How Can You Be a Defense Attorney?

 

The question invariably arises when a fellow lawyer learns that I am a political conservative.  The unspoken assumption behind the question that a person who defends those accused of crimes must be in some sense partial to them or, at the very least, suspicious of the police who made one’s client a defendant.  In other words, one who represents those accused of crimes is expected to be leery of law enforcers, maybe not an anarchist but at least a liberal.

I certainly don’t fall into those categories, 

My succinct response to the questioner is that the Bill of Rights provides protections for those accused of crimes such as a trial by jury and the right to remain silent.  What could be more conservative than protecting a client’s constitutional rights?

There is a broad irony to the question posed by fellow attorneys (most of whom consider themselves proud liberals).  Those on the left do, indeed, tend to be suspicious of the exercise of power by government employees who are in law enforcement, including prosecutors.  They see such personnel often as agents of racial prejudice and injustice (the prejudgment by many on the left of the police shooting in Ferguson, Missouri a few years ago is an example).  Yet liberals eagerly urge other arms of the government to get involved in curing perceived social ills such as income inequality, environmental hazards and health insurance inefficiencies.

But a conservative does not accept the distinction that those exercising powers of government are to be viewed suspiciously in some aspects but embraced in others.

Human nature is a constant in human endeavors.  The fact that a person is a “public servant” who considers himself well-motivated does not grant him an exemption from reality.  The ranks of law enforcement or social service agencies, for instance, all contain people – a mixture of good, bad and indifferent.

 Power does indeed corrupt.  That appreciation is at the heart of political conservatism and the U.S. Constitution.

Our Framers sought to restrain the exercise of power, while acknowledging that government is meaningless without it.

The essential role of the criminal defense attorney is to serve as a check on the exercise of governmental power in the criminal justice system.  Require the state to prove its accusations.  Provide a forum and rules to allow the defendant to challenge them.  That is the job of the defense attorney.  The skilled defender, be he liberal or otherwise, oblivious as he may be to the fact, is playing a very conservative role.  Our society would be much better off – and certainly more conservative – if non-law enforcement sections of our government were subjected to the same degree of scrutiny confronted by those who accuse others of crimes.

I am proud to be a criminal defense attorney because (not despite the fact) I am a conservative.

Is It a “Sure Thing” That Roe v. Wade Will Be Overturned?

 No and yes.  How’s that for a legalistic answer?

But it’s a realistic – and probable – forecast of the Mississippi abortion case before the U.S. Supreme Court

Most Conservative observers, to be sure, don’t expect an ambiguous outcome.  And they have a point.  The Court’s make-up strongly suggests that 6 0f the 9 justices oppose the legal underpinnings of the fifty year old ruling – serious legal scholars - many on the left - concur.  Roe v. Wade was indeed based upon the specious conclusion that abortion was protected by the U.S. Constitution.  This view was fortified by the addition of Justice Comey to the Court, lessening the need for the support of Chief Justice Roberts who has proven to be undependable on other high-profile cases (such as Obamacare).

Yet the apparent majority may not hold on a straight up and down vote.  Why not?  It is a myth that judges consistently ignore public opinion when fashioning rulings.  This is definitely the case when courts perceive that a decision will be challenged by significant opposition.  For instance, Brown v. Board of Education, outlawing school segregation, was issued as a deceptive unanimous decision by the US. Supreme Court.  Those on the bench who would have been in the minority were persuade that unanimity would accord the decision with more legitimacy for the American public.

A perception of legitimacy mattered then as it does now – the Chief Judge is particularly attuned to bolstering that concept.  Without an aura of legitimacy, the Court’s authority will vanish and its pronouncements ignored.  Think of the Dred Scott decision of 150 years ago. 

Abortion may not inflame America in the same way that the issue of slavery did then, but it certainly generates high passions on both sides with, polls show, half of the public for and half against.

Does the Supreme Court want to contribute to the damaging politicization already affecting the country?

Of course, in a legal vacuum, the Court could reach the sound judgment and toss out Roe and its Casey modifications.  But because we are not so situated, it will not.

That’s not to say that abortion rights will survive as a reality.  They will not.  Instead, the Roberts Court will side-step the question of whether the Roe decision penned by Justice Harry Blackman improperly found state proscription on abortions to be unconstitutional.

There are several ways, I believe, for the Court to gut Roe while leaving the form in place.  Simply rule that, since that case was issued in 1973, medical science has shown that human life in the womb starts not at some arbitrary week of pregnancy (becomes “viable”), but begins at the moment the egg is fertilized.  Thus, the Court can reason, Roe is not overruled as such, it has simply become outdated.    

That approach won’t appease the abortion advocates but it should dampen the ardor of their anger.  If the Roe decision is allowed to stand, it could well be used to permit termination of the unborn baby in extraordinary circumstances, for instance, of pregnancy caused by rape or incest.  Such  exceptions are already broadly accepted.

