The Disingenuous Defense of President Trump

Republicans on the Capitol Hill would have you believe that President Trump was merely expressing a wish when he told the President of Ukraine he’d like him to investigate Joe Biden:  “do us a favor”.

The backdrop of the conversation was that military aid had been authorized but not yet released.

The immediate response of Congressional Democrats to the request was to cry “quid pro quo” and seize upon it as their best basis for impeachment.

Leave aside whether the purported exchange – even if true – is a sufficient reason for President Trump’s removal.  (The Sensible Conservative says no.)

The high probability remains, though, that an implicit quid pro quo was precisely what Trump meant to convey.

Republicans, and the “Sean Hannitys” of the right, dispute this characterization, citing the fact that the actual language used by the President was not a demand or a formal offer.

Get real.  Put yourself in a business setting.  You’re a subordinate who has asked for a raise from your boss. You haven’t received a response yet when he says he’d “like” you to do something.  Do you think the soft phrasing means that your business superior is giving you an option?  You’ve just received a directive couched politely.  (If you don’t understand that you won’t be long with that company!)

And so the President’s backers taking that line are either fools or insincere.  I will give them credit for being the latter.  That approach from a political perspective has short term advantages in that it confuses many as to what exactly was President Trump’s motivation during the subject telephone call.  But it’s not honest.  Long-term, however, that posture undercuts  Republican attacks that Democrats are deceiving the American public on what they say and promise regarding their true left-wing agenda.  Is the GOP lying about that, too?

The Naivete of (Most of) Our Founding Fathers

The United States Constitution, in essence, was deslgned to restrain the exercise of power.

Yet prominent Founders such as Alexander Hamilton and James Madison made naïve assumptions about the willingness of their fellow-Americans to feel so bound.

They argued that because the Constitution enumerated certain powers possessed by the Federal government (set forth primarily in Section 8 of Article I) those powers not recited were not available to the Federal government.

[But only ten years later, in 1798, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts authorizing the President to expel any foreigners deemed dangerous.]

In Federalist Paper No. 84, Alexander Hamilton wrote:

          “Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?  Why, for instance should it be said that the liberty of the press should not be restrained when as power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?”

Hamilton, in effect, was assuming that since the text did not authorize the suppression of liberty, such would not lawfully occur.  And implicit in that assumption was the expectation that America’s future lawmakers would abide by his interpretation.  That was a doomed – naïve - hope.

James Madison joined in that expectation.

          “I go on this great Republican principle that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom [to make our laws].”

The Congressional approval of the Alien and Sedition Acts vindicated the need for a bill of rights which had been championed by anti-Federalists such as Virginia’s George Mason.  Implicit rights may be deduced but are also subject to varied seemingly legitimate interpretations.  Explicit statements of rights, too, can be challenged and modified, but the foundation is certainly more substantial and resistant to assaults against what were considered to be inalienable rights.

As events have demonstrated in the following two centuries, not only were efforts frequently made to undermine the rights of Americans by ignoring Constitutional restraints but many court-sanctioned interpretations of seemingly clear and unambiguous language made a mockery of the concept of limited government the U.S. Constitution was intended to embody.

For instance, Section Eight of Article One authorizes Congress to regulate trade and business activities that are interstate as well as “commerce with foreign nations… and with the Indian tribes.”

But contrary to the expectations of Hamilton, et.al., the restriction of Federal power to interstate commerce was made a nullity by a 1930’s Supreme Court decision allowing Congress to control intrastate activities as well.  (The rationale?  Even if commerce is confined within a state, there is always the possibility that such might have an impact elsewhere).  And what in life isn’t possible?  Does that mean that the Constitution only limits the “impossible”?  That renders the Constitution nonsense.

A simple fact of human nature is that those who possess power not only are inclined to exercise it but are often driven to expand its reach.

This is a truth which, in some respects, the Founders readily understood.  Madison’s balance of powers proposals were incorporated into the Constitution as a check on such propensities.

Of course, our Founders were great men.  They did extraordinary things and they were human.  Wishful thinking is a human trait for us all.

