Short article. David Horowitz walks us through a dust-up he had with Jonah Goldberg on Twitter. The venom spilled by Jonah at the end is predictable but what was interesting was Horowitz’s comments at the end cataloging examples of President Trump’s loyalty to his allies. Goldberg was pounding away at Trump’s infidelities to his wives. Horowitz is cataloging his ability to stand by associates that former Republican presidents would have thrown under the bus for convenience. I think Horowitz made the stronger case. I used to enjoy Jonah Goldberg’s witty column but he has let himself drift out to sea on the NeverTrump iceberg. Problem with icebergs as a transportation platform is they eventually melt away and leave you to drown in the middle of nowhere.
Jesse Merriam (link below) says Kavanaugh is the best pick for the Right because he thinks in terms of effects on regulal Americans. Merriam says:
“As I wrote for Real Clear Politics last week, Kavanaugh was the right pick, because the other candidates, though strong conservatives, “have thin or questionable records on the defining issue of the 2016 election—whether American sovereignty, and the forgotten American worker, will once again play a critical role in our polity.”
Brett Kavanaugh was the only one of Trump’s candidates who has repeatedly interpreted American statutory and constitutional law against the background of our national sovereignty. In case after case, Judge Kavanaugh has sought to understand our immigration law, trade regulations, and constitutional guarantees in light of how they affect average Americans.”
I don’t know much about the surety of judicial rating systems so I hope he’s right. We have been disappointed before. But I’ll say for now I think we’ve gotten an upgrade from Kennedy.
Michael Anton (aka Publius Decius Mus) performs a fisking of Bret Stephens’ paean to untrammeled immigration. It goes without saying Bret doesn’t come off very well. Can you imagine Stephens used to be considered conservative? It’s a long article and I doubt Bret even deserves the honor of this much attention but Mr. Anton does cover the bases very thoroughly. I would say this article is preaching to the choir but if you are interested in just how crazy the house conservatives at the New York Times have become check out Anton’s dissection of exhibit A.
17MAY2018 – American Greatness Post of the Day – Michael Walsh – Great Men, Black Swans and the End of the Mandarins
Walsh reviews the pedigree of the bureaucracy’s hold on Washington going back to the Progressives proclaiming the need for wise men to tell us rubes what’s best. Pretty good read. Like his example at the end of the Trump alternative. Put our embassy in Jerusalem and tell the Israelis we won’t punish them for defending their own people from rioters and terrorists.
Chris Buskirk interviewed Michael Anton ( link ) about his tenure in the Trump Administration. There are a number of interesting things in the interview. But toward the end they talk a bit about Anton’s opinion of Donald Trump. As opposed to the usual disillusionment we typically hear from former administration members Anton is extremely positive about his former boss. Here are the more important ones I gleaned from the audio interview.
“He was just right about the issues that mattered right now and that’s why I supported him.”
“I knew him reasonably well … wasn’t having dinner with him … was a staff guy … but was around him a lot over the course of fifteen, sixteen months.”
“Liked him enormously, respected him enormously … there is a patriotic core to him that burns very hot.”
“He’s in it for the right reason, is doing it for the right reason … he didn’t have to do any of this.”
“He’s governing as President almost purely out of love for this country.”
Both Buskirk and Anton were educated at Claremont-McKenna College and were pupils of Harry Jaffa who was associated with the Claremont Institute. I have found the people associated with the Claremont Institute to be extremely aware of what is currently at stake in our political situation and perceptive about the actual value of the various players on the political landscape.