Day: January 2, 2018

NYT Women Demand Return to Patriarchy


Since time immemorial, men have wondered What Women Want.  But we ask the wrong question.  The question is not what women want; it is what they expect.  The fundamental thing about women is that they expect to be protected.  They had a cute little excursion in the 20th century, imagining themselves as “independent women” in the manner of Second Sex Simone de Beauvoir.  And they demanded that we hear them roar.

But now that is all over.  What Women Want, What Women Expect, is protection.

It is also what they need.  Go read A Woman in Berlin by Anonymous, the story of what happened to German women in 1945 when the conqueror’s soldiers come into town and the men were absent.  If the men are absent, then the women lack protection and must submit to the conquerors, hoping against hope to become the creature of an educated officer rather than an uncouth peasant.

Today, of course, the message of the Gender Studies women and the university administrator women is that women must be protected from “microaggressions” and must be provided with “safe spaces.”

Now we have the women of the New York Times and their expectations.  In the wake of the Glenn Thrush non-dismissal, the “Women At The New York Times Feel Neglected, Frustrated as Paper Stands by Glenn Thrush.”  They are enacting the universal women’s Culture of Complaint, saying, “Are women welcome here? … Is anything going to change?”

Don’t be afraid, you ladies.  Daddy will be here in a minute with your blankie.

It’s a funny thing, but I doubt if the priapic Glenn Thrush ever felt neglected and frustrated.  Nor is he wondering if he is “welcome here.”  Glenn Thrush is a man, and a man understands that a media career is a zero-sum game.  There are only a limited number of slots for Bigfoot media guys, and you have to fight to the knife to get there and to stay there.  No safe spaces, no teddy bears, and no princess movies.

But the women of the New York Times seem to be living on a different planet.  They are “not really sure what the message is here.”  They complain that there are “loads of women struggling to get help with flat-lining careers inside the newsroom” and that “the Times is failing its female reporters.”  They want to be primped and pampered by a kind father.

For some reason, I do not think that the pierced and tattooed women that cut my hair at Rudy’s Barbershop up the street are asking if anything is going to change.  These lower-class white women are doing the best they can with what they have.  They know that it is a cold hard world out there and that the well born women at the New York Times already swiped all the blankies.

Man or woman, if you work in a big corporation, whether it is Google or the Times or a government university, you are living as a subordinate, a subject of a patriarchy.  The whole idea of a modern corporation is to provide protection for credentialed, mild-mannered people to live and work in a neo-feudal estate, a shelter provided from the unhampered market.  But, it hardly needs saying, those getting protection from a powerful patron – the noble Slim or the latest Sulzberger scion – will likely find that, in the words of Blanche from A Streetcar Named Desire, they have to “put out.”  Equality has nothing to do with it, girls.  A corporation is a hierarchy, modeled on an army.  When H.R. tells you that you are a valued member of the corporate community, H.R. lies.  What you are is a feudal retainer, a subject of the patriarch.

At The Other McCain, they are highlighting another 21st-century problem, the feminist rage at the transgender phenomenon, which is giving feminists a cold likely to ruin their filibuster.  But hey, girls, once you raise the banner of equality and demand to erase the differences between men and women, then you have already willed the transgender phenomenon and the idiot that decides to be “a lesbian trapped in a man’s body.”  Didn’t you realize that, back in the day?  You mean to say you just wrote down what your Gender Studies adjunct told you and what they said on NPR and didn’t really think through what it meant?  If so, then maybe you are a woman who needs protection from the cold cruel world, and maybe you should take up sewing, like the well protected ladies in a Jane Austen novel.

What women want, what they expect, is a patriarchy.  As the song goes:

My heart belongs to Daddy

So I simply couldn’t be bad

It is blankies all round, and the sooner the patriarchy gets its act back together again, the better the girls will like it.

Whaddaya say, fellas?

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on U.S. government finances, usgovernmentspending.com.  Also get his American Manifesto and his Road to the Middle Class.

Since time immemorial, men have wondered What Women Want.  But we ask the wrong question.  The question is not what women want; it is what they expect.  The fundamental thing about women is that they expect to be protected.  They had a cute little excursion in the 20th century, imagining themselves as “independent women” in the manner of Second Sex Simone de Beauvoir.  And they demanded that we hear them roar.

But now that is all over.  What Women Want, What Women Expect, is protection.

It is also what they need.  Go read A Woman in Berlin by Anonymous, the story of what happened to German women in 1945 when the conqueror’s soldiers come into town and the men were absent.  If the men are absent, then the women lack protection and must submit to the conquerors, hoping against hope to become the creature of an educated officer rather than an uncouth peasant.

Today, of course, the message of the Gender Studies women and the university administrator women is that women must be protected from “microaggressions” and must be provided with “safe spaces.”

Now we have the women of the New York Times and their expectations.  In the wake of the Glenn Thrush non-dismissal, the “Women At The New York Times Feel Neglected, Frustrated as Paper Stands by Glenn Thrush.”  They are enacting the universal women’s Culture of Complaint, saying, “Are women welcome here? … Is anything going to change?”

Don’t be afraid, you ladies.  Daddy will be here in a minute with your blankie.

It’s a funny thing, but I doubt if the priapic Glenn Thrush ever felt neglected and frustrated.  Nor is he wondering if he is “welcome here.”  Glenn Thrush is a man, and a man understands that a media career is a zero-sum game.  There are only a limited number of slots for Bigfoot media guys, and you have to fight to the knife to get there and to stay there.  No safe spaces, no teddy bears, and no princess movies.

