Woke Media Elites Took a Swing at Beto O’Rourke, and Missed: Liner Notes

My latest column is up at The Federalist, “Beto O’Rourke’s Fundraising Haul Rebukes Media Elites Hating On His Sex And Skin.” It’s about how nakedly political the establishment media became in its coverage of the failed Senate candidate turned presidential candidate. Most media bias is confined to attacking the right; here, it was directed against one of their own, descending into attacking him for being a cisgender white male.

What got left out for space? Mostly details, as my pitch for this piece was a mere sentence in an internal discussion. It was written quickly and pushed through editorial on an expedited basis, given that it’s time-sensitive.

But it’s not entirely time-sensitive. No one should be surprised if Joe Biden gets a similar hazing by the media should he enter the 2020 race. One lesson of this episode should be that Biden need not waste as much valuable time apologizing for his decades-long record as the far-left will demand. Voters will care, or not care — and most will not care. According to a recent Harvard-Harris poll, “Obama Democrat” is the most popular self-descriptor among the rank-and-file:

Biden should simply say that Obama knew about his past record and knew him — and picked him to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. Woke elites want 2020 to be what 2016 was for the GOP — a break from traditional party orthodoxy. Biden ought to welcome that debate head-on.

PS: Consider sharing this post with the buttons below, as well as following WHRPT on Twitter.  Thanks for reading and sharing.

Obama as the Godfather of the Party of Obama: Liner Notes

I have a new column up at The Federalist, “Barack Obama’s Radicalism Laid The Groundwork For Ilhan Omar’s.” Although “radicalism” strikes me as a strong term, maybe that’s why I don’t write headlines in an attention-based economy.

In any event, the column looks at the gap between Obama’s campaign rhetoric and tactics versus the way he governed — esp. his second term — and how it contributed to the rise of the Party of Omar *and the Party of Trump). It was inspired more or less by a debate on Twitter about how much of the Democratic lurch leftward exceeded thee general cultural drift leftward during the Obama era.

That lurch has been of interest to me before. Obama is not the sole cause of that lurch, a phenomenon on which there has been little research or study. Some of it may relate to Gen Z coming into colleges and the voter pool, which suggests a generation of parenting and K-12 education are implicated. Some of it may relate to the rise of social media platforms (the Black Lives Matter movement, mentioned in the column, may never have happened had the (ironically justified) police shooting of Michael Brown not gained visibility through social media). And there may be other factors eluding me at the moment, but Obama’s second-term governance seems to be one.

PS: Consider sharing this post with the buttons below, as well as following WHRPT on Twitter.  Thanks for reading and sharing.

Bernie the Moderate: Liner Notes

I have a new column up at The Federalist today, “Bernie Sanders Is Now The Moderate Democratic Presidential Candidate.” “Moderate” is always a relative term; here it refers more to Bernie — an independent socialist — arguably being the center of gravity for the Democratic Party at the moment.

The piece generated out of an editorial discussion. David Marcus made a similar point focused on Sanders’ launch speech, but I wanted to put that speech into a broader context of Democrats moving toward him on economics while moving away from him on identity politics. And part of this involves a brief autopsy of the Obama era. If I had more space, I might have elaborated on how the losses (in terms of officeholders) sustained under Obama contributed to the Dems’ thin bench in 2008, which in turn helped ensure Hillary Clinton would be the 2016 presidential nominee. Her failure in turn boosted socialist impulses within the party.

Another wrinkle to watch is the degree to which Bernie’s 2020 rivals grasp for woke positions in an attempt to peel away Sanders votes from the left. People will view this sort of thing through the lens of the primary horserace, but people should keep an eye on the degree to which this dynamic might result in a Dem nominee from the identitarian left — and what implications that would have for the general election.

Also, I might have added more than a joke to the idea that Sanders’ appeal might itself be its own form of identity politics, given that he and Joe Biden top the early 2020 polling. It’s impossible to disentangle that from pure name identification, but the point of the joke in the kicker is that it cannot be entirely discounted.

PS: Consider sharing this post with the buttons below, as well as following WHRPT on Twitter.  Thanks for reading and sharing.

The Politics of Adult Children: Liner Notes

My latest column is up at The Federalist, “Dianne Feinstein Teaches The Green New Deal Kids A Lesson In Politics.”

It was an odd piece to write. It came out of a discussion of “breaking news” late Friday. And I’m recovering from a minor health issue that was going to have me at home and awake late Friday. But given the looming weekend and the general editorial process, I had to consider that it might well not run until today (if it ran). Accordingly, I made sure to have a “bigger picture” turn at the end to help give the piece legs (even if most readers decide to click based on the headline, in my experience).

As I was writing as though I was on a tight deadline, not much got left out for space. The subject of youth politics could have lent itself to more examples like the Parkland shooting kids, but I tend to consider that topic covered already — which is why the end focuses on the role of adults in youth politics.

I also considered writing about the leftist tactic of training their fire on those who are still on the left. Pres. Trump made hay doing it to the right in 2016, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez goes after the left… but this is not a case where she merely imitates Trump.

In the late Sixties and early Seventies, New Left radicals targeted liberals like university administrators — and it tended to work because it’s harder to summarily reject those who at least present themselves as withing one’s own tribe. Noah C. Rothman’s new book, Unjust, has a bit about how today’s social justice warriors similarly pick soft targets to rack up victories (or perceived victories).

PS: Consider sharing this post with the buttons below, as well as following WHRPT on Twitter.  Thanks for reading and sharing.

It’s Not the GOP Making Extremism the Face of the Democratic Party: Liner Notes

I have a new column posted at The Federalist, “Data Shows Democrats’ Increasingly Rabid Leftism Is Driven By White People.” Not exclusively white people, but disproportionately so. Such is the nature of headlines.

What got left out for space? I considered mentioning that while the GOP has been spotlighting Democratic extremism for the past month or so, I’ve been doing it for months and months. But I thought it might sound like protesting too much.

I also considered discussing the basic silliness of top Republicans discussing their “strategy” with the New York Times, as if anything good would come of it. Although Pres. Trump loves to trash the NYT, it remains the case from the top on down that GOPers still have a love/hate relationship with the Gray Lady — and the love part remains very much unrequited.

I could have added a bit more about how big an issue Israel is going to be for 2020 Dems, despite the fact that fewer than a third of them in any of the ideological groups say they sympathize more with the Palestinians than the Israelis, and despite Dems as senior as Chuck Schumer having declared Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement anti-Semitic as recently as last year.

There is also too much to add about the subtext of promoting figures like Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, and Tlaib in the context of generational politics, as Millennials and Gen Z (or iGen, or whatever we’re calling post-Millennials). Younger Dems are more likely to hold or be sympathetic to a variety of extreme and illiberal views, but an examination of the possible reasons for it is a much larger discussion than could be had in today’s column.

PS: Consider sharing this post with the buttons below, as well as following WHRPT on Twitter.  Thanks for reading and sharing.

A Northam and Omar Twofer: Liner Notes

I have two new columns posted at The Federalist today: “All Ralph Northam Needs To Weather Racism Controversy Is The Approval Of Woke Whites” and “Ilhan Omar Criticizes Cold War Policy To Distract From Socialism’s Atrocities In Venezuela.” The first is a “normal” column I pitched, while the second was the result of a comment I made in a discussion of yesterday’s news (which I note simply because some are curious about how items get “assigned” over there).

What got left out? In the Northam piece, I considered writing more about why I think he should have resigned, which boils down to a pattern of comments suggesting he does not treat individuals — whether newborns or African-Americans — in accord with our ideals. But the piece is really more about the underlying politics, so I left that argument in the subtext. Also, in the time since I submitted the column, it’s becoming clearer that black legislators in Virginia are paying attention to the poll showing black Virginians are not as outraged as whites by Northam’s blackface scandal. It’s always nice when the news arrives in support of one’s argument.

In the Omar column, I could have written much more about Reagan-era foreign policy in Central America. Top Democrats took a very anti-anti-Communist line in this arena and history will not remember them kindly. The socialist Rep. Ron Dellums, who was eventually elevated to chair the House Armed Services Committee, was an admirer of Fidel Castro and Grenada’s dictator Maurice Bishop.

No one is going to defend the excesses and abuses of some of America’s proxy forces who fought against the socialist dictatorships during the Reagan era. On the other hand, I doubt the Democrats would now defend the idea that we should have allowed these dictators to permit the establishment of Soviet airbases and other installations on our southern doorstep. And if you oppose direct intervention, you wind up supporting proxy forces that almost inevitably will not live up to our ideals. Democrats opposing the entire enterprise told people by their actions (and demands for inaction) what results made them comfortable. And so it is with Omar, who opposes not only any direct intervention, but also sanctions against the Maduro regime. Her posturing against Elliott Abrams on human rights abuses is just that — posturing, on behalf of thugs every bit as murderous as anyone the U.S. supported (or fought) in South and Central America in the 1980s.

PS: Consider sharing this post with the buttons below, as well as following WHRPT on Twitter.  Thanks for reading and sharing.

One Cheer for the NYT on Democratic Extremism

A bonus follow-up on my Friday column about the way the media covers far-left extremism in the Democratic Party in the most begrudging way they can get away with. Although most of the column was about the media’s slanted coverage of abortion, I added:

Abortion may be the subject where the media’s sins of omission are the greatest, but they do not end there. The New York Times celebrated the swearing-in of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-NY) as a historic triumph over anti-Muslim bigotry and Muslim sexism, while omitting the inflammatory comments that made her a lightning rod for criticism.

Similarly, if newly elected Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) reportedly associates with anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists, you won’t be reading about it in the Post or the Times, or see it on establishment newscasts.”

Well, the NYT got around to correcting those omissions in a story which also ran on Friday, addressing them in paragraphs 26 and 24, respectively. Slow clap.

And that’s not the only curious thing about the story, either. The article is almost entirely about the turmoil Omar and Tlaib are causing within the House Democratic Caucus, but paragraph 2 reads as follows:

Four weeks later, their uncompromising views on Israel have made them perhaps the most embattled new members of the Democratic House majority. Almost daily, Republicans brashly accuse Ms. Tlaib and Ms. Omar of anti-Semitism and bigotry, hoping to make them the Democrats’ version of Representative Steve King as they try to tar the entire Democratic Party with their criticism of the Jewish state.”

Inasmuch as the article barely returns to that “Republicans pounce” theme, readers might be forgiven for wondering whether it gets top billing to prime the paper’s core readership to side with Omar and Tlaib by means of negative partisanship, especially since the lede is about how path-breaking and heroic they are.

People might also be forgiven for seeing the political assessment inserted into a straight news story as a bit of projection, and an explanation for why the establishment media reports these stories as though they are undergoing a root canal. People on the right are sounding the alarm about the growing anti-Semitism within the Democratic Party not because it is currently dominant, but because they fear it might become common and acceptable, as has occurred in the UK’s Labour Party.

The editorializing in the NYT story occasionally gets Orwellian, as here:

Democratic leaders are standing by the women. Mr. Jeffries, the caucus chairman, called them ‘thoughtful colleagues.’ Representative Steny D. Hoyer of Maryland, the majority leader and a staunch ally of Israel, said, ‘I don’t know that I draw the conclusion that these two members are anti-Semitic.’

The first comment is non-specific; the second has leadership withholding judgment. Neither is a defense.

In between, there is much on the pending bill that would allow state and local governments to break ties with companies that participate in the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions [BDS] movement. Opposition to the bill on free speech grounds is what people like Tlaib hide behind, when such measures are almost certainly constitutional.

That does not mean the policy isn’t worthy of debate, only that Tlaib and her ilk would much rather pretend that the issue is free speech, not BDS. Per usual, there is nothing in the coverage explaining why BDS is anti-Semitic, or even suggest there is a debate about it. The NYT story’s focus here is telling, given that both Omar and Tlaib have come out in support of BDS after they got elected.

Furthermore, in reporting that Tlaib said of the bills supporters that “They forgot what country they represent,” the NYT allows Tlaib to offer the unchallenged defense that her comments were not aimed at Jews (but at Sens. Marco Rubio and Joe Manchin). Aiming those comments at anyone is anti-Semitic. Aiming them at non-Jews implies that our government is under the control of Jews or the Jewish state. It’s a “dual loyalty” charge, regardless of the target. And it’s a charge Omar laughed and smirked over in a recent CNN interview.

The sourcing in the NYT story is also selective. The only Jewish group quoted is the progressive J Street (which endorsed neither Omar nor Tlaib, a sign of how extreme these two are). There’s no quote from the ADL, AIPAC, or even the newly-formed Democratic Majority for Israel, despite the group’s launch being the subject of an NYT story just days earlier.

The last omission is doubly curious inasmuch as the formation of the new group underscores the supposed thesis of the article about intra-party friction. It is triply curious given that the new group reportedly may aid Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who just happens to be one of the Congressmen quoted repeatedly in this new story. The other Reps with multiple quotes are Ted Deutch and Eliot Engel — both are Jewish, Engel is from New York.

A few days ago, writing in part about Democratic leadership teaching Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez her place as a rookie Member, I noted that quietly going to the media with embarrassing material would be another weapon they held in reserve. Friday’s piece on Omar and Tlaib reads like it may have originated that way, even if the reporter then went out of her way to skew the piece in their defense.

PS: Consider sharing this post with the buttons below, as well as following WHRPT on Twitter.  Thanks for reading and sharing

The Future of Abortion Politics: Liner Notes

I have a new column up at The Federalist, “Ralph Northam And Kathy Tran Revealed The Future Of Abortion Politics,” and it’s coincidentally about federalism.

Abortion is not a topic I write about much, but wherever one’s view, it is an issue that has profoundly shaped our politics since the decision of Roe v. Wade in 1973. It was a big factor in moving Democrats toward Reagan in 1980 and the decision of born-again Christians to become more active in partisan politics. The defeat of the Bork nomination to the Supreme Court is not only a significant cause of our current polarization, but also the seed of our current battles over judicial nominations (and thus a major factor in the election of Pres. Trump).

Recent statements by Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam and Del. Kathy Tran supporting a bill to deregulate abortion (particularly late-term abortion) apparently have complicated abortion rights activists’ nationwide campaign to loosen restrictions on the practice. I argue that the reaction of the pro-life movement to the controversy in Virginia (quickly following the passage of a similar bill in New York) suggests that if Roe were overturned, there would probably be a less federalist, “leave it to the states” attitude on either side than has been generally supposed.

This idea came to me largely due to the disingenuous “conservatives pounce” framing that most of the establishment media put on the story (after having largely ignored the passage of the NY law). The pro-life reaction was even more justified than originally thought, given the previously undisclosed campaign. But the media also missed what that reaction implies about how politics might look if the Supreme Court declared Roe and its progeny (esp. Doe v. Bolton) were no longer the law of the land. That’s a true measure of lazy partisanship, given that the pro-choice side could make an argument like mine to suggest the pro-life side deep down really wants federal restrictions on abortion or access thereto.

As an aside, I would note this is another one of many columns in which there is a media element, even if media coverage is not the main subject. One of the things about media bias that continues to annoy me in a low-key way is that having to account for said bias in a column often threatens to become a distraction, interrupting the flow and structure of a column. But in a story like this one, the behavior of the establishment media is enough of a factor that it cannot be entirely ignored, either.

PS: Consider sharing this post with the buttons below, as well as following WHRPT on Twitter.  Thanks for reading and sharing.

The Media Blind Spot For Left-Wing Extremism: Liner Notes

I have a surprise (to me) third column this week at The Federalist, titled “Democracy Dies In Darkness When The Media Avoids Extremist Democrats.”

Over the past decade or so, I have written quite a bit about media bias. In recent years have tried to dial it back a bit because I believe there is a danger in media criticism which is purely partisan, as opposed to institutional (in the sense that certain types of media bias are not healthy for our small-p politics). So I have tried to restrict myself more to the latter cases. The establishment media’s bias regarding abortion, particularly the extreme support for late-term abortion, is one of those cases and I’m far from alone in this belief.

The more polarized our politics become, the less effective partisan criticism becomes, so I have little hope that a column like the one published today persuades many people on the left. But if internal policing is what remains, the establishment media’s failures to police extremism within the Democratic Party they so obviously favor are that much more egregious, not only on its own terms but also for the cynicism it breeds on the right. Moreover, for the reasons I suggest at the end of the column, it appears the media knows that what the left is doing here is morally wrong, but cannot bring itself to speak truth to power which is otherwise congenial to them.

PS: Consider sharing this post with the buttons below, as well as following WHRPT on Twitter.  Thanks for reading and sharing.

AOC: A Fantasy Candidate for Fantasy Politics (Liner Notes)

My second column at The Federalist this week is titled “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is The Unicorn In A Field Of Fantasy Candidates,” which is a better title than whatever I proposed.

Regular readers know I believe that a mass audience tends to prefer reading about people over events over ideas. So while the column is ostensibly about Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, it’s really more about populist politics disadvantaging anyone with a political record — and the origin of that sentiment in political psychology. Indeed, I originally pitched this column as a more abstract thinkpiece about the 2020 Democratic primary field before realizing I was violating one of my own guidelines. And AOC is a hot topic right now (my last column got plenty of clicks), so I moved her from the second act of this drama to the first.

Space considerations caused me to leave out a bit about the role youth plays in this dynamic, particularly with Millennials and Gen Z having favorable opinions of “socialism,” a term every bit as ill-defined as “capitalism.” Some of this is the after-effects of the Great Recession, and some the result of so-called “higher” education today, but also the romantic feeling of being part of something “revolutionary,” which fits nicely into my argument as published.

I also could have delved much further into the sources of political disappointment mentioned in the column. For example, one could argue that modern capitalism produces a sense of alienation, or a sense of entitlement, and occasionally both in various segments of the population — all of which contribute to people investing far too much of their identities into politics (and politics as a religion, a topic I’ve written about often). But that was sort of the problem — a book could be written about that subject, so I had to stick to keeping today’s argument flowing.

PS: Consider sharing this post with the buttons below, as well as following WHRPT on Twitter.  Thanks for reading and sharing.