Twilight of the Public Sector Union

Politico has an interesting piece today on the growing movement among Democrats to curtail public union clout. Like today’s WSJ editorial it focuses on Republican governor Bruce Rauner’s efforts to follow Scott Walker down the public pension reform path. What’s interesting is how many Democrats in state legislatures are waking up to the sustainability problem with the public union model.

In November Democrat Gina Raimondo won the Rhode Island governor’s race after a bruising primary where she defeated two union-backed candidates who were hell-bent on keeping the union reformer out of power. Raimondo is Rhode Island’s first female governor; just as importantly though, she is clear-eyed about the problem with public sector unions and unabashed about taking them on and demanding key reforms. Like every brave blue state Democrat trying to convince her left flank that reality is the obstacle standing athwart their collectivist dreams, Raimondo faces an uphill battle and is probably going to lose in the end. Such is life when facing off against the naked self-interests of a rabid and entrenched opposition.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is nobody’s idea of a conservative, but he is fully aligned with Rauner in opposing the nasty Chicago Teachers Union, which needs corrupt legislators to rubber-stamp their collective bargaining scheme in the same way that humans need oxygen. Emanuel and Rauner are old colleagues, so the union left will say this is just more cronyism to fatten their own coffers by attacking unions. But any honest appraisal of Illinois politics will show that public unions exist first and last to expand the state bureaucracy, demanding always more money for pensions and benefits and higher taxes to pay for them. As a result, Illinois has the worst pension crisis of all the states and is considered a wasteland for business and economic growth. Neighboring Indiana and Iowa have so thoroughly outperformed Illinois this century that some Democrats in Springfield acknowledge the need for reform.

San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed offered an admirable sentiment after “clash[ing] with public employee unions” in California when he said that “there’s a difference between being liberal and progressive and being a union Democrat.” Is there really, though?

The hard truth that confronts the left is that they are not a viable political coalition without the millions of dues-paying public union members contributing millions to keep Democrats in office. At the federal, state and local levels, union leadership as well as the rank and file line up behind Democrats at astonishing rates. Take a gander at candidate contributions by federal bureaucrats (especially the lawyers) in the last presidential election. And what happens if the miracle occurs and Democrats abandon their corrupt union practices and admit that they are more responsible than anyone for the epidemic of blue state pension and budget fiascoes?  Do they go full retard and devote their entire political project to identity politics and the cultural fetishes of cloistered academics? I mean, I welcome it should it transpire, given that a politics that doubles and triples down on postmodern relativism and political correctness is a political movement not long for this world.

The only practical solution for the 21st century left is a complete re-think and overhaul of their approach to the economy. I am not confident or optimistic this will happen, committed as the left is to a religious conviction that they are constantly beset by a rigged system and the culprit is capitalism. Going back to the San Jose Mayor’s comment, I’m genuinely curious to learn what a liberal or progressive not in thrall to the romantic ideal of the trade union looks like. The left’s overriding ethos is that power and wealth are unfairly concentrated at the top, where “owners” exploit “workers” with their unearned capital accumulation. Marx was adamant that capital could only be accumulated through theft, and that impulse is alive and well with today’s left. The romance of the unions is all about leveling the field, sticking it to the fat cats via labor “solidarity,” strikes and bargaining power. It’s a zero sum philosophy with a cynical message: the wealth has been unfairly allocated to the rich few, thus the only recourse is to organize and plot to take back your rightful share. This line of thinking, beyond being juvenile and simple, betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of how market economies work. It obsesses over equitable distribution and is uncomfortable with the fact that life’s natural order is not fair. And it treats as obscene high profits and earnings, imagining that prosperity is best when it is shared; the point of politics then is to guard against unfairness wherever possible. That they fail to see how a system of perceived unfairness does in reality serve to foster the most broadly shared prosperity (see: America, The Unites States of) imaginable is a frustration we will likely have to endure forever.

Unless of course the left is forced into reconsidering its economic perspective by blue state voters sick of living in stagnant economies where insane percentages of state budgets are allocated just to public employees and their lavish benefits. 25% of Illinois’ budget is swallowed up union costs. TWENTY FIVE PERCENT! And yet the Chicago progressive mob is adamant that taxes must increase along with spending, a tune that never changes regardless of the fiscal climate. This is the kind of blind, tone-deaf, oblivious political thuggery that is going to doom the left eventually. The question is do they see the writing on the wall and are willing to make adjustments to their chief economic plank, or are they going down with the ship? By all accounts, union leadership is going to fight to the death to coax every last possible dime out of taxpayers before they shuffle off into the void, but there are more encouraging signs among rank and file members as well as savvy Democrats in the states. The problem is at the federal level, where public unions are less strapped by finite state budgets and reap the rewards of an out-of-control government spending apparatus. But even the big federal players like Afscme and AFT can see that reformer governors in blue states where unions typically enjoy broad approval are finding receptive audiences among state Democrats who realize the union model is unsustainable.

I contend that California will be a red state before Texas ever turns blue. Their pension crisis is not as horrible as Illinois’ but it ain’t pretty either. Chuck Reed and other California Dems (including Jerry Brown) may intuit the problem correctly, but it remains to be seen whether they have either the will or the ability to take on CALPERS and the rest of the bloated public sector. Far be it for me to offer advice to progressives on how to avoid squandering their entire movement, but if they want to be viable post-Obama they absolutely must ditch their wretched attachment to public sector unions and the cesspool of half-baked Marxism from which it draws inspiration. The only way that is ever going to happen is if they leave the politics of envy behind. Rising tides do indeed lift all boats, but if you’re consumed with rancor and envy and are convinced that America and capitalism are evil schemes constructed by greedy monocle-wearers, then it is going to be impossible to recalibrate your perspective on economics. Let’s let Schumpeter weigh in on the subject because no one has ever been able to explain this stuff quite like the Austrian master (emphasis mine):

In part [Capitalism] appeals to, and in part it creates, a schema of motives that is unsurpassed in simplicity and force. The promises of wealth and the threats of destitution that it holds out, it redeems with ruthless promptitude. Wherever the bourgeois way of life asserts itself sufficiently to dim the beacons of other social worlds, these promises are strong enough to attract the large majority of supernormal brains and to identify success with business success. They are not proffered at random; yet there is a sufficiently enticing admixture of chance: the game is not like roulette, it is more like poker. They are addressed to ability, energy and supernormal capacity for work; but if there were a way of measuring either that ability in general or the personal achievement that goes into any particular success, the premiums actually paid out would probably not be found proportional to either. Spectacular prizes much greater than would have been necessary to call forth the particular effort are thrown to a small minority of winners, thus propelling much more efficaciously than a more equal and more “just” distribution would, the activity of that large majority of businessmen who receive in return very modest compensation or nothing or less than nothing, and yet do their utmost because they have the big prizes before their eyes and overrate their chances of doing equally well. Similarly, the threats are addressed to incompetence. But though the incompetent men and the obsolete methods are in fact eliminated, sometimes very promptly, sometimes with a lag, failure also threatens or actually overtakes many an able man, thus whipping up everyone, again much more efficaciously than a more equal and more “just” system of penalties would. Finally, both business success and business failure are ideally precise. Neither can be talked away.”

-Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy

The Party of Science?

American politics are becoming increasingly absurd. The only word that describes the ongoing project of American progressives is “unreality.” There seems to be a concerted effort on the part of leftwing media to pridefully advance arguments that have nothing to do with observable reality. Now, the great philosophical question of our age is the degree to which committed partisans of the left genuinely subscribe to the narrative versus those who do so purely as a means to an end. Regardless of their sincerity, progressives everywhere agree that a counter-narrative to the status quo forces of oppression must be passionately sustained via the pent-up anxieties of the oppressed.

The left’s Marxist flame – their one and only “big idea” – finally petered out at the end of the 20th century, at least officially. Communism and collectivism were declared dead, the “end of history” pronounced, and it was assumed that the long bickering over classes and accumulation and distribution were settled. History however, does not cleanly dispatch with the “losing side” in almost any conflict. Within a generation of losing their claim on the colonies, the United Kingdom was back to burn down the White House and lay waste to Washington and Baltimore. The American South was not exactly docile in defeat, nor were they keen on sudden and immediate implementation of the 14th amendment, leading to their utter annihilation. The failed German revolutionaries of 1848 decamped to the American Midwest intent on importing the nouveau fads of progressivism and the welfare state into the American psyche. So it was with the Marxists and the class-warriors and the otherwise ignorant elites of the 20th century who decidedly did not abandon their ideological presumptions in response to the fall of the Soviet Union.

Whether the newly homeless Marxists migrated en masse to environmentalism or divvied it up so that elements of their tribe could be present in almost every facet of public life (the bureaucracy, the academy, the media, the Hollywood) is not really the point. What matters is that there was nothing approaching accountability. There was no mea culpa from elite liberal media for being wrong about totalitarian socialism. To this day the left refuses to acknowledge that the Soviets had an active and operational spy network in the United States during the Cold War, and pretend not to know of Alger Hiss. For the left, the number one priority is making their opposition look bad. Consistency and sound logic are subordinate to demonizing and discrediting. “So and so DESTROYS [conservative politican X]!!!” is a staple of fever swamp progressive internet because to the emotional and insecure for whom politics determines identity, it is more important to feel superior to your opponent than it is to be right on a given issue.

Status-signaling has replaced thinking on the left. Standing opposed to Israel or misogyny or bigotry is the price of admission into the cool cliques of campus or coastal liberalism. After purchasing yourself some coveted status as a tolerant and enlightened non-conservative, all you have to do is stick to the script. Master the hashtag and learn how it’s about feelings over facts. Thus will you arrive on the battlefield backed by an army of groupthinkers to slay the latest exhibition of privilege.

