QUORA: ‘What will the 2018 midterm elections mean for policy making in the US?'

With Democrats regaining the House of Representatives, I decided to take a crack at political prognostication, just for the fun of it.

QUORA *: ‘What will it mean for policy making in the US now the Democrats have taken control of the House and the Republicans have extended their lead in the Senate?’

I posted this answer:

Political prognosticators generally expect policy “gridlock.” But my guess is that more will get done legislatively, for better or for worse, than people expect. Trump is the quintessential pragmatist. He is a deal-maker. Now that the Democrats control half of Congress, he will happily collaborate with the Democrats on legislation. (Already, Andrew Cuomo announced a “productive meeting” with Trump regarding funding for the $multibillion Gateway Tunnel project.) Much as the Democrats will want to make Trump look bad by not giving him any high profile legislative successes, they’ll have to go along partly because Trump will make concessions most GOP presidents wouldn’t give, and partly to avoid being branded “the party of NO.”

Trump would never go along with any of the more radical fascist-like proposals of the socialist wing of the Democratic Party, such as Elizabeth Warren’s Nader-inspired, Mussolini style government takeover of big corporations (Accountable Capitalism Act) or Bernie Sanders’s Mafia-like extortion schemes (“Stop Walmart” Act, “Stop Bezos” Act) or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s pet scheme to force the entire medical profession into police state-like federal regimentation (Medicare-for-All). On the other hand, Republicans will be unhappy with some of Trump’s deals with the Democrats. But Trump will pressure the Republican Senate to go along, and they’ll have little choice because he’s their own president.

Politically, the Democrats’ 2018 midterm election gains changes the game for them. The Democrats will now have to get back to actually governing rather than merely bashing Trump. And behind Trump’s often inane tweeting is a politically shrewd politician. My guess is that within two years Trump will be looked upon more favorably than he is now. If Democrats work with him, he’ll look better. If they don’t, the Democrats will look bad.

With the full understanding that it is hazardous to make predictions, especially about the future, my view is that the Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives will end up having increased Trump’s chances for reelection in 2020.

-------------------------

Then it got interesting. Stay tuned

Related Reading:

My Vote Will Go to . . . (ARRGGHH!) Donald Trump

* [Quora is a social media website founded by two former Facebook employees. According to Wikipedia:

Quora is a question-and-answer website where questions are created, answered, edited and organized by its community of users. The company was founded in June 2009, and the website was made available to the public on June 21, 2010.[3]Quora aggregates questions and answers to topics. Users can collaborate by editing questions and suggesting edits to other users' answers.[4]

You can also reply to other users’ answers.]

Democratic Socialism: The Left Escalates America’s Journey to Totalitarianism

A recent Foundation of Economic Education article by James Davenport argues that Democratic Socialism Doesn't Exist: Like the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot, Democratic Socialism Exists Only in Myth. I take issue with this terminology. Republican socialism doesn’t exist. Democratic socialism certainly can. But that is an issue for another column.

Davenport’s main argument is that socialism is (or inevitably leads to) totalitarianism because socialism by definition eliminates private property, which means “the end of individuals and corporations owning, improving, and exchanging resources, goods, and services,” leading to ever-increasing central control of all economic activity. (The socialist abolition of private property can be accomplished through outright confiscation or totally controlled, though nominally privately owned, property.) Davenport makes a point that I want to address:

The entire notion of democratic socialism is simply a fiction.

By hailing certain Nordic countries as successful examples of democratic socialism, these candidates mislead people about the true nature of both socialism and capitalism.

The fact is that the very countries Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez praise have market-capitalist economies.

Not only are they market-capitalist systems, several of them rank higher than the U.S. in economic freedom comparisons.

What Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, and their supporters label as democratic socialism is actually market capitalism with a robust (some argue unsustainable) social safety net.

I don't believe Sanders et al are making an innocent mistake.  

The creation of the so-called "social safety net" has always been the means by which

socialists could gradually transform capitalist America into a socialist state. "The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism," said six-time US Socialist Presidential Candidate Norman Thomas. "But under the name of 'Liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

But the welfare state has its limits, inherent in the very notion of a "safety net" for capitalism. The socialists have taken the welfare state as far as it can. To complete the transformation, a new rationale was needed.

