Prominent Conservative Talk Show Host takes Aim at Republican Backers of Trump

Charlie Sykes, a well-regarded conservative radio talk show host in Milwaukee, has used an op-ed piece in the New York Times to take to task fellow members of the right for supporting Donald Trump’s candidacy in the general election.

Leave aside that the leftist Times is an odd podium from which to lecture fellow conservatives; Sykes’ main complaint is that they abandoned principles by supporting the GOP nominee.

It is accurate to say that most Republican conservatives in 2016 were not fans of the New York billionaire, notorious for his reality show and prior support for liberals, including Hillary Clinton, among many other ideological “sins”.

Yet there was a choice to be made.  Of course, the conservative voter or leader was not restricted to a binary selection between the leading party nominees.  One could have voted third party or refused to cast a ballot.  Hillary and Donald were such morally deficient candidates, it’s hard to criticize those who, in effect, chose to abstain.

But criticism of Mr. Sykes for choosing to stand aside does have merit.

 

A thoughtful conservative who wanted his vote to count very well could justify supporting Hillary Clinton based upon her apparent steadiness in foreign affairs in contrast to Donald Trump’s demonstrated lack thereof.  That voter would, indeed, put country over party in the face of Mrs. Clinton’s myriad failings and promises to extend President Obama’s disastrous legacy.

Likewise, a similarly motivated person could reasonably conclude that the course of both domestic and foreign policy under the current administration has been so wrong-headed and left-wing that change is paramount.  Ironically, Trump was the candidate this year who offered “hope and change”.

A banker friend of mine, moderate in both politics and manner, told me post-election that, although he strongly disapproved of Trump’s conduct as a candidate, “America needs change and he was the only change agent we had”.

Charlie Sykes ignores these not too subtle factors in castigating conservative Trump supporters for backing “their side”.  He believed they abandoned principles of “free trade, balanced budgets, character and respect for constitutional rights”.  The talk show host, who played a significant role in defeating Trump’s Wisconsin primary bid, told readers that the conservative abandonment, as he saw it, of such ideas was the result of polarization which caused “essential loyalties to shift from ideas to parties, to tribes, to individuals.  Nothing else ultimately matters”.

That analysis is both over-wrought and largely wrong.

Trump’s supporters constituted a disparate “tribe”.  According to exit polls, eight percent of blacks were in his column as were twenty-eight percent of Hispanics and fifty-eight percent of whites.  Voters for change chose different ideas than those offered by Hillary Clinton; they were not guided by group or tribal loyalty.

It’s unfortunate that Sykes’ castigation of fellow conservatives seems rooted in personal pique.

His article made clear that his feelings were hurt, and he was angered by the reaction of many of his show’s listeners to his Trump apostasy.  After all, his had been a popular voice on the right for many years.

Come on.

 

One doesn’t have to be an intellectual snob to note that the typical talk show listener is hardly sophisticated when it comes to policy and politics.  The audience wants confirmation of its views, not challenges.  Sykes is certainly correct when he reports that the hostility on the right to Hillary Clinton cannot be overstated as a factor in the election.  That such strong feelings generated uncivil conduct toward Sykes in Milwaukee is hardly shocking (plainly, socially coarse mores have invaded the “polite” Midwest as well).

One wishes Charlie Sykes well.  He will leave the airways at year’s end.  Fellow conservatives hope, also, that his fears do not come to pass.  President Trump is owed not loyalty, but vigilance.  Our task is not to show loyalty to Trump but to guide and encourage him to follow conservative principles.  Most importantly, we must insist that President Donald Trump serve and protect America.  

Why Have Liberals Largely Ignored the Anti-American Conduct of an NFL Star?

Several months ago, Colin Kaepernick, a sometimes starting quarterback for the lowly (this season) San Francisco 49ers, received widespread media attention for refusing to stand for the National Anthem.  Kaepernick, a black man raised by a white couple, explained his actions as a rebuke to what he considered American racism. 

The general media’s reaction to his conduct was that while it was disrespectful toward the national flag, it was protected speech.  Mild disapproval was expressed by some – ESPN commentator Stephen A Smith for one – but blunt condemnation from Liberals was non-existent.

Of late, several Democratic politicians have, according to news reports, acknowledged “off the record” that they have withheld criticism of Mr. Kaepernick whose disrespectful conduct has continued throughout the season.  The reason?  Their leftist base would take offense!

Is there anything that can better illustrate the sorry state of today’s Democratic Party?  Leaders are fearful of calling for the symbol of America – “the land of the free and the home of the brave” – to be respected and criticizing a football player who does not since doing so would antagonize fellow liberals.

 

Is it any wonder that a political party unwilling to stand up for Old Glory – the key physical symbol of our national unity – is held in ill repute by a broad swath of Americans?

Identity Politics Survives

One of the major criticisms of political correctness has been the fascination of the liberal media and the left with the race and gender of politicians and others in prominent positions in American society.

Alas, despite the recent election results – even some Democrats have conceded that a “woman” was not defeated; an unlikable, dishonest candidate named Hillary Clinton lost – most of the PC crowd has ignored the message. 

