Im-Politic: DeSantis’ Real Ukraine Mistake

Tags

election 2024, foreign policy, Im-Politic, NATO, North Atlantic treaty Organization, nuclear war, politics, Ron DeSantis, Russia, Ukraine, Ukraine War, vital interests, Vladimir Putin

Since the Ukraine War is the first international crisis in decades that could draw the United States into a nuclear war, and since Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis could well become the nation’s next president, it’s vital to explain why the real mistake made by DeSantis in recently commenting on U.S. policy toward the conflict isn’t the one his critics have charged he’s made.

Instead, it’s a mistake that’s not only different, but actually serious, because it could eventually force him to support deeper and more dangerous U.S. involvement if he ever wins the White House.

The mistake DeSantis supposedly made in an interview published yesterday was flip-flopping, or at least seeming to walk back, an earlier statement downplaying Ukraine’s importance to the United States, and stating that because of nuclear war risk, should sharply limit its military aid and shift its focus to pushing for a peace deal.

Here’s his full statement to Fox News-talker Tucker Carlson. To me, the key passages are:

“While the U.S. has many vital national interests – securing our borders, addressing the crisis of readiness within our military, achieving energy security and independence, and checking the economic, cultural, and military power of the Chinese Communist Party – becoming further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia is not one of them.” And

“Without question, peace should be the objective. The U.S. should not provide assistance that could require the deployment of American troops or enable Ukraine to engage in offensive operations beyond its borders. F-16s and long-range missiles should therefore be off the table. These moves would risk explicitly drawing the United States into the conflict and drawing us closer to a hot war between the world’s two largest nuclear powers. That risk is unacceptable.”

The core ideas: Ukraine’s fate is not a vital national interest of the United States’, and is therefore obviously not worth risking exposing America to a nuclear attack from Russia.

Full disclosure: At this point, DeSantis is my preferred presidential candidate. So keep that in mind as I evaluate his comments. And this Ukraine position is my position. But of course, it’s far from a consensus. According to supporters of current Biden administration policies (and even more aggressive actions), these first DeSantis remarks were fundamentally off-base because Ukraine is in fact a vital U.S. interest, and because therefore Russia’s aggression must in fact be defeated (a goal that could take several somewhat different forms) “no matter what,” as Mr. Biden recently declared.

It should be apparent even to DeSantis opponents or those neutral, though, that he was not proposing dropping all aid to Ukraine and leaving that country at Vladimir Putin’s mercy. But backers of the current (and even more aggressive) American policies thought confirmation of their flip-flop (or less dramatic “walk back”) claim came in yesterday’s DeSantis remarks. Here’s the passage they believe shows that the Florida Governor now sees the error of his ways in calling the war a “territorial dispute that’s not of “vital” importance to America:

“Well, I think the [“territorial dispute statement has] been mischaracterized. Obviously, Russia invaded (last year) — that was wrong. They invaded Crimea and took that in 2014 — That was wrong.

“What I’m referring to is where the fighting is going on now which is that eastern border region Donbas, and then Crimea, and you have a situation where Russia has had that. I don’t think legitimately but they had. There’s a lot of ethnic Russians there. So, that’s some difficult fighting and that’s what I was referring to and so it wasn’t that I thought Russia had a right to that, and so if I should have made that more clear, I could have done it, but I think the larger point is, okay, Russia is not showing the ability to take over Ukraine, to topple the government or certainly to threaten NATO. That’s a good thing. I just don’t think that’s a sufficient interest for us to escalate more involvement. I would not want to see American troops involved there. But the idea that I think somehow Russia was justified (in invading) – that’s nonsense.”  

I don’t see how these words can be read in any way other than saying that “territorial dispute” was poor wording, and that DeSantis still opposes any U.S. steps to “escalate more involvement.”

But his rationale for opposition changed significantly here. As opposed to simply denying that Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity are vital U.S. security interests and therefore not worth the nuclear risk, here he’s saying that there’s not “sufficient interest for us to escalate more involvement because “Russia is not showing the ability to take over Ukraine, to topple the government or certainly to threaten NATO.”

