Monday, November 2, 2020

White Supremacy in a Magic Lantern

By Douglas Murray

Thursday, October 29, 2020

 

For several years I have marveled at, and become worried by, the depiction of America that has been playing around the world. Despite being a lifelong admirer of this country, I’ve not been in America for a couple of years, and during that time even I have occasionally wondered whether my image of America might have been wrong all along. Might the country have been — or become — what its detractors both internal and external say it is? Now I have had a month traveling around the United States, and I feel as though I may have come to a better understanding of a problem that afflicts this country. Perhaps an outsider might share a modest insight?

 

The problem first clarified during a conversation in New York with several people, two of whom happened to be comedians. Looking forward to shooting the breeze, I found myself instead marveling at the forensic detail in which everyone was going over the death of Breonna Taylor. Why were we talking about this so furiously? Why were comedians discussing ballistics reports? Why did everybody — whatever his viewpoint — need to have this much knowledge? And the obvious truth dawned on me that in this era every single detail of every single wrongdoing or alleged wrongdoing on the part of America matters, because the focus of light on America today operates in the manner of a magic-lantern projector. The light shining on this country today is so great that it does not just illuminate — it magnifies. Shift the tiniest detail in the picture and the image projected is monstrously altered.

 

Over recent years I have watched a very particular image of America projected onto the wall of the world and worried about it as much as any other friend of America. For it is an image of a society riven by many conflicts, just one of which (but worst of all) is the racism problem from which America is said to suffer. It is hard to exaggerate how starkly this is perceived by the rest of the world. While Americans argue over and eventually litigate every police interaction gone wrong, the rest of the world sees only one vast blown-up version of the problem.

 

Outside the U.S., George Floyd is seen as having been deliberately murdered by a racist cop. Just as Breonna Taylor is believed to have been slain by an institutionally racist police force. The friend of America abroad may say that the country he knows is not racist, or that he does not believe that Ameri­can policemen set out in the morning to kill black people. But to say this at present is in vain. And of course in the era of Trump it has been especially easy to portray the worst slip-ups as manifestations of this thing that Trump is also said to reveal: the true, terrible face of the nation.

 

When protesters turn out in their thousands in London, Berlin, or Stock­holm, it is in response to the image that they see projected from this country, with its subtle manipulations infinitely magnified. They honestly or otherwise believe that the American police can kill black people with impunity. And they believe this because a portion of the American public has set out — some cynically, others sincerely — to make this the image that the world, like America, should understand.

 

Yet it seems obvious to me, at least, that this picture is wrong. Not that there is no racism in American society, but that the racism has been carefully magnified into a greater force than it is. The culture is tearing itself apart over something that is, if not a mirage, then at least a demon so diminished that it exists only in the most shriveled and ostracized form. Any honest analysis must observe that white supremacy has never been less tolerated than it is in America today. Racism has never been more discredited and unacceptable.

 

Yet from the nation’s bookstores to the streets of many American cities, people are responding to a version of America that is subtly but significantly wrong. Bookstores are packed with books telling white people how they can retrain their minds so as not to be racist. Across the country I have witnessed a similar off-kilteredness. In Seattle there was a Whole Foods, boarded up like most of the buildings in the center of the city. The main banner at the front of what remained of the storefront said, “Racism has no place here.” As though the Whole Foods in Seattle had recently been caught permitting the Klan to gather in the fruit-and-nuts aisle. In another U.S. city, Uber had taken out a vast banner, unfurled down one whole side of a building. “If you tolerate racism, delete Uber,” read the banner, adding, “Black people have the right to move without fear.” How bad is the situation here, that this is the tone in which commercial companies presume to hector the public? What is the situation they believe this country to be in, exactly?

 

In Oregon, among other places, Antifa/BLM activists continue to protest and riot because they actually seem to believe the image projected about their country. Nightly they take to the streets to oppose systemic racism and white supremacy. For a couple of nights in Portland, I stayed among them, seeing firsthand how a part of a new generation really does believe the image that so many non-Americans have about the reality of American racism.

