Evaluating Trump, 100 Days In

I’ve never been a fan of the narrative, espoused by so many in the media, that the “first one hundred days” of a President’s term is in any way meaningful or an accurate reflection on the success of his presidency. Is it fair to judge a President as a failure for not achieving anything of significance in the first hundred days, but instead using that time to negotiate and plan, and set up a great milestone on day 150? The entire concept reeks more of liberal FDR-worship than any meaningful attempt to quantify the success of a presidency.

That being said, Trump has now been in office for just over 100 days, and now’s as good a time as any to check in on his successes and failures—remembering that a lot can still happen in the 3 ½ years left in his term.

Unfortunately for Trump, the two highlights of his first hundred days that first come to mind are the travel ban (suspended by a federal judge on legal grounds) and the Obamacare replacement bill (pulled from the floor due to lack of votes, though negotiations are ongoing). Though many will disagree with me, I had little concern with either the original or revised travel ban orders (though implementation was a different matter entirely), and the suspension is really not Trump’s fault. The Obamacare bill, on the other hand, was terrible from the beginning, and blame for that debacle must rest with the President at least partially, for embracing it so fully, rushing the process, and attempting to bully conservative skeptics into taking his side.

Those have been perhaps the most high-profile events of Trump’s time in office so far, and it would be easy to write a summary of his first hundred days focusing entirely on those two misfires. But to do so would not be fair to Trump or his administration, and ignore several conservative policy successes. Let us not forget that on his first weekend in office, Trump restored the Mexico City Policy, barring federal funding of groups that promote abortions internationally (such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation). He has assumed a tougher posture in dealings with North Korea, Syria, Iran, and (surprisingly) Russia than Barack Obama ever did, and backed up talk with action. And his recently released preliminary budget is everything Obama’s attempts weren’t: namely, fiscally sane and small government-friendly.

When Trump said during the campaign that he would “surround himself with good people”, I and others mocked him and wondered how much he would actually listen to those “good people”. But he has, in fact, surrounded himself with a truly stellar Cabinet and military advisors (I have my differences with a couple, but on the whole a conservative could not hope for a more knowledgeable and principled group of people), and just as surprising seems to actually be listening to them, at least most of the time.

President Trump still has a ways to go, but overall his time in office is off to a promising start. If he keeps the momentum going, signs an Obamacare replacement bill that actually repeals Obamacare, and maybe tones down the tweets just a bit (I say that reluctantly; I’ve come to enjoy reading them), he’ll have the makings of a great first year.

Pro-Lifers Banned From The Democratic Party

Everyone knows that the modern Democratic Party is radically pro-abortion, but I never thought they would actually say this:

Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez became the first head of the party to demand ideological purity on abortion rights, promising Friday to support only Democratic candidates who back a woman’s right to choose.

“Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman’s right to make her own choices about her body and her health,” Perez said in a statement. “That is not negotiable and should not change city by city or state by state.”

“At a time when women’s rights are under assault from the White House, the Republican Congress, and in states across the country,” he added, “we must speak up for this principle as loudly as ever and with one voice.”

To my knowledge, this is the first time in recent history that the leader of a major political party in America has demanded absolute conformity on a political issue from all members of that party. Sure, certain groups of people have been barred from parties before, or at least been discouraged from showing active support—racists and white nationalists come to mind. No self-respecting political party wants to be seen as a home for such people. But on policy issues such as abortion, parties usually encourage diverse coalitions as a means of growing their brand and expanding voter outreach.

Obviously, Perez’s comments cater to the core of the Democratic liberal base. But outside of an extremely narrow group of voters, it’s hard to see how this does anything but hurt the party at large, as it gears up for midterm elections where it hopes to make significant gains in Congress. Even many pro-choice Democrats recognize the importance of building coalitions with pro-life, but otherwise liberal, voters. Even Nancy Pelosi recognizes this fact.

According to polls, 28% of Democrats can reasonably be classified as pro-life. That figure includes some Democratic Senators up for re-election in 2018, including Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Senators vital to any Democratic hopes of regaining control of the Senate. Will the DNC continue to support their re-election bids?

A final note: Some may say that the Republican Party, and conservatives specifically, have long made pro-choicers feel equally unwelcome. But this is a false equivalency. There are many pro-choice Republicans prominent in the party today, such as Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Have they been the target of ire and primary challenges from the Right? Absolutely, much of it well deserved. But no respectable figure has ever demanded that they leave the party altogether. Primary challenges are robust and healthy for a party and a movement. Attempts to silence dissenting views altogether and impose conformity by degree are not. But no one should expect any more from the modern progressive movement.

A Funny Thing About Abortion on TV

Traditionally, and with few exceptions, scripted TV has tried to stay away from the pro-life/pro-choice abortion divide. But a curious thing happens when pregnancy does enter the equation, especially on comedy shows: The fetus is humanized, and abortion becomes unthinkable.

It’s no secret that television as a whole leans to the left, both news programs and dramas. Television actors, directors, and producers as a group are just as liberal as their infamous counterparts on the big screen. But when the topic turns to pregnancy, and that simple question—“When does life begin?”—at the heart of the abortion debate, even avowed pro-choicers find themselves uttering classic anti-abortion arguments once the cameras start rolling.

Take CBS’ The Big Bang Theory, which in seasons 9 and 10 had a storyline dealing with the pregnancy of one of the main characters, and the various reactions of her husband and the other main characters. Now, creator and showrunner Chuck Lorre is a dedicated liberal across the board. I assume much of the cast and crew feel the same way. But throughout Bernadette’s pregnancy, there were innumerable references to the “person”, in the words of another main character, growing inside her, scenes of friends and family looking at ultrasounds and listening to the baby’s heartbeat, and otherwise treatments of the fetus as exactly what it is, and what real-life experience tells us it is: a human being.

Another example: in its fourth season, ABC’s Modern Family saw the pregnancy of one of its main characters, Gloria. In one episode in particular, she and Claire discussed motherhood and the ramifications of having another person growing inside them. The actress who plays Claire is openly liberal, and in fact has attended fundraisers for Planned Parenthood. Yet in this episode, there was no evidence of that. Claire talked about the strangeness of “having another person inside you” (her words). In another episode, Gloria and Jay, the baby’s father, use a microphone to talk to their unborn child, and worry about him hearing them fight. Would a “blob of cells”, as pro-choicers prefer to think of fetuses, care about its parents fighting, or the quality of its mother’s singing?

There are a multitude of other examples of this phenomenon on TV, in both current and older shows. Conversely, circumstances in which abortion is openly praised, or the unborn child is indeed discussed as a “blob of cells”, are much rarer. Only the cast and crew can say for sure why they are so comfortable with humanizing an organism they are only too happy to exterminate in real life, but it is an interesting trend, given the well-known prevalence of liberal activism on the major networks.

Don't Be Worried About Gorsuch's Abortion Comments

Abortion has been a hot topic so far in Judge Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing, resulting in several memorable exchanges between the (hopefully) future justice and Judiciary Committee Democrats.

Dianne Feinstein has been the senator most focused on the abortion issue, questioning whether Gorsuch would consider overturning Roe v. Wade, to which Gorsuch replied that he could make no guarantees on how he’d rule in any future case, but that “Once a case is settled, that adds to the determinacy of the law. What was once a hotly-contested issue is no longer a hotly-contested issue. We move forward.”

“[Roe] has been reaffirmed many times, I can say that,” he said later. He also said that if President Trump had asked him to overturn Roe, “I would have walked out the door.”

Some conservatives might be concerned by this, unhappy with any response that doesn’t amount to, “I will definitely push for the abolition of Roe the moment I am confirmed.” But this would be pretty stupid from a political standpoint, and also, as Gorsuch and others (including the late Justice Scalia) have said, not an attribute one should look for in a good judge. Judges should always wait until hearing the facts of a case before making any final decision.

I was also curious what Samuel Alito, an unquestionably fine conservative justice, had to say on abortion during his own confirmation hearing a decade ago: “What I have said about Roe is that if it were -- if the issue were to come before me, if I’m confirmed and I’m on the Supreme Court and the issue comes up, the first step in the analysis for me would be the issue of stare decisis. And that would be very important. If I were to get beyond that, I would approach that question the way I approach every legal issue that I approach as a judge, and that is to approach it with an open mind and to go through the whole judicial process, which is designed, and I believe strongly in it, to achieve good results, to achieve good decision-making.”

And: “Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973. So it’s been on the books for a long time. It has been challenged on a number of occasions. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the decision; sometimes on the merits; sometimes—in Casey—based on stare decisis.”

Those responses are, substantively, little different from what Gorsuch has offered on the same issue over the last couple days. Of course, no one can predict with 100% accuracy how any given judicial nominee will rule once on the bench—see Souter, David, and Roberts, John. Confirmation hearings have become more about partisan maneuverings and avoiding verbal traps laid by the opposing side than a window into judicial thought. But Gorsuch’s statements over the last few days, on abortion and other issues, is fully in line with those of past conservative nominees.

The Irony of Democratic Women Honoring Suffragettes

One of the lesser-noted events from Trump’s Tuesday night address to Congress was the spectacle of many Democratic women wearing white, apparently in an attempt to show solidarity with the early suffragettes—as well as outfits like Planned Parenthood.

Set aside the grandiosity of claiming the mantle of the “next generation of suffragettes. No one, to my knowledge, is threatening to take away women’s right to vote. But obviously, these Democrats don’t know the history of the very movement they praise and attempt to emulate at every turn, or they would see the hypocrisy of standing in support of Planned Parenthood and the suffragette movement at the same time.

Susan B. Anthony considered abortion one of society’s great evils, running in her newspaper columns critical of the practice. As Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, wrote in National Review earlier this year, Anthony would often reference “the newspaper reports every day of every year of scandals and outrages, of wife murders and paramour shooting, of abortions and infanticides, are perpetual reminders of men’s incapacity to cope successfully with this monster evil of society.”

Her colleague, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, also decried abortion and “the murder of children, either before or after birth… We believe the cause of all these abuses lies in the degradation of women.”

And another early feminist, Victoria Woodhull (who was the first woman to formally run for president), said, “Wives deliberately permit themselves to become pregnant of children and then, to prevent becoming mothers, as deliberately murder them while yet in their wombs. Can there be a more demoralized position than this?”

Hard to imagine any Democrat in the House chamber Tuesday night saying something like that.

Some Tuesday Wisdom from the Next Supreme Court Justice

National Review Online has just unearthed a 2005 article written for the publication by a lawyer based in Washington, D.C., one Neil Gorsuch. Go and read the whole thing now.

Obviously, the brief portion of the piece where he touches on electoral politics hasn’t aged especially well. Lines such as “Democrats have already failed to win a majority of the popular vote in nine out of the last ten presidential elections,” are more interesting as historical relics than anything else. And, of course, the era of gay marriage being an automatic loser at the ballot box is over, even with the Supreme Court refusing Gorsuch’s invitation and ruling that all such marriages must be recognized by every state.

But all that is beside the point. The article beautifully illustrates the point, as salient now as it was ten years ago, that liberals rely on the courts and extensive litigation at their, and the country’s peril. Judges should defend rights and strike down laws when appropriate, to be sure. That’s part of the job description. But, again I stress, only when appropriate. Which should not be the open invitation that many on the Left seem to think it is.

And though Gorsuch addresses the Left specifically, conservatives would do well to heed his words. Too often, many on the Right see the great successes Democrats have had at enacting their agenda through the courts (such as a national right to gay marriage and abortion) and push too far in the other direction, calling for example, for the Supreme Court to declare abortion to be unconstitutional across the board. There are right and wrong ways of achieving goals, and this would undoubtedly be a very bad position for pro-lifers to support. If the Supreme Court merely overturned Roe v. Wade and returned the matter to the states and voters to decide, there could then be a much more substantial debate over the ethics of abortion. But to forbid it outright, by court order, would merely repeat the original mistake of Roe by removing abortion from the arena of meaningful public debate.

Liberals, conservatives, and the courts would do well to heed Gorsuch’s words. And Gorsuch himself would do well to remember them.

Norma McCorvey, RIP

Norma McCorvey, better known as Jane Roe—the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade—died over the weekend.

As the obituary at the link notes, she was a complicated woman—accidental architect of one of the most consequential Supreme Court decisions of the past century, and eventually one of its fiercest opponents. In 2005, she petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn Roe, on the primary basis that she, the plaintiff in the original case, regretted her part in the decision. Obviously, the Court declined.

Many believed her conversion to be less about true conviction than an attempt to capitalize on fame. Obviously, no one can know what her true intentions actually were, why she eventually abandoned and took up rhetorical arms against the cause that still considers her to be something of a patron saint. But her actions following her joining of the pro-life cause seemed sincere, if ineffective as tactics. Those, in the end, are all we can judge. Perhaps she acted so rashly, in picketing judicial confirmation hearings, out of a sense of guilt for what she had helped wrought. Or perhaps she was simply seeking attention.

Finally, one cannot help but wonder what became of the child that McCorvey bore only months before the Roe decision was handed down. Her pregnancy with that child, her desire to terminate that pregnancy, was what led the Court to consider the constitutionality of state abortion restrictions in the first place. It seems safe to assume that McCorvey never had any further interaction with, or knowledge of, the child she gave up for adoption. That individual presumably has no knowledge of the complicated role they have played in American history.

McCorvey, of course, did know. She might not have a famous name, and her death will get little coverage in a media obsessed with Donald Trump. But her legacy continues to have a deep and consequential impact on American life.

RIP.

Roe v. Wade Is Both Evil and Stupid

In all of American history, has there ever been another Supreme Court decision as infamous as Roe v. Wade? The only possible contender that comes to mind is Dred Scott v. Sandford, the 1857 decision which held that African Americans were not U.S. citizens. But that case is obsolete now, overturned by civil war and constitutional amendment. No one holds marches over Dred Scott, because what would be the point?

And even among the universe of cases still considered to be valid precedent, not one can command the level of emotion, from both supporters and detractors, as Roe. Democrats persist in attempting to make overturning Citizens United a hot-button issue with the electorate, but few in the general electorate could even say what was decided in Citizens United (it held that certain campaign finance reforms passed by Congress violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech). Likewise with Shelby County v. Holder (finding portions of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional). And while conservatives were angered by the Court’s twin rulings on Obamacare, in NFIB v. Sebelius and King v. Burwell, the cases are hardly household names. There are no mass protests or marches on Washington on the anniversary of the rulings.

But Roe is different. It is the only Court decision still commemorated on the anniversary of its ruling, by supporters and opponents alike, more than forty years after the case was decided. Even among those who in general care nothing for politics, the name Roe v. Wade is well known. Supporters believe that without it, abortion would quickly be outlawed and criminalized altogether. Opponents often believe something similar, and therefore hope for its destruction.

The truth is a little less dramatic. A reversal of Roe would merely allow states wider latitude in regulating abortion. If some states wanted to ban it altogether, that would then be permissible. But if other states wanted to increase access to abortion, that too would be constitutional.

That being said, Roe v. Wade is undoubtedly an abomination, from both an ethical and legal perspective. It bars any state, even an imaginary state filled only with pro-life citizens, from regulating abortion in any significant way, let alone outlawing it. The mountain of scientific evidence now available to us, proving that fetuses are in fact living beings, is so overwhelming that a complete list is nearly impossible. At the moment of conception, fetuses have unique DNA. They have a beating heart at three weeks gestation, and unique fingerprints at ten weeks.

For perspective, many of the most aggressive Republican proposals to ban abortion altogether, which liberals fight tooth and nail, would forbid abortion after twenty weeks. Roe allows abortion right up through childbirth, or, on average, roughly forty weeks after conception.

And if that weren’t enough, the legal reasoning—or lack of it—in the Roe decision should make even pro-choice lawyers squirm. Again, an exhaustive list is beyond the scope of this post, although the full text of the majority opinion can be found here. But much of the opinion reads more like a speculative article in a medical journal than a governing ruling of the United States Supreme Court. Twice the author, Justice Harry Blackmun, bases his reasoning on a “right to privacy” he openly admits appears nowhere in the explicit text or history of the Constitution, but rather in “a certain guarantee of zones or areas of privacy” found, among other places, in “the penumbras of the Bill of Rights…” One doesn’t have to be a legal scholar to see that Blackmun was plainly grasping at straws, searching for every possible scrap of evidence that could support the result he had already decided he wanted to reach. Is it inventive? Sure. But the job of a Supreme Court Justice is not to be inventive with the law, in order to reach a predetermined outcome. The law should always determine the outcome.

Frustratingly, the Supreme Court came close to eradicating this blight on its history in 1992, with the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey. A majority of justices seemed poised to overturn Roe, when one of them—one Anthony Kennedy—apparently got cold feet.

Here’s hoping Neil Gorsuch, once confirmed, will be able to keep his close friend Justice Kennedy grounded in the actual text of the law, rather than flitting around looking for desired outcomes. And hopefully, should Kennedy decide to retire within the next few years (as is the rumor), President Trump will appoint someone willing to correct the mistakes of both Kennedy in 1992, and the Court as a whole in 1972, by helping to end the stain that is Roe v. Wade for good.

A Tale of Two Marches

I had originally intended to write about this yesterday, but Trump’s weekend announcement of his immigration order scuttled those plans. Now, sandwiched between the fallout from that order and the coming announcement of the President’s first pick for the Supreme Court (tune in tonight at 8/7c!), it is hard to believe that the March for Life was only a few days ago. Instead of finally getting major media coverage, it seems like the March got even less coverage than usual. Not that getting added coverage, let alone more favorable coverage, was ever a realistic hope no matter the circumstances.

But I wanted to quickly note the contrast between the March for Life and the Women’s March the previous week, before the former recedes from our collective memory even more (of course, the media will never let us forget just how big and awesome the crowds were at the Women’s March). There were no major violent incidents at either, it should be noted. But at the March for Life, love and compassion truly were the order of the day. Trump opponents and supporters marched side by side, protesting the indignity and evil of abortion but doing so respectful of its supporters. Typical signs at the event included “We Are The Pro-Life Generation”.

The Women’s March was, by contrast, composed entirely of Trump opponents, ridiculing Trump and, to a lesser extent, his supporters. Typical signs included “Grab Patriarchy by the Balls.”

Not exactly a contrast that will win the Left many new supporters, especially among the white working class.

Recapping the First Week of the Trump Era

Today marks exactly one week since Donald Trump took the oath of office and officially became the 45^th President of the United States. And what a week it’s been.

He issued executive orders freezing federal hiring, temporarily halting the creation of new regulations, and allowing executive-branch agencies to waive various parts of Obamacare, including the individual mandate.

He reinstated the Mexico City Policy, barring federal funding of groups that perform abortions overseas, including the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

He signed executive orders meant to expedite approval of the Keystone and Dakota Access pipelines, bar federal funding for sanctuary cities, limit the flow of refugees from countries deemed to have a large number of terrorist sympathizers, and formally withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. And, of course, he signed an order declaring his intent to construct a “contiguous, physical wall” along the southern border.

He also met with business leaders and the heads of labor unions, talked with foreign leaders, announced plans to meet with British Prime Minister Theresa May later today, and got into a Twitter spat with the Mexican President that led to the latter cancelling his planned trip to America next month.

Obviously, that was a bad way to end the week, and will probably come back to bite Trump—and all of us—later on. But overall, the first week went much better than I or many other critics of Trump during the campaign expected. He gave social, economic, and national security conservatives alike some real victories, of the sort we haven’t seen in years. They won’t be secure, lasting victories until Congress backs up the sentiment with the force of law, but change is already beginning. I was certain Trump, once in office, would not bring real change and would govern substantively no different from Hillary Clinton, based on his past record. If this first week is any indication, I was wrong.

May Week One be only the beginning.

Policy Spotlight: Assisted Suicide

A few weeks ago, I wrote a post discussing the twin issues of abortion and the death penalty, and the liberal hypocrisy inherent in the debates over both. Until just the past couple decades, it was these two issues that primarily made up the pro-life debate, with much of the attention and debate in more recent times focused on the former.

But assisted suicide has been slowly emerging as a third hot-button life issue, particularly since Oregon became the first state to legalize physician-assisted suicide with a narrowly-approved ballot referendum in 1994. Since then, Washington, California, and Vermont have also legalized the practice, with five other states currently considering legalization.

Assisted suicide is less clear-cut, from a strictly conservative/libertarian view, than either abortion or the death penalty. Whereas the former is undeniably the killing of an unborn child, who has done nothing to deserve death, and the latter is the killing of a convicted criminal, who has done everything to deserve it, assisted suicide involves a person choosing to end their own life, and seeking medical help to achieve that end. The only person dying in a scenario of assisted suicide has consciously chosen that fate.

