How To Successfully Debate A Democratic Socialist

From someone who did. Helen Raleigh gives her tips.

One nice gem:

DSA leadership’s stated goals are the same goals declared by murderous communists Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, and many other socialists in the past , which shows democratic socialism is not that much different from what we’ve seen before.

Here is more proof. I read my opponent the following quote:

    • “We demand profit sharing in big business.
    • We demand a broad extension of care for the aged.
    • We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living.
    • In order to make possible to every capable and industrious citizen the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our entire system of public education. We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents.
    • The government must undertake the improvement of public health-by protecting mother and child, by prohibiting child labor, by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth.”


    I asked her if these statements sound similar to what democratic socialists stand for, and she nodded. Then I revealed that they were excerpts from the 1920 declaration of the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany, more commonly known as Nazis.

Senator Grassley’s Letter to Committee Democrats

For reference.

If the Democrats only cared about assaults on women when they could be used to attack Republicans, and otherwise couldn’t be bothered, I’m not sure how their behavior would be any different.

Text of letter:

Dear Colleagues:
I received your letter dated September 18, 2018, asking me not to reopen the hearing on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination, scheduled for Monday, September 24. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford has made serious allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. She has said repeatedly that she wants to tell her story. And she has a right to be heard. Holding a hearing is in the best interests of justice and for the parties involved. This will allow Dr. Ford to make her allegations under oath, as her attorney has publicly requested. At the same time, reopening the hearing will allow Judge Kavanaugh, who has categorically denied Dr. Ford’s allegations, to address these allegations without further delay.

I understand how difficult it might be for Dr. Ford to publicly testify on this subject. I have therefore offered her many options. We’ve offered her a public hearing, a private hearing, a public staff interview, or a private staff interview. The staff is even willing to fly to California, or anywhere else, to meet her.

An open session would be a matter of public record, while a closed session will remain confidential. I certainly can understand that Dr. Ford might be distrustful of the Committee’s ability to keep matters confidential based on the Democratic members’ recent conduct, but I sincerely hope that, if she chooses to testify in a closed session, that my colleagues can see their way to plugging the leaks which have plagued this nomination and gain her trust.

Your letter requests that I demand that the FBI conduct an additional investigation into this matter. This request demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the FBI background investigation process. Before nominating an individual to a judicial or executive office, the White House directs the FBI to conduct a background investigation. The FBI compiles information about a prospective nominee and sends it to the White House. The White House then provides FBI background investigation files to the Senate as a courtesy to help us determine whether to confirm a nominee. But the FBI does not make a credibility assessment of any information it receives with respect to a nominee. Nor is it tasked with investigating those matters that this Committee deems important. The Constitution assigns the Senate, and only the Senate, with the task of advising the President on his nominees and consenting if the circumstances merit. We have no power to commandeer an Executive Branch agency into conducting .ill!! due diligence. The job of assessing and investigating a nominee’s qualifications in order to decide whether to consent to the nomination is ours, and ours alone.

Second, your request ignores the fact that Dr. Ford has already made her allegations public. The purpose of the background investigation process is to compile information in a confidential manner. Confidentiality permits people to speak freely and candidly about the character and qualifications of the nominee. The White House requires the Senate to keep background investigation files private so that people can speak anonymously to investigators if they so desire. Because Dr. Ford’s allegations are in the public arena, there is no longer a need for a confidential FBI investigation.

In 1991, the FBI’ s additional investigation into Professor Anita Hill’s allegations occurred when the allegations were still non-public. When the Senate received Professor Hill’s non-public allegations of sexual harassment, then-Chairman Biden expeditiously notified the White House. (That decision sits in sharp contrast to Senator Feinstein’s decision to sit on Dr. Ford’s allegations for more than six weeks.) The White House directed the FBI to conduct a handful of interviews regarding Professor Hill’s allegations. The FBI completed the interviews within a few days. The White House turned the interview reports over to the Senate as a courtesy. The contents of one of those reports was leaked to the public soon after. The hearing was subsequently reopened five days after the allegations were made public.

We are in the same position the Committee was in after Professor Hill’s allegations were leaked. After that leak, we did not ask the FBI to conduct an investigation. Instead, we reopened the hearing and assessed the testimony that was given on our own. As in 1991, it is now up to the Senate to gather and assess the relevant evidence.