But the women of the New York Times seem to be living on a different planet.  They are “not really sure what the message is here.”  They complain that there are “loads of women struggling to get help with flat-lining careers inside the newsroom” and that “the Times is failing its female reporters.”  They want to be primped and pampered by a kind father.

For some reason, I do not think that the pierced and tattooed women that cut my hair at Rudy’s Barbershop up the street are asking if anything is going to change.  These lower-class white women are doing the best they can with what they have.  They know that it is a cold hard world out there and that the well born women at the New York Times already swiped all the blankies.

Man or woman, if you work in a big corporation, whether it is Google or the Times or a government university, you are living as a subordinate, a subject of a patriarchy.  The whole idea of a modern corporation is to provide protection for credentialed, mild-mannered people to live and work in a neo-feudal estate, a shelter provided from the unhampered market.  But, it hardly needs saying, those getting protection from a powerful patron – the noble Slim or the latest Sulzberger scion – will likely find that, in the words of Blanche from A Streetcar Named Desire, they have to “put out.”  Equality has nothing to do with it, girls.  A corporation is a hierarchy, modeled on an army.  When H.R. tells you that you are a valued member of the corporate community, H.R. lies.  What you are is a feudal retainer, a subject of the patriarch.

At The Other McCain, they are highlighting another 21st-century problem, the feminist rage at the transgender phenomenon, which is giving feminists a cold likely to ruin their filibuster.  But hey, girls, once you raise the banner of equality and demand to erase the differences between men and women, then you have already willed the transgender phenomenon and the idiot that decides to be “a lesbian trapped in a man’s body.”  Didn’t you realize that, back in the day?  You mean to say you just wrote down what your Gender Studies adjunct told you and what they said on NPR and didn’t really think through what it meant?  If so, then maybe you are a woman who needs protection from the cold cruel world, and maybe you should take up sewing, like the well protected ladies in a Jane Austen novel.

What women want, what they expect, is a patriarchy.  As the song goes:

My heart belongs to Daddy

So I simply couldn’t be bad

It is blankies all round, and the sooner the patriarchy gets its act back together again, the better the girls will like it.

Whaddaya say, fellas?

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on U.S. government finances, usgovernmentspending.com.  Also get his American Manifesto and his Road to the Middle Class.



Source link

Meryl Streep Gives Worst Performance in 'Me Too' Campaign


Meryl Streep learned a painful lesson about falling out of favor with her liberal admirers in Hollywood last year: the left eats its own.

She paid dearly for playing the dumb card when confronted about her silence on routinely collaborating with the worst serial sexual predator among the titans in Hollywood, Harvey Weinstein.  “One thing can be clarified,” Ms. Streep assured her fellow thespians who were launching the “#MeToo” campaign calling out sexual predators on social media.  “Not everyone knew,” she asserts.  “I did not know about his having meetings in his hotel room, his bathroom, or other inappropriate coercive acts.” 

Living in a bubble does have its disadvantages for the three-time Oscar-winner.  Ms. Streep’s sanitary use of the words “inappropriate coercive acts” falls hopelessly short of touching on the outrage experienced by the legions of women who suffered blatant sexual assault or violent rape by the now world-famous serial abuser.

Unfortunately, Streep kept going off script, digging herself into a deeper hole as she attempted to explain herself to her colleagues.  She referred to the dozens of sexual misconduct allegations against Weinstein as an “example of disrespect” to her fellow actors during a women’s conference in Boston.  “No Meryl, it’s a [f——] crime,” wrote Rose McGowan, the actress who heads the “#MeToo” campaign on social media.  “You are such a lie,” McGowan added, referencing the elder thespian’s claim of ignorance of Weinstein’s 30-year sexual rampage stretching across several states in the U.S., encompassing at least two countries in Europe, and impacting the lives of dozens of victims and possibly hundreds of bystanders.

The full weight of the liberal left came down to bear on Streep at the end of 2017.  Humiliation is a major form of protest in the progressive community, oftentimes mercilessly targeting victims deemed un-P.C.  In this case, Streep wasn’t mocked with a “pussy hat” campaign, but her likeness appeared on hundreds of posters with two words symbolically covering up her eyesight, “She Knew,” which were posted throughout the Los Angeles area (i.e., the center of Tinseltown).  Repackaging the truth in attacking President Trump never hurt Streep’s professional standing, but now she’s being held accountable for her words by liberals who are diverting from the same groupthink narrative.

Regrettably, Streep’s worse misstep was yet to come.  “If everybody knew,” she asserts, “I don’t believe that all the investigative reporters … would have neglected for decades to write about it.”  More than one reporter has gone on record alleging that the story of Weinstein’s obscene behavior was wrongly spiked for political reasons by management at media outlets.  (Harvey is a powerful person with more connections in high places than the average serial predator.)

There is another simple explanation – one that may be closer to Streep than she is willing to admit.

This would involve an army of enablers who have allowed the “casting couch” culture to thrive in Hollywood for generations, including agents sending their young clients on casting calls and ignoring previous complaints of Weinstein’s alleged assaults, attorneys at Miramax (Weinstein’s company) factoring financial penalties into the producer’s contract for anticipated sexual violations, assistants experiencing an attack of conscience for allowing themselves to be used to escort young victims into Weinstein’s plush hotel suites, make-up artists and designers feeling personal revulsion at hearing the scuttlebutt but looking the other way to retain their jobs, and parents not wishing to jeopardize their children’s careers by turning to the authorities.  Tragically, the list goes on ad nauseam.

