Category: Elections

Flight 93 Election Follow-Up

The Portly Politico2 Comments

In September 2016, just two months prior to Donald Trump’s unlikely-but-historic election to the presidency, Michael Anton, writing under the pseudonym “Publius Decius Mus,” penned a groundbreaking essay, one that sounded like a thunderclap through the Right, and which doubtlessly swayed a number of independents.  The now-famous essay was “The Flight 93 Election,” and it spelled out the high stakes of the then-pending election.  If you haven’t read it, do so now.

(If my proposed History of Conservative Thought summer course makes, it will be one of the readings for the final week of class, which will cover the 2016 election and the various branches of conservative and Dissident Right thought surrounding the election.)

Anton has a new piece now, “What We Still Have to Lose” (thanks to photog at Orion’s Cold Fire for linking to this piece on his excellent blog), which serves as a follow-up of sorts to his original essay.  The piece serves as reminder of what is still at stake for the United States, and to promote, somewhat mildly, Anton’s new book, After the Flight 93 Election:  The Vote that Saved America and What We Still Have to Lose.

According to Anton, critics of the original essay argued that he had no positive view for America, and merely argued that electing Trump was a desperation play—gamble on the dark horse, because the known evil of Hillary Clinton is too great—to prevent further disaster.  Anton concedes that even he underestimated candidate Trump, and that President Trump has exceeded his expectations.

As such, Anton sets out in this essay (an excerpt from the book) that he does, indeed, possess a positive vision for how America and conservatism can advance.  This essay doesn’t get much into that vision, but it does highlight that there is still much to lose.

To prove that point—and to defend against claims of “apocalypticism” in his analysis of the 2016 election—Anton points to the infamous Kavanaugh confirmation hearings:

What the Kavanaugh affair has made clearer to me than ever is that the Left will not stop until all opposition is totally destroyed. The harm they do to people, institutions, mores, and traditions is, in their view, not regrettable though unavoidable collateral damage; it is rather an essential element of the project. It’s a bit rich to be accused by nihilists of lacking a positive vision. But such is life in 2018. To stand up for truth, morality, the good, the West, America, constitutionalism, and decency is to summon the furies.

America cannot long go on like this. Something’s gotta give, and something will. What that “something” will be depends in no small part on the actions of men and women of good character, good judgment, and goodwill. Among the most heartening things I’ve seen in my lifetime was the way the president, the Republican establishment, and most of the conservative movement stood together in the face of what a few took to calling “the Flight 93 Confirmation.” In that instance, justice was done. Many more tests are coming. Victory will require not just spirit and spine but the right arguments that explicate the right principles.

I agree that “something’s gotta give.”  I generally despise using the verb “to feel” in writing—it’s weak and transient—but I certainly feel as though we’re on the verge of some cataclysmic paradigm shift.  The political and cultural atmosphere certainly seem different since the 2016 election, and the Left is showing its true colors—its penchant for violence, its destruction of the reputation of an innocent man, its dominance of Silicon Valley to deplatform rivals—as the levers of power slip away.

I’ll have to pick up Anton’s book to read more of his vision for America.  If it’s as bold as his “The Flight 93 Election” essay, it could wake up many more Americans to the continued perils we face from a bitter, Cultural Marxist Left.

 

The State of Education

The Portly Politico15 Comments

Last night I attended a program hosted by the Florence County (SC) Republican Party featuring Dr. Richard O’Malley, the Superintendent for Florence School District 1.  The topic of the evening was an upcoming referendum on increasing funds for the district, which would go toward improving existing facilities, building new ones, and constructing some additional structures (notably, three football stadiums for the three high schools in the district).  Naturally, those funds would come with a 25-year bond issue, which requires hiking property taxes in the district.

Not surprisingly, the place was packed.  It was a good talk that highlighted the need for physical plant improvements to the school district.  Dr. O’Malley is from New Jersey, and has both raised and lowered taxes as a school district superintendent and two-term mayor for a New Jersey town.  He sincerely seemed interested in maintaining a balanced budget for the district, and doing what he believed was best by the students.

