Columnist.
A question has hung in the air since Barack Obama first moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and began his "fundamental transformation" of this country: Did he intend harm, or was he merely so blinded by ideology that he could not see the damage his policies were creating? The Iran deal provides an answer. At his press conference, our duplicitous leader chose to call black white and claim that the deal does the opposite of what it does — allow Iran to get nuclear weapons, albeit after a decent interval. We are deep into Orwellian territory now. "War is peace. Ignorance is strength." Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is crowing that Iran achieved all of its objectives and the U.S. none.
President Obama seems on the verge of the most abject diplomatic capitulation in American history — to Iran, our bitterest enemy — and Republicans are arguing about Donald Trump? The prospect of a deal with Iran is dumbfounding and infuriating, as the U.S. held all the cards in the protracted negotiations and yet executed serial surrenders to the Iranians, rather like a courtier bowing his way backward from a monarch. While the Obama administration is paving the way for a possible mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv or New York in the near term, we're all tying ourselves in knots about what Trump said about Mexicans. The Democrats seem to have a Trump card. Immigration arouses tremendous rage among both left and right. The left, always panting to push grievance buttons, transforms illegal immigrants into yet another clientele — as if those who enter the country illegally are *entitled* to legal status, benefits and even citizenship. They establish "sanctuary cities" as if enforcing immigration laws amounts to persecution.
The four dissenters in Obergefell v. Hodges lucidly expressed the profound offense against constitutional law and representative democracy the ruling represents. In short, five lawyers, accountable to no one, chose to legislate on a profoundly consequential matter that the people were just beginning to address through democratic means. As Chief Justice Roberts wrote: "Who do we think we are?" If justices cannot resist the urge to legislate, let's drop the pretense that constitutional law is guided by neutral principles and at least give the people the option to vote justices in (and out). That the court has struck a blow for gay rights is true enough (and treating homosexuals with respect is long overdue). Unfortunately, the claim that this ruling also strengthens marriage is almost certainly false. To understand why is also to answer the question so often pressed as a taunt by gay marriage supporters: How can extending marriage to gays possibly affect your marriage? The answer lies in the hidden message.
Here's what the former president of the United States had to say when he eulogized his mentor, an Arkansas senator: "We come to celebrate and give thanks for the remarkable life of J. William Fulbright, a life that changed our country and our world forever and for the better. ... In the work he did, the words he spoke and the life he lived, Bill Fulbright stood against the 20th century's most destructive forces and fought to advance its brightest hopes." So spoke President William J. Clinton in 1995 of a man who was among the 99 Democrats in Congress to sign the "Southern Manifesto" in 1956. (Two Republicans also signed it.) The Southern Manifesto declared the signatories' opposition to the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education and their commitment to segregation forever. Fulbright was also among those who filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That filibuster continued for 83 days.
They're coming for our money. OK, that's nothing new, but this time, the Obama administration is coming for our $10 bills -- the notes graced by the image of Alexander Hamilton. True to the identity politics of the Democratic Party, the Obama Treasury Department has announced that some worthy female will replace Hamilton on the currency. The sheer arrogance, ignorance and stupidity of this move are difficult to capture in one column. Let's start with stupidity. If there's one figure whose face arguably does not deserve to adorn the currency, it's the man on the $20 bill, not the $10. That is Andrew Jackson, seventh president of the United States, adamant opponent of paper currency (!), friend of slave power and scourge of Native Americans. Who can forget that when the Cherokee appealed their treatment by the state of Georgia to the Supreme Court and won, Jackson refused to enforce the law? Jackson pushed for and signed the Indian Removal Act, which led directly to the forced deportation of nearly 17,000 Choctaw, Creek, Cherokee and others — known as the Trail of Tears. He was fiercely opposed in this by his predecessor, John Quincy Adams, who took the view (in case you're tempted to argue that Jackson was only doing what was possible at the time) that Indians should be paid for their land if they wished to sell, and that they should be given the protections of the U.S. Constitution.
Hillary Clinton had one of the worst campaign rollouts in living memory. Her low-key (to the point of inaudibility) announcement video came in the midst of a months-long period of deeply damaging stories about her mania for secrecy (the private email server), which she indulged even at the expense of the law and national security, and her cavalier acceptance of favors in the form of donations to the Clinton Foundation. As these stories mounted, Clinton seemed oddly disengaged. She neither answered questions nor attempted to change the subject. Some Republicans began to get smug. "She's a terrible candidate," they said (your humble columnist may even have let these words slip herself). "She doesn't have the skills of her husband," they said, even predicting that, "This woman will never be president of the United States."