The dust-up over vaccines brings this tendency to bare. Rather than a sober mining of the data about who, exactly, are these Americans refraining from vaccinating their children, leftist partisans jumped on the comments from Chris Christie and Rand Paul as an opportunity to impugn Republicans – yet again – as the Neanderthal party of “science deniers.” Never mind the minute detail that the anti-vaxxer craze is predominantly a feature of the left, particularly the well-heeled, coastal enclave left. Upwards of 50% of kindergarteners are not vaccinated for MMR at schools in San Diego and Marin counties. Oregon and Vermont have the highest per-capita populations of anti-vaxxers. Yes, elements of the libertarian and home-school right are wary of government assurances on vaccinations. But to pretend that this is a phenomenon only of the right whereas the left sits on the side of empiricism and reason is just too much. By itself it is nothing, a meaningless and annoying distraction of white noise coming from the left about how Republicans are such morons. With the performance of the institutional left of late, it probably helps the cause of anti-statism for leftists to continue insisting how awesome and smart they are and how stupid and hopeless we are, for the simple reason that logic has a way of prevailing in the long run and all logic would suggest that these people are just charlatans with an agenda, hell bent on lying to the masses they so disdain in order to fool them into acquiescence. At some point, the ruse will reach its sell-by date and the tempest of lies and distortions will at long last wear itself out.

Until then, we will have to endure more attacks and more distortions, likely of an increased intensity. Hell hath no fury like a smug elitist challenged. The left operates under an unspoken assumption that they will always hold the loudest public megaphone due to their permanent residence on the moral high ground. Their moral righteousness is an illusion, however, and deep down they know it. At the heart of the progressive project is hatred of capitalism. They view that system of voluntary cooperation with suspicion and contempt and cast themselves as quasi-holy warriors out to eradicate injustice through the exalted Hegelian state, where the state exists as a metaphysical entity and possesses a metaphysical conscience by which the enlightened will erect plans and designs for the greater good. It is much harder in 2015 to hold this position with a straight face, after the failures of the collectivist experiment last century. Even for the most committed socialist, it is difficult to deny this history. And yet the left shows every sign it intends only to buff the lens and retain its ridiculous perspective of the world. A left that knows in its bones that the collectivist project is dead yet nevertheless retains its hatred of capitalism is going to look ridiculous. Further, the evolution of the left since Marx has seen it place its emphatic hatred not just on capitalism but on conservatives. It’s not so much the system but the proponents of the system who need to be fought and defeated. It is not hard to see how a philosophy that focuses on personal antagonism more than the system supposedly manufacturing oppression itself will eventually lose its focus.

Today’s left is the natural progression. They are thoroughly and obsessively concerned with what conservatives are saying and doing and basically agnostic on whether or not their prescribed solutions and programs have any efficacy whatsoever. All they are interested in is claiming the moral highground and ascendance appears to be promised only when all the wrong-thinking right wingers are defeated and/or silenced. They get really mad when conservatives have the temerity to point out when they run afoul of reason, logic and reality. Nowhere is this more pronounced than in matters of science.

On medicine, climate and biology the left is on the wrong side of the science. Kevin Williamson loves pointing out the amount of pseudo-science hokum that has wide popularity in leftist enclaves, from acupuncture and homeopathy to astrology and phobias about genetically modified food. You can throw Scientology and yoga in that mix as well. All perfectly harmless activities to which I have no objections other than that they are not backed up by science.

The climate change arena is riddled with groupthink and populated by anticapitalist ideologues. The much-touted “consensus” of scientists on the subject of Earth’s dire climate is great if you value consensus opinion that is thoroughly and comprehensively wrong. None of the models from the most renowned scientists have tracked even moderately close to the reality of climate over the past 20 years. That they only go back to the late nineteenth century to cull data while projecting their biased assumptions onto the millennia that came before it in order to produce the scary “hockey stick” projection of rising temperatures should be enough at the outset to question the infallibility of their data. With the “climategate” scandal at Britain’s East Anglia University revealing how scientists scheme to manipulate data to facilitate preferred outcomes, the petty “defamation” lawsuit brought by climate charlatan Michael Mann against Mark Steyn and CEI, and the recent revelation that Earth’s temperatures have remained flat the last 15 years, the green movement is exposed. The farce that is the State Department’s six year (and ongoing) review of the plans for the Keystone XL pipeline is nothing more than a nod by the administration to their wacko environmental base, which has tried repeatedly to offer scientific objections to the pipeline but which have all failed. The few reports that State has issued on the plan have all said that there is no environmental risk, but that has not caused the green left to relent, nor was it intended to. No one in the progressive orbit of Democratic politics is willing to allow the pipeline’s construction and none of their objections have to do with science. It is purely an aesthetic and ideological stance. Coastal elites think oil is yucky, yada yada yada, therefore the pipeline is an intrinsic evil.

Finally, the left stands in stark opposition to human biology, whether on the issue of abortion, gender, or human nature. In an sense this is understandable, as the left has always believed that man is malleable and can be shaped to function in their idea of the good society. But certain things in nature are non-negotiable. Science has essentially proven that babies in the womb can feel pain at 20 weeks and are able to survive outside the womb at that point. The science even suggests that viability perhaps occurs even earlier. But tell this to a pro-choice zealot and he will shriek and squeal about what a scoundrel you are for daring to suggest that a woman’s body is not in fact her own when there is another human inside it. This is virtually beyond scientific dispute now, yet the left won’t so much as countenance a discussion on it. In fact, they are more likely to echo the infamous Barbara Boxer line: “I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born … the baby belongs to your family and has all the rights.”

So babies are not yet human and not yet possessing of natural rights until they arrive home from the Hospital? How very sciency of you Barb.

The left claims the mantle of science for the sole reason that it can be used as a cudgel against conservatives. But the facts on the ground in 2015, allowing for the young-Earth creationists and the anti-vaxxers of the right (even though that contingent is most present in deep blue areas), are such that it would be impossible to designate the American left as “the party of science.” If the scientific method has life anywhere in American politics, it surely does not reside on the left. You can’t be the party of science if you think truth and reality are subjective. The persistent elevation of narrative inevitably leads to perspectives that end up only sneering at the truth.

The Year in Ridiculous

puffyshirt

“But I look ridiculous!”

The unbound progressive id unleashed on the country this year was truly something to behold. No faction of the identity politics left went without aggressive advocacy and not a small number of the population was subjected to the inchoate and nauseating “agitation” that characterizes the activist method. From the false “war on women” to the cynical highjacking of a burgeoning cross-partisan police reform movement by race-baiters (and then subsequently by police unions) to the bald-faced lie repeated by every progressive that the child migrant surge at the Texas border was due to anything other than direct incentives created by Obama’s Deferred Adjudication of Child Arrivals (DACA) executive action to the execrable and absurd on its face notion that the president finished the year strong and in fact the the year was actually a success for him and for liberalism.

Unreal.

It is also tempting to declare that because there is only so much ridiculousness and farce a respectable society will accept, and that eventually lies and propaganda are exposed as such by the cold nature of reality, the progressive strain of leftwing politics is nearing its sell-by date. Just glance at some of the thoughtful midterm election postmortems by some left pundits and marvel at their nearly unanimous conclusion that the party’s decision to go all-in on divisive cultural issues at the expense of an employment focused campaign targeted at the working class is responsible for the Democrats’ lowest representation in Congress and across statehouses and state legislatures in about a century. This is no small observation. This is a blanket repudiation by people on their side of the Democratic Party’s cynical identity politics platform. Whether we’re talking about blacks, Hispanics, gays, or women, the politics of victimhood and grievance have worn increasingly thin. Throw climate change into the mix as well because it is the identity politics issue for coastal white liberals and it is something to which all right-thinking millennials give as much thought as the New Testament Gospels. The point of being a hip progressive is not to know the truth but to possess the right opinions. Far better to tow the climate change line on pure faith than be deemed a “denier.”

Why is it more important for the left to hold the correct stances on issues rather than the truth? Jonah Goldberg offers this explanation:

If you work from the dogmatic assumption that liberalism is morally infallible and that liberals are, by definition, pitted against sinister and — more importantly — powerful forces, then it’s easy to explain away what seem like double standards. Any lapse, error, or transgression by conservatives is evidence of their real nature, while similar lapses, errors, and transgressions by liberals are trivial when balanced against the fact that their hearts are in the right place.

Good intentions are more important than objective reality. In normal times this would be an outrageously controversial claim, but these are not normal times. While many feminists with a conscience have done noble and searching work in the wake of the Rolling Stone campus rape story debacle, still many others are digging in and insisting that it matters not that the story accusing a UVA fraternity of systematic and brutal gang rape is a fabrication, what matters is the narrative and the important spotlight being shined on the “epidemic” of campus sexual assault. Then, almost like mana from Heaven, the Justice Department released updated statistics on criminal sexual assault, which committed the public service of dumping ice cold water all over the favored falsehood of the president and feminists that “one in five” women will be sexually assaulted in their time on campus (the stat is closer to 6 out of 1,000, which is still too high, but nowhere near an epidemic or a crisis and certainly not one in five. That a segment of the radical left still insist on their narrative even after ideologically sympathetic outlets have suggested that this has all gone too far is pretty strong evidence that their agenda trumps the truth. If feminists are actually interested in rooting out rape cultures, they should look to Syria or, closer to home, Rotherham, England.