I no longer reside in Florence County, so I don’t have a dog in the fight, per se, but it was interesting to hear the complexity of the problems that face the district.  Dr. O’Malley was insistent that he “didn’t come here to build new buildings,” although that often seems to be the goal of school districts.  The attendees were mixed in their thoughts about the referendum, but they mostly voiced their opinions and concerns respectfully.

It was serendipitous, then, that after I arrived home from this lengthy program, I stumbled upon this piece by a former New York City French teacher, Mary Hudson, entitled “Public Education’s Dirty Secret.”  It’s a long piece, but I highly, highly recommend you read it in its entirety.  It’s a shocking, though not surprising, look at the state of public education today.

Hudson’s piece details her difficult career as a well-intentioned high school French teacher, one who was extremely dedicated to her students (as public school teachers tend to be) despite overwhelming cultural and administrative resistance.  After reading Hudson’s piece, I have a grudging respect for her teachers’ union, UTF, which actually tried to back her up in disciplinary hearings with students (hearings that, despite horrendous student behavior, Hudson always lost).

As I wrote a few weeks ago, a major problem facing teachers is overbearing, micromanaging administrators.  Hudson’s piece clearly highlights that, not only are administrative burdens hindering teachers, the laws (at least in New York State) empower students to act like disrespectful asses.  There is a persistent fear that punishing students is implicitly racist (sadly, it’s not surprising to read that Hudson’s worst students and schools possess predominantly black student populations, but even the heavily white and Asian technical high school where she teaches is full of behavioral issues, as students adopt an attitude of staunch resistance to “the system”).

Beyond heavy-handed, mediocre administrators—the scourge of all things good and noble—the students themselves are truly deplorable (and not in the good, Trumpian way).  At one school, two Snapple vending machines were pushed from an upper mezzanine to the floor below—on two consecutive days.  Hudson relates that students were constantly berating and threatening her.  She snapped at one school when a large black male told her he was going to “cut yo’ ass.”  Hudson says that a black colleague told her that in her “culture,” that expression is not literal.  A cold comfort, I suppose.

One particularly insane event occurred at a high school “talent show,” in which students essentially dry-humped each other on-stage while the swarthy, undulating masses in the crowd grew increasingly frenzied.  Here is Hudson at length:

The most Dantesque scene I witnessed at Washington Irving was a “talent show” staged one spring afternoon. The darkened auditorium was packed with excited students, jittery guidance counselors, teachers, and guards. Music blasted from the loudspeakers, ear-splitting noise heightened the frenzy. To my surprise and horror, the only talent on display was merely what comes naturally. Each act was a show of increasingly explicit dry humping. As each group of performers vied with the previous act to be more outrageous, chaos was breaking out in the screaming audience. Some bright person in charge finally turned off the sound, shut down the stage lights, and lit up the auditorium, causing great consternation among the kids, but it quelled the growing mass hysteria. The students came to their senses. The guards (and NYC policemen if memory serves) managed to usher them out to safety.

I work with a colleague who once taught at a local area high school.  She told me the students flitted erratically between “rage and ecstasy”—constant, persistent anger at themselves, the people around them, the “system,” etc., coupled with an almost-animalistic pursuit of pleasure.  That’s in relatively rural South Carolina.  In urban New York City, that “rage and ecstasy” is apparent when, at one small school, ten girls end up pregnant—out of a school population of ninety!

There are many more heartbreaking examples.  Hudson, to be clear, is a “true believer” in the power of education to save students’ lives, and she is not some kind of racist or supremacist.  She is compassionate toward her students, and it kills her inside that she can’t do more.  But she’s also clear-eyed about the problems facing schools, and our culture generally.  Her account is full of examples of students who have given up completely, and are simply unable to articulate their rage in any other way than to lash out at a “system” that is designed to enable their worst instincts.

One final thought:  from reading Hudson’s account, it is apparent that some students are simply beyond help.  I imagine it’s an incredibly small minority—maybe 1-3%—but in attempting to educate the uneducateable, we bring down the rest of the students, making it almost impossible for them to learn.  Hudson complains throughout her piece about her inability to remove students from the classroom (that’s like Classroom Management 101—put a disruptive kid in the hallway for a few minutes and/or send him to the office in order to defuse his chicanery).

