On Liberty Watch

Casey Stengel asked the famous question in frustration when talking to the 1962 Mets after they racked up a record breaking 162 losses in their inaugural season. 

The same question might be asked of both the Trump and Harris campaigns. Both look like they are doing their level best to lose the upcoming face-off this November. Unfortunately, only one of them can lose. And that is very, very unfortunate. 

When Donald J Trump selected J.D. Vance to be his running mate it was apparent to roughly everybody that there was a very good chance that President Joe Biden was going to be forced out of the race. However, the Trump campaign simply assumed that (1) Biden would be the opponent, and that (2) Trump would easily win, perhaps in a landslide.  

As a result, Trump’s VP selection was drenched in hubris. He made no effort to broaden the pool of potential voters he could appeal to. Nor did the campaign do any serious research into potentially damaging revelations about Vance, or come up with responses to those revelations.  Not surprisingly, the roll-out did not go well. 

And then after successfully pushing Biden out the door, along comes Kamala Harris to the rescue. Except that in the VP selection process, she, like Trump, decided to double down, this time, ideologically. She eventually settled on Tim Walz, currently the governor of deep blue Minnesota, who distinguished himself by fiddling in 2020 while Minneapolis burned. In so doing, she selected as her running mate a hard-left progressive like herself.

Harris did not attempt to broaden her appeal by selecting Josh Shapiro, an outspoken defender of Israel and a relatively moderate Democratic governor of a must-win swing state.  Instead Harris apparently decided to placate the progressive wing of her party which had lobbied furiously against Shapiro. 

This even as “Squad” member Cori Bush (D-Mo)  was in the process of suffering the same ignominious fate as fellow Squad member Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), who was similarly ousted in his primary. The defeats of these two has been largely (and probably correctly) attributed to their outspoken sympathy for Hamas. 

Which also raises the question of how a Harris Administration would treat foreign policy, specifically with respect to Iran / Gaza and Israel; Ukraine and Russia, and potentially China and Taiwan.  It just won’t do to simply assert that Trump is clueless. Of course he is. But that doesn’t grant the opposition a get-out-of-jail-free card. We should hear what the candidate has to say. Something other than I’m not the other guy.

But there is a problem here. Actually two problems. The first is that Harris was part and parcel of the cover-up of Biden’s mental deterioration. Right up until the infamous debate Harris was still insisting, as she had previously on many occasions, that Biden was sharp as a tack. Since she is such an obvious liar, the question is: why would anybody believe a word she says?

There is second problem that is not unrelated to the first. While she is busy jettisoning her past positions at the speed of light, she apparently thinks people will take her seriously. For instance,  all of a sudden she is “tough on the border”. That Green New Deal she signed on to, well that was then. And that bit about defunding the police? She doesn’t buy into that anymore. 

Harris once wanted to ban fracking. And she wanted to ban offshore drilling on federal lands. Before she was against it she was in favor  of Medicare for All, not to mention that she once wanted to eliminate private health care insurance.  And she wanted to start a program of “mandatory buy backs” of “assault weapons”. 

In short, she endorsed the whole laundry list of progressive goals. And now she is trying to walk away from them. In that effort she is getting an assist from the clerks in the press  who call them selves journalists. But she chose a running mate that, from a policy standpoint, is even more extreme than she is. 

Not only is he on board with all her past positions, when he was Governor of Minnesota he issued executive orders giving minors access to irreversible chemical and surgical treatments for gender dysphoria. Under his tenure Minnesota had some of the most draconian Covid-era restrictions, which unsurprisingly had little or no positive effects. His administration also attempted to ration social benefits by race. And let’s not forget the mayhem in Minnesota on Walz’s watch that overwhelmed law enforcement during the “mostly peaceful” protests that occurred in the wake of the George Floyd murder. 

The net of all this is that the two main contenders are acting like amateurs who don’t know the rules of the game.  In his VP selection,  Trump has doubled down on abrasiveness. But not on policy; it isn’t clear he even has what could be reasonably described as a coherent policy outlook. 

Harris, on the other hand, has not had a single press conference since Biden dropped out. Thus far she has been busy trying to disguise her extreme ideology by running a Biden style basement campaign. But her choice of Tim Walz as VP nominee gives the game away. She has assembled a team of hard core lefty extremists. And she can not be trusted. 

A pox on both their houses. 