Enter democratic socialism. We are now being told that our welfare state has been socialism all along. Do you collect Social Security? Send your kids to public schools? Support food stamps to help feed the poor? Well, that's socialism--democratic socialism! See? That's not so bad, is it? But unlike the social safety net, democratic socialism implies no limits. Get people to accept democratic socialism, and the road to totalitarian socialism is cleared.

I believe the miss-identifying of the Nordic mixed economies as socialist is deliberately intended to sanitize socialism's actual nature and record in order to pave the way for actual totalitarian socialism in America. Once Americans begin to identify its comparatively benign welfare state with socialism, real socialism can continue to be smuggled in piece by piece, so that by the time Americans catch on, it will be too late. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," imposed by the guns of state, will have arrived--along with its inevitable consequence of economic paralysis and collapse, and the total state.

With important midterm elections approaching, it's imperative to know what the Democratic Party is up to.

Related Reading:

Socialism vs. Welfare Statism: Why These Terms Matter

China’s Recovery from Socialism vs. Bernie Sanders, The Most Evil Politician in America

QUORA *: ‘What makes someone a socialist?'

A is A, and Socialism by any Other Name...

We Need a Deeper Understanding of Socialism

Politics: Answering a ‘Diversity’ Public Debate Question

In October 2018, a New Jersey municipal election debate among four candidates running for two seats on the City Council got interesting when moderator Susan Ferris Rights posed the question, “What have you done to promote and encourage diversity and inclusion in your careers?”

As Rob Jennings reports for the Star-Ledger (10/19/18) in Councilman flubs diversity question at debate,

[Councilman Robert W.] Messler, who is white and holds an executive job, appeared to stumble over the question. “I have, in my career — I have promoted many people that are … that maybe didn’t deserve it and help include them.”

He later attempted to clarify:

“I meant to say that they might not have had a chance. I’m in a factory environment and I have people that have education — maybe have no education, maybe have language barriers, maybe are minorities,” Messler said.

“I’ve promoted them to management positions, gave them a chance, gave them a chance to have education, helped them out and their families, so what I said came across wrong,” he concluded.

For her part, one of Messler’s challengers, Anjali Mehrotra, did better--barely, in my view,

“I am a woman of color who grew up in India. I was not supposed to have a college education or a career. All my life, I had to fight against status quo to be here today. I am the picture of diversity, if you will give me that,” she said.

“Inclusion, itself, is important. But to me, diversity is not just diversity of, you know, ethnic. It’s gender. It’s diversity of thought. It’s diversity of ideas. And I think that is severely needed in our borough,” said Mehrotra.

Mehrotra noted that the police department — currently roiled by a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by five male officers and a female dispatcher over alleged misdeeds including repeated displays of a large dildo — is all-white and lacks any female officers.

“I would like to see more diversity throughout our government and throughout borough hall,” she said, to some applause in the audience.

At least she mentioned something other than race or sex--thought and ideas. And she was prepared. Messler was obviously not prepared, and very uncomfort with the question. To be fair, the question was rigged. Rights framed the question as if the issue of “diversity and inclusion” were settled--that some numerical race/gender/other balance must be accomplished. Messler, an executive, is probably used to deciding by merit, and sees “diversity” goals as giving the undeserved (which it can very well mean).

I think the question should be addressed by first asking the moderator to define diversity and inclusion. When Rights answers that by diversity and inclusion “I mean race, gender, or ethnicity” quotas, Messler could have answered, “I reject race or gender as major relevant considerations. I believe people should be judged as individuals, based on their character, ability, employment and life experience, job fitness, and merit. That’s the only kind of diversity I include in my decision-making. That’s the only kind of diversity I promote.”

Related Reading:

SEC’s Boardroom ‘Diversity’ Rule Is Racist, Unnatural, and Politically Motivated

Don’t Allow the Left to Own ‘Diversity’

Individualism vs. Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice—Craig Biddle

DelBarton Student’s 'Diversity' Initiative, Though Well-Meaning, is Based on Counter-Productive Premises

The Founding Fathers, Not ‘Diversity,’ is the Solution to ‘Our Racialized Society’

Freedom Is Not About the Right to Vote, So I’m Voting Anti-Democrat Across the Board

Leonard Pitts, a Leftist columnist for The Miami Herald, ran a column claiming that America is in danger of being “lost” because of President Trump. The only way to “save America,” he says, is to vote. In We could lose our country, or save it, Pitts writes:

"What are these politicians going to do for us?"

