Discourses

The Democrats and the entire, united ruling class threw the kitchen sink at Trump to try overturning the verdict of 2016, and failed spectacularly. The Republicans can thank the Democrats for the horror show they put on at the Kavanaugh hearings because that, with the rest of their threatening behavior, neutralized the enormous human and financial effort they had put into “the resistance.” The Republican campaign, with the exception of Trump’s last minute blitz, was pathetic, aiming as it did strictly at economic concerns. This neglected that they had done next to nothing to alleviate what had been the #1 economic concern, the ravages of Obamacare. But most of all, the Republicans failed to continue the line of attack that had paid off so handsomely in 2016: “who the hell do they think they are?” For a quarter century, Americans have lived increasingly under the shadow of political correctness. People watch what they say in front of whom, lest a stray remark be used to fire or otherwise place them beyond somebody’s pale. The arbitrary rule of “the authorities” — corporate, educational, governmental — is what had ignited rebellion. They ran an establishment campaign, which failed to motivate their establishment constituency. Trump then stepped in, and deployed the Deplorables.

Whoever expects the Democrats to drop or moderate the Resistance does not realize that they have been acting less out of choice than as an expression of their evolving identity. They are at war. That is not a question. The question is, what happens on the Republican side? Two things to watch: how Trump revamps his cabinet — especially who his Attorney General will be — and whether Jim Jordan or Kevin McCarthy will head the House Republicans. The big question, today and as it has been since 2017, is how the conservative side deals with “the resistance.”

is a Senior Fellow of the Claremont Institute and professor emeritus of International Relations at Boston University.

More Thoughts

discourse

Ethics and Metaphysics at Princeton in 1750s-60s

Here’s a taste of what you had to be able to argue (in Latin) in order to graduate from Princeton in order to graduate back in the day. Robby George would (no doubt gladly!) find himself the leebearal on campus… ETHICS, 1762 1. The highest perfection of men depends on their liberation from all sin….

discourse

Ethics at Harvard, 1810

In the founding era, one graduated by means of a scholastic practice in which seniors argued various propositions (in Latin) in a public forum. These lists of theses give one a sense of what the institution thought, as an institution, ought to be taught to all of its students. Here’s the “Ethics” section for Harvard…

discourse

Post-Midterms: The Democratic Party’s Radicalized Foreign Policy

Thanks to the methodical takeover of its party institutions and non-profits by an energized philanthropic project beginning after John Kerry’s loss in the 2004 presidential election, the Democratic Party has undergone what can only be described as a radicalization process. After the donor class moved leftward, a new, woke generation—concerned with microaggressions, social justice, and…