We all get the picture – except for Meryl Streep, who hides behind a wall of plausible deniability even as that barricade has come crashing down all around her.

Meryl Streep learned a painful lesson about falling out of favor with her liberal admirers in Hollywood last year: the left eats its own.

She paid dearly for playing the dumb card when confronted about her silence on routinely collaborating with the worst serial sexual predator among the titans in Hollywood, Harvey Weinstein.  “One thing can be clarified,” Ms. Streep assured her fellow thespians who were launching the “#MeToo” campaign calling out sexual predators on social media.  “Not everyone knew,” she asserts.  “I did not know about his having meetings in his hotel room, his bathroom, or other inappropriate coercive acts.” 

Living in a bubble does have its disadvantages for the three-time Oscar-winner.  Ms. Streep’s sanitary use of the words “inappropriate coercive acts” falls hopelessly short of touching on the outrage experienced by the legions of women who suffered blatant sexual assault or violent rape by the now world-famous serial abuser.

Unfortunately, Streep kept going off script, digging herself into a deeper hole as she attempted to explain herself to her colleagues.  She referred to the dozens of sexual misconduct allegations against Weinstein as an “example of disrespect” to her fellow actors during a women’s conference in Boston.  “No Meryl, it’s a [f——] crime,” wrote Rose McGowan, the actress who heads the “#MeToo” campaign on social media.  “You are such a lie,” McGowan added, referencing the elder thespian’s claim of ignorance of Weinstein’s 30-year sexual rampage stretching across several states in the U.S., encompassing at least two countries in Europe, and impacting the lives of dozens of victims and possibly hundreds of bystanders.

The full weight of the liberal left came down to bear on Streep at the end of 2017.  Humiliation is a major form of protest in the progressive community, oftentimes mercilessly targeting victims deemed un-P.C.  In this case, Streep wasn’t mocked with a “pussy hat” campaign, but her likeness appeared on hundreds of posters with two words symbolically covering up her eyesight, “She Knew,” which were posted throughout the Los Angeles area (i.e., the center of Tinseltown).  Repackaging the truth in attacking President Trump never hurt Streep’s professional standing, but now she’s being held accountable for her words by liberals who are diverting from the same groupthink narrative.

Regrettably, Streep’s worse misstep was yet to come.  “If everybody knew,” she asserts, “I don’t believe that all the investigative reporters … would have neglected for decades to write about it.”  More than one reporter has gone on record alleging that the story of Weinstein’s obscene behavior was wrongly spiked for political reasons by management at media outlets.  (Harvey is a powerful person with more connections in high places than the average serial predator.)

There is another simple explanation – one that may be closer to Streep than she is willing to admit.

This would involve an army of enablers who have allowed the “casting couch” culture to thrive in Hollywood for generations, including agents sending their young clients on casting calls and ignoring previous complaints of Weinstein’s alleged assaults, attorneys at Miramax (Weinstein’s company) factoring financial penalties into the producer’s contract for anticipated sexual violations, assistants experiencing an attack of conscience for allowing themselves to be used to escort young victims into Weinstein’s plush hotel suites, make-up artists and designers feeling personal revulsion at hearing the scuttlebutt but looking the other way to retain their jobs, and parents not wishing to jeopardize their children’s careers by turning to the authorities.  Tragically, the list goes on ad nauseam.

We all get the picture – except for Meryl Streep, who hides behind a wall of plausible deniability even as that barricade has come crashing down all around her.



Source link

Anti-Trump Zealots Require More Than a Calmness App


The 2017 iPhone App of the Year is “Calm.”  The co-CEO of the company that makes the meditation app observed that downloads doubled in the months following president Trump’s election.  While meditation apps may cushion anti-Trump zealots pinging around their liberal echo-chambers, to truly soothe their tortured souls, they need to confront the stages of grief.  For lasting inner peace, they need to move beyond the denial stage toward acceptance of President Trump’s legitimacy.

Overall, meditation and mindfulness apps saw their popularity soar in 2017 – apparently, there are a lot of liberal snowflakes reluctant to Make America Great Again.  These apps may provide some temporary solace to the forlorn intellectuals, but their cognitive dissonance invariably re-emerges when the reality of President Trump’s successes intrudes upon their delusional world.

Apps that encourage emotional well being in Trump deniers are, at best, palliative.  Riddled with irrational hate, the Trump-haters’ underlying disorder festers even as they project their mental psychoses onto Trump.  By bizarrely asserting (despite his major accomplishments in the first year of his term) that he’s somehow unfit for office, they only exacerbate their mental anguish by demonstrating that it is they who are unfit for public participation.  Beyond downloading a meditation app, they might achieve true mental equanimity by engaging in loyal opposition rather than floundering in reflexive resistance.  An example of the former is President Reagan’s “frenemy” Tip O’Neill; the latter is well represented by the gnarly ogre Nancy Pelosi, who wallows in the grief-ridden state of denial.

As one professor cum psychologist predicted, the anti-Trump crowd will suffer a mixed up path through the stages of grief.  In fact, we are entering into President Trump’s second year in office, and many haven’t even made it beyond the first stage.  While the putrid Trump-bashers shriek in self-pitying sanctimony, no amount of “mindfulness” apps will overcome their insidious symptoms: uncontainable weeping; unfathomable sadness; unnerving panic attacks; and, in extreme cases, venom-spewing convulsions.  Meditation and mindfulness apps are simply no match for these behaviors, which require a personal shrink, if not commitment to the nutty asylum for disaffected liberals.

