Substack Chronicles: Part 2

(Letter from the Editor)

(See Part 1)

By: E. Kyle Richey

On November 19, 2020 I announced here on Truth In Focus the beginning of my first Substack account, E.K.R. Report:

My how things have grown! The E.K.R. Report expands exponentially in content and audience. As of 2021, I have written eight posts, but the content is intended to be more in-depth and less sporadic while remaining more personal in my analysis on art, food, culture, and the political madness playing out in front of us. Of this year, I believe my most prophetic and accurate article is from the title: Inauguration D-Day: The New Kids On The Block Of Destruction, Power, and Romance. Here is a glimpse:

Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Amazon, and Apple are easy targets these days as they shutdown the President, Parlor, and anyone they consider radical. This week Facebook Ugandan pro-Museveni accounts ahead of election and in response Uganda blocked Facebook. Tensions such as these will continue for the foreseen future as the global elite solidify their great reset. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey was recorded saying as much. Big Tech is an oversimplification however as multinational corporations connected to environment, health, safety and sustainability (EHS&S) have their hands and funds in superpowers around the world in nearly every field. However, Big Tech does describe their endless scope which has obliterated privacy. Data is no longer simply a commodity, but a source of knowledge that filters through the veins of corporate and state; an intoxicating line of tubes, lines, ports, and catheters the system of our world is too interconnected to breakaway without a system malfunction or worse, a breakdown. Whatever the United States once was—a republic or a democracy —is now an administrative state of technocrats who know no boundaries between private or public lines in either the corporate and state or the freedom of speech and the rights of parents. Those days are now over, yet few realize it.

Corporatism was once a dirty word amongst progressives who now sit on the boards of Fortunes 500 companies. We are beyond the Industrial-Military complex, this is the beast of an entirely different nature. Our political ecology has evolved before our eyes with the belief that a three branch government and a few old documents could hold the tides of tyranny and change. That myth too is over. A national security state or the surveillance state is the new normal—totalitarianism is here to stay. To be fair this is the result of success and failures of modernity as humanity enters uncharted territory of climate change, limited resources, animal and planet extinction, higher exposure to viruses and sickness, and environmental elements that knocked man back to reality.

Our world is always passing away. Decay is the natural state and to that natural state we have returned. Elites are concerned about the future no matter their political persuasion. Take Elon Musk as an example of a man who like Stephen Hawking believes our only true hope is to find a new planet.

Corporate billionaires run our planet and our universe or so they think. Secular at heart these men look to the stars as means to be conquered. But fair warning, space travel is a humanist pipe dream; an illusion that will end in disaster. There are no planets in our galaxy nor near our galaxy that will house the next earthlings. Earth—Eden—is our birthplace and our tomb. Our only hope is to save the planet or risk losing it all. And perhaps that is and always has been part of God’s final plan. Ironic that humanity will be the sealers of their fate.

Click Here to Read the entire post: Inauguration D-Day: The New Kids On The Block Of Destruction, Power, and Romance

Serendipitously the toxic fumes of politics had breached my mind a bit too much as I noted in, New Directions: Moving Beyond the Political:

Here at Substack the purpose is to be more personal and maybe even a slight bit more careless, not in reason or emotion, but taking risks in discussing issues that are raw. Yes, a few articles even used language. I used those for merely aesthetic reasons, lessons learned from some of my favorite writers including Christians. And I was being apropos to both Rod Dreher and another time directly referencing the actual words of the Apostle Paul. Nevertheless, being careful with my words in times such as these are important.

I can only hope that my readers can take to heart that these ideas of mine are always open to discussion and critique. And I am very well. Just choosing to go through life publicly at a time when more and more choose to be quiet or private. But in fairness, the political discussions are ending today. No more for a time being anyways.

What does that mean for the various writings? For one, Truth In Focus will continue to be a philosophical and theological grounding point of thought and analysis. Granted, the topics at hand need to remain practical i.e. about present events, therefore I will be working on to improve the practical side of it, while also making it simple. Simple is not a bad word, in fact, it is being used here to mean in the utmost positive. In our age, many issues are complex. Issues such as living wages, abortion, C19, gun rights, corruption, etc. Matters, if ones that I believe only have one answer, are still complex in their planning and application. They require a greater simplicity, not sophistry and unhelpful rhetoric. At TIF I want to provide a much more thoughtful application events and issues. And to study ideas and their consequences. To make principles, not politics.

Click Here to Read the entire post in its entirety: New Directions: Moving Beyond the Political

As my personal Substack continues to evolve and develop I proud to announce the second Substack with my friend Thomas Doane titled: Philosophosaurus Rex:

Taking the helm of three sites can be a bit daunting let alone the content I am trying to put together on Youtube (All Things Veritas), Facebook (Truth In Focus), and Instagram page (Merebeautyintruth). My mind is constantly running through the various ways in which I can connect these together into a single network. Philosophosaurus Rex is beginning to pick up steam this month as seen from my article on February 5 2021, In the Beginning Was Philosophy and The Earth Was Material:

Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

— Genesis 2:7

Every story has a starting place. Our starting place with philosophy will begin with the early greeks and pre-socratics. My systematic study will evolve overtime as books and essays are included in the study I am about to present. At the moment, this is the literature review:

Literature Used (updated as I go)

A History of Philosophy Vol. 1 Pre-socratics to Plotinus, Frederick Copleston S.J. Ref (Copleston, V1)

Early Greek Science: Thales to Aristotle, GER Lloyd. Ref (Lloyd, EGS)

There will be instances of going back and forth as additional sources are added for the sake of context. The way I intend to develop this study is to use the following approach:

• Historical Oriented
  • Ideas/Concepts, Cultures, and Individuals
• Subject Specific
  • A book and/or paper on Idea, Culture, Person(s)
• Philosophically Focused
  • A philosophically focused/directed book and or paper on the Ideas and Persons

Historical context is the central theme of study and through it we can then engage with specifics both the subject matter and the philosophical nature of that subject. Please bare with me as I am sure I will need to explain that more at another time.

