declaration and the Constitution, the Founders did not put the procedural norms of English common law first. On the contrary, they built our regime directly on the foundation of the substantive political virtues: justice, human flourishing, and the pursuit of the common good. “The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society,” writes Madison in Federalist 57, “and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.” The original “aim” of our Constitution, in other words, was not to secure habeas corpus or due process rights, important as those may be. It was to cultivate leaders in whom “virtue” had been inculcated—without whom “the common good of the society” would not best be realized. The Constitution’s Preamble clearly defines the Union’s goals substantively: “establish Justice, … promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty.” Even “liberty,” which takes on an ahistorical meaning in today’s licentious age, had a more traditional meaning for Founding-era political thinkers: the freedom to pursue virtue and worship and obey God according to one’s Judeo-Christian conscience. Constitutional structure—procedural novelties such as federalism and our tripartite separation of powers—followed as a means to implement our substantive aims. As early 20th-century senators Elihu Root and Henry Cabot Lodge phrased it, the Declaration’s natural rights proclamations and the Constitution’s carefully prescribed means to diffuse and contain governmental power were inextricably linked “to the end that individual liberty might be preserved.” Even more direct was Abraham Lincoln, for whom the Constitution’s ingenious procedural innovations merely formed an encompassing “frame of silver” for the Declaration’s substantive “apple of gold.” The relevant question today is how best to deliberate in pursuit of justice in a post-constitutional age—one beset by a radicalized Left that rejects intellectual contestation in the name of expelling all enemies. Genuflecting and begging our illiberal brethren for “tolerance” and “respect” is a proven failure; values-neutral pluralistic liberalism has been tried and found wanting as a remedy. “Public accommodation” is not a suicide pact. Instead of retreating to procedural neutrality, conservatives must be willing to advance moral arguments and wield the levers of political power to guide our culture toward a rediscovery of virtue and the promotion of the common weal. Without its substance restored, the foundation of our Constitutional order is destroyed. Our cherished procedural protections will, in the end, have protected nothing.