Pro-lifers will understand that banning and restricting abortions is once again a realistic option at the state level.

That’s a decision which will serve both the law and the public in

Does the Left Hate America?

 

On a superficial level, the question makes no sense.  Having sincere left-wing views should mean you want to make a better America, not disown it.  But looking deeper, it appears that many of the Left are hostile to our nation.

Wouldn’t you be too, if you believed that America is irredeemably racist and beyond redemption?  And since such animosity toward non-whites is evil, how do you avoid hating what is probably the land of your birth?

And, of course, anyone who disagrees with your assessment must be evil as well since such a person (of whatever color or race) is perpetuating systemic racism which is and always has been at the root of what is America.  It does not deserve to survive because it is hateful.

How can those who defend it be other than enemies?

                             *                           *                           *

Does this analysis seem over-wrought?  Certainly not all of those on the Left share the attitudes recited.  But the numbers of those who do are growing.  The MSNBC cable network is an excellent barometer of far-left sentiments.  In recent years, its hosts and panelists have become increasingly strident in their denunciations of white racism, which is, of course, is termed “systemic” in America.

(As an aside, “systemic” as used by the Left is nonsense.  Yes, a system of racial discrimination used to be incorporated into law in many jurisdictions across the land.  But that was many decades ago.  Of course, racial  prejudices continue to exist among individuals – always have and, human nature being what it is, always will.) 

We hear seemingly reasonable voices on both left and right lamenting the existence of political polarization.  The Sensible Conservative, in fact, has expressed similar consternation.

Yet the increasing divide on politics did not merely spring forth on the scene by happenstance.  If the Left views the Right as occupied by enemies, not mere opponents, Conservatives will reciprocate the hostility.  And that is precisely what has happened.

Can the chasm be bridged?  Can respect for differing views replace contempt?  Can we abolish the use of racial epithets as a substitution for intelligent disagreement?  How do we as Americans begin?

But, are the pessimistic voices heard sometimes on the Right correct?  Has the divide become so wide that the deep divisions are indeed insurmountable?

It may indeed be wishful thinking to be optimistic.

An outside event, like a long-term 9/11, may be the only realistic option to unite the country on shared goals once again. 

Have we really come to that?

 

Contemptuous Attitudes – Not Unpopular Policy Prescriptions – Are a Bigger threat to Democratic Party Prospects

 

Dismal election results earlier this month caused many Democratic leaders to cite Joe Biden’s low popularity as the main culprit and content themselves with the belief that future prospects will improve as the economy picks up and Covid wanes.

They are kidding themselves.

Sure, the President’s poll numbers may get better along with the economy.  But that’s not at the core of the Democratic Party’s malady.

Arrogance is.

That attitude came to the fore with the 2016 nomination of Hilary Clinton.  Donald Trump became president as a result.

Hilary Clinton was haughty, entitled and presumably contemptuous of those who did not fawn over her.

Opposition to Mrs. Clinton was personal.

[As a matter of fact, likeability is far more important to voters than policy matters about which, polling maker clear, few have well-informed opinions.  Thus, for instance, Ronald Reagan as President voiced views which were often shared by only a minority of the public.  But he was loved by most Americans regardless.]

That hostility has become more general toward the Democratic Party which seems determined to show its disregard for the values of most Americans.  Illegal immigration these days is largely ignored.  Last year’s summer of rioting was excused and our foreign policy reeks of weakness.  Most recently, their candidate for Virginia’s governor dismissed the value of parents’ input for school education.

This attitude of arrogance, contempt and superiority toward those not considered as intelligent and sophisticated as they are will not be easily forgiven or forgotten.

The Democratic Party, in short, has become insulting to those who do not endorse or acquiesce to its left-wing prescriptions.  The opposition generated is personal.

Their comeuppance is gaining momentum.

 

As an aside, Happy Thanksgiving!  We all have reasons to be grateful to be living in America, whether we recognize them or not.

American Individualism Will Overcome Woke-ish Tribalism

 

A disturbing trend in America during the past few decades has been the Left’s preoccupation with race as the dominant factor in seemingly all phases of our society.

It will not last.

Predicting its end is not the same as knowing when, of course.  And certainly, the Biden Administration is doing its best to promote the racial division that undergirds tribalism.

But the drive to separate Americans from one another will be thwarted by demographic changes.

Increasingly, Americans are marrying – and having children – across racial lines.  Biracial children, in particular, are inclined to identify as individuals, not group members.  There’s no such thing as a biracial tribe.

To illustrate:

Sage Steele, a long-time ESPN personality – and child of black and white parents – recently questioned Barack Obama’s claims to be “black” despite his biracial history. 

[As a matter of fact, that identification seems strange especially since he was raised by his mother’s white family; his black father abandoned the future president soon after his birth.]

Not surprisingly, Ms. Steele was placed in purgatory by woke ESPN for her sensible observation.

