It is not often that you will see me agreeing with Andrew Sullivan. So take note when I do. He has a long-form piece at New York Magazine ominously titled “Democracies end when they are too democratic. And right now, America is a breeding ground for tyranny.” The whole thing is about the threat of Trumpism and the very real prospect of Trump assuming the presidency. If you don’t have time to read the whole thing, you should at least read the conclusion (see below). Read it and shudder. Continue Reading →
The video above came out last week from The Family Policy Institute of Washington. It began making the rounds over the weekend after David French posted it at National Review. It is a stunning look at the way college kids think (or don’t think) about the moral revolution that is upon us. I offered brief remarks on Twitter, which you can read below. Continue Reading →
At last night’s Democratic debate, Secretary Clinton went on a tear about abortion. She insisted that she would do everything in her power to make sure that it remains legal to kill unborn humans at any time and for any reason–even at or during the ninth month of pregnancy. In short, both she and Senator Bernie Sanders will not accept any limitation on legal abortion. They want it to be a legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy. No compromise. In her own words: Continue Reading →
It was clear in 2012 that Mitt Romney would be the last GOP presidential nominee to defend traditional marriage. Neither Windsor nor Obergefell had yet been handed down, but the writing was on the wall. The country had shifted, and the GOP would eventually reflect that shift. That is why I wrote the following in early 2013: Continue Reading →
Juan Williams writes in The Wall Street Journal that President Obabma’s nominee to the Supreme Court is not a centrist in his judicial philosophy. Here’s an excerpt:
As Republicans and Democrats wrangle over Judge Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court nomination to replace the late Antonin Scalia and whether or not to hold confirmation hearings, attention has been distracted from a fight of far more historical consequence.
Over the past half century, regardless of whether a liberal or a conservative resides in the White House, the critical issue facing any Supreme Court nominee is where he or she stands on the political contest of wills over how to read the Constitution.
In general the conservatives in this fight favor an “originalist” or “plain text” reading of the Constitution to limit the role of the courts to interpreting what the document and the Framers meant. Liberals regard the Constitution as a “living document” that lends itself to modern interpretations by judges, who may extend rights to groups not mentioned or considered in the Constitution or its amendments…
In today’s debate regarding Merrick Garland’s nomination to the court, much of the discussion concerns whether or not he is a “centrist.” But the real question, for both sides, is how he regards the Constitution. On that point it is clear from his record that Judge Garland is firmly in the “living document” camp. The push-pull over the Constitution and the Supreme Court is a battle without end, and in the current phase with the eight-person bench likely to divide 4-4 on important cases, the contrast between the court with Scalia on it and the court with Judge Garland or any other Democratic nominee couldn’t be greater.
Read the rest here.
This shouldn’t be a surprise at this point, but it is now established beyond all reasonable doubt that Donald Trump is not pro-life. How do we know that? He gives no evidence that he even knows what the pro-life position is. You can’t defend the sanctity of human life if you don’t even know what it is.
Even worse is that when Trump tries to express his beliefs on abortion, he articulates a pro-abortion rights position. And he usually doesn’t even realize that’s what he’s done! His foot is in his mouth, but he is none the wiser.
In an interview with CBS News today, he did it again (watch above). Asked how he’d change the law to restrict access to abortion, this is how he responded:
The laws are set now on abortion and that’s the way they’re going to remain until they’re changed… I would’ve preferred states’ rights… I think it would’ve been better if it were up to the states. But right now, the laws are set… At this moment, the laws are set. And I think we have to leave it that way.
Did you catch that? Trump just said that status quo on abortion law in the United States needs to remain unchanged. Just to be clear about the status quo. Right now it is legal under United States “law” to kill an unborn child at any stage of pregnancy (from 0-9 months gestation) for any or no reason at all. As a result of this status quo, over 57 million children have been killed legally in our country since 1973. It is the greatest human rights crisis of our time, and Donald Trump says we need to “leave it that way.”
Donald Trump can say he’s pro-life until he’s blue in the face. But until he actually understands what pro-life means and unless he stops defending a pro-abortion position, we know that he is not telling the truth. Donald Trump is not pro-life. Anyone who is has no business supporting his candidacy.
Yesterday, Donald Trump said in an interview that the law should “punish” women for getting abortions (see above). Trump quickly reversed himself in a subsequent press release. Still, in his initial remarks, Trump was able to accomplish a trifecta of political travesties.
First, he projected a caricature regularly perpetrated by pro-abortion people against pro-lifers—that we care only for babies and not for their mothers. Second, while arguing for the pro-life position, he misrepresented what pro-lifers actually believe and alienated viewers from our cause. Third, Trump has put pro-lifers in a defensive position rather than strengthening the cause. All this while he was supposedly trying to help the cause! With “friends” like this, who needs enemies? Continue Reading →
It’s no secret to readers of this blog that I am a #NeverTrump guy. I have explained what I mean by that here. The consistent objection that I hear to this position is that it amounts to a vote for Secretary Clinton. And nothing could be worse than electing Secretary Clinton.
I disagree with that argument for a number of reasons. But no one has put a finer point on answering this objection than David French has today. He argues that the apparently self-evident conclusion that Trump is better than Clinton is by no means self-evident. He writes:
Those of us who’ve pledged that we will never, ever vote for Donald Trump always get the same response: “You’d put Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office instead?” Clinton’s name is spoken like an epithet, as if it’s unthinkable that any conservative would take any single action that could facilitate her election. I will not, under any circumstances, vote for Clinton, but I also do not believe that Trump would make a better president. Not because Clinton isn’t as bad as you think, but because Trump is worse than you imagine…
Hillary Clinton is the most beatable likely Democratic nominee since John Kerry, and the GOP is poised to nominate the one man least likely to beat her, and the one man who would be just as bad in the White House. I don’t vote for despicable people. I don’t vote for leftists. And I will never, ever, vote for Donald Trump. He’s no better than she is.
I recommend that you read this entire piece. French makes a forceful case on issue after issue that Trump is in fact worse than Clinton on many points.
I know that many Trump supporters aren’t really interested in policy details. They like Trump’s defiant “tell it like it is” attitude. The primary problem with that posture is that Trump is not telling it like it is. He’s a pathological liar. Also, that preference for attitude over policy makes some of his supporters impervious to reason and common sense. That preference causes them to defend their candidate even when news breaks that his campaign manager has been arrested for assaulting a female reporter. And it’s why they are unlikely to respond to an argument like French has provided.
Still, there are many conservative Americans who are reasonable and will listen, and they would do well to read French’s entire argument. They can do so here.
Conservative opposition to Donald Trump’s candidacy for president divides into two groups. The first group consists of those who may not support Trump in the primaries but who plan to support him if he becomes the GOP nominee (e. g. Hugh Hewitt). The second group consists of those who oppose Trump in the primaries and who will also oppose him in the general should he become the GOP nominee (e.g. Ben Sasse). We might label the former as the “Stop Trump” conservatives and the latter as the “Never Trump” conservatives.
The division presents Christians and social conservatives with a unique dilemma. While many agree that it would be best to stop Trump in the primaries, there is much disagreement about what to do if Trump wins the nomination. What if the alternatives in the Fall are Mr. Trump and Secretary Clinton? Isn’t it the case that although Trump has his foibles, Secretary Clinton would do more damage to the causes that social conservatives care about most—sanctity of life, marriage, and religious freedom? Won’t the “Never Trump” position lead to a loss of the Supreme Court for a generation? Continue Reading →