Thus, the reliably liberal Associated Press news service reported that the announced Trump cabinet selections were mostly white males with one black and a few females in the mix.  Obviously, for many, symbols (“diversity”) remain paramount over substance.  Not all Democratic leaders, however, were oblivious to the voters’ anti-pc verdict.  Tim Ryan, a Congressman from Ohio, announced shortly after the election that he would challenge Nancy Pelosi for the House Minority leadership post, noting that the time had come for his party to stop “slicing and dicing” the American electorate into categories of blacks, whites, Hispanics, gays, etc.

 

Although he lost the contest (the two to one margin emphasizes the extent to which the Democratic core is infected by the appeal of “diversity” politics), his point was well taken.

Why should differences on superficial matters among Americans be highlighted at the expense of our common interests and needs?

The right way for Americans to view their fellows is not as members of this or that group or category but, rather, as individuals with particular plusses and minuses, as is the case with all of us.

Of course, The Sensible Conservative recognizes that this is goal not fully shared by those on the Right as well as on the Left.  But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be.

 

Martin Luther King, Jr. said over fifty years ago – no less significant because of its “ancient” origin:  “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

That remains an aspiration worth pursuing for all Americans, Democrats and the Left included.

A Time for Thanksgiving – Visiting the World War II Museum

One hopes that some Americans remember the origins of what we celebrate on the fourth Thursday of each November – the Pilgrims’ survival after landing at Plymouth Rock in 1620.  Their sea voyage from England had been harrowing, and the avoidance of starvation once ashore had been a close call.  But they persevered and gave thanks to God and their Indian neighbors with a feast of gratitude.

Today, however, the holiday is more likely to elicit thoughts of the beginning of the Christmas season, family gatherings and copious food consumption.  I’ll concede that each of these aspects has a positive feature yet none captures the depth of the dangers overcome which generated the intense Thanksgiving of 1621 or after World War II.

Looking back, one is inclined to see America’s survival and successes as fore-ordained.  Wasn’t it meant to be?  Perhaps.  But in each of these historical events (and I’ll include the Civil and Cold Wars), the outcome was not seen then as certain to end well. 

Visit the World War II Museum in New Orleans, as The Sensible Conservative did recently, and you’ll see what I mean.   The facility - part museum, displaying artifacts of European, African and Pacific battles, and part Disney World “you-are-there” immediacy, with visual and sound effects – is the site of a stirring and highly emotional experience.

One cannot walk through – and absorb – the Normandy and Guadalcanal presentations, among others, without appreciating that wars do not follow scripts.  Outcomes can be quite unpredictable.  Actual events can challenge even the strongest faith.

The horrendous losses endured, and inflicted, by American forces in Okinawa (intended to be the last major stepping stone to the invasion of Japan) were recognized as but a fore-taste of what awaited.  [A somber projection at the time:  the US would need two hundred and fifty thousand body bags for its dead if the invasion went forward.]

Some see President Harry Truman’s decision to drop atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as morally questionable.  Visiting the museum makes obvious that there was no other choice.

The end of World War II – and the survival of the Western democracies – generated unmitigated Thanksgiving in November of 1945.  That was a gratitude without reservation

The Return of Racial Labels

In the 1950s and before, it was common for the news media to identify those accused of crimes by race, as in “John Doe, a negro, was arrested yesterday by police”. 

The labeling was certainly meant to be pejorative, at least by some, and left the impression that members of some races were more inclined to criminal activity than others.

With the arrival of the sixties and increased racial sensitivity, the practice largely ceased (at least outside the South), and properly so.  The race of an alleged law-breaker is not relevant; the individual, not his heritage, is responsible for his conduct. 

How ironic, therefore, is it that the liberal media has fixated on the race of individuals when there is a violent confrontation between a police officer who happens to be white and a criminal suspect who happens to be black.  Think of the “wall to wall” media coverage, in print and over the air, of the police shooting in Ferguson, Missouri.  The phrase “a white police officer shot an unarmed black man” was the favored summary of the story.  What exactly did that mean?  The police officer, a white racist, targeted an unarmed man (thus posing no threat) because he was black?

Leave aside the fact that even the Obama Administration – never chary of ascribing racial motivations to opponents’ actions – put the lie to that canard.  Do you read a story about a white police officer named as such shooting a suspect of the same race?  Of course not.  Race is simply not relevant. So why is its relevance presumed in police shooting stories involving different races without any evidence to support it? 

Racial prejudice against blacks was rampant in the 1950s.  Press stereotyping reinforced it.  Are we now in the era of prejudice against whites who are police officers which is reinforced by negative stereotypes by the liberal media?

The bigotry is not only against white law enforcement officers.  Think of Barack Obama’s derisive reference in 2008 to white blue collar workers “clinging to their guns and religion”.  (The 2016 election is a reminder that they did not forget the slander.)

Were we then – and now – to believe that black workers in the same economic status were any less distressed by the loss of employment opportunities?  What did the workers’ race have to do with it? 

And to think that many white Americans were attracted to Barack Obama’s candidacy because they thought his presidency would lessen America’s racial tensions… it resulted in the opposite.  

