The Death of Elitism

From Salena Zito, at the Washington Examiner":

Somewhere off U.S. 62 between Sharon, Pa., and Masory, Ohio, a sign reads, "You had your chance, it's our turn now."

That homemade sign, located in the fault line of this election in the Mahoning Valley between Ohio and Pennsylvania, in all its simplicity found a way to capture the essence of this presidential cycle.

In fact, it offered more insight into the discord between the American electorate and the governing elite than any pundit has been able to explain, let alone comprehend.

In short, the biggest takeaway from this election no matter who wins is that we have witnessed the end of elitism.

And the power of elites to persuade us has evaporated.

The public no longer has faith in big banks or big companies or big government. People cannot trust the banks because they create sham accounts to meet sales targets, or trust technology companies because they make shoddy cell phone equipment that blows up in our hands only to be replaced with another shoddy phone that blows up in our hands.

And the governing class has failed us miserably, from wars in the Middle East that never end, to a healthcare bill that erodes our income to the politicization of the once trustworthy institutions of the Pentagon, NASA and the Justice Department.

To them, the system is genuinely rigged, and the divide between the Ivy League educated and the state or trade school educated, between the haves and the have-nots, has become so deep that there is no bridge long or sturdy enough to connect them.

It is that very thing that explains why so many Americans are attracted to the deeply flawed candidacy of Donald Trump...

Keep reading.

Paul Rahe: 'How I Might Be Wrong' in Attacking the Never Trumpers

At Ricochet, "How I Might Be Wrong."

He's had second thoughts in light of Trump's foreign policy, and he cites Jeremy Rabkin and John Yoo, at the Los Angeles Times, in August, "Filling Supreme Court vacancies isn't a good enough reason to vote for Trump."

Hat Tip: Instapundit.

Donald Trump and the End of American Exceptionalism

Blah, blah, blah.

Here's yet another leftist screed warning about the dangers of Donald Trump and Trumpism. These screeds have been polluting the web with an increasing frequency this last few weeks. That's how frightened the political class has become.

From Jelani Cobb, at the New Yorker:

In the sixteen months since he declared his candidacy, Donald Trump’s Presidential campaign has elicited comparisons to those of George Wallace and Barry Goldwater, to the hallucinatory paranoia of Joseph McCarthy, to the fascist preoccupations of Charles Lindbergh, and to lesser lights of American demagoguery like Father Coughlin and the Know-Nothings of the nineteenth century.

The unifying theme among these figures, beyond their disdain for democracy, was their common residence in the loser’s aisle of American history. McCarthy’s conspiratorial manipulation of the public eventually earned him the enmity of both Republicans and Democrats and a vote in the Senate to censure him. Wallace carried just five states and garnered thirteen per cent of the popular vote. Goldwater lost to Lyndon Johnson by sixteen million popular votes, winning just fifty-two Electoral College votes to Johnson’s four hundred and eighty-six. Richard Hofstadter’s 1964 classic “The Paranoid Style in American Politics” charted the lunatic genealogy of fringe movements dating back to the early years of the Republic, but the more sanguine assessment of that lineage is that few of these movements—anti-Catholicism, anti-Freemasonry, or Know-Nothingism, for instance—managed to sustain themselves in the long term or to fully inhabit the political mainstream.

Goldwater is heralded as the father of modern conservatism, but he could occupy that niche only because successive generations of his heirs refined and streamlined his message, buffing away the elements that the public saw as extremist. The modern Republican Party staked its claim on conservatism, not on Goldwaterism.

All this points to yet another reason why Trump represents a unique danger in American politics. Trumpism does not seek simply to make a point and pass on its genes to more politically palatable heirs, nor is it readily apparent why he would need to settle for this. When George Will announced his departure from the G.O.P., last summer, he offered a modified version of Ronald Reagan’s quote about leaving the Democrats—“I didn’t leave the Party; the Party left me.” But a kind of converse narrative applies to Trump; he didn’t join the Republican Party so much as its most febrile elements joined him. Trump is partly a product of forces that the G.O.P. created by pandering to a base whose dilated pupils the Party mistook for gullibility, not abject, irrational fear that would send those voters scurrying to the nearest authoritarian savior they could find. The error was in thinking that this populace, mainlining Glenn Beck and Alex Jones theories and pondering how the Minutemen would have fought Sharia law, could be controlled. (For evidence to the contrary, the Party needed look no further than the premature political demise of Eric Cantor.) The old adage warns that one should beware of puppets that begin pulling their own strings.

