Month: July 2024

This past spring, at Morehouse College in Atlanta, a historically black, all-men’s college at the heart of the city which delivered Georgia to Democrats in 2020, President Biden gave a highly publicized commencement address on the themes of “manhood” and democracy. This speech was widely interpreted, along with political and symbolic moves involving menthol cigarettes and state dinners, as signaling a renewed Democratic focus on black Americans after two years of diminished attention: a “testament to the centrality and urgency of [the Party] consolidating support [among]…and…mobilizing Black voters.” Today, this centrality can only have increased: As questions about Biden’s political viability appear to be paralyzing the Democratic Party, ensuring the turnout of one of its most reliable voting blocs is more crucial than ever before.

Yet neither the current Democratic president nor his Party writ large are allies to the black community on questions of manhood or democracy. From the 1970s to the 1990s, as a senator from Delaware, Biden himself was crucial in promoting legislation expanding national government power in the name of fighting a “war on crime” that sent black men to prison and broke black communal and political life. In 2020, the progressive left and the New York Times criticized him for this record. But neither activists nor institutionalists took its full measure, which amounts to a startling indictment of both Democrats and the national institutions they have strengthened for 60 years. 

The War on Crime that Biden along with establishment Democrats and neoconservative Republicans backed between 1970 and the 2010s was not just a policy agenda or a publicity play, featuring at least nine bills passed to the self-generating political acclaim that greets the perception of a problem being solved in Washington, D.C. From its inception in the 1960s by academics and policymakers in the Kennedy Administration, it served as the punitive part of a broader project: the white-collar institutionalizing of American life at the expense of the laborers and associations that shaped this country’s politics from the War for Independence through the Civil Rights movement. In the process of this project’s development, race moved from being an issue to a marker. In the Eighties and the Nineties, it was used to rack up political points for toughness against “hard-core” youth or “super-predators.” In the 2000s and 2010s and after, it was used to police the language of opposing politicians and silence anti-Washington dissent in the name of fighting racism and then “white nationalism.” 

All the while, the situation of black Americans declined from a peak of political and economic empowerment in 1970, as they saw their positions undermined by the white-collarizing agenda of establishment Washington. The reality of this shift, the slow erosion of on-the-ground communities by centralizing institutions, has been obscured by political rhetoric. But its broad outlines should be familiar to populist Republicans who have stood up for displaced white working class voters and are increasingly interested in arguing that President Trump’s attack on Washington power structures will benefit the black community. 

The specific history of this shift, which has not been set out, provides populist Republicans with powerful ammunition to make their case. It also builds new links from the black working class to the white working class. Not only did national policies affect both groups in the same ways over time, but Washington’s mobilization against inner-city black Americans from the 1960s to the 2000s was a template for its mobilization against white populist Americans beginning in the 2010s. 

The War on Crime, the first major “use” of the black community by establishment Washington, grew from a problem Washington itself created in the 1940s. Black Americans urged North by the government to produce the armaments to fight World War II had been reduced by locally restrictive laws to living in ghettos while being shut out of factory work after the war. In one sense, aspects of this issue were already being addressed, since laboring jobs were opening up to black men thanks to the Civil Rights Act pushed on the reluctant administration by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). What’s more, decades-old local voluntary organizations founded by black Americans in places like New York’s Lower East Side were helping prevent delinquency there, replaying a tradition of on-the-ground associating alive in the republic since the early 1800s. 

But the administration was determined to address the problem it had identified, and its angle was altogether more top-down and abstract. It aimed to prepare black Americans for integration in an essentially white collar labor force with seminars on “items like smiling and Emotional Maturity” delivered by “well-adjusted, middle-class professionals” who bragged of achievements like creating “a middle class environment in a slum neighborhood school.” In the view of one perceptive observer, these government-funded, university-educated social workers imported to neighborhoods like Harlem and Watts “seem to be smiling themselves out of any meaningful communication with their poor.” 

The Kennedy-Johnson administrations’ response was part of a bigger, less publicized, power-oriented push by academics, consultants, and administrators to move America from a blue collar economy dependent on states and localities to a white collar one directed by national institutions, in the name of diversity, efficiency and progress. It was a far more aggressive continuation of the agenda that had begun with the rise of the administrative state after 1945 and its funding of corporations and universities to fight the Cold War. After the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, it would be adopted with different emphases by the Republican neoconservatives and Democratic neoliberals who dominated much of each party until the 2010s. Its policies included outsourcing union jobs to Mexico in the name of public health and education; attacking union corruption in the service of clean government; and “white-collarizing” “left behind” groups like blacks, Latinos, American Indians, and rural whites in the name of “civilization.” 

But there was another side to this program. Those members of the “left behind,” particularly urban blacks, who didn’t adjust their values and their lives were labeled “hard-core” reprobates and subjected to the increasingly heavy stick of nationalized, militarized law enforcement. 