The Political and Historical Ignorance of the American People

It’s often joked that Americans are generally ignorant of both our history and government.

And it’s true.

Recent polling revealed that only twenty-five percent of us can name all three branches of the Federal government  -   one-third cannot name even one.

Nearly forty percent don’t know what is in the 1^st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

A decade or so ago  -  a Congresswoman, a lawyer, a Presidential candidate  (and a Republican, I might add)  didn’t know that Lexington and Concord, the sites for the revolutionary shots heard around the world, were  in Massachusetts  - not New Hampshire.

More than thirty percent of the public doesn’t know that the War of 1812 came after the American Revolution.

These facts are not amusing  -  they are disturbing and alarming.

How can we expect our fellow Americans to value and support our nation when they don’t understand how it’s governed or its history?

Many of us view our land as “a shining city on a hill”  --  as a beacon of hope for the rest of the world.  We stand for democracy and freedom.

But, given the paucity of knowledge in the general public, we should not be surprised when even policy leaders fail to recognize our exceptional nature.  Thus, President Obama tells a European audience that other countries think they are exceptional, too.  And New York’s governor recently said he doesn’t see what’s so great about America.

What’s happened?  Civics instruction used to be a backbone of public education.  It was seen as vital for the task of instructing young people in American values of respect and appreciation for freedom, independence and self-government.

As a matter of fact, civics instruction  -  generally speaking  -  still exists in most of America’s public schools.  But it’s no longer considered as important as it once was. 

Our nation’s long-term health and even its survival may depend on reordering our educational priorities.

The Reality of Police Misconduct

The tendency of conservatives is to be supportive of a police officer when he is accused of misconduct, particularly when the accusations come from members of the Left.

That is quite understandable since so often a distinct anti-police bias seems obvious.

But the conservative reaction of supporting the police seems to be a knee-jerk reaction on many occasions.

It is a fact that conservatives are traditionally inclined to think that those in power must be constrained from abusing it.  That, after all, is the reason we favor limited government.  Human nature thirsts for power and control.  Conservatism, as a philosophy, appreciates the need to thwart that inclination toward abuse.

Why, then, does the Right tend to give a pass to police officer credibility accused of misconduct?

Because they represent “law and order” and therefore their excess of power is on our side?  In contrast, the perceived over-reach of an EPA bureaucrat, for instance, is widely condemned by conservatives.
Lord Acton, a British statesman of the 19^th century, a member of the Conservative Party, took a more even-handed approach to the dangers inherent in human nature.  “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Oversight of everyone who exercises power is an essential element of freedom’s preservation.

That is true at the Federal level where the balance of power established by the Constitution was designed to keep national power seekers at bay, down to the police officer on the beat in a town swinging his nightstick.

 

The Good Side of Human Nature

Conservative views of human nature originated with Adam and Eve.  Mankind has never been able to attain perfection because, by nature, we are not perfectable.  That is what the doctrine of “original sin,” in essence, means.  Utopians and Communists insisted upon seeing this the hard way at the cost of untold misery and death of their brethren.  And the world still abounds with dangerous fools who refuse to accept this reality.

But to say that man is not perfect is not to condemn us to perpetual purgatory.

After all, our specie has survived for many thousands of years.  Surely, there are aspects of our immutable nature which have made that possible.  We are programmed to do that which is necessary to our survival.  When we stray, disaster ensues.

By nature, we are social creatures engineered (if you will) to live cooperatively in group settings.  That is essential to mankind’s survival.

Proof of this proposition is found in a study of sixty different cultures across the globe conducted by a University of Oxford anthropologist. 

“There is a similar moral matrix we all share,” the Professor writes.

He identified seven universal values:

          1.  Helping your family.

          2.  Helping your group.

          3.  Being fair with others (divide equally).

          4.  Respecting others’ property.

          5.  Being brave. 

          6.  Returning favors (The Golden Rule).

          7.  Respecting older members of your family and group.

If, upon reviewing this list, you thought “that’s the natural way to think,” that’s the point!

When governments defy human nature, the outcome will not be pretty.