In this light, Trump represents a kind of return to the old-time religion, a fundamentalism that rejects the effete nature of dog-whistle politics the way the religious right defined itself by rejecting the watery tenets of liberal Christianity. Implicit within dog-whistling is enough respect for democratic norms and those outside one’s base to speak to that base in terms that the mass populace can’t readily decipher. Here, plausible deniability is at least a recognition that there are people with interests different from one’s own and that their influence, if not their interests or humanity, warrants a certain degree of respect. Trump is doing the opposite of this. He is an exhorter in a midsummer tent revival: direct, literal, and speaking at a decibel that makes it impossible to misunderstand his intentions. The end result of Trump’s evangelism is that a xenophobic, racist, misogynistic, serially mendacious narcissist is poised to pull in somewhere north of fifty million votes in the midst of the most bitterly contentious election in modern American history. The easy analysis holds that Trump’s jihad against decency has wrecked the Republican Party, but the damage is far more extensive than this...

The main problem here is its incompleteness. Cobb completely omits the Democrat Party from any responsibility for the rise of Trumpism. But as anyone with half a brain knows, the radicalization of the Democrats since at least the Iraq war has unleashed ideological forces that just now seem to have spun out of control, mainly because Trump is unfiltered (in his professed disdain for political correctness, and so forth). Also, Cobb forgets that the culture itself has changed since the the days of both Goldwater and Reagan. Social media has only accelerated a coarsening of American life that's seeped into politics like a cancer. Trumpism won't go away because Obamism isn't going away. Polls show that partisans on both sides have increased in strength and there's precious little incentive to cooperate with the opponent. Fractured, polarized politics lets out the worst. If Cobb were honest he'd at least concede that forces across the ideological spectrum are responsible for where we are today, and his failure ---- along with those of his political class ---- will ensure that these same forces of a long shelf life.

But keep reading.

And see also, "Social Media Enables Prejudice to Slip Back Into the Mainstream."

Social Media Enables Prejudice to Slip Back Into the Mainstream

Blah, blah, blah.

Everybody's prejudiced about something. It's human nature.

I mean, Hillary Clinton slammed Bernie Sanders' supporters as a "basket of losers," and I don't see leftists getting all uptight about that.

See? Prejudices.

But check Edward Luce, at FT, "The age of vitriol: Edward Luce on US politics and social media":

Age of vitriol. I talk to co-founder of alt-right, @RichardBSpencer & his antidotes - @juliaioffe and @LibyaLiberty https://t.co/3hJS28wGSS

— Edward Luce (@EdwardGLuce) November 4, 2016

I was first alerted to Richard B Spencer by a horrific Twitter post. The tweet in question showed the ubiquitous photo of a Syrian boy, face covered in blood and dust, with the tagline: “Hey, let’s start WWIII for this f***king kid!” Like most people who saw it, I was offended. That, of course, was the point. Unlike many of his peers, Spencer tweets under his real name. He then revels in the outrage.

Provocation is the goal of the so-called alt-right — the amorphous world of rightwing extremist groups that have thrived in the age of Donald Trump. Memes, such as the one of the Syrian boy, are their weapon. Notoriety is their oxygen. The past year or two have been a field day. “No matter what happens, I will be profoundly grateful to Trump for the rest of my life,” says Spencer.

After what seems like the worst-tempered US election ever, America will at last make its decision on Tuesday. History may look back on 2016 as the year when the US finally chose a woman to lead it, or when the postwar US-global order started to break up. Others will remember it as the election when a rank outsider — a reality-TV star, no less — stormed the citadel and changed the way the game was played.

For my part, having lived in America on and off since the end of the past century, this is the year when democracy’s sense of restraint seemed to vanish. The glue of mutual respect that is so vital to any free society came unstuck. People no longer bother trying to persuade each other. They simply shove their views — or the mere fact of their identity — in your face. Or else they just insult you. The more retweets the better.

For all its pluses, social media has drowned politics in vitriol. New technology has opened up a galaxy of thought once confined to libraries, but it has also enabled ancient prejudices to seep back into the mainstream — anti-Semitism, for example, and hatred of women. In the past few months, the Twitter hashtags #whitegenocide (the view that whites are endangered by multiculturalism) and #repealthe19th (the US constitution’s 19th amendment gave women the right to vote) have trended heavily.

Obnoxiousness has infected all sides of the spectrum but the right has learnt how to play the game better. Partly because it is rebelling against political correctness, it works with fewer boundaries, or none at all. The level of trust between electors and elected has been falling for years. In 2016 the electorate has begun to turn viciously on itself. Is this a blip or a permanent shift? The future of free society may depend on the answer. Democracy cannot prosper for long in a swamp of mutual dislike...

Dramatic much Mr. Luce?

There's more to life than social media. My solution to ugliness and rancor is the be nice. I say hello to everyone, especially at my school. I catch my students off guard when I remember their names and say hello to them outside on the walkways. They really like that, although most don't tell you because they're shy and often don't have many social skills, partially because they spend so much time staring down at an electronic screen.

A solution of course is to get people to interact with each, and to double-down and decency and respect. It's as simple as holding a door for someone, or letting someone pass in front of you (without cutting them off, which is something that happens to me a lot, and that's before social media came along; society's been coarsening for some time).

More at the link.

What Can You Do With a Degree in the Liberal Arts?

A lot, although that's not what most people think nowadays, especially helicopter parents.

See Steven Pearlstein, at WaPo, "Meet the parents who won’t let their children study literature":

For me, there’s nothing more depressing than meeting incoming freshmen at Mason who have declared themselves as accounting majors. They’re 18 years old, they haven’t had a chance to take a course in Shakespeare or evolutionary biology or the history of economic thought, and already they’ve decided to devote the rest of their lives to accountancy. It’s worth remembering that at American universities, the original rationale for majors was not to train students for careers. Rather, the idea was that after a period of broad intellectual exploration, a major was supposed to give students the experience of mastering one subject, in the process developing skills such as discipline, persistence, and how to research, analyze, communicate clearly and think logically.

As it happens, those are precisely the skills business executives still say they want from college graduates — although, to be fair, that has not always been communicated to their human-resource departments or the computers they use to sort through résumés...

RTWT.

It hardly needs to be said, but I heartily agree with Pearlstein.

Kaitlyn Juvik Braless Protest

No bra? No problem.

At Heat Street, "Bra-Less Teen Is ‘Sexually Harassing’ Other Boys And Her Teachers":

This anti-bra high schooler wants to start a national discussion about the body shaming and sexualizing of women. https://t.co/OwERzjpPZU

— Heat Street (@heatstreet) June 12, 2016

The latest edition of People Magazine offers readers a slobbering human interest story about Kaitlyn Juvik, an attention-seeking Montana high-school student and Lena Dunham wanna-be (both in her penchant for showing off her body parts and her misunderstanding of feminism), who is eager to clear a few things up: Boys don’t matter. What does matter—really the only thing that matters—is Juvik and her feelings and personal comfort.

Juvik claims comfort was the main reason she tossed her bra aside and headed to school. She made several people uncomfortable, including, she claims, a teacher. Called to the principal’s office, Juvik was told she was in violation of the dress code (her school’s dress code actually doesn’t mention underwear…because I suspect school administrators thought parents might take the on the role of explaining how civil society works).

And now, Juvik’s crying foul—taking a page from the feminist handbook on first world problems (that only rich, white teenagers…like…totally get) and claiming she’s a victim of leering boys (and even a pervy teacher). Predictably, Juvik says she wants to start a “national discussion” about “the body shaming and sexualizing of women” because we haven’t been having that conversation for decades already.

