Sex and Civilization

Human nature has many components but it’s safe to say that the drive to reproduce is easily the strongest.  That, of course, only makes sense.  Without it, the human species would not have survived after the creation of Adam and Eve.

Yet like every trait, it has its negative as well as positive aspects.  Ancient civilizations – to modern have struggled to control its excesses and confine its exercise to positive ends defined usually as serving the needs of children with in a family structure… monogamous in the Western world.

But, historically, civilizing sexual relations has hardly met with unmitigated success.  Still, broad swaths of mankind have followed the restraints imposed by their particular societies; those resisting generally were ostracized (at least publicly).

So now it’s 2017 in America and it seems as though the dam of restraints on sexual misconduct has collapsed as the River of Improprieties carrying Harvey Weinstein, Al Franken, Roy Moore, etc. cascades down a ravine.

What happened?  Has such conduct (ranging from verbal harassment to serious non-consensual sexual contact) simply been present to the same extent as it always has but now is receiving more publicity?  Certainly the prominent allegations concern not recent activities, but go back a decade or more.

Nonetheless, it’s worth noting – perhaps persuasively so – that the weakened civilizing aspects of our society pertaining to sexual mores may bear some, if not the bulk of, responsibility.

Let me be blunt – it is the male – far more than the female – who is inclined to take advantage of the opposite sex.  Thus, it is the male who has felt the societal restraints most keenly. 

Without doubt, restraints have loosened in recent decades.

                   *** Extra marital sex has exploded.

*** Marriage rates, formally the only acceptable setting for sexual relations, have declined dramatically as often temporary co-habitation arrangements are on the increase.

*** Birth control pills have removed concerns over unwanted pregnancies, making many more willing participants in what used to be termed illicit sex.

*** The popular view that women are on the same sexual plane is now making females more vulnerable to men who, by nature, are more aggressive.

And we wonder that men – some, at least – are out of control?

Does the phrase “unintended consequences” come to mind?

 

Fox News Displays Shortcomings on Steinle Verdict Coverage

Several key Fox News personalities (Sean Hannity and Laura Ingram, among others) castigated the San Francisco jury for its acquittal of an illegal alien on murder charges.

In 2015, a young woman Kate Steinle, was shot and killed while walking along a tourist area beside the Bay.  The gun was fired by convicted felon Jose Zarate who had previously been deported from the United States five separate times. 

The Fox News commentators generally went ballistic, incredulous that the shooter hadn’t been convicted of murder (although he was convicted of illegal gun possession).  Motives for the verdict were attributed to left-wing bias, San Francisco’s “sanctuary city bias”, and sending a message of  disapproval to President Trump re his immigration policies. 

What wasn’t credited was the possibility that the jury had “reasonable doubt” as to the killer’s intent when the trigger was pulled.  That consideration is, after all, at the heart of America’s criminal justice system.  The prosecution has the burden of proof that there is no “reasonable doubt”.  If there is, the law mandates acquittal.  That’s the consequence of the legal principle that the defendant is presumed innocent unless evidence is presented which meets this level of proof.  That is the American way.

The defense was that the killing was accidental.  There was no intent to shoot the gun.  Certainly, there was no evidence of a motive, such as robbery,

Yet the conservatives’ condemnation stressed that a “bad person” who should not have been in the U.S. escaped justice.  The “sanctuary city” policy of San Francisco was responsible along with the jury.

But that view blurs a critical distinction.  Although San Francisco bears responsibility for the fact that the killing occurred (Zarate should have been in Federal custody beforehand), the defendant had the right to a trial with all the safeguards our system of justice requires.  It is certainly appropriate to blame San Francisco policies for the Steinle death.  But that doesn’t mean that her killer, even as a convicted felon with a horrible immigration record, should have been convicted of murder (requiring either intent or recklessness).

The Fox News personnel should have known better.  Some were lawyers by education who certainly did.
It would appear that for Fox News, in this instance, scoring political points mattered more than intellectual honesty.  (Or maybe the analyses were simply sloppy or ill-informed.  That’s hardly complimentary, either.)

The shame is that for fellow conservatives like me, Fox News displayed hypocrisy by engaging in distortions for which liberal outlets are rightly attacked.

That  exposes us to the criticism that “our” media is no more reliable than “theirs”.

 

Making Sense of Donald Trump

It’s really not hard to do if one accepts the view that the character and personality of a person are set early in life – with rare exceptions (Saul on the road to Damascus two millennia ago is one of those).

Donald Trump comes from New York City.  For nearly seventy years, his identity was anchored there.  His friends were Wall Street and fellow real estate tycoons.  His personality demanded recognition of his importance and success in the environment.  In that heavily liberal town, he sought favor by contributing to those politicians who held sway and were perceived to be possible instruments of his ever greater quest for success.  Thus, the likes of Hillary Clinton on down became beneficiaries of his largess.  And, of course, he publically cast his lot with the Democratic Party.

