On Liberty Watch

There is just no sugarcoating it. By garnering 51% of the vote, Trump won in a romp. Not only did he win, the vote totals of the two runners-up (Ron DeSantis 21% and Nikki Haley 19%), were close enough to keep them both in the race. As a result, there is no reason to expect either of them to drop out before the New Hampshire primary on January 23^rd. All of which means that there is virtually no chance that the field will quickly narrow so that Trump will be forced to face a single challenger.

A look at the results below the surface contains more bad news for those of us who think Trump is a disgrace. The turnout was light, possibly because of the weather.  But it was light in the suburbs and urban areas, which are the more accessible areas and the areas where Haley was supposed to be strong.  By contrast the rural areas which represent Trump country, are far less accessible. But Trump voters turned up anyway and voted for him. 

Another factor was the demographics of the voters. Haley ran strong in areas with high incomes and a concentration of college educated voters. On the other hand, Trump ran very well in less affluent and less educated precincts. This suggests it will be difficult for Haley to make much headway among the Republican faithful. And it suggests that Trump has a ceiling on his support among the general public. 

High income precincts are defined as the ones with a median household income greater or equal to $100,000; less affluent precincts have a median household income less that $50,000. Precincts with a concentration of college graduates are defined as ones where 40% of the population has a college education; areas with fewer college graduates are ones in which 15% or less have a college education.

In short, the Republican Party is starting to look like very much like the Democratic Party of yesteryear. It is rapidly becoming a down-market party that is less educated and dominated by blue collar workers. On the other hand the Democratic Party has made substantial gains both among college educated voters and in the formerly Republican suburbs.  

So far however, most of the difference between the parties, with the exception of abortion rights, has been performative. The internal contradictions of the two party’s have not yet come to the surface. For example, in the old Democratic Party, tax policy was designed to tax the few to (allegedly) benefit the many. To the extent the Democratic Party base becomes wealthier and more educated (two sides of the same coin) it is difficult to imagine that the party will continue to advocate the massive income transfers it had formerly supported. 

By the same token, the old Republican Party was committed to free trade. Well, that’s gone out the window. Similarly, the old GOP was supportive of immigration (also a free trade issue). Easy immigration also provided a source of cheap labor for country club Republicans. And the folks in the Country Club are increasingly likely to be Democrats. 

All things considered, the trend continues. We appear to be on track to have a Presidential rematch between two clueless and corrupt old men. And as much as the voters insist that they want different nominees, we are going to get the ones the public votes for. In the end it looks like the winner will be the candidate the public detests the least. 

JFB 

Please follow and like us:

It seems that a lot of people view the recent explosion of antisemitic activity on the campuses of elite universities and western cities as a sort of anomaly. After all, haven’t Jews been a reliable partner in many causes dear to the left. For instance, what about climate change, civil rights, abortion rights, affirmative action, feminism, Black Lives Matter and labor unions to name a few. Apparently, it hasn’t occurred to a lot of people on the left that progressive support for Hamas—and that is what it is—stems from progressive ideology. It is not anomalous at all. 

If you draw a Venn diagram of the causes listed above and include support for Hamas as a factor you will likely see broad overlap. The question is: why?

Permit a broad generalization. Progressives look at the world through the lens of “intersectionality” which is a creed—and it is a creed—that categorizes people according whether they belong to group defined as “oppressors” or “oppressed”.  Note that the definitions are  not only completely arbitrary, they are subject to redefinition at will, and, most importantly, the individual counts for nothing. Only the group and its arbitrary definition as oppressed or oppressor matters. 

Accordingly, intersectionality is merely an update of the classic Marxist class struggle. Call it Marx V2.0. You can also throw in Marx’s cousins, the fascist ideologues who made racial purity the dominant criteria for group membership. Again it is an abstraction, the group, that matters, not an actual person. 

With respect to the Israeli-Hamas war both the racial purity of fascists and Marxian intersectionality are in the mix. Hamas (and its principal backer Iran) has made it clear over and over again that its seeks to exterminate not only the State of Israel, but Jews wherever they live. So that rips away the phony distinction between Zionism and Jewishness. Palestinians are deemed oppressed and Jews (not “just” Israelis) are the oppressors. Further, the philosophy animating Hamas is necessarily totalitarian and based on religious and racial purity. Israel, by contrast, is pluralist. So Hamas and its backers have declared war on Western Liberalism. 

Once the totalitarian roots of Hamas are clear it is obvious why their allies are a rogues gallery that includes Iran, Russia, China, North Korea, and Turkey (a NATO member state!).  It also becomes clear that the U.S. has several challenges it must face head on if the West is to defend its civilization. 

First, and most immediately, the U.S. must once again be the arsenal of democracy as it was during WW2. That will also require changing public finances to (1) emphasize defense and (2) cut lots of largely ineffectual social spending.

Second the U.S. must face the reality that Hamas, Hezbollah etc are merely Iranian proxies. Iran must be dealt with and deterred. Iran’s mullahs will not be bought off. Russia and China will be paying close attention. As will Taiwan. 

If the U.S. acts with sufficient dispatch to deter Iran, the U.S. may be able to avoid being drawn into a shooting war. The alternative to acting firmly and decisively, however belatedly, is to accept and affirm the ascendance of totalitarian rivals while abandoning Western Liberalism.    

