Rounding Up Hillary Clinton's DNC Speech

I thought Clinton’s speech last night was fair, for what she was trying to accomplish. Not as good as it could have been coming from any of several other speakers, Democrat or Republican, but then Hillary Clinton has always been more wooden and worse at public speaking and campaigning than her husband, or Barack Obama.

First, these acceptance speeches also need to be shorter, for both parties. This is a key opportunity for the candidates to reach undecided voters who may be tuning in just to see what all the fuss is about, but aren’t normally engaged. When the speeches run more than an hour by themselves, many of these voters will just as quickly tune out. In 2012, both Romney’s and Obama’s speeches were kept under forty minutes. Future nominees need to follow that example.

But the most interesting aspect of the speech was not the delivery but the content. Predictably, Clinton found time for a laundry list of liberal policies and reforms she hoped to achieve in office, from a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United to raising the minimum wage. But interspersed with these hallmarks of major Democratic speeches was a continuation of Obama’s speech from Wednesday night, when he targeted Republicans dissatisfied with Trump.

For the first time in a long time, it is the Democrats who are nominating a candidate who is tough on Russia, supportive of NATO and other American allies, and openly talk about how great America currently is, rather than a need to make it great again. When it is the Democratic nominee who more frequently talks about the uniqueness of the American experiment, the greatness and optimism of Ronald Reagan, and the importance of freedom, liberty, and opportunity, the election has truly taken a strange turn.

I appreciate the outreach, but it won’t make me any more likely to vote for Clinton. Even counting the few ways in which she is better than Trump, including her opposition to Russia and support of NATO, she is too far to the left, too untrustworthy, and has too many scandals under her belt already to win my support. For every moment last night that sounded alluring to conservatives on the sidelines, there was a moment that reminded us why she would not be a faithful guardian of limited constitutional government. Just as Trump has proven himself manifestly unfit for high office, so too has Clinton by her conduct during the decades she has spent in the public eye.

Thanks, but no thanks.

The Most Progressive Platform in History

Much as the 2016 Republican platform largely adheres to conservative orthodoxy, the Democratic platform approved in Philadelphia this week reaffirms many liberal principles. The main difference between the two is that while the GOP platform makes few substantive changes to basic party principles (a summary of the changes that are present can be found here), the Democrats’ platform veers far to the Left, even when compared to the historically liberal platform of four years ago.

One of the sharpest illustrations of this can be found in the evolution of the abortion plank over the past several decades, as described by Fred Lucas at the Daily Signal. For the first time the platform expressly calls for the repeal of the Hyde Amendment prohibiting most direct federal funding of abortions—previously a bipartisan and noncontroversial issue. Democrats also refuse to call for abortion to be “rare”, until 2008 a hallmark of Democratic language, and the abortion section as a whole is the longest and most detailed in platform history.

But the abortion plank is nowhere near the only section of the platform that has taken a dramatic left turn. The platform takes stridently liberal positions on same-sex marriage, LGBT protections (opposing “bathroom bills” and religious liberty laws), and gun control (endorsing a variety of tailored gun bans and other measures designed to effectively choke the Second Amendment. And the platform is the first in history to endorse eliminating the death penalty entirely, calling it a “cruel and unusual form of punishment”. The vast majority of the American public disagrees on all points.

On economic and other domestic issues, the platform endorses increased regulation, amnesty for illegal immigrants, a universal health care system which goes even further than Obamacare in expanding the reach of the federal government, a $15 minimum wage, and more. All of those proposals are like siren songs promising everlasting prosperity, but all have been repeatedly discredited in practice. Obviously nothing to appeal to conservatives or moderates there.

Only on issues of national security and foreign affairs does the platform show any recognition of a need to appeal to voters beyond the most liberal and isolationist parts of the Democratic base. While less willing than its Republican counterpart to endorse military action or a leadership role for America in world affairs, the platform at least acknowledges a watered-down version of American exceptionalism, expresses a need to defeat ISIS and radical terrorism (of course without explicitly naming radical Islam), and takes a strong stance in opposing the power-hungry tactics of Russia and North Korea. However, even here the platform fails by praising the Iran deal and devoting a section to the supposed national security threat of climate change.

If 2016 was merely a referendum on the two major party platforms, the choice would be easy, and voters would be able to pick based on policy and principle alone. But of course, both nominees make the choice an agonizing one.

The full text of the 2016 Democratic platform can be found here.

The Platform of the Party of Trump

Even while failing to directly oppose Donald Trump by denying him the nomination outright, convention delegates deserve some praise for shaping the 2016 Republican platform into a statement of principle easy for conservatives to rally behind. If this document was somehow binding on Trump, and an exact roadmap of everything he would attempt to accomplish if elected President, most conservatives would rally behind him immediately upon its adoption.

Of course that is not the case, and it is precisely because Trump openly disagrees with portions of the platform, and cannot be trusted to adhere to the rest, that so many conservatives continue to oppose him.

But the platform is still valuable in articulating a consistent vision for the country that will serve as a roadmap for a conservative Congressional majority, as well as the 2020 nominee. As with the continued opposition to Trump among many delegates, this is thanks to the Cruz campaign’s success in getting principled constitutionalists selected for the national convention. If Trump had secured the nomination earlier, and installed more of his own people in state delegations, the platform could have looked dramatically different.

It could have endorsed Trump’s promise of neutrality in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Instead it contains some of the most pro-Israel language of any party platform in history.

It could have articulated Trump’s vacillating over abortion, or his praise of Planned Parenthood as doing “wonderful things.” Instead it includes an unapologetic condemnation of both the practice of abortion and those entities that provide unrestricted abortion services on demand.