JFB

Please follow and like us:

Well, it didn’t take long. When the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) handed Trump an opportunity to make an ass of himself, Trump eagerly seized it. He did so by jumping into the deep end of the racial identity pool. His sin was to question the identity of Kamala Harris as “black” rather than Indian. 

As if the respective characterizations are (1) important and (2) mutually exclusive. Why skin tone should be important to anyone with an IQ above room temperature is something of a mystery. And as a simple empirical matter, as intermarriage continues to gain ground, lots of Americans have a multi-racial, multi-ethnic background.  

None of which should be taken as an excuse for Trump’s real sin, which was, and is, political amateurism. He should have known better than to dive into this trap. In effect he validated the race, class, gender ideology of his opposition. 

Similarly, his pick of J.D. Vance, lately of cat-lady fame, to be his running mate demonstrated a foolhardy over-confidence. Not only that, it also provided evidence that the Trump campaign is undeniably amateurish. How else to explain why the campaign could not, or did not, foresee the possibility if not probability that President Joe Biden would be forced out of the race, thus refocusing the campaign. How is it that the campaign did not adequately vet Vance so that they at least had prepared responses to his many controversial remarks? 

The best explanation for the unforced errors thus far is that Trump is being…well, Trump. Which is probably the best way to remind voters exactly what they don’t like about Trump. Which is an awful lot. And that leaves out his disgraceful behavior on January 6, 2021 which alone is, or ought to be, disqualifying. 

It is also important to recognize the reason that Trump has the Republican nomination. Sure, he was given a big assist by the Democrats’ lawfare campaign, which may turn out to be one of the biggest backfires in the history of American politics. Beyond that though, it has to be acknowledged that Trump secured the nomination by getting far more votes than any of his challengers in the Republican primaries. 

Those voters include a lot of people who either believe, or profess to believe, that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. It also includes a whole lot of elected Republican officials who pretend to believe that the election was stolen, some of whom actively encouraged the mob on January 6. Which is another way of saying that this is not your father’s Republican Party. 

In some sense then, the nomination of Trump is the exact opposite of the Democrats’ claim that Trump is a threat to democracy. What you see is what you get. And what you see is not another Hitler, despite the fervent beliefs of the Democratic party faithful. On the contrary what Trump represents is transactional politics at its worst. Trump’s core belief is not ideological; rather it is that he should be in charge, details to follow. 

What we have in HRH Donald Trump is a 78 year old man  with the intellectual and emotional maturity of a 15 year old; a needy adolescent who loves being at the center of attention.  Which is exactly where Harris and Co. would like to place him. 

So can we use game theory to predict the behavior of voters? Possibly, yes. Let’s make some assumptions about voter preferences and how voters rank order them. Assume the following preferences among the voters.

Trump Voter Pool

1. Diehard Trump voters are centered on personality; they want Trump to be president come hell or high water.  They do not care very much about policy details. 
2. Trump voters whose minds are made up feel culturally besieged; they are looking for a counter-cultural leader.
3. Trump persuadable voters care somewhat about policy; specifically they care about a fluid border policy, they are bothered by inflation, the family budget and the general state of the economy. 
4. Possibly persuadable Trump voters are uncomfortable with the personality of Kamala Harris

Harris Voter Pool

(1b) Hard core Progressives and committed Democrats see Harris as ideologically compatible; they want her to be elected. Further, they are convinced that Donald Trump really does represent a threat to democracy. 

(2b) People who consider themselves to be liberal and who are college educated; they  believe that Harris represents their cultural values. They are squeamish about the Israeli — Hamas War. 

(3c) Harris persuadable voters care somewhat about policy; those policies, however, differ somewhat from Trump voters. They are mostly in favor of abortion rights, are worried about climate change,  and favor some expanded social programs. 

(4d)  Potential Harris voters are very uncomfortable with Trump’s personality. They tend to be blue collar, are probably not college degree holders. However they are relatively comfortable, live in suburbs, are probably female, are concerned about crime and public schools and are hesitant about getting stuck with the bill for progressive priorities. 

Now lets put the respective priorities in a grid and see what it tells us. (See below). 

Trump voter priorities are rank ordered in the first column in the grid on the left; Harris voter priorities are rank ordered in the second column in the grid on the right. Assuming that the respective priorities are described correctly, it is immediately apparent that neither Trump voters nor Harris voters would be content with a victory by the other side. Each has victory as the #1 priority. Neither will gracefully acknowledge the other’s victory. Trump will insist the election was stolen. Harris will insist that she was done in by racism and mysogenism.

