Displaying posts categorized under

POLITICS

Michael Warren Davis Far-From-Dead White Males

US politics has long been shaped by policies specifically crafted to win the fealty of recognised minorities — a logic that assumes the largest single electoral demographic can be ignored at best or, just as often, actively disparaged. Donald Trump has shot down this canard.
Much – probably too much – has been made of Donald Trump’s popularity with the Alternative Right (or Alt-Right), an internet-based network of white nationalist trolls. They serve has his praetorian guard on Twitter, dividing their time equally between harassing his opponents and composing propagandic memes. Indeed, the myth of the Angry White Man has been enlisted by Trump’s opponents more than all the cracks about bad hair and orange skin put together. But the role that race and gender has played (and continues to play) in Trump’s ascendency can’t be waved off so easily. A new poll by the Pew Research Center shows that Trump leads among college-educated white men, 49% to 42%. Compare this to an earlier Pew poll’s finding that whites overall prefer Trump 51% to 42%, and men overall prefer him 49% to 43%.

Before going on, let’s take a moment to reflect on one fact: Hillary Clinton leads among blacks (91% to 7%), Hispanics (66% to 24%), and women (59% to 35%) – statistics her political and media allies tout with orgiastic relish. That a candidate appeals to protected identity groups is meant to be inherently appealing. These groups are basically assumed to be an on the side of the angels, and politicians are expected to tailor their policies accordingly. Indeed, one of the great identity crises raging in the GOP is whether Republicans should make themselves more agreeable to Hispanics or blacks. That blacks and Hispanics are simply incorrect for voting overwhelmingly Democratic never occurs to the Republican establishment. If the conservative message doesn’t resonate with minorities, their thinking goes, then there must be something wrong with conservatism.

That vacuous, pliable attitude is dangerous in itself, and there’s no need to dwell on it at any great length. Everyone knows that pandering to race and gender is deplorable; it’s just a matter of whether or not you’re willing to commit deplorable acts in order to get elected.

Politicians and commentators are, however, loathe to discuss a candidate’s appeal to white men one way or the other. It’s impossible to say that appealing to whites – still by far the largest ethnic group in the United States – is intrinsically negative. Then again, appealing to them can’t be intrinsically positive either: political correctness won’t allow it. Ditto for gender: appealing to men isn’t usually considered a thing to be condemned, but the PC censors would never allow it to be regarded as a thing to be applauded either. To all intents and purposes, the white male vote is purely incidental.

The grassroots and interfaith effort behind the GOP’s pro-Israel, anti-2 state platform by Shalle’ McDonald

Amid the intrigue and speculation over the upcoming Republican National Convention (RNC) in Cleveland, one item that the party has settled is its firm support for Israel and opposition to a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

On Tuesday, the Republican Platform Committee unanimously approved a number of significant changes to its platform in an attempt to further set the party’s pro-Israel credentials apart from the Democrats, who are facing concerns over their party’s future support for the Jewish state. The GOP’s platform changes included removing language encouraging a two-state solution as well as reinstating a reference to an “undivided” Israel that was previously included in the party’s 2008 platform, but was removed in 2012.

“The U.S. seeks to assist in the establishment of comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East, to be negotiated among those living in the region,” the approved amendment said. “We oppose any measures intended to impose an agreement or to dictate borders or other terms, and call for the immediate termination of all U.S. funding of any entity that attempts to do so.”

Alan Clemmons, a member of the South Carolina House of Representatives and a Republican convention delegate, conveyed his disappointment over the 2012 GOP convention, when the platform committee chose not to recognize Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel.

“I was a delegate at the last RNC, but was not on the platform committee. I observed the platform committee process and proposed language similar to the language that was passed today (July 12). Unfortunately, that language gained no traction and it went nowhere on the platform, and as a matter of fact the platform regressed in terms of support for Israel,” Clemmons told JNS.org.

The push to bolster the Republican Party’s language on Israel follows a four-year effort by Clemmons and Joseph Sabag, the former executive director of the Israel Allies Foundation. Both leaders sought to reach out to the party’s base—evangelical Christians—as well as to Jewish and other ethnic groups to reach a consensus on the GOP’s pro-Israel stance.

