Category: Ideas and Policy

Video: Z-Man on 2020 Democratic Hopefuls

The Portly Politico1 Comment

A quick post today—and for real this time—but this one will take you a little over an hour to digest.  Dissident Right blogger and podcaster Z-Man‘s latest video gives a detailed rundown of the current and prospective slate of 2020 Democratic candidates for the presidency, what he calls the “Tribal Circus“:

I’m not usually one to insist you watch a video, but Z-Man’s video is the best comprehensive analysis I’ve seen or read about the Democratic field so far.  In a no-nonsense, quite politically-incorrect way, Z-Man breaks the field down into the competing “tribes” of the Democrats, such as the “Festive Tribe” (Hispanics), the Angry Woman Tribe, etc.

His basic analysis is that Kamala Harris is probably the biggest threat, not because the American people will like or care about her radical policies, but because she ticks off some important boxes:  she’s “black” (she’s half Jamaican and half Asian, but these inconvenient genetic details won’t matter much to the general population) and a woman.  He also argues that she comes across as shrill and “b*tchy,” and thinks that will hurt her, but he has some concerns about her ability in the general election.

Late in the podcast he touches on Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who has become a bit of a pariah on the Left because of her stance on Syria and her meeting with Bashar al-Assad.  Z-Man hopes that, at the very least, Gabbard makes it onto the debate stage, not because he thinks she can win (he explicitly states that she won’t be able to win), but because he wants to see the resulting meltdown on stage as she and her opponents snipe each other.

For what it’s worth, I’m , all-aboard the Trump Train, etc.  President Trump would have to eat a baby on live TV for me to not vote for him in 2020.  That said, if I had to live some kind of nightmare scenario in which only a Democrat could be president, I’d probably go with Gabbard (naturally, I’d do way more research before making that pick).  My reasoning is not solid at this point, but she’s sacrificed actual political capital in order to stand up against religious bigotry from other Congressmen.

Unless that was a calculated move in advance of a presidential bid to win over moderates, I can’t see how she had anything to gain from such a move.  It seems like a principled stand.

Regardless, enjoy Z-Man’s video on this lazy Sunday morning.  God Bless!

Walls Work

The Portly Politico5 Comments

It’s going to be a very quick post today.  While I’m enjoying an unexpectedly lengthy Winter Break—a perk of being a teacher, and why our complaints, while legitimate, should be taken with a grain of salt—I’m also quite busy outside of the mildly Dissident Right/”Alt-Lite” blogosphere.  I played a very fun solo gig last night at a coffee shop in my neck of South Carolina, and tonight I’ll be playing alto saxophone with an old-school, swingin’ big band.  I’m heading out for soundcheck and rehearsals for that soon, thus the quick post (gotta keep the streak alive!).

American Thinker posted a piece this week on the utility of border walls—how they’re popping internationally, and how they’re incredibly effective: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/02/a_fenceless_border_is_defenseless.html

Some international examples from the piece (emphasis added):

According to a February 2018 American Renaissance article, between 1945 and 1961, over 3.5 million East Germans walked across the unguarded border.  When the wall was built, it cut defections by more than 90 percent.  When Israel in January 2017 completed improvements to the fence on its border with Egypt to keep out terrorists and African immigrants, it cut illegal immigration to zero.  In 2015, The Telegraph reported on the construction of a 600-mile “great wall” border by Saudi Arabia with Iraq to stop Islamic State militants from entering the country.  The wall included five layers of fencing with watchtowers, night-vision cameras, and radar cameras.  Finally, a September 2016 article in the Washington Post reported on the new construction of a mile-long wall at Calais.

In case you missed it, the key line there is “[w]hen Israel… completed improvements to the fence on its border with Egypt… it cut illegal immigration to zero.”

Cut it to zero.  No one can plausibly argue against the effectiveness of a border wall.  Yes, ports of entry are a problem, too, but those are merely the documented cases of illegal entry.  The reason those numbers are so prominent in the debate (besides being a useful cudgel against the commonsense of a border wall) is because we have numbers—at least, more accurate numbers—for illegal entries at ports of entry as opposed to illegal entries at the porous southern border.

