ActRight

  The past year has highlighted many problems with the ways conservatives tend to approach the broader public — including Republican voters. A lot of these problems come down to two kinds of failure: On one hand are failures to take seriously some key public concerns, and on the other are failures to articulate some key conservative priorities. The combination has meant that conservatives have sold themselves short as sources of solutions to what ails America. This twofold failure is evident in many arenas, but the Right’s approach to the question of “cronyism” may offer an especially instructive example. Voters of all political stripes seem increasingly to think that the economy is somehow rigged against them, and to the benefit of some wealthy and powerful interests. This isn’t always true, of course, and it can easily become a convenient excuse for demanding special favors or protections. Indeed, resentment against the wealthy and powerful is frequently channeled by the Left to empower greater government intervention — ironically creating new opportunities for the wealthy and powerful to lobby and to curry favor. But the Left’s tendency to misdirect concerns about favoritism and cronyism is not an excuse for the Right to pretend that such concerns are baseless. It is important to take those concerns seriously, both because they are in many cases valid and because cronyism badly undermines the kind of market economics that conservatives think is essential to America’s wealth and freedom. The failure to take complaints about cronyism seriously is in this sense both a political and an intellectual failure for conservatives — and the two reinforce each other. Everybody knows that conservatives in America are champions of the market economy as an engine of prosperity. But too many Americans, including too many conservatives, seem to believe that defending the market economy means serving the interests of business. That is certainly how our government has too often approached its role as steward of the economy — advancing the priorities of established, well-connected interests, sometimes at the expense of the needs of individuals, families, communities, and the nation as a whole, and claiming to do so in the name of economic growth and freedom. But a commitment to the goals and principles of the market economy is by no means the same thing as a commitment to the interests of the businesses that compete in that economy. On the contrary, markets require a government dedicated to open competition for the benefit of consumers and citizens — which very often means subjecting powerful incumbents to competitive pressures they would rather avoid. Such fair and open competition is precisely what makes markets engines of prosperity and innovation, and what makes the free-enterprise system well suited to helping a free society address some of its biggest problems. Providing business interests (or labor interests, or any other established, well-connected group) with special benefits or shielding established market actors from competition is therefore anathema to the ethic of capitalism and of democracy. That our government now frequently engages in precisely such preferential treatment for the well connected is a grave danger to democratic capitalism in America. And that the public identifies such cronyism with capitalism itself is a failure of the friends of the market system. It is as such a failure of conservatism, and it threatens all that conservatives hope to achieve. It is so grave a threat because cronyism runs much deeper than we generally think. Some examples are obvious and much discussed: Direct subsidies to agribusiness and loan guarantees for some of our largest exporters use public resources to protect the standing of established market giants. The staggering array of tax carve-outs and targeted regulations benefits businesses with the resources to lobby and to ensure compliance, and comes at the expense of new competitors. The corporatism that has defined the Obama administration’s domestic policy — protecting large, powerful companies from competition in exchange for their willingness to serve as agents of government power in finance, health care, and elsewhere — has advanced the progressive agenda of consolidation at the expense of dynamism and prosperity. Large companies and powerful merchants should be neither preferred nor oppressed; they should be subject to the rules of open competition without exception. But cronyism reaches much farther than these relatively obvious examples, to the core of the problems of modern American government. Self-dealing is, for instance, at the heart of our primary- and secondary-education crisis, as schools and districts are run in the interests of administrators and tenured teachers rather than students. It is a driving force behind our higher-education dilemmas, as the already accredited run the accreditation system and keep out new competitors and new models of schooling and financing. It undermines upward mobility, as established players in one industry after another use licensing and certification requirements to keep out competitors. It distorts our immigration debate, as the national interest and the interests of powerful employers are willfully confounded. It is a primary barrier to market-oriented health-care reform. For all these reasons, cronyism also leaves the public mistrustful of conservative claims to offer solutions on these various fronts, and of conservative assertions that the competitive provision of public services or benefits could help the poor, elderly, and vulnerable better than today’s welfare and entitlement systems. Cronyism thus lies at the heart of our liberal welfare state and is a massive overarching problem for conservative reformers. Indeed, corporatism, or the consolidation of social power in the hands of large, centralized public and private institutions, is a core principle of modern progressivism, such that picking winners and losers has long been understood by many on the left to be a necessary purpose of public policy. “In economic warfare,” wrote the progressive theorist Herbert Croly in 1909, “the fighting can never be fair for long, and it is the business of the state to see that its own friends are victorious.” Cronyist progressivism is thus coherently wrong. But cronyist conservatism is incoherent and inexcusable. And leaving the public with a choice between only these two alternatives, as our politics too often does, is a failure of our political system that is again attributable to a failure of the defenders of the market economy and of American democratic capitalism. Indeed, the very idea of the market economy arose in large part to combat cronyist economics. Adam Smith offered his case for markets in the late 18th century in opposition to mercantilism — the then-prevailing economic system, which equated the interests of a nation with those of its largest manufacturers and trading companies. The economy should instead be geared to the benefit of consumers, Smith argued. Large companies and powerful merchants should be neither preferred nor oppressed; they should be subject to the rules of open competition without exception. Our constitutional system, too, was intended in part to help combat this scourge by creating a stable and predictable legal regime. Cronyism, by bending rules for special interests, undermines the predictability and fairness essential to republican government. A key effect of the resulting instability, as James Madison put it in Federalist 62, is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few over the industrious and uniformed mass of the people. Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue, or in any way affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared not by themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow-citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the few, not for the many. Both the nature of the public problems we now confront and the character of the solutions that conservatives are inclined to propose therefore demand that the rejection of cronyism and the promotion of fair and equal competition be central planks of any conservative economic agenda. What would this mean in practice? First and most obviously, it would mean combating particular instances of abject cronyism in public policy. Such instances are legion, and addressing them would help conservatives make the case for market economics as a way to advance not only prosperity but also fairness in our economy. The federal government now uses a number of programs to subsidize American companies that export their products, for instance. Most notable in recent years (though far from alone) has been the Export-Import Bank. It provides taxpayer-backed loan guarantees, among other forms of subsidy, to lower the financing costs of foreign consumers who buy high-cost American-manufactured goods (such as aircraft and construction equipment). These subsidies benefit foreign buyers and domestic manufacturers at the expense of American consumers and taxpayers. They often simply reduce costs for purchases that would have been made anyway, while putting the domestic competitors of foreign buyers at a disadvantage (such that, for instance, an American airline pays more for a jet than does a foreign airline that has its financing backed by U.S. taxpayers). Champions of such subsidies try to pass them off as protecting American manufacturing workers, and so try to package cronyism as populism — but choosing some American workers over others is not nationalism, and subsidizing powerful corporations and foreign buyers is not populism. The purpose of trade policy should be to make all Americans wealthier, not just to enrich selected manufacturing firms and protect only their workers — while hurting others and raising everyone’s cost of living. Our approach to regulating the financial sector, meanwhile, also expressly protects large, incumbent institutions from competition and implicitly protects them from risks inherent in their own investment decisions. The sheer complexity of financial regulation gives an advantage to larger banks over smaller ones, since the former are able to afford the immense compliance apparatus required to live by the rules. A similar pattern prevails in many other industries. The federal government now subsidizes both fossil-fuel production (especially through the enhanced oil-recovery tax credit and the marginal-well production tax credit) and renewable-energy resources (through the wind-production tax credit, the electric-vehicle credit, and others). These policies distort the incentives for energy innovation, pick winners and losers in what should be a competitive marketplace, and redistribute taxpayer dollars upward. In health care, federal policy frequently privileges large, consolidated hospital systems at the expense of smaller provider groups, and Obamacare is packed full of corporate welfare, particularly for insurers and hospitals. In agriculture, farm subsidies are almost pure corporate welfare. They now cost taxpayers some $20 billion each year, much of which involves upward redistribution from taxpayers to both corporate and family farms whose owners are generally wealthier than most Americans. At the same time, the federal government has certainly been too lax in enforcing basic antitrust rules in many industries, and has permitted and encouraged a degree of economic consolidation that has hurt consumers to the benefit of large and influential economic actors. Conservatives should champion a revival of antitrust enforcement and defend it as an appropriate responsibility of a limited government in a free economy. And at the state and local levels, many incumbent businesses and professions (barbers, manicurists, interior designers, and countless others) have successfully lobbied for enormous barriers to entry to their occupations. Such rules not only constrain competition, and so tend to increase consumer costs, they also severely restrict upward mobility and close off paths to better lives. They should be rolled back and resisted. Prevalent and infuriating though such explicit favoritism is, we must also recognize that cronyism in public policy is not only a matter of direct subsidies and protections but also an essential feature of the administrative state and the welfare state. Both frequently become captives of private actors over whom they have regulatory authority or from whom they are charged with procuring products or services. To ameliorate this, the state would need to become a neutral arbiter of competitive marketplaces rather than a manager of inefficient monopolies. Today’s fee-for-service Medicare program, for instance, is an absurdly micromanaged single-payer health-insurance system in which a federal bureaucracy determines prices for thousands of procedures and sets payment rules for millions of providers. The system is thoroughly captured by the largest of these providers: It subsidizes their operations, protects them from competition, and encourages mass consolidation in American health care. Moving from a single-payer, fee-for-service Medicare program to a premium-support model would take the government out of the business of setting prices and micromanaging providers and would instead empower seniors to choose among real alternatives. This would move Medicare toward being a competitive market in which insurers and care providers have to vie for consumer preference rather than for government favors. Cronyism in public policy is an essential feature of the administrative state and the welfare state. A similar logic applies to education, where parental choice is restricted by systems that protect incumbent teachers and their unions at the expense of students. In many large school districts, teachers’ unions use their financial and political muscle to control the election of school-board members and so effectively choose their own negotiating partners, leaving parents and the rest of their communities powerless to change things. Breaking up such monopolies, by allowing some of the public funds that now flow to school systems to be put instead in the hands of parents and by giving those parents a real choice among educational options, can help these public dollars serve the public rather than a particularly powerful pressure group. These kinds of reforms are not normally what we think of when we consider the fight against cronyism in public policy, but they are essential to it. Self-dealing and targeted favoritism are unavoidable byproducts of an overgrown administrative state, and one of the foremost reasons to pare back the scope and reach of our government is to reduce the potential for and the reality of such abuses. Indeed, an anti-cronyist agenda is implicit in much of the conservative reform agenda of our time, across a broad range of issues. But it is important that conservatives make it much more explicit. This would help to clarify both the substantive centrality and the political necessity of the fight against cronyism for our larger cause, and would help voters see that it is the champions of the liberal welfare state, not their conservative critics, who stand for crony capitalism today. The failure to advance this argument is an instance of a larger pattern in which conservatives have become disconnected from public concerns because we have forgotten the foundations of our own view of the world. A complacent repetition of vague slogans about freedom too often turns the Right into a caricature of itself. A concerted reengagement with the actual conservative case for freedom would instead let the Right offer serious answers to today’s most pressing public concerns. — Yuval Levin is the editor of National Affairs and a contributing editor of National Review. This article was adapted from a paper for the Conservative Reform Network. * National Review magazine content is typically available only to paid subscribers. Due to the immediacy of this article, it has been made available to you for free. To enjoy the full complement of exceptional National Review magazine content, sign up for a subscription today. A special discounted rate is available for you here.