Will Pence help Trump with Jewish voters? Richard Baehr

Indiana Governor Mike Pence will reportedly run with Donald Trump as his vice presidential nominee, with the selection to be officially announced shortly. Prior to his election as governor, Pence served in Congress as a member of the House of Representatives and had an excellent reputation as a very strong and knowledgeable supporter of Israel. Many Jewish Republicans hoped that he would run for the White House. Now, a key question going forward will be whether having Pence on the Trump ticket will enable more Jewish Republicans and some “never Trumpers” to back the ticket and financially support the campaign.

A sizable number of prominent Jewish Republicans and other mainstays of the pro-Israel cause have been unenthusiastic about Donald Trump as the GOP nominee. They have been put off both by some of his policy positions, and the way he ran his campaign for the nomination — including the personal attacks on other candidates. Others consider him insufficiently conservative — a former Democrat who successfully engineered a hostile takeover of the Republican Party. Trump has also had to deal with accusations that he has not been quick enough to criticize and separate himself from members of the “alt-right,” which includes nasty anti-Semites who have harassed some Jewish writers that were critical of Trump. His most recent controversy was over his sending out a tweet about Hillary Clinton accompanied by a graphic created by someone who did not belong to his campaign. The graphic called her the most corrupt candidate ever and showed a six-pointed star over a large amount of cash. Trump was accused of sending out an anti-Semitic tweet because of the association of the six-pointed star (the Jewish star of David) with mounds of money. Trump argued that the star was not a Jewish star, and could as easily have been a sheriff’s badge. In essence, he maintained that this was an example of politically correct hypersensitivity at work and that many Americans were sick of it. Trump is very uncomfortable with appearing to cave to this kind of pressure. His campaign has been built on an image of strong leadership, and bowing to critics could damage this appeal.

There is no evidence whatsoever in his long background in business and media that would lead one to believe that Trump is an anti-Semite. He has worked with, hired and been friends with many prominent Jewish people, and contributed to Jewish and pro-Israel causes. This is perfectly natural for a successful businessman in the New York area. His daughter Ivanka married a Modern Orthodox Jewish man, underwent a conversion, and is now leading a traditional Jewish lifestyle, keeping kosher at home, and observing the Sabbath. Whatever one thinks of Trump, he appears to have very close relationships with his adult children and relies on them for support and guidance in both business and in his political efforts this year. His Jewish son-in-law Jared Kushner took to the pages of the weekly newspaper he owns, the Observer, to defend Trump against charges of anti-Semitism and bias in general.

Will infrastructure derail the GOP and Trump? By Clarence Schwab

With the Republican Party’s convention next week, Republicans are about to publish their 2016 platform. Unfortunately, a major new infrastructure plank calling for maintaining and upgrading our infrastructure will be missing.

This despite the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) giving American infrastructure a grade of D+, http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/a/#p/home, and despite U.S. families losing in aggregate about $428 billion in disposable income this year (based on ASCE estimate), or about $3,400 per American family, because of lost productivity and higher costs due to our crumbling and outdated infrastructure.
This $3,400 in estimated lower annual disposable income per American family is expected for each of the next ten years, http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/asce-news/the-high-cost-of-underinvesting-in-infrastructure-9-a-day/.

Without aggressive and prompt infrastructure investments—to prevent bridges from becoming unstable or collapsing, highways from buckling, and outdated highways and airports from causing further congestion, delays, lost productivity and extra costs for everyday goods—Congress and, by extension, the GOP with majorities in both chambers risk voters’ physical safety, their incomes, and their anger.

Voter anger will only increase if delays to repairs continue, because replacing infrastructure is much more costly than simply repairing it. In addition, costs may grow even larger if interest rates rise from current levels. Interest rates on 10- and 30-year U.S. Treasury bonds reached all-time lows last week, 1.32% and 2.10%, respectively. These levels are much lower than even those under Eisenhower. By comparison, April 1954 yields on 10-year notes reached as low as 2.29%.