Intermarriage among all racial groups will continue to increase, further dimming racial identification and concurrent tribalism.  Eventually, individualism will once again be at the core of what it means to be an American.

 

 

 

Democracy in America – Lessons Ignored

 I recently re-read Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America and was surprised by my mixed reactions.  (I first picked it up 40 some years ago for a college course and more likely skimmed it rather than carefully digesting the contents.)

The book, written in the 1830s, is generally treated by academics as a classic examination of self-rule in practice.  The author spends many pages highlighting the vitality of American political life which engages the citizenry at all levels, but especially at the most local.  De Tocqueville particularly focuses on the affinity of the populace to associate with others, both for social, economic as well as political purposes.

The inclination of Americans to band together and participate in their own governance was heralded as the bedrock of democracy in America by the book and subsequent commentators.

[Plainly that circumstance is no longer the rule in our political life.  It has become the exception with general knowledge of our constitutional system waning - polls make clear – and with group affiliation less attractive.  If Americans increasingly don’t participate in self-government, will abdication lead to the end of the democracy?]

Less attention is given to another aspect of the American democracy which was considered by de Tocqueville as critical to its survival – a history of self-rule.  Such a history was hardly universal in the 19^th century, nor is it in the 21^st.

To quote:

 "The whole structure of the (American) government is artificial and conventional and it would be ill-adapted to a people which has not been long accustomed to conduct its own affairs..."

         How many lives and treasure were lost because U.S. policy makers trying to foist democracy on Iraq and Afghanistan ignored – or were ignorant of – these words to the wise?

So, yes, there is much to learn that has indeed stood the test of time.  But some observations – such as the necessity of a committed and virtuous pubic – are, one hopes, simply dated and no longer a prerequisite for the survival of democracy in America.

 

 

Many on the Right Have Gone Looney Tunes, Too

 

The Sensible Conservative is no longer so smug about the abundance of common sense on the Right and its deficiency on the Left.

The Covid 19 dispute over getting inoculated has exposed many seemingly responsible conservatives as nuts.

A harsh assessment, yes.  Deserved?  Absolutely.

Consider Fox News.  It’s early morning show and nighttime personalities are fixated on promoting the “anti-vax” perspective.   The issue, to them, is the personal freedom to refuse.  The various mandates from private businesses and governmental entities are consistently damned.  Yet no attention to their purpose is given other than the view that its all about expanding government power over the people.  The fact that the unvaccinated are more likely than those who have gotten their shots to infect others is ignored.  So why the heated resistance?  It is not as if the risk to one’s health in getting the vaccine is significant.  Of course, nothing is risk free, but it pales in comparison with the mortal threat posed by Covid 19.

Perhaps the simple answer, for most, really has nothing to do with health considerations.  It is politics.  If President Biden and the government are in favor of the public getting shots – and ham-handedly directing them to do so – that is enough for many conservatives to react foolishly.  “If he is for it, I’m agin it”.  That response brings to life that old expression of “biting off one’s nose to spite one’s face”.

And one mustn’t forget the irony of President Trump’s successful role in accelerating the development of Covid 19 vaccines with his concurrent promotion of medical quackery.  The latter attracted adherents to be sure.  For them, this was more appealing than the former accomplishments.

Looney tunes indeed comes to mind.

But the silliness, even the deadly foolishness, can be exceeded by those from whom one should least expect such; the mature, intelligent and well-educated.

Dennis Prager hosts an on-line site which features a variety of well- regarded video programs from a conservative vantage point.

So, it was with shock that I heard this older person report that since he wanted to develop a natural immunity to Covid 19, he did not get the vaccine.  Instead, he sought to become infected by deliberately initiating close contact with as many people as he could hug and touch.  Of course, he was unmasked.

He succeeded and did not die.  Congratulations to him on overcoming his intelligence and background to join the ranks of the genuine idiots (and don’t forget that his reckless behavior may have infected – even killed – others).

To my chagrin, The Sensible Conservative must confess that idiocy is not confined to the Left.

Do any sensible people remain?

Guard Rails of American Politics are Gone

 

In days gone by, American politics was dominated by moderation, both in tone and in substance.  Disagreements were usually expressed civilly and those who did not conduct themselves in such a manner were ostracized by members of both parties.

As for substance, Alabama governor George Wallace had a point that there wasn’t a “dime’s worth of difference” between Republicans and Democrats.  Of course, Wallace’s characterization was a bit hyperbolic.  The GOP generally favored restraint of federal spending and authority that the other party fought to expand.  Disagreements may have been heated but generally not personally venomous.  And there was also a consensus that politics should not affect America’s foreign affairs.

The political establishment took steps to maintain the reality of American moderation.

In the 1960s, the John Birch Society attracted a hard right following.  In response, leaders of the Republican Party and the growing Conservative movement, personified by National Review’s William F. Buckley, Jr., denounced the group as irresponsible.  Its support quickly vanished.

