Clause 61: The Pushback Blog

Because ideas have consequences

Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

What Do You Want from Your Government?

leave a comment »

Years ago, in The Economist, I saw this list of positive attributes of a government:

  1. Stability: the government has the ability to provide continuous governance over time. This is not to say that the individual people in power stay in power, but that there is a continuity of principle over time even as people doing the governing shift in an out.
  2. Security: the government protects its citizens and their property from violence:
    1. Caused by internal agents, such as criminals and criminal organizations;
    2. Caused by external agents, such as foreign governments.
  3. Predictability: the government provides a legal structure that offers citizens understandable and predictable consequences of their actions. You take this action, you get that outcome. You can know it in advance and plan accordingly.
  4. Accountability: everyone in the government is either directly answerable to the citizens through election or reports up a bureaucratic structure to someone else who is directly answerable to the citizens.
  5. Transparency: the citizens can see into operations of the government. We can find out what the people who govern us are doing so that we can decide whether or not we want that to continue to be done.

This list is a starting point. You may believe something is missing. Perhaps justice leaps out at you; we can discuss that, although we also have to discuss what we mean by justice.

A libertarian minimalist government and a highly paternalistic welfare state could both provide these five attributes. So there is also a need to discuss the degree of scope the citizen has to determine her own life results, and this is not present in the foregoing list.

Nevertheless, we can take these five attributes and get a good argument going by simply trying to prioritize them. They require tradeoffs. For example, security and transparency are inherently opposed. Agents who would do harm to citizens thrive on transparency, so that they can know what the government security apparatus does. However, there has to be enough transparency to support accountability.

Similarly, stability, predictability and accountability often oppose one another because the polity itself is not predictable. So if the government is to offer stable and predictable protections to minorities within the polity, this may aggravate the majority. A government that is totally accountable to the people may not uphold these protections.


Politics is the process by which we come to enough collective agreement to make decisions that affect everyone in the collective. Nationally, we have to determine how we want to make the tradeoffs among these five attributes. The people in positions of responsibility in the government have their own ideas about them; do those ideas align with ours? If not, what are we going to do about it?

Due to our Enlightenment heritage, the word politics has a smelly connotation. Bill George, who teaches at Harvard Business School and used to run Medtronic, says we ought to put country before politics. This is a common enough sentiment. What would it mean in real life?

If we were all wired the same way, we would all agree on what we ought to do as a country. We would all rank order the five attributes above the same way and set the same tradeoffs. We would all define justice the same way. We would all want the same relationship between the individual and the state.

Many Enlightenment thinkers hoped that progress would reveal optimum answers to these questions. Knowing these answers, there would be no need for politics, because we would rationally agree on how to proceed. In 1878, Friedrich Engels wrote in Anti-Dühring:

The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not “abolished”. It dies out.

This is the origin of the idea of withering away of the state. We all agree on what to do, so “the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things.” Government is superfluous, because all rational citizens share a common agreement of what the entire collective ought to decide.

However, since we do not observe the promised convergence to a common agreement, this is not achievable. There is not going to be a universally shared understanding of how difficult societal tradeoffs ought to be made. What the rationalist program actually calls for is to take the politics out of politics.

The Rehabilitation of Politics

Instead, I am calling for engagement with politics. I am asserting that there is a right way and many wrong ways to be political, just like there is a right way and many wrong ways to be religious.

A person who walks around all smug and sanctimonious because of religious convictions is doing it wrong. A person who says that any religion is just as good as any other religion is also doing it wrong: in Roman Catholicism, this is the sin of indifference. We are called to believe that we are right in our beliefs, without asserting that all who believe otherwise are necessarily evil.

All they ask, we could readily grant, if we thought slavery right; all we ask, they could as readily grant, if they thought it wrong. Their thinking it right, and our thinking it wrong, is the precise fact upon which depends the whole controversy. Thinking it right, as they do, they are not to blame for desiring its full recognition, as being right; but, thinking it wrong, as we do, can we yield to them? Can we cast our votes with their view, and against our own? In view of our moral, social, and political responsibilities, can we do this?
— Abraham Lincoln, “Cooper Union Speech“, 1860.