And it could have fully embraced Trump’s more isolationist, “America First” stance on foreign relations, or his preference for a strong executive branch over a more limited, constitutional government. Instead, the 2016 platform continues the GOP’s historical support of active involvement and leadership in global affairs, and its loyalty to the concept of a federal separation of powers.

To be sure, elements of the platform bear the mark of Trump’s candidacy. The section on trade, for instance, fails to unapologetically stand in support of free trade as a vehicle for innovation and competition. Another section supports reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act, a proposal favored by Elizabeth Warren and other liberals which would increase banking regulations. And the immigration plank issues the familiar demand for a wall, although since the problem with Trump’s views on immigration is more the fact that he actually supports amnesty, the clause will hopefully reduce the chance of him flip-flopping on immigration-related issues later in the campaign.

Overall, however, the document is an outstanding conservative platform. Too bad it’ll be matched with such a terrible candidate.

The full text of the platform can be found here.

Germany Responds to Last Week's Terror Attacks With A Call to Ban Axes

Just kidding. That would be the intellectually consistent argument, but liberals in Europe, like in America, don’t always follow arguments to their logical conclusion.

To recap: There have been four mass killings or other terrorist attacks in Germany in just the past week, including both a suicide bombing and a machete attack on Sunday, a mass shooting on Friday, and an ax attack on a train last Monday. The bombing and ax attack appear to have been inspired by ISIS, while the machete and shooting incidents are currently thought to be unrelated. The shooter from the Friday attack was a German citizen of Iranian heritage, while the other perpetrators were refugees from either Syria or Afghanistan.

Following the attacks on Monday and Sunday, the German government made no new proposals on how to stop more such incidents. But after the Friday shooting, high-ranking officials wasted no time naming the true perpetrator, and identifying exactly how similar scenarios could be avoided. Liberals being the same the world over, the answer should already be obvious: Stricter gun control laws would obviously have prevented the tragedy.

Never mind that Germany already has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, taking full advantage of the fact that there is no inherent right of German citizens to bear arms. Never mind the fact that the Friday shooter obtained his weapon illegally to begin with. For some in the German government, there can never be too much gun control, and a crisis must never be allowed to go to waste.

It should also go without saying that there was no similar attempt to draw broad policy lessons from the other three attacks. No calls to ban axes or machetes, just as there was no call to ban trucks following the terrorist attack in Nice. And there was a noticeable resistance by many in the German government to comment on the single variable the ax, machete, and bombing attacks all had in common—namely, the national origins of the perpetrators.

Democrats, Too, Will Be Made to Unite

In the aftermath of the United States v. Windsor Supreme Court decision, as well as the more general normalization of same-sex relationships, Erick Erickson coined the phrase “you will be made to care,” to describe the push by many radical Leftists to criminalize all dissent from those who believe in the traditional definition of marriage.

Bakers and florists will be sued for refusing to serve at gay weddings. Vocal support for traditional marriage will be labeled “hate speech”. Even those who try to stay out of the controversies will be forced to choose a side, and if that side opposes progress, its supporters will be punished.

Members of the Republican Party will now be made to unite. Dissent will not be tolerated. It will no longer be enough to simply remain silent on the presidential nominee, or to criticize both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, or to encourage people to vote their conscience and make their own decisions. Unite, or be punished.

For Democrats, too, the time has come for them to unite or be punished.

Just as Cruz supporters were silenced by the RNC and the Trump campaign, so too will Sanders supporters be silenced by the DNC and the Clinton campaign, should they attempt to express concerns over the party rules (especially on superdelegates), or in any way disrupt the coronation ceremony. Sanders delegates were already given the removal of Debbie Wasserman Schultz as DNC chair, but that will not put the latest email scandal to rest, nor should it.

Democratic Party leadership will now see Schultz’s ouster, together with the platform changes, as such a large concession that they will no longer tolerate any concerns of Sanders delegates over superdelegates, the nomination of Tim Kaine for Vice President, or anything else. Sanders supporters have already extracted far more from the Clinton campaign than Cruz supporters did from the Trump campaign, but now the door has slammed shut for both. No longer will either primary victor tolerate dissent or even open discussion.

Sanders delegates—you will be told that a vote for anyone other than Hillary Clinton is a vote for Donald Trump. Your attempts to air your concerns and hold a simple roll call vote will be ignored. And if you dare to go against the collective and stand for your principles, or ask that your nominee work to win you over, rather than merely taking your vote for granted, you will be labeled a traitor.

Welcome to the party.

Trump and Cruz: A Study In Contrasts

Donald Trump gave his nomination acceptance speech last night, and to say it was the opposite of Ted Cruz’s speech from the night before would be an understatement.

Where Cruz was succinct, organized, and packed strong statements of principle into twenty minutes of stage time, Trump rambled for over an hour, making it the longest convention acceptance speech in history. In that time, he swerved from one point to the next, shouting the words off the TelePrompter, sounding like a used car salesman, and making his characteristic hand gestures all the while.

Where Cruz was mainly positive and forward-looking, painting a clear contrast between the conservative and liberal vision for America, Trump conjured an image of America as a nation struggling to survive, and that only he could singlehandedly bring about a new dawn for American civilization. (Of course, before that he had to engage in a few minutes of bragging about how much he wins, and how many votes he’s gotten. He’s a Christian because all the evangelicals love him!)

And where Cruz focused on the ideals of liberty, freedom, federalism, and limited government, Trump hinted at dramatic expansions of federal power to bring about the change he was promising. Liberty and federalism were themes notably lacking in the nominee’s acceptance speech.

In short, last night was everything we’ve come to expect from Donald Trump, and his loyal Trumpeteers were there to cheer on every word. The only real surprise was that he somehow refrained from attacking “Lyin’ Ted”, something I half expected him to do.

Meanwhile, conservatives and pro-Cruz delegates in attendance sat stone-faced, while viewers of all ideologies lucky enough to be at home abandoned the spectacle after the first forty-five minutes. And Hillary Clinton smiled.

If only it was Ted Cruz speaking last night instead.

I Was Wrong. And Ted Cruz Is Officially The Most Courageous Politician Ever.

A couple weeks ago I wrote that I expected Ted Cruz to eventually give Trump some kind of tepid, “he’s better than her” endorsement, similar to what Scott Walker and Marco Rubio have already done. The pressure would become so great, I predicted, and the stakes for Cruz’s political future so high, that either at the convention itself or soon after he would be forced to support the party nominee.

I forgot that you don’t force Ted Cruz to do anything. And I’m proud to be so wrong, and to be a member of the Party of Cruz.

Last night, in case you missed it, Cruz gave an impassioned primetime speech at the convention on freedom and the importance of the Constitution. An epic defense of conservative values, but what caught everyone’s attention—and started the Trumpkins booing—was toward the end, when Cruz told voters to “stand and speak and vote your conscience, vote for candidates…who you trust to defend our freedom, and to be faithful to the Constitution.”

The full video is below, including Donald Trump himself appearing in the audience at the end.

As you can tell, encouraging voters to “vote their conscience” didn’t sit well with Trump loyalists, who recognized the phrase as code for opposing Trump—similar to the proposed “conscience clause” rule change from earlier in the week, which would have unbound the delegates and on which Cruz had refused to comment.

Ted Cruz is incredibly brilliant, but anyone other than the most dim-witted of Trump cultists would have known going the full implication of using the dreaded c-word. He knew the reaction in the convention hall would be riotous, but he decided to make a stand. He knew that the delegates were deeply divided between Trump and Cruz loyalists, and that the crowd’s reaction would be equally divided, but he also knew that in such scenario the best course of action was to tell the truth, stand for principle, and leave everything on the field.

It’s worth watching again what Cruz said about Trump on the last day of his primary campaign.

And lest people think the pressure will cause him to crack, Cruz is doubling down today.

I said last week, regarding Mike Lee’s principled stand in favor of unbinding the delegates, that I had never been more proud of a politician. Ted Cruz’s speech last night doesn’t diminish Lee’s bravery in any way, but by going on stage before a crowd of Trump loyalists, refusing to kneel before the Dear Leader even in the face of jeers and boos, and instead taking a lone stand for principle, honesty, and self-respect, Cruz just did the most courageous thing I’ve ever seen in politics.

Donald Trump Is Officially The Nominee

We’ve known it was coming for months, but that doesn’t make today any easier. Donald Trump is the official presidential nominee of the Republican Party.

The Republican Party has officially embraced a racist, corrupt, liberal fraud, all because 40% of the primary electorate—containing a large proportion of Democrats and independents—decided that they were so angry at the political establishment that they wanted someone who could stride into Washington like a conquering emperor and burn it all down.

Now they’ve gotten their wish, and the country will suffer for it.

Contrary to the delusions of many Trumpkins, the Orange One has almost no crossover appeal. Independents and minorities find his blatant racist and sexist comments to be nonstarters, and Democrats are almost uniformly opposed to his every utterance and policy proposal, erasing any doubts many have about supporting Hillary Clinton. What few moderates might be won over are easily outnumbered by the legions of conservatives and otherwise loyal Republicans who see Trump as inherently unfit for the Presidency.

Much like his running mate Mike Pence managed to do with his handling of the Indiana religious liberty bill in 2015, Trump has managed to alienate liberals and conservatives alike, only on a far greater scale. The two of them surely belong on a ticket together.

And if he somehow wins, Trump will surely erode the Constitutional guarantees of individual liberty and separation of powers. This is not just empty rhetoric, but part of his pitch to voters—he promises that, if elected, he will carry out his will be executive fiat, forcing Congress to go along with his demands and openly threatening them if they do not, and challenging the safeguards of the First, Fifth, and Tenth Amendments, among others.

At least he’s promised to leave Article Twelve alone.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Republican nominee for President of the United States.

Meanwhile, just look at who the Democrats are about to nominate, fresh off a grilling by the FBI director.

Scared yet?

By Avoiding A Roll Call Vote, The RNC Has Made Things Worse for Themselves

First things first: watch this video right now.

This is just shameful. We’ve seen the Left use similar tactics for years, attempting to shut down debate, silencing their critics, and declaring the issue to be settled, but this is the most vivid display imaginable of the leadership of the Republican Party, in conjunction with the Trump campaign, attempting to forcibly silence all dissent. According to multiple reports from both media outlets and delegates on the floor of the convention, the secretary of the convention was actually in hiding, surrounded by armed guards, for some time during the lead up to the voice vote, in an effort to prevent the necessary petitions from being submitted before the deadline.

Once the petitions had been submitted, the leadership of the party and staffers from the Trump campaign were actively pulling delegates from the floor and attempting to coerce or outright threaten delegates to remove their names from the petitions. Additional signatures were then ruled invalid, finally bringing the number of delegates who supported holding a roll call vote below the necessary threshold.

Again, this is all according to both multiple news reports and delegates on the floor of the convention. I won’t speculate on the convenience of having just enough signatures invalidated to ensure that a roll call vote would not occur.

The whole reason the Trump campaign wanted to avoid a roll call vote on the rules was to avoid the embarrassment of having a significant number of delegates, perhaps upwards of six hundred according to some sources, vote to unbind themselves and thus signal a lack of “unity”. But by rejecting an honest vote and cutting off all debate entirely, the strategy backfired.

There may never have been enough votes to reject the proposed rules package. If opponents of the package had fallen short in a roll call vote, the story would have been entirely about that failure. Now, the story is about the near-riot on the convention floor, party leadership turning off the microphone of a sitting U.S. Senator, and the unwillingness of that same party leadership to listen to any dissenting views. A roll call vote would have allowed delegates to air their grievances, have a healthy discussion, and in the end brought the party together.

Now both delegates and conservative voters are more disgusted and enraged than ever, the likelihood of additional turmoil at the convention has increased, and the false narrative of party unity has been shattered. It has become clear that true unity is impossible when encouraged at gunpoint.

Hopefully the delegates will continue to remind both Donald Trump and Reince Priebus of that fact on the convention floor, especially during the officially nominating vote later today. As long as the principled members of the convention haven’t all already walked out, that is.

What's At Stake This Week, and What Can Be Done

It is not hyperbole to suggest that the next few days will collectively be some of the most pivotal moments in recent American history. Delegates to the Republican National Convention will make the final decision on whether to hand the keys of the party over to Donald Trump, and the future of the party, the conservative movement, and ultimately the country will hinge on the outcome.

If Trump becomes the official nominee, racism and corruption will have won out in the Party of Lincoln and Reagan, and all Republicans who willingly follow Trump will have shown themselves to be hypocrites of the worst degree, supporting a man who embodies everything they claim to stand against merely because he is not Hillary Clinton. Trump as the nominee will shift the Republican Party to the left, perhaps permanently, while at the same time discrediting conservatism in the mind of a large segment of voters due to the popular misconception of him as an entity of the Right.

Meanwhile, the available data still points to an historic loss to Clinton in the general election (notwithstanding the Quinnipiac poll from last week, which appears to be an outlier.) Swing states like Iowa, Nevada, and Colorado are moving permanently out of reach for Trump, while Utah, Arizona, and Georgia are coming into play. A Clinton victory, which also likely ensures a Democratic Senate and possibly a Democratic House, will see a surge of liberal bills being pushed through Congress and the loss of the Supreme Court for at least a generation. The disappointment of the most recent Court term will be nothing compared to the decisions of a Court with a majority of Obama and Clinton appointees.

And if Trump somehow defeats Clinton? He would demean the office of President, lower our stature on the world stage even further, pursue unconstitutional actions rivaling those of Barack Obama, and likely champion many liberal policies not noticeably different from those embraced by Clinton. Under either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, the country would suffer.

But the delegates in Cleveland will have the power to avert this future. There will be one last chance to prevent both a Clinton and Trump presidency. And if the delegates take this path, reject Trump, and throw their support behind a true conservative who can beat Hillary Clinton in November, the trajectory of American history will be changed once again.

First and foremost, the delegates need to vote down the rules package approved in committee last week. Doing this, even if there is no minority report to rally behind, will send a clear signal that delegates still wish to unbind themselves and be able to vote for a nominee without violating their consciences.

Failing that, as many delegates as possible need to abstain during voting on the party’s nominee, or walk out of the convention outright, or do anything else possible to disrupt the coronation of Emperor Trump. They need to vote against Mike Pence, who used to be a solid conservative but is now yet another Trump puppet, for the VP nomination. They need to do everything in their power to make their objections heard, and make it clear that they will not be silenced.

After the Rules Committee vote on Thursday, the likelihood of denying Trump the nomination is almost zero. Everyone who sympathizes with the #NeverTrump movement needs to be clear-eyed about that fact. Most delegates will be unwilling to oppose the presumptive nominee so absolutely. But if enough are willing to stand against the tide, they can at least make a bold statement of principle, show the country that not all Republicans stand behind Trump and his innumerable flaws, and begin to set the stage for a conservative revival in the GOP.

All it takes now is for the delegates to find the courage to follow Mike Lee’s example and stand up for the principles they pay homage to. They hold the future of the country in their hands.

I've Never Been Prouder of a Politician

Last night the Rules Committee voted down several proposed amendments that would have explicitly unbound the convention delegates. It looks as though there will not be enough votes for supporters of unbinding to even issue a minority report, which would guarantee a vote on the convention floor. They have until Monday to get twenty-eight votes for such a report—last night only twenty-one members of the committee supported a conscience clause amendment.

But one of those twenty-one deserves special attention and praise.

Before the committee met, Mike Lee was keeping his powder dry, being noncommittal when asked how he planned to vote on the proposed rule changes. But once inside Lee held nothing back, giving an impassioned speech in favor of the amendments, an opposing formally binding the delegates, saying that “we have to remember that it’s important for our presidential nominees to win at two levels—first to win at the primary level, and then to win over the delegates…this angst, as we’re going to see in a few days, isn’t going to go away just because we paper over it with rules.”

But that wasn’t all. He appeared to be actively whipping votes throughout the evening, repeatedly conferring with conscience clause proponent Kendal Unruh. He was at the microphone to speak on another unbinding amendment when pro-Trumpers on the committee abruptly moved to end debate, leading the senator to shout “No!” And after departing the meeting, he doubled down on his support of freeing the delegates and allowing them to vote for someone other than Trump.

It’s hard to overstate the political risk Lee took, and the depth of the courage he showed, by so vocally endorsing the effort. During the primary, and in the immediate aftermath—when many top Republicans hesitated to embrace Trump—Lee’s opposition wasn’t nearly as extraordinary. But now he stands in the company of a select few who continue to refuse to bow before the Orange Golden Calf. Only last week was Senator Jeff Flake warned that if he didn’t endorse Trump soon, “when [he] needs something for Arizona, he ain’t gonna get it…if Donald Trump wins for president.”

But Mike Lee’s courage is exceptional even among those other senators expressing opposition to Trump. He alone sat on the Rules Committee, the body with the best chance of stopping Trump’s nomination, and endured enormous pressure from the Trump campaign and RNC to merely go along with the tide. “The unbinding amendment is doomed,” he was likely told. “Just go along with the rest of us. Unite! It will be so much simpler for you.”

