Book Review

America Transformed: The Rise and Legacy of American Progressivism

It is no secret that American public life is fracturing. The fissures can be seen in our gladiatorial-like Supreme Court nomination hearings, the collapse of confidence in our institutions, and the mounting sense that many have that elections won’t change the country’s fundamental trajectory. These disputes are merely symptoms, however, of a broader problem, the roots of which extend back decades.

As Ronald J. Pestritto, graduate dean and professor of politics at Hillsdale College, argues in America Transformed, our present-day clashes reflect a fundamental “divide over first principles,” which he traces to the rise of the Progressive Movement in the late nineteenth century. Pestritto makes a convincing case that the Progressives—including Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Croly, and John Dewey—sought to “revolutionize both the theory and practice of American government.”

The Progressives had their differences and factions: consider the fierce 1912 presidential campaign between Wilson and Roosevelt. Yet they adhered to a “coherent set of principles, with a common purpose.” They unleashed a “direct assault on the core ideas of the American founding,” openly rejecting the natural rights teachings of the Declaration of Independence. Wilson once told an audience that “if you want to understand the real Declaration of Independence, do not repeat the preface”—the same preface that contains the most concise articulation of the Founders’ political theory.

Pestritto argues that, for progressives like education reformer Dewey, the Founders’ “great sin” was to think that principles such as a natural human equality in rights and government by consent transcended “the particular circumstances of that day.” Influenced by Hegel’s philosophical idealism, they argued that historical progress had shown that what the Founders thought were universal truths were in fact simply ideas of their time. In fact, the principles of the American Founding, and the Constitution built to reflect them, actively prevented government from taking the swift action that the public now demanded.

Pestritto suggests that “native influences” had already compromised the American immune system by the time the Progressive Movement emerged. A toxic mix of Social Darwinism, pragmatism, and the rejection of social compact theory in New England and the antebellum South prepared American intellectuals and politicians to accept an alternative account of politics that seemed better able to meet the challenges of modern society. The Progressives claimed that historical progress necessitated a dynamic and perfectible human nature, an idea that the Founders rejected. James Madison’s claim in Federalist 10 that the prevention of majority tyranny would always be a problem in political life was simply false, they believed. Thus Woodrow Wilson and political scientist Frank Goodnow sharply criticized the Constitution’s separation of powers and the slow, methodical lawmaking process the Framers had put in place, which they saw as hopelessly out of step with the public will and too often stymied by a combination of political machines, big business, and other special interests.

Pestritto maintains that the progressives worked toward “democratizing and unifying national political institutions,” though they sometimes differed on the means to achieve this end. Ever the radical, Theodore Roosevelt proposed policies such as overturning judicial decisions and the recall of recalcitrant judges who resisted heavy regulation of business. Herbert Croly, a cofounder of The New Republic, wanted to eliminate political parties altogether.

To make politics fully democratic, the Progressives insisted that political leaders accountable to the people needed to find means of breaking the constitutional logjam—think of Roosevelt’s “bully pulpit.” Roosevelt and Wilson frequently enlisted (and refashioned) the memory of American statesmen such as Abraham Lincoln, John Marshall, and Daniel Webster, men who, in their rendering, had supposedly discerned history’s centralizing trends.

Pestritto argues that as the Progressives seemingly brought politics closer to the people, they simultaneously moved “policymaking power away from popular institutions,” handing it to “educated elites.” They essentially established a fourth branch of government, a vast bureaucracy that wields legislative, executive, and judicial powers—what Madison considered the very definition of tyranny—that would fully bloom during Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s presidency. What we know today as the administrative state (a phrase coined by the political scientist Dwight Waldo in the 1950s) had its genesis in the Supreme Court’s ruling in J.W. Hampton v. United States, which granted broad powers to supposedly nonideological experts insulated from the corrupting effects of electoral politics.

Pestritto notes that this new conception of government—the sharp split between politics and administration—originated in the “laboratories of democracy” of state and local governments. There, Progressive governors such as California’s Hiram Johnson and Wisconsin’s Robert La Follette pushed direct democracy: the ballot initiative, recall, referendum, the direct election of senators, and electoral primaries. Through the establishment of government by unelected commission and the rise of nonpartisan city managers, the notion of expert administration permeated state governments in Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, and Illinois, as well as cities such as Galveston, Cincinnati, Des Moines, and Cleveland.

The Progressives’ strong belief in the notion of historical progress also guided their foreign policy. History had demonstrated that modern democracy was the “permanent and most advanced form of government,” Wilson once wrote. To make the world safe for democracy, the Progressives’ idealistic foreign policy necessitated an aggressive series of interventions in Haiti, Santo Domingo, Cuba, Mexico, and the Philippines.

History had chosen the United States to lead the “children” (as Wilson described other sovereign nations) so that they could someday reach the heights of democratic governance. And should certain “barbaric races” fail to do what they were told, Progressive historian Charles Merriam wrote in a particularly appalling passage, they “may be swept away.”

Some Progressives saw historical progress as the will of God Himself. Marshaling rhetoric that today would be regarded as extreme Christian nationalism, Roosevelt told the Progressive Party convention in 1912, “We stand at Armageddon, and we battle for the Lord.”

Adherents of the Social Gospel, the Progressive Movement’s religious wing, were liberal Protestants who worked to reconcile life “on earth as it is in heaven.” They turned away from concerns over individual salvation and other orthodox theological concerns and instead inculcated a social ethic that sought to use the modern state to equalize economic conditions. Pestritto observes that in one of his more moderate moments Baptist pastor Walter Rauschenbusch called for the “public ownership of essential industries.” By following God’s unfolding plan, which history was revealing to mankind, human beings would someday experience the Eden that our ancestors had failed to maintain.

Pestritto concludes America Transformed by noting that, thanks to the Progressives’ handiwork, “citizens of two different regimes [are] occupying the same country.” The regime that today opposes that of the Founders is far different from what the original Progressives intended, but by uncoupling America from its natural rights foundations, they can justly be credited (or rather, blamed) for inaugurating our current crisis. Pestritto’s concise volume, the best available overview of progressive political thought and practice, will help Americans make sense of the stark divisions that confront us.

 

If this is happening in the U.K., why would you think it’s not happening here as well?


Hyping the Covid Burden on Hospitals.

A Doctor Writes: The NHS Is Concealing Important Information from the Public

On Thursdays, the NHS release the weekly summary data in relation to Covid patients. Normally this is a more granular version of the daily summaries – it has some hospital level detail and figures on non-Covid workload for comparison. Usually interesting but not especially informative.

Yesterday was an exception. Placed down at the bottom of the page, almost like a footnote, was a “Primary Diagnosis” Supplement. Graph One shows the information contained in that spreadsheet. I find it astonishing. In essence, it shows that since June 18th, the NHS has known its daily figures in relation to ‘Covid inpatients’ were unreliable at best and deliberately untrue at worst.

The Yellow bars are what the NHS has been informing the nation were Covid inpatients. The Blue bars are the numbers of inpatients actually suffering from Covid symptoms – the difference between the two are patients in hospital who tested positive for Covid but were being treated for something different – where Covid was effectively an incidental finding but not clinically relevant.

For example, on July 27th, the total number of beds occupied by Covid patients was reported as 5,021. However, until today, we were not permitted to know that only 3,855 of those were actually admitted with Covid as the primary diagnosis. There has been a fairly consistent overestimate of the true number by about 25% running back to mid June – figures before that date are ‘not available’.

Why does this matter?

Well in one way it doesn’t matter very much. Whether the burden of Covid inpatients is 5% of the available beds or 3.5%, isn’t massively significant – it’s still a relatively small proportion. NHS managers are already arguing that even patients with Covid being treated for another condition still need isolation procedures and present an extra burden on the system. They may argue that the NHS is still under strain from staff absences, stress levels and the waiting list backlog – so it doesn’t really matter if the published figures are somewhat inaccurate.

But it matters hugely.

Firstly, it clearly shows that the NHS has been exaggerating the burden of Covid on hospitals by 25% since at least the June 18th and almost certainly for longer. All the senior NHS leaders and politicians quoting the number of Covid inpatients for the last six weeks have been painting a seriously exaggerated picture, significantly worse than the true position. Were they in ignorance about the true numbers, or were they deliberately misleading the public?

Continue reading “”

Observation O’ The Day

Biden was put forward as being the ‘answer’ to restoring a purported loss of the U.S.’s reputation and creditability. Instead, with Afghanistan and these latest idiocies, he and his puppet masters have plowed it under.
As we said of stupid failure in the military: “Hmmm, it briefed well.”


U.S. Secretary of State Blinken Deletes Tweet Saying U.S. Would ‘Stand with Hong Kong’

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has deleted a statement posted to his official Twitter account on Thursday that said the U.S. would “stand with the people of Hong Kong,” the South China Morning Post reported Friday.

Blinken’s now-deleted tweet, originally posted on September 16, read:

Beijing should let the voices of all Hong Kongers be heard. The PRC [People’s Republic of China]’s disqualification of district councilors only weakens Hong Kong’s long-term political & social stability. We stand with the people of Hong Kong and continue to support their human rights & fundamental freedoms.

The U.S. Secretary of State replaced the statement with a more muted tweet posted later on September 16:

The PRC’s disqualification of seven pro-democracy district councilors undermines the ability of people in Hong Kong to participate in their governance. Governments should serve the people they represent. Decreasing representation goes against the spirit of Hong Kong’s Basic Law.


France accuses Australia, US of ‘lying’ in escalating crisis

France on Saturday accused Australia and the United States of lying over a ruptured Australian contract to buy French submarines, warning a grave crisis was underway between the allies.

The deal extends US nuclear submarine technology to Australia as well as cyber defence, applied artificial intelligence and undersea capabilities

Australia’s decision to break a deal for the French submarines in favour of American nuclear-powered vessels sparked outrage in Paris, with President Emmanuel Macron recalling France’s ambassadors to Canberra and Washington in an unprecedented move.

The row has sparked a deep rift in America’s oldest alliance and dashed hopes of a post-Donald Trump renaissance in relations between Paris and Washington under President Joe Biden.

 

President FUBAR

President Donald John Trump rung in the new year in 2020 by killing Qasem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s terrorism division. Boy was Biden mad.

Biden said, “Trump has no strategy here. No endgame. The only way out of this crisis is through diplomacy – clear-eyed, hard-nosed diplomacy grounded in strategy, that’s not about one-off decisions or one-upmanship. We need diplomacy that is designed to de-escalate the crisis, protect our people and secure our regional interests – including our counter-ISIS campaign.”

Of course, there was no escalation.

Iran held a funeral, millions pretended to mourn, and Disney sent Martha Raddatz as its emissary to pay its respects. After all, Iran is a friend of Red China.

Compare and contrast to Biden’s “clear-eyed, hard-nosed diplomacy grounded in strategy” in which he killed a pro-American in Afghanistan and his 9 kids. The Pentagon sent out one of its 491 generals (and 162 admirals) to say oops, our bad.

No one will be charged with murder. Or manslaughter. Or anything.

Thanks to Biden’s “clear-eyed, hard-nosed diplomacy grounded in strategy,” Afghanistan is FUBAR.

President Trump had talked the Taliban into not shooting at Americans. He left a country at peace, much like Korea in 1953. While Korea technically is a forever war, you are safe there.

Afghanistan was getting there. Was. President FUBAR wanted to announce at the 20th anniversary of  9/11 that he — and he alone — had brought our troops home and that it was time to turn the page.

But we don’t call him President FUBAR without cause. On 9/11 he was silent (except for a strange barking episode) while the Taliban swore in its new cabinet. 4 of the cabinet members were terrorists Obama sprung from Gitmo in exchange for deserter Bowe Bergdahl.

President FUBAR’s surrender showed the world his “clear-eyed, hard-nosed diplomacy grounded in strategy.” It consists of the enemy waiting for him to get bored and stop fighting.

Neither he nor any of our 491 generals (and 162 admirals) came up with a plan to bring American civilians home first, bring American war materiel home second, blow up the bases, and leave.

Now they sit around saying, plan? I thought you were coming up with a plan. It was all helter skelter.

Oh and the troops won’t be home long.

Continue reading “”

BREAKING: Armed Person Detained at J6 Rally is Undercover Agent, Pulls Out Badge (VIDEO)

There was a heavy police presence at the US Capitol on Saturday in anticipation of a rally in support of the January 6 political prisoners.

Demonstrators will show support for the January 6 political prisoners on Saturday.

Hundreds of non-violent Trump supporters are currently in jail awaiting trial for walking through the Capitol on January 6.

But it was all a set up.

There were more police, reporters and undercover intelligence agents than protesters in Washington DC.

The only armed person arrested on Saturday was an undercover agent.

Biden? No, he’s a senile puppet. This is the people pulling his strings.

It’s not just accounts it’s any transaction of $600 or more.

Comment O’ The Day

The densest element yet known to science has been named Pelosium.
Pelosium has one neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons, and 224 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 311.
These particles are held together by dark forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.

The symbol of Pelosium is PU.

Pelosium’s mass actually increases over time, as morons randomly interact with various elements in the atmosphere and become assistant deputy neutrons within the Pelosium molecule, leading to the formation of isodopes. This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientist to believe that Pelosium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration.

This hypothetical quantity is referred to as Critical Morass.
When catalyzed with money, Pelosium activates CNNadnausium, an element that radiates orders of magnitude more energy, albeit as incoherent noise, since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons as Pelosium.