This may be where this anti-Trump zealot belongs after exhibiting several of these symptoms while heckling a Trump robot – a robot, mind you – at a Disney venue.  Some futurists fret about the potential misanthropy of clever robots, but it is the Trump robot I sympathize with after the protester screamed, “Lock him up!”  He’s obviously in his own deluded world.  It goes to show how becoming inextricably enmeshed in an alternate reality is detrimental to long-term mental health.  For the sake of sanity, eventually one has to rewire the liberal cognitive patterns and come to grips with the prevailing reality, and legitimacy, of President Trump.  It will lift a mental burden, and it’s really not that bad, actually, as American optimism now flourishes under his leadership.

Our own America-loving president is deemed more dangerous than little Rocket Man over in North Korea, and a hapless animatronic Trump is subjected to a bewildering barrage of insults from someone who needs behavioral therapy, not some mindfulness app.  President Trump can handle the insults, but please don’t annoy the robots or provoke them into rebelling against us.

The theme for the 2017 New Year’s Eve ball was “the gift of serenity,” which can be defined as balancing tranquility, peace, and composure.  In other words, here is everything the futile Trump resistance movement isn’t.  They’ll march to force Trump out of office; they’ll disrupt civil discourse; they’ll cause public mayhem; they’ll loot and riot; they’ll concoct implausible investigations; they’ll even try to impeach.  No wonder so many liberal elitists are critical of America and Western civilization.  They want to uproot one of our cherished traditions: the peaceful transition of power.  Such anti-American machinations are hardly a recipe for serenity, but they will engender more stress than any “Calm” app can cure.

Meditation apps and gifts of serenity are inherently incompatible with the hate-filled demagoguery and Deep State collusion of the resistance movement.  All this will avail them nothing, for America is inexorably becoming great again, and that’s something to be mindful of.  That’s something worthy of meditation.

The 2017 iPhone App of the Year is “Calm.”  The co-CEO of the company that makes the meditation app observed that downloads doubled in the months following president Trump’s election.  While meditation apps may cushion anti-Trump zealots pinging around their liberal echo-chambers, to truly soothe their tortured souls, they need to confront the stages of grief.  For lasting inner peace, they need to move beyond the denial stage toward acceptance of President Trump’s legitimacy.

Overall, meditation and mindfulness apps saw their popularity soar in 2017 – apparently, there are a lot of liberal snowflakes reluctant to Make America Great Again.  These apps may provide some temporary solace to the forlorn intellectuals, but their cognitive dissonance invariably re-emerges when the reality of President Trump’s successes intrudes upon their delusional world.

Apps that encourage emotional well being in Trump deniers are, at best, palliative.  Riddled with irrational hate, the Trump-haters’ underlying disorder festers even as they project their mental psychoses onto Trump.  By bizarrely asserting (despite his major accomplishments in the first year of his term) that he’s somehow unfit for office, they only exacerbate their mental anguish by demonstrating that it is they who are unfit for public participation.  Beyond downloading a meditation app, they might achieve true mental equanimity by engaging in loyal opposition rather than floundering in reflexive resistance.  An example of the former is President Reagan’s “frenemy” Tip O’Neill; the latter is well represented by the gnarly ogre Nancy Pelosi, who wallows in the grief-ridden state of denial.

As one professor cum psychologist predicted, the anti-Trump crowd will suffer a mixed up path through the stages of grief.  In fact, we are entering into President Trump’s second year in office, and many haven’t even made it beyond the first stage.  While the putrid Trump-bashers shriek in self-pitying sanctimony, no amount of “mindfulness” apps will overcome their insidious symptoms: uncontainable weeping; unfathomable sadness; unnerving panic attacks; and, in extreme cases, venom-spewing convulsions.  Meditation and mindfulness apps are simply no match for these behaviors, which require a personal shrink, if not commitment to the nutty asylum for disaffected liberals.

This may be where this anti-Trump zealot belongs after exhibiting several of these symptoms while heckling a Trump robot – a robot, mind you – at a Disney venue.  Some futurists fret about the potential misanthropy of clever robots, but it is the Trump robot I sympathize with after the protester screamed, “Lock him up!”  He’s obviously in his own deluded world.  It goes to show how becoming inextricably enmeshed in an alternate reality is detrimental to long-term mental health.  For the sake of sanity, eventually one has to rewire the liberal cognitive patterns and come to grips with the prevailing reality, and legitimacy, of President Trump.  It will lift a mental burden, and it’s really not that bad, actually, as American optimism now flourishes under his leadership.

Our own America-loving president is deemed more dangerous than little Rocket Man over in North Korea, and a hapless animatronic Trump is subjected to a bewildering barrage of insults from someone who needs behavioral therapy, not some mindfulness app.  President Trump can handle the insults, but please don’t annoy the robots or provoke them into rebelling against us.

The theme for the 2017 New Year’s Eve ball was “the gift of serenity,” which can be defined as balancing tranquility, peace, and composure.  In other words, here is everything the futile Trump resistance movement isn’t.  They’ll march to force Trump out of office; they’ll disrupt civil discourse; they’ll cause public mayhem; they’ll loot and riot; they’ll concoct implausible investigations; they’ll even try to impeach.  No wonder so many liberal elitists are critical of America and Western civilization.  They want to uproot one of our cherished traditions: the peaceful transition of power.  Such anti-American machinations are hardly a recipe for serenity, but they will engender more stress than any “Calm” app can cure.