But don’t misunderstand.  Mr. Trump is no liberal.  In fact, he’s apolitical.  If his center of activity were in conservative Dallas, instead of New York City, it’s doubtful that Hillary Clinton would have received so much as a dime.

After all, the President makes clear that what he wants, above all else, is to “win”.  What he wins is not the objective.  He simply wants to be on the “winning side” of whatever conflict there might be and bask in the applause that accompanies the victor.

Thus he’s glad as can be that, a few days ago, the U.S. Senate passed the tax reform bill he endorsed.

But don’t forget that last summer he sang a very different tune when repeal of Obamacare failed.  That caused the President to lose faith in the GOP majority Congress’s ability to win for him.  So he reached an accord with Democratic Congressional leaders “Chuck (Schumer) and Nancy (Pelosi)”.  (Trump took no time in referring to his new allies by their first names.)

Their agreement was to extend the debt limit for only three months and authorized hurricane aid. 

Republican Congressional leaders were aghast.  They wanted an eighteen month respite, which would be after next year’s elections, before having to deal with the troublesome issue.  Further,  Republicans were also highly displeased that Trump made his decision without first consulting GOP leadership on Capitol Hill.

Sorry.  The choice of Trump’s new partners should not have been shocking.  The nearly life-long Democrat wasn’t exactly being disloyal to his new party.  His conduct pre - and post election has made clear his lack of allegiance to traditional GOP members and their politics.  Rather, his conduct and words going back decades suggests a sense of loyalty limited to himself.

Certain Trump apologists prominent in the Conservative movement (such as Newt Gingrich and Laura Ingram) have excused his pact with Democratic Party leaders as an isolated act generated by special concerns, hence not to be repeated.

To The Sensible Conservative, that line of thought places wishful thinking ahead of sensibility.  Remember, Trump’s history makes clear that “winning” is his end-all, be-all.  Ultimately his answers to questions of public policy are confined to a single consideration - which side will win.  He’ll be on it.  Considerations of the best policy, ideological consistency or loyalty are irrelevant.

 

Do Sexual Harassment Offenses Merit Pariah Status?

Deserved or not, charges of sexual harassment have recently sunk the reputations and careers of well-known American personalities from Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly to Hollywood titan Harvey Weinstein to prominent TV host and anchor Charlie Rose.  Even the long ago many allegations of sexual misconduct by Bill Clinton are getting a fresh and sympathetic reconsideration by segments of the American public which previously dismissed the charges as mere political assaults engendered by “the right wing conspiracy”. 

But does the nearly universal condemnation of those accused constitute an over-reaction and, in some instances, an outright injustice?

Leave aside the reasonable assumption that not all of the allegations are true or are without exaggeration or embellishment.

“Sexual harassment” has been used in the media as if the term encompassed non-contact sexual conduct (e.g. solicitation and comments) as well as indecent exposure (open bathrobe) and forced sex (fondling and rape).

That is not correct.  The first activity is rude, boorish and ill-mannered.  The latter two are much more.  They are crimes everywhere.

Thus Weinstein - notorious among the movie set for his serious sexual peccadillos is forced out of his company, while Rose –accused of placing an unwanted hand on a young woman’s upper leg – is terminated by various employers.

Was the response appropriate?  Did Rose deserve the same treatment as Weinstein? 

These questions are posed without the slightest intention of belittling the offensiveness and seriousness of the presumed or admitted conduct.  But one gets the sense that some commentators believe perpetrators have, by their conduct, forfeited their previous status as respected members of society for their positive contributions.

This is not a question of political perspective.  Unlike the Bill Clinton era when liberal orientation earned a pass from the media, the targets span the ideological spectrum from Bill O’Reilly and Roger Ailes to Alex Baldwin and Harvey Weinstein.

Is the “sin” of sexual harassment of such magnitude that it overwhelms the accomplishments of one’s life thereafter?  Is the stain so penetrating that it obliterates now and henceforth recognition of positive efforts?  Note that I am not referring to criminal behavior.

[Some view, in like mind, a positive view of slavery two hundred years ago as unpardonable and is the sole basis for judging a person’s worthiness – hence one hears calls by a few to tear down monuments to certain of the nation’s founders.]

A case in point:  Kevin Spacey has long been viewed as an outstanding actor (most recently as the lead in the popular House of Cards series), yet he has also admitted to “inappropriate contact” with an underage male.  The immediate response was the cancellation of his future appearances on the program.  Why?

What did one have to do with the other?  Was there hypocrisy indeed in Spacey with his now tarnished character, playing the role in the series as an upright, moral President of the United States?  Hardly.

Spacey’s “Frank Underwood” is a thoroughly venal, amoral chief executive who embodies seemingly only the worst character traits.

Yet now, Spacey and other accused miscreants are to be “cast out” in the Biblical sense as lepers – as pariahs.  Maybe Spacey’s actions, if criminal,  warrant that.  But what of non-criminal harassers?