 

Yet even a mildly curious traveler can see that the image is off. Even in the event that fueled the latest bout of claims, there are things that would alter the projection if mentioned. For instance, if the police in the video intended to kill George Floyd, then what are we to make of the Asian-American officer who is present? Is he an honorary white supremacist? In this incident, as so many others, we might discern the supply-and-demand problem in American fascism (the demand is huge, the supply is mercifully small). Everywhere there are similar glitches in the narrative that any observer or participant should be able to note but too few do. For instance, why are so many of the figures in groups now classed as white supremacists either minority-ethnic themselves or married to nonwhites?

 

Doubtless many people would like to leave these questions unaddressed for the sake of personal ease or comfort, unwilling to look like they are defending groups that may yet behave reprehensibly. Yet it is precisely when the details are allowed to slide that the picture that is projected becomes so unreal and monstrous. Some Americans obviously realize this, which is why they litigate, debate, and fight over every single aspect of police brutality. Yet while they come in for a disproportionate amount of flak, it is only the work of the relatively small number of people who are unafraid for their wider reputations and who remain sticklers for the truth (and who cannot allow the tiny details to pass because they know the resulting picture that will be projected) who show the way out of a situation that will otherwise continue to deteriorate.

 

Just how far it may deteriorate became clear to me while speaking with black residents and police in Oregon — people such as the black business-owner who a few days earlier had bullets fired through the windows of his restaurant by Antifa/BLM activists. Why had these mere followers of “an idea” done this? Because the owner is a patriot whose business has photos of American first responders on the walls. If you believe the version of America that has been projected, then this is where it will lead — with people firing bullets through the window of a black-owned business in the name of countering white supremacy. And if you are the local authorities, you will play your part by failing to pursue the people who did this, because it is all too detailed and difficult.

 

It was the same story when I spoke to a black policeman in the neighborhood who had been on the force more than two decades. Talking about the problems in his precinct, he was both bemused and depressed by the claims of the protesters in the streets. Regarding claims that the police are institutionally racist, he said, “I’ve never seen anything that supports that. Certainly we’ve had problems in the past, for sure. But I don’t see those things here. You know — we have African-American officers. And certainly if those things were going on, we’d be shouting from the rooftops. But you don’t see them. We have a black police chief. If there was a race problem here it would be solved pretty quickly — especially in this day and age.” Yet this same officer, and his colleagues, both black and white, must see themselves constantly attacked because of a projection of America that too few people in the wider culture have been brave enough to counter or correct. Indeed, many have benefited from letting it slide.

 

As the policeman points out, Americans live in a country where professional athletes such as LeBron James, “who weren’t even born when civil rights were going on,” glibly announce that they and their family “are afraid every time they go out on the streets.” It is a maddening claim. “That just couldn’t be further from the truth. Especially for somebody like him.”

 

But there are personal costs to all this. When I ask this police officer whether he would have joined the police if he had known that he would end up in this situation, he offers a swift and weary “No.” There are many costs to the lies that have been embedded about this country. Some of them are felt by individuals at the front line. But all of them will be felt at some point by the country. If a truer picture of America is to be projected on the wall of the world, it is going to require more people concerned about getting the details right: people not content with allowing the little lies to slide, people who won’t permit an inaccurate view of this country to be projected domestically or internationally. It will require sticklers for details — difficult though they may be — pedantic and unafraid.

Why Beijing Hopes for a Biden Win

By Helen Raleigh

Monday, November 02, 2020

 

Elections have consequences, both domestic and foreign. There is a consensus among China observers that Beijing hopes for a Joe Biden win this November, because the last time Biden was in charge, as vice president of the United States, China completed its control of the South China Sea.

 

The South China Sea is one of the most important bodies of water on the planet. Besides China, multiple nations including Vietnam, Malaysia, and the Philippines have their own, sometimes overlapping, claims to portions of the South China Sea. In addition to historic claims, according to the United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a nation has sovereignty over waters extending twelve nautical miles from its land and exclusive control over economic activities 200 nautical miles out into the ocean.

 

However, using its own map with a “nine-dash line,” China claims that it has historic rights to about 90 percent of the South China Sea, including those areas that run as far as 1,200 miles from main­land China and which fall within 100 miles of the coasts of the Philippines, Malaysia, and Vietnam. No other country in the world either recognizes the legitimacy of China’s nine-dash–line map or its historic claim.

