Posted tagged ‘Democrats’

What They Never Understood About Trump

May 5, 2016

What They Never Understood About Trump, Gingrich Productions, Newt Gingrich, May 4, 2016

As you hear many of the same people who said Trump could never be nominated prognosticate about his chances in the general election, ask yourself: have they learned enough about the American people to understand why a political revolution could seem the safer route? If not, they still don’t get it.

********************

In winning the Republican nomination on Tuesday night, Donald Trump accomplished something that virtually no one believed possible when he entered the race nearly one year ago, on June 16, 2015.

It is striking that intelligent, seasoned observers failed completely to grasp what they were witnessing, even as Trump shot to the top of the polls and drew gigantic crowds at rallies across the country.

“Our emphatic prediction is simply that Trump will not win the nomination,” Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight wrote in August. “It’s not even clear that he’s trying to do so.”

“In my view…he won’t take this all the way to the ballot in Iowa, New Hampshire, or any of the Republican caucus or primary elections,” Stuart Stevens, the chief strategist for Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign, wrote the same month. “Why? Because he’s Donald Trump and everything we know about him tells us he won’t do it….Donald Trump is going to put himself through a year of this meat grinder? Please. That’s absurd.”

The elites’ refusal to grapple with the reality before their eyes continued long after it was obvious Trump was no passing phenomenon. They resorted to increasingly implausible rationalizations to explain his success.

“In nearly every election cycle, there are candidates who lead national polls and sometimes even win states, but don’t come close to winning the nomination,” explained Nate Cohen of the New York Times in December. “It would be tough for Mr. Trump to prevail in a one-on-one contest against a typical mainstream Republican, much in the same way that Mr. Buchanan quickly faltered against Mr. Dole.”

Why, since Trump defined the race from the day he announced, did almost no one in the media and political elite believe that he could win the nomination–even long after it became clear he was dominating the field? What was it they failed to recognize?

The answer is simple. It wasn’t Trump that the media and political elites failed to understand. It was the American people.

The American people were dramatically more fed up with Washington–with the incompetence, the arrogance, the corruption, and the failure–than Washington could begin to understand.

Americans increasingly saw that normal politicians on both sides of the aisle could at best only manage the decline. The country was concluding that real change would require real change: someone who was different enough and daring enough to force genuine reforms. And over the course of the campaign, more and more Americans came to believe that only a personality as bold and revolutionary as Trump could, in fact, make America great again.

The elites could not (and still cannot) understand this appeal because they do not recognize the problem–namely, themselves.

For the same reason, they didn’t understand it when every single candidate with a traditional political message failed to gain traction. Nor did they understand the appeal of Trump’s greatest rival for the nomination, Ted Cruz, whose message was “defeat the Washington Cartel.” “Washington Cartel?” they wondered. “What is he talking about?”

And of course they didn’t get it. If the media and political elites had enough self-awareness to fully grasp why the American people might support Trump, Cruz–or for that matter, Sanders–the vacuum for these candidates might not have existed in the first place.

Trump’s skill and personality enabled him to become a serious candidate. But it was the American people’s desire for fundamental reform that propelled him to the nomination. It will now be up to Trump to expand on the base he built in the primary to earn the support of every American who believes we need fundamental reforms, and that the risks of predictable decline are greater than those of unpredictable renewal.

As you hear many of the same people who said Trump could never be nominated prognosticate about his chances in the general election, ask yourself: have they learned enough about the American people to understand why a political revolution could seem the safer route? If not, they still don’t get it.

How Trump Could Win

May 4, 2016

How Trump Could Win, Power LineSteven Hayward, May 4, 2016

First of all, kudos to Roger Simon of Pajamas Media, who said last summer that Trump would be the nominee and is in a strong position to win the general election. He takes a well-deserved victory lap today:

That seemed a bold prediction at the time — that the presidency, not just the Republican nomination, which he now has, was Trump’s to lose. But it really wasn’t so courageous. It was almost obvious, if you would let yourself look. And equally obviously, it still holds true. With all the sound and fury, nothing has changed.

Donald Trump did alter the nature of American politics, possibly forever, but at least for the foreseeable future, the moment he came down that Trump Tower escalator to announce his campaign. And he will, most likely, be the next president of the United States.