The New Right renews Americanism. The debate between Sohrab Ahmari and David French is not about Sohrab Ahmari and David French. Nor is it merely a debate within the Right over the ferocity and tone with which it ought to oppose the Left. At root, this is nothing less than a debate over the future of “conservatism” and the American Right. More specifically, it is a debate over the role of “libertarian” or “liberal” ideology on the American Right—a specific set of ideas that are, unbeknownst to many conservatives, contradictory to the principles and purposes of the American founding itself. The sudden ferocity of this debate reveals that people on all sides sense it involves underlying issues of importance, and are itching to engage each other. In the article that launched 1,000 think pieces, Ahmari said we must “fight the culture war with the aim of defeating the enemy and enjoying the spoils in the form of a public square re-ordered to the common good and ultimately the Highest Good.” For this, Charles Cooke, the editor of National Review Online, called Ahmari a “Leninist.” Remarkably, to speak explicitly of the common good—never mind justice—as the end and purpose of government makes many of today’s conservatives nervous, if not queasy, perhaps in large part because of how, over the last century, the Left has appropriated the words that traditionally signified the purpose of government. Abandoning the language of Western tradition to describe the purpose of government has grievously weakened the Right, helping habituate it to playing the role of a losing army engaged in long retreat. But many on the Right have done more than shrink from using the classic words of the Western world. For a variety of reasons, not least of which is ignorance, significant elements of the old coalition have gradually abandoned the foundational political thought of the Western tradition—and the American founding itself. Ahmari and the coalescing New Right do not represent new members of the coalition, but re-present traditional arguments and ideas that have been too long forgotten. The New Right does not argue for anything new, but is refocusing and reordering the priorities of the Right on what is now most needful. In order to reform itself and build a new foundation in the age of Trump, conservatives must reevaluate their “libertarianism” or “liberalism,” concepts which have metastasized and become harmful ideologies masquerading as traditional principles. I signed a statement in March entitled “Against the Dead Consensus” with Ahmari, which asserted that “even during the Cold War, this conservatism too often tracked the same lodestar liberalism did—namely, individual autonomy. The fetishizing of autonomy paradoxically yielded the very tyranny that consensus conservatives claim most to detest.” There is perhaps no greater example than when Justice Anthony Kennedy, “while upholding the constitutional ‘right’ to abortion,” as we said in our statement, asserted in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that “[a]t the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and the mystery of human life.” Conservatives ostensibly oppose this notion and often revile this sentence, buoyed by the understanding that it was employed to prevent states from passing laws thwarting the extermination of the unborn. But it is a telling definition because it serves as a neat distillation of decades of rhetoric and political action (or the lack of it) on the American Left and Right. It encapsulates the worst of the baby boomers when confronted with the thorniest of political issues. It sums up their solipsistic platitudes of self-help that still dominate our culture and obscure the very existence of the higher goods every human being must seek out in order to achieve a fulfilling measure of happiness. There is in fact no greater example of the artful dodging of autonomous individualism—and a line that might wrongly resonate with many leaders on the Right today—than the Court’s opinion in Casey that its “obligation is to define liberty for all, not to mandate our own moral code.” But, of course, a moral code based on their understanding of human nature is precisely what they mandated. To define liberty is to define morality, for to define liberty is to define what is permitted and therefore deemed good or neutral and what is not permitted and thereby deemed evil or dangerous. Outside of the regnant ignorance of many of our “elite” leaders on all sides over the last decades, millennia of western civilization speak loudly and clearly: all law is—or is based upon—a moral code. That the highest court in the land could offer up such inanities reveals that in some very serious way we have broken with that tradition. What have we become? We need a clear-eyed and agreed upon understanding about whatever ideology seems to guide us now, even if we disagree about how and why we got here. The American Right and Libertarian Liberalism As the political landscapes shift in the Trump era, amidst the dizzying confusion of yawning realignment, words like “libertarianism” and “liberalism” do not help us clarify matters. We must avoid equivocation and define our terms. Our old words do not accurately describe a newly unveiled world full of strange new gods. When the emerging New Right refers to “liberalism” and “libertarianism” negatively, it refers to the idea among many mainstream Right-leaning leaders that the goal of government is not to achieve a national common good beyond individual material prosperity and the bodily satisfaction of individuals. Above all, the New Right rejects the notion that the purpose of government is morally neutral, or merely to give autonomous individuals the freedom to do whatever they wish. Let us call what the New Right rejects “libertarian liberalism.” When we oppose “libertarianism,” we do not primarily refer to those who explicitly call themselves “libertarians,” even if we disagree with libertarians profoundly about the role of liberty, morality, economics, and government and the relationship between them. In fact, the New Right might have reason to work politically with those who call themselves libertarians on overly interventionist foreign policy, the danger and unintended negative consequences of government overreach, the importance of constitutionalism vs. arbitrary rule, and the tyranny of the administrative state and the class of ill-educated “experts” who now govern America. What “liberalism” means today is more complicated and varied. There is no rising coalition rejecting democratic republicanism as a valid form of government while simultaneously throwing out the entire concept of individual rights (although younger members of the Right and Left increasingly dispute the efficacy of both). But among those who speak of “liberalism” negatively, there is unifying and serious disagreement with a notion that arose among progressives in the West over the last century: namely, that the purpose of government is to discover, dispense, and protect an ever-expanding catalogue of individual rights primarily for economic purposes. Whatever its ultimate origins or widest meaning, “liberalism” used negatively stands for the idea that the overriding purpose of government is the continual promotion of individual freedom over and against what were formerly considered moral and material constraints, and that this endless movement constitutes “progress.” Thus, the combination of the libertarian notion of the role of liberty, morality, and government with liberalism, or liberalism severed from the deeper classical and Christian political thought, is what the New Right stands against. The libertarian liberal intellectual framework currently prevents conservatives of good will from rethinking and reexamining their political strategy and policy stances—concepts in dire need of recalibration if they wish to respond wisely to radically different circumstances in the age of Trump. Lamentably, too many understand the original principles and purposes of American government itself in terms of libertarian liberalism. After all, is not the purpose of