Meditation apps and gifts of serenity are inherently incompatible with the hate-filled demagoguery and Deep State collusion of the resistance movement.  All this will avail them nothing, for America is inexorably becoming great again, and that’s something to be mindful of.  That’s something worthy of meditation.



Source link

NeverTrumps Renamed: AlwaysDemocrats


President Donald Trump is approaching the end of his first year in the White House with an impressive list of accomplishments: a big tax cut, repeal of the Obamacare individual mandate, huge regulatory rollback, judicial appointments including Neil Gorsuch, the Keystone pipeline, Paris Accords withdrawal, ANWR drilling, recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and a first bite at immigration reform.

It’s a Republican wish list come true – the pony under the Christmas tree, finally, after 28 years of receiving an ugly sweater from Aunt Mabel every year for Christmas.  Why are so many so-called Republicans acting as though they received a lump of coal for Christmas 2017?

NeverTrumps are fit to be tied.  You’d think the Republican candidate had lost the last election.  Or that President Obama was granted a third term.  Or that Hillary Clinton was president.  Wait, some actually do wish for that.

It seems inexplicable.  Former Cabinet secretary in the Reagan administration Bill Bennett believes that Donald Trump is more conservative than Ronald Reagan and that his Cabinet selections are, too.  That’s quite the endorsement from someone who was part of the Reagan revolution – not some conservative pundit saying this, but a true Reaganite.

One NeverTrump speaking out is Bret Stephens, one of the token “conservative” columnists at the New York Times.  He’s not to be confused with the other “conservative,” David Brooks, who predicted great things of the Obama presidency based on the crease in Obama’s pants.

Stephens wrote a recent column, “Why I’m still a NeverTrumper [sic].”  After rattling off a list of Trump’s first-year accomplishments, he asks, “What, for a conservative, is there to dislike about this policy record as the Trump administration rounds out its first year in office?”

Good question.  The easy answer for most conservatives is “nothing.”  Sure, the wall isn’t built yet, and Obamacare is still in place.  Trump’s fault or Congress’s?  But overall, it’s been a great first year, as Mr. Stephens observes – despite the fact that Trump is opposed by all three branches of government, even the one he presides over.

Trump is fighting Deep State imbeds in the Executive Branch.  Just observe the DOJ and FBI and how they concocted the Russia collusion story to prevent, then destroy, his presidency.  In the Legislative Branch, Trump is opposed not only by Democrats, but also by many Republicans.  The judiciary is no better, substituting personal animosity for the rule of law, especially regarding immigration policy.

Stephens goes on to say, “I agree with every one of the policy decisions mentioned above.  But I still wish Hillary Clinton were president.”

Huh?  Did I read that last sentence correctly?  Yes, I did.

He then says what I would have immediately asked: “How does that make sense?  Can I still call myself conservative?”  That’s a very good question.

He answers by quoting Daniel Patrick Moynihan: “It is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society[,]” adding, “Politics can change a culture and save it from itself.”  So changing the culture is the key?  And is it really politics that changes culture, not faith, morality, or virtue?

Good luck with that.  The Supreme Court has codified the right to abortion and attempted via force of law to redefine marriage.  Politics gave us transgendered bathrooms, 60-plus genders, and kneeling football players.  Marijuana is legal in a bunch of states.  Turn on the television and be treated to a potpourri of foul language, sex, and violence.  Listen to popular music and hear about b——, hoes, and killing cops.  Far from the days of I Love Lucy, when Lucy and Ricky slept in separate beds.

The culture ship sailed decades ago.  We had eight years of Reagan and twelve years of the Bushes.  Twenty years of Republican politics in the White House.  With Republican control of Congress for many of those years, too.  How did those years of Republicans, more to the liking, at least in the case of the Bushes, of the Republican establishment, change the culture?  The cultural decline continued.

Stephens advises Republicans to “[p]ay attention to the character of your leaders.”  I wonder if he means politicians who say what they mean and mean what they say.  That’s an encapsulation of President Trump, but few other Republicans.

Stephens describes Trump’s personality as “[l]ying, narcissism, bullying, bigotry, crassness, name[-]calling, ignorance, paranoia, incompetence[,] and pettiness.”  Really?  I would have thought those descriptions fit Barack Obama.  Or his preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton.

As I have written, it seems to be a problem with Trump’s style, not his substance.  Trump is playing by the rules of New York street-fighting, not Roberts’s Rules of Order: using Twitter to bypass hostile media, punching back when attacked, calling out his opponents rather than ignoring them, using nicknames as an Alinsky tactic of ridicule.  He’s staying on offense rather than the usual Republican formula of playing defense only.

Bret Stephens and his fellow NeverTrumps at the Weekly Standard and National Review are happy to sit on their high horses and criticize President Trump and, by extension, his supporters – approximately half the country.  They forget that their high horse is nothing more than a rocking horse, swaying back and forth but going nowhere.  That’s great for N.Y. Times editorials and Sunday talk shows, but talk only and no action or accomplishment.

Past “dignified” Republicans were rocking horses, meeting the standards of decorum demanded by the NeverTrump brigade.  Two rocking horses named Bush made it to the White House but accomplished little, and each paved the way for a two-term Democrat president successor.  Others like Dole, McCain, and Romney would be virtuous in the eyes of Stephens but were losers, leaving us with the far more refined Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.  The latter had a proper crease in his pants.  The former had a crease in his cigar.