Though I am at odds with the majority of conservatives on the issue of immigration, I am not a full “open-borders” libertarian either. As a Texan, I tend to think the model here works pretty well, far better at any rate than my other home state of California, which has a vast and bloated public employee system over which uncontrolled immigration holds a Sword of Damocles. In Texas, where we eschew the public employee model as much as we can, Hispanics are much more likely to vote Republican than their counterparts on the West Coast. This past November, Governor-elect Greg Abbott got 44% of the Hispanic vote and Senator John Cornyn was re-elected with 49%. Whatever else can be said about the farce that is Battleground Texas, the idea that their modus operandi is to “turn Texas blue” is surely in the running for most ridiculous conceit of the year, especially in light of those Texas Hispanic voting trends. Meanwhile, California public debt and pension obligations are on a one-way ride to fiscal calamity and the people who are going to bear the worst of that reckoning are the poor and immigrant populations.

The border surge of child migrants from three countries in Central America was among the more ridiculous scenes of American politics in my lifetime. The actual line parroted by the left – extensively – was that this was all due to rising tides of violence in the region. As if Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador had never experienced cartel or gang violence before. No, what happened was obvious to anyone with a shred of decency or honesty: Obama issued the DACA order in the Spring which allowed child arrivals from non-contiguous countries (i.e. everywhere but Mexico) to avoid deportation. Leave aside for now this blatant instance of legislating from the executive branch and just connect the dots. Obama issued an order, either indirectly or directly got the word out in Central America that any children able to make it into the United States interior would be granted a “permiso,” which in turn would mean their parents would be subject to legal immigration at a later date. The sheer volume of children sent on that crazy sojourn through Mexico to the Rio Grande means the message was received. The incentive duly laid by the American government, rational people in want of a better life understandably jumped at the chance and sent their kids packing, even if it meant putting them in extreme danger by handing them over to the “coyotes” who were ably gaming the new system. The backlash by the right was too harsh, or at least not on point enough, because it focused more on the tangible reality of poor migrant children here illegally rather than the ungodly level of cynicism, deception and outright fraud perpetuated by the White House, Democrats and media nationwide.

The border surge was by design, yet we were loudly and assuredly told otherwise by the media chorus who understood it was their job to distort and confuse the issue until it went away, like all Obama scandals eventually do. Great tomes on the subject of stonewalling are still to be written about this administration and his enablers.

The piece de resistance of progressive ridiculousness is the national conversation on race. Rarely has such a broad coalition of left-right interests coalesced behind as seminal a reform effort as criminal justice and over-incarceration. Not just libertarians but conservatives, from Rick Perry to Chris Christie to governors across the South, are embracing initiatives like “Right on Crime” that aim to reduce prison populations and that carry the additional and (for some) counter-intuitive benefit of continued decline in crime rates. Had the left not been so wedded to its alternative reality narrative of America as an irredeemably racist society and instead been sober about picking its battles, it’s likely we never would have heard of Ferguson and would have instead concentrated on Eric Garner, Tamir Rice and other instances where police misconduct was far more concrete. Real consensus and coming together would have been possible, though far from assured, had the conversation remained on police conduct and the need for reform exclusively. New York’s Benjamin Wallce-Wells places his finger on it:

But something strange has happened during the past month, both in the politics of New York and those of the country. In the debates over policing that followed the tragedies of Michael Brown and Eric Garner and Tamir Rice and officers Ramos and Liu, race has assumed the central role, displacing crime. This has brought about a more direct confrontation with our remaining national sickness around race, but it has also surfaced an atavistic, tribal strain in our politics, reminiscent of the racialized fights of an earlier era. It is probably no accident that some of the central figures of New York’s recent past returned to the public stage last week, and that their view diverged from de Blasio’s. Instead of a reasonable, technocratic decision to adjust policies of policing and punishment to a place where there is much less crime, they saw the debate as a declaration of allegiances — of whose side you were on.

Of Mr. Wallace-Wells, I have just one question: who made this about race?

Based on the grand jury evidence aired to the public, one can say with 99% certainty that Michael Brown did not have his hands up and did not say “don’t shoot.” That does not make what happened any less of a tragedy, or any less of a reason to talk about the need for police reform, such as the need for body cameras which would have saved the country a whole lot of grief since this case would have been clear one way or the other. But somehow, within hours of the incident, the “hands up, don’t shoot” meme emerged in the streets of Ferguson and since that train left the station… it has barely slowed. While there is no reason to excuse the agitators for stoking ire and running with false narratives, the blame and the ridiculousness of it all lies with enablers in media and progressive politics. There are simply too many progressives in East Coast media willing to ignore facts and context so long as the existing narrative serves their interests, and it most definitely does serve the left’s interests to see America permanently mired in 1960’s racial strife, because nothing sustains power like a good grievance.

The corrosive effects on family and dignity imposed on poor inner city black and impoverished rural white alike are among the proudest achievements of the institutional left. Their policies trap the impoverished in their station, leaving them with little recourse but to look to government, while simultaneously feeding grievance and laying the blame at the feet of “the man.” What continues to escape them in this reasoning is the indisputable reality that in today’s America the left is the man. “Despite controlling the commanding heights of the culture — journalism, Hollywood, the arts, academia, and vast swaths of the corporate America they denounce — liberals have convinced themselves they are pitted against deeply entrenched powerful forces and that being a liberal is somehow brave,” says Goldberg. “Obama, the twice-elected president of the United States, to this day speaks as if he’s some kind of underdog.”

Progressives would bristle at the charge but it is no less true. They are ever so proud of the welfare state they erected, not because it works, but because they built it, and conservatives don’t like it. Liberals are responsible for any well-intentioned program gone bad because theirs is the philosophy that holds good intentions above truth in the heirarchy of virtues. Theirs is the vision of government that insists all social problems be adjudicated from on high. The vice grip that the left has on our culture is so tight that any objections are considered blasphemous rather than just wrong. Don’t believe me? Argue with a lefty about biological distinctions between sex and gender. Actually, for your own sake, don’t do that.

Why then, is the left allowed to avoid accountability for their failures? Going back to Goldberg, it is because their hearts are pure, and ours are not.

Peaceful, law-abiding tea-party groups who cleaned up after their protests — and got legal permits for them — were signs of nascent fascism lurking in the American soul. Violent, anarchic, and illegal protests by Occupy Wall Street a few years ago or, more recently, in Ferguson, Mo., were proof that a new idealistic generation was renewing its commitment to idealism.

When rich conservatives give money to Republicans, it is a sign that the whole system has been corrupted by fat cats. When it is revealed that liberal billionaires and left-wing super PACs outspent conservative groups in 2014: crickets.

When Republicans invoke God or religious faith as an inspiration for their political views, it’s threatening and creepy. When Democrats do it, it’s a sign they believe in social justice.

When it comes to progressives my sentiment is the same as Nick Frost’s frustration with Simon Pegg in the excellent The World’s End: “it’s pointless arguing with you.” Nowhere is that more on display than in the media’s attempt to put some kind of sheen on Obama’s 2014. All that they are left with is the spectacle of an unhinged president acting outside his constitutionally delegated authority to impose on the country his idea of what America should be. And most ridiculous of all is the fact that Obama genuinely believes he had a good year. He would look less ridiculous in the puffy pirate shirt.

Prescience

“But we had better be careful. An apparent verification by prima facie favorable cases which are not analyzed in detail may be very deceptive. Moreover, as every lawyer and every politician knows, energetic appeal to familiar facts will go a long way toward inducing a jury or a parliament to accept also the construction he desires to put upon them. Marxists have exploited this technique to the full. In this instance it is particularly successful, because the facts in question combine the virtues of being superficially known to everyone and of being thoroughly understood by very few. In fact, though we cannot enter into detailed discussion here, even hasty reflection suffices to suggest a suspicion that “it is not so.””

-Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1942)

Schumpeter was arguing against Marxian orthodoxy which insists that every event and occurrence can be explained and predicted by the inherent logic of history that points to the inevitable endpoint of capitalism.

But while Marxists eventually, grudgingly had to give up on their “arc of history” fantasies, the appeal of the technique outlined above persists, most obviously on the matter of climate change. I have my strong opinions about it and people are free to theirs, but the point Schumpeter makes is instructive and should discourage climate zealots from being so self-righteously assured of their position. The scientific method was conceived in response to the understanding that the science is almost never settled and any honest broker must acknowledge that shutting down debate with the “denier” epithet is the opposite of good scientific norms and practices. It’s the mentality that got a whole bunch of heliocentric advocates burned at the stake in yonder eras.

So much of the modern left is ignorant of the degree that Marxist tenets and arguments still reign over their thinking. Those who know from whence their ideology springs are keen to disguise the heritage of their ideas and, more importantly, their tactics. If it was conventional wisdom that modern leftwing methods are just warmed-over Marxist retreads, far fewer people would embrace them.

Climate change demagoguery takes a page directly from the Marxist playbook and that makes sense once you appreciate how the rise of the green movement and its activist impulses directly correlates with the fall of the Soviet Union. All those Commies had to end up somewhere and in the environmental movement they found their home.

