The Portly Politico

New Summer, New Site

noreply@blogger.com (The Portly Politico) — Fri, 01 Jun 2018 14:30:00 +0000

Happy June, fellow politicos!

After writing here on Blogger for nearly a decade, I've decided to move The Portly Politico to WordPress. You can find the new site here.

Please take a moment to navigate over to the new site and subscribe via the "Follow" button on the right-hand side of the page.

I have quite a few long-term plans for TPP, including eBooks and a podcast. I'm currently working on an eBook that will collect and edit my series of Brexit essays, which I hope to make available via Amazon later this summer.

I'll maintain this blog as an archive of classic-era TPP posts, but all new posts will appear at the WordPress site.

Once again, thanks to everyone who has subscribed to and supported the blog up to this point. Head over to https://theportlypolitico.wordpress.com and subscribe for all the latest!

Happy Summer!

--TPP

Republicans - Give Us Tax Cuts this Christmas

noreply@blogger.com (The Portly Politico) — Fri, 01 Dec 2017 16:30:00 +0000

Despite some last-minute scrambling, it appears the Republicans in Congress might actually accomplish something this year and get a form of tax cuts passed. While I don't like some parts of the proposed changes--particularly the insistence that the cuts be revenue-neutral, with mechanisms to trigger tax increases--cutting the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20-22% is worth the compromise.

The cut in the corporate rate alone will supercharge the economy, as companies relocate to (or stay in) the United States and begin employing more Americans. Even if some Americans see a modest increase in their personal tax liability over time, the increased employment and wages from domestic investment and corporate expansion should offset most of the unpleasantness.

"[Cutting] the corporate [tax] rate... will supercharge the economy."

If I had my druthers, we'd have a slashed corporate and personal rate across all brackets, as well as the simplification of the brackets contained in the Republican plan. With those reforms should also come substantial cuts to federal expenditures.

I've always wanted to fan a stack of these around.

(Source: http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=223419&picture=money)

I'm an extreme budgeter, and and I strenuously disapprove of deficits. I also suspect that the national debt and mandatory entitlement spending have grown so immense that it is increasingly difficult to grow ourselves out of the problem with tax cuts. Nevertheless, I'm all for "starving the beast," and I'm willing to see spending cuts put aside for a time if it means slashing taxes.

Regardless, the current tax reform bill, while flawed, is good enough. Just don't delay the cuts until 2019, as one version of the Senate's proposal suggested; that's just asking for a recession.

Make the cuts immediate effective 1 January 2018. Then get to work on cutting federal expenditures--with an ax, not a scalpel.

For a more thorough dissection and defense of the tax bill, read Michael Barone's piece at National Review: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454240/republican-tax-bill-serious-reform

Moore Updates - 29 November 2017

noreply@blogger.com (The Portly Politico) — Wed, 29 Nov 2017 18:30:00 +0000

Some quick updates on the special Alabama Senate race:

- After Democrat Doug Jones rose above Moore in the RealClearPolitics average of polls late last week, the current RCP average puts Moore at a 2% lead. That's still within the margin of error, but as I argued in a previous post, unless Jones is ahead by more than 3-5% in the polls, Moore is probably safe.

- Other polling shows Moore further ahead, including one that puts Moore up by 5 points over Jones.

- D.C. McAllister at The Federalist makes a strong case for why Christians are justified in voting for Moore, regardless of the veracity of the particular allegations brought against him. It's a long read, but interesting, and good food for thought. Read it here.

Unless there are some serious new allegations closer to election day on 12 December, Moore should win the race. At this point, the intensity of the allegations have died down, and voters are back to considering the issues. Conservative Alabamans are likely to support a flawed conservative who had some unusual sexual peccadilloes forty years ago over a ultra-progressive Democrat.

Monday Morning Update for 27 November 2017: Let Us Give Thanks

noreply@blogger.com (The Portly Politico) — Mon, 27 Nov 2017 11:00:00 +0000

We have much to be thankful for this Christmas season--I certainly do--but it's easy to forget how much America's situation has improved since President Trump took office. The improvement goes beyond the record-breaking stock prices, however; massive, unprecedented deregulation from the executive branch has super-charged growth and expanded liberty. The boot heel of an oppressive federal government has given way to a pro-growth, pro-American government that believes in catalyzing, not crippling, American businesses, workers, and organizations.

President Donald J. Trump: A Smirk Well-Deserved

(Source: http://15130-presscdn-0-89.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/trump-smirk.jpg)

Fortunately, Deroy Murdock has detailed President Trump's substantial policy successes (most of them, unfortunately, coming from the executive branch; Congress, especially the Senate, is still asleep at the switch). Just when I thought National Review had totally gone over to the noodle-wristed "decorum" crowd (barring the occasional dose of courage from Victor Davis Hanson or Conrad Black), it was refreshing to read this piece of unadulterated triumphalism.

Without further ado, I give you Deroy Murdock's "This Thanksgiving, Thank Donald J. Trump": http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454028/donald-trump-accomplishments-thanksgiving

Happy Monday!

--TPP

It's a Thanksgiving Miracle!

noreply@blogger.com (The Portly Politico) — Thu, 23 Nov 2017 19:30:00 +0000

This past Saturday, I fell from a ladder while hanging Christmas lights at my girlfriend's home office. I shattered my left wrist--it's called a distal radius fracture--and gashed my left leg. My head was also hurt, but there was no damage to my brain.

The fall was about 10-12 feet onto concrete. It could have been much, much worse; I am very thankful it wasn't.

The doctor at the ER and the nurse practitioner both told me I would almost certainly need surgery due to the nature of my fracture. I saw the orthopedist Tuesday, and he was able to set the fracture to an "acceptable" state.

America's Favorite Food

Setting the fracture without surgery was a major answer to prayer. I go back on 5 December for a follow-up; if the setting takes, I'll get a flexi-cast. If not, I'll have to have surgery.

That's all to say that my posting will be typing for a time, as typing is rather tedious (I'm "typing" this post on my cell phone--the predictive text actually makes it faster). I'll continue to do my best to deliver quality content and thoughtful analysis, just in shorter and less frequent chunks.

I am very thankful to our Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ, for extending His Hand of protection and healing; He has already worked miracles during my recovery through the prayers of many friends and family (not to mention the capable hands of my excellent orthopedic surgeon). I'm grateful to be alive!

God Bless, and Happy Thanksgiving!

--TPP

Alabama Special Election - Poll Predictions

noreply@blogger.com (The Portly Politico) — Mon, 20 Nov 2017 11:00:00 +0000

In my previous post, I laid out a defense of Judge Roy Moore, Republican candidate for US Senate in Alabama's special election. Prior to a series of lurid sexual allegations, Moore was hugely favored to win the deep-red State's senate seat.

In light of these allegations--and amid cowardly calls from the Republican Establishment to withdraw from the race--Moore's poll numbers have wavered.

That's not surprising. What is more interesting, however, is that Moore's numbers have not changed substantially; rather, his opponent, Democrat Doug Jones, has enjoyed a bump.

At the time of writing (Thursday, 16 November 2017), the RealClearPolitics average of polls (link) has Moore ahead by a meager 0.8%, with 47.2% of likely voters. Jones has the support of 46.4% of likely voters (in one Fox News poll, Jones enjoys a six-point lead!).

Just a week prior (Thursday, 9 November 2017)--before the bulk of the accusations against Moore materialized--Moore sat at 48%, with Jones at 42%.

Note that Moore's average poll numbers have only fallen by 0.8%--hardly a catastrophic slide. Jones's numbers, on the other hand, have seen a 4.4% boost.

Even on 9 November, 10% of likely Alabama voters were undecided. Now, that number has fallen to 6.4%. In other words, in one week, 3.6% of undecided voters have "decided" for Jones, while only 0.8% of Moore voters have flipped.

That infamous Fox News poll? It had a sample size of about 500 voters, and polls tend to skew toward Democratic voters (presumably, they have the free time from guzzling sweet, sweet government bennies to answer phone polls).

Meanwhile, a local Fox affiliate in Alabama, Fox10, commissioned its own poll with Strategy Research (link). That poll has a healthier sample size of 3000, and puts Moore up over Jones by a respectable six points, 49% to 43%, respectively, with 8% of voters undecided.

Of those polled, 35% said the allegations made them more likely to vote for Moore. Among undecided voters, 6% said the allegations made them more likely to vote for Moore, 44% less likely to vote for Moore, and a whopping 51% were either undecided or said that "the allegations make no difference in their vote."

Doug Jones, Democratic Candidate (top) and Judge Roy Moore, Republican Candidate for Senate (bottom; Source: https://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2017/senate/al/alabama_senate_special_election_moore_vs_jones-6271.html#polls)

What does this all mean?

For one, the election will come down to undecided voters. If any of the truly wicked allegations against Moore are proven (it's unorthodox, to be sure, but I don't consider respectful courting of legal-aged women--with their mothers' permission!--in the late 1970s as particularly wicked), that 51% of the 6-8% of undecided will likely push Jones over the top. However, if no plausible evidence emerges to indict Moore decisively in the public mind, then he should win over enough of those undecided voters to get the Senate seat, although I predict he'll take a hit among women either way.

Support from his existing supporters remains solid. Take a look at that 35% who are more likely to vote for Moore after the allegations. Surely a solid third of Alabama Republicans aren't supporting Moore because he's said to have dated teenagers (and to have inappropriately groped a half-naked fourteen-year old). Why would they stick with him?

The answer: they smell a rat. Media bias reeked throughout the 2016 election, when Donald Trump--whom Alabamans supported in droves--fought off sexual harassment allegations of his own. Those allegations looked like they would swamp Trump's candidacy when they aired in October 2016--a month before the election. He batted them away by turning the tables on Secretary Hillary Clinton's lothario husband, former President Bill Clinton.

Moore is in a nearly-identical situation: he's a lovable culture warrior who has put his career on the line for his principles. He's bucked the Establishment of his own party, and his allure goes beyond policy specifics. He's a Jacksonian hero who, while he may be rough around the edges, appeals to everyday folks with his common sense and tenacity. While Trump was a household name throughout the country, Moore is a household name in Alabama.

So when these allegations emerged almost exactly a month before the 12 December election day, Moore supporters naturally had to be skeptical, especially coming from the Washington Post, an outlet that endorsed Doug Jones.

When Senate Majority Mitch McConnell, "Republican" Senator John McCain, and other Establishment heavies began calling for Moore to withdraw from the race, more than a few Moore voters had to suspect that the machinery of the Trump-skeptical GOP congressional leadership was either involved, or gleefully hoping to oust a damaged candidate.

When faced with the prospect of voting for a partial-birth abortion-supporting Jones or a potentially flawed conservative Christian culture warrior with a penchant for younger women, many Moore voters must have drawn the conclusion--as they did with then-candidate Trump--that a flawed conservative is better than a pure, progressive Democratic.

"[Moore is] a Jacksonian hero who, while he may be rough around the edges, appeals to everyday folks with his common sense and tenacity."

I have another--controversial--theory that, if correct, could wreck any poll numbers that put Jones up by less than 3-5%: just as Trump enjoyed more support than the polls--even exit polls--suggested, I believe Moore will experience a similar phenomenon. Right now, few people want to tell a phone pollster (even a computerized voice) that they support a man accused of, at best, dating teenagers.

This reluctance will be most prevalent among men (again, I suspect that Moore will take more damage from women, regardless of what revelations the future holds). There are probably thousands of men in Alabama tonight who are thinking, "Well, I wouldn't want a 32-year old dating my daughter, but I can see why he would have dated younger women." They can never utter this aloud, but they're thinking it.

Finally, just look at any comment thread on any story about Moore, especially one a local website. The pro-Jones folks are invariably insufferable Lefties from out-of-state lecturing to the good folks of Alabama to "not be stupid" and the like. The Moore supporters are grassroots and ready to back their candidate to the hilt.

While anything could happen, I think the trends on the ground will favor Moore. If he can fight back the accusations, he can turn the election into a fight against Democratic outsiders attempting to influence the election, AND the Republican Establishment trying to keep him down.

We're in the age of the outsider, and Roy Moore is the ultimate outsider. Let's see if he can pull a Trump and do some good in the Senate.

The Alabama Special Election, Principles, and Persecution

noreply@blogger.com (The Portly Politico) — Fri, 17 Nov 2017 11:00:00 +0000

The campaign of Alabama Senate candidate Judge Roy Moore is reeling after allegations that, in the 1970s and 1980s, Moore dated several teenage girls. The Washington Post article that broke the news focuses on Leigh Corfman, who alleges that Moore approached her at the courthouse in Etowah County, Alabama, when she was only fourteen-years old. After obtaining her phone number, Corfman claims Moore met with her and forced her to touch him over the underwear.

Several other women also told the Washington Post that they dated Moore while he was in his early 30s and they in their late teens. These other women were between sixteen and eighteen (sixteen is the legal age of consent in Alabama), and report that their dates with the young deputy district attorney were respectful, involving no physical contact beyond hugging and kissing. One of the women even said her mother was thrilled that her daughter was dating a successful attorney.

Judge Moore denied all of the allegations, but each day seems to bring some fresh revelation or twist. He has since said that he may have dated some teenagers of legal age when he was younger. The truth is difficult to discern, but here is what we do know:

Four women--all above the legal age of consent--reported that Moore was respectful (one noted that after her mother forbid her from dating an older man, their relationship ended, apparently without any further fanfare).
Leigh Corfman, who was fourteen at the time of the alleged groping, was the only woman accusing Moore of any explicitly illegal and illicit sexual activity.
Tina Johnson emerged a few days into the controversy, alleging that Moore grabbed her butt in 1991. (Link)
Judge Moore has been married to his wife, Kayla Moore, who is younger than him by fourteen years, for decades. She has defended her husband fiercely in the face of these accusations.
Moore has run multiple local and statewide campaigns--many of them controversial--and no allegations have emerged during any of these (highly contentious) campaigns.
Moore is a boogeyman for the political Left, and something of a Jacksonian folk hero for the Right. He famously refused to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from the grounds of the Alabama Judicial Building after a federal court ruled it constituted an establishment of religion (Alan Keyes eloquently denounced that federal court order in a classic essay--and, for my students, perennial Government class assignment--entitled "On the Establishment of Religion: What the Constitution Really Says"), leading to his removal from the Alabama Supreme Court in 2003.

He was reelected to the Alabama Supreme Court ten years later, only to be removed again in 2016 for refusing to comply with the Supreme Court's dubious decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark case that read into the Constitution a heretofore unwritten and unrecognized right for same-sex couples to marry.
Moore was favored by the Bannonite-wing of the Republican Party (if such a thing exists) in the intense Republican primary run-off battle against Senator Luther Strange, who had been appointed to fill the vacant seat after Jeff Sessions was tapped to serve as Attorney General in the Trump administration. The Republican Establishment--notably Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, but also President Trump--supported Strange, while Moore was cast as the "Trumpian" candidate.

Those last two points raise my eyebrows. Here's a man who is no stranger to (political) controversy, the consummate culture warrior in an age when every political battle seems to connect to cultural and social values. Moore's firm religious convictions make him evil in the eyes of progressive Democrats, and embarrassing to well-heeled, Establishment, country-club Republicans.

It's no secret that the Washington Post endorsed Moore's opponent, Democrat Doug Jones. Then the Post sought out women who claim to have had encounters with Moore. For a heavily left-leaning publication hoping to humiliate the sitting president and the Republican Party in a deep red state, the temptation to go after a popular but controversial populist figure would have to have been palpable.

The disdain of the Establishment Republicans for Moore (and, by extension, President Trump) could explain the fervor with which they have gone after Moore, calling for him to resign within mere hours of the Post's story breaking. It's as though McConnell was just waiting for something like this to cross his desk, so he and other RINOs could rush out to denounce Moore and try to twenty-three-skidoo in their preferred candidate.

