Not worth the fight

Article

Mike Pence’s Wise Family Practices Expose a Deep Divide Over Human Nature

Summary

David French writing in the National Review supports the Pence family's rules because putting men and women together in intimate or intense situations will inevitably lead to sexual relationships.

Quote

"God made men and women for each other. People can and do reject that notion and emerge unscathed. People can understand that truth and still fall. Life can’t be reduced to formulas. But what do you do when you understand that truth? The Pences know. Most Christians know. To defy reality is to needlessly and arrogantly risk ruin. To understand reality is to embrace humility and prudence." 

Understanding

One of the roles public figures play is to reflect, even amplify, the social issues of our times. Our chatter about the Pence family rules exposes the gulf between belief systems that creates two of the most divisive tribes in our country.

On the Right is the conviction that men and women were created to complement each other. Deep and powerful forces of attraction are bound to come into play when two members of the opposite sex share a meal alone together.

On the Left, men and women are seen as people, not genders. The Left finds it odd and sexist to believe that a man and a woman can't have dinner together on the same basis of friendship or professional collegiality as a matched gender pairing.

(Note the possibility of sexual attraction between two men or two women isn't even mentioned in French's commentary. Its absence says something about the author's worldview that is worthy of separate consideration.)

The premise of this debate inflames an unnecessary and unhelpful cultural battle. The fundamental reason we are even talking about a private family decision is that it gives us an opportunity to poke the other side, rile up some rhetoric and demonstrate the superior values of one group versus the other.

This is a case where we should live our own lives and let others do the same.

Moderation is the virtue for these times

Article

Nuke 'Em 'Til They Glow

Summary

Kurt Schlichter writing in Downhill accuses democrats of constitutional violations, political malfeasance and character flaws to make the case for true conservatives to aggressively assert their power; beginning with invoking the "nuclear option*" to affirm Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

*The nuclear option is the phrase Senator Harry Reid used to describe the rule change allowing the Senate to approve presidential nominees by a simple majority rather than a two-thirds vote.

Quote

"The libs need to suffer some more, so the GOP must move aggressively and without mercy to place as many reliable conservatives on the bench as we can. Let the battle cry sound fourth {sic} across this land!

Hiroshima!
Nagasaki!
Gorsuch!"

Understanding

Schlichter's screed reminds me of the line Karl Hess wrote for Sen. Barry Goldwater's speech accepting the Republican nomination for president in 1964 -

“Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

Schlichter is clear in his conviction that our courts should be politically neutral, but if that is not possible, the judiciary should be conservative defenders of the constitution. OK, that's a reasonable position, but I wonder why he chose such spiteful rhetoric for this commentary? He sounds like someone outside the boardroom trying to get noticed. In fact, his team occupies all the seats of power, so why do they have to be ruthless?

It feels like there is a strain of vengeance animating the opinions, and perhaps the policies, of some in the Republican party. To the extent that is true, moderation will be the most effective response.

The integrity question

Article

Religious Trumpians Suffer from Stockholm Syndrome

Summary

Ben Shapiro writing in the National Review calls out conservatives for abandoning their political philosophy to back Pres. Trump.

Quote

"In other words, many conservatives have become religious Trumpians. There is nothing Trump can do to lose their love and respect. If he turns to the left, they’ll blame conservatives for failing to kowtow to leftist policy. If he gets nothing done, they’ll blame everybody else on earth for failing to support Trump properly. The god must be appeased."

Understanding

Personal integrity faces many challenges. Is our conviction strong enough to withstand suffering or the easy way out? What are we willing to lose, or not accept, to remain justified? Are we certain our principles are correct or could we be swayed by a leader's charisma? Must we stand alone when the crowd surges past us?

Conservatives who set aside their traditional policy positions to beat Hillary now face a reckoning. Since Pres. Trump is no longer a sure-fire winner, do they continue to blindly follow his lead or do they revive the philosophy of their heritage?

Good question. I'm glad they are asking. I look forward to the result of their reflection.

Compassion is our compulsion

Article

The False Compassion of Liberalism

Summary

Stephen Moore argues in Townhall that expecting government to fund compassionate policies and services constricts individual charity.

Quote

"The liberal creed seems to be: "We care so much about poor people, climate change, income inequality and protecting the environment (or whatever the cause of the day) that there is no limit to how much money should be taken out of other people's wallets to solve these problems."

Understanding

The money that goes in and out of our bank accounts is personal. We claim it as ours. Our work generates the paycheck. We get to decide how to spend it. Of course taxation, especially when we oppose government policies, can feel frustrating and unfair. It usurps our sense of individual liberty and personal property rights.

OK, I get it. But let's not judge, label and denigrate, all right?

Certain acute, specific issues come to our attention, and we might respond to the particular matter with a donation earmarked for that cause. Most of us can't give enough individually to fix the problem but we get to do some small part to help.

What about the problems we don't see? What about unjust systems that are too big and complex for an individual to fathom let alone affect? For those challenges, our government magnifies our individual tax payments for the greater good of society. Taxes allocated to social services are an investment in order and opportunity. The dividends pay down the public burden of welfare and incarceration costs.