Also during the same period, the widespread anti-Vietnam War protests included hardcore elements advising services for the Viet Cong and Communist ideology.  These left-wing extremists coalesced around the 1968 candidacy of Eugene McCarthy.  Their efforts were quashed by the old guard of the Democratic Party, including Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and Minnesota Senator and Presidential nominee Hubert Humphrey.

Today, the old guard of both sides, which used to rein in excesses on their respective extremes, has disappeared or become intimidated.  Those who used to adjudicate – and enforce – restraint have abdicated their roles.

So the country has recently elected a president who eagerly violated the traditional norms of civil discourse and promoted individuals from the “kook” right such as Steve Bannon.  [As a mark of the differences of the political climate of today from the 80s, National Review’s strenuous efforts to upend Trump’s candidacy were ineffective.]

The election of “moderate” Joe Biden was heralded by many as a return to the tenor of better times.

Not to be.

The Biden Administration and Congressional Democrats instead have either thrown in the towel in posing any resistance to the likes of Bernie Sanders and the AOC “squad” or have revealed their allegiance to their socialist-leaning policies.  Forty-eight Democratic Senators and over two hundred House members have fallen in line to support the left-wing agenda.

It’s easy to say that old guard rails should be rebuilt for the good of the country.  But how?  Perhaps their importance will be recognized as extremism produces the inevitable counter-reaction.

Or not.

 

Why is the Preposterous Taken Seriously?

 

The examples are numerous.  Here are three popular ones:

 

*** Call for tributes and statues of American Founders to be withdrawn and/or torn down because they were morally imperfect (they owned slaves).

 

*** Requiring voters to have IDs is racist.

 

*** A transgender male should be permitted to compete in athletic events confined to women.

 

Not so long ago, none of the positions would have been the proverbial “time of day”.  Rather, the light response would have been “you’re joking, of course,” followed by laughter at those very idea.

The fact that such is no longer a given for many is stark evidence that change is not necessarily positive.

Consider the transgender athlete.  Does he have a “right” to compete against females?  Is it fair?  In this context, those are opposing concerns.  The biological male, as a matter of his sex, as a general matter is endowed by nature with physical abilities – such as strength – that females in general do not possess.  The fact that a male prefers to consider himself as feminine – and wishes he were not born in a male body – does not alter the unfairness of his participation.

And what of his “rights” to be accepted by all on his terms?  Where did that idea come from?  Is any individual entitled to compel others to accept his self-identification or characterization?  What of the rights of others to treat others as they deem appropriate, proper or right and to insist upon fairness?

Lewis Carroll wrote Alice in Wonderland in 1865.  It was a satire and recognized as such.

In 2021, its account would be heralded by many – with justification – as true.

 

The Underestimated Power of Labels

 

Members of a democratic community like America prefer to think of themselves as well-informed about political and governmental policy matters.  But most are not.

Polling constantly shows that large segments of the US. Population are ignorant of the most basic facts of our national government such as the role of the Supreme Court or the number of Senators each state has.  And few keep up with developments in national affairs.  Nonetheless, Americans do have opinions about such matters, ill-informed though they may be.

These observations are not meant to be condemnations of our countrymen, although James Madison, et. al., had high expectations that a self-governing populace would take its role seriously in the formation of opinion on public policy.  It was assumed that contemplation would precede formation.  The present-day reality, of course, is contrary.  Most people are too busy, life is too complicated and full of too many competing elements that did not exist in the 18^th century.

Instead, most Americans today form opinions based on short-cuts.  What is the story’s headline or the internet sites “trending” summary?  Do you like the labels or not?

Those who attach labels to opinions, ideas or organizations, if they are astute, know precisely what they are about.  People are attracted to appealing words and look no further.

The label determines the opinion.

Consider:

          Are you pro-life or pro-choice?  Certainly, the terms both resonate on a superficial basis.  But, of course, behind each label, controversy abounds. But, the relative appeal of each shapes the opinion held.

           How about the Biden Administration’s campaign for massive infrastructure spending?  Unobjectionable on its face:  repairs to roads and bridges come readily to mind.  Yet the pleasing label has been affixed to a variety of social spending measures as well – such as pre-school funding.

           Are you a “progressive”?  To be sure.  Does anyone but Neanderthals (to use the President’s negative label) disagree?  Yet who understands that the political labels is applied to left-wing policy proponents?

 

[It is lamentable that many pundits on the Right use the same term when referring to their left-wing foes.  I recognize that they don’t use the label as an endorsement but why use the superficially positive self-identification language of the other side.]

One can say that people should look beyond labels.  Sorry, hope is not reality.  And few do.  That is why labeling is so very important to the formation of public opinion.

Alas, the Left has proven to be more generally more adept at this than their opposition.

 

 

July 4 Optimism

 

With Joe Biden, sold to America as a moderate, gleefully moving Left to please the AOCs, it’s hard as a conservative to feel upbeat about our nation at times.

Don’t despair.

America, at its core, remains a liberty-loving land with patriotism in its soul.