“Overreaction” seems too mild a description for what is happening.

 

 

Moral Preening Versus Political Effectiveness

The liberal media, of late, has been flowing with effusive commendations for Senators Jeff Flake, of Arizona, and Bob Corker, of Tennessee, because they have been highly critical in public of President Donald Trump. 

Both Senators, neither of whom is running for re-election, termed the incumbent President, in so many words, to be unfit to serve as the nation’s chief executive. 

Whether such assessments are correct, from a political perspective, are irrelevant. 

Such comments would have had relevance prior to President Trump’s election last year but not now. 

For a serious politician, who intends to serve policy objectives as opposed to ego gratification as a priority, actions and words are intended to serve the desired end.  [I readily recognize that, for one to be in politics, ego gratification is certainly a motivation but the serious politician recognizes the fleeting nature of such satisfaction and focuses on the public policy matters that motivated him to get involved in politics in the first place.]  Thus, the fair question to ask of Senators Flake, Corker and others who have voiced similar sentiments against the president is what do they think they are accomplishing? 

The Sensible Conservative suggests that their opinions as to the President’s fitness are best unsaid.  Last year’s election, by the people of the United States, placed upon Donald Trump the label of “fit to serve”.  Some critics have cited the 25^th Amendment to the Constitution as providing authority for the President’s removal.  Reliance on that Amendment would require a determination that the President is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of this office”.  Inability to perform is hardly the same as fitness to serve.  In any case, given the fact that the amendment requires the approval of a “majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such body as Congress may by law provide”, that is realistically impossible, given the current composition of Congress.  

As for those who suggest the even more extreme measure of impeachment, “unfitness” does not fall within the standard of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”. 

Thus, the sharp criticisms made by the Flakes and Corkers of the Republican Party would seem to serve no political purpose.  In fact, they may further harm America’s standing in the world.  To be sure, Donald Trump has a way of saying things that make the President  seem to be petty and nasty when confronted with criticism.  To that extent, at least, the President is contributing to the negative opinion held of him by many fellow Americans as well as those outside the country.  But there is no benefit for America to be served by Jeff Flake and Bob Corker, etc., contributing to the negative opinion already held of the President.  They are simply making the President’s job even more difficult than it already is due to the President’s own missteps. 

Thus, it is very difficult to justify the conduct of Jeff Flake and Bob Corker as serving any appropriate purpose.

Unless they were unaware that their conduct would have no positive impact on the situation they lament, the sole explanation for the attacks on President Trump is moral self-righteousness.  Such preening does indeed attract plaudits from the left but that’s hardly justification for their public statements.  [The same might be said for George H.W. Bush’s quoted comment that Donald Trump is a “blowhard” but the 41^st President has not been in a position to influence American politics for decades.]

In sum, to criticize the President publicly for his perceived inadequacies is a foolish thing to do.  Donald Trump craves, plainly, adulation.  To influence the President in a positive way would seem to mean that GOP politicians should focus on his positive actions and ignore those that aren’t going to be changed by attacks and criticism.  A pat on the head and a few complimentary words will go a long way in encouraging Donald Trump to make the right decisions for the country.

Back in the Saddle – More on the Meaning of Statues

 Unfortunately, The Sensible Conservative fell off his horse several weeks ago and has spent the last few weeks recuperating.  As this posting shows, I’m back in the saddle.

                                       *                  *                  *

In the interim, I note that the controversy over the presence of statues of prominent Americans who possessed flaws (namely they owned and/or supported slavery at some point in their lives) continues. 

Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice weighed in on the question by observing that erasing symbols of America’s past would be counter-productive because their removal would eliminate reminders of American History that should not be repeated. 

Although Ms. Rice has a point, she misses the greater significance of memorials which can sometimes be more than historical notes. 

The Washington Monument  and the Jefferson Memorial are more than merely outdoor displays of museum items having no current significance. 

In fact, such physical reminders should reflect our present day respect for past deeds and current values  such as the establishment of this exceptional country (arguably without George Washington as our military leader and first president, the United States , itself would never have come into being) and Thomas Jefferson’s memory today still speaks of American values like freedom and the rights of man. 

By viewing these memorials in such a fashion, one is focusing on the reasons for their presence:  the positive aspects that they represent.  Statuary is not meant to glorify the subjects as perfect human beings.

If perfection were the litmus test that each memorial must satisfy, it goes without saying, none would exist. 

In that respect, it’s ridiculous to suggest that the visual recognitions of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ulysses S. Grant etc. were put up in honor of their deficiencies, whatever they might have been.  Such memorials, if you will, were constructed despite those deficiencies, not because of them. 

To think otherwise is to suggest, for instance, that the national holiday for Martin Luther King and the innumerable displays  of recognition are to honor  him for his many instances of adulterous behavior instead of his substantial contributions to the non-violent Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 60s.  (Likewise, the same might be said about John F. Kennedy, another notorious philanderer.)

