Wednesday, August 31, 2022

Biden’s border policies ignore the reality of illegal immigration

 


Biden’s border policies ignore the reality of illegal immigration

Mark Krikorian, New York Post 

The Biden administration’s border policies are so preposterous that even the White House press secretary can’t believe they’re real.

Earlier this week, Peter Doocy of Fox News questioned press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre about tennis star Novak Djokovic being barred from entering the United States to play in the US Open because he hasn’t been vaccinated against COVID.

(Having just returned from overseas, I can attest that the airlines repeatedly warn travelers that foreigners without green cards must show proof of vaccination to be admitted.)

Doocy asked, “Somebody unvaccinated comes over on a plane, you say that’s not OK. Somebody walks into Texas or Arizona unvaccinated, they’re allowed to stay?”

Here’s Jean-Pierre’s answer: “That’s not how it works … It’s not like someone walks over.”

Actually, it’s exactly like that. From October of last year through July, the Border Patrol apprehended more than 1.8 million illegal border-crossers at the southern border, more than any year in history, and there are still two months to go in the fiscal year. Each day in July, an average of nearly 6,000 illegal migrants were arrested at the border — or “encountered,” in the new PC jargon.

And while some of these people didn’t want to get caught, a huge share of them did, in fact, just “walk over” and turn themselves in, secure in the knowledge that the Biden Department of Homeland Security would allow them to stay. Just last weekend in south Texas, three groups of illegal migrants, totaling nearly 500, just walked over the border and flagged down the Border Patrol.

Immigration patterns have shifted to see more migrants from

outside Mexico and the Northern Triangle.

NY Post composite

In Yuma, Ariz., so many illegal migrants are walking over the border through a gap in the fence left by President Biden’s Inauguration Day stop-work order that there are chairs next to the fence for those waiting for rides from the Border Patrol.

Some of the border-jumpers really are returned to Mexico under a COVID-era public health order called Title 42 (which the Biden administration is trying to end). But since Inauguration Day, this administration has released well over 1 million illegal border-crossers into the US, few if any of whom will ever leave. They may or may not show up for an asylum hearing at some point in the future, but even if they do and lose, they’ll just stay. Because who’s going to look for them?

Some might imagine that the press secretary’s “it’s not like someone walks over” comment was a brazen lie, but I don’t think so — she just doesn’t strike me as being as cunning as her predecessor. Instead, I think that, like many Americans, especially Democrats, she really has no idea what a disaster the border is and how much Biden’s policies are responsible.

It’s natural to discount comments from political opponents, and when Doocy (whom the White House clearly sees as a political opponent, in contrast to the poodles from friendlier outlets) said migrants were just walking into the United States, Jean-Pierre responded like it was an absurd falsehood. Because, really, what government would allow millions of illegal migrants to just walk across the border?

Her government, as it turns out.



Saturday, August 27, 2022

Elites’ divide & conquer failure

 


Elites’ divide & conquer failure

How middle class now view their rulers with rightly earned disdain

Victor Davis Hanson, New York Post 

Elites have always been ambiguous about the muscular classes who replace their tires, paint their homes, and cook their food. And the masses who tend to them likewise have been ambivalent about those who hire them: appreciative of the work and pay, but also either a bit envious of those with seemingly unlimited resources or turned off by perceived superciliousness arising from their status and affluence. 

Yet the divide has grown far wider in the 21st century. Globalization fueled the separation in a number of ways. 

One, outsourcing and offshoring eroded the Rust Belt interior, while enriching the two coasts. The former lost good-paying jobs, while the latter found new markets in investment, tech, insurance, law, media, academia, entertainment, sports, and the arts making them billions rather than mere millions. 

So, the problem was one of both geography and class. Half the country looked to Asia and Europe for profits and indeed cultural “diversity,” while the other half stuck with tradition, values, and custom — as they became poorer. 

The elite found in the truly poor — neglecting their old union-member, blue-collar Democratic base — an outlet for their guilt, noblesse oblige, condescension at a safe distance, call it what you will. The poor if kept distant were fetishized, while the middle class was demonized for lacking the taste of the professional classes and romance of the far distant underclass. 

Second, race became increasingly divorced from class — a phenomenon largely birthed by guilty, wealthy, white elites and privileged, diverse professionals. For the white bicoastal elite, it became a mark of their progressive bona fides to champion woke racialism that empowered the non-white of their own affluent class, while projecting their own discomfort with and fears of the nonwhite poor onto the middle class as supposed “racists,” despite the latter’s more frequently living among, marrying within, and associating with the “other.” 

The net result was more privilege for the elite and wealthy nonwhites, more neglect of the inner-city needy, and more disdain for the supposedly illiberal clingers, dregs, deplorables, chumps, and irredeemables. 

The results of these contortions were surreal. The twenty-something who coded a video game that went viral globally became a master of the universe, while the brilliant carpenter or electrical contractor was seen as hopelessly trapped in a world of muscular stasis. Oprah and LeBron James were victims. So were the likes of Ibram X. Kendi, Ilhan Omar, and the Obamas, while the struggling Ohio truck driver, the sergeant on the front line in Afghanistan, and Indiana plant worker became their oppressors. Or so the progressive bicoastal elite instructed us. 

Globalization and its geography, along with the end of ecumenical class concerns, certainly widened the ancient mass-elite divide. But there was a third catalyst that explained the mutual animosity in the pre-Trump years. The masses increasingly could not see any reason for elite status other than expertise in navigating the system for lucrative compensation. 

Crackpot hypocrites 

In short, money and education certification were no longer synonymous with any sense of competency or expertise. Just the opposite often became true. Those who thought up some of the most destructive, crackpot, and dangerous policies in American history were precisely those who were degreed and well-off and careful to ensure they were never subject to the destructive consequences of their own pernicious ideologies. 

The masses of homeless in our streets were a consequence of various therapeutic bromides antithetical to the ancient, sound notions of mental hospitals. The new theories ignored the responsibilities of nuclear families to take care of their own, and the assumption that hard-drug use was not a legitimate personal choice, but rather a catastrophe for all of society. 

From universities also came critical race theory and critical legal theory, which were enshrined throughout our institutions. The bizarre idea that “good” racism was justified as a get-even response to “bad” racism resonated as ahistorical, illogical, and plain, old-fashioned race-based hatred. 

The masses never understood why their children should attend colleges where obsessions with superficial appearances were celebrated as “diversity,” graduation ceremonies matter-of-factly were segregated by race, dorms that were racially exclusive were lauded as “theme houses,” Jim-Crow-style set-aside zones were rebranded “safe spaces,” and racial quotas were merely “affirmative action.” 

Ancient notions such as that punishment deters crime were laughed at by the degreed who gave us the current big-city district attorneys. Their experiments with decriminalizing violent acts, defunding the police, and delegitimizing incarceration led to a “Lord of the Flies”-style anarchy in our major cities. Note well, those with advanced or professional degrees who dreamed all this up did not often live in defunded police zones, did not have homeless people on their lawns, and found ways for their children to navigate around racial quotas in elite college admissions. 

So, the credentialed lost their marginal reputations for competency. Were we really to believe 50 former intelligence heads and experts who claimed Hunter Biden’s laptop was “Russian disinformation?” Even if they were not simply biased, did any of them have the competence to determine what the laptop was? 

Or were we to take seriously the expertise of “17 Nobel Prize winners” who swore Biden’s “Build Back Better” debacle would not be inflationary as the country went into 9%-plus inflation? Did we really believe our retired four-stars that Trump was a Nazi, a Mussolini, and someone to be removed from office “the sooner the better”? 