Shock and Horror on the Left – “Explaining” Trump’s Win

The idea that liberal elites – politicians and media members – live in an insulated bubble is not a myth.  In that restricted space, they are always right.  Those outsiders who do not recognize that are looked down upon, ignored and worse.

No wonder so many on the Left viewed the election results with dismay.  How is it possible that there could be so many wrong-headed, even malevolent, people in America?  To their credit, a few were reflective, noting that they were guilty of group think, like the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein.

But for most, they took no blame for their condescending, arrogant view that was best summoned up during the campaign by the Democratic nominee herself:  half of Trump’s supporters could be “put in a basket of deplorables”. 

For New York advertising executive Donny Deutsch, a frequent on MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough’s program, Trump’s success meant that fear of the status quo was the cause.  [No, it wasn’t fear; it was anger with the disconnect between what Americans wanted – not Obamacare, for instance – and what Washington gave them.]

For others on the Left, the results were illuminating in an oddly comforting way for them.  For instance, Dan Rodericks, a Baltimore Sun columnist, wrote

“The eyes of more Americans are now wide open to just how much racism, sexism and ethnic and religious intolerance remains in this country.”

Such opinions simply reflect the Leftist contempt for a large segment of the American populace:  “there is plainly something wrong with them since they don’t agree with me.”

Such views are so preposterous – and twisted – it’s hard to suppress laughter. 

But, alas, those who refuse to stray from the ideological path are notoriously likely to be blindsided when they intersect with reality.  Some will recognize they should have paid attention; most will simply blame the outsiders for not being on the same road. 

Note:  Along the lines of the biblical proverb that there is nothing new under the sun, consider this: 

It was reported, after the 1968 election in which Richard Nixon prevailed over Hubert Humphrey that a New York City socialite was perplexed by the results.  “I don’t know how Nixon won; none of my friends voted for him.”

It can be shocking, indeed, that there are people who live outside the bubble with different views.  That doesn’t make them unworthy of respect or attention.  And that is why Donald Trump, as vulgar and crude and insensitive as he has been, is President-elect of the United States.

Hobson’s Choice

The Sensible Conservative will vote Republican down the line and leave it at that. 

A Hobson’s choice is defined, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, as “the necessity of accepting one of two or more equally objectionable alternatives”.  

On one hand, the voters are confronted with a choice between a person, by policy endorsements, who is left-wing, and who would come into office with a storm of corruption raining down upon her.  On the other, is an individual who has little acquaintance with what it means to be either Republican or civil. 

One candidate is plainly no good – the other may merely prove to be not quite as bad.

God Bless America.  We surely need Him.

The Worm Turns – Clinton Campaign No Longer FBI Fan

It wasn’t long ago that Hillary’s minions were singing the praises of FBI chief James Comey after he declared that Mrs. Clinton’s email conduct did not warrant criminal prosecution.  In fact, despite the FBI’s conclusion that she had displayed “extreme carelessness”, her supporters proclaimed that the decision not to charge was vindication.

Imagine, then, the shock felt when the worm turned – Comey declared that the Democratic nominee was being investigated once more.  The former glowing reviews of the FBI head were promptly reversed.  It’s amazing to think that a person can possess a high sense of integrity and a keen sense of judgment at one moment and that such attributes will disappear just a few months later.

But maybe the transformation isn’t with the person but rather with the people whose evaluation of the conduct is based not upon it’s propriety but, rather, whether it supports one’s “side”.  And, in fairness, such bias is not confined to the left side of the political divide.

 

Yet the media can usually be counted on to give more prominence to its side of the story.

So why did James Comey announce – a week and a half before election day -  that additional emails were to be examined?

Hillary Clinton and her surrogates pounced on the FBI’s statement as “unprecedented” (and implicitly improper) since the Department of Justice’s protocol bars action involving political candidates within sixty days of the election date.  True.

But last July, events were also unprecedented when the FBI chief decided that the Agency investigation had not uncovered evidence sufficient to charge Mrs. Clinton with a criminal violation regarding her treatment of government secrets.  That was odd since the Justice Department is responsible for making federal prosecution decisions, not the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  Further, Comey explained that, nonetheless, “extreme recklessness” had been displayed by the former secretary of state.

That, too, was peculiar since the relevant U.S. statute includes “gross negligence” as a violation.  (Extreme recklessness does not qualify?)  [See The Sensible Conservative blog of 7/10/16.]

Perhaps the simple answer was that Mr. Comey was trying to right a previous wrong.

Unprecedented?  What part of this election year hasn’t been?

Wikileaks Emails – Receiving Stolen Property

Wikileaks, an apparent conduit for Putin’s Russia, released emails stolen (a blunter, more descriptive term than “hacked”) from prominent Hillary Clinton booster, John Podesta, a former Congressman.

The American press, particularly Fox News outlets, highlighted sections that would reflected poorly on the Democratic nominee.  Should that have happened?

 

Of course, the subject matter was topical but the source was not legitimate.

In a criminal context, receiving known stolen property is a crime.  Correspondence, in electronic form or otherwise, qualifies.

However, for several reasons, media firms publishing purloined material will not be prosecuted.

But the newsworthy nature of the emails and the lack of liability for publishing them is not adequate justification for their dissemination.

