The Election of 1860

The Election of 1860 was, without doubt, the most contentious election in American history, ending as it did with the secession of the South and the Civil War. For democracy to work, the loser of an election, along with his supporters have to be willing to concede to the winner. This can happen as long as the consequence of an election is not an existential threat to the lives and liberties of the losers. For the first, and so far only, time in the history of the United States a large portion of the electorate simply refused to accept the results of a democratic election, in part because they feared the results would be destructive to their way of life.

How did it come to this, that the South so feared the election of Abraham Lincoln that it was willing to secede from the Union and risk war? Slavery had been an increasingly divisive issue for decades, yet the nation had always managed to find some sort of compromise to pull back from the brink. There had been talk of secession since the beginning of the Union, but it was mostly talk. No one seemed willing to take the fateful step to dissolve the Union before 1860. After his election in 1856, President James Buchanan had even dared to hope that the contentious slavery debate would be settled by the of his term and peace and prosperity would be the rule. He could not have been more wrong. In fact, it was during President Buchanan’s administration that a series of events occurred that made Civil War if not inevitable, certainly increased sectional tensions to the breaking point.

Historians generally hold that the Civil War began when Confederate Army fired on Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861, yet in a way the Civil War had actually started almost a decade earlier in Kansas. As early as 1854 fighting had broken out between pro and anti-slavery settlers in the Kansas Territory. The Kansas-Nebraska Act had called for popular sovereignty to decide whether Kansas would be Slave or Free. Settlers from North and South poured into Kansas attempting to get a majority for their side. Election fraud was rampant and neither side was willing to concede to the other, resulting in two separate territorial legislatures. It wasn’t long before violence broke out, egged on by radicals back east only too willing to supply arms.

Then there was the Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott vs. Sanford, announced just two days after President Buchanan’s inauguration. This decision which overturned the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and denied the right of Congress to outlaw slavery in the territories delighted the South and infuriated the North. Because of this ruling, slavery could no longer be contained to southern territories but could spread north. Even worse, because the Court decided that Dred Scott was not free just because his master had taken him to a state where slavery was illegal, opened the door to the possibility that state laws forbidding slavery might be effectively overturned since freeing the slaves of a person who moved North could be construed as unlawfully depriving him of his property. Chief Justice Roger Taney and President Buchanan hoped that the Dred Scott decision would settle the issue of slavery once and for all, but the uncompromising nature of the decision only made things worse.

Finally, there was John Brown’s raid on the federal arsenal at Harper’s Ferry on October 19, 1859. I don’t think the Northern abolitionists had any idea how afraid the slave owners of the South were of their own slaves. While Southern apologists depicted the Blacks as simple minded creatures, perfectly content with slavery in their propaganda, anyone who had much contact with the slaves must have known how much they resented their servitude. They had good reason to fear that the Black slaves would take a terrible revenge if they ever got the chance. When the abolitionists demanded that slavery be ended, the Southern Whites, only heard a call for their own destruction. When a terrorist from Kansas tried to incite a slave insurrection only to be hailed as a hero and a martyr by sympathetic Northerners, the Southerners must have seen their worst fears confirmed.

By the election of 1860, it must have seemed that the United States could no longer be half Free and half Slave. Either slavery would be abolished, along with a way of life that benefited the Southern elite, or slavery must spread to every part of the nation. Little wonder a Civil War resulted.

The Democratic convention was held in Charleston South Carolina in April. Since President Buchanan declined to run for reelection, the most obvious candidate was Stephen Douglas from Illinois. Douglas had served in the House of Representatives from 1843 to 1847 and then in the Senate from 1847 until his death from typhoid fever in 1861. Stephan Douglas is best known today for his famous debates with Abraham Lincoln during the Senatorial election of 1856. He was a great believer in democracy, believing that popular sovereignty should settle the slavery issue in the territories. Douglas tended to oppose the Dred Scott decision, but had to be careful lest he alienate the South.

This “pro-choice” did not please the Southern delegates at the convention who wanted a party platform that specifically protected slavery. This Douglas and the Northern delegates would not agree to and the convention broke up. This was not a good sign.

The Democrats met again the following month in Baltimore. Again the Northern and Southern delegates could not agree on a candidate or a platform, so they held separate conventions. The Northern delegates nominated Stephen Douglas, as expected, and selected Herschel V. Johnson, the governor of Georgia from 1853-1857. Their platform called for popular sovereignty in the territories.

Stephen A. Doulglas

Herschel V.Johnson

The Southern delegates nominated Vice-President John C. Breckinridge for President and Joseph Lane, one of Oregon’s first two senators, for Vice-President. They supported a platform demanding federal protection of slavery in the territories.