 

Serious Democrats Aren’t Serious About Impeachment

Pause for a moment.  Does it make any sense for hard-headed Democrats to want to impeach (charge) and convict Donald Trump with arch-conservative Mike Pence then becoming President… and running for election in 2020 as the incumbent?

Hardly.

Whatever The Sensible Conservative may think of the politics of Speaker  Nancy Pelosi or Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer, neither is, despite the labels applied by President Trump, a political fool.  They would not have risen to their leadership roles if they were.

No, Democratic Party leadership is not seeking the ouster –before 2020 elections – of the President.

But they do want to wound him as much as possible.  From a legal and constitutional perspective, the discussions of impeachment are ill-founded.

Article II, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution is not ambiguous:  “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and conviction of Treason, Bribery or other high crimes and Misdemeanors”.

Note the word “other”.  A public officer must be accused of committing a crime as a prerequisite for impeachment to commence.

The President may be intemperate, incompetent and self-serving, but those are grounds for opposing his re-election, not impeachment by the House of Representatives.

So what?  Impeachment proceedings present Democrats with the opportunity to headline on a nearly daily basis (with the media’s cooperation a given) an Anti-Trump narrative.  The 2020 Presidential campaign will begin in earnest.

But because the Democratic leadership (unlike many in the Party’s rank and file) do not want a Senate conviction (even if attainable), there is a distinct probability that there will not even be a formal vote to impeach.

If there is a vote in the House, it would be nearly certain to pass.  The consequences would be trial and acquittal in the Senate (2/3 support is  undoubtedly a pipe dream).  Vindication, in effect, would be the popular verdict.  That is not what wise Democrats desire.  They want Donald Trump ousted on election day, not before.

To be sure, political activity is often not what it seems.  In the “old days,” the media was willing to look behind the posturing and point out real motivations and purposes.  Instead, most of our media is so blinded by ideology that they either do not see what is actually happening or are willingly serving as propagandists for the Democratic Party.

 

Does Donald Trump Threaten the Future of the Republican Party?

Such fears are expressed quietly within GOP ranks.  They are based upon concerns that President Trump, a Hillary Clinton Democrat not so long ago, has transformed the Republican Party into a populist bastion which is isolationist and free-spending, quite different from its conservative tradition.

Polls support the worries, with close to 90% of Republican voters expressing approval of the president.  Yet it is a mistake to conclude that such backing is an endorsement of Trump’s conduct and policies, at least not all of them.

Old-line Republicans (of whom The Sensible Conservative is decidedly one), basically approve of Trump’s domestic policies, citing immigration, judicial appointments and bureaucratic reform.  They are less enamored with unbridled spending and a disregard for entitlement reform.  And there is growing alarm with his seeming ignorance of foreign affairs which fosters policies of doubtful benefit to the U.S.  Think Syria and North Korea in particular.

But what about members of the base who attend Trump rallies (featured regularly on Fox News) or who identify with President Trump? Their allegiance seems tied to him rather than the Republican Party.  So what happens when Trump is no longer in the White House?

Are they “Trumpians” first who will remain on the electoral sidelines when Donald Trump is no longer on the ballot?

That question is why so many Republican politicians avoid saying anything which might annoy the president and, thus, alienate his fervent supporters.

That attitude, although politically reasonable, places them in an embarrassing predicament, delightedly highlighted by the liberal media.

To illustrate - earlier this month, the most popular question for the mainstream media (like CNN’s Jake Tapper and NBC’s Chuck Todd) to ask GOP congressmen was a variation of the following:

“Do you agree that it is wrong for a President to solicit help from a foreign leader to demand information on political foes?”

Of course, the answer is obviously “NO” for several reasons – that leverage should not be given to a foreign leader (quid pro quo) is merely the most prominent.

But, in fact, the question was uniformly sidestepped.

To give the obvious response would risk the President taking offense. with the implicit and unfavorable comparison with his phone conversation with the Ukrainian President which mentioned Joe Biden.

That would likely generate personal attacks from the President and, perhaps, political retribution from Trump loyalists at home.