Or were we to trust the 1,200 “health care professionals” who assured us that, medically speaking, while the rest of society was locked down it was injurious for the health of people of color to follow curfews and mask mandates instead of thronging en masse in street protests? 

Or were we to believe Kevin Clinesmith’s FISA writ, or Andrew McCabe’s four-time assertion that he did not leak to the media, or that James Comey under oath really did not know the answers to 245 inquiries? Did Robert Mueller really not know what either the Steele dossier or Fusion GPS was? 

Bureaucratic bungle 

On the operational level, the elite proved even more suspect. Militarily, the middle classes in the armed forces proved as lethal as ever, despite being demonized as racists and white supremacists. But their generals, diplomats and politicians proved so often incompetent in translating their tactical victories in the Middle East and elsewhere into strategic success or even mere advantage. 

Nationally, the failure of the elite that transcends politics is even more manifest. The country is $30 trillion in debt. No one has the courage to simply stop printing money. The border is nonexistent, downtown America is a No Man’s Land, and our air travel is a circus — and not an “expert” can be found willing or able to fix things. Is Pete Buttigieg the answer to thousands of canceled flights or backed-up ports? Is Alejandro Mayorkas to be believed when he assures the border is “closed” and “secure” as millions flood across? 

The universities are turning out mediocre graduates without the skills or knowledge of a generation ago, but certainly with both greater debt and arrogance. 

Our bureaucratic fixers can only regulate, stop, retard, slow-down, or destroy freeways, dams, reservoirs, aqueducts, ports, and refineries — and yet never seem to give up their own driving, enjoyment of stored water, or buying of imported goods. 

Is it easier to topple than to sculpt a statue? 

A generation from now, in The Emperor Has No Clothes fashion, someone may innocently conclude that most “research” in the social sciences and humanities of our age is as unreliable as it is unreadable, or that the frequent copycat Hollywood remakes of old films were far worse than the originals. 

Does anyone think a Jim Acosta is on par with a John Chancellor? That Mark Milley is equal to a Matthew Ridgway? Is Anthony Fauci like a Jonas Salk or an Albert Sabin? 

Yet this lack of competence and taste among the elite is not shared to the same degree in a decline of middle-class standards. 

Homes are built better than they were in the 1970s. Cars are better assembled than in the 1960s. The electrician, the plumber, and the roofer are as good or better than ever. The soldier stuck in the messy labyrinth of Baghdad or on patrol in the wilds of Afghanistan was every bit as brave and perhaps far more lethal than his Korean War or World War II counterpart. 

How does this translate to the American people? They navigate around the detritus of the elite, avoiding big-city downtown USA. 

They are skipping movies at theaters. They are passing on watching professional sports. They don’t watch the network news. They think the CDC,

NIAID, and NIH are incompetent — and fear their incompetence can prove deadly. 

Millions increasingly doubt their children should enroll in either a four-year college or the military, and they assume the FBI, CIA, and Justice Department are as likely to monitor Americans as they are unlikely to find and arrest those engaged in terrorism or espionage. 

When the elite peddles its current civil-war or secession porn — projecting onto the middle classes their own fantasies of a red/blue violent confrontation, or their own desires to see a California or New York detached from Mississippi and Wyoming — they have no idea that America’s recent failures are their own failures. 

The reason why the United States begs Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia to pump more oil is not because of lazy frackers in Texas or incompetent rig hands in North Dakota, but because of utterly incompetent diplomats, green zealots, and ideological “scientists.” 

Had the views of majors and colonels in Afghanistan rather than their superiors in the Pentagon and White House prevailed, there would have been no mass flight or humiliation in Kabul. 

Crime is out of control not because we have either sadistic or incompetent police forces but sinister DAs, and mostly failed, limited academics who fabricated their policies. 

Current universities produce more bad books, bad teaching, bad ideas, and badly educated students, not because the janitors are on strike, the maintenance people can’t fix the toilets, or the landscapers cannot keep the shrubbery alive, but because their academics and administrators have hidden their own incompetence and lack of academic rigor and teaching expertise behind the veil of woke censoriousness. 

Winners vs. losers 

The war between blue and red and mass versus elite is really grounded in the reality that those who feel they were the deserved winners of globalization and who are the sole enlightened on matters of social, economic, political, and military policy have no record of recent success, but a long litany of utter failure. 

They have become furious that the rest of the country sees through these naked emperors. Note Merrick Garland’s sanctimonious defense of the supposed professionalism of the Justice Department and FBI hierarchies — while even as he pontificated, they were in the very process of leaking and planting sensational “nuclear secrets” narratives to an obsequious media to justify the indefensible political fishing expedition at a former president’s home and current electoral rival to Merrick Garland’s boss. 

The masses increasingly view the elites’ money, their ZIP codes, their degrees and certificates, and their titles not just with indifference, but with the disdain they now have earned on their own merits. 

And that pushback has made millions of our worst and stupidest quite mad.

Wednesday, August 24, 2022

DeSantis Eliminates ESG From State Pension Investments

 


DeSantis Eliminates ESG From State Pension Investments

Jannis Falkenstern, The Epoch Times 

PUNTA GORDA, Fla.–Gov. Ron DeSantis made good on his promise to take action against the environmental, social and corporate governance movement (ESG), which he called an “alarming trend” and a threat to the American economy.

On Aug. 23  the governor, along with trustees of the State Board of Administration (SBA), passed a resolution directing Florida’s fund managers to make investments that do not involve the ideological agenda of the ESG.

“Corporate power has increasingly been utilized to impose an ideological agenda on the American people through the perversion of financial investment priorities under the euphemistic banners of environmental, social, and corporate governance and diversity, inclusion, and equity,” said DeSantis said in a written statement.

“With the resolution, we passed today, the tax dollars and proxy votes of the people of Florida will no longer be commandeered by Wall Street financial firms and used to implement policies through the board room that Floridians reject at the ballot box.”

At a July 27 press conference in Tampa, the governor said that most Americans were not aware of what ESG was and what the goal is of “leveraging corporate power to impose an ideological agenda on society.” He promised to do something about it.

Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI), an investment research firm in New York, described ESG as “investing as the consideration of environmental, social and governance factors alongside financial factors in the investment decision-making process.”

But some view the movement as a sinister force.

James Lindsay, the author of “Race Marxism,” described ESG as a “weapon in the hands of ‘social justice warriors’ to shake down corporations and a tool in the hands of those seeking to impose ‘one world government.’”

DeSantis’ resolution followed an action taken in December 2021 when he reclaimed the SBA’s proxy voting authority from “large financial firms,” and provided guidance to the SBA for proxy voting and investment decisions.

“This guidance will ensure that the decisions made by these civil servants on behalf of the people of Florida are in accordance with the voters’ values as expressed through the democratic process rather than blindly in lockstep with the ESG mania taking hold of Wall Street and Washington,” the governor’s office said in a prepared statement.

In the upcoming 2023 legislative session, the governor plans to propose laws that would amend Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices statute that would prohibit discriminatory practices by large financial institutions that incorporate the ESG social credit score metric.

Incoming Florida House Speaker Paul Renner said that ESG is “a global elite weaponizing American capitalism against us” making it a national security issue as well as a “pocketbook issue.”

He warned that going down an ESG path would lead to companies being “choked off” of their ability to obtain financing and would hurt industries such as agriculture.