Hillary is out today with two new ads showing all of the Republicans who trashed Trump in the last few months. These ads might well reinforce the Never Trumpers among Republicans, but I can easily see them backfiring with independents and disaffected Democrats. It sends the message that Trump really is truly independent of the hated Republican establishment.

Notice, incidentally, that the exit polls yesterday showed Trump beating Hillary on the issue of who would be better able to handle the economy. If the economy is the leading issue in November (as it usually is), then this race is a lot closer than currently looks in the polls. And by the way, have you noticed that Trump consistently runs ahead of his polls? Just as there were “shy Tories” in Britain last year, I suspect there are a lot of shy Trump voters right now.

Finally, Howard Fineman at the Puffington Host lists “Seven Reasons Donald Trump Could Win.” It is a fairly obvious and unremarkable account, but at the very bottom there appears this:

Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liarrampant xenophoberacistmisogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.

That’s objective, non-biased media for you! Expect a lot more of this right through election day. I suspect it will be worth at least a million votes for Trump.

Humor | Democrats Debate 2016 – Capitol Steps

May 2, 2016

Democrats Debate 2016 – Capitol Steps via YouTube, May 1, 2016

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8oKJ7n0_KM

Top Senate Democrat chides Netanyahu over ‘untimely’ Golan remarks

April 22, 2016

Top Senate Democrat chides Netanyahu over ‘untimely’ Golan remarks, Jerusalem Post, April 22, 2016

(So Netanyahu should remain silent when Obama and Putin propose to give Golan to Israel’s long time enemy, Syria? — DM)

Sen. Ben Cardin, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, counseled Israel to focus more on peace with the Palestinians.

Sen. Ben Cardin, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, said declaring Israeli ownership of the Golan Heights was not “timely” while Syria was mired in civil war.

He counseled Israel to focus more on peace with the Palestinians.

“Syria is in a state of war, the whole area is in flux,” Cardin, D-Md., said Thursday when he was asked about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s declaration this week that “the Golan Heights will forever remain in Israel’s hands.”

“I don’t think it’s timely to figure out what’s happening in the north when there is an active war in Syria,” Cardin said of Netanyahu.

“Ultimately you’re going to need to have some type of recognition factor and you don’t have a government you can negotiate with and talk with in Syria,” said Cardin, who was meeting foreign policy reporters during a break from Senate votes.

The Obama administration this week reiterated longstanding US policy that the strategic plateau captured by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War was not part of Israel, and that its fate should be determined through negotiations.

“I would love to see a peace process and deal with the West Bank and Gaza,” he said. “And that to me is the most important chapter for Israel right now, is to advance the peace process toward a two-state solution for the Palestinians and Israelis. That to me is the most urgent need.”

Cardin is close to pro-Israel groups and has made clear in the past that he believes it is wrong to place the burden on Israel to renew talks, saying that the Palestinians must end incitement and return to talks with Israel suspended in 2014.

He was one of just four Senate Democrats who voted last year against the Iran nuclear deal, which Netanyahu vehemently opposed, and the senator was in the region just weeks ago, and met with Netanyahu.

Cardin also said he favors renewing the Iran Sanctions Act, due to expire this year, although Obama administration officials fear its renewal would rankle Iran and undercut the sanctions relief for nuclear rollback deal.

Cardin said there was broad agreement in Congress that the act needs renewing in order to keep in place sanctions that would be revived if Iran violates the deal. Obama administration officials say the president has the discretion to kick in sanctions should he need to.

The senator said he also hopes to pass new sanctions against Iran for testing ballistic missiles, a violation of UN Security Council resolutions. Current Republican proposals to renew the Iran Sanctions Act or to sanction Iran for its missile testing seem aimed at undercutting the Iran deal, Cardin said, a path he opposes even though he voted against the deal.

The Intellectual Case For Trump II: Trump Is The Culture Warrior We Need

April 22, 2016

The Intellectual Case For Trump II: Trump Is The Culture Warrior We Need,  The Federalist, April 20, 2016

A candidate like Donald Trump should be impossible. A loud, unscripted, hard-edged reality show-style candidate with exceedingly flexible positions on many hot-button issues would be laughed out of contention for the Republican nomination in other years. A man whose serial gaffes and willingness to stick his thumb in the eye of the gatekeepers of good taste would be cooked before he stepped onto the debate stage. An utterly inexperienced politician, who describes our rights and privileges as particular to us as Americans rather than universal moral mandates, would be rejected by both parties at any other time in the modern era.