I was reminded of this fact during a July 4 parade in a small East Coast community.  The area is among the least likely, according to common perceptions, to display fervent and widespread patriotism.  The inhabitants are racially and culturally diverse with many first and second generation immigrants among the population.  Judging from the strong majority given to Democratic candidates, the prevailing political view is decidedly liberal.  In short, the “elites” of America, would consider the town to be inhospitable to events celebrating a love for the United States of America.

Yet, there they were, lining the parade route in high numbers and cheering loudly while waving and holding American flags as local politicians and members of veterans’ groups marched happily by. 

It was delightful to watch and reminded The Sensible Conservative that despite the bad news that seemingly assaults America in these days with little respite, optimism for our future is still greatly justified.  How can it be otherwise when strong patriotism is still alive in such a community as I’ve just described?

 

When the Illusion of Hope Overcomes History

 

Mankind is undoubtedly tempted to forget the lessons of history and believe in the allure of hope.

This faith in what is often a tragic course was illustrated by a recent article in the New York Times about a growing appreciation in China for the writings of Mao Tse Tung.

Apparently, there’s great disenchantment among younger Chinese with the nature of their semi-capitalist, state-controlled society and economy.  Don’t the writings of the long dead “Teacher” (as Mao preferred to be called) with their promise of justice for the oppressors – and victory for the oppressed – hold out hope for a better future?

But how does one answer such ”understandable yearnings”?

History.  The words of promise became deeds of horror as Mao’s rule led to the death of millions of his countrymen (caused by forced famines, the Cultural Revolution, etc.)

But hope – as the expression goes – springs eternal and the experiences of the past are readily forgotten.  Anyway, believers who still remember will say we’ll do a better job next time to turn hope into the desired reality.

And human nature will change, too?

Optimism is a fine attitude.  We humans thrive when it is present.  But the virtue is often accompanied by the sin of hubris.  We are fools when we ignore reality.

The consequence are calamitous.  And so history repeats itself with predictable results.

Sometimes all the conservatives can do is follow the example of Jeremiah.  Tell the unwelcome truth.  Don’t be a fool.

Foolishness at Fox

 

Fox News used to have a reputation among intelligent conservatives for    responsible hosts who gave platforms to prominent and thoughtful figures on the Right.  Hosts such as Megyn Kelly and Bill O’Reilly and opinion leaders such as Charles Krauthammer and George Will come to mind.

Things have changed since 2016, when Donald Trump started attracting significant support on the Right which led to the White House.

From that period, Fox became more interested in offering its audience a less sophisticated view on news and opinion in favor of perspectives likely to win emotional approval (and profit) from viewers.  So, a sometimes skeptical take on Trump’s policy pronouncements was replaced generally by unrestrained endorsement and a vigorous defense of the President.  (Sean Hannity – who acknowledged almost daily phone contact with him - is the primary example.)  That has resulted in Fox commentators often appearing to offer excuses and rationalizations for Trump’s unconscionable  conduct like his role in contributing to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

The pattern has continued.  For reasons highlighted in last week’s blog of The Sensible Conservative, many on the Right have refused to get Covid-19 vaccines.  Related to that nonsensical position (the costs are essentially non-existent while the benefits can be life-saving), many Americans are protesting mask mandates as an infringement on individual freedom.  Of course, it is.  But does that constitute a reasonable basis for refusal?

NO.

To be sure, the efficiency of mask wearing is not resolved.  So what?  Maybe masks do prevent the spread of a deadly virus.  And the limitation on freedom of choice is hardly a serious consequence.  Concern for public health certainly should over-ride an aversion to wearing face covering if doing so might serve the interest of others.  (How about school vaccinations to protect the student’s classmates?)

Yet, despite these considerations, some Fox hosts believe that spokesmen for the “right to refuse” deserve a platform.

Apparently, many Fox viewers are sympathetic to that view.  But, it is a ridiculous attitude which should be denounced by the network, not given credibility by airing it.

Fox News appears foolish and non-serious while doing so.  And it is not helping its viewers by giving respect to the “mask deniers”.  Maybe lives are being put at risk because some people believe that their “liberty” is being infringed upon.  Freedom should not be made to appear dangerous.

Why Republicans Are More Likely Than Democrats to Be “Vax-hesitant”

 

On one level, the question seems nonsensical.  How can concerns for one’s health trigger a partisan reaction?

As for The Sensible Conservative – who got shots as soon as they were available – that perspective never occurred.  However, for many other Republicans, it did.

Why?

Leave aside that getting a vaccine seems a “no brainer”.  The risks and costs are -  given a ½ year’s experience - insignificant when compared to potential benefits (saving lives including the recipients!).

So what are the reasons?  Two stand out.  President Trump and liberal media.

