Silence Dogood Wire

Contrary to the protestations of the mainstream media, President Trump does not pose a radical and unprecedented threat to democracy. In reality, he ran a quite moderate campaign. Rather than fully endorsing conservative principles (or prosecuting his opponent) the president occupied the middle ground that Democrats abandoned. On the economy, immigration, and social issues, he articulated many popular and common-sense positions. 

Democrats realized their mistake only later in the campaign when they began to feign moderation. Thus Kamala Harris ran ads featuring Trump’s border wall and pledged to spend hundreds of millions on extending it. Previously, the former vice president supported decriminalizing border crossings and called the wall a “medieval vanity project.” She also supported transgender mutilation surgeries for prisoners and illegal immigrants. Later, in the 2024 campaign, she suddenly became coy on the issue, merely stating that she would “follow the law.” Her brief flirt with sanity was too little too late.

Indeed, the recent election should serve as a wake-up call for Democrats to attempt a reclamation of the middle ground they lost to President Trump. Given their coterie of high-paid consultants, one would think this is exactly what they would do. 

Nevertheless, it appears that Democrats are inseparable from their radical left-wing base. They cannot fathom that Americans genuinely prefer moderation to a woke revolution. 

This inability to read the political current was put on full display during Governor Tim Walz’s recent appearance on MSNBC. Responding to President Trump’s brief freeze of federal funding, Walz warned his audience “This is real…They’re talking about defunding the police.” He then urged his viewers to ignore distractions like whether Elon Musk gave a Nazi salute because “of course he did.” Walz also expressed concern for the federal employees who may be fired. Never mentioned was the fact that according to a recent audit, only 6 percent of federal employees work full-time in an office.

In many ways, Tim Walz represents the heart of the Democratic Party. He pontificates, endorses absurd positions in the name of compassion, and repeats media talking points. He finds fear-mongering about President Trump much easier than providing a feasible alternative.

The delirium among Democrats is also apparent to those who tune into major news outlets. The highlight of CNN is now watching conservative Scott Jennings destroy his counterparts as they discuss policy. During the presidential campaign, for example Jim Acosta pointed to Trump’s “dehumanizing” rhetoric surrounding immigrants. Jennings responded by asking “Would you say it is more or less dehumanizing than murdering and raping someone?” On every major issue it seems that the left is more worried about hurting people’s feelings than delivering results. 

Ultimately, there are two scenarios for a future Democratic victory. First, President Trump may misread his mandate and go too far. If this occurs voters may punish incumbents by voting them out of office. This would merely represent a dissatisfaction with Republican governance rather than an approval of Democratic principles. Second, Democrats could undertake a systematic renewal of their party by adopting common-sense immigration policies and abandoning their radicalism on social issues.

The second scenario occurred with the election of former President Bill Clinton in 1992. He made overtures to Republicans and rejected many aspects of the traditional Democratic Party. In his 1996 State of the Union Address, for example, Clinton declared that “the era of big government is over.” He also acknowledged the coming of “the era of balanced budgets and smaller government.”

Democrats would do well to follow Clinton’s example. However, it could take a while. Twelve years passed between Ronald Reagan’s victory in the 1980 election and Clinton’s triumph in 1992. Thus, if President Trump and his allies play their hand right, we may be entering a period of historic and much-needed Republican governance.

Most people outside of Washington, D.C. recognize the tedious and artificial formality that characterizes so much of our political discourse. Political opponents who attempt to destroy each other in the court of public opinion, and sometimes even actual courts, give each other compliments. Before asking questions during committees senators engage in prolonged thank yous to various figures. While these artificial manners can promote civility, oftentimes they serve to obscure reality and prevent people from speaking the truth. In other words, politicians tend to be inauthentic. Rather than speaking their minds they repeat poll-tested platitudes.

President Trump is certainly not one such politician. He always speaks his mind, sometimes to a fault. It is for this reason that so many people admire him. They prefer candor rather than pseudo-respect, especially when we face crises both foreign and domestic. Indeed, the President’s Second Inaugural Address was a lesson in candor. He eviscerated his predecessor’s terrible use of executive power.

President Trump began his remarks by stating that America is on the precipice of a golden age in which “Our sovereignty will be restored. Our safety will be restored…And our top priority will be to create a nation that is proud and prosperous and free.”