A guy in Texas asked that question a few weeks back on "Full Frontal with Samantha Bee," by way of explaining why he won't be voting in the most important midterm election in modern American history. His words have been playing on an endless loop in my head ever since. You'll seldom hear electoral apathy, ignorance and cynicism more concisely illustrated.

Moreover, he reflects an understanding of politics as solely a transactional process: Vote for this, get that. But for however much casting a ballot is a way to get, it is also, and perhaps even more so, a way to say. One thinks of Norman Rockwell's famous "Four Freedoms" painting of an ordinary guy standing up in a public meeting to speak his piece. That's what voting is.

He goes on to recite some of Trump’s more egregious antics, and concludes with:

If you are disgusted and appalled, make yourself heard.

Because we could absolutely lose America. Or, we could save it.

What do you say?

By which he means, vote. Pitts doesn’t say who to vote for. But since Trump is not on the ballot, it’s obvious who he thinks you should vote for--any Democrat. I left these comments:

And exactly what is America? America is the primacy of individual rights. Yet, the only real alternative to the Republicans is an increasingly totalitarian Democratic Party, now running under the banner of democratic socialism, which holds that government officials can do whatever they want with people's lives and property, so long as they are elected.

We’ve already lost America. The fault is not Trump’s, who inherited this lost America. The problem is the obsession with voting, an indication that too many people--primarily among Democrats--are more interested in running other people’s lives than in preserving their right to run their own lives. But freedom is not your right to vote. Freedom is the right to live your own life regardless of other people’s votes. Only when we realize this truth, and reign the power of government back to within the rights-protecting bounds of the Constitution, will we have won back America. That won’t happen with the Democrats. With them, it’ll only get worse. From a free America perspective, any vote for any Democrat is monumentally worse than Trump or the Republican Party, however repugnant some of Trump’s policies.

Related Reading:

Our Republican Constitution: Securing the Liberty and Sovereignty of We the People--Randy E.
Barnett

Democracy Fundamentalism vs. Americanism

Democratic Socialism: The Rise of the Pigs

Democratic Socialism: If the Pigs Take Over

Democrat[s] Against Socialism?

The New Jersey Star-Ledger posted a guest column by Mark Dunec, the 2014 Democratic candidate in New Jersey's 11th Congressional District. In I'm a Democrat who ran for this N.J. Congressional seat. I'm supporting the Republican on 10/31/18, Dunec explains his several reasons for his decision to endorse Republican Jay Webber over Democrat Mikie Sherrill. This sentence caught my attention:

Over the last several years I have had increasing concerns that the mainstream Democratic elected officials and candidates have embraced a socialist ideology.

I don’t know much about Dunec other than what he wrote here. I left these comments, slightly edited for clarity:

The increasing embrace of socialism by the Democratic Party is a sea change away from the “liberal” welfare state Democrats, so it’s important to get this understanding right. Welfare statism is different in crucial respects from socialism, democratic or otherwise. The limited socialism of the welfare state, while rights-violating, is supposedly intended only as a “safety net” for capitalism, not a replacement. Under the modern welfare state, individual rights and free enterprise are still fundamental.

Unlike welfare statism, socialism leaves no room for freedom. The distinction is important. Honest socialists like Robert L. Heilbroner acknowledged long ago that socialism is utterly incompatible with personal freedom, requiring the brutal repression not just of economic freedom (markets, property rights), but also of political and intellectual freedom. Dissent cannot be tolerated. “Moral commitments ... to the rights of individuals [and the] celebration of individualism [are] directly opposed to the basic socialist commitment to a deliberately embraced collective moral goal.” Socialism is not a bigger welfare state. It is the complete regimentation of society administered by the unrestrained brute force of the state. Once a government acquires the power that socialism requires, it will not tolerate any threat to that power.

Socialism is totalitarian by ideological design, and in practice. The Democratic Party’s new democratic socialists will scream their denials. But socialism’s intellectual leadership knows better. As Heilbroner bluntly admonishes, it is a “delusion” to think “we can have a socialist cake with bourgeois [capitalist] icing.”

In terms of protection of inalienable individual rights, the Republican Party is a mixed bag. But the emerging metamorphosis of the Democratic Party toward socialism is pure evil. So I hope Dunec represents a new movement--Democrats Against Socialism. We need it.

