EUREKA, MONT.

Looking back at the Capitol riot, Tasha Adams ponders her time as an Oath Keepers wife and asks: What if I had not supported him?

Him is her estranged husband, Stewart Rhodes, founder and leader of the Oath Keepers, an anti-government group whose members stand accused by federal authorities of having played a crucial role in the Jan. 6 insurrection. During nearly 23 years of marriage, Adams says she devoted herself to Rhodes aspirations. She worked as an exotic dancer to help put him through college, assisted in writing his papers and encouraged him to successfully apply to Yale Law School. When he was looking for direction in life a cause Adams helped him start the Oath Keepers.

Over the next few years, Adams became disillusioned by the far-right organization and her marriage. The Oath Keepers, she says, increasingly promoted conspiracy theories while engaging in extremist activities and rhetoric that demonstrated racial and ethnic biases. Meanwhile, her husband became emotionally and physically abusive, she says. In 2018, hoping to put Rhodes and the organization behind her, she left him and filed for divorce.

With congressional committees and federal investigators examining the threat posed by domestic extremists and their contribution to the insurrection, Adams has been conducting an exploration of her own life and culpability in the forming of the Oath Keepers. Her journey provides behind-the-scenes insights into how a Las Vegas car valet transformed into the leader of an organization that sought to overturn a presidential election.

Column One

A showcase for compelling storytelling from the Los Angeles Times.

If I hadnt helped him start it, I mean, there would probably still have been an insurrection, Adams, 49, says in an interview in this old logging town, not far from where she lives. But what would it have looked like? That is what Im trying to figure out.

Adams has not been shy about sharing her experiences tweeting critically about Rhodes and his organization, while launching an online crowdsourcing campaign to fund her divorce. Last month, she spoke at length with investigators for the special House committee examining the Capitol riot.

Eureka, the town not far from where Tasha Adams lives, is known as an old logging town.

(Tailyr Irvine / For The Times)

Dissecting what transpired in any relationship can be a fraught endeavor. This story is based on Adams recollections, as well as reviews of court records and interviews with two of her adult children, Dakota Vonn Adams and Sedona Rhodes, who confirmed their mothers account. More than a dozen current and former officers and board members of the Oath Keepers did not respond to requests for comment.

Rhodes did not respond to repeated phone calls and text messages. The 56-year-old has not been charged in the insurrection. He has said the Oath Keepers were in town to provide security for advisors to then-President Trump and supporters and did not intend to enter the building.

Adams, who speaks in rapid-fire sentences that frequently end in quips, starts each day by firing up a laptop on her kitchen countertop, scanning for news about the Oath Keepers.

She has read how 18 Oath Keepers have been indicted on conspiracy charges for forcing their way into the Capitol, and she has studied prosecutors damning portrait of Rhodes. They allege in court papers that Rhodes urged Oath Keepers to come to Washington to fight for Trump.

He was on the Capitol grounds during the insurrection, prosecutors say, and provided live updates to his members storming the building. Theres no indication that he entered the Capitol during the riot. Rhodes described the rioters as patriots and later compared the insurrection to the Boston Tea Party, prosecutors say.

Adams met Rhodes when she was an 18-year-old dance instructor at an Arthur Murray studio in Las Vegas, and he was a 25-year-old student.

She was the daughter of strict white Mormon parents who ran a window manufacturing business. Rhodes was an intense and worldly former Army paratrooper who maintained his military physique and parked cars for a living. He told her of growing up in a multi-ethnic Christian family, spending summers picking fruit alongside relatives. Rhodes has described himself as a quarter Mexican and part Native American, invoking that heritage at times to deflect against allegations that the Oath Keepers are sympathetic to racists.

Adams says she was drawn to Rhodes life experience because it was so different from mine.

An archival photograph of Tasha Adams during her honeymoon with Stewart Rhodes rests on a table.

(Tailyr Irvine / For The Times)

They had been dating four months when Rhodes accidentally dropped a .22-caliber handgun and shot himself in the face, blinding himself in the left eye. She says she felt obligated to assist him.

I was suddenly taking care of a man with a hole in his head, Adams says.

With Adams contemplating becoming a professional ballroom dancer, the couple struggled to make rent; she says Rhodes began to press her to find a more lucrative trade.

Every day, Adams recalls, he was like, You should be a stripper and make more money. She took up exotic dancing, earning $100 a night.

They married in 1994, and she worked at a high-end strip club until she had their first child, Dakota. Each night, Adams says, she helped Rhodes with his assignments at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and nurtured his dreams of becoming a lawyer.

I wanted a house with a treehouse for Dakota. I thought, man, I struck the jackpot, she says, describing her emotion upon Rhodes acceptance by Yale. Im married to a future Yale Law School graduate!

But Rhodes turned down high-paying internships his first year and took a nonpaying summer gig at a conservative think tank. He was more interested in causes than money, says Adams, adding, I knew then I was never going to get the treehouse. She says Rhodes charted a similar course after graduating in 2004, working mostly in smaller practices or as a freelance writer of legal briefs.

Rhodes had always been interested in politics, Adams says, and they both subscribed to libertarianism, a philosophy that promotes free markets and limited government. They fervently supported one of its staunchest adherents, then-Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas).

While volunteering for Pauls 2008 presidential campaign, Rhodes and Adams met veterans and former police officers who were drawn to the candidates libertarian views. Thats when Rhodes decided to form the Oath Keepers, a group focused on recruiting veterans, military personnel and police officers and encouraging them to remain true to the oath they swore to defend the Constitution and to disobey orders they consider illegal.

Adams says she liked the idea and believed in the groups focus. Its goals aligned with her libertarian views of limited government, and she saw it as a good way for her husband to tap his charisma to earn a living. She says she envisioned Oath Keepers as a a cigar club of like-minded libertarians.

I thought it was something he could do well, she says. What a great name, right? I thought, wow, we are going to sell a lot of T-shirts and motorcycle jackets.

By the time Rhodes launched the Oath Keepers in March 2009 two months after President Obama took office Adams says she realized the group was not going to be a cigar club, nor a libertarian version of the ACLU.

In a blog post that month, Rhodes wrote that his groups principal mission was to prevent the destruction of American liberty by preventing a full-blown totalitarian dictatorship from coming to power. Our Motto is Not on our watch!

Adams says she accepted Rhodes vision for the Oath Keepers because he seemed to mostly be pushing the boundaries of free speech and advocating for limited government.

For its first couple of years, the Oath Keepers operated on a tight budget. Adams says she handled its mailing lists and ran its website, keeping it updated with links to events, missives from Rhodes and links to news stories about the group.

According to pages captured by the Internet Archive, much of the site was dedicated to testimonials from members, many current and former military personnel, who expressed enthusiasm about joining the organization and its mission. I find no higher calling than to join forces with the Oath Keepers, and stand shoulder-to-shoulder with my fellow Americans in our own defense, wrote a member who identified himself as an Air Force officer in June 2009.

In November 2009, a person who identified himself as an Army veteran posted: Its time to stand up for liberty and truth above all else. To Reclaim the Republic for the people, by the people, of the people from the hands of tyranny. The poster added he was particularly concerned about puppet politicians, the Central Banking gangsters, the U.N. ...

With the rise of the tea party movement, the organization grew rapidly. At its height in 2015, the Oath Keepers had about 35,000 members, Adams says. Anti-hate groups have pegged its top membership at no more than 5,000.