 

The disputes between China and its neighboring Asian countries are not simply about who has the rightful claim historically but are predominantly about economic rights. The South China Sea is rich with natural resources such as oil and gas. It accounts for 10 percent of the world’s fisheries and has provided food and a way of living for millions of people in the region for centuries. The region is also one of the busiest trading routes, with about one-third of global shipping and more than $3 trillion worth of global trade passing through this area annually.

 

When Xi Jinping became Communist China’s supreme leader in 2013, he regarded transforming China into a maritime power, including the expansion in the South China Sea, as a key component to his great Chinese rejuvenation. According to the Chinese Communist Party’s own publication, “On the South China Sea issue, [Xi] personally made decisions on building islands and consolidating the reefs, and setting up the city of Sansha. [These decisions] fundamentally changed the strategic situation of the South China Sea.”

 

China started land-reclamation efforts in the South China Sea in 2013. Beijing initially proceeded slowly and cautiously while evaluating the Obama-Biden administration’s reaction. It sent a dredger to Johnson South Reef in the Spratly archipelago. The dredger was so powerful that it was able to create eleven hectares of a new island in less than four months with the protection of a Chinese warship.

 

When it became clear that the Obama-Biden administration wouldn’t do anything serious to push back, China ramped up its island-building activities. China insisted that its land-reclamation efforts were for peaceful purposes, such as fishing and energy exploration. However, satellite images show there are runways, ports, aircraft hangars, radar and sensor equipment, and military buildings on these manmade islands.

 

Noticing the Obama-Biden administration’s unwillingness to push back on China’s island-building activities, China’s smaller neighbors decided to find other means of addressing the crisis at hand. In 2013, the Philippines filed an arbitration case under the UNCLOS over China’s claims of sovereignty over the Spratly Islands and Scarborough Shoal.

 

In 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague rejected the majority of China’s claim of the South China Sea. It also ruled that China’s island build-up was not only unlawful but also a blatant violation of the Philippines’ economic rights and that it “had caused severe environmental harm to reefs in the chain.” Beijing chose to ignore the ruling and press ahead with more island construction and militarization.

 

Without U.S. intervention, small countries such as the Philippines have little means to enforce the ruling and halt China’s maritime expansion in the South China Sea. Former U.S. defense secretary Ash Carter criticized the Obama-Biden administration for giving Beijing a rare strategic opening for its island-building. As the Obama administration stood by, China was able to reclaim an estimated 3,200 acres of land on seven features in the South China Sea.

 

The Obama-Biden administration bore the prime responsibility for not forcefully stopping China’s South China Sea expansion early on. The administration’s soft approach and wishful thinking gave China a four-year strategic window to turn the South China Sea into China’s backyard pond and the most dangerous water on this planet, a reality the rest of the world now has to live with.

 

It was reported that between 2010 and 2016, 32 out of the 45 major incidents reported in the South China Sea involved at least one Chinese ship. Fishermen from the Philippines and Vietnam can’t even fish in their own nations’ water safely without being harassed by Chinese coastal guards and militarized Chinese fishing boats. The Chinese Navy also has responded to the U.S. Navy’s “freedom of navigation” operations in an increasingly defiant and aggressive manner. Some national-security experts predict that the first real Sino–U.S. war could be fought in the South China Sea.

 

The Trump administration ended China’s unchallenged expansion in the South China Sea by announcing in July that the United States supports the 2016 Hague ruling and opposes several of Beijing’s claims in the South China Sea.  In the same month, the U.S. Navy also sent two aircraft carriers to waters near the South China Sea when China held a large military exercise. Following the U.S. lead, Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte, who had appeased Beijing since he came to office in 2016, recently told Beijing to follow international law, including The Hague ruling to resolve any dispute in the South China Sea.

 

Biden might have adopted harsh rhetoric against China, but his past actions — and inactions — speak louder than his words. The last time when Biden was in charge, China completed its expansion in the South China Sea. Should Biden get elected this November, Beijing believes that Biden is someone it could do business with and expects him to revise the Trump administration’s hard line policies toward China. The recent revelation of Hunter Biden’s questionable dealings in China shows that Beijing has invested heavily to cultivate a good relationship with the Biden family for decades. A four-year Biden presidency will likely give China’s Xi ample time to fulfill his ambition: putting the final building blocks of a Sino-centric world order, turning China into a technology powerhouse through the completion of the “Made in China 2025” initiative, and possibly taking Taiwan by force.