“So if you’re a meat eater, get ready,” he warned at a press conference on July 27. “They’re against meat and so they’re driving up food prices. These people don’t care—[they] will open our borders, choke off our agriculture sector, and basically weaken this country for their own local agenda.”

The governor’s statement went on to say that the “financial security” of Floridians is a priority over “whimsical notions of a utopian tomorrow,” and is “reasserting the authority of a republican governance.”


Monday, August 22, 2022

The Death of the Bush and Cheney Political Dynasties

 


The Death of the Bush and Cheney Political Dynasties

There will be no going back to the pre-2016 "dead consensus."

Josh Hammer, American Greatness

Last Friday, I landed in beautiful Jackson Hole, Wyoming, to speak at a pro-life summit. The summit organizers had kindly dispatched a van to transport a number of us from the airport, and a U.S. congressman who happened to be on the same arriving flight hopped on to hitch a ride. The congressman, a conservative, was actually not in town for the pro-life summit; as I learned when he sat next to me, he was in town to campaign against his House colleague and January 6-obsessed would-be martyr for “democracy,” Rep. Liz Cheney (RINO-Wyo.).

Turns out the campaigning congressman’s efforts were not in vain: On Tuesday evening, Republican primary voters in Wyoming absolutely walloped Cheney and nominated her leading challenger, the Trump-endorsed Harriet Hageman. In this sparsely populated deep-red state, the Republican primary doubles as the de facto general election. Hageman can thus book her ticket to Washington, come January. The housebroken faux-conservative Cheney, on the other hand, will be looking for a new gig. CNN hostess comes to mind.

Cheney’s shellacking in Tuesday’s Republican congressional primary in the Equality State comes a little less than three months after a similar landslide in the Lone Star State. On May 24, the Republican primary runoff between incumbent Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and challenger George P. Bush, the state’s land commissioner, was shockingly one-sided: Paxton routed Bush by a roughly 68 percent-32 percent margin. Liz Cheney, daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, and George P. Bush, son of former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and nephew of former President George W. Bush, thus both lost their Republican primaries this year by nearly 40 points.

Texas and Wyoming Republican voters, by eye-opening margins, have dealt thumping death blows to the Bush and Cheney political dynasties. (Perhaps Cheney is solipsistic enough to mount a 2024 presidential bid, a truly masochistic endeavor in which she would have precisely zero chance of victory.) But the even bigger and more important coup de grace is not that for any specific individual—or, indeed, for any particular family dynasty. Rather, the crucial symbolic death blow is that for the effete, country club Republicanism and swashbuckling neoconservatism represented by the Bush-Cheney era. The tremendous defeats this year of Liz Cheney and George P. Bush, scions of neoconservative family royalty, at the hands of two Trump-backed primary opponents, represent a clarion plea from the Republican rank and file: “We will not go back to the old, pre-Trump era.”

Good.

After President Donald Trump’s narrow defeat in the hotly contested 2020 election, many in the housebroken GOP establishment began quietly pushing the party to reject all the substantive departures from sclerotic orthodoxy that Trump’s presidency entailed, to whitewash his myriad accomplishments from the history books and to revert to the “principled loserdom” status quo ante of John McCain and Mitt Romney. But Trump’s generally sustained success in Republican primary contests this year, outside some blips on the radar, evinces the folly of such Beltway conceit. The demolitions of no less establishment figures than those literally named “Bush” and “Cheney,” especially given the latter’s lofty perch in the petty and vindictive January 6 “select committee” witch hunt, only accentuates the key point: The “New Right,” a sweeping amalgamation of nationalist and conservative-populist sentiment, whose propitious rise has served as a rebuke to the overly “liberal” conservatism of yesteryear, is here to stay.

There will be no going back to the old, feckless, moralistic nation-building crusades of decades past. There will be no going back to the old, neoliberal-inspired free trade absolutism that outsourced entire supply chains to our Chinese geopolitical archfoe, dramatically undercutting America’s industrial resilience. There will be no going back to the old, pro-Fortune 500 immigration agenda of open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens and mass visas for all sorts of foreign nationals. There will be no going back to the old, corporatist economic agenda of prioritizing corporate and capital gains tax cuts while working-class families struggle to raise their kids on a single income. There will be no more focusing on libertarian economics, the donor class’s policy hobbyhorse, to the exclusion of those “nasty,” “icky” cultural issues that animate the GOP’s actual voter base.

Republican presidential primary voters in two years will likely have an opportunity to decide whether the party’s future is best represented by Trump himself, on the one hand, or some variation of conservative-populist “Trumpism without Trump,” on the other hand. But those remain the only two games in town. There will be no going back to the pre-2016 “dead consensus”—except perhaps in the fever dream monologues of Liz Cheney’s impending CNN show.


COPYRIGHT 2022 CREATORS.COM

Josh Hammer is the opinion editor of Newsweek. A popular conservative commentator, he is a research fellow with the Edmund Burke Foundation and a syndicated columnist through Creators. A frequent pundit and essayist on political, legal, and cultural issues, Hammer is a constitutional attorney by training. He is a former John Marshall Fellow with the Claremont Institute and a campus speaker through Intercollegiate Studies Institute, Young America’s Foundation, and the Federalist Society.

Sunday, August 21, 2022

Trump’s Declassified Documents Had to Do With ‘Russiagate’

Ex-White House Aide: Trump’s Declassified Documents Had to Do With ‘Russiagate’

FBI closing ranks... the scent of corruption!

Jack Phillips, The Epoch Times 

A former top Department of Defense official, Kash Patel, said the FBI may have taken documents relating to the Russia–Trump collusion investigation.

Amid a tussle between Trump and the National Archives, Patel said in a recent interview that documents that were stored at Mar-a-Lago marked as classified were declassified when he left office. Federal officials will have a difficult time proving that those documents were not classified, he said.

“The bottom line was he said this information has to get out to the American public,” Patel told The Wall Street Journal in an interview published on Sunday morning. Patel said he did not know what was in the boxes that FBI agents took from Trump’s home.

“It had to do with Russiagate. It had to do with the Hillary email scandal. It had to do with a whole lot of other stuff. And [Trump] said, ‘This is all declassified,’” Patel remarked, challenging a central claim made by the Justice Department that urgent action had to be taken because sensitive material was at risk.

So far, neither the Department of Justice nor the FBI has offered a public explanation about why the FBI agents targeted a former president’s home or what they were looking for. The Epoch Times has contacted the DOJ and FBI for comment.

A warrant and property receipt that were unsealed more than a week ago by U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart showed that agents took 11 boxes of allegedly classified documents, although it’s not clear what those documents entailed. The warrant showed Trump was being probed for possible Espionage Act violations and obstruction of justice.

Republicans, Trump, and some media outlets have called for the DOJ’s affidavit—a legal document that would explain why the agency sought an FBI search warrant—to be released. During a hearing last week, Reinhart ordered the DOJ to submit the affidavit with proposed redactions, which he would then review before he would consider releasing the document to the public.

More Details

Trump posted on Truth Social on Aug. 18 that he declassified a range of documents relating to the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation. At the same time, Trump and Patel have said that the former president had a standing declassification order.

“The president is the ultimate classification authority, so if he says it or writes it, it’s declassified,” Patel told the WSJ.

A day before Trump left office, on Jan. 19, 2021, he issued a memo declassifying Crossfire Hurricane materials, which have still not been made public. The former president highlighted an archived version of the memo on Truth Social last week.