After this hopeful introduction, he pivoted to “the challenges we face.” He then proceeded to catalogue the profound injustices that were done to the United States by the previous administration. Far from engaging in pointless formality, he honestly described the failures caused by his predecessor as the former president listened from behind the podium. President Trump pulled no pouches, stating that, “For many years, the radical and corrupt establishment has extracted power and wealth from our citizens.” In addition, the United States had “a government that cannot manage even a simple crisis at home while at the same time stumbling into a continuing catalog of catastrophic events abroad.”

After recounting these problems, the President began laying out solutions he would pursue as president. These included the enforcement of immigration law, energy independence, and the restoration of President McKinely’s name to what is now Mount Denali. While the last proposal may seem insignificant, it served as a powerful rebuke to the left’s attempts to rename historical monuments and erase American history. Indeed, President Trump signalled a shift away from shame about America’s past to pride in the accomplishments of our forefathers. 

It was at the end of the speech, however, that the president reached the height of his rhetorical powers. In this final section, he called on Americans to reclaim their heritage as “history’s greatest civilization.” In perhaps the greatest line of the speech he encouraged the United States to “pursue our manifest destiny into the stars, launching American astronauts to plant the Stars and Stripes on the planet Mars.” What followed until the end of the speech was a tribute to American exceptionalism.

After recounting the great achievements of the nation, President Trump ended his address by assuring the audience that “our golden age has just begun.”

The address succeeded because it was honest; honest about challenges we face, honest about our ability to overcome them, and honest about our great heritage. Indeed, President Trump delivered a truly inspiring Inaugural Address. If his administration succeeds, it could be a historic one.

In 1762 Jean-Jaques Rousseau published one of the 18th century’s most influential books. He began The Social Contract with the bold statement, “Man is born free, and he is everywhere in chains.” In many ways, Rousseau was a pessimist during a century of optimism. He saw the corruption of monarchy and objected to the notion that expanding knowledge would inexorably lead to progress. His writings pointed to a disillusionment with culture and civilization. 

Although Rousseau did not directly call for a return to a pre-civilized state, he often venerated what is known as the “noble savage” (i.e. man in a primitive state of nature). In his Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, for example, he asked “Would you like an abridged account of almost all our wretchedness? Here it is. There existed a natural man. There was introduced into this man an artificial man; and a civil war, enduring throughout life, arose” (quoted in the Durants’ Story of Civilization vol. IX). In essence, Rousseau promoted the idea that man was naturally good but gradually became corrupted by his institutions. 

French intellectuals such as the great encyclopedist, Denis Diderot, frequently made use of this concept. In his dialogue, Supplément au Voyage de Bougainville, Diderot described a fictionalized account of European explorers making contact with primitive Tahitians. One of the interlocutors in the dialogue venerates the natural lifestyle of the natives, stating that “the cruelty among them which has sometimes been observed is apparently due only to their daily need to defend themselves against wild beasts. The savage is innocent and gentle whenever his peace and security are left undisturbed. All wars spring from conflicting claims to the same property.” According to Diderot’s account, the Tahitians were primarily peaceful, even sharing their women in common. In essence, they were noble savages.

The notion of the noble savage, uncorrupted by civilization, was used to great effect by Benjamin Franklin. During his time in France he often played the part of a simple Raccoon-hatted American, despite his incredible intellectual achievements. Thus, he provided fascination to the upper-classes who had been immersed in the writings of Diderot and Rousseau.

Far from ending at the close of the 18th century, the view of primitive peoples as virtuous communitarians continues to influence modern discourse. It gained massive cultural authority in the 1980s when Marxist historian Howard Zinn presented the Native Americans as peaceful communists in his A People’s History of the United States: “So, Columbus and his successors were not coming into an empty wilderness, but into a world…where culture was complex, where human relation were more egalitarian than in Europe, and where the relations among, men women, children, and nature were more beautifully worked out than perhaps any place in the world.” Indeed, the idea of the “noble savage” is one of the most potent forces in American cultural life. The free love movement of the 1960s sought to break down the supposedly unnatural and oppressive bourgeois values that promoted monogamy and the nuclear family. In our present era, breaking down gender norms is justified on the grounds that people will be able to express their “true [or natural] selves.” 

Of course, the noble savage is historically inaccurate. Pre-civilized societies were incredibly violent and warmongering. As historian Mary Grabar recounts, when Columbus reached the new world there “was a request from the cacique of Marien, the Indian chief of the northeastern part of Haiti, that Columbus establish a base there. The chief wanted the Spaniards to protect him from enemies on the island.” Far from being proto-communist flower people, tribal groups perpetrated numerous acts of violence. According to Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker “If the wars of the twentieth century had killed the same proportion of the population that die in the wars of a typical tribal society, there would have been two billion deaths, not 100 million.” In reality, the peaceful primitive society is nothing more than an intellectual construct.