The former president has simply been irresponsible.  His initial dismissal of Covid 19’s threat was compounded by his attitude during his own hospitalization.  Taking an excursion, while still a patient, to drive by assembled fans, illustrated that lack of seriousness with which Trump viewed the epidemic.  And then, in December 2020, the President received his inoculations but did so without publicity (so as not to upset his supporters who had believed a vaccine was unnecessary?).

So, to many in Donald Trump’s base, if he doesn’t think it’s serious, why should they?

And then there is the general news media.  Due to their long-term bias and hostility to Republicans, the absence of credibility among those on the Right is a major problem.  The messenger has earned its reputation. The news media is not believed.  CNN hysteria aside, The Sensible Conservative believes that most news outlet (mostly liberal, of course) are doing their best to be accurate in reporting guidance on the pandemic and the genuine need for more Americans to get vaccinated… but there was a very good reason why the little boy crying wolf was ignored.  He had a poor record for reliability. 

The End in Afghanistan

 

The entry was without serious controversy – no one other than those committed to “America Last” took issue with the need to overturn Taliban rule which fostered Al Qaeda and 9/11.

But, after that was accomplished, America remained in-country to continue the fight against terrorism and engage in nation building.

The ongoing first task made sense; the second much less so.

We Americans are the world’s most generous people.  We want others to share in the freedom, democracy and prosperity which we have come to view as a birthright.  And we are also so naïve – and, dangerously so – as Afghanistan has illustrated.  Non-western countries are usually not at all like us.  They are typically tribal, with no respect for individual rights and a political history that has never operated a form of government which we would recognize as other than an autocracy or dictatorship.  Yet we, nonetheless, have a habit of ignoring these simple facts and continuing in our foolish efforts to “plant” our values in barren soil.  And at such a horrible cost.

The proponents of such policies should not be forgiven.  Americans have a right to demand that their leaders be not fools.  Good intentions do not excuse the failure to heed history and common sense.

The leading fool is Republican President George W. Bush who started it all.

Yet there is another important consideration.  Foolish though nation building was in Afghanistan, we were deeply involved there.  How we left mattered.  A world power can be foolish, but if it is steadfast in supporting its allies and wards, both foe and friends will take note in a manner which does not weaken its standing.  But abandonment?  That generates feelings of opportunity for those who oppose us and fear among those who had relied on our promises.

Apparently, President Biden was surprised by the rapid disintegration of resistance to the Taliban.  That reaction was consistent with his reputation.  Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a Republican who served in that post under Barack Obama, wrote that Joe Biden was consistently on the wrong side of foreign policy issues.  So, at least he’s consistent.  Think about it. If support upon which you have been dependent and view as vital to your survival is withdrawn, the urge to “run for the hills” must be overwhelming for most.  As it was for the Afghan military.

So the actual end in Afghanistan is a horrific conclusion to America’s ill-fated involvement.  President Biden has earned the blame.  He is not alone.  His predecessor is an unwilling companion.

An Unexpected Silver Lining is Found in the Deplorable Afghan Rout

 

It was a humiliating end to our twenty year involvement in Afghanistan.

How did America react?

In a surprise to The Sensible Conservative, essentially none of our countrymen gloated over our own nation’s disgrace.  I say “surprise” because in our land’s divisive political environment of public disrespect for our flag and national anthem, I expected many on the Left to revel in this humbling of the United States.

To the contrary, all across the political spectrum, including MSNBC, CNN and the old-line liberal networks and press, horror was expressed over the humiliation of America.

Further, President Biden and his Administration’s incompetence and fairy tale rendering of events generally prompted scorn and anger.

America felt united in a way that had not existed since, ironically, “9-11”.

It may seem an odd assessment but the surprise was a humbling recognition that we on the Right are often too quick to challenge the patriotism of those on the Left.  To be sure, anti-patriots do dwell in their ranks, but recent evidence indicates they’re not as numerous as the publicity for the “take a knee” proponents would suggest.

The “silver lining” is proof that most Americans do love her and are upset when our leaders bring her into disrepute.  Our nation will surely rebound.  We always have.  With the backing of our people, there can be no doubt.

 

Is America Exceptional ? (continued)

 

During July 4 week, this seems a particularly appropriate time to consider why our nation is so.

          *  Here’s a largely unknown fact:  Americans are an exceptionally generous people when compared to those in the rest of the world.  Citizens of the U.S. – not our government – give over 2% of our gross domestic product to charity.  The closest county is Canada at 1.2%, France at .3% and European power house Germany is .1%.

          *  American stands up for its values.  Words are cheap.  Action is costly, as members of our military are well aware.

          *  American exceptionalism is also accompanied by hubris and a naïve belief that our political system of liberal democracy will be welcomed by people everywhere.  So we are foolish at times.  But we do try rather consistently to make the world a better place.

In this world of evil, harshness and cynicism, that’s an exceptionalism worth celebrating.

 

Happy July 4^th!

 

You are blessed to live in the “land of the free and the home of the brave”.

Is America Exceptional?

 

An affirmative answer used to be a given across the land.  No longer.  Why is that?