The remaining solutions remain cyclical, meaning either a 3,2 or 2, 3 solution, which suggests that the November results will not be ideologically dispositive. Each side, and especially the losing side, will look forward to the next contest. In turn this suggests that the election campaign will be contested almost exclusively with respect to personnel. And not in a good way. 

Policy discussion will be next to non-existent because Trump side policies are inconsistent, entirely transactional and personality driven.  On the other hand,  the Harris side is largely driven by her personality in that she is the candidate solely because Biden was thrown overboard; her personality (and the Democratic Party) is integrally tied up with identitarian politics, and she will try to run away (perhaps successfully) from the very left-wing proposals she made during the 2020 Democratic primaries. 

All in all a game theory model suggests what the polls suggest. Namely, the outcome of the contest is likely to be extremely close; it will satisfy almost no one except hard core supporters, there will be little serious policy discussion and the political system will remain unstable. 

That said all is not bleak. There is plenty of policy ferment where people live: at the state and local level. That is cause for hope that the nonsense coming out of the national parties will burn out and we can return to normalcy. One of these days, anyway.

JFB 

Please follow and like us:

Democratic Party grandees are very close to achieving their goal of securing their party’s presidential nomination for somebody, anybody, not named Joe Biden. These saviors of democracy mean to do so by convincing incumbent President Biden to hit the eject button on his chair behind the resolute desk in the oval office.  

In the event they accomplish their goal—and they are very close—they will have successfully overridden the votes of about 14 million Democratic primary voters. These are the voters who awarded about 99% of the delegates to the national convention pledged to Mr Biden. All to save democracy, of course.

Mr Biden can release his delegates to vote for someone else, which is the preferred poo-bah mechanism for a replacement nominee. The proximate cause for the panicky collapse of support for the incumbent is two fold. The first is polling data that shows the near impossibility of a Biden victory, especially in swing states. The second is action taken by major donors to withhold funds if Mr Biden remains at the top of the ticket. (Note that said money is routinely referred to as “dark money” when it goes to anybody else.) 

This was all presaged by Mr Biden’s catastrophic debate performance on June 27. Add to that the attempted assassination of rival Donald J Trump by an apparently unhinged 20 year-old and all the elements pointing to an incumbent defeat are there.  

It is important to note that the reason for Mr Biden’s (to put it charitably) unedifying  debate performance was the obvious deterioration of his mental acuity. That deterioration left him unable either to maintain a train of thought or to complete sentences. Those factors however, did not seem to be a primary motivator in the drive to dump Mr Biden. Neither did Mr Biden’s apparent inability to function at anything approaching normalcy.

So what did cause the revolt of Democratic Party elites?

First and foremost, they got caught. Remember that, aided by the mainstream press, Democratic elites spent the better part of 4 years claiming that Mr Biden was as “sharp as a tack”. By the time the debate rolled around it was apparent to even the most obtuse observers that Mr Biden was mentally struggling.  And now it is clear as a bell that the coterie of Biden sycophants that assured one and all that Biden was just fine has been lying the whole time. Either that or they were incapable of seeing what was right in front of their eyes. 

The obvious question now is: Why would anybody believe a word they say?

Beyond that there is what should be the most pressing issue. Namely, the President is, first and foremost, the Commander-in-Chief. And he alone has his finger on the nuclear trigger. Going by their public statements, that does not seem to have been a concern of Democratic Party elites. 

In fairness, it is always possible that the party actually has considered this, but did not want to say out loud what everyone was thinking. But if that is the case, they should have at least attempted to remove Biden via the 25^th amendment. At the very least they should not be deliberating whether or not to keep him on the ballot. Instead they should let him know in no uncertain terms that they will publicly oppose him and his attempt to be re-elected. 

Let’s put it this way. Who among us wants to risk Biden being awakened at 3:00 AM because China has invaded Taiwan and he has to make a split second decision on how to respond. The question answers itself. 

So what to make of it?

The temptation is to think that the Democrats made their bed, let them sleep in it. The problem is, we are all in the same bed with them, like it or not. 

Consequently, we are now in a position where the leaders of the Democratic Party, those defenders of democracy, are either going to stage a palace coup in relatively short order, or they are going to acquiesce to running a man to be Commander-in-Chief despite the fact that his mental deficiencies are clearly disqualifying.  