Beijing Has Blocked WHO from Investigating COVID Origins

By Zachary Evans

Monday, November 02, 2020

 

China has effectively blocked the World Health Organization from investigating the origins of the novel coronavirus, the New York Times reported on Monday.

 

The coronavirus was first reported to have originated at an animal market in Wuhan, China, however numerous observers have already questioned this account of the virus’s origins. Among other issues, the original host animal—a species of bat—was not sold at the particular animal market, and the city of Wuhan is home to virology labs where coronaviruses were studied.

 

While an investigation into the origins of the coronavirus could help prevent future pandemics, China is not allowing the W.H.O. to conduct an independent probe of the matter, according to internal documents and interviews by the Times.

 

Documents show that research on the first coronavirus patients and the outbreak at the animal market will be handled by Chinese scientists, with W.H.O. personnel set to “augment, rather than duplicate” that research. W.H.O. officials have also complained privately that China has not granted them full access to materials relevant to the probe, while outwardly praising China’s response to the pandemic.

 

“It was an absolute whitewash,” Lawrence O. Gostin, a professor of global health law at Georgetown University, told the Times regarding the agency’s investigation. “But the answer was, that was the best they could negotiate with Xi Jinping.”

 

The Trump administration has reacted furiously to China’s failure to prevent the coronavirus from spreading. President Trump has moved to cut U.S. funding to the W.H.O., blaming the organization for parroting Chinese propaganda regarding the country’s response.

 

The coronavirus has killed at least 1.2 million people worldwide and sickened over 46 million, with actual numbers for the sick and dead likely higher due to underreporting.

Voting as Venting

By Michael Brendan Dougherty

Monday, November 02, 2020

 

Remember George H. W. Bush’s “thousand points of light”? Or Bill Clinton’s “bridge to the 21st century”? Me neither. But, as judgment day approaches, I’m nostalgic for whatever they might have meant.

 

My one hope for Election Day is that everyone gets it out of their system. Vent away, people.

 

Biden haters, I urge you to let it all out. Not just at the doddering man himself, the one who can’t lead himself out of a basement but wants to lead the free world: Hate on them all. Governor Gretchen Whitmer trying to prevent you from buying perennials at Home Depot, when planting your garden in the spring was just about the most healthy, wholesome, and pious thing you could do. Hate on Governor Andrew Cuomo’s weird Mountain of Doom presentations about his greatness, even as New York undergoes an agony. His stupefying TV brother who preaches mask wearing and entombment in your basement when sick on TV, but who gets spotted in Long Island, maskless and presumably contagious. Hate on Governor Gavin Newsom burning fossil fuels in a private jet to take a photo op with Kamala Harris in front of a picturesque burned residence, whose owner isn’t even allowed to visit the ruins of his life. Hate on Hillary Clinton telling Joe Biden not to concede. Hate on the idiot health officials — the ones in New York telling you to celebrate Chinese New Year one week to show that you aren’t afraid, then shuttering the churches and synagogues the next, then relaxing enforcement in favor of left-wing protests. Hate on the weird Pennsylvanian health commissioner Dr. Rachel Levine, who withdrew her mother from a care home, even as she assured the state such facilities were safe.

 

Hate on the pro-lockdown fanatics, who live in the Zoom economy. The people who have destroyed the livelihoods of your family members, because they can cocoon away, with the help of Jeff Bezos and ten different food-delivery apps. Hate on the Democratic mayors in Minneapolis, Portland, Kenosha, Philadelphia. Hate on Mayor Bill de Blasio, you don’t even need a specific reason. Hate on the teachers’ unions, whose members don’t consider themselves essential workers, and who have made the United States one of the only countries in the world with schools that can’t function in the pandemic.

 

Hate on the conspiracy theorists. Like Nancy Pelosi telling you “all roads lead to Putin,” and who sent you the fake stories about Russian meetings, Russian email servers, and “pee tapes.” The people who sent your heroic memes of Robert Mueller. The ones who said that Trump would give you a fake vaccine.

