from Richard Fernandez at PJ Media, The End of the Memory Hole
The acquisition of permanent majorities, media dominance and even police power only makes one a bigger fish in a shrinking pond. It’s a depressing time to be a political activist and National Public Radio captures the mood of leftist cohort that has repeatedly turned the corner expecting to find a Worker’s Paradise only to find Student Debt. In an article titled Should We Be Having Kids In The Age Of Climate Change? NPR describes the following scene: “standing before several dozen students in a college classroom, Travis Rieder tries to convince them not to have children. … ‘Here’s a provocative thought: Maybe we should protect our kids by not having them,’ Rieder says.” Imgine! Eight years spent creating a Hope and Change, Planned Parenthood world and it’s not worth living in.
From Kevin Williamson at National Review, Move On
“Move on!” is a strange demand to make on behalf of a woman such as Mrs. Clinton. “Move on!” means drawing a line at the current moment in the timeline, leaving the past to the past and dedicating now to the future. That sounds appealing from a certain addlepated and idealistic point of view, but if you are running on a long record in public office and on yor experience, insisting that the past is a foreign country is odd, indeed. In 2000, a young and fresh-faced Barack Obama might have plausibly used “move on!” as a slogan: The country certainly was ready to move on from the Bush years, and he was youthful, energetic, and relatively new to the scene. Mrs. Clinton has many qualities that she might offer voters, but she soon will be running hard up against her 70th birthday, and her campaign of 1990s nostalgia represents the opposite of a break with the past. She is offering the very freshest political thinking of 1968 when she isn’t sidelined into the latest cutting-edge policy ideas from 1916.
But consider this: President Clinton’s performance in office demanded a “move on!” Mrs. Clinton’s performance as first lady, aiding and abetting her husband’s various misdeeds (which were far from limited to sexually preying on the help) inspired a great deal of “move on!” Mrs. Clinton’s time in the Senate called for a “move on!” of its own. Her tenure as secretary of state was “move on!” after “move on!” after “move on!” She’s still demanding we “move on!” today, and her hangers-on sing a “move on!” chorus day and night.
It says something about the Clintons that every time a member of that sorry clan is given a position of public trust, it ends with a demand that we forget how they abused that trust and instead “move on!”
from Venezuela Reaches the End of the Road to Serfdom by Kevin Williamson at National Review
Weird thing: That feckless and authoritarian kind of socialism is the only kind of socialism anybody has ever seen or heard of outside of a college dorm room. Either socialism is the unluckiest political idea in the history of political ideas and it just happens to have coincided with government by monsters, caudillos, and incompetents every place it has been tried, or there is in fact something wrong with socialism qua socialism.
Why is it that the big-government Danish welfare state, the small-government Swiss welfare state, the frequently illiberal Singaporean welfare state, and the nice-guy Canadian welfare state all seem to work, each in its own way, while socialist experiments — including the so-called democratic-socialist experiments of places such as Venezuela — go speeding down F. A. Hayek’s road to serfdom?
The critical difference is that entrepreneurship and markets are allowed to work in a welfare state — and to work especially well in welfare states characterized by public sectors that, while they may be larger or smaller, are transparent, honest, and effective. The U.S. food-stamp program has its defects, to be sure, but it’s a great deal more effective than was Soviet collective farming and state-run groceries. A dynamic capitalist economy such as Switzerland’s or Singapore’s or Canada’s can carry a lot of welfare state.
But it cannot really carry all that much socialism.
from Nikki Johnston-Huston at Huffington Post, The Culture of the Smug White Liberal:
unable to copy excerpts, but this is a classic, and I encourage you to link and read the whole thing
“The Truth is that Liberalism is about making elites feel better about themselves and their lives without requiring the underlying action of significantly improving the lives of African Americans.”
From National Review, A Landslide of His Own Making by Jim Geraghty
Trump is quite different than Goldwater and McGovern in that he goes out and confirms his opponents’ caricature of him every single day. Unlike those men and Mondale, he has no record of votes in a legislative body or signature legislation, no military service, and few longtime allies in the national and state parties. He has high name recognition but has never run for office before, a trait that his fans insisted was an advantage. He’s erratic, imprecise, and sometimes incoherent in his statements. He shows no interest in policy details and dismisses the need for campaign offices in swing states.
Looking back on previous historic presidential defeats, a confluence of factors made the losing candidate’s task almost impossible: the economy, social changes, the national political environment, the electorate’s appetite for change or lack thereof. If Trump loses, the explanation for 2016 will be much simpler: Even with the wind at his back and a deeply flawed opponent, he simply wasn’t up to the task of winning over a majority of the American electorate.
For once, in other words, it really will be the candidate’s fault.