Ordinarily the problem could be isolated. The  political party that acted as irresponsibly as the Democrats could be simply cashiered at the next election. But there are still 3 ½ months until the election is held, and 6 months until a new President is sworn in. 

There is only one solution for the mess we are in, and it is decidedly sub-optimal. Democrats should force the issue so that Mr Biden resigns and Vice President Kamala Harris takes the oath of office. 

But we still have the issue of the November election. Ms Harris is manifestly unqualified for the job. But so is Mr Trump. Perhaps, in the meantime, the Democrats will find and nominate someone who is competent and electable. They will have to look awfully hard. 

JFB

Please follow and like us:

In the wake of an assassination attempt on the life of  ex-President and presumptive Republican nominee Donald J Trump, a virtual army of conspiracy theorists, armchair psychologists and amateur law enforcement wannabes are having a collective field day.  Their chosen place of battle, needless to say, is X, formerly known as Twitter. 

Perhaps it is time to take a deep breath and lay off; at least until actual facts come to light and in their proper context. That is very unlikely to happen because, among other things, the population at large distrusts the mainstream media and other assorted institutions. And truth be told, that distrust is well earned. 

Leaving aside the devout beliefs of the simpletons among us, there is not just one single reason for the degrading of trust in our institutions. Certainly the overheated rhetoric of politicians is one factor. Another is the change in incentives faced by media and other public players. When newspapers and broadcasters depended on broad-based advertising for revenue their incentives favored an appeal to a broad based audience. Now, however, narrowcasting changes that incentive structure. The same players now have an incentive to appeal to those who are highly motivated; they are often fringe players. 

Let’s not leave out politicians. That politicians routinely lie, and have lied for a very long time, is hardly a news flash. Recall it was Lyndon Johnson who in 1964 proclaimed “We are not about to send American boys 9 or 10 thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves” before doing precisely that. 

But Johnson’s lie was an attempt to make a broad based appeal. Today’s lies are more specific and tailored to reach specific voting groups in a way that before would not have been possible. Only after a committed  interest group has been assembled is an attempt made to mainstream the underlying goal. 

It usually begins with a change in language designed to draw attention away from the underlying concept.  The “Trans” movement is a case in point; so is the abortion rights movement—it has reframed the issue as reproductive freedom. Challenges—both real and imagined—are routinely marketed as existential threats. For example, think climate change, pandemics, population growth, asteroid collisions, environmental degradation etc. etc. 

What is different from past eras is that we live in a DIY era in which people have been taught to disregard reason and instead follow their feelings. Unless, of course, their feelings contradict whatever the received wisdom of the day is, in which case they will be shamed into accepting “the science ^TM “.

Which, by the way, the public does not understand. They do not understand that science is about methodology and that scientific conclusions are contingent.  The public however, aided and abetted by an unthinking media complex suffers from white coat naiveté. As long as somebody wears a white lab coat and proclaims himself a scientist, he must be the font of all that is true and good. At least as long as he speaks the conventional wisdom. But I digress.

We actually know very little about the apparent  assassination attempt on Donald Trump. It is certainly legitimate to ask questions. But we should not assume the answer. For instance, it is perfectly reasonable to ask the obvious question: how in the world was the alleged shooter able to get into position where he apparently had a clear shot? But it is not reasonable to assume the answer ahead of time.

In any event, let’s wait for the facts to trickle in and not jump to any conclusions. We will probably know soon enough what happened and why. 

JFB

Please follow and like us:

 “…Of course, for a Democratic Party warning that Mr. Trump is an existential threat to the nation, the race is about something much simpler: winning.” Shane Goldmacher, The New York Times July 6, 2025. 

“…the president’s prime-time interview with ABC News was an exercise in not just damage control but reality control”. Peter Baker, The New York Times July 6, 2025. 

“You really see a president in denial and in a bubble,” Julián Castro, The New York Times July 6, 2025. 

“[The interview] will not quell the growing anger and resentment among Democrats.”Paul Begala The New York Times July 6, 2025. 

Perhaps at this point it would be fitting to quote football coach Vince Lombardi, who reportedly said “Wining isn’t everything, it’s the only thing”. That, in reality, is the sentiment that Democratic Party officials are expressing. 