And that would not serve the interest of a viable Republican Party post-Trump.

What Has Elijah Cummings Done for Baltimore?

President Donald Trump recently attacked Baltimore Congressman Elijah Cummings for spending time criticizing him  which should be spent helping his trash-strewn, rat-infested, crime-plagued Congressional District.

Apparently, the President’s assault was prompted by scenes broadcast by Fox News of unkempt areas in west Baltimore, part of Mr. Cummings’ district.

To be sure, the President’s observations contained exaggerations, but then so did the   reaction from city and national Democratic leaders springing to the defense of the Congressman.

The question remains:  was there any merit to what Trump said?  Are Representative Cummings’ priorities misplaced?  Should he focus more on helping solve the city’s deep-seated problems and less on building a national profile?

It certainly is hard to overestimate the city’s difficulties.

Baltimore is on the path to becoming the nation’s murder capital again in 2019.  Killings in west Baltimore are a large contribution to this dismal projection.  And educational achievement for city youths ranks at or near the bottom in various categories.

But what do these appalling facts have to do with Congress Cummings?  He is a Federal office holder, not the mayor or a member of the city council.  Anyway, the 7^th District, heavily gerrymandered, includes not only urban west Baltimore, but also suburban central Baltimore County and rural western Howard County.

So to doubt Mr. Cummings responsibility for conditions in west Baltimore is fair. .

Yet consider this:  When Elijah Cummings first ran for Congress in 1996 (twenty-three years ago), he promised to focus on education, crime prevention and health needs in the 7^th District.  (He still recites that early commitment on his campaign website.)

So what happened?  Has he been prominent in mounting the bully pulpit to press for change for Baltimore – which certainly is the heart of his district and where he lives? No.

Has he, as the leading Federal office holder, spearheaded efforts to draw attention to the need for improvement and change in Baltimore City?  Alas, no.

Crime statistics and educational testing establish clearly that things have gotten much worse while Congressman Eljjah Cummings has been in office.

Take the homicide rate -  in 2001, a few years after Mr. Cummings went to Washington, there were 39 murders per 100,000 city residents.  (The national rate was close to 6 per 100,000, making clear that Baltimore already had a very serious crime problem.)  By 2018, that rate had risen to over 50 per 100,000 residents, a 25% leap from 17 years earlier.  (The national rate was still under 6.)

During the Baltimore City riots prompted by the death of Freddie Gray in 2015, Congressman Cummings, to his credit, joined then-Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake  on the streets of Baltimore urging calm.  Good.  But where was the follow-up to provide guidance and leadership?  It is a fact that for months after the rioting ended,  the already high homicide rate rose higher still.  Where was the Congressman then?

The results on the education front are also disheartening.  Testing of the nation’s students pursuant to Federal mandates began in 2009.  Results are reported in the “National Assessment of Education Progress”.  Baltimore city students have performed poorly, even worse in 2017 than eight years earlier.

So, why does Cummings oppose school choice?   It’s a policy which has paid off in improved school performance elsewhere.  But it is also true that teachers’ unions – big backers of Elijah Cummings.- oppose such programs.

Revisit the question in the headline to this article.  Based upon Congressman Cummings’ long ago promises on crime prevention and education, the answer must be “not much”.  President Trump, in his blustering, brash way, had a valid point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Send Her Back”

For the liberal media, the chant at a North Carolina Trump rally was racism on full display.

Why?  The target was Ilhan Omar, a native of Somalia and a naturalized U.S. citizen, who is a left-wing Minnesota Congresswoman.

So?  Was it her race, national origin or radical ideology which prompted the verbal shot?

President Trump was in the process of excoriating the first-termer’s agenda when most of the crowd joined in.  Wouldn’t that suggest that her views – not her race – was the subject?

But Trump was quickly blamed by the liberal media for not reprimanding his audience.

