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!

America and Tribalism

Why is it that when a police officer in Minnesota kills a local black man during a traffic stop, anti-police protest marches spring-up in distant places such as New York City and Philadelphia?  And tragically, individual law enforcement personnel are later shot in other way-off locals. 

What is the connection?

 

The apparent answer is that many blacks view cops – no matter their race or location – as “them” – the enemy.  It’s as if the police across the country constitute a standard unit, united in their attitudes and conduct so that the actions of one or a few represent the whole.  Police are seen as a tribe.  Thus, all members are complicit in – responsible for – the actions of any.

Of course the term “tribe” is usually applied to a collection of people united by shared family and ethnic ties and constitute a unit both political and social.  The group, not its members, is paramount.

Gangs function like that.  An attack against a member of one is avenged by an assault on a member of the other group.  The particular target of revenge isn’t the individual member who made the initial attack.  Seeking him out is actually not at all necessary.  Any member of the opposing group will do.  After all, the entire tribe is culpable for the actions of any part of it.

Gangs, clans and tribes, they all pretty much act the same way.  And that used to be what most Americans uniformly resisted and rejected.

America stood – once upon a time – for individual rights and responsibilities and against group identification.

Of course, there have always been contrary currents.  The “Hatfields and McCoys” are more than a flippant example.  But tribal views were disfavored by the broad public.  They represented something that simply wasn’t consistent with American ideals.

That is no longer so. 

Now, large numbers of Americans focus on membership in ethnic and racial groups.  “Diversity” has come to mean group representation.  Every tribe is seemingly entitled to a proportional presence in any setting deemed important, from university faculties to political bodies.  In many respects, one’s tribal identification in modern American society has become more important than one’s individual merit.

Think of all the well-intentioned efforts in recent decades to promote racial and ethnic diversity, from affirmative action to university racial quotas.  These programs have facilitated and encouraged the rise of tribalism in America. 

The slayings of Dallas police offices dramatically illustrated how very corrosive for America tribalism can be.

Why Did the FBI Director Promote a Restrictive Reading of Federal Criminal Law?

FBI Director James Comey last week “indicted” the conduct of Hillary Clinton pertaining to her “extremely careless” treatment of national secrets.  But he recommended against the filing of criminal charges, citing the absence of intent as the reason.  Unsurprisingly, Attorney General Loretta Lynch quickly concurred.  Was this a legally appropriate decision?

 

The applicable federal statute is recited below:

Whoever, being entrusted or having lawful possession of any documents… relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer – Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

I know that wasn’t an easy read.  But, note that “gross negligence” and knowledge (intent to bring about a risk to national defense) are alternate methods of violating this criminal law.

The FBI head claimed that since the Bureau’s investigation did not find evidence of intent, it was inappropriate to proceed further against Hillary Clinton.  He observed that, as a matter of usage, federal prosecutors brought charges with reference to this statute only if intent was provable.  The existence of “gross negligence” as an alternate basis was ignored.

His facts are simply wrong.  Critics have already noted that only a year ago, a naval reservist was convicted of violating the same statute without any allegation of wrongful intent. 

As an experienced defense attorney, I can tell you that the plain reality of criminal prosecutions is that the law is often expansively read – even stretched – to encompass targets (think of the spurious charges leveled against the Baltimore City police officers currently in court).

Thus, the practical effect of Director Comey’s decision was to suggest that even if there were legal grounds for charging Hillary Clinton, such should not be done.  Why did he take that position?  It is too simple to say that the FBI was merely doing the White House’s bidding.   James Comey, after all, was appointed to the Department of Justice as a Deputy Attorney General by President George W. Bush (but he was also given the FBI post by President Obama).

While it is certainly plausible that he was following the wishes of his political superiors, it also makes sense that Comey simply didn’t want to subject a presumptive presidential nominee, regardless of party, to criminal prosecution despite what evidence could be marshalled for it.

If one were to credit James Comey’s good faith, one would say that he was acting in what he thought was the nation’s best interest alone.

Ample skepticism, I’ll acknowledge, is understandable.

The Meaning of July 4

Of course, it’s America’s Independence Day - the date on the calendar in 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was proclaimed (actually signed by members of the Second Continental Congress on July 2) to the public of the thirteen colonies, separated from Great Britain.

It was, to put it mildly, a monumental occasion.  Two hundred and forty years ago, it was also a fearsome event.  While today, as then, we celebrate the event with fireworks and pride, it wasn’t viewed with unalloyed joy in 1776.  The Declaration, after all, was directed against the most powerful country in the world. 

The sober-minded among the signers clearly knew the consequences of failure and did not conceal their awareness.

Thus the Declaration closes with this courageous yet foreboding sentence:

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the   protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other           our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

Does America – do Americans – still have the gumption to risk all for our liberty and way of life?