You can take all faux agonizing and focus group crafted statements of the past several years and chuck them in the bin. They are finally saying what they really mean: Winning is all that matters. In this they have conclusively demonstrated that they are pretty much the same as Donald J Trump. The heated denials that will surely follow that statement are a testament to its truth.

Consider what it means when politicians put a priority on winning at all costs. Truth telling necessarily becomes subordinate to winning. Arguably, truth is not even a consideration.  For example, “I will build a wall and Mexico will pay for it” was an absurdity marketed by Mr Trump. 

When special counsel Robert Hur accurateley described Biden as a “sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory” VP Kamala Harris charged out to say “So, the way that the president’s demeanor in that report was characterized could not be more wrong on the facts and clearly politically motivated, gratuitous…” Another obvious lie. Which also explains why AG Garland refused to release the interview tapes, duly and lawfully subpoenaed by Congress. Rule of Law and all that.

Another infamous quotation of Donald J Trump: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. …They’re sending people that have lots of problems, … They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” Donald J Trump

How about this story in Politico: “More than 50 former senior intelligence officials have signed on to a letter outlining their belief that the recent disclosure of emails allegedly belonging to Joe Biden’s son “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”

It turns out that that letter was arranged by now Secretary of State Anthony Blinkin. And it was released on the eve of the first Presidential debate in 2020. And it was clearly a lie. 

Of course, let’s not forget Mr. Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election results on January 6, 2021. In the speech in which he whipped up the crowd he said  “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” Peacefully and patriotically. Sure. 

Some were going to hang Mike Pence. Peacefully, of course. 

And when a mob of progressives chased Senator Krysten Sinema into a ladies room and then stormed in after her because she didn’t support the latest progressive legislation,  President Biden said it was “all part of the process”. Ditto for Senator Joe Manchin when a group of kayakers confronted him on his houseboat. 

And Mr Biden has yet to be heard from on the subject of Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh being stalked by an armed man outside his home.  Perhaps being stalked by an armed potential aggressor is all part of the process. 

The list of strategic lies told by both parties is endless. Supporting one side or the other (it doesn’t matter which) regardless of obvious transgressions is a perfect example of willful blindness.  Citizens who rely on the rationale that the other guy is such a threat reward the practice.

Without a commitment to truth there is no accountability. And without accountability, democracy is nothing more than a cause for hollow laughter. Elections within certain limits specified by the U.S. Constitution, are supposed to facilitate a collective decision making process. Elections are not supposed to be about winning at all costs. 

Try telling that to partisans who are perfectly willing to believe anything, however improbable, as long as it supports “the Cause”. 

JFB

Please follow and like us:

Amazingly enough, on the front page of the New York Times, the headline reads Biden Tells Governors He Needs to Sleep More and Work Less at Night. Which is akin to pretending to respond to a query about your worst fault during a job interview and answering that you work too hard. 

Right below that humdinger, also on the front page, another headline reads: Should Biden Quit? Democrats Weigh Potential Rewards and Steep Risks. And right below that, a story update claims that Biden is spending Independence Day trying to tamp down calls for him to drop out of the race. 

Note that together these stories lay out the following two hypotheses. (1) The real problem here is that the President had a bad day; everybody has them; it’s not a big deal; he is working too hard, and he just needs to get more sleep. (2a) And by the way, nobody believes him or the numerous variations of the story (he had a cold etc) and (2b) the principal if not sole driver of the calculations of Democratic Party pooh-bahs is electoral advantage. 

Just think about that for a moment. The Grandees of the Democratic Party are content to deliver their presidential nomination, and quite possibly the presidency complete with the nuclear football, to a man whose neurological deterioration is so obvious that it has stirred a revolt.  A revolt that the White House is desperately trying to tamp down. If press reports are to be believed that effort is being led by Jill Biden who never got elected to anything. And not to put too fine a point on it, this is the crowd that insists it is going to save democracy. 

Meanwhile the commentariat uses dueling leaks by self-interested parties to report on the machinations of the players going on “behind closed doors”. This maneuver serves a couple of inadvertently transparent goals, one of which is misdirection. 

The press reports as breaking news what for years has been patently obvious; namely that President Biden is unable to perform the duties of his office. What they don’t report is that they have been running interference for him for years.  So as cover, we are treated to a raft of gosh-can-you-believe-this type of reporting as if this is all brand new. In the end it will convince nobody. It will inevitably be seen for what it is:  a vain attempt to dodge the dishonesty of the mainstream press and the Democratic Party establishment.   