Again, that’s just commonsense, but it’s easy to lose in the debate.  It’s hard to fight data with data when you don’t have an accurate count—and an accurate count of illegal border crossings is, by definition, impossible!

What we do know is that illegal crossings are up—why else would there be hordes of coyote-led migrants marching en masse to the border—and a wall is a quick, cost-effective way to relieve border agents to focus on other areas.

Those hordes—as much as we can and should sympathize with their plight—represent a direct assault on our borders and national sovereignty.  If we let some come through illegally, simply because they come in large numbers, then the floodgates open.

In that context—that of a foreign invasion—the President’s decision to declare a national emergency seems to be entirely in keeping with his powers under Article II of the Constitution.

While I think he should have gotten Congress to act sooner when Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress (although, let’s be honest here:  many congressional Republicans are doing the bidding of the US Chamber of Commerce and the cheap labor lobby when it comes to border security—they want to assure a steady stream of near-slave labor for their donors), this crisis needs to be met with the full force of the Commander-in-Chief’s war-waging powers.

For the fullest explanation of that approach, read this piece from Ann Coulter.  Coulter is a controversial figure, but I think her assessment of the Constitution is accurate here.

I find “national emergencies” and broad applications of presidential powers constitutionally distasteful; however, a core responsibility of the executive is to execute the laws, including immigration laws, and to protect and guard national borders.  If Congress won’t pony up for border security, President Trump must use every power at his disposal as Commander-in-Chief to defend the nation.  That’s pretty much his entire job!

Well, it looks like this post was as long as any other.  I type pretty quickly when I’m in rant-mode, and nothing gets me there faster than illegal invasion.

Godspeed, President Trump.  Please be more attentive to this issue going forward—it’s why we elected you!

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

The Portly Politico3 Comments

Happy Valentine’s Day!  To celebrate the Day of Love, here’s a #TBT about the collapse of the American family and divorce.  This piece was a follow-up to one of my most popular posts on the old site, “Family Matters.”  I received a ton of feedback on that post (in those days, I posted everything to my personal Facebook page, but that was before it became completely unpleasant to be a conservative online—Trump was elected that November and it became much more dangerous to espouse conservative ideas on Facebook), including lots of questions about divorce and such.

Most of those comments fell into the anecdotal, “well, ACTUALLY” range—“what you’re saying is true, but here’s my one exception that I think undermines the general trend.”  Yes, yes—of course there are rare instances in which divorce is preferable to sticking it out, like violent abuse.  That said, we should generally support preserving marriage and discouraging divorce.

So, enjoy your Valentine’s Day with this lengthy rumination on divorce, marriage, and sex education:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Happy Monday: President Trump’s Approval Rating at 52%

The Portly Politico3 Comments

It’s a damp, dreary Monday morning here in South Carolina, but we’re all smiles here at The Portly Politico:  Rasmussen’s daily presidential tracking poll has President Trump at 52%, Trump’s highest approval ratings since shortly after his Inauguration.  That puts President Trump two points above President Barack Obama’s approval ratings for the same point in his presidency.

39% “Strongly Approve” and “Strongly Disapprove” of President Trump’s performance, giving him a “Presidential Approval Index rating of 0,” according to Rasmussen’s poll.

I’ve followed the Rasmussen daily tracking poll intermittently since President Trump’s inauguration in 2017, and it’s heartening to see the Presidential Approval Index rating at 0 (it’s been negative most of Trump’s presidency).

The president’s tour de force State of the Union performance surely has helped his numbers.  It seems, too, that ending the government shutdown has improved his approval ratings, and the promise of a deal to prevent another one this Friday probably helps.  If the $5.7 billion the president requested for border barriers at key points on the US-Mexican border is part of the deal, Trump will be sitting pretty with his base and independents (that said, I rather relish another extended shutdown, just to slow the Deep State down a bit).

Public opinion polls are fickle, especially daily ones, but if Trump can keep this momentum going, he’ll have no problem winning reelection in 2020.  November 2020 is still a lifetime away, and I have concerns about some of the declared Democratic hopefuls, but you can’t argue with a robust economy, a strong national defense, and greater border security.

Stone Cold Sunday

The Portly PoliticoLeave a comment

It’s been an eventful weekend, so I’m a bit delayed with today’s post (gotta keep the streak alive!).  That said, it’s going to be a short one.