 

If you hate Trump — put all your hate into that voting booth. After all, you’re voting against a man who grinned and gave a thumbs-up in a photo op with a baby, recently orphaned by a right-wing mass shooter in El Paso. Hate on Fox News for filling your father’s retirement years with anxiety over the “Demoncrats” and the fact that you’re going to get a My Pillow this Christmas. Hate on the boner-pill-pushing media companies who traffic in the real paranoia, the ones who slowly deranged your cousin, who is currently preparing a presentation on “the plandemic and the Great Reset” over your family Thanksgiving Zoom. Hate on the anti-science lunkheads, who go to Trump rallies, and coughed on Herman Cain until he died.

 

Hate on the whole Republican Party, on the senators who are too afraid to say even what they think of Dear Leader Trump. Hate on the apparatchiks who took jobs as diplomats and insulted our allies. Hate on Governor Greg Abbott, who opened his state too early, saw a giant spike, and had to shut down again. Hate on the gall of people to call themselves “conservative” when they support a man who has no knowledge of or respect for this nation’s Constitution. Hate on the fake Evangelical “leaders” like Jerry Falwell Jr. who go out and support a man who admits he never asks God for forgiveness. Hate on the Fox News hosts who think Jared Kushner is a moron and just never say so in public. Hate on this whole dumb, deadly charade.

 

Just let it all out. Maybe there is a normal life at the end of it. Maybe not. And at the end of the day, we’ll compare the piles of hatred. Lawyers might get involved. If they delay too long, rioters too. Democracy is glorious.

Sunday, November 1, 2020

America the Incompetent

By Kevin D. Williamson

Sunday, November 01, 2020

 

I tend to agree with National Review editor Rich Lowry that Donald Trump’s main appeal always has been his (generally) unspoken seven-letter campaign platform, which begins with an “F” and ends with a “U.” But Trump promised something else in 2016 that appealed in a trans-partisan way to many Americans: competence.

 

It seems preposterous in retrospect — and, indeed, appeared preposterous to many of us at the time — but Trump’s reputation as a businessman and a getter-done-of-things was critically important to his story in 2016. The Trump proposition last time around was that what Washington really lacks isn’t creative new ideas, which can be had for a dime a dozen at sundry think-tanks and wonk-shops, but a strong, shrewd leader who can evaluate those proposals, apply an intelligent cost-benefit analysis, put together a leadership team and a solid business plan, and get stuff done. Ross Perot offered a similar promise, but Trump had the marketing sense to run the Perot campaign inside the Republican Party rather than in competition against it.

 

Populists like the git-’er-done stuff, but the purportedly “pragmatic” and “empirical” model of progressivism is very little more than the well-heeled version of the same idea. This is an attractive position for many reasons, the most important of which is that it transforms (as a matter of rhetoric, at least) values debates, including messy debates about tradeoffs and priorities, into more tractable questions of purported fact. America’s scientists and business leaders enjoy tremendous and (generally) well-earned prestige, and associating political ideas with winning business propositions or with scientific endeavor is a way to raise the status of one’s own camp — “We believe in science!” — and one’s own agenda. That this kind of thinking fails generation after generation, owing to the fact that government is neither a business nor a science, does not much reduce its popular appeal.

 

It is easy to see the advantage of offering not ideology or even innovation but bare competence —competence is an increasingly rare commodity in American life. Consider the 21st century so far: the intelligence and security failures that led to 9/11, the failure to secure American military and political priorities in Afghanistan and Iraq, the subprime-mortgage boom that sparked the financial crisis of 2008–09 and the subsequent recession, business bailouts, the failures and abuses of American police departments and the riots and arson that have accompanied them, the COVID-19 epidemic, the troubles in the universities, the fecklessness and mischief of the big technology companies, the political failure to deal with serious issues from illegal immigration to environmental degradation, American frustration at the rise of China as a world power and the geopolitical resurgence of such backward countries as Turkey and Russia, the remorseless piling up of the national debt and unfunded entitlement liabilities, bankrupt and nearly bankrupt cities and public agencies — the list goes on. Americans are not wrong to question the competence of American government and American institutions, nor are they alone in doing so: The rest of the world is reevaluating longstanding presumptions of American competence, too.

 

American credibility had been brought low before the election of Donald Trump — that is, in part, why he was elected. His promises to solve complex problems with ruthlessly simplistic and simplistically ruthless solutions — e.g. build a wall and create a new police force to round up 12 million illegal immigrants for deportation — spoke to how low American credibility had sunk. He has, of course, brought it lower still: Simply throwing up a wall and somehow extorting Mexico into paying for it was always a crude and dopey project, but Trump can’t even get that done, having failed to secure the necessary border-security resources while his party controlled both houses of Congress.