But in Trump’s case, these supposedly disqualifying positions and attributes have proven to be the basis for unexpected success. Why? In part, it is because he corrects massive ideological failures by the Right, which have enabled unmitigated cultural overreach by the Left, eliminating the social and cultural basis that permits a Western liberal order to exist.

For decades, the institutional Right has ceded American culture to the Left, in spite of many voices who pointed out ample areas where the Right could carve out a countercultural movement against leftist domination, or even co-opt some of modern culture for itself.

The cause of this is partially a denial of how swiftly the culture has moved Left, leaving the institutional Right under the false impression it is still fighting the culture war of the 90’s and early 2000s. The Right’s obsession with 90’s-era battles over sex, drugs, and rock and roll is more than just an anachronism: it represents a self-inflicted wound that ignored how the Left used the culture to repeatedly make the case for their vision of an ideal society. We now know the Left won that war, and in this context, Trump represents the first candidate for whom success could only come after a culture war apocalypse.

The Right of the ‘Young Fogies’

The culture wars permitted the Right to be taken over by what Jeffrey Hart—Richard Nixon speechwriter, sometime National Review editor, and all-around conservative giant—described as “young fogies.” Hart describes the phenomenon in an essay titled “The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to a Modern American Conservatism,” in which he envisions as a dialogue between himself and a younger woman of the era. Here is Hart’s warning:

A lot of my students are not sold on conservatism.[…] They think conservatives are preppies who are against sex. […] In some visible cases, the main content of ‘conservatism’ seems to be a refusal of experience. We have more than our share of young fogies. I could name some names, but what the hell. In my view, young fogie American conservatives…place an altogether disproportionate emphasis on sex and sex-related moral questions. […] Some conservatives appear to confuse Victorian morality with the Western tradition, and even with Christianity.

Hart wrote those words in 1982, when candidates like Ronald Reagan were still winning young voters. But the “young fogie-ism” Hart warned against was already becoming a significant portion of the Republican brand, one that extended through the anti-video game, anti-rap, anti-sex, anti-sideboob, anti-violence handwringing that became an integral part of the Republican persona over the next two decades.

Trump is many things, but a fogie he is not. On the surface, Trump’s gold-plated lifestyle is nothing like the old Hollywood-style glamour of the Reagan White House. But for an era where most Americans have moved far beyond the culture wars of the past, where reality stars are our new tastemakers and Kim Kardashian is an icon mothers encourage their daughters to emulate, he offers an aspirational vision of wealth and accomplishment that appeals to the same combination of glitz and celebrity.

The Left Turns the Market Against the Right

Obsessing over the lost culture wars of the past is an error for the Right. But the real problem is that even if the Right hasn’t moved on from its previous losses, the Left has moved on from its previous victories. They remain focused on advancing their vision and building on their victories, to the point of eradicating any opposition from the public square. As a result, the character of the Left has fundamentally changed in a way that today’s Right seems quite incapable of grasping.

Hannah Arendt once quipped that the fiercest revolutionary becomes a devoted conservative after the revolution. This is certainly true of the Left, which has, since its culture war victories, co-opted much of the dogma of earlier conservatives and poisoned it. The old Left cast itself as transgressors against mainstream morality. This Left enforces and controls mainstream morality. The old Left championed transgressive free speech. This Left despises it.

Most importantly, the old Left cast itself as outside of capitalism. This Left is thoroughly corporatist, and only occasionally pretends otherwise. As a result, conservatives have stood by, oblivious and helpless, as the Left began to turn all our best weapons—especially the free market—against us.

This brings us to a second point: the inadequacy of the institutional Right at anticipating and explaining free markets. Conservatives and libertarians have been warning of capitalism cannibalizing itself since at least 1942, when Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter opened his book “Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy” with disturbing news for his free market-sympathetic peers.

“I felt it my duty to take, and to inflict upon the reader, considerable trouble in order to lead up effectively to my paradoxical conclusion: capitalism is being killed by its achievements,” Schumpeter wrote. Much later on in the book, he observed even more cuttingly that “capitalism, inevitably and by virtue of the very logic its civilization creates, educates and subsidizes a vested interest in social unrest.”