This stick was embedded in the legislation that deployed the missionaries of emotional maturity to Watts, Detroit, the Bronx, and elsewhere, including the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 and the Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 1965, as well as the Safe Streets Act of 1968. According to scholar Elizabeth Hinton in her recent book From the War on Poverty to the War on Crime, the acts mandated that, to receive funding, “employment initiatives, public schools, and grassroots organizations [would] partner with juvenile courts, police departments, and correctional facilities,” in a schema in which police officers were the “frontline soldiers” of a “war on crime.” They also, in Hinton’s recounting, “made tens of millions of dollars available to public organizations, private companies, and individual researchers who could develop technology, hardware, and theories that would help the federal government prevent future crime.” Not surprisingly, “consulting firms and corporations emerged to reap the benefits of such funding” and “the result was widespread corruption,” creating a number of Washington-linked players with interests in continuing what fast became an anti-crime boondoggle.

During the 1970s, this fallout from this boondoggle fell disproportionately on black men being laid off thanks to labor outsourcing: last hired after the passage of the Civil Rights Act and thus first fired as blue collar jobs diminished. Abandonment of families became some of these men’s retreat, in a direct replay of non-earning white men during the Great Depression, and petty crime or drug trafficking eventually became their commerce of last resort. This wasn’t a new phenomenon in America: in the early 1900s, hard-luck Irish, Italians and Jews had joined the mafia in cities where law enforcement was discerning about the laws it enforced. But seven decades later helicopters and militarized police made neighborhoods into war zones and discernment a thing of the past, eradicating the slow path to respectability that earlier generations of minorities had enjoyed under state and city governments. 

The result was a Washington-created problem that Washington politicians continued to gain political capital from purporting to solve. This meant a series of bills passed in the 1980s and 1990s to combat what neoconservatives like President George H.W. Bush’s attorney general called “urban terrorism” and neoliberals like Hillary Clinton called “super-predators” who had to be brought “to heel.” Fronted by formerly segregationist senators like James Eastland and Strom Thurmond, members of a dying political breed who occupied powerful congressional committee posts, these Washington initiatives framed policies that expanded national power as parts of a war against immoral opponents which brooked no middle ground. Not coincidentally, this was exactly the rhetoric that would be used to justify the government boondoggle that became the war on terror in the 2000s, and was supported by many of the same players.

Rather than solving the underlying problems plaguing the black community, these national expansions increased them. Some legislative provisions allowed local police forces to access information, air surveillance, equipment and training from defense and intelligence agencies and the military. This created fields of “urban surveillance” and “social control,” which further alienated the people living inside them. Other provisions allowed juveniles to be tried as adults as well as introducing mandatory minimums for possession of small amounts of crack cocaine even as possession of powder cocaine, used by middle class whites driving the demand for drugs, was punished less severely. Still others provided states with funds for prison construction, creating the incentive to continue arrests in pursuit of federal funds. 

The effect of these policies was predictable. Between 1980 and 1997, the numbers of people serving prison time for non-violent drug offenses went from 50,000 to 400,000 people, disproportionately low income black users or dealers. Between 1995 and 2005 the incarceration rate rose from 411 people per 100,000 to 491, with black inmates representing 40 percent of inmates with a sentence of more than one year. This “boom” also gave low-level, unsteady employment as prison guards to black women, many of them single mothers, now supervising the black men the government had drained of working dignity and then put away. Meanwhile, communities these men left behind became “opportunity deserts” off the steady stream of drugs, incarceration, outsourced labor and union decline. In this sense, they were later-stage versions of those white working class communities soon to be mobilized by Trump.

During this time, a small number of black Americans gained access to institutional power at the hands of the Democratic Party, which used this shift to move race from an issue of law and order to one of identity politics. The Johnson Administration had begun the process, but it was the next eight-year Democratic presidency, of Bill Clinton, when the push began in earnest. The Democrats’ 1992 platform stated that “as the party of inclusion, we take special pride in our country’s emergence as the world’s largest and most successful multiethnic, multiracial republic.” And in 1993, the incoming Democratic president set a record for Black appointees in his cabinet. By 2000, African Americans were an unprecedented 14 percent of the Administration’s appointments and more African American judges had been appointed than ever before. This push continued during the Obama presidency, and was presented as an explicit part of the progressive promise of American life. 

But, in practice, the main political function of race became language policing the other side, as “racist” increasingly replaced “hard-core” and “super-predator” as “the” establishment term of moral condemnation. Some of this language policing found its way into status-quo politicking: the Daily Show featuring recordings of racist private calls or establishment papers featuring accusations of implicit racism. Other policing created a new boondoggle around the threat of “white nationalism” not much different than the one around the threat of “urban terrorism” and Muslim terrorism in the 1990s and 2000s. 

This boondoggle involved nonprofits such as the Southern Poverty Law Center establishing Washington administrative connections, then using their authority to label small government activists as harborers of racial animus: immoral opponents whose wrongdoing, per what was now the standard rhetorical construct, brooked no compromise. Not coincidentally, the same players who backed the wars on crime and terror, from Attorney General Merrick Garland, a former Justice Department lawyer in the Clinton Administration, to former George W. Bush Administration officials Frances Townsend and Liz Cheney, supported these moves as well. 