Adams says she stepped away from the group in 2010 or 2011 and focused on raising her children. She and Rhodes would eventually have six. In her spare time, Adams blogged a bit, describing herself as a homeschooling, breastfeeding, homebirthing, libertarian, freedom fighting, gun-toting really cool mom.

On the blog, she described her husband as being cute and sexy and extolled his rise from being a down-on-his-luck car valet to leader of the Oath Keepers.

Adams cringes when she reads such posts. I was creating the world I wanted it to be, she says, not the one it was.

At the Oath Keepers height, in 2015, Adams says, the organization had about 35,000 members.

(Tailry Irvine / For The Times)

In 2013, Rhodes announced that the Oath Keepers would create teams, prepared with military-style training, to respond to the implosion of society. Until that point, such training had been prohibited, Adams says, because Rhodes didnt want his group to be considered a militia.

There is a stigma attached to militias, she says. And he wanted to avoid that.

Suddenly, she says, Oath Keepers were running around playing army.

The Oath Keepers in 2014 and 2015 assisted ranchers and miners in Nevada and Oregon in armed disputes with federal authorities. Rhodes also deployed Oath Keepers in 2014 to Ferguson, Mo., to patrol and protect businesses during protests unleashed by the shooting of a Black 18-year-old, Michael Brown, by a white police officer.

Rhodes was criticized by anti-hate groups for that action, and he was chastised by a local Oath Keepers leader for engaging in a racial double standard by failing to assist Black residents accusing law enforcement of abuses. Adams says she raised similar concerns with Rhodes, particularly after the Oath Keepers had defended white ranchers and miners.

Members of the Oath Keepers have generally avoided the kind of inflammatory rhetoric utilized by white supremacists. The groups bylaws prohibit anyone from joining who advocates, or has been or is a member, or associated with, any organization, formal or informal, that advocates discrimination, violence, or hatred toward any person based upon their race, nationality, creed, or color.

But experts say such circumspection belies how the Oath Keepers actions, and statements by members, have assisted in the spread of racist language and hate.

Members of Oath Keepers think of themselves as rejecting racism, yet they and allied groups have served as de facto security for neo-Confederate and alt-right groups, Sam Jackson, a professor at the University at Albany-SUNY wrote in his eponymous book about the Oath Keepers. In other words, like most of the contemporary patriot/militia movement, the [Oath Keepers] is not organized around a perceived racial identity, but neither is it as free of racism and bigotry as it likes to claim.

Jackson noted that Rhodes has wielded his Mexican heritage to push back on claims that he or the Oath Keepers are in league with racists, even as his group has disseminated videos that display bigotry toward undocumented migrants and Mexicans. Rhodes has compared Latino and Black Lives Matter activists to jihadist terrorists and well funded Marxist and racist agitators. He has said that illegal immigration was an invasion and described as dirtbags the mostly Black NFL players who protested racial injustice by kneeling during the national anthem.

Adams says she once believed that anti-hate groups were exaggerating the dangers the Oath Keepers posed because Rhodes convinced her the criticism was unfounded and a ploy to raise money.

After Ferguson and the armed standoffs, however, Adams says her views changed. While Rhodes and leaders did not tolerate discriminatory language I never heard him say anything like the N-word, she says, and he would get rid of anyone who did the estranged wife believes her husband and other Oath Keepers nevertheless exhibited racial and ethnic biases in several, frequently subtle ways. She cited their refusal to back Black residents protesting police abuse in Ferguson, their harsh rhetoric about immigrants and their vision for America. They described America as if they were looking out at a crowd at a baseball game, she says, and seeing a sea of white faces with rosy cheeks.

She adds that the Anti-Defamation League is correct in describing the Oath Keepers as a large right-wing anti-government extremist group. And the Southern Poverty Law Center is accurate, she says, in claiming the Oath Keepers is based on a set of baseless conspiracy theories about the federal government working to destroy Americans liberties.

Stewart Rhodes, founder of the citizen militia group known as the Oath Keepers, speaks during a rally outside the White House in 2017.

(Susan Walsh / Associated Press)

Among the conspiracy theories that Rhodes advocated on the Oath Keepers website and in frequent appearances on conservative TV and radio shows: A U.S. military exercise in 2015 might be a prelude to a coup, baseless claims about voter fraud in the 2016 election and a deep state takeover of the U.S. government. Later, after the 2020 election, he fully embraced and promoted unfounded conspiracies that the election had been stolen and supported Trumps efforts to stay in office.

Adams says she tried to temper Rhodes conspiratorial rhetoric because it didnt serve any purpose except make him look crazy.

By 2016, Adams says, Rhodes had become an ardent supporter of Trump, putting aside early doubts: Stewart thought Trump was too pro-government and pro-spending. Adams added that her estranged husbands attraction to the former president is obvious in hindsight: They are very similar in that they both push conspiracy theories. Its like watching a demagogue be attracted to a demagogue.

It was not possible to independently verify Adams descriptions of her role in the Oath Keepers. Jackson, the author and professor, says she did not come up in his research of the group. I would be surprised if they were coequals, the professor says, referring to Adams and her husband. He declined to speculate further on Adams role in the organization, saying he did not delve into Oath Keepers private lives because they could be difficult to untangle.

Living in remote areas of Montana, Adams says she had no friends, and her life revolved around keeping her husband happy and raising and schooling her children.

Those who know Adams say they rarely saw her outside the presence of Rhodes. Marcy Kuntz, Adams midwife for three births starting in 2006, recalls that Adams didnt speak much about herself, except to apologize for failing to pay bills on time. She was always accompanied on appointments by her husband.

Kuntz delivered the babies at Adams homes, which were generally located deep in the Montana woods. The house was busy, with all the kids, Kuntz says, and I got the sense that her and her childrens world was in that house. They didnt get out much.

She seemed like a very private person, adds Kuntz, who has spoken to Adams a few times in the years since she separated from Rhodes. You could tell she supported what Stewart did as his wife, as a wife supports a husband. ...

In retrospect, it is clear he was very controlling. She kept it all to herself for so long.

Adams and two of her adult children say that by 2015 a year after her sixth child was born they were becoming increasingly disenchanted with Rhodes as a husband and father. He was gone for long stretches, leaving her to raise their children in an isolated part of Montana, said Adams, Dakota and Sedona.

When Rhodes was home, he belittled and berated his wife and kids, kept tabs on their whereabouts and engaged in physical abuse, according to Adams and the two children, as well as allegations included in court records filed by Adams.

In a 2018 application for a restraining order, Adams alleged Rhodes grabbed their then 13-year-old daughter by the throat. Whenever he is unhappy with my behavior (say I want to leave the house he doesnt like me to leave), he will draw his handgun (which he always wears), rack the slide, wave it around, and then point it at his own head, she wrote in the application, which was denied by a judge. It is not clear why the judge declined to grant the order.

According to Dakota and Sedona, their father didnt just promote conspiracy theories he brought them home. One night the power and phones went out, Dakota says, and his father became convinced the FBI had cut the lines, presaging a raid.

Tasha Adams, seen in the reflection of a window, ponders her time as an Oath Keepers wife and asks herself what would have happened if she had not supported her husband.

(Tailyr Irvine / For The Times)

It took us 45 minutes to pack the vehicles, says Dakota, 24. If the FBI was really coming, would they have given us that much time? We drove off and about an hour later, he was like, I guess they arent coming. So we turned around and went home to bed.

Sedona, 22, says her father once ordered the children to dig a tunnel so the family might escape if authorities raided the house. It had a plywood roof, and he had the little kids go through it to get used to it, Sedona says.

Adams and her children say it took years of enduring such behavior for her to see the truth.