Many political debates in the upcoming presidential race will play out this way: The Democrat will offer "X for all," and the Republican will respond, "Do you have any idea how much that's going to cost?" That's the way nearly all political debates are engaged — usually to the disadvantage of Republicans (and the public fisc). That's why I wished, while attending a panel on higher education reform sponsored jointly by the Ethics and Public Policy Center and The Bradley Foundation, that every Republican candidate in America had been listening. The Democrats have a tried-and-true formula (which is actually false, but work with me): They promise to spend more on education to make it more accessible. President Obama has proposed to make community college "free."
What to make of President Obama's interpretation of the Iranian leadership? Challenged by The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg to account for the seeming inconsistency of relying on the rationality of a regime that holds a profoundly anti-Semitic worldview, the president denied that the "venomous anti-Semitism" (his words) of the mullahs is a barrier to rational decision making: "Well, the fact that you are anti-Semitic, or racist, doesn't preclude you from being interested in survival. It doesn't preclude you from being rational about the need to keep your economy afloat; it doesn't preclude you from making strategic decisions about how you stay in power; and so the fact that the supreme leader is anti-Semitic doesn't mean that this overrides all of his other considerations. You know, if you look at the history of anti-Semitism, Jeff, there were a whole lot of European leaders — and there were deep strains of anti-Semitism in this country."
Carly Fiorina is articulate, thoughtful and accomplished. For those who keep track of such things, she was the first woman to lead a Fortune 50 business, and she ran a credible, if unsuccessful, campaign for a U.S. senate seat from California. In the early going of the race for the Republican presidential nomination, she is receiving enthusiastic responses from Republican audiences. Though I've long been skeptical of non-politicians running for president of the United States, I'm open to the possibility that she has what it takes — but only if the premise is that she is offering something besides estrogen. This is not a slam at Fiorina, but rather at the presumption out there that only Fiorina can really "take it to Hillary" because she's the only Republican candidate who needn't fear the charge of sexism.
Like cult members awaking to find their leader swigging gin and squirreling money into a Swiss bank account, liberals are rubbing their eyes in disbelief at President Obama's behavior. The figure they worshiped so fervently and for so long is now revealed to be a "sexist" — at least according to National Organization for Women President Terry O'Neill. Her view is seconded by Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio. They are upset about the president's derisive treatment of Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who committed a sin the president does not take kindly — she disagreed with him. For differing about the merits of the TPP trade deal, she got what everyone should already recognize as the Obama treatment: Her views were caricatured, and her motives were questioned. "The truth of the matter is that Elizabeth is, you know, a politician like everybody else." Brown thought the president's use of Warren's first name betokened sexism.
*Man is not a rational animal. He is a rationalizing animal. —Robert Heinlein* What to make of the resolutely pro-choice The Washington Post's Style section travelogue following a woman who drove 407 miles to obtain a second-trimester abortion? Is this part of the campaign to destigmatize abortion? If so, they've chosen a very odd way to do it. Or perhaps Post writer Monica Hesse is a pro-life mole? "Emily" is a married woman with a graduate degree and a good job living in Wyoming. When she and her husband learned of the pregnancy, they were "so excited." But later, he got into trouble — a bar fight or something; the story leaves it vague. Because he had a criminal record, the couple was unsure whether he would get prison time.
In January, Robert F. McDonnell, 71st governor of Virginia, was sentenced to two years in prison followed by two years of supervised release after his conviction on 11 counts of public corruption. He, and especially his wife, behaved badly. But it's worth taking a closer look at what was considered criminal in McDonnell's case, because, at least so far, some in the press are suggesting that Hillary Clinton's conduct must meet a much higher threshold to be considered problematic. When ABC's George Stephanopoulos interviewed Peter Schweizer, author of "Clinton Cash" on Sunday, Stephanopoulos played the informal role of Clinton defense attorney. Skipping right over the truly squalid appearance of conflict of interest inherent in the Clinton Foundation accepting contributions from nations and firms having business before the State Department while Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State, Stephanopoulos focused only on law breaking. "Do you have any evidence that a crime may have been committed?" he demanded. When Schweizer said he thought the material he, the New York Times and others unearthed certainly merited further investigation, Stephanopoulos jumped on it: "But a criminal investigation? ... Is there a smoking gun?"
We learned this week that the Secret Service dawdled for an entire year before fixing a broken security system at the home of former President George H. W. Bush. The Secret Service itself is looking pretty broken these days. A few weeks ago, two drunken agents returning from a party drove right through an active bomb investigation outside the White House. They didn't notice that their colleagues were examining a suspicious package. In 2012, a number of agents were found to have engaged prostitutes in Cartagena, Colombia, during a presidential trip. At least one of the prostitutes had links to a major drug cartel, according to investigators.
