PowerLine – Donald Trump Intends to Run as Donald Trump
- Donald Trump Intends to Run as Donald Trump
- Dartmouth undone, Part Two
- This Is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things
- Dartmouth undone
|Donald Trump Intends to Run as Donald Trump
Posted: 31 May 2016 01:15 PM PDT
(Steven Hayward)There’s a famous anecdote that appears I think in Teddy White’s Making of the President, 1964 about a reporter who, upon hearing Barry Goldwater’s line “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice,” said: “My God—he’s going to run as Barry Goldwater!”
That sentiment is enjoying a sequel today with Donald Trump’s press conference about his charity to veterans’ groups, but whose dominant news was not his donations but his direct attack on the media, including calling out individual network correspondents for “sleaze.”
The best part was his response to the question, “Is this the way it’s going to be if you’re elected president?” To which Trump responded with no equivocation, “Yes, it is. . . You think I’m going to change? I’m not changing.”
Somewhere, Spiro Agnew is saying, “I told you so.” If you know the media is going to be hostile to you, why not declare open war on them? It’s not like the media has high public approval ratings.
Here’s the whole thing on YouTube if you have the time to watch it.
|Dartmouth undone, Part Two
Posted: 31 May 2016 09:18 AM PDT
(Paul Mirengoff)As Scott discusses below, Dartmouth has declared that it will not punish the BlackLivesMatter-supporting students who rampaged through Dartmouth’s Baker Library, cursing at and intimidating students as they tried to study for exams. Dartmouth’s decision is disgraceful.
If the concept of a “safe space” has any meaning, it applies to Baker Library. But if you’re angry and Black, you can disrupt that space by insulting students as they go about the business of learning.
Why did Dartmouth take no disciplinary action against the rampaging, threatening students? Meg Ramsden, Assistant Director, Alumni Leadership wrote:
But Standard II of the Dartmouth Community Standards of Conduct prohibits Disorderly Conduct, defined as “any disruption of the orderly processes of the College.” Standard II also states:
Studying in a college library is obviously an “orderly process of the College.” The BlackLivesMatter protesters disrupted it through disorderly behavior.
Thus, Rumsden’s claim that no specific violation occurred fails. It cannot be the real reason why Dartmouth let off every student who participated in the Baker Library rampage, even those who threatened students and screamed racist abuse (e.g., “Stand the f*** up!” “You filthy racist white piece of s***!”) at them.
What is the real reason? Either president Phil Hanlon is afraid to stand up to Dartmouth’s radical black students or he believes that their conduct is excusable. Either way, it’s clear that Hanlon is not competent to lead Dartmouth.
In her letter to alums, Ramsden states:
But the students didn’t take the “serious conversations” seriously. Recently, Dartmouth’s BlackLivesMatter movement tore down a pro-police display that College Republicans erected to commemorate National Police Week. The College Republicans had received approval from Dartmouth to erect the display.
Why wouldn’t the BlackLivesMatter folks tear down the display? They know the administration won’t take action against them.
In her letter explaining why Dartmouth didn’t punish the Baker Library protesters, Rumsden invoked the First Amendment. She said that in an academic setting, “freedom of speech is mission crucial.” She concluded, inelegantly, that “the standards of the First Amendment are what are used to guide this process.”
But the destruction of the pro-police display makes a mockery of this claim. Freedom of speech includes the right to display pro-police material. Yet black students were able to deprive other students of this right, apparently with impunity.
At Dartmouth, free speech is a one way street. It protects the right of left-wing Black students to racially insult and threaten white students, but does not protect the right of conservative students to articulate their ideas. How warped!
Is such a College still worthy of alumni support?
|This Is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things
Posted: 31 May 2016 09:08 AM PDT
(Steven Hayward)I’ve been meaning for a while to knock out an article on the theme, “there’s nothing wrong with America that 4 percent growth won’t solve.” That’s an exaggeration, of course, but not much of one. Faster economic growth will alleviate a number of our leading problems, especially stagnant wages, a sinking labor force participation rate, badly unbalanced budgets, adult children living in basements, ESPN’s sinking ratings, etc.
One difficulty is that one of our major parties is completely uninterested in revving up economic growth. Unlike the Democratic party of John F. Kennedy, which held an explicit doctrine called “growth liberalism,” embraced the idea that “a rising tide lifts all boats,” and campaigned on the theme of “let’s get the country moving again” (sounds a little but like someone’s current campaign slogan, no?), today’s liberals care not for growth, but are obsessed with redistribution and what James Piereson rightly labeled “punitive liberalism.” (Another historical irony is that the liberals of the Kennedy era were scornful of Eisenhower because they thought economic growth in the 1950s was too slow; now liberals like Paul Krugman look back at the 1950s as a golden era for the middle class, and especially for union power.) An administration that was serious about economic growth would at the very least approve the Keystone pipeline, and fast-track every possible construction project in the country, instead of embracing policies that make energy more expensive and clog up labor markets (just for starters).
I’m agnostic about whether income tax cuts will juice economic growth in the same fashion as the 1980s, though our corporate tax system badly needs to be reformed and would likely have some measurable positive benefit. I’ve received a thorough briefing of the Tax Foundation’s economic model—the one they’ve used to score each of the candidates’ economic plans and which the media have referenced in questions in the debates—and its essentially a cost-of-capital model whose largest growth and income effects come not from tax rate changes but the tax treatment of business investment, which has been flagging badly of late.
A much bigger factor is likely the huge revival of heavy government regulation, like Dodd-Frank, the new overtimes rules, and the pending “Clean Power Plan” that essentially nationalizes the nation’s electric utility industry. There’s been a lot of talk about “regulatory uncertainty” in the Obama era, as we wait to see the full effects of the burdens of Obamacare and other mandates. Today the Wall Street Journal has a major article on Dodd-Frank that makes for sober reading. It provides an extraordinary look at just how out of control Obama-era regulation has become:
One of the more striking aspects of this story is displayed in the nearby chart, which shows that final rules issued by the regulators ended up being twice as long as proposed rules. Among these are lots of regulations that have nothing whatever to do with any of the causes of the financial crisis of 2008, such as new regulations of ATM fees and checking overdraft fees—regulations which very few members of Congress thought they were voting for when they passed Dodd-Frank. Clearly a lot of the regulations are from the wish lists of consumer groups and other leftist activists.
Does anyone think all of these compliance employees are adding to economic growth? The WSJ reports:
What is all this costing?
Does anyone think a $70 billion price tag passes any sensible cost-benefit test? What effect is that having on the formation of new banks or bank mergers that might be beneficial? You could simply pass a tax on the large banks asking for half of this amount to be put in a special reserve fund to bail out banks (which we’ll do anyway when Dodd-Frank inevitably fails to prevent another financial meltdown) and free up capital for more productive use. Alternately, you could dispense will all of this detailed micromanagement of the banks with one very simple regulation: require much higher reserve capital—maybe as high as 25 or 30 percent—and then simply sit back and watch banks watch their own risks more prudently, or get taken over when in distress by other banks. (Big banks simply hate this idea, which is what makes me think it might be good.)
This is just the finance sector. I’ll be back later with further thoughts on new labor regulations that are surely depressing job growth.
Posted: 31 May 2016 06:25 AM PDT
(Scott Johnson)It turns out that rendering “they” a singular pronoun is not Dartmouth President Phil Hanlon’s greatest outrage against common sense in favor of the contortions of political correctness. It’s not even his greatest recent outrage.
That distinction must go to Hanlon’s toleration of the rampage by BlackLivesMatter thugs through Dartmouth’s Baker Library as students studied for exams. At Dartblog Joe Asch reports: “No charges for BLM confirmed (again).”
It is a small college. And yet, to adapt Daniel Webster’s words, there are those who are embarrassed by it.
In his famous peroration in the Dartmouth College case, Webster observed: “This, Sir, is my case! It is the case not merely of that humble institution, it is the case of every college in our Land!” We’re not quite there yet, but we’re getting closer every day, unfortunately.