All the while, the operators driving this policing were profiting off the black community in obvious ways. Hollywood producers like David Geffen who in the 1990s helped solidify the new Democratic Party of corporations, nonprofits, and racial sensitivity also profited off of mainstreaming hip hop: turning music expressing the reality of survival in vacuumed-out communities into an opportunity for white suburban high schoolers to wear their pants down. Neoconservatives like George W. Bush, who boasted of purging their party of racism, turbo-charged the outsourcing that was putting paid to black working life. Financiers like Herb Sandler who poured their fortunes into progressive nonprofits made those fortunes off the home ownership boondoggle, which increasingly targeted blacks and led to a mean wealth loss for black families of 31 to 34 percent after the implosion of 2008. 

Matters have not improved since this insider club became explicitly multiracial after 2008. Democratic officials like Kamala Harris, who started their careers pushing tough-on-crime policies in their ground zero, California, have nonetheless run on racial identity while also allowing a potentially lasting electoral realignment based on demographic shifts off of unauthorized immigrants, at the expense of black Americans. Biden-linked operators like John Podesta pushing to secure voting rights for felons, many black, spent years supporting policies that eroded black communities and sending them to prison, seeding a new kind of political harvest: break lives, create dependency, answer a need, get the votes. 

Caught between these shifts at the top and their consequences at the bottom are black Americans who have embraced the institutional promise, and not for power or publicity or political gain. These accomplished professionals try to bring the reality of black life on the ground to the attention of the establishment, but the effects of their insights and efforts seem limited. One of them is Princeton University Professor of African American Studies Eddie Glaude, who wrote in 2016 that the idea “that you can have black leaders representing the interests of all black people but who are not accountable to black constituents kills black democratic life.” It also “undermines mechanisms of accountability as black elites broker on behalf of black people whose interests are, so it is claimed, readily identifiable.” 

Another is Pantheon Books’ former publisher, Lisa Lucas, who used the progressive emphasis on race in the 2010s and 2020s to put black life in America in new perspectives. This year, after a raft of resignations of black women executives, during a period when establishment players quietly moved race to the back of their playboard, Lucas was let go without warning, to the outspoken chagrin of the authors she had found. The day of her firing, she posted on X, mostly humorously, but also about the system which had invited her in then unceremoniously dropped her. Responding to a supportive tweet, “We all need you to end up in books,” she tweeted back, “This is up to corporate publishing and exactly five CEOS,” e.g. an industry driven towards bottom-line conglomeration by the same people purportedly supporting independent black writers inside it. At another point in the day, she tweeted, “In 2024, race is irrelevant. I’m learning the news!” 

In this context, of an establishment for which race has existed for 60 years as a political marker, a populist movement helmed by an unlikely leader has an unusual opportunity. On an empirical read of the evidence, the three forces that have affected the black community most profoundly since 1970 are outsourcing, the war on crime, and the decline of on-the-ground political power at the hands of unaccountable institutions. All three of these underlying structural issues are ones that Trump’s Republicans have addressed or are in the process of addressing. 

Because outsourcing has done so much harm to the white working class voters who vote Republican, Trump’s party has done more to reestablish a push for blue collar work than any movement since before World War II. His party is also more accountable to popular voices on the ground, many of them religious, than any since the Republicans of the 1960s and 1970s, during Barry Goldwater’s and Ronald Reagan’s rise. Finally, it was Trump who, in 2018, took the biggest step to unwind the Washington-backed carceral state since its foundations were laid by the Kennedy-Johnson Administration 50 years before: reviving congressional progress on and then signing the First Step Act, which “combin[ed] new funding for anti-recidivism programs, the expansion of early-release credits for prisoners and the reduction of certain mandatory minimum sentences.” 

Any effort to make these points about contemporary Republicanism will come up against Democratic claims about helping black Americans fight racist roads and voting laws; and championing affirmative action and black-owned businesses via funds from Washington. Yet these Democratic emblems of progress exist within the construct of an expanding national state helmed by educated administrators, and it’s this construct that has created most of the problems faced by black Americans today. 

It’s also this construct that contemporary “Main Street” conservatism under Trump seeks to unwind, and, on this standard, the Republican Party has a real chance to appeal to a new constituency. At the very least, if a basic question in politics is ‘What have you done for me lately?’ Republicans can make the case that the Democratic project with black Americans since 1965 is less beneficial, and more insidiously harmful, than it might at first appear.

The post The Deep State’s 60-Year War on Black Americans—and the 2024 Populist Opportunity appeared first on The American Conservative.

Twitter CEO Elon Musk is throwing his financial backing behind the former President Donald Trump in the 2024 election. 

Musk, who is worth north of $260 billion, made what is being characterized as a “sizable” donation to the Trump-aligned America PAC, a super political action committee committed to returning Trump to the White House.

The exact figure donated by Musk has not been released but the disclosure of his donation is more evidence of Musk’s alignment with the American right. Musk, who has frequently stated he voted for President Joe Biden in 2020 (although he now alleges to have stayed home), is now openly backing Trump.

Although Musk and Trump have had a fractious relationship at times in the past, Musk admitted during Tesla’s annual meeting in June that Trump “does call me out of the blue for no reason.” 

It’s another fundraising massive win for Trump, who struggled to keep pace with Biden’s fundraising in the spring. Trump surged recently as Biden reels from a disastrous June 27 debate performance. 

