From the very beginning of Sanity Clause, lo those few months ago, I’ve promoted the notion that cultural issues—the so-called Culture Wars plus the eternal iceberg of race—would be at the heart of the 2024 election. Unless, of course, the economy collapses. Several readers suggested that I was promoting “straw men” and non-issues. Indeed, liberals in general simply don’t want to face either the reality or centrality of these disputes. Which is why Ruy Teixeira and his Substack newsletter The Liberal Patriot perform a valuable service. Ruy takes the Culture Wars seriously, and has tried to do something about it, formulating Sanity principles for dealing with the problem. Here’s his list of six formulations for dealing with social issues. I think it’s very good. It should have wide distribution and if you agree, you should share it with others. I’ll have some comments below:
Here's common-sense proposition #1: Police misconduct and brutality against people of any race is wrong and we need to reform police conduct and recruitment. However, more and better policing is needed to get criminals off the streets and secure public safety. That cannot be provided by “defunding the police”.
Here’s common-sense proposition #2: America benefits from the presence of immigrants and no immigrant, even if illegal, should be mistreated. But border security is hugely important, as is an enforceable system that fairly decides who can enter the country.
Common-sense proposition #3: Equality of opportunity is a fundamental American principle; equality of outcome is not.
Common-sense proposition #4: Racial achievement gaps are bad and we should seek to close them. However, they are not due just to racism and standards of high achievement should be maintained for people of all races.
Common-sense proposition #5: No one is completely without bias but calling all white people racists who benefit from white privilege and American society a white supremacist society is not right or fair.
Common-sense proposition #6: People who want to live as a gender different from their biological sex should have that right. However, biological sex is real and spaces limited to biological women in areas like sports and prisons should be preserved. Medical treatments like drugs and surgery are serious interventions that should not be available on demand, especially for children.
I’d add a seventh:
The use of abusive and bigoted language is abhorrent, but it is protected under the First Amendment. Harsh words and obnoxious positions cannot be cause for censorship. They should be an incentive for discussion. Those who believe that “insensitive” words or formulations can “harm” them, should seek therapy.
And maybe an eighth:
Diversity is a fundamental American value. It should be encouraged, but never enforced. Quotas of any sort are unacceptable. The emergence of a multi-billion dollar Diversity, Equity and Inclusion bureaucracy/industry is an Orwellian waste of money.
And a ninth:
No book should be banned. Parents may be responsible for what their own children read; they should have absolutely no influence on what other people’s children are allowed to read.
Readers with suggestions for other Culture War Principles, or modification of these, should feel free to comment below.
Trumpster Fire
A good part of me believes that Joe Biden should put all of us out of our misery and pardon Donald Trump. The current cases against him will only help build his argument that the libtards are just out to get him. Even if he’s convicted—and he has a Marvel Superhero’s ability to transform himself into a ghost when the sheriff comes near—it will only strengthen his candidacy. And we should oppose anything that strengthens his candidacy.
Democrats are pathetic when it comes to this legal stuff. Too many of them think like lawyers, not pols. For example, they take the notion of perjury seriously. (The Republicans did this, too, during their ridiculous Clinton impeachment.) Most sentient humans assume that politicians commit perjury as often as breathing. That’s not true, but accusing a politician of perjury is a Great American Ho-Hum. Obstruction of Justice is a second-cousin of perjury. People just don’t take it very seriously; again, they assume politicians will bend the rules to stay in power. Democratic politicians do get all het up about it, though, and they’ve been particularly obsessed since Trump came along.
A good example: the 2019 House Judiciary Committee’s hearing about the Mueller Report, led by the fabulously literal Jerrold Nadler. Nadler, you may remember, tried to move litigational heaven and earth to get Robert Mueller to agree that Trump should be indicted for obstruction of justice. It was an incredibly boring, impenetrable and useless hearing. Especially since Trump was playing the Mueller report so brilliantly: No Collusion! True enough, BUT:
What if Nadler had ignored the legal codicils and just gone political. He might have opened with this question: “Director Mueller, if I’m reading your report right, you’ve concluded, beyond any question, that the Russians wanted Donald Trump to win and worked overtime, and illegally, to get him elected. For the record, could you confirm that’s your finding?”
Mueller would have had to say yes. This was, after all, the conclusion of his report. And then Nadler should have gone through every Russian cyber-trick, point by point. The next day headlines and news reports, even on Fox, would have been:
Mueller: Russians Secretly Backed Trump
It would have had no legal impact on Trump, of course. But it might have tarnished him politically. There’s a sizable chunk of his coalition who still think the Russkies are commies. Some of them might think: Hmmm. Why did the Russians back our guy? (I’ve asked that of several Trump supporters; none had an answer.) Doubts are the seedlings of political change. Trumpers were never put on the defensive: they never had to answer, or even think about, why the Russians supported their guy. If they had, it might have produced micro-fissures in his pedestal. (The Tucker Carlson wing wants Putin’s support, of course.) Democrats on the Judiciary Committee—and Democrats in general—tend to overemphasize the importance of legal justice and minimize the importance of political victory. That is one reason, among many, why Trump remains too much with us.
Most Americans, even most of his supporters, have concluded that Trump is a philanderer, liar, crook, potty-mouth; they don’t care. They love that he doesn’t talk like a lawyer. “He talks like us,” they told me over and over again in 2016. Indeed, the only successful argument I’ve found in dealing with Trumpers is this: “Look, we can agree or disagree about issues, or about the guy’s morality, but I don’t want my granddaughters thinking that’s what an American President sounds like.”
That sure slows them down. They stop and think and sometimes even say something like, “Yeah, I guess.”
Or, if you’re already subscribed:
Great list, but incredible to me that we live in a time when those points need to be re-affirmed. The principals that underlie them are all well established in our country's founding documents: The Declaration, The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. (possible exception: #6; for all their genius, foresight and creative cynicism, Hamilton, Jefferson or Madison never dreamed this would become a civil rights issue!)
My second thought is: It wasn't too long ago this would've been a checklist of boiler-plate Conservative/Classic liberal ideology. The most notable exception, #2, accelerated by Trump's adaptation to Republican party realignments, (although GOP has been on the wrong side of immigration debate for a long time. )
Right on, Joe (and Ruy)! I agree completely—-or almost completely. Can’t go along with pardoning Trump. Bad guy, a crook and a traitor. Wait until he’s convicted and then commute the sentence, but no pardon.