The Majority staff spoke with Judge Kavanaugh as part of the background investigation. Judge Kavanaugh immediately agreed to cooperate with Senate investigators. He sat for a transcribed interview on Monday. He understood that he was under penalty of felony, ifhe was not truthful. He fully, candidly, and unequivocally answered all questions. We have no reason to doubt the truthfulness of Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony. Judge Kavanaugh volunteered to come back for a public hearing.

As is standard practice, we invited the Minority staff to participate and ask Judge Kavanaugh its own questions, but the Minority staff declined. The Majority staff has also sought to set up interviews with Dr. Ford, Mark Judge, and two other alleged witnesses. The Minority staff is welcome to participate in the investigative process as well, but it has thus far declined.

I have scheduled the hearing continuation for this Monday because Dr. Ford, through her counsel, expressed the desire to tell her story under oath. It is my understanding that Dr. Ford has been represented by counsel in this matter for months and thus should be adequately prepared to testify. I am following the same timeline Chairman Biden did after Professor Hill’s allegations were made public. It would be a disservice to Dr. Ford, Judge Kavanaugh, this Committee, and the American people to delay this hearing any further.

Of course, we wouldn’t find ourselves in this position if we had been made aware of the allegations in a timelier manner. The Ran.king Member was aware of these allegations since July. But her staff did not ask Judge Kavanaugh about them during routine background investigation phone calls in late-August. Senator Feinstein did not ask Judge Kavanaugh about these allegations during her closed-door meeting on August 20. The Ranking Member withheld this serious information about Judge Kavanaugh from her colleagues, 64 of whom had private meetings with Judge Kavanaugh and could have asked him about the allegations directly. She did not ask about them when Judge Kavanaugh appeared before the Committee for more than 32 hours of testimony over 3 days. Nor did she attend the closed session of the hearing when members can ask Judge Kavanaugh about sensitive matters. And she did not ask any questions about these allegations among the nearly 1,300 written questions sent to Judge Kavanaugh after the hearing.

Senator Feinstein only informed the FBI of the allegations after they were leaked to the media on the eve of a confirmation vote. The proper course of action would have been to investigate Dr. Ford’s serious allegations as quickly and as thoroughly as possible, as I did as soon as these allegations were made known to me.

I’m also concerned what the recent events mean for whistleblowers, especially victims of sexual assault. Dr. Ford expressed the desire that her allegations remain non-public. I can’t emphasize how important it is to respect whistleblowers’ and victims’ desire for confidentiality. But notwithstanding her wishes for confidentiality, her allegations became public. I fear that the leaks of confidential information will discourage whistleblowers and victims from coming forward in the future.

This is but the latest-and most serious–of your side’s abuse of this confirmation process. There has been delay and obstruction of this process at every tum and with every argument available. Therefore, I will view any additional complaints about the process very skeptically.


Kobayashi Maru for Kavanaugh

The Kobayashi Maru scenario is a simulation used to judge a candidate’s response to being in a no-win situation. How does he or she react when faced with certain defeat?

The situation continues, with people Kavanaugh as temperamentally unsuited to the position because of his display of emotion during his testimony. Had he displayed no emotion, he’d have been called cold and unfeeling, and thus temperamentally unsuited. Again, a no-win situation.

So I’ll use this opportunity to link this piece from Ramesh Ponnoru. It almost makes the case that the Republicans are in their own no-win scenario.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh has become a political liability for Republicans, according to one line of thinking.

In polls, more people oppose than support his confirmation to the Supreme Court. If he is confirmed, his tenure on the court will be clouded by allegations of serious sexual misconduct that are believed by many millions of Americans.


I had hoped that President Donald Trump would pick Barrett in the first place. But at the moment I think that Republicans would be better advised to move ahead with Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

I start from two related premises. The first is that while we do not and probably cannot know for certain, Kavanaugh is very likely innocent of the charges against him. I won’t defend that premise here. But you can read this article for a review of the evidence in the Blasey Ford case that reaches that conclusion (and this editorial for a response to the preposterous claims that Kavanaugh perjured himself in Senate testimony).

The allegations aired by Deborah Ramirez in the New Yorker are too wispy to take seriously. She hadn’t decided that Kavanaugh was the offender until recently, and nobody else has even placed him at the scene.

The second premise is that Kavanaugh is being treated with vicious unfairness. Several Democratic senators have pronounced themselves convinced of his guilt in the absence of evidence corroborating the accusations. Democratic operative Brian Fallon was among those to use the Blasey Ford allegation to speculate that Kavanaugh is a pedophile. Writers at prominent media outlets are claiming that Kavanaugh is smearing his accusers merely by contesting their charges.

Given my premises, there are five reasons to stick with Kavanaugh.

