Two years ago, Facebook banned advertising for my book. They sent a few automated messages.
I remember thinking: These creeps don’t that know that they’re the abusers. They don’t know that they’re becoming the super-villains in a story they wrote themselves.
Step by step, they’ve grown more powerful. Step by step, they’ve grown more corrupt.
Now they’ve reached the point where they would publicly steal an election if they could get away with it.
They have no red lines. They don’t even know it’s wrong.
I have libertarian friends who think it’s only evil when government grows too strong and too corrupt.
Today, we see clearly that this isn’t true.
When a private company grows so powerful and corrupt that it thinks there’s no problem with stealing an election, that’s evil too.
What my libertarian friends don’t understand is:
When a private company grows so powerful and corrupt that it’s capable of stealing an election—at that moment it *becomes* the government.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This says adding liberal judges to the US Supreme Court will save the Court’s legitimacy.
This is true: It will make the Court legitimate in the eyes of those who think that only liberal institutions are legitimate. theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
The question is: Why should liberals get to decide that only liberal institutions are legitimate?
The whole point of democracy is that some institutions are liberal and some are conservative—and yet both kinds are legitimate.
The problem is that the US Supreme Court has been a liberal institution since at least the 1960s. In all that time conservatives have granted legitimacy to that liberal institution.
I'm amazed how many people think "separation of church and state" is in the US Constitution, or that it was the theory behind the 1st Amendment, or that it was America's founding "purpose," or that the founders generally believed in it.
None of this is true.
If any of you are interested in learning the actual history of the theory of "separation of church and state" in America, Philip Hamburger of Columbia Law School wrote the best book on the subject:
The bottom line is that "separation of church and state" didn't become the law of the land in the United States until the Supreme Court's decision in Everson v. Board of Education applied the 1st amendment to the states. That was in 1947.
Trump is the best friend Israel has ever had in the White House. It’s not even close. jpost.com/diaspora/antis…
I will always be grateful to Truman for recognizing Israel’s independence. And a number of other presidents have contributed greatly to Israel’s security, and have had a genuine admiration for Israel and the Jewish people.
But Trump’s record is in a different league:
1 Recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
2 Recognizing the Golan Heights as part of Israel.
3 Standing by Israel at the UN.
4 Rejecting a PLO veto on Mideast diplomacy.
5 Bringing peace between Israel and the Arab Gulf States.
The currently fashionable slogan “America is racist” is a retread of the UN’s 1975 resolution asserting. “Zionism is racism.”
The old slogan was promoted by the Soviets to delegitimize Israel. 45 years later, new Marxists are using the same slogan to delegitimize America.
The underlying question is unchanged: In the 1970s, the Communists claimed that Israel’s particular character and history made it an irredeemably evil country that had to be fundamentally reconstructed to be cleansed of the sin of racism.
In 2020, an updated Marxism claims that America’s particular character and history make it an irredeemably evil country that has to be fundamentally reconstructed to be cleansed of the sin of racism.
Why would anyone want to be "the most radical" in anything? Being the most radical just means you've closed off appeals to common sense, prudence, and a proper balance among competing principles.
Indeed who among the accomplished persons we admire was one of "the most radical"?
The men among the American founders that I most admire--Washington, Jay, Hamilton, Adams--achieved extraordinary and enduring things precisely because they were not among "the most radical." theamericanconservative.com/articles/ameri…
As to recognizing that Enlightenment liberalism is no cure for mankind's ills--well, I've thought that my entire life. And yet I have never found anything appealing in being "the most radical." I leave the pleasure of that kind of recklessness to the Marxists.
You’re more generous about this than I am, Patrick. The words “conservative” and “liberal” have been defined in contrast to one another for almost two centuries. /1
It’s only in the last generation that there’s been an effort by self-identifies liberals to claim that they are ALSO the “true conservatives”—whereas conservatives are actually authoritarians, theocrats, fascists, etc. /2
So now we have folks who seriously say that they are both the real liberals AND the true conservatives. /3