To give Wikileaks/Russia what it wants – the distribution of the stolen material – encourages more thievery.

To be sure, supposedly responsible publications (for some) from the conservative Wall Street Journal to the liberal Washington Post will reply that they have no journalistic choice.  Other media will publish the information anyway so there is no harm in their doing so as well.

 

But how about taking a seemingly anachronistic position:  it’s wrong!

Perhaps if media companies re-adopt standards of determining what’s fit to print (and stolen emails do not qualify), change may come.

As an example, information contained in the National Enquirer, however current it may seem, is viewed with suspicion by the general media because of its source.  If a more jaundiced eye were taken by them of Wikileaks releases both as to reliability and propriety, perhaps media in general would be forced to adhere to standards to avoid the shame and ridicule that would accompany irresponsible behavior. 

Alas, The Sensible Conservative, as hard-headed as he wishes to be, must concede that this may be a flight of fancy.  But then, President Obama is not the only one possessing hope and wishing for change.  

Is Trump Part of the Clinton Campaign to Win the White House?

Wait!  That’s not necessarily the fevered question it might seem to be on first impression.  Consider:  Clinton campaign insiders have long known that they had a deeply flawed candidate both in terms of personality and integrity.  The 2016 contest to come was viewed with intense worry, even dread.  According to John Podesta, Clinton campaign chief (in a Wikileaks email), even Senator Ted Cruz, considered the most polarizing and weakest of the prospective GOP contenders, had a 50-50 chance against her.  So what to do?

Enter Donald Trump.  He was a long-time New York Democrat on record in support of various liberal causes and candidates, including Hillary Clinton.

 

Did his leftist friends and acquaintances urge him to run?

Unknown.  But a year or so before announcing his candidacy in June of 2015, the TV reality star registered as a Republican.  The media attention he received up to and through the primary season was extensive and generally friendly with regular appearances on, ironically, Fox News as well as liberal outlets.

Donald Trump, as a result, in a year’s time was catapulted from a fringe, joke candidate into the GOP nomination for president.

 

The Clinton campaign was elated.  And well they should have been.  John Podesta’s fears had been prescient, indeed.

As this blog is being written, Mrs. Clinton holds onto a slim four percent national lead in a Washington Post poll.  This is after several weeks of Trump’s repeated blunders and hostile (surprise!) media coverage.

Is it reasonably conceivable that any serious nominee would be losing to her now?  No.  Hillary Clinton has demonstrated once more America’s intense dislike for her.  Only Donald Trump, even more unpopular, is able to save her.

Did not the Clinton campaign foresee that as well? 

For conspiracy theorists, the basic query remains:  did the Democrats simply “luck out” in running against Trump or was the crude, vulgar billionaire in on it from the start.  Or, to phrase the question another way, is Trump’s dismal campaign performance the result of a compulsive, undisciplined personality or intentional self-destruction?

Liberal Media Goes Crazy Over Foul Trump Audio

The liberal media, led by CNN, has gone crazy in calling on Donald Trump to withdraw because of a disclosure that he had made recorded lewd comments over a decade ago about his relationships with women. 

Shocking?  Maybe for those who previously believed that the billionaire GOP nominee was a polite, well-spoken gentleman who had heretofore been respectful and chivalrous toward members of the fair sex.  [Are there any such people?]  If the audio had been released in 2012 and featured squeaky clean Mitt Romney uttering such things, that would have merited such a reaction.  But Donald?  That seventy year old who acts like a  thirteen year old boy where sexual matters are concerned?  Give me a break…

Do you remember the calls from the Left in 1999 demanding that Bill Clinton step down from the presidency because his sexual activities with an intern disgraced America?  Neither do I.  No, the consistent message from the Democratic Party and its media backers was to draw a distinction between private peccadillos and public misconduct.

Hypocrisy seems an inadequate label.

Liberals, when faced with the email evidence against Hillary Clinton’s  blatant dishonesty and her endangering national security, now find personal character flaws more damning than public misdeeds.

A note on reactions by some Republican leaders:  Unfortunately, some important office holders have been intimidated by the press drumbeat and have backed off previous endorsements of Trump.  Why do some on the right almost instinctively recoil from leftward critics?  Does Hillary deserve the moral high ground?  Yeah, sure.  Weakness emboldens the left and dispirits its foes.

Conservatives are not obligated to defend Donald Trump’s juvenile words and antics.  [The Sensible Conservative finds him to be an appalling individual – a view not exactly recently acquired.]  But given the horrific alternative, it’s certainly appropriate to point out the flaws in that candidate, too.

Did Trump Have Debate Nerves?

Donald Trump’s questionable debate performance appears to have been the result of nervousness.

How else to explain his repeated defensiveness and apparent inability to counter Hillary Clinton’s personal attacks?  Also missing was a sense of humor.

Relying on my many courtroom experiences, I can tell you that nervousness is the foe of relaxation.  When at ease, the speaker’s friend is flexibility.  He can think on his feet and crack a joke.  Tenseness, however, causes one to stick to the script in one’s head.  And if, like Trump, the script is missing, the verbal wandering is aimless. 