 

If things go wonky on Tuesday, if the presidential election goes unresolved and the subsequent contest is marked by political violence and civil disorder, American credibility will slide further still. In the event of an electoral crisis, we will be forced to rely on institutions that already have been tested and found wanting: Congress, many state governments, the news media, the professional political caste. And Americans will turn for information and insight . . . where, exactly? Twitter? Facebook? Fox News? Talk radio? The New York Times? Even the police upon whom we rely for basic physical security have shown themselves all too often unable or unwilling to perform their most basic duties.

 

Donald Trump’s critics are correct that it will take the United States years to recover its reputation. What they do not sufficiently appreciate is that there is much more than Trump from which to recover.

About That ‘Uncoverable’ Biden Story

By David Harsanyi

Wednesday, October 28, 2020

 

Journalists claim they can’t cover the New York Post’s Hunter Biden email scoop because the underlying evidence has yet to been verified. Also, they won’t look for any verifying evidence because there isn’t enough evidence.

 

It’s quite the conundrum.

 

Because other than the now-corroborated emails, the laptop, the on-the-record source who was a CEO of a Biden corporation, a trove of text messages and documents, and a lack of denials, the Hunter Biden email story reminds me of the “Russian collusion” story. Surely it deserves a modicum of scrutiny and follow-up.

 

Anyone who watched Tony Bobulinski’s interview on Tucker Carlson’s show this week — apparently it pulled over 5 million viewers — was confronted with a seemingly credible character. Bobulinski says he met with Joe Biden in 2017, and that the former vice president was intimately involved in the family business. Maybe someone will ask the candidate about this. Because Biden, widely seen as the frontrunner, has on numerous occasions emphatically denied any knowledge of what Hunter was doing. So even if he didn’t benefit from his son’s leveraging of the family name to strike deals with Chinese Communist energy interests, it is still newsworthy.

 

Bobulinski alleges that during a meeting with Joe Biden’s brother, he asked how the former vice president gets away with this sort of thing: “I remember looking at Jim Biden and saying how are you guys getting away with this? Aren’t you concerned? He looked at me, and he laughed a little bit, and said ‘plausible deniability.’”

 

Perhaps my favorite part of yesterday’s interview, though, was learning that Adam Schiff’s ugly and mendacious habit of smearing anyone he disagrees with as a Russian asset is what allegedly helped spur Bobulinski, a former U.S. Navy lieutenant, to come forward.

 

Hunter’s ex-business partner, in fact, confronted Rob Walker, a Biden “family representative” about it.

 

“If [Schiff] doesn’t come out, on record, I am providing the facts,” Bobulinski said in a recording.

 

“Ah, Tony, you’re just going to bury all of us, man,” responded Walker, which sounds odd coming from someone charged with representing a supposedly completely innocent venture.

 

To put all of this context as a journalistic matter, the week before the Post broke the Hunter Biden story, every major news network was reporting on surreptitiously taped conversation in which the First Lady was grousing about Christmas decorations.

 

Indeed, these are just allegations. Some of them more compelling than others. We still know very little, for example, about potentially damaging emails that purport to show Biden helping his son while he was vice president — namely, by meeting with a Burisma energy executive on behalf of Hunter at the White House.

 

In a strange way, the lack of coverage has perpetuated the story, not only through the Streisand effect, but because suppressing it — the New York Post’s Twitter account is still frozen — allows the imagination to run wild. While no conservative pundit has penned 8,000 words of Chait-style crackpottery pondering whether Joe has been Chinese asset since the 1980s, some have certainly jumped the gun.

 

Does it matter? Yesterday, a number of journalists were retweeting an Axios interview in which Senator Ted Cruz, asked about the “Hunter Biden stuff,” said the story won’t move a single vote. Perhaps that’s true. It’s also irrelevant. The journalist’s job is to provide transparency, not to worry about elections or be society’s hall monitor.