Third, the rot of progressivism that has taken root throughout the education establishment must be addressed. That is much easier said than done; freedom of speech must be preserved. Saved actually. We cannot be in the business of destroying villages to save them, Lyndon Johnson style. One way to begin is to aggressively foster education choice by supporting vouchers, charter schools, home schooling and parochial schools. The idea is that the money flows through to the student, not a government monopoly school.  

Further, there is no reason for colleges and universities to fund DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) departments with taxpayer money. These operations clearly seek the opposite of what they claim to seek, instead imposing a rigid orthodoxy on students and professors alike. And at the very least their activities are constitutionally suspect. 

Additionally, civil rights laws should be enforced as written. It should be the government’s responsibility to see to it that public universities guarantee equal opportunity, not equal results. 

This is only the very beginning of what America must do if it is to preserve and protect Western Civilization and liberty. Thus far the only politician who seems to understand both the stakes and the need to articulate a vision for dealing with the challenge is Nikki Haley. Let us hope she succeeds. None of the rest of them has come close to demonstrating the leadership or vision that America clearly needs. 

JFB

Please follow and like us:

The New York Times today published a fairly typical hit piece. Typical in that it does most of its work by innuendo and guilt-by-association. The object of the piece is Javier Milei, the victor in Argentina’s presidential race. 

The Times described Mr. Milei’s election as “a victory for the global far-right movement” that was strengthened by Donal Trump and “similar” politicians including Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro. The supposed similarities Mr. Milei shares with other “similar” politicians go largely unexplicated. 

Other examples cited by the Times as testament to the horror of Mr. Milei include the assertion that Spain’s “far-right” Vox party has cheered him on; that Tucker Carlson interviewed him, and that after Milei’s victory, Elon Musk said that “prosperity is ahead for Argentina”.  The horror. 

The Times does concede, in a back-handed way, that the “far-right” Mr. Milei, an economist by training, is strongly libertarian. And that he is in favor “in theory” of open immigration and drug decriminalization. Does that sound like Donald Trump to you?

Mr. Milei, an economics professor and adherent of the Austrian school, also supports freedom of choice in such areas as prostitution, marriage, sexual preference and gender identity. He has come out strongly in favor of a school voucher system. Pretty right wing. 

He has come out against both abortion rights and euthanasia. His critics consider this to be an example of his “far-right” repressive agenda. But that is, of course, nonsense. A libertarian is naturally repelled by the use of violence against a third party, and that is precisely what abortion and euthanasia amount to. 

The NY Times has referred to Milei as a “Mini-Trump” largely because of what the paper describes as his bellicose style. But that is to confuse style with substance. Sure, from a stylistic standpoint his utterances  have been less than genteel. But that is where the similarities to Mr. Trump grind to a halt. Donald Trump doesn’t have a libertarian bone in his body. 

And while we are on the subject of style and substance, somehow or other the NY Times hasn’t displayed much concern over the rhetorical bellicosity, much less violence, of left wing interest groups like Black Lives Matter, Antifa, Jane’s Revenge, or environmental groups that spike trees. 

What is really on display here is the progressive terror of individual choice. Progressives are convinced that they know what’s best for you.  And they will continue to use the power of the State to enforce their will. And if you disagree, tough. Eat your spinach and shut up. After all, we wouldn’t want freedom of choice to disrupt the successes of urban public schools. 

Or would we? 

JFB

Please follow and like us:

The savage attack Hamas launched on October 7 against Israel, like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, was an attack on Western civilization itself.  Perhaps even more shocking than the attack on Israel has been the response of cultural elites. Across the West, arbiters and gatekeepers of the culture, including many at elite institutions—universities, media outlets, activist organizations and NGOs—celebrated the barbarism that Hamas put on display.  This while the Israelis were still sifting through the ruins trying to identify all those who were murdered by Hamas. 

Predictably enough, there is now a call—by the same crowd—for a “pause” in Israel’s military action designed to root out and destroy Hamas. All for humanitarian reasons, of course. But—we have to ask—where is the call for Hamas or Hezbollah or Islamic Jihad or any of Iran’s other proxies to stop launching attacks on perfectly innocent civilians? The silence is deafening.

As for the shortage of supplies in Gaza, Hamas is not experiencing a shortage of food, water, medicine or for that matter—ammunition. The humanitarian crisis in Gaza is the handiwork of Hamas, which blocked civilians from leaving by way of safe corridors. Hamas also continues to make a habit of building its launch sites and command and control centers in or underneath schools and hospitals. Hamas seeks to maximize civilian casualties for propaganda purposes.  

But you probably knew all that. The question is the significance of the event. And here it becomes apparent that this is not simply another skirmish in a long-standing territorial dispute. It is a fight for survival for both Israel and the West. Israel is an outpost of Western civilization; it is the proverbial canary in the coal mine. The fight will not be won by tanks and guns alone, although they are important elements. The war is a war of ideas and it is a war we must win. 

The war of ideas is one that has been raging for a very long time. Over the last 20 years or so, what were once thought to be relatively harmless academic fads have seeped into the mainstream. And these ideas, e.g. post colonialism, deconstructionism, post modernism are anything but harmless. They may be as incoherent as ever, but they are fervently believed by many and are promulgated by our most prestigious institutions.  They must be resisted and challenged at every step of the way.

Bari Weiss, cofounder of The Free Press, gave the annual Barbara K. Olsen Memorial Lecture at the Federalist Society on this topic. It can be, and should be seen (available on You Tube) by anyone who considers himself to be educated in world affairs. It can be seen below.

JFB

Please follow and like us: