RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://amgreatness.com/2019/06/01/sohrab-ahmari-and-our-existential-struggle/

Perhaps the most amusing intramural intellectual squall on the Right these past few days has centered on “Against David French-ism,” Sohrab Ahmari’s recent polemical reflection on liberalism in First Things.

I did not think that Sohrab had all that much to say directly about the man who provided him with the title of his essay, but then I am not, so to speak, a French man. I have never met Pastor French, rarely read him, and generally feel about him the way C. K. Dexter Haven in The Philadelphia Story felt about George Kitteridge, man of the people: “to hardly know him is to know him well.”

The outpouring of indignation, fury, and contempt that greeted Sohrab’s column reminded me that opinions about the Pastor vary widely. I group him with Pete Wehner and some other NeverTrump evangelists as a modern incarnation of the Pharos of Alexandria lighthouse, virtue signaling around the clock to the amazement of the world. I know there is disagreement on that score.

As I read it, Sohrab’s essay involved David French only incidentally. There were, I thought, two key passages. The first came near the beginning. “The movement we [conservatives] are up against,” Sohrab writes, “prizes autonomy above all, too; indeed, its ultimate aim is to secure for the individual will the widest possible berth to define what is true and good and beautiful, against the authority of tradition.”

I’ll come to what I think the other key passage is in a moment. First, note what a bold statement Sohrab has made here. Autonomy: aren’t we all for that? Isn’t it the prime Enlightenment virtue? Sapere aude, Kant said: “dare to know!” Priests, superstition, convention, tradition: didn’t the Enlightenment discard all of that for the sake of autonomy? For the sake, that is, of giving the law (nomos) to oneself (autos)?

http://swtotd.blogspot.com/

Cultural wars are largely bloodless, but that does not render them ineffective. While not perfect, liberal western societies have done more for mankind than any other system yet devised. They have in common a neo-classical heritage, representative government, natural rights, free market economies, rule of law, an understanding of civics and an appreciation for history. These characteristics (which we in the West take for granted but should not) have lifted millions of people out of poverty and brought freedom to even more. Now, politicians and commentators from both sides see these traits under attack. It is the cause that is disputed, and which has been responsible for the social and political divisiveness here and in Europe.

Those on the right see the threat to liberalism stemming from the growing power and influence of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats, an absence of a universal moral sense and diminishing virtues, universities intolerant of conservative thought, a myopic media, a facile entertainment industry and a tolerance for the intolerant. Those on the left find blame “far-right populists,” “racists” and “white supremacists.” In an article two weeks ago, in the Wall Street Journal, Larry Diamond, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and Stanford professor, supported their view: Citing the fact that we have seen “…twelve years of erosion…,” he dated the start of the decline to 2006. However, he laid blame on a “…new wave of populist authoritarians from Hungary to the Philippines,” but ignored the fact that Viktor Orbán was elected prime minister of Hungary in 2010 and that Rodrigo Duterte became president of the Philippines in 2016. While slavering blame indiscriminately on conservatives, he wrote, “…America’s decay is increasingly advanced. President Donald Trump has insulted U.S. allies, befriended Vladimir Putin, excused a grim list of other dictators, embraced nativist politics and movements…” I believe Professor Diamond is wrong.

All societies most be wary of attacks, no matter from which direction they come. But, overlooked in Mr. Diamond’s diatribe is that Eastern Europe, after almost six decades of subjection, first to Nazi and then to Soviet rule, is now, understandably, defending its sovereignty. As well, he disregarded the fact President Obama cozied up to Cuba’s Castro’s and to Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, that he bowed to the Saudi king, and paid hundreds of millions of dollars to Iran for a flawed nuclear deal. The pallets of dollars airlifted to Tehran went to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), to help fund Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists. Mr. Obama failed to prod China into following trade rules, and never confronted Vladimir Putin on his interference in the Middle East. Also omitted was the role played by the Clintons in expediting the sale of Uranium One to Russia. Mr. Trump has imposed the toughest sanctions on Russia of any recent President; he has confronted China for their theft of technology and for their aggression in the South China Sea. He has told allies in Europe – countries which provide generous welfare payments to their citizens – that they should pay two percent of their GDP for their own defense. And that is an insult?

The healthcare industry operates in darkness.

You wouldn’t buy a car without knowing the price first. So why should you undergo a medical procedure and be forced to blindly accept whatever number appears on the bill?

It’s illogical.

Help us pave the way for healthcare transparency by taking a moment to respond to each of the questions below.

Poll 1: Which of these facts about the current healthcare industry MOST upsets you?

Poll 2: How do you feel about the fact that you, as the consumer, don’t get to see the price of a medical service before going to the doctor or hospital?

Poll 3: If prices were posted on your healthcare provider’s website, how likely would you be to price-compare with other providers?

Poll 4: Which of these healthcare initiatives is most important to you?
It’s up to us, the American people, to hold the healthcare industry accountable.

As we wrap up our four-day polling blitz, will you help us reach even more voters by forwarding this email to your friends and family?

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2019/04/in-determined

These are excerpts from a long and brilliant commentary on “modern times”….rsk

“Free trade brings significantly reduced industrial diversity within nations. It brings a loss of skills. It brings entrenched regional unemployment and despair. It brings long and vulnerable supply lines which threaten national security…….Let me be clear, the issue is not one of trade versus protection. It is about the extent to which the interests of all of the citizens of a nation are brought into account by their political representatives when they are eliminating trade barriers. The wholeness, integrity and security of the nation-state should not be bartered away for a mess of pottage…..”

“Refugees are welcome here” is a popular sign held aloft by virtue-signalling do-gooders. Europe takes in many refugees, as do the United States and Australia. (Incidentally, on this criterion, Japan and China are not the least bit virtuous.) Refugees are costly to settle. Many have language difficulties; many are low-skilled, bring culturally-clashing values, and remain a drain on taxpayers and public services. Yet political points are often scored on the “virtue” of bringing in more refugees. Tellingly, refugees are usually settled outside of the enclaves of their enthusiastic supporters.”

“Whatever you think of climate change, the measures to counter it, promoted by its international cheer leaders, are calculated to damage the industrial base and living standards of advanced Western nations. …. Western nations are enjoined to take from their denuded treasury coffers to enrich their poorer cousins. In part, apparently, to expiate their guilt for having in the past put so much life-giving gas (pardon, polluting gas) into the atmosphere.”

“We need to take stock. Politicians and governments have lost sight of whose interests they represent. President Trump is clearly one of the few exceptions. Whether he is renegotiating trade deals, or trying to secure US borders and reform immigration laws, or rolling back onerous environmental regulations, his goal, as he says, is to put America and Americans first. Hungary’s prime minister Viktor Orban is another in the Trump mould. There aren’t many in the West who have not forgotten that their job is govern in the interests of their citizens; all of them, and no one else.”

“We, the people, are not what we used to be. For example, conservative politicians are afraid to call out the cant that surrounds the global warming agenda for fear of electoral retribution. ….And can you ever imagine the utopian (in reality dystopian) drivel in Ms Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal ever seeing the light of day, never mind being supported by prominent Democrats, in a past time when everybody outside of the fringes had common sense? Of course not.”

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/05/31/attorney_general_william_barr_i_dont_care_about_my_reputation_i_took_this_job_to_protect_our_institutions.html

In an interview aired Friday on “CBS This Morning,” Attorney General William Barr explains why he opened an investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation. He doesn’t say what the evidence is, but Barr tells CBS News legal correspondent Jan Crawford that there is evidence that makes him believe senior government officials may have acted improperly to authorize surveillance of President Trump’s 2016 campaign. He says that led to “spying” on the campaign.

He said the hyper-politicized nature of politics today is a danger to longstanding institutions and he took the job of attorney general because he is at the end of his career.”Nowadays, people don’t care about the merits or the substance. They only care about who it helps, whether my side benefits or the other side benefits. Everything is gauged by politics, and I say that is antithetical to the way the Department [of Justice] runs, and any attorney general in this period is going to end up losing a lot of political capital,” Barr said. “And that’s one of the reasons I decided I should take [the job] on. At my stage in my life, it wouldn’t make any difference.”

“I’m at the end of my career,” he said. “Everyone dies. I don’t believe in the Homeric idea that immortality comes by having odes sung about you over the centuries.”

“In many ways, I’d rather be back at my old life, but I love the Department of Justice, I love the FBI, I think it is important that in this period of intense partisan feelings we do not destroy our institutions.”

https://issuesinsights.com/2019/05/30/why-do-

Earlier this month, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to order every store in the city to accept cash. It seems that some innovative companies were experimenting with cashless stores as a way to cut costs, improve efficiency and keep prices down. 

But in progressive San Francisco, that kind of progress cannot be tolerated.  

Democrat-controlled Philadelphia imposed a similar ban on cashless stores in March. That same month, New Jersey’s Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy signed a law banning cashless stores throughout the Garden State. Deep-blue Massachusetts has had a ban on the books for 40 years. New York City and Washington, D.C. — two more deep blue enclaves — might be next.

Indeed, when it comes to actual progress, achieved through private sector innovation, progressives tend to be the most reactionary of anyone.

Of course, there’s always some well-meaning justification. In the case of mandating cash, it’s supposed to help the poor and those without bank accounts. San Francisco Supervisor Vallie Brown, who introduced the cashless ban legislation, said that  it “will go far in ensuring all San Franciscans have equitable access to the city’s economy.”

Philadelphia Councilman Bill Greenlee says banning cashless businesses is “about being fair to people and giving everyone an equal chance to buy a basic product.”

New Jersey assemblyman Paul Moriarty justified the statewide ban because “this idea of ‘we don’t want to accept cash’ just marginalizes the poor, young people who haven’t established credit yet, people who prefer to pay in cash.”

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/23948

PART 1 of 2

As reported by the indispensable Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), esteemed Islamic scholar, and “Spiritual Guide” to the Muslim Brotherhood, Yusuf al-Qaradawi provided a Ramadan Koranic “homily”, of sorts, on May 14, 2019. In essence, Qaradawi merely re-affirmed for Muslims the classical-cum-modern mainstream ramifications of a Koranic verse [Koran 1:7] votaries of Islam recite 17-times per day, during their requisite 5 prayer times, and the subdivisions of those prayer sessions.

Notwithstanding what is a rather anodyne reminder to Muslims, the contents of Qaradawi’s statements will be “shocking” to those who are completely uninformed about Islam, or have chosen to understand the creed exclusively through the prism of Muslim and non-Muslim apologists, alike.

Moreover, despite Qaradawi’s mainstream scholarly and cultural bona fides—vis-à-vis authoritative Islamic teaching across a 13 century continuum, and resultant normative, “Sharia thirsty” Muslim attitudes within contemporary Islamdom—predictable efforts will be made to marginalize Qaradawi and his “homily” because of the prominent theologian’s ties to the allegedly “radical” Muslim Brotherhood.

 Accordingly, this very illuminating teachable moment may well be be squandered. My fervent hope against hope is to avert that outcome by reviewing Qaradawi’s Ramadan Koranic lesson, and placing it squarely within the context of canonical Islam as taught since the advent of the Muslim faith.  

Qaradawi opens his discussion with a query which he immediately answers, invoking Koran 47:17:

“Who does not need Allah’s guidance? The Muslim always needs Allah’s guidance so that the paths will be clear for him and so that he does not become confused… Furthermore, he also needs additional guidance [from Allah, for it is said], ‘And those who are guided – He increases them in guidance and gives them their righteousness.’ (Koran 47:17)…”

https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/29/political-correctness-blinds-us-causes-anti-semitism/

“As Evelyn Gordon at Commentary noted not long ago, American Jews might believe that “rightist governments enable anti-Semitism” in Europe, but polls show that Jews feel safer, sometimes by a 20-point margin, in places like Poland, Hungary, and Romania—which, maybe not coincidentally, also have low numbers of Muslim immigrants—than they do in countries like France and Germany, where anti-Jewish violence is spiking.”

The New York Times blames Israel for engendering hatred while downplaying some inconvenient facts.

“Speak up, now, when you glimpse evidence of anti-Semitism, particularly within your own ranks, or risk enabling the spread of this deadly virus,” advises a New York Times editorial that fails to mention the words “Ihan Omar,” “Rashida Tlaib,” “Women’s March,” “Black Congressional Caucus,” or anything about the Democratic Party’s complicity in enabling these people and groups, for that matter.

To be fair, as far as New York Times editorials go, this isn’t the worst. It does, however, engage in the ugly leftist habit of blaming Jews for engendering hatred against themselves while downplaying inconvenient facts about anti-Semitism in Europe.

Earlier this year, the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs pointed out that nearly 90 percent of European Jews have suffered some form of anti-Semitic threat, insult, or assault. Of those polled, 30 percent identified the perpetrator as “someone with an extremist Muslim view,” 21 percent as someone with left-wing political views, and 13 percent as someone with right-wing politics.

https://freebeacon.com/columns/americas-best-defense-against-socialism/

The United States of America has flummoxed socialists since the nineteenth century. Marx himself couldn’t quite understand why the most advanced economy in the world stubbornly refused to transition to socialism. Marxist theory predicts the immiseration of the proletariat and subsequent revolution from below. This never happened in America. Labor confronted capital throughout the late nineteenth century, often violently, but American democracy and constitutionalism withstood the clash. Socialist movements remained minority persuasions. When Eugene V. Debs ran for president in 1912, he topped out at 6 percent of the vote. Populist third-party candidates, from George Wallace in 1968 (14 percent) to Ross Perot in 1992 (19 percent) have done much better.

Keep this in mind when you read about the rebirth of socialism. Yes, Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are household names. Membership in the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) has spiked since 2016. Forty percent of Americans told Gallup last month that “some form of socialism” would be “a good thing for the country.” Media are filled with trend pieces describing the socialist revival. A recent issue of The Economist devoted the cover package to “Millennial socialism.” The current New Republic includes four articles about “the socialist moment.” In March, New York magazine asked, “When did everyone become a socialist?”

https://amgreatness.com/2019/05/23/the-virtues-of-patriotism/

The elections to the European Parliament underway now through Sunday present a major war of ideas between the “Europe of Nations” and the “Europe of Brussels”—between national democratic sovereignty and supranational authority.

On May 13, I participated in a conference in London organized by the White House Writers Group and attended by leading conservative intellectuals and political figures, including Yoram Hazony, Daniel Hannan, Roger Scruton, John O’Sullivan, Nile Gardiner, and Polish cabinet minister Anna Maria Anders, among others. The conference, “Europe at a Crossroads: The Virtue of Nationalism,” for the most part echoed Margaret Thatcher’s famous Bruges speech advocating a Europe of “independent sovereign states” in opposition to a democracy-deficient supranational EU that would “try to suppress nationhood and concentrate power at the center of a European conglomerate.”

Two days before, on May 11, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo addressed the Claremont Institute’s 40th anniversary gala dinner with a spirited defense of the universal principle of democratic sovereignty as central to the new Trump doctrine in American foreign policy. Pompeo declared:

This new pride in taking America’s interests seriously is not just an American phenomenon. Countries all over the world are rediscovering their national identities, and we are supporting them. We are asking them to do what’s best for their people as well. The wave of electoral surprises has swept from Britain to the United States all the way to Brazil.