That is, previously, DeSantis’ position focused solely on Ukraine’s intrinsic value to the United States. Russia’s strength or lack thereof was immaterial. Because he’s said nothing about changing, much less ending, the U.S. commitment to the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) alliance, whose members are protected by an American nuclear guarantee, I assumed that he believed that nuclear deterrence plus the major buildup of conventional forces from NATO members in those allies in Ukraine’s neighborhood would suffice to keep Putin at bay whatever Ukraine’s fate (which is my position).

But in the new interview, DeSantis made his opposition to a harder Ukraine line conditional on Russia’s capabilities, not Ukraine’s intrinsic importance. And I worry that if he becomes President this stance could trap him into a Biden-like Ukraine policy, with all the nuclear war risk, if Russia proves stronger (or more reckless) than he currently surmises, or after it becomes stronger in a post-Ukraine war world. As a result, he would wind up risking nuclear attack on America for a country that he may still consider of inadequate intrinsic interest to the United States – which I view as the height of foreign policy irresponsibility.

It’s still very early in the 2024 presidential cycle. In fact, DeSantis isn’t even a declared candidate yet. He’s a foreign policy newbie and it’s not even known yet who he’s been getting his foreign advice from – if he’s indeed getting any in a systematic way. So there’s still time for DeSantis to tack back to a genuine America First-type approach.

If he doesn’t, all else equal, I’d have to reconsider my support. And the next presidential campaign’s foreign policy debate, and the nation’s approach to Ukraine War and national security overall, will be all the poorer.

Advertisement

Im-Politic: Republicans are Winning the Other Election

Tags

apportionment, Census Bureau, Democrats, demography, domestic migrants, Electoral College, House of Representatives, Im-Politic, politics, population, Republicans

Americans have always had two main ways to vote: at the ballot box and with their feet. Both are of course important, and in fact the second ultimately influences the first, as I’ll explain below. So it’s more than a little interesting that the Census Bureau has just released figures on “voting by foot” indicating that even though elections are telling us that the country is deeply divided between Democrats and Republicans, when it comes to desired places to live, the GOP could be building up a considerable advantage.

The Census figures supporting this claim are those showing domestic migration totals, which reveal how many Americans each year are literally picking up stakes from individual states and moving to others. According to the latest “National and State Population Estimates,” (more specifically, the fourth xls table downloadable from this link) which was released shortly before Christmas, seven of the ten states that lost the most domestic population to other states between July 1, 2021 and July 1, 2022 were governed by Democrats during that year.   They are (in descending order):

California:             -343,230  D

New York:             -299,557  D

Illinois:                 -141,656   D

New Jersey:            -64,231  D

Massachusetts:       -57,292   R

Louisiana:              -46,672   D

Maryland:              -45,101   R

Pennsylvania:        -39,957   D

Virginia                 -23,952   R

Minnesota:            -19,400   D

Nor is this trend limited to the last year. Census also provides cumulative data going back to April, 2020, and these show the same pro-Republican trend. Again, seven of the ten states with the greatest domestic population loss were governed by Democrats during this period:

California:           -871,217   D

New York:           -664,921   D

Illinois:                -282,048   D

Massachusetts:    -110,866    R

New Jersey:         -107,749   D

Louisiana:              -80,278   D

Maryland:             -68,287    R

Michigan:             -43,188    D

Ohio:                    -39,995    R

Minnesota:           -37,377    D

Moreover, the opposite is even “truer.” Of the ten states with the most domestic migration population gain between July 1, 2021 and July 1, 2022, nine were governed by Republicans:

Florida:             +318,855    R

Texas:               +230,961    R

No. Carolina:     +99,796    D

So. Carolina:     +84,030     R

Tennessee:         +81,646    R

Georgia:            +81,406     R

Arizona:            +70,984     R

Idaho:                +28,639     R

Alabama:          +28,609      R

Oklahoma:        +26,791      R

And the figures for the last two data years tell generate nearly exactly same list of population gaining states:

Florida:          +622,476       R

Texas:            +475,252       R

No. Carolina: +211,86        D

Arizona:        +182,362       R

So. Carolina: +165,948       R

Tennessee:    +146,403       R

Georgia:       +128,089       R

Idaho:             +88,647       R

Alabama:        +65,355      R

Oklahoma:     +56,807       R

As mentioned at the beginning, population trends can strongly determine election results. and they do so in two ways – by determining which states get how many seats in the House of Representatives, and votes in the Electoral College. In addition, in most states, the state legisature draws up the specific lines of Congressional districts, and parties are not at all reluctant to use (and sometimes abuse, in a process called gerrymandering) this authority power for partisan advantage. 

So if states in which voters choose Republicans as governors, and GOP majorities in the legislatures, are gaining population at the expense of their Democratic-controlled counterparts, that would seem to turn into ever more Republican victories in both Congressional elections and Presidential contests.

Not that that’s guaranteed. For example, the next House and Electoral College reapportionments won’t take place until the 2030 Census results are in, and clearly lots can happen between now and then. In addition, voters who move from Democratic- to Republican-run states sometimes take Democratic leanings with them – as apparently has been the case in states with strong histories of GOP support that have been popular domestic migration destinations that have swung markedly toward the Democrats. Arizona, Georgia, and Virginia are notable examples. At the same time, these domestic migrants could well be moving from Democratic- to Republican-controlled states because they’ve had it with the way that Democrats have been governing. Florida seem to typify this trend.

Finally, as demonstrated vividly by the latest midterm elections, various factors can foster ticket-splitting by voters.

But even if demography isn’t always political destiny, it’s hard to imagine many Democrats answering the question “Are you pleased that Democratic-run states seem to be losing population to GOP-run states?” with a “Yes.”

Im-Politic: Why It’s Time for Trump to Go

Tags

anti-semitism, Capitol riot, censorship, conservative populist nationalism, conservatives, Constitution, culture wars, election 2016, election 2020, election 2022, election 2024, Glenn Youngkin, Hunter Biden laptop, Im-Politic, January 6, nationalism, Pat Buchanan, politics, Populism, Republicans, Ron DeSantis, Ross Perot, social media, Trump, Twitter Files

There are several reasons I haven’t posted yet on Donald Trump’s absolutely terrible last few weeks, some obvious, some not so much.

Among the former – clearly, as someone who proudly voted for him twice, and considers his Oval Office record on the issues impressive, I’ve been crestfallen by the number of serious and completely unnecessary “own goals” the former President has committed lately. The two worst: the lunch at his Florida estate with two outspoken ant-semites, and his social media claim that revelations of major social media collusion with Democrats during the 2020 presidential campaign “allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”

It’s not that I’ve been forced to conclude that Trump is an anti-semite. Not when his daughter is married to a Jew, when for so long, so many of his closest business associates have been Jewish, and when he’s arguably been the most pro-Israel President in U.S. history.

Nor do I believe that he really wants to suspend the Constitution because he believes that the 2020 election was stolen from him, his activity during the run-up to January 6^th notwithstanding. Instead, I write it off as the kind of thoughtless outburst that’s come from him many times, and that stemmed from a frustration over the “Twitter Files” disclosures that’s not entirely incomprehensible. (Even this blatant Mainstream Media Biden apologist doesn’t rule out the possibility that because the election turned on such small vote totals in a handful of states, Trump might still be sitting in the White House had the Hunter Biden laptop story been widely suppressed during the general campaign.)

My main evidence? In two days, Trump denied suggesting what he actually suggested. Which sounds to me much more like crappy judgment than like conviction.

But to return to the main point of this post (which isn’t fighting these battles), my main less-obvious reason for keeping off the subject is one I’ve referred to before: an unwillingness to write about something unless I can think of something original to say. And so many valid points have been made by so many commentators about what Trump’s latest blunders say about his qualifications for a second term and/or his electability.that I’ve had difficulty adding to them.

Finally, however, I’ve come up with two, and they’re important enough to me to make clear that Trump’s usefulness in American politics and policy – which I view as considerable – has come and gone.

The first point has to do with Trump’s longtime habit of associating himself one way or another with figures with odious views – like the two anti-semites. Although as I said above, there’s no serious reason to think he subscribes to those views. But these repeated episodes aren’t coincidental, either, and clearly stem from his tendency to gravitate, at least temporarily, toward anyone who expresses anything remotely positive about him.

This pattern must stem from a degree of personal insecurity that seems to have been noteworthy enough even before a presidency marked by a long, almost nonstop series of false charges like the Russia collusion hoax. But however natural this reaction was, it also produced an equally long series of controversies (like this) that (a) did nothing to shore up his support with the faithful; and (b) greatly and understandably antagonized plenty of middle-of-the-road voters (including Republicans) who are generally with him on the issues.

His latest misadventures only indicate that this habit will continue – if only because the baseless attacks will. So with Trump as its standard bearer, the Republican Party, and the populist stances now strongly favored by its voters (if not by its thankfully vanishing D.C.-centric establishment wing) will struggle mightily at best to reach its full potential – a working class oriented majority coalition big and durable enough to generate thoroughgoing, lasting change.

Moreover, Trump’s uncritical attraction to any and all admirers surely explains much about his increasingly lousy record in distinguishing political winners from losers – which was displayed so prominently during last month’s midterm elections. And good luck creating a durable political movement without strong Congressional coattails.

The second original-as-I-see-it point has to do with a phenomenon that’s been commonly observed in business: The person who creates something turns out to be incapable of running it longer term. And it’s no mystery why. The two tasks require two different skill sets.

Trump unquestionably was indispensable to the triumph of modern conservative nationalist populism. After this embyronic movement (or, more accurately, related set of impulses, grievances, and leanings), experienced false starts led by former Nixon White House aide-turned-pundit Pat Buchanan, and by businessman Ross Perot, Trump achieved the breakthrough via a combination of stylistic convention-shattering and exciting new combinations of policy positions (notably, some standard conservative tax- and regulation-cutting along with economic nationalist trade and immigration stances and America First-focused foreign policies). Moreover, it’s unlikely that a politician with a more conventional personality could have left so many self-serving establishment shibboleths dead and buried, and channeled popular anger at the too-often bipartisan national power structure so effectively.

But that battle has been won hands down. The challenge for conservative nationalist populists is, as the consultants say, to expand the base. And that inevitably means appealing to voters who sympathize with the content of its platform, but who also insist on leaders who won’t force them to keep their noses held, and who seem determined to enflame rather than ease national passions. (A focus on fostering division while projecting images of sobriety, by the way, is a good desciption of many Democratic and progressive culture war shock troopers.)

Those gettable non-Republican conservatives and moderate are voters afflicted with what’s been called Trump Fatigue. And despite the major policy successes of his administration (e.g., a solidly growing, non-inflationary economy; a far more secure southern border; a halt to the enabling of China; an avoidance of pointless new foreign wars), who can blame them? Why would they look forward to four more years of national turbulence – especially since, as was not the case in 2016 and 2020, they may well have alternatives who can give them both a rousing and successful championing of populist economic and selected culture war causes on the one hand, and qualities like sound judgement and self-discipline and rhetorical precision on the other.

Of course, I’m talking about politicians like Republican Governors Glenn Youngkin of Virginia and Ron DeSantis of Florida. The former, as I documented here, both won in an increasingly Democratic state and outpolled Trump’s failed reelection campaign even in rural counties chock full of hard-core Trumpers. I haven’t examined the DeSantis win last month in detail, but he achieved even greater success in a state that’s at least as diverse (though trending Republican lately).

And in fact, polls are now showing (e.g., here) not only that the former President has lost big-time ground to his possible Sunshine State rival among Republican and Republican-leaning voters, but that by large majoities, these groups “now say they want Trump’s policies but a different standard-bearer to carry them.” The inclusion of the leaners in such surveys is especially important, as they comprise a critical share of those gettable independents that could put a GOP candidate over the top in 2024 and enable him or her to shape the nation’s politics and policies for decades to come.

Here’s a way to look at these matters that I wish wasn’t so completely religious in nature but that probably makes the point like none other (and precisely for that reason): Trump was the guy needed to bring conservative nationalist populism to the mountain top of victory in 2016. But he’s anyone but the guy to lead it to the promised land of lasting political and policy supremacy.

Im-Politic: Abortion Really Did Prevent a Red Wave, Part I

Tags

2022 election, abortion, Associated Press, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, economy, Edison Research, exit polls, Fox News, Im-Politic, inflation, midterms 2022, National Opinion Research Center, NPR-Marist Poll, politics, polls, Red Wave, Republicans, Roe vs. Wade, Supreme Court

At the risk of blowing my own horn, I think it’s of more-than-usual interest to report the evidence that I’ve been proven right on my prediction that the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down abortion rights, and Republican support for such efforts, would be nothing but trouble for the GOP in this year’s mid-term elections.

Indeed, the exit polls – which, to be fair, are preliminary at this point – show that public anger at the Dobbs decision, and fears of it spurring a wave of draconian state-level and even federal abortion bans, influenced voting decisions nationally and in key swing states nearly as much as resentment over the state of the economy. And this development supported, in spades, my belief that whereas before Dobbs, Democrats had little or nothing going for them as the election approached, the Supreme Court gave them something. If anything, though, I underestimated how big this “something” would be, for it appears important enough to explain by itself why the “Red Wave” widely expected didn’t materialize.

Let’s start with with a survey conducted for some major broadcast and cable news networks by Edison Research. Practically up to Election Day, polls were showing that inflation was voters’ most pressing concern, with abortion trailing far behind. For example, this NPR/PBS/Marist College sounding from late October found the margin to be 36 percent to 14 percent among adults and registered voters, and 36 percent to 11 percent among those saying they’d “definitely vote” in the contest.

In addition, respondents believed that Republicans could control inflation better than Democrats by nearly two-to-one. No wonder so many in the GOP was so optimistic. 

But Edison’s exit poll found a much smaller margin for inflation’s paramount importance –  just 31 percent to 27 percent for abortion.

Findings like this, however, can be of only limited value, because Americans can be concerned about various issues for different reasons. So it was smart of Edison to publish a party breakdown. And with abortion ranking as “the most important issue for your vote” by 76 percent of Democrats but only 23 percent of Republicans, the Dobbs decision and its aftermath looked like definite political losers.

Backing up this conclusion: According to Edison, 37 percent of voters viewed the overturning of the 1973 Roe vs Wade high court decision establishing a privacy-grounded right to an abortion to some extent with “enthusiasm” or “satisfaction,” while 60 percent reacted with “dissatisfaction” or “anger.” And nearly two-thirds of that 60 percent were angry.

The second major exit poll is one conducted for the Associated Press and Fox News by the University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center. Its findings came with a major quirk. As with so many pre-election surveys, respondents ranked the “economy and jobs” as “the most important issue facing the country” by far. It claimed the top spot for 48 percent of those contacted versus just nine percent for abotion. In addition, respondents overwhelmingly (78 percent) thought the economy was in “not so good” or “poor” condition, and gave President Biden poor grades on handling this challenge.

But many more respondents (24 percent) called abortion “the single most important factor” behind their vote (versus 51 percent for the economy). And again, the decided (61 percent to 39 percent) backing for “a law guaranteeing access to legal abortion nationwide,” and the emotions registered over Roe’s demise (41 percent “happy” or ”satisfied,” 59 percent dissatisfied or angry, and 33 percent angry), demonstrate unmistakably how the issue cut politically against more powerfully than generally anticipated against Republicans. All the more so given how close so many key state and local elections were.   

And speaking of these state and local elections, since especially for matters like control of Congress, what counts most are those results (particularly for the supposed swing states where the GOP saw real promise of victory), not the nation-wide findings. As I’ll show tomorrow, the state and local results, too, all but clinch the case that the Dobbs ruling dashed those Republican hopes.

Making News: Back on National Radio Talking Midterms and the Economy

Tags

2022 election, economy, inflation, Making News, Market Wrap with Moe Ansari, midterms 2022, politics

I’m pleased to announce that I’m scheduled to return tonight on the nationally syndicated “Market Wrap with Moe Ansari.” Our subjects: today’s midterm election, how it could shape the U.S. economy…and vice versa!

“Market Wrap” airs weeknights between 8 and 9 PM EST, these segments usually begin midway through the show, and you can listen live on-line here.

As usual, if you can’t tune in, I’ll post a link to the podcast of the inteview as soon as it’s available.

And keep on checking in with RealityChek for news of upcoming media appearances and other developments.

Making News: Back on NYC Radio to Talk Midterms, Inflation, Ukraine…& More?

Tags

2022 election, economy, Frank Morano, inflation, Making News, midterms 2022, politics, The Other Side of Midnight, Ukraine, Ukraine-Russia war

I’m pleased to announce that I’m scheduled to return tonight to New York City radio and Frank Morano’s popular “The Other Side of Midnight” program on WABC-AM. The segment, which is slated to air during the show’s 1 AM EST hour, will focus on many of the domestic and foreign headline issues of the day, including the U.S. midterm elections, inflation, and the Ukraine war.

You can listen live at this link, and as always, if you can’t or won’t stay up that late, I’ll post a link to the podcast as soon as one’s available.

And of course keep on checking in with RealityChek for news of upcoming media appearances and other developments.

Im-Politic: More Reasons to Think Americans Aren’t So Divided

Tags

abortion, affirmative action, college admissions, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, education, gender, higher education, Im-Politic, LGBTQ, minorities, polarization, politics, polls, public schools, race relations, social issues, Supreme Court

RealityChek regulars know that a theme to which I keep returning centers on intriguing evidence that Americans’ views on supposedly polarizing social issues aren’t nearly as polarized as the positions taken by activists on all sides.  Indeed, the public’s views are a triumph of both common sense and a spirit of compromise that’s continually overlooked by the political class across the spectrum. (See, e.g., here on the overall national mood, and here on abortion – a subject of special interest lately given the Supreme Court’s June decision to reject the idea of a Constitutional right to privacy and therefore to abortion.)

So I’m pleased to report new findings of equally surprising and encouraging consensus on two other supposedly divisive wedge issues.

The first is affirmative action in higher education admissions, whose future (for the time being) will be decided by the Supreme Court beginning later this month, when cases challenging such racial preferences will be heard.

If the public opinion has anything to do with the final outcome, however, these programs will clearly be toast – at least according to research summarized in this Wall Street Journal column. As noted by the author, retired University of California, Santa Cruz literature professor John Ellis,

“A 2022 Pew Research Center poll found that 74% of Americans oppose the use of race in college admissions. Even more surprising, 68% of Hispanics, 63% of Asians and 59% of blacks also opposed it. The same applied to both political parties, with 87% of Republicans and 62% of Democrats objecting.”

Most stunningly, even the African Americans who are the main intended beneficiaries of race-influenced admissions policies now strongly oppose the practice – along with three-fourths of the entire country.

Further, Ellis cites referendum results showing that uber-liberal California is off the affirmative action boat, too.

The second set of findings concerns the emotionally fraught matter of whether subjects like gender identity, sexual orientation, gay rights, and trans rights should be taught to pre-college students, and whether such materials on these “LGBTQ” topics belong in these students’ assigned reading.

A national survey from the University of Southern California (brought to my attention in this Washington Post article) makes clear that Americans are strongly opposed to these subjects in elementary school education, but much more open to bringing them into high school classes.

Specifically, the share of respondents agreeing that primary school students should learn about these subjects was only between 28 and 30 percent. But roughly twice as many Americans were fine with including LGBTQ subjects in high school curricula.

Somewhat oddly (at least to me) support for assigning LGBTQ-themed books was a good deal lower for both grade school students (18 percent) and for high school students (38 percent).

All the same, though, a strong consensus view – and one that should make intuitive sense as a starting point for making policy – shines through: Little kids just aren’t ready to be exposed to new challenges to longstanding ideas about gender identity and such. High school students? Much more so.

Of course, as we learned earlier this year with the Supreme Court’s latest abortion ruling, the fact that the public has figured out pragmatic ways to view complex social issues (simply put, supporting a broad right to an abortion early-ish during pregnancies and increasing restrictions as the pregnancy proceeds) is no guarantee that American leaders will be able, or want to, agree.

But as I pointed out in the above-linked abortion post, a powerful lesson taught by U.S. history has been that the Supreme Court “is most successful when it pays attention to public opinion, and runs into its greatest troubles when it gets too far ahead of or too far behind these attitudes.” The same surely applies to elected politicians and activists. Let’s just hope that all of them can get with the common sense approaches favored by Americans before further inflammatory actions really do produce dangerous and lasting national divides.

Following Up: Podcast Now On-Line of TNT Radio Interview

Tags

abortion, China, conservatism, culture wars, election 2022, electric vehicles, energy, Europe, Following Up, gay marriage, inflation, left-wing authoritarianism, midterms 2022, migrants, national conservatism, National Conservatism Conference, national security, politics, Sanctuary Cities, The Hrjove Moric Show, TNT Radio, Trade, Ukraine War

I’m pleased to announce that the podcast is now on-line of my appearance Tuesday night on “The Hrvoje Moric Show” on the internet network TNT Radio. Click here for a timely discussion on the future of American conservatism, on the culture wars that should and shouldn’t be fought, and a on a wide range of other domestic and international subjects, both strategic and economic.

And keep checking in with RealityChek for news of upcoming media appearances and other developments.

Making News: Back on National Radio Talking Conservatism’s Future & Batchelor China Manufacturing Podcast Now On-Line

Tags

automation, CBS Eye on the World with John Batchelor, China, conservatism, Gordon G. Chang, innovation, Making News, manufacturing, National Conservatism Conference, politics, robots, tech, The Hrjove Moric Show, TNT Radio

I’m pleased to announce that I’m scheduled to return tonight to “The Hrvoje Moric Show” on the internet network TNT Radio. The segment is slated to be broadcast at 9-10 PM EST, and will focus on my impressions of the National Conservatism conference at which I spoke last week, and what this new movement will mean for the future of right-of-center politics in America. But I’m sure that the state of the economy will come up, too!

Click here to listen live, and of course if you can’t tune in, I’ll post a link to the podcast as soon as one’s available.

Speaking of podcasts, here’s a link to the recording of my interview last night on “CBS Eye on the World” with John Batchelor. The segment, with co-host Gordon G. Chang, featured a timely discussion of how China’s manufacturing is rapidly automating, and the implications for U.S. domestic industry.

And keep checking in with RealityChek for news of upcoming media appearances and other developments.

Im-Politic: A New, Promising but Still Flawed Form of Conservatism

Tags

abortion, America First, China, Christianity, conservatism, crime, culture wars, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, education, family policy, foreign policy, identity politics, Im-Politic, Immigration, industrial policy, inflation, national conservatism, politics, religion, Roe vs. Wade, sovereignty, Supreme Court, Trade, wokeness

Don’t get me wrong. It’s not like I’m not grateful to have been invited to last week’s third National Conservatism Conference. The interest displayed by this crowd in economic policy ideas that depart dramatically from the right-of-center’s longstanding free market dogmatism was especially gratifying, and there was no shortage of thought-provoking and compelling speakers.

It’s just that my four days at the session left me unconvinced that National Conservatism as it presently seems to be constituted can create or contribute to a winning American political coalition. The main problem: Most of those spearheading the drive to establish National Conservatism as a major national force haven’t recognized which culture wars they should be fighting, and which they shouldn’t — and how this failure to discriminate is endangering other objectives that the movement (and others) rightly deem crucial.  In fact, unhappiness expressed to me by more than a few conference attendees with the stances on social and cultural issues taken by those putative leaders make me skeptical that it’s a movement yet to begin with – or can be if their vision prevails.

The economic dimension of national conservatism, at least judging by the presentations and hallway conversations, is not only politically astute; it’s substantively sound. All the speakers who addressed these issues – including such nationally prominent figures like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, and the state’s Republican Senators Marco Rubio and Rick Scott (the event was held in Miami) supported smarter, more restrictive trade and other economic policies (especially toward China), reduced immigration inflows and genuine border security, and federal policies to promote strategically important industries and to ease economic pressures on the middle and working classes.

The same goes for National Conservatism’s critique of the overly, and often recklessly, adventurist foreign policies pursued by the mainstreams of both major political parties for decades.

But the conference organizers and another set of speakers seem wed to other goals and measures that are already backfiring among the American electorate and that, intriguingly, clash with other elements of their agenda. The most important by far were near-total opposition to abortion and a determination to tout the United States as a “Christian nation.”

The political folly of these priorities couldn’t be more obvious. As I’ve written, there’s long been a strong national consensus favoring the right to an abortion early-ish during a pregnancy and then favoring broad restrictions later on with significant exceptions (rape, incest, life of the mother, health of the mother). Indeed, that’s why comparable majorities have supported maintaining the abortion policy framework established by the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling – which was entirely consistent with that common sensical compromise. P.S. Contrary to the claims of the extreme pro-lifers on an off the Court, Roe gave states plenty of latitude to enact all manner of abortion curbs. (The other major misconception or falsehood surrounding Roe comes from the pro-choice movement: It never established an unfettered right to an abortion.)

If you’re skeptical, consider that the day that a draft of the Supreme Court’s eventual decision striking down Roe was leaked to the press (May 3), Republicans held a 4.1 percentage point lead in the RealClearPolitics.com average of polls gauging the public’s preference for control of Congress in November’s midterm elections. The latest figures show Democrats with a 1.1 percentage point lead in the so-called Generic Ballot.

It’s true that abortion isn’t the only reason, that the actual votes determining control of Congress aren’t cast nationally but state-by-state, and that Republicans hold enough built-in advantages in the Congressional map to keep their hopes of prevailing very much alive. But the polls also show that the Court’s Dobbs decision, the enactment of and efforts to enact near-abortion bans in Republican-run states that the ruling has permitted, and GOP talk of more such moves (including on the national level) is increasing Democrats’ interest in voting and boosting the party’s prospects. (See, e.g., here.) And not so coincidentally, Republican candidates and leaders all over the country are backing away from hard-line anti-abortion positions.

Adamant opposition to abortion in practically all circumstances also seems to clash violently with other stated National Conservative positions. For example, many speakers at the conference emphasized their support for individual liberty. But what about the right of women uninterested in becoming mothers to lead the lives they wish? Even if the unborn must indeed be deemed human life very early in pregnancies, should the wishes of those women count for absolutely nothing the minute they conceive – and simply because they failed to take adequate precautions, or because precautions taken failed? According to many, and possibly most, at the conference, the answer is “Yes.”

The repeated references to America as a Christian nation are just as problematic. For reasons like those suggested above, if that’s a rationale for insisting that U.S. policies conform with scriptural teachings (and Section 4 of this “Statement of Principles” by the movement’s leading lights certainly suggests this “Where a Christian majority exists” – i.e. in most of the country), that simply won’t wash with big majorities of voters. But the historical arguments advanced for this view don’t impress, either.

Sure, the Founding Fathers were Christians, and for the most part, observant Christians at that. But so what? The England they came from was overwhelmingly Christian. What else realistically could they be? For similar reasons, the Founders were ovewhelmingly white, too. Does that mean that America should be seen as a Caucasian nation?

And does Christian dogma really deserve much credit for the ideals that make up the American creed of freedom of expression and conscience and other major liberties for the individual; representative, accountable government; equal justice under the law; and the like? Clearly, in most of Christendom at the time (e.g., Russia, Spain, Germany) these notions were unknown or actively rejected. Instead, the great American experiment in self-government is rooted in specifically English thought and practice. And ironically, the major contribution made by Christianity that hasn’t been present outside Europe has been the faith’s willingness to leave big swathes of human life to secular institutions and authorities (as in Jesus’ admonition to “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”)

Even worse, precisely because they’re so unpopular as well as intellectually feeble, National Conservatism’s focus on these particular culture wars is weakening the ability of the entire conservative movement (except the libertarians) to fight effectively the culture wars that must be fought – specifically, over woke school public curricula; the metastasis of left-wing authoritarianism in so many major, powerful American institutions; and the related spread of divisive identity politics.

I have nothing but respect for those National Conservatives I met – and other Americans – to declare that they’re less concerned with winning politically than with remaining true to their consciences. But their version of the perfect is shaping up as a powerful enemy of the good and formula for defeat – especially if they wish to contend, as they clearly do, in an arena that rightly values the art of the possible.

That’s why I was so encouraged to find out that many of those I met at the National Conservatism Conference agreed that hard-line anti-abortion stances and pro-Christian nation preaching need to be dropped if any of National Conservatism’s other worthy causes are to be advanced.

For me, nothing could be clearer than the following as a recipe for political victory and national well-being: focusing tightly in an America First-type way on  confining U.S. foreign policy to advancing and protecting U.S. sovereignty and core security (especially against foes like China), on taming inflation and building sustainable prosperity; on securing the border; on fighting crime; on removing propaganda from public schools; on preserving a strong voice for parents in their children’s education; and on resisting the intolerant woke and rigid identity politics ideologies being pushed by our most powerful institutions.

National Conservatism as it exists now is close to being on board. If it can go the extra mile, show better judgment politically, and accept a more inclusive, more historically accurate view of “Americanism,” I’ll be happy to join its ranks.