But the issue of the noble savage is more than a historical dispute. Rather it introduces profound and radical disputes over human nature. Proponents of the noble savage reject traditional wisdom by holding that man is spontaneously good. Far from requiring the rules of civilization, mankind is corrupted by them.

Such an outlook is diametrically opposed to the outlook that characterized much of Western history. In the Judeo-Christian worldview, for example, man is held to be tainted by original sin. Thus, he must struggle against his unjust desires in the quest for moral improvement. The noble savage ceased to exist at the Fall. Furthermore, Plato, the great Athenian philosopher, promoted the cultivation of reason as an antidote to a chaotic and unjust soul. In the eyes of Plato, the order of a just city reflects the order of a good soul. His student, Aristotle, also argued that man is a political animal and can only achieve his end in a community. Thus, these two strands of Western thought (Jerusalem and Athens) promote a movement away from primitivism and towards moral enlightenment within a just social order.

The great political philosopher Edmund Burke also emphasized the necessity of civilizing traditions when he criticized the chaos and violence of the French Revolution. Burke believed that inherited institutions provide the basis of morality and stability. Without these traditions “No one generation could link with the other. Men would become little better than flies of a summer.” Thus, according to Burke, gratitude is required for those who have passed down time-tested laws and moral rules. 

The belief in the noble savage, by contrast, promotes ingratitude. We see echoes of this idea in the prevalent scorn for the past and criticism of our ancestors that characterizes so much of modern culture. In this view, it was no great achievement to establish constitutional government, eliminate slavery, or raise the standard of living. If men are naturally good, then we should have attained these things much earlier. Those who worked to civilize and improve society were, at best, engaged in a fool’s errand. Complete revolution to overturn the social fabric would have brought these goods about much sooner and at less cost. Hence the unforgiving criticisms of the Founders for owning slaves. 

Those who castigate Thomas Jefferson or George Washington as irredeemably bigoted assume (against all historical fact) that men will naturally oppose slavery. The self-righteous proponents of this belief claim that they owe nothing to the past for their moral outlook. One who understands the fallibility of man, by contrast, feels gratitude towards men like Washington and Jefferson for providing a set of values that continue to govern his conduct. The revolutionary implicitly accepts the idea of the noble savage in order to elevate his own moral standing and radically critique society. A more sober judgement looks upon the present moment with as the result of centuries of effort and sacrifice.

Watching President Biden deliver a speech is akin to watching a children’s play. The performance flows poorly, he frequently stumbles, and the lines are written by someone else. Unlike a child, however, President Biden holds the most powerful office in the world. Thus, despite his dismal oratorical skills his performances are still worth watching.

Perhaps the most important speech of his career occurred on January 15 when he delivered his Farewell Address to the Nation. During these remarks, presidents often attempt to solidify their legacy by highlighting their accomplishments and providing a vision for the future. Given his terrible performance as president, Biden’s speech assumed even greater importance. His goal should have been to deliver a vague and inspiring speech. Vague in order to avoid any mention of his faults and inspiring in order to make it memorable.

The first half of the speech adequately accomplished this goal. President Biden began with a description of the Statue of Liberty and its metaphorical relationship to the soul of our country. Compared to other speeches, the imagery wasn’t particularly moving, but the speech stayed on course. 

After this introduction, the president briefly and vaguely catalogued the accomplishments of his administration. He avoided talk about the border, mentioned the economy only once, and claimed that “we’ve pulled ahead of our competition with China” whatever that might mean. Up to this point, the speech went smoothly. President Biden had very few stumbles and his speechwriters didn’t make any errors in judgment.

It was in the final section of his speech, however, that the president revealed the divisive and radical character of his presidency. Far from resting content with a list of his supposed accomplishments, the president felt he needed “to warn the country of some things that give me great concern” and thereby set a tone for the future.   

Seeking to channel the energy of Theodore Roosevelt, President Biden warned the country that an “oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms, and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead.” Rather than ending on a note of unity the president sought to promote class conflict. Quite ironic from a man who recently gave George Soros the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Then, in an attempt to emulate Dwight D. Eisenhower, President Biden warned of a tech-industrial complex that allows Americans to be “buried under an avalanche of misinformation and disinformation enabling the abuse of power.” Because “Social media is giving up on fact-checking. The truth is smothered by lies told for power and for profit.” The president clearly referred to Elon Musk’s acquisition of X and Mark Zuckerberg’s decision to stop biased fact-checking on Meta. As he leaves the presidency, Biden hopes to once again seize the means of informational dissemination for the Democratic party.