So why did the candidate who seemed so comfortable on the debate stage during the primary season have a brain freeze?  Does Donald Trump finally realize that, although his foes may laugh at him, his candidacy is no longer a laughing matter?  He might actually become President of the United States!

A note on media bias:  Pre-debate reviews of moderator Lester Holt were generally favorable, the consensus being that he was a low-key straight-shooter.  The accolades were undeserved.  Trump was the sole target of aggressive questioning.  The GOP nominee was forced to deal with challenges to his prior statements on tax returns, “birther” comments and Iraq (none of which he handled effectively for the reasons noted above).  Hillary?  She was asked to respond to criticisms of her email activities.  She called them simply “a mistake”.  The moderator’s question wasn’t even phrased in a manner which suggested the damning nature of her conduct.

And why have there been no references to the disrespectful act of Hillary Clinton’s repeatedly calling her opponent by his first name?  This was, after all, a debate between the two main presidential contenders.  Of course, they are hardly friends so nothing more than minimal courtesy should have been expected.  Surprisingly, given Trump’s penchant for rude and vulgar speech, he actually said, at the outset, that he would refer to his opponent as “Secretary Clinton” and consistently did so.  Hillary did not reciprocate the courtesy. 

The media either didn’t notice or chose not to recognize that Donald Trump could actually be polite.

What is Criminal Justice?

There is growing evidence that some people possess a “bad” gene which predisposes them toward criminal behavior.  That has ignited discussions among criminologists and the legal community as to whether those people deserve leniency.

Formally, criminal courts, when sentencing someone convicted of a crime, are to consider three factors: the prospect of rehabilitation, the need for deterrence and the punishment for the deed.  Note that only the third factor concerns what would traditionally be a matter of justice – the wrong doer receiving what he “deserves” or in the ancient construct:  an eye for an eye.

A person’s mental disability or deficiency, therefore, would seem to be an appropriate consideration when assessing what the defendant deserves.  After all, the law allows insanity, in the sense of not knowing the difference between right and wrong, to be a complete excuse for a criminal act.

But there is a major problem with that perspective.  Everyone, shy of the insane, comes into the criminal system with some deficiency.  It could be an absence of competent upbringing, addictions, personality defects, etc.  But do any of these absolve the person of all responsibility in the sense of depriving him of free will, at least to some extent? 

If so, no one deserves punishment, deterrence is meaningless since choice would be illusory, and treatment for “antisocial behavior” is the only option.  Welcome to Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. 

If justice does demand individualized consideration, would it be fair – just – to treat a person with all the benefits of intelligence, good education and a happy childhood the same as someone who is lacking in all such advantages?

No.  However, the legal system, as noted above, has more concerns than the delivery of justice. 

Deterrence is more than a term of criminologists.  The objective is to prevent/discourage certain conduct by warning those tempted to engage in it of the cost to be paid for doing so.  Yet the level of the penalty usually involves a calculation of what is fair or just.  Thus, the threatened punishment for speeding (a fine) is usually not the same for car theft (jail).

There’s yet another complication to consider in fashioning an effective deterrent.  How do people react to society’s efforts to discourage conduct since not everyone will act the same?  For some, societal disapproval will suffice; for others the risk of serous jail time is ignored (e.g., “I don’t think about getting caught” or “they’ll never catch me”).

So what about the defendant whose bad genes predispose him to anti-social, criminal conduct?  Justice does indeed require consideration of factors beyond the person’s conscious control.  But the community‘s welfare requires the discouragement of such behavior.  In that sense, a stronger deterrent would be required for the possessor of bad genes than for the person without.  The unafflicted is more likely to be scared away from bad behavior than the individual genetically inclined to engage in it.

In that regard, an effective deterrent (the penalty to be imposed) might need to be harsh (from the perspective of a normal wrong doer) in order to get the attention of the would-be gene-defective person.

Is that justice?  No.  But society is understandably concerned with more.

Would Hillary Be Better Than Donald For America’s Foreign Policy?

There is a sentiment among conservatives skeptical of Donald Trump that as horrible as Hillary would be for domestic leadership, at least she would be more dependable in advancing America’s national interest overseas.

This position has some superficial merit.  Against the GOP nominee’s affection for Russia’s dictator, for instance, Mrs. Clinton is viewed as being decidedly more hawkish than our incumbent president and Trump.  According to Obama Administration insider accounts, including from former Defense Secretaries Robert Gates and Leon Panetta, she argued for the use of military force to advance U.S. interests in Syria and opposed the complete pull-out of American forces from Iraq so dearly desired by President Obama.  On neither of these important matters did she prevail.

Does she deserve credit for trying?  Yes.  But does a “hawkish” perspective while in another chief executive’s administration mean that this would carry over into hers?  That’s a different question.

Hillary Clinton has proven to be very amenable to criticism from the Left.  She responded to the challenge of Bernie Sanders by moving to co-opt his positions.  She has heaped fulsome praise on Barack Obama, including his foreign policy, and pledged to continue his programs (“third Obama Administration”?).

Would Hillary forsake her dovish base in order to allow her “firm, resolute” side, her supposed real self, to come forth?  Maybe.  Certainly her commitment to loyalty –like truth – is a problematic thing.