We're all in this together and both answers are correct.

A perspective on terrorism

Article

Do Muslims Commit Most U.S. Terrorism Attacks?

Summary

The Libertarian publication Reason cites a Georgia State University study into U.S. terror attacks and media coverage that found -

1. Of the 89 terrorist attacks on U.S. soil in the last five years, 11 were perpetrated by Muslims
2. Those 11 attacks generated 44% of the media coverage on the 89 incidents
3. Eighteen of the 89 attacks were against Muslims

Quote

"Your risk of being killed in a jihadist terror attack in the last 15 years amounted to roughly 1 in 2,640,000. Even if you stretch the period back to include 9/11, the risk would still just have been 1 in 110,000. Your lifetime risk of dying in a lightning strike is 1 in 161,000, and your chance of being killed in a motor vehicle crash is 1 in 114. Given that our government has already squandered more than $500 billion on homeland security, while encroaching on our liberties, it is vital that Americans keep the threat of terrorism in perspective." 

Understanding

The New York Times published an article Sunday, "One Nation Under Fox," that chronicled 18 hours of programming on the popular TV network last Thursday. The Times found that the amount of coverage Fox news anchors, program hosts, reporters and commentators gave "radical, Islamic terrorism"  was disproportionately greater than other mainstream news sources.

Why do we vilify others and fear phantom threats? What need in us does this stereotyping and anxiety fulfill? Divisiveness and violence will persist until we understand why we create and perpetuate the bogeyman. Identifying how the terrorist, the immigrant and the ni**er satisfy a need in our character is how the healing will begin.

We have created the other for some purpose, to solve some problem. Can we find a different solution?

The aftermath of failure

Article

The range of responses to the defeat of the AHCA are found in the links below -

1. We're moving on
2. It's their (Democrats) fault 
3. It's their (Freedom Caucus) fault
4. It's his (Ryan's) fault
5. It's his (Trump's) fault
6. It's not his (Trump's) fault
7. Somebody (Republicans representatives) will pay for this
8. Get back up and try again 
9. It's their (Democrats) problem now 

Summary

Blame belongs to that person or those people

Quote

"The hopefully temporary deferral of the repeal and replacement of ObamaCare represents a great opportunity to simplify the tax code and re-organize federal welfare payments."

“We had no Democratic support,” Trump said from the Oval Office. “They weren’t going to give us a single vote.”

"This is an utter disaster for U.S. health care, not to mention individual liberty, and the responsibility rests squarely on shoulders of a small cadre of political opportunists with the effrontery to call themselves the “House Freedom Caucus.”

"Yes, AHCA failure is a failure for the president, but it’s much more a failure for House leadership and Paul Ryan."

"It appears President Trump cared a lot more about getting a win than about what, exactly, he would be winning. And that lack of focus on the details helped deny him the victory he wanted so badly."

“There is no question in my mind at least that the president and the team here have left everything on the field.”

"Deflated Republican voters may similarly find themselves done with their representatives on the Hill."

"They have spent seven years saying they were going to replace Obamacare. They didn’t say they were going to spend a few weeks on a half-baked plan and then give up. Back to work, ladies and gentlemen."

"The message today that is sent is: Democrats own ObamaCare," Spicer said. "It's a failing system - skyrocketing premiums and deductibles, and fewer choices. But it's now squarely in the hands of Democrats. They own this."

Understanding

How we respond to defeat and failure says so much about our character. So far, only Paul Ryan has hinted at the need for self-reflection and personal accountability rather than blaming others.

This jockey can win no matter which horse finishes first

Article

Why Steve Bannon Might be the Winner of the GOP's Health Care Civil War

Summary

Gabriel Sherman writing in New York magazine says Steve Bannon has positioned himself so that Pres. Trump, and to greater extent,  Paul Ryan and Congress will shoulder the blame if the American Health Care Act fails.

Quote

"The failure to repeal and replace Obamacare would be a stinging defeat for Trump. But it would be an even bigger defeat for Paul Ryan, who has all but staked his Speakership on passing this bill. And in the hall of mirrors that is Washington, the big winner to emerge out of the health-care debacle could be Steve Bannon. That’s because Bannon has been waging war against Ryan for years. For Bannon, Ryan is the embodiment of the “globalist-corporatist” Republican elite. A failed bill would be Bannon’s best chance yet to topple Ryan and advance his nationalist-populist economic agenda."

Understanding

Powerful people encounter at least two compelling priorities -

1. How do I use my position to do what is right?
2. How do I preserve my power? 

How powerful people work through those internal questions can lead to great good or great corruption.

Mr. Bannon's alleged goal of deconstructing the administrative state gains some juice if the AHCA fails. Bannon's agenda might gain even more momentum if the AHCA passes and disappoints. That scenario could strengthen the argument of the Freedom Caucus that government has little or no business in health care and entitlements are an archaic vestige of the Deep State.

We might be wise to review Machiavelli's The Prince or look carefully at how Thomas Cromwell maneuvers in Hillary Mantel's historical novels on the court of Henry VIII. The forces of power are at play in the public strong-arm tactics of Pres. Trump and in the shadows where men new to power privately whisper and smirk.