It seems that Republican leadership has succumbed to the same mania for virtue-signalling that dominates the Left. I can barely read National Review--formerly one of my favorite publications--because of its consistently noodle-wristed editorializing whenever any populist-oriented Republican speaks out of turn. Just read David French's off-putting essay on "creepy Christianity" here. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Judge Roy Moore in 2011 (Photo Credit: BibleWizard, extracted from YouTube, accessed 16 November 2017 from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Judge_Roy_Moore.jpg)

The worst of the accusations--the groping of the fourteen-year old and the incident in 1991--don't seem to fit the pattern of the stories the other women told the Post. I'm fully willing to concede that, based on what we're learning now, a young Roy Moore dated some girls in their late teens. He married a woman fourteen years his junior. Clearly, he had a taste for younger women, but he hasn't committed adultery, as one of his most vocal critics, Senator John McCain, did, and his relationships, by all accounts, were above-board. He's remained faithful--as far as we know--to his wife.

"For a heavily left-leaning publication hoping to humiliate the sitting president and the Republican Party in a deep red state, the temptation to go after a popular but controversial populist figure would have to have been palpable."

It may seem unorthodox now--and I am certainly not advocating that thirty-two-year old men start dating sixteen-year olds!--but such age-disparate relationships were more common and socially acceptable forty years ago. For a fuller examination of this point, I refer you to Frank J. Tipler's piece at American Thinker; read it here.

Regardless, the Left has no logical grounds for objection. How can a philosophical and political movement that endorses every sexual arrangement imaginable stand against legal, age-disparate, consenting relationships and maintain even a modicum of internal consistency? Again, this is no endorsement of such relationships, but if you're the party of transgender, bisexual, polyamorous, gay, lesbian, queer, inter-species rights, how can you draw the line here? You've already run miles past it.

Ultimately, squeamish National Review-and-Establishment types are claiming the moral high ground, arguing that a US Senate seat isn't worth sacrificing principles. At this point, though, their haste to condemn Moore smacks of moral cowardice and political opportunism. Are they not going to at least entertain the idea that the man is innocent, or was just a bit unorthodox in his dating habits forty years ago? Rather than try to scuttle a still-popular candidate before he barely has a chance to defend himself, could not McConnell and other Senate Republicans attempt to reach out to the Moore campaign? Even if he's not your style of Republican, you could learn to work with him, rather than prome to expel him from the Senate if he wins!

This video from Stefan Molyneux (below; WARNING--NSFW) gets down to brass tacks: preserving the Republican's razor-thin majority in the Senate is worth showing some political backbone, rather than allowing a partial-birth abortion-supporting Democrat to snag the seat.

This election suggests that Establishment Republicans, for all their talk of decorum and principles, are sometimes little better or different than their Democratic opponents. They don't want a scrappy culture warrior And despite some dire poll numbers, the accusations may not stick: according to RCP polling, Moore was up 3 points over Jones (as of 14 November), though he has fallen to a far more dicey 0.8% lead (as of 16 November, the date this post was written). That's within the margin of error, though certainly not the double-digit lead Republicans want in Alabama. More on those poll numbers, and my analysis of them, to come.

If we learn that Moore did indeed assault Leigh Cofrman, than I'll retract my defense of him immediately. But for now, we have no consistent pattern of bad behavior, and what appears to be some very powerful opponents arrayed against a man who has suffered professionally for his beliefs. From where I'm sitting, Judge Moore's treatment looks more like persecution than justice.

Kid Rock - The People's Senator

noreply@blogger.com (The Portly Politico) — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 10:30:00 +0000

This piece will (probably) be published soon at American Patriot Radio (Link). You can read some of my other writings there; I recommend "Pat Buchanan's America."

Political wags and armchair pundits--like yours truly--have been abuzz about the possibility of a Kid Rock Senate run in 2018. He'd be running against Democratic incumbent Senator Debbie Stabenow--if he can win the Republican primaries--in a Trump-style insurgency campaign.

Immediate speculation focused on Kid Rock's website, www.kidrockforsenate.com, and whether or not the Detroit rocker was serious, or just boosting publicity for his music. Kid Rock (real name Robert Ritchie) is offering campaign apparel on the website, including bumper stickers.

I purchased a bumper sticker ($5... plus $6.99 shipping) and it billed to Warner Brothers, not a "Kid Rock for Senate" campaign committee. Nevertheless, Kid Rock appears to be serious: he's made an announcement at www.kidrock.com (link).

The announcement is straight out of Trump's playbook: he goes after "fake news," promises to be "a voice for tax paying, hardworking AMERICANS," and invokes "We the People."

Kid Rock is a populist at heart, and we're living in a populist moment.

There's not much to add to what's already been said, but I'll go out on a limb and say that Kid Rock should definitely run--and I think he can win. As Michigan native Jordan Gehrke writes at The Federalist:

"The Michigan Senate race will be the most-watched campaign in America in 2018 if he runs. It’s got everything: celebrity, a battleground Trump won in 2016 and must win again to get re-elected, a conventional, disciplined, well-funded Democrat, a re-run of 2016, and a trailer for 2020, all rolled into one." (Link)

Naturally, the Establishment is poo-pooing Kid Rock's potential run as the "dumbing down" of America. Sure, he's crude, he's crass, he's kind of trashy--but he really seems to care about the people of Michigan. And they love him. While it's unlikely that any Republican will ever win Detroit in its current state, none has the opportunity to suck up votes in the city better than hometown hero Kid Rock. With the support from rural Michigan--bona fide Trump Country--Kid Rock could best a powerful, well-funded Democratic incumbent. A new poll from the Trafalgar Group has Kid Rock winning the Republican primary against potential opponents handily, and within the margin of error against Stabenow

Kid Rock is a populist at heart, and we're living in a populist moment. His care for the common man shows in his music career; for years, he's been giving big concerts (with some big-name opening acts, like Foreigner) for just $20 a ticket. In the face of ever-rising concert ticket prices, that concern for his fans' wallets spoke volumes. That's the same kind of connection with the "little guy" that could propel him into office on a platform of government transparency and reform.

Regardless, one thing is for sure--if Kid Rock runs, 2018 will be the most exciting midterm election season in years.

A Portly Politico Update; Site Re-Launch (Coming Soon)

noreply@blogger.com (The Portly Politico) — Tue, 13 Jun 2017 10:00:00 +0000

Hi there, Portly Fans.

Since last summer, I've only made one post--my 2016 election guide--and I have definitely missed out on some major events. I'd originally planned to write about the presidential election and its aftermath, covering the ups and downs of the process. Unfortunately, teaching obligations--and, I'll admit, the unusually heated rhetoric of the campaign trail--kept me quiet during a very loud election.

I hate to confess it, but this election was the first time I didn't relish debating my progressive friends and colleagues. The gulf in worldviews, as well as the overall rancor toward then-candidate Trump, dampened my enthusiasm for dialogue, debate, and discussion (that didn't stop me from wearing a bright red "TRUMP" hat to school the morning after the election, but that's a story for another time). That might make me weak, but I opted to work quietly rather than talk to an ideological brick wall. Apparently, millions of Americans did the same, and made their voices heard at the ballot box.

Regardless, here's a recap of (most) everything that's occurred since last summer:

- Donald J. Trump won a convincing Electoral College victory, proving once again the wisdom of that institution. Hallelujah!

(I don't know which is better--Trump winning, or Secretary Clinton losing--but I'm thrilled either way.)

- Donald J. Trump was inaugurated President of the United States. I still feel like I'm living in a dream.

- Republicans maintained control of Congress (not that it's done much good, but we got Neil Gorsuch).

- Speaking of, President Trump--mmmm, it's soooo good to type that--nominated Neil Gorsuch, a constitutional originalist, to the Supreme Court.

- Insufferable Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) have lost a LOT of ground culturally, and globalist elites are gnashing their teeth. I don't want to relish in Schadenfreude--and, honestly, the day-after-the-election reactions were so ridiculous, they took the fun out of good-natured ribbing--but it's refreshing to win one, especially when it seemed so unlikely.

(On the note of the culture wars, many more Americans--as well as some of the youngest Americans--are red-pilling; don't pop the bubbly yet, but radical feminism and post-modernism are taking a beating. Here's a bit of my favorite kind of evidence--anecdotal: while I witness some gender-bending, I overhear some conversations among students that lean heavily toward a traditional worldview. Girls want to be treated like ladies and to be feminine; boys want to be men... in general. One of my former students transformed from a Sandersnista into a Trumpster in less than a year; that's how rapidly the battle lines are shifting.)

- National conservatism took some lumps, however, in France (and, most recently, in Britain with Prime Minister Teresa May's humiliating showing in the special election), but Brexit rolls on (woo-hoo!).

While history happened, I ate burgers in Hawaiian t-shirts. Even this picture isn't new--but it is ALL-AMERICAN. Make Lunch Great Again!

- SC Governor Nikki Haley became the United Nations Ambassador, putting Trump supporter Henry McMaster into the Governor's Mansion.

- The Left has continued to persecute the Trump Administration, but he keeps winning (maybe not legislatively, but he slayed incompetent FBI Director James Comey, and he's all but beaten the increasingly desperate claims that he colluded with the Russians). It feels like we're living through the Nixon era again (but that's not a bad thing--it's Pat Buchanan's America, baby).

- Our constitutional system faces a major threat from the "deep state"--the "swamp" of Trump's campaign rhetoric, coupled with the powerful intelligence agencies that influence (control?) the government outside of constitutional and democratic accountability. That's a terrifying topic for a future post.

- The future of conservatism is up in the air, but it is probably due for an update. We've ignored the working class for too long. Nixon won a landslide in 1972 reaching out to the Silent Majority. Trump played the exact same playbook and had a 1968 outcome. If he can weather the Left's storm--and if they continue to radicalize leftward--2020 might be a repeat of 1972 (except that the country is far more divided in its worldview now). 2016 demonstrated that Americans were fed up with eight years of a progressive administration that kept spiking the football after every political and cultural victory.

***

Naturally, I've got a lot of catching up to do. Here's my vision for the future of The Portly Politico:

- A new platform. I've enjoyed using Blogger, but I've hit a wall with the features I'd like to implement. In the near future, I'll be moving to a new website, and will maintain this page as an archive for older essays.

- Short posts. In the meantime, I'll be making short posts to the existing Blogger site. These posts won't be as long as my output from Summer 2016, but they'll offer quick commentary on current events.

- eBooks. I'm working on an eBook about the importance of social and cultural conservatism. I'm also planning a series of books on great historic leaders, drawing lessons from their lives that are applicable to morality, ethics, and politics today.

- Podcast. I'll be introducing a weekly, 20-or-30-minute podcast. More details to come. Maybe Audible will become a sponsor?

- Public speaking. Especially after the eBook launches, I hope to book talks with local groups. I've already worked up two good talks, one a reassessment of Samuel Huntington's "A Clash of Civilizations?," the other a general overview of contract theory. Exciting stuff.

- American Patriot Radio (www.patriotic-radio.com). I've been associated with the good folks at APR for a few years now. I'm also a guest contributor, and I've linked to some of my pieces there throughout this post. My hope is that I'll contribute a few shorter pieces there a few times a week, and I'll provide links from my new site when it launches. In the meantime, you can check out submissions from various writers here.

***

That's just a sampling of what's to come. What would you like to see from the TPP? What's your take on the past seven months? How's Trump doing? Leave an angry comment below and let me know!

The Portly Politico's Hastily-Written, (Mostly) Unbiased Guide to the 2016 Election

noreply@blogger.com (The Portly Politico) — Tue, 08 Nov 2016 11:00:00 +0000

Hi faithful TPP Readers,

I've been gone for awhile--nearly three months. My plan was to write post on a weekly basis, covering the presidential election and other events as they occurred.

Unfortunately, life and work have a tendency to take over during the school year, and I've been woefully behind in updating the blog. As such, my planned eBook on social conservatism has been delayed, as had a campaign-oriented book about the rise and worldview of Donald Trump. I anticipate working on both in the near future.

For my brief comeback, I thought I'd share with you a a brief election guide that I write every election year for my colleagues and students (those that are eligible to vote, that is). As noted, I've been very delayed in putting it together due to various disruptions, mostly related to Hurricane Matthew. As such, this year's guide is much briefer (and more hastily-written) than my expansive SC Presidential Primaries Election Guide. That being the case, I'm only going to focus on a few races (note--for readers primarily interested in the presidential election, scroll down, as I start with some local races; also, note that some of my assessments of local candidates are admittedly broad; finally, I do not link extensively to corroborating stories in the presidential section, so you feel free to do some additional research. In short, these summaries are impressionistic sketches of the races and candidates. I have not received any compensation from any candidates or candidate committees for these reflections):

Florence (SC) City Council

There are two "at-large" seats up for grabs this cycle, with three candidates: Democratic incumbent Octavia Williams-Blake; Democratic contender (and former Republican Councilman) Glynn Willis; and Republican hopeful Chris Wegmann. Because there are two seats available, you can vote for two of these three candidates.

Councilwoman Blake seems to be a competent individual, but otherwise I don't know much about her.

I know both Glynn Willis and Chris Wegmann personally, to varying degrees. Willis served on the Council for two years as a Republican, before losing a re-election bid to Democrat George Jebaily (whose son I once taught). Willis switched parties for several reasons, not just political opportunism, but one has to suspect that, the demographics of urban races being what they are, Willis calculated that he'd do better with a "D" after his name than an "R" (currently, there is only one Republican on Florence City Council, Councilman Robbie Hill, who is leaving at the end of his term). Willis is a nice guy, but his party-swapping might smack of careerism to voters.

Chris Wegmann is a Government teacher and coach (women's golf and men's track, I believe) at West Florence High School. He is a sharp, intelligent, perceptive individual, and is very passionate about improving Florence. He seems to be on-board with the Downtown Revitalization Project, and has done a good job of reaching out to all voters, not just Republicans. He recently garnered the endorsement of Tony McElveen, Sr., which demonstrates either his ability to win over traditionally Democratic black voters, or represents a serious political liability; it depends about what you think about Tony.

I strongly recommend Chris Wegmann to those of you that live in Florence's city limits. I also think Councilwoman Williams-Blake will continue to do a fine job.

To learn more about the candidates, read this piece from The Florence Morning News: http://www.scnow.com/news/election_2016/article_45961960-8d99-11e6-b7e9-e30dfcfaa711.html

Florence County Sheriff

Again, I don't know much about the candidates in this race, but I do know it's very difficult to defeat an incumbent sheriff, especially a popular and good sheriff. That's the situation in this race: incumbent Sheriff Kenney Boone enjoys a great deal of respect through the community, and his office seems to be handling the post-hurricane recovery fairly well (you may disagree).

His challenger is Jody Lynch, an Air Force veteran who would be the only female sheriff in the State of South Carolina. Her platform seems to focus on community outreach and looking at the long-term rehabilitation of criminals. Mostly, I've just noticed her annoying, hot pink campaign signs, which seem not-so-subtly to advertise, "vote for me because I'm a girl." I don't care if the sheriff is male, female, or a demiqueer otherkin; I just want him/her/xyr to be good at his/her/its job.

This one is up to you. You can read more about the candidates here: http://wbtw.com/2016/11/04/florence-county-sheriffs-race-candidates/

US House District 7

I honestly had to spend about five minutes Googling just to figure out who incumbent Congressman Tom Rice's (R) opponent is. That does not bode well for Democratic challenger Mal Hyman. Rice was first elected in 2012--the first year that District 7, which comprises most of the Pee Dee, as well as Horry and Georgetown Counties, elected a representative--and has done an admirable job. He currently sits on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. Through his position, he convinced the White House to designate Florence a "disaster zone"--and, therefore, made it eligible for FEMA assistance--after Hurricane Matthew. His main focus since 2012 has been "jobs, jobs, jobs."

On a personal note, Congressman Rice is one of the most down-to-earth, endearing individuals I've ever met. He's very laid-back--he often shows up to swanky campaign events wearing jeans--and loves giving lengthy tours to students and adults of the Capitol Building. But when it comes time to work, he works hard for his constituents.