Related Reading:

QUORA *: ‘What makes someone a socialist?'

QUORA: ‘Why do you think capitalism today is less popular among Democrats than socialism?’

Socialism vs. Welfare Statism: Why These Terms Matter

Bernie Sanders’s Unjust Triple Tax Proposal

The upcoming midterm elections are more than ever a choice between capitalism and socialism. All elections from here on will be. So, it’s a good time to analyze some proposals by the man who brought socialism squarely into the political forefront.

Bernie Sanders proposed a tax on businesses to cover federal welfare payments any of their employees may receive. According to Business Insider:

Senator Bernie Sanders intends to introduce legislation that would require large companies like Amazon to pay a tax to cover the cost of federal assistance for their employees, The Washington Post reports. The intention is to incentivize large corporations to pay a fair living wage.

The bill would set a 100% tax on government assistance received by workers at companies with 500 or more employees. For example, if an Amazon worker were to get $300 in food stamps, Amazon would be taxed $300. Sanders intends to introduce the bill in the Senate on September 5. [It was introduced.]

So get this. Food Stamps and other welfare payouts are forced by government on the taxpayers who fund it. Shareholders, the owners of Amazon and other companies, already pay for these programs through their taxes. In fact, they pay double--first on profits their company earns via the corporate income tax, and again as individuals through personal income taxes on dividends and taxes on capital gains on their stock. Owners of Amazon already pay double tax, some of which goes to pay for these government programs. Now, Sanders wants to tax them a third time for their company’s crime of hiring people at a mutually agreed-upon compensation that happens to be at a level politicians like Sanders believes entitles them to cash in on welfare programs imposed on taxpayers by these very same politicians!

Sanders’s proposed welfare business tax is a gross miscarriage of justice.

Furthermore, as noted by many economists, it is a jobs tax. Sanders’s proposal would tax low-wage jobs, disincentivizing companies from hiring low-wage workers. By killing low-wage jobs, this would make it that much harder for inexperienced people to enter the workforce. Is Sanders just ignorant on economics? Hardly. He is ready with his federal jobs guarantee proposal, which proposes to guarantee a high-paying job to anyone unable to find work in the private sector. Sanders is disingenuous, having it both ways. Either companies pay higher taxes, which he loves. Or they kill jobs, sending more people into government dependency. Either way, Bernie Sanders the socialist wins. Either way, productive taxpayers lose, along with another piece of our freedom as the private economy is further crippled.

Keep in mind that Bernie Sanders is an admitted socialist. He is only interested in moving America step by step into totalitarianism. It’s what socialists do, because that is what socialism is. Sanders is a Democrat, a political party increasingly open about its socialist designs on America. Keep this in mind as you go to the polls.

Related Reading:

Socialism vs. Welfare Statism: Why These Terms Matter

Sanders' Brand of Socialism is Old Fashioned Fascism

Sanders’s Open Socialism Blows the Cover Off of the Left’s Stealth Socialism

A is A, and Socialism by any Other Name...

China’s Recovery from Socialism vs. Bernie Sanders, The Most Evil Politician in America

Save Humans from the Earth Savers

A recent Trump Administration report raised Leftist eyebrows by including a prediction of a 7-degree fahrenheit rise in global temperature above pre-industrial (1880) levels by the year 2100. The New Jersey Star-Ledger jumped on it. In Trump says the planet's screwed, so let's burn as much fossil fuel as we can, the Star-Ledger editorialized:

First the good news: Science may no longer be the greatest casualty in Donald Trump's war on truth, as his official position on climate change has made a tangible shift from "Chinese hoax" and "nonsense."

The bad news is that while his administration now acknowledges the reality of climate change, his policy is essentially this: The planet's screwed, so let's feel free to burn as much fossil fuel as we can.

That is the message contained within an environmental impact statement drafted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which was written to justify Trump's recent decision to freeze fuel efficiency standards on cars and light trucks.

The Washington Post found it buried on Page 191 of a 500-page report: At the current pace, the planet will warm by 4 degrees Celsius (7 Fahrenheit) by 2100, which scientists assert will be catastrophic, so the report concludes that there is no point in trying to prevent it.

"The emissions reductions necessary to keep global emissions within this carbon budget could not be achieved solely with drastic reductions in emissions from the U.S. car and light truck vehicle fleet," said the NHTSA, adding that the only significant change can come by a "move away from the use of fossil fuels," which is "not currently technologically feasible or economically practicable."