Black Leader Endorses Donald Trump: Democrats ‘Ask Us For Everything, Give Nothing Back’

To the editor:

Fox News Channel's Bret Baier reports the latest news about the Clinton Foundation investigation from two sources inside the FBI. He reveals five important new pieces of information in these two short clips: 1. The Clinton Foundation investigation is far more expansive than anybody has reported so far and has been going on for more than a year. 2. The laptops of Clinton aides Cherryl Mills and Heather Samuelson have not been destroyed, and agents are currently combing through them. The investigation has interviewed several people twice, and plans to interview some for a third time. 3. Agents have found emails believed to have originated on Hillary Clinton's secret server on Anthony Weiner's laptop. They say the emails are not duplicates and could potentially be classified in nature. 4. Sources within the FBI have told him that an indictment is "likely" in the case of pay-for-play at the Clinton Foundation, "barring some obstruction in some way" from the Justice Department. 5. FBI sources say with 99% accuracy that Hillary Clinton's server has been hacked by at least five foreign intelligence agencies, and that information had been taken from it. Transcript: BRET BAIER: Breaking news tonight -- two separate sources with intimate knowledge of the FBI investigations into the Clinton emails and the Clinton Foundation tell Fox the following: The investigation looking into possible pay-for-play interaction between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Foundation has been going on for more than a year. Led by the white collar crime division, public corruption branch of the criminal investigative division of the FBI. The Clinton Foundation investigation is a, quote, "very high priority." Agents have interviewed and reinterviewed multiple people about the Foundation case, and even before the WikiLeaks dumps, agents say they have collected a great deal of evidence. Pressed on that, one sources said, quote, "a lot of it," and "there is an avalanche of new information coming every day." Some of it from WikiLeaks, some of it from new emails. The agents are actively and aggressively pursuing this case. They will be going back to interview the same people again, some for the third time. As a result of the limited immunity deals to top aides, including Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, the Justice Department had tentatively agreed that the FBI would destroy those laptops after a narrow review. We are told definitively that has not happened. Those devices are currently in the FBI field office here in Washington, D.C. and are being exploited. The source points out that any immunity deal is null and void if any subject lied at any point in the investigation. Meantime, the classified e-mail investigation is being run by the National Security division of the FBI. They are currently combing through former Democratic Congressman Anthony Wiener's laptop and have found e-mails that they believe came from Hillary Clinton's server that appear to be new, as in not duplicates. Whether they contain classified material or not is not yet known. It will likely be known soon. All of this just as we move inside one week until election day. Baier gives more details to Fox News Channel's Brit Hume. Most importantly, he said his sources within the FBI have told him that an indictment is "likely" in the case of pay-for-play at the Clinton Foundation. Transcript: BRET BAIER: Here's the deal: We talked to two separate sources with intimate knowledge of the FBI investigations. One: The Clinton Foundation investigation is far more expansive than anybody has reported so far... Several offices separately have been doing their own investigations. Two: The immunity deal that Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, two top aides to Hillary Clinton, got from the Justice Department in which it was beleived that the laptops they had, after a narrow review for classified materials, were going to be destroyed. We have been told that those have not been destroyed -- they are at the FBI field office here on Washington and are being exploited. . Three: The Clinton Foundation investigation is so expansive, they have interviewed and re-interviewed many people. They described the evidence they have as 'a lot of it' and said there is an 'avalanche coming in every day.' WikiLeaks and the new emails. They are "actively and aggressively pursuing this case." Remember the Foundation case is about accusations of pay-for-play... They are taking the new information and some of them are going back to interview people for the third time. As opposed to what has been written about the Clinton Foundation investigation, it is expansive. The classified e-mail investigation is being run by the National Security division of the FBI. They are currently combing through Anthony Weiner's laptop. They are having some success -- finding what they believe to be new emaisls, not duplicates, that have been transported through Hillary Clinton's server. Finally, we learned there is a confidence from these sources that her server had been hacked. And that it was a 99% accuracy that it had been hacked by at least five foreign intelligence agencies, and that things had been taken from that... There has been some angst about Attorney General Loretta Lynch -- what she has done or not done. She obviously did not impanel, or go to a grand jury at the beginning. They also have a problem, these sources do, with what President Obama said today and back in October of 2015... I pressed again and again on this very issue... The investigations will continue, there is a lot of evidence. And barring some obstruction in some way, they believe they will continue to likely an indictment.

Erik Prince said that according to one of his sources, the NYPD was ready to announce "the warrants and the additional arrests they were making" in the Anthony Weiner investigation, but received "huge pushback" from the Justice Department.

Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, Jakarta’s first Christian leader in decades, has been accused of blasphemy as he runs for re-election.

Hillary and Huma having some thoughts on Bill Clinton and Anthony Weiner being such perverts. Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2016

Even at the end of a presidential campaign, polls don’t perfectly predict the final margin in the election. Sometimes the final polls are quite accurate. An average of national polls in the week be…

Despite attention on the Clinton-Trump race, experts are skeptical that the public will care much about issues after Election Day.

Hillary Clinton called advisor a 'Fucking Jew Bastard' - antisemitism ----------------------- ----------------------- antisemitism jewish israel hillary clin...

Are you serious?

When President Obama took office in January 2009, 80,529,000 Americans were not in the labor force, and that number has steadily risen during his two terms to its current 94-million level. The number reached a record 94,708,000 this past May.

A Kurdish church leader smuggled to Britain says he received death threats – for having left Islam for Christianity – while living in makeshift camps in northern France.

A bystander took their photo. A relative turned them in to the police.

What transgender student Gavin Grimm needs is what all mentally ill people need: support, not enabling. Our media and courts refuse to provide that.

Until now, Sir David Attenborough was one of the few individuals in the public eye not to have broached the ever-present, all-pervasive topic of Donald Trump. However, the naturalist and beloved broadcaster has now given his assessment of the situation and suggested a way to counter the Republican’s ascent to power which, believe it or not, involves a gun.

Rogue ballots and dead voters!

WikiLeaks has released what may be the most disturbing email leaked from Hillary Clinton's inner circle.

OpEd: American democracy is in trouble, but with a “yes” vote on Question 5 Mainers could do something significant to begin to fix it.

Days after searching the Delaware County office of a Democratic grassroots organization for evidence of voter-registration fraud, state police on Thursday raided a second office - this one in Philadelphia.

Counterterrorism officials being told three states could be targets but credibility of the intelligence hasn’t been confirmed, sources say

James Comey surely had no idea what he was in for. The FBI director knew his decision to notify Congress of effectively re-opening the Clinton e-mail investigation would cause a firestorm. But even…

Thinking about where we might be on November 9th, and what else a president fond of unilateral authority could still do.

Only 7 days left b4 we elect our next President I'm so excited & honored 2b a part of this MOVEMENT.I knew this day would come

The 'Happy' singer said if every woman in America voted for Clinton, Republican Donald Trump wouldn't stand a chance.