That's all to say that I know very little, if anything, about Mal Hyman, so I can't be too much help. Look for Tom Rice to win in a landslide (unlike his first run against Gloria Tinubu in 2012). The 7th District has grown redder since he was first elected.

US Senate

The US Senate race features another charismatic and personally-likeable Republican, the affable Senator Tim Scott, against a relatively unknown Democrat, Thomas Dixon (you can also vote for the awesomely-named Rebel Michael Scarborough of the American Party, or the less-awesomely-named Bill Bledsoe, who is running under both the Constitutional and Libertarian Party banners).

Senator Scott was appointed by Governor Nikki Haley to fill a vacancy left by former Senator Jim DeMint when he left to head up the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank. He has subsequently been on the ballot every two years, and I believe this is the first time he'll be running for a full term in his own right. He is the first African-American Republican to be elected to the Senate from a southern State since Reconstruction. Despite being (because he is?) very conservative, he enjoys immense popularity and favorability throughout the State, even among Democrats. He's an effective Senator and has done well in the role. His remarks about his experiences with police--while a Senator!--as a black man struck a chord in the midst of numerous controversies over police conduct.

Again, I don't know much about Thomas Dixon or the third-party candidates. To learn more about the US House and US Senate candidates, check here: http://www.sciway.net/sc-elections/

US President

I am very reluctant to include this section, as it's almost guaranteed to make everyone upset, but it's obligatory. There's another reason I haven't posted much this election cycle: like many voters, I'm not particularly comfortable discussing the presidential election in anything but the broadest terms, as I don't particularly relish being yelled at in public (that reluctance is at the heart of the "Trump Effect" theory, which we'll get to test today). That being said, here are my summaries of the two major candidates:

- Hillary Clinton (D): The odds-on-favorite until a few days ago, Clinton is a former Senator from the State of New York; served as Secretary of State under President Obama from 2009-2013; and is a former First Lady. Her husband, President Bill Clinton, served during a period of unprecedented peace and economic expansion. Some voters appear to support her because of her husband's legacy (she mentions it frequently, and has alluded before that he would be a central part of her decision-making process--though at other times she has backed away from this implication). Other voters are excited about the prospect of electing the first woman president. Finally, some simply don't want to risk electing Donald Trump, her Republican rival.

What kind of president will Clinton be? She will likely continue President Obama's policies in incremental fashion. She's made big promises to her base--the result of running harder to the left because of popular primary challenger Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders--such as free college tuition and an increase in the minimum wage.

Ultimately, however, it's difficult to discern what Clinton will do. She seems to be more concerned with maintaining the current political establishment--and her own vast system of political influence, funneled primarily through the controversial Clinton Foundation--than with any sort of ideological consistency. For example, as a Senator she was strongly in favor of school choice (but not vouchers), arguing that semi-public charter schools provided an opportunity for underprivileged children to gain a better education. When far-left school unions indicated dissatisfaction with this position, however, Clinton backed off, adopting a hard, public-school-only line in her run for president.

That's just one of many examples that demonstrate how Clinton has shifted previously-stated beliefs to suit contemporary political needs. Another is her shift on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal that she touted as the "gold standard" of such arrangements, until reversing her position during the Democratic primaries.

That's not to mention the various scandals involving her use of a private e-mail server to send and receive classified information, the investigation of which was re-opened last week. FBI Director James Comey cleared her (again) of any wrong-doing on Sunday, but it does call into question her judgment.

- Donald Trump (R): Bold, brash, politically-incorrect, (probably) sexist: if the mockumentary This is Spinal Tap were about political campaigns instead of 80s hair metal, Donald Trump would be the main character (and he'd probably say, "What's wrong with being sexy?"). Trump descended from a golden escalator at Trump Tower over a year ago to announce his candidacy, immediately sparking controversy over his suggestion that some illegal immigrants are rapists and criminals (which, taken at face value, is objectively true). His positions have shifted, from his once sweeping (and, while not technically unconstitutional, probably impractical) ban on all Muslim immigration (he now calls for "extreme vetting" of refugees from terror trouble spots) to his immigration plan (he still claims Mexico will pay for the wall, which he plans to do through ending remittance payments--basically wire transfers of money--from Mexican nationals in the US to their countrymen back home).

One gets the impression that his shifts, unlike Clinton's, are more due to his pugilistic, shoot-from-the-hip approach to policy formulation, rather than sheer political calculus (although that certainly is part of it): The Donald tosses out an idea, doubles down on it, then lets his surrogates work out the details. Surprisingly, that approach has tended to work.

Trump's platform is essentially a mix of Theodore Rooseveltean "good government" reformism, Jacksonian populism, and old-fashioned American (perhaps Polkian?) nationalism. His campaign's slogans are a hodge-podge of past ideas, from "Make America Great Again" (an idea from Reagan's 1980 campaign) to Nixonian "Law and Order" to "America First." His primary concerns seem to be reforming government to make it work more efficiently; reorienting government programs to benefit American citizens; ending illegal immigration and (possibly) limiting legal immigration; and pursuing a more traditionally realist approach to foreign policy. He has cast himself, in some ways, as the anti-Clinton: an outsider who knows how the game is played, but who wants to fix it so the little guy can play again.

Many voters are concerned that Trump is a "loose cannon," someone temperamentally incapable of serving as president. Others don't think he has a consistent program, or that he's too unpredictable. At best, Trump seems to be a pragmatic nationalist, one who throws ideas at the wall and sees what sticks (in this way, he's not too different from Democratic deity Franklin Delano Roosevelt), but always with the goal of doing what's best for the nation.

Regardless, Trump is a controversial figure (I won't recount his many, many controversies here), and that gives many voters pause; thus, the massive uncertainty that still exists in many polls, even as voting begins.

***

So, what do you do you? If you think President Obama has done a good job; if you're broadly in agreement with a push for greater globalism (and, perhaps, less American sovereignty); if you want more sweet government bennies; and if you think massive immigration and ratification of illegal immigration are positive, then Clinton is for you.

If you think President Obama's legacy has undermined constitutional order; if you're a critic of globalism and believe that American nationalism is healthy and natural; if you want to maintain Social Security and Medicaid, but don't want to expand other social programs; if you're skeptical of the claims of pro-immigration policies and/or want to see illegal immigration curtailed; or if you simply want to blow up The System, then Trump is your man.

Of course, there is third-party Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, who is a soft-leftist at heart--not an appealing choice for conservative Republicans or progressive Democrats. Evan McMullin is running as a conservative alternative to Trump, and may--but probably won't--win Utah, which could create all kinds of havoc in the Electoral College. I won't even discuss Jill Stein, whose claim-to-fame as the perennial Green Party candidate seems to be getting arrested every four years.

Or, you can simply not vote the top of the ballot, and vote for all the other deserving individuals mentioned herein.

As for me, well... let's just say I'm voting for Milo Yiannopoulus's "Daddy." Kaboom!

God Bless America!

--TPP

Reflections on a Summer of Portliness

noreply@blogger.com (The Portly Politico) — Mon, 15 Aug 2016 10:30:00 +0000

I'd like to thank everyone who has read and supported The Portly Politico for the past couple of months. I've been very pleased with the overall response, and I love the engaging questions, comments, and personal attacks I've received.

Because the school year resumes this week--and my blissful summer break draws to a close--I will be slowing down the rate of output to one piece per week, probably to be released Monday mornings at 6:30 AM. While I would love to maintain the Monday-Wednesday-Friday releases, I've taught long enough to know that keeping up that pace would be detrimental to the quality of the posts (and probably to my teaching, which keeps the lights on).

As such, I'd like to dedicate today's post to looking back on the summer, and to share some insights into how I put this thing together.

Enjoy!

--TPP

The Author in Repose.

(Original image c/o The Portly Politico)

***

- The Process: When I relaunched this blog in early June--after six years without a single post--I figured I'd keep it up for a few weeks before cutting back on the frequency of posts. After those first couple of weeks, though, I was hooked, and became committed to sticking to a regular, three-posts-a-week schedule.

It was not always easy (although, to be honest, how hard is it really to sit at a keyboard and write?). As so often happens, my best-laid plans to have two or three pieces on file at any time quickly went astray. Just like the college history major I used to be, I found myself writing most of this summer's posts at around the same time as this one: 9 PM the night before the 6:30 AM release. Some were written at more sensible hours (which my body, tired after long hours at my summer job as a facilities maintenance man, appreciated); Sunday afternoons often saw me writing a post for Monday.

"Deadlines... inspire.... a due date--even a self-inflicted one--is a surefire cure for writer's block."

Most of the posts took about two hours to write and edit, though some took longer. My process usually goes something like this: the day I needed to write a post, I'd start brainstorming ideas (if I didn't already have one in my head). Once I hit upon a topic, I'd begin "writing" it in my head--pretty much how I've always written, going back to school--and then sit down in the evening to hammer it out. If I'd had trouble dreaming up a topic, I'd scan The Drudge Report for headlines, hoping to find some inspiration. Many of my posts were adapted from lectures given in the AP US History, AP Comparative Government, and US Government classes I teach during my day job.

Current events, of course, fueled the output, though I tried to avoid particularly controversial or complicated issues when they first broke. My general policy for this blog and for political discussions is to withhold judgment until all (or most) of the facts are in, especially in the case of shootings. That's why I never wrote about any of the various shootings that occurred over the summer, whether by or of a police officer.

Deadlines, however, inspire, and I always managed to come up with something. It's amazing how a due date--even a self-inflicted one--is a surefire cure for writer's block.

I also required myself to post a link to every piece on Facebook, both to attract readers and to force myself to address criticisms (and, in some cases, to face attacks). It certainly helped sharpen my thinking, and clarified the importance of citing sources frequently!

- Tough Times: The most discouraging moment of the summer occurred while writing my "Life after Brexit" piece. I'd had a long day and spent a very long time hammering out that piece (a good bit of which--probably for the better--was wrong), and had actually completed the post. I was about to go to bed, but I had finished reading an op-ed National Front leader Marine Le Pen wrote to The New York Times, and wanted to include a quotation. Somehow--and, despite my basic level of computer savvy, I don't know how--I managed to delete the entire post.

That was the closest I came to calling it quits for the night and posting a lame apology the next morning. I rallied, however, and finally got into bed after 1 AM. Needless to say, the next morning was not fun, but I'd stuck to my self-imposed deadlines.

The other more amusing moment was the response to "Music is for Everyone," a relatively non-controversial premise. Someone posted a rather snarky, ridiculous commentary on a very innocuous Facebook post I made; I (against my better judgment) responded with the post linked above. Needless to say, this nasty fellow did not take kindly to be calling out (though I suspect now it was exactly what he wanted).

"It's been a tough century for conservatives, and we needed a win. Brexit was a major victory...."

While it was all a bit blown out of proportion, I couldn't let a vile bully go unchallenged. Mockery is a powerful weapon against normalcy and decency; no one wants to look foolish, so no one attempts a defense. This minor issue probably wasn't the hill to die on, but at this point, if we can't all enjoy cultural products without fear of being "appropriative" or because we don't share the artist's political beliefs, what kind of society can we hope to have? Either one of total conformity, or none at all.

- Fun Times: While some of my posts performed dismally, it was fun to see which posts were well-received. I was particularly surprised that the "Family Matters" series was so popular. To date, the initial post is the most-viewed post of all time, finally eclipsing (fairly substantially) the first true comeback post, "American Values, American Nationalism." Apparently, many people were eager to read about the decline of the two-parent nuclear family. Those posts generated a LOT of discussion, too, and it was interesting to read some of the comments about divorce, particularly from those who have been through it. Many of the comments essentially acknowledged that there are exception, but that most of the time, the two-parent nuclear family is the best way to run a family.

- Brexit: Speaking of fun times, I had a blast writing about Brexit. It's been a tough century for conservatives, and we needed a win. Brexit was a major victory for nationalism and sovereignty against totalizing globalism. The predicted economic catastrophe didn't happen (and I even thought it would--I argued it was a price worth paying for independence); in fact, the stock market is reaching new heights. We certainly haven't seen the last of the potential fallout, but I was thrilled to cover such an historic event on this humble blog.

- Monetization Denied: Full disclosure: one sinister reason for starting this blog was to help generate a little extra cash; after all, I'm a capitalist. For some reason, though, my AdSense application keeps getting dinged for "insufficient content"--a laughable proposition. Even though your sweet, sweet ad dollars didn't start rolling in, I still enjoyed the challenge and the intellectual workout of putting these posts out there. And if you ever want me to come speak at your organization, please shoot me an e-mail at tjcook.history@gmail.com.

What happens to a dream deferred? Does it shrivel up like a raisin in the sun? Or does it ask for your donation to keep quality content alive and well?

- eBook: While I won't have as much time to write new material, I plan on taking some of these posts and adapting them into one or two short eBooks. I've already decided to take my "Family Matters" series and turn into a larger defense of social conservatism and tradition. I'm also hoping to put together an election guide for the 2016 presidential election, with detailed information on the major and minor party candidates. Stay tuned for more details; I recommend signing up at the top of the page to receive e-mail updates.

***

Well, that's enough navel-gazing for one day. Thanks again for your support. It's been a wonderful summer. See you next week!

Capitalism Needs Social Conservatism

noreply@blogger.com (The Portly Politico) — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 10:30:00 +0000

For the past week, I've written about the decline of the nuclear family, with follow-up posts about divorce and sex education, and about the negative impact of the of the welfare state on family formation. These post have generated some wonderful discussions and input from followers, and I've been surprised by their popularity.

As I wrote in "Values Have Consequences," I'm devoting Friday posts to discussions of social conservatism. Social conservatism is increasingly the red-headed stepchild of the traditional Republican "tripod" coalition that also includes national security and economic conservatives (with the rise of Trump, populist nationalism could count as a fourth leg). Politically, this marginalization makes some sense, as it's not likely that fifty or sixty years of cultural attitudes and values will be changed at the ballot box.

Nevertheless, social conservatism is an important leg of the tripod. Indeed, I would argue that the three coalitions are not at odds, but create logical synergies that allow each leg to stand. The stool is much more stable when the three legs work together.

Economic conservatism--by which I mean the belief that freer markets, fewer and lighter regulations, and lower taxes, or what is more properly called neoliberalism (after the classical liberalism of the 18th-century thinkers like Adam Smith)--is wonderful and hugely important. It's led to massive gains domestically and globally, lifting untold millions off people out of poverty. It allows people to enjoy a greater variety of goods and labor-saving devices, and provides more leisure time (and plenty of things to do during that time).

Exercise your economic liberty by donating today! Support quality content and angry Internet comments!

But free markets unmoored from guiding principles, strong and stable institutions, and the rule of law can morph into mindless Mammon worship. Without a shared sense of trust and belief in human dignity, capitalism becomes cold and abstract.

Further, full-fledged economic liberalization without the limiting principles applied by constitutionalism and a morality supported by strong families and a robust civil society can lead to socially-destructive disruptions and behaviors.

As I've argued many times, making mistakes or bad choices is the necessary price of liberty. But for self-government to work effectively--and to avoid social instability--a healthy dose of social conservatism is the best medicine.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee wears the most socially conservative outfit ever; later, he played bass on Fox News.

(Image Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Huckabeemike.JPG; photo by Craig Michaud)

To offer an illustration from recent history, contrast the post-Soviet experiences of Poland (and most of Eastern Europe) with that of Russia. Despite decades under Communism--an ideology that was aggressively atheistic, stressing loyalty to the state and Communist Party over all else--Poland roared back into the West. It adopted neoliberal (modern conservative) economic policies, and was one of the few European nations not to suffer severely during the Great Recession.

Russia similarly adopted "shock therapy" after the Soviet Union collapsed for good in 1991. Rather than experiencing a huge economic boom, however, well-connected former Communists and others close to the old regime made off like bandits, leaving most Russians left holding the bag.

What's the difference? For one, the Russians lived under Communism for nearly a generation longer than the Poles, meaning there were several generations of downtrodden, state-dependent Russians by the time the USSR collapsed. Many of these Russians were unable to adjust to a free-market system after living in a closed economy for so long.