Perhaps Republican voters, tired of dignified losers, chose a scrappy winner instead and are getting the results they were promised, finally, rather than the big-government, open-borders globalism that passes for conservatism these days.

NeverTrumps, instead, are miffed that their beliefs and principles are being implemented by a tough guy – to the point that they would rather toss their conservative messenger even if it means losing their message.  It’s cutting off your nose to spite your face, choosing style over substance, snobbery.

Suppose Stephens got his wish – a Madame President.  None of Trump’s accomplishments would have come to pass.  A far-left agenda would have pushed America to a point of no return as the America Stephens and his fellow NeverTrumps profess to desire.  Trump is actually accomplishing what these so-called conservatives only talk about but never achieve.

If the election turned out as Stephens would have liked, he would still be safely ensconced at the N.Y. Times, tut-tutting about Hillary Clinton’s agenda.  Ordinary Americans would be wallowing in misery, hopeless and helpless to reclaim American greatness.  Fortunately, last November, the ordinary people spoke loud and clear.

NeverTrumps are revealing their true colors.  Perhaps they would feel more at home in the Democratic Party, where their disdain for their president would be validated and most welcome – rather than trying to pass themselves off as conservatives in name only.

Brian C Joondeph, M.D., MPS is a Denver-based physician and writer.  Follow him on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter.

President Donald Trump is approaching the end of his first year in the White House with an impressive list of accomplishments: a big tax cut, repeal of the Obamacare individual mandate, huge regulatory rollback, judicial appointments including Neil Gorsuch, the Keystone pipeline, Paris Accords withdrawal, ANWR drilling, recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and a first bite at immigration reform.

It’s a Republican wish list come true – the pony under the Christmas tree, finally, after 28 years of receiving an ugly sweater from Aunt Mabel every year for Christmas.  Why are so many so-called Republicans acting as though they received a lump of coal for Christmas 2017?

NeverTrumps are fit to be tied.  You’d think the Republican candidate had lost the last election.  Or that President Obama was granted a third term.  Or that Hillary Clinton was president.  Wait, some actually do wish for that.

It seems inexplicable.  Former Cabinet secretary in the Reagan administration Bill Bennett believes that Donald Trump is more conservative than Ronald Reagan and that his Cabinet selections are, too.  That’s quite the endorsement from someone who was part of the Reagan revolution – not some conservative pundit saying this, but a true Reaganite.

One NeverTrump speaking out is Bret Stephens, one of the token “conservative” columnists at the New York Times.  He’s not to be confused with the other “conservative,” David Brooks, who predicted great things of the Obama presidency based on the crease in Obama’s pants.

Stephens wrote a recent column, “Why I’m still a NeverTrumper [sic].”  After rattling off a list of Trump’s first-year accomplishments, he asks, “What, for a conservative, is there to dislike about this policy record as the Trump administration rounds out its first year in office?”

Good question.  The easy answer for most conservatives is “nothing.”  Sure, the wall isn’t built yet, and Obamacare is still in place.  Trump’s fault or Congress’s?  But overall, it’s been a great first year, as Mr. Stephens observes – despite the fact that Trump is opposed by all three branches of government, even the one he presides over.

Trump is fighting Deep State imbeds in the Executive Branch.  Just observe the DOJ and FBI and how they concocted the Russia collusion story to prevent, then destroy, his presidency.  In the Legislative Branch, Trump is opposed not only by Democrats, but also by many Republicans.  The judiciary is no better, substituting personal animosity for the rule of law, especially regarding immigration policy.

Stephens goes on to say, “I agree with every one of the policy decisions mentioned above.  But I still wish Hillary Clinton were president.”

Huh?  Did I read that last sentence correctly?  Yes, I did.

He then says what I would have immediately asked: “How does that make sense?  Can I still call myself conservative?”  That’s a very good question.

He answers by quoting Daniel Patrick Moynihan: “It is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society[,]” adding, “Politics can change a culture and save it from itself.”  So changing the culture is the key?  And is it really politics that changes culture, not faith, morality, or virtue?

Good luck with that.  The Supreme Court has codified the right to abortion and attempted via force of law to redefine marriage.  Politics gave us transgendered bathrooms, 60-plus genders, and kneeling football players.  Marijuana is legal in a bunch of states.  Turn on the television and be treated to a potpourri of foul language, sex, and violence.  Listen to popular music and hear about b——, hoes, and killing cops.  Far from the days of I Love Lucy, when Lucy and Ricky slept in separate beds.

The culture ship sailed decades ago.  We had eight years of Reagan and twelve years of the Bushes.  Twenty years of Republican politics in the White House.  With Republican control of Congress for many of those years, too.  How did those years of Republicans, more to the liking, at least in the case of the Bushes, of the Republican establishment, change the culture?  The cultural decline continued.

Stephens advises Republicans to “[p]ay attention to the character of your leaders.”  I wonder if he means politicians who say what they mean and mean what they say.  That’s an encapsulation of President Trump, but few other Republicans.

Stephens describes Trump’s personality as “[l]ying, narcissism, bullying, bigotry, crassness, name[-]calling, ignorance, paranoia, incompetence[,] and pettiness.”  Really?  I would have thought those descriptions fit Barack Obama.  Or his preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton.

As I have written, it seems to be a problem with Trump’s style, not his substance.  Trump is playing by the rules of New York street-fighting, not Roberts’s Rules of Order: using Twitter to bypass hostile media, punching back when attacked, calling out his opponents rather than ignoring them, using nicknames as an Alinsky tactic of ridicule.  He’s staying on offense rather than the usual Republican formula of playing defense only.

Bret Stephens and his fellow NeverTrumps at the Weekly Standard and National Review are happy to sit on their high horses and criticize President Trump and, by extension, his supporters – approximately half the country.  They forget that their high horse is nothing more than a rocking horse, swaying back and forth but going nowhere.  That’s great for N.Y. Times editorials and Sunday talk shows, but talk only and no action or accomplishment.

Past “dignified” Republicans were rocking horses, meeting the standards of decorum demanded by the NeverTrump brigade.  Two rocking horses named Bush made it to the White House but accomplished little, and each paved the way for a two-term Democrat president successor.  Others like Dole, McCain, and Romney would be virtuous in the eyes of Stephens but were losers, leaving us with the far more refined Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.  The latter had a proper crease in his pants.  The former had a crease in his cigar.

Perhaps Republican voters, tired of dignified losers, chose a scrappy winner instead and are getting the results they were promised, finally, rather than the big-government, open-borders globalism that passes for conservatism these days.

NeverTrumps, instead, are miffed that their beliefs and principles are being implemented by a tough guy – to the point that they would rather toss their conservative messenger even if it means losing their message.  It’s cutting off your nose to spite your face, choosing style over substance, snobbery.

Suppose Stephens got his wish – a Madame President.  None of Trump’s accomplishments would have come to pass.  A far-left agenda would have pushed America to a point of no return as the America Stephens and his fellow NeverTrumps profess to desire.  Trump is actually accomplishing what these so-called conservatives only talk about but never achieve.

If the election turned out as Stephens would have liked, he would still be safely ensconced at the N.Y. Times, tut-tutting about Hillary Clinton’s agenda.  Ordinary Americans would be wallowing in misery, hopeless and helpless to reclaim American greatness.  Fortunately, last November, the ordinary people spoke loud and clear.

NeverTrumps are revealing their true colors.  Perhaps they would feel more at home in the Democratic Party, where their disdain for their president would be validated and most welcome – rather than trying to pass themselves off as conservatives in name only.

Brian C Joondeph, M.D., MPS is a Denver-based physician and writer.  Follow him on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter.



Source link

Law vs. the Human Heart


By any measure, the past year was nothing short of monumental: a new president dogged by allegations of foreign election meddling, a media class working in overdrive, a remaking of the federal bench, the routing of the Islamic State, and the end of the Clinton political dynasty, all concluded with the passing of a large tax cut.

But the most notable event of 2017 had surprisingly little to do with politics.  The imbroglio caused by Ronan Farrow’s eye-opening exposé on Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein was the news story of the last twelve months.  Whatever your position or persuasion, low or high class, conservative or liberal, the fallout from the lurid Weinstein revelations was inescapable.  Major public figures, from actor Kevin Spacey to TV anchor Matt Lauer, justly lost their careers for their libidinous predacity.  Others, such as Senator Al Franken and humorist Garrison Keillor, were also forced into unemployment by more slippery accusations of impropriety.

The #MeToo movement, like any social reformist cause, is coming dangerously close to overstepping its bounds.  But it has unquestionably brought much needed scrutiny on powerful men who use their position to abuse vulnerable women.  “Among us, it seems, lives a class of men who call to mind Caligula and Elagabalus not only in their depravity, but in their grotesque sense of impunity,” writes Claire Berlinski.  It was well past time to bring these men down a peg.

Notice how many of these power perverts are being outed.  There are no charges; there is no law.  A federal case was not made.  These men are losing their status through the soft power of public persuasion.

And when things go awry?  The same social pressure is used to correct rushed decisions.  Take the case of MSNBC contributor Sam Seder, who was fired from the network for making a bawdy joke about his daughter being raped by Roman Polanski.  Sick?  Undoubtedly.  But a sarcastic remark posted on Twitter nearly a decade ago that nobody actually found offensive?  Yes, and yes.

After public backlash and some behind-the-scenes cajoling, Seder was reinstated.  MSNBC president Phil Griffin admitted to making a mistake.  All parties moved past the unfortunate episode.

There’s a lesson to glean from all of this.  The most important cultural event of last year has not inspired a demand for legislative remedies.  Rather, it has spurred action through public awareness.

Tocqueville, in his early studies of American democracy, wrote about this process:

When the members of an aristocratic community adopt a new opinion or conceive a new sentiment, they give it a station, as it were, beside themselves, upon the lofty platform where they stand; and opinions or sentiments so conspicuous to the eyes of the multitude are easily introduced into the minds or hearts of all around.

Weinstein’s sordid antics were exposed by his fellow elites.  Thankfully for the rest of us, Washington wasn’t called to act.  As Tocqueville warned on increased government interference in the private sphere, “[n]o sooner does a government attempt to go beyond its political sphere and to enter upon this new track than it exercises, even unintentionally, an insupportable tyranny.”

If only all our conflicts, big and small, could be solved so simply without appealing to the busybodies in Congress.

In their insatiable hunt for perfection, leftists will often call for legal solutions to right societal wrongs, avoiding the discomforting situation of speaking straight to their neighbors.  Lobbying for a law is an easy alternative to informal compromise.  Government is a detached actor – it often sees things mechanistically rather than humanly.