 

It is certain — and, boy, am I sick of framing coverage in this way, but what can you do? — that if a credible witness and former business partner of one of Donald Trump Jr.’s companies came forward to offer specific accusations and evidence that the president was profiting off of business dealings his shady son was striking with authoritarians, teams of investigative journalists would be descending on every tangential character as if they were a defunct Chinese bank account.

 

And the assertion made by many reporters that journalistic ethics prohibit them from even mentioning these allegations is a new and concocted standard. There are thousands of allegations against Republicans reported without verification. Not one outlet had a problem referring to the recent Atlantic piece citing unnamed sources who claimed Trump belittled soldiers, even though the story came from one writer at a partisan outlet. Allegations by whistleblowers are covered all the time, whether they have been fully vetted or not. Major outlets were eager to amplify not only the uncorroborated accusations of Christine Blasey Ford, but a host of other very obviously dubious claims about Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing.

 

But much of the reticence about investigating the Hunter Biden story is in reaction to the fallout from the Hillary Clinton email scandal. No matter what evidence emerged, political media were never going to repeat 2016. One assumes even good reporters don’t want to be perceived as tipping the election (which speaks to the poor health of journalism).

 

Lest we forget, as with this Biden story, the Clinton email scandal was newsworthy. There was, after all, an open FBI investigation into the frontrunning presidential candidate of the United States because of her reckless and potentially criminal behavior. It was Hillary who initially set up a secret server to circumvent transparency, likely to hide favor-trading related to her foundation, and sent unsecured classified documents through that illegal server, although she almost surely knew it threatened national security. As the New York Times reported at the time, the chance that her correspondences were being captured by foreign powers was extremely high. It was Hillary’s staff that destroyed evidence related to that server — or as James Comey noted in his testimony, they “cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.” Any government employees conducting themselves in a similar manner would have been sent to jail.

 

I’m not in the habit of defending Comey, but he saved Clinton by letting her and her staff slide on richly deserved charges. The letter Comey sent to Congress informing them that the bureau had found a cache of new evidence relating to a criminal investigation was Clinton’s fault, not his. It was her top aide and confidant Huma Abedin who failed to inform the FBI about her laptop. And it was Abedin’s then-husband who used that computer to court teenage girls. Comey had an ethical obligation to inform Congress when he was apprised that new evidence had been found — as he had promised to do under oath during his testimony. If he didn’t, and the story leaked, as it surely would have, the perception would have been that he was attempting to cover up the potential wrongdoing of one of the candidates.

 

Or, in other words, he would have been doing exactly what most of the political media are engaged in right now.

Why the Left Is Mad about the Supreme Court

By Jack Butler

Sunday, November 01, 2020

 

When Joe Biden finally answered, after several weeks of hemming and hawing, whether he would indulge the recently revived left-wing fantasy of adding justices to the Supreme Court, it was revealing. And not simply in the way that his response — “to put together a national . . . bipartisan commission” some months after Election Day — betrayed his decades as a political creature. (Have a problem? Form a “commission.”) For although this response has come to be seen as a kind of demurral, Biden still maintained that the Supreme Court was “out of whack.”

 

This is, in essence, the same belief held by others on the left, amplified during the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Here as in other things, Biden seems to differ from the left primarily tactically, sharing many of its ends but aware that some of them — and some of its preferred means, such as Court-packing — are unpopular. But there remains the shared contention that what President Trump and Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell have accomplished in placing three “conservative” appointees on the Supreme Court in one presidential term remains somehow illegitimate.

 

Superficially, this almost certainly proceeds from a sense on the left that they got played. Ignoring arguments of precedent, and the fact that, while McConnell undoubtedly played hardball, he did so well within his constitutional powers, many liberals are simply aggrieved at conservative political victories. And it is their right to be so aggrieved; goodness knows the Right has felt the same way under different circumstances. But that many on the left prefer to respond by seeking to dramatically alter the century-and-a-half-old configuration of the Supreme Court — something not even FDR could do as president — suggests something deeper is at play.

 

The fundamental source of this agitation is that the Left was convinced the Court would always be on its side, becoming its personal tool for achieving desired outcomes outside the electoral process.