But the former Secretary of State is not known for political courage.  If she thought – in inner councils – that Barack Obama was wrong on certain significant issues, she obviously neither went public with her concerns nor resigned because she couldn’t carry out policies with which she strenuously disagreed.  To have done so, of course, might have endangered her quest to replace President Obama.  Does that mean she was willing to sacrifice America’s safety for her own ambitions?

Courage would be required in abundance to confront the onslaught that would befall President Clinton from the Left and its media handmaidens if she were to reassert America’s authority in the world.  A skeptic is justified in doubting that she would display it.

Readily understandable antipathy towards Donald Trump generates a hope that maybe Hillary Clinton won’t be as bad for America’s standing in the world.  That appears to be a hope grounded in wishful thinking. 

Hillary Acts to Shore up Trump’s GOP Support

Maybe Hillary Clinton really doesn’t want to become President. 

Consider this.  Many otherwise stalwart Republican voters, The Sensible Conservative included, have been distressed by Donald Trump’s evident ignorance of foreign affairs and his peculiar fascination with Russian strongman Vladimir Putin.  That has caused some on the Right to wonder if the Democratic nominee, even with all the deserved hostility she generates, might actually be the lesser of two evils for America.

The number of conservatives entertaining such thoughts, thanks to Hillary, has been sharply reduced in recent days.

[But last week’s announcement that eighty-eight retired generals and admirals support Trump does reassure some skeptics that maybe the New York businessman won’t be so dangerous for the U.S. after all.]

First, she declared that no additional U.S. troops would be used to fight ISIS, America’s mortal enemy.  That sounded like Barack Obama’s promise to remove all American soldiers from Iraq regardless of the consequences for our national interest.

Second, and even more damaging, she characterized half of Trump’s supporters [who are primarily Republicans, of course] as being a “basket of deplorables” because, in her view, they are afflicted with a variety of phobias (against homosexuals, Muslims, etc.).

Why else would this intelligent, calculating person say such foolish and insulting things? 

The effect could hardly have been unexpected.  Hillary’s words are driving people to Trump’s standard.  Maybe he – not she – is the lesser of two evils.

On a broader note, her comments illuminate a fact long noted by conservative commentators.  The Left does not respect disagreement with its political views.  If you think your stance on any issue is indisputable for any well-meaning, good and intelligent person, then for someone else to oppose it, that means that person lacks those positive traits.  In short, that individual is bad and/or stupid.

 

The appeal of such a world view must be terribly appealing.  Who doesn’t like to feel superior to others?  That attitude certainly underlies the arrogance and intellectual intolerance so often displayed by the Left.  The “Hillary Clintons” of the world are so enlightened that it can be impossible for them, apparently, to conceal their contempt for the multitude of Americans who are not.

Defending the Indefensible – Clinton Surrogates in Action

The plight of Hillary Clinton’s “email conduct” defenders brings to mind my efforts as a criminal defense attorney obligated to support a defendant at sentencing by “putting lipstick on the pig”.  The effort has to be made but one certainly doesn’t expect it to be effective.  Some examples:         

Over the Labor Day weekend, Vice Presidential nominee Tim Kaine said Hillary Clinton’s failure to recognize that her emails, sent and received, contained “classified” (secret) information was understandable.  “I know,” the Virginia Senator remarked, “from my experiences on Capitol Hill seeing much classified material that it can be hard to distinguish between what is and what isn’t”.

Of course.  But the Democratic candidate for President told the FBI that emails dealing with prospective drone targeting of terrorists in Afghanistan didn’t raise security concerns because, although they were marked with a “(C)”, she thought that that was simply a paragraph indicator.  Oh, my!  Didn’t the content suggest something else?  [In actuality, it meant “classified”].

Nice try, Senator Kaine, a fellow attorney, but the lipstick is already smeared.

 

On the same day, former Obama Administration official Tom Perez came to Mrs. Clinton’s defense by observing that security classifications were sometimes incorrectly made.

Ok.  So if it’s possible that Hillary Clinton might be telling the truth sometimes, does that mean she’s not a liar?  And to use another analogy, if I can show you that a person is involved in ten events “generating smoke” and that in one of those occasions there was actually no fire, that’s proof that there’s no fire involved in the others, either.  Right?  Sure… 

The lipstick is no longer visible on the poor pig.

The Responsibility of Trump Voters

It is absolutely true that Republican Party leaders paved the way for Donald Trump by failing to grasp and attend to the great unhappiness of a broad swath of the GOP electorate.  Principally, many felt they had been betrayed by leadership promises that the party take-over of the House and Senate in 2010 and 2014 would bring conservative change to Washington.  It did not.  So the “led” disowned the leadership. 

Donald Trump has been chosen to fill the void.

The GOP nominee is a crude, crass man whose Republican credentials are highly suspect and who seems incapable of delivering a consistent, coherent message unless glued to a teleprompter.

For that circumstance, GOP voters also are to blame.  Yes, the conservative rage is understandable – the failure of leadership to explain why change appeared not to have occurred – and there are good reasons -  is inexcusable.  Yet anger does not excuse irresponsibility.