“I determined that the materials in [a Crossfire Hurricane] binder should be declassified to the maximum extent possible. In response, and as part of the iterative process of the declassification review, under a cover letter dated January 17, 2021, the Federal Bureau of Investigation noted its continuing objection to any further declassification of the materials in the binder,” Trump wrote in January 2021.

While the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was launched in July 2016 to investigate claims of Russian interference in the election, special counsel Robert Mueller years later concluded that the investigation found no evidence showing Trump or his campaign coordinated with Moscow to sway the election.

The Crossfire Hurricane probe was based, in part, on a series of notes and memos concocted by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele—known collectively as the “Steele dossier”—while he was performing opposition research for a third party on behalf of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign and Democrats. A number of allegations in his dossier have since been discredited by the FBI and other groups.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said the FBI raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort was a “fishing expedition” for the House Jan. 6 committee.

In remarks on his podcast on Aug. 17, Cruz said that the bureau was looking for documents related to the Capitol breach on Jan. 6, 2021. He did not provide any specific evidence for the statement.

“What is really distressing now looking at the warrant and what they were searching for, this was a fishing expedition,” Cruz said on his podcast “Verdict with Ted Cruz.”

“I think it had little to nothing to do with classified documents, what this was about was January 6. What this was about was the FBI and [the Department of Justice] wanting to send in a team to say let’s grab every piece of paper we can find and maybe we’ll get something incriminating,” Cruz added. “It’s not new for law enforcement to try to find a hook,” the senator said.


Wednesday, August 17, 2022

Putting Parents Back in Charge

Putting Parents Back in Charge

An interview with Arizona Governor Doug Ducey on the state’s first-of-its-kind universal school-choice legislation

Christopher F. Rufo, City Journal 

Arizona governor Doug Ducey is brimming with optimism. The businessman-turned-politician has spent the past eight years campaigning for universal school choice—and he has finally achieved it. Today, the governor is hosting the signing ceremony for H.B. 2853, which will provide every family in Arizona with an “empowerment scholarship account” (ESA) and an annual $7,000 per child to take to any educational institution of their choice, including private schools, religious schools, and homeschool programs.

I first met the governor last year at a retreat in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, where, in between firing rifle and pistol rounds at the shooting range, he spoke with me at length about the Founding Fathers, his own Jesuit education, the threat of critical race theory, and his vision for school reform. The governor had tried to pass universal school choice last summer but came up short by one vote in the legislature. This year, after rallying parents and negotiating with legislators, he has his redemption. Universal school choice has long been the Holy Grail for conservative education reformers. Governor Ducey has achieved it.

I spoke with the governor as he prepared to lead the signing ceremony for this historic victory. The interview has been lightly edited for brevity and clarity.

Christopher Rufo: Last year, we met in Jackson Hole and spoke about the deeper purpose of education. What are your first principles when it comes to education policy?

Governor Doug Ducey: The vision that the Founders had around education was the development of a good citizen. And so much of that is in the values and the principles that students learn in school. We’ve seen much of that driven out of traditional K-12 education. The first law that I passed was the American Civics Act. That was to bring civics back to the classroom because we found that if you’re not testing something in K-12, it’s simply not being taught. We were the first state to pass it and we’ve now seen 30 other states follow suit. Then seeing the informed patriotism that is happening in so many of our schools of choice in Arizona—places like the Great Hearts Academy and the BASIS schools network—told me that we need an innovation in our traditional model. We have to break up the cartel that is not teaching our kids things of value around math, reading, and science, or the actual skills of being a good future citizen. That was the real genesis in terms of what can be different in education. And that’s why I’m a huge fan of the educational savings accounts. It puts parents in charge of their child’s education, and it brings some of the market principles to bear that provide higher quality at lower cost, with greater return on investment. This will make for happier children.

Rufo: You’ve been working on this issue for eight years, and your state has now become the first in the nation to pass universal school choice. How did it all come together?

Ducey: This is the issue that animated my running for governor. I believed in this idea. I think this can transform K-12 education. It took all of eight years to get here. Part of it is that we’re in the persuasion business: you have to win over public sentiment; you have to win over legislators to these ideas. There’s an axiom that “friends come and go, but enemies accumulate.” After eight years, there are some threadbare relationships, but this was so important and, as a sitting governor, you do have a certain amount of power— and I intended to use it all. This year, I simply told my team that I was not going to sign the budget until we were able to get this. It took a lot of one-on-one meetings, a lot of phone calls, a lot of lunches and conversations. But we finally got to a majority in both the House and the Senate, and it’s something we’re incredibly excited to sign, something we’re proud that Arizona is leading on.

Rufo: How much did Covid lockdowns, critical race theory, and gender ideology change public perception around education and help pave the way for universal school choice?

Ducey: Covid changed everything in K-12 education. Parents were able to see what their children were being taught via Zoom videos. They were also able to see the lack of rigor and expectation in these classrooms. They saw this pervasive CRT that’s been discovered in so many different districts. And parents were rejecting that, along with the heavy-handed mandates around vaccines and masking, while they saw little to no focus on math, reading, science, character formation, or American civics. We had a lot of parents who were not politically engaged, or had been sitting on the sidelines, saying, “I want to have a say in what happens in my children’s education.” We had an African-American lady, Janelle Wood, who started micro-schools. She sat next to my wife, Angela, at the State of the State address, when I told the body: “Fifty years ago, politicians stood in the schoolhouse door and wouldn’t let minorities in. Today, union-backed politicians stand in the schoolhouse door and won’t let minorities out.” These kids are trapped in failing public schools. It’s time to set these families free. That’s not a Republican idea. That’s an American idea, that we all have equal opportunity and we should have that opportunity for an excellent education.

Rufo: What’s your advice for governors and legislators in other states who are interested in passing universal school choice?

Ducey: First, I’d say to get out of the state capital and get away from the government unions and start talking to parents and building coalitions. Janelle Wood, who leads the Black Mothers Forum, and the black pastors of Arizona—almost all of them registered Democrats—were part of the coalition that helped us get this over the finish line. This is a game-changing issue at the state level, and the audience is large. This is every parent in the state, this is every new couple who wants to have stewardship over their taxpayer dollars, so that they can be in charge of their children’s education. You have to build those coalitions and get out in front of the public and make the case, room by room.

I’d like to think that this could be a bit like Roger Bannister breaking the four-minute mile. Nobody thought that it was possible. Once one person was able to do it, then many others followed. We know now that universal ESAs are possible, that you can get this through two legislative chambers and have a governor sign it—so let’s see it spread across the country.

Rufo: In my view, universal school choice has the potential not only to serve parents but also to provide communities with meaningful pluralism. Families, neighborhoods, and churches can create their own schools that are centered on their values, not the government’s.

Ducey: I think the educational savings account is the only way to renew and reform K-12 education. I also think it’s the opportunity for us to renew our country. There is no better way to bring communities together than around the best interest of their children. Having parental involvement and making sure that we have the best possible teachers getting additional pay is something that local communities will make certain of and prioritize—but we have to make sure that it’s possible. Too many people have felt trapped in a school system that, for whatever reason, wasn’t right for their child, or they felt like a number in a big education bureaucracy. This is a way to give power back to the people and also to let 1,000 flowers bloom in terms of new ideas—even beyond charter schools, or micro-pods, or who knows what’s next. Traditional K-12 in the United States has been flat-lining since the late seventies. It’s time for a new direction. This puts parents back in charge, and I’m excited about what’s next.