I recently wrote a post about Roger Stone, the controversial, P.T. Barnum-esque political consultant, fashionisto, and latest victim of the Mueller witch hunt.  After doing some research on Stone’s over-the-top life, I decided to pick up his book, Stone’s Rules: How to Win at Politics, Business, and Style.

It arrived earlier this week, and I’ve struggled to put it down.  It’s fairly straightforward:  Stone dispenses his churlish wisdom gleaned from forty years in politics, sprinkled with interesting (especially if they’re true) anecdotes to illuminate the “rule” in question.  Mixed in with stories of past and current politicians are rules for dressing well for the “arena,” be it of politics or business.

In the spirit of Roger Stone—and my personal commitment to making 2019 the self-styled “Year of the Panther“—I’ve really been attempting to up my sartorial game.  While I’m not of the disposition (or constitution) to resort to some of Stone’s more outlandish tactics, I do find some of his advice applicable to many areas of life, kind of like irreverent proverbs for the morally ambiguous.  Regardless, his fashion advice is on-point, and I’m learning the value of crisp, white shirts and a good tan (Stone retells, multiple times, the well-worn tale of the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debates, and how Kennedy spent the afternoon tanning with two babes on the roof of a building while Nixon refused to wear makeup and was recovering from surgery).

The best parts of the book are when Stone delves into some obscure moment from American political history to support his points.  These are entertaining and educational.  I’ve learned a great deal about Republican races in New Jersey!

One example from midway through the book.  “Stone’s Rule :  Never Turn Down a Major Party Nomination.”  Stone relays the story of Christine Todd Whitman, who ran for US Senate in New Jersey against Democrat Bill Bradley.  Whitman sought out advice from former President Richard Nixon, Stone’s idol (and, I learned from this book, the so-called “Sage of Saddle River,” as “Nixon came to be known in dispensing his wisdom from his modest residence in the New Jersey town of that name”).

Nixon told her to go for it.  Whitman lost the race, but clinched the Republican nomination for Governor the following year, and went on to win “in a major upset” the following year.

The takeaway:  if you win a major political party nomination and do well, even if you lose, you’ve set yourself up for future successes.  It’s a variant on “80% of life is showing up.”

There are many more choice examples (although I’m still working my way through the book).  The pages are fairly glossy and high-quality, making it a heavy book.  Stone also needed a better editor, as there are a number of typographical errors, and even a few minor issues with facts (he writes about Ross Perot spoiling the 1988 election for the Republicans, when he means the 1992 election).

Overall, though, it’s a fun, lively book.  I recommend you pick it up, especially if you’re interested in one of the more outrageous figures in modern American political history.

Secession Saturday

The Portly Politico15 Comments

Care of photog at Orion’s Cold Fire, here’s a thought-provoking piece by Christopher Roach of American Greatness, “The Left Won’t Allow a Peaceful Separation“: https://amgreatness.com/2019/01/21/the-left-wont-allow-a-peaceful-separation/

Roach touches on some of the same points I bring up in my essay “Progressivism and Political Violence,” in which I diagnose some of the well-known pathologies of the Left, including its tendency towards totalitarianism. That impulse is why the Left is never content to adopt the Right’s “live and let live” mentality. Thus, the willingness to eat their own (as in the Northam non-troversy), to demonize young conservatives, to harass conservatives at dinner, and to denounce anyone who doesn’t believe whatever the latest frontier of social justice is this week.

The idea that America is in a “cold civil war”—one that is turning increasingly hot—isn’t nothing new (sadly). Controversial Dissident Right figure John Derbyshire calls it a conflict between “goodwhites”—the limousine liberals and soccer moms who think Trump is mean and who want to virtue-signal to minorities to appear cool and progressive—and “badwhites”—the rest of us folks in “flyover country” who largely want to be left alone to enjoy our faith, family, and liberty in peace.

That the cold, cultural civil war may turn hot is a cause of concern to many folks on the Right and Left. I shudder to contemplate it. Roach, in his piece, argues that a peaceful separation may one day be the result of our current Kulturkampf, but he is pessimistic that the Left would willingly let anyone leave, due to its totalitarian nature.