Schumpeter’s critique of the flaws of Marxian “synthesis” as a means of explaining the logic of history (an endeavor championed more by early 20th century Neo-Marxists than by Marx himself) were incredibly prescient. His analysis of mid-20th century Marxist tendencies translates quite well to those of the Western left today. Climate change is the most acute example of modern leftists channeling techniques from a time when unabashed reverence for their ideological godfather was a matter of pride and rebellion rather than a secret. But the left’s reliance on “verification by prima facie favorable cases which are not analyzed in detail” and which “may be very deceptive” extends to many other topics as well. Every lie told about Obamacare, for instance. The left’s entire economic model of redistribution is itself a barely-disguised Marxist policy founded on the ridiculous idea that there exist always and forever only two classes, owners (capitalists) and workers (labor), and that the obligation of government is to take from the owners – who only could have accumulated their capital through theft – and distribute to the workers. Their cultural agenda is rooted in the Marxist belief that tradition and social norms are the sole provenance of the bourgeoisie and must therefore be eradicated everywhere. Thus are we subjected to notions of “patriarchy,” “white privilege,” “systemic bigotry” and “us against them” populism aimed at nothing more than placating the jealousy cultivated by the Marxist idea of permanent class war. It does not end there. The family and religion are under assault everywhere you look, displayed most openly by MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry in a fine bit of #Grubering that included this nugget of Marxian wisdom:

“We’ve always had kind of a private notion of children. Your kid is yours, and your responsibility. We haven’t had a very collective notion of ‘These are our children.’ So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that ‘kids belong to their parents’ or ‘kids belong to their families,’ and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.”

Whether the nuclear family, religion, property rights, conscience rights or the Bill of Rights, the neo-Neo-Marxists that comprise much of the Democratic Party in the U.S. and many elements of Canadian, Australian and UK Labour are hell bent on burning it all down. Like all good Marxists they can never lose sight of the ultimate goal of bringing about the inevitable demise of capitalism, so for all the shiny cultural distractions into which they pour considerable energies, the animating impulse can always be traced back to the fundamental misconception that society is locked in a fateful struggle between classes, of which there can be only two. Having only two classes – like political parties – creates a situation of permanent adversaries, an alluring construct for the aggrieved and the charlatan alike, never mind that this construct has little tether to reality. Once established in the popular mind, it is exceedingly difficult for critics to persuade the converted that they are being sold false hope based on a lie. The intoxicating promise of seeing the capitalists ultimately succumb to their own evil system of theft and greed has endured to today. How else to explain Occupy Wall Street and the inchoate ramblings of faux-populist Elizabeth Warren?

The goal of the Marx-inspired left is simply to stand for the advancement of government interests over individual or traditional interests at every turn. If you adhere to a belief that social progress is fixed to a logical arc of history defined by the never-ending class war and that the “good guys” are predestined to triumph over the “bad guys” and their ill-gotten capital accumulation, you’re unlikely to be receptive to philosophical or economic arguments in favor of capitalism. Instead your concern falls to the “little guy” who can only be made whole by dint of an aggressive correction to the unjust and immoral status quo of market economics. The vehicle for the correction is the state. No matter how much academic evidence emerges to prove the fallacy of the project, no matter the real world evidence that confirms the futility of collectivism in practice, and no matter the human toll erected on the mantle of socialism, the cult of Marx persists because he offered a moral foundation to anticapitalism. The world was rigged in favor of the bourgeoisie and against the proletariat. Entreaties to trust the invisible hand or the beautiful twin phenomena of innovation and creative destruction would always be met with derision and contempt, for they purported to put the onus for solutions on the very class the workers had been indoctrinated to never trust. The same dynamic at play in 1914 is alive and well in 2014.

The left will not allow us to dissolve the broader class war narrative because it suits them to perpetuate. As Schumpeter might say about the left’s overriding world view today, “even hasty reflection suffices to suggest a suspicion that “it is not so.””

Uber Alles

There are few things I enjoy more than the idiotic leftwing backlash against Uber. Besides revealing an utter lack of comprehension of market forces, those on a moral crusade against Uber are actually engaged in a transparent effort to carry water for cartels, aka the taxi unions. Because nothing says “progress” like championing the perpetuation of inefficient, corrupt, politically protected 19th century labor practices over spontaneous order and innovation.

Customers love Uber. Political hacks on the left hate it because it threatens unions and therefore threatens their donor base.

In Sydney last night, Uber’s decision to respond to spiking demand by quadrupling rates as a way to attract more drivers caused more hubbub on twitter than the actual hostage crisis. How dare that evil, greedy, private company raise its rates in the middle of a crisis? Well, if the intent was to incentive more Uber drivers onto the road to provide their in-demand service, what the hell is the problem? The problem apparently, is that profits are inherently evil, but especially so when sought amid a crisis. Mollie Hemingway corrals some representative tweets here and lobs justified scorn at the mob.

My favorite Uber anecdote is from this past summer, when European capitals saw coordinated protests against the disruptive taxi app by having all their taxi drivers block traffic at key arteries and walk out in solidarity, causing massive traffic jams. The result? Uber subscriptions skyrocketed 850% across the continent in a single day as many who had never heard of Uber were suddenly inclined to check them out. Talk about your all time backfires. Who among us would not leap at cheaper and more efficient modes of travel, especially when those already tasked with public transport merit such disdain for their petty and annoying protests, not to mention for their general performance?  As if the intent is to conform to stereotype, Paris taxi unions are back at it again today, blocking traffic and demanding an end to Uber while determined to learn nothing from their last failed protest. Hope it goes just as well as last time.

One would think the writing would be on the wall and the taxi union would understand that their days of holding a protected monopoly are over. Alas, the unions are doubling down and their allies in media are drooling for any story that can undermine Uber’s credibility. The constant harping on unfair pricing betrays a thorough ignorance of how markets work, though even more disturbing is the lack of imagination on display by these critics. In order to not only appreciate but celebrate the free market, one has to tap the frontier explorer mentality within, which will allow for the acceptance of “creative destruction.” Every innovation we love is born from this basic concept: existing products and services are displaced by new ones that invent better and cheaper ways to satisfy customers. This process requires businesses, jobs and brands to sometimes disappear. Executives and employees alike at firms such as Research in Motion (makers of Blackberry), Blockbuster, LaserDisc and the legacy music labels would undoubtedly have preferred to see their companies remain viable, but economics is like gravity – it is futile to fight. Now think of the firms that took their place: Apple, Netflix, BluRay and Spotify. In ten years, we may or may not still have these popular companies with us. The thing to do is accept reality and applaud the lower prices, better products and services and technological wonder at hand, while the thing one should not indulge is barking at the moon or vainly wielding one’s fist at the heavens because one is uncomfortable with the metaphysical reality that things always change. (Ironic that the vapid slogan “Change” deployed by Obama in ’08 should be so utterly lost on he and his followers when it comes to the constantly changing dynamics in the marketplace, otherwise known as “capitalism”). If you are in favor of change and progress, it makes no sense to stand opposed to innovative and disruptive new technologies just because they threaten old models which you favor and wish to see preserved.

By all accounts, Uber CEO Travis Kalanick is kind of a jerk and has perhaps gone out of his way to stoke the ire of his antagonists. Frankly I could care less what the man’s personality is like or whether he encourages his employees to aggressively (but legally) recruit drivers away from competitors. Competition is not always polite and ethics are important to maintain even in a ruthlessly competitive and nascent market such as the booming sharing economy. But forgive me if I perceive every “Uber is shady” story as part of a broader unease with these carefree, ambitious and cocky tech titans who are supposedly planning to take over the world and turn it into Galt’s Gulch.

While it is surely not the driving motivation behind their attempt to discredit and ultimately destroy Uber, one factor must be that these champions of the uber-state and haters of anything that can reasonably be attributed to the philosophy of Ayn Rand are petrified of the growing “libertarian moment” and feel it is their moral obligation to stop it in its tracks. The level of Ayn Rand paranoia on the left is staggering. There are at least a dozen more influential philosophers and economists on the right than Rand, though she is unquestionably among the canonized thinkers for libertarians. As Robert Tracinski lays out in a wonderful piece, the one enduring lesson the left could learn from Ayn Rand is that “there are no evil thoughts except one: the refusal to think.” Rather than do the hard work of reading Hayek or Schumpeter, or even bother much to think, critics of free market economics lazily single out Rand as our one true prophet because she is easier to demagogue and her arguments easier to caricature. But I think the fundamental explanation for the left’s passionate assault on anything to do with free market economics or deregulation has to do with the libertarian moment coming directly on the heels of what was supposed to be the great progressive resurgence of 2008.

We are the ones we have been waiting for” was only six years ago but it feels a generation ago now. For all the starry-eyed millennials and social justice warriors and would-be authoritarians in cloistered academia, the rapid erosion of Hope and Change is surreal and responsible for massive whiplash. Beaten and bloodied and staring the demise of their movement in the face, progressives are behaving as any cornered animal would, by lashing out. “The Liberal Hour,” as the WSJ editorial page characterized the national mood in April of 2009, is no more. All that remains is an embittered hostility to actual, observable change.

 

Stupid Laws and Unintended Consequences

The scourge of progressivism is always on display, but sometimes the sheer stupidity of its arguments goes to eleven.

Behold the progressive left’s comprehensive rebuke of Rand Paul’s recent argument that cigarette taxes and the black markets which consequently ensue are partly responsible for Eric Garner’s death. Because racial division benefits the Democratic Party politically, there exists a profound desire on the left to sustain such a beneficial narrative for as long as possible when afforded the opportunity. Conversely, an even stronger desire to prohibit the narrative from being hijacked by other focal points manifests whenever someone challenges the established left wing conventional wisdom.

On MSNBC’s Hardball, Rand Paul offered this completely reasonable opinion on Eric Garner’s tragic death:

I think it is hard not to watch that video of him saying ‘I can’t breathe, I can’t breathe’ and not be horrified by it. I think it is important to know that some politician put a tax of $5.85 on a pack of cigarettes so that driven cigarettes underground by making them so expensive. But then some politician also had to direct the police say, ‘hey we want you arresting people for selling a loose cigarette.’ For someone to die over breaking that law, there is really no excuse for it. But I do blame the politicians. We put our police in a difficult situation with bad laws.

