Category: US politics

Ann Althouse:

“The Obama staffers are now cutting out the people who got Biden elected. None of these people found the courage to help the VP when he was running and now they are elevating their friends over the Biden people. “

“It’s fucked up…. There’s real doubt about whether they will be taken care of…People are pissed…. I think I’m going to be taken care of but I have not been taken care of yet. I am really interested to find out how you even find out how you got a job in this White House.”

Said a Biden adviser quoted in  “‘People are pissed’: Tensions rise amid scramble for Biden jobs/Veterans of the Democratic primary campaign fear they’re being squeezed out of plum posts by later arrivals” (Politico).

The current fears about the transition being taken over by the previous generation of Obama staffers who make up Washington’s permanent establishment are coming from a younger set of Biden true believers who chose to work for him in early 2019 even when all of the cool young operatives were flocking to Beto and Bernie and Warren. Even then, there was a disconnect between the brain trust at the top of the campaign, which is now seamlessly moving to the top of the White House, and the Biden proletariat that made up the bulk of the campaign operation. The fear from the proles is that the brain trust doesn’t understand that they are being left behind.

Why wouldn’t they be left behind? They’re not cool.

ADDED: The real trick will be Phase 2 — leaving Biden behind. He’s not cool.

Facebook Friend Michael Smith:

Most people are familiar with George Orwell’s book, 1984.
In a post from this past week, I mentioned The Road to Serfdom, written by economist F.A. Hayek, and Orwell without noting that these two men were contemporaries and that Orwell had critiqued Hayek’s book. About Hayek’s thesis, he wrote that Hayek proposed that socialism inevitably leads to tyranny—and that the Nazis’ success in Germany was due to the fact that socialists had done most of the work for them, including “the intellectual work of weakening the desire for liberty.”
Something that was brought up in the discussion following my post is that what many do not realize is that the author of such warnings against the evils of socialist-style governments like Animal Farm and 1984, was, himself, a socialist.
How is it possible that a socialist could describe socialism as Orwell did in “1984” this way: “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.”

That question is worthy of an answer.

As brilliant a writer and intellectual as Orwell was, he could also be a very a conflicted socialist, suffering from cognitive dissonance – but the case could also be made that Orwell was a realist.

Of socialism and capitalism, he wrote:

“Capitalism leads to dole queues, the scramble for markets, and war. Collectivism leads to concentration camps, leader worship, and war.”

Both premises are historically true. Whether those truths are the fault of either the various ideologies or the humans who adopt and prosecute them is another discussion entirely. As many have noted, the most heinous and gruesome of events are often the result of “doing good” for nations, societies and the people who inhabit them.

Orwell held the Utopian view that in an ideal world, governments would combine the best of both socialism and free-market capitalism for the ultimate good and freedom of the people. He did say that he believed that politics would eventually turn toward a more collectivist and/or socialist model (if public opinion had anything to say about it) because given the choice, he thought people would generally prefer a regimented state government to economic slumps and unemployment.

And yet, from evidence found in his writings, Orwell did not seem to think either socialism or free-market capitalism would create a better world due to the faults in both. Of the Road to Serfdom, Orwell wrote:

“In the negative part of Professor Hayek’s thesis there is a great deal of truth. It cannot be said too often – at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough – that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamed of.”

Orwell could not reconcile his belief in socialism with reality and as almost every socialist does, they wrap themselves in the cloak of “democracy”, as if that cloak is the ultimate protection against criticism. Interestingly enough, the practical, and historically accurate, definition of democracy to a socialist is that every citizen gets to vote for the collective majority that, once elections are concluded, goes about ignoring those votes and proceeds to dominate the citizenry.

But as H.L. Mencken wrote in 1925, democracy is certainly no panacea or savior, democracy is the enemy of liberty:
“Liberty and democracy are eternal enemies, and every one knows it who has ever given any sober reflection to the matter. A democratic state may profess to venerate the name, and even pass laws making it officially sacred, but it simply cannot tolerate the thing. In order to keep any coherence in the governmental process, to prevent the wildest anarchy in thought and act, the government must put limits upon the free play of opinion. In part, it can reach that end by mere propaganda, by the bald force of its authority – that is, by making certain doctrines officially infamous. But in part it must resort to force, i.e., to law… At least ninety-five Americans out of every 100 believe that this process is honest and even laudable; it is practically impossible to convince them that there is anything evil in it. In other words, they cannot grasp the concept of liberty.”

The ultimate failure of any form of coerced collectivism (socialism, Marxism, communism) is something often touted as its greatest benefit – total democracy, i.e. the “dictatorship of the proletariat”. Unfortunately for collectivists, the democratic decision-making process is simply not scalable or efficient enough to successfully accomplish economic planning of a dimension necessary for a collectivist Utopia to survive. It always devolves to a small cabal of individuals who make the calls.