It’s controversial to say so, but there are some students we should probably just cut loose.  Again, those are the exception, but it’s clear from Hudson’s account, as well as talking to other public school teachers, that some students will simply refuse to ever learn.  It’s tragic, but public schools can’t heal a broken, poisoned culture, and it’s unreasonable to expect them to do so.

A comment that came up several times at last night’s forum was thus:  real change in education begins with the family.  Everyone agrees with this conclusion.  But what do we do about it?  The Left has systematically fought a cultural war against the nuclear family and bourgeois values like thrift and respect for institutions and authorities.  We’re reaping the bitter harvest their misguided policies have sown.

We should try to teach as many children as possible in healthy, safe environments, and teachers have a huge moral responsibility in the molding of young hearts and minds.  That said, teachers, schools, and administrators are not enough to fill the gap left by destroyed families and gutted communities.  No tax increase or bond measure can fill that void.  At this point, I think only a massive religious revival could aright America’s most toxic subcultures.

TBT: The Alabama Special Election, Principles, and Persecution

The Portly Politico2 Comments

Back in 2017, I was enthusiastic about the candidacy of Judge Roy Moore as he ran for US Senate in a special election in Alabama.  Moore is a darling of social conservatives because of his willingness to challenge flawed higher court rulings on the establishment of religion.  He famously refused to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama State Supreme Court in defiance of a federal court ruling, and was elected back to the bench after being removed for his defiance.

I relished the idea of this bumptious, no-nonsense Christian in the US Senate, and after he won the Republican nomination in a heated campaign against Establishment GOP favorite Luther Strange, I figured he would coast to an easy win.

Then, of course, the Left brought out the knives, and heretofore unspoken allegations of sexual misconduct from the murky past surfaced.  Remember, Moore ran in multiple races, often as a controversial and high-profile figure, without any of these allegations ever surfacing.  What made this race different?

In this piece from December 2017, I argue that Moore was railroaded, and that while some of the stories of his age-disparate relationships with teenage girls were likely true, they all seemed relatively benign given the times (the swingin’ 1970s).  My basic takeaway was, and is, this:  the worst of the allegations against Moore also was the most incongruous from others; Moore was super respectful to the other girls who mention dating him; and several of the girls were eager to date a successful, older attorney.  Essentially, it’s highly unlikely he did anything illegal or wrong; he was just a dude who liked dating girls in their late teens.  That’s a big unusual, but he wasn’t breaking any laws at the time.

With the modern Left, though, yesterday’s unorthodox peccadilloes become today’s wicked heresies (and vice-versa).  That Moore is a fundamentalist, evangelical Christian made him an even more appealing target for character assassination.  The noodle-wristed hand-wringers of Conservatism, Inc., were all too willing to fall over themselves proving to the Left that they, too, were good guys with their denunciations of Moore.

Here, then, is 2017’s “The Alabama Special Election, Principles, and Persecution“:

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?

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.

TBT: Brexit: The Antidote to Supranational Tyranny

The Portly Politico9 Comments

The first indication that a major sea-change in Western politics was underway was the historic Brexit vote in June 2016.  The mere fact that Britain voted to leave the European Union boosted nationalist movements in Europe, and reflected the growing discontent of Britons with the policies of their elites.  That frustration manifested itself outside of Britain, and seemed to presage—at least in hindsight—Trump’s unlikely, underdog victory in November of that year.

The following is my first piece on Brexit, dated 13 June 2016.  I wrote it in response to a student’s inquiry.  That launched a series of pieces on Brexit that I will—eventually—compile into an eBook, the title of which will draw from a phrase I coined for this article:  “supranational tyranny.”

In essence, I argued then (and still argue now) that Brexit was, at bottom, a referendum on national sovereignty.  Issues like trade and immigration, while quite important, were merely the outgrowth of that fundamental issue.  Brexit, in so many words and in so many ways, simply asked, “Can a country make its own decisions about its own destiny?”  Like so many fundamentals, that we even have to ask the question demonstrates how far postmodern deconstructionism has taken us.  Regardless, the people of Britain resoundingly answered, “YES!”  The vote to leave was not an endorsement of xenophobia or anything else:  it was a vote for national sovereignty.

The European Union was a classic bait-and-switch:  Britain joined under the pretense that it was entering an economic free trade zone.  That morphed—it seems, based on the EU’s charter and its goal of “ever closer union”, deliberately and by design—into the supranational, undemocratic behemoth it is today, with decisions largely dictated from Germany and its toadie, France.  When the people lost the ability to control their own borders and immigration policies—the bare-bone essentials of what constitute a “nation” and “national sovereignty”—they seized the opening and voted for liberty and sovereignty over continued acquiescence in exchange for goodies.

Here is June 2016’s “Brexit:  The Antidote to Supranational Tyranny“:

I’ve been planning to do a few pieces on the question of “Brexit”–whether or not the United Kingdom should leave the European Union, or to remain a part of it–but originally intended to wait until the 23 June referendum drew closer.  However, over the weekend I received this e-mail from a student:

A summer vacation well spent.
In case you can’t read the e-mail, here’s the text in full:
Dear Mr[.] Cook (Self entitled defender of Rock & Roll),
I know this isn’t the average email you get from a student, political. However, with one of the most impactful votes to effect [sic] the US economy to take place in just 11 days, June 23, I would like to ask how you felt on the United Kingdom’s vote on whether to stay in the EU or leave it. US news has refused to cover this major event due to irresponsibility and foolishness. Just wanted to know your thoughts on this vital subject.

(Please note that I am blessed to teach some very bright students.)

Brexit is a hugely complicated issue; however, viewed through the lens of national sovereignty versus the dubious claims of supranational organizations, the ultimate solution is, in my mind, a no-brainer:  the people of Great Britain should vote “Leave” this June.

Now for some preliminary disclaimers, lest I be burned in effigy:

To any British readers, please do not presume that an upstart, boorish American is preaching at you about what to do with your national destiny.  If the situation were reversed, I’d rightfully scoff at any attempts from “Europeans” to tell my country how to function.  However, I ask that all readers approach my arguments for Brexit in a philosophical and rational way; that is, treat them in the context of one mind reasoning from a set a premises, not as an American lecturing foreign nationals about their sovereign politics.

(British readers–if you exist–please feel free to leave your comments, reflections, reactions, and bitter recriminations below; I respect and welcome your perspective, which is far more accurate and attuned to the realities of the situation than my own.)

I’d also like to acknowledge the influence of a book review I read over the weekend in the 9 May 2016 edition of National Review(Volume LXVIII, No. 8).  The review, written by John Fonte and entitled “The EU’s Soft Utopia,” is of the book The Totalitarian Temptation:  Global Governance and the Crisis of Democracy in Europe by Todd Huizinga, a long-time observer of European Union politics.  I highly recommend you seek out this review.  I intend to read the book soon.

 ***

Now that those pleasantries are out of the way, I’d like to lay out my case, clumsy though it may be.  My remarks are adapted from those I sent to the young man above.

The Brexit issue is one of huge importance to the US, the UK, and Europe, and while it has not been covered heavily in the mainstream media, I’ve read a number of articles about it in both National Review and the Weekly Standard.

The question of whether or not to vote “Remain” or “Leave” really depends on your perspective and your goals, or what you think the European Union is supposed to do.  The EU itself tries to appear unsure of its goals, but its mission clearly states that it seeks “ever closer union” of the various member nation-states.

The EU began life as essentially a large economic free trade zone that gradually expanded, and which then adopted a common currency in the late 1990s (a move, we now know, that was fraught with peril, especially as it is very difficult for disparate nations at different points of economic development and national sovereignty to share a single currency effectively; see also Greece).  My perception is that the EU wants to become, ultimately, the “United States of Europe”; indeed, this goal is straightforwardly expressed by many pro-Europe observers.  The question, then, is this goal desirable or not?

 The United States of Europe, where six-weeks paid vacation is a basic human right.