Another key difference--and one that I think is extremely significant--is that Russians lost any scrap of civil society they might have possessed prior to the Bolshevik takeover in late 1917. Civil society--the institutions between the basic family unit and the government, like churches, schools, clubs, civic organizations, etc.--was automatically preempted when every club, organization, or activity became part of the Soviet government. The severely crippled (and, as I understand it, collaborationist) Russian Orthodox Church was unable or unwilling to push back against Soviet rule, providing little in the way of a spiritual alternative to the totalizing influence of Communism.

"[F]ree markets unmoored from guiding principles, strong and stable institutions, and the rule of law can morph into mindless Mammon worship."

Poland, on the other hand, managed to maintain its deep Catholic faith. The Catholic Church as an international organization (and with powerful, influential popes, most notably the Polish anti-Communist John Paul II) could never be wiped out completely by Soviet Communism. Further, the Poles formed the Solidarity trades union movement, which offered an alternative to official Communist organizations.

Thus, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Poland emerged with a strong civil society anchored in a richly Christian worldview and ethic. The shared sense of morality--one that stresses mutual respect, the dignity of human life, and the importance of honesty--allowed the complex deals and uptempo economic exchanges of capitalism to occur smoothly and rapidly. From these civil and religious values came a firmer grasp of and respect for the rule of law, making predictable economic activity and long-term planning possible.

Russia, on the other hand, devolved into a fast-paced, nationwide run on the national cupboard. Those with good connections grabbed whatever public funds and goodies they could. Normal Russians couldn't figure out whey their government checks and free lunches stopped coming, and couldn't understand why (or how) to pay taxes. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, all civic organizations ceased to exist, because they were all part of the Soviet government. Without any civil society or other enduring institutions to model good behavior and to stress and enforce moral values, Russia struggled--and continues to do so--to adapt to global capitalism and democracy. Not surprisingly, they've turned to a dictatorial strongman for guidance.

***

What of the American context? As I've written before, I'm skeptical of full-fledged libertarianism--what I would broadly define as the marriage of economically conservative and socially liberal views--because it fails to acknowledge the need for strong moral values to uphold its own economic assumptions. Liberty and self-government can only really work when coupled with self-imposed order and restraint. Without moral common ground and shared values that stress self-control, liberty rapidly turns to libertinism. Libertinism without a great deal of wealth leads to shattered lives, which in turn wreck families and communities.

Eventually, unbridled, unchecked lasciviousness--even among (formerly) responsible adults--results in social chaos, requiring a dwindling number of hardworking, honest, and thrifty individuals to pay for the ramifications of poor moral choices that have been magnified many times over.

"[L]ibertarianism... fails to acknowledge the need for strong moral values to uphold its own economic assumptions. Liberty and self-government can only really work when coupled with self-imposed order and restraint."

Capitalism's blessing of unparalleled abundance is also a potential curse. Without a strong civil society that stresses good moral values--and without proper historical perspective--it becomes easy to take that abundance for granted.

That abundance also allows, for a time, more and more individuals to pay for the price of bad decisions. Prior to the modern era, few people were wealthy enough to risk the negative consequences of immorality. Now, Americans and Westerners enjoy a level of material comfort and well-being that can absorb at least some of the unpleasantness of questionable choices. Over time, however, that security breaks down.

Richard Weaver likened the situation to an alcoholic who is so addicted to his drink, he's unable to do the work necessary to pay for his addiction. The more he needs the alcohol, the less capable he becomes of obtaining it. Likewise, the more individuals become addicted to luxuries, the less able they are to work hard to maintain them.

To avoid the fate of Weaver's drunk, we must recognize the importance of social conservatism. While we should maximize individual liberty as much as possible, and within the bounds of the Constitution, we should also stress the moral and religious underpinnings that make that liberty both possible and responsible.

Family Matters Follow-Up Part II: The Welfare State and the Crisis of the Family

noreply@blogger.com (The Portly Politico) — Wed, 10 Aug 2016 10:30:00 +0000

My series of posts on the decline of the traditional family unit in the United States and the West has generated a great deal of discussion (and, occasionally, some bitter recriminations). Thus, after the overwhelming feedback and requests for clarification I received to "Family Matters," I decided to expand upon some portions of that piece (click here to read "Follow-Up Part I" about divorce and sex education).

One of the claims of "Family Matters" concerned the "havoc" President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society/War on Poverty wreaked on the black American families. In the original post, I failed to link to any data or articles to substantiate this claim, but I've since updated the post with links to Daniel Patrick Moynihan's famous "Moynihan Report" (actual title: The Negro Family: The Case for National Action) and a piece from 2015 that summarizes some of the main points of the report.

You haven't even made it to the real introduction and I'm already hitting you up for money. Support quality content with your donation today!

The late Daniel Patrick Moynihan--who would go on to serve as US Ambassador to India and the United Nations, then as a Democratic Senator for New York--enjoys a rare respect as a liberal among conservatives. Though he was a leftist on many issues, he was first and foremost a scholar with a commitment to following the data wherever it took him.

The so-called "Moynihan Report"--which he wrote while working as a bureaucrat in the Department of Labor in 1965--demonstrated that many of the problems of the black community were caused only in part by discrimination, but much more so by a decline in marriage and stable family formation. While racial discrimination was (and--I would like to think to a lesser extent--still is) a major problem in the 1960s, it alone could not explain adequately the plight of many black Americans.

Instead, what Moynihan discovered was that well-intentioned government programs inadvertently subsidized single motherhood, and were destroying the black family. Indeed, the "national action" for which Moynihan called was that which would reinforce "the establishment of a stable Negro family structure." This national goal would be "difficult," but "it almost certainly offers the only possibility of resolving in our time what is, after all, the nation's oldest, and most instransigent, and now its most dangerous social problem." (Moynihan, The Negro Family)

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan--a Bureaucrat who actually deserved a fat government paycheck.

(Image Source: http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=M001054)

I once heard a conservative black gentleman from Darlington, South Carolina, summarize Moynihan's argument thus: at a time when black men faced legitimate discrimination in the workforce, and could lose their jobs on the flimsiest of pretexts, the federal government came along offering generous support to single mothers. By 1975--ten years after Moynihan's prophetic report--a head of household would have to earn $88,000 (in 2015 dollars; about $22,000 in 1975) to out-earn the benefit from the federal government. (Jack Coleman, "Juan Williams: Daniel Patrick Moynihan 'Had it Right' About Breakdown of the Black Family") As Jason Riley, author of Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make it Harder for Blacks to Succeed wrote in a 2015 op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, "In effect, the government paid mothers to keep fathers out of the home--and paid them well."

Not surprisingly, many women took note of this benefit. Some of them--and, yes, I know what you're about to read will be hard to believe, but it actually happened--calculated that they were better off divorcing their husbands or having a child out of wedlock, especially given the real, costly discrimination their husbands faced. Government do-gooding, coupled with a legacy of racial discrimination, caused many young black children to grow up without fathers.

Initially, that might not have been a huge problem... but it metastasized. Young boys grew up without father figures to shape them, and came to expect that leaving a woman, or having children with multiple women, was natural. Young girls grew up thinking they had no reasonable expectation of their man sticking around. With each generation, the problem grew worse and worse, until now roughly 72-73% of black children born in America are born to a single parent.

"[S]imply replacing one parent with a paycheck does not fulfill a child's many needs."

Single parenthood is sometimes the only option, but it's a tough row to hoe. Not only does it place financial burdens on the parent; it also removes from her or him the ability to parent a child adequately. To quote economist Walter Williams at length:

"Whether a student is black, white, orange or polka-dot and whether he's poor or rich, there are some minimum requirements that must be met in order for him to do well in school. Someone must make the student do his homework. Someone must see to it that he gets eight to nine hours of sleep. Someone has to fix him a wholesome breakfast and ensure that he gets to school on time and respects and obeys teachers.

"Here's my question: Which one of those basic requirements can be accomplished through a presidential executive order, a congressional mandate or the edict of a mayor, a superintendent of schools or a teacher? If those basic requirements aren't met, whatever else that is done in the name of education is for naught." (emphasis added; Walter Williams, "Can Racial Discrimination Explain Much?")

In other words, simply replacing one parent with a paycheck does not fulfill a child's many needs. Children born out-of-wedlock and raised by a single parent are more likely "to experience a variety of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral problems," according to Dr. Paul Amato in "The Impact of Family Formation Change on the Cognitive, Social, and Emotional Well-Being of the Next Generation." That creates ripple effects for generations to come, and the cycle is difficult to break.

***

The problem was prevalent even before Moynihan wrote his report (which, not surprisingly, caused many of his fellow-liberals to accuse him of "racism" and bigotry--common tactics when faced with an unpleasant truth). Ronald Reagan, while campaigning for Arizona Senator and Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater in 1964, told the story in his magisterial "A Time for Choosing" speech of a mother who divorced her husband to get a check from the government, and how she learned to do it after talking to two other women who'd also gamed the system.

We've now had fifty-one years of the Great Society, and while some of its programs helped alleviate malnutrition and other problems that are, thankfully, dwindling issues, its good intentions created a host of other problems. In 1965, one could still plausibly claim that government do-gooders merely didn't know any better. Now, the argument seems to be, "Well, we're trying to do the right thing, so that's all that should matter." That's prime paving stone for the road to hell.

"The decline of the family is a problem all Americans will have to address."

Moynihan argued that black Americans in particular were experiencing the decline of family formation most heavily because of the "tangle of pathologies" stemming from centuries of slavery and a century of legal, social, and economic segregation, and that this legacy dovetailed disastrously with the perverse incentive toward divorce and single motherhood. As he predicted, this tangle morphed into a multi-generational cycle that has ground many black Americans further into poverty.

In 2016, the negative consequences have not only magnified the problem among black Americans; it's spread throughout American society. There's been a crisis among black families for fifty years; we ignored it at our peril.

The experience of black American families since the 1960s is a sad story, though there are many brave black mothers and fathers who raise their children with love and support. They are struggling to break a dangerous cycle, one that swirls in a murky stew of cultural, social, and economic pressures against the two-parent family and traditional marriage.

Racism appears to have enhanced the deleterious effects of the welfare state in the case of black families, but now those negative consequences are increasingly color-blind. The decline of the family is a problem all Americans will have to address.

(For additional reading, check out the works of Walter Williams, a brilliant economist and political conservative who, as it happens, is black. Start here for an appetizer: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/can-racial-discrimination-explain-much/article/2556814; after that, get Race and Economics: How Much Can Be Blamed on Discrimination?)

But it almost certainly offers the only possibility of resolving in our time what is, after all, the nation's oldest, and most intransigent, and now its most dangerous social problem - See more at: http://www.blackpast.org/primary/moynihan-report-1965#sthash.njnh8YBT.dpuf

the establishment of a stable Negro family structure - See more at: http://www.blackpast.org/primary/moynihan-report-1965#sthash.njnh8YBT.dpuf

the establishment of a stable Negro family structure. - See more at: http://www.blackpast.org/primary/moynihan-report-1965#sthash.njnh8YBT.dpuf

Family Matters Follow-Up Part I: Divorce and Marriage; Sex Education

noreply@blogger.com (The Portly Politico) — Mon, 08 Aug 2016 10:30:00 +0000

Last Friday I wrote a post entitled "Family Matters" about the decline of the traditional family in the United States and the West, which I called "our true national and civilizational crisis." To my surprise, the post was very well-received and popular. To date, it is the second-most read blog post on the site, and I look for it to eclipse the most-read entry, "American Values, American Nationalism." It certainly shattered single-day records for The Portly Politico.

It also garnered quite a bit of discussion on my Facebook page, where I always share links to these posts. There was a great deal of excellent discussion, including questions for clarification on some points. People also shared some of their personal experiences with matters of family and what sorts of arrangements work and in what circumstances.

As such, I thought I'd dedicate today and Wednesday's posts to following up on some of the comments, questions, and observations I received. I do so to facilitate further discussion and to help clear up any confusion about some of my contentions.

(Note: As I wrote this post, I decided to split it into [at least] two parts. Wednesday's portion will deal with questions about same-sex couples and the impact of the Great Society upon black families.)

- Divorce: I did not mention divorce at all in Friday's post, but many of the comments I received dealt with this painful scenario. Certainly, no picture of the decline of the traditional family is complete without a discussion of dissolved unions.

With roughly 50% of marriages ending in divorce, the model of the stable, two-parent family is further threatened, although increasingly families are forming outside of formal marriage. Neither of these scenarios is ideal. The rate of divorce naturally increased in the twentieth century in part because divorces became easier to obtain, especially with the rise and success of the women's suffrage and rights movements.

The relative legal ease of acquiring a divorce, however, does not tell the full story. Divorce also increased because of increasingly relaxed attitudes about marriage and family formation. As the single working mother morphed from an object of sympathy into a perverse ideal--and as social signals and laws increasingly downplayed the importance of fathers and privileged mothers--both men and women came to see marriage as less of an institution and more of a formality.

"[Parents]... should make a good-faith effort to raise their children in a stable home, and to spare them the misery, confusion, and familial turmoil of divorce."

As several commenters noted, sometimes divorce is, sadly, the better option, such as when a spouse is abusive. I suspect many such unfortunate unions take place precisely because we've come to take marriage (and love) so lightly. The erosion of a broad, common set of cultural and religious values could also play a role, as more and more "oxen" are unevenly "yoked," creating deep tensions within relationships.

Of course, marriage is hugely complicated, and couples part way for many reasons (usually money). However, it does seem that, absent abuse, infidelity, or criminality, couples with children should make a good-faith effort to raise their children in a stable home, and to spare them the misery, confusion, and familial turmoil of divorce.

If your husband is pointing a gun at you, it's probably time to call it quits. Otherwise, make the best of a bad situation. At least you can still get 2 for $20 entrees at Chili's (tm).

(Image Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c7/Gates_of_Divorce.jpg/574px-Gates_of_Divorce.jpg)

Marriage, after all, is--or, at least, should be--a serious obligation entered into by two sober-minded adults with shared values and principles. Of course, actual human relationships tend to be messy even in the most ideal of circumstances, but a proper focus on the point of marriage--two people coming together as one in the presence of God--would go a long way to help realign and heal struggling marriages.

"Marriage, after all, is... a serious obligation entered into by two sober-minded adults with shared values and principles."

- Sex Education: One friend argued that we need more sex education in schools, as well as free birth control for young people to prevent unwanted pregnancies. While I believe that abstinence is the best method of birth control to emphasize, I'm enough of a realist to know that teenagers find particular joy in doing what they're told not to do.

The problem I see is two-fold: first, we already provide sex education in most public high schools throughout the United States; second, the call for more sex education and access to contraceptives merely demonstrate the crisis of the family I've noted.

The proper realm for sex education is the home. The popular media has perpetuated the myth that parents don't talk to their children about the pitfalls of premarital sex because they're uncomfortable or prudish, so the schools have to do it to prevent millions of unplanned pregnancies.

The problem, rather, is that so many children are growing up in homes without proper parental guidance, they're missing out on important lessons about sex, marriage, and family. Absent fathers aren't there to teach their children that it's wrong to get a woman pregnant and then to leave her. Sex outside of the framework or expectation of marriage becomes devoid of any larger sense of responsibility.

"[S]o many children are growing up in homes without proper parental guidance, they're missing out on important lessons about sex, marriage, and family."

Therefore, teachers have had to take on yet another responsibility that should rest primarily, if not solely, with parents. Add to this lack of parental involvement the glorification of sex in the media and the general "if-it-feels-good-do-it" philosophy of postmodern America, and you have a recipe for moral disaster.

It's unfortunate that schools have had to adopt this responsibility, at it suggests a massive decline in the understanding of what parents are supposed to do for their children.

To the point about free birth control in schools, I've never really understood this argument. I understand that the logic goes, "it's worth taxpayers' money because it prevents the births of children who would become wards of the state; therefore, it's ultimately more cost-effective." But many forms of birth control are incredibly cheap and readily available. There's no compelling argument for why the government should force taxpayers to pay for a box of condoms for high school students.