Furthermore, he called for a radical infringement on the separation of powers through a restructuring of the Supreme Court. According to the President “We need to enact an 18-year time limit — term limit — time and term — for the strongest ethics ref- — and the strongest ethics reforms for our Supreme Court.”

Now that the Court interprets the Constitution according to its original meaning, the Democratic party wants to radically alter the judicial branch. Republicans never made a similar push despite the Supreme Court’s indulgence of liberal prejudices for 60 years. President Biden frequently accused his opponent of loving his country only when he won, but it seems that he is much more guilty of that charge.

Indeed, President Biden’s call for more governmental centralization was the climax of his speech. Far from inspiring Ameircans to unite with one another he engaged in a demagogic attempt to foster class conflict and degrade the rule of law. Joe Biden’s acrimonious exit serves as an analogy for his public life; vain, unprincipled, and morally bankrupt. 

Immediately after President Trump broke the left’s stranglehold over the judiciary, prominent Democrats began warning against the dangers of a conservative Supreme Court. Shortly before the Dobbs decision Speaker Nancy Pelosi argued that the Supreme Court is “dangerous to families and to freedoms in our country.” However, such criticisms were heard well before the Justices decided to overturn Roe v. Wade. During the 2020 election, for example, then-candidate Biden refused to disavow court packing. Indeed, were they in the majority, Democrats would have no scruples about permanently altering the balance of power in this country. 

A common critique leveled against the Justices is that they are supposedly radical conservatives. This is an odd criticism given that the Supreme Court was clearly liberal for the past 60 years. In the eyes of the left, however, judicial decisions are nothing more than an extension of one’s ideology. They see justices as issuing opinions, purely based on their liberal or conservative leanings. Thus, when a Justice doesn’t adhere to left-liberal orthodoxies, leftists seek to use their political power in order to intimidate and alter the Court. However, a more helpful framework for examining the Supreme Court comes from judicial philosophy rather than political ideology. 

Judges who are labelled conservative typically adhere to the philosophy known as Originalism. Indeed, every “conservative” Supreme Court Justice is an Originalist. Judges who subscribe to the Originalist method of Constitutional interpretation generally attempt to uphold the original meaning of the Constitution. The late Justice Antonin Scalia, the theory’s most famous proponent, argued that “that the provisions of the Constitution have a fixed meaning, which does not change (except by constitutional amendment): they mean today what they meant when they were adopted, nothing more and nothing less.” Thus, Scalia believed that the individual whims of judges should be as limited as possible. Rather than altering the law to fit their own personal convictions, Originalists seek to uphold the original meaning of the Constitution. For this reason Justice Scalia once said that “The judge who always likes the results he reaches is a bad judge.” 

Hence, the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade was not made because the Justices are all conservative Catholics who morally oppose abortion (although this may be true). Rather, the Court held that the Constitution never included a right to abortion. The majority opinion demonstrated that “[f]or the first 185 years after the adoption of the Constitution, each State was permitted to address this issue in accordance with the views of its citizens. Then, in 1973, this Court decided Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113. Even though the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, the Court held that it confers a broad right to obtain one.” The Justices came to the obvious conclusion that the Constitution never enshrined a right to abortion.

Anyone who reads the Constitution with a shred of intellectual integrity could come to this conclusion. Indeed, even those who hope to legalize abortion should recognize that the Constitution says nothing about the issue.

Far from arbitrarily implementing their own views, the Originalist Justices sought to uphold the rule of law by adhering to the original meaning of the Constitution.

On the other side, however, liberal Justices are clearly engaged in a project of ideological change. These judges reject Originalism and are broadly grouped as Living Constitutionalists. Although Living Constitutionalists come in different varieties, they all argue that the Constitution changes over time. Thus, a Constitutional provision that means one thing today can mean another tomorrow.

Professors and judges often couch this view in poetic jargon to make it more palatable. While arguing against Scalia, for example, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, said that “‘the Constitution’ speaks across the generations, projecting a set of messages undergoing episodic revisions that reverberate backward as well as forward in time.” While amendments may alter the Constitution, it certainly does not project alternative “messages” that “reverberate.” 

Living Constitutionalism opens the door to rampant bias because judges inevitably interpret the Constitution as changing in a manner that fits their ideological preferences. Thus, liberal judges always argue that the Constitution becomes more liberal over time. Living Constitutionalism destroys the rule of law by giving precedence to the will of judges over the actual meaning of the Constitution. 

Indeed, a brief survey of the judicial landscape demonstrates that leftists project their own pathologies onto the Supreme Court. For the last 60 years, liberal Justices have placed their own priorities above the law. The “conservative” justices are merely reversing this trend.

Oftentimes, academics couch their novel theories in sophisticated language and vague examples to make their ideas more palatable. This is nowhere more apparent than in the field of constitutional interpretation. 

For most of American history judges were supposed to merely interpret the law, rather than provide their personal opinions. When describing the judicial system in Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton distinguished the Supreme Court from other branches of government; “It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment…” The judiciary can neither make new legislation nor enforce its decisions. Thus, it must adhere to the letter of the law in order to perform its function well.

In England, 18th century jurists also advised judges to defer to the law, rather than their personal wishes. Sir William Blackstone, whose Commentaries on the Laws of England had a tremendous influence on the Founders as well as the development of American law, stated that “it is an established rule to abide by former precedents, where the same point comes again in litigation: as well to keep the scale of justice even and steady, and not liable to waver with every new judge’s opinion; as also because the law…is now become a permanent rule, which it is not in the breast of any subsequent judge to alter or vary according to his private judgment or sentiment.” Because England has no written Constitution, Blackstone’s conception of the law is somewhat different from ours. He stresses, however, that personal beliefs should not factor into a judge’s legal decision.

Sir Edward Coke, whose image graces the doors of our Supreme Court, made similar observations over a century before Blackstone. In a passage of his reports, he includes a phrase in Latin which translates to “It is better to judge according to the letter of the law than according to one’s own knowledge and feeling. Ignorance in a judge is a great mischief to the innocent” (trans. Sheppard). Hence, judges who misinterpret the law to fulfill their own wishes do a disservice to their profession.

In contemporary times, the inheritors of this restrained judicial tradition go by the name of Originalists. The doctrine of Originalism was perhaps most successfully expounded by the late Justice Antonin Scalia who argued that judges should interpret the Constitution in light of its original meaning. He once said that “The judge who always likes the results he reaches is a bad judge.” Justices are not meant to tell us what they want the Constitution to say but merely what it does say. According to Scalia, Originalists essentially “believe that the provisions of the Constitution have a fixed meaning, which does not change (except by constitutional amendment): they mean today what they meant when they were adopted, nothing more and nothing less.” Such notions are quite straightforward and common-sense.

Originalism is the doctrine that most of the “conservative” justices on the Supreme Court subscribe to. Far from promoting their personal politics these justices merely interpret the original meaning of the Constitution (which happens to be too conservative for many people).

It is a testament to the success of originalism that those who oppose it are broadly grouped as Living Constitutionalists. Although they come in different varieties, they all argue that the Constitution changes over time. Apparently, the laws have a way of becoming more favorable to the left as time passes. Such a view is often expressed with the obscurity and pseudo-profundity of an academic. While arguing against Scalia, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, said that “‘the Constitution’ speaks across the generations, projecting a set of messages undergoing episodic revisions that reverberate backward as well as forward in time.” While amendments may alter the Constitution, it does not project alternative “messages” that “reverberate.” In seeking to alter original meanings, Tribe, like so many others, has recourse to poetic jargon.

Fortunately, these seemingly dry academic debates are brought out into the open during actual cases. We are able to see judges using particular theoretical frameworks and how their judicial philosophies influence decision-making. United States v. Jonathan Skrmetti provides a perfect opportunity to see how anything other than Originalism leads to absurdities.

This case, which is currently being litigated, will determine whether or not Tennessee’s law against child transgender surgeries and hormone use is unconstitutional. During the oral arguments, the non-originalist Justice Sotomayor interjected when the Tennessee Solicitor General claimed that transgender treatment causes harm by saying “I’m sorry, counselor, every medical treatment has a risk. Even taking aspirin.” It appears that Justice Sotomayor is so desperate to follow her personal whims, that she is willing to compare deliberate mutilation to taking aspirin. 

Similarly, the newest member of the Court, Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson compared banning transgender surgeries to outlawing interracial marriage. She claimed that arguments in favor of Tennessee’s law “sound in the same kinds of arguments that were made back in the day, 50’s and 60’s, with respect to racial classifications and inconsistencies. I’m thinking in particular about Loving, and I’m wondering if you’ve thought about the parallels…as to how this statute operates and how the anti-miscegenation statutes in Virginia operated.” It is Justice Jackson’s willingness to place her own convictions above the law that led her to make such a plainly absurd statement. To a clear thinker, racial discrimination has nothing to do with preventing the sterilization of children. Rather than interpreting the text of the Fourteenth Amendment as it was originally intended Justice Jackson hopes to distort it in order to benefit her ideological allies. 

When reading these arguments one is exposed to the intellectual bankruptcy of Living Constitutionalism. Rather than adhering to the letter of the law, leftist judges prefer to force their own will upon the American people. But as Hamilton said, they are supposed to “have neither FORCE nor WILL.”

It is fitting to end with a quote contained in Sir Edward Coke’s Reports: “Meanwhile, farewell Reader; and remember that whoever mocks the genuine sense and force of any law, by scheming or craftiness, is to be considered a violator of the law” (trans. Sheppard).

Most people with a basic understanding of economics recognize that tariffs raise the price of goods and inhibit international commerce. If the government taxes goods, at least some of the cost is passed onto consumers. Furthermore, exorbitant tariffs can raise the price of goods to a height that makes it disadvantageous to produce them in another country.

For centuries, astute political and economic observers have demonstrated the economic downsides of tariffs. The famous 18th century jurist, Sir William Blackstone, described the effects of import duties on the English consumers: “These customs are…a tax immediately paid by the merchant, although ultimately by the consumer.” In order to make up for tariffs, importers raise their prices. Consequently, Blackstone argued that  “these imposts, if too heavy, are a check and cramp upon trade; and especially when the value of the commodity bears little or no proportion to the quantity of the duty imposed.” Thus, tariffs tend to be economically inefficient. They inhibit trade and raise prices. This does not, however, mean that tariffs are entirely negative. In Blackstone’s day, for example, they provided necessary revenue to the crown. 

In our neo-liberal era, however, elite economists and politicians all but abandoned the use of tariffs. These taxes were viewed as antiquated inhibitors to the workings of the global market. In the age of free-trade conservatives welcomed the resultant increase in commerce and liberals embraced the new era of globalization. Thus, President Trump’s support for tariffs was met with skepticism by individuals of all political backgrounds. When he announced his plans, mainstream media outlets eagerly pointed out that such a move would cause higher prices. Conservatives, on the other hand, assured their liberal counterparts that the president would not actually implement tariffs across the board. 

Indeed, if President Trump intended to use tariffs for purely economic purposes, his plans would be ludicrous. Massive tariff increases inevitably dislocate international trade and raise the price of goods. In purely economic terms, tariffs cause harm.

Unfortunately, however, we do not live in a purely economic world. This was amply demonstrated by the outbreak of World War I. Prior to the war, Nobel Peace Prize recipient Norman Angell published a book called The Great Illusion arguing that a major war was economically irrational. In an interconnected world, war cost too much for both the victors and the vanquished. Nonetheless, these considerations did not prevent the outbreak of a global conflict. Countries are motivated by more than purely economic interests. In our world, the Ayatollah is motivated by Islamism, Putin is motivated by Soviet revanchism, and Xi is motivated by Chinese nationalism. Their views are not purely economic. 

The United States also has interests related to national security that are not immediately economic. Halting the flow of illegal immigrants, for example, is an essential task of the incoming president. Thus, he threatened to impose tariffs on Mexico unless they agree to stem the flow of immigrants and drugs. Ideally, President Trump’s threats will remain hypothetical. However, Mexico’s refusal to cooperate would justify such tariffs.

China’s global ambitions also threaten U.S. interests. While stealing foreign technology, China has used its status as a member of the World Trade Organization to spur massive economic growth. Furthermore, the statist economy of China inhibits the ability of American companies to compete with certain industries. For example, experts say the Chinese government plays an important role in EV development by “propping up both the supply of EVs and the demand for them.” While the U.S. as a whole may have a more effective capitalist economy, it is difficult for specific industries to compete with Chinese companies that receive substantial government assistance. Tariffs can be used to offset this imbalance.

 China’s aggressive and totalitarian ambitions also threaten U.S. interests. For many years, the prevailing wisdom held that China would democratize as it became globally interconnected. Such sentiments now appear to be as naive as those of Norman Angell. One is reminded of a Vladimir Lenin’s observation that “[t]hey [capitalists] will furnish credits which will serve us for the support of the Communist Party in their countries and, by supplying us materials and technical equipment which we lack, will restore our military industry necessary for our future attacks against our suppliers. To put it in other words, they will work on the preparation of their own suicide.” Clearly, the United States’ interests include the curtailment of China. Tariffs can serve as an important impediment to the economic rise of hostile powers.