As money continues to pour in for Trump, Democrat donors announced Friday they would withhold $90 million promised for Biden’s campaign, citing the debate debacle.  
America PAC has already spent more than $13 million on field staff in the 2024 election cycle. The PAC is scheduled to announce its list of donors on July 15.

The post Elon Musk Throws Weight Behind Donald Trump appeared first on The American Conservative.

The Sejm, the lower house of Poland’s parliament, narrowly rejected a bill put forward by the ruling coalition that would have removed penalties for those performing or assisting with an abortion up to the twelfth week of pregnancy. 

The bill had been sponsored by the Lewica (Left) party within the coalition, and was also supported by Tusk’s Civic Platform party. The Polish People’s Party, an agrarian member of the current liberal governing coalition, was split on the measure, preventing its passage. The two members of the conservative opposition, the formerly ruling PiS and nationalist-libertarian Confederation party, opposed it.

Poland currently allows abortion in cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother, following a 2021 law passed by the then-ruling PiS party and a 2020 judicial ruling which banned it in the case of fetal abnormalities.

Tusk’s defeat on this bill shows that the hardball tactics that he has used since taking power can be stymied. 

Tusk has two other abortion bills in the hopper, one which would legalize abortion up until 12 weeks and another which would legalize it in cases with fetal abnormalities. The fate of that legislation is unclear after the failure of the decriminalization bill.

The post Poland’s Tusk Fails to Liberalize Abortion Law appeared first on The American Conservative.

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced the Risky Research Review Act on Wednesday, aiming to establish an independent board dedicated to overseeing and approving federal funding for “high-risk life sciences research” projects.

Under this proposal, a Life Sciences Research Security Board within the executive branch would be responsible for ensuring oversight over federal funding in life sciences research to safeguard public health, safety, and national security. Projects falling into this category would require majority approval from the board to receive federal funding.

The legislation defines “high-risk life sciences research” as any scientific inquiry capable of endangering public health. This includes research such as gain-of-function studies, genetic modification or synthetic creation of potential pandemic pathogens, and activities related to the collection or monitoring of such pathogens.

On Thursday morning, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs also convened an oversight hearing entitled “Risky Research: Oversight of U.S. Taxpayer Funded High-Risk Virus Research.” Testimony was heard from relevant field experts including Dr. Gerald Parker, Dr. Carrie Wolinetz, Dr. Robert Redfield, and Dr. Kevin Esvelt.

During his opening statement, Senator Gary Peters (D-MI) appeared open to considering legislation similar to Paul’s proposal, suggesting potential bipartisan interest will be necessary in properly addressing this issue.

Paul reminded the committee that since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, not much work has been done to mitigate the issue of gain-of-function research: “So what has been done since the discovery that our government is funding dangerous virus research overseas with little or no oversight? The answer is stark and chilling: virtually nothing.” 

Wolinetz, Senior Principal and Chair Health & Bioscience Innovation Practice Group at Lewis-Burke Associates and the “de facto Fauci/NIH witness” claimed in her opening statement that the United States already has “the most rigorous system of pathogen research in the world.” 

She argued, “If we make it too hard for scientists to conduct and communicate the findings of experiments that expand our knowledge of pathogens, we will be less prepared for the next emerging biological threat.” 

This line of thinking garnered the ire of Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO), who heavily pressed Wolinetz on her involvement in gain-of-function research before and during the pandemic, along with her claims that censorship about the lab leak theory did not occur during her tenure at the NIH.

“You don’t believe censorship took place? What world are you living in?” he asked. “Tell that to the scientists who basically lost their credentials. Tell that to the people who were kicked off of social media and banned because they asked about a lab leak…. The privilege is astounding.”

With the introduction of the new Risky Research Review Act, Paul and the committee members hope that protecting Americans from future pandemics is within reach. Paul said, “In this dystopian universe we find ourselves in, it is our duty to challenge the status quo—to shine a light on the darkest corners of government operations, and to protect the freedoms and lives of the people we serve.”

The post Rand Paul: Gain-of-Function Research is the ‘Nuclear Threat of Our Time’ appeared first on The American Conservative.

Statements by France’s Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin seem to indicate that steep tax increases are unlikely under.

In the aftermath of Sunday’s legislative elections, in which Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s hard-left “New Popular Front” (NFP) won the most seats, the coalition floated a 90 percent income tax on top earners.

Speaking to CNews on Wednesday, Darmanin said, “The program of the New Popular Front is delusional.” Referring to the NFP’s plans to raise the minimum wage and index salaries to inflation, Darmanin stated, “This is not the solution.” 

Darmanin also said that he will vote against any tax increase, and that he opposes any NFP government. 

“I will immediately censor any people, governments that come from this left,” he said.

Darmanin’s statements are significant as they suggest that Macron’s Ensemble, though happy to work with the hard-left to defeat the conservative Rassemblement National electorally, is otherwise hesitant about Mélenchon’s agenda. As no bloc—left, right, or center—holds more than a third of the seats in the National Assembly, this suggests that the next three years of French politics will be contentious.