My emphasis. The rest of the column degenerates into an apocalyptic tirade urging us to “invest in life jackets and hazmat suits” for our grandkids, coupled with the usual cry of It’s Climate Change! In response to every unpleasant weather event.

I left these comments:

The best environmental protection humans have ever invented is industrial progress. That requires plentiful reliable, economical, clean energy; i.e. fossil fuels combined with advanced anti-pollution technologies, which we now have. The real threat to future generations is the drive by the climate catastrophists to cripple industrialization and prosperity by attacking the fossil fuel industry--the very energy needed to increase prosperity for future generations.

Trump’s energy and climate policy is exactly right: First, Do No Harm! Especially to Americans. Fossil fueled industrial progress has made us safer than ever from the danger-filled climate. Climate-related deaths have declined 98% over the past century. At the same time, our standard of living has skyrocketed. To this day, fossil fuels continue to drive Third World lives up from poverty. Reliable energy is CRITICAL to continued progress. Any policy to drive up energy prices and availability by FORCIBLY reducing fossil fuels in favor of technologically and economically unreliable “renewables” would cause a human catastrophe dwarfing the alleged harms (if any) we MAY see from climate change. Thank god the Earth savers didn’t get their way 100 years ago.

“Scientists assert” is really “Government scientists speculate.” The warming may come true, or more likely be another failed apocalyptic prediction. But the positives to human life of fossil fuels--and the other “dirty” reliables, nuclear and hydro--far outweigh the climate risks. We only get one side of the story from the Earth savers. Go outside the government (political) establishment to the “skeptics” for a balance view; Alex Epstein, Ronald Bailey, [Paul] Mulshine’s [Star-Ledger] columns, etc. You’ll find a wealth of knowledge to counter the anti-humanist climate catastrophism.

Related Reading:

‘Climate Denier’: The Leitmotif of the Climate Propagandist

Droughts No Match for Fossil-Fueled Industrial Agriculture

Are Floods More Frequent, as Climate Alarmists Claim?  by Patrick J. Michaels and Paul Knappenberger

Trends in Extreme Weather Events since 1900 – An Enduring Conundrum for Wise Policy Advice—Journal of Geography & Natural Disasters

It is widely promulgated and believed that human-caused global warming comes with increases in both the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events. A survey of official weather sites and the scientific literature provides strong evidence that the first half of the 20th century had more extreme weather than the second half, when anthropogenic global warming is claimed to have been mainly responsible for observed climate change. The disconnect between real-world historical data on the 100 years’ time scale and the current predictions provides a real conundrum when any engineer tries to make a professional assessment of the real future value of any infrastructure project which aims to mitigate or adapt to climate change.

The Truth About Sea Levels—Alex Epstein

Assume 6 Feet of Sea Level Rise: Predict Catastrophe—Useful science or worst case scaremongering? by Ronald Bailey

LINKS of Interest:

Q: What nation on Earth has reduced its carbon emissions more than any other?

The Hijacking of the #MeToo Movement?

The article Millions of women understand Christine Blasey Ford’s decades of silence by Washington Post columnist Petula Dvorak starts out with an intelligent overview of the difficulties faced by sexual assault victims and why they remain in silent suffering for years or decades. So I was disappointed and outraged to read Dvorak’s conclusion:

My friend who wrote her attacker’s obituary has an idea about this. And I love it.

“Should all victims of sexual assault who remained silent all these years/decades converge onto Washington to support Professor Ford and her testimony against Judge Kavanaugh?” she asked. “As a long silent victim, I say, ‘Hell, yes.’ Sometimes it takes decades to pronounce your truth. Stand tall and proud, Professor Ford. Legions of silent and traumatized women and men are with you. Let’s expose this dirty — not so little — secret.”

What do you say? What if we launch a #MeToo March on Washington for everyone who has kept silent all these years?

I bet it would be the biggest march in the capital’s history.

I believe the #MeToo movement was a healthy grassroots attempt to highlight and eradicate a serious injustice. But the movement is increasingly being taken over by collectivism, which means that the individual is subordinate to the moral supremacy of the group. Under collectivism, the innocence or guilt of any individual is to be judged not by objective facts but by his group affiliation.