He also points out that, though we often forget it, the United States is, itself, a product of secession—from merry old England. As I often point out to my students, the question of whether or not States were bound permanently to the Constitution was an open question until 1865. The Jeffersonian “compact theory” argued, essentially, that the States had formed the Union and “opted in” to the Constitution. The big, open question prior to the American Civil War, then, was thus: having opted in to this arrangement, did States have the ability to opt out? A straightforward reading of the Declaration of Independence suggests heavily that, in certain extreme circumstances, they might be able to do so.

As I’ve long told my students, the Civil War answered that question conclusively by force of arms. Now, States sue the federal government through their respective attorney generals’ offices should there be any conflicts between them and the feds.

That said, as I’ve grown older, I’ve come to realize that no political question is ever truly “settled,” and no political arrangement—even one as enduring and amazing as our federal constitutional republic—can last forever. The idea of secession could be given a renewed lease should the federal government continue to overextend its authority, and should the culture wars deepen and darken.

To be clear, I’m not advocating for secession or anything of the sort. I’m merely exploring—in a very brief way—a complex idea that is, in the balance, not entirely without merit. Regardless of the motivations for the American Civil War, the notion of States’ rights—an entirely constitutional idea, per the Tenth Amendment—and of “compact theory” are quite sound, and could enjoy renewed credibility.

There is much to chew on and mull over here. I recommend you read Roach’s piece and make up your own mind. Feel free to leave comments below.

Happy Saturday!

–TPP

Northam Non-troversy and Abortion

The Portly Politico11 Comments

I’m going to be honest here:  I do not care about Virginia Governor Ralph Northam’s old yearbook photograph, in which he’s either in blackface or wearing a Klan hood.  I don’t support or endorse doing either of those outfits, but how does a photograph of a goofy costume from over thirty years ago affect the man’s ability to do his job now?  It’s not as though he has a track record of racist remarks that might bias his enforcement of Virginia’s laws against black, Jewish, or Catholic Virginians.

The problem with progressivism is that it eats its own with gusto, as the socially-acceptable behavior of yesteryear becomes the always-forbidden “hate” of today.  It was certainly in poor taste to wear blackface in the 1980s, but, give me a break.  When does the statute of limitations on poor decisions expire?  Are we allowed to never commit a mistake if we want to serve in public office?

What demonstrates how truly evil the Left is is that they don’t care about Northam’s endorsement, just a little over a week ago, of infanticide.  When asked in a radio interview what should be down with a child born alive that the mother initially wanted aborted, Northam replied that the mother and at least two physicians should consult about the baby’s fate while the baby was “kept comfortable.”

Where are the anguished cries about that?  Northam wearing a Klan hood to a beer bash in the 80s didn’t cost any black people their jobs or their lives.  Abortion kills them by the tens of thousands every year.

Pat Buchanan—ever-brilliant, ever-prescient and -insightful—has a piece exploring the implications of the Northam non-troversy that I highly recommend you read.  A representative excerpt:

We are at the beginning of a Kulturkampf to purge America of all monuments and tributes to the white males who created, built and ruled the country, and once believed that they, their nation, their faith, and their civilization were superior to all others. And, without apology, they so acted in the world.

Those two guys drinking beer in blackface and Klan robes and a hood thought they were being funny, but to the unamused members of a radicalized Democratic Party, there is nothing funny about them.

And, after Northam, these intolerant people will demand that the Democratic Party nominate a candidate who will echo their convictions about America’s past.

America will pay for its generations of infanticide if we don’t end it, and soon.  God is just, and delivers His judgment with swiftness and ferocity after long forbearance.  One reason the Philistines were destroyed was because of their worship of Baal, which required sacrificing babies.  Similarly, the Carthaginians were crushed, in part, because of their child sacrifices.

We’re sacrificing babies to the altar of progressive politics and the ethos of “if it feels good, do it—and don’t worry about the consequences.”  I can at least appreciate the hedonist who accepts the bad with the good of his lifestyle—say, the smoker who acknowledges it’s bad for him, but he enjoys doing it anyway.  But what kind of monster snuffs out a human life for convenience?

Northam needn’t resign over a picture.  But he and other Democrats should fall on their knees in repentance over their endorsement of the mass murder of innocents.

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.