Luke Ford

John Marini writes for the Claremont Review:

Since the end of the Cold War, American leaders have understood their offices in terms of global and administrative rule, rather than political rule on behalf of the American people and the sovereignty of the American nation. Yet those offices were established on the foundation of the moral authority of the people and their Constitution. Once elected or appointed, politicians and bureaucrats have utilized their will, in both domestic and foreign policy, in an unrestrained manner on behalf of bureaucratic rule. They govern on the implicit premise of elections as plebiscites, but it is no longer clear who confers the legitimacy of an electoral mandate. Bureaucratic rule has become so pervasive that it is no longer clear that government is legitimized by the consent of the governed. Rather it is the consent of the various national—and often international—social, economic, political, and cultural interest groups that determine the outcome of elections. True political rule requires, at a minimum, the participation of citizens in their own rule, even if not in government itself. But this is possible only when people understand themselves as citizens and when the regime recognizes them as citizens. This requires distinguishing American citizens from all others and identifying them as one people.

American elections have increasingly been framed by Washington professionals. Social scientists, media pundits, and policy professionals may tilt liberal or conservative and may differ in their party preferences, but they are united in their dependence upon intellectual authority, derived from empirical science and its methodology, in their understanding of politics and economics. At the same time, historicism or (critical theory) has established itself as the closest thing to a public philosophy when it comes to understanding history, society, and culture. Applied to elections, the empirical method required that politics be understood in terms of measurable and quantifiable aggregates. This proved compatible with the positivist understanding of law and interest group liberalism. Critical post-modern theory established personal autonomy and group diversity as central to what is morally defensible in terms of public policy. As a result, political partisanship and analysis has focused on race, class, gender, and other such demographics, to provide the kind of information that has become central to the shaping and predicting of elections and to legitimize dividing the electorate into categories that came to be understood in moral terms. Consequently, political campaigns have made a science of dividing the electorate into groups and reassembling them as voting blocs committed to specific policies and issues denominated by the demographic categories themselves. This strategy requires the systematic mobilization of animosity to ensure participation by identifying and magnifying what it is that must be opposed. Appeals to the electorate are strategically controlled by the experts. Which issues are allowed to be raised seems to be more important than the manner in which they are packaged and sold to the electorate.

Understood in this way, what is central to politics and elections is the elevation of the status of personal and group identity to something approaching a new kind of civil religion. Individual social behavior, once dependent on traditional morality and understood in terms of traditional virtues and vices, has become almost indefensible when judged in light of the authority established by positivism and historicism. Public figures have come to be judged not as morally culpable individuals, but by the moral standing established by their group identity. Character is almost unrecognizable and no longer serves as the means by which the people can determine the qualifications for public office of those they do not know personally. As a result, it is difficult to establish the kind of public trust that made it possible to connect public and private behavior, or civil society and government. When coupled with the politicization of civil society and its institutions, the distinction between the public and the private or the personal and the political has almost disappeared. Anything and everything can become politicized, but things can only be understood and made intelligible—or made politically meaningful—when viewed through the lens of social science and post-modern cultural theory. In short, the public and private character of American politics has been placed in the hands of the academic intellectuals.

Kesler focuses his defense of Trump on the observation that Trump alone has succeeded in making political correctness a political issue. Kesler knows that political correctness poses a problem not only for politics, but for intellectual life as well—that it is a problem for the university as well as for civil society. Regardless of his motives, therefore, Trump has gone to the heart of the matter and made a political issue of these intellectual and social crises. Trump has not attempted a theoretical justification for doing so. That remains to be made by the thinkers. Such a justification begins by recognizing that when progressivism was confident of itself, it understood the past as rational and as providing light for the way to a glorious future. When progressive intellectuals lost confidence in the idea of progress and Enlightenment reason, they abandoned the hope of a future good and began to revise the meaning of the past. When Nietzsche analyzed the malady posed by historicism’s abandonment of its rationality, he came to realize that “the excess of history has attacked the plastic powers of life; it no longer understands how to avail itself of the past as hearty nourishment.” The politics of our time is dependent upon how we avail ourselves of the past—whether as “hearty nourishment” or as a life-threatening poison. Read on.