Christopher F. Rufo is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal. Sign up for his newsletter here.


Monday, August 15, 2022

The FBI Is Now the Federal Bureau of Intimidation

 


The FBI Is Now the Federal Bureau of Intimidation

Frank Miele, Real Clear Politics 

Nothing symbolizes the decline of the American republic better than the weaponization of justice that we saw last week when the FBI raided the home of former President Trump.

And nothing better represents the divide that now exists between Democrats and Republicans than the fact that some people still have faith in the FBI.

Aren’t they paying attention? Heck, that's like a citizen of the old Soviet Union saying they had faith in the KGB – yeah, to crush dissent and lock up opponents of the regime in a Siberian gulag.

The evidence is overwhelming. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is now the Federal Bureau of Intimidation. Or more appropriately, the Federal Intimidation Bureau, whose acronym would spell out FIB, as in the Big Lie. Face it, nothing the FBI has said for the last six years since they joined with the Democratic Party to invent the Russia collusion hoax can be taken seriously.

Is there any need to go through the whole laundry list of lies and fabrications that the FBI, with the aid and comfort of the Justice Department, has foisted on the American public?

You can start with the extraordinary 2016 press conference when FBI Director James Comey detailed crimes committed by presidential candidate Hillary Clinton related to her improper use of a private email account to store classified material. Moments after saying she had broken the law, Comey announced with a straight face that “no reasonable prosecutor” would ever bring a case against her. Yeah, because she was a Democrat!

A couple months later, Comey set up President Trump’s National Security adviser, Gen. Michael Flynn, by sending agents to interview him about his supposed contacts with Russians.

“What's our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?" wrote Bill Priestap in a memo before the interview. Priestap was counterintelligence director at the FBI, and it became evident later that the agency’s goal was indeed to get him fired – and more importantly to get Trump impeached, fired, humiliated, you name it.

Comey himself admitted that the FBI targeted Flynn and chose not to approach him through the White House legal counsel, but informally with a direct phone call to arrange an interview. As Comey later told a reporter, it was “something I probably wouldn't have done or maybe gotten away with in a more … organized administration.”

What about the FBI’s abuse of Carter Page and George Papadopoulos? The agency made up evidence in support of subpoenas, FISA warrants, whatever it took to get the desired result. What about the FBI and Department of Justice targeting parents at school boards as “domestic terrorists” because they demanded that their elected representatives actually represent them? What about the unilateral rescission of executive privilege and attorney-client privilege wherever it would have protected President Trump and his advisers?

The purpose of all of this activity, along with the raid at Mar-a-Lago, was to intimidate not just Trump, but also his supporters. Anyone other than Donald Trump would have given up long ago. Who could possibly withstand the power of the state marshaled against you for six long years – through multiple FBI investigations, through two impeachments, through relentless persecution of your children and your friends and family?

Finally, what about the double standard that allows Democrats and their government allies to go unpunished for a multitude of sins? Notwithstanding Attorney General Merrick Garland’s feigned indignation on behalf of the bureau, what about the FBI agents who lied repeatedly during the Trump-Russia investigation, sometimes under oath. Even more stunning has been the FBI’s monumental failure to investigate presidential son Hunter Biden, even though it received his laptop with extensive incriminating evidence of criminal activity in 2019.

Even when the laptop was made public during the 2020 presidential election, the FBI stood silent and thus gave tacit approval to the cynical Democratic Party talking point that the laptop was somehow a GOP dirty trick. It would be interesting to know if the FBI had anything to do with the letter signed by 51 national security experts, falsely claiming that the laptop was “Russian disinformation”! Maybe, like Comey before him, FBI Director Chris Wray thought he could “get away with it.”

That is certainly the only explanation for the raid on the president’s personal residence. It was not appropriate. It was not reasonable. It had no precedent. The FBI claims that the pre-dawn raid by more than 30 armed agents was for the purpose of collecting presidential papers that the National Archive wanted. The Washington Post says that Trump reportedly had documents with nuclear secrets on them, and the legacy media went ballistic with the story. But wait a minute, isn’t that the same Washington Post that won a Pulitzer Prize for collaborating with the FBI to invent the Russia collusion hoax?

Don’t believe a word from either the Washington Post or the FBI. Trump had been cooperating with the National Archive and had already turned over 15 boxes of documents, all of which he could have made a claim to legally possess. If they wanted papers turned over, they could have gone through Trump’s lawyers. No, they wanted the spectacle. They wanted the sizzle. They wanted the headlines.

This wasn’t about the rule of law; it was about the rule of the schoolyard. Bullies get what they want through force and intimidation, and there is no reason for any of us to believe that the raid had any purpose other than to intimidate Donald Trump into backing down from his plans to run for president in 2024.

Essentially what the FBI was saying is “We know where you live, and we aren’t afraid to come for you.” They even rifled through Melania Trump’s closet, as if she might have been hiding top-secret documents in her hat box. When do we find out they also spent an hour sorting through her lingerie?

This is sickening, no matter how much MSNBC and the Washington Post want you to think you can still trust the FBI. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me over and over and over again, and I must be a Democrat.

Frank Miele, the retired editor of the Daily Inter Lake in Kalispell Mont., is a columnist for RealClearPolitics. His new book, “What Matters Most: God, Country, Family and Friends,” is available from his Amazon author page. Visit him at HeartlandDiaryUSA.com or follow him on Facebook @HeartlandDiaryUSA or on Twitter or Gettr @HeartlandDiary.

Sunday, August 14, 2022

GOOD NEWS FROM THE WORLD OF ACADEMIA

 


GOOD NEWS FROM THE WORLD OF ACADEMIA

John Hinderaker, Powerline 

NBC News reports that college attendance is dropping:

A little-understood backlash…

Little-understood by them.

…against higher education is driving an unprecedented decline in enrollment that experts now warn is likely to diminish people’s quality of life and the nation’s economic competitiveness, especially in places where the slide is most severe.

I sincerely doubt that. These are the numbers:

There are 4 million fewer students in college now than there were 10 years ago, a falloff many observers blame on Covid-19, a dip in the number of Americans under 18 and a strong labor market that is sucking young people straight into the workforce.

But while the pandemic certainly made things worse, the downturn took hold well before it started. Demographics alone cannot explain the scale of this drop.

John Nolte comments:

Over just four years, between 2016 and 2020, the percentage of high school graduates enrolling in college dropped from 70 percent to 63 percent. That’s a seven-point drop nationally.

It needs to drop more.

In certain states, it decreased even more. In Tennessee, it dropped 11 points to 53 percent. Indiana dropped 12 points to 53 percent. West Virginia dropped 10 points to just 46 percent.

Why the decline in “higher” education? Rising costs, fueled in large part by a foolish government loan program, are obviously a major culprit. And those costs are running into growing doubts about the value of a degree. Part of the problem is that the quality of instruction has slipped badly. Moreover, a large majority of jobs don’t need a college degree, so if your motivation is financial, as it is for many people, the costs don’t make sense.

But I think the intolerant leftism that prevails on virtually all campuses is also an important part of the story. Higher education, run mostly by women, is particularly hostile to men. Remarkably, the Left has managed to take the fun out of what used to be, for most students, a gratifying four years. I know a number of young people who have dropped out of college in disgust at the leftism that was inflicted on them, and have gone on to successful careers without carrying debt. Others have rushed through college as fast as possible, yearning for the freedom of the workplace and the outside world.