 

A fuller understanding requires looking back at recent history. And it requires looking at it more honestly than do the recent laments that, for example, Republican presidents over the past several decades have disproportionately appointed more justices to the Supreme Court than they deserve. For conservatives of a few decades’ past — and still, even, to some extent now — this is not a sign of success but of a particularly cruel kind of failure, if not even their preferred appointees could be trusted once on the Court. The modern conservative legal movement, animated primarily by a renewed commitment to understanding the Constitution as it was understood by those who drafted it (known as originalism), didn’t just come out of nowhere with the 1982 birth of the Federalist Society or the 1985 originalist stirrings of Reagan attorney general Edwin Meese. These and other stirrings came in response to a recognition on the right that the Left had either welcomed or been actively complicit in the transformation of the Supreme Court into a super-legislature, a way for liberals to achieve judicially what they could not electorally.

 

To conservatives, this fact alone comported ill with the Constitution, never mind that many of the decisions achieved by the Court — most notoriously Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion nationwide in 1973 — proceeded to do further violence to the constitutional order. Their response was not merely to capitulate to this state of affairs, but to work, slowly yet surely, to change it. The Federalist Society helped these efforts greatly, bringing originalist-inclined law students together, connecting them to like-minded professors, helping to seed law schools and courts nationwide with trustworthy exponents of its philosophy, broadly speaking, and more. And this was done despite significant resistance from the left, which treasured the Court and wished to keep it under its control. Liberals aghast at McConnell’s hardball today shouldn’t just look back at the 2018 treatment of Brett Kavanaugh, but also to the infamous Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas hearings, the treatment of lower-court nominee Miguel Estrada, and more.

 

And yet, for all of the Right’s successes on the Court, it must still witness what it views as fairly spectacular failures. The first Court with majority Republican appointees essentially affirmed Roe; in 2012 a Republican-appointed chief justice rewrote the Affordable Care Act to uphold it as constitutional; in 2015 the Court found a right to same-sex marriage in the 14th Amendment; and just this past summer, Neil Gorsuch, an apparent textualist, divined protection from transgender discrimination in legislation penned within living memory that originally contained no such protections. To be sure, the Right has had its triumphs — often though not always corresponding to defeats for the Left, only inasmuch as the Left was defying or hoping to defy the Constitution — such that it remains interested in the game. And so it is likely to remain, while still wary of the Court’s ability to uphold the Constitution, even with an ostensible 6–3 majority.

 

Yet this complicated history, full of the kind of back-and-forth one would expect from the political process, helps to explain the depth of the Left’s anger about the Court’s current status. They are mad that conservatives discovered their thinly veiled attempts at transforming the judiciary and decided to try to recapture it with the help of a philosophy that emphasized a renewed commitment to the Constitution. Now that, after decades of patience and persistence, conservatives have established a beachhead on a Court liberals thought would always be theirs, they are infuriated. Some, such as Sheldon Whitehouse, see evidence of a nefarious conspiracy in what has been accomplished openly yet at great difficulty. But the true root of this remains a frustration that, in at least one area, the Right has refused to go along with the Left’s capture of an institution, that it has not consented to the triumphalist narrative the Left imagines culminates with it forever in charge of everything, never dealing with anything more than token opposition.

 

With Joe Biden perhaps days away from securing the presidency, however, it is worth keeping in mind that the Right’s approach is not infallible. As it’s suffered in the past, it may in the future as well. Besides even Republican appointees’ having an uneven record of constitutional fidelity, there is also a risk that conservatives abandon such fidelity outright in favor of simply turning the institution into a rightward version of what it once was for the Left. Of course that is not, and has never been, the point of originalism, even as the Right may face this calumny regularly if the Court appears antagonistic to unconstitutional overtures from an empowered Left during a Biden administration.

 

There is also a reality, one that has genuinely harmed conservatism, that many of its exponents have devoted so much intellectual and political energy to law generally and to the Supreme Court in particular that they have abdicated responsibilities in other areas, particularly legislative. It was worth doing, of course; the nature of the courts and Congress had changed to make it desirable. But if done in isolation it will also have been done in vain. For it will do little good if an originalist-dominated Supreme Court returns power to a legislature that fears exercising these powers and accepting their concomitant responsibilities. Even so, there are still many lessons in the recent political history of the Supreme Court, for both Left and Right. But at the moment, it is the Left that seems unwilling to learn the lesson that the pendulum swings, and instead hopes to hold the pendulum permanently in one place.

 

Perhaps a certain commission will do the trick . . .