Has the Worm Turned? Ask Joe Biden

When “Me Too” accusations surfaced against Supreme Court nominee Bret Kavanaugh, Washington Democrats were gleeful and fell all over one another in supporting the accusers… until their stories crumbled or were unsubstantiated.

Note that the credibility of the women wasn’t the initial focus on the Left – that was assumed because their target was a conservative.   And, in a broader sense, credibility has not been an issue with the “Me Too” adherents.  In effect, the allegation was proved by its mere utterance.  Women don’t lie about such things, do they?

[There is an irony in the proposition that purported victims of male assaults are automatically believed.  Wasn’t one of the objectives of the feminist movement to remove women from the demeaning pedestal constructed by men?  That was meant to shield them from the realities of life ruled by men and where intentions and honesty cannot be taken for granted.]

Former Vice President Joe Biden has long been a supporter of the “Me Too” orientation, including promotion of policies pursued by the Obama Administration to abolish due process on college campuses when men were accused of engaging in sexual improprieties or conduct which caused discomfort.  The Left cheered.

But the worm has turned.  Now Biden is on the receiving end of the attacks he helped launch.  Several women (expect the numbers to expand) have said his physical contact or closeness made them “uncomfortable”.  What does that mean?  A person’s comfort level is subjective to her.  In contrast, an assault is an objective fact.  Thus, the “Me Too” camp has weakened further the standard of what is considered offensive.  Of course, the concept of “personal space’ has merit and can be invaded wittingly or otherwise.  And perhaps that’s what Biden did upon occasion.  But does that warrant sharp criticism for misconduct?

Perhaps the lesson for current  presidential candidates is to be careful about letting the “ends” justify the “means”.  Another cliché comes to mind:  what goes around, comes around. 

 

 

Will Trump Apologize?

Shortly after William Mueller was appointed Special Counsel, President Trump castigated him for heading up a “witch hunt” with a staff of lawyers composed mostly of Democrats, some of whom had contributed to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

So what does the President say now?

The lawyers, Trump must agree, did right by him.  Maybe integrity is not dead.  Of course, we all have biases and perhaps the Mueller attorneys - as a liberal group – hoped that they’d find “the goods” on Donald Trump.

But lawyers having a responsibility  to their profession – and themselves -  to do their best to suppress prejudice when performing their duty.  Apparently Mueller’s attorneys acted according to their duties and not their biases.  TSC is proud of them.

The irony is that the Mueller report’s concluding “no collusion” has more credibility because the Special Council’s team was tilted toward  Democrats.  Would Mueller’s conclusions have been so well accepted by the broad public (partisan Democrats excluded) if the staff had been stacked in favor of Republicans?

In other words, Mueller, by his staff selections, did the President a great favor, intentionally or otherwise.

The Populist Attack on Elites

Donald Trump and his supporters take pride in attacking liberal elites as the source of most of what’s wrong in America.  In political shorthand, the targets are politicians, media and academicians from the nation’s northeast and west coast.  They are accused, with considerable cause, for supporting policies which undermine traditional social values, hamper economic growth and diminish America’s standing in the world.

Yet the populist assault is really more than political.  It is also social in the sense that it focuses on – and resents – those who are better educated and who have standing in society resulting from the rewards of meritocracy.  Thus, as an example, Tucker Carlson of Fox News lambasts the writers of William F. Buckley’s old magazine, National Review, with almost as much vigor as he directs toward the New York Times and the Washington Post. 

At its heart, the populist principle is that those exercising power in society, whether it be political, social or economic, are doing so at the expense of,  and in disregard for, the wishes and needs of the broader population.  As Tucker Carlson put it in a controversial populist manifesto recently circulating in conservative circles, “They don’t care” about the problems and worries of the “common man”.

There is undoubtedly an element of truth to the indictment.  Certainly one can sympathize with the plight of those on the lower rungs of the life-ladder as President Clinton did when he said “I feel your pain”.  But pain sensitivity is not the same as understanding.

 To attack so-called “elites” as if their existence is illegitimate is to ignore the nature of mankind.  People have long sorted themselves out on different levels.  In old – and current – times, there are kings, aristocrats and commoners.  India has castes (whether officially recognized or not).  Traditionally, class membership was a factor of birth.

The Founders of the American Republic had a different idea.  Art. 1, Sec. 9 of the U.S. Constitution specifies “no title of nobility shall be granted by the United States…”  There was to be no aristocracy or elite defined by birth or formal designation.  Rather, the leadership of the Republic whose authority was to be confined by the limits of the Constitution was to consist “almost entirely of of proprietors of land, of merchants, and of members of the learned professions who will truly represent” everyone.  [Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers, No. 36.]  It is to be presumed that the men to be elected to Congress generally “will be possessed of the necessary degree of intelligence”.  (Ibid)

 Thus, elites were not to be banished.  Instead, membership was to be based on intelligence and merit, not hereditary title.

[Leave aside, Hamilton’s naivete about what he considers a natural aristocracy.  Men do not willingly – or gladly – defer power to those they consider their equals.  Americans are instinctive populists.]

Thus, it seems odd that some on the Right who consider themselves strict constitutionalists label themselves as populists, too.  The U.S. Constitution was designed to limit the power of the broad populace whose interests self-proclaimed populists vow to promote.