The last thing the left wants is their racial injustice narrative derailed by concerns over taxes or big government (which is not unlike radical feminists’ desire that the agenda outweigh the truth). Hence the surreal spectacle of countless left wing pundits levying passionate rebukes of Paul and the broader right who picked up on his critique. Jon Stewart made the splashiest headlines with his “What the fu*k are you talking about?” zinger on The Daily Show.

Joan Walsh weighed in to pronounce Paul’s 2016 hopes “wrecked,” while Gawker, Vox, Rachel Maddow’s stenographer Steve Benen, and Jeffrey Toobin all joined the chorus condemning Paul for his comments.

Meanwhile, Jonah Goldberg, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and others on the right responded to the left’s claims with justified scorn. There are some lines of attack that go unanswered because they are not worth responding to, such as charges that Republicans wish to “throw grandma off the cliff” (by reforming Medicare) or wishes to “see kids starving in the streets” (by cutting food stamps). But then there are some arguments belched out of the left’s hive mind that demand swift correction and incessant mockery. The argument that taxes had nothing to do with the Eric Garner tragedy is just plain stupid.

With the opposite of all due respect for Jon Stewart, let me explain just “what the fu*k” Rand Paul and everyone else with a brain is talking about. New York progressives believe that nothing is immune from their regulatory reach, especially those activities which they define as bad. Smoking is indisputably bad for individual health, ergo there must be government restrictions on access to this legal product. That constitutes the “seen” whereas all the unintended consequences that go into enforcing these laws constitute what is “unseen.” By and large, the right knows at least that the unseen exists as a real phenomenon that must be accounted for in public policy, while the left treats the unseen at best as an abstraction and at worst as a sort of urban legend, a myth invented by unsophisticated rubes who can’t quite wrap their puny minds around the need for government to operate as independent arbitrator.

The unseen in the matter of Eric Garner is the human response to incentives. Had there been no six dollar surtax on cigarettes, there would have been no need for the emergence of a massive smuggling racket, whereby trucks would smuggle cigarettes up from the South by the half million. Contrary to popular liberal mythology, human nature is not malleable and thus not prone to radical shifts in personal behavior just because the authorities believe that passing a law equals solving a problem.

Who smokes cigarettes? It’s not coastal elites or academia’s assembly-line activists, that’s for sure. It’s middle American whites and inner city minorities. It’s nice and noble that nannies wish for them to quit, but you know what is not nice and noble? Making packs in New York City and Chicago $14. You think by magic all these smokers are going to magically and radically change their behavior? No, they’re going to look for cheaper avenues to acquire smokes. Progressive do-gooderism and a failure to understand market dynamics, incentives and human behavior leads them to passing these sorts of taxes and levies on the poor in all of our big cities. And the left gets mad when the people don’t comply with their central plans, so they create a strike force (as Cuomo did) to crack down on those nefarious criminals who dare to sell “loosies” outside of the jurisdiction’s onerous taxes.

Progressives want everything to be about social justice and race, and nothing to be about economics or the perverse incentives created by well-intentioned government programs. Both things can be true: Eric Garner was a victim of excessive force by above-the-law police and he was also the victim of the tragic unintended consequences that often arise when black markets emerge in response to bad policy. This is not complicated, but judging by the left’s reaction, I guess it is.

Emily Yoffe Deserves an Award

Emily Yoffe of Slate deserves an award for this piece. She writes:

We are told that one of the most dangerous places for a young woman in America today is a college campus. As President Obama said at a White House event in September, where he announced a campaign to address campus violence, “An estimated one in five women has been sexually assaulted during her college years—one in five.” (At an earlier White House event on the issue, the president declared of sexual violence, “It threatens our families, it threatens our communities; ultimately, it threatens the entire country.”) In recent weeks, Rolling Stone’s lurid account of a premeditated gang rape at the University of Virginia has made the issue of campus sexual violence front-page news. (The reporting and the allegations in the article have since been called into question, and Rolling Stone has issued a statement acknowledging that the magazine failed to properly investigate and corroborate the story.)

Sexual assault at colleges and universities is indeed a serious problem. The attention it’s receiving today—on campus, at the White House, in the media—is a direct result of the often callous and dismissive treatment of victims. For too long, women who were assaulted on campus and came forward were doubted or dismissed, and the men responsible were given a mild rebuke or none at all. Those who commit serious sexual crimes on campus must be held to account.

In recent years, young activists, many of them women angry about their treatment after reporting an assault, have created new organizations and networks in an effort to reform the way colleges handle sexual violence. They recognized they had a powerful weapon in that fight: Title IX, the federal law that protects against discrimination in education. Schools are legally required by that law to address sexual harassment and violence on campus, and these activists filed complaints with the federal government about what they describe as lax enforcement by schools. The current administration has taken up the cause—the Chronicle of Higher Education describes it as “a marquee issue for the Obama administration”—and praised these young women for spurring political action. (emphasis mine) “A new generation of student activists is effectively pressing for change,” read a statement this spring announcing new policies to address campus violence. The Department of Education has drafted new rules to address women’s safety, some of which have been enshrined into law by Congress, with more legislation likely on the way.

Unfortunately, under the worthy mandate of protecting victims of sexual assault, procedures are being put in place at colleges that presume the guilt of the accused. Colleges, encouraged by federal officials, are instituting solutions to sexual violence against women that abrogate the civil rights of men. Schools that hold hearings to adjudicate claims of sexual misconduct allow the accuser and the accused to be accompanied by legal counsel. But as Judith Shulevitz noted in the New Republic in October, many schools ban lawyers from speaking to their clients (only notes can be passed). During these proceedings, the two parties are not supposed to question or cross examine each other, a prohibition recommended by the federal government in order to protect the accuser. And by federal requirement, students can be found guilty under the lowest standard of proof: preponderance of the evidence, meaning just a 51 percent certainty is all that’s needed for a finding that can permanently alter the life of the accused.

Her conclusion that the federal government has overreached by injecting the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) into the fray makes one suspect she meant to submit this piece to National Review or The Federalist.

Anyone who follows the issue knows that feminists tend to freak out whenever someone suggests that alcohol plays a significant role in sexual assault, and that it is simply prudent to advise college women against drinking heavily. Consider that an innovative solution to creeps who spike drinks – nail polish that changes color to detect date rape drugs – was met with angry condemnation from the sect of feminists who see any focus on the female’s behavior as “blaming the victim.” Is it any wonder then that Yoffe encountered hostility when she offered a similar perspective on alcohol’s role in sexual assault?

It’s a surprisingly loaded subject, given the widely acknowledged prevalence of drinking on American campuses. Last year, I wrote about drinking and sexual assault in a Slate piece titled, “College Women: Stop Getting Drunk.” I said that binge drinking was bad for everyone but that it presented a particular danger for young women because it made them more vulnerable to sexual assault—I described sober predators who specifically targeted intoxicated women. I was widely denounced for “victim-blaming.” This year, I was disinvited to speak at a West Coast college after board members of a student organization that had invited me decided my presence would make student victims “feel unsafe.”

The fact that Yoffe, a feminist in good stead, was harassed and marginalized by members of her own tribe for daring to suggest that alcohol plays a role in sexual assault is hilarious for its commonplace banality: this is just how RadFems roll. And to her tremendous credit, Yoffe has decided that truth and objectivity are more important than “the cause.”

And the bravery it must require to dispassionately debunk the absurd and pernicious myth of “one in five” and even to take King Obama to task for it, is sure to consign this brave woman to the Jonathan Gruber Hall of The Banished, aka the ninth circle of progressive Hell. Yoffe again:

It is exceedingly difficult to get a numerical handle on a crime that is usually committed in private and the victims of which—all the studies agree—frequently decline to report. A further complication is that because researchers are asking about intimate subjects, there is no consensus on the best way to phrase sensitive questions in order to get the most accurate answers. A 2008 National Institute of Justice paper on campus sexual assault explained some of the challenges: “Unfortunately, researchers have been unable to determine the precise incidence of sexual assault on American campuses because the incidence found depends on how the questions are worded and the context of the survey.” Take the National Crime Victimization Survey, the nationally representative sample conducted by the federal government to find rates of reported and unreported crime. For the years 1995 to 2011, as the University of Colorado Denver’s Rennison explained to me, it found that an estimated 0.8 percent of noncollege females age 18-24 revealed that they were victims of threatened, attempted, or completed rape/sexual assault. Of the college females that age during that same time period, approximately 0.6 percent reported they experienced such attempted or completed crime.

That finding diverges wildly from the notion that one in five women college women will be sexually assaulted by the time they graduate. That’s the number most often used to suggest there is overwhelming sexual violence on America’s college campuses. It comes from a 2007 study funded by the National Institute of Justice, called the Campus Sexual Assault Study, or CSA. (I cited it last year in a story on campus drinking and sexual assault.) The study asked 5,466 female college students at two public universities, one in the Midwest and one in the South, to answer an online survey about their experiences with sexual assault. The survey defined sexual assault as everything from nonconsensual sexual intercourse to such unwanted activities as “forced kissing,” “fondling,” and “rubbing up against you in a sexual way, even if it is over your clothes.”

[…]

No one disputes that only a percentage of sexual assaults get reported, but the studies that have tried to capture the incidence of unreported rape are miles apart. As Christopher Krebs observed, “Some [surveys] I think create high numbers that are difficult to defend. Some create artificially low numbers that are impossible to defend.” We do have hard numbers on actual reports of sexual assault on campus thanks to the Clery Act, the federal law that requires colleges to report their crime rates. But even these figures are controversial. Minuscule sexual assault numbers have long been a consistent feature of Clery Act reporting. Victim advocates say administrators deliberately suppress their numbers in order to make the schools look safer. (Unsurprisingly, schools deny this.) In July, the Washington Post published the Clery number for 2012: There were just over 3,900 forcible sexual offenses, with most schools reporting single or low double-digit numbers. (Under the Clery Act a “forcible sexual offense” does not require the use of actual physical force, it can simply be an act against someone’s will. Offenses include everything from rape to fondling.) Given the approximately 12 million female college students, that’s a reported sexual assault rate of 0.03 percent.