America “liberty for all,” as opposed to the rise in the last century of an unaccountable administrative state, and is not this maxim a unifying antidote to the tyrannical urges of the Left? The American Founding Rejected Libertarian-Liberalism Whatever their flaws, the founding generations who created and designed the original form of the United States of America roundly and explicitly rejected libertarian-liberalism. We do not now live in the same regime our Founders wrought. As the Claremont Institute has long argued, elite and educated society began to roundly and explicitly reject the thought of the American Founders in the late 19th century. And during the early part of the 20th century, this intellectual rejection was legislated into being by enormously influential political leaders such as Woodrow Wilson, inexorably changing—for the worse—the course of our political and cultural life. During the same time period, scholars (often historicists and watered-down Marxists) increasingly downplayed the role of ideas in human life, rejected the concept of morality and order in nature, and embraced a strict materialist view of human beings and their affairs. Accordingly, they proffered a revisionist history of the Founding. They ripped documents and quotes out of context (such as Federalist 10 and 51, which had never before been given such weight) to assert the Founding was merely about economic self-interest, and the Constitution amounted to an amoral, outdated, clunky 18th century contraption of checks and balances. Scholars, those all-too-human beings, treat the American Founding as a Rorschach test for whatever they find wrong (or right) with American life in the era within which live. As the 20th century wore on, especially post-World War II, intellectuals on the Left who found much to despise in American life began to decry consumerism, the notion of individual property rights, and everything else they didn’t like in contemporary politics as a baleful product of the “Lockean individualism” of the founding generations. But scholars on the Right who opposed them often accepted their premises, arguing instead that such notions were positive goods, leading to America’s success. The result is that many on the Left and Right today wrongly think that the American Founding was a product of libertarian liberalism. Liberty Versus Licentiousness For the founding generation, however, liberty was defined and limited by the higher purposes of human life. As Federalist 51 famously proclaimed in 1788, arguing for the acceptance of the Constitution of the United States of America: Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. Even at the birth of the western republics that still lead the world, which often call themselves democracies and for which liberty has always been considered a constituent part of political justice, America acknowledged that justice, not liberty or freedom, was the ultimate purpose of human governance. Justice refers to the right way to order ourselves and our relationships with others so as to achieve what is truly good for all of us together. Freedom itself had be justified by means of argument about its purpose, and whether or not it was conducive to the common good of all. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution refers last in its list of purposes to securing the “Blessings of Liberty.” The suggestion that this meant autonomous individualism as the Supreme Court defined it in Casey is absurd. Official documents such as the Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776 make crystal clear what the phrase meant to the founding generations: “…no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.” Liberty’s blessings, in other words, require virtue, or certain salutary habits of behavior—well defined by both reason and revelation in Western tradition—in order to enjoy and exercise them. One of the central arguments for the passage of the Constitution was to promote this form of liberty consonant with classical and Christian virtues over and against licentiousness. As Noah Webster defined it in the first American dictionary in 1806, “Licentiousness” referred to the “contempt of just restraint,” i.e., freedom unrestrained by, and therefore in, opposition to justice. This distinction was embedded deep in American political thought from the start. Even as the Constitution of the State of New York protected “the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference,” in 1777, for instance, it qualified this freedom, “[p]rovided that the liberty of conscience hereby granted, shall not be so construed, as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this State.” A century later, over and against arguments based on the principle of religious liberty, the American political system had little hesitation enforcing laws against the Mormon practice of bigamy. When George Washington argued that stronger governmental unity between the states was needed in his Circular to the States in 1783, he warned that “arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.” The sentiment ultimately became part and parcel of the argument for the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. Benjamin Rush echoed the rest of the Federalists in 1787 when he said: In our opposition to monarchy, we forgot that the temple of tyranny has two doors. We bolted one of them by proper restraints; but we left the other open, by neglecting to guard against the effects of our own ignorance and licentiousness. Most of the present difficulties of this country arise from the weakness and other defects of our governments. In designing and supporting the Constitution, the Federalists thus supported the federal centralization of power—especially over commercial activity—in moral terms, for moral reasons (see the section on “Lincoln and the Founders” here). Like the rest of the Federalists, when Oliver Ellsworth argued for the adoption of the Constitution with economic policy in mind, he called opposition in the name of freedom to the new centralized government licentious: Liberty is a word which, according as it is used, comprehends the most good and the most evil of any in the world. Justly understood, it is sacred next to those which we appropriate in divine adoration; but in the mouths of some, it means anything which will enervate a necessary government…and keep society in confusion for want of a power sufficiently concentered to promote its good. It is not strange that the licentious should tell us a government of energy is inconsistent with liberty, for being inconsistent with their wishes and their vices, they would have us think it contrary to human happiness. The federal government was meant to promote the good of society for the sake of human happiness, which meant directly countering licentiousness. In the Virginia ratifying convention, James Madison himself made clear he was arguing for “a well regulated Republican Government. The establishment of such in America was my most ardent desire. I have considered attentively (and my consideration has been aided by experience) the tendency of a relaxation of laws, and licentiousness of manners.” (“Manners,” at the time, also meant “morals.”) Madison warned that “[t]he rapid increase of population in every State is an additional reason to check dissipation and licentiousness. Does it not strongly call for the friends of Republican Government to endeavour to establish a Republican organization?” In the same ratifying convention, Edmund Randolph said “An additional reason to induce us to adopt [the Constitution] is, that excessive licentiousness which has resulted from the relaxation of our laws, and which will be checked by this Government. Let us judge from the fate of more ancient nations; licentiousness has produced tyranny among many of them: It has contributed as much (if not more) as any other cause whatsoever, to the loss of their liberties.” The understanding that unrestrained liberty led to tyranny not only informed the creation and design of the Constitution but was also perhaps the most prominent proviso the Founders provided along