Your reality gets warped. He controlled our reality, says Dakota, who succeeded on Nov. 8 in legally changing his name from Dakota Stewart Rhodes because he disdains his father.

His mother was also concerned that Rhodes could use his legal expertise and connections to keep the children. She says she put those fears aside in 2018 and filed for divorce. Rhodes moved out of the house, and appears to live out of state. The divorce case, which was filed under seal, remains unresolved, in part, because Adams says she is in debt to her lawyers.

Earning a living selling used clothes on the internet, Adams has been pecking away at a memoir and says she has been thinking about getting a college degree in extremist studies. Her goal, she says, is to teach about the dangers posed by extremist groups and their leaders.

Among the questions she thinks she can answer for students: How has Rhodes managed to avoid arrest while other Oath Keepers were indicted in the riot on conspiracy charges? In dissecting her life as an Oath Keepers wife and following coverage of the federal prosecutions, Adams says she has a theory: He is very good at getting others to take the risks.

See original here:

She helped her husband start a far-right militia group. Now the Oath Keeper's wife says she has regrets - Los Angeles Times

The school promises forbidden courses to students. Photo: PBS/YouTube

In 1971, the televangelist Jerry Falwell embarked on an ambitious new venture. With the help of Elmer Towns, a Christian academic, he founded a new institution of higher education: Liberty University. Falwell had grand dreams for his new school, as his official biography on Libertys website makes clear: Not only would it function as an ideological factory for churning out new conservative activists, it would do so on a grand scale. Falwell wanted the school to grow to 50,000 students, a goal the school says it has now achieved. Liberty wasnt Falwells first educational experiment, either. Hed previously founded a K-12 school as a segregation academy. Before wokeness entered the right-wings lexicon, desegregation was the enemy of the hour.

Decades later, the right remains fixated on education, agitating over the alleged prevalence of critical race theory in public schools and the hysterical excesses of college liberals. Race and gender are still animating concerns. Enter Bari Weiss, a self-styled tribune of the people, with an announcement that parallels Falwells earlier foray into higher education: She, too, is starting a university with some help from her friends. The unaccredited University of Austin is dedicated to the fearless pursuit of truth, proclaims a post on Weisss Substack. Nearly a quarter of American academics in the social sciences or humanities endorse ousting a colleague for having a wrong opinion about hot-button issues such as immigration or gender differences, wrote the universitys new president, Pano Kanelos, citing the controversial academic Eric Kaufmann.

Kanelos is half-right. There is a free-speech crisis in higher education, but it exists on campuses like Libertys, where students and faculty have long complained of censorship from zealous administrators. My alma mater, a Christian university much like Liberty, actively restricted the content we could publish in our student newspaper; a trustee once complained that I had used the phrase reproductive rights in an article. Years later the school confiscated copies of an independent student publication. Nevertheless, Kanelos ignores these examples to single out Yale and Stanford and Harvard. In these top schools, he queried, and in so many others, can we actually claim that the pursuit of truth once the central purpose of a university remains the highest virtue? Kanelos implies the existence of a past where the university was once free of donor pressure or administrative cowardice or, more to the point, pesky student activism. But this history only exists in his imagination. Universities have always been fraught places, where the free exchange of ideas often results in intellectual turbulence.

Its precisely that intellectual turbulence that Kanelos, Weiss, and their comrades seek to escape, much as Jerry Falwell did in the 1970s. Falwell was no outlier. The right has long dreamed of alternatives to traditional higher education. The televangelist Pat Robertson founded Regent University for similar reasons. Michael Farris, the founder of the Homeschool Legal Defense Association, founded Patrick Henry College in 2000 to shelter homeschool graduates and funnel them into Republican politics. Hillsdale College has assumed a sharply right-wing political identity over time, and rejects federal funding as a matter of principle. (A Hillsdale professor sits on the University of Austins board of advisers.) These schools exist as laboratories for right-wing thought; they are committed not to free expression but to indoctrination. The University of Austin will be no different.

Consider the parties involved. As a student at Columbia University, Weiss developed a censorious reputation of her own.A campus organization Weiss co-founded did demand that the administration change the departments curriculum and make it easier to file complaints against professors, measures that would have affected certain scholars responsibilities and duties, as well as their future job prospects, the writers Mari Cohen and Joshua Leifer observed in Jewish Currents. Weiss and her fellow activists targeted Arab professors for speech they deemed hostile to Israel, efforts shes since downplayed to better portray herself as a campaigner for free expression. A University of Austin founding faculty fellow Ayaan Hirsi Ali, has called Islam a nihilstic cult of death and has claimed that violence is inherent to the religion, which bodes ill for any Muslim who might wish to attend the new university. The new universitys positions on sex and gender arent hard to guess, either. Another fellow, the anti-trans academic Kathleen Stock, voluntarily resigned her position at the University of Sussex, claiming that student protests curtailed her own academic freedom. Put another way, Stock found free expression a bit too lively to tolerate.

Others linked to the university stand accused of crossing professional lines with female students. One, Joshua Katz, received a year-long suspension from Princeton University over an inappropriate relationship with an undergraduate woman. Another, Joe Lonsdale, has been accused of raping a woman he mentored, an allegation he vehemently denies. Lonsdales nonprofit, Cicero Research, is fiscally sponsoring the new institution.

So what rights will a University of Austin student actually possess? They cant count on a right to free expression, that much is clear. The presence of Lonsdale and Katz raises further questions about the universitys position on due process for survivors of sexual misconduct. Students wont even benefit from an intellectually diverse faculty. Survey the schools website, and you wont find a single leftist scholar. Nor should we expect to find one. Lonsdales nonprofit, Cicero, says its committed to free-market based solutions to public policy issues. And as a private institution, the University of Austin will retain the broad freedom to censor students and faculty as it sees fit as does Liberty and my alma mater. What weve got, then, is a Bible college for libertarians. Those disturbed by progress will find shelter on campus. Pledging freedom from wokeness, the University of Austin actually seeks freedom from free exchange. There is a soupon of social liberalism, which extends no further than equality for LGB people and not to trans people and which is too inadequate to greatly distinguish the school from other conservative institutions. In this university, Falwell would see kindred minds. Theres nothing new here.

Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.

Visit link:

Whos Afraid of Higher Education? - New York Magazine

Libertarians face many trite and tired arguments against their ideology, but none is more famous than the ever-present Who would build the roads? attack.

But while libertarians are forced to spend a good bit of time talking about roads, the rest of the country is typically less focused on our nations infrastructure that is until this week when Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg made comments that ignited a firestorm over the topic.

In remarks made about the trillion-dollar infrastructure bill, Buttigieg alluded to the racist design of Americas highways and his plans to use the funds to address the problems theyve caused.

I dont think we have anything to lose by confronting that simple reality, he said. And I think we have everything to gain by acknowledging it and then dealing with it, which is why the Reconnecting Communities, that billion dollars, is something we want to get to work right away putting to work.

In response, conservative pundits went to work defending the government which they often do when accusations of systemic racism come up. Its an odd stance given the fact that the Right claims to believe the government is inherently corrupt, vile, and perverse. But racist? Not a chance, how dare you allege such a thing.

If we step back from the culture war for a moment, though, it is easy to come up with a number of examples of systemic racism that most on the Right would not argue. Gun laws were implemented to ensure black people did not have access to firearms after the Civil War. Government schools, which are assigned based on zip codes that are affected by the policies of redlining, consistently produce racially disparate outcomes. And occupational licenses have commonly been put in place to block certain people from entering careers.