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* At the beginning of the Roman Republic through the glory days of the Empire, Roman citizenship was extremely hard to come by. You might get conquered by the Romans and move to Rome itself with your family, but you were not granted citizenship automatically or by just being born in the empire. The right was jealously guarded; heck, the Romans fought several wars against the already-conquered Samnites solely because those Samnites were demanding Roman citizenship and the Romans said nyet.

But when the Empire was collapsing into a farce, the Romans bestowed citizenship like it was going out of style—anyone conquered got it. It was handed out like water on a rainy day.

Hmmm…when citizenship was limited and valuable, the nation thrived. When it was cheap and plentiful, the nation fell apart.

Parallels, anybody?

* Maybe it’s time to end the Cuban special dispensation, now that the US has restored diplomatic relations with Cuba and the Cold War is over.

Indeed, maybe Cuban immigrants should go to the back of the line for years, since these things are all about morality and virtue, as we all know, and fair is fair.

* What’s the logical outcome of a policy of not deporting immigrants on U.S. soil?

Under this policy, if an immigrant walks up to the border in broad daylight and steps a few inches onto U.S. soil, the immigrant is “in the U.S.”, and would be allowed to permanently stay in the U.S.

With modern transportation and a little entrepreneurial effort, volume could easily swell to millions per month.

How would they be stopped? Build a fence on Mexican soil to prevent them from getting to the border? Build a wall mathematically exactly on the border along the length of the border? Push their feet back exactly at the border before they can step over? Use really strong fans or magnets? How about where the border is a river and they can float a few inches across the border? How would you stop ferries or entire cruise ships from floating across?

* The mass murdering driver of the truck in Nice, Mohamed Bouhlel took part in a “No Borders” protest in solidarity with migrants stuck at the French-Italian border last summer. The Italian & French police are looking for confirmation that his friend in the “Fly Emirates” shirt also appeared in recent selfies with the killer.

* Trump is smarter than we credit him for. His strategy all along has been to galvanize his natural constituency and push them to the polls. It doesn’t matter if you alienate people who wouldn’t vote for you in the first place, no matter what you do or say.
And again, you don’t win by being nice, particularly to people who aren’t nice themselves like this Khan fellow and her harridan of a wife. Trump is right in kicking Khan in the balls while he’s down. Never show weakness, ever. When an American family loses a son in action, it’s likely their only son. For a Muslim family, it’s no great loss, so to speak, as they have larger families and sons to spare. Which goes a long way in explaining Islamic terrorism.

* Trump’s pattern is to counterpunch, seemingly inartfully, The media go crazy, then it comes out that he did have a point.

Already we have learned that Khan has a background in the Middle East as an apologist for sharia law, connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and a supporter of the Abedin family, and a work history with several Clinton-connected firms. He is currently an immigration lawyer. Who knows what revelations are to come? (Anybody else marvel at how the mother is still overwhelmed by grief 12 years after her son’s death?)

* All of the federally protected classes of diversity will be the West’s undoing:

Women are entitled because of Male oppression
Jewish are entitled because of Gentile oppression
Queers are entitled because of Straight oppression
Muslims are entitled because of Christian oppression
Disabled are entitled because of Healthy oppression
Afro-blacks are entitled because of White oppression
Latinos are entitled because of Gringo oppression
Hispanics are entitled because of Gringo oppression
Military Veteran are entitled because of Militia oppression
2-party System Dependents are entitled because of Independent oppression
Aboriginals are entitled because of Paleface oppression
Asians are entitled because of Occidental oppression
National Socialist are entitled because of local-state Government oppression
Crony Capitalist are entitled because of honest Businessmen oppression
Ex-convicts are entitled because of Law-Abiding people oppression
Zionist are entitled because of anti-Fascist oppression