“Send her back” as an expression was termed racist by itself.  Leave aside the context – it occurred at a campaign style event – not at a policy forum – where one expects the crowd to be boisterous.  The site would suggest that race had nothing to do with the expressed disapproval.  The Congresswoman had made clear on numerous occasions her unhappiness with America as it is.  For those who are patriots, doesn’t her being a refugee from a terrorist haven who was welcomed to America come across as ingratitude?  Of course she doesn’t have to leave.  But the expression is in the same vein as “love it or leave it”.  Is that racist, too?

The terms “racism or racist” have become divorced from  their original meaning – hostility to a member of a race because of his race.   

Now days their use reminds one of the playground taunt “your mother wears combat boots”.  It was a silly, meaningless slur then; the charge of racism today is not yet silly but it has largely lost any meaning as a result of its indiscriminate use.

In a political sense, race is itself is used as a cudgel – its employment is not merely irresponsible, it’s malicious.  Some of those who are sincere in their name-calling are undoubtedly projecting.  That’s psychological terminology for people ascribing views or motivations to others which they, themselves, harbor.  They view what others do in racist terms since that’s what motivates them!

 

 

Why the Public is So “Forgiving” of the President’s Possible Personal Misdeeds

Every few months (or so it seems) a woman comes forward and accuses Donald Trump of past sexual misconduct.

Predictably, the accuser will be given prime-time exposure on CNN, MSNBC, etc.

And each revelation raises the hope on the Left that “this time” the President’s broad support from Republicans and conservatives will come crashing down… and their wishes are thwarted once more.

Why?

It’s not unreasonable to conclude, based upon the multitude of allegations against him (are none of them true?) that President Donald Trump has a reprobate history.

Yet the response of the Trump “base” – and that of the general public, too -has been a collective shrug.

Some of the apparent indifference is simply rooted in a belief that any criticism of the President is politically motivated and is not credible for that reason alone.  For those so inclined, more objective observers might note, loyalty is blinding.

For others, the President’s perceived moral defects are acknowledged but are considered to be out-weighed by his accomplishments (conservative judges appointed, booming economy, etc.).  In that group are many who relish Trump’s disdain for “conventional”, acceptable behavior because it angers their common foe, the arrogant, elitist liberal media.

For the Left mainstream media, this lack of vocal moral outrage is proof of the hypocrisy of a large portion of the American public (Hillary’s “deplorables”).  The charge is largely unmerited.  Educated conservatives do not approve of the alleged conduct nor the President’s coarse language and manner.  It demeans the office and the leader of the “Free World”.  But we are not going to give the Left any satisfaction by acknowledging that.  Thoughtful conservatives, and others, are less fans of Trump and more foes of the Left.

Liberals continue to be baffled as to why Donald Trump won.  It had more to do with why Hillary Clinton lost.  She symbolized the Democrats’ infatuation (now grown into adoration) of leftwing ideology, oddly termed “progressivism” when in fact it’s an historical anachronism.

The hostility to Hillary Clinton was also generated by the obvious contempt for middle American values she had shared with her media fans.  The hatred was reciprocated at the polling booth.

 

 

 

Empathy as Justification for Open Borders

Last week the picture of a young father and his daughter who drowned while trying illegally to cross the Rio Grande River into the U.S. was front page, featured news across the media.

Pundits – and newscasters – jumped on the story as “Exhibit One” in the charge that America’s immigration policy is inhumane.

Other exhibits cited were the claims that detention facilities for “undocumented” immigrants [they left their papers at home?] were over-crowded, unhealthy and consisted of cages.

Of course, no one wishes death or horrible living conditions for foreigners seeking to enter the U.S. illegally.   These are sad and tragic endings.

But take a deep breath and think for a moment.  What are America’s responsibilities to people who are, from a policy perspective, unwelcome trespassers?

Present U.S. law provides that those entering the United States who claim political asylum are entitled to a hearing on their claim.  In the meantime, they are housed in the detention facilities in the U.S. or released into the general community based upon their promise to appear for the hearings which may be scheduled many months, even years, away.  They are not deported back to their home countries until then.

The simple fact is that illegal border crossings have skyrocketed in recent years, overwhelming the capacity of immigration centers.