Similarly, in politics, there is a balancing act to be done to hit the sweet spot between the strident “We’re right; they’re wrong” and the spineless “Who am I to have an opinion?” The Cooper Union Speech is my favorite Lincoln speech because I find that he did hit that sweet spot. He recognized that there were Americans who believed as fervently that slavery was right as he believed it was wrong, without rendering those who disagreed stupid, evil or crazy, and at the same time without a misguided call to compromise on principle. He was ready to compromise politically as far as leaving slavery in place in the states that already allowed it, because he foresaw secession and civil war if this was not done. But, in principle, there could be no compromise; we were either going to have legalized slavery in this country or we weren’t. In fact, we could not avoid secession and civil war. Four years later, Lincoln would come to see the war as a divine judgement on a nation that had tolerated slavery.

I believe that this is what We the People have to do. We have to be able to have reasoned discussions with those who disagree with us. We can settle our differences with words or with bullets. There is no third option.

We believe that political power is derived from the consent of the governed. If the governed cannot even have an intelligent conversation among ourselves with those of us who differ in our beliefs and priorities, how can we consent to anything?


Written by srojak

February 3, 2018 at 4:42 pm

On the Other Hand, There’s a Fist

leave a comment »

(With apologies to Jona Lewie, whose album by this name was part of the 1978 Be Stiff release.)

I watched the State of the Union speech last night. Donald Trump had a respectable outing. Given his track record, it’s only a matter of time before he squanders it with an ill-advised tweet. I think the over-under is about 36 hours.

However, he also demonstrated his vision for the Republican Party. Reading the speech carefully, you can understand how he won the Republican nomination over what has been described as “the GOP’s deepest White House field in a generation.

Michael Goodwin understands this. Writing in the New York Post yesterday, he claims “Donald Trump is teaching Republicans how to fight.

Yes, those responsible for writing this address deserve credit. However, so does Trump. Just like I discussed with Napoleon, the advisers and staff can advise and plan, but someone in an executive role has to sit at the table and act with his own chips. Donald Trump had to have the will to pursue this line, or the speech would have ended in the wastepaper basket.

Laughing Tonight

Last night on the post-game — er, post-speech wrap-up (have you noticed how political coverage and sports coverage have converged?), CNN’s Jake Tapper was critical of Trump for having offended Democrats (the horror!):

What you saw tonight was President Trump, I think, with one hand reaching out his hand to Democrats, and with the other hand holding up a fist. And this is almost the conundrum of Donald Trump. In addition to more Republican positions, such as tax cuts, talking about strong borders, etc., there is in his Trump Republicanism — nationalism, populism, whatever you want to call it — room for Democrats to work with him. He talked about changing trade deals. He talked about lowering the cost of prescription drugs, spending money on infrastructure, paid family leave, prison reform, path to citizenship for dreamers. There is that there. But by the same token, I think President Trump doesn’t quite necessarily understand just how offensive many Democrats in that chamber are going to find some of the things he proposed and some of the things he said, in terms of “there are Americans who are dreamers, too”, etc. … And this really is the mystery of Donald Trump.

Conundrum? Mystery? Are you serious?

The only mystery is why it took Donald Trump to address the Republicans’ inability to stand up for their beliefs and push back effectively. Goodwin summarized it perfectly: “After all, that’s what Republicans usually do — soften their tone and, badgered by a liberal Washington press corps, give in to big government ideas.” It is why the electorate was fed up, why they started talking about “cuckservatives“, why they were ready to take a chance on Donald Trump.

Republicans are supposed to decline the opportunity to offend Democrats? Let’s review:

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
— Barack Obama, 2008

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
— Barack Obama, 2012

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.
— Hillary Clinton 2016

How does it feel to be flipped off? Democrats appear to believe they can say anything they want to, because they’re the caring people. They mean well, so any kind of sanctimonious attitude is to be given a pass.

[Oh, by the way, Government research did create the Internet, but there was no intention of creating it as a means by which the commercial sector could make money. The government exposed the Internet to the public, and people in commercial enterprises promptly figured out how to use it to make money. That’s what we do.]