I hope college enrollment continues to decline. The reality is that many of our students are being misinformed, while many more are mostly wasting their time and money. There will always be a place for higher education, and I don’t know what the ideal percentage of young people attending college would be. It depends, obviously, on the quality of the education on offer. In today’s environment, I would guess maybe 30 percent. So further declines in college enrollment can be anticipated.

Thursday, August 11, 2022

OBSERVATIONS ON THE MIR-A-LAGO RAID

 


OBSERVATIONS ON THE MIR-A-LAGO RAID

John Hinderacker, Powerline

There is much to be said about the FBI’s raid on Donald Trump’s home. I won’t try to say it all here. These are a few observations, based on what we know currently:

* To get a search warrant, you have to identify a crime that has been committed, and explain how evidence you are looking for is relevant to that crime. At this point, we don’t know what purported crime was the basis for the Mar-a-Lago search warrant.

* Earlier today, Attorney General Merrick Garland delivered a brief statement to the press, and declined to take questions. He looked remarkably nervous and said hardly anything. Only two points emerged: 1) he ordered the raid himself, and 2) the Department of Justice will unseal the documents that were filed in connection with the search warrant.

* No one doubted that the raid was ordered, at a minimum, by the Attorney General. I think it is virtually certain that Garland had authorization from his boss, Joe Biden.

* Multiple parties, including Judicial Watch, moved the Florida court to unseal the filings related to the search warrant. The magistrate gave the government until close of business on Monday to respond. In effect, Garland said today that DOJ will accede to these motions and unseal the records. It remains to be seen how informative they will be.

* President Trump, like other presidents before him, took files with him when he left the White House. There is nothing necessarily wrong with this. The Presidential Records Act, passed in 1978, says that the official records of a president are public property and belong to the National Archives. But a president can take with him, when he leaves office, personal papers as well as–a point that I haven’t seen made–copies of documents, as long as they are marked as such and he leaves a copy for the Archives.

* Trump, like prior presidents, has negotiated with the National Archives about the materials he took with him. Earlier this year, he sent 15 boxes to the Archives. Subsequently, it is reported that representatives of the Archives came to Mar-a-Lago to review approximately 15 more boxes that Trump still had in his basement. While they were doing the review, Trump came downstairs to greet them. I don’t think the contents of those boxes, the apparent target of the search warrant, are a mystery to the Archives or to DOJ. Maybe they were hoping to discover something new in Melania’s closets.

* The DOJ, in its many press leaks, mostly to its in-house media organ the New York Times, keeps talking about classified information. This is because no penalty attaches to violation of the Presidential Records Act. The Biden administration has to allege the commission of a crime, and that most likely explains its references to classified information.

* I have no idea whether classified information is included in the 15 boxes that Trump has in his basement or not. It wouldn’t be surprising. The serious criminal statutes on classified information relate to passing it on to, say, the Russians or Chinese. As far as we know, there is no suggestion that Trump gave classified information to anyone. He was perfectly entitled to know it and to view it himself; the issue is that he may have taken it to an unauthorized location, i.e., Mar-a-Lago. Until now, this has generally not been considered a serious offense. Sandy Berger is an exception, although he got a slap on the wrist. But in his case, the point was that he stole a document from the Archives, apparently something damaging to the Clinton administration, so as to delete it from the historical record. There is no such suggestion, as far as we know, with regard to Trump.

* Many people have drawn analogies between what Hillary Clinton did and whatever misdeed Trump may now be charged with. I don’t see any comparison. Hillary, while Secretary of State, conducted official business on an illegal, off-the-books server located in her home, apparently for the purpose of evading the Freedom of Information Act. Most notably, the server was insecure, and the Russians, Chinese or others could have, and likely did, intercept her official communications as Secretary of State. Trump, on the other hand, has 15 boxes of documents in his basement. There is no comparison.

* It might be worth noting that 15 boxes, if that really is what is at stake, is a ridiculously small number of documents. As a lawyer, I supervised exchanges of hundreds or even thousands of boxes of documents. Fifteen boxes are a pittance, although it depends, of course, on what is in them.

* We will know more about the Mar-a-Lago raid within a few days, when the search warrant filings are unsealed. My guess, though, is that those documents will leave a lot of questions unanswered.

* The Democrats crossed the Rubicon when they raided Donald Trump’s home. Never before in American history has anything like this happened. I think the consensus of the commentariat is correct: the Democrats had better have something really good up their sleeve, or the blowback will be intense. Hence Merrick Garland’s sad performance today.

Tuesday, August 09, 2022

How Do We Get Rid of the FBI?

 


How Do We Get Rid of the FBI?

Short of abolishing the bureau, our elected leaders must exercise their power to reimpose constitutional supremacy over this out-of-control agency.

Adam Mill, American Greatness 

President Harry Truman saw the FBI as the seed of a totalitarian cancer it would later become. “We want no Gestapo or Secret Police,” Truman wrote. “F.B.I. is tending in that direction. They are dabbling in sex life scandles [sic] and plain blackmail when they should be catching criminals.” Whether it’s mass unconstitutional spying, interfering in American elections, lying to courts, or entrapping and sometimes framing innocent Americans, the debate over whether we should have an FBI is drawing to a close. Almost every month another informed author calls for the abolition of the FBI. 

So let’s move on to the next question: How do we get rid of the FBI? 

In theory, a properly motivated Congress could defund and shutter the FBI with a simple piece of legislation. Unfortunately, until Democrats and establishment Republicans swallow their fears and wake up to the threat the FBI poses to self-government, the FBI remains above the rule of law and beyond the reach democratic accountability. 

Still, there are incremental steps that could be taken to challenge the lawlessness of this untouchable agency. The winds of public opinion have begun to blow strongly against the FBI making the previously unthinkable possible. Republicans and Democrats should join together to take action, if they still can.

End the FBI’s Counterintelligence Work

There’s a reason why the FBI loves to paint its opponents and political rivals as, “agents of Putin,” or stooges for Russia. Through the Russian collusion hoax, the public learned that the FBI can use a false allegation of a target acting as a foreign agent to spy on political opponents. While the FBI, in theory, was supposed to have probable cause that Carter Page, a figure in the Trump campaign, was an agent of Russia, it lied to the FISA court to conceal Page’s history of providing information voluntarily to the CIA. Through the warrant to spy on Page, the FBI (in coordination with subcontractors for the Clinton campaign) spied on the Trump campaign. Long after the FBI knew there was “no there, there,” it used the sham counterintelligence investigation to engineer the appointment of a special counsel to interfere with the peaceful transition of power. 

The FBI has been ineffective at using the FISA court to catch real spies, however, preferring instead to reverse engineer warrants on real American targets who happen to have some incidental contact with a Russian. The FBI has shown it cannot be trusted with the domestic counterintelligence brief and that power should be reassigned to an agency that won’t abuse the power.

Combatting Elected Officials’ Fear of the FBI

Truman also wrote, “Hoover would give his right eye to take over, and all congressmen and senators are afraid of him.” Democrats are fools if they believe the FBI is a reliable ally. Truman would know. The FBI attempted to throw the 1948 presidential election by leaking to Republican challenger Thomas E. Dewey “compromising information about President Harry Truman’s former association with the Kansas City political machine of the corrupt boss Tom Pendergast. The details soon found their way into Republican campaign literature.” 