Simply put, the Washington Monument honors the Father of our country, not the Mt. Vernon slave owner. 

The National Anthem and Professional Football

 

For most Americans, the national anthem (“land of the free and the home of the brave”) is a symbol of values which unite us all.

Thus, when sizeable numbers of professional football players use an opportunity to, figuratively, turn their backs on the national anthem, the outrage generated was to be expected. 

The reaction was made even more intense by the sight of Baltimore Ravens’ and Jacksonville Jaguars’ players at a London stadium for a game “take a knee” on the sidelines during the playing of the Star Spangled Banner.  But they stood for God Save the Queen.  [Did the players mean to display respect for Great Britain but not for their own country?]

For most critics of the athletes, their conduct was seen as an attack on America itself.  Why display disrespect for a national symbol because of (unjustified) ire over police assaults directed against African Americans as trumpeted by Black Lives Matter and their media sympathizers?  [Google the subject; FBI statistics show it is a myth.]

Why protest those perceived injustices by showing contempt for the nation itself?  Most Americans condemned the players’ conduct according to a CNN poll.  Yet only 12% of black respondents felt that way.  Perceptions were obviously quite different.  Why?

Do most black Americans believe that the country as a whole is responsible for what is considered wrongful conduct?  Do most believe that America, today, is permeated by prejudice against black citizens?  Do most believe that “white privilege”, “white supremacy” and “systemic racism” explain disparities among various racial and ethnic groups in the United States?

Are people who believe such things correct?  Does that really matter?  Deeply held beliefs do not change simply because people “learn” that they are unfactual.  People believe what they want to believe.  And beliefs that were once true (the prevalence of racial bias, for instance) are even more resistant to alteration in the face of changing facts. 

The anthem story, on one level, is unimportant.  Who cares what pampered, millionaire athletes – of whatever color – think?  But it has highlighted, by the opposing reactions, the frightening racial divide in our country over respect and patriotism for the United States of America.

 [

The False Stereotype of Republicans as Mean-Spirited and Hard-Hearted

The stereotype of Republicans as mean-spirited and hard-hearted better fits Democrats.

In a recent piece on the appropriate treatment of young, illegal immigrants, The Sensible Conservative noted the need for Republicans to be leery of opposing help for Dreamers and feeding negative stereotypes so eagerly promoted by the left and the general media. 

The reality is actually quite the opposite.  According to a compilation of IRS statistics and various polling data by the Almanac of American Philanthropy, generosity towards one’s fellow man is more likely to be found among Republicans and conservatives than Democrats and liberals. 

Interestingly, after adjusting for income, the most generous citizens by state correlated very closely with the support received by the Republican candidate in the 2012 presidential election.  Of the top ten most generous states, nine voted for Mitt Romney.  Of the least generous state populations, the list was headed by the staunchly Democratic-voting New England states. 

[Among the fifty largest U.S. cities rated similarly, liberal strongholds San Francisco and Boston were on the bottom.]

On a personal level, among Americans making charitable donations, 31% of Republicans gave $1000 or more whereas only 17% of Democratic givers did the same.

Further, among self-described conservatives and liberals, those on the right, on an individual basis, made contributions that were 30% higher than those on the left. 

Plainly, there is much truth in the following:  conservatives and Republicans are generous with their own money.  Democrats and liberals would rather spend someone else’s “to do good”.

What Should Be the Fate of DACA?

The simple answer is that President Obama acted unconstitutionally when he issued an executive order refusing to enforce sections of America’s immigration law. 

That order, entitled “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (DACA) forbade, “temporarily”, deportation of individuals who were brought into this country by parents who were themselves illegal immigrants. 

The policy was in direct violation of the Constitutional mandate that the President of the United States “take care that the laws be faithfully executed…”.

Would that a simple answer suffices.  The illegal DACA order was the basis of federal immigration policy for the past four years.  Expecting its revocation to return the immigration situation to the way it was prior to President Obama’s unconstitutional action is akin to trying to stuff the genie back into the bottle.

The beneficiaries of Obama’s actions – 800,000 dreamers – were told they could stay.  Now, however, they are again at risk of being forced to leave.

Their ages and circumstances (they did not enter the U.S. illegally on their own) make for an awkward situation for the DACA opponent relying on constitutional grounds.

Of course, Obama’s fiat should be voided, but we as a nation have an obligation to not merely right a wrong but to make amends to those mislead by the DACA order.

Of course, the mess is Obama’s doing.  But it’s not fair to punish the  Dreamers for his misconduct.

And there is also the obvious political reality.  Bluntly put, the otherwise law-abiding Dreamers are a sympathetic lot.  Their plight, in the public’s mind, demands a compassionate resolution and a path to legal residency, if not citizenship. 

The Sensible Conservative is a firm Constitutionalist who does not hesitate to condemn DACA, but the general public is usually not concerned with legal niceties:  their focus is far more likely to be on the emotional aspects of the issue. 

Politically, to oppose relief for the Dreamers is to be on the unpopular side.

For Republicans who are so often depicted by the left as mean-spirited and heartless, that would be a particularly bad place to be.  The left would be gleeful if the GOP would aid its efforts to promulgate that negative and very false stereotype.

The Rarely Noted Affinity on the Left for Bigotry

Here’s a thought:  The Left’s allegiance to identity politics is akin to racial and ethnic loyalty spouted by bigots.

That may sound incredible at first.  But consider:  undeniably, the Left characterizes people by characteristics and circumstances.  White society, oppressed minorities, “tax the rich”, Black Lives Matter (don’t say “all”), and so forth.

It used to be a tenant of good liberal thought that Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke for a better America when he hoped for a future in which a person’s character, not his skin color, was what mattered.  No longer.  Now the targets are structural (white) racism and white privilege.  Calls for reparations are next.

[Why shouldn’t today’s Americans, still predominately white, pay for the sins of Southern slave owners more than 150 years ago?

Should the sins be borne by generations?  And what about the millions and millions of immigrants who came to America after the Civil War?  Is their skin color a reason for assigning culpability?]

Look around.  Doesn’t it seem as if segments on the Left are hostile to whites because of their race?  Bigotry, racism are not the exclusive preserve of one group of the other.  Viewing people as members of a favored or unfavored group – not as individuals with distinct characteristics, good and bad – is the common denominator of the bigot.

Bigotry and hatred are anathema to conservatives.  Group categorization is the unalterable enemy of conservative principles of individual rights and responsibilities and the freedom in which they function.

Americans Rise to the Occasion

The damage, destruction and loss of life delivered by Mother Nature to Houston is appalling – not even that word is sufficient as Americans “revisit” the memories of Hurricane Katrina hitting New Orleans only a decade ago.

Yet amidst the devastation were abundant sights of people helping people – Americans helping fellow Americans.  States across the land have sent materiel and emergency personnel.  Private citizens, as volunteers, are arriving in ravaged areas to help.  Of course, locals have launched a small flotilla of pleasure boats to rescue water-stranded neighbors.  And not the least, Donald Trump has made trips and statements which have lifted spirits and displayed much appreciated presidential demeanor.

Simply put, Americans are coming through, as we always do.  But, perhaps there is surprise in some quarters that this remains so.  Our politics these days are so bitter, partisan divisions are so deep that they can appear unbridgeable, making it seem as though cooperative action is impossible.  Plainly, and blessedly, this is not true.

We Americans are a parochial people.  That’s not a criticism, simply an observation.  Our nation is large, mostly self-sufficient and has had little need during our nearly 250 year history (yes, 2026 is rapidly approaching) to be concerned or care about foreign affairs.  [Twentieth century wars being an exception.]

As a consequence, when we observe deficiencies within our society, we turn inward and are inclined to be very critical of our shortcomings.  We need to be reminded during such times of negative introspection that America remains a pretty special place in the world.

There are very good reasons why our border concerns focus on immigration not emigration.  Yes, America is still a land of freedom and opportunity and her citizens are a particularly good and generous people.

The response to Houston is but an example.  For all our parochialism, we care about fellow human beings outside as well as inside our shores.

As private citizens, Americans donate to foreigners in need (earthquakes and flood relief, for instance) far more proportionally than any other nation.  For example.  Relating the percentage of giving to a country’s economic production, we give ten times more than the Japanese, two and a half times more than the British, seven times above the French rate and twenty one times more than the Germans!

When thinking of the United States of American, and noting these facts, does not the word “exceptional" come to mind?

Does the Left Hate America?

The question, on one level, seems preposterous.  After all, however flawed Leftists may be from a conservative perspective, they are fellow Americans.

Yet the conduct of many on the Left makes the query not so easy to dismiss.

Most recent examples concern attacks, destruction and the removal of statues of notable Americans who give offense because of the subjects’ association with slavery as owners, supporters or holders of racist views.  (Abraham Lincoln qualifies on the last point.)

The targets started with Confederate military leaders but has been extended further back into history to include George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, slave holders both.  Even Christopher Columbus (of 1492 fame) is in the Left’s sight.  Although popular culture (incorrectly) credits him with being our land’s first European discoverer, it’s not as if Columbus lived here.  Maybe the objection to his New York City statue is that if America had not been “discovered”, the “horribly flawed” USA would never have come into being!

This attitude, which some characterize as “anti-American”, is not exactly new.  For example, remember President Obama’s “apology” tour in the Middle East?  But the Left’s campaign to tar leading historical figures with the brush of racial prejudice seems to be encountering less public resistance as well as more media encouragement. 

The campaign, itself, speaks volumes about its adherents.  The desire to remove symbols of America’s past – to erase those who, by their human nature, are flawed – is apparently driven by embarrassment that they are Americans.  Are Leftists demonstrating that they are ashamed to be?