The notes you are about see are in relation to the books mentioned. Some are quotes while others are of my own. Again, this will slowly evolve and grow as I pursue forward with this process.

Continuing reading here is you are interested in that series: In the Beginning Was Philosophy and The Earth Was Material

Thomas is busy completing his degree in theology but he is aiming to start a series on his own concerning the book, Studies in Religious Philosophy, by Robert W. Hall, titled: A Pilgrimage Towards Knowledge:

So, as I begin this path, I would like to share with you in this pilgrimage, from what I have learned and the insights gained, to the joys and pains that will accompany the long road ahead. As I finish my final term in my undergraduate studies, I will share with you the insights gained from a book that one of my professors gifted to me

Studies in Religious Philosophy, by Robert W. Hall. What I hope to accomplish is a primer in the Philosophy of Religion that will prepare me for the more rigorous studies ahead and by doing so, share with you, the reader the historical, philosophical, political, and religious observations that are gained through the chapters I read. I hope this to be a systematic approach of what is a synopsis of some very difficult topics to examine and thus share with you in my education.

You can read everything Thomas has to say here: A Pilgrimage Towards Knowledge

Books, principles, ideas, politics, theology, policies… the themes run through all the sites but I promise each piece will be unique on the whole. Continued streams of thought only helps me and the reader as we pursue into the darkness with our lamps shining bright.

So far so good as I can tell. Substack’s newsletters don’t appear to fail as they do here on WordPress. Additionally, the founders of Substack have promised to not censor others over “hate speech” i.e. free speech that people do not concur as truth or real or polite etc. It is difficult to gain traction though that is the internet isn’t? Unless you are already famous enough, these matters take time. Overall the network is friendly, easy to utilize, and accessible.

Once more I have reached my place to bid you farewell until next time take ear to the first half of Proverbs 16:6:

By mercy and truth iniquity is purged

Too Divided To Stand: Election 2020 & The Future of America

(Insight)

By E. Kyle Richey

As the days pass the world waits on the ballots to be counted with fraud investigations beginning, U.S. court handling disputes, and protestors marching in the streets for their cause or candidate (or both); the very legitimacy of the United States government along with the Media and Corporate America now all teeter in the balance. Whoever is elected now enters a more susceptible environment, one that may no longer be able to sustain favor of a wary public. Radicals now seek revenge regardless of who is in office. If Trump is reelected there stands a good chance that radical leftist elements will bring fire to the streets. Should Biden obtain the Presidency, it is uncertain if Trump supporters or even if President Trump himself will stand down; or if Biden himself is mentally up to the task, begging the question, under the assumption that Biden is elected, did half of America actually just elect America’s first black female president? All of these concerns are being asked. Emotions have peaked. Late Modernity’s perpetual state is here. It may be time to consider a different way forward by first stepping back.

Twenty-Eighteen

On September 29, 2018 the following thesis statement was presented before professors at a university:

“Arising from identity-based ideologies, secular modern American colleges and universities have increasingly adopted identity politics into their institutional practices. This adoption has resulted in limited discourses and substantive debates between opposing ideological, philosophical, scientific, and theological systems and their claims. Such practices dilute knowledge which in turn reduces innovation, ideas, and the search for truth. Furthermore, identity-politics is beyond the walls of academia, influencing other public and private spheres. In the wake of these changes, a growing wave of opposition has formed, offering new ideas and possible solutions concerning identity politics. But are these solutions viable?”¹

That was my thesis.

In October of 2018 I presented my theory (a model built for higher education in mind) called: “Collision at the Intersection of Ideas: The Crisis of Identity in Higher Education“²

My argument was that identity-based politics or the ideological belief that a person’s identity whether based on race, gender, sex, age, or even areas of religion were becoming a point of irreconcilable contention within higher education to such a degree that it narrowed actual learning concerning facts, knowledge growth, and differing perspectives all at the determent of the core purpose that is higher learning. I defined Identity Politics from Francis Fukuyama’s book, Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment and a study by Marilynn B. Brewer titled, The Many Faces of Social Identity: Implications for Political Psychology (2001):

Individuals who, through their sense of identity, feel they are being alienated and demand recognition.³

To argue my thesis I had to present the structure of Identity Politics i.e. how it manifests in higher education, prove it existed within higher education, and present studies that demonstrated a conflict with the identity-based culture in colleges and universities (little did I grasp it was also in Christian colleges, seminaries, and churches at that point).

Using my definition of Identity Politics (IP) I proved actual mechanisms or tools within colleges that are utilized administratively by institutions of higher education including:

• Social Justice & Equity
• Hate Speech
• Micro-Aggressions
• Intersectionality
• White Fragility
• Trigger Warning’s
• Sanctuary Campus
• Safe Space
• Phobias (e.g. Transphobia)
• Sexism
• Gender Pronouns

Along with studies that conflicted with the established narrative that universities hold as their position in opposition to other varying opinions (here are some examples I presented at the time):

Microaggressions and Victimhood Culture

Campbell, B., & Manning, J. (2014). Microaggression and moral cultures. Comparative sociology, 13, 692–726.