This is a cruel irony in the protests and criticisms of those who favor, in effect, open borders and oppose improved security.  They have encouraged the illegal activities which has resulted in such hardships.

And their irresponsible conduct continues despite the obvious consequences.   Did you see the Democratic presidential candidates raise their hands in unison during last week’s first debate when asked if they supported  health care benefits for illegal aliens?

Leave aside the obvious answer to the question of who is supposed to pay for that.  How can compassionate, empathetic people (and, of course, they claim to be such) extend such an invitation for further illegal migration?  They know the supposedly awful conditions and mortal dangers which await asylum seekers.

Last week I pointed to examples of political imbecility.  Add most of the 20 plus Democratic presidential candidates to the list.  For those who are insincere, their demagoguery puts them in a worse category.  They are dangerous because of the harm to others they are willing to cause.

Political Imbecility

Politicians, like children, often say the darndest things.

Consider this argument in favor of illegal immigration  disseminated by those opposing border crackdowns.

          “Illegal immigrants don’t contribute to crime in the U.S. because statistics show they, as a group, are less likely to commit crimes than Americans.”

Think about that for a moment.  Even if the crime rate among this group was one out of one thousand, illegal immigrants vs. one out of one hundred (it’s not) for citizens, would the admission of one thousand illegals result in one more additional criminal into the country than there was before?  Obviously… to those who think rather than mindlessly recite a liberal talking point.

          “State laws requiring voters to present ID at polling sites discriminate against poor (presumably mostly liberal Democrats) people.”

It may be true that poor people are less likely to have appropriate IDs.  I don’t know.  But does the law exempt certain classes of people from being licensed to drive cars because a lower percentage of a particular class have one?  Why not?  Because a license is designed to serve public safety by requiring prospective drivers to prove they  are competent to operate a motor vehicle.

In a similar vein, requiring the production of an ID before a person votes contributes to the integrity of our Democracy.

          “A politician says he’ll accept damning information about an elected opponent from a foreign county even if that source is a foe of the U.S.”

Please.  There’s a “real world” out there.  Does quid pro quo come to mind?  It should.

Are Plastic Bags Getting a Bum Rap?

There is a movement centered in liberal enclaves such as California, New York and Vermont to ban seemingly all consumer items made from plastic, such as grocery bags, drinking straws, carry out food containers, etc.

The movement is for the benefit of the environment, of course.

But a hard-headed look at the facts suggests that the “ban plastic” movement is more likely to generate feelings of righteousness among the proponents than it is to help the environment.

It’s habitual on the Left for its members to herald the plus side of their freedom–restricting proposals while ignoring - or simply being ignorant of - the negatives.

Sure, plastic items are a bane which do indeed clog and foul waterways and ocean beds.  But to ban them is not necessarily a plus for the environment.  People still need grocery bags, straws and so forth.  Are there any environmental costs connected to the replacement cloth bags or paper straws?

The Wall Street Journal recently published the results of studies by the United Kingdom Environmental Agency and the Ocean Conservancy on replacements.

The negatives on plastic bags are well known and publicized.  But did you know that production of one cotton grocery bag, used only one time, has the same environmental impact (carbon footprint) of 131 plastic bags?  Even paper bags have to be used three times to equal the environmental cost of one plastic bag.

[In other words, the reality is that the use of alternatives is not automatically an improvement for the environment.  Cotton must be grown and processed to make the reuseable bags.  Trees must be cut and wood treated to make paper bags.  All such activities involve considerable environmental impact.]

It hardly seems realistic to expect most people to use cotton bags 131 times or that a paper bag will be used 3 different times.

Thus a ban on various consumer plastic items seems a very bad idea, indeed.  But avoiding a ban doesn’t foreclose other approaches which may indeed be a net plus for the environment.  Public service campaigns, for instance, to stress the harmful impact of improper disposal of plastic items may work.  Another, thought:  mobile volunteers to help clean up roads and waterways.  Generate social pressure, not litter.   Surely therer are other ideas which have merit, too.