The French people seem to agree with Darmanin’s rejection of the hard left. According to a poll published on Thursday, 73 percent of French people reject a hard-left government, while 61 percent are dissatisfied with the configuration of the parliament following the legislative elections.

The post French Interior Minister Ices Mélenchon’s Economic Plans appeared first on The American Conservative.

Former President Barack Obama has ignited a firestorm of controversy with his recent remarks on wealth inequality during a high-profile interview. Obama, who has amassed significant wealth since leaving office, faced backlash for his perceived hypocrisy and for pushing a divisive narrative that many conservatives believe undermines the principles of hard work and free enterprise.

During the interview, Obama emphasized the growing disparity between the wealthy and the poor in America, calling for more aggressive tax policies on the rich to address this issue. His comments come at a time when the country is deeply divided on economic policies, and many see his statements as a direct attack on the success of hardworking Americans.

BREAKING: Clint Eastwood has said: “One day we will realize that the Barack Obama presidency was the biggest FRAUD ever perpetrated on the American people.”

Do you agree with Clint Eastwood?
YES OR NO? pic.twitter.com/MIqYkdqsCG

— Save America (@usanews0) July 4, 2024

Conservatives quickly criticized Obama’s remarks, pointing out the irony of a multi-millionaire lecturing others on wealth distribution. Since leaving the White House, Obama has capitalized on his political career through lucrative book deals, speaking engagements, and media ventures, making his advocacy for wealth redistribution seem disingenuous to many. “It’s easy to call for higher taxes on the rich when you have millions in the bank,” commented one GOP strategist.

Critics also argue that Obama’s approach is emblematic of the Democratic Party’s shift towards socialism, which they believe punishes success and discourages entrepreneurial spirit. Republican lawmakers have long opposed such policies, advocating instead for lower taxes and reduced government intervention to stimulate economic growth. “We should be celebrating the achievements of successful Americans, not demonizing them,” said a prominent Republican senator.

Barack Obama & Big Mike

Just in case you’re catching up with all the Global Insanity you may not know, it’s widely claimed that Michelle Obama is a biological male.

One of the more light hearted ‘Conspiracies/Spoiler Alerts’ with some sinister undertones.

Listen to… pic.twitter.com/rEfM1GMkou

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 19, 2024

Obama’s comments have also reignited debates over the effectiveness of wealth redistribution policies. Many conservatives point to historical evidence suggesting that heavy taxation and government overreach stifle innovation and economic progress. They argue that the free market, not government mandates, is the best way to create opportunities and lift people out of poverty.

The former president’s statements have further polarized an already divided nation. Supporters argue that addressing wealth inequality is crucial for social justice and economic stability, while opponents see it as an attack on the very foundations of American prosperity. This clash of ideologies highlights the broader cultural and political battles shaping the country’s future.

In response to the backlash, Obama defended his stance, insisting that his wealth does not preclude him from advocating for economic fairness. He claimed that his proposals are aimed at creating a more equitable society where everyone has a fair shot at success. “We need policies that ensure the American dream is accessible to all, not just the privileged few,” Obama stated.

However, his critics remain unconvinced, viewing his rhetoric as a thinly veiled attempt to galvanize his political base ahead of the upcoming elections. They argue that his comments are more about scoring political points than offering viable solutions to complex economic issues. “This is just another example of Obama playing politics with people’s lives,” remarked a conservative commentator.

As the nation grapples with these contentious issues, the debate over wealth inequality and economic policy continues to be a defining feature of the political landscape. Obama’s remarks have undoubtedly added fuel to the fire, prompting Americans to reconsider their views on wealth, success, and the role of government in their lives.

The coming months will likely see intensified discussions on these topics, as candidates from both parties prepare for the 2024 elections. Obama’s comments have set the stage for a fierce ideological battle, with conservatives ready to defend the principles of free enterprise and limited government against what they see as the creeping influence of socialism.

The post Barack Obama Sparks Outrage with Comments on Wealth Inequality appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

In a move that has electrified the Republican base, former President Donald Trump announced he will reveal his vice-presidential running mate at the Republican National Convention (RNC) next month. This announcement is expected to set the stage for a vigorous campaign to reclaim the White House in 2024.

Trump’s confirmation came during a recent interview with Dr. Phil, where he disclosed his plans to make the big reveal during the convention, scheduled for July 15-18 in Milwaukee. This decision follows months of speculation and strategic vetting of several high-profile candidates.

A no-brainer move from Trump and DeSantis that will undoubtedly be hated by the bottom 5% of losers in each man’s camp. Trump is the nominee. DeSantis is the best governor in the country. This is the kind of thing that had to happen. Good for both of them. pic.twitter.com/80kjEenfFh

— Jesse Kelly (@JesseKellyDC) July 10, 2024

Among the top contenders are North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum, Senators Marco Rubio and Tim Scott, and former HUD Secretary Ben Carson. Each of these candidates brings unique attributes that could significantly enhance Trump’s campaign. Burgum’s governance and conservative policies, Rubio’s national recognition, Scott’s staunch support, and Carson’s loyalty and experience are all being weighed carefully.