This past year, we saw the negative consequences of the state’s over-intervention in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which was argued before the Supreme Court.  In 2012, Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, refused to design and bake a wedding cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins, a same-sex couple.

Upon being informed by Phillips that his deeply held religious beliefs barred him from creating a cake for a same-sex ceremony, Craig and Mullins had a choice.  As David Brooks pointed out, they had “two possible courses of action, the neighborly and the legal.”

The neighborly approach would have kept the issue personal and prompted a dialogue between the two men and the Christian baker.  “The legal course,” Brooks explains, “was to take the problem out of the neighborhood and throw it into the court system.”

By choosing the legal route, Craig and Mullins needlessly created conflict where none need be before.  Phillips’s shop is located in Lakewood, Colorado, while the ceremony was to take place in Massachusetts.  Was there not a bakery in the Bay State that would happily accommodate the couple?

The Masterpiece Cakeshop case will be decided later this year, but the damage is already done.  By pushing for legal intervention, this couple further inflamed the tension between gay rights activists and religious liberty advocates.  Would it not have been more civil, and more productive, to take a step back and simply find another baker and clean their hands of the whole mess?

For 2018, we’d all be better off adopting a more neighborly approach to divisive issues and stop letting the law in places where the heart should rule.

By any measure, the past year was nothing short of monumental: a new president dogged by allegations of foreign election meddling, a media class working in overdrive, a remaking of the federal bench, the routing of the Islamic State, and the end of the Clinton political dynasty, all concluded with the passing of a large tax cut.

But the most notable event of 2017 had surprisingly little to do with politics.  The imbroglio caused by Ronan Farrow’s eye-opening exposé on Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein was the news story of the last twelve months.  Whatever your position or persuasion, low or high class, conservative or liberal, the fallout from the lurid Weinstein revelations was inescapable.  Major public figures, from actor Kevin Spacey to TV anchor Matt Lauer, justly lost their careers for their libidinous predacity.  Others, such as Senator Al Franken and humorist Garrison Keillor, were also forced into unemployment by more slippery accusations of impropriety.

The #MeToo movement, like any social reformist cause, is coming dangerously close to overstepping its bounds.  But it has unquestionably brought much needed scrutiny on powerful men who use their position to abuse vulnerable women.  “Among us, it seems, lives a class of men who call to mind Caligula and Elagabalus not only in their depravity, but in their grotesque sense of impunity,” writes Claire Berlinski.  It was well past time to bring these men down a peg.

Notice how many of these power perverts are being outed.  There are no charges; there is no law.  A federal case was not made.  These men are losing their status through the soft power of public persuasion.

And when things go awry?  The same social pressure is used to correct rushed decisions.  Take the case of MSNBC contributor Sam Seder, who was fired from the network for making a bawdy joke about his daughter being raped by Roman Polanski.  Sick?  Undoubtedly.  But a sarcastic remark posted on Twitter nearly a decade ago that nobody actually found offensive?  Yes, and yes.

After public backlash and some behind-the-scenes cajoling, Seder was reinstated.  MSNBC president Phil Griffin admitted to making a mistake.  All parties moved past the unfortunate episode.

There’s a lesson to glean from all of this.  The most important cultural event of last year has not inspired a demand for legislative remedies.  Rather, it has spurred action through public awareness.

Tocqueville, in his early studies of American democracy, wrote about this process:

When the members of an aristocratic community adopt a new opinion or conceive a new sentiment, they give it a station, as it were, beside themselves, upon the lofty platform where they stand; and opinions or sentiments so conspicuous to the eyes of the multitude are easily introduced into the minds or hearts of all around.

Weinstein’s sordid antics were exposed by his fellow elites.  Thankfully for the rest of us, Washington wasn’t called to act.  As Tocqueville warned on increased government interference in the private sphere, “[n]o sooner does a government attempt to go beyond its political sphere and to enter upon this new track than it exercises, even unintentionally, an insupportable tyranny.”

If only all our conflicts, big and small, could be solved so simply without appealing to the busybodies in Congress.

In their insatiable hunt for perfection, leftists will often call for legal solutions to right societal wrongs, avoiding the discomforting situation of speaking straight to their neighbors.  Lobbying for a law is an easy alternative to informal compromise.  Government is a detached actor – it often sees things mechanistically rather than humanly.

This past year, we saw the negative consequences of the state’s over-intervention in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which was argued before the Supreme Court.  In 2012, Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, refused to design and bake a wedding cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins, a same-sex couple.

Upon being informed by Phillips that his deeply held religious beliefs barred him from creating a cake for a same-sex ceremony, Craig and Mullins had a choice.  As David Brooks pointed out, they had “two possible courses of action, the neighborly and the legal.”

The neighborly approach would have kept the issue personal and prompted a dialogue between the two men and the Christian baker.  “The legal course,” Brooks explains, “was to take the problem out of the neighborhood and throw it into the court system.”

By choosing the legal route, Craig and Mullins needlessly created conflict where none need be before.  Phillips’s shop is located in Lakewood, Colorado, while the ceremony was to take place in Massachusetts.  Was there not a bakery in the Bay State that would happily accommodate the couple?

The Masterpiece Cakeshop case will be decided later this year, but the damage is already done.  By pushing for legal intervention, this couple further inflamed the tension between gay rights activists and religious liberty advocates.  Would it not have been more civil, and more productive, to take a step back and simply find another baker and clean their hands of the whole mess?

For 2018, we’d all be better off adopting a more neighborly approach to divisive issues and stop letting the law in places where the heart should rule.



Source link