Rage and anger usually subside when emotions cool, and common sense comes to the fore.

Like many other observers, The Sensible Conservative assumed that such a process would assert itself long before the primary season was over.  It seemed inconceivable that Donald Trump, so prone to calling others names and obviously uninformed on public policy matters, would be deemed an appropriate nominee for the Republican Party.

 

I was wrong.

One can explain what happened by noting that GOP voters are so disgusted with Washington that they simply wanted change and didn’t care who brought it about.  That lack of concern of what policy that change agent would follow or character he would display is illustrated by reports that some Sanders’ supporters have switched to Trump and that if Trump had not prevailed many of his backers would have gone over to the socialist senator.

But that is irresponsible.  In a democracy, the citizens choose their leaders.  They have a duty to do so with care. 

Having an extended temper tantrum will not do. 

Did not the children following the Pied Piper over the cliff bear responsibility for their fate? 

History Ignored – the Undying Appeal of Socialism

Why, why, why... does socialism still attract supporters?  How come there’s not a widely-supported presidential candidate pushing mercantilism or a barter system for the American economy?  Certainly the latter two were outdated centuries ago and the first one has been a consistent failure across millennia.

But it’s news to some that socialist Venezuela is in financial crisis with inflation sky high and widespread shortages of consumer necessities.  And yet, young Americans by the millions have been attracted to Sen. Bernie Sanders, a proclaimed socialist.

In its essence, socialism demands equality of results.  By contrast, the free enterprise system (capitalism) offers equal opportunity.  Karl Marx, in the Communist Manifesto, put the socialist position quite succinctly:  From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

 

There is an understandable appeal to this prescription.  After all, that sounds so nice… but it’s not consistent with human nature.  Where is the incentive for those with “ability” to use it for the benefit of those in “need”?  Of course, in some perfect world (like Utopia) people would act as socialists would want – sort of like “one for all and all for one”.  This hope has guided cooperative communities and kibbutzim around the world.  But they uniformly fail.  Human nature is the reason. 

Some participants may be altruistic for a while, giving without getting, for the good of the community.  However, others will certainly do more taking than giving, generating resentment from others.  Thus the idealism which was the motivating factor in the initial organization of the group begins to weaken as the result of jealousy, anger, laziness and myriad negative aspects of human nature.

So what happens?  Seemingly, nobody works hard without appropriate rewards.  The economy falters.  There is an equality that comes to pass – poverty is shared by all.  This is the reality of socialism.  With this perspective, the late Bernie-mania doesn’t seem so amusing.

Note:  There is a common tendency on the right to treat Marx’s economic prescriptions set forth in his tome “Das Kapital” as inseparable from doctrines of the twentieth century’s Marxist/Leninist/totalitarian/communist states.  That is a distortion.  Marx envisioned that inevitably communism would supplant all other economic systems as a matter of historical certainty. Lenin realized that people must be compelled or killed to bring about a system contrary to their self-interest.  Marx was naïve.  Lenin and his ideological heirs were not. 

Dropping Judicial Robes -- Justice Ginsburg Bares Her Political Views

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently announced her disapproval of Donald Trump, generating strong criticism from both conservatives and liberals.  Both sides were being disingenuous. 

 

Justice Ginsburg, on the High Court since 1993, has consistently been on the left side of the bench.  Did anyone really think that, in her secret heart, she was a conservative masquerading as a liberal?  

Her candor, in an interview with the New York Times, was expanded a few days later when she expressed her opinion on further decisions she hoped the Supreme Court would issue.  That only intensified the criticism, causing the Justice to apologize for revealing her views on policy matters as well as electoral preferences.     

Honesty is usually heralded -- but not when it undercuts a favorite myth.

Judges, from the municipal level to the U.S. Supreme Court, take an oath to be fair and impartial in the performance of their judicial duties.  They are not obligated to erase from their minds previously-held political views or biases.  But the myth is that they keep such opinions locked away when acting as judges.

As a practical matter, politics and policies are rarely involved in what most judges do.  Accordingly, judges are generally impartial in the matters before them since they have no stake (moral or political) in the outcome.  The questions usually to be decided deal with whether a party met its "burden of proof" and whether existing law is being properly applied.  

The U.S. Supreme Court, however, is on a different level.  Of course, it also deals with the mundane, non-controversial areas of legal interpretation.  But policy disputes involving different political and social perspectives are common.  How the U.S. Constitution is "understood" determines outcomes.  The political perspective of a Justice is usually a more accurate predictor of his or her vote than is sound legal reasoning.

A cynic would say that most policy disputes are resolved by choosing one side and casting about for the most persuasive arguments available to support the decision already made.  It is hard to believe otherwise, for instance, in the case of Chief Justice Roberts upholding Obamacare, or the Court's "discovery" of the right to abortion (Roe v Wade) nowhere mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

Yet the legal community strives mightily to uphold the illusion of impartiality in all judicial activities.  Justice Ginsburg, shall we say, has not been supportive of those endeavors.

It's really not so much the biases she possesses.  It's rather that she'd disclose them.  An "appearance" of impropriety is almost as serious as actual prejudice.  