As far as the birth control pill for girls, it's actually Republicans who want to make it available over-the-counter, which would further drive down the cost and allow young women experiencing shame or uncertainty to obtain it more easily.

"[P]roviding birth control pills to minors through public schools introduces a host of sticky constitutional and legal concerns...."

Most importantly, providing birth control pills to minors through public schools introduces a host of sticky constitutional and legal concerns, the biggest being, "what if a family's faith forbids the use of contraceptives"? A devout, traditional Catholic, for example, would no-doubt object to being forced to pay for birth control for his daughter and the daughters of strangers. He would likewise experience a crisis being required to purchase condoms for his or others sons.

Just because most people--including, apparently, most Catholics--are morally comfortable using traditional birth control and contraceptive methods doesn't mean that we should make those who disagree pay for it. The need to fund contraceptives becomes even less pressing when the low cost is considered. Why cause an unnecessary, stressful crisis of faith for millions just to save a kid a quarter on a gas station rubber?

At this point, I would agree with my friend that, unfortunately, schools do have to take some role in sex education, especially given the increased likelihood children won't receive it at home, since the traditional family unit is on the decline. If private non-profit organizations want to provide additional information or free contraceptives, no worries--there's no infringement upon religious liberty via official coercion. Additionally, schools should stress the moral and financial obligations of parents to their children, especially in those communities where good role models are lacking.

Unfortunately, another government program to hand out free condoms is not a lasting solution to a problem that is one of the soul, not of the pocketbook. Let civil society address these problems (perhaps with a revival of the good, old-fashioned shotgun wedding).

***

These are certainly thorny problems, and I fully recognize that as a single, never-married man I don't possess the same perspective as, say, a married couple of twenty years or a divorcee. Nevertheless, I reject the notion that a lack of personal experience disqualifies one from the discussion (even while acknowledging that personal experience often provides a great deal of clarity). Besides, I've witnessed first-hand the power of strong marriages and stable families. Indeed, I'm the beneficiary of one such union.

Finally, I appreciate lively (and civil) feedback and discussion, and I look forward to expanding further on this topic on Wednesday.

Family Matters

noreply@blogger.com (The Portly Politico) — Fri, 05 Aug 2016 10:30:00 +0000

Last Friday, I wrote about one of my intellectual heroes, Richard Weaver (and I recommended his masterful treatise Ideas Have Consequences in the wildly popular Portly Politico Summer Reading List 2016). In that post, I promised to begin a series of pieces "exploring why tradition, morality, and Truth matter to a free society, and how we can restore them."

To that end, I'd like to focus on the importance of family to the maintenance of a free, prosperous society. This topic should be fairly uncontroversial--that is, if we still lived in a society that did not demonize the traditional family structure while unthinkingly validating less productive--and, indeed, at times destructive--alternatives.

Unfortunately, we seem to take the nuclear family for granted. We do so at our peril. I would argue that a host of modern American society's worst problems--generational poverty, increased government dependence, loosening morals--are in many ways byproducts of the destruction of the nuclear family.

In 2012, over half of births to women under 30 were out of wedlock. 72.3% of blacks were born out of wedlock, while nearly 30% of whites were born so. Compare those figures to the 1950s--before President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, which wreaked havoc on the black family--and illegitimacy rates were comparably very low, and only somewhat higher among blacks than whites. Now it would seem that the rising tide of illegitimacy is indeed lifting all ships, and the ill-effects of illegitimacy are decreasingly color-blind.

The most adorable public domain family I could find.

(Image Source: http://publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=62978&picture=happy-extended-family-isolated-on-white&large=1)

(For more reading, I highly recommend anything written by economist Walter Williams, especially his excellent book Race and Economics: How Much Can Be Blamed on Discrimination. I've also used this Williams article in preparing this post: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/258575/culture-and-social-pathology-walter-williams. For more statistics--and nice line graphs--check here: http://www.redstate.com/repair_man_jack/2013/04/26/the-president-planned-parenthood-and-the-black-mass-against-traditional-morality/. UPDATE: Here's a link to a transcipt of Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan's famous "Moynihan Report," written in 1965 while he was working in the US Department of Labor: http://www.blackpast.org/primary/moynihan-report-1965.)

It's a testament to the institution's destruction that I even have to argue in favor of it. The benefits of the nuclear family should be self-evident. To wit:

- The Family is an Incubator for Morality: The family is the first place in which children's morality is taught and reinforced. We all have an inherent sense of right and wrong (except for sociopaths), but the family helps to develop the conscience and to give morality meaning, usually through a system of punishments for bad behavior and rewards for the good. Parents (ideally) model good behavior for their children, and take an active role in inculcating proper behavior.

Indeed, self-government is impossible without this moral instruction: we learn self-control and -restraint so that we can live freely. Without such moral instruction, we raise generations of adults who are unable to control their impulses and who fail to understand the consequences of wickedness. Therefore, a poor or incomplete moral upbringing breeds more criminality and recklessness, causing a growing portion of society leaning on the state for support.

"Without such moral instruction, we raise generations of adults who are unable to control their impulses and who fail to understand the consequences of wickedness."

- The Family is a Generational Anti-Poverty Machine: I am able to live a modest, comfortable life on a private school teacher's salary (it's noticeably less than that of public school teachers in the State)--and was able to pursue two degrees in History/Advanced Trivia--because my father read water meters while going to school full-time, and because my parents scrupulously saved money (and taught my brothers and me how to do the same). My father was able to teach me those lessons because his father accepted Christ. His father--from what I can discern--was a restless gadabout who played piano in juke joints and lumber camp bars. My grandfather reversed what could have been a negative trend of absenteeism and amorality.

It took three generations of self-restraint and moral uprightness to build a solid foundation. Even then, it required loving moral instruction from my parents to help preserve the gains of the past. The hard work and sacrifice of my parents and grandparents not only taught me how to fend for myself; it provided (and continues to do so) a powerful economic incubator. Without that sacrifice, I would have been unable to attend college, or would have become massively indebted doing so. I'm able to slam money into retirement now because dad read those water meters, went to college, and worked his way up in municipal government. In the process, he taught me to work and study hard (which is why I spend most of my summers painting classrooms and trimming the football field).

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum was right when he called the nuclear family the most effective anti-poverty program available. It works!

- The Family Provides a Model for Masculinity and Femininity: The image of the sexy single career mom--the one who doesn't need a man to raise a kid--and the schlubby, do-nothing dad are probably two of the most destructive notions ever to plague the modern West. Don't get me wrong--I'm all about women pursuing their dreams and careers as they wish. What I object to is the unrealistic notion that somehow people can "have it all"--all the rewards of work, family, and the like--without any of the necessary sacrifices that come with them. It's selfish to want and expect everything, even at the cost of a child's well-being. Further, any objective observer will acknowledge that it's harder to raise a child with one parent rather than two.

"[S]tatistically and historically, the best possible social arrangement for the rearing of children is the traditional family structure headed by a mother and a father."

Allow me to make a point that is, unfortunately, now controversial: men and women need each other. Yes, that's a generalization. Yes, there are some exceptions. But, broadly speaking, it's the truth most of the time. More importantly, children need a mother and a father.

Please note: I'm not arguing that a stable, same-sex couple or a single person shouldn't be allowed to adopt a child. The need to find good homes for orphans far outweighs the potential shortcomings of lacking a male or female role model. Nor am I arguing that all traditional families are always perfect--far from it.

What I'm saying is that, statistically and historically, the best possible social arrangement for the rearing of children is the traditional family structure headed by a mother and a father. It's pretty much the way we're designed. Children need and receive different things from their fathers than they do their mothers, and vice-versa. Young boys learn how to be good men from their fathers. That means they learn how to treat women with respect, among other things. Little girls, for that matter, learn different lessons from their fathers than their mothers.

As I often tell my students, men and woman are different, but equal. One sex isn't better than the other, but both are complementary and possess intangible qualities that the other needs. That's why marriage is a coming together of two people to make one. And, again, it's just the way we're made.

***

There's a reason the nuclear family is a subject near-and-dear to the hearts of social conservatives, and why we despair upon seeing the rise in illegitimacy rates and the decline of traditional marriage. The nuclear family as an institution and social arrangement is hugely successful, yet we've jettisoned it from society in favor of... practically nothing. If all arrangements are deemed equally valid, then none of them is worthy of supporting. Thus, why bother?

At that point--the point, I fear, we have reached now--there is little hope that the next generation will enjoy, on the same scale, the manifold benefits the nuclear family provides.

This sobering reality, more than anything else, is our true national and civilizational crisis. To repair it will require an acknowledgement of the benefits of the traditional family structure and an emphasis on the proper roles mothers and fathers are to play in the moral lives of their children.

There is No General Will

noreply@blogger.com (The Portly Politico) — Wed, 03 Aug 2016 10:30:00 +0000

I've been watching the television series Wayward Pines (don't worry; no spoilers), which raises tons of great questions about how a society--particularly a closed one under duress--should function. What's the proper balance between freedom and security? How much should governing elites reveal to the folks, and what should be concealed? Should people fulfill specific roles in a society to benefit the greater goals of that society, or should they be free to choose their professions (and, for that matter, their mates, homes, schools, etc.)?

These are interesting and complicated questions. Indeed, the question of the proper balance between freedom and security has puzzled republics since Periclean Athens. The question itself is misleading, I would argue--and likely will in a future post--that the two are not mutually exclusive.

"[T]here is no such thing as the general will."

But I digress. All of these questions seem to pose a larger one: what is the "general will" or "greater good" of a society, and how should a society go about pursuing it? My answer is that there is no such thing as the general will.

Now, to be clear, this statement does not mean that I think there's no merit in a society pursuing some common goals, or that I deny that sometimes in a majoritarian system there will be policies that some people don't like, but that are beneficial for society as a whole. Our whole constitutional system in the United States is carefully balanced to make sure that the "will of the people" is well-represented at the local, State, and national levels, while still guaranteeing and protecting the basic rights of individuals--even when those rights aren't particularly popular.

But here's the rub--while our constitutional order protects against the tyranny of the majority, the broad notion--from French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau--of the "general will" acknowledges no such limiting principle against the power of the majority. It is against this sense that the "will of the people" is the be-all, end-all of social good that I stand.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Philosophical Super Villain.

(Image Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jean-Jacques_Rousseau_(painted_portrait).jpg, portrait by Maurice Quentin de La Tour)

The people, as a whole, are fickle. It's very difficult to get ten people to agree about what to eat for dinner; note how difficult it is for 330 million to agree on even the most basic of issues (in South Carolina, we still haven't reached any kind of consensus about how to pay for and fix our roads, something virtually everyone wants done).

Even if you can get ten reasonable people to agree to, say, a long-term weekly dining schedule, at some point one or two will start to say, "Well, maybe we could have spaghetti on Wednesday nights instead of tacos." Imagine that conversation happening loudly and angrily across fifty States. It's a recipe--pardon the pun--for disaster.

Raw majoritarianism--what Rousseau appears to be calling for when he argues that society should be based on the "general will" of the people--is an unworkable scheme on anything but the smallest levels of society. Rousseau's chilling dictum that men are "forced to be free" reveals the inevitable consequence of unbridled democracy: ultimately, the inexpressible "general will" becomes expressed through a demagogic tyrant, or through a legislator uninhibited by any restraints on its law-making authority beyond what the people want.

"[T]he 'general will' acknowledges no... limiting principle against the power of the majority."

I've long viewed Rousseau as one of the great villains of modern philosophy, and I would argue that one can draw a more-or-less straight line from Rousseau and the French Revolution through fascism, communism, and totalitarianism, all the way to modern illiberal progressivism. Rousseau--like modern progressives--believes in the mutability of human will, arguing that laws, not human nature, make people bad or good. Get the laws right--or tweak the system enough--and you can spit out completely virtuous people.

Thus we see the conceit of the modern Left that no one commits crime out of greed or evil; instead, they're "victims of circumstance" or subject to "systems of oppression" that cause them to do evil. If only we created more programs or redistributed more wealth--or, if taken to the logical extreme, if only we did away with private property altogether, since the state and its laws exist to protect it--then, finally, man would be perfect.

Such notions are not only absurd; they are hugely injurious to both individual freedom and the health of society at large. A virtuous society is one that cultivates a virtuous culture, which is only sustainable if it educates its people to live virtuously, recognizing that there will always be failures because, after all, to err is human.

(Note: I do acknowledge that sometimes people are driven to commit typically immoral deeds out of necessity; however, I believe our society hugely exaggerates the extent to which such motives drive criminality and wickedness; just ask any wealthy person who's ever been convicted of shoplifting or embezzlement why they stole, and you'll quickly realize that even people with plenty of material safety are tempted to sin.)

"Raw majoritarianism... is an unworkable scheme...."

Expecting pure perfection is dangerous and unrealistic. Mistakes are the inevitable price of freedom. You can ignore reality for a time and get by with it, but eventually it will catch up.

Rather than idealistically seek after a non-existent "general will," we should instead govern ourselves--and resist tyranny in the process. To do so requires decentralization of power (and more local decision-making), a shared understanding of American values, and an education rich in morality, virtue, and philosophy.

(To read more about Rousseau's thought--and, perhaps, to correct my errors and oversimplifications, read more at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rousseau/.)

The Portly Politico Summer Reading List 2016

noreply@blogger.com (The Portly Politico) — Mon, 01 Aug 2016 10:30:00 +0000

I'm at the beach--at the very desk at which I re-launched this blog after a six-year hiatus--and I figure it's the perfect occasion to unveil the "Portly Politico Summer Reading List 2016."

The books listed here are among some of my favorites. I'm not necessarily reading them at the moment, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't! These books have shaped my thinking about the many issues I've covered over the past two months. I highly encourage you to check them out.

This picture accurately depicts high school students the night before classes start.

(Image Source: Original doodle, 23 September 2012)

So, without further ado, and in no particular order, here are some of my all-time favorites:

1.) Richard Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences (1948) - I just wrote about this book in my last post (which I encourage you to read), and I'm including it on this list because it's pretty much required reading, especially if you're putting yourself through Conservatism 101. The edition linked here is right around 100 pages, and while it's a dense read, it's not so overwhelming that you can't finish it, making it perfect for long days at the beach.

Weaver's writing is prophetic, especially if you've studied conservative thought, or even if you've just experienced a vague, gnawing sense of dislocation in the modern world. It's packed--nearly on every page--with brilliant, quotable gems. I re-read the introduction to the book every August right before school starts back, because it reminds me why I teach, and helps to align my thinking morally and spiritually.

If you read just one book this summer--or even this year--make it Ideas Have Consequences.

2.) Dennis Prager, Still the Best Hope: Why the World Needs American Values to Triumph (2012) - Few books have shaped my thinking about American values--what they are, why they matter, and why they're worth defending--more thoroughly than this effort from conservative talk-radio host Dennis Prager. Prager, a devout Jew with an Ivy League education and rich love of learning, outlines the so-called "American Trinity"--easily found on any coin--and argues that Americans are losing a three-sided battle against the Left and Islamism due to an inability to articulate why American values matter.

The "American Trinity"--liberty, trust in God, and e pluribus unum--is a brilliant and easy-to-digest device for understanding core American values. In fact, I owe a huge debt to Prager; Still the Best Hope almost directly inspired two of my earliest come-back posts: the much-read "American Values, American Nationalism," and the follow-up "Created by Philosophy."

Prager splits the book into three major sections: outlines of the threats of radical Islamism and modern progressive Leftism, then an unpacking of the "American Trinity." By far, the largest chunk of the book is the second section, which is one of the most effective eviscerations of Leftist assumptions ever written. It's so long because it's extremely thorough and well-documented.

At around 450 pages, it can be a longer read, but it's written in a pleasing, engaging style. Prager isn't a blow-hard like so many talk-radio show hosts, and his inquisitive, inviting voice comes through on the page. I also love Prager's mind and the way he approaches topics; check out his other works here.