Cultural Neutrality Is Not Possible

Schumpeter was right then, and he is distressingly right now. The cancer of leftism has spread through capitalism even further than it had in 1942. The general assumption of the American people in the aftermath of the financial crisis and the collapse and bailouts of Wall Street is that they were witnessing failures of capitalism, and the Right has done little to correct this impression.

Trump’s brazenness in admitting to past acts of cronyism is another aspect that would, for any other politician, spell his doom. Instead, it has fostered a greater degree of trust from his supporters. This is because Trump alone seems to understand that capitalism has weaknesses at all, having been a capitalist himself. The greatest of those is the fact that capitalism—and its defenders—assume it can operate from a position of cultural neutrality. It can’t.

In the latest season of “South Park,” the titular town is overrun with advertisements masquerading as human beings: soulless robots who use gentrification and political correctness (“mental gentrification,” the show wryly notes) to eliminate actual human beings from the area. This idea that a certain species of capitalism might actually drive political correctness is daring and interesting, and relatively unremarked upon by those on the Right today.

The Left Treats Race and Sex as Brands

One of the key tactics of advertisers is to make consumers feel their life is missing something without whatever product the advertiser is selling. If you look at ads that attempt to showcase the difference between, say, data packages from different cell phone carriers, you’ll often see the competition depicted as holding back their customers from the awesome data package they could have because of greed, technological incompetence, or some other abstraction that, of course, the advertised carrier doesn’t suffer from.

Once someone buys a product, you want them to feel allegiance to it, a degree of brand loyalty that can sometimes resemble political tribalism (see Apple). The aim is to make customers believe that someone who consumes that particular product belongs to a community of other buyers, who just happen to be a particularly desirable community to be a part of!

When you distill it down to its essence, the worst forms of modern leftist politics play on all of these same tactics, playing down the ramifications of policy agendas to speak to a much deeper and emotional desire to be a good person. Did you vote for Barack Obama because you wanted to feel good about yourself, but still feel life’s missing something? Vote for Bernie Sanders, and he’ll deliver on the promise to give you everything you need. Not getting the wage you could be getting? It’s the patriarchy, so switch carriers and join our feminist army for Hillary instead.

The Left treats race and sex as brands, operating with messaging and tactics that are more than just organizing techniques: they’re a brilliant technique to capture someone without the insight to see through the pitch. The Left has realized it can succeed by creating cultural turf wars among different demographics as a substitute for a policy agenda that speaks to their real needs.

The Political Equivalent of Gawker

In this, they break from the past in many respects. Bill Clinton himself revealed how significant this shift was when he challenged Black Lives Matter. Clinton was advancing a policy argument in defense of his approach to crime in the 1990s, in the face of protesters who would hear none of it. His arguments were based on the facts, where the BLM protesters’ signs were based on the equivalent of brand loyalty to a cultural movement. No matter how correct Clinton’s case was, it inevitably fell on deaf ears.

The point is that the post-culture war Left has not laid down their arms. Instead, they have become the political equivalent of Gawker: a divisive industry seeking cultural flashpoints to exploit and highlight, devoted to manufacturing mutual hate for their own benefit.  They thrive on the click-war hate that pits groups against each other.

It is not enough that women face challenges within a post-feminist society—they must be told that half the country is participating in a war on their priorities. In an atomized culture, breaking down people to the elements of ethnicity, sex, and gender is the Left’s go-to method of redefining society according to their priorities.

This is a key point that cannot be ignored. Because of the modern Left’s sophisticated use of advertising techniques, they have done something with their hatemongering that the Left of the past could only dream of: they have made it profitable. In so doing, they have turned a capitalist tactic on the culture that sustains it, and thus, on itself.

The Right Needs a New Cultural Vision

The Right must fight back against that. Yes, free markets remain the best economic system ever created, and a necessary precondition for a free society, but not a sufficient one. Does this mean the state has to get involved? Not necessarily. Conservatives could use another weapon to limit the spread of this kind of poison, and that’s culture.

Unfortunately, what little of a cultural vision we possess on the Right is so dated as to be largely hokey and irrelevant to the experience of Americans today. Because this new Left has become the dominant culture, the Right is obliged to form a counterculture. But countercultures are no place for young fogies. Countercultures shoot sacred cows, scandalize “respectable” norms, and generally wreak havoc for the sake of breaking down the hypocrisy and weakness of the dominant culture. By and large, it’s still the young fogies who run the show, and expecting them to create a counterculture, let alone a counterculture that produces actual art, is ludicrous.