with its passage. Apocryphal or not, when Benjamin Franklin told the woman waiting outside that the Philadelphia Convention had created “A Republic—if you can keep it,” he was underscoring the point. In James Wilson’s 1788 “Oration on the Fourth of July” celebrating the new Constitution, he said “among the virtues necessary to merit and preserve the advantages of a good government, I number a warm and uniform ATTACHMENT to LIBERTY, and to the CONSTITUTION,” but he warned “[t]he enemies of liberty are artful and insidious.” A counterfeit steals her dress, imitates her manner, forges her signature, and assumes her name. But the real name of the deceiver is Licentiousness. Such is her effrontery that she will charge liberty to her face with imposture; and she will, with shameless front, insist that she alone is the genuine character, and that she alone is entitled to the respect, which the genuine character deserves…She receives the honors of liberty, and liberty herself is treated as a traitor and usurper. Licentiousness, as the founding generation routinely counseled, is not just a personal problem, but a political one. Liberty without justice is always twisted into a tool of tyranny: “her motions are regulated by dark ambition, who sits concealed behind the curtain, and who knows that despotism…can always follow the success of licentiousness.” Wilson ended his speech with a summation of the early American regime, in which “LIBERTY, VIRTUE and RELIGION go hand in hand harmoniously, protecting, enlivening, and exalting all!” Virtue and Happiness The key to understanding the founding generation’s understanding of liberty is to understand what they meant by “virtue.” As Harry Jaffa argued, the American Founding, “in its understanding of the connection between happiness and virtue, aligns itself decisively with traditional moral philosophy and moral theology.” Further, the Founding was based on the understanding that there was an overlap between moral philosophy and moral theology, as it “rests not only upon its defusing of the tension between reason and revelation, but upon [the founders’] fundamental agreement on a moral code which can guide human life both privately and publicly. This moral code is the work both of ‘Nature’s God’—reason—and the ‘Creator’—revelation.” Even the major early American figures influenced most strongly by “Enlightenment” era thought, such as Thomas Jefferson, espoused a brand of theism in which Christian understanding of human nature and good and evil overlapped with that of reason. In designing the University of Virginia in 1818, Jefferson made clear that while the state would not fund a professor of divinity, “the proofs of the being of a god, the creator, preserver, & supreme ruler of the universe, the author of all the relations of morality, & of the laws & obligations these infer, will be within the province of the professor of ethics.” In other words, reason showed that God existed, nature and human nature were ordered towards certain purpose, and thus there were certain ways in which human beings ought to act (virtues) in order to achieve happiness. Nor was this view of human nature and virtue a private matter; rather, it was necessary for the very existence and operation of republican government and even Jefferson thought it deserved state funding. As James Madison said in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, “I go on this great republican principle, that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom. Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks—no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.” When the Declaration of Independence said the Creator endowed all human beings with unalienable Rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” “happiness” was not understood in the wide-open terms of libertarian liberalism. As James Madison said, writing to James Monroe in 1786: There is no maxim, in my opinion, which is more liable to be misapplied, and which, therefore, more needs elucidation, than the current one, that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong. Taking the word “interest” as synonymous with “ultimate happiness,” in which sense it is qualified with every necessary moral ingredient, the proposition is no doubt true. But taking it in the popular sense as referring to immediate augmentation of property and wealth nothing can be more false. In the latter it would be the interest of the majority in every community to despoil and enslave the minority of individuals. As Madison goes on to say, if one disregards the “ultimate happiness” of human beings—if one thinks that the interest even of a lawful democratic majority in regard to their property and wealth is all that politics is about—one is “only re-establishing under another name and a more specious form, force as the measure of right.” But force, or might, does not make right. Abraham Lincoln famously made the same point to Steven Douglas when Douglas argued that slavery should simply be voted up or down in federal territories, and the federal government should stay out of it. Education It was not unreasonable for Madison and friends to assume that the definition of liberty and happiness as tied to virtue would be taught to future generations of American leaders. While many figures in the early Republic such as George Washington proposed and supported the funding of a national university, there was little reason to think that the vast network of state legislation, the Christian churches, or the educational institutions of their day were not up to the task of forming the citizenry. At commencement in early America, colleges like Harvard and Yale would publish lists of ideas in Latin that graduates would have to publicly defend in order to graduate. These theses reveal what they stood for institutionally. As one of them from Yale in 1797 said: “Without virtue and literature no republic can exist happy and free. In order that citizens may be gifted with virtue and intelligence it is necessary that they should be instructed in letters and good morals; therefore such institutions being neglected a free and happy republic cannot exist.” The colleges generally testified to a natural equality and liberty of all human beings (“to reduce Africans to perpetual slavery agrees neither with divine nor human law,” Brown, 1769) but this liberty was shaped by a classical conception of virtue based on right reason’s study of human nature. On the one hand, “if a man aspires to true happiness, he must make his actions conform to the laws of God” (University of Pennsylvania, 1762). While “God demands the actions which beget happiness” and “prohibits those which bring misery,” “the difference between good and evil, virtue and vice, set up by God is immutable; because it is founded on the nature of things (Harvard, 1810).” But nature is accessible to reason. Rational investigation of morality and religion is possible since “the principles of religion are in harmony with human nature” and “in all matters reasonableness marked the apostles” (Harvard, 1769). “Demonstration shows us the existence of God” and “when concerning any action there is question of knowing the will of God by the light of nature the investigation must determine whether that action seems to be connected with the increasing of general happiness or the lessening of it” (Harvard, 1810). Systematic thinking about human nature uncovers the habits of behavior or virtues that lead to our happiness. The study of Ethics explained how “prudence is the most difficult of virtues” and “justice is the mother of virtues” (Harvard, 1693), and “even though the future life should be taken away there still remains an obligation to virtue” (Harvard, 1653). Thus “[t]he will of God, revealed by the light either of nature, or of sacred scripture, is an adequate rule and norm of conscience” (Harvard, 1810). This is why “no civil law is just unless it agrees with the principles of the natural law” (Harvard, 1778) and “whatever is opposed to the common good is also opposed to the law of nature” (University of Pennsylvania, 1762). Yet “philosophy,” by