To feel that way requires a denial that great progress for black Americans is also a fact of America history.  America today is not the country of the Civil War era.  That denial is a consequence of either colossal ignorance of malevolence against the USA.   In either instance, the denial provides a basis for Leftist hostility, even hatred, toward America.  It’s perceived to be evil and irredeemable to its core.  Given that perspective, how could they love America?

Should Confederate Monuments Come Down?

On one level, the presence of Confederate statues in memory of a variety of military and political leaders should occasion no comment.  They were on the losing side of the war and, with a few exceptions (Robert E. Lee being one) memories of who they were 150 years ago have disappeared.  They were and remain symbols meaning different things to different Americans. 

Certainly many statues were raised in towns across the South after the Civil War in commemoration of “the lost cause” – what was perceived as noble and justified resistance to the Northern states.  Undoubtedly, the statues were meant to show defiance, too.

Were they intended to glorify and honor those who fought on the side of slavery?  Surely, by some.  But perspective is called for.  In its initial stages, the Civil War was not a battle for abolition.  President Lincoln, himself, made clear that the South could retain slavery as it long as it returned to the Nation.  It was only after Union forces “prevailed” (earned a stalemate would be more accurate) at Antietam in September, 1862 that the Emancipation Proclamation was announced that “freeing” the slaves became a national objective.  That decision was, at least, partially an attack on Southern morale.

Whatever symbol white Southerners intended the statues to be after the Civil War, today many Americans (black and white) see them as a commemoration of slavery.

Whether that perception is accurate is beside the point. 

Focusing on a person’s negative conduct to the exclusion of positive aspects, of course, is not fair.

[Robert E. Lee was a remarkable military leader and effective advocate for reconciliation when the fighting ended.  He earned honors for those aspects as well as condemnation for being on the pro-slavery side.]

But symbolism as considered is not subtle or nuanced.  It strikes emotional chords.  When a person kills worshippers in Charleston, South Carolina, or runs down an opponent of Southern statues in Charlottesville, Virginia, it’s understandable, indeed, that those statues become symbols of racial hatred.  Will their removal lessen or soften such animosity and related bias or prejudice?  Unlikely.  It’s more probable that those harboring such attitudes will feel them more intensely because their symbols have been taken down.

Nonetheless, the removal of what are considered to be offensive symbols of racial hostility are welcomed.  In a fashion, their removal is viewed as an act of reconciliation and respect for the feelings of those offended (black Americans and others, as well).  However, to be sure, there are many good Americans who are also offended by the removal of the statues.  They deserve not to be ignored. 

It should be possible to accommodate, by compromise, the symbolic concerns of the well-motivated, on both sides.   

The dead-of-night removal of such statues by city leaders in Baltimore is not a worthy blueprint.

Should Transgenderism Be a Concern Of National Policy?

Transgender people (those born physically with the anatomical characteristics of one sex but who identify with the other sex) are a miniscule portion of the general population – well under one percent according to surveys.

Despite their relatively small numbers, the apparent plight of transgenders has recently been the focus of the left and their media echo chamber.

First was North Carolina’s legislation – having the distinct mark of common sense – which formally mandated what was previously a given, not seen as requiring legislative action.  Restrooms dedicated to one sex or the other were to be used exclusively by members of that particular sex (the exception, again common sense driven, of a very young child accompanied by an adult).  The outrage was deafening. 

And there was President Trump’s reversal of government policy which permitted proclaimed transgenders to serve in the military.  The outcry focused on the loss of purported rights for those of transgender inclinations.  But that’s nonsense.  There’s no right to serve in the military.  The purpose of defense is best served by recruiting and retaining personnel who carry out their missions in an efficient and as effective manner as possible.

In the White House statement, announcing the policy change, mention was made of concerns of “unit cohesion”.  That concept is vital to the performance of any group, particularly military forces where loyalty, commitment to fellow unit members, are essential to a successful mission.  That justification was ignored by critics

The possibility of destabilizing sexual tension (long recognized as an impediment of integrating women into combat roles, for instance) involved with the presence of transgender personnel cannot simply be ignored.  If such soldiers are not a detriment as shown by studies and research, fine.  But what if they are?  “Transgender rights” are not involved.  Efficiency and effectiveness of the military is the correct standard.

Realistically, the number of transgender personnel is likely so small that the answer won’t make much of a difference to the military broadly speaking, anyway.

The left has never been good about common sense and perspective.  Ideological blindness can do harm. 

Is Trump Turning On His Own?

Most conservatives have viewed Donald Trump with a jaundiced eye.  From June of 2015 when he launched his bid for the presidency – The Sensible Conservative was among them.  Duly noted was Trump’s apparent fondness for Democrats – he had been one, and his endorsements of political positions (e.g., abortions) popular in New York City circles.