Encouraging people to do what they understand is in their best interest is far more likely to succeed in protecting the environment than requiring adherence to a short-sighted, freedom-restricting, “feel good” policies so popular on the Left.

If We’re All Racists, It’s a Useless Term

A recent article in The Atlantic Monthly argued that American whites are all racists.  (As a mark of consistency, the author, a white law school professor from California, included herself.)  The article cited a poll which found that a significant portion of white Americans admitted to having used the “N” word recently.  [Why is it that the PC code requires that the derisive term for blacks be unwritten while highly offensive (to many) vulgarities, obscenities and sacrilegious expressions are tolerated and approved of?]

As far as those who didn’t utter “nigger”, they qualified as racists since polling showed they were more likely to favor one person over another if the latter was using a “black-sounding” first name.

Many years ago, bias against blacks was known as racial prejudice.  That was, and is, I suggest a far more useful term to describe a person’s attitude toward a group.

To presume anything about an individual because of his membership or association with a group is a pre-judgment which may or may not be accurate.  They are generalities and as such are prejudices which influence one’s judgments and actions.

Some years ago, Jesse Jackson received considerable publicity when he acknowledged that he crossed a street in Washington, D.C., to avoid crossing paths, at night, with a group of young blacks coming from the opposite direction.

Was he displaying prejudice – a pre-judgment – concerning the potential risk by the possible encounter?  Of course.  Was it racist?

Sounds like a silly question, doesn’t it?  How could a famous civil rights leader be such?

So why would similar conduct by a white person be labeled racist by so many?

To “automatically” accuse that person of racial hostility is, in itself, a sign of anti-white racism.  Some of the perpetrators undoubtedly are sincere in their prejudices others, when the accused is a political foe, are malicious.

Back to the Jesse Jackson episode.  It is a fact that young blacks did – and do -  commit a disproportionate  number of assaults when compared to young white men in the nation’s capital.  Jesse Jackson knew that.  Others of different races have the same knowledge.  Factually-based prejudice dictated the response. The group of young blacks was understandably perceived as a threat.

Thus, prejudice is not necessarily a negative.  (Racism, properly defined, in contrast, equates to hostility towards, hatred of, members of a racial group.)

Consider the case of a white recruiter for a software company who is looking for a mathematically-inclined new employee and has only the names of candidates, Nguyen and John.  From his experiences and knowledge, would he likely be prejudiced in favor of the Asian?  Probably, since people from that group generally outperform whites in mathematics. 

Would that be a wise decision to select an individual only because of generalizations about the group to which he belongs?  No.  But would you label the white recruiter a racist for doing so? 

Lumping all whites into the racist category is ridiculous and gives a pass to those people truly hostile to members of different races.  “We’re all racists, after all.”

Conservatives are true allies of all who strive to be judged on individual merit, not group affiliation.  Thus, it’s sad indeed to note that the Left, in practice, has rejected the hope long ago (or so it seems) expressed by Martin Luther King, Jr:

“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.”

                                                 

“Medicare for All” is a Fraud

 

The view on the left – and heralded by most of the 2020 Democratic  Presidential candidates – is that since Medicare is such a great program, it should be extended to all.

That view, unsurprisingly, is myopic.  Consider:

*Medicare is a program which provides basically government health insurance for those over 65 who paid payroll taxes for such coverage over their work lives.  It was not intended as a welfare program.                       

*Medicare is today in serious financial trouble.  The payroll taxes designed to pay for the Medicare benefits for qualified beneficiaries (i.e. retired workers) are now exceeded by the program’s expenses.  Simply put, the number of workers paying into Medicare (“pay as you go”) has shrunk considerably over the past fifty years in relation to the increase of retirees taking benefits. 

*Expanding Medicare “to all” would turn an earned entitlement into what can only be called socialized medicine.  Some will be called upon to fund the medical demands of all.

So socialism in healthcare would become a reality in America.  Leave aside, if you will, the philosophical problems that would pose.  Individual freedom would of course be compromised.  But liberty is of less concern to most Americans that the availability of affordable and high-quality healthcare.