President Trump, like a typical dealmaker, knows how to use leverage. From his public statements, it is clear that he views tariffs as a means to an end. By reviving discussions about tariffs, he reintroduced an important strategic tool. 

Even a cursory look at modern society reveals a distinct lack of cultural conservatism. Traditional moral norms once seen as essential are now viewed as impediments to individual self-expression. The stereotypical nuclear family no longer exists for many Americans. For example, as of 2010 every state legalized no-fault divorce. Relatedly, the CDC found that nearly 40 percent of children were born out of wedlock in 2022. Such a radical alteration in the body politic signals a similar shift in values. Thus, coupled with the decline of social conservatism is an absence of cultural conservation. Cities around the country make a habit of removing monuments of famous American heroes. In 2021, New York City removed a statue of Thomas Jefferson from city hall. Two years later, Revolutionary War hero Philip Schuyler met a similar fate in Albany. Sadly, many consider our historical inheritance a burden rather than a blessing. Our lack of cultural conservation is disturbing because culture is inherently conservative. Successive generations accumulate knowledge in order to distill enduring wisdom. Dissociating from the past leads to a disintegration rather than a renewal of culture. 

While the dislocation of family life and the removal of statues may seem to have little in common, they both serve a common purpose: liberating the individual. Discarding history frees us from the burdens of the past and erasing familial norms frees the individual will. By contrast, traditional mores restrain individual action and encourage gratitude towards those who make our lives possible. Thus, the rejuvenation of individual responsibility and American history both require the restoration of a traditional moral outlook. 

It is quite common for conservatives to remark on the necessity of a moral reawakening but their rhetoric is occasionally uninspired. It often contains prohibitions rather than affirmations. Hence the stereotype of the religious person as a boring teetotaler. While this generalization is unfair it points to the lack of success that has followed attempts to restore cultural norms. No one wants to give up a life of adventure for what is viewed as a dull existence. The image of the ascetic Chrsitian whom Edward Gibbon described as “embrace[ing] a life of misery, as the price of eternal happines[s]” probably comes to mind for many people. Thus, any rejuvenation of a Christian ethics requires a healthy dose of humanism. Proponents of  a God-given moral order must also affirm the capacity of individuals to effect change and attain a sense of meaning. 

At this point in our history, the study of Greek and Roman heroes is a necessary antidote to our moral malaise. Plutarch’s Parallel Lives are a great place to start. These short biographies examine the lives of Greek and Roman statesmen in pairs. At the beginning of his Life of Aemilius Paullus, Plutarch describes the ethical purpose of his work; “I treat the narratives as a kind of mirror and try to find a way to arrange my life and assimilate it to the virtues of my subjects.” Plutarch recognized that reading about great men is not only entertaining, it forces us to reflect on our own conduct. Moreover, Plutarch did not conduct his inquiry with the cynicism of the modern historian. Although his heroes were flawed, he claimed that their examples “equip me…to repel and keep at bay anything pernicious or malicious or contemptible my association which those I deal with may bring, because I calmly and composedly turn my thoughts away from such aspects towards exemplars of unparalleled worth.” Examples of human greatness encourage us to emulate virtue and illustrate the adventures associated with upright conduct. While the romance of Cleopatra and Antony is often romanticized, the reader of Plutarch recognizes that Antony’s lust was his least interesting trait. Only when he inspires his troops like a man does he command admiration.

Even Suetonius’ salacious biographies of the Caesars provide moral instruction to the attentive reader. His writings show that the unfettered desires of a prince can lead to incredibly dark places. On the positive side, however, the example of Augustus reinforces the value of studying history. After restoring the statues of great Romans he stated that “[t]his has been done to make my fellow citizens insist that both I (while I live) and the leaders of following ages shall not fall below the standard set by those great men of old.” Thus, both Plutarch the philosopher and Augustus the political leader recognized the need to study great actions. 

Rediscovering classical heroes helps imbue individuals with a sense that their lives have meaning. Plutarch’s vivid descriptions of moral virtue show that far from leading to boredom, personal restraint leads to adventure. His heroes changed the course of history through patriotic service and a willingness to accept the burdens of responsible citizenship. Thus, nearly two millennia later, they can still serve as a mirror for our souls.