Politicians feared the FBI because of its ability to plant and spread stories with the imprimatur of the bureau as a source. When the FBI sees a candidate engaged in real corruption, however, it seems to do the opposite, running interference with the news media to protect that candidate by suppressing news stories or characterizing politically inconvenient evidence as “Russian disinformation.”

The problem is a thorny one because the FBI’s access to the vast national security databases (and its willingness to abuse them to spy on Americans) acts as a powerful psychological deterrent to politicians seeking to challenge the bureau.

One solution might be to demand of political candidates a pledge to publicly disclose any attempt by any member of the FBI to gain leverage over that politician. Further, the FBI should be required to register and report to the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General any contact with a political candidate, his family, an elected official, or a journalist. 

Increasing Transparency

Under the Freedom of Information Act, a request for information made to any government agency shall be processed within 20 business days, or approximately 30 calendar days. The FBI simply ignores this requirement, often insisting on a timeline of years. 

In one typical case, the FBI claimed it could not produce records of its surveillance of civil rights activists for 17 years. Both the Justice Department and its subordinate FBI have intentionally structured their FOIA systems to fail to keep up with public demand for records. This should be forbidden. Congress should force both agencies to provide the resources and staffing to meet the statutory deadline for documents. There’s little difference between the FBI being allowed to delay a request for 17 years and simply ignoring the law altogether.

The practice of slow-rolling FOIA requests lets the FBI and the Justice Department operate in near total secrecy, something that is anathema to democratic governance. If the FBI’s failure to follow FOIA time limits pertains to requested documents evidencing FBI misconduct, a requesting party should get attorney’s fees if it becomes necessary to sue to overcome stalling or obstruction.

Similarly, the FBI uses the excuse of a matter being under “active investigation” to block requests for materials that would potentially embarrass the bureau. Director Christopher Wray is particularly adept at claiming any topic that could shame his agency is “under investigation,” thus precluding him from discussing the matter. When the FBI wants to cover something up, say, the provenance of a laptop containing evidence of corrupt dealings of a favored politician, it simply keeps the investigation open for years and years, long past the point any serious investigation would have concluded.

Congress can and should define the limits of this “under investigation,” secrecy. Too often the FBI has held open an investigation into a matter of public interest while leaks aligning with the FBI’s interests continue to crop up in sympathetic media. After six months’ allowance of such secrecy, the FBI should be required to seek approval from the local U.S. attorney to certify the legitimacy of the continued secrecy. After a year, ongoing confidentiality should require approval from the attorney general himself. When the FBI does close a matter, it should notify the target in writing so he may combat the negative publicity the FBI generated in the first place.

And if it turns out that an FBI agent leaked details of the investigation to the press, the entire privilege should be waived for the remainder of the investigation. If the FBI can leak some of the details, the public should get all of the details.

End or Limit the Stings and Set-ups

The FBI must go to great lengths to justify its sprawling, worldwide empire. The bureau makes little or no dent in the crime that really plagues Americans. A typical FBI case more resembles the work of a fisherman who secretly places a store-bought fish on his hook before reeling it in to great public fanfare. 

After 9/11, the FBI scoured the Muslim community for mentally vulnerable targets who could be coaxed into participating in the FBI’s make-believe terror plots. More recently, a jury rejected the FBI’s contrived plot to “kidnap” Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer when it turned out that the FBI funded and set up the whole thing—even to the point of facilitating introductions among the “conspirators.” This is also why many in the public are alarmed that the FBI had informants inside the crowd that breached the Capitol on January 6. 

The FBI should not be allowed to justify its existence by making its own criminal plots. Congress should pass laws permitting expedited discovery in criminal cases and a procedure for quickly dismissing cases where the suspects were not already criminals when the FBI started its investigation. And while we’re at it, the Justice Department should not be able to hold defendants in jail for a year without trial or bail to coerce plea deals.

Do Not Let the FBI and Justice Department Investigate Their Own

The Justice Department Office of the Inspector General repeatedly has published reports detailing criminal misconduct by FBI and Justice Department personnel. When it refers these cases for prosecution, the vast majority of bad actors are not prosecuted, the case of former USA Gymnastics doctor, Larry Nassar, being one such example. This has led some to nickname the Justice Department, the Department of “Just Us.” Obviously, the Justice Department and the FBI do not apply the same rules to themselves that they expect the public to follow.

Congress should pass legislation requiring the appointment of a special counsel to investigate and prosecute FBI and Justice Department personnel credibly accused of criminal misconduct. Further, the inspector general should have the power to arrest and refer for prosecution any Justice Department or FBI employee caught abusing his power for personal gain or for partisan political advantage.

Do Not Let the FBI and Justice Department Investigate Their Own

The Justice Department Office of the Inspector General repeatedly has published reports detailing criminal misconduct by FBI and Justice Department personnel. When it refers these cases for prosecution, the vast majority of bad actors are not prosecuted, the case of former USA Gymnastics doctor, Larry Nassar, being one such example. This has led some to nickname the Justice Department, the Department of “Just Us.” Obviously, the Justice Department and the FBI do not apply the same rules to themselves that they expect the public to follow.

Congress should pass legislation requiring the appointment of a special counsel to investigate and prosecute FBI and Justice Department personnel credibly accused of criminal misconduct. Further, the inspector general should have the power to arrest and refer for prosecution any Justice Department or FBI employee caught abusing his power for personal gain or for partisan political advantage.

Friday, August 05, 2022


Unabridged

The conservative reaction to George Soros’s recent Wall Street Journal op-ed exemplifies free-speech principles—in contrast with the behavior of left-wing papers like the New York Times.

Heather Mac Donald, City Journal

On Monday, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by George Soros, billionaire hedge fund manager and founder of the Open Society Foundations. Soros defended the resources he has poured into the campaigns of progressive prosecutors ($40 million over a decade, according to a June report). His efforts on behalf of criminal-justice reform are both popular and morally righteous, he claimed. American law enforcement is “rife with injustices,” Soros wrote, as evidenced by the fact that “black people in the U.S. are five times as likely to be sent to jail as white people.” (It was not clear whether Soros literally meant “jail,” whether he was using the term as a synecdoche for both prisons and jails, or whether he knew the difference between the two.)

What happened next was startling: nothing. To be sure, the conservative commentariat outside the Wall Street Journal sprang into action, penning articles, editorials, and letters to the editor challenging Soros’s claims. But within the Wall Street Journal’s editorial offices, quiet reigned. No editorial writer or columnist tweeted that Soros’s op-ed put him in danger. There were no calls for the opinion page to retract or renounce the op-ed, or for the opinion editor to resign.

Yet Soros’s piece fundamentally contradicted the Journal’s editorial position on policing and prosecution. The paper has argued in its editorials that the American criminal-justice system is not racist. Nor are decriminalization and decarceration a blow for racial justice, despite being fiercely pursued by Soros-backed district attorneys. Such policies harm law-abiding blacks most of all, the Journal’s opinion section maintains, by leaving them defenseless against criminals.

Despite Soros’s challenge to its longstanding editorial line, the opinion section proceeded as if publishing contrary views were a normal part of being a newspaper opinion page.

Contrast that calm with the outcry at the New York Times in June 2020, when the paper published an op-ed by Arkansas senator Tom Cotton. Cotton argued that then-President Donald Trump should consider calling out the military in response to the race riots that had been triggered by the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis and that were then engulfing urban areas. The senator explicitly distinguished the rioters from “peaceful, law-abiding protesters”; the latter should not be confused with “bands of miscreants,” he said. But the police were at present overwhelmed, outnumbered, and disproportionately targeted by the violence, Cotton noted. Cotton grounded his argument in historical precedent, invoking, among other examples, President Dwight Eisenhower’s deployment of the 101st Airborne to protect Little Rock Central High School’s desegregation efforts.