John C. Breckinridge

Joseph Lane

Meanwhile, the Republicans held their convention in Chicago from May 16 to 18. Abraham Lincoln was not really one of the leaders of the Republican Party. The more prominent Republicans who were expected to get the nomination included Senator William Seward of New York. Governor Salmon P. Chase from Ohio, and Senator Simon Cameron from Pennsylvania. Lincoln’s political resume was thin compared to these leaders having only served in the House of Representatives from 1847-1849 and in the Illinois Legislature form 1834-1842. However, each of these leaders had made enemies and had alienated one faction or another of the party. Lincoln, in contrast was well liked and known to be a good debater. The Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1856 had attracted national attention. Lincoln was also a shrewd politician and while he was against slavery, he was not as radical as some Republicans. Lincoln was nominated on the third ballot and Senator Hannibal Hamlin of Maine was selected as his running mate.

Abraham Lincoln

Hannibal Hamlin

Then, because things were not confusing enough with three candidates, a group of former Whigs, along with a few Democrats and former Know-Nothings met in Baltimore on May 9 to organize the Constitutional Union Party. This party was for preserving the Union at any cost, and not much else. They were silent on the slavery question, perhaps hoping to make the controversy go away. The Constitutional Union Party nominated John Bell, who had served as Senator from Tennessee from 1847-1859. Bell had begun his political career as a Democratic supporter of Andrew Jackson, then he split with Jackson to become the leader of the Whig Party in Tennessee. By the 1850’s he had begun to create a third party composed of moderates from both the North and South in an effort to alleviate the increasing sectional tension. Bell’s relatively moderate views on slavery made him unpopular in the South, though he had some appeal in the border states. The Constitutional Union Party went on to nominate former Senator from Massachusetts, Edward Everett as Bell’s running mate.

 

John Bell

Edward Everett

Since the Democratic party was split and Lincoln wasn’t even on the ballot in the South, the the election of 1860, was essentially two separate contests, Lincoln vs Douglas in the North and Bell vs Breckinridge in the South. As one might imagine, this turned out to be an exciting and tumultuous election, with all the hoopla of American politics in the nineteenth century. Stephen Douglas broke with tradition and actually went out to campaign in person, in the South as well as the North. In the South, he pleaded for the Southerners to accept the results of the election, no matter who won. They didn’t listen. Southern newspapers continued to run editorials promising secession and war if the “Black Republican” Lincoln were elected.

The other candidates stayed at home and tried to look dignified and presidential but their supporters made up the difference in raucous energy. Bell’s supporters rang bells at rallies. Republicans were the most enthusiastic, holding parades featuring rails that the great rail splitter Abraham Lincoln had personally split.  If it weren’t for the great seriousness of it all, it would have been a lot of fun.

None of the four candidates got a majority of the popular vote, but Lincoln won a plurality with 1,865,908 votes or 39.8% of the total. Douglas came in second with 1,380,202 votes (29.5%). Breckinridge was third with 848,019 votes (18.1%C) and Bell came in last with 590,901 votes (12.6%). It is slightly ironic that if the Southern Democrats had supported Stephen Douglas, he might have won the election. By leaving the convention and nominating their own candidate, they virtually guaranteed a victory for Lincoln, the one candidate they could not accept.

The Electoral vote was more decisive, with Lincoln getting a comfortable majority. The vote was divided along sectional lines. Lincoln won the entire North and West except for New Jersey, getting a total of 180 electoral votes. New Jersey split its seven votes giving four to Lincoln and three to Douglas. Douglas was second in the popular vote, but last in the Electoral College winning only Missouri’s nine votes and three of New Jersey’s for a total of 12 electoral votes. Breckinridge won all the Southern states, except for Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia, and got a total of 72 electoral votes. Bell won those three states with 39 electoral votes.

The Election of 1860

Stephen Douglas realized that a Lincoln victory would divide the country and immediately after the election he traveled south and gave speeches supporting the Union. It didn’t work and on December 20, 1860 South Carolina formally succeeded from the Union. Soon, the other Southern states followed and America’s bloodiest war began.

Related articles

• Matthew Pinsker: Was Lincoln Anti-Slavery or Pro-Union? (therecoveringpolitician.com)
• Trump on Civil War: Why couldn’t they have worked that out? (bostonherald.com)
• Wrestling With His Angel (truthdig.com)

Obama Kids Revisited

Remember this video?

I wrote about it way back in September 2011. I still do not like the comparison made between Obama and Hitler. No American politician, either Obama, Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump is anything at all like Hitler. I also still think that having choirs of children singing the praises of a politician is more than a little creepy. It’s also odd that the same sort of people who didn’t have a problem with the Obama Cult are declaring that Trump is an evil dictator, just like Hitler. As far as I know, Trump has not had children singing about how wonderful he is, or artists depicting him as the Messiah, or celebrities pledging their unconditional allegiance to him. Perhaps this is projection? Maybe we are only safe from a would be dictator if he happens to be a Republican.

Anyway, I happened to see this video yesterday and I started to wonder whatever became of these children. They must be college age by now. Maybe some of them are attending Berkeley where they are participating in riots to drive away any conservative speaker who dares to show up. There might be one or two at Yale, screaming at professors who suggested that student might be able to choose their own Halloween costumes. They might be protesting against the systemic racism found at the University of Missouri. Perhaps they have skipped college altogether to attend “antifa” protests, fighting the threat of right-wing Fascism by beating up people and smashing store windows, in other words by acting like the Fascists did in Germany and Italy.

No contemporary American politician is anything like Hitler, but if a dictator ever does come to power in America, he won’t have any trouble finding recruits for his storm troopers from the sort of people who teach their children to sing hymns of praise to politicians.

Organizing for Action’s Values

I still get email from Organizing for Action:

Organizing for Action
Friend —

The White House is doubling down on their immigration agenda, plowing forward with their multi-billion dollar budget request for taxpayer funds to build a border wall, deportation force, and expanded detention facilities.

This agenda does not represent our values, and we have to hold every member of Congress who votes in favor of it accountable.

Add your name to join the fight against funding this harmful, discriminatory immigration agenda.

The actions the administration wants to take wouldn’t just harm the way we’re viewed around the world, or waste precious dollars that could be used to improve our schools, advance research to cure diseases, or help small businesses: They would impact millions of people who are just looking for an opportunity for a better life. It shouldn’t matter where they come from — or how they pray. They want to contribute to the success of America.

The good news is that the White House needs funding from Congress to get this done. That’s our opportunity to intervene.

We need all hands on deck to let our representatives know that we won’t stand for an immigration agenda that runs counter to the values that make us strong.

Say you’ll hold your members of Congress accountable:

Add your name

Thanks,

Saumya

Saumya Narechania
National Issues Campaign Manager
Organizing for Action

Well, as a conservative, my values include the concept of ordered liberty under the rule of law, so I prefer that laws be enforced, including immigration laws. This means that a more vigorous enforcement of our immigration laws, as opposed to the more lackadaisical previous administration, represents my values perfectly.

The problem with illegal immigration is not the immigration but the illegal. The United States of America, like every other country in the world with a functioning government, has laws regarding who can enter this country and procedures that a person who wishes to emigrate here must follow. These laws are for the benefit of the people who already live here. No one has a right to emigrate into this country, or any other, and we are not obliged to allow anyone at all into our country, if we don’t want them here. We have every right to insist that the people wishing to come here learn to speak our language and agree to uphold our values. This means that if a potential immigrant does not want to try to learn English or wants to replace the constitution with Sharia law, we can refuse to allow him entry. We also should expect that a person who comes here to obey our laws. An illegal immigrant has already broken our laws.

The people at Organizing for Action seem to believe that our immigration laws are unjust. They may even believe that our borders should be open to anyone who wants to enter. Notice, however, that they are not advocating the repeal or alteration of our current immigration laws. Instead, they seem to believe that the laws should simply be . ignored. The rule of law, then, is not among the values they believe in.

Honesty in discourse also does not seem to be one of their values. They speak of the contributions that immigrants have made to this country and urge that we allow them in as if President Trump is closing our borders to everyone. No one is presently arguing for a complete ban on immigration. There is not even a movement to reduce legal immigration. The debate is over what ought to be done about illegal immigration, whether the relevant laws should, or should not be enforced. By blurring the distinction between legal and illegal immigration and attributing motives and policies to their opponents that they do not, in fact, hold, Organizing for Action and the left generally is arguing dishonestly. Why not argue for open borders, since that is what they seem to want? Because that would be unpopular and no politician who wants to keep his office would endorse it. Instead they have to rely on changing the subject and using glib words and outright lies.

Organizing for Action’s values are not my values. I hope that they are not America’s values.

 

Related articles

• It’s Embarrassing To Be an American These Days (motherjones.com) Actually I am proud to be an American these days.
• Hollywood Actor Unleashed! Calls for American Patriotism and Slams Attacks on Free Speech (VIDEO) (libertynews.com)

Coal Country Comeback

I am not sure if this is actually good news.

Hazard, Kentucky is one of those small coal-mining towns with one main road snaking through the hollow. Both sides of the road are lined with a handful of retail stores and restaurants. The windows on about half of those stores are now covered with newspaper. The signs out front say, “closed.”

That’s what happens in a one-industry town when the president turns against that industry. Carla Hall at tiny Feltner’s Barbershop, right on the main road, knows that too well.

“My business went down tremendously,” she said.

Like Carla, everyone in town, from the insurance salesman to the waitress at the coffee shop, is ultimately connected to money that comes out of the mine.

“When they start getting laid off, they stretch out the haircuts,” she said.

However, there is a new sense of optimism in coal country and that is linked to a new president who, from the campaign trail, frequently bellowed: “We are going to put our miners back to work.”

I love mining coal,” Carlos Sturdill said 250 feet underground in the E4-1 mine in Hazard. That mine shut down in the Obama years. There are many factors that allowed the mine to re-open and people like Sturdill to get back to work.

For starters, the entire economy has seen a bump. That has created a demand for steel. The high-quality coal that comes out of Appalachia is well suited for making steel.