The first is to avoid an injustice. Claims that Kavanaugh is merely being subjected to a job interview, not a criminal trial, are hard to take seriously. You would have to be blind not to see that a Kavanaugh withdrawal or defeat would be taken as a quasi-official verdict on the allegations against him. Kavanaugh would be disgraced. Even his existing judgeship would be insecure.

The second reason is to discourage future spurious campaigns against nominees. You don’t have to believe that the Blasey Ford allegation is entirely politically motivated to think that ideological and partisan opposition to a conservative judicial nominee has taken it much further than the evidence warrants — or to worry that if it kills a nomination, charges will be invented or inflated to reprise that success.

Third, a lot of conservative voters might see the demise of Kavanaugh’s nomination as a Republican betrayal, or at least a sign of weakness, and sit out the midterms in disgust.

Fourth, Republicans might not get another nominee confirmed if they abandon Kavanaugh. If they lose control of the Senate in the election, are they really going to confirm a new nominee in a lame-duck session? Are the liberals who called Senator Susan Collins’s office to scream at her aides before Blasey Ford’s name even surfaced going to stand down? I can see why Democrats would be delighted to deny Republicans another Supreme Court confirmation. I can’t see how it’s in Republicans’ interest to help them.

Fifth, the claim that suspicion of Kavanaugh will taint any rulings he makes is overstated. If a court with Kavanaugh on it overruled Roe v. Wade, tens of millions of people will be outraged. But almost all the same people would be outraged if a court with Amy Coney Barrett on it instead overruled Roe. If Senator Collins believes that the evidence strongly points in Kavanaugh’s favor — as it does — she should not ignore that conclusion to defer to the sensibilities of people who don’t care about the evidence.

At the time Justice Clarence Thomas was confirmed, when the public had the clearest sense of the evidence related to Anita Hill’s allegations against him, most people sided with him — for very good reasons. (Her story had, for example, changed between the time she talked to the FBI and her Senate testimony, and two FBI agents charged her with dishonesty in trying to explain away the difference.)

Years passed, memories faded, and Thomas’s critics continued to maintain he was a sexual harasser. Many millions of Americans believe it, unfortunately. It’s not clear that the court is held all that much lower in public esteem as a result, or its decisions accorded less respect.

I hope Judge Kavanaugh gets confirmed. Either way, the Senate should hold the vote.

In Starfleet, those who go through the Kobayashi Maru scenario are not only judged on their performance, they are expected to learn from the experience. No-win situations do arise in real life, and having arisen once, they may well arise again.

I hope the Republicans in the Senate have learned from this, and will be prepared the next time the Democrats sail the Kobayashi Maru past their bow.

Women and Other Hazardous Materials

If you don’t think women are explosive, try dropping one.–Gerald F. Lieberman (1923–1986), U.S. freelance writer

Men who interact with women may find themselves tasked with defending themselves against charges from too long ago to properly evaluate. As long as “Beleeeve Da Woman” is the mantra of the day, men, and people who want to protect their men, are starting to look at strategies for warding off harm.

Megan Fox at Pajamas Media has some tips on this very topic.

A long time ago the worst you had to worry about was a girl trapping your son by getting pregnant. Now it’s much worse. Here are a few ideas with which to move forward in this terrifying #MeToo era.

1. Take him to church and make sure the lessons stick
Make sure your son knows how to treat others, what his moral obligations to himself and his family are, and to follow God’s laws in regards to dating and marriage. Try to impart the importance of saving sex for marriage. What can happen to him if he fails to do that (poverty, child support, disease, death, false rape charge) isn’t worth it.

2. Train him to document any unusual circumstance
If something happens to your son at school or elsewhere involving a girl that might be misconstrued or even if he just feels uncomfortable with it, teach him to email it to himself with details, dates, and witnesses. These emails are admissible in court. It will also solve the problem of not being able to remember details years later if accused.

3. Teach your son to assume he will one day have a position of high importance and encourage him to live accordingly
This is the Mike Pence school of behavior that will serve him well. Do not be alone with a woman who is not your wife if you are married. If you are not married, then try to have witnesses when dealing with women. Double-dating may soon be the only smart thing for a man to do when looking for a mate to protect himself from dangerous women who would like to hurt him. Teach him that anything he might say or do today could affect him and cost him a job 30 years from now. Show him what’s happening to Brett Kavanaugh. Teach him to choose his friends wisely, to stay sober, and to stay away from shenanigans that could come back and haunt him.