But, as he often does in the Senate, Mike Lee stood with only a few trustworthy fellow conservatives against the might of the Establishment. Unlike in so many of those previous battles, the Republican base will not be united behind him now. Roughly half of the GOP has been lured into worshipping at the Altar of Trump, and will forever scorn Senator Lee for his role in the resistance. In the future many Republican voters will remember this above all else, and dedicate themselves to his political defeat on the basis of that committee meeting alone.

But as always, Mike Lee chose not the easy path, but the path that was morally right. It may be one of the bravest political acts in recent memory. For that, he deserves conservatives’ unending gratitude.

If I Were Advising Clinton, I'd Push for a Fifty-State Strategy

Donald Trump’s poll numbers are historically bad, at all levels. In the last thirty major national polls, he has led Hillary Clinton exactly three times—all of which came from Rasmussen, one of the least accurate of the major forecasters. Several polls from the past few weeks have shown him losing by double-digit margins. The number of voters who see him unfavorably now consistently tops 60%, even worse than Clinton. No candidate for the presidency has ever won with such atrocious numbers.

His polling at the state level, where the campaign will ultimately be won, is if anything even worse. In Utah he sits under 40% and holds only a single digit lead over Clinton, whereas McCain won the state by almost thirty points and Romney by almost fifty. In Arizona, a state the Republican presidential nominee has only lost once in the past sixty years, Clinton is now narrowly ahead in the RealClearPolitics polling average and the state is considered a tossup. Mississippi and Kansas, also staunchly Republican states historically, could also be in play if the limited polling conducted there so far bears out.

Meanwhile, in California, New York, and Maryland, states Trump has promised to win, Clinton leads by fifteen, thirty-three, and twenty-three respectively in the latest polls. All of this in addition to Trump’s anemic fundraising and frequent shakeups in his campaign staff. Word is that he has yet to set up any major operation in key states such as Florida and Michigan.

So far Clinton has stuck to a predictable course, targeting traditional swing states like Ohio and Florida. But if Trump’s numbers continue to plummet, she will likely begin to pursue a more aggressive strategy, campaigning in Republican strongholds in order to both help herself and capitalize on Trump’s position as de facto leader of the GOP to further aid down-ticket Democrats. A Fifty State Strategy would be the ultimate endgame.

Trump and the RNC would be forced to expend resources in states they never expected to need to defend. The Senate, already in play, would become a sure loss for Republicans. The House would be increasingly at risk, as districts which generally lean Republican would swing away from the party of Trump and toward the Democrats. Governorships, state legislatures, and attorneys general would begin to fall as well. And Clinton would cement her own legacy by achieving the overwhelming, historic victory in both the popular vote and Electoral College that her husband, for all his talent and charisma, could never attain.

She almost certainly wouldn’t win every state. Not even Johnson in 1964, Nixon in 1972, or Reagan in 1984 were able to achieve that. But she could keep many solidly red states close, capture enough outright to make her victory one of historic proportions, and lay the groundwork for future liberal successes across the country. Turning states like Texas and Kansas blue, long a Democrat dream, could become reality.

At this point, barring some sudden extraordinary, miraculous turnaround in Trump’s numbers, only one thing can stop this nightmare scenario for conservatives from coming to pass. It’s up to the delegates in Cleveland to stop the Fifty State Strategy from ever occurring, by nominating a strong candidate able to unite the GOP and win against Hillary in November.

#FreeTheDelegates

What If Trump Loses and Doesn't Concede?

Imagine the following scenario:

It is the night of November 8, Election Day, and polls have now closed across the country. The networks have projected that Hillary Clinton has won the presidency by a substantial margin, beating Donald Trump in both the popular vote and Electoral College. Democrats are also projected to regain control of the Senate, but fall short of the sixty seats necessary to override Republican filibusters, and the GOP has also narrowly retained control of the House, ensuring some checks on the power of the second President Clinton.

In New York, Clinton triumphantly waits for a concession call from Trump. But the call doesn’t come. She gives him an hour after the last network called the race, but finally goes out to give the long-awaited victory speech to her supporters, speaking in broad terms about the historic nature of her election, and the need to bring the country together after a divisive year.

She finishes the speech, thanks her supporters one more time, and then returns home with her husband, daughter and son-in-law, and the new Vice President-elect. Still, no call from Trump, or any public statement at all. Not even a Tweet.

Finally, around 1am, he takes the stage at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida—the first anyone outside his immediate family or close circle of advisors, including Clinton, has heard from him in hours. The networks cut away from post-election analysis to live feeds of the stage, expecting a formal concession speech.

But Trump, as always, has something different in mind. “The system is rigged, people,” he says. “The system is rigged, and tonight has proven it. First Crooked Hillary avoids an indictment, after all the bad, illegal things she did, and now we’re supposed to believe she won? Come on, folks. We all know Obama would do anything to get his pal Hillary elected, am I right? This whole process has been very unfair.” He goes on for a while longer, but his implication is clear immediately—in his mind the election was rigged, Clinton did not actually win, and he intends to contest the results. Both sides begin gearing up for a protracted legal battle unlike anything in American history.

Obviously this scenario is pure speculation. No one can know for sure who will win in November, though the current polling suggests a blowout Clinton victory. No one can know with absolute certainty how Trump would react to such a resounding loss, since the 2016 primary was his first run for political office.

But the image I’ve just described does have an air of plausibility, after all of Trump’s statements regarding an election rigged against him, criticizing any negative portrayal of him as being unfair, and his difficulty accepting defeat in the states where he did lose, such as Iowa. No one seriously doubts that Clinton, if she is convincingly defeated, would accept the election results. No one seriously believed Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, John McCain, or John Kerry might refuse to concede. Even in 2000, Al Gore failed to concede defeat only because of the ridiculously narrow margin in Florida, giving hope that he might yet be declared the winner. If the outcome was never truly in doubt, the post-election battle would not have stretched beyond that night.