Whether or not Donald Trump wins the 2024 election, he will undoubtedly be remembered for his major impact on the Republican Party. He broke with the establishment on issues ranging from tariffs to Middle East policy to the need for welfare reform. Moreover, his populist rhetoric is a far cry from the more polished manners of both George Bush Jr. and Sr, the two previous Republican presidents. For this reason many conservatives reacted with indignation when Trump was nominated in 2016. After all, what could a poorly spoken political outsider have to offer? The success of President Trump’s first term silenced many of these doubters. His tax cuts stimulated the economy and his aggressive instincts cowed our enemies. Moreover, despite questions about his social conservatism, he delivered a staunchly originalist Supreme Court that overturned Roe v. Wade. All considered, even his critics were forced to admit that he succeeded.

Nevertheless, some still cling to the idea that Trump is a deep threat to our republic. He ruffled many powerful feathers and dashed the ambitions of well-connected people. Despite being supposedly “low energy,” Jeb Bush is still an important member of a powerful American family. President Trump’s insults probably factored into George Bush’s decision not to endorse a candidate in this election. The one time influential Congresswoman Liz Cheney also saw her political career go up in smoke in response to Donald Trump’s tirades. For better or worse, her vote to impeach President Trump and her work on the politicized January 6 committee angered Trump and his allies. Apparently it angered the voters too. She lost her 2022 House primary by a nearly 30 point margin. Now she is actively campaigning against Donald Trump in support of Kamala Harris.

When Cheney initially lost her seat much of the conservative intelligentsia lamented the fact that a courageous stateswoman had been railroaded by Donald Trump’s antics. Implicit in their critique was the idea that the voters had been fooled. Apparently, Cheney was a principled conservative, unwilling to bend to the whims of a deranged president. 

Cheney’s most recent actions reveal the falsehood of this view. Far from being a principled conservative, she is willing to sell out her ideals in a quest for revenge. Cheney recently endorsed Colin Allred in his race against Senator Ted Cruz. Before his senate run, Allred was a far left Congressman. His lifetime Heritage Action score is 2 percent, meaning that he almost never votes with conservatives. By contrast, Senator Cruz has a 92 percent score. In the past, Allred criticized President Trump’s immigration plans as “racist” and promised to tear down the border wall. Furthermore, in 2023 he voted no on the “Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act.” The Act was designed to prevent men from competing in girls’ sports. In short, Allred’s ideas are antithetical to everything Liz Cheney did in the past. 

Indeed, Cheney’s support of Allred demonstrates that she is not a staunch defender of conservatism. Rather, she is willing to sell-out all Republicans in pursuance of a personal vendetta. If she truly wanted to revitalize conservatism she would not attempt to replace Senator Cruz with a radical leftist. Ultimately, Cheney’s recent actions reveal an important truth: Wyoming’s voters were right.

Anyone who pays attention to politics can agree that the story of Kamala Harris is truly inspiring. Her family came from Kentucky, where she spent much of her childhood, and she grew up in a small town in Ohio. At an early age her father and mother separated, and she was legally adopted by her stepfather. She never had a stable father-figure, however, because her mother constantly contracted dysfunctional and abusive relationships. Indeed, Harris’ mother became abusive and addicted to drugs. Without the support of her Mamaw and Papaw, Harris might never have survived childhood. Nonetheless, she went on to join the Marines, graduated from Ohio State University in two years, and then attended Yale Law School. Despite her insular upbringing, she married an Indian man, thereby crossing cultural boundaries in a typically American fashion. Her story is an example of how hard work allows people from even the most dire circumstances to achieve the American dream.

J.D. Vance, by contrast, is a phony. He touts working-class credentials by pointing to his birth in Oakland, despite spending most of his time in Berkley. After all, his parents are two successful UC Berkley PhDs. Indeed, his father eventually became a professor at Stanford. Then, at the age of twelve, Vance and his mother moved to an affluent neighborhood in Montreal where he spent the rest of his adolescence. After returning to the United States, he graduated from Howard College and UC Hastings law school. As an ambitious young professional he got his start in government after starting an affair with a married woman named Willa Brown, a mover and shaker in California politics. Despite his laziness and incompetence, he continued to rise due to the patronage of his lover. Now, at the age of 60, he is seeking the presidency following his dismal performance as Vice President – a position he only got because he is a white man. While failing to stem the flow of illegal immigration, he also covered up the senility of his boss…

Oops! I wrote the first part of this essay after reading the New York Times and Washington Post. They all said Kamala had good vibes so I just assumed she was the poor kid from Appalachia. Maybe I should start thinking for myself.