The Cotton op-ed threw the New York Times into crisis. It was apparently life-threatening to the paper’s black employees. A tweet from Times workers read: “Running this puts Black @NYTimes staff in danger.” Nikole Hannah-Jones, progenitor of the Times’s revisionist American history, the 1619 Project, added another intersectional dimension to the staffers’ victimization: “As a black woman, . . . I am deeply ashamed that we ran this,” she tweeted. More than 800 Times employees signed a letter protesting the Cotton piece.

Times publisher A. G. Sulzberger and editorial page editor James Bennet initially defended the publication of the op-ed as part of the open debate that helps society “reach the right answers.” Twenty-four hours later, management was backpedaling. The Times appended a long and specious editor’s note to the online version of the op-ed, alleging that there were “factual questions” with the piece (there were none) and characterizing its tone as “needlessly harsh” and inconsistent with the “thoughtful approach that advances useful debate.”

In a long, tense Times town hall, Bennet issued the usual groveling apology, adopting the cancel culture conceit that reasoned argument hurts self-declared victim groups. “I’m very sorry, I’m sorry for the pain that this particular piece has caused,” he said. The ordeal had become “a moment for me and for us to interrogate everything we do in opinion.”

He needn’t have bothered with the apology. His fawning self-abasement earned him no credit with the mob, as is always the case in such episodes. A few days later, Bennet resigned. If his overseers tried to persuade him to stay for the sake of the paper’s integrity, there is no record of it. Bennet went out with another excruciating genuflection, this time asserting that the New York Times upholds the journalistic values that it had just patently ignored. The Times “enriches debate,” he wrote in a farewell letter, “by bringing new voices and ideas to Times readers.”

Sulzberger was even more shameless in his reality-negation. The Times’s “responsibility to help people understand a range of voices across the breadth of public debate,” the publisher wrote, “requires fearless engagement with ideas from across the political spectrum, particularly those we disagree with.” But the Times had just capitulated to maudlin claims that its coddled employees feared for their lives because of the Cotton op-ed.

As for the Times’s commitment to “factual” accuracy, a standard it had falsely implied the Cotton op-ed fell short of upholding, the paper disseminated a patently inaccurate characterization of the op-ed when it announced Bennet’s departure. “James Bennet, the editorial page editor of The New York Times, has resigned after a controversy over an Op-Ed by Senator Tom Cotton that called for military force against protesters in American cities,” it wrote on Twitter. Cotton had not called for military force against protesters. To the contrary, he had called for protecting their rights and using the military as a backup only against rioters, and only when the police could no longer repulse the rioters’ violence.

Cotton demanded a retraction of what he called the Times’s “smear.” None was forthcoming.

The day before Bennet’s resignation, the top editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer resigned for a related infraction. The paper’s architecture critic had written a column on the Floyd riots’ devastating impact on Philadelphia’s historic buildings. The column was published under the headline: “Buildings Matter, Too,” a play on the slogan “Black Lives Matter” then animating both protests and riots. Here was another dangerous assault on black lives.

Inquirer staff members circulated an “Open Letter From Journalists of Color at the Philadelphia Inquirer.” The letter announced that black staff members would be “calling in sick and tired” the next day (an echo of civil rights protester Fannie Lou Hamer). Among the many burdens that made the black journalists “sick and tired” was the imposition of “being told to show both sides of issues there are no two sides of.” Such even-handedness has become anachronistic in the age of race orthodoxies.

The Inquirer’s apology rivalled the Times’s in self-abasement. “The Philadelphia Inquirer published a headline in Tuesday’s edition that was deeply offensive. We should not have printed it,” the editors wrote. “We’re sorry, and regret that we did. We also know that an apology on its own is not sufficient. . . . The headline offensively riffed on the Black Lives Matter movement and suggested an equivalence between the loss of buildings and the lives of black Americans. That is unacceptable.”

Not enough. The pain was “just so palpable,” a weekend Inquirer editor told the New York Times. So Stan Wischnowski, the Inquirer’s top editor, fell on his sword and handed in his resignation.

Memo to irony-challenged Inquirer management: the headline did not “suggest an equivalence between the loss of buildings and the lives of black Americans.” It was engaging in the normal verbal play that headline writers deploy in the search for punchy phrasing, play that in this case was well within the bounds of responsible civil discourse and that no grounded reader would take as a literal claim that buildings and blacks are equivalent.

The different reactions to the Soros and the Cotton op-eds and to the Inquirer headline undercuts the Left’s assertion that it is conservatives who threaten free speech in the U.S. Running George Soros was as much of a challenge to the worldview of many Republicans and to the Wall Street Journal’s editorial position as running the Cotton op-ed was a challenge to Times staffers and the Times’s reader base. Soros is perhaps the Right’s biggest bête noire. It is almost impossible to give a speech to a conservative gathering and not be asked about his allegedly pernicious effect on American policy and governance. But giving Soros a platform to argue for his depolicing crusade allowed readers to test their own assumptions against his. As it turns out, Soros’s arguments were laughably weak and ill-informed. His claim that the higher rate of black incarceration demonstrates racial injustice, for example, ignores the exponentially higher rate of black crime.

Soros-assisted decarceration and decriminalization helped drive a 29 percent increase in homicides in 2020—with most of the increase being made up of black victims. The Journal’s black opinion staff could argue that the Soros op-ed put them “in danger,” but they are apparently able to distinguish between speech and violence, unlike Times staffers.

In accusing conservatives of shutting down speech, the Left points to parental opposition to school curricula that expose elementary school children to a premature knowledge of sexuality. There is no analogy between a newspaper opinion section and a second-grade classroom. Elementary school teachers have no First Amendment right to impose innocence-destroying sexual awareness (aka “LGBTQ gender instruction”) on eight-year-olds. The decision regarding when and what to teach children about sex belongs to parents. An elementary school classroom is not a marketplace of ideas, let alone a forum for highly contested, novel recastings of biological reality.

Newspapers, by contrast, once provided a crucial venue for the real marketplace of ideas. No longer. Since the Bennet defenestration, the range of opinion at the New York Times has become even narrower and its left-wing formulae even shriller, including in Times news reporting. The liberal cable channels are just as constricted. Only conservative outlets reliably offer any range of opinion. Fox News programming regularly includes opposing viewpoints; the Wall Street Journal editorial page regularly publishes dissenters from its economic philosophy, such as Jason Furman and Alan Blinder. The Soros op-ed garnered over 1,500 reader comments, most of them critical—not of the Journal for running the op-ed, but of Soros himself. The paper published several responses to the piece, including one from Senator Cotton and another from Manhattan Institute fellow Thomas Hogan. Those responses did not call for the retraction of the op-ed or for the editors’ heads.

Today, whether on college campuses or in the media, it is conservatives who still believe in the value of debate. The nauseating claim that argument with which a listener disagrees “harms” that listener is an extortion tactic used almost exclusively on the left. If the Left gets its way, however, whether through Big Tech or government campaigns against “disinformation,” there will be no more conservative speech to uphold what was once the bedrock principle of democracy.

Heather Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a contributing editor of City Journal, and the author of The Diversity Delusion: How Race and Gender Pandering Corrupt the University and Undermine Our Culture.