What differentiates this case is the plausibility that, even faced with a resounding defeat, Trump would find a way to claim that he had been cheated out of victory, and either launch an expensive legal battle or simply demand a do-over, just as he argued for after the Iowa caucuses. No presidential candidate in American history has ever failed to respect the results of an election, when that election was decided by anything more than the tiniest of margins. Even Nixon in 1960 decided against challenging the results in several states where there was evidence of voting fraud, on the grounds that the country could not afford to be divided by what would have been a chaotic process.

The mere plausibility of the idea that Trump could attempt such a thing, and the certainty that if he did many of his followers would support him unequivocally, speaks to the odious character of the man who would be President. (It also obviously assumes that he doesn’t have some kind of backroom deal with the Clintons.) Trump would be the first presidential nominee in modern times where it would be perfectly in keeping with his character and observed personality traits to make the scenario described above seem completely possible.

Another reason to deny this man the nomination of the Republican Party. #FreeTheDelegates

Falling Skies, The Walking Dead, and Conservatism

Several articles have already been written on how The Walking Dead, one of the most popular shows currently on TV, is inherently conservative (most notably here and here), from the necessity of guns and the short life expectancy of those who refuse to use them, to the absolute importance of the main characters’ not depending on anyone but themselves and their closest friends for safety. Less noted is the fact that many similar shows, generally depicting a post-apocalyptic future world, often convey similar conservative messages, lessons which take little imagination to apply to modern life.

Two prominent examples, both dealing with guns (a common theme on post-apocalyptic shows), occur on Falling Skies, a sci-fi drama on TNT which concluded last year after five seasons. The basic premise of the show involves an alien invasion which sees the capture or extermination of most humans on Earth, along with the fall of all major governments, including the United States. The show follows a group of survivors as they travel up and down the East Coast, attempting to fight off the invaders.

The group spends the second season attempting to reach Charleston, where rumor has it that a new U.S. government has been established. After reaching their destination, the main characters are asked to hand over their weapons, because in Charleston ordinary citizens don’t carry guns. Weapons are kept in a communal armory, and assigned to individuals on an as-needed basis. The group is reluctant, but eventually complies.

What happens next should come as no surprise to Second Amendment defenders. The self-appointed President takes issue with the group’s differing opinions on alien-fighting policy, and its overall questioning of his leadership, and has them arrested. Without weapons they’re helpless, until a coup forces the President out of power and frees the main characters.

Something similar happens in season four, when the group discovers a utopian colony miraculously untouched by the aliens. Weapons are forbidden inside the colony, which leads to a split between those who aren’t willing to give up their arms and those who are lured in by the promise of a break in the endless fighting. The former are soon proven correct, as the leader of the colony turns out to be secretly in league with the aliens, and several major characters are killed in the ensuing invasion.

The first, most obvious lesson from these apocalyptic-style shows is that, in case of alien invasion or zombie infestation, a gun-free populace will be overrun much quicker than a community with a Second Amendment and high proportion of gun ownership. Similar shows become much less believable if set in, say, Germany or Australia.

But, setting aside the sci-fi themes and plot elements, the real life importance of a individual right to bear arms is put on stark display. The authors of the Second Amendment may not have been planning ahead for the time when an alien spaceship lands on top of Boston, but they did have intimate knowledge of cases in which civilians would need to defend themselves, their families, and their property, whether from burglaries and home invasions, national invasion by a foreign country, or (as they well understood) an illegitimate central government unresponsive to the needs of the people.

The Second Amendment is, at its heart and in addition to a defense against burglaries and individual assaults, a doomsday provision meant to safeguard the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights from any overt, comprehensive assault by a future government. Not merely liberal Congresses and Presidents who sometimes intrude on Constitutional provisions but still stand for election and are responsive to the will of the people. Those must be fought, but rhetorically.

But a nightmare scenario, one in which Congress or the President overtly moves to suppress all individual rights, potentially through force, or refuses to leave office at the expiration of their term, is the true vision of the future the Framers feared. The true value of Falling Skies, The Walking Dead, and shows like them, in the protection of individual freedoms, is the reminder they offer about how the Second Amendment is a right guaranteed for a reason, because its necessity in such circumstances is only impossible to imagine actually happening until it does happen. As Circuit Court Judge Alex Kozinski, whose parents were Holocaust survivors and with an eye to Nazi Germany, wrote in his masterful Silveira v. Lockyer dissent, “[h]owever improbable these contingencies seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.”

And if the right to bear arms also ends up stopping a zombie apocalypse or alien invasion, so much the better. Just always beware of utopian communes.

Mitt Romney, Donald Trump, and Hypocrisy

In 2012, during a primary debate, Mitt Romney offered Rick Perry a $10,000 bet regarding Romney’s former support of an individual mandate for health insurance. Romney was promptly lambasted by many Republican primary voters favoring another candidate, who felt the comment underscored his reputation as an out-of-touch millionaire, who had nothing in common with ordinary Americans. Nominating him would only underscore the contrast many Democrats were seeking, of a greedy businessman versus a humble defender of ordinary people.

Fast forward to 2016. Many of the same people who wasted no time in criticizing Romney for his $10,000 bet spent much of this primary season defending Donald Trump for saying he had a “small loan” from his father of one million dollars, and for attempting to use state power of eminent domain to tear down a widow’s house and build a limousine parking lot in its place. Many of the same people who were concerned about the electability argument when it came to Mitt Romney, and how it would look for the GOP to nominate a millionaire for president, have decided to nominate a billionaire instead.

Many who endlessly fretted about Mitt Romney’s wealth and electability now support Donald Trump. Many who ridiculed the fevered cult of personality around Barack Obama now openly worship at the Altar of Trump. The hypocrisy of the Trump true believers knows no bounds.