“I’m glad to be working. I’m thankful I’ve got a job again,” Sturdill said. Then you have President Trump who started rolling back regulations early in his time on the job. One of Trump’s early executive orders was to roll back the Stream Protection Rule. The SPR was created in the 11th hour of the Obama presidency and it would have placed a burden on coal companies to test streams before during and after mining. Trump followed up by undoing the 2015 Waters of the US rule, which broadened the definition of a body of water.

Obviously, it is a good thing that people are getting their jobs back and Hazard’s economy is reviving, yet it seems to me that it is more than a little sad that these communities depend on something as difficult, dangerous and dirty as coal mining for their livelihood. Shouldn’t they aspire to something better for their children than coal mining. Besides, the reprieve is only temporary, as some residents of Hazard realize.

No one expects coal jobs to come back to their heyday. Some of the causes can be pinned on former President Obama.

Under pressure to get away from coal, some power plants shut down. Some were retrofitted to burn natural gas. Now that officials spent the money, they won’t go back — especially because hydraulic fracturing makes natural gas available and cheap.

“So, a lot of that chunk of the market has been taken away,” said Dr. Anthony Szwilski of West Virginia’s Marshall University. “Even though coal is coming back and there will be employment in the future, they are unlikely to go back to where it was 10-15 years ago.”

Technology has also advanced. The reality is this: you can get more coal out of the ground now using fewer people.

I think that advancing technology will make the use of fossil fuels obsolete, probably sooner than most people expect. Coal will probably be phased out soonest because of environmental concerns. Even if there continues to be a demand for coal, there will likely be an increased use of machines to dig the coal. Why risk the lives of miners when a machine will do it, and cost less than paying people to go into the mines? Obama may have been waging a war against coal, but he was only really accelerating a process that was already occurring. It might be better if the town of Hazard could make the transition to something more sustainable and healthier than coal mining sooner than later.

But what are communities like Hazard, Kentucky to transition to? These towns in the Appalachians are too remote and inaccessible to attract much industry. There may be some potential for tourism. I don’t imagine many people would care to visit coal mines, except as a sort of museum, but there are many places in the region that might have enough natural beauty to attract visitors. Even so, tourism will never replace coal mining as a source of income. If it weren’t for the coal mines, it is possible that towns like Hazard would never been settled at all. When coal mining is no longer there, perhaps there will  be no reason for people to live there. Is it the fate of Hazard, Kentucky to become a ghost town, an abandoned reminder of a past era in American history? Or can the people of Hazard make a better future for themselves? I hope they will find a better future for themselves.

Related articles

• Coal country questions if Trump can bring jobs back (wwlp.com)
• The entire coal industry employs fewer people than Arby’s (thegazette.com) That will change if they raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour.
• Americans Used A Lot Less Coal in 2016; Here’s Why (climatecentral.org)
• A coal museum in Kentucky is switching to solar power. (grist.org)

Senator Warren is Part of the Problem

Senator Elizabeth Warren, aka Fauxcahontas, recently wrote an opinion piece in the Boston Globe opposing the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. On the whole, the article was not worth much, being composed of the usual talking points about right wing extremism and Republican class warfare against the poor, written by a woman who is worth millions but there was one or two paragraphs that caught my attention since they illustrate why there is a lack of civility in contemporary politics.

On the bench, his judicial decisions show a remarkable ability to shape and re-shape legal arguments in ways that benefit large corporations and disadvantage ordinary people seeking justice. In the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores case, when he had to choose between the “rights” of corporations and the rights of women, Gorsuch sided with corporations. In consumer protection cases, when he had to choose between the “rights” of corporations and the rights of swindled consumers, Gorsuch sided with corporations. In discrimination cases, when he had to choose between the “rights” of corporations and the rights of employees to be free from harassment and abuse, Gorsuch sided with corporations.

Notice the use of quotation marks when she speaks of rights that she disagrees with. In her mind, Neil Gorsuch cannot be simply concerned about religious freedom, the effectiveness and constitutionality of certain laws or government overreach in regulating the workplace. There is not an honest difference of opinion or priorities here that can be discussed and debated. No, Neil Gorsuch is a puppet of the corporations and right wing extremists. He has no logical reason for the rulings he has made, he is simply evil.

Warren goes on;

Gorsuch has taken positions that are even more extreme than his extremely conservative colleagues. When it comes to the rules that protect public health and safety, Gorsuch is more radical than Scalia was. Gorsuch believes that courts should not be required to defer to expert agency interpretations of their governing laws. If he had his way, he’d make it even easier for corporations to challenge health and safety rules that prevent them from polluting our air and water, poisoning our food, undermining public safety, or cheating people out of their hard-earned savings.

What she is referring to is the Chevron Deference, the legal principle established by Chevron vs. National Resources Defense Council in 1984, which holds that the courts should defer to agency interpretations of statutes unless they are unreasonable.

What this means is this. Suppose the EPA decides that a ditch in your back yard is a wetland and forbid you to drain it or develop that part of your lawn in any way, You might take the EPA to court in the grounds that they have no jurisdiction over your private property, but the courts must defer to their own interpretation of the relevant regulations, so if the EPA says they have jurisdiction; they have jurisdiction. You may question whether a ditch constitutes an actual wetland, but the court must defer to their expects, so if the EPA says it is a wetland, it is a wetland. This is a silly example that might never occur in real life, but it illustrates the principle and demonstrates why it is almost impossible to win a court case against a federal regulatory agency. The system is rigged in their favor.

This might be a good thing. One would suppose that the people working for the EPA would know the most about protecting the environment and would be less biased than a company that is polluting, but one can see the potential for abuse, especially if the regulatory agencies are staffed with activists and zealots. In any case, there is legitimate concern among conservatives like Neil Gorsuch that the Chevron Deference permits agency overreach and abuse of power. In Senator Warren’s opinion .anyone who questions the Chevron Deference cannot have any real cause for concern. They must want to allow pollution and poisoned food because they are evil and greedy.

How can you have civility in politics when one side accuses the other of wanting to discriminate and cause pollution? How can government function when a constitutionally elected president is routinely compared to Hitler and his opponents call themselves the Resistance as though they are fighting a foreign occupation. To be fair, there is a lot of this on both sides, but I think it is much, much worse on the left. At least, people on the right haven’t been calling for a military coup to overthrow the president or attacking Trump’s supporters. There was a certain amount of insanity from the right during the Obama administration, but responsible Republicans tried to keep it toned down. Where are the responsible Democrats? There don’t seem to be many left in the Senate.

Related articles

• Reed: Elizabeth Warren already has eyes set on prez race (bostonherald.com) God help us
• A Spectator’s Guide to the Gorsuch Hearings (americanthinker.com)

Republican Stockholm Syndrome

I have always rather liked George W. Bush. He has seemed to be a decent enough guy who really tried to be a good president. I wouldn’t say that he was one of the best presidents that we have ever had, but he wasn’t the worst either. He certainly didn’t deserve the hatred and abuse heaped upon him by the left and the media. That is why it is sad to see that George W. Bush has come down with Republican Stockholm Syndrome, that mysterious malady that causes Republicans to defend their tormentors in the media while attacking their fellow Republicans. Bush has remained silent throughout the administration of his successor, Barack Obama, but has offered some criticism of Donald Trump in recent interviews, as noted in this article from Fox news.

Former President George W. Bush offered what appeared to be a thinly veiled critique of his Republican successor on Monday, as he defended the importance of the media and immigration policies that are “welcoming.”

Bush, during an interview on NBC’s “Today” show to promote a new book of military portraits, addressed a range of President Trump controversies, specifically when asked about the executive order to temporarily restrict travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries. That order stalled in court, though Trump is expected to issue a new — but similar — order this week.

He doesn’t seem to wholly approve of Trump’s combative relationship with the media.

Until now, Bush largely has remained mum about the policies not only of Trump, but of former President Barack Obama. Bush’s comments Monday stopped short of a reprimand, but highlighted differences between his and Trump’s respective approaches to common challenges.

While Trump has repeatedly lambasted media organizations and termed numerous negative reports “fake news,” Bush applauded the same media that often derided him during his Oval Office tenure.

“I consider the media to be indispensable to democracy,” Bush said. “That we need an independent media to hold people like me to account. Power can be very addictive. And it can be corrosive.”

Bush is right in that we do need an independent media to hold people in power to account. Too bad we don’t have such an independent media. What we do have, as Bush ought to know, is a media determined to advance the careers of Democrats and destroy Republicans at any cost, including the use of fake news.

For eight years the media pummeled George W. Bush with fake news after fake news for the express purpose of destroying his presidency. Does he not remember, “Bush lied, the troops died”,  misreporting on Hurricane Katrina to imply that Bush wanted Blacks to die, and much, much else. For eight years the media refused to report on anything that might reflect poorly on their anointed Lightworker, and then praised him for having a scandal free administration. Well, if a tree that falls in a forest makes no noise if no one is there to listen, than a president is scandal free if no one bothers to report on any of his scandals.

Bush is probably the last person to comment on anyone’s handling of the press. He refused to fight back, even when the most egregious slanders were reported as facts. Maybe he was too much of a gentleman to get into such fights. Maybe he thought it was more dignified to remain silent. I think that his presidency would have been more successful and the country better off if Bush had fought back against the purveyors of fake news.

There is a lot not to like about Donald Trump. He is not a conservative. He is only nominally a Republican. Trump’s instincts seem to favor the sort of big government solutions conservatives deplore. Trump can be undisciplined and too inclined to shoot off his mouth when silence would be more appropriate. But Trump has one saving grace that makes me inclined to forgive his many faults. Trump fights. He does not stand silent when he is attacked as so many Republicans do. He fights back. Trump seems to understand that being nice to the mainstream media simply doesn’t work. Trying to be presidential and refusing to dignify media attacks with a response only results in a damaged and ineffective presidency. Trump may be crude and undignified, but he does seem to know how to handle the media. I wish other Republicans would learn from him. At the very least, I wish other Republicans would learn not to attack each other in the hope of a few nice words from the media that despises them.

Related articles

• Kellyanne Conway Kneels On Oval Office Couch, Sparks Debate (boston.cbslocal.com) Obviously a serious issue
• Kellyanne Conway Addresses White House Couch Controversy And ‘Double Standard’ With Barack Obama (business2community.com)

Who’s the Boss

While President Trump is working to make America great again, he is naturally encountering resistance. This is to be expected, of course; no president is universally popular and Trump is more controversial than most. What might not be expected is the opposition Trump will be receiving inside the federal government from the people who are supposed to be working for him and for us. This article from the Washington Post tells of the resistance from within that Trump may be facing.

The signs of popular dissent from President Trump’s opening volley of actions have been plain to see on the nation’s streets, at airports in the aftermath of his refu­gee and visa ban, and in the blizzard of outrage on social media. But there’s another level of resistance to the new president that is less visible and potentially more troublesome to the administration: a growing wave of opposition from the federal workers charged with implementing any new president’s agenda.

Less than two weeks into Trump’s administration, federal workers are in regular consultation with recently departed Obama-era political appointees about what they can do to push back against the new president’s initiatives. Some federal employees have set up social media accounts to anonymously leak word of changes that Trump appointees are trying to make.

And a few government workers are pushing back more openly, incurring the wrath of a White House that, as press secretary Sean Spicer said this week about dissenters at the State Department, sends a clear message that they “should either get with the program, or they can go.”

At a church in Columbia Heights last weekend, dozens of federal workers attended a support group for civil servants seeking a forum to discuss their opposition to the Trump administration. And 180 federal employees have signed up for a workshop next weekend, where experts will offer advice on workers’ rights and how they can express civil disobedience.

At the Justice Department, an employee in the division that administers grants to nonprofits fighting domestic violence and researching sex crimes said the office has been planning to slow its work and to file complaints with the inspector general’s office if asked to shift grants away from their mission.

“You’re going to see the bureaucrats using time to their advantage,” said the employee, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation. Through leaks to news organizations and internal complaints, he said, “people here will resist and push back against orders they find unconscionable.”

I think these federal workers have forgotten who is the boss in this country. We do not some in some medieval despotism in which an superior caste of mandarins make all the decisions for the good of those deplorable serfs who are too ignorant to decide for themselves how to live their lives. The United States of America is a democratic republic in which the people rule and where government exists to protect our inalienable rights. These civil servants do not, or ought not, to make the policies and laws in this country. The people make the laws through our elected representatives. The job of the civil servants is to carry out those decisions made by our elected representatives. A federal worker has the same right to his opinion as any other American citizen, on his own time. If he believes a given policy is wrong, he can complain about it, or even resign if he believes that implementing a policy is against his conscience. He cannot work to undermine the agenda or policies of the elected and appointed officials who are his superiors anymore than a worker in the private sector can work to undermine the company he works for. Federal workers who are actively working to resist President Trump need to be fired. If the law prevents them from being fired, than the law must be changed.

Sometimes I think it would be better if we went back to the Spoils System. Our modern, professional, supposedly non-partisan civil service dates back to the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883 which mandated that positions in the federal government should be given on the basis of merit as determined by civil service exams. Before that act the offices of the federal government were filled by a system of patronage called the Spoils System. Every federal employee was a political appointee, even local postmasters. With every change in administration after every election, there would be a wholesale turnover in the entire government as supporters of the previous administration were discharged while their jobs were given to the supporters of the incoming president. This meant that the first months of any new president would be filled with finding jobs for everyone who contributed time and money to his campaign. Since the victor gets the spoils of war, this system was called the Spoils System.

The Spoils System was not a particularly good way to run a government since most of the office holders were selected on the basis of political loyalty rather than on any ability to perform the functions of the job and the men selected were obviously more interested using their offices to gain political power and enrich themselves than in serving the public. The Pendleton Act was meant to remedy these obvious evils by putting into place a federal workers who had the specific skills and experience needed for the offices they held and who would dispassionately serve the public rather than political hacks beholden to the politicians who appointed them.

I am not certain that the Pendleton Act has been entirely successful, or perhaps it has been too successful in some ways. It seems to be that our modern, professional civil service has become an entrenched castes of elites with agendas of their own and who believe themselves to be a ruling caste who can lord over their inferiors. Even worse, they seem to be loyal to a particular political party, the Democrats, to the point of being willing to sabotage the elected officials of the opposing party. Thus, we have the worst of both evils, an arrogant ruling class of political hacks. At least with the Spoils System there was some rotation of people, and since they were political appointees they had to be at least somewhat responsive to the will of the elected officials who got them their jobs and who themselves knew they had to face the voters at the next election.

Something to think about, anyway. Our present system is not working too well. Maybe it’s time for a change.

