A Bit of Fact Checking


She Guevara (aka Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) was on CNN claiming that Medicare for all would be less expensive that our current healthcare because “incorporating the costs of all the funeral expenses of those who die because they can’t afford access to health care. That is part of the cost of our system.”

Speaking from my family’s experience, the cost of a funeral is generally a bargain compared to the cost of a few months of medical expenses for an elderly person, and downright cheap compared to the cost of a few months of cancer.

When the retirement age for Social Security was set at 65 back in the ’30s, that was slightly longer than average life expectancy. Increasing life expectancy has broken that system. I had to wait until I was 66 to collect a full-size Social Security check. If the system were now rigged as it originally was, I should be waiting to collect until I’m almost 80.

Putting us old folks on Medicare increases costs. Burying us would save money. Putting everyone on Medicare … if you think healthcare is expensive now, just wait till it’s “free.”

Math is hard.

Medicating Moonbats


Howie Carr has a column over at the Boston Herald about how the moonbats have been plagued by Trump Derangement Syndrome. He quotes from tweets from Progressives about how Trump has impacted their health. Weight gain and depression seem rampant.

They used to call St. Petersburg “God’s waiting room,” because everyone was on death’s doorstep. Now the internet is God’s waiting room. The end is near. Half of Hillary’s voters may soon be dead of strokes or heart attacks, if they don’t first overdose on their antidepressants or trash their livers guzzling chardonnay in the morning.

Is there any effective treatment for Trump Derangement Syndrome?

Dr. Carr was going to suggest another possible cure for the moonbats’ depression: look at your 401(k) statements.

But then Dr. Carr realized, you have to have a job to have a 401(k). Never mind, moonbats. Go back to the bottle.

Read the whole thing.

Spoiled Brat Mode?


Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has been making his rounds of Capitol Hill for meetings with Senators. To date, no Democrat has met with him. Such treatment of a Supreme Court nominee is unprecedented, and it looks to me like a snit fit by disappointed losers.

The choice of Antonin Scalia’s replacement and subsequent nominees to the Court was an issue in the 2016 elections. Trump won; Clinton lost. The Republican’s failure to confirm Merrick Garland to the Court was an issue in the 2016 elections. The Republicans retained control of the Senate; the Democrats lost. Schumer haz sad! What he and his fellow Democrats don’t have is the raw power to stop the Kavanaugh nomination.

It looks as if the Senate will advise and consent to the nomination with very few votes from Democrats. The Republicans have the votes to do it and to do it before the end of this Congress. It may be that the Democrats will flip the Senate in the next election, but that will be too late. Scalia and Kennedy will have been replaced with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. If the Democrats flip the Senate, they will have some say in the choice of the replacement for the next vacancy (Ginsburg? Breyer?), but they will have to win some elections first. Do they really think that acting like spoiled brats will help them do that?

Trump Derangement and Losing


If I hadn’t died from the lack of Net Neutrality some months ago (or was it that tax cut that got me?), I probably would have thought that Victor Davis Hanson’s post over at American Greatness looking at Just How Far Will the Left Go? was interesting.

The progressive hysteria reveals the lack of an idea. Kill, humiliate, delegitimize Trump is not a sustainable political agenda whether winning a local assembly seat or a liberal majority on the Supreme Court. But then neither are socialist ideas. If the Left was intellectually honest it would run in November on what it now professes are its new core beliefs: the abolition of ICE, the end to all deportations, open borders, expansions of affirmative action, abortion on demand, and identity politics, cancellation of student debt, universal Medicare-like coverage for Americans of all ages, massive tax hikes, more regulations, and less fossil fuel production, and an EU-like socialist-democratic foreign policy.

The problem is that the above is probably not a 51percentwinnable program. And progressives fear that their base will not allow them to move to the center to capture the old blue-collar white working class, or the Perot, Tea-Party and Blue Dog voter. Nor can they afford to move much further leftward, given they are increasingly dependent on Obama-like identity politics candidates without an Obama-like charismatic candidate.

Democrats privately acknowledge that Obama wrecked the Democratic Party—losing Congress, the presidency, state and local offices, and now the Supreme Court. But they must praise the forces of that wreckage and seek to trump them by becoming the party of hyper-identity politics. In other words, the Democrats know what sort of agenda might bring them back into power as it did in 1992. But they feel that Clintonesque cure is worse than the disease of being in the purer political wilderness without power.

So, for now, they rant, they rave, and they stew, accepting that they cannot do what might save them and therefore they only do more of what is destroying them. Out of that lose-lose dilemma was birthed Trump hatred. Without a persuasive argument, progressives came up with the mantra that Trump is a traitor, and that all they needed to do was to explain to supposedly dense voters that their current economic renaissance was actually jackbooted National Socialism.

How far will the Left go? I fear that we have seen nothing yet.

Read the whole thing.

Good Populism


Victor Davis Hanson is a classist and historian. That background is apparent in his post over at The New Criterion called The Good Populism. He points out that there have been two types of populism in the West since ancient times. One is populism of the urban mob—the Roman turba, the French Revolution, Antifa. The other is the populism of the middle class—the mesoi, the American Revolution, the Tea Party. Hanson suggests that it was the middle guy being feed up with the “elites” catering to the mob that paved the way for Donald Trump.

So Trump was a populist nemesis visited upon the hubris of the coastal culture. When he took on “fake news,” when he tweeted over the “crooked” media, when he railed about “globalists,” when he caricatured Washington politicians—and ranted non-stop, shrilly, and crudely—a third of the country felt that at last they had a world-beater who wished to win ugly rather than, as in the case of John McCain or Mitt Romney, lose nobly. As a neighbor put it to me of Trump’s opponents, “They all have it coming.”

The targets of Trump’s ire never quite understood that the establishment’s attacks on him, and their own entitled appeals to their greater sensitivity, training, experience, education, morality, class, and authority, were precisely the force multipliers that made Trumpism so appealing.

In 2016, pundits and experts had focused mostly on the populism of the race, class, and gender brand, and its would-be champions Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, who sought to channel the new identity, youth, and feminist politics for their own advantage.

All had forgotten that there was also another populist tradition, lying dormant. It was a quieter but far more potent bomb just waiting to blow up—if someone ever would be so uncouth and angry enough to detonate it.

Read the whole thing.

They’re Not Going to Like the New Rules


John Hinderacker has a post over at PowerLine about the recent mobbing incidents of Republican officials and Maxine Waters’ call for more of the same.

We are rapidly approaching the point where there won’t be any alternative but to fight fire with fire. Where does Waters do her grocery shopping? Where does she gas up her car? Does she go out to eat? Does she attend movies or concerts? Does she walk on foot to her House office? Any time Maxine Waters is in public, why doesn’t she fear that a mob of conservatives will descend on her like the mobs of Democrats she incites?

Obviously, she relies on the knowledge that conservatives are better people than liberals and will not engage in the liberals’ contemptible tactics. But that assumption has gotten to be way too comfortable for liberals. Isn’t it about time that we act to deter further outrages from the Left, like the ones we are now seeing on a daily basis?

Read the whole thing.

I don’t endorse such harassment of anyone. Indeed, I wonder why Waters should be immune from the sort of civil actions being filed against rightwing bloggers for the acts of third parties.

Exit question for the ACLU: If the protections of Brandenburg v. Ohio don’t apply to someone who said nothing to incite violence, why should Waters and others who appear to be actively inciting mob action get a free pass?

UPDATE—Glenn Reynolds suggests that a soft civil war has already begun.

The rules of bourgeois civility also helped keep things in check, but of course those rules have been shredded for years. We may come to miss them.

Read the whole thing.