itself, “can provide no stable and sure foundation of moral obligation” (Yale, 1797). “Human reason alone does not suffice to explain how the true religion was introduced and built up so firmly in the world” and “with reason alone as a leader would never have been accepted”: “There was need of divine revelation for Christianity” (Harvard, 1769); “Holy Scripture preserved the knowledge of God among men” (Yale, 1797). The Ivy League schools whose hollow shells still exist today taught then that ultimately—as almost every major American Founder proclaimed, regardless of their own beliefs—Christianity was necessary for the sake of true happiness or, at least, a functioning political order. Washington (and Alexander Hamilton, who helped in the writing) went out of their way in Washington’s Farewell Address to the nation to say “let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” Natural Rights Similarly, the notion of individual rights at the time of the founding was inextricably bound up with virtue and religion, for the rights the Founders spoke of were natural, i.e., they arose from the purpose and form of human nature rather than being the nominal creation of government and law. On another July 4th, 59 years after Wilson’s speech, John Quincy Adams explained, “the Declaration of Independence announced the One People, assuming their station among the powers of the earth, as a civilized, religious, and Christian people,—acknowledging themselves bound by the obligations, and claiming the rights to which they were entitled by the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Such natural rights were explicitly bound up with obligations, or duties, ordered toward higher purpose. The authors of the Declaration, Adams said, “appealed to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of their intentions, and neither claimed nor conferred authority to do any thing but of right.” After all, the Declaration was an argument justifying freedom based on the claim that the King of England sought an “establishment of an absolute Tyranny.” “To prove this” the first of the “Facts [to] be submitted to a candid world” was that “He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” In other words, the colonists, far from libertarian liberal mythology of the late 20th century, were trying to pass laws for the sake of the common good, and the first thing they singled the King out for was his prevention of them so doing. From the start, in other words, when Americans defined their understanding of republican form of government, in which the people rule through representatives, who, in turn, serve to protect the natural rights of the whole, they understood these rights came with obligations limited by, and ordered toward, a higher understanding of good and evil, accessible by means of reason and revelation. As Adams went on to say in 1837, “The sovereign authority, conferred upon the People of the Colonies by the Declaration of Independence, could not dispense them, nor any individual citizen of them, from the fulfilment of all their moral obligations; for to these they were bound by the laws of Nature’s God; nor is there any power upon earth capable of granting absolution from them.” The American founding “acknowledged, therefore, a rule of right…and virtually disclaimed all power to do wrong…A moral Ruler of the universe, the Governor and Controller of all human power is the only unlimited sovereign acknowledged by the Declaration of Independence; and it claims for the United States of America…only the power to do all that may be done of right.” Common Good The Constitution was ordained and established first to form “a more perfect Union,” or the unity without which no political community is possible, and, next, to “establish Justice.” It was established and ordained for the sake of peace and safety, and “to promote the general Welfare.” The idea that it rejected the notion of the common good based on the verbal formulation of official documents alone, never mind a modicum of research into what it meant to those who wrote it, is specious. The immediate objection of the libertarian liberal is that this interpretation is tyrannical. After all, asserting a common good beyond individual material satisfaction, as America has done in regard to bigamy, will result in a loss of liberty on the part of those who disagree. But as John Marshall once said, “When we consult the common good, we consult our own.” One presumes Marshall, the founding father of the Supreme Court, pace Charles Cooke, was not a Stalinist. The notion of a common good is of course abused if it is used as cover for the good of a tyrant or elites as opposed to the good of all. This is the very definition of corruption going back to Aristotle: when one man, a group of people, or the majority rules for their own good rather than the good of the whole. But as the political philosopher Leo Strauss proclaimed: The goal of the general is victory, whereas the goal of the statesman is the common good. What victory means is not essentially controversial, but the meaning of the common good is essentially controversial. The ambiguity of the political goal is due to its comprehensive character. Thus the temptation arises to deny, or to evade, the comprehensive character of politics and to treat politics as one compartment among many. This temptation must be resisted if we are to face our situation as human beings, i.e., the whole situation. All human politics is an argument about the common good. We can’t scrub the morality out of politics. To deny that political life is ultimately an ongoing argument about what is good and evil constitutes a vain attempt to transcend all politics, and the reality of human nature itself. The New Consensus Sohrab Ahmari did not speak in the spirit of Lenin. His message comes to us on the wings of the American Founders—who are not done teaching us yet. On Right and Left, the libertarian liberalism consensus that has heretofore covered over our fundamental disagreements is fraying. A new consensus dawns. But on both sides, it is leading to a growing awareness of what divides us. The message of the New Right is not that we can necessarily return to the original consensus that formed America, but that the notion of unfettered liberty is utterly antithetical to the American regime this consensus formed. As Senator Joshua Hawley recently argued against this harmful understanding of freedom, “Though it proclaims liberty, it destroys the life that makes liberty possible.” The Founders’ warnings about liberty without justice were prescient; they haunt us still. Regardless of their intent, those who ceaselessly couch their arguments in terms of morally neutral freedoms and procedural abstractions do not always serve the cause of true liberty. Civil government can’t be fully responsible for the final good of man, nor provide it. Not even the greatest proponents of the integration of Church and State thought as much, and any government that assumes that it alone can define and provide for the highest or final good of human beings, rather than remaining open to it or pointing towards it, is inevitably tyrannical. But regardless of whether or not religion is even on the table, as Matthew Schmitz has argued, summoning Aristotle at the base of Western political tradition, all government will order itself toward what those within it think that good is, and point toward it. The great lie of libertarian liberalism, slowly adopted over the last century by the technocratic nations of the West and their ignorant elites, is that politics can somehow remain neutral and untainted by that problem. To accept this lie—that government and law can somehow avoid taking a stand on what justice is and how human beings ought to live their lives—is in fact to give power to those who mouth seemingly “value-neutral” language while establishing their own notion of the good as law. If American conservatives continue to believe and act upon this lie, they will lose the culture war and die out as a movement. They will not be able to say the American Founders didn’t warn them.

