ActRight

"These characters belonged on TV."

Jim Himes, Connecticut congressman explains to Tucker Carlson why democrats are obstruction Donald Trump. Twitter: https://twitter.com/VeryDicey Website: htt...

It was a squeaker, but what is important is the outcome. When I heard the appointment, I knew there would be trouble. The extensive DeVos family, based in Grand Rapids, Michigan, is part of the donor class, as has been amply documented. The family fortune, based on Amway products, is estimated at $5…

In my estimation, we do not have a moral or constitutional obligation to let people into the country who want to blow us up or chop off our heads.

1902 fistfight gave rise to arcane rule that silenced Warren

I’m not sure I need to tell you this, but Hillary Clinton is probably going to be the next president. It’s just a question of what “probably” means. Clinton went into the final presidential debate …

Rubio explains why Warren deserved to be silenced and everyone should hear it

Twitter - twitter.com/waynedupreeshow Facebook - facebook.com/waynedupreeshow Instagram - instagram.com/waynedupreeshow Gab - http://gab.ai/waynedupreeshow

1791L - Analyzing the news. ✖ Twitter https://twitter.com/1791L ✖ Facebook https://facebook.com/1791L I've launched a new channel called Back Row, analyzing ...

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel has instructed fellow Democrats to lower their expectations and realize they will not be getting back power anytime soon.

The "most racist" southerners "who imposed segregation, who imposed Jim Crow laws, who founded the Klan" were Democrats, Ted Cruz charged in an interview.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate on Wednesday confirmed Sen. Jeff Sessions to be attorney general in the Trump administration despite fierce Democratic opposition to the Alabama Republican over his record on civil rights and…

Senate Democrats’ exhausting show of all-out war on President Trump’s Cabinet picks continues, delaying the confirmation vote for Sen. Jeff Sessions as attorney general until dinnertime Wednesday, …

Nobody much noticed, but we just had a new Cuban Missile Crisis. Remember the last one? The Soviets tried to place missiles in Cuba and we interdicted the Russian ships. For a moment it looked like WWIII but then Khrushchev backed down and the Soviet ships returned home. When he heard this, Robert K…