The Right doesn’t have to conjure up its own art from scratch. It can and occasionally has co-opted modern entertainment as well. After all, don’t films like Christopher Nolan’s “Batman” series make the most powerful statement about the tension between chaos and civilization since John Ford? Don’t Nietzschean fairy tales like “Breaking Bad,” “House of Cards,” or even “True Detective,” not to mention most video games, utterly brush aside the Left’s fantasies about Rousseauistic, universal human goodness? Well, yes—but once again, Hart’s warning looms large, and fogie-ism rears its head.

An excellent example of this is an article titled “A Counterproductive Alliance,” discusing the increasing friendliness to right-wing ideas among video game fans after the #Gamergate controversy. The gist of the article can be summed up as: “How will we maintain our air of moral superiority if people show up to CPAC in costumes instead ofblazers and bowties?” Never mind that #Gamergate and movements like it were the most successful backlash against political correctness: for some “conservatives,” sayingyes to potential allies was too much to bear if it meant hobnobbing with the sorts of people who’ve never read a Bible or owned a varsity jacket.

Beat Dominant Culture at Its Own Game

This leaves the Right in a vulnerable and very unenviable spot: the most anachronistic elements of right-wing politics have rendered us too unimaginative to create a counterculture of our own, and too snobbish to appropriate the elements of the dominant culture that could serve as building blocks.

What’s a conservative who wants to stop culture, and thus politics, from being dragged to the far Left do? Answer: He or she has to hope that some part of mainstream culture co-opts the Right. Pray, in other words, that some Prometheus comes along who’s willing to steal fire from his fellow cultural elites to give to the Right’s forgotten constituencies, even if it annoys their more refined leaders.

Perhaps, say, some titanic elite figure who knows leftist pop culture’s weaknesses from the inside, and is willing to lose his cozy insider status to go at it like a wrecking ball? You know, the sort of person with enough cultural cachet to turn an episode of “Saturday Night Life” into an hour-long infomercial for his political vision, rather than a source of endless sneering gags about Republicans? The kind of person who can get away with barking orders at MSNBC hosts? That kind of person?

Oh look, it’s Donald Trump. Trump, alone among the 2016 Republican candidates, has been willing to seize the banner of the Right in the current culture war, and plant it straight in the backs of his fallen leftist antagonists. Trump did this the way countercultural warriors are supposed to win fights: he beat the dominant culture at its own game by rejecting their assumptions about what was allowed.

Hoisted on Their Own Petards

Compared to Trump at his most mocking and satirical, Gawker is tame. Compared to Trump at his most daring and impetuous, even the most ruthless of Hollywood’s antiheroes look peevish. Compared to Trump’s seemingly oblivious moments of benevolence, Upworthy looks mawkish and saccharine. Trump has made destroying the young fogies on the Right and Left the greatest thing on TV.

If the leaders of the Right are scared of Trump because he will say anything; the Left is scared of Trump precisely because he will say anything. He does not play by the rules, and that makes him less predictable and more dangerous. What Ronald Reagan and Trump have in common is obvious: an incredible capacity to use the media to captivate the American people. One learned this in Hollywood, the other in reality TV, but both deployed this skill to great effect.

There is, of course, a big difference, as well: everyone knows Reagan cast himself as a sunny, heroic figure. Trump, on the other hand, is taking his cues from his time as a pro-wrestling heel personality, i.e., a comically larger-than-life villain. But there’s a neat thing about villains, or at least well-done ones: they get to show where people’s ideas of good and evil fall flat. Trump does this brilliantly to the Left. He has taken the humiliating mockery that the media has trained so effectively on “hicks,” Christians, and Republicans, and turned it round to expose the smug, mostly leftist Babbits and young fogies of the Acela Corridor as no less ridiculous.

That’s a good start for someone who wants to make America great again, rather than letting America succumb to its eventual, leftist-driven death by a thousand clicks.

Op-Ed: Do Israel a favor and back off — please

April 17, 2016

Op-Ed: Do Israel a favor and back off — please, Israel National News, Jack Engelhard, April 17, 2016

Something feels rotten when Democrats start talking about Israel. Even their words of support sound fishy.