The 2016 election laid bare profound but long-hidden ideological divisions among America’s conservative intellectuals. Some of us heartily supported the Trumpian insurgency. Others reluctantly pulled the lever for Trump. Still others opposed his candidacy, adopted the label “Never Trump,” or even endorsed Hillary Clinton. Yet more than two years later, we speak with one voice: There is no returning to the pre-Trump conservative consensus that collapsed in 2016. Any attempt to revive the failed conservative consensus that preceded Trump would be misguided and harmful to the right. We give credit where it is due: Consensus conservatism played a heroic role in defeating Communism in the last century, by promoting prosperity at home and the expansion of a rules-based international order. At its best, the old consensus defended the natural rights of Americans and the “transcendent dignity of the human person, as the visible image of the invisible God” (Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus) against the depredations of totalitarian regimes. But even during the Cold War, this conservatism too often tracked the same lodestar liberalism did—namely, individual autonomy. The fetishizing of autonomy paradoxically yielded the very tyranny that consensus conservatives claim most to detest. America’s public philosophy now puts great stock in “the right to define one’s own concept of . . . the mystery of human life,” as Justice Anthony Kennedy, the libertarian conservative par excellence, wrote while upholding the constitutional “right” to abortion. But this vast leeway to discover the meaning of existence extends to destroying the freedom and lives of others (the unborn child’s, in the case of abortion). Yes, the old conservative consensus paid lip service to traditional values. But it failed to retard, much less reverse, the eclipse of permanent truths, family stability, communal solidarity, and much else. It surrendered to the pornographization of daily life, to the culture of death, to the cult of competitiveness. It too often bowed to a poisonous and censorious multiculturalism. Faced with voters’ resounding “No!” to these centrifugal forces, consensus conservatives have grown only more rigid in their certainties. They have elevated prudential judgments and policies into sacred dogmas. These dogmas—free trade on every front, free movement through every boundary, small government as an end in itself, technological advancement as a cure-all—foreclose debate about the nature and purpose of our common life. Consensus conservatism long ago ceased to inquire into the first things. But we will not. We oppose the soulless society of individual affluence. Our society must not prioritize the needs of the childless, the healthy, and the intellectually competitive. Our policy must accommodate the messy demands of authentic human attachments: family, faith, and the political community. We welcome allies who oppose dehumanizing attempts at “liberation” such as pornography, “designer babies,” wombs for rent, and the severing of the link between sex and gender. We stand with the American citizen. In recent years, some have argued for immigration by saying that working-class Americans are less hard-working, less fertile, in some sense less worthy than potential immigrants. We oppose attempts to displace American citizens. Advancing the common good requires standing with, rather than abandoning, our countrymen. They are our fellow citizens, not interchangeable economic units. And as Americans we owe each other a distinct allegiance and must put each other first. We reject attempts to compromise on human dignity. In 2013, the Republican National Committee released an “autopsy report” that proposed compromising on social issues in order to appeal to young voters. In fact, millennials are the most pro-life generation in America, while economic libertarianism isn’t nearly as popular as its Beltway proponents imagine. We affirm the nonnegotiable dignity of every unborn life and oppose the transhumanist project of radical self-identification. We resist a tyrannical liberalism. We seek to revive the virtues of liberality and neighborliness that many people describe as “liberalism.” But we oppose any attempt to conflate American interests with liberal ideology. When an ideological liberalism seeks to dictate our foreign policy and dominate our religious and charitable institutions, tyranny is the result, at home and abroad. We want a country that works for workers. The Republican Party has for too long held investors and “job creators” above workers and citizens, dismissing vast swaths of Americans as takers unworthy of its time. Trump’s victory, driven in part by his appeal to working-class voters, shows the potential of a political movement that heeds the cries of the working class as much as the demands of capital. Americans take more pride in their identity as workers than their identity as consumers. Economic and welfare policy should prioritize work over consumption. We believe home matters. For those who enjoy the upsides, a borderless world brings intoxicating new liberties. They can go anywhere, work anywhere. They can call themselves “citizens” of the world. But the jet-setters’ vision clashes with the human need for a common life. And it has bred resentments that are only beginning to surface. We embrace the new nationalism insofar as it stands against the utopian ideal of a borderless world that, in practice, leads to universal tyranny. Whatever else might be said about it, the Trump phenomenon has opened up space in which to pose these questions anew. We will guard that space jealously. And we respectfully decline to join with those who would resurrect warmed-over Reaganism and foreclose honest debate. Sohrab Ahmari New York Post Jeffrey Blehar Patrick Deneen University of Notre Dame Rod Dreher The American Conservative Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry Ethics and Public Policy Center Darel Paul Williams College C. C. Pecknold The Catholic University of America Matthew Peterson The Claremont Institute James Poulos The American Mind Mark Regnerus University of Texas at Austin Matthew Schmitz First Things Kevin E. Stuart Austin Institute David Upham University of Dallas Matthew Walther The Week Julia Yost First Things Institutional affiliations are for identification purposes only and do not represent institutional endorsement. Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.