While all this is going on let’s remember that we are involved in two shooting wars (Ukraine and Israel) and potentially a third (Taiwan). You would think that some candidate somewhere would attempt to introduce those topics into the conversation.  But no. 

Or perhaps some candidate would deign to mention the subject of the $34 trillion in debt that the U.S. has managed to accumulate. In 2017 the accumulated debt amounted to about $20 trillion; by 2021 it was $28 trillion, and now it is about $34 trillion. 

Which means that in the Trump years we added  about $8 trillion, and thus far during the Biden years we have added $6 trillion and still counting. But that doesn’t seem to matter either. 

What we simply have here is two parties vying for power, and in the most irresponsible ways imaginable. Their calculations approach being exclusively electoral with little heed paid to the world situation or America’s role in it. Neither party is acting even remotely responsibly.

If it is the case that the President lacks the vigor and mental acuity needed to run for re-election, he should not be in the White House a moment longer. We have a mechanism for dealing with this. President Biden can simply resign and Vice President Kamala Harris can take the oath of office. 

How the Democratic Party chooses to deal with the fallout is up to them. But by running Biden the way they did,  changing the rules to shut off the possibility any real opposition, those protectors of democracy, the Democrats, made their bed. Now they can sleep in it.

Unfortunately, the rest of us have to plop in  there beside them. Either that or the alternative, Donald J Trump, quite possibly the most ignorant man ever to seek (and gain) the White House. If either party had run a normal candidate (and I use that term advisedly) they would win in a heartbeat. Instead we are left with the blank stare of a senile old man running against a narcissist whose chief talent qualifies him to be a circus barker.

I, for one, would like to vote for an adult who understands the way the world works; who willingly states the premises underlying her beliefs, and who is willing to persuade rather than coerce. Accordingly, I will be writing in the name of Nikki Haley when November comes rolling around. 

JFB

Please follow and like us:

A lot of liberals are up-in-arms (figuratively speaking) about Justice Sam Alito (yet again). They cite 2 related reasons as proximate causes for their angst.  (1) Three years ago, Justice Alito’s wife hung an upside down flag in front of their house over a particularly nasty neighborhood spat. (2) The Alito’s have flown (and for all I know still are flying) an “Appeal to Heaven” flag over their vacation house at the Jersey shore.  

The facts of these cases appear to be largely uncontested; the motivations, however, are not. Is this a tempest in a teapot, or is there some substance to it? Let’s examine the cases, bearing in mind that political smears are used routinely when motivations are in dispute, especially when, as today, there is intense political polarization. 

In the first case, it appears that Martha-Ann Alito flew the offending inverted flag on January 17, 2021 outside the Alito home. Justice Alito is not accused of actually placing the flag himself. Further, the allegation is made that the upside down flag, traditionally a symbol of distress, was actually a signal of support for the January 6 rioters. 

At this point the question must be asked: Where is the evidence that (1) an upside down flag is a sign of support for the rioters, and that (2) Justice Alito was attempting to signal his support for the Jan 6 rioters? Or (3) are Justice Alito’s detractors attempting to make the argument that he should have demanded symbolic silence from his wife who was actually signaling support for the rioters? 

There is zero evidence for any of these theories outside of the fever swamps. But let’s acknowledge that the Jan 6 rioters included an awful lot of deluded kooks, some of whom were disposed toward the use of violence.  After all they did threaten to hang VP Mike Pence.

Let’s look at the flags some rioters flew. The flags included: a Three Percenters militia group flag; a Release the Kraken Flag; Kekistan Flags; Confederate Flags; Gadsden Flags; America First flags, Betsy Ross flags and, oh yes, plain old American flags. 

I for one have no idea what some of these flags are supposed to represent. I do know that an American flag in distress was often used by Vietnam War protesters. And progressives used an inverted flag to protest the overturning of Roe v. Wade. But I would be hesitant to challenge the loyalties of anyone who flew an American Flag; an American flag in distress; a Betsey Ross Flag, or a Gadsden “Don’t Tread on Me” flag (to name a few). 

But what about campus protesters who fly the Palestinian flag? Or how about the routine use of T-shirts emblazoned with a Che Guevara  logo?  How about a Nazi flag? Certainly, Hamas, Che Guevara and the Nazis were bloodthirsty killers. Even if the best and brightest at elite schools haven’y quite figured that out yet. And the meaning of those symbols ought to be unambiguous (excepting of course for the afore mentioned best and brightest). And those who choose to do so, are well within their rights to express themselves with odious symbols. 