Bernie says, “Yes, Israel has a right to defend itself.” Wow. How generous. Keep it going like that and better than Brando in “On the Waterfront,” you will remain a contender. You will be somebody. But then he keeps talking and ruins everything. “But I question the disproportionate response.”

That’s approximately a direct quote. I couldn’t keep up as these two kept going at it during the Thursday night main event on CNN.

Well somebody had to watch it, and I did. I did it for you, to spare you the gibberish.  Yes this was some brawl between these two Democrat lightweights. Blitzer had to keep stepping in to keep them apart and the last time I saw anything like this was when Mike Tyson bit somebody’s ear off in the ring. (Evander Holyfield.)

The two contenders left standing for the Liberal side faced off over the banks, Wall Street, the economy, race relations, the minimum wage, gun control, but I can’t recall who was in favor of this or against that, because I do not believe a word of it anyway.

They’ll say anything to get elected and do unto us what Obama has been doing over the past nearly eight years – only double.

I do know that they love abortion, adore mass legal and illegal immigration, and have no problem with terrorists.

I took notes, but not fast enough to catch anything on foreign affairs, like say Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea or any of the other places that pose a danger to themselves and to the United States of America…not to mention Israel. My mistake. Israel is always mentioned. Israel always comes up.

The world has become a small place for Liberals. There’s us, and there’s Israel, and seldom in a good way. But hold on.

Hillary came back to say…I’m not sure what it was, but it sounded like she was taking Israel’s side, more or less.

Hillary, who takes advice from people like Sid Blumenthal and other anti-Israel hotshots, said Israel has a right to do anything to stop the bombing.

Or was that Trump? Yes it was Trump speaking someplace else. Go Trump!

But Hillary was not about to let Bernie get the upper hand on who’s the bigger fake Zionist.

She said, “Hamas uses human shields because Gaza is so densely populated. They have no choice.”

No, wait. That was January two years ago when Hillary excused Arab terrorism and placed the entire blame on the Jewish State.

Fast forward to Thursday night, and NOW she says quite the opposite, that Israel is on the spot against an enemy that uses every dirty trick in the book.

Or something like that, according to my notes. But clearly she was reaching for the Herzl Prize.

Which Hillary would we be getting if she gets herself to the White House heaven forbid? Bernie we know. Oh Bernie we know.

At a time when Israel needs a true and firm friend from the United States, both of these pretenders remain lukewarm, two-faced and hypocritical. Neither of them seems capable of getting it straight when it comes Israel, a condition that seems to afflict so many Liberals from the top all the way across.

So why not just back off?

Israel, which ranks as the world’s sixth happiest country, does not need all that attention, not your curses or even your blessings.

As Rashi has it terms of an insect for the hypocritical Balaam: “I don’t want your honey and I don’t want your sting.”

Corey Lewandowski on The Laura Ingraham Show (4/15/2016)

April 16, 2016

Corey Lewandowski on The Laura Ingraham Show (4/15/2016) via You Tube

Where are we Now?

April 16, 2016

Where are we Now? Power LineSteven Hayward, April 15, 2016

One lesson of the Trump phenomenon is that it has revealed that conservatives have been way too timid or conciliatory in confronting the Left—that the latitude for effectively confronting political correctness is much greater than we thought.

********************************

That’s the open-ended title of the panel I spoke on last weekend at the West Coast Retreat of the David Horowitz Freedom Center (and special thanks to all of the Power Line readers in the audience who introduced themselves). Where do you go with such a wide-ranging title? I spoke from a few short notes that I scratched out the night before (which I have now lost), but I think it went pretty much something like this:

I’m not going to talk about the election, partly because so much of what I have said up to this point, especially about Trump’s prospects, have turned out to be wrong. Instead I think this panel’s title—Where Are We Now?—begs for taking a step back and looking at some longer term factors that overshadow the election, no matter who wins.

Lately I’ve been thinking of two sayings by foreigners—one probably familiar to most everyone, and one likely not. The first is Bismarck’s famous quip that “God looks after drunks, fools, and the United States of America.” I’m hoping this is still true. To the extent that accident and chance play a huge role in determining political life (the teaching of the classics), I think we’d have to say that America has been pretty lucky though most of its history. Thank God it was Harry Truman, and not Henry Wallace, who was vice president in April 1945 when FDR died; Truman was far from perfect, but he was right on a lot of important questions at that important moment.

