Cruz Control

Depending on the pundit you read, Ted Cruz either destroyed his political future with last night’s speech—or he insured it. My guess is that he bought himself an insurance policy.

As I see it, the next four years are going to be tough. Neither Clinton nor Trump seem to offer much promise of easier times ahead. Clinton’s brand of cronyism would operate within fairly well-understood bounds and would be kept in check by “the system,” but it would not be generally beneficial for America. Trump’s administration would be a wild card. Even if it turned out to be more good than bad, it would be disruptive. After 12 years of Obama and Whoever, the electorate will be even angrier that it is today. I’ll bet we are about to elect a one-term president. Come 2020, “I told you so,” may be a useful subtext to have running through a campaign. The slogan “A Return to Normalcy” worked in 1920. It may be ripe again a century later.

We’ll see.

The Republican’s have several young potential candidates to groom over the next four years. Who do the Democrats have? Martin O’Malley?

It’s gonna be a rough four years.

Amending the Bill of Rights

Over at WaPo, Dave Weigel has a piece about Hillary Clinton’s promise to seek to “amend” the First Amendment in order to eliminate the Citizens United Supreme Court Decision. That’s an important personal goal for her because what that decision actually did was tell the Federal Election Commission that it could not prevent Citizens United from showing a video that told inconvenient truths about Hillary Clinton within 60 days of an election. She views that as a severe flaw in the First Amendment.

Of course, that’s not the only part of the pesky Bill of Rights that she feels needs … um … modernizing … yeah, that’s the sort of word she’d use … modernizing. Clearly, the Second Amendment will have to go entirely, and the Fourth and Fifth will need work as well, except as they might apply to certain charitable foundations.

That Pesky Bill of Rights

I’m old enough to remember (now, there’s a line that getting a lot of work these days) when folks on the Left were all for the Bill of Rights. The narrative back then was that it was the Right that opposed free speech or due process. Today, many of the generation that marched in the streets in the ’60s have risen to become part of the Establishment. It seems that many a former “revolutionary” no longer want to stick it to the Man now that he has become the Man. So we have recently had a bunch of geezers sitting in the well of the House of Representatives demonstrating in favor of a bill to suppress the Fifth Amendment right to due process and the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Somehow, they seemed braver when they were sitting at lunch counters five decades ago.

The First, Second, and Fifth Amendments are now under overt attack. The Fourth Amendment is a target as well. Those of us who still think that the Bill of Rights is worth keeping need to keep hitting back. I suggest that we do not limit ourselves to only twice as hard.

One more thing … why are they going on about rifles now? Fifty years ago, it was all about “Saturday Night Specials,” inexpensive handguns that the wrong people could afford for self-protection. Now, it’s rifles: “Military-style” “weapons of war.” It’s almost as if someone is afraid of an armed populace that would be able to resist …

How Not to Sell Gun Control

Scott Adams has a post up that looks at the problems the two major parties have reaching any compromise on gun control. His analysis boils down to

But Democrats are unlikely to talk Republicans out of gun ownership because it comes off as “Put down your gun so I can shoot you.”

Read the whole thing.

Fallout from Brexit

Peter Hitchens takes a look at the alliance of disaffected Brits who voted to leave the EU last week. He writes in the Daily Mail that the formal alliance of the Tory and Labour nomenclatura to support the Remain campaign sparked a new alignment among the electorate.

It has brought together two groups who had never really met before. The first group are the social and moral conservatives, whose views the Blairised Tory Party despised, while it still relied on their money and their votes. The second are the working-class families whose votes the Blairised Labour Party relied on, while it dismissed and ignored their concerns.

And …

What we need is for the Tory Party and the Labour Party to collapse and split and be replaced by two new parties that properly reflect the real divisions in the country.

Since both the old parties are empty and decrepit, with few active members and reliant on state support and dodgy billionaires, the collapsing and splitting bit should not be too hard. The replacement is up to us, the British people, who have now demonstrated our power if we unite.

Marginalized voters on the Left and marginalized voters on the Right revolting against their party leaderships—why does this sound familiar?