3.) Roger Kimball, The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America (2001) - If you've got some time--and are prepared to be terrified by the excesses of 1960s radicalism and its heroes--you must read this excellent, damning collection of essays. In fact, everything Kimball writes is required reading (I also recommend The Fortunes of Permanence: Culture and Anarchy in an Age of Amnesia and The Survival of Culture: Permanent Values in a Virtual Age, both from 2012; the latter is edited by Kimball and includes the works of other writers).

"[E]verything Kimball writes is required reading."

Long March strips away the romantic facade of 1960s folk heroes and "radical chic" academics, exposing their fraudulent, dangerous theories and their continued influence on American society and institutions. Kimball isn't aiming for the easy targets or to satisfy the Sean Hannity crowd; he brings thorough research and intellectual heft to the proceedings. As an art historian and critic, he offers a perspective that's often lacking from conservative scholarship, serious or otherwise.

My only real beef with the book is that he takes a very dim view of rock 'n' roll. That being said, his argument against it makes sense, and I can't help but experience a twinge of introspection now whenever I listen to my beloved classic rock.

Regardless, Kimball is a strong, eloquent writer, and I can almost feel myself getting smarter when I read his works. I'm currently reading The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art from 2005, and it's a linguistic delight.

"If you read just one book this summer--or even this year--make it Ideas Have Consequences."

Honorable Mention: Greg Gutfeld, Not Cool: The Hipster Elite and Their War on You (2015) - if you want a summer read that's quick, digestible, and absolutely hilarious, pick up Not Cool. Greg Gutfeld, co-host of Fox News's The Five and former host of the excellent late-late-late-night round-table discussion show Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld, offers an unusual thesis: everything awful that's ever been done--such as adopting wasteful, inefficient, and redistributive government programs--for the past fifty years or so has been because people are afraid to look uncool.

It's oddly compelling. When you think about it, no one wants to be left out, and the Left constantly bludgeons society with the idea that if you don't uncritically accept that the government should solve all of our problems through coercion ("compassion"), then you're a mean, stingy racist. If the parade of A-list celebrities at the Democratic National Convention last week (and the smaller cavalcade of B-list celebrities at the Republican National Convention the week before) is any indication, then it's clear that it's "cool" to be a progressive, but lethally uncool to be a conservative. After all, what's "cool" about saying no to "free" stuff?

Not Cool is a quick read, and Gutfeld's humor and insight crackle on every page. Sometimes you won't know whether you should laugh or cry.

***

So, there's your summer reading for 2016. We've still got about a month of summertime fun left (although I'll be heading back to the classroom in just a couple of weeks), so grab some of these books before you head out of town. You'll be glad you did.

Values Have Consequences

noreply@blogger.com (The Portly Politico) — Fri, 29 Jul 2016 10:30:00 +0000

Every August, just before the new school year begins, I reread the introduction of Richard Weaver's seminal Ideas Have Consequences (1948), one of the foundational texts of the modern conservative movement. It is one of the most eminently quotable books I've ever read, and every page of the introduction contains a gem. I undertake this annual ritual as a way to prepare myself mentally, spiritually, and morally for the year ahead, and because philosophy is hugely important.

The crux of Weaver's argument is that a relatively innocuous notion, William of Occam's nominalism, "which denies that universals have a real existence," ultimately led philosophy "to banish the reality which is perceived by the intellect and to posit as reality that which is perceived by the senses. With this change in the affirmation of what is real, the whole orientation of culture takes a turn, and we are on the road to modern empiricism." As such, the "denial of universals carries with it the denial of everything transcending experience," and ultimately "the denial of truth." (Weaver, 3-4)

In other words, Weaver argues that nominalism set man on the path to moral relativism, which now dominates Western culture.

Those glasses probably had consequences for Weaver's dating life.

(Image Source and Attribution: By Source (WP:NFCC#4), Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=46415555)

Throughout his work--which I hope to explore more thoroughly in future posts--Weaver makes his case eloquently and succinctly (the whole book runs to just over 100 pages). Anyone who has ever experienced a general sense of displacement in the postmodern world will find much in Weaver's work that rings true: the decadence of modern society, the sense of alienation that haunts men, the gradual erosion of basic rights (after all, how can there be universal rights if there are no universals, or any true foundation upon which to base those rights).

Weaver argues that a single idea--nominalism--possessed ramifications that reverberated throughout the centuries. Similarly, I would contend that the erosion of belief in the transcendental has resulted in a debasement of culture.

The story of the West is the story of philosophical inquiry and the quest for Truth. I agree with Weaver--ideas have consequences, and shape everything from public policy and political theory to the fine arts and morality--and Western civilization gradually came to articulate rights that derive from that Truth (or God). These rights are universal and precious. They are woven into the very fabric of existence.

"[E]rosion of belief in the transcendental has resulted in a debasement of culture."

Thus emerged, from a marriage of Judeo-Christian faith, Greco-Roman philosophy, and (much later) Anglo-Saxon constitutionalism, ideas such as individual liberty, the sanctity of private property, the importance of freedom of religion and tolerance to protect men's thoughts and souls.

Once faith in these transcendental values was shaken by a cold, unflinching empiricism--after all, one cannot see justice, honor, or virtue--the cracks in the foundation slowly spread, until, one by one, the pillars of a Truth-oriented society crumbled.

Words once imbued with awe and power have been distorted or reduced to meaningless platitudes; some examples:

- "Justice" now is often "social justice," which amounts to a vindictive form of score-settling for historically-aggrieved groups. There is no blind balancing of the scales, but bitter accusations of "privilege" and "cultural appropriation."

- "Community" has been replaced with "globalism" and "cosmopolitanism," which demand an artificial reduction of identities into an arid, sleek denominator. Focusing on those near us, and to committing to a place and its traditions, are denounced as narrow and parochial interests.

- "Art" is doing anything that's "trangressive," but if there are no boundaries, how can they be pushed? Rather than study great artists, learn their techniques, and then strive to build upon and actually create something genuinely new and artistically exciting, "artists" put their unmade beds into museums.

- "Family" is no longer the stable foundation upon which a free society is built. Instead, it's an amorphous term that validates any number of arrangements that don't recognize the obligations, duties, and relationships of family members to one another. The state will provide, so who needs the support of the nuclear family?

***

"Once faith in these transcendental values was shaken by a cold, unflinching empiricism... the pillars of a Truth-oriented society crumbled."

The examples are, sadly, numberless.

Without any firm foundation in a moral universe, such dislocation and distortion are inevitable. The lack of a unifying acceptance of transcendentals is why, more than anything else, there is such division in the United States and the West today.

There are, broadly, two camps: those who reject transcendental Truth (and, ironically, create their own orthodoxies and religious precepts in the process) and those who accept it. I fear the latter is losing--and has been for some time--this struggle for the soul of the West.

If the important things--family, community, justice, art, culture, tolerance, republican self-government--are to survive, it will take a re-dedication to the quest for Truth in an age that has, I'm afraid, utterly rejected it.

As such, I will dedicate the next few Fridays to exploring why tradition, morality, and Truth matter to a free society, and how we can restore them.

Disastrous National Convention

noreply@blogger.com (The Portly Politico) — Wed, 27 Jul 2016 10:30:00 +0000

I knew there would be some lingering frustration from supporters of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, the fiery, crusty "democratic socialist" who fought tenaciously to secure the Democratic Party's nomination against the ultimate nominee, Hillary Clinton. However, I never thought the frustration would manifest itself in such boisterous rebellion against the Democratic National Convention, the Democratic National Committee, and Mrs. Clinton.

As I've written before, the Democratic Party enforces remarkable party unity, and I expect that many discouraged Sandernistas will ultimately, if not enthusiastically, support Hillary Clinton. That being said, the Democratic National Convention has so far been much more contentious than I imagined.

It's certainly been more frayed than the Republican National Convention. To watch media coverage of last week's convention in Cleveland, one would have thought delegates were on the verge of running Trump out on a rail and nominating John Kasich instead.

Aging socialist Bernie Sanders--beloved by 20-something, upper-middle class liberal arts majors everywhere

(Image Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bernie_Sanders.jpg)

What exactly were the major "scandals" of the RNC? Melania Trump gave a speech that contained one paragraph of broad, saccharine, generic platitudes that (admittedly) tracked very closely to a similar section of a speech First Lady Michelle Obama gave; Never Trump delegates essentially demanded a roll call vote by delegation; and Ted Cruz offered a non-endorsement of Donald Trump. If anything, Cruz's non-endorsement actually did a great deal to bring Republicans together around their nominee, as did Trump's strong acceptance speech Thursday night.

Contrast that with the first two days of the DNC: Bernie Sanders supporters booed when their hero encouraged them to vote for Hillary Clinton; the DNC stalled to avoid accepting paperwork that would have challenged Senator Tim Kaine's nomination as Clinton's running mate; the Sandernistas booed the California Congressman Nancy Pelosi--and Sanders again!--at a meeting Tuesday morning; and Clinton's team crafted a plan to drown out unruly Sanders supporters during Tuesday night's nominating vote.

Oh, and disgraced former Chairwoman of the DNC--and now honorary chair of Clinton's campaign team--Debbie Wasserman Schultz was denounced loudly by her own Florida delegation.

"[Sanders supporters] were listening to their messiah, and he'd been crucified by the very party and candidate at whose convention he spoke."

Add to this flurry of disaffection last week's Democratic National Committee e-mail scandal, which saw WikiLeaks release nearly 20,000 DNC e-mails--some of which demonstrate the open collusion between the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and reporters--and the Democratic National Convention is a tinderbox.

The Sanders movement has evolved beyond the control of its titular leader. As I watched Senator Sanders give his speech at the DNC Monday night, I was struck by the number of people--mostly women, but some men--who were openly weeping as he spoke. I also noticed the absolutely awe-struck gaze some of these (mostly young) people had. They were listening to their messiah, and he'd been crucified by the very party and candidate at whose convention he spoke.

"For some Democrats, the cry of 'I'm With Her' sounds more like 'Long Live the Queen.'"

Clinton will now desperately try to regain the Party's composure. Upcoming speeches from President Obama and other Democratic Party stalwarts will have to convince disaffected Sanders supporters that their favorite programs and policies will be advanced under a Clinton administration. Senator Tim Kaine, Clinton's bland but safe running mate, will have to make the case that a Clinton-Kaine ticket offers the same progressive punch as a Sanders-Warren one.

Through it all, look to media commentators to downplay the divisions. There will also be a lot of tut-tutting over the behavior of Sandernistas, and smug remonstrances to "get behind her."

The popular, populist, anti-establishment candidate--for better or for worse--won the Republican Party and staved off a full-scale civil war. The corrupt, corporatist, establishment crony of the Democratic Party will have to do the same. Fortunately for her, she already has ample media, institutional, and political support behind her, ready to quell any further rebellions.

For some Democrats, the cry of "I'm With Her" sounds more like "Long Live the Queen."

The Democratic National Convention - What to Expect

noreply@blogger.com (The Portly Politico) — Mon, 25 Jul 2016 10:30:00 +0000

With a sometimes rough, sometimes raucous, but ultimately uneventful (in the sense that "no one got hurt physically"; it was a big success for Trump) Republican National Convention in the history books, the nation's attention turns to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. Donald Trump's seminal acceptance speech--the best he's ever given, and which I'll discuss in a later post--sparked immediate speculation as to the Clinton campaign's next move. Hillary Clinton's announcement on Friday of her running mate, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, failed to steal attention away from the Trump campaign, nor did it boost the Clinton campaign as hoped.

Instead, a breaking host of scandals emanating from the leaking of nearly 20,000 Democratic National Committee e-mails has diverted the wrong kind of attention to Clinton, the Democratic Party, and their convention. It appears the DNC actively worked against Senator Bernie Sanders, cooking up ways to undermine his energetic campaign. DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is the first casualty of these leaks. It seems the Democratic Party struggles with e-mail encryption.

At least one Democrat will be brought down by an e-mail scandal this year.

(Image Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DWSPortrait.jpg)

In light of these events, here are some things to look for at this week's Democratic National Convention:

- The E-Mails: I'm very curious to see how, if at all, Democrats address this leak. While I sympathize with their organization's plight--probably the only time I'll ever be able to write such a thing--and abhor such hacking chicanery, the e-mails are out and there's no going back. Wasserman Schultz will step down as Chairwoman of the DNC, and CNN is already reporting that she won't be speaking at the convention.

There are two possible responses: don't talk about the e-mails at all, or play for sympathy. I could see Clinton (or some Democratic operative or B-list congressman) denouncing hacker Guccifer 2.0 as an agent of the Trump campaign or some such nonsense. They would be right to point out the wickedness of such criminal activity, but explaining the contents of their e-mails--especially open collusion with reporters and media outlets to run stories favorable to Clinton--is going to be very difficult. I imagine it will be so difficult, they won't even try.

"[A] breaking host of scandals emanating from the leaking of nearly 20,000 Democratic National Committee e-mails has diverted the wrong kind of attention to Clinton, the Democratic Party, and their convention."

- Tim Kaine: Clinton's pick of Tim Kaine as her running mate is significant. Rather than go for a progressive firebrand like Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren--a pick that would have fired up the base--Secretary Clinton went for a safe, reliable Senator with extensive public service and executive experience. Kaine is a compromiser--a "progressive who knows how to get things done," Clinton said, echoing her description of herself from a Democratic primary debate last fall--and is apparently well-liked on both sides of the aisle, even by Texas Senator and die-hard conservative Ted Cruz.

Clinton's pick sends two messages: one is that her ticket is the safe pick, and that establishment Republicans squeamish about Trump have a place to turn. The latter is a long shot; yes, there will be Republicans who will vote for Clinton, but their numbers are dwindling. Kaine also leaves the ultra-progressive, Warren/Sanders wing of the Democratic Party unfulfilled. As I've written elsewhere, Democratic Party unity is often a remarkable thing to behold, but in light of the blatantly pro-Clinton position of the DNC the leaked e-mails reveal, that wing could be dissatisfied enough to stay home on November 8, or to vote for the Green Party's Jill Stein.

"Just as Trump's acceptance speech breathed life into his campaign... Clinton's acceptance speech will have to electrify the Democratic base."

- Clinton's Acceptance Speech: Just as Trump's acceptance speech breathed life into his campaign and helped to assuage many Republicans' fears, Clinton's acceptance speech will have to electrify the Democratic base. I imagine she'll use a good chunk of it attempting to discredit Trump, and she'll continue the claim that his speech was based on fear, while her campaign will be about hope. She'll also promise to continue "fighting"--something she says she loves to do--for greater equality, access, and wages, but Trump has stolen her thunder on some of these issues.

***

Throughout this week, be on the lookout for a parade of telegenic, preferred-identity "victims" who will talk about how this or that government program saved their lives, or how the lack of free college and two-years paid maternity leave made their lives difficult. The Democratic Party loves nothing more than to march out useful mouthpieces for whatever their cause-of-the-moment happens to be.

There was a diverse array of speakers at the RNC, in part as an attempt to dispel the myth that Republicans are just a bunch of old, white men (just look at South Carolina's elected officials and you'll realize right away diversity of the Republican Party). It's also very difficult being an openly conservative minority--there's no great financial or professional benefit to being, say, a black Republican, and a great deal of scorn that can come with it. Being a minority Democratic, on the other hand, comes with unlimited praise and media accolades, as we'll see this week.

(To be clear, there's nothing wrong with hosting speakers of multiple ethnic backgrounds at any function, but I think any reasonably honest person will recognize the unfortunate, racialist games our politicians play, either to avoid criticism or to garner praise from those who care about such skin-deep "diversity." This statement is merely to clarify that my issue isn't with minorities speaking their minds--race shouldn't matter, ideas should--but rather with the portrayal of certain groups as deserving of or requiring special treatment, and of exploiting sympathy for those groups to push a coercive political agenda.)

Otherwise, the three items above are the big ones, and I'll be interested to see what unfolds this week. Regardless, let's hope for a peaceful convention; love them or hate them, the Dems deserve their chance to make their case to the American people.

