“Settling Scores” with Political Opponents is a Loser with the Public

 Republicans in Congress seem obsessed with using Department of Justice resources and their own investigators to highlight perceived misconduct by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and House Democrats ever since against Donald Trump.  The bases for their efforts seem well-founded.  FBI’s leadership has been implicated, the impeachment proceedings were an anti-Trump orgy, and the claims of a Trump campaign/Russian collaboration are without evidence.

But who cares?

Of course, correcting malicious misinformation has its place as an historical record.  And it serves as vindication for those who protested the anti-Trump efforts at the time.

But history, of course, is about the past.  Few outside those who participated in it care about it now.

So it is foolish for members of the Republican Party to dwell on what happened.  The Public isn’t interested.

Talk about the future.

Can A Judge Be Fair and Objective?

 

Questions posed by U.S. Senators during Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Barrett implied “no”.

The preconception for such queries was the belief that a person’s opinion on an issue irrevocably controls the result when that person, as a judge, rules on a case involving the subject.

That view, I suggest, takes an improperly cynical view of human nature in action.  More broadly, the attitude is that one’s self-interest (and who doesn’t want one’s point of view to prevail?) will consistently determine his conduct.

Undoubtedly, many people follow that “rule” of sorts.  Thus, critics of a person in a position of authority faced with a choice between doing “his duty” or another which is more favorable to his personal situation highlight the conflict of interest.

But real life tells us the result is not a given.  Some people have integrity; others do not.

Does the physician prescribe expensive medical treatment which is unnecessary?

Does the lawyer advise costly litigation to a client when settlement makes sense?

And does the judge who has sworn to put aside personal feelings and opinions when rendering judgment abide by the oath?

The answers depend upon the individual.  Dealing with conflicts of interest is simply a fact of life.

I do not mean to suggest that a person of integrity is not subject to outside influences.  Perfection escapes us all.  But such a person will do his best to ignore them when fulfilling his formal role.

Accordingly, when evaluating a candidate for a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court (or as one’s tax accountant, for instance), the desired standards should include integrity as well as competence.

         

Is Inequality Caused By Racism?

 Certainly that’s the “woke” view as a given by the hard Left and increasingly endorsed by Democratic Party partisans.

That answer was succinctly put by a Boston University professor writing recently in The Atlantic magazine: 

 

          “Abolish police violence.  Abolish mass incarceration.  Abolish the racial wealth gap and the gap in school funding.  Abolish barriers to citizenship.  Abolish vote suppression.  Abolish health disparities." 

                           

The wish list, of course, covers more than curing inequality.  But White racial prejudice – institutional racism is the current label in vogue on the Left – is cited as the root cause of all these claimed social ailments.

But, are these claims true?  Undoubtedly racial prejudice exists involving all races and ethnicities everywhere.  History shows that such conditions have always existed.  Human nature being what it is, The Sensible Conservative suggests it always will be.

But is inequality in success rates in America explained by racism or are other more important factors at play?

Take educational performance.

Last year’s national testing of reading performance among 4^th graders resulted in the following results broken down by race:

          Percent of group deemed proficient:

                   Whites -  44%

                   Blacks -  18%

                   Asians -  55%

(First, let’s acknowledge that regardless of racial disparities, these results are an indictment of our educational system – 45% of the “best” group did poorly!)

Yes, Whites did markedly better than Black youngsters but how, through a racist prism, does one explain the superior performance of Asians?  Aren’t they supposed to be the victims of white racism, too?

Here is some additional evidence to consider when evaluating the differing outcomes which has nothing to do with the test-takers race. 

Asians – as a cultural matter – treasure education greatly and highlight its importance to their children.  Do you remember the turmoil generated a decade ago by the publication of Tiger Mom – Raising Children the Chinese Way?

Black children, however, often receive a different message.  Who hasn’t heard the slur that Black students succeeding academically are accused by peers of “acting White”?

It does not seem unlikely that there is a connection between educational accomplishments and success in life- at least economically.

Thus, it should not be a surprise that the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the average annual household income for Asians in 2014 - 2016 was over $93,000.  Black families earned $49,000.  Whites were in between.

Is this primarily racism at work?  Doubtful.

Has Trump Lost His Marbles?

 

As President Trump repeatedly alleges, Joe Biden may indeed, at his age, be suffering from early stage dementia.  But, as for Donald Trump, there is increasing evidence that he and common sense are estranged.

How else can one explain his initial refusal last week to renounce violence if his re-election bid fails?

His failure is bad on two fronts.  First, Trump aids the Left’s attack on him as an authoritarian who hates democracy and will cling to power any way he can.

Second, his answer implies that violence is OK if it’s “on his side”.   Thus, he undercuts the general public’s disgust with the leftwing and racial violence which has been plaguing various American cities for months.  That disgust   had been fueling a recent rise in the President’s poll numbers and has prompted Biden to announce that he, too, opposes the rioting and destruction.  Now what will the public response be?  A plague on both your houses?

[Note:  His later clarification was not helpful.  The President said he would leave office peacefully if the election is fair.  But if he believes that the election was unfair, Republicans should take to the streets?]

Even if Trump “really” did not mean what he said (he is notorious for saying, without a filter, what pops into his head) the impact on some unhinged listeners – both left and right – may be dangerous.

Trump, of course, has left no doubt for nearly four years that his “shoot from the hip” style is a paramount part of him.  So to continue the metaphor, he continues to put bullet holes in his feet.

Would that America – and Republicans in particular – were not victims  of his faulty aim as well.