What mystifies this registered independent, and proud American, about GOP intransigence is that such infrastructure investment yields large returns and that such investment is part of the GOP’s historical DNA.

The ASCE estimates a $1.4 trillion investment gap will need filling over the next decade, http://www.asce.org/failuretoact/. Were the federal government to borrow the required $1.4 trillion by issuing 10-year bonds at today’s extraordinarily low interest rates, the U.S. government might pay only about $21 billion each year in interest.

For purposes of illustration, aggregate family disposable income would increase by about $428 billion. If families were to spend this additional income each year, federal tax receipts could increase by up to about $107 billion each year (assuming a 25% tax rate). These tax revenues over ten years could cover all related interest and repay just over 60% ($860 billion) of the debt incurred. But that’s not all.

These increased tax revenues can be expected to continue for longer than ten years because infrastructure improvements generally last decades.

Bill Whittle’s Firewall: Is Hillary Guilty? Of course the fix is in. Of course we see through it. They don’t care. They’ve got us pegged.

Bill Whittle is back with another Firewall video commentary. It takes Bill only 93 seconds to show Hillary Clinton guilty of violating three separate Federal Statutes. It takes him another three minutes to explain why she and Obama simply DO NOT CARE.

Let’s start by getting one thing out of the way right at the top: there is no questionthat Hillary Clinton committed multiple violations of federal law.

U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 101, Section 2071, Paragraph a:

[ TITLE: COMPLETE TEXT OF A ]

says that anyone who removes — and doesn’t return — ANY Federal records regardless of classification has committed a felony.

GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said that all work-related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?

COMEY: No, we found work-related emails – thousands – that were not returned.

[TITLE: COMPLETE TEXT OF B ]

Paragraph B says that anyone who attempts to conceal or destroy these records has committed a second felony, which specifically bars the offender from holding any office in the United States government.

GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said that neither she nor anyone else deleted work-related emails from her personal account. Was that true?

COMEY: There’s no doubt that there were work-related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.

And finally let’s talk about 18 U.S. Code § 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

In order to clear the legal bar for prosecution on that statute – that part of the United States code — the prosecution would have to prove “gross negligence” on the part of Mrs. Clinton.

GIULIANI: He said during his long statement that she was “extremely careless.” The first definition of “gross negligence” that comes up when you take out the legal dictionary is being “extremely careless.”

THINGS TO KNOW ABOUT MIKE PENCE BY TYLER O’NEILL

Here are five things you need to know about the Indiana Governor.
1. He has a long history in politics.

In the 1990s, Pence had a radio talk show called The Mike Pence Show, and did a Sunday TV show in Indianapolis. He described himself as “Rush Limbaugh on decaf,” meaning he’s not quite as bombastic as Rush, but just as conservative.

Pence served in Congress for 12 years (2001-2013), before becoming governor of Indiana in 2013. According to Roll Call, of the 90 bills and resolutions he sponsored, only 21 passed one house, and zero became law. Pence was a stalwart conservative who opposed President George W. Bush’s big government policies, such as No Child Left Behind.

As a Congressman, Pence reached the number three post in House Republican leadership, as chairman of the House Republican Conference. His fellow Republicans encouraged him to run for Senate against Evan Bayh, but he declined.
Indiana Democratic Shakeup: Will Evan Bayh Turn the Senate Blue?

He was elected governor of Indiana in 2012 and has served over three years as executive of that state.
2. Pence is an outspoken evangelical Christian.

Pence has described himself as “a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, in that order.” He grew up in what he described as a large Irish Roman Catholic family which celebrated the 1960 election of Democratic President John F. Kennedy.

In a 2010 interview with CBN while he was still a congressman, Pence described his conversion experience in college. “I began to meet young men and women who talked about having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and while I cherish my Catholic upbringing and the foundation that it poured in my faith, that had not been a part of my experience.”

“Standing at a Christian music festival in Asbury, Ky., in the spring of 1978, I gave my life to Jesus Christ and that’s changed everything,” Pence confided. “For me it all begins with faith; it begins with what matters most, and I try and put what I believe to be moral truth first. My philosophy of government second. And my politics third.”