While the policies that built our nations roads may be less familiar to many, there are countless historical examples that back up Buttigiegs claims.

Our highways were mostly built throughout the 1950s and 1960s. Ambitious engineers sought means to link downtown business districts with the suburbs, and to do so, they often had to cut through existing neighborhoods, meaning a great deal of disruption to those residents and a good amount of eminent domain seizures. Wealthier neighborhoods, which tended to be white, had the political might to fight off these projects while the poorer neighborhoods, which were often mostly black, did not.

To build Interstate 10 in New Orleans, engineers cleared a large portion of land along the oak-lined commercial thoroughfare of North Claiborne Avenue. The black residents fought this plan unsuccessfully at the time, and dozens of homes and businesses in the community were destroyed while the nearby French Quarter was left untouched.

Its a pattern one can find replicated dozens of times throughout virtually every city. According toThe Pew Charitable Trusts , In Miami, Interstate 95 flattened swaths of a Black neighborhood called Overtown, forcing some 10,000 people to leave their homes. In Nashville, Tennessee, the I-40 expressway demolished 620 houses, 27 apartment buildings and six Black churches.

The impacts on the black community were severe. Not only were they not compensated for their properties at market rates eminent domain seizures rarely are but the roads ruined black-owned businesses, caused home values to fall, increased pollution, attracted homeless camps and crime under overpasses, and cut communities off from one another.

This is what people mean by systemic racism. And whether it was done intentionally by government actors to cut black communities off from white neighborhoods as segregation became illegal, or if it was merely done because these communities lacked the political power to fight back, the results are the same.

We should not seek to tear down existing roads as Buttigieg has flirted with, but we should seek to learn from our history and use this as yet another example of the failures of government power and central planning.

One thing is certain: If libertarians built the roads, theyd have a lot better chance of not being racist.

Hannah Cox (@hannahdcox ) is a libertarian-conservative activist and a contributor to the Washington Examiners Beltway Confidential blog.

Read more from the original source:

If libertarians built the roads, maybe they wouldnt be racist - Washington Examiner

Thirty-two years ago the Berlin Wall fell, a Cold War victory viewed as one of the crowning achievements of the movement conservatism associated with Ronald Reagan. An important development in its own right, this anniversary of the wall's fall is an opportunity to take stock of conservatives who want to replace the "dead consensus" of Reaganism with something else.

We've seen social conservatism take on a bigger role in the political coalition at the expense of individualists (often described as libertarians, no matter how big the government continues to get under the GOP's watch), winning a recent election in blue Virginia by campaigning on parental control of local public schools. Conservatives have begun thinking through some of the contradictions between Reagan's vision of a secure Main Street and untrammeled Wall Street, especially as big corporations side against them in the culture wars.

The most ambitious Republicans are seeking the approval of these new strains of the right. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has fought both public and private COVID-19 restrictions that rankle the base. Sens. Ted Cruz (Texas) and Marco Rubio (Fla.) made pilgrimages to the National Conservatism Conference, a gathering of the right's new nationalists.

And yet with former President Donald Trump back on the golf course, much of this still feels like a work in progress. The conservatives for the common good have sounded libertarian, even libertine, about the pandemic except for the fact that they're willing to regulate masking and vaccination policies by private companies, too. There are arguments for why the "free market" doesn't simply mean businesses get to do whatever they want. But the overarching philosophy here, to the extent there is one, is that members of my political coalition get to do whatever they want in defiance of the wrong people trying to tell them what to do.

Perhaps the new conservatism's answer is that this is how the left has always done things, and a movement too committed to abstract principles to take on its own side in an argument will always lose. But, for the moment, old-fashioned "tear down the wall" conservatives have more to show for their efforts than the newfangled "build the wall" crowd.

The rest is here:

The post-Reagan GOP is still a work in progress - The Week Magazine

Ludwig von Mises

by Bruce Majors

Virginia had electionsthis week that garnered no media coverage: internal elections for offices in the Libertarian Party of Northern Virginia.

Voters and the media pay little attention to Libertarian and other smaller party candidates except when they poll well enough to look like spoilers. That happened in the 2013 gubernatorial election when Robert Sarvis won 5% of the vote, tilting the election, many Republicans believed, from their candidate Ken Cuccinelli to Democrat Terry McAuliffe, and in the 2016 presidential presidential campaign when Gary Johnson at one point polled in the double digits.

Libertarians played no such spoiler role in 2021, yet in off-year elections some 150 of them were elected to local offices across the country, mainly in smaller rural and suburban jurisdictions doubling the number of elected Libertarians. (None were in Virginia.) Perhaps more significantly, Libertarians have been redefining themselves. In the past, the party had a left-leaning streak that stressed such ideas as legalizing all drugs, opening the borders to immigration, and eliminating taxes. Over the past year, though, the Libertarian Party has experienced an internal revolution led by a group called the Mises Caucus.

Ludwig von Mises, an Austrian Jew, fled the Nazis and became a professor of economics at New York University. There he founded a school of free market economics dubbed Austrian economics, along with his Nobel Laureate student Friedrich Hayek, author of the oft-cited book, The Road to Serfdom. (Austrian economics is a specialty of the economics department at Northern Virginias George Mason University.) The ideas of Mises, Hayek, and the Austrian economists have seeped out of the libertarian movement and infiltrated mainstream thinking among conservative Republicans and even some decentralists on the Left.

One of Mises chief concerns were how governments manipulated interest rates and money supplies by creating money and credit and government debt, which he argued causes business cycles. He also explained how government has imperfect knowledge about supply, demand, and opportunities in the economy, information captured by changing prices, and, so, cannot effectively plan an economy.

Hayek wrote more widely on social, political and philosophical topics, and argued that as government planning and intervention creates economic failure, leading to the rise of dishonest, grifting, and brutal politicians who will look for scapegoats to blame for their failed policies.These ideas may be abstract to most people, but they explain what Americans are seeing in the wreckage of the Biden economy.

To outsiders the Mises people might look Trumpian, or at least like a right-populist movement, compared to the left-libertarians. Most Mises libertarians would reject this characterization, pointing to, among other things, their radically pro-free trade advocacy. But they do tend to emphasize private property and free market economics as the core of their politics. Many entered the libertarian movement by working on campaigns for former Congressman Ron Paul, a gold bug and promoter of Austrian economics, who was actually the Libertarian Partys presidential candidate in 1988. However one might describe the Mises Caucus, it shares with many conservative groups de-platforming attacks from Facebook and other tech titans for wrong thought posts about COVID and other policies.

The Libertarian Party has had a decades-long internal struggle between coastal elite campaign consultants and think tank executives, often working in jobs funded by Charles and David Koch, and other libertarians who do not work professionally in politics and the media. The latter have long decried the former as variously Beltway libertarians (the Kochtopus, Craniacs, after former CATO Institute executive Ed Crane) or as liberaltarians because of their alleged need to ingratiate themselves with the Democratic media establishment. In the 1980s these outsider libertarians were led by Murray Rothbard, another Austrian economics professor who was a student of Ludwig von Mises. The professional libertarians sometimes belittle the competenceand messaging of their rivals.

On Saturday 50-odd Libertarian delegates elected new officers in an online convention, and a Mises or right-populist trend was discernible. It looked as if, as in many states, the Mises Caucus had conducted a recruitment drive, persuading Ron Paul fans and others who were not previously in the Libertarian Party to join and become delegates at state and local conventions. (One long-time local Libertarian activist and former LP candidate for Virginia state delegate summed it up: Im not anti-Mises, but I am concerned about a bunch of what are essentially random people populating the entire board.)

Like the Virginia general election, where the GOP routed Democrats, several offices were taken for the first time by candidates who were women or African American.

Jake Berube, a lantern-jawed advertising sales man for conservative media sites like Human Events and the Washington Examiner, was elected chairman over incumbent Adam Theo, a government contractor who had just run as one of several independents for Arlington county council. Theo had identified himself in his race as a progressive libertarian, emphasizing issues like eliminating qualified immunity for law enforcement.

Josie Gallagher, a tax consultant for small businesses and a Ron Paul fan was elected vice chair for Arlington and Alexandria, over Alex Pilkington, a paralegal at the (in)famous Democrat-affiliated law firm Covington and Burling and a former CATO Institute intern who said open immigration would be a primary area of focus.

C.J. Cunningham, another Ron Paul fan, was elected vice chair for Fairfax and Falls Church. Dan Ford, a veteran and the only African American running, was elected vice chair for Loudoun County. William Ogle, a physicist who made his Mises affiliation explicit in his campaign speech, was elected treasurer over Theo associate Katie Wilson. James Waddell was elected secretary and Henry Baraket, an immigrant from the Middle East who said he had fled tyranny and appreciated liberty, was elected as the boards at-large member. As the aforementioned long-term activist summed it up: I dont know anything at all about these guys. Literally never heard their names before today.

Just as Virginias off-year election predicts the 2022 midterms, another long-term activist participating in the convention says it predicts what will happen at the Libertarians statewide convention later this year: Obviously the notable thing is a clean sweep by the Mises Caucus folks. It speaks to the general trend of rapid increase in the size of the Mises Caucus and many small l libertarians joining the Libertarian Party. Based on today, Id anticipate overwhelming support for the Mises Caucus at the statewide convention in a few months. The Virginia Libertarian Party holds its convention in February in Glen Allen.

So, a new caucus is pulling new members into Virginias third largest party, which has shown itself able to affect Virginia elections. But are they just doing this to take over another state party, and its delegation, so they can decide who the Libertarians run as a Presidential candidate in 2024? Or will they use their new recruits to actually run in local and state offices in Virginia?

Northern Virginia resident Bruce Majors has written for The Hill, the Los Angeles Times, Reason, and other publications. He writes a Substack column,The Insurrection.

Read the original:

The Rise of the Mises Caucus - Bacon's Rebellion

For political conservatives, countering big governments alluring but empty promises are challenging. The task is tenfold harder when libertarians pretend to speak for conservatives.

The Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF) was founded, in part, with a bequest from activist Ralph Smeed. A mentor of my old boss, Senator Steve Symms, I spent many hours escorting Ralph around Washington, D.C. He rejected the label conservative, proudly claiming to be a libertarian.

A mutual acquaintance recently mentioned Smeed when talking about the IFF, noting If Ralph could see what it is today, hed be appalled.

Who could predict that Smeeds legacy would today be aiding President Bidens Attorney General, Merrick Garland, to keep parents away from public schools?

Garland has threatened parents passionate about their kids education. Using a letter from the National School Boards Association (NSBA) as a fig leaf, he directed the FBI to investigate a disturbing spike in irate school board patrons.

Keep in mind, Garland heads the same Justice Department refusing to investigate the free speech of Antifa protestors marching down burned and vandalized city streets.

Professor Maud Maron, of Cardozo Law School, an advisor to the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, criticized Garlands move, noting that actual violence should be condemned without reservation, but the incidents cited by the NSBA are not criminal and they definitely do not warrant federal intervention.

Garlands motive is obvious. His own son-in-law sells social-emotional learning assessments that use a racial lens to pigeon-hole students, an approach opposed by many parents. He doesnt want parents challenging school boards and wishes they would stop advocating to improve their public schools. He is joined in that cause by IFF President Wayne Hoffman.

Hoffman has been pushing to get parents to quit public schools altogether. He presumably doesnt know or doesnt care that many rural Idahoans have no alternative. And he may be funded by purveyors of private schooling and home-school curricula, although the IFF is notoriously quiet about who pays their bills.

Hoffman recently attacked public schools for teaching Critical Race Theory (CRT). He conveniently neglected to mention that this turn toward Marxism surfaced early in elite private schools.

Even worse, Hoffman bungled the definition of CRT, a mistake that led Lt. Governor Janice McGeachin to a fruitless survey of statewide curricula. Critical Theory is more about tactics than content. Its insidious outlook on the world is imbedded deep in educational philosophy, influencing how some teachers think, but rarely showing up as a topic in a K-12 classroom.

And getting the theory wrong has had devastating consequences. One teacher in Idahos Magic Valley offers an inspiring syllabus using the Minidoka Internment National Monument as an object lesson. Students learn how widespread fear can lead a government to heavy-handed tyranny despite a constitution that guarantees individual rights. Could any topic be timelier?

After Hoffman scolded legislators for not doing enough to ban CRT, that teacher was warned to downplay the Minidoka lesson a direct result of Hoffmans focus on what history is taught, not how the history either illuminates or obscures constitutional principles.

Making IFF even more problematic is its political grassroots drawing from anti-government voices, including some uncomfortably allied with civil rights objectors. A vocal faction of IFF activists recently affiliated with an organization opposing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

To have any credibility, those of us who oppose CRT need to stand as unequivocal defenders of civil rights. IFF cannot do that.

The democrat running for governor of Virginia has said, You dont want parents coming in on every different school jurisdiction saying, This is what should be taught here. The IFF delivers that same message.

Parents educational choice is a long-desired conservative goal. Libertarians prefer private education. When IFF undermines public schools while parents have limited private alternatives, that sound you hear is principled libertarian Ralph Smeed rolling over in his grave.

Trent Clark, of Soda Springs, is the acting chairman of United Families Idaho and has served in the leadership of Idaho business, politics, workforce and humanities education.

Read more here:

Guest Opinion: Calling out the Idaho Freedom Foundation - Idaho County Free Press

On the latest The Fifth Column episode, cohost Kmele Foster reiterates his argument, previously expressed in a coauthored New York Times op-ed, that banning critical race theory in schools is bad. While discussing to what extent public opposition to this form of racism fueled Republican success in last weeks elections, Foster again claimed there is zero evidence that this particular strategy [of banning CRT in schools] is working.

In practice, these bills create a great deal of uncertainty about how curriculum should be constructed and what constitutes a kid being made to feel uncomfortable or being told they should feel shame on account of their race, he claimed.

He cited a school board meeting in which teachers questioned whether they should now teach the other side of the Holocaust. That is a direct result of these idiotic bans of critical race theory, Foster claimed. Later he also noted that Texas lawmakers are asking state institutions to report whether they are using public resources to buy and promote anti-American and racist books, claiming thats a prelude to book bans.

For one thing, even if Texas lawmakers do take action after they gather this information, they will not be banning books. They may refuse to expend public resources on certain books, but that is not banning them. Actual book bans, actual censorship, would mean what happens with successful full-bore cancel operations from the left: The person with the book is unable to publicly publish or distribute it, even on his own time and dime.

Its a bit like what Twitter and Facebook do to presidents and members of Congress, which libertarians and classical liberals (like Foster claims to be) are always telling us is totally fine because Facebook and Twitter are private companies and they should not be forced to publish and distribute speech they dont agree with.

Well, fine, then, lets spread this libertarian goose sauce around equally. If Twitter shouldnt be forced to platform Donald Trump and Republican Rep. Jim Banks, the good taxpayers of Texas also shouldnt be forced to pay for, distribute, and platform speech they dont agree with through the government institutions they are supposed to democratically control.

Thats not a book or a speech ban, at least according to the reasoning of libertarians like Foster. If any government declines to fund their activities, such speakers and authors would still be free to speak and publish as they wish. They would not be free, however, to force other people to subsidize their speech. (This also gets into how government and monopolies today control public squares and what should be private life by subsidizing and legally preferencing only one politically favored side, a very big aspect of all this that must be saved for additional discussions.)

To Fosters point about college-educated teachers alleged difficulty in understanding pretty obvious laws, it seems likely to me that any nincompoops asking about teaching both sides of the Holocaust are trolling. Its clear what they are legally supposed to teach and not, they just dont want to comply with the law, so theyre getting pedantic, like a middle schooler or a Jesuit. [Update: It turns out Fosters characterization of this story was based on fake news, and I was right: this was a biased curriculum director falsely characterizing the Texas law to local teachers.]

Its only hard for teachers to figure out what they are now allowed to teach if they dont want to understand the message. Just dont be a racist, and youre good. The problem is, some teachers seem to believe they deserve public sinecures to preach the gospel of anti-white hatred. Thats why they just cant accept the laws obvious intent and meaning and move on.

This blends into a point Foster also made in the podcast that I think is dead-on accurate.

Maybe, as opposed to taking a side in an idiotic culture war, if you try to circumvent the whole thing and focus on things that actually matter, like developing pedagogy thats better, like establishing curriculum that works in a more serious way, he said. Im sorry, if you think that the culture war is going to be over because someone passed a ban in Virginia, go look at Texas. Theyre still having problems.

Setting aside the absurd reductionism I know of nobody who thinks CRT, yet alone all the culture wars, will be instantly solved by a state ban Foster is right that CRT bans are not enough. One proof is in those very teachers who are resisting the will of the voters who fund their salaries and supply children to their classrooms.

Critical race theorys hold on the U.S. education and corporate systems is the poisonous fruit of a poisoned tree. To root it out will require a lot more than state and local bans. It requires of the right exactly what the far-left is doing: Systemic thinking.

That means not taking an isolated, whack-a-mole approach that lawmakers might prefer so they can just pass some patch on the problem and send voters home with a pat on the head. It means making a comprehensive, holistic assessment of how so much of American local, regional, state, and even national leaders participate in and even condone open, government-supported racism.

Why are there any teachers, let alone entire unions, teachers colleges, entire teacher training systems, curriculum factories, testing companies, the whole education cabal supporting open racism and anti-American hatred? How is it that such important drivers of American society not only condone but energize hatred against their own predecessors and way of life? How is it not obvious to so many so-called leaders of American society that this ideology they put hundreds of millions of dollars behind is contemptible and incompatible with truth, justice, and the American way?

The very existence and widespread use of CRT is an indictment on the entire system. As such, it requires not merely a one-off response like a ban. It demands a comprehensive evaluation of the entire education system and a total reorientation of its priorities and methods. The neo-racists are right about one thing: Racism in America appears to be pretty systemic. What theyre wrong about is what kind of racism, as well as the right way to address it.

Earlier this year, commentator Richard Hanania made the point, on which I built several related arguments, that critical race ideology has been furthered by U.S. laws and institutions since the 1960s. It hasnt been imposed on America from space aliens, and it hasnt grown entirely organically, its been fostered by years of legal and policy accretions.

So thats another area in which Foster is wrong. Attempts to ban critical race theory from classrooms, Foster also said on the podcast, Dont make any differentiation between what youre doing in kindergarten and twelfth grade, that is f-cking censorship and that is not how you go about changing the culture. The book banners never win, -sshole, full stop.

On the contrary: Taking control of public and private speech, and tilting the many interlocking education monopolies in favor of leftist ideology, has absolutely been a winning strategy for hard-left ideologues. If speech banning didnt work so very, very well, theyd let Trump back on Twitter and conservatives on CNN.

You 100 percent do change culture by changing laws. Thats exactly how we got critical race theory everywhere, as Hanania pointed out this summer: Wokeness is law, he pointed out, going on to detail multiple ways in which government policies force schools and employers into racism in the guise of combatting racism.

If it is law, it can be changed. And it should be, because racism is evil. So, yes, ban teachers from preaching racism on the taxpayers dime. But dont stop there, because government-sponsored racism doesnt stop there, either. Not even close.

Photo U.S. Army photo by Bob McElroy

More here:

Kmele Foster Is Right: Banning Critical Race Theory Isn't Going To Stop It - The Federalist

U.S. Rep. Cindy Axnewill seek reelection in Iowa's 3rd Congressional District, she announced Friday, officially closing the door on a possible run for governor in 2022.

Axne, a West Des Moines Democrat, previously ruled out running for the U.S. Senate,but shehad left open the possibility of running for governor.

She announced the news during a Friday morning taping of Iowa Press on Iowa PBS.

"Folks, I'm going to be running for the United States Congress here in Iowa's 3rd District," she said.

The news comes just days after Republican U.S. Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks said she would compete in the 1st District rather than stay in a newly redrawn 3rd District.

The pair of announcementshelpsolidify the field of candidates that will competein the 3rd District, which includes Des Moines and is expected to be among the most hotly contested races in the country.

More: Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks will run for reelection in new 1st Congressional District

Already, outside organizations like the National Republican Congressional Committee have been targeting Axne with attack ads as they try to unseat vulnerable Democrats.

Axne is one of only a handful of congressional Democrats in the country to win in a district Trump carried in 2020, though she won by a narrow margin. Axne beat Republican challenger David Young by just 1.4 percentage points, 49% to 47.6%. Libertarian candidate Bryan Holder earned about 3.4% of the votea share that some Republicans said undercut Young's effort.

This election cycle, Axne will compete in a new set of counties reorganized under the3rd District as a result of the state's redistricting process.

More: Iowa lawmakers accept second redistricting plan, setting up next decade of politics

Overall, the partisan makeup ofthe new district remainslargely unchanged, with Democrats continuing to account forabout 36% of registered voters and Republicans making up about 34%.

But some geographic shifts could make Axne's reelection campaign more difficult.

Polk and Dallas Counties, the two largest population centers, still anchor the 3rd District. But it loses several counties along the state's western border that Axne had focused on during her previous two terms while addressing severe flooding there, helping her to makeinroads with voters. Instead, the district gains several other rural counties that tend to favor Republicans that Axne has not campaigned in before.

Axne said her job is tomeet those new voters "and tell all those folks that I'm there for them and I've got their back."

"Its about taking my voice out to the people that I would be representing, hearing from them, listening to their concerns and talking with them about how Ive already been putting policy in place to benefit their lives and address those concerns," Axne said. "But also the policy that Im currently working on thats helping them."

Those issues include securing more money for biofuels, lowering prescription drug prices, improving mental health care for veterans and addressing the nation's supply chain problems.

Many of those subjects, Axne said, can be addressed through President Joe Biden's agenda, including a $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill that Biden plans to sign Monday and a $1.75 trillion "Build Back Better" bill that would include money for child care, lower prescription drug prices and pay for education and climate change initiatives.

"I believe that once we get the infrastructure bill signed into law, the Build Back Better Act signed into law, next year folks are seeing expansion of those child care centers, theyre seeing more money in their pocket because of the earned income tax credit or the child tax credit," Axne said."I think about the folks here who are on insulin. Were going to cap it at $35 a month."

No Democrats have announced a challenge to Axne, but a handful of Republicans are competing in a primary election as the party seeks to unseat her.

Among them are state Sen. Zach Nunn of Bondurant, who currently leads the Republican field in fundraising. Nunn raised $281,905 in total receipts during the fundraising quarter that ended in October, giving him $213,779 in cash on hand.

Political newcomer Nicole Hassoof Johnston raised $170,863 and finishedthe quarter with $134,670 in the bank.

More: Why Iowa Democrat Cindy Axne voted for $1.2 trillion infrastructure plan

Retired State Rep. Mary Ann Hanusa, a Council Bluffs resident, previously announced she would run in Iowas 3rd Congressional District. But as a result of redistricting, her home county of Pottawattamie now sits in the 4th District, which is more heavily conservative and represented by incumbent Republican U.S. Rep. Randy Feenstra.

Hanusa told the Des Moines Register she had been waiting on Miller-Meeks' decision before deciding what to do with her own campaign. Had Miller-Meeks chosen to compete in the 3rd District, Hanusa said she would not have challenged her.

"Obviously deference went to Mariannettes decision," Hanusa said. "So now that thats been made, I will look at the situation and consider everything.For right now, the campaigns still on."

Since launching her campaign in April, Hanusa has raised $103,619, including $65,826 in the third quarter. She has$44,718in the bank.

More: A year out, Iowa candidates raise money for 2022 elections; Finkenauer, Hinson rake in most

Gary Leffler, a Republican activist from West Des Moines, has filed a statement of candidacy with the Federal Election Commission, but he has not yet filed financial reports.

Axne goes into the race with about $1.6 million in cash on hand afterraising $757,831 during the third quarter.

Despite outraising her opponents,she knows she's facing an onslaught of ads from national Republican groups.

"I am the number one targeted race by the National Republican Campaign Committee," she said. "They want to take me out so that they can have the House."

In a sign of how competitive the race will be, state and national Republicans quickly issued statements criticizing Axne following her reelection announcement.

"Axne has spent the past two years hiding from Iowans and cozying up to Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden," Republican Party of Iowa Chair Jeff Kaufmann said."Axne represents a continuation of Biden and Pelosi's disastrous agenda and Iowa Republicans are committed to fighting back to stop it."

Brianne Pfannenstiel is the chief politics reporter for the Register. Reach her at bpfann@dmreg.com or 515-284-8244. Follow her on Twitter at @brianneDMR.

Stephen Gruber-Miller covers the Iowa Statehouse and politics for the Register. He can be reached by email at sgrubermil@registermedia.com or by phone at 515-284-8169. Follow him on Twitter at @sgrubermiller.

View post:

Cindy Axne will run for reelection in Congress, closing the door on Iowa gubernatorial bid - Des Moines Register

In this week's Reason Roundtable, Matt Welch, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Peter Suderman, and Nick Gillespie gather to berate one of the most expensive legislative packages in U.S. history and discuss some significant takeaways from last Tuesday's elections.

Discussed in the show:

1:52: That $2.1 trillion (yes, trillion) infrastructure bill that just passed.

20:35: Lessons from last week's elections.

29:05: Weekly Listener Question: I'm an attorney. All of my colleagues and I are fully vaccinated, yet we wear masks in the office. We are all required to be vaccinated. I hate it. Your response would be to find another job. I think Peter just had the audacity to suggest that switching employers is similar to going to a different restaurant because you don't like the spaghetti at the Olive Garden. For me, libertarianism is more than just a paradigm for government. It's a life philosophy. I am weary of the idea that anything goes, even if it's bad, as long as it only happens in the private sector. I am writing this email using a ridiculous pseudonym because I would not want my employer to know that I read and listen to Reason. They could fire me if they associate me with anything that looks un-woke; is this OK with you? Sure, I could quit my job. But any other job will have the same requirements. That doesn't really represent choice. Out here in the real world, you do not get to choose your job so easily. I do not have the option of being a professional libertarian. So I jab and mask, so I can keep making enough money to help my parents, no matter what I believe or what I wish to do with my body. This is OK with you?

41:53: The unveiling of the OSHA/vaccine mandate specifics.

51:58: Media recommendations for the week.

This week's links:

Send your questions to roundtable@reason.com. Be sure to include your social media handle and the correct pronunciation of your name.

Today's sponsors:

Audio production by Ian KeyserAssistant production by Regan TaylorMusic: "Angeline," by The Brothers Steve

Read more:

The Infrastructure Bill Makes Building Back More Expensive - Reason

Of all the speeches at this months National Conservatism Conference, Missouri Sen. Josh Hawleys call for men to abandon video games and pornography for work and family has drawn the most attention.

The Washington Post, NPR, and Axios all followed up with stories questioning Hawleys premise: that through policy choices and cultural messages, the Left has devalued men and weakened the nation.

The Washington Posts coverage by Christine Emba was the most encouraging as Emba readily admitted that increasing numbers of men are disconnected from their work, families and children. And that mens labor force participation has fallen from 80 percent in 1970 to 68 percent in 2021. And that more men are deciding to opt out of higher education. And even that pornography is a problem.

Embas only real beef with Hawley appears to be that he should be pressed to offer solutions.

But Hawley did!

We must rebuild an economy in this country in which men can thrive. And that means rebuilding those manufacturing and production sectors that so much of the chattering class has written off as relics of the past, Hawley said before offering a policy solution. We can start by requiring that at least half of all goods and supplies critical for our national security be made in the United States.

Hawley then moved to tax policy, noting, We must make the family the center of political life. There is no higher calling, and no greater duty, than raising a family. And we should encourage all men to pursue it.

I believe the time has come for explicit rewards in our tax code for marriage. Forget the marriage penalty. There should be a marriage bonus. And we should allow the parents of young children to keep more of their own money as well, Hawley said.

Now, one can argue about the feasibility of Hawleys domestic manufacturing requirement or attack his marriage bonus as social engineering, which many of our libertarian friends like to do, but these are real policy solutions being offered to solve the defining problem of our time: the disintegration of the American family.

If anything, we need more politicians like Hawley willing to lead on the issue.

Original post:

Josh Hawley is dead right about men and marriage - Washington Examiner

Marco Rubio may not perceive the lack of historical awareness (and ironic comedy) in his speech to a conservative conference last week, but you might.

Last week, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) addressed the National Conservatism Conference in Orlando, Florida. According to the National Conservatism website, the gathering is dedicated to reviving the nationalism that binds us, so that we can flourish together. We see the rich tradition of national conservative thought as an intellectually serious alternative to the excesses of purist libertarianism, and in stark opposition to political theories grounded in race, they say, with a nod to the specter of CRT.

Since the conference brings together the best the modern American conservative movement has to offer and defines the future conservatives want, I thought it most profitable to really dig into Rubios speech. As the lightly edited transcript on his site says, The thing I really like about this conference is about thinking, listening, learning and ultimately defining what it means to be a conservative in the 21st century. When people in power offer this kind of insight, its best to listen up.

To get at the heart of what Marco Rubio is offering to us, Im going to delve into (and quote heavily from) the more-polished, cleaned-up version that The American Conservative printed as a Rubio op-ed, titled We Need Corporate Patriotism To Defeat American Marxism.

There was a time when, to paraphrase Charles Wilson, what was good for big American companies was good for America. But today, led by a generation of leaders who feel no obligation to our nation, corporate America is the instrument of anti-American ideologies. This is a bold opening for Marco Rubio, who has taken a great deal of money in contributions from individuals and PACs associated with the likes of Raytheon, Goldman Sachs, and Bank of America. However, it is clear that the sort of nationless rich and companies that would hide their money overseas really dont feel an obligation to our nation. Go on, Marco, tell us more.

The collapse of corporate patriotism opened the door for these companies to fall for anti-American ideologies The companies that control the vast majority of Americas economic resources and curate the information we see and hear on a daily basis now say that America is a racist or sexist country. A country based upon stealing land by displacing or outright killing the original residents, built by enslaved people brought in chains because they were perceived as stupid and servile and because their darker skin would make them stand out, and which, even now, still reverberates with cries of build the wall! by people who cheered separating brown children from their parents, is racist? I wonder how anyone could get that impression.

These oligarchs believe the very existence of America is fatally flawed, and they are devoting hundreds of billions of dollars to advance corporate propaganda that reflects these beliefs. They aim to remake our society, our culture, and our country. They aim to redefine what constitutes a good life in America. Is Marco Rubio objecting to companies being able to spend money as a form of speech? Im sure hell get to work right away to help pass a law overturning Citizens United, then. As far as what constitutes a good life in America, I have some suggestions. How about not poisoning Americans via decaying lead plumbing? Or earning a wage that lets you raise your kids above the poverty level? Or mitigating sea level rise in Florida? Rubio had the chance to support a package like this, but voted it down and called it socialist.

For over a century these have been the tactics used by Marxists to take over countless nations and societies. Marxists use corporate oligarchs to promote the struggle of the working class to seize the means of production? For real? If we do not fight back, we will lose America. No, Marco dear, youre losing America by feeding the oligarchs. I didnt start paying attention yesterday, you know. This is not hyperbole. In fact, is it very familiar to the Americans I was raised by and those I still live among, who witnessed Marxist revolutions take over their homelands. Is Marco Rubio asserting that corporations have taken over Cuba?

But the battle against cultural Marxism will not be won by relying on an outdated Wall Street Journal Conservatism that does not fully address the challenges faced by working Americans in our 21st century economy. No, the Chamber of Commerce wing of the Republican party has no interest in addressing the problems of working Americans, except to hold them further underwater. That is why big businesses have funded both major American parties for so long.

Defining conservatism as just cutting regulations and taxes works well for the nationless companies headquartered in America. However, those companies have no incentive to reinvest in Americas families, communities, or future. If Rubio is firing a shot over the bow of Corporate America here, well know in the coming months as his voting record begins to evidence his support for more regulations and higher taxes on these nationless companies, in order to invest in American families, communities, and future. If he doesnt, this is so much hot air. Keep an eye on him.

It is time we push companies to meet their obligations to America. The GOP has long been a coalition party that brought together free market libertarians and social conservatives in order to enact policies that please both. In practice, this results in a worldview that grants corporations rights as if they were flesh-and-blood people, but without the moral obligations that real people feel. Is Rubio leaving behind the free market ideology that now defines his party? What would Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand say?

What does that look like? Since these nationless companies got many of their corporate privileges from the policies of the United States government, we should use those policies to reward and incentivize corporate decisions that promote a strong and prosperous America. This is edging very close to the planned economy that conservatives have long derided as failed Communism, but OK.

First, that means getting wokeness out of the boardroom. At a minimum, we should require that the leadership of large companies be subject to strict scrutiny and legal liability when they abuse their corporate privilege by pushing wasteful, anti-American nonsense. Its interesting that Marco Rubio suddenly wants to police corporations this closely. If companies are getting woke (that is, supporting human rights, alleviating poverty, caring about the environment, and other similar goals), its because theyve decided that these actions are profitable and serve the interests of the shareholders. Henry Ford, capitalist icon, knew that his workers needed to be able to afford his products. Maybe Ford was too woke for Rubios taste.

For example, we can use the current shareholder primacy argument against these companies. Right now, the burden is on the shareholder to prove these woke, anti-American stanceslike boycotting a state for governing its own election lawsare bad for shareholders. Instead, we should place the burden on the company to prove it is acting in the best interest of shareholders. If companies like Coca-Cola, Major League Baseball, and Delta Airlines are bowing to public pressure and leaving Georgia, perhaps keeping their customer base is more in line with shareholder interests than is supporting voter disenfranchisement. If their politically active customers (and Georgias voters) are Americans, its hard to consider these positions to be anti-American.

Second, that means a stock market that holds companies accountable for pro-American goals hahahahahaha gasp pardon me rather than left-wing social engineering or globalist profiteering. We should require that companies disclose to investors and be held to account for their investment in Americafacilities, workforce training, number of Americans hiredas opposed to off-shoring jobs overseas, or showing how diverse their workplaces are. Oh, Marco Rubio, your memory is so short that youre failing to remember how proud your fellow conservatives were of St. Ronald Reagans stance regarding globalization. Free and open markets, not a komissar in every boardroom. In 2018, the Republicans passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, signed into law by President Trump and which Marco Rubio himself voted for, which incentivized offshoring of American jobs. It passed the Senate with only Republican support. Whos woke now?

[W]e should have requirements that companies boards of directors be free of any conflicts of interest with foreign adversaries such as China. Suddenly conflicts of interest bother Marco Rubio.

When regular workers save for retirement, they shouldnt have to give over the control of their investments to investment funds that will command the company to act against those workers own interests 401(k) retirement accounts exploded during the Reagan administration. Reagan ran on the idea of privatized retirement savings (like IRAs), and changed the law to expand adoption of the 401(k). As a result, employers started offering them as a benefit, instead of actual pensions, while the resulting increase in stock market investment made the investor class even richer. Conservatives have long favored dismantling, even privatizing, Social Security, forcing those who want to save for retirement to turn to investment funds instead of employers and the Government. Rubios commentary here is comedy gold.

For example, the retirement fund for Americas service members, the TSP, should be banned from investing in Chinese military companies, or using service members savings to push American companies off-shore to China. That is something Congress can fix right now and on which there is bipartisan agreement OK, do it, Mr. Rubio. See if your fellow conservatives will bite.

One solution would be to mandate that these institutional shareholders merely send in the votes of the ultimate beneficiaries of these funds, rather than vote on their behalf. There would be a lot less craziness in Americas corporations if the people voting their shares were firefighters and teachers rather than their union bosses or Wall Street. I wonder if he would soon find just how many woke firefighters and teachers we have.

The ultimate way to stop the current Marxist cultural revolution among our corporate elite is to replace them with a new generation of business leaders who consider themselves Americans, not citizens of the world. I simply cant get over just how badly Marco Rubio wants to stop Marxism via state control of corporations.

That is how we defeat this toxic cultural Marxism and rebuild an economy where Americas largest companies were accountable for what matters to America: new factories built in America, good jobs for American families, and investments in American neighborhoods and communities. It sounds like Marco wants what actual Socialists have pushed for while his conservative pals have been shoveling jobs out the door and failing to invest in our communities or our future, to better enrich the already-rich. Welcome to the dark side, Comrade, heres your commemorative hammer-and-sickle lapel pin.

It is not too late to get it right, but we have no time to waste in restoring what has made this nation great for so many generations. What made this nation great is mostly the practices and policies that Marco Rubio and his party have opposed since at least the time of Nixon, if not the Gilded Age. Ill be interested to see if his voting starts to match his rhetoric, or if this pretty patriotic speech is simply opening the door to something much uglier. If this is the best, most intellectually serious discourse that the conservative movement has to offer, though, we should all be a little worried over whats become of the American political scene.

Related: If MLB is a State Actor, Who Else is Too?

Original post:

The BS is Strong with Marco Rubio - Legal Reader