#MeToo is collectivizing into a war on men--all men. Petula Dvorak of the WAPO calls for a “#MeToo March on Washington” this week in one-sided support for Ford ahead of any testimony and prior to the surfacing of relevant facts or proof. Jenna Wortham of the NYT wants “every single man put on notice, to know that they, too, were vulnerable because women were talking.”

This is pure hatred. This is racism. This is collectivism. If “every single man” should fear any woman “talking,” then any man can legitimately be accused of sexual harassment, whether he as an individual is guilty or not. Why not? He’s a man. He’s guilty no matter the actual facts of any individual case, because men as a group are guilty.

Sexual predators should be brought to account. That’s the original intent of #MeToo. But the rise of collectivism within the #MeToo movement indicates that the movement has lost its moral legitimacy. It appears to be turning into an old fashioned witch hunt. Couple that with the modern Democrats’ willingness to do or say anything or destroy anyone’s character to further their totalitarian socialist designs on America, and the trustworthiness of Ford’s (or anyone else’s) accusations against Kavanaugh becomes suspect. Ford could be a Democrat “plant” who is “talking” not to expose actual wrongdoing by Kavanaugh but to put “every single man put on notice, to know that they, too, were vulnerable,” which is exactly what collectivism says is the right thing to do. This fits neatly into Democrats’ desperate efforts to keep off the Supreme Court any justice who views the constitution as it should be viewed--as a check on legislative power and safeguard of the inalienable rights of the individual. You cannot have socialism and individual rights in the same place at the same time. The collectivist takeover of #MeToo also fits neatly into the Democrats’ smearing of all Republicans as racist homophobic women haters. Given these collectivist motivations, it is more than likely that Kavanaugh is a victim of politically motivated false accusations and character assassination.

Just as the Civil Rights Movement started out as a legitimate demand by an oppressed group that America live up to its creed of equal individual rights, but was hijacked by statists who turned it into a collectivist movement for totalitarian socialism, so it looks like the #MeToo movement is being hijacked by a predatory, collectivist, revenge-seeking gang that is on the hunt for innocent victims to condemn without evidence, without a hearing, and without the benefit of Innocent Until Proven Guilty.

This is a shame. Ford may be courageously telling the truth, but her credibility is being severely undercut by collectivist witch-hunting and political powerlust. Or she may be involved in a sleazy Democrat plot to derail Kavanaugh. The timing of her coming forward, and the way she came forward--going to Democrat Dianne Feinstein rather than Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley--indicates the latter. As Reason’s Shikha Dalmia correctly observes, “Taking down decent men on flimsy grounds will discredit #MeToo. Movements collapse when they become more interested in collecting heads than advancing their cause.”

----------------------------------------------------------

Collectivism is an insidious evil. In practice, collectivism is by far the greatest killer in human history. The collectivist worldview--identifying individuals only as members of groups--begins with the branding of entire groups for political advantage and ends with killing fields, gas chambers, and mass beheadings. The Armenian genocide, the Rwandan genocide, the German genocide, the Cambodian genocide, the Ukrainian genocide: You name the genocide, and it stems from branding of entire groups--whether groupings based on race, or gender, or nationality, or creed, or economic status, or political affiliation, or other category--as the object of moral concern, regardless of the actions or characters of the individuals that comprise the group.

Related Reading:

Individualism vs. Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice—Craig Biddle

The Rise of Collectivism and the Fall of the Constitution

Is the Russia/Trump Probe the Democrats’ Version of the ‘Birther Movement?’

In response to Paul Mulshine’s July 2017 New Jersey Star-Ledger op-ed 'Unhinged' anti-Trumpers are Russian to conclusions, I left this brief comment:

Russia is looking more and more like the Democrats’ version of the “Birther Movement,” which spent eight years trying to get Obama impeached based on the notion that he is not a natural born citizen. It’s looks like the “Russianer Movement”—or whatever we want to call it—is going to spend the next eight years trying to get Trump impeached.

I think it still holds true today, more than a year later. And yes, I believe Trump will be reelected in 2020 especially if the Democrats take one or both houses of Congress in the 2018 midterm elections.