Reported sexual assaults have been rising on campus in recent years, at a time when other campus crime is declining. (The nation as a whole has experienced a dramatic drop in all violent crime over the past few decades, including sexual assault, which is down more than 60 percent since 1995.) (emphasis mine) The rise of reporting on campus sexual assault is generally described by security experts as a function of a greater willingness on the part of women to make complaints, not an increase in incidence. Despite reports of “soaring” sexual assault rates on campus, the raw numbers remain low. At the University of Chicago, the jump from 2011 to 2013 was 83 percent: an increase from six reports to 11, which represents 0.4 percent of the university’s undergraduate women. Carnegie Mellon went up 220 percent, from five cases to 16, or 0.6 percent of the university’s undergraduate women. President Obama has asserted that only about 12 percent of sexual assault victims make a report to authorities. If he is correct, and we extrapolate from the Clery numbers, that would suggest there were 32,500 assaults in 2012, reported and not, or a 0.27 percent incidence.

The encouraging thing about this piece is that it gives the rational and objective among us a rebuttal to the charge that feminism is a wholly owned subsidiary of the cultural Marxist left who seek only the radical upheaval of the dreaded patriarchy. People like Jessica Velenti and Amanda Marcotte are toxic to their own movement, yet they enjoy heightened visibility and influence because they are maniacal in their zeal to paint all women as perpetual victims-in-waiting. Yoffe (who again, is a feminist) seems to view the representation of bogus rape statistics on college campus as detrimental to her idea of feminism. There is just no way to marry the rhetoric coming from the Obama administration and the radical feminist left with the actual data. The simple fact is that there is categorically not an “epidemic” or “crisis” of sexual assault on campus. In this light, one would think a celebration is in order, as sexual assault has decreased by 60% since 1995. But we never hear that statistic and instead are given sermons about our obligation to drop everything and address this ongoing crisis of existential proportions. Another way to say it is that those pushing the “one in five” meme are more interested in the narrative than the truth. Many radicals are unabashed about this fact (see Zerlina Maxwell’s weekend Washington Post op-ed where she insists that “[w]e should always believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser says. Ultimately, the costs of wrongly disbelieving a survivor far outweigh the costs of calling someone a rapist. Even if Jackie fabricated her account, UVA should have taken her word for it until they could have proved otherwise”).

I suspect the noble feminists have had enough and on the heels of the Rolling Stone debacle are reclaiming the rational parts of feminism from the lunatics, such as University of Michigan’s Heather Cowan, head of the Office of Student Conflict Resolution, whose portrayal in Yoffe’s piece can be interpreted as the type of misandrist social justice warrior that has given such an ugly sheen to feminism. Whatever else one might speculate of the social crusader’s motives in tilting the investigation heavily against the accused, it cannot be disputed that Ms. Cowan ignored prudence and traditional conceptions of due process in delivering a judgment against Drew Sterrett, an unwilling stand-in for the patriarchy. To wit:

On Nov. 30, Sterrett received Cowan’s final “Sexual Misconduct Investigation Report.” His lawsuit states that the final report failed to take note of anything he had written in his rebuttal. The final report was longer than Cowan’s previous one, and included further allegations that either CB herself did not corroborate or appeared unsupported by the available evidence. For example, it stated: “The Complainant framed the events in question as a sexual assault to
 witnesses the day following the event.” In her deposition, CB acknowledged that she didn’t do that, that in fact she’d never used the words “sexual assault” to describe what happened. The report said that Sterrett’s roommate was asleep during the entire sexual encounter. This was contradicted by the time-stamped Facebook message complaining that he was being kept awake.

The report also said that Sterrett had confessed to his roommate that he’d had a nonconsensual encounter with CB. When Cowan interviewed the roommate—who says she never told him the purpose of her investigation—he had mentioned that Sterrett said he regretted the encounter with CB. In Cowan’s report, that statement is described as a confession of sexual violation. But as the roommate clarified in his affidavit, Sterrett was not expressing “that he had done anything morally or legally or ethically wrong.” He was expressing regret for sleeping with someone in their group of friends.

The final report came to this conclusion: “[I]t is determined that the Respondent engaged in sexual intercourse with the Complainant without her consent and that that activity is so severe as to create a hostile environment.” His punishment was that he was suspended from college until July 2016—after CB graduated. In order for the university to consider reinstating him, he would have to agree that he had engaged in sexual misconduct. Whether or not he returned, the finding would stay on his permanent record. Sterrett’s lawsuit says a university official acknowledged to him that these sanctions would “limit his educational, employment and career opportunities.”

This is utterly damning. What is especially maddening though, is that this rubric for addressing sexual assault on campus comes directly from the federal government. And because the Obama federal government is surely inhabited by the largest contingent of social justice warrior bureaucrats ever, you’ll be shocked to learn that the emphasis on catering to the victim only while treating the accused as guilty until proven innocent did not materialize in a vacuum. Washington is setting the parameters for all public universities on how to deal with sexual assault accusations, and the parameters are not pretty:

Much of what’s happening on campuses today regarding the handling of sexual assault is due to the rise of a small, once-obscure arm of the federal government. The Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights dictates to colleges the procedures they must follow in regard to campus sexual complaints. It also examines schools for violations of Title IX, the law that forbids discrimination in education on the basis of sex. In recent years, OCR has used Title IX, best known for tackling imbalances in athletics, as a tool to address sexual violence. When OCR issues findings against a school, if the school declines to admit wrongdoing, the office has the power, as yet unexercised, to essentially shut the school down.

In 2011, OCR released what’s come to be known as the “Dear Colleague” letter. It called for new procedures to be put in place for handling sexual assault allegations at colleges and universities receiving federal funds (virtually all of them). The federal office had to act, it said, because “the likelihood that [female students] will be assaulted by the time they graduate is significant.” It asserted the process should be equitable and impartial. But it laid out procedures that privilege the rights of victims over those of the accused. It recommended schools provide “comprehensive, holistic victim services including medical, counseling and academic support services, such as tutoring” for the accuser, without describing any services that should be available to help the accused navigate a pervasively adversarial process. If a school allowed the accused to appeal a verdict of responsibility for sexual misconduct, then an accuser also got to appeal if the accused was found not responsible. This provision meant someone accused of a campus sexual assault could find himself sitting through a second tribunal on the same charge.

Among the most significant changes described by the Dear Colleague letter was the requirement that schools lower the standard by which they judge whether a student is responsible for sexual assault. (There is no uniform definition of sexual assault on campus. Because these are civil, not criminal proceedings, what constitutes sexual misconduct can vary widely from campus to campus.) Colleges were told to adopt a “preponderance of evidence” standard when evaluating whether a student was to be found responsible for an allegation. This is the lowest evidentiary standard, only requiring a smidge more than 50 percent certainty. Because the punishment for such infractions can be severe—from suspension to expulsion—many schools had previously used the “clear and convincing evidence” standard, a significantly higher burden of proof, though still below the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal proceedings. (The University of Michigan, in its legal motion to dismiss Drew Sterrett’s case, specifically noted the findings against Sterrett met the preponderance of evidence standard.)

At the end of her Pulitzer-worthy piece, Yoffe sounds like a libertarian when she suggests that the federal government would probably be well advised to disentangle itself from this arena altogether, and to allow the litigation of rape and sexual assault to return to the jurisdiction of actual, you know, law enforcement, rather than leaving it up to a bunch of naive academic administrators who, based on the same “preponderance of evidence” standard they wish to co-opt for their kangaroo court tribunals, are more likely to resemble the Heather Cowans and Danielle Dirks of the world and therefore should be the very last people recruited into anything having to do with actual justice.

But I would of course take Yoffe’s recommendation regarding the reform of the DOE’s Civil Rights division to its logical terminus: eliminate the department entirely. Progressives have zero illusions that a federal monopoly on education is good for the masses. They like it because it consolidates power in a massive bureaucracy of which will be staffed almost exclusively by fellow travellers and SJWs. And that massive bureaucracy, as happy to be willfully duped by ridiculous statistics and flawed studies as Rolling Stone was to buy the oh-so-perfect narrative condemning the patriarchical white supremacy endemic to all fraternity life, is responsible for the muddied, inchoate farce that is campus sexual politics today.

Give Emily Yoffe a medal. She deserves it for this wonderful exhibition of political bravery, as it is undoubtedly going to ostracize her among the radicals for whom narrative trumps truth.

Dictator for a Day

Today is the day! Executive Order day!

This is an amazing moment in American politics, not just because the President of the United States is poised to become Thomas Friedman’s benevolent dictator for a day, but because of what it says about the progressive left.

Via MacGruber, er, Jonathan Gruber, we have stone-cold confirmation that Obamacare was sold through a year long campaign of comprehensive deception from top to bottom, involving everyone in the Democratic orbit from the White House to Congressional leaders to media sycophants. At every turn conservatives, libertarians and anyone else inclined to balk at naked expansions of federal power were shouted down and mocked by the progressive amen chorus led by the likes of Ezra Klein and Jonathan Cohn. And Gruber was used in virtually all of the left’s petulant, smarter-than-thou harangues against opponents of the bill as unimpeachable evidence that “independent, unbiased” voices had confirmed that the magic being promised in the ACA was in fact real.