Feeling Stupid

The Democrats and their sympathetic friends in the press are masters at showing the human costs of the problems they are trying to solve. I can’t fault them for that; that’s good messaging. Conservatives have typically been horrible at humanizing their ideas, preferring to present dry, abstract arguments that do not reach ordinary people effectively.

So when Trump presents the human costs of letting the MS-13 gang into this country, he is taking a page out of the Democratic playbook. Democrats don’t have a patent on this approach. Van Jones was lame when he accused Trump of a “smear” on dreamers:

What he said about those young people, he implied — and he did it deliberately — that Dreamers are gang members

This is the standard Democrat response: anything other than full rollover is morally unjustifiable. Jones inferred that Trump was saying that dreamers are gang members, but it was an unwarranted inference. You can make the inference, if you want to, but you can’t lay it at Trump’s doorstep. Trump specifically addressed the dreamers:

Here are the four pillars of our plan: The first pillar of our framework generously offers a path to citizenship for 1.8 million illegal immigrants who were brought here by their parents at a young age. That covers almost three times more people than the previous administration covered.

At the same time, Trump promoted his program for border security. Republicans have historically shied away from taking on these issues, whether because they didn’t know how or they were afraid they would get it wrong.

I would have liked to see some discussion of how our drug policies have enabled cartels, destabilized Mexico and created further incentives for Latin Americans to try to get into this country by any means possible. Nevertheless, I recognize that Trump is not going to follow that line. Instead, he is going to assert the need for border security and immigration restriction. And, to his credit, he effectively humanized the costs of not doing so.

I’ll Get by in Pittsburgh

Also in the Post, Salena Zito profiled the experience of one exurban Pittsburgh family watching the State of the Union address.

The children in the family noticed how Democrats on the floor sat through the speech in stony, unresponsive silence. Their fourteen-year-old daughter mused, “I just wonder if they thought this through past their politics, on many of these things all of America is applauding while they are sitting.”

These are people who do really want to take care of people who, they feel, deserve to be taken care of (I’m married to such a person). They don’t want to deport people who were brought here as children, and know no other country. But they also want laws enforced and borders secured.

When Democrats get righteous, when they start equating objections to their policies with racism, when they paint themselves as the caring people but are selective in their choices of people about whom to care, these people want Republicans to stand up, push back and, without apology, represent their concepts of equity and justice.

At this point, it looks like Donald Trump is the only person who has any idea how to do that.

Written by srojak

January 31, 2018 at 10:14 pm


leave a comment »

For ten years, I have been saying that we would not have anywhere near the uproar over illegal immigration in this country if people were sneaking in here from Norway rather than from Latin America. Last week, Donald Trump proved me right.

In a closed meeting, he is reported to have asked, “Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” He expressed a preference for immigrants from countries such as Norway.

It took until last Friday for the White House communications shop to decide that it was a damn fool thing to have called other nations “shithole countries”. The course of action they selected was to deny Trump ever said it and accuse others in the meeting of lying about what he said. What, you expected him to apologize? Are you new here?

In this article, the New York Times got to the meat of the matter: it might as well be 1918 as far as Trump’s attitude toward immigration is concerned. Historically, nativists did not welcome immigrants from Catholic eastern or southern Europe — Poles, Italians or Irish — much more than they did Hispanics or Asians. The 1924 Johnson-Reed Act restricted immigrants to 2% of the number of persons from the country of origin already living in the US and recorded in the 1890 census. The majority of immigrants from outside the Protestant nations of northwest Europe arrived here after 1890. The act also explicitly closed legal immigration from Asian nations and colonies including China, Japan, Siam and the French and British possessions in Asia.

Edward A. Ross (1866-1951) was a sociologist and proponent of eugenics. He was an early supporter of the idea of “racial suicide”, which asserted that American democracy would collapse because the Anglo-Nordic population would be swamped by immigrants from inferior cultures that could not be effective citizens. He was forced to resign from Stanford in 1900 after he publicly called for prohibition of immigration from China and Japan.

Ross moved on to the University of Wisconsin. In 1914 he published The Old World in the New, a book grading immigrants from various nations in pseudo-scientific terms. Here is some of what he has to say about Sicilians:

Steerage passengers from a Naples boat show a distressing frequency of low foreheads, open mouths, weak chins, poor features, skew faces, small or knobby crania, and backless heads. Such people lack the power to take rational care of themselves; hence their death-rate in New York is twice the general death-rate and thrice that of the Germans. No other immigrants from Europe, unless it be the Portuguese or the half-African Bravas of the Azores, show so low an earning power as the South Italians. In our cities the head of the household earns on an average $390 a year, as against $449 for the North Italian, $552 for the Bohemian, and $630 for the German. In silk-mill and wollen-mill, in iron-ore mining and the clothing trade, no other nationality has so many low-pay workers; nor does this industrial inferiority fade out in the least with the lapse of time. [p. 113]

Ross was not impressed with his encounter with the priorities of the Celtic Irish:

The Irishman still leans on authority and shows little tendency to think for himself. In philosophy and science he is far behind the head of the procession. Even when well-educated, he thinks within the framework formed by certain conventional ideas. Unlike the educated German or Jew, he rarely ventures to dissect the ideas of parental authority, the position of woman, property, success, competition, individual liberty, etc., that lie at the base of commonplace thought. Here, again, this limitation by sentiment and authority derives doubtless from the social history of the Irish rather than from their blood. They have been engrossed with an old-fashioned problem—that of freeing their country. Meanwhile, the luckier peoples have swept on to ripen their thinking about class relations, industrial organization, and social institutions. [p. 40]

Ross characterized Slavs in general as showing “brutality and reckless fecundity” and claimed they were slow to assimilate. He had these choice comments about Jews:

Nevertheless, fair-minded observers agree that certain bad qualities crop out all too often among these eastern Europeans. A school principal remarks that his Jewish pupils are more importunate to get a mark changed than his other pupils. A settlement warden who during the summer entertains hundreds of nursing slum mothers at a country “home” says: “The Jewish mothers are always asking for something extra over the regular kit we provide each guest for her stay.” “The last thing the son of Jacob wants,” observes an eminent sociologist, “is a square deal.” A veteran New York social worker cannot forgive the Ghetto its littering and defiling of the parks. “Look at Tompkins Square,” he exclaimed hotly, “and compare it with what it was twenty-five years ago amid a German population!” As for the caretakers of the parks their comment on this matter is unprintable. Genial settlement residents, who never tire of praising Italian or Greek, testify that no other immigrants are so noisy, pushing and disdainful of the rights of others as the Hebrews. That the worst exploiters of these immigrants are sweaters, landlords, employers and “white slavers” of their own race no one gainsays. [pp. 149-150]

This is not coming from some toothless backwoods hick, but from an influential academic who went on to chair the national committee of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Scientific racism was very much alive one hundred years ago. Madison Grant published The Passing of the Great Race in 1916, followed by Lothrop Stoddard’s The Rising Tide of Color against White World-Supremacy in 1920. Ross, Grant and Stoddard did not consider the term “white” as inclusive as we do today. They all made distinctions and considered Nordic peoples to be superior to Slavs, Jews and those from the Mediterranean countries. Stoddard was, in fact, a Klansman.

We had liked to think that the racial attitudes of that time were dead and buried. Evidently not.



Written by srojak

January 21, 2018 at 11:01 am

Posted in Politics

Tagged with , , ,

Unalienable Rights

leave a comment »

Spare some critical thought for this famous passage from the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In order for them to be unalienable rights, they have to be endowed by God. They can’t come from human society, or else human society would have the power to revoke them. Without endowment from God, they would only be privileges that the state allowed for its own purposes and could claw back any time it was expedient.

This is what President Eisenhower was talking about when he said:

Our government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith, and I don’t care what it is.

Here is the full quote, from a 1952 speech:

And this is how they [the Founding Fathers in 1776] explained those: ‘we hold that all men are endowed by their Creator…’ not by the accident of their birth, not by the color of their skins or by anything else, but ‘all men are endowed by their Creator.’ In other words, our form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith, and I don’t care what it is. With us of course it is the Judeo-Christian concept, but it must be a religion with all men are created equal.

He wasn’t being superficial about faith, and he wasn’t advocating being spiritual but not religious. He was encompassing all persons of faith in a Deity of revealed truth, but offering wide latitude to the varieties of belief in that Deity.

The twentieth century has exposed the fact that there is nothing self-evident about these truths. Some of us believe them; others don’t. They are fundamental and derived from faith, but hardly self-evident.

Written by srojak

December 17, 2017 at 9:27 pm

Stories of Sex and Power

leave a comment »

Is American society really changing? After Harvey Weinstein, Louis C.K., Charlie Rose, John Conyers and all the others, are we really getting to a milestone of cultural change?

I don’t think it is the beginning of the end, but I hope it is the end of the beginning.


Here is the ideal situation: nobody has to hate going to work because she expects to be groped, fondled or otherwise intruded upon by someone whom she is afraid to confront because he has situational or institutional power. Obviously, we are not there yet.

I would like the current crop of public shamings to lead to the above ideal situation. I don’t believe we are going to wake up on 1 January 2018 and magically be in that place, but we can make substantial progress.

Establishment of Guilt

Roy Moore is our first serious test case. He is accused of making sexual advances on underage girls some decades ago. He has hunkered down and is denying the charges all the way. One America News wants him to have the benefit of due process and be considered innocent until proven guilty.

I completely understand their objection. However, since I wasn’t born yesterday, I also know that he would have been able to exempt himself from due process as a DA and a judge.

One of his accusers claims:

 “I was terrified. He was also trying to pull my shirt off. I thought he was going to rape me. I was twisting, I was struggling, and I was begging him to stop,” she said. “At some point, he gave up. He then looked at me and he told me, he said, ‘You’re just a child,’ and he said, ‘I am the district attorney of Etowah County, and if you tell anyone about this, no one will ever believe you.'”

— Source: NBC News

Even if that didn’t actually happen, how would we ever get to the bottom of it? There have been so many predators who said, “I am ____, and if you tell anyone about this, no one will ever believe you.” And they have been right for all these years. This is not OK.

So a sexual predator with power and influence is not ,likely to be brought to account by normal due process. Now what are we left with? Put up with it?

I am sure that many of Moore’s defenders think he is being picked on because he is hated by both Democrats and establishment Republicans. So what? Did he do the deeds or didn’t he?

We are not going to ever get this into a court and get resolution; certainly not the same way as if a common Alabama plumber or mechanic had been accused of the same offense. Until we can, maybe persons with power and influence have to be brought down under these conditions.

If Moore really didn’t do what he is accused of, I regret the damage of the accusations. We are going to see some excesses before this is over. We are going to see people being falsely accused.

However, if there is no formal venue where such people can be brought to account, then there has to be a messy and informal venue. Allowing this behavior to continue is not acceptable.

People get wrongly accused of crimes all the time. Some of them do not have the power, influence and means to fight the accusations effectively. Take a moment to think about them.

The Appropriate Punishment

Another aspect we have to work out is what the appropriate punishment is for various offenses. In the past, the appropriate punishment was none, and we are not OK with that anymore. So we effectively have no precedent.

Is one incident of a man in a position of power forcing himself on a woman a hanging offense? If not, how many incidents establish a pattern? Does contrition matter? Does the amount of time between then and now enter into consideration?

I don’t have the answers to these questions. We will, as a society, have to answer them.

Written by srojak

November 29, 2017 at 11:13 pm

Not Following the Logic

leave a comment »

The whole flap over pro football players kneeling during the national anthem has gone to a new level this week. Let’s sort it out.

Thumbing Your Nose

Kneeling during the national anthem is thumbing your nose at the entire country. It is a posture, an affectation. People who do it are poseurs. Where else could they go to make this kind of money doing what they do?

A football player does not get to tell us how to interpret his disrespect to the nation. Yes, I am talking to you, Richard Sherman. Kneeling during the national anthem is an act of disrespect to the entire country, including most of us who have no influence over how the criminal justice system treats black people in the inner city. Sherman is too intelligent not to know that.

Having a Complaint

Do black people have a complaint regarding the way they are treated by the criminal justice system? Hell, yes. Many people, not just black people, have a legitimate beef. The shenanigans in Ferguson, Missouri, for example, should offend every voter in this country. Municipalities and counties using law enforcement as a revenue center should offend every voter in this country.

The number of persons under correctional supervision (in prison, on probation or on parole) is appalling. According to a 2012 article by Adam Gopnik, there were more black men under correctional supervision at that time than there were in slavery in 1850; the total population of America that is under correctional supervision was over six million and growing. Contrary to popular lore, many of the people in prison are there for drug offenses or offenses against “public order”. Since black people are in prison at a disproportionately higher rate than Americans in general, yes, there is a genuine issue.

Taking Action

So what should a politically aware black football player do? How about taking some of that large NFL salary and putting it to work in community action? How about sponsoring court appeals on behalf of people who are being exploited by municipalities? Put your money where your mouth is.

White House Invitations

Back in 2011, the Boston Bruins won the Stanley Cup and were invited to the White House. Goalie Tim Thomas declined the invitation. This writer maintained that Tim Thomas had no business declining the invitation.  I disagree. Similarly, Stephon Curry has every right to decline an invitation to the White House, given that he disagrees with the politics of the President.

The President is the Chief Executive, the Head of State and a high profile political figure. If a person disagrees vehemently with the political viewpoint of the President, by all means, do not accept his invitation to the White House.

Donald Trump’s Statements

Yes, Donald Trump made inflammatory and provocative statements on this subject. In other news, Lindy made it!

Really, who reasonably expected that, if this issue made it to Trump’s radar at all, he would make a nuanced, empathetic statement that would uphold respect for the nation as a whole while recognizing the real problems that people have encountered at the hands of governments? Did anyone really think Trump would call for national reflection on the issues that black athletes are raising while asserting that the nation deserves respect even if specific people in positions of authority have abused their power?

And there was every reason to expect Trump to weigh in on this issue. It is red meat to his base, many of whom a) love America and b) watch football. Trump has demonstrated that he has a laser focus on his core constituency, his political “investors”.

Trump’s statements are off the table for purposes of this discussion. There is nothing new here. The themes have not changed at all during the year. There really is not anything else to say.

Donald Trump is my President, in that he was duly elected through the recognized Electoral College process, just like Barack Obama was. Trump does not represent my viewpoint, and I would have wanted a more nuanced response. However, I recognize that Trump doesn’t do nuance. There is no point in flogging this horse anymore. He is what he is, and he is not going to change.


Written by srojak

September 24, 2017 at 11:22 pm

Loaves and Babies

leave a comment »

Peter Drucker wrote describing the importance of knowing when to compromise and when not to. He compared dividing a loaf of bread to dividing a baby.  When you divide a loaf in half, you get a compromise; when you divide a baby in half, you get a corpse.

The modern western state, seeking to placate everyone and avoid conflict, does not have a conceptual category for baby. Everything is a loaf, divisible by two or 20 million, as necessary, to preserve political equilibrium and prevent disruption. Any threat can be bought off; any dissent can be co-opted. But there are some things that are not amenable to compromise.

In the rest of the world, there are many people who see the West as not only weak but morally aimless. They look at us and conclude that we think we can buy our way out of any predicament, that we won’t stand and fight for anything. The Islamic State comes to mind immediately as an example, but many people in Russia, Turkey and China also believe this about the West.

The Islamic State, in its current form, is too nihilistic to survive, but it may yet morph into something else. Whatever becomes of it, the threat it represents to Western civilization is not unique to it. This threat will be made manifest by other people and cultures.

We need to decide what about our civilization is worth defending. Other people have already decided what about our civilization is worth attacking.

Written by srojak

September 19, 2017 at 6:25 pm

Posted in Ethics, Politics

Tagged with ,