Of this, Hayek wrote:

“By bringing the whole of life under the control of the State, Socialism necessarily gives power to an inner ring of bureaucrats, who in almost every case will be men who want power for its own sake and will stick at nothing in order to retain it.”

The idea that any form of “democratic collectivism” is achievable is a farce because, to paraphrase Professor Hayek, “the worst get on top.”

It appears even a conflicted socialist like Orwell knew this.

Katie Pavlich:

A number of teachers unions around the country have been fighting to keep schools closed despite scientific evidence showing children aren’t a source of Wuhan coronavirus spread.

Last week New York City schools, which make up the largest school district in the country, were shut down with little notice to parents.

Now, additional data continues to show the devastating impacts of keeping schools closed and details which children are most negatively affected.

Special needs students have also suffered immensely.

President Trump has advocated for months that schools should be open, with precautions taken to protect teachers.

Daniel Henninger:

Pessimism is to conservative politics what pumpkin pie is to Thanksgiving: It’s always on the table. Not long ago about this time of year, liberals would post articles with titles such as, “How to talk to your Uncle Jim at Thanksgiving.” Those pieces had one valid premise—that Uncle Jim would say over his turkey that the world is going to hell, yet again. And on the evidence around some tables, Uncle Jim was right.

William A. Galston:

More than half a century ago, in the waning weeks of the 1968 presidential contest, a young girl attended a Nixon campaign event holding a sign that read “Bring us together again.” This would be the theme of Mr. Nixon’s speech the night he beat Vice President Hubert Humphrey and former Gov. George Wallace of Alabama.

A quarter-century later, on the night of his own victory, Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton declared his intention to “bring us together as never before.”

Sixteen years after that declaration, President-elect Barack Obama, who had attracted national attention with his famous vision of an America neither red nor blue but one and united, spoke of his “determination to heal the divisions that have held back our progress.” He cited the lines from Abraham Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address that inspired Joe Biden’s victory speech 10 days ago.

They and the many others who have uttered similar thoughts were certainly sincere, and I don’t cite this history to promote cynicism. But it illustrates the difficulty of translating these good intentions into results. Still, it is not impossible. Jimmy Carter began his inaugural address this way: “For myself and for our nation, I want to thank my predecessor for all he has done to heal our land.”
Gerald Ford deserved this accolade. For the 895 days of his presidency, he worked to mend the national fabric torn by Vietnam, Watergate and the Central Intelligence Agency’s misdeeds. Defying conservatives in his own party, he governed from the center, and he paid the price—a challenge from Ronald Reagan that nearly cost him the Republican nomination in 1976. To rein in the imperial presidency, he minimized the use of executive privilege, which led to congressional inquiries he could not control. He made the difficult decision to give Nixon an unconditional pardon and spare the country a bitterly divisive prosecution. His press secretary resigned and some accused him of striking a corrupt bargain with his predecessor. His public approval fell precipitously and never fully recovered before Election Day. But he put the country ahead of political self-interest.
If President-elect Biden is serious about healing a divided nation, he will have to take steps that won’t be popular in his own party. For example, he won’t encourage the Justice Department to open investigations that could lead to the prosecution of Mr. Trump. If Mr. Trump’s infamous “lock her up” chant is met with calls to “lock him up,” the country will have taken another step toward the criminalization of political conflict—a hallmark of banana republics.

A Biden presidency that puts healing first will govern from the center, as Ford did. Mr. Biden should lead off his legislative agenda on areas where bipartisan agreement should be possible, such as a national plan to ensure speedy vaccine distribution and adequate supplies of personal protective equipment. He should resist promoting steps, such as a national mask mandate, that are bound to provoke political controversy and constitutional challenges. He can instead work with the National Governors Association and set out constitutionally permissible conditions on states receiving federal funds.

Above all, a healing presidency will regard compromise not as a disagreeable necessity but as an opportunity to acknowledge the legitimacy of competing opinions, interests and principles in a large, pluralistic republic. Legal status for the “Dreamers” is important, and so is border security. Reforming police practices and the criminal-justice system is essential; so is the enforcement of the law against those who destroy property and commit violence, whatever their motives. Equality for all Americans without regard to race is a moral imperative, but Americans can disagree in good faith about the best means for making this equality a reality. A president who seeks compromise will do his best to respect his opponents’ red lines, even if he disagrees with them.

These arguments may strike partisans as unprincipled. But the country is both closely and deeply divided. Although Americans agree on much more than party leaders and advocacy groups will acknowledge, their divisions run deeper than they did three decades ago. Red America cannot force its will on blue America, or vice versa, and secession is both undesirable and infeasible. The only answer is to learn to live with differences.

Ambitious presidents must respect public opinion, even as they seek to change it. “Public sentiment is everything,” Abraham Lincoln famously declared. “With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed.” Lincoln confined his proposition to “this age,” but it’s every bit as relevant today.

Anyone Biden is sincere about “unity” beyond unconditional surrender of those who didn’t vote for him? I didn’t think so.