Her mannerisms as she speaks her word salad BS only impresses on me the idea that she knows she’s uttering BS and believes she can cover it by appearances.


Nancy Pelosi: Partnering with China on Climate Overrides ‘Genocide’ of Uyghurs

During an event in Cambridge, England on Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said that despite communist China’s long list of human rights abuses, the United States must partner with them to fight climate change.

“The situation with China is tightening, it’s getting worse,” Pelosi acknowledged.

She continued:

With their military aggression in the South China Sea, with their continuation of genocide with the Uyghurs in Xinjiang province, with their violation of the cultural… religious priority of Tibet, with their suppression of democracy in Hong Kong and other parts of China as well – they’re just getting worse in terms of suppression and freedom of speech……

Having said all of that… we have to work together on climate. Climate is an overriding issue and China is a leading emitter in the world – U.S. too, developed world too – but we must work together. We have to have a level of communication – whether it’s COVID, whether it’s terrorism or whether it’s climate.

 

Continue reading “”

Question O’ The Day.
So was Milley lying to Trump, or was he actually that clueless?


General Milley told Trump the George Floyd protests were no big deal.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley dismissed the George Floyd riots as “penny packet protests” — insisting they weren’t an insurrection because the mobs only “used spray paint,” according to a new book.

The under-fire general — accused of going behind President Donald Trump’s back to contact his Chinese counterpart — wildly downplayed the riots when Trump raised fears they were “burning America down,” according to Fox News excerpts from the new book, “Peril.”

“Mr. President, they are not burning it down,” he told the alarmed commander-in-chief, according to authors Bob Woodward and Robert Costa.

“They used spray paint, Mr. President, that’s not an insurrection,” he told Trump.

It was not immediately clear when the conversation happened, but violent, fiery protests broke out in cities across the US soon after Floyd’s death at the hands of Minneapolis police in May 2020.

New York City saw mass looting and fires in the street, including torched police vehicles, while other cities saw deadly shootings within days, and thousands of National Guard members were ultimately deployed in at least 15 states, Fox News also noted.

Milley, however, gestured to a portrait of President Abraham Lincoln as he tried to dismiss Trump’s clear fears over the violence.

“We’re a country of 330 million people. You’ve got these penny packet protests,” he said, using a term for something insignificant, according to the book being published Sept. 21.

Milley insisted it was not an issue for the US military — and instead said the protests were understandable given systemic racism, according to the Fox excerpts.

“That’s pent up in communities that have been experiencing what they perceive to be police brutality,” Milley reportedly told Trump.

But when the Jan. 6 Capitol riot happened, Milley believed it “was indeed a coup attempt and nothing less than ‘treason,’” the book said.

He feared that Trump might be looking for a “Reichstag moment” and believed the attack “so unimagined and savage, [it] could be a dress rehearsal for something larger,” the authors wrote.

Milley’s spokesperson told Fox News that his office was not commenting on the book.

Data Study: 18 Months of Ammo Sales during a Pandemic, Protests, and the Biden Presidency.

In our previous data study on the initial effects of the pandenmic on our business, we outlined increased sales due to the public’s growing leeriness of COVID-19, starting from February 23, 2020 when the news coverage became ominous.

That’s only part of the story, however, because over the last 18 months, we’ve experienced a particularly charged election year, BLM protests amid calls to “defund the police,” a contentious transfer of power, and most recently a surprise ban on popular Russian ammo.

These events in particular, set against the backdrop of the ongoing response to the pandemic, resulted in demand spikes. Looking at the data below, you’ll get a sense of a high level trend during the pandemic and then see how that trend changed during certain specific time periods, like the BLM protests, when already-elevated demand went up even more.

To give a pre-pandemic baseline of sorts, over the past 18 months our overall sales have increased as follows:

  • 590% increase in revenue
  • 604% increase in transactions
  • 271% increase in site traffic
  • 77% increase in conversion rate

This data is from February 23, 2020 – August 23, 2021, when compared to the previous 18 months (August 24, 2018 – February 22, 2020).

Below are tables which list the top 10 states, ordered by our total sales volume, and how they fared during these recent demand spikes when compared to the previous time period, respectively. We also listed which calibers were most popular in those top states.

Continue reading “”

Yes, this is known, but it always bears repeating.


BLUF:
But that is really what Kulturkampf politics is all about: fortifying one’s own social status by exercising ritual domination over cultural rivals. That’s how you get punitive tax policies that don’t raise much revenue, “inclusiveness” policies based on exclusion, and gun-control proposals that don’t have anything to do with gun crime. It just feels good to exercise power over people you loathe or envy. That is the beginning and the end of it.