Two relatively recent photos of Barack Obama with foreign leaders reveal much about his deep-dyed leftism. The first features President Obama and democratically elected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of one of America's most loyal friends. Obama looks strained. His face is stiff, and his eyes are veiled. The second is a snap of Obama at the recent Summit of the Americas in Panama. He's seated with "President" Raul Castro, leader of a bitter enemy, who has never received a single free vote. Obama is grinning, his eyes dancing with pleasure. In contrast to the bitterness with which Obama addresses Netanyahu, he is all honey with Castro. "So I want to thank President Castro for the spirit of openness and courtesy that he has shown during our interactions. ... President Castro earlier today spoke about the significant hardships that the people of Cuba have undergone over many decades. I can say with all sincerity that the essence of my policy is to ... make sure that the people of Cuba are able to prosper and live in freedom and security. ... "
The candidates who are announcing for president will be cheered to know that the Democratic Party has been hemorrhaging popularity the way the housing market lost value in 2008. In 2009, 62 percent of Americans had a favorable view of the party. In January, only 46 percent said the same. But the Democrats' loss has not been the Republicans' gain. A 2015 Pew survey found that 40 percent of Americans had a favorable opinion of Republicans in 2009, and just 41 percent do today. Republicans might profitably ponder two things. First, this question from a Pew poll: Which party "cares about the problems of the middle class"? Sixty percent said the phrase applied to Democrats. Only 43 percent thought it accurately described Republicans.
*"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. -- George Washington* Until almost literally the day before yesterday, it was universally acknowledged that religious faith and expression were bedrock American freedoms -- enshrined in the Constitution, protected in law and honored in custom. But now, because the left has been victorious in convincing the elites that upholding traditional marriage is low bigotry, religious freedom will have to yield. Not all religious freedom, though.
Maybe I'm too sensitive, but when a foreign autocrat leads his people in chants of "Death to America," I take it personally. President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry apparently don't. The chant, which became a staple of the Islamic Republic during the 1979 revolution, is not a relic of the past. Just last weekend, at a rally in the northern part of the country, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was interrupted by the chant as he was denouncing American "lies" and "arrogance." He smiled and responded, "Of course, yes, death to America, because America is the original source of this pressure." Some in Iran have urged that the "Death to America" chant, common after Friday prayers and at political rallies, be downplayed during negotiations over a nuclear deal, but the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) rejects this, insisting, according to the semi-official Fars News Agency, that the United States "is still the great Satan and the No. 1 enemy of the (Islamic) revolution, and the Islamic Republic and the Iranian nation..."
Starbucks is hoping to lead a national conversation about race. According to a video released by founder Howard Schultz, Starbucks baristas are encouraged to scrawl "race together" on coffee cups before placing them in the hands of customers. This hollow bit of moral exhibitionism is supposed to encourage "compassion," "honesty," "empathy" and "love." Does Starbucks sell caffeine-free compassion? Each and every time we're hectored to engage in an "honest conversation" about race, it's a sham. What's wanted is not honesty, but confession of sin by white people and expressions of pain from blacks and others. Decade after decade, despite vastly diminishing levels of white racism (and the rapid growth of non-white populations), we are told that the old stain of racism continues to poison the lives of minorities. By encouraging that fiction, Starbucks is subtracting from racial understanding.
"Traitors!" screamed the headline of the New York Daily News. "Beneath the dignity of the institution I revere," huffed Vice President Joe Biden. "Dangerous and irresponsible," opined The Washington Post's David Ignatius. President Obama offered that it was "ironic" that the senators were on the same side as supposed "hardliners" in Iran. The occasion for all of this snorting and pawing of earth was the letter signed by 47 Senate Republicans explaining to Iran's leadership that an "executive agreement" is only valid for the term of the executive. Obama mentioned irony. Here's the one he doesn't see: He is hardly in a position to rebuke another branch for exceeding its constitutional authority.
It has become conventional wisdom that Republicans are blessed with a talented crowd of potential candidates this cycle. Fine. But here's my case for why only one of them is likely to win the general election. Forget the triumphalism that followed 2014. It will do the GOP exactly as much good in 2016 as its remarkable success in 2010 did it in 2012. The off-year electorate is different. Republicans begin the race for 270 Electoral College votes at a structural disadvantage. California, New York, Illinois and other large Democratic states deliver reliable EC votes. In the past six presidential races, Republicans have averaged just 211 electoral votes, while Democrats averaged 327. Among swing states -- Colorado, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina and Virginia -- all are seeing increases in their minority voters and decreases in white voters.