SUPPLEMENTAL: Michael Hurd on the Totalitarian Socialist Democrats

SUPPLEMENTAL to my 8/20/2015 post Sanders’s Open Socialism Blows the Cover Off of the Left’s Stealth Socialism, in which I observed:

[Bernie] Sanders the openly avowed socialist blows the cover off of the Left’s stealth socialism. His candidacy clarifies the fact that the socialist policies already enacted [by "liberals" over the past 100 years] are not just socialist exceptions to a mostly capitalist society. They, and the next set of Leftist policies Sanders advocates, are just stepping stones to full socialism. He is saying explicitly that, yes indeed, destroying capitalism and bringing in socialism is and always has been the [Democrats'] goal.

On 7/24/18, Michael Hurd observed that Democrats Have Gone Full-Blown Socialist…And You’re Surprised?! 

Not me.

The final transformation of the Democrat Party into a full-blown freedom hating, achievement hating, prosperity hating, ultimately human life hating totalitarian socialist political party is racing along at lightning speed toward the 2018 midterm elections.

Related Reading:

The Passion of Socialists by Craig Biddle for The Objective Standard

Pruitt’s Real Value

The New Jersey Star-Ledger devoted an entire editorial to blasting Environmental Protection Agency head Scott Pruitt. After tarring Pruitt with corruption charges the Star-Ledger turns to Pruitt’s “real damage”--a list of regulation rollbacks starting with withdrawal from the Paris Accord and scuttling of Obama’s Clean Power Plan. “Pruitt's greatest sins of all: his sadistic treatment of the planet and contravention of the EPA's core mission.”

I left the following comments to Don't overlook Scott Pruitt's real damage, slightly edited:

Pulling America out of the Paris Climate Accord and phasing out the Clean Power Plan makes Pruitt a great EPA administrator. Both are aimed at strangling productive Americans’ economic well-being. The Paris Accord forcibly redistributes Americans’ wealth to the rest of the world to “atone” for Americans’ great economic success, while simultaneously strangling the driver of that success, America’s fossil fuel industry. The Power Plan forces Americans away from reliable energy, mainly fossil fuels, in favor of unreliable “clean” energy. Since energy is the industry that drives every other industry as well as our lives, it is really an economic poverty plan.

As to the rest of that list, I don’t know enough about the technical/scientific issues to make a judgement (“scientists say” appeals to authority don’t work with me).

The real problem is “the EPA's core mission” as conceived by Environmentalism--to “save the planet” from human living. Humans survive by reshaping the planet to human benefit through industrial/technological development. Pruitt brings a balanced perspective that values human life over unaltered nature. I trust his humanist perspective over Environmentalism’s naturalist concept of the EPA’s “core mission”. Pruitt is not pro pollution. He is pro-human life, crafting policies that balance the economic harm from pollution controls and the negatives of fossil fuels against the benefits of industrial progress and the reliable energy so vital to it.

You can have economic progress while reducing pollution and focussing on true threats to human health. Pruitt has reigned in the EPA’s dictatorial, life-hating, constitution-shirking, rights-violating “green” activists within the EPA. Pruitt is great for human health, flourishing, and freedom.
------------------------------------
The Environmental Protection Agency should be concerned with preserving and improving the human environment, not “saving the planet.” Scott Pruitt's real value is that he understands this. As
Mollie Hemingway reports for The Federalist:

[Pruitt] is demanding scientific rigor for agency work.

Pruitt is not some anti-environmentalist * but someone who wants the EPA to do what Congress charges it with doing to improve the nation’s environment. So he awarded $100 million to upgrade drinking water in Flint, Michigan, and began an effort to eradicate lead poisoning from drinking water. He committed additional funds to deal with the EPA’s botching of the Gold King Mine release that polluted Colorado and Utah. 

There are poor ways, average ways, and shrewd ways to tackle the constitutional problems that arise from the administrative state. Many Republicans either don’t realize the problems of an unelected bureaucracy’s power, or fail to combat those problems effectively. Pruitt is in the final category, demonstrating competency and a devotion to rule of law. And he has the courage that so many of his GOP peers lack, not being intimidated by the normal media frenzy that intimidates other Republican appointees.

--------------------------

* [I distinguish between ideological Environmentalism (upper-case "E") from casual environmentalism, which people may conceptualize as simply recycling or planting a tree, not anti-humanism.]


Related Reading:

Still Peddling the “97%” Myth

Trump’s Leadership on Paris Withdrawal versus Obama’s Delusions of Unearned Greatness

The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the Twenty-first Century—Ronald Bailey

The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels Hardcover—Alex Epstein