We conservatives now find ourselves trying to plot a course forward in the aftermath of the tumultuous Trump presidency. It is imperative that all conservatives, whatever our various doctrinal or attitudinal differences, unify around a rejection of the “dead consensus.” We must accept that there is no going back to the outmoded pieties of John McCain and Paul Ryan. President Trump was a wrecking ball—a hurricane, as American Compass’s Oren Cass has often described him, whose destructive warpath laid bare the dilapidated foundations of decaying infrastructure, institutions, and ideas. But the hurricane left in its wake little in the way of substance. Now is the moment to start building anew. Toward that end, the editors of Public Discourse have performed a great public service with their exemplary recent statement, “Toward a New Consensus: An Invitation.” The editors are correct to commend both a tactical ecumenicism, centered around a statesmanship of prudence and a humble recognition of politics’ inherent limitations, and a substantive prioritization of issues pertaining to marriage and life, religion, education, and justice. Furthermore, their exhortation that “any viable conservative coalition must find ways to preserve the goods that unite us by honestly confronting and responding to the forces that endanger them” is a great place for any forward-looking conservative reckoning to begin. Any such coalition must be cognizant of the left’s ever-ascendant hegemony over and near-monopoly on institutions of meaningful cultural and economic clout. This emerging conservative consensus, centered around a multiracial working-class political coalition and sometimes referred to as the “New Right,” is one unafraid to challenge the economic and cultural deregulatory excesses of neoliberalism. It is a political consensus more comfortable wielding genuine political power in service of conservative ends, eschewing the overly liberalized and defensive politics of yore by reconceiving politics along more traditionalist lines, as the classical civilizations might have done—as a craft and an art form, the perfection of which is perhaps impossible but the adept development of which is nonetheless necessary given man’s condition. Such a conception of conservatism might sit in a state of very mild tension with the Public Discourse editors’ appeal to reject a “totalizing politics,” but that mild tension—if it does exist—is intellectually healthy. But while there has been no shortage of think pieces about what the tactical, coalitional, or substantive elements of the new conservative fusion or agenda might look like, too few have theorized about what a jurisprudential component of this agenda might entail. I have lent my modest help to this effort, and will continue to do so. I call my jurisprudential framework “common good originalism,” and I would humbly submit that it be adopted as conservatives’ new legal standard-bearer—a worthy complement to other simultaneously unfolding New Right/“new consensus” intellectual efforts. While there has been no shortage of think pieces about what the tactical, coalitional, or substantive elements of the new conservative fusion or agenda might look like, too few have theorized about what a jurisprudential component of this agenda might entail. Why Do Conservatives Need a New Legal Framework? The regnant “legal conservative” status quo was dealt a grievous blow in last June’s Bostock v. Clayton County. In that case, Justice Neil Gorsuch, the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s carefully vetted successor, rewrote the anti-employment discrimination Title VII provision of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to define “sex” as also encompassing sexual orientation and “gender identity.” Gorsuch’s rank analytical sophistry baffled many leading social conservatives. It also laid bare the pitfalls of a morally denuded, overtly positivist jurisprudence that is at odds with the broader Anglo-American legal tradition and belies our unique American constitutional order’s unambiguous prioritization of substantive ends: to “establish Justice,” “provide for the common defense,” “promote the general Welfare,” and so forth. Bostock exposed just how far unmoored contemporary originalism has become from the “centuries-long agreement that the law cannot be read from the mere words of a legal text, but only from the will, or intention, of the lawgiver.” It arguably heralded “the end of the conservative legal movement, or conservative legal project, as we know it,” as Senator Josh Hawley put it. Something more is clearly needed: a flavor of originalist jurisprudence that is substantively conservative as such and not strictly positivist or value-neutral. Moreover, this substantively conservative hue of originalism must eschew the libertarian-infused “strict constructionism” that idolizes limitations on governmental power and individual-autonomy maximization. It should prefer instead a looser, “comfortable [jurisprudential] garment” that allows constitutional actors more ample room to pursue the traditional conservative political goals of justice, human flourishing, and the common good within their constitutionally allocated spheres of influence. Put more simply: The concerns of nation, community, and family alike must be prioritized over the one-way push toward ever-greater economic, sexual, and cultural liberationism. And this must be true not merely as a matter of public policy, but as a matter of legal interpretation. To the extent that conservative originalism purports to elevate judicial actors as somehow truly morally neutral, even on the most rudimentary of civilizational issues, it is not merely a methodological outlier—it is also at odds with human nature itself, thus making it profoundly un-conservative. There is nothing disreputable or otherwise illegitimate about a methodology of originalist constitutional interpretation—or, for that matter, statutory construction—that is intrinsically oriented toward substantive conservatism. On the contrary, progressive and libertarian strands of originalism, as they have been theorized, both already achieve this for their own respective political philosophies. Rather, it is conservative originalism—insofar as the term refers to the largely positivist, proceduralist, and judicial restraint-emphasizing mode of jurisprudence most closely associated with those like Scalia and the late Judge Robert Bork—that is the originalist family outlier, due to its lack of any intrinsic substantive orientation. To the extent that conservative originalism purports to elevate judicial actors as somehow truly morally neutral, even on the most rudimentary of civilizational issues, it is not merely a methodological outlier—it is also at odds with human nature itself, thus making it profoundly un-conservative. Common good originalism turns this outlier status on its head by offering a genuinely, earnestly conservative jurisprudence. The originalism of Founding-era luminaries such as Alexander Hamilton, Chief Justice John Marshall, and Justice James Wilson was centered on the common good that is our true Anglo-American inheritance, going back to the English common law. It rejects both insipid positivism and hapless literalism—encapsulated by Cohen v. California’s “one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric” sophistry and Gorsuch’s Bostock casuistry, respectively. It seeks to rehabilitate from the fringes of contemporary originalist theory the exegetical legitimacy of ratio legis, or “reason of the law,” that necessarily undergirds our Constitution and all statutes enacted into law pursuant thereto. It emphasizes that it is impossible to truly understand the meaning of any legal text without grappling with the idiosyncratic teleology of that text. And while it recognizes and appreciates the importance of the Constitution’s carefully devised structural safeguards—namely, federalism and the separation of powers—it is also more pliable, contra Jeffersonian “strict constructionism,” and thus more suitable to a complementary populist-inspired conservative politics eager to exercise political power in the service of good political order. Authentic Constitutional Interpretation Starts with the Preamble Fortunately, such a method of constitutional interpretation is not merely legitimate—it is the most authentic of all forms of originalist jurisprudence. That’s because it is anchored in the prescribed aims of the Constitution’s Preamble, the Constitution’s “statement to explain ‘whither we are going.’” While the Declaration of Independence—Abraham Lincoln’s “apple of gold” around which the Constitution was but a surrounding “frame of silver”—is undoubtedly important in constitutional interpretation, the geopolitical circumstances in July 1776 were quite different from those during the 1787 Constitutional Convention. The leading draftsmen of both documents, moreover, were also very different. It is rather curious, then, that the Preamble has been so readily ignored in constitutional interpretation. Common good originalism seeks to rectify this mistake. There are seven enumerated ends of self-government in the Preamble: a more perfect Union, establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, securing the blessings of liberty for us, and securing the blessings of liberty for our posterity. Each and every one of these political ends pertains to the statesman’s view of the common good of the nation, communities, and families. They do not pertain to the protection and promotion of individual rights. And interpreting both constitutional provisions and statutes passed pursuant to the Constitution through the exegetical prism of the Preamble is the sine qua non of common good originalism. The originalism of Founding-era luminaries such as Alexander Hamilton, Chief Justice John Marshall, and Justice James Wilson was centered on the common good that is our true Anglo-American inheritance, going back to the English common law. It rejects both insipid positivism and hapless literalism. Crucially, common good originalism, closely affiliated with Hamilton’s Founding-era Federalist Party, was validated during the republic’s first few decades as our Anglo-American constitutional inheritance. Indeed, it was legitimated by no less an authority than Chief Justice John Marshall in the famous 1819 case of McCulloch v. Maryland. In that case, Marshall rejected the Jeffersonian/Madisonian plea for an “absolute necessity” construction of the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause, preferring instead the Hamiltonian conception: “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are Constitutional.” This is a prudential, nationalist jurisprudence—one that is less fixated upon limiting political actors at all costs, and one more attuned to the latitude required by political actors as they pursue the common good of nation, communities, and families. It is the jurisprudence of the great Justice Joseph Story, that “proponent of constitutional nationalism” and pious Christian whose influential Commentaries on the Constitution were “overtly conservative in spirit.” This Is the Jurisprudence the New Consensus Needs The upshot is that common good originalism is the worthy complement to the New Right/“new consensus”—the jurisprudence best equipped to judicially and politically secure the substantive goods the likes of which the Public Discourse editors elevate, such as marriage and life, religion, education, and justice. Consider a few examples. Common good originalism stands athwart individual autonomy-maximizing, natural law-undermining marriage cases such as Obergefell v. Hodges. It would lend legitimate interpretive support to “The Lincoln Proposal” in the all-important right-to-life context. It would mightily oppose Jeffersonian notions of “separation of church and state” and the concomitant Supreme Court case of Everson v. Board of Education, bestowing a constitutional imprimatur upon political actors’ various attempts to codify ancient and biblical principles of natural justice. In the economic sphere, it would more directly aid political actors who seek to enact means—such as the “American System” elements of a national bank and internal improvements—best suited to creating jobs and locking in political support for the emergent multiracial working-class coalition upon which American conservatism must, and will, depend in the twenty-first century. Lawyers often tend to bore, and the study of law itself can veer toward the soporific. But a proper conception of law—and the American rule of law predicated on our constitutional order, in particular—will be a necessary foundation for any meaningful post-Trump, “new consensus” conservative revival. Common good originalism is the best chance for a constitutional complement to a politics of a conservative restoration: a profoundly and distinctly conservative politics that is faithful to our traditions and oriented toward the timeless political ends of justice, human flourishing, and the common good.