Senator Tim Scott has received particular praise from Trump, who has highlighted Scott’s effective defense of his policies and his recent performances in debates. Trump noted that Scott has been a strong advocate, which has boosted his standing in the selection process.

I can’t believe that in 5 days, Trump is potentially picking a MYSTERY VP at the Convention on the 25th Anniversary of JFK JR’S Plane Crash

NEVER FORGET this clip from 5/19/2020 where JFK Jr was introduced as the Mystery Guest at a Convention … #JFKJrLives #TrumpVP2024 pic.twitter.com/yQTb1Nr2Um

— Next Stop…ANDREW (@MrDrewENT) July 11, 2024

Ben Carson, known for his unwavering loyalty to Trump and his role in the previous administration, is also a serious contender. Carson’s meeting with Trump in Michigan recently has added to the speculation that he could be the chosen one. His experience and alignment with Trump’s vision make him a strong candidate.

Doug Burgum’s increasing involvement with Trump’s campaign activities suggests he is a potential frontrunner. Burgum’s conservative leadership in North Dakota and his growing presence in national politics make him a viable option. His vetting process has been thorough, indicating his strong consideration for the role.

Marco Rubio and Elise Stefanik also remain in the mix. Rubio’s extensive experience and Stefanik’s rising influence within the party provide Trump with strategic options that could appeal to different voter bases. Their inclusion in the shortlist demonstrates Trump’s intent to leverage their political strengths for a successful campaign.

As the RNC approaches, the anticipation among Republicans is palpable. Trump’s choice for his running mate will be a pivotal moment, not only for his campaign but for the overall strategy of the Republican Party in the upcoming election. The announcement is expected to energize the base and set the tone for a robust campaign to take back the White House in 2024.

The post Trump to Announce VP Pick at RNC Next Month appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

The Biden administration is facing internal turmoil as reports emerge of First Lady Jill Biden harboring a deep-seated grudge against Vice President Kamala Harris. This rift, reportedly rooted in the contentious Democratic primary debates, is causing significant tension within the highest echelons of the White House.

Sources close to the administration reveal that Jill Biden has not forgiven Harris for her fierce attacks on Joe Biden during the 2020 primary season. Harris’s pointed criticisms, particularly regarding Biden’s past stances on busing and segregation, left a lasting impact on the First Lady. “She still remembers how harsh those debates were,” said one insider. “The wounds haven’t healed.”

Power hungry Jill Biden’s grudge against Kamala Harris is deep https://t.co/hQjhsj74MT pic.twitter.com/ssNbdxHMQX

— BlackInformant (@BlackInformant) July 12, 2024

The strained relationship between Jill Biden and Kamala Harris is becoming increasingly difficult to conceal, with insiders noting frosty interactions and a lack of collaboration on key initiatives. This discord is raising concerns about the administration’s ability to present a united front, especially as it grapples with significant policy challenges and an upcoming election.

Republican commentators have seized on the reports of internal strife, arguing that the Biden administration’s dysfunction is indicative of broader issues within the Democratic Party. “If they can’t get along in the White House, how can they effectively govern the country?” questioned a prominent GOP strategist. “This kind of infighting only weakens their leadership and credibility.”

Maybe we should be more concerned about Jill Biden instead of Kamala replacing Joe as the Dem nominee.
pic.twitter.com/WQkYwETZJ0

— Kerry Slone (@thereal_SnS) July 9, 2024

The tension reportedly escalated following a recent event where both women were present. Observers noted a palpable chill between them, with minimal interaction and visible discomfort. Such incidents are fueling speculation about the extent of the rift and its potential implications for the administration’s effectiveness.

Critics argue that this personal animosity is not just a private matter but a public concern, as it could impact policy decisions and the overall functioning of the executive branch. “The First Lady and the Vice President need to set aside their differences for the sake of the country,” said one political analyst. “Their inability to do so is troubling and could have serious repercussions.”

This feud also highlights broader tensions within the Democratic Party, where ideological divides and personal rivalries have often surfaced. The relationship between the Biden and Harris camps is emblematic of these underlying fractures, which Republicans are eager to exploit in the lead-up to the 2024 elections. “This infighting shows that the Democrats are not as united as they claim to be,” remarked a Republican lawmaker.

As the administration attempts to navigate these choppy waters, there are calls from within the party for reconciliation and a focus on common goals. However, with the deep-seated nature of Jill Biden’s grudge, mending fences may prove challenging. The situation underscores the importance of unity and cooperation in effective governance, something the Biden administration will need to address urgently.

In the coming months, the spotlight will be on how President Joe Biden handles this internal conflict. His ability to mediate and foster a cohesive working relationship between his wife and his vice president will be crucial in maintaining a stable and functional administration. The American public, meanwhile, will be watching closely, as these personal dynamics play out on the national stage, influencing the political narrative ahead of a critical election year.

The post Jill Biden’s Deep-Seated Grudge Against Kamala Harris Sparks White House Drama appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

Remarks delivered at the National Conservatism Conference in Washington, DC.