But a key indicator in any debate over a given policy is the words its opponents and detractors use to describe that policy. In the abortion debate, proponents of the measure hate using the word abortion, despite its medical and technical accuracy, and always attempt to shift the focus of the language used to debates over “choice”. When discussing the death penalty, in contrast, both supporters and opponents are not afraid of using the words “death penalty”. That accurately describes the issue, and I’ve yet to hear another term for it gain widespread use by either side.

But in assisted suicide, as in abortion, proponents again attempt to play language games, preferring to use the term “medical aid in dying” whenever possible—this despite the fact that “assisted suicide” is an accurate representation of what exactly takes place. This should be an instant red flag.

There are several serious problems with all assisted suicide proposals, beginning with the fact that, contrary to the assumptions of pro-legalization activists, there is more than one person involved. Nearly all of the individuals who consider suicide have family, friends, or someone in their life that would undoubtedly be hurt by their choosing death as preferable to life. Additionally, doctors participating in assisted suicide would be active participants in a purposeful death—something that strikes at the very core of the Hippocratic Oath to “do no harm”, let alone the moral center of many doctors, particularly over an extended period. On libertarian grounds alone, then, assisted suicide manifestly goes beyond a strictly personal choice, harming the fabric of the community as a whole.

Obviously assisted suicide proposals are bad in other ways as well, namely the fact that those who pursue suicide are automatically writing off what could be an extremely beneficial and productive life. Even those diagnosed with terminal cancer or another life-threatening disease have the potential to achieve great things, and many who are only given six months to live by their doctors could in fact continue on for many more years—years easily lost through assisted suicide. And, though proponents of the measure argue that only a very few people will ultimately choose to go through with it, records from Oregon and other states which have legalized assisted suicide show that the number of people choosing to end their life is large, and increasing year by year.

Assisted suicide is a dangerous policy that fundamentally harms the individual, their family, their doctor, and their community as a whole.

Policy Spotlight: Abortion and the Death Penalty

There was one notable contrast between the 2016 Democratic and Republican platforms on which few media outlets commented—the former’s support for abortion rights and opposition to the death penalty, and, conversely, the latter’s opposition to abortion and unequivocal support for the death penalty.

This dichotomy is nothing new for many individual members of both parties, as well as (of course) many independents, but this year is the first time that a major party has officially disavowed the death penalty in their platform, making it a significant illustration of a broader point. The key difference between the two parties (generally speaking) on issues of life now becomes, “At what points in life is non-natural death acceptable?” One party supports death at the very beginning of life, where the other party supports death only as punishment at the end of life.

Both abortion and use of the death penalty involve the taking of a human life. Both are considered by their respective detractors to be among the great moral evils of modern times. And both are even argued, again by their respective detractors, to disproportionally harm minority communities. But while anti-death penalty activists are celebrated for attempting to save innocent human lives, pro-life or anti-abortion activists are often ridiculed and attacked as opposing "a woman's right to choose." A fetus becomes a mere collection of cells, to be disposed of on a whim. And meanwhile, a convicted murderer earnestly argues for another chance at a productive life, while news outlets wonder what this man or woman might achieve, if not for the evil of a life taken before its time.

Whether liberals realize their hypocrisy is debatable. Some may well recognize it and sweep any realization of it out of their conscious mind, while others could truly believe that there is a difference between the two, and that abortion is truly a woman's unrestricted freedom, while the death penalty is an absolute moral evil in a world where most evil is relative.

There is a difference, but one directly opposite the liberal narrative. Abortion is the murder of an innocent human being, whose only sin is to exist, with unique brain waves, fingerprints, and heartbeat. The death penalty is the ultimate punishment for the worst criminal offenses, something not to be carried out lightly but necessary for justice to prevail.

The true moral evil is condoning the death of the innocent child, while allowing the mass murderer to escape true justice.

Gary Johnson for President

I have long said that both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are corrupt, liberal power-mongers without morals or any ethical compunction whatsoever. Both care more about winning elections and improving their own brands than about the future of the country. Neither is fit for the office of the Presidency.

Gary Johnson is neither corrupt, liberal, nor lacking in moral fiber, which by definition makes him the best choice for President in 2016.

Johnson, a former Republican governor now running under the Libertarian banner, is everything Trump and Clinton are not—namely, a fierce proponent of limited government and constitutional liberty. He alone among the significant candidates for President has consistently stood up for all rights enumerated in the Constitution, from the right to bear arms to the right of religious liberty. He alone has made the national debt and entitlement reform key aspects of his campaign, recognizing that a balanced budget is key to securing America’s future. And he alone has proven that he can be trusted to put principles and country ahead of personal gain.

As governor of New Mexico, Johnson proved that he has the will to follow through on his promises. He managed to balance the state budget while cutting taxes fourteen times, and vetoed over seven hundred bills approved by the heavily Democratic state legislature. At the same time, he worked to find common ground with Democrats, leading to a comfortable reelection in a solidly blue state.

Johnson is a libertarian, not a full-spectrum conservative, and therefore some of his positions will leave conservative voters dissatisfied. He, like Clinton and Trump, disavows the Iraq War, as well as the “chaotic, reactive military and foreign policies” of both Barack Obama and George W. Bush. He, like Clinton and the Trump of 2013, also supports some form of amnesty for illegal immigrants, and opposes increased border security. And he opposes the death penalty for any and all offenses.

Yet even on many issues most likely to drive a wedge between conservatives and libertarians, Johnson walks a fine line between appeasing the base of his own party and reaching out to disaffected conservatives. Most notably on abortion, which the platform of his own party endorses as a woman’s right, Johnson declares himself to be personally pro-life. While supporting some legal abortion access at the state level, as governor he also signed a bill banning late-term abortions, supports parental-notification laws, and believes Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned. His pro-life credentials are already therefore stronger and more consistent than those of either Trump or Clinton.

And beyond issues of policy, Johnson has proven himself to be a man of high character and strong moral fiber. With him in the White House, there will be no mishandling of classified information, shady financial dealings, or lawsuits brought by scammed customers of discredited universities. He will truly do credit to the office of Washington, Lincoln, and Reagan.

Gary Johnson for President.

Comparing The Nominees for Vice President

For all their perceived differences, Hillary Clinton and her donor-turned-general election opponent have shown similarity on a wide range of issues and personality traits. Now that comparison extends to their choice of running mates as well. Both have chosen boring, timid men afraid to overshadow or second-guess their arrogant running mates.

Tim Kaine is a prime example of a politician who stays popular only by avoiding a strong position on any controversial issue. He supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership two weeks ago, but came out strongly against it the day Clinton named him running mate. He claims to personally oppose abortion, but also opposes defunding Planned Parenthood, banning late-term abortions, and basically every other federal pro-life measure.

In short, he has made little meaningful impact in the Senate and has been a loyal foot soldier for the Democratic Party, silently supporting every major liberal proposal without taking firm, principled stances on anything.

Mike Pence, meanwhile, pledges allegiance to conservative doctrine but, similar to Kaine, has displayed no willingness to aggressively fight for his beliefs and values, instead showing a tendency to cave under pressure. The minute he was selected as Trump’s running mate he attempted to disavow his long record of support for free trade agreements and the Iraq War, as well as past criticism of Trump himself, in order to gain the VP nomination and extract himself from a difficult reelection fight.

In the House, when Pence had the ability to vote for conservative proposals but no occasion to face extreme outside pressure, his voting record was solidly on the Right. But as governor, he became less reliable, caving on Medicaid expansion and the state Religious Freedom Restoration Act, among other issues. And during the presidential primary he infamously gave Ted Cruz one of the weakest endorsements in history, while praising Trump and making it clear to everyone that, once again, he placed popularity above principle.

Neither Mike Pence nor Tim Kaine have shown much inclination over their careers to be principled leaders, but rather have placed a quest for popularity above all else. Neither has demonstrated a willingness to stand up to their respective running mates in the name of doing the right thing. Both are content to be trophy wives and see to it that their running mates’ every desire is carried out without question. The ideological integrity and resoluteness of Ted Cruz or Elizabeth Warren, or even Paul Ryan or Joe Biden, is sorely lacking in both Pence and Kaine.

To be clear: Were the roles reversed, I would happily vote for Mike Pence over nearly any Democrat. For all his flaws, he would be infinitely better than a Democratic candidate. But Pence as Trump’s sidekick does not make the latter any more fit for the Presidency, nor does Kaine as a potential Vice President make Hillary Clinton more palatable to conservative Republicans alienated by Trump.

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.