Editor’s Note: This piece is a response to “For Love of Country,” the cover story of the February 20, 2017, issue of National Review. There’s text and then there’s context. Rich Lowry and Ramesh Ponnuru’s cover essay on nationalism in the current issue is controversial more because of the context than because of the text itself. Self-avowed nationalists are in the saddle across the West — including in the West Wing. Many passionate opponents on the left believe even the slightest rhetorical or intellectual concession to nationalism amounts to surrender to Trumpism – and not just Trumpism, but their often hysterical caricature of Trumpism. And because National Review was a major source of opposition to Trump, it’s also allegedly proof of our collective hypocrisy. I think most of that is silly, but I do have my objections to the piece. Let me focus on the text first. I thought “For Love of Country” was on the whole very good and in parts quite lovely. I also think it’s basically wrong, though defensibly so. Rich and Ramesh do not see patriotism and nationalism as distinct things. I do. And so did Bill Buckley, who famously (thanks to Jay Nordlinger) said, “I’m as patriotic as anyone from sea to shining sea, but there’s not a molecule of nationalism in me.” The historian John Lukacs also saw a distinction — albeit a complicated one — between patriotism and nationalism. It was from him I learned that Hitler said he was a nationalist but not a patriot. Walter Berns in his wonderful book Making Patriots, argued that no one is born a patriot. They are made. I would add that everyone is born a nationalist, to one extent or another. That’s because nationalism isn’t so much a doctrine — though many have tried to turn it into one — but an emotional or psychological state. In short, it is a passion, and one very closely related to populism. So even before the rise of the Westphalian system (which kinda-sorta created nation-states), there were nationalists in the sense that there have always been tribalists. Tribalism is natural. Patriotism takes work. Definitions get messy because, for the average American, nationalism and patriotism are mixed together. They get messier still because many intellectuals use terms such as “civic nationalism” to describe patriotism and “ethnic nationalism” to describe the blood-and-soil variety. As Rich and Ramesh note, John Fonte distinguishes between “authoritarian nationalism” and “democratic nationalism.” Rich and Ramesh fall pretty obviously into the camp that differentiates civic nationalism from ethnic nationalism or authoritarian nationalism. For what it’s worth, I think ethnic nationalism is obviously a very real thing (see, Hitler, Adolf), but I also think seeing ethnic nationalism as the only form of bad nationalism is obviously a mistake. Not all nationalisms are necessarily racial. Fascist Italy was quite obviously nationalist, but its nationalism wasn’t particularly rooted in any of the biological pseudoscience of Nazi Germany. I would argue that the Soviet Union was nationalist during World War II (a.k.a. “the Great Patriotic War for Mother Russia”) and after, but it was also a great multi-ethnic empire. The “new nationalism” of, say, Richard Ely had eugenic attributes to it (because Ely was, after all, a leading progressive racist), but it didn’t speak with any of the romantic poetry of 1800s Germany. In short, nationalism is complicated. I agree entirely — and have written as much many times — that a little nationalism is a healthy thing. It thickens the stew of civil society and allows individuals and institutions to bond together in important ways. Without some pre-rational passion for one’s own country, it would be impossible to make patriots. Rich and Ramesh make a similar point: Indeed, the vast majority of expressions of American patriotism — the flag, the national anthem, statues, shrines and coinage honoring national heroes, military parades, ceremonies for those fallen in the nation’s wars — are replicated in every other country of the world. This is all the stuff of nationalism, both abroad and here at home. But this is at the same time both entirely right and fundamentally misleading. It leaves out what the flag represents. It glides over the fact that the national anthem sanctifies the “land of the free.” Our shrines are to patriots who upheld very specific American ideals. Our statues of soldiers commemorate heroes who died for something very different from what other warriors have fought and died for for millennia. Every one of them — immigrants included — took an oath to defend not just some soil but our Constitution and by extension the ideals of the Founding. Walk around any European hamlet or capital and you will find statues of men who fell in battle to protect their tribe from another tribe. That doesn’t necessarily diminish the nobility of their deaths or the glory of their valor, but it is quite simply a very different thing they were fighting for. Now, of course, no doubt American soldiers sacrifice for home and hearth and their band of brothers without giving much thought — at least in the heat of battle — to the lofty notions inscribed on the walls of the Lincoln Memorial, the ultimate patriotic (rather than nationalist) shrine. But one of the ways we make patriots in this country is by putting these sacrifices in that context. Nationalism is healthy in small doses, but we must remember that all poisons are determined by the dose. Left-wingers who fancy themselves ironically detached from patriotism and particularism and as avatars of a more sophisticated cosmopolitanism no doubt roll their eyes at such things, considering it so much schmaltz. Some might even snark that such patriotic piety is hypocritical given this or that crime — real or alleged — that America has committed. But hypocrisy is a charge every civilization opens itself to when it aims for an ideal higher and better than loyalty to tribe. There were few hypocrites in Sparta. But I firmly believe that when we call the sacrifices of American patriots no different from the sacrifices of Spartans — ancient or modern — we are giving short shrift to the glory, majesty, and uniqueness of American patriotism and the American experiment. I’m reminded of Martin Diamond’s point that the concepts of “Americanism,” “Americanization,” and “un-American” have no parallel in any other country or language. It is true that nationalism is part of the equation, but it is the less important part. And by mistaking the tail for the dog, we lose sight of what is important. Think of it this way. All, or at least most, marriages require some level of physical attraction, particularly at the outset — that is only natural. But any marriage purely based on physical attraction will struggle to last. No happily married couple I have ever met has confessed that the secret of their long marriage was mutual lust. Marriages endure for a host of complicated reasons, but among the most important is surely a commitment to an ideal, be it religious or otherwise. Nationalism is a bit like lust — a natural human passion that, absent proper channeling, is at best morally neutral and more often a source of unhealthy temptation. In other words, as I often say when discussing nationalism, it is healthy in small doses, but we must remember that all poisons are determined by the dose. Because nationalism is ultimately the fire of tribalism, having too much of it tends to melt away important distinctions, from the rule of law to the right to dissent to the sovereignty of the individual. This is why every example of unfettered nationalism run amok ends up looking very much like socialism run amok (and vice versa). The passionate populist desire for unity above all recognizes no abstract barriers to the general will. This is the point Rich and Ramesh are getting at when they write: Nationalism should be tempered by a modesty about the power of government, lest an aggrandizing state wedded to a swollen nationalism run out of control; by religion, which keeps the nation from becoming the first allegiance; and by a respect for other nations that undergirds a cooperative international order. I agree with that. But what they’ve ultimately done is define away the problem. If that’s all people mean when they say they are nationalists, well fine. I may grumble over terminology, but really, where’s the harm? And that brings me to the context. Rich and Ramesh chose to defend nationalism at a moment when self-described nationalists at home and abroad are calling into question a host of democratic norms (though more abroad than at home, at least for now). Donald Trump talks a great deal about nationalism but precious little about liberty and the Constitution. His contempt for American exceptionalism seems rooted in the belief that our ideals get in the way of our being a serious country (as I write in today’s Los Angeles Times.) His chief ideologist of nationalism, Steve Bannon, has in the past made common cause with people who quite passionately admire ethno-nationalism. In a normal time, I would still have the above disagreements (and a few others I left out) with Rich and Ramesh, but they would be entirely academic. But this is not a normal time, and the decision to slap a coat of paint over the term nationalism becomes difficult not to interpret as a whitewash. If the intent is to educate the president about what nationalism, rightly understood is, I wish them luck, but I won’t get my hopes up. — Jonah Goldberg is a senior editor of National Review.

A quick primer for those scared of Betsy DeVos and looking for options

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) is introducing legislation Tuesday with Sen. David Perdue (R-GA) designed to cut the level of immigration into the U.S. in half.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This piece is a response to “For Love of Country,” the cover story of the February 20, 2017, issue of National Review. It is an awkward time for conservatives. It’s not awkward on policy grounds — thus far, President Trump’s policies have matched the preferences of conservatives far more than most (including me) predicted. It’s awkward because those policies are being put into action by a man who sees nationalism as the core of his platform. And his version of nationalism has nothing to do with the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. In 2009, Trump expressed discomfort with the Declaration’s famous creed “all men are created equal.” “They say all men are created equal,” he said. “It doesn’t get any more famous. But is it really true? . . . It’s a very confusing phrase to a lot of people.” In 2015, he disowned the phrase “American exceptionalism.” “I never liked the expression,” he explained. “When I take back the jobs, and when I take back all that money and we get all our stuff, I’m not going to rub it in. Let’s not rub it in. Let’s not rub it in. But I never liked that term.” This week, Trump proved yet again that he does not understand what it is that makes America great. Asked by Bill O’Reilly about Vladimir Putin’s horrifically violent and thuggish record, Trump immediately responded, “Boy, you think our country’s so innocent? You think our country’s so innocent? . . . Take a look at what we’ve done too.” He then characterized the United States government as one replete with murderers: “a lot of killers around, believe me.” And yet President Trump also routinely invokes the slogans “America First” and “Make America Great Again.” In fact, his entire philosophy is rooted in nationalism. This would seem contradictory on the surface. If America is a thugocracy like Russia, as Trump claims, then why would he care about putting it first? Why would he want to make our country great again if its founding ideal is confusing and untrue? Trump’s definition of nationalism is not the conservative definition of nationalism. Because Trump’s definition of nationalism is not the conservative definition of nationalism. Conservatives love America because we believe it is a nation founded on an idea. Our interests ought to prevail because our principles ought to prevail: limited government, individual liberty, God-given natural rights, localism in politics, religious freedom, freedom of speech and of the press, and so forth. If America ceased to believe those things or stand for them, we would not deserve to win. “Make America Great Again” would then ring hollow with the same blood-and-soil nationalistic violence of the Old World. If greatness is measured in utilitarian terms rather than ideological ones, nationalism is merely tribalism broadened, a way of valuing the collective over the individual. Trump’s vision of American greatness doesn’t lie in ideas. What does Trump believe makes America great? Success. “We don’t win anymore,” he constantly complained on the campaign trail. In other words, he feels about the country the same way he feels about himself, measuring its greatness in crowd sizes and airplane sizes, in the height of towers and the breadth of walls. And herein lies the conflict for conservatives: How do we bridge the gap between Trumpism and conservatism? In their opus on the subject, Rich Lowry and Ramesh Ponnuru struggle with the conundrum but don’t quite come up with an answer. They rightly rail against knee-jerk rejection of nationalism as a concept. But then they define a sort of synthesized, “benign” nationalism they believe can bring both sides of the Trumpism–conservatism divide to the table: Loyalty to one’s country: a sense of belonging, allegiance, and gratitude to it. And this sense attaches to the country’s people and culture, not just to its political institutions and laws. Such nationalism includes solidarity with one’s countrymen, whose welfare comes before, albeit not to the complete exclusion of, that of foreigners. When this nationalism finds political expression, it supports a federal government that is jealous of its sovereignty, forthright and unapologetic about advancing its people’s interests, and mindful of the need for national cohesion. Lowry and Ponnuru admit that this is “the stuff of nationalism, both abroad and here at home,” which should prompt a simple question: What, exactly, makes it so benign? Sure, it doesn’t have to be malignant. But it’s not necessary to violate Godwin’s law to show that it can be: Mussolini talked constantly of attachment to people and culture, the solidarity of all Italians in their Roman heritage, a jealous centralized government supposedly determined to advance the national interest and deeply concerned with popular cohesion. Was that benign? Rich and Ramesh do admit the need for an ideological basis for nationalism, calling America “a nation with an idea,” but then add, “Important as these ideas are, American nationalism is not merely about them. . . . A flyover or July Fourth fireworks display is not creedal.”’ This confuses the emotions of nationalism with the definition of nationalism. Emotions are crude things, powerful but vague. It requires ideology to channel them. Turning nationalistic emotion into a defining purpose rather than an animating drive to be utilized for the propagation of liberty runs the risk of turning nationalism into tribalism. And once nationalism is tribalism, the question becomes why America should remain one nation rather than many. My connection to my local community is stronger than my connection to bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. My connection with those who share my faith and my ideas is stronger than my connection with somebody living 2,000 miles away in an area I’ve never visited. It is not a coincidence that 60 percent of Trumpian nationalists in Texas were willing to secede from the country if Hillary Clinton became president, and 48 percent of California Democrats are willing to secede from the country now that Trump is president. Nothing holds us together, once we rule out idea-based nationalism in favor of blood-and-soil-based nationalism. And, make no mistake, it is a choice; the two forms of nationalism can’t be synthesized. One form must have primacy. Rich and Ramesh describe Trump’s nationalism as an “enriched understanding of what it means to be American,” citing his belief that we are both consumers and workers, that CEOs “are citizens with obligations to their countrymen.” This isn’t an enriched nationalism. It’s an impoverished one. In the end, it makes ideas secondary to blood and soil. What happens when the CEO’s individual liberty (nationalism of ideas) comes into conflict with the needs of the community (nationalism of blood and soil)? It’s a cop out to claim that Hegelian synthesis will magically obtain. Rich and Ramesh finally seem to acknowledge as much. They admit that Trump “seems to want to make America great without appreciating what makes it exceptional,” and that “the country’s founding ideals, history, and institutions barely enter into his worldview.” But we should acknowledge, they say, that Trump “offers an important lesson: to reject “the atomism inherent in libertarianism and the Wilsonian millenarianism that characterized the George W. Bush administration” in favor of “a broad-minded nationalism that takes account of the nation’s idealism and rationally calculates its economic and foreign-policy interests.” This philosophy didn’t need Donald Trump to elevate it into our politics. It has always been there; it’s called conservatism. Pretending that Trump’s European-style nationalism can be a vessel for American nationalism risks abandoning the only vision of American greatness that matters in favor of an alternative that can turn from benign to malignant with shocking speed. — Ben Shapiro is the editor in chief of the Daily Wire.

Nancy Pelosi shocked he colleagues and media today when she forgot what year she was living in. Twitter: https://twitter.com/VeryDicey Website: https://www.v...

Sanders and Cruz have differing, if not opposite, stances on the Affordable Care Act. They'll take their disagreements on air on CNN Tuesday night.

Well, that was quick. Sen. Elizabeth Warren?s racial stunt that sparked her removal from the senate floor Tuesday night proved even shorter than her time living in a teepee. Warren attempted …

Done.

Republicans gag Native American princess Elizabeth Warren, Cruz roasts Bernie Sanders on a spit, and the Trump-Media War continues.

'The Alpha Female’s Guide to Men and Marriage' treads where few women dare to go: helping women save their marriages from feminist hell.