Campbell, B., & Manning, J. (2018). The rise of victimhood culture: Microaggressions, safe spaces, and the new culture wars. [No city]: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lewis, H. R. (2007). Excellence without a soul: Does liberal education have a future? New York, NY: PublicAffairs. Lilienfeld, S. O. (2017). Microaggressions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(1), 138–169.

Group Polorization & Identity

Cikara, M., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2014). The neuroscience of intergroup relations: An integrative review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(245).

Myers, D. G., & Lamm, H. (1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83(4), 602-627. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.83.4.602

Gender/Sex differences between Males and Females

Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66(3), 710–722.

Deaner, R. O., Balish, S. M., & Lombardo, M. P. (2016). Sex differences in sports interest and motivation: An evolutionary perspective. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 10(2), 73– 97.

LaFreniere, P. (2011). Evolutionary functions of social play: Life histories, sex differences, and emotion regulation. American Journal of Play, 3(4), 464–488.

Safe Spaces and Critical Thinking

Boostrom, Robert. (1998). ‘Safe spaces’: Reflections on an educational metaphor. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 30:4, 397-408. DOI: 10.1080/002202798183549

Barrett, Betty J. (2010) “Is “Safety” Dangerous? A Critical Examination of the Classroom as Safe Space,” The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: 1:1. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2010.1.9

Even in 2018 I could see the intersection between higher education and the workplace or in politics, but I naively believed that Christian Institutions could safe guard themselves from IP.

Within my thesis I wanted to show two important factors at play within and outside of higher education:

1) A “Conflict of Visions” as explained by Thomas Sowell; a vision being “our sense of how the world works” as Sowell elaborates “Visions are the foundations on which theories are built… Visions are very subjective, but well-constructed theories have clear implications, and facts can test and measure their objective validity” (p. 4).⁴ From Sowell’s perspective, the place of conflict comes at the degree in which a vision is constrained or unconstrained; the more constrained a vision the less willing the society or group or person is to act on an issue of importance precisely because that action may result in a reverberation of consequences larger than the original issue. For example, ending a ban on gay marriage. An action of this kind, right or wrong, has consequences in relation to those who oppose gay marriage and are at conflict with other LGBTQ issues beyond just marriage. We see this contention between people of faith and a secular view in terms of rights. Without going into that debate, the unconstrained vision says that this is an act of justice; everyone should have the right to marry whomever they want in the name of love or some ethereal concept. A very real point of contention therefore exists between the two visions and neither vision is always right or wrong, rather Sowell demonstrates the need for logic and facts regardless of a constrained or unconstrained vision. Sowell recognizes the imperfection of reason itself as well along with the real emotional and psychological factors that come with these debates or visions of conflict. Nothing is perfect and that is the point by Sowell. There are no utopias, only gulags when a sect moves toward their utopian ideal which will eventually fail.

2) A collision concerning a conflict of visions had occurred; a collision at the intersection of ideas. Fundamental positions are now incapable of coexisting in a liberal democratic society because identity based politics that liberalism and capitalism, neoliberalism, successfully forged. The beginning decay of Liberalism started at the wake of postmodernism in the late 1940s after a disillusioned populace survived WW2 going into the 1950s with a lost sense of trust in human institutions and a desire for more in life. Old bonds, already decaying, were rupturing by the 1960s and onward. By the year 2000 society had reached a kind of peak as cultures became too convoluted and ideologies had heightened to such a degree that society, or my original focus higher education, was no longer capable of maintaining a real viability: the ability to live, grow, and develop outside an increasingly narrowing scope of indoctrination. Now I did not go as far as calling it indoctrination then, however, I maintained colleges have increasingly deduced arguments to a place of irreconcilable differences or a place of “Us vs Them” mentality.⁵ Conflict had become a wreckage; the ivory tower was now a rubble (a paper I wrote in the beginning of my program).⁶

Visions are the foundations on which theories are built… Visions are very subjective, but well-constructed theories have clear implications, and facts can test and measure their objective validity – Thomas Sowell

By indoctrination I mean to suggest that institutions of higher learning, in order to preserve a status of legitimacy, had to follow and finally instill a progressive moral relativity that slowly influenced colleges which then exported those ideas back into general society. What I learned was that what happened in higher education was happening in the United States and throughout the west.

Today nearly every branch of government and workplace environment is subjected to a form of diversity, equity, and inclusion that goes beyond the boundaries of equality and merit and civil rights. Now a conflict exists to such a level that it slowly forced new convergences and divergences of groups; late modernity (1950 to the Present) was and remains a paradigm shift that now has liberal minded people either “moving” more toward the politically left or politically right; relgious beliefs are in the midst of a defragmentation as Christians and Atheists can more easily find themselves sharing similar social, political, and economic beliefs even though what roots them into their belief about abortion, gender, sex, or economics is not the same. Late modern society is rapidly diffusing but it won’t last forever because it is a paradigm shift, we are merely living in a point at which structures of authority, meaning, purpose, and legitimacy are all changing.