Let me begin my remarks by stating that I don’t believe in the concept or reality of “late liberalism.” The “lateness” in this phrase illustrates the habit of characterizing what are often transitional periods as late.  By now this labeling practice has gone viral. Historians and journalists indiscriminately apply the designation “late” to what needs a more accurate contextualization. “Late” as an historical classification often signifies that something new is happening that we can’t fully identify in the form in which it appears.

But I’ve another, less academic reason for rejecting the term “late liberalism,” and it is fully explained in my work After Liberalism. Through much of the 20th century, Anglo-American societies have applied “liberal” to describe distinctly illiberal activities, like building administrative states that aimed at reconstructing the family or allowing government bureaucrats to redistribute our earnings. This increasingly elastic use of “liberal” started primarily among social and welfare state democrats more than a century ago, and this practice shows no signs of going away. The same label has been stretched to cover a wide range of projects, like destroying gender identities, degrading white people, and mutilating the bodies of minors through “gender-affirming surgery.”

All such perverse initiatives are now described as “liberal” because this operative term, so argues my work After Liberalism, has become “unbounded” as to meaning. “Liberal” is something we’re supposed to applaud; therefore since at least the Progressive Era in the U.S., anything that social reformers have tried to implement is called “liberal” and traced back to Thomas Jefferson, or perhaps now Barack Obama. The prominent early 20th-century educator John Dewey managed to give socialist experiments a catchy label by calling them “liberal.” He thereby distinguished between his liberalism and the older, supposedly outmoded form of a supposedly related body of ideas. Apparently, Dewey’s transmogrified “liberalism” was truly liberal because it was more about equality than the liberalism it replaced.

More recently we’ve had other enthusiastic claimants to “liberalism.”  There are “classical liberals,” also known as libertarians, and those who view themselves as liberal because they are demanding more open academic discussion. We also have progressive zealots who insist, as did John Stuart Mill and John Dewey in earlier times, that they are perfecting liberal thought. They are carrying this heirloom to enlightened conclusions that less tolerant and less perfect liberals in the past were hesitant to embrace. Our self-proclaimed liberals, who have colonized our media and universities, are now seeking in the name of “liberalism” to punish white male Christians. What is sometimes called reverse discrimination is supposed to bring forth a society of equals in which liberal ideas can finally be practiced on a supposedly level playing field.

Liberalism has a historic context, and it was shaped by social, moral, and material circumstances. It was first of all the idea of the bourgeoisie, which became embodied in concrete institutions and relationships. It was not the imperfect beginning of later leftist experiments or the preferred values of intellectuals who are hoping to fine-tune earlier leftist advances. Liberalism once had a cohesive identity. Liberals, for example, generally favored limited suffrages that excluded women and non-property-holders. But they didn’t take that position because they weren’t fully liberal. They did so because they were seeking what was then a recognized liberal good, accountable government, while trying not to produce an excessively large franchise, which might result in property confiscation and political tyranny. In any case, these authentic liberals believed that only the educated and propertied could muster the necessary discipline to allow constitutional government to function. 

Although liberals viewed women as having human dignity and certainly not as chattel, they continued to believe in the value of traditional gender distinctions, a view that led them to hold fast to the idea that women should, save for some exceptions, be homemakers, not politically engaged. One might disagree with these positions, but those who held them did not cease to be liberal because they espoused them. True historical liberals also favored academic freedom and debating political differences but placed limits on how far they would carry their freedom principles. For example, they had a strong sense of social decency and didn’t believe that political discussion should lead to violence or insulting conduct. Liberals carried with them a heritage rooted in the Bible, classical sources, and an ingrained code of social behavior.

Mind you, I’m certainly not saying that nothing in the liberal heritage can be meaningfully defended in a postliberal age. What I am suggesting is that this excavation work becomes increasingly difficult as one moves beyond the institutions and world of thought that gave birth to a liberal order.  And we should be on guard against exaggerating the extent of the victories we’ve achieved in trying to uphold liberal ideals in a postliberal society. 

A more relevant issue than who can appropriate the “liberal” label at this time is what can be done to protect us from woke totalitarians. This is an urgent question of survival for all decent people in Western societies as we are dealing with a Left that is drunk with power.  Edmund Burke’s “Letter on the Regicide Peace” provides this sober warning about the iconoclastic mindset:

In their culture (meaning that of Jacobins) it is a rule always to graft virtues on vices. They think everything unworthy of the name of publick virtue, unless it indicates violence on the private. All their new institutions, (and with them everything is new,) strike at the root of our social nature.

Precisely because the contemporary Left, even more than the Jacobins whom Burke excoriated,” strike at the root of our social nature,” it may be necessary to organize effectively against them. But we are not advancing that effort by imagining that we are still in a liberal society and are rebuilding its institutions.  We no longer inhabit that world nor enjoy that option.

Counting on civility and fair play from our opponents is an utterly naïve assumption. LGBT enthusiasts, who have both state and media winds at their backs, are delighted to violate the one-time guaranteed rights of those who resist them. And this culturally radical Left couldn’t care less about what a white heterosexual once said in what they regard as the Stone Age about tolerance and reason. Leftist organizers in western countries now call on mercenary mobs to do their bidding, while state administrators turn their backs on the ensuing violence, and the mainstream media blame such “incidents” on religious fanatics and white nationalists. In any case, I see less and less of a liberal aspect, even a vestigial one, in what some might choose to call late liberalism.