Also was his lack of seriousness as a candidate.  Celebrity status, reality TV, his checkered domestic past and his vulgar public persona hardly provided gravitas to his campaign.

Yet, on the campaign trail, he voiced (or tweeted) generally conservative themes and, of course, he was running against the despised Hillary Clinton.  So we hoped for the best.  His initial appointments were greatly comforting from experienced military and business leaders (for example, Secretary of Defense General Mathis to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, ex RNC Chairman who “knew” the jungles of Washington).  But, to be sure, Trump remained his own man.  The bluster, insecurities and vulgarities naturally accompanied him into the White House; yet, early on, he fulfilled expectations.  Obama–era regulations and executive orders were jettisoned and a fine jurist was added to the Supreme Court. 

Hopes, alas, are proving to be illusions.  He dumps Reince Priebus after many weeks of leaks suggesting he wasn’t up to the job of running the White House.  He attacks his Attorney General, the first prominent conservative Republican legislator to support his candidacy – not for his job performance but for what he did not do (derail an FBI investigation).  And at the end of July, he brings in an ironically named communication director (booting out his first press secretary) – who proceeds to make a grand first impression by telling many of his White House mates in far vulgar language to go to hell. 

If loyalty is a one way street “down to up only,” the purported leader will eventually find himself all alone.  Then what? 

The Liberal Bias Against White Police Officers

Did you hear the sounds of outrage coming from the left when a police officer who was black (a native of Somalia) killed a white woman? 

Neither did I.

Apparently the two year veteran police officer fired his gun while seated in the passenger seat while his partner was talking to the woman who had made a 911 call to report suspected criminal activity near her home.

Common sense tells one it was an accidental shooting and, perhaps, negligent.  [He shot across the front of his fellow police officer seated beside him.  The bullet struck the citizen-complainant standing outside the driver’s side closed door.]

So it was appropriate to give the black police officer the benefit of doubt which was accorded to him by the local (liberal) media.  Unsurprisingly, the Black Lives Matter folks (of “kill the pigs” notoriety) were mute.  

But what if the racial identities had been reversed?  

It’s hard to escape the conclusion that there is a prejudice against police officers who are caucasians.

Note the common practice of the general media to use the police officer’s race (if white) and that of the person shot (if black) as if the racial differences played some role in the event.  

Such a presumption was probably reasonable and warranted in Alabama and Mississippi of fifty years ago.  But now?  And in liberal Minneapolis?

Think of all the civil rights advances and black assimilation which have occurred in the broader society since the fifties and sixties.  

So how does any other explanation than prejudice against whites (racism, if you like) explain a prejudgment against white police officers involved in shootings?  It’s as if white leftists who jump to such conclusions are embarrassed by their being caucasian.  How sick and sad is that?

How is a Conservative Supposed to React to the Trump White House?

It’s hard to escape the conclusion that the White House, under the stewardship of Donald Trump, is facing a very steep learning curve as well as uncertainty as to America’s mooring in the world.

Based upon its first six months, the Trump Administration has certainly tried to do things of which conservatives generally approve:  new Supreme Court Justice, solid cabinet appointments and cancellation of anti-business Obama executive orders.

But there is so much more that needs to be done, including tax reform and a new health insurance reform.

Unfortunately, it seems as though the president is easily distracted and diverted from pursuing important policy objectives.  Of course, the overriding hindrance to Mr. Trump’s focus is his family’s Russian concerns.

It is tempting for conservatives to simply dismiss these worries as the product of a hostile liberal media.  To be sure, those pushing the investigation from the left do not mean well.  But facts recently uncovered (the president’s son’s emails) make clear that there are legitimate questions about the president’s campaign.

Thus, the possibility that Trump campaign leaders (and maybe with the President’s knowledge) acted improperly in seeking Russian assistance against Hillary Clinton cannot no longer be ignored by those on the right.

[To be sure, that the lead media organization investigating a possible Russia connection is The New York Times makes conservatives very suspicious of the reporting.  After all, the Times’ biased coverage of Trump’s campaign hardly vouches for its integrity or reliability.  But Republicans must acknowledge that the liberal organ was proven justified in pursuing this story – Trump Jr.’s release of his damning emails showed that.]

Conservatives must resist the temptation (generated by loyalty to Trump and hostility to his liberal foes), to reflexively side with the White House.  Our own integrity, for now and the future, should not be sacrificed.  We must not shy away from the truths we mightily condemned.

Slavish - and dishonest - conduct of the Obama Administration, for instance, pertaining to health care and Benghazi. Are we going to allow ourselves to be viewed by the general public in the same way?  There are troubling signs that that is exactly what is happening. 

Recent polling about Americans’ attitudes towards Russia shows a flip-flop among Republicans.  It used to be a given that the right was more suspicious of Moscow’s intentions than Democrats.  The GOP was the party backing a strong defense; the opposition was more inclined to favor accommodation and to be tolerant of Russian aggression (a typical attitude on the left was “what makes us think we’re angels?”).