4. Don’t trust women
Sorry to say it, but my sex offends and horrifies me. Between Stormy Daniels and Ford, women are a disgrace. Contrary to the saccharine platitude that “women don’t lie,” women lie all the time. They lie like crazy. The younger they are, the more they lie and scheme. It’s probably the rage of hormones and insecurity that contribute to it, but most women lie and scheme. Teach your sons to search out morally upstanding girls and to avoid drama queens. The religious ones are usually better. Stay very far away from party girls and girls who use drugs or drink underage. Those girls are momentarily fun, but ultimately trouble. Teach him to stay away from those girls.

Even if a man does all these things there’s no guarantee some lying hussy won’t try to screw up his life over a romantic poem, but it should help to give him evidence with which to fight back.

Rule 4, and the “Mike Pence” section of Rule 3 may cause some howls of outrage. Women will not be invited to one-on-one meetings with male co-workers or supervisors. Any job that requires a team of two people will not have mixed sexes, or at the very least, men will have the absolute right to demand a male partner on the team.
Women will be presumed untrustworthy until proved otherwise over a very long period of time.

This will reduce the opportunities for work and advancement in professional life. It will hurt the majority of women who would never commit lawfare against a male. But those women, by not objecting to their sisters’ abuse of power, will have brought this on themselves.

Comparative Advantage, continued

Comparative Advantage is one of those concepts that’s far from intuitive, at least for most people.

Don Boudreaux looks at one case I’d been wondering about, whether it’s possible for one side of a trading partnership to have an advantage in everything.

You ask what you are to make of your roommate’s “fear that China will end up with comparative advantage to produce everything.”

You are to make nothing of this fear other than the fact that it reflects your roommate’s misunderstanding of comparative advantage. It’s impossible for any person, entity, region, country, planet, or galaxy to have a comparative advantage – that is, an advantage compared to potential trading partners – at producing everything. To have a comparative advantage at producing X implies a comparative disadvantage at producing Y.

This reality is best seen with an example involving only two people (Ann and Bob) and two goods (fish and bananas). Suppose that the resources necessary for Ann to use to produce one banana are such that, were she instead to use these resources to catch fish, she’d catch two fish. Ann’s cost of producing one banana is, thus, two fish – which implies that Ann’s cost of catching one fish is one-half of a banana.

As for Bob, suppose that the resources necessary for him to produce one banana are such that, were he instead to use these resources to catch fish, he’d catch one fish. Bob’s cost of producing one banana is, thus, one fish – which implies that Bob’s cost of catching one fish is one banana.

Bob has a comparative advantage over Ann at producing bananas and Ann has a comparative advantage over Bob at catching fish. If Ann and Bob both want to consume fish and bananas, they can both gain if Ann specializes in catching fish and Bob specializes in producing bananas, and then trading with each other.

Suppose now that Ann decides that she wants to have a comparative advantage also at producing bananas. She must then lower her cost of producing bananas to less than Bob’s cost of producing bananas – that is, to less than one fish per banana. But if Ann achieves this goal, she loses her comparative advantage at fishing.

If, for example, Ann becomes so good at producing bananas that each banana that she produces now costs her only one-quarter of a fish, Ann’s cost of catching fish rises from its previous level of one-half of a banana per fish to four whole bananas per fish. Because Bob’s cost of catching fish remains at one banana per fish, if Ann succeeds in gaining a comparative advantage over Bob at gathering bananas she necessarily creates for herself a comparative disadvantage at catching fish – meaning that Ann thereby causes the comparative advantage at catching fish to switch from herself to Bob.

People have many baseless fears about free trade. None is more wrongheaded than is the fear that any one subgroup of people – say, the people of one country – can have a comparative advantage at producing everything.

Someday I may want to sit down with this and see if it’s possible to generate “strange loops” where A>B, B>C, and C>A.

The Real History of Anita Hill

The kind of dirty trick being pulled in the Kavanaugh nomination began with Anita Hill. People are posting memes on social media claiming to believe Anita Hill, but it should be remembered, Anita Hill wasn’t that believable back in her day. From PowerLine:


The Democrats’ current attack on Judge Brett Kavanaugh obviously recalls their failed assault on Clarence Thomas, who has gone on to a distinguished career as an intellectual leader of the Supreme Court. Memories fade, and I had forgotten some of what Hans Bader details at Liberty Unyielding. I remember this much: the Thomas hearing was televised and gripped the nation. At the time, most Americans concluded that Anita Hill, who accused Thomas of making inappropriate sexual references while she worked for him, was lying, and Thomas was confirmed by a Democrat-majority Senate. Over time, the Democrats kept hammering away, and now their press adjunct pretends that Hill somehow carried the day.