The second saying comes from my late Hungarian-born friend Peter Schramm. Peter grew up under Communism, and when the Soviet tanks rolled through the country in 1956, his father said—“That’s it: we’re going to America.” “Why are we going to America, dad?” “Because, son, we were born American, just in the wrong place.” That was back at a time when people around the world understood clearly what America meant. I’m not so sure it is as clear to the world any more just what America means, or what it stands for, let alone whether it can be counted upon to defend the West.

Anyway, Peter told me that a favorite Hungarian saying is, “Things are serious—but not yet bad!” Now, I’m starting to think that things are bad. It is likely possible to recover from eight years of Obama with the right leadership, but if Obama is succeeded by Clinton or Sanders—or by a clueless Republican—the damage might be so long-lasting as to be near-irreversible.

A few observations:

First, events of just the last 10 days should remind us once again that our politics have become all out war—a fact that conservatives, and their weak vessel, the Republican Party, do not like to recognize. Conservatives like order and moderation (in the Aristotelian sense), and recoil from the idea of political warfare, because when things reach that stage, it means things are out of hand. But avoiding the unpleasantness of political life—and avoiding confronting it directly—will not make it go away, but instead guarantee that it will grow worse.

One lesson of the Trump phenomenon is that it has revealed that conservatives have been way too timid or conciliatory in confronting the Left—that the latitude for effectively confronting political correctness is much greater than we thought. It ought to be a matter of supreme embarrassment and shame that the most forceful and cogent response to the irresponsible demagoguery of Black Lives Matter has come from Bill Clinton. Never mind that he walked it back yesterday—that’s his problem. Our problem is no public figure on our side has spoken out as forcefully and as plainly as Clinton did.

In this regard, if we can’t win the Bathroom Wars, we might as well load up the lifeboats right now and become the refugees from our own country that the Left longs for us to be. And the most outrageous part of the recent controversy over bathrooms in North Carolina is the role played by big business, which is the most potent force in coercing states like North Carolina to back down from a common sense understanding of human nature. Why have big corporations become adjuncts to leftist identity politics? I suspect a study of corporate HR departments will find they are a hotbed of graduates with degrees in gender and ethnic studies, etc.

About Congress, I will just say that for those who have been critical of Republican leadership over the last few years, the problem is deeper and worse than you think. This is a long subject, having to do with the way in which the Democratic Party deliberately sought over decades to degrade the constitutional role of Congress in ways that many Republican members of Congress do not understand or perceive clearly enough. And it is going to take more than just a Republican president to fix this problem, though I think Ted Cruz understands this issue more profoundly than most of the rest of the GOP presidential field. But this is a very long subject, worthy of a separate complete panel all by itself.

Likewise, our response to the latest outbreak of radicalism on campuses is weak. The new mob of the campus Left says: racism, homophobia, sexism, oppression, and patriarchy. To which we have responded—free speech and academic freedom! This response is wholly inadequate. It concedes the premise of the Left: are we really for free speech on behalf of racism? Of course not, but we need to take the next step and throw back in their faces that their narratives of oppression are completely wrong, contemptible, and not to be taken seriously. That and a few expulsions (and more firings of many more professors like Melissa Click) might do the trick.

In summary, the central point of my remarks is to vindicate what I’m going to call the Horowitz Heuristic, or “David’s Desideratum.” For as long as I have known David, he has been saying that conservatives, and their defective organizational vehicle—the Republican Party—have not been vigorous enough in recognizing that the Left is conducting political warfare, and that it can only be beaten back by engaging in political warfare in return. Maybe a few more people are starting to figure out what David has understood all along. Is it too late? As Lincoln said about a real shooting war, “Wars are not won by blowing rosewater through cornstalks.”

Ann Coulter on The Seth Leibsohn Show (4/11/2016)

April 13, 2016

Ann Coulter on The Seth Leibsohn Show (4/11/2016) via You Tube, April 12, 2016

Trump: The system is rigged, it’s crooked

April 11, 2016

Trump: The system is rigged, it’s crooked, Fox and Friends via You Tube, April 11, 2016