Why Gridlock is Good

It has become fashionable in today’s society to argue that many things we were taught to think are bad, are actually good, and that what is good is actually bad. One major party nominee for president is applauded in certain circles for acting like a ten-year-old brat, another major party nominee is applauded in other circles for habitually lying and breaking federal law, selfishness and sin are good, and everything is turned upside down in the name of progress.

But Congressional gridlock is always bad, say those who celebrate incest. Gridlock is the ultimate evil, in a world where there is supposed to be no absolute good or evil. Gridlock means the death of children, say those who embrace abortion, because it prevents gun control legislation that would supposedly stop all mass shootings. If not for Congressional gridlock, we could have bipartisan tax reform, affordable health care and college tuition, and a thousand other wonderful proposals blocked only by Republican obstructionism. Gridlock makes a mockery of our system of constitutional government.

Gridlock, or more accurately a reasonable, federal system of checks and balances, is exactly how our government is supposed to function. The Founders may not have anticipated the rise of political parties, or the current deep ideological divide, when they drafted the Constitution, but they understood better than most how strong personalities and individuals could collide on important issues. And that, if a bad proposal was to be stopped from becoming law, there would need to be mechanisms for its prevention.

That was why so many obstacles were put up to a bill becoming law, either in the Constitution itself or in the rules and traditions that grew up in the early years of the republic. For a bill to make it through committee in the House or Senate, then through debate and final passage in a full meeting of that particular chamber, then through debate in the opposite chamber, and finally signed by the President, it would need the support of a significant number of people, and endured some compromises along the way.

Conversely, if a bill wasn’t able to make its way through this multistep process, it was likely a poor bill that needed either compromise, substantial reworking, or entirely new ideas and input to be successful. To be sure, good bills can also be caught up in this process, but in a system of limited government, preventing the passage of bad ideas into law is a goal worthy enough to make the process as a whole more difficult. The bulk of activity affecting Americans’ individual lives, the thinking went, should be taking place at the state and local level in any case.

Of course, acknowledging this would require acknowledging both the goal of a more decentralized federal government, and the fact that many of the proposed bills currently being held up by gridlock are simply bad policy. Far more advantageous, from the standpoint of ratings and fundraising, to simply heap blame on gridlock and Republican obstructionism.

Policy Spotlight: Minimum Wage

This will be the first of a semi-regular feature here at The Conservatory. Every so often, I’ll post “Policy Spotlights” focusing on a particular issue currently in the news (such as gun control, immigration, or the minimum wage), and discuss and defend my own views on that issue.

The question of raising the minimum wage has long been seen by Democrats as one of their most effective wedge issues, peeling away working class votes from Republicans while solidifying their base of poor, urban, and primarily minority voters. But like so many other liberal policies, raising the minimum wage—though it purports to help the poor and working class—in reality hurts them the most, leading to a one-two punch of lost jobs on the production side, and higher prices for goods and services on the consumer side.

The minimum wage is perhaps one of the prime examples of how government intervention and interference in a free market economy stifles economic growth and productivity. As the government, whether federal or state, raises the minimum wage, companies are forced to spend more and more money to pay their existing workers. Any thoughts of expansion or of hiring new workers are quickly discarded, and soon, merely to break even, companies are forced to let people go.

And the first workers to leave are the lower skilled, disproportionately poor and minority workers, whose jobs are by definition the easiest to be performed by a smaller number of people. Lower-skilled, entry-level jobs—those most likely to earn minimum wage and therefore most likely to be affected by any mandated wage increase—are consolidated, under the basic principle that either some of the lowest skilled jobs are cut, and a few people lose their jobs; or else the company keeps every such job, paying an increased salary, and face negative profit earnings—and with it, the potential that the entire company will fail, causing everyone to lose their jobs.

So, many poor, working-class, and minority workers become unemployed through the increase in the minimum wage. But this won't be the end of their hardship, because they still have to buy goods and services, as consumers, and participate in the marketplace from the other side as well. And here is where the other angle of a minimum wage increase becomes apparent, because even after cutting some jobs, many companies will still face an increased drain in resources.

To attempt to make up for this, and avoid having the entire company fold or become unprofitable, they will be forced to raise prices on goods and services, with any additional revenue going directly to those increased wages. This will hurt all consumers, of course, but the ones hit hardest will be the recently unemployed, those who may have had a difficult time paying for an increase in product prices even had they not lost their jobs to the effects of a minimum wage increase.

And still, even with all these measures, many small businesses will likely still be forced to close at some point after sustaining unacceptable losses. The number of businesses that would close, along with the number of jobs lost and the amount of price increases, would of course depend on the exact amount the minimum wage was raised. Hillary Clinton’s proposed $15 per hour minimum would hurt businesses, workers, and consumers alike, but this would pale before Elizabeth Warren's onetime proposal of an increase to $22 an hour.

Of course, a government mandate of a variety of additional worker benefits such as paid family leave, which would in effect act as a second minimum wage increase, would make the effects even worse. There's a reason that in Los Angeles, and many other places where workers have succeeded in lobbying for an increase in the minimum wage, businesses that initially supported the movement are regretting their actions, and unions are lobbying for their members to be exempt.

Meanwhile Donald Trump has predictably attempted to take both sides of the issue, from categorically opposing a minimum wage increase during the primary to championing higher wages for workers and seeming to support minimum wage legislation at the state level, while leaving his official stance ambiguous on a federal raise.

While this relentless flip-flopping is by now Trump’s expected position on virtually every issue, conservatives should embrace the minimum wage issue. Boldly making the case that raising the minimum wage hurts, rather than helps, the economy and low-income workers will finally begin to counter the simplistic liberal narrative on the minimum wage with real facts, rather than the more common incoherent rambling—good from both a political and policy standpoint.