Read A Pile Of Top Nazis Talking About How They Love Leftist Marxism

Source: Read A Pile Of Top Nazis Talking About How They Love Leftist Marxism

The Nazis were leftists. This statement is blasphemy to the academic-media complex, since everyone knows the Nazis were degenerate right-wingers fueled by toxic capitalism and racism. But evidence Adolf Hitler’s gang were men of the left, while debatable, is compelling.


“The Road to Serfdom,” by F. A. Hayek, is one such tract. Published in 1944, it remains a classic for young people on the political right discovering their intellectual roots. A sort of academic “1984,” it warns of socialism’s tendency toward planned states and totalitarianism.

One aspect of the book can shock the conscience. Hayek describes Nazism as a “genuine socialist movement” and thus left-wing by modern American standards. Indeed, the Austrian-born Hayek wrote the book from his essay, “Nazi-Socialism,” which countered prevailing opinion at the London School of Economics, where he taught. British elites regarded Nazism as a virulent capitalist reaction against enlightened socialism—a view that persists today.


The left believes the opposite. They distrust the excesses and inequality capitalism produces. They give primacy to group rights and identity. They believe factors like race, ethnicity, and sex compose the primary political unit. They don’t believe in strong property rights.

They believe it is the government’s responsibility to solve social problems. They call for public intervention to “equalize” disparities and render our social fabric more inclusive (as they define it). They believe the free market has failed to solve issues like campaign finance, income inequality, minimum wage, access to health care, and righting past injustices. These people talk about “democracy”—the method of collective decisions.

By these definitions, the Nazis were firmly on the left. National Socialism was a collectivist authoritarian movement run by “social justice warriors.” This brand of “justice” benefited only some based on immutable characteristics, which perfectly aligns with the modern brand. The Nazi ideal embraced identity politics based on the primacy of the people, or volk, and invoked state-based solutions for every possible problem. It was nation-based socialism—the nation being especially important to those who bled in the Great War.

As Hayek stated in 1933, the year the Nazis took power: “[I]t is more than probable that the real meaning of the German revolution is that the long dreaded expansion of communism into the heart of Europe has taken place but is not recognized because the fundamental similarity of methods and ideas is hidden by the difference in phraseology and the privileged groups.”


Yet the evidence the Nazis were leftists goes well beyond the views of this one scholar. Philosophically, Nazi doctrine fit well with the other strains of socialism ripping through Europe at the time. Hitler’s first “National Workers’ Party” meeting while he was still an Army corporal featured the speech “How and by What Means is Capitalism to be Eliminated?”

The Nazi charter published a year later and coauthored by Hitler is socialist in almost every aspect. It calls for “equality of rights for the German people”; the subjugation of the individual to the state; breaking of “rent slavery”; “confiscation of war profits”; the nationalization of industry; profit-sharing in heavy industry; large-scale social security; the “communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low costs to small firms”; the “free expropriation of land for the purpose of public utility”; the abolition of “materialistic” Roman Law; nationalizing education; nationalizing the army; state regulation of the press; and strong central power in the Reich. It was also racist and anti-immigrant.


It wasn’t only theoretical. Hitler repeatedly praised Marx privately, stating he had “learned a great deal from Marxism.” The trouble with the Weimar Republic, he said, was that its politicians “had never even read Marx.” He also stated his differences with communists were that they were intellectual types passing out pamphlets, whereas “I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun.”

It wasn’t just privately that Hitler’s fealty for Marx surfaced. In “Mein Kampf,” he states that without his racial insights National Socialism “would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground.” Nor did Hitler eschew this sentiment once reaching power. As late as 1941, with the war in bloom, he stated “basically National Socialism and Marxism are the same” in a speech published by the Royal Institute of International Affairs.

Nazi propaganda minister and resident intellectual Joseph Goebbels wrote in his diary that the Nazis would install “real socialism” after Russia’s defeat in the East. And Hitler favorite Albert Speer, the Nazi armaments minister whose memoir became an international bestseller, wrote that Hitler viewed Joseph Stalin as a kindred spirit, ensuring his prisoner of war son received good treatment, and even talked of keeping Stalin in power in a puppet government after Germany’s eventual triumph. His views on Great Britain’s Winston Churchill and the United States’s Franklin Delano Roosevelt were decidedly less kind.

Lots more at the link.