Gun-Control Laws Aren’t about Preventing Crimes

In the latest issue of National Review, I write about the lax enforcement of our gun laws and touch on a theme that is worth exploring a little more: Gun control is not about gun crime — gun control is about gun culture.

If we cared about keeping guns out of the hands of felons, we’d be locking up straw buyers. We’d be prosecuting prohibited “lie and try” buyers who falsify their ATF paperwork. And we’d be confiscating guns sold in retail transactions that were wrongly approved because of defects in the background-check system. But, for the most part, we don’t do much of any of that.

Instead of doing the hard work of enforcing the law on people committed to breaking it, we focus almost all of our efforts on the most law-abiding group of Americans there is: People who legally buy firearms from licensed firearms dealers, a group that, by definition, has a felony-conviction rate of approximately 0.0 percent. These are law-abiding people, but they also are, in no small part, the type of people who mash the cultural buttons of the big-city progressives who dominate the Democratic Party both culturally and financially. From that point of view, what matters is not that retail gun dealers and their clients are dangerous — which they certainly are not — but that they are icky.

Continue reading “”

The pandemic and the homicide surge will have a lasting effect on our gun control politics

The surge in new gun owners could have a political impact that lasts far longer than the pandemic and the surge in homicides that inspired it.

Between January 2019 and April 2021, approximately 7.5 million people became first-time gun owners. Nearly 50% of them were women. More than 40% are black or Latino. This is bad news for the gun control movement and, perhaps in the long term, for the Democratic Party.

One of the most telling graphics from the 2016 election came from the New York Times. It showed the great bulk of voters in households with no guns voted for Hillary Clinton in every state except West Virginia and Wyoming (the latter had insufficient data). Voters in gun-owning households favored Donald Trump in every state but Vermont. That includes the most Democratic states in the country, including California, New York, and Hawaii.

According to Gallup data , roughly two-thirds of Republicans live in gun-owning households, compared to just one-third of Democrats. Half of Republicans personally own a firearm, compared to 18% of Democrats.

Granted, it isn’t as simple as these first-time gun owners immediately becoming Republicans. But, even among Democrats, gun owners are more likely to oppose gun control measures. According to data from the Pew Research Center, 87% of non-gun-owning Democrats support banning “assault-style weapons.” That number drops to 65% among gun-owning Democrats. Allowing concealed carry in more places has support among 39% of gun-owning Democrats, compared to 16% support among Democrats who don’t own firearms.

Gun control, despite polling well as a collection of general platitudes, is already a losing issue throughout the country. Each time someone becomes a first-time gun owner, the chances of passing the strict gun control measures that the gun control movement and the majority of the Democratic Party want to see implemented go down. The pandemic will go away, and homicides will decline — but this will continue to shape our gun control politics for years to come.

Lots of prosecutors are notorious for trying to shore up a weak case by using inflammatory BS that has nothing to do with the case but hope it will influence the jury.


JUDGE DENIES ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE ALLEGEDLY CONNECTING KYLE RITTENHOUSE TO PROUD BOYS

A judge in Wisconsin sided with defense attorneys Friday and denied motions filed by prosecutors seeking to admit evidence at trial showing Kyle Rittenhouse’s involvement in a previous fight and his alleged association with the Proud Boys.

Among their multiple motions filed, prosecutors were hoping to admit evidence Rittenhouse had an association with the Proud Boys, a group linked to political violence.

In January, Rittenhouse pleaded not guilty to two felony charges of homicide in the deaths of Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum, and felony attempted homicide for wounding Gaige Grosskreutz during protests in August 2020, following the police shooting of Jacob Blake.

Specifically, in regard to January 2021, months after the Kenosha shooting, when Rittenhouse went to a local bar with his mother about 90 minutes after his arraignment, Rittenhouse posed for pictures with individuals seen flashing the ‘OK’ sign, which prosecutors say has been co-opted as a sign of ‘white power’ by known white supremacist groups.

According to prosecutors, they have since learned some of the people he posed with were in the “highest echelons” of the Wisconsin chapter of the Proud Boys.

Defense attorney Corey Chirafisi said, “There’s no information Mr. Rittenhouse knew who they were.”

“For this to be considered by you (Judge Schroeder), there must be evidence… that on August 25th, 2020 Kyle Rittenhouse was either a member of the Proud Boys or had loyalties to that group,” said Chirafisi, who added there was no evidence of that.

Kenosha County Judge Schroeder agreed with the defense, “For me to let that in as evidence for a motive that existed four months earlier? Can’t see it.”

Continue reading “”