Why is that considered to be important?  Because from a societal perspective, it is essential that the public believes that American courts offer justice.  Cynicism is not conducive to social cohesion.

Justice would be viewed as a sham concept if judges are seen as merely hiding their biases and prejudices like the Wizard of Oz concealed by a curtain.

Why the Term “Radical Islamic Terrorism” Matters

The president was quite emotional recently – something he rarely displays – talking about why using the phrase is not a good idea.  First, Obama noted, it doesn’t matter what one calls terrorist enemies – they are targeted for death regardless of the label affixed to them.  Second, he insisted, calling the foe “radical Islamists” is viewed by the world as indicting an entire religion and offends erstwhile allies who consider themselves “moderate Muslims”.

The first contention is superficially true.  But failing to specify the nature of the enemy confuses would-be allies abroad and, more importantly, the American public.  Whom, after all, are we fighting?  That confusion, understandably, saps support for the effort.  If the President’s view is muddled, how can Americans be expected to fully support a battle against unnamed opponents?

It is an axiom of warfare that knowing one’s enemy is critical to defeating it.  In this case, the foe is guided by a radical ideology rooted in ancient Muslim thought.  Its aim is to kill or intimidate those everywhere who are perceived to stand in the way of the establishment of a world-wide caliphate.  Our enemy is not some amorphous non-creed which engages in random, pointless slaughter.

 

Secondly, it is silly – and insulting to non-radical followers of Islam – to suggest that “the world” cannot – and does not – distinguish between an attack on Radical Islamist Terrorism and the Muslim religion practiced by most believers.  Of course, they do.  Interestingly, President Obama’s failure to make the distinction might even feed the perception - certainly held by some already – that the Muslim faith is the enemy.  Why else won’t America’s top leader single out a segment of self-identified Islamist believers and instead leave the impression that the religion’s entire flock is responsible?

Note:  Another source of confusion is the name of the most prominent proponent of radical Islam.  Is it ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria), as most commentators term it, or is it ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) as the Administration insists on calling it?

Why does the White House (including the president) refuse to use the more common label?  For the casual observer, the impression is left that there are two separate terror groups.  Are they both enemies?  Is the White House targeting one but not the other?

The Democratic Convention, Briefly Noted

The hope of Hillary Clinton that the recent Philadelphia gathering would lead to a kinder, more trusting view of her by the American public will soon be dashed by opinion polls.

 The Democratic nominee, on convention eve, was viewed as dishonest and untrustworthy by two-thirds of all voters. There may well be a blip downward post-convention, but such effects rarely last and certainly will not for her.

 Hillary Clinton's character defects are too well known and are embedded in the public's consciousness.

 It's not as if Americans don't know who she is. Her reputation preceded her to Philadelphia.

Reflections on the GOP Convention

Beating a Dead Horse:

The “Never Trump” crowd led by The Weekly Standard’s editor Bill Kristol failed miserably in its efforts.  The Sensible Conservative doesn’t fault the try but it is important to note when it’s pointless.  Kristol has a hard time coming to grips with that fact.  He and his magazine still highlight the nominee’s shortcomings.  The Weekly Standard, hardly a fan of Hillary Clinton, now seems more interested in stressing Trump’s negatives than those of his opponent. 

Bill Crystal, normally a very hard-headed conservative, has promoted the idea that the November choice is not just between Donald and Hillary – one’s conscience can compel not voting for either.  But a “no-vote” is not on the ballot.  It is indeed a binary choice, as House Speaker Paul Ryan put it.

There will, indeed, be a new president chosen on Nov. 8.  Shouldn’t conservatives play a role in the selection?  The two actual choices are not of equal merit.  The Sensible Conservative is certainly not suggesting that making the choice is easy.  Mrs. Clinton will be a domestic disaster; it’s hard to envision Mr. Trump as bad in that area.  But he’d likely be more dangerous for American interests overseas. 

So who is the lesser of the two evils?  One or the other.  Choose.

Ted Cruz – the Announcement of His Death is Premature:

Ted Cruz’s failure to endorse Donald Trump for president at the GOP convention caused considerable consternation among Conservative commentators and Republican-oriented news outlets.  The consensus view was that his perceived lack of grace deeply damaged – even fatally – his political prospects.

Charles Krauthammer, the well-regarded columnist, labeled Cruz’s non endorsement speech in Cleveland as “slow political suicide”.

Don’t be so sure.

If Trump loses in November, Cruz’s position will have been vindicated and his stature burnished.  “He, not Trump” should have been the nominee.

If Trump wins, who knows?  Ted Cruz will still be a United States Senator and his support will be needed by the new White House occupant.

 

For perspective, consider what has happened to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.  In 2012, he bear-hugged Barack Obama a few days before the November election and later snubbed Republican nominee Mitt Romney who had wanted him to attend an election eve rally in Philadelphia.  As a result, Republican regulars were furious with the New Jersey governor and laid some blame for Romney’s loss at his doorstep. 

Yet, four years later, in the wake of a failed presidential bid of his own, Christie was on the short list to be selected as the Vice Presidential nominee.  In fact, Chris Christie has emerged as a key supporter of, and advisor to, this year’s Republican standard bearer!