Apparently this is no longer true.  A poll taken last week revealed that forty-eight percent of Republicans supported the indefensible – Trump, Jr.’s meeting with the Russian lawyer regarding information on Hillary Clinton.  Only thirty-three percent of GOP voters opposed it.  In contrast, only twenty-seven percent of independents thought it was a good idea.  Sixty three percent were against it.

Something is very wrong with the Republican Party if so many of its members change their views to be in accord with those, apparently, of the White House.  Genuine conservatives should be guided by principles only.

The Connection Between Violent Speech, Acts and Their Toleration

There is a belief by many people that words, in and of themselves, do not  hurt.

But the fact of the matter is that words can have a very harmful effect.  The old nursery school adage referenced several weeks ago by The Sensible Conservative that “sticks and stones’ (you know the rest) is simply not true and never was. 

Words, on their own, do indeed hurt.  Yet, more seriously, they can lead to “broken bones”.  Society, beyond the schoolyard, has long recognized that fact.  So shouting fire in a crowded theater can be a criminal act.  As can words which incite rioting. 

Free speech, of course, as enshrined in the Constitution’s First Amendment is one of the core elements of America’s political system.  The Amendment’s proponents believed its existence would ensure that open discussion would occur and that unpopular and minority views would not be suppressed for those reasons.  Apart from proscriptions of incitement, there are no legal limits on language use, but there have long been social restraints.  Those participating in the political process as candidates, their supporters and pundits were expected to express themselves civilly and to be polite to those taking contrary positions.  Those not abiding by such unwritten, but generally recognized, rules of political behavior, were ostracized. [Albeit, the Civil War being a major exception.] In other words, political discourse was confined by general agreement within certain boundaries regardless of the absence of legally mandated rules of campaign conduct.

No longer.

Why?  As discussed several weeks ago, substantial elements of each party have a very low opinion of the other.  Hatred is not too strong a label to apply to the feelings of some partisans.  Understandably, it is next to impossible to be polite and civil towards those one despises.

The broader culture - of which one should always remember, politics reflects - now sanctions, even encourages, behavior unbounded by guidelines of appropriate conduct and speech.  Obviously, the disintegration of polite society didn’t begin yesterday. 

Remember the Jerry Springer Show which hit the airways some twenty-five years ago?  It was hardly alone in debasing civility.

Now we hear and see representatives of popular culture like Madonna calling for the burning down of the White House and Kathy Griffin holding up an effigy of Donald Trump’s severed head.

Has it now become OK to call for violence by word or deed against politicians of a different persuasion?  And if a political foe deserves harsh rhetoric, is the barrier against actual violence still strong?  Is harming members of the other side now more understandable and, hence, more tolerable? 

Consider a media interview with a resident (and softball coach, as she was described) from the Alexandria,VA’s  shooter’s home town of Belleville, Illinois.  She condemned the former resident’s actions but added that the regard for Congress was so low that she could understand his doing what he did.  Oh?

Trump Cheerleaders are No Help

It should be obvious that anyone who thinks that President Trump can do no wrong is not thinking clearly.  Such biased proponents do not serve the object of their adulation very well.

Of course, everyone knows that no one is perfect.  So why does Fox host Sean Hannity and White House Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders (daughter of former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee) insist, seemingly, that he is above criticism?  People recoil from such characterizations.  They simply can’t be true. Thus, the proponents of such fantasies sacrifice credibility and believability.  Their pronouncements are not deemed trustworthy.  As a result, they ill-serve the person they seek to promote.

In the latest example, the President tweeted insulting and petty references to Joe Scarborough and his fiancée Mika Brzezinski.  To be sure, the co-hosts of “Morning Joe” on the left wing MSNBC network have been unstinting in their often personal attacks on Trump since his election.  But the incumbent in the White House is not a competing “talking head” on another cable outlet. 

Old fashioned people like The Sensible Conservative might note that such comments bring the President down to the level of his detractors.  A better position would be for President Trump to decline to respond in kind since to do so would be beneath the dignity of the office he holds.

 

No, that’s not the appropriate response, administrative spokeswoman Sarah Sanders implies.  (This is a president who “fights fire with fire.”)

To follow through with the analogy, wouldn’t a fire fighter’s first option be to put water on the blaze, rather than add fuel?

Alas, our President seems prone to be like the little boy running around the neighborhood with a box of matches.  The community, of course, fears that he might light a fire near them.  But more likely, his own home is at greater risk.  Would that his friends had the courage and where-with-all to put a stop to his reckless behavior.

A commendable exception.  Geraldo Rivera, a Fox News regular and a proclaimed liberal, appeared last week on the morning Fox and Friends show, usually a platform for unequivocal cheerleading, and took the President to task.  “I’m calling on my friend to swallow his pride and apologize to this woman”.  [Trump had made reference to Mika’s bleeding facelift.]