Scott Adams and Berkeley

Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, reacts to the recent unrest at his alma mater, Berkeley.

Speaking of Hitler, I’m ending my support of UC Berkeley, where I got my MBA years ago. I have been a big supporter lately, with both my time and money, but that ends today. I wish them well, but I wouldn’t feel safe or welcome on the campus. A Berkeley professor made that clear to me recently. He seems smart, so I’ll take his word for it.

I’ve decided to side with the Jewish gay immigrant who has an African-American boyfriend, not the hypnotized zombie-boys in black masks who were clubbing people who hold different points of view. I feel that’s reasonable, but I know many will disagree, and possibly try to club me to death if I walk on campus.

Adams goes on:

Yesterday I asked my most liberal, Trump-hating friend if he ever figured out why Republicans have most of the Governorships, a majority in Congress, the White House, and soon the Supreme Court. He said, “There are no easy answers.”

I submit that there are easy answers. But for many Americans, cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias hide those easy answers behind Hitler hallucinations.

I don’t know much about Scott Adams’s political views. He predicted that Donald Trump would win the election and wrote several blog posts praising Trump as a “master persuader”, but that is not the same as supporting Trump or his policies. I gather that Adams is vaguely libertarian. He is likely pro-capitalist in his economic views since he is an entrepreneur, yet he is often critical of big business in his comic strip and elsewhere. His religious views are somewhat New Agish and I do not think he considers himself a Christian, and I imagine he is culturally and socially liberal but I really don’t know and its doesn’t matter much.

What does matter is that as long as Democrats excuse the rioting at Berkeley and intolerance elsewhere, it seems likely that Scott Adams will not be voting for any Democrats, if he votes at all. I think there are quite a few people like Scott Adams who are not exactly conservative and who might not be traditional Republican voters or supporters of Donald Trump who are likely to be repulsed by such antics as the Berkeley riots and the increasing intolerant bullying and general hysteria of the left. If the Democrats and the people protesting against Trump do not calm down and explicitly denounce the use of violence by their supporters, it may cost them dearly in the next elections.

Related articles

• Dilbert creator gives up on UC Berkeley once and for all (hotair.com)
• ‘The president is watching’: Milo Yiannopoulos responds to show of support from Trump (businessinsider.com)
• President Trump Defends Free Speech, Drops Open-Ended Threat on UC Berkeley Following Violence, Riots (ijr.com) He’s just like Hitler!!!! Hitler was for free speech, oh wait.
• Donald Trump threatens UC Berkeley with fund cuts after protests against far-right speaker (scroll.in)

The Fascist Anti-Fascist

Here is an incredible interview with Yvette Felarca, the director of BAMN (By Any Means Necessary) and an organizer of the riots that prevented Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking at Berkeley. She is not in the least apologetic or regretful that violence was used to suppress free speech.

I wonder if Ms. Felarca is actually listening to herself speak, or is thinking about the implications of what she is telling the interviewer. I wonder if she knows what Fascism actually is or whether it has occurred to her that a man in a black mask beating someone with a club because he doesn’t like what he says or thinks is far more emblematic of Fascism than a homosexual, English Jew of Greek descent who has a Black boyfriend. I wonder if Ms. Felarca will ever realize that she is being the Fascist by justifying and advocating political violence. Perhaps not. I don’t get the impression that many of these campus “anarchists” do very much thinking at all.

Fascism is essentially a glorification of and justification for the use of political violence to obtain desired results. Fascism stresses action over words and abstract theory, violent revolution over legislation and political debate. With this emphasis on revolution, Fascism resembles its ideological cousin Communism or Marxism. Both ideologies stem from Karl Marx’s ideas, though Fascism is a reaction against Marx, appealing mainly to people of the middle classes terrified by the idea of a Marxist revolution of the working class. While Marxism stresses the international class struggle, Fascism, perhaps more in tune with human nature, promotes the idea of national or racial unity of all classes. The Fascists were the original believers in the “it takes a village” meme. For them the Nation or Race is the village.

But this is a digression. The essential feature of Fascism, as well as other forms of militant socialism is the use of violence. Since Yvette Felarca and her associates are the ones justifying the use of violence, it would be fair to say they are the Fascists. Milo Yianopoulos’s speech may be provocative, but he has not called on his supporters to use violence. President Trump may delight in controversy, but he was elected by lawful and constitutional means and he is still subject to the same checks and balances as any other president. Trump is far from being a dictator. It is his opponents who are calling for violent resistance and a military coup. By the very definition of the word, they are the Fascists.

The United States of America has been very fortunate in that we have had a peaceful transition of power from president to president and party to party for over two centuries. This is far from common in the world. With the exception of Great Britain, there is no other country in the world that can boast such a tradition. By advocating political violence, Ms Felarca and her like minded colleagues are putting that proud tradition in jeopardy and there is no telling what the end results might be if political violence becomes normalized. It may not be what the Berkeley radicals might expect. Trump supporters and people generally will not let themselves be beaten up for long. Soon, they will fight back and there are more of us than them.