Some of the answer is simple ignorance.  If our schools no longer focus on civics – or skip the subject entirely – there is no basis for comparison.  Exceptional compared to what?

Others, these days, seemingly hate what America stands for – or used to.  Memorials and statues of historical figures are defaced or destroyed because of the imperfections of those meant to be honored.  In the same vein, major publications, business and entertainment industries foster and promote the libel that America is not only today a racist country but was founded to secure racism.

So let me recite facts – not emotions – that America as a nation always has been – and remains – an exceptional place.  Of course, perfection is not contended and sometimes some of us can be exceptionally bad (race riots spring to mind).  But, on the whole, The Sensible Conservative suggests to be an American is a blessing indeed.

Now for reminders of our often-neglected positive history and the generally good nature of our fellow Americans.

          *  In 1775, the American Revolution began in reality (the Battle’s of Lexington in Concord MA began in April).  This commenced the battle for liberty which, while formally announced in July of 1776, took seven years to reach fruition.  Finally, a nation of freedom-loving inhabitants existed committed to self-government.  Albeit the commitment had major exclusions.  But in the world of the 18th century, it was an exceptional fact, indeed.

          *  1787 brought together an exceptional group which established a governmental framework that would ensure the survival of individual freedom by limiting authority.  It is fair to say that many observers back then had more hope than expectation that this unique experiment would survive.  But it has and serves as a beacon of hope for freedom-seeking people everywhere.

          *  1861-1865, the Civil War.  750,000 died.  400,000 Union soldiers and 350,000 Confederates.  As of 1860, the U.S. population (32 million) was ten percent of the number of inhabitants today.  Translation:  those deaths to match statistics today would mean 7 ½ million casualties.  Reparations?  How many more needed to die in the fight to end slavery?

          *1917-1918 – the U.S. enters World War I and rescues European democracies

          *1941-1945 – American industry and military save the world from Nazism.  [The Soviet Union would have collapsed before the war’s end without materiel support from the U.S.]

 

[To Be Continued]

 

 

Should Unintended Consequences of a Policy Excuse its Proponents from Not Anticipating the Results?

 

Too often the answer is no.

All of us do things with good intentions that don’t work out as hoped.  And, ok, we make mistakes and misjudge what’s the best thing to do.  But we should learn from the experience (and those of others) and try to do better next time.  If we don’t, we are fools.  As the adage goes, to do something again which failed the first time and expect a different outcome is a definition of insanity.

To ignore human nature, as those on the left are wont to do, generates untold misery and worse.  Of course, one can deny that humankind has flawed, ingrained dispositions or that evil people exist, for instance.

But common sense and history prove otherwise.  Does the fate of utopian projects come to find?

Hope should not supersede reality.  [That, to me, is a summary statement of the Conservative’s political perspective.]

Consider recent examples of what happens when hope determines policy.

 

Defund the police:

          I am confident that the woke Left neither desired nor expected that a jump in crime rates would ensue in the wake of its demands (anarchists excluded).  But they were fools not to have anticipated such results.

 

End hostility to illegal border crossings:

          Did President Biden truly believe that his words opposing Trump’s strict enforcement would not encourage increased efforts to enter the U.S.?

                   Yes.  I don’t think he wished to invite tens of thousands of illegals to storm north.  (There is no evidence that he has joined those of the Left who want open borders.)  So what happened was unintended.  But was it unanticipated as well?  Only a fool would think so.

 

Give out free money: 

          The economy is recovering rapidly but progress is being hampered by the apparent reluctance of many currently unemployed people to work.  Why get a job when a person formerly employed in low-paying service jobs (in restaurants, in particular) gets more money sitting on the sidelines?

          Did the President and Congress intend to slow the economic recovery?  No.  But again, given human nature, was the consequence unanticipated?

The Federalist – Reconsidered

 

[I’m referring to the 1788 version (not the Web pages) penned as a series of newspaper columns supporting ratification of the proposed U.S. Constitution.]

Every twenty years or so, it seems The Sensible Conservative peruses a copy  and plows through (it’s not an easy read)  as a reminder of our Constitutional guide.

This year’s re-read, I’ll confess, has generated not only reverence for founding principles but criticisms not previously considered.

***James Madison’s most celebrated contribution to the Federalist is No. 10 which argues that the very size and multitudes of the American populace establishes that “factions” (interest groups) would not be able to band together into a majority that can overcome the rights of the minority.

Comment:  Political parties, which didn’t exist during the time of confederation, today illustrate that factions are still a threat to the minority.  Is not the Democratic Party a faction in full control of Congress and the Chief Executive which is already showing a disposition to act without the participation of the minority GOP?

***Alexander Hamilton, an aristocrat by temperament and intellectual orientation, was confident that the common sense of the people in general would cause them to choose their representatives and leaders from “their betters” among them.