There are two layers concerning a principle of legitimacy as defined by the political scientist Francis Fukuyama: 1) “Legitimacy is not justice or right in an absolute sense; it is a relative concept that exists in people’s subjective perceptions” (p. 15)⁷ and 2) “A lack of legitimacy among the population as a whole does not spell a crisis of legitimacy for the regime unless it begins to infect the elites tied to the regime itself…” (p. 16).⁸ Fukuyama is directly speaking to strong-states, authoritarian states, in the latter point but the principle applies to a democratic society such as the United States.

All societies perform some kind of indoctrination in a general sense. But this was my first inklings of a radical leftist drive toward something entirely different than a “perspective” simply worth learning. No it was something much more. Prior to graduating it became clear that these beliefs aimed to throw Westernized, Christian believing, and anything considered “white” or “privileged” or “hateful” to the lions den. These were racist ideologs; Sowell’s worrisome quest-seeking Social Justice Warriors; Marxist at their core. That is not a political statement. These are real facts. Real people. Real radicals. However, after graduation it became readily apparent that QAnon conspiracies, the Alt-Right, Flat Earthers, and other far-right groups had left reality for an America that could be made great again if only they disperse “the enemy” at large.

Present Distrust

Totalitarian movements are possible wherever there are masses who for one reason or another have acquired the appetite for political organization. Masses are not held together by a consciousness of common interest and they lack that specific class articulateness which is expressed in determined, limited, and obtainable goals. The term masses applies only where we deal with people who either because of sheer numbers, or indifference, or a combination of both, cannot be integrated into any organization based on common interest, into political parties or municipal governments or professional organizations or trade unions. Potentially, they exist in every country and form the majority of those large numbers of neutral, politically indifferent people who never join a party and hardly ever go to the polls. — Hannah Arendt, The Origins Of Totalitarianisms (1951), p. 311

As it stands a vote for Biden or Trump, however unwilling the populace may have been in their desire to vote, represents a repudiation and judgment over the other. A Biden victory is a win against hate, racism, and evil Americanism; a Trump victory is a vanguard against Woke liberalism and Socialism. Neither the ardent supporter nor the wary voter can see past the conflicting viewpoints. They see only a necessary conflict; a good versus evil. Currently Trump voters fear voter fraud in Arizona, Michigan, and other battle ground states. Biden supporters see it has a necessary reckoning after Hillary and Gore. Speculation runs rampant as major news networks and social media censors information including providing their own fact-checking creating a narrative that spins further the chaos. All the while Covid-19 continually magnifies uncertainty. Life at the moment is an upward battle; a fog of present distrust hangs low. No one knows what to believe or why except they having an appetite for politics in the midst of difficult times. Arendt further states:

The chief characteristic of the mass man is not brutality and backwardness, but his isolation and lack of normal social relationships. — Hannah Arendt, The Origins Of Totalitarianisms (1951), p. 317

Trends of loneliness, narcissism, nihilism, and fear have been rising for decades according to sociologist like Robert D. Putnam⁸ along with a great moral and economic bifurcation of White America as demonstrated by Charles Murray.⁹ America is divided and divided absolutely¹⁰ to the point it is frustrating institutions within the paradigm shift of power and authority. Rod Dreher sees the writing on the wall from his publication of Live Not By Lies: A Manual for Christian Dissidents to last night’s (November 5, 2020) blog article, A Divided Country:

Law and order is so fundamental to the conservative stance towards the world. Had the BLM protests not been violent, they would not have stoked the Right so much. This is something that progressives deeply need to understand. On the Right, it’s not reaction against racial justice protests; it’s reaction against violence, and the justification of the violence we heard from many on the Left in the media. Joe Biden’s criticism of the protesters did not ring true…

We are going to remain a divided country. The election solved nothing. The idea, though, that if only we could have gotten rid of Donald Trump, then things would heal, was always an absurd fantasy. We are a divided country because we have lost the core narratives that bound us: a shared Christian faith (however attenuated), and a shared commitment to the historical narrative of America as an imperfect country that always strives to make life better for the next generation than the one that came before it.

We can’t even agree on what America is for anymore.

A Viable Solution

The United States of America has a real solution to resolving the pressures at present, but it comes at the cost of surrendering (a virtue few have) at at time when surrender appears as defeat. It is a mechanism designed within the very fabric of American Constitutionalism. We risk balkanization or greater tyranny if we fail to make this decision. American’s who wish to protect liberty and freedom no matter their political or religious beliefs must re-embrace a Strong Federalism.

Returning power back to the States so much power in fact that the Federal government is paralyzed from enforcing further legal decisions on the states as it has been in the last one hundred years. Believe in high taxes, enormous regulations, and progressive laws? Move to California, Oregon, New York, or Washington state. Let states decide nearly every aspect of life, make their Constitutions have meaning and purpose again. Take elections away from the national pull that desires a single leader, a hero of hope and change. America must loosen its grip by giving power and authority back to the states at the cost of ripping out the cords of a broken federal government and it’s deep state.

Next Time: A Return to Strong Federalism: A Historical and Philosophical Argument for the States

References

¹ Richey, Edward K. 23 September 2018. Collision At the Intersection of Ideas: The Crisis of Identity in Higher Education. Thesis. University of Texas San Antonio.

² Ibid. Presentation.

³ Brewer, M. (2001). The Many Faces of Social Identity: Implications for Political Psychology. Political Psychology, 22(1), 115-125. Retrieved November 6, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3791908

⁴ Sowell, Thomas. 2007. A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles. NY: Basic Books.

⁵ Lukianoff, Greg., Haidt, Jonathan. (2018). The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up A Generation For Failure. New York, NY: Penguin Press.

⁶ Richey, Edward K. 6 December 2017. An Ivory Rubble: Postmodernism & The Collapse of the Modern University and its Impact on Society. University of Texas San Antonio.

⁷ Fukuyama, Francis. 1992. The End of History and The Last Man. NY: The Free Press

⁸ Putnam, Robert. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. NY: Simon & Schuster

⁹ Murray, Charles. 2013. Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010. NY: Crown Publishing

¹⁰ French, David. 2020. Divided We Fall: America’s Secession Threat and How to Restore Our Nation. NY: St. Martin’s Press

And The Election Goes To…

(Opinion)

Take a look at these maps from 270ToWin.com that I gathered:

Except in 1988 and in 2016 Pennsylvania goes blue. Ohio is a tight race at the moment between Biden and Trump. And Florida has been a hanging chad for some time.

As of October 31, 2020 (12:38pm Central Time) Total Early Votes: 90,055,033 • In-Person Votes: 32,698,826 • Mail Ballots Returned: 57,356,207 • Mail Ballots Outstanding: 33,674,445

https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/index.html

It is Republicans to gain at this point. The Polls are showing Biden leading in WI, MI, and PA. Unless Michigan goes Red again, history tends to favor Biden in this election. Ohio is a strange state, but I believe it will fall in Trumps favor. This race will be determined by Pennsylvania. So without any more waiting here is my final unbiased guess on the matter (for what it is worth):

2020 Presidential Election Prediction(s)

Winner: Joe Biden.

OR

Winner: Tie (Goes to Supreme Court)

Update: I wanted to add that the Silent Majority is a real group and people feel threatened in casting their vote for Donald Trump. So this group stands as a real option for Trump to win the election in WI, MI, and PA. And I do think Nevada is in Trumps favor due to the fear of more lockdowns and impact on tourism for a state that lives off of it.

Winner: Donald Trump

Glenn Greenwald, Walled By The Radical Left

It’s bad when Glenn Greenwald is silenced for an article on Biden. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/my-resignation-from-the-intercept

And Article on Joe and Hunter Biden Censored By The Intercept: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-biden-censored

More on this tomorrow. But I want to say that I have and remain a supporter of Greenwald and his fine work.

Thy Week, Thus Far: Trump Vs Biden Vs God

(Podcast)

Links to all articles mentioned:

Policies, Persons, and Paths to Ruin by John Piper https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/…

John Piper, Me, and the Cool Shame Election by Doug Wilson https://dougwils.com/books-and-cultur…

Christians, Conscience, and the Looming 2020 Election by Al Mohler https://albertmohler.com/2020/10/26/c…

Christian Witness Demands That We Defend Truth—and Reject Donald Trump by O. ALAN NOBLE https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/20…

For Whom Should a Christian Vote: Moral Reasoning and the 2020 Election https://theopolisinstitute.com/for-wh…

Thy Week, Thus Far

(Wednesday October 14, 2020)

A Weekly Wednesday Dose of Truth

Zeno of Elea by Carducci or Tibaldi

Articles, Podcasts, and Videos

C-SPAN. Amy Coney Barrett hearings are going on this week. Today marks the third day of the confirmation hearings. The whole process has turned into a circus by all standards. Clearly qualified Judge Barrett has handled everything with grace. If either political party wanted real hearings they would have welcomed Judge Robert Bork during his confirmation. Though Bork came off less pleasant on TV he was the most open and academic appointee the Senate had seen in decades. But perhaps the Senate does not care about honesty or openness from judges except when it meets their political gain? See: Amy Coney Barrett Hearings.

Niall Ferguson (Historian/Author). Ferguson wrote a poignant (sharp) and precise article on October 4 that requires reiterating. Titled, A Craving for Normalcy Spells the End of a Populist Presidency, the article parallels the race between Warren G. Harding (R) and James M. Cox (D) after Woodrow Wilson was nearing his second term as President of the United States incapacitated and no longer physically fit to be President by October 1919 and his wife Edith Wilson ran the nation. Harding called for a return to normalcy during the election and won by a landslide. Now Ferguson foresees a similar outcome between Trump (R) and Biden (D) with Biden coming out on top. However, Ferguson lists nine reasons why Trump may still win, however unlikely, a list that includes concerns over Black Lives Matter, Amy Coney Barrett, and others. See Article Here: A Craving for Normalcy Spells the End of a Populist Presidency

The New Criterion. Roger Kimball (Editor/Publisher) presents the October Issue and does so with such prose that I wanted to included his podcast here today. Without missing a beat the TNC October Issue, “Ideas have consequences,” covers the absurdities of the radical left that now threaten to dismantle Western Civilization forever. Kimball points his readers to the Allen C. Guelzo and James Hankins essay, Of, by & for the freedmen. Take a listen and take a read: Roger Kimball introduces the October issue.

Riled By Politics: The Fate of the U.S. Supreme Court & The Constitution

(Special Report/Special Edition)

Politics had become the possession of a regime, not an establishment, and there was no role for him, unless he were somehow to create a new one.

– Anthony Everitt, Cicero: The Life and Times of Rome’s Greatest Politician, p. 233

Political discourse has turned acrimonious at the federal level. America’s constitutionally instituted branches are demonstrating immense wear against present social and economic pressures. The latest comes at the wake of Justice Ginsburg’s death this past Friday September 18, 2020 within months of the presidential primary election between incumbent President Donald John Trump and potential candidate elect Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. Yet the U.S. government also faces internal uncertainty as the government grows far and wide beyond the Constitution and the rule of law.

He Said, She Said

Reported by the The Annenberg Public Policy Center’s Fact Check, Joe Biden has blundered on multiple occasions since the passing of Justice Ginsburg¹:

• Biden falsely claimed that “there’s no court session between now and the end of this election.” The next Supreme Court session begins Oct. 5, nearly a full month before Election Day.
• Biden said, “I think the fastest justice ever confirmed was 47 days.” That’s false; since 1975, the shortest time from formal nomination to confirmation was 19 days. 
• Biden exaggerated when he said that 30% to 40% of Americans “will have voted by Oct. 1.” His campaign later told us he meant by Nov. 1 — two days before Election Day.
• He also wrongly claimed the Trump campaign asked him to release a list of potential Supreme Court picks “only after” Ginsburg’s passing. President Donald Trump and his campaign had called on Biden to produce such a list prior to her death.

Democrats fervor over the potential SCOTUS nominee selected by President Trump as Senator Chuck Schumer and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez take to the podium to announce their dismay that the President would dare to defy Justice Ginsburg’s last wish that no nominee be chosen until after the election²:

Senator Schumer: She was an amazing woman. So, the first reason we’re here is unity, and the second is to honor her legacy, to demand that her last wish be fulfilled by the Senate… But the third reason we’re here is the most important of all. So many people’s rights are at stake in this election. The right of people to health care. The President is pursuing a policy which would get rid of all protections for preexisting conditions, which would take healthcare away from 7 million people, and he will appoint a justice that will enact that in the Supreme court case that is due only a few weeks after election day. We are here to protect the rights of women, their rights to their own body, their rights to choose, their rights to healthcare, their rights to equality would all go down the drain if that wish were not realized. We’re here to protect the rights of working people.

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: So, we need to make sure that we mobilize on an unprecedented scale to ensure that this vacancy is reserved for the next president. We must use every tool at our disposal, from everyday people, especially in swing states. We need everyday people to call on senators, to call on folks on the bubble to call Republican senators, to make sure that they hold this vacancy open. We must also commit to using every procedural tool available to us, to ensure that we buy ourselves the time necessary. We must commit to allowing and to considering and to utilizing every single procedural tool available to us, again, to buy that time. We need to make sure that we realize and fight this fight with the weight of every person who sacrificed for voting rights, every person who sacrificed their wellbeing and their lives to make sure that they could marry whomever they love, to make sure that they can live freely and safely in a workplace, to make sure that they can live in this country and make sure that dreamers can stay in this country, and that families can have the path to citizenship that they deserve.

Here for a complete transcript.

Strong claims considering that the U.S. Supreme Court is not a political institution that merely overturns politically “left” or “right” hot button issues such as abortion, healthcare, and voting rights anymore than the second amendment, religious freedom, or property rights. It is an institution of law and justice; a constitutional interpreter not a maker of statutory laws (though it does review congressional statutes and offer legal remedies per a Constitutional relationship), but nothing happens until a real living case is brought before the Court which has often gone through the rigors of a Federal or State Court and an Appellate Court. Even if a case makes it through the system, rarely does a case reach the Supreme Court for as few as 100 to 150 cases are heard each session out of the thousands of certiorari asking for the ear of the nation’s highest court. That’s real talk. Nothing political about its intended functionality. Egregiously what made this institution malfeasant are the political parties themselves.

In 1995 the Presidential Studies Quarterly published an article by attorney Michael A. Kahn titled, The Appointment of a Supreme Court Justice: A Political Process from Beginning to End.³ Kahn’s main argument was that the Supreme Court justices have always been appointed for political reasons throughout America’s developing history. Judge Robert Bork was not the first appointee to be denied by the Senate either:

In 1881, President Hayes’ nomination of Stanley Matthews met this fate; and, in 1930 Judge John Parker was rejected because his political views were unacceptable to the Senate. The Parker Senate fight was every bit as political and nasty as the Bork fight and the vote in the Senate was even closer.⁴

Hayes nominated Matthews on January 26, 1881 only for the Senate to never take action until President James A. Garfield renominated Matthews on May 12, 1881 who was confirmed by the Senate May 17 that same year.⁵ Although Matthews would only live eight more years, passing at the age of sixty-four, he did become a Supreme Court Justice unlike Judge Bork.

Robert Bork, nominated by President Reagan on July 31, 1987, nomination hearing took place in October 1987. Perhaps the most intellectually informative nomination hearing ever recorded, Bork openly explained his legal philosophy for the Senate. Sen. Ted Kennedy, who had been leading the front against Bork⁶ (very similar to AOC and Schumer today), during that hearing said:

In Robert Borks America there is no room at the inn for blacks and no place in the Constitution for women and in our America there should be no seat on the Supreme Court for Robert Bork.⁷

For a complete reading of Bork hearings.

For Part 1 and Part 2 of Day 1 of hearings by video.

Hyperboles are not new to American politics from either political party. After the Courts famous conservative Justice Antonin Scalia passed away unexpectedly, President Obama was preparing to nominate Merrick Garland but Republican Senator Mitch McConnell responded with the “Biden Rule” going on to say:

The next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country, so of course the American people should have a say in the Court’s direction…The American people may well elect a President who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration. The next President may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy.⁸

Whatever the reasoning the American people have little say in the nomination process if any at all. Nevertheless the political ploy worked in 2016 for Republicans who mirrored a consistent message that the nation was in dire straits, the American people had a voice, and the Senate must wait until after the election to selected a new Supreme Court justice.⁹

Professors Bryon J. Moraski and Charles R. Shipan published in the American Journal of Political Science, The Politics of Supreme Court Nominations: A Theory of Institutional Constraints and Choices (1999).¹⁰ In their 27 page study they demonstrate the varying limitations a President has in nominating their selected choice for the Supreme Court. Two limitations have historically prevented a nomination: 1) Ideologically the candidate is out of step with the Senate; or 2) The candidate is less-qualified.¹¹ Everything comes down to the attitude of the Senate, “Whether the Senate constrains the president, however, depends on the configuration of institutional preferences… there are three distinct regimes, and which variables affect the position of the nominee depends on which regime exists.”¹²

According to Moraski and Shipan there are three regimes: 1) Unconstrained President; 2) Semi-Constrained President; 3) Fully Constrained President.¹³ The President unsurprisingly has the most control under Category 1, Category 2 the Senate’s indifference has a greater impact, and in Category 3 the median of the Court affects the Senate’s decision-making.¹⁴ The Supreme Courts median was measured by the voting score on civil liberties from the Court’s previous term.¹⁵

During the 2018 nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, whom the Senate voted down political lines 51 yeas, 49 nays, President Trump was replacing the retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy. Kennedy remained a conservative justice throughout his career while moving liberal overtime on big key issues (e.g. gay marriage) but hardly the moderate he was proclaimed to be.¹⁶ Kavanaugh has been portrayed as far-right and more recently a “man in the middle.”¹⁷ His track record shows a mild lean to the right while voting most consistently with Justice Roberts 95% of the time and Justice Breyer at 86%.¹⁸ A record that I suspect will continue, making Kavanaugh likely a Chief Justice in the making who, like Chief Justice Roberts, is concerned more about the institutional stability of the Court over their own ideological leanings.

The Regime

In Cicero’s time the regime was Julius Caesar, Pompey, and Marcus Licinius Crassus; military men set on taking Rome. While modern America is layered in partisan politics with Democrats moving further to the left and Republicans growing stagnant¹⁹ underneath is a real Deep State (not Trumps Deep State) but a nexus of Private-Public institutions including corporations, national security agencies, military networks, and financial powers all too big to fail due to their interconnectedness in maintaining a global economy.²⁰ As Nero fiddles while Rome burns the U.S. Supreme Court dwindles right along with the U.S. Constitution.

Perplexingly democrats have argued for decades against the rise of corporations in government while republicans rage against the increasing size of government; the politically left and right having written hundreds of books between them concerning the alarming demise of our government, our liberties, our constitution but neither party nor the ideologues seem willing to actually acknowledge the elephant in the room that is Deep State in its entirety. Wall Street to Main Street progressives voice all the while Amazon, Google, Facebook, and dozens of multinational corporations enforce “anti-racism” training, censor their workers and the public, and commoditize data, information, and knowledge of millions outside the purview of average Americans. While conservatives rail against the U.S. government for spying on every American they push for the next war with Iran, North Korea, or Russia. Granted both parties support war when it is politically savvy.

Crumbling beneath their feet is the very structure that provides them existence, hardly unaware rather perhaps most keen to the situation, the U.S. Supreme Court holds on tightly.

Now with alarming rhetoric the nation once again is told that the future stands or falls on the nomination of a justice and of a president. At the RBG Vigil one speaker exclaimed that healthcare, economic rights, reproductive rights, women’s rights… everything is at stake this year.²¹ Yes, the election is important. No two candidates could be more different, the established parties hold very different visions for the United States. But the historical ignorance displayed by both sides of the political aisle is abysmal. Their partisan attitude damages an already weakened system.

Unless the old Washington establishment can muster enough of a push against the partisanship there is little hope that they will address the political mangling taking place in our nation today. Richard Allen Epstein, legal scholar and professor made famous by Biden during the nomination process of Clarence Thomas, has been warning for over a decade against the Administrative State that started to rise during Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. A “fourth branch” of government the administrative state today is a conglomerate of agencies that have their own laws, courts, powers, and authority. Congress pushed away their responsibility and the responsibility of the States by creating agency after agency. Epstein warns that the very rule of law itself is weakened by this structure:

As I have made clear on many occasions, I do not accept, even today, this vision of the administrative state. First, I do not think that it is possible to shield administrative agencies in highly sensitive areas from various forms of factional and political influence that have little or nothing to do with technical expertise. These risks are, if anything, increased once it is possible to select persons exclusively for their views on a single topic. Now all interested parties can hone in on single issues in selecting key administrative officials. Unlike the situation in choosing people for courts of general jurisdiction, these parties need not be slowed down by worrying whether their favored candidates on one issue will disappoint them on a second. Stated otherwise, expertise is an overrated virtue, while the risk of political capture by interest groups and the discord that faction produces is an underappreciated vice.²²

And in The Atlantic last year while promoting his new book, The Dubious Morality of Modern Administrative Law (2020), Epstein writes:

The administrative state, of course, is not unconstitutional in all its manifestations. The large and sophisticated corpus of 19th-century administrative law offers us a benchmark by which we can evaluate post–New Deal developments. The success of that body of law depended heavily on the limited mission that it was asked to discharge, given its deep respect for both the doctrine of federal enumerated powers and a relatively robust conception of property and contract rights. But the New Deal expansion of the constitutional order has failed, as I argue in my new book, The Dubious Morality of the Modern Administrative State. To understand the extent and character of that failure, look only to what administrative law now allows: excessive government discretion to implement vast statutory schemes, many of which impose overbroad controls in such critical areas as environmental, labor, and food and drug laws.²³

America’s fourth branch is now in line with its fifth branch, the National Security State²⁴ completing a globalized out of control Deep State. How can America’s constitutionally established third branch truly function when it and our nations founding document are overridden by a network larger and more powerful than ever intended? Reviewing Professor of International law at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University Michael J. Glennon’s book, National Security and Double Government (2014), CATO Institute’s Gene Healy explains “that the national security state has become a runaway train and that presidential elections are contests that determine who gets to pretend he’s driving.”²⁵

Congress must put away the pettiness but that is too much to hope for at a time when the President can either do no wrong or no right; when radicals burn down cities in the name of a movement whose real aims are to overthrow an entire social structure rather than reform a broken system; when threats of adding more seats to the Court are made; and Cultural Marxism takes center stage.

Today America needs statesmen not men of the state. We can only pray that one will rise to the occasion.

Sources

¹ Gore, D’Angelo., Kiely, Eugene. (21 September, 2020). Biden’s False and Exaggerated Supreme Court Claims. https://www.factcheck.org/2020/09/bidens-false-and-exaggerated-supreme-court-claims/

² The Hill. (20 September, 2020). AOC says NOTHING IS OFF THE TABLE to ensure Supreme Court seat is filled by next president. YouTube. (Video). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk2ba4LONXY&ab_channel=TheHill

³ Kahn, M. (1995). The Appointment of a Supreme Court Justice: A Political Process from Beginning to End. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 25(1), 25-41. Retrieved September 22, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27551374

⁴ Ibid, p. 26.

⁵ The Supreme Court Historical Society. Stanley Matthews, 1881-1889. https://supremecourthistory.org/timeline_matthews.html

⁶ Reston, James. (5 July, 1987). Washington; Kennedy And Bork. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1987/07/05/opinion/washington-kennedy-and-bork.html

⁷ ABC News. Kennedy Mounts Ideological Attack on Bork. (Video). YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvFLXFCJvJA&ab_channel=ABCNews

⁸ McConnell, Mitch. (16 March, 2016). McConnell On Supreme Court Nomination. Mitch McConnell Senate Majority Leader. https://www.republicanleader.senate.gov/newsroom/remarks/mcconnell-on-supreme-court-nomination

⁹ Desjardins, Lisa. (22 September, 2020). What every Republican senator has said about filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year. PBS News Hour. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-every-republican-senator-has-said-about-filling-a-supreme-court-vacancy-in-an-election-year

¹⁰ Moraski, B., & Shipan, C. (1999). The Politics of Supreme Court Nominations: A Theory of Institutional Constraints and Choices. American Journal of Political Science, 43(4), 1069-1095. doi:10.2307/2991818

¹¹ Ibid, p. 1070

¹² Ibid, p. 1074

13 Ibid, p. 1075

¹⁴ Ibid, p. 1085

¹⁵ Ibid, p. 1079

¹⁶ DeVeaux, Amelia. (3 July, 2018). Justice Kennedy Wasn’t A Moderate. FiveThirtyEight. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/justice-kennedy-wasnt-a-moderate/

¹⁷ Stohr, Greg. (23 September, 2020). Kavanaugh Emerges as Man-in-the-Middle With Supreme Court Set to Shift Right. Bloomberg/Quint. https://www.bloombergquint.com/politics/kavanaugh-emerges-as-unlikely-liberal-hope-for-court-swing-vote

¹⁸ Feldman, Adam. (3 April, 2019) Empirical SCOTUS: Is Kavanaugh as conservative as expected? SCOTUSblog. https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/04/empirical-scotus-is-kavanaugh-as-conservative-as-expected/

¹⁹ Richey, Edward K. (1 September, 2020). Welcome to the Party: America’s Established Political Parties By Race. Edward Kyle Richey. (Blog). Truth In Focus. https://edwardkylerichey.org/2020/09/01/welcome-to-the-party-americas-established-political-parties-by-race/

²⁰ Lofgren, Mike. (21 February, 2014). Essay: Anatomy of the Deep State. Moyers On Democracy. https://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/

²¹ Now This Politics. (19 September, 2020). RBG Vigil. (Video). Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/NowThisPolitics/videos/vb.908009612563863/2671486516401954/?type=2&theater

²² Epstein, Richard. (2008). Why the Modern Administrative State Is Inconsistent with the Rule of Law. New York University Journal of Law and Liberty, 491-515; 492 cite. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2355&context=journal_articles

²³ Epstein, Richard. (20 October, 2019) How Bad Constitutional Law Leads to Bad Economic Regulations. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/how-bad-constitutional-law-leads-bad-regulations/600280/

²⁴ Kaizen, Michael. (Fall 2017). The Rise of the Security State: From the Great War to Snowden. Dissent Magazine. https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/world-war-i-aftermath-security-state-nsa

²⁵ Healy, Gene. (1 March, 2015). National Security State. (Book Review) National Security and Double Government By Michael J. Glennon. https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/national-security-state