Then too, people don’t like riots and violent protests. Most people prefer security over liberty and when it comes to it will gladly trade their liberties for security. If the police and the government, hobbled as they must be by laws, traditions, or constitutions cannot maintain order, the people may well turn to a strong man who can. By advocating political violence against an imaginary dictator Trump, Ms. Felarca may end up creating a real dictatorship. I wish these people knew enough history to see where what they are saying will lead to.

Related articles

• First as Tragedy, Then as Farce (order-order.com)
• Goldberg: Fun time’s over for Trump’s wall (bostonherald.com)
• Berkeley campus chaos spurs questions at free-speech bastion (sfgate.com)
• Milo Yiannopoulos’ Berkeley talk canceled after protests get heated (wbrz.com)
• ‘NO FEDERAL FUNDS?’: Trump threatens UC Berkeley after campus erupts in protests over Milo Yiannopoulos speech (businessinsider.com)
• Rioters Beat Man Thought To Be Nazi, Then Find Out Who He Really Was (madworldnews.com)
• College socialists: We need more violence against Trump and his supporters to be effective (thecollegefix.com)

The Circus is not Coming to Town

Well, this is sad.

After 146 years, the curtain is coming down on “The Greatest Show on Earth.” The owner of the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus told The Associated Press that the show will close forever in May.

The iconic American spectacle was felled by a variety of factors, company executives say. Declining attendance combined with high operating costs, along with changing public tastes and prolonged battles with animal rights groups all contributed to its demise.

“There isn’t any one thing,” said Kenneth Feld, chairman and CEO of Feld Entertainment. “This has been a very difficult decision for me and for the entire family.”

The company broke the news to circus employees Saturday night after shows in Orlando and Miami.

Ringling Bros. has two touring circuses this season and will perform 30 shows between now and May. Major stops include Atlanta, Washington, Philadelphia, Boston and Brooklyn. The final shows will be in Providence, Rhode Island, on May 7 and in Uniondale, New York, at the Nassau County Coliseum on May 21.

To be honest, it is surprising Ringling Bros. and Barnum and Bailey Circus has lasted this long. There are so many entertainment options that are cheaper or more accessible and the circus really seems to be a  relic of a past time, when people were perhaps more easily entertained, or at least had longer attention spans. I gather Ringling Bros. had been in decline for some time, but the final blow seems to be the decision to end the elephant acts prompted by ongoing litigation from animal rights activists.

Feld and his daughter Juliette Feld, who is the company’s chief operating officer, acknowledged another reality that led to the closing, and it was the one thing that initially drew millions to the show: the animals. Ringling has been targeted by activists who say forcing animals to perform is cruel and unnecessary.

PETA is celebrating.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, a longtime opponent of the circus, wasted no time in claiming victory.

“After 36 years of PETA protests, which have awoken the world to the plight of animals in captivity, PETA heralds the end of what has been the saddest show on earth for wild animals, and asks all other animal circuses to follow suit, as this is a sign of changing times,” Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, wrote in a statement.

I cannot see any reason why the circus couldn’t have continued their elephant acts in a humane fashion or why there could not be some compromise made in which the wild animals could perform under carefully supervised conditions, allowing audiences to have the chance to see these magnificent creatures perform. I also wonder that the animal rights activists cannot see that in many cases performing animals are cared for better than they would be in the wild where they would be subject to disease and predators. The owners of an animal act have a financial incentive to keep their animals healthy. But PETA is not interested in compromise, the jobs lost, the missing chance for future generations to see the show, or even really about the welfare of the animals. They have their own agenda and are not about to let any such considerations to get in the way.

Thanks a lot PETA. You made the clowns sad.

It seems to me that more and more in American politics and culture, people are less interested in any sort of compromise and more interested in forcing their viewpoints and demands on others. No one seems willing to meet the other side halfway and compromise is seen as giving in to the enemy or a tactic to weaken the opponent’s resolve. Maybe this is the result of a growing tendency towards Manichean thinking in our discourse. Differences in opinions  are not simply a reflection of different values and experiences between people of good will but as part of a cosmic battle between light and darkness. If you are on the side of the angels, than it stands to reason that your opponents must be on the side of the devils. If your candidate is a lightworker than anyone who opposes him must be on the side of darkness and his candidate must be Hitler. Naturally one does not compromise when fighting the Devil. One can only oppose him.

In the meantime, if you want to see the Ringling Bros. Barnum and Bailey Circus, you had better get the tickets right now.

 

Related articles

• The Ringling Bros. circus is shutting down after 146 years (mashable.com)
• Ringling Bros. will shut down after crowds shun the circus (kdvr.com)
• See Ringling Brothers’ ‘Greatest Show on Earth’ Through the Years (time.com)
• Final Ringling Bros. show at Nassau Coliseum sells out (wbrz.com)
• Tears For The Clowns: After 146 Years, It’s A Wrap For Ringling Bros. Circus! (bossip.com)