And these revelations come on the heels of one of the more historic re-balancing acts of political power the country has ever seen. No president has presided over such a demolition of his party’s fortunes as has Obama. 59 Senators down to 45. 270 House Dems down to barely 180. But the real story is in the states, where the GOP now dominates in state legislatures and governorships, and for a very simple reason: voters in all states are wary of the public sector model that delivers nothing but high taxes and higher costs of living and are thus making sure that, at the state level at least, the progressives are as far from power as possible.

All of this, and the Borg hive mind that defines the left comes up with “Obama should act like a king.”

It’s amazing, but not surprising if you know where the hard left is coming from, which is from a place where the ends forever justify the means, so long as those ends involve increasing the presence of the federal government in more and more Americans’ lives. It is the will to power and nothing else. All the gauzy platitudes you hear are simply just different forms of #Grubering. “Social justice,” “fairness,” “equal pay,” “clean environment,” “jobs”…. the left don’t believe in any of it. They believe in power and growing the bureaucracy, the instrument through which they project their power.

And so we arrive at today’s immigration executive order. My contempt for this action has little to do with the substance or with immigration overall. The issue is with the process, and the president’s and his cheerleaders’ utter disregard for constitutional propriety. Obama will not be invoking “prosecutorial discretion” today when he announces his order, but rather a pronounced end-run around the will of the legislature; said legislature having made its voice heard by expressly NOT passing the Senate version of the immigration bill that we hear so much about.

This idea that because one body of Congress has passed something while the other has not, yet because the President wishes it were passed then the onus is on the chamber standing against the measure to change its mind and pass whatever the other party wants, or else…. is really the stupidest argument I can imagine concerning the machinations of how our government is supposed to work. But it’s the principal argument being used as a cudgel by everyone on the left, and it’s a shameful disgrace to witness such wanton disregard for process and the rule of law. As Charles Cooke put it so eloquently:

The great virtue of the rule of law is that it separates means and ends, thereby preventing individuals from appealing only to the outcome of a given action and ignoring entirely how it was achieved. In the United States, it is simply not enough for a reformer to cry “it was a nice thing to do”; he also has to demonstrate that what he did was both legal and that it was in keeping with the essential tenets of ordered liberty. That way, the people can reasonably expect to predict what the state will do at any given point, and are accorded a certain recourse if it declines to follow the rules. Whatever progressives might think, “good” and “kind” and “necessary” are not self-evident, but sit firmly in the eye of the beholder. Ensuring that we have broad agreement as to which actions comport with those values and which do not is why we have a system in the first instance. We do not judge virtue on the basis of what the ostensibly virtuous can get away with.

The modern left, to borrow from The Federalist’s Ben Domenech, are now the Eric Cartman Democrats.

I do what I want!

I would add to Domenech’s penetrating insight my own pop culture analog for the American left: Cersei Lannister. Her bemused “is this meant to be your shield?” scoff at Ned Stark’s royal parchment carrying the King’s own decree is exactly in line with the Democratic Party’s opinion of the Constitution. Both are mere pieces of paper that mean nothing compared to their own ambition. Cersei shreds the document without an ounce of regret, just as progressives have shredded the Constitution in their century-long odyssey to remake a self-governing republic into a stagnant and tired welfare state.

How to Help the Poor

Mother Jones’ Kevin Drum laments the Democrats’ worrying trend with working class white voters and traces the discontent to lingering unhappiness with the Democratic tax and spend welfare state model. Drum accurately highlights how liberal obsession with food stamps, unemployment benefits, Medicaid and Obamacare can alienate working class whites as they see more and more assistance going to their marginally less well-off neighbors while they get nothing. Personally I think race has very little to do with what is really an economic and a government problem, but since the left can’t tie their shoes without noting the latent racism involved in shoelace production, they have to identify their middle and working class voter problem as one to do with the “white working class.” Fine. Whatever gets them to any level of introspection is only good news for the debate going forward.

In getting to his conclusion that he has no conclusion for how to solve this electoral dilemma, Drum offers this precious piece of liberal self-congratulation:

“Helping the poor is one of the great causes of liberalism, and we forfeit our souls if we give up on it.”

I wonder if the left will ever understand observable reality and change its mind on what constitutes helping the poor. Everyone with a conscience, left or right, wishes to see the plight of the poor improve, the question is how to achieve improvement. I (kinda, sorta) accept Drum and liberals at their word that their aim is true when they advocate for these government programs for the poor; my problem is with their stubborn refusal to be accountable and admit that the ambitious War on Poverty was a failure, especially if viewed in terms of trajectories – American poverty was steadily declining between 1945 and 1965, only to flatten after the Great Society was introduced. The line has remained flat for a generation.

us poverty graph

It is an insult to basic intelligence to suggest these programs were successful at eradicating American poverty. Possessing noble intentions does not automatically translate into good policy, but seeking well-intended results through government is guaranteed to create bad policy because government is inherently inefficient (and likely inherently stupid too).

Whatever merits progressives assign to the Great Society are dwarfed by the incontrovertible fact that its biggest legacy is likely to be the destruction of the black family in America. And not just the black family, either. One of the more fundamental disagreements between left and right is over the matter of incentives. The left doesn’t bother with incentives because, if I may be so bold, they typically don’t care about how their policies cause people to behave; they just care that a policy they came up with is made binding on others. Or if you want to be more generous: the left doesn’t focus on behavioral incentives in law because they don’t believe such things exist. Since most leftists come from academia, they are used to theoretical models that deal in static data. The real world, however, deals in dynamic data, in that there is no way to account for the variable known as “human behavior” in academic models of society or the economy.

Laws create behavioral incentives because humans are not robots. Just because it makes sense on paper to increase government spending in order to stimulate aggregate demand does not mean such policy will work in practice. In fact, we know it does not work because rudimentary market economics informs us that government intervention into the economy only creates distortions and mis-allocation of resources. The left has never understood this basic premise when it comes to – well, everything – but especially when it comes to helping the poor.

By aggressively inserting itself into the lives of inner city and rural constituencies the federal government has wildly distorted the markets for labor, education, spouse and dignity in America’s poverty-stricken regions. Government intrusions in the form of food stamps, unemployment and Medicaid sound benign at the outset. But consider how these benefits alter incentives for the beneficiary. Is a worker in the inner city more or less likely to ardently search for work when 99 weeks of unemployment are on the table? Is a struggling shop-owner looking to hire two extra workers on the cheap (offering them an opportunity out of poverty, perhaps) going to be more or less likely to do so when the price of labor is arbitrarily raised on him via a minimum-wage increase? Most crucially, are a couple with children more or less likely to stay together when there are no consequences to family dissolution thanks to the ubiquitous welfare state that allows single mothers to collect plenty of money with none of the dignity attached.

The $64,000 question is whether the American left, facing its worst political moment in a century (the 1920’s were the last time the party had so few seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and the state legislatures – they were wiped out the last two midterms), chooses to double down on welfare statism or decides to speak honestly and culpably about the failures of their grand experiment in leveraging the public sector to fix poverty. If Democrats really want to speak to the white working class again, or for that matter, the poor and underclass who they today purport to serve, they need to accept that there is one – and only one – proven tool for lifting masses of people out of dismal economic conditions: capitalism.

So that’s where we are. The left’s future as I see it depends on their developing a non-transparent and believable appreciation for what makes economies grow. The fact that the global poverty rate fell from 26.8% in 1970 to 5.4% in 2006 due primarily to the introduction of free enterprise and free trade to the rest of the world is entirely lost on the inhabitants of America’s faculty lounges. If they are even aware of this remarkable 80% decline they shrug and attribute it to government aid or something (seriously). Empowering individuals through trade and entrepreneurship is not some fashionable dream concocted by libertarians but the cold hard reality of the how wealth and prosperity are made. The middle and working classes in America aren’t eager to join the poor in the ranks of the dependent class. The poor themselves do not wish to be pandered to and showered with candy while no observable improvements are made in their communities. People are ready for something different, above all in the country’s approach to economics, employment and welfare.

The good news is that, for all the lefty hand-wringing (and really, there ought to be more than there is) over losing the white working class, there is no way they are going to suddenly become champions of capitalism and that means the right is well positioned to cast some much needed light on the plight of overlooked and left behind Americans.

world poverty since 1970

Like Clockwork

Rand Paul penned an op-ed in The Daily Beast on Monday that lays out his overarching critique of expansive government. For Paul, the most egregious sins of the past two administrations involve the reckless expansion of executive power. For the founders, the separation of powers and the checks and balances that maintain them were arguably the most important paradigm for representative government. They were surely the most sacred. Though a man of sweeping intellect and depth, James Madison left a singular legacy in his dogged advocacy for diffuse, separate and opposed factions across government; federal, state and local.

That legacy served conservatives (Jeffersonian Democrats, Whigs, Republicans) well until the end of World War II, when a new internationalism emerged with Dwight Eisenhower’s triumph over Senator Robert Taft in the race to define the future of the Republican Party. Since then, it has been a festival of bipartisan abuses of executive power and expansion, as Taft’s defeat meant the end of any meaningful right wing foreign policy based on realism and restraint. It is not wholly outrageous that the spectre of the menacing USSR caused Americans of all stripes to adopt a utilitarian approach to the Cold War, ditching principle and tradition in the name of security from existential annihilation. After 70 years of this approach, is it not sensible to reflect and consider an alternative strategy?