Claremont Review of Books editor Charles Kesler discusses his new book, Crisis of the Two Constitutions: The Rise, Decline, and Recovery of American Greatness at an event in Palm Beach in February. Read Hillsdale College President Larry P. Arnn’s review of the book in the Winter 2021 issue of the Claremont Review of Books. Order your copy of Crisis of the Two Constitutions today!

The American Mind’s ‘Editorial Roundtable’ podcast is a weekly conversation with Ryan Williams, Matt Peterson, James Poulos, Seth Barron, and Spencer Klavan devoted to uncovering the ideas and principles that drive American political life. Stream here or download from your favorite podcast host. The Woke Orthodoxy | The Roundtable Ep. 60 If you’re a wealthy prep school parent wanting to discuss how the maw of woke culture is swallowing up all things good and true, you’ll have to do it in secret or face instant cancellation. Meanwhile, the House passed the dubiously-titled “For the People Act,” which would do a number on representative government. Plus: The good and bad of National Review.

Seth Barron joins ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight’ to discuss the Democrats’ recent change of heart towards Governor Cuomo, while conveniently ignoring his COVID-19 mismangement scandal. Seth Barron is managing editor of The American Mind.

The American Mind’s ‘Editorial Roundtable’ podcast is a weekly conversation with Ryan Williams, Matt Peterson, James Poulos, Seth Barron, and Spencer Klavan devoted to uncovering the ideas and principles that drive American political life. Stream here or download from your favorite podcast host. COVID and Cancel Culture | The Roundtable Ep. 59 The light at the end of the COVID tunnel is finally within sight—provided you live in a red state. Blue states remain under the thumbs of petty tyrants. Meanwhile, cancel culture claims new victims, from Mr. Potato Head to Dr. Seuss. Plus: Sacramento’s school district is pushing for the formation of “racial affinity groups”—a new caste system looms.

The American Mind’s ‘Editorial Roundtable’ podcast is a weekly conversation with Ryan Williams, Matt Peterson, James Poulos, Seth Barron, and Spencer Klavan devoted to uncovering the ideas and principles that drive American political life. Stream here or download from your favorite podcast host. Can Clubhouse Survive? | The Roundtable Ep. 58 While free speech finds a new venue in the popular app Clubhouse, Democrats in Congress are openly asking TV carriers why Republican and conservative-leaning channels like OANN and Fox News are allowed on the air. It’s a new front in the war between digital renegades and regime flunkies: a profusion of energy on one side, a chilling desire to squash dissidents on the other. Can Clubhouse and other apps like it survive a coming onslaught by petty tyrants?

The American Mind’s ‘Editorial Roundtable’ podcast is a weekly conversation with Ryan Williams, Matt Peterson, James Poulos, Seth Barron, and Spencer Klavan devoted to uncovering the ideas and principles that drive American political life. Stream here or download from your favorite podcast host. The Egotist and the Icon | The Roundtable Ep. 57 Rush Limbaugh passed away yesterday—his work touched tens of millions of people, our editors included. Then there’s Governor Cuomo, who is embroiled in a scandal after covering up COVID nursing home deaths from the public. Plus: the Claremont Institute has launched a new DC-based branch: The Center for the American Way of Life. Arthur Milikh, the Center’s executive director, joins to talk about reclaiming a more robust kind of conservatism.

The American Mind’s ‘Editorial Roundtable’ podcast is a weekly conversation with Ryan Williams, Matt Peterson, James Poulos, David Bahr, and Spencer Klavan devoted to uncovering the ideas and principles that drive American political life. Stream here or download from your favorite podcast host. Creeping Progressive Policy | The Roundtable Ep. 56 The second impeachment trial of former President Trump lumbers on, but does anybody even care about this undisguised show trial? Melinda Gates and elites like her would appreciate it if you would just think that everything fits neatly into a Marxist box. That notion isn’t just wrong—it’s degrading—especially when applied to women. Plus: Mitt Romney has proposed cutting checks to families that have children. Our editors analyze.

The American Mind’s ‘Editorial Roundtable’ podcast is a weekly conversation with Ryan Williams, Matt Peterson, James Poulos, David Bahr, and Spencer Klavan devoted to uncovering the ideas and principles that drive American political life. Stream here or download from your favorite podcast host. Thrasymachus All the Way Down | The Roundtable Ep. 55 The Left is laying the rhetorical groundwork for a domestic war on Trump supporters, as red state governments start planning how to respond. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis announced plans to push back on the Big Tech Cartel—will they work? Our editors, joined for the first time by new managing editor Seth Barron, discuss the desperation and discreditation of the mainstream media.

We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.

We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.

The American Mind’s ‘Editorial Roundtable’ podcast is a weekly conversation with Ryan Williams, Matt Peterson, James Poulos, David Bahr, and Spencer Klavan devoted to uncovering the ideas and principles that drive American political life. Stream here or download from your favorite podcast host. Biden’s Opening Salvo | The Roundtable Ep. 53 It’s official: Biden is the 46th president. Beneath the inane boilerplate of the new president’s speech (accompanied by a tearful chorus of celebration from the usual journos) lurked a much more sinister kind of rhetoric. Our editors give a close reading of the address. Plus: Biden scrapped the 1776 Commission. What’s he up to?

We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.

There’s a social media site whose glitzy videos populate your newsfeed. Its content overflows with typical leftist tropes. No, it’s not CNN or MSNBC. You should know what it is and the nefarious people backing it. Raheem Kassam, author of No Go Zones and 2018 Claremont Lincoln Fellow, joins PragerU to explain why, when you come across these videos, you should swipe left.

We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.

The American Mind’s ‘Editorial Roundtable’ podcast is a weekly conversation with Ryan Williams, Matt Peterson, James Poulos, David Bahr, and Spencer Klavan devoted to uncovering the ideas and principles that drive American political life. Stream here or download from your favorite podcast host. Banned from Everything | The Roundtable Ep. 52 In the wake of January 6, a multitude of personalities—from both sides of the aisle—came out of the woodwork to call for banning Trump and many of his supporters from the largest social media platforms. The editors discuss this dropping of the banhammer, focusing especially on David French’s “analysis” of the situation. Plus: Trump has been impeached for a second time.