A Trump Economy Beats Clinton’s His plans that would get the U.S. back on track include the biggest pro-growth tax cut since 1981 and repeal of ObamaCare.By Andy Puzder and Stephen Moore

Certain business leaders and prominent conservatives have denounced Donald Trump’s economic policies and even argued that Hillary Clinton would be a better choice in November. This is hard to fathom. Although we disagree with him on some issues, we have both signed on as economic advisers to Mr. Trump because we are confident in the direction he would take the country.

What could possibly be the economic case for Mrs. Clinton? She has vowed to defend President Obama’s “legacy” and double down on job-killers like ObamaCare. Even Bill Clinton knows that the status quo hasn’t worked: In March he told a crowd that it is time to “put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us.”

Since the end of the recession, economic growth has averaged an anemic 2.1%, producing the weakest “recovery” since the Great Depression. That has slowed to 1.4% in the last quarter of 2015 and 1.1% in the first quarter of 2016. The middle class is shrinking, and median household income today, in real terms, is lower than when Mr. Obama took office. By more than two to one, Americans believe the country is on the wrong track.

What does Mr. Trump offer as an alternative?

• The biggest pro-growth tax cut since Ronald Reagan’s 1981 reform. Mr. Trump would simplify the tax code and significantly reduce marginal rates, encouraging investment and economic expansion. His proposed corporate tax rate of 15% would make it easier for American firms to repatriate earnings, bringing capital home and making the U.S. a more hospitable place to invest. Mr. Trump’s tax plan would do more for working-class and middle-class families than any scheme to redistribute income.

Don’t believe the phony claim that it will cost $10 trillion over a decade. As Americans will see when he reveals the entire plan in the next few weeks, any revenue loss would be a fraction of that amount.

• The repeal of ObamaCare, the fastest-growing entitlement program of all. Mr. Trump promises to replace the law with a consumer-choice health plan. He also wants to immediately repeal dozens of President Obama’s antibusiness executive orders.

• A pro-growth energy policy. Mr. Trump wants to employ all of America’s abundant resources—oil, natural gas and coal. His plan could make America the world’s No. 1 energy producer within five years, producing millions of new jobs and trillions of dollars of extra output—along with new royalty payments to the government. Mrs. Clinton, by contrast, brags that she would put “a lot of coal miners” out of work.

The Convention Revolt Peters Out Anti-Trump forces have failed to unbind delegates. What if Donald had agreed? Kimberley Strassel

In the lobby of a downtown building here, the security guard had stopped inquiring about names or destinations. “You going up to 1615?” he asked, pointing at an elevator. “Everybody’s going to 1615.”

That’s because up on the 16th floor, in a temporarily rented office, was Delegates Unbound, one of the nerve centers of the rebel movement against Donald Trump. Volunteers with phones stuck to their ears jockeyed for a quiet office, looked over the latest delegate counts, and hunted for food among piles of takeout boxes. The media never stopped calling.

That’s over now. The fight to unseat Donald Trump as the Republican nominee was the last, great unknown of next week’s GOP convention. Its outcome was decided Thursday night, as it collapsed under the overwhelming might of Republican National Committee power brokers.

The makings of potential fireworks began Thursday evening, when a GOP committee voted down a proposal to add a “conscience clause” to the convention rules. It would have freed delegates to vote for their preferred candidate on the first ballot. The clause had been the goal for months now of Free the Delegates, a group led by Kendal Unruh, an activist and Colorado delegate. To force a floor vote on a conscience clause by the full convention next week, Ms. Unruh needed one quarter of the rules committee (28 delegates). She didn’t get it, thanks to last-minute RNC deal making.

Discontent Is a Global Disease America’s perceived partisan rift is actually a manifestation of the global gulf between elites and discontents.By Antony Davies and James R. Harrigan

“As the people become ever more fed up with being treated as impediments and afterthoughts, the ruling elite will find themselves with only two options.They can stop telling people what to do, how to think, how to live and whom to accept as their countrymen. In short, they can stop acting like the soft despots they have become. Or the elite can double down. They can continue down the same path of growing and glorifying the state that has led to the present point of massive mistrust.If they choose to double down, all that lies ahead is more discontent. The world has changed. Typical partisan rifts no longer define the political universe. Any politics that turns a blind eye to the new reality is likely only to stoke a smoldering fire. Because as things now stand, the great unwashed have not yet spoken their full piece. And that should be enough to make any of the governing elite think twice.”