Every time Rand Paul attempts to enunciate his foreign policy, one or two neoconservatives affiliated or aligned with the last Bush administration lashes out with a vicious, often unhinged diatribe against the Senator and his supposed “isolationism.” That Jennifer Rubin is Queen of The Demagogues, let there be no doubt. But Michael Gerson, Pete Wehner, Bill Kristol, Bret Stephens, David Frum, Stephen Hayes, Jonathan Tobin, David Adesnik and Elliott Abrams (and more!) also love to fling “isolationism” around with the same justification that progressives have when shouting “science!” No Valerie Jarrett style enemies’ lists here, just an objective identification of the culprits behind what is an orchestrated, dishonest smear campaign against someone with whom they disagree. That kind of behavior deserves to be called out and evidence is easy to find because, like clockwork, a new hit piece is guaranteed almost every day.

Today’s entry comes from John Yoo, the lead legal apologist for every last ounce of executive abuse and expansion undertaken by President Bush, where he says “Congress enacted in 2001 an authorization to use force against any group connected to those who carried out the 9/11 attacks. If the Islamic State is linked to the al-Qaeda terrorist network, as it appears to be (though this depends on the facts), they fall within the AUMF.” He goes on to belittle Paul and suggest he should remain in the Senate and should never be President. The tone of the piece is desperate and angry. The substance is even worse. Is anyone else flabbergasted that we have an impenetrable elite bipartisan consensus in Washington surrounding the AUMF’s authorization of force? The document from thirteen years ago which had nothing to do with third-generation offshoots of Al Qaeda but actually and explicitly only pertained to… Al Qaeda?  I really shake my head when I read the WSJ or some other reputable conservative outlet make this case; that the resolution we passed in the wake of 9/11 somehow relates to today. I understand their argument about asymmetric warfare and how “we don’t get to decide” when the war is over and all that. Yes, yes. But it is categorically not too much to ask that we fight this interminably long war by adhering to our standards and our rules. And I don’t care how Orwellian the foreign policy fetishists on the right go in their zeal to convince me that 2+2 = 5, I can never be convinced that Article II of the Constitution is more important than Article I.

The looming big debate over foreign policy will be a lot more productive and enlightening if it is conducted with civility and forthrightness. Unfortunately, the opponents of any reevaluation of the status quo have signaled that they have zero intention to play nice with Rand Paul. They genuinely hate his father, and are projecting their worst fever dream scenarios onto Rand and insisting all will be lost and the locusts shall plague us should the man who believes in the Constitution and separation of powers come to be Commander-in-Chief.

Below is my response to John Yoo and his fellow travelers in the conservative movement, based on an advanced reading of George Will’s column tomorrow, which I posted in the comments of his piece at National Review Online.


George Will has a column tomorrow (available online now) headlined “Rethinking US Foreign Policy” in which he tiptoes close to endorsing Rand Paul’s position without actually doing so. But he does offer this for Mr. Yoo to consider:

“The 2003 invasion of Iraq, the worst foreign policy decision in U.S. history, coincided with mission creep (“nation building”) in Afghanistan. Both strengthened what can be called the Republicans’ John Quincy Adams faction: “[America] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.”

The Wilsonian-Bush approach to foreign policy is past its sell-by date, and the level of unhinged vitriol spewing from establishment (mostly from the Bush cabinet) organs towards Rand Paul is evidence of this. Any wonder why the factions currently losing the argument screech and squeal the loudest? Just look at the progressive left right now. But the fervor with which the Bush people have tried to knock down Rand Paul (and have so far failed at every turn) speaks to how cornered they feel. They wish that everyone would shut up and be scared of Islamists to the point that we forget the follies of their agenda and just blame Obama enough that the Bush Boys over at Commentary get to waltz back into power like nothing’s changed.

There wasn’t supposed to be an articulate voice against the uber-interventionists while Obama was in office. To their eternal chagrin, Rand shows up and starts moving people and changing the debate. No doubt George Will gets some stern emails for having the gall to give Rand a hearing before writing him off based on lame, hysterical arguments such as Yoo’s.

The Democratic Deluge

In today’s Washington Post, Richard Cohen writes:

“As my colleague Dan Balz has pointed out, the past two midterm elections have done to the Democratic Party what World War I did to the French political elite — decimated it. What was lost was not just individual races but the future. Republicans will now control 23 states — the governorship and the legislature — while the Democrats will have just seven. States, in the coinage of Justice Louis Brandeis, are the laboratories of democracy. They’re where both interesting ideas and personalities often come from.”

It wasn’t policy or race or ideology that sank the Democrats at state level. It was attitude. Since things started to go south with Obamacare – still the most consequential policy moving voters to throw out Democrats – the progressive left adopted an ill-advised but wholly of a piece with their worldview posture: the American people are stupid.

The left said we were stupid for not appreciating their awesome economy and all the jobs “saved” by stimulus, Dodd-Frank, and countless regulations on commerce and capital. Never mind that the labor participation rate plummeted while unemployment benefits, food stamps and other dependency programs championed by Democrats were accelerated. Never mind that the ACA rewards business for keeping employees under 40 hrs/week or that environmental zealots at EPA have crushed the coal industry and sent Appalachia into a real depression. Leftists who today insist that Democrats should have run harder on their economic record are implicitly (or explicitly, as in Jonathan Gruber’s case) saying again that Americans are stupid, because they just couldn’t register the great economic gains that would be apparent were they smarter, and therefore the message needs to be crafted to jibe with the simpletons.

But the coup de grace of the Democratic Party’s institutional decimation is indeed the Affordable Care Act, No matter how much New Republic or Vox or Slate you read, Obamacre is still a massive albatross on Democrats and progressivism writ large. And again, for all the tangible policy failure in Obamacare – community rating, IPAB, expansion of Medicaid, mandatory benefits, absence of real choice for doctors and/or coverage – it was the attitude of its proponents that animated such an electoral drubbing. For as soon as Obamacare’s disastrous rollout and corresponding revelation that millions would be losing their plans and doctors as a result confronted the left with a serious dilemma, their solution was to double down on saying “you’re doing it wrong.” That may fly as a meme or clever retort on a message board, but it is not a good course of action to go about telling people directly harmed by a coercive, expansionary new law that what they had before for health insurance was a “crap plan” or that they’re being selfish for objecting to a federal government mandate to purchase insurance.

Throughout the rollout debacle, all anyone on the left spoke about was how confused everyone was, or how they were reacting to “misinformation” or how even if they were being forced into higher premiums and deductibles with fewer choices for networks and doctors, that they should shut up and accept it anyway, as now they will enjoy “better” plans with “first world” coverage and also how can you complain when we’re giving poor people free insurance?

When this all went down I said “if the GOP doesn’t have 55 senators as a result of this single issue next year…” OK, so I was probably off by one. But make no mistake, if the Democrats don’t address their progressive wing, they are going to continue losing, as the progressives know no other way than to continue making it their life’s mission to coerce the whole country into accepting their preferred narrative for how things are. In that endeavor, only one-size-fits-all top-down answers will do, and any talk of federalism or states’ rights is to be shouted out of polite discussion. For progressives, the work of social justice is all too important to be left up to transient whims of voters or to be interfered with by a nostalgia for ancient parchment concerning inalienable rights. Rights are what government gives you as far as the left is concerned, and it follows that if government itself (and not nature as our Founders believed) is the lone arbiter of the dispensation of rights, then it will have to be somewhat authoritarian in its administration of such a huge undertaking.

The lesson of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid era for normal, middle of the road liberals is to reject the nascent authoritarianism found in the nether regions of progressive and academic othodoxy. The bullying attitude that says only progressives are “on the right side of history” suggests therefore that anyone who politically disagrees is on the wrong side of history. Besides the silliness of an argument where one side proclaims its place in something that has not yet been determined (and therefore does not yet exist), the obnoxious arrogance of a political faction claiming to be at the vanguard of good and decency is bound to get under the skin of the opposition. The election results revealed the degree of pushback political movements get when they presume to act like they know what’s best for the rest of us. And there you go. Let’s see if the left learns from this and makes any changes, or will it rationalize away the defeat and return in the New Year with the same level of conceit they’ve exhibited for the last few years?

Forgive me however, for being pessimistic about the party which has of late attempted to repeal the 1st amendment, celebrates speech codes and censorship on campus, says the phrase “trigger warning” without a trace of irony, holds religious freedom in outright contempt, either fundamentally misunderstands or else legitimately despises capitalism and the free market, and believes ultimately in the tyranny of the majority, all in the name of fairness or equality or some other mindless bromide. Based on the evidence, the safe bet is that in no time, the left will be back asserting their superiority over us rubes and telling us in so many words, “we’re smarter than you.”

That kind of attitude and posture is how you end up with a Democratic deluge of defeat on election day. Also, literally calling the American voter “stupid” shouldn’t play very well moving forward. Watch:

 

 

 

The day ‘climate change’ became irrelevant in politics – Powerful Green Lobby Defeated In US Midterm Elections

Watts Up With That?

Republicans Win Control Of US Senate

For Tom Steyer and other environmentalists, $85 million wasn’t enough to help Democrats keep the Senate blue or win more than a single governor’s mansion in Tuesday’s toughest races. The billionaire’s super PAC and other green groups saw the vast majority of their favored candidates in the battleground states go down to defeat, despite spending an unprecedented amount of money to help climate-friendly Democrats in the midterm elections. The outcome brought gloating from Republicans and fossil-fuel supporters even before the results rolled in — and raised questions about whether greens can fulfill their pledge to make climate change a decisive campaign issue in 2016. –Andrew Restuccia, Politico, 5 November 2015

Climate Change: This was one of the dogs that didn’t bark in the 2014 election, even after liberal billionaire Tom Steyer spent an estimated $70 million to promote the issue and a new U.N…

View original post 469 more words