Ted Cruz - Conservative Hero, or Traitor to His Party?

noreply@blogger.com (The Portly Politico) — Fri, 22 Jul 2016 10:30:00 +0000

On Wednesday, 20 July 2016, Texas Senator Ted Cruz delivered a speech at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, in which he congratulated his primary opponent and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on his victory, then urged voters to "vote your conscience" in November. Boos filled the arena.

What convention delegates were booing was not the admonition to vote their conscience--for many of them, that means voting for Donald Trump--but the lack of an explicit endorsement from Senator Cruz to endorse Trump.

Ted Cruz - not the Zodiac Killer, but almost in as much trouble.

(Image Source: By Frank Fey (U.S. Senate Photographic Studio) - Office of Senator Ted Cruz, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=25195114)

Immediately, two camps formed: the majority pro-Trump camp, and the dwindling minority of Never Trumpers. Within the former there are, broadly, two groups: die-hard Trump fans, who have supported the candidate since last summer; and more tepid supporters who have given their support to Trump because they support their party's nominee, they won't support Hillary Clinton, they support elements of Trumpism, or some combination of the three.

The latter camp--I suspect--will continue to lose momentum now that the nomination process is complete. Some of those voters will reluctantly vote for Trump for fear that a Clinton presidency will irrevocably shift the Supreme Court toward constitutional adaptavism and judicial activism. Some will vote third-party, probably for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, or not vote at all. A very small minority will vote for Clinton.

The kerfuffle highlights well the tensions inherent in party politics: when does loyalty to party overcome adherence to principles, and vice-versa?

How these two groups have interpreted Cruz's speech is predictable. For the pro-Trump/party unity crowd, they see Cruz's non-endorsement as a traitorous, duplicitous swipe at the nominee and his supporters, someone who went back on his word to endorse the winner of the primary process.

For the anti-Trump side, Cruz is a hero who stands on principle, even in the face of overwhelming pressure from his party to support explicitly the GOP nominee. They argue that his pledge to support the candidate became null and void when the Trump campaign attacked Cruz's wife, Heidi, and insinuated that his father was involved in the Kennedy assassination.

The kerfuffle highlights well the tensions inherent in party politics: when does loyalty to party overcome adherence to principles, and vice-versa? To what extent should a voter temper his principles for the sake of political advantage, expediency, or compromise?

These are difficult questions, and they did not start with the 2016 election cycle. Movement conservatives were frustrated, for example, with the 2008 and 2012 GOP nominees. They perceived Arizona Senator John McCain and Massachusetts Senator Mitt Romney, respectively, as being inconsistently conservative. Some conservatives refused to vote for those candidates; many did. Some voted for them enthusiastically, reasoning that their flaws were better than accepting the progressivism of President Barack Obama, or changing their thinking to align with the candidates. Others did so more reluctantly.

***

(Full disclosure--and a disclaimer: I voted for Senator Cruz in the 2016 South Carolina GOP primary. The analysis to follow does not represent an endorsement or criticism of Senator Cruz's speech or positions, but rather is an attempt--as fully as possible--at an objective analysis of the reasons for his position, and the consequences of it. Angry advocates of both sides take note.)

So, which is it? Is Ted Cruz a hero of the conservative movement, standing on principle at the expense of party unity? Or is he an opportunistic traitor to the Republican Party?

It's a tricky question, and both sides have merit. The pro-Trump majority is broadly correct that, having committed to endorsing the ultimate nominee, Cruz should hold up that endorsement, as many other Republicans have done, if reluctantly. Take, for example, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, who has endorsed Trump, but also been quick to criticize the nominee when his statement's violated Ryan's principles.

"...while Cruz didn't outright endorse Trump, he didn't not endorse him, either, and in no way maimed Trump. If anything, he mostly hurt himself."

On the other hand, Cruz in no way denigrated Donald Trump, or even suggested that voters should not vote for him. Given in any other context, his speech would have received uproarious applause and plaudits from conservatives. It did not explicitly fulfill his pledge to support the nominee, but it did not seek to criticize or harm the nominee overtly.

Lost in this debate--and in media coverage of the Cruz incident--was one of the best moments of party unity and statesmanship, which came when former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich started his speech by saying, essentially, that Senator Cruz had encouraged voters to vote their conscience for the candidate most likely to uphold the Constitution. As Gingrich put it, the only viable candidate for president who would plausibly do so is Trump.

Some may object that Newt's entreaty was a neat verbal trick, or point out the possibility of voting third-party (though Gary Johnson isn't viable), but it demonstrated his ability to think on his feet and his skills at diplomacy. He was able to restore some sense of decorum and unity to the proceedings.

In short, while Cruz didn't outright endorse Trump, he didn't not endorse him, either, and in no way maimed Trump. If anything, he mostly hurt himself.

***

That gets to another question, one that I think is equally interesting: what, if anything, did Cruz hope to gain from this speech? Some will say it was free of any political motivation, but that seems unlikely. Call me a cynic, but I think Cruz has his eye on the future.

I suspect--and, naturally, I could be very wrong--that Cruz is setting himself to win over the support of conservatives who either won't vote for Trump, or will vote for him with deep misgivings. He's also looking for those voters who are becoming more enthusiastic about Trump, but have lingering feelings that they've had to talk themselves into liking the candidate a bit too much. If anything goes majorly wrong in a Trump presidency, these voters may turn to Cruz in four or eight years.

Whether Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump wins in November, Cruz will cast himself as the principled conservative who took a stand when the overwhelming force of his party's opinion pressured him to do otherwise. In the event of a Clinton victory, Cruz will attempt to win the GOP nomination in 2020. In the event of a Trump victory, Cruz is betting on Trump making enough mistakes that enthusiasm for him sours, and in their hour of need, Republicans will say, "this was the man with the wisdom to resist." That's a much tougher path, as it is extremely difficult to challenge successfully an incumbent president for his party's nomination.

In both cases, it's assuming an awful lot, and if the reaction at the Quicken Loans Arena Wednesday night is any indication, Cruz miscalculated badly. But politics is a fickle mistress, and the political scene could look very different in four years.

***

Will Cruz's speech galvanize the dwindling Never Trump forces? Or will he spur more conservatives to support the party as a rallying cry against him? Will he be blamed for splitting the party if Clinton wins? Or will his gambit pay off, with voters of some distant election year seeing in him a man of principle?

These are interesting questions; ultimately, they are for the voters to decide.

Music is for Everyone

noreply@blogger.com (The Portly Politico) — Wed, 20 Jul 2016 10:30:00 +0000

On the opening night of the 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump made the grandest entrance in American political history (as far as I know):

Pageantry.

(Video Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/18/the-biggest-winner-of-mondays-gop-convention-was-donald-trumps-amazing-entrance/)

Whether or not you love The Donald, hate his guts, or would rather watch reruns of The Celebrity Apprentice, surely we can all unite in acknowledging that his entrance was freaking amazing. Heck, even The Washington Post thought it was cool. I was watching alone in my not-so-portly bungalow and began hooping and hollering like a silver-backed gorilla.

Substantive? No. Reason to vote Trump-Pence this November? Hardly. An awesome display of pageantry? Heck, yes.

The Mustache of a Champion.

(Image Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mercury#/media/File:Queen_1984_0009.jpg; Attribution: Thomas Steffan)

The showman in me--I am, after all, an over-the-top indie musician with delusions of grandeur--had to share my elation with the world. No thought can be left unsaid these days, so I took to Facebook.

Here's my Facebook post, and the exchange that is the subject of this piece:

A bitter progressive rains on a parade before taxing and placing racial quotas on it.

Here's a transcript:

TPP: Whether you love or hate Donald Trump, his entrance at the Republican National Convention just now was EXACTLY how I would have done it--striding in to the strains of a Queen song as a podium rises from the floor. Holy crap...

Bitter Progressive: Trump opens a party convention that features a platform heavily biased against marriage equality and gay rights by strolling on stage to a song written and performed by a gay man who died of AIDS.

I'm not sure which is stronger, the 2016 GOP's innate knack for unintentional self-parody ("The national seal should include an AR-15!") or its total obliviousness to the concept of irony.

TPP: Maybe a good song is just a good song.

BP: The cool thing about music is that there's ALWAYS something deeper.

TPP: Listen to my EP and you'll learn otherwise. :D

(Note how I cleverly defuse the bitterness with self-deprecating humor that also doubles as shameless promotion for my debut solo EP, Contest Winner EP, available now on iTunes, Google Play, Amazon, and elsewhere.)

For a post about a major political party's convention and controversial nominee, it was probably the least possible political statement I could make... except that, in our present age, everything is politicized.

"Tolerance isn't enough; bitter progressives demand total acceptance, even celebration, of whatever happens to be their cause-of-the-moment."

A quick aside: I'm going to ignore the "unintentional self-parody" and the GOP's "total obliviousness to the concept of irony," except to ask the following: how exactly is a political party supposed to acknowledge irony? Do kill-joy progressives want Donald Trump to say, "Okay, okay, that was awesome, and I'm up here to introduce my wife, but first let me acknowledge that 'We Are the Champions' was written by a gay man, so let's take a moment to check our privilege and reconsider our platform's plank on same-sex marriage"? I suspect that, even if he did, there'd be a slew of "too little, too late" articles on HuffPo the next day.

(And let me quickly take a moment to acknowledge the irony of writing a post lamenting excessive politicization on a blog that basically has "politics" in the name.)

***

So, let's unpack the first paragraph of Bitter Progressive's first post. He complains that Trump entered to a Queen song, because the Republican Party platform supports traditional marriage, and Freddie Mercury was gay. While BP intends this statement to be a slam at the GOP--and as a way of virtue-signalling his own support for gay rights--he essentially reduces a talented musician to one dimension, one personal trait.

I wish homosexual Americans all the best, but I, too, question the wisdom of same-sex marriage. Does this mean I can't listen to and appreciate Queen, simply because Freddie Mercury happened to be gay? By this logic, I shouldn't associate with gay people at all, nor should the roughly half of Americans who vote Republican.

Aren't we supposed to reach out to people--regardless of their sexual orientation--and treat them with respect, even if we disagree? How does demanding an effective ban on music by gay artists for half the population help bridge that gap (and what are Log Cabin Republicans to do)? How does it increase understanding and tolerance?

"None of [Freddie Mercury's] other qualities matter... until and unless they can be used as a convenient bludgeon to force conformity to the unforeseen priorities of a future age."

It doesn't, and that's not the point. Tolerance isn't enough; bitter progressives demand total acceptance, even celebration, of whatever happens to be their cause-of-the-moment.

The logic of BP's post also dehumanizes Freddie Mercury (and, by extension, all gay men). No more is he a phenomenal, groundbreaking singer and songwriter. Instead, he's defined almost entirely based on who he likes to sleep with, and in turn, our anachronistic opinions about whether or not Mercury can formalize that sexual relationship in a legal forum is supposed to dictate whether or not we are allowed to enjoy his music. None of his other qualities matter--being a man, having an awesome mustache, possessing an amazing voice--until and unless they can be used as a convenient bludgeon to force conformity to the unforeseen priorities of a future age.

Another pop culture example: I disagree vehemently with pretty much everything Lady Gaga has ever said or done. Her live concerts are like modern-day Dianic rituals to some pagan fertility goddess. She prioritizes sexual libertinism over all else. But, damn if I don't like "Bad Romance"--and even "Born This Way," an (inaccurate) anthem for the gay rights movement. Should I not listen to her music because I disagree with her political and social views (there are other, better, aesthetic reasons to do so)? If BP had his way, I suppose not.

A more useful, valid critique of Trump's epic entrance would point out the danger to a free republic of falling for grand pageantry... as a substitute for responsible self-government.

A more useful, valid critique of Trump's epic entrance would point out the danger to a free republic of falling for grand pageantry--"bread and circuses," as one of my colleagues put it--as a substitute for responsible self-government. I'll admit that I loved every second of Trump's approach, but I'm not making an important voting decision based on a fifteen second stroll. However, some people will love it too much, and make a decision based solely on pageantry.

That's a legitimate concern. Freddie Mercury's sex life forty years ago--which magically makes "We Are the Champions," an incredibly politics-neutral song off-limits--isn't.

***

Music should be for everyone to enjoy (songwriters should, of course, retain the rights to their works, but that's not the issue here). If we want to build a productive civil society--one with disagreements, but common respect--we shouldn't criticize one group for enjoying a song because of an incidental personal characteristic of the songwriter. Some of my best fans are liberals and progressives. Should I be offended that they listen to "Hipster Girl Next Door" even if it describes their lifestyle-liberalism to a tee (surely some of them fail to recognize the irony)? Should they shun me from their slam poetry readings and drum circles because I don't think the government should pay for urine-soaked "art"?

Of course not. Let's grow up and just let a good song be a good song. Maybe we'll learn something while singing together.

In the Pickle Barrel - All Week Long!

noreply@blogger.com (The Portly Politico) — Mon, 18 Jul 2016 10:30:00 +0000

Last summer, I appeared (most) every Tuesday on my friend Bill Pickle's daily podcast, In the Pickle Barrel, which airs Monday through Friday on American Patriot Radio. I haven't been able to make my "Tuesdays with Tyler" segment this summer, and I've really missed the opportunity to wax political on the air.

Get a good brine going.

(Image Source: http://www.inthepicklebarrel.com/)

So when Bill contacted me a couple of weeks ago about guest-hosting while he's at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, I jumped at the chance. This whole week (18-22 July 2016) I'll be hosting In the Pickle Barrel. I've filled in for Bill before for a day here and there, but never for five days. I feel like a less talented, less funny version of Mark Steyn.

Join me on air! Call (605) 562-3140 and enter PIN 263151 all this week, M-F 8-10 AM. Listen LIVE at www.americanpatriotradio.com/apr-live.

What's on the agenda for the next week? Here's a rough outline (subject to change):

- Monday - Let's learn about Mike Pence! Also, who might show up in a Trump cabinet? What's going down at the Republican National Convention? In the second hour, we'll discuss the latest round of terror attacks in France, the recent shootings in the United States, and the coup in Turkey. If you wish hard enough, Bill Pickle himself might call in with an update from Cleveland.

- Tuesday - We'll kick off the show discussing some core American values. At 8:30, special guest Iva Reed joins the program to talk about her world travels, as well as her upcoming book on the impact of the War on Drugs.

- Wednesday - What's going down at the RNC? We'll discuss during the first hour. At 9 AM, we're joined by one of my former students, Jacqueline Lawson, who will discuss faith and missionary work in New York City.

- Thursday - Margaret Thatcher said that "Europe was created by history. America was created by philosophy." What does this mean? We'll unpack this important quotation during the first hour. ***UPDATE: At 8:30, singer-songwriter Frederick Ingram joins the program to discuss music and politics.*** During the second hour, we'll go over the latest news from the convention and the world at large.

- Friday - It's a Bill Pickle tradition: Anything Goes Friday! Call in at (605) 562-3140, then enter PIN 263151 to join the conversation. We'll also review Trump's nomination speech.

So, there you have it. I'll be back Wednesday with a full blog post about the Republican National Convention.

Clinton's Running Mate - Analysis and Prognostications

noreply@blogger.com (The Portly Politico) — Fri, 15 Jul 2016 10:30:00 +0000

It appears that Donald Trump has selected Mike Pence, Governor of Indiana, as his running mate. Pence is a solid social conservative who may help assuage the fears of movement conservatives about Trump's policies. While I'm disappointed that my science-fiction-loving, history-writing, jowl-shaking favorite, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, didn't make the cut, Pence was a strong choice, especially against more questionable figures like New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (too much like Trump, not conservative enough) or Iowa Senator Joni Ernst (too inexperienced, not enough name recognition). He'll bring a sense of stability and experience to the ticket, even if he lacks Newt's erudition and pizzazz.