The post Goodbye, Liberalism appeared first on The American Conservative.

French voters on Sunday night denied the Rassemblent National control of the National Assembly, dealing a severe blow to the RN’s ambitions—and the certitudes of the pundit class. The commentariat (this author included!) had been largely convinced the party’s hour was at hand. I predicted in these pages that the far-right party could have a chance to secure a governing majority in the National Assembly via an alliance with Les Républicains. French voters dashed that thesis to bits a mere two days after press-time. Ah, well.

Despite having gained the greatest number of votes in both the first and second rounds of the legislative elections—32 percent in the former and 37 percent in the latter—the RN (143 seats) emerged as the third-largest faction in the French Parliament’s lower house, behind the left’s Nouveau Front Populaire (181 seats) and President Emmanuel Macron’s Ensemble (163 seats). The mainstream parties’ front républicain—in which the NFP and Ensemble made common cause to defeat far-right candidates in the run-off—had once again barred the RN’s route to power. Macron had himself been preparing for a divided government with Jordan Bardella, the RN’s chief, as prime minister. Now, the premiership will probably be offered to a leader of the NFP. France, which in recent decades has trended rightward, might soon have a left-wing government. 

For some backers of the populist right, the election results were an occasion for despair. Jordan Bardella himself fumed against “the coalition of dishonor” that had thwarted the popular will through backroom deals. 

But the RN’s setback is in reality a victory. The party increased its number of deputies by half (from 89 to 143), consolidated a near-exclusive hold on the regions of Picardie and Provence; and decimated rival parties to its immediate left and right (LR and Eric Zemmour’s Reconquête). Even if the RN cannot govern, it has demonstrated its ability to prevent anyone else from doing so—France is at the moment hurtling toward the political crisis of a generation because neither the center or left bloc has a mandate to run the country. 

France’s populist right still has a promising future. The problems fueling the RN’s rise—the cost of living crisis and the mass migration wave—are long-term, structural ailments for the entire Western world. The neoliberal consensus of open markets and open borders has not resolved them and cannot do so.

Contrary to the RN’s carping, France’s political class did not violate the rules of the game in forming a republican front—strategic voting and electoral alliances are banal features of democratic politics. The republican front is nonetheless showing its age—the constituent parties have nothing in common aside from treating the RN as anathema. France needs a functional parliament. The republican front—running the gamut from communists to moderate conservatives—will not be able to agree on a budget, let alone a strategy to right the country’s crumbling finances while addressing social unrest. The RN stands to benefit from the frailties of what it derides as “the uniparty.”

RN officials have much to learn from the letdown of these elections. The party repeatedly committed unforced errors, the worst being a slapdash process for candidate selection. The RN had a large task cut out for itself in choosing 577 individuals to run for the National Assembly. The time crunch and the party’s lack of professional cadres made this even harder. The predictable chaos ensued; the media began to dig through the histories of RN candidates and swiftly hit pay-dirt. A candidate was forced to withdraw after an image of her in Nazi regalia surfaced on social media. Another was disavowed by the party after the discovery of a Facebook post in which he had written that “the gas had rendered justice to the victims of the Holocaust.” 

Others were simply poorly suited for high office. One had served prison time in the ’90s after having taken the mayor of her town hostage. Another was ultimately ineligible for election because he was mentally ill and under a conservatorship. A particularly inept RN nominee melted down on a live television debate and admitted that she had not prepared for the event. 

And then there were “the phantom candidates,” who did not bother to run a campaign, refused to appear on local television for the customary debate, and sometimes did not even put their own image on election posters. French voters mostly select candidates on the basis of party affiliation, but even here politics is local: Being a native son or daughter can put someone over the top. The RN’s historical pariah status means that it has been slow to develop local networks in many areas of the country, and thus has had to rely on carpetbaggers with no name identification. The party thus forfeited dozens of races that might have been winnable. 

The RN’s brass will need to drastically improve the candidate selection process, recruiting potential office-holders who are rooted and respected in their community. The party will also have to ruthlessly cull the ranks of those who compromise its desire for respectability and normalization. According to a source close to the RN, the party did not even conduct background checks on the candidates it fielded in these parliamentary elections. Bardella and Marine Le Pen have vowed to rid the flock of “black sheep.” Let them start by doing some basic research on their own subordinates. 

Part of the RN’s negligence till now might be attributable to its shabby financial state. The party has perpetually careened on the edge of bankruptcy, which no doubt has inhibited attempts at professionalization. French political parties receive most of their funding from public monies doled out on the basis of each faction’s vote share. The RN’s performance in the parliamentary and European elections means that it will now come into tens of millions of extra euros. The RN’s gains in the National Assembly also will grant it access to more cash to hire staff. The party’s potential to accede to power might additionally attract the well-educated and well-heeled staffers who until now have snubbed it. 

The RN must embrace this process in order to convince the French public it can be trusted. And now, relieved of the burden of government, the party has three years in the opposition to do so. There is manna in the political desert.

The post The Future for the Rassemblement National Is Bright appeared first on The American Conservative.