It certainly has elements that are attractive.  In theory, a politically unified Europe becomes a powerful check against Vladimir Putin’s Russia.  Many of the “far-right” populist parties in European nations (France’s National Front, Germany’s Alternativ für Deutschland, etc.) are gaining traction now due to the flood of (often violent) Islamic “refugees” into Europe, and many of those groups view Putin’s ultra-nationalistic Russia warmly (some, too, are allegedly bankrolled by Russia).  Moving toward greater union would help resolve the economic problems the euro faces, as it would allow the EU to change monetary and fiscal policy in its member states, which would no longer look like America under the Articles of Confederation, but would instead look more like America under the Constitution.

At least, that’s how we’re supposed to view it.  Unfortunately, that comparison quickly falls apart under scrutiny.  The constitutional order our Framers carefully constructed in 1787 functions verydifferently than the European Union conceived of by its architects.  The EU is largely run by an unelected, globalist-progressive bureaucracy that is both unaccountable to the peoples and sovereign member states of Europe, and which has already acted to oust democratically-elected leaders (see also:  Italy).  Sure, there’s the European Parliament, which is currently (and ironically) dominated by members from Euroskeptic parties like UKIP, but it has only limited functions and can essentially only vote to block decisions made by the European Commission, itself made up of unelected commissioners.

The EU, then, cares not for democratic input, national sovereignty (and, therefore, borders), or federalism.  A United States of Europe would be a heavily centralized unit that might allow some state sovereignty in some limited areas, but would ultimately have vast, unchecked control over its members, with little regard for what the people in those member states want (just look at Germany and Angela Merkel’s increasingly unpopular–and arguably dangerous–stance on the refugee crisis).

So, while a large, intact European Union would present a unified front against Russia, it would also be a largely undemocratic front against the United States.  Some have argued that the EU is necessary to keep NATO viable, but I don’t buy this argument.  NATO has functioned well, if somewhat inconsistently, with a couple of dozen or so sovereign states for decades.  If Britain votes “Leave,” how would this dynamic substantially change in the long-run?

“A United States of Europe would be a heavily centralized unit that might allow some state sovereignty in some limited areas, but would ultimately have vast, unchecked control over its members, with little regard for what the people in those member states want….”

Ultimately, the Brexit vote is a referendum on national sovereignty.  If national sovereignty has any meaning and significance for the people of Britain–and for the world–British voters will resoundingly vote “no” to the EU.

Would such an outcome have ripple effects politically and economically?  Absolutely.  Britain might struggle temporarily because of the (admittedly) huge institutional and economic disruptions, but it would soon rock back to its feet, as it would find itself freed of the EU’s overbearing economic regulations and rules.  Britain is also well-positioned to leave, as it prudently maintained the British pound, and could very likely continue to accept euros for everyday economic exchanges.

The European Union might callously block trade with Britain, but Britain’s large financial and consumer markets would quickly erode any such vindictive measures.  President Obama has darkly warned that Britain would be at “the back of the queue” for future trade deals, which would be a slap to the face to the Churchillian, Anglo-American “special relationship.”  Our next president would, if he or she is wise, quickly embrace a “most-favored nation” treaty with Britain to keep trade open and affordable between our nations.

Putin might take advantage of the situation temporarily, but Europe and Britain would likely come together rapidly in the face of any Russian aggression.  Putin is wily and will take any advantage he can, which is all the more reason for the Obama administration to put aside its pro-EU stance and to support an independent Britain should the British people vote “Leave.”

Just because Putin might benefit doesn’t mean that Brexit is ultimately a bad idea.  A “Leave” vote would, in a paradoxical way, be healthy for the EU, as it would likely lead to the exit of nations that have no business being under the euro, such as Greece and Spain.  It would also inspire and embolden other nations to push for greater transparency, accountability, and democratization from the European Union’s leaders and institutions.

Most importantly, though, it would strike a blow against the totalizing, globalist elitism of the EU bureaucracy.  Brussels might see itself as enlightened, progressive, cosmopolitan–and, as a result, more humane–but it’s still authoritarian and anti-democratic-republican in the way it functions and pursues its vision.

Therefore, while I recognize the potential geopolitical and economic risks, I sincerely pray that the good people of the United Kingdom will strike a blow for republican self-government, national sovereignty, and liberty, and vote “Leave” this June.

The time for Brexit is now.  Like ripping off an old bandage, the initial pain will sting, but only briefly.  The old wound will heal, and a new, freer nation will enjoy the fruits of its sovereignty.