Comment:  Wishful thinking founded on an opinion that fellow Americans then took their responsibilities for wise self-government more seriously than later generations.  Are we proud of the quality of our political leaders chosen by today’s electorate?

***Madison, in particular, believed that virtuous leaders were vital to the survival of the limited government wrought by the Constitution.

Comment:  Fortunately, our Constitutional government has been able to survive and prosper despite the absence of virtue in so many politicians.

Even if one separates (perhaps improperly) public from the private version,  exposure to virtuous conduct in the White House shows that virtuous conduct in the White House is not a given.  Consider whether virtuous conduct was a mark of the presidents of the past 70 years.  Yes as to Truman, Eisenhower, Carter, the Bushes and Obama.  No to  LBJ, Nixon, Clinton, Trump and, I fear, Biden.  [JFK is hardest to pigeonhole.  Although he used the President's house as a brothel, there is no evidence that he was corrupt on public matters,]

I didn’t take my reaction to be mere quibbles.  Yet the lack of total prescience can hardly be a fair basis for criticism of what was written 230 years ago.

As for human nature, it remains as it was – The Federalist continues to be relevant as a primer on the subject.

DOES THE RISE OF “IDENTITY POLITICS” PORTEND AMERICA’S DECLINE?

 

That is not a hyperbolic question.

America’s economic and political systems were founded on individualism.  Think of the free enterprise system which has led to great prosperity as the result of entrepreneurship.  And, of course, the Constitution enshrined controls on government authority for the benefit of individual Americans.

Two hundred and fifty years later, it’s easy to forget how truly revolutionary these principles were at the time.  Of course, a focus on the individual as independent from the group to which he “belonged” (whether race, national origin, class, etc.) predated 1776.  John Locke comes to mind.  Yet members of societies around the world were divided due to heritage or occupation into sub-groups (e.g. tribes).

America was to be different.  The Bill of Rights was for individuals, not groups.  There was no royal line nor recognized aristocracy.  The United States of America was designed to be very different, indeed.  And is not that a large part of the reason for our national success of the past  2 ½ centuries?

Alas, the commitment to these founding principles is waning for many Americans and apparently is extinguished for a substantial number of others.

National unity, patriotism, was grounded in the evolution of people’s self-identification.  It is no meaningless cliché to say America is a land of immigrants (with the exception of the American Indian – the only natives) for that is our heritage.  We arrived with our particular identities, countries of origin or otherwise.  But, in time, a person from Italy, for instance, may have viewed himself as “from there” to becoming an Italian American than simply an American citizen whose historical origin was usually little more than a footnote to his life.  It was the melting pot in action.

Labels have returned.  Americans are increasingly identified by race, for instance.  The person who used to be described as a “black American” is now labeled “Black”.  The capitalization highlights the view that the individual’s race is on a par – if not superior – to his identity as an American.  The same goes for hyphenations:  Asian-Americans, African-Americans, etc.

Those are all forms of “tribalism”.  What matters from that perspective is not who you are, but what you are.

Your individual self is subsumed in the tribe.  The perceived enemy of any member of the tribe is cast as an enemy of all.  Along those lines, if the foe is a member of another tribe, all its members are enemies, too.

Recognizing the existence of such tribal thinking explains a lot of the ill affecting modern America.

Consider the Minneapolis police officer accused – and convicted – of killing a black suspect.  From the perspective of individualism, that person was responsible for his conduct and rightfully held accountable.  So why was a cop shot in Chicago as a result of what happened hundreds of miles away?  It makes sense only if both police officers are members of the same tribe.  They’re both cops.

Another example that doesn’t usually involve violence but is corrosive to American society all the same.  Political parties are becoming tribal.  Many Republicans view Democrats (and certainly vice versa) not merely as foes but as enemies of values they hold dear.

Can this descent be halted?  It certainly seems as if the fascination among so many of us with what divides us is only increasing.  Diversity training, wokeism, media approval, or indifference to identity-fueled rioting are continuing their upward trends.  And all are antithetical to America’s survival as a great and exceptional nation.

 

A Variation on “The Emperor’s New Clothes”

 

 

A professor at Georgetown University’s law school recently lost her job because she was recorded commenting on the academic performance of black students in her classes.  Specifically, she said such students were “just plain at the bottom”.

Alas, the candid, private comment to a fellow staffer was not subject to serious consideration of its accuracy.  Rather, it was condemned as “insensitive”.  And, of course, in today’s left-wing  academia, adherence to sensitivity trumps encouragement of honest assessment.

In the old days, before “progressive” ideology took hold on the Left, the “cancel” remark might have generated the following intelligent queries:  (1) was the assessment accurate? (2) if so, what explains the poor performance and (3) what can be done to remedy the situation?

Instead, large segments of American society seem  so obsessed with not giving offense that they pattern their behavior after the crowd viewing the naked emperor parading his “new” clothes in Hans Christian Andersen”s famous fable.

Seldom, these days, do we hear from the child in the crowd giving voice to the obvious.