The Supreme Court has for a long time ruled that free speech rights, including symbolic speech, trump all else except in cases where imminent violence is threatened. In 1931, the Court ruled in Stromberg v California that expressive speech is a free speech right. That ruling was re-affirmed in Tinker v. Des Moines in 1969. Similarly the court ruled in 1989  in Texas v Johnson that burning the flag was protected by the first amendment. 

So Mrs. Alito, as long as she did not threaten imminent violence, was well within her rights to display an inverted American Flag, just as the couple were perfectly with their rights to fly an “Appeal to Heaven” flag over their vacation home.  The question then becomes: Should either or both have displayed either flag?

Let’s stipulate for the sake of argument that the symbolic meaning of those flags is completely unambiguous. Is the liberal argument that Justice Alito should have told his wife not to fly the inverted American flag. Hmmm. I would have thought that liberals would argue that women are not mere appendages of their husbands; that they are independent actors who make their own decisions. I guess in the progressive mind, that only counts where abortion rights are concerned.

But, the argument goes, Justice Alito should avoid even the appearance of bias. There may something to this argument. But again it assumes the Justice is responsible for his wife’s opinions and behavior.  That said, assuming the symbolic meaning of the inverted flag is unambiguous. Martha Ann Alito probably should have avoided displaying it, if only for appearances sake. But it is certainly not a hanging offense, especially for Justice Alito. 

The “Appeal to Heaven” flag non-controversy is another matter altogether. The charge that it displays sympathy for “Christian Nationalism” is pure bunk. Why? Because for one, (leaving aside the lunatic fringe)  the term is undefined. It is a term designed to signal disdain. It’s just another example of using language to change popular meaning.  Like for instance: Addict (preferred usage: person with substance abuse), Homeless (preferred usage, people experiencing homelessness), Sex change (preferred usage: transition), Breast feed (preferred usage: Chest feed).

By the way, the “Appeal to Heaven” flag was first commissioned and subsequently used by that old insurrectionist, George Washington. Who, truth be told, was an insurrectionist in the eyes of King George III. Here I must say that I would be hesitant to attempt to dissuade people from following Washington’s example of how to live. (And yes, I am perfectly aware that he owned slaves, probably didn’t admit to chopping down a cherry tree and like all humans, was not perfect). 

But let’s not kid ourselves. The uproar over the flag, to put it mildly, is indicative of a dual standard. All we have to do is recount some of the political commentary that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg insisted on making while on the bench. For instance, she is on record saying the following:

“I can’t imagine what this place would be – I can’t imagine what the country would be – with Donald Trump as our president,” Ruth Bader Ginsburg. 

She followed that up, according to the NY Times by saying that her  late husband would have said it was “time for us to move to New Zealand.”

“He is a faker,” she said of Trump. “He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. … How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns?” Ruth Bader Ginsburg on CNN

“It won’t happen,” she said. “It would be an impossible dream. But I’d love to see Citizens United overruled.” Ruth Bader Ginsburg

“I thought Heller was “a very bad decision,” she said, Ruth Bader Ginsburg

“My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed,” Ginsburg told Clara Spera in the days before her death, NPR reported.

And on it goes. Not that she was wrong about Trump. I actually think she was spot on about him. But that is not the point. She was as political as they come. Except that she was politically aligned with conventional elite opinion, which means that it was quite OK.   

Some liberal commentators raised an eyebrow or two over those remarks, but there was no hue and cry demanding that she recuse herself on a whole raft of cases. And she did apologize, sort of, by saying she would be “more circumspect” in the future. But that just meant she intended to be more cautious about speaking her mind; not that she retracted her comments. 

So yes, if just for appearances, it would have been better if the inverted flag had not flown over the Alito house.  On the other hand, the “Appeal to Heaven” complaints are pure bunk. 

The real story is that a group of progressives are out to get Alito personally because he wrote the majority opinion in the Dobbs case that overturned Roe. And they mean to remake the Court by packing it. This is their latest excuse. The latest faux controversy is just another predictable tempest in-a-teapot. Good for bumper stickers, but that’s about it.

And, by the way, I haven’t heard any wailing lately (or ever) from progressive quarters about the leak of the draft of the Dobbs decision. Funny thing about that. 

JFB

Please follow and like us: