Trump, His Own Worst Enemy

            When it comes to national politics, we seem to be living in two different universes revolving around the singular figure of Donald Trump.

            The left sees the president as the source of all evil. The El Paso massacre gave the Democrat presidential hopefuls and their media sycophants all the ammunition they could possibly want. It was no longer enough to call Trump a racist or a Nazi and a fascist; he was now the leader of the white supremacists. The president’s speech writer might as well have written the killer’s Manifesto…Trump probably wished it to happen…the killer was acting out Trump’s wishes in targeting Mexicans. No accusation was too extreme, too vile, too obscene.

            Trump’s acolytes on the right cried foul or changed the subject. Some on Fox News ignored El Paso altogether to focus on “the greatest scandal in the history of this country,” i.e., the soft coup attempt by leaders of the FBI and the DOJ to remove the president from office. They were positively giddy at the release of classified information that confirmed the conspiracy theory they have been pushing for months.

            It was like the two sides were lobbing lethal missiles at each other to persuade the independents in the political center to come over to their side.

            Meanwhile, the man in the middle, our dear president, took to the air and to Twitter to counterpunch, as he always does, not realizing or admitting that his pugnaciousness is in large measure what provoked the war. He is a fighter who appealed to the “deplorables” in defeating Hillary Clinton, but he is also the thin-skinned egotistical leader who turned off the independents who switched to the Democrat party in 2018 and cost the Republicans the House.

            Policy proposals from Democrats on the left (Medicare for all, free tuition, open borders, etc.) in ordinary times would be a sure prescription for disaster. But as long as President Trump continues his impulsive, ill-considered, and abusive attacks on his opponents, Democrats will focus on him in the coming elections. It worked in 2018, it will again in 2020.

Racism, Racism, Racism

            One would think that the importance of the 2020 elections is enough for everyone to focus on the issues. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The more candidates and their supporters fight for attention, the more they begin to look like schoolyard brawlers.

            First, it’s the name-calling. The most popular among many invectives is the accusation of racism. Corey Booker accuses Joe Biden of racism for his role in legislation that resulted in incarcerating more racial minorities; Tulsi Gabbard accuses Kammala Harris of racism for the same reason while she was California’s Attorney General; Harris accuses Biden of being a racist for not supporting school busing; Alexandria Alelxandria  Ocasio-Cortez accuses Pelosi of racism, a switch from calling President Trump a racist on a daily basis; the leftist media piles on and sees a racist motive in Trump’s pointing to Baltimore’s rat-infested neighborhoods; Trump and Elijah Cummings call each other racist on the same issue. In the end, if everybody is a racist, then “racist” means nothing; the term is completely de-valued.

            So, let’s get physical. We already know about Hollywood celebrities and their threats. Madonna would like to blow up the White House, while Kath Griffin, Mickey O’Rourke, George Lopez, and Rosie O’Donnell would like to see Trump dead by various means. But for others like Booker, Biden, and Robert DiNiro, a punch in the face would be punishment enough.    

            Aside from the Pay-per-View attraction of Trump and Biden duking it out behind the gym, I think the American people would like to see an end to this nonsense. What would it be like if everyone took a solemn vow never again to utter the words racist, Nazi, and fascist? Or to threaten a political opponent with physical harm? Would that mean a return to civility? But didn’t Joe Biden get crucified for his civility toward segregationist colleagues?

            When even civility is racist, banning the term racist has as much of a chance of success as preventing weeds from popping up in my garden.

           

Neglect and Indifference

            We have been inundated by commentary on the Mueller testimony. There is no point in my adding to the babble. But there is one other piece of news that isn’t getting the attention it deserves, and that is the ongoing disaster in Puerto Rico.

            Millions took to the streets this week to demand the ouster of President Ricardo Rossello after recordings of private conversations revealed that he is the ultimate creep, not to mention a cheap crook. The crowd succeeded. Rossello is headed for the door and well-deserved oblivion. But that is not the end of Puerto Rico’s problems.

            The devastating effects of Hurricane Maria showed what a basket case the island has become under the leadership of a string of incompetent and venal politicians. What a pity. This tropical paradise is blessed with so many gifts, one of which is a wonderful climate that makes it a tourist mecca, and another a population noted for its warmth, its generous spirit, and— yes—its loyalty to America. But investments in industry and infrastructure have been lagging, to put it mildly. The reason is endemic corruption.

            My wife’s parents emigrated from Puerto Rico to New York in the 30’s in search of a better life. So did many of her aunts, uncles, and cousins. The exodus continues, as Puerto Rico’s principal export is its people. As American citizens, Puerto Ricans are free to seek a better life in New York, Miami, or anywhere else in the land of opportunity. But why should they continue to suffer under the desperate conditions that compel them to do so?

            If anything, the images of a million people massed in the streets to demand Rossello’s ouster should focus our attention on the problems that continue to plague Puerto Rico. The people deserve better than our neglect and indifference.

Nike vs. Betsy Ross

            By now everyone should have heard or read about Nike’s recall of sneakers featuring the Betsy Ross flag on the heel. The recall was in reaction to former NFL player Colin Kaepernick’s objection to what he said was a symbol of oppression.

            Nike said in a statement that “it pulled the shoe based on concerns that it could unintentionally offend and detract from the nation’s patriotic holiday.”

            What utter garbage. The only people the shoe might offend are America-haters like Kaepernick. The real offense was to the vast majority of people who love America and resent Nike’s insult to patriots everywhere.

            Actually, Nike did us all a favor by reminding us that there are America-haters all around us: in the media, in academia, and even in Congress. When Alexandria Ocasio Cortez spews lies about concentration camps on our southern border filled with women forced to drink out of toilets, she speaks for the haters. When Kamala Harris calls President Trump a predator and John Brennan calls him a traitor, they speak for the haters. When media talking heads ridicule and denigrate Independence Day celebrations like the one led by President Trump, they speak for the haters.

            The Betsy Ross flag speaks of freedom and of triumph over tyranny; it speaks for the heroism of our Founders who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to the struggle for liberty; it speaks not of oppression, but of the great nation America would become.

           

           

           

           

Who's Stupid?

            “It’s the economy, stupid.” That was Bill Clinton’s election campaign mantra. It reminds us how important the country’s financial well-being is when voters go to the polls. This presents a dilemma for Democratic candidates for the Oval Office.

            Democrats have only one basic argument. They have to persuade voters that President Trump’s management of the economy has been a disaster for everybody but the rich, and that a socialist government is the only way to narrow the gap between the wealthy and everybody else. To sell this proposition they have to lie; they have to convince the electorate that the facts are not the facts.

            President Trump, for all his character faults and debatable policies on trade and other matters, is singularly responsible for the robust growth of the economy since his inauguration. He was absolutely right in seeing that tax reduction and deregulation were the keys to not just an economic expansion, but also narrowing income inequality.

            What is the evidence? First, job creation. Contrary to dire predictions from Democrats, the economy continues to grow and add jobs, more jobs than there are workers to fill them in many sectors. Workforce participation is up, and unemployment is at historic lows, especially for minorities.

            Second, wages for the lowest-paid workers have increased at a higher rate than for the highest-paid, a sure sign of an increased competition for workers. Coincidentally, the Congressional Budget Office reports that the proportion of income going to the poorest fifth of Americans has risen dramatically, while it has dropped for the wealthiest one-fifth.  

            Income inequality is not growing, as socialist paragon Bernie Sanders would have us believe: it is narrowing. The way to reverse this trend is to put a socialist in the White House, which can only happen if the electorate buys the lies and ignores the facts.

            As Bill Clinton might say again today, “It’s the economy, stupid.” But who would he be talking to?

Pandering for Diversity

            As we move into the debate phase of presidential election politics, Democrat aspirants to the Oval Office are honing their vote-getting skills, particularly their ability to pander to every voting group.  Pandering becomes identity politics in action. It’s what you do when you have no positive ideas: you stoke the envy of every group that does not enjoy the advantages of social, cultural or financial privilege.

            Listen to Bernie Sanders as his promises of equality drip with contempt for the “rich.”  Was Beto O’Rourke’s switch to Spanish at the debates anything but a transparent appeal to Hispanic voters? And what's the latest count of candidates who have done a pilgrimage to New York to kiss Pope Al Sharpton's ring?

            Identity politics has infected academia as well. Harvard administrators are under fire for adjusting SAT scores in its pursuit of a “diverse” student body. In the process it has clearly discriminated against Asian applicants whose SAT scores are consistently higher than applicants from favored groups.

            While an overwhelming percentage of Americans say that college admissions should not be based on race or ethnicity, colleges are using “adversity scores” to boost admissions for applicants from poor or crime-ridden neighborhoods, thus devaluing the academic achievement of students with higher SATs. All in the name of diversity.

            Virginia Tech this year held separate graduation achievement celebrations for Jews, Muslims, American Indians, Blacks, Hispanics, and LGBT.  Am I the only one who thinks this is taking diversity a little too far?  What exactly does academia seek to achieve by pandering to diverse groups? Politicians at least have a clear objective: votes.

Eugenics in Practice

            In Indiana two years ago, then Governor Mike Pence signed a bill banning abortions for reasons of sex, race, or disability. For example, a woman would have been prohibited from aborting a fetus because it has Down Syndrome. But a federal appeals court sided with abortion rights advocates and ruled against the bill. It was then bumped up to the Supreme Court, which has put off ruling on it.

            Justice Clarence Thomas commented that the court, having created a right to abortion (in Roe vs. Wade) is going to have to rule on the its scope eventually. In the meantime, he accused opponents of the Indiana law of hypocrisy, insisting that aborting a baby because it has Down Syndrome smacks of eugenics.

            Eugenics is the science of improving the genetic quality of the human population. Selective breeding, if you will. The Nazis practiced it in trying to achieve a purified Germanic race. So did China when it forced the abortion of girl babies.

            Abortionists are up in arms, saying they oppose eugenics. But Thomas has a point. The termination rate for babies with Down Syndrome is already estimated to be around 67% in this country. In the UK the rate is 90%, in Denmark 98%, and in Iceland 100%. In fact, Iceland allows abortion after 16 weeks of any fetus with a deformity. This sounds very much like eugenics to me. Is this where we’re headed?