So now we turn our attention to Hillary Clinton's vice presidential search. Secretary Clinton indicated that she would wait to make an official selection after Trump's decision was finalized; with the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia just a little over a week away, look for her to make a decision soon (possibly during the Republican National Convention next week in Cleveland).

I'm not as steeped in Democratic Party politics to the same extent as the Republican Party, and even there I'm mostly wading in the shallow end of the pool. That being said, the Democrats seem to be experiencing the same internal power struggle as the Republican Party. Just as the Republican Party consists of various factions (broadly falling into the "establishment" and Tea Party sections, and now with a new Trumpist element, although the real breakdown is far more complicated than these categories), the Democrats increasingly seem divided between Clinton-style corporatism--a cozy relationship between government and certain key firms--and social progressivism and economic socialism.

"...Democrats exercise amazing party unity...."

The latter group gained a powerful voice in the form of (formerly Independent) Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, who went from polling around 4% last summer to losing only narrowly to Clinton in the Democratic primaries in June. Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren also represents this aggressive, progressive, economic populist wing of the Democratic Party, and both Sanders and Warren have had Clinton running further to the left than normal.

Unlike Republicans, though, national Democrats exercise amazing party unity, and once a nominee is selected, they tend to stick doggedly to their party's pick. This discipline applies, at least, to elected officials; voters, of course, often don't demonstrate the same degree of party loyalty. For example, there is the so-called "Bernie or Bust" group (much like the #NeverTrump and #NeverHillary crowds), some of whom are breaking for Trump over Hillary. However, I expect most Democratic voters will "hold their noses" and vote for Clinton, just as many Republicans will do for Trump.

"[Hillary Clinton] is the living embodiment of the Washington elite and insider establishment."

Much like Trump, then, a lackluster Clinton campaign potentially has much to gain from a prudent VP pick. Whereas an unscripted, shoot-from-the-hip Trump was probably wise to pick a more established, reliable, mildly boring figure (as Dinesh D'Souza said on Sean Hannity's radio show Thursday, Trump went for "white bread" over the spicier Gingrich), Clinton may benefit from an unconventional running mate. She is the living embodiment of the Washington elite and insider establishment, having lived in a cossetted world of taxpayer-funded luxury for most of her adult life. A scrappy outsider could be her best bet, and could throw some red meat to the Democratic Party's increasingly progressive base.

On the other hand, Clinton may want to double down on her establishment bona fides, making the argument that her campaign is the "serious" one that will maintain the status quo and incrementally advance progressive pet projects like a higher minimum wage and "free" college (among other taxpayer-funded goodies).

The tight-lipped smile and beady eyes of vice-presidential contender Senator Tim Kaine.

(Image Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tim_Kaine,_official_113th_Congress_photo_portrait.jpg)

***

So, who are Clinton's potential nominees? Here's a list, pulled from this article at CNN.com:

1.) Virginia Senator Tim Kaine

2.) Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren

3.) Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown

4.) Agricultural Secretary Tom Vilsack

- Honorable Mention: Labor Secretary Tom Perez

- Wild Cards: Housing Secretary Julian Castro and California Congressmen Xavier Beccerra

Most of the reading I've done (and, admittedly, it's not much) indicates that Tim Kaine is the likely choice. He certainly seems to be the safe choice--he's generally inoffensive, experienced, and bilingual--but that might not be the best move for Clinton. While the CNN article linked above indicates that the Democratic base isn't as important this time around, that assumption is premised on Bernie Sanders's endorsement. It appears that endorsement was fairly hollow, if consistent with the Democratic Party's strong party discipline.

What about a Clinton-Warren ticket? Clinton could double down on the "historic first" aspect of her campaign--pretty much her only real selling point--saying, "why not elect the first female Vice President, too"? But how much would that benefit her, really? It would neutralize a potentially powerful opponent to Clinton's left, and Warren has a demonstrated ability to fire up crowds, but her fiery, socialistic rhetoric ("you didn't build that") could hurt Clinton with moderate voters.

At one point there was quite a bit of buzz around Julian Castro and his brother, both of whom seemed to be Hispanic Obamas--young, dynamic, ethnic, hip--but that possibility appears unlikely. Indeed, most of the rest of the names on this list appear to be cabinet members in a Clinton administration, but not running mates (except possibly Tom Vilsack).

"...Washington, D.C., has awarded its three electoral votes to the Democratic candidate in every presidential election since it could first vote in 1964: the bureaucrats want to keep their jobs."

It's unwise, however, to underestimate the power of identity politics to the Democratic Party. While the Republican Party is historically made up of three factions--national security conservatives, social conservatives, and economic conservatives--the Democratic Party is a vast hodge-podge of clients looking to government to serve as their patron. This phenomenon explains why Washington, D.C., has awarded its three electoral votes to the Democratic candidate in every presidential election since it could first vote in 1964: the bureaucrats want to keep their jobs.

With so many clients--and with the odious racial balkanization pushed by far left groups like Black Lives Matter, et. al.--any Democratic administration and presidential ticket has to perform a delicate balancing act of patronage to appease the myriad factions demanding a seat at the table. Clinton's VP pick will be a part of that broader calculation.

***

Who do I think Clinton will pick? I have no idea. I've heard talk of a Clinton-Sanders reconciliation ticket, but that strains credulity. I get the impression the two can barely stand each other, and Clinton needs someone younger to step into the presidency in the event that her health problems worsen. An elderly, bitter socialist is probably not the best person to have one heartbeat away from the presidency.

Tim Kaine does seem like the kind of blandly conformist, minimally inoffensive pick Clinton would make. More importantly, he doesn't threaten her in any way, and she could safely ignore him for four or eight years. I don't think she'd have that luxury with Elizabeth Warren. I also suspect that Warren has her eyes on the White House herself, and might hold back for a run in 2020 in the event of a Trump victory.

Regardless, I can guarantee that Clinton's pick will be calculated and focus-grouped to nth degree to benefit her electoral prospects as much as possible. For Republicans, let's hope Mike Pence takes debating lessons from Newt Gingrich before the Vice Presidential Debate this autumn.

Third Party Opportunity?

noreply@blogger.com (The Portly Politico) — Wed, 13 Jul 2016 10:30:00 +0000

This election cycle, both major American political parties nominated figures with low likeability and favorability in most polls. Many hard-left progressive Democrats despair that their party nominated former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who they view as a political chameleon and corporatist. Similarly, some Republicans, both of the movement conservative (such as National Review) and establishment (think Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham) varieties, are dismayed that GOP voters elected Donald Trump as their party's standard-bearer.

The question, inevitably, is "why not a third-party candidate?" Indeed, the Libertarian Party saw a doubling of registrations after Trump secured the Republican nomination in May. A number of dissatisfied progressives are turning to Jill Stein, perennial favorite of the Green Party (more interestingly, a significant minority of Bernie Sanders supporters are morphing into Trump fans). If both major political parties have such negative figures at the helm, why not reject both and vote for a third party?

I received an e-mail today from a student with exactly that question. Rather than discuss Hillary Clinton's vice-presidential picks--a topic I'll save for Friday, and which I need to research further, anyway--I'd like to address this young man's questions. Note, this student is the same precocious young man who e-mailed me about Brexit last month.

Here's a screenshot of the e-mail, with a transcript:

Kids say the darnedest things.

Transcript:

With the somewhat radical left and right candidates in the major parties, how is Libertarian Gary Johnson not capitalizing on the 1/3 of independents and the rough 1/6 of soft Rs and Ds. He is somewhat centralist, having a neutral point of view and usually agreeing with the US population in policy issues. So far he hasn't garnered enough points to be in a debate, however with his support in the west, he is the former Governor of New Mexico, he might be in one soon. If Gary is able to get on the floor and be seen as the middle ground between Hillary and Trump, do you believe he could actual contend for presidency or would he just get walked over. Also, if he does garner some electoral votes come November, what candidate would he hurt the most?

My L'il Politico brings up some interesting points, though I imagine there are many Democrats who would disagree with his assessment of Hillary Clinton, who strikes me as a chameleon who shifts policy positions with the wind; if she's part of the "radical left," it's only because that seems to be what the Democratic base wants. Regardless, why hasn't Governor Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate, garnered more attention, or done better at seizing the squishy middle of American politics?

"...Gary Johnson... won't be winning the presidency this year, much less any electoral votes."

There are a number of possible explanations. As I've already stated, there was a brief surge for the Libertarian Party after Trump's nomination. Of course, Trump received his own bump in the polls, a typical occurrence once a candidate has won his party's nomination nod (Clinton similarly benefited from the nomination bump in June). I imagine that, while there was an initial boomlet for the Libertarian Party, traditionally Republican or Republican-leaning voters have gotten used to or come to terms with Trump's nomination, and are naturally returning to familiar (if somewhat altered) waters.

That, of course, would only partially explain why Gary Johnson--or any third-party candidate--won't be winning the presidency this year, much less any electoral votes.

Third-party candidates suffer a number of disadvantages in the American presidential system, most of them structural. Unintentionally, our Constitution contributed greatly to the creation of the two-party system, a system which has endured, with only temporary interruptions, for most of the nation's history. Despite George Washington's warning against the formation of political parties in his Farewell Address, the two-party system was almost an inevitability.

For one, most States require a simple majority for a candidate to win elected office. Unlike Britain's "first past the post" system, which allows the candidate with the most votes to win a seat in Parliament, most States require an actual majority (50% + 1), and will hold run-off elections accordingly. In effect, then, a third-party candidate of any significant ability or recognition only really succeeds in sucking votes away from the candidate he is most akin to politically.

In presidential elections, it is possible for third-party candidates to win electoral votes--just ask Theodore Roosevelt, who won twenty-two electoral votes in 1912, beating incumbent President William Howard Taft by sixteen votes, but losing hugely to Woodrow Wilson--but it is similarly difficult even to receive a plurality of votes (as I understand it, a "first past the post" plurality is all that is necessary in most States to win all of those States' votes). Again, third-party candidates tend to wound candidates that are most similar to them on issues, or (in the case of TR in 1912) they completely supplant one of the major party candidates, only to go down with the ship.

"[T]he two-party system was almost an inevitability."

Just look at the example of Ross Perot in 1992, a kind of spiritual predecessor to Trump in many ways. Perot was the most successful third-party candidate since Theodore Roosevelt ran on the Progressive Party ticket in 1912, and while Perot won millions of votes nationally, he didn't pocket a single electoral vote. He did, however, drain just enough votes away from incumbent President George H. W. Bush to ensure that then-Governor Bill Clinton could win the States necessary to secure the presidency.

One can look at multiple examples from US history: the Populist Party in 1892 (in 1896, they wised up, nominated the Democratic Party's nominee, William Jennings Bryan, and still lost to the Republican candidate, William McKinley); the Socialist Party in 1920 (Eugene V. Debs won a million votes--from prison); the Progressive Party; and on and on. Third parties are victims of their own failure, too--voters vote for and donate to perceived winners far more than to perceived losers.

Historically, only one party has successfully moved from third-party status to two-party dominance--the Republican Party--and that was in the throes of the 1860 election on the eve of the Civil War, which saw the Democrats split into two (the Northern Democrats and the Southern Democrats) and the formation of the Constitutional Union Party. In such an environment, it was much more likely for an upstart Republican Party (only six years old at the time) to win the presidency, and the Republican Party benefited in part from the infrastructure left behind by the old Whig Party.

"Right now, we're witnessing a major political realignment in both political parties."

Also, an important point that's easy to forget (the political establishment certainly did over the past year) is that political parties are broad coalitions, and they tend to reform internally or experience revolutions from within. They are not monolithic, Stalinistic organizations (most of the time), and they strive (often with difficulty) to appeal to and to appease multiple interest groups. These groups often coalesce around a shared set of values (for Republicans, it tends to be limited and/or efficient government; for Democrats, it tends to be an elaborate system of patron-clientele payouts to wildly disparate interest and identity groups), but there's never perfect unity.

Right now, we're witnessing a major political realignment in both political parties, although the Republican Party is certainly receiving more of the attention due to the nature of Trump's over-the-top personality and bombastic antics. Notice, however, that Hillary Clinton (and the Democratic Party at large) has moved much further to left, especially as the progressive, social justice warrior wing of the Party has become louder and more aggressive. In turn, that move to radical social justice has alienated many economic Democrats, who turned either to socialist Bernie Sanders, or to protectionist Donald Trump.

So, despite the low favorability ratings, Trump scratches an itch (as I heard one political pundit put it recently) that many Americans want scratched, even if many others are cautious of him. Similarly, many voters view Clinton as a crook, a liar, and crony, but they feel safer voting for the devil they know than the one they don't.

***

But what of poor Gary Johnson, the lovable, doobie-smoking former Governor of New Mexico? Surely he can fill the vacuum of dissatisfied voters who don't like either option, right?

Perhaps, but for the reasons listed above, it's very unlikely. Johnson was an effective governor in New Mexico (he apparently vetoed more than even former SC Governor Mark Sanford), but since then his biggest claim to fame is that he talks openly about smoking pot (legalization, of course, is a big issue for the Libertarians, as it is for a growing segment of the Republican Party). Like many libertarian-minded candidates (Mark Sanford, again, comes to mind), Johnson comes across as a bit of a weirdo. There's no doubt he's an eccentric fellow. Should this disqualify him from the presidency? Probably not, but, again, voters respond to emotion and perception more than to policy or positions.

The face of a man who won't be President.

(Image Source: https://johnsonweld.com/)

The Libertarian Party itself is a party for the dissatisfied--that's essentially why it formed in the early 1970s, when it had legitimate beefs with President Richard Nixon's heavy-handed imperial presidency and tendency to expand the size and scope of government--and the dissatisfied voted for Trump this year. Trump has brilliantly co-opted the libertarian momentum that in years past went to Congressman Ron Paul or his son, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul.

This fact confirms for me a long-held suspicion: despite grand talk of ideological consistency and purity, the Libertarian Party consists, rather, of large numbers of disaffected weirdos--much like the two major political parties--that care more about presenting a certain Ayn Randian "I-am-really-the-smart-one-here" attitude than anything else. I've rarely met a serious, consistent libertarian. Most hard-core libertarians I've known are positively insufferable (I've experienced this phenomenon with self-described philosophical existentialists and nihilists, too), or they're really just progressives: they want total freedom to engage in society-killing activities but become all-too willing to use the power of the state when it suits their purposes.

For better or for worse, many of these individuals have moved to support Trump or Sanders. But could squishy voters in the middle who aren't traditionally Libertarian move to the party?

Again, I think not. Most of these voters will stick with what they know. A few will move from one to the other of the two major parties, and a very small few will vote third party as a protest or as a legitimate act of conscious. Those that want to give a middle finger to "The System"--a description that fits my perception of most self-described libertarians--are going to vote for Trump.

***

But what if Gary Johnson does well enough in the polls to get on-stage at the presidential debates? That's a possibility, although I don't think it's likely at this point for the reasons stated above. If he does, it would certainly help his profile, and he would likely win over some voters--especially those that lean Republican, or believe the Republican Party has left them behind by nominating Trump--but not enough to win. It would certainly be healthy for the body politic to hear another set of ideas. Regardless, I would be surprised if Gary Johnson won any electoral votes in 2016.

However, in this scenario it's very likely that he could suck enough votes away from Trump that a Clinton victory would be assured. Trump--or any Republican--has a very fine line to walk in the Electoral College, where the Democrats automatically enjoy a huge advantage thanks to California, New York, Illinois, and several other high-population, deep-blue States. Trump needs to win several Midwestern Rust Belt states and Florida to have a shot; that shot disappears with a mildly interesting, somewhat conservative third-party candidate.

All that being said, I respect those third-partiers who are deeply committed to their organization, or who believe they must vote for a third party as an act of conscious. Fortunately, our political system affords us this freedom. However, the most effective way to impact political change is within the traditional two-party system. Parties can be changed from within; after all, they are made up of normal people. With a little dedication and a lot of hard work, people can use the structural advantages of the established parties to push for their views and beliefs.

In other words, why reinvent the wheel, when the wagon's already moving? Hop on board, and have a say in where it's heading.