Republicans Vote Values, Not Color

The Portly Politico1 Comment

The Left sure loves their identity politics.  That’s what made Milo Yiannopoulos such a compelling figure during his 2016 heyday:  he was, for the Left, a walking contradiction, a creature that, according to their theories of intersectionality, should not have been.  As a flamboyantly, peacockingly gay power bottom with a penchant for black studs, Milo’s staunch populist-conservatism and devout Catholicism shocked the progressives (and earned him the stern finger-waggling of the noodle-wristed neocons).

Such is the case with black Americans, who Democrats and progressives (but I repeat myself) see as their exclusive political property.  That’s why it’s refreshing to read this article about Caleb Hanna, a nineteen-year old black man who was elected to the West Virginia House of Delegates.  This makes Mr. Hanna the youngest black elected official in West Virginia.

Lest I fall into the same identity politics trap as the Left, allow me to clarify my point here:  I could care less what race or age Mr. Hanna is (although it is delicious that the aging congressional Democrats are so fixated on youth and race).  What’s interesting is how little these factors matter to voters in a Southern-ish State (as I detailed in another post relating to West Virginia, it’s not quite the South, but, hey, close enough).

As the benighted region of the country, we’re supposedly way more racist than everyone else.  Yet, as Professor Carol Swain of Vanderbilt University explains in this popular Prager University video, the South votes values, not color:

I can’t help but note that it’s the South—where black and white Americans have lived together in large numbers for the longest amount of time—where blacks and whites get along the best.  Most white Southerners could care less about race (as, I suspect, most black Southerners could care less about it).  That doesn’t mean people always get along, but go into any barbecue place or gas station fried chicken joint in the country and you’ll see a checkerboard of people chowing down.

Consider how much race relations have improved in the South since Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus barred nine black students from attending Little Rock High School in the 1950s.  That’s not that long ago, as I hear people say, usually in the context of “it could come back at any moment.”  But consider:  it wasn’t that long ago.  Isn’t anyone else impressed with how quickly race relations improved?

Regardless, congratulations to Representative Hanna!

Election Day 2018

The Portly Politico6 Comments

This blog has fallen dormant—has it often seems to do—during the height of election season.  A savvy, dedicated blogger would churn out the bulk of his content when the news comes fast and fresh, and folks are seeking out information about candidates—not during the middle of summer, the deadest time for political news, outside of some primary elections.

But, hey, that’s what makes The Portly Politico unique.

What won’t make it unique is this admonition:  VOTE.  Ideally—and if you’re a reader of this blog, this might go without saying—vote for Republicans.

I went out to vote this morning—the last time at my current precinct, as I’ve recently moved to the countryside (after two floods, it was time)—and it was hoppin’.  I arrived around 7:05 AM EST, and there was a line out the door.  I finished voting around 7:40 AM EST—that’s how many people were there to vote.

I’ve never experienced a midterm election this year.  Both sides are highly energized.  It feels like a presidential election.

I’ll refrain from offering detailed analysis at this point (I think Republicans will pick up some Senate seats, but the House is a complete toss-up), but this election—to recycle another cliché, but only because it’s true—is of the utmost importance.

If Republicans lose the House (which, I’ll confess, seems likely, albeit by a narrow margin), it will certainly stymie President Trump and the GOP’s conservative agenda.  The prospect of returning Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi to the Speaker position is also terrifying.

If Republicans lose the Senate, it will be utterly catastrophic.  You can kiss conservative Supreme Court nominees goodbye.  If you’re the most anti-Trumpist #NeverTrumper neocon that ever lived, you’ve gotta hold your nose and vote Republican for that reason alone.

If we lose both… well, I shudder to contemplate the kangaroo court of baseless investigations and accusations that Democratic Congress will unleash.  Impeachment might not result in removal, but the fraying fabric of our political system would be rent asunder as Democratic knives stab any opposition.

This election is a referendum on Trump and Trumpism, yes, but it’s also a series of choices:  the Constitution, or lawlessness.  Capitalism, or communism.  Rule by the people, or rule by an entrenched, technocratic elite.

Get out there and vote, folks—especially Republicans!