As election season rolls around, prepare to be subjected to near-endless analyses of how America has divided into red and blue camps. There will be hand-wringing about the growing rift and about how people on the left and the right barricade themselves in echo chambers, unwilling to engage with the other side except to cast aspersions and call names.

The pundits who will worry over these things will all have a point. But it won’t be the right point.

We forget that partisan rancor has been much worse in our history. The election of 1800, to pick just one example, demonstrates the point. One of Thomas Jefferson’s surrogates accused President John Adams of having a “hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.” Adams and his friends were arguably worse. Both sides threw thick mud for months.

So partisan rancor is nothing new, and it has rarely reached the depths seen in 1800. Yet, there is a lingering feeling that some kind of gulf is widening in the American electorate. But when future historians write about it, they will place the phenomenon in a global, not a particularly American, context.

Because what we perceive to be a widening gulf between the right and the left is really just the American manifestation of a global disease. And that disease is the widening gulf between the governing elites and their supporters on the one hand, and those they consider the great unwashed on the other.

The Trump and Sanders candidacies rode this wave in the United States, and there was sufficient anger on the part of the unwashed to lock one into the Republican nomination, and carry the other to within striking distance of the Democratic nomination. How palpable is the anger? Donald Trump may well become president of the United States of America for one thing, and he may win that office precisely because of his unwillingness to show a shred of class, not in spite of it. How better to differentiate himself from the spit and polished elites with their carefully constructed, globally acceptable, politically correct attitudes? For his part, Bernie Sanders was cut from the same cloth, though with a slightly higher thread count. He differentiated himself by playing the part of the aging, cranky member of the proletariat.

Travesty of a Justice -Ginsburg traduces judicial norms. James Taranto

Supreme Court justices have gotten involved in partisan politics before. Charles Evans Hughes even ran for president. But he resigned from the court before accepting the 1916 Republican presidential nomination. (He returned to the court in 1930, when President Hoover appointed him to succeed Chief Justice William Howard Taft, himself a former president.)

Ruth Bader Ginsburg should have resigned before giving her latest interview, to the New York Times’s Adam Liptak. “Unless they have a book to sell, Supreme Court justices rarely give interviews,” Liptak boasts. “Even then, they diligently avoid political topics.” Ginsburg, he gently observes, “takes a different approach”:

These days, she is making no secret of what she thinks of a certain presidential candidate.

“I can’t imagine what this place would be—I can’t imagine what the country would be—with Donald Trump as our president,” she said. “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be—I don’t even want to contemplate that.”

It reminded her of something her husband, Martin D. Ginsburg, a prominent tax lawyer who died in 2010, would have said.

“‘Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand,’ ” Justice Ginsburg said, smiling ruefully.

“She’d feel right at home there,” quips the New York Sun’s Seth Lipsky. “It turns out that New Zealand doesn’t even have a constitution.” Instead it has a series of statutes called the Constitution Act of 1986. Also New Zealanders drive on the left.

While we’re on the subject, Statistics New Zealand, a government agency, has “busted” the “myth” that the country has 20 sheep for every human inhabitant, a factoid that “adds weight to myriad sheep jokes,” as the Stats NZ website complains. In reality, “the sheep-to-person ratio has fallen and contrary to popular belief there are actually about six sheep per person, not 20.” The site is silent as to how Ginsburg’s immigration would affect the ratio.

Actually, her choice of country is the best thing about Ginsburg’s latest emanations. At least she departed from the tired trope of celebrities’ threatening emptily to move to Canada if a Republican is elected president. But a Supreme Court justice should not be expressing an opinion about an election, unless—as in the case of Bush v. Gore (2000), it becomes necessary for the court to resolve a legal dispute arising from it.