Bias-tinted Glasses

Dennis Prager loves acronyms. In fact, you might even say he’s biased in favor of acronyms. Some years ago, he came up with “NARWIPDE” which stands for (an adverb I don’t remember) Assuming Racism Where It Probably Doesn’t Exist.

Now Time Magazine says colleges are teaching NABWIPDE; B = “Bias”. Or more precisely, NABWIRDE; R = “Really”.


Source: How Colleges Teach Students to See Bias When There Is None | Time

The key feature of academic diversity ideology is the assertion that to be a member of an ever-growing number of favored victim groups at a college today is to be the target of pervasive bigotry on campus — despite, well, being favored. Taught by a metastasizing campus-diversity bureaucracy to believe that they are subject to an existential threat from circumambient bias, students equate nonconforming ideas with “hate speech,” and “hate speech” with conduct that should be punished, censored and repelled with force if necessary. This victimology fuels the efforts to shut down speech that challenges campus orthodoxies. Dozens of times in the past several years alone, classrooms have been invaded; professors, accosted and even assaulted; and outside speakers, silenced.

While these tactics have famously been directed at conservatives, that is not exclusively the case, as senior fellow at the Public Policy Center Stanley Kurtz has documented for National Review Online. It has happened year after year, recently.

In October 2017, protesters at Columbia University temporarily occupied a class and accused a professor who is an LGBTQ rights advocate and one of the school’s premier proponents of the idea that campuses are pervaded by rape culture of creating a “dangerous environment for students, including queer students.”

That same month, shouting activists prevented University of Oregon President Michael Schill from delivering his State of the University Speech. Schill’s merely pro forma support for free speech was enabling “fascism and white supremacy,” according to the student protesters.


The belief that college campuses today pose an existential threat to females and students of color is just as lunatic as the belief that Judge Brett Kavanaugh is a murderer or that an Establishment lawyer was signaling her white supremacy affiliation on live TV. American universities are among the most tolerant environments in history towards humanity’s traditionally oppressed groups. Far from discriminating against what admissions officers call “underrepresented minorities,” or “URMs,” every selective college today employs large racial admissions preferences to engineer what they call a “diverse” student body — and they twist themselves into knots to hire qualified minority staff members who haven’t already been snapped up by better-endowed schools. Professors want all their students to succeed, particularly females and “underrepresented minorities.”

But the resulting campus culture often coaches students to see bias where none exists. That delusion continues once they leave school. The result is a growing society-wide intolerance for speakers and ideas that fail to conform to an increasingly exacting code of political correctness, on the ground that such non-conforming speech harms favored victim groups.

The right has its shrill manias— whether the unseemly obsession with Hillary Clinton and her emails, the corrosive Trump-fueled calumny that federal law enforcement agencies have been corrupted by political bias, and the dangerous Trump-induced crusade to turn those agencies into instruments of political revenge. But until now, the notion that silencing non-conforming speech is a legitimate response to disagreement has come overwhelmingly from campuses and other progressive institutions — from Google to the New Yorker. Were Trump to seize the same weapons, arrogating to himself the power to define and punish “hate speech,” the danger of such precedents might become clearer to all.

The new censorship is an outgrowth of the twin ideas that race and gender are the most important features of a human being, and that American society is one long assault on various identity groups defined by race and gender. Until these key tenets of academic identity politics are rebutted, we can expect to see more of the hysteria that characterized the Kavanaugh hearings — and less ability to talk across ideological divides.


From National Review:

There is only one proper way to faithfully interpret the Constitution. And that is to ascertain the actual meaning of the words of the text, taken in their proper social and linguistic context.

That meaning must be the objective meaning — not the reader’s subjective understanding or preferred reading. And that meaning must be the original meaning — that is, the meaning the Constitution’s words and phrases would have had to reasonably informed readers of the English language at the time they were used, in context, and accounting for any specialized usages or term-of-art phrases. Any other reading is pure anachronism, a misuse of language.

This single correct method of constitutional interpretation travels under many names. I call it “original-public-meaning textualism,” emphasizing the text and the requirement that it be taken in its known, original sense. A convenient (if imprecise) shorthand term is simply “Originalism.” It contrasts, sharply, with any of a variety of progressive theories under which the Constitution’s meaning shifts, morphs, evolves, or otherwise transmogrifies to suit the needs or circumstances of the moment — and, typically, to serve the interpreter’s desired political agenda.

There are many good arguments in favor of Originalism: It is less subject to manipulation, produces greater clarity and consistency, better preserves democratic decision-making, and frequently yields better results than any other method. All of these points are true and important.