Who God Is to Me

I want to try something a little different today. Over the past month I’ve focused almost exclusively on politics, with some pop culture thrown in, and I’ll continue to do so in the future. For a blog only one month old, with no name recognition on the part of either the site or the writer, the growth in readership has been impressive, and I want to thank everyone who takes time out of their day to read my latest thoughts.

But today I want to take a short break from both politics and culture, and tackle religion. I should note at the outset that I have no special qualifications in religious studies, no Doctorate of Divinity or past experience as a preacher, or anything apart from the same qualification as every other person on the planet—being made in the image and likeness of God.

Which really is all the expertise one needs to understand God (at least as much as any mortal possibly can). My understanding is intensely personal, because God speaks to each and every one of us on an individual level. Going to church and receiving communion is important, to be sure, but just as important is the way each person lives their individual lives they are in communion with God and His teachings on a daily basis.

My central understanding is that, ultimately, God is the only one who can grant admittance into Heaven, or can truly the actions of a particular person, and the reasons behind those actions. There are absolute right and wrong actions, and motivations, but at the same time God also offers absolute forgiveness. Only He can see into a person’s soul, judge both actions and motivations, and offer true forgiveness. That forgiveness is something He offers freely to those who want it, but each person truly has to seek forgiveness, through sorrow, in order to receive it.

This supports the broader concept, supported by Jesus throughout his ministry, and later by the apostles, that God seeks to have a closer, more personal connection with each of us. In the Old Testament, God could be a distant figure, a lawgiver and king remote from His people and only speaking to a select few. In the New Testament, however, He shows a softer side, becoming a father figure closer to His children, with Jesus actively seeking out all members of society, rich and poor alike.

This leads directly to another point—the common argument that Jesus’ teachings, by virtue of their focus on the poor, and on the wealthy who must give up their possessions in order to follow Him, demand some form of socialist-style, enforced-equality government. This deliberately misconstrues Jesus’ teachings, in which he specifically discusses individual, private action, rather than that mandated by government, as the key to entering into heaven. In fact, government-mandated generosity in the form of wealth redistribution directly contradicts His lessons, which rely on free will and the conscience choice to serve the less fortunate.

In general, however, I think it’s a mistake to attempt to use Biblical teachings to support any sort of economic system, whether capitalism or socialism, or most policy positions. A very few of the latter, such as abortion, are clearly against God’s will. But as long as we conduct ourselves and our affairs morally, and are fully aware of the dignity of every human life, He isn’t too concerned with the details of tax or immigration policy. The Kingdom of God isn’t any form of government as mortals would recognize it.

God is intimately acquainted with and involved in the details of each of our lives, and by no means is he aloof from the concerns of the world. We are all His children. Yet He endowed us with free will for a reason, and gives us the autonomy to make our own decisions. Choosing the moral path and taking care of our fellow man is what, in my mind, truly pleases God.

Will Ted Cruz Endorse Donald Trump?

Ted Cruz has a big decision to make. As the last major candidate to stand against Trump in the primaries (apart from Kasich, who mainly just acted as a spoiler), there will be increasing pressure on him, even more than others, to support the nominee against Hillary Clinton. By this point, two months after he suspended his presidential campaign, it’s clear Cruz is not just taking a break from electoral politics in general. He’s been active in endorsing and campaigning with other candidates across the country, most recently throwing his support behind Darryl Glenn in Colorado and Marco Rubio’s reelection in Florida. But the silence on endorsing Trump is becoming increasingly significant.

It speaks to Cruz’s character and strength of his principles to hold out even this long. There are a few fellow GOP senators who are avowedly #NeverTrump, but they are neither former primary opponents of the likely nominee, nor actively pursuing another presidential run in the near future. As the current rumblings point toward another Cruz run for the White House in 2020, following his 2018 Senate reelection bid, the pressure will be on from the RNC, Republican leadership in Congress, and many GOP voters to get behind the nominee this cycle if he wants any future in national elected office.

I think the best path forward for Cruz, with regard to Trump, is to continue to hold out on an endorsement until the convention. There is still the possibility, however remote, that the delegates will choose someone else as the nominee—maybe even Cruz himself, as many of those same delegates are personally loyal to him. Either way, the fact that there won’t be an official nominee until the middle of July gives Cruz some breathing room politically, and an effective cover in interviews in which the subject of a Trump endorsement is sure to come up.

After the convention, assuming Trump is the nominee, the pressure to support him will grow far more intense. Everything he said about Cruz, from the Lyin’ Ted smears to the attacks on his father and wife, will be ignored by party leadership and voters alike who merely want to present a united front against the Democrats for the general election. The need to win will for many people outweigh both principle and loyalty to one’s family, and Cruz will have to walk an increasingly fine line.

At some point after the convention, Cruz will likely need to offer some kind of pro forma endorsement of Trump. This, I think, is the best way of balancing his integrity and political future: By giving Trump his formal support, however half-hearted, Cruz neutralizes much of the later attacks he would otherwise endure from leadership and ordinary voters alike, who would at least partly blame his refusal to support the nominee for his eventual loss, and hence for the Clinton presidency that followed.

At the same time, by waiting until after the convention, and only giving a tepid, formal endorsement without much actual campaign assistance, Cruz reserves the loyalty of the many #NeverTrumpers he won over during the primary, and whose support he will need as much as that of Trump voters for a future presidential run.

Obviously, there are dangers of alienating members of both sides in walking such a thin line. I personally supported Cruz throughout the primary, and would love to see him take a bold stand against Trump, electoral future be damned. But Ted Cruz is not a man we can afford to lose, and if a pro forma endorsement of Trump is the price we have to pay for a future Cruz White House, then it’s a disappointment I would be happy to endure. After all, we already know what he really thinks of Donald Trump.