“Medicare for all” is for many a more agreeable expression than “single-payer” or “government run”.  Regardless of the appellation applied, socialized medicine is the result.

Is it reasonable to assume that the government can run a health care system that is either cost efficient or productive of quality results?

Americans know from lengthy experience that it is foolish to expect efficiency from any government–run enterprise… do recent experiences with your state’s motor vehicle arm come to mind?

So proponents herald the expected cost  savings which will ensue for most. TSC will admit to  a decided cynicism when assessing this promise.  Obamacare didn’t exactly result in lower insurance premiums for participants – quite the opposite.

Interestingly, health policy experts on both the Left and Right estimate that Medicare for All – along the lines proposed by Bernie Sanders, et al., would cost three trillion a year.  To put that cost in perspective, the IRS takes in half that amount in personal income taxes.  Who, outside of the Left in la-la-land, believes that the 50% of the American population who pay income taxes now will be able to tolerate a doubling of what they already pay?

“Medicare for All” will not provide better care nor be affordable.  It is a FRAUD!

The World Turned Upside Down

Americans today can sympathize with the British surrender at Yorktown whose exasperation and incredulity was expressed when the band played “The World Turned Upside Down”.  (Some historians claim this is apocryphal.) 

As examples:

          * A 29 year old whose last job before being elected to Congress was bartending is the beneficiary of swooning treatment from the media.  Many of her fellow Democrats, including Presidential candidates, feel compelled or emboldened – to endorse her harebrained Green New Deal scheme.

          * A young, defeated senatorial candidate with essentially no credentials (other than a few terms as a congressman from Texas) announces he is running for President to uncritical acclaim by the CNN/MSNBC cheerleaders.

          * The President, the last in line of chief executives who’ve included notables such as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, apparently doesn’t comprehend the difference between dignified behavior and that, traditionally, which is not.  And his indiscreet conduct and language is applauded by adoring fans.

What happened to the America which some Americans (such as TSC) thought they knew?

Of course, it’s a mistake to extrapolate the approval exhibited by some Americans as being embraced by most.  But it is obviously Pollyannaish to term these episodes as mere aberations.

Two explanations come to mind.

First, Americans, in general, no longer have a predisposition to view with high regard credentials such as training, education and experience as a prerequisite for assuming leadership roles.

That altered respect for what used to be considered necessary qualifications and at the heart of populist movement that cuts across political lines.

And there is ample justification for the populist reactions.  America’s credentialed leadership has been disappointing.  Ten years ago, the economy was in the tank, largely the result of irresponsible and/or greedy conduct by our nation’s leaders including Congress and financial institutions.

And from a conservative perspective, there was a sense of incompetence, even betrayal, permeating Republican Party ranks.  Promises were made – and not kept – that if voters gave the GOP control of Congress and the White House – good things would happen, like the repeal of Obamacare…  Disillusionment set in.

Secondly, Americans are increasingly tolerant people.  That is distinctly positive when it comes to accepting people from different backgrounds and racial groups.  But it also extends, usually negatively, to what used to be considered deviant or unacceptable behavior .  Tolerance in that respect usually means an abandonment of standards (as the notorious – to TSC – Nike commercial used to preach, “just do it”!)  Much of society seems to have abdicated its traditional role of setting – and enforcing – standards with the inevitable result that they vanish.   

[The seeming exception to this condition is that “toleration” excludes conduct or speech which might hurt someone’s feelings… unless, as conservatives will note, their feelings might be offended.]

Social Media with its anonymity has greatly exacerbated this harmful coarsening of standard-less tolerance.  So the lowest common denominator of human nature is celebrated.

   Religious leaders, the very people one would expect to promulgate social and ethical standards, are largely silent.  Is it fear of being ignored, deemed irrelevant by the broader community?  How sad!

Maybe in these times, institutions such as churches, schools and community organizations have become largely impotent.  They no longer have the ability or desire to set – enforce – moral standards.  To do so would be, after all, intolerant!  Rather, increasingly, people feel isolated and alone:  “Guidance” from social media has filled the void.

Is it still possible to turn the world “right side up”?