Yawn. Wouldn’t it be nice if just once, a high-school student wanted to start a conversation about math, or science, great literature or real issues facing women…like the systematic rape of Yazidi women in Iraq and Syria. But no, let’s talk about bras and other nonsense...

More.

She's a high-schooler. High school kids are idiot, lol.

In the Mail: Matthew Desmond, Evicted

Crown Publishers sent me a copy of Matthew Desmond's fantastic new book, Evicted.

I've read the first couple of chapters and it's amazing. I'm going back to it as soon as I finish The Closing of the Liberal Mind.

Check it out, at Amazon, Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City.

In this brilliant, heartbreaking book, Matthew Desmond takes us into the poorest neighborhoods of Milwaukee to tell the story of eight families on the edge. Arleen is a single mother trying to raise her two sons on the $20 a month she has left after paying for their rundown apartment. Scott is a gentle nurse consumed by a heroin addiction. Lamar, a man with no legs and a neighborhood full of boys to look after, tries to work his way out of debt. Vanetta participates in a botched stickup after her hours are cut. All are spending almost everything they have on rent, and all have fallen behind.

The fates of these families are in the hands of two landlords: Sherrena Tarver, a former schoolteacher turned inner-city entrepreneur, and Tobin Charney, who runs one of the worst trailer parks in Milwaukee. They loathe some of their tenants and are fond of others, but as Sherrena puts it, “Love don’t pay the bills.” She moves to evict Arleen and her boys a few days before Christmas.

Even in the most desolate areas of American cities, evictions used to be rare. But today, most poor renting families are spending more than half of their income on housing, and eviction has become ordinary, especially for single mothers. In vivid, intimate prose, Desmond provides a ground-level view of one of the most urgent issues facing America today. As we see families forced into shelters, squalid apartments, or more dangerous neighborhoods, we bear witness to the human cost of America’s vast inequality—and to people’s determination and intelligence in the face of hardship.

Based on years of embedded fieldwork and painstakingly gathered data, this masterful book transforms our understanding of extreme poverty and economic exploitation while providing fresh ideas for solving a devastating, uniquely American problem. Its unforgettable scenes of hope and loss remind us of the centrality of home, without which nothing else is possible.

Deal of the Day: Samsung 65-Inch Smart LED TV [BUMPED]

An amazing deal, at Amazon, Samsung UN65J6300 65-Inch 1080p Smart LED TV (2015 Model).

Plus, Bushnell Tour V3 Jolt Standard Edition Golf Laser Rangefinder.

More, Up to 55% off Wood Outdoor Patio Sets.

Also, out Tuesday, from Kim R. Holmes, The Closing of the Liberal Mind: How Groupthink and Intolerance Define the Left.

And from James Piereson, Shattered Consensus: The Rise and Decline of America's Postwar Political Order.

Still more, James C. Bennett and Michael J. Lotus, America 3.0: Rebooting American Prosperity in the 21st Century — Why America's Greatest Days Are Yet to Come.

BONUS: Out April 19th, from Ryszard Legutko, The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies.

No Political Guardrails

From Kim Strassel, at WSJ, "President Obama broke all the boundaries—and now Clinton and Trump are following suit":

Twenty-two years ago, my esteemed colleague Dan Henninger wrote a blockbuster Journal editorial titled “No Guardrails.” Its subject was people “who don’t think that rules of personal or civil conduct apply to them,” as well as the elites who excuse this lack of self-control and the birth of a less-civilized culture.

We are today witnessing the political version of this phenomenon. That’s how to make sense of a presidential race that grows more disconnected from normality by the day.

Barack Obama has done plenty of damage to the country, but perhaps the worst is his determined destruction of Washington’s guardrails. Mr. Obama wants what he wants. If ObamaCare is problematic, he unilaterally alters the law. If Congress won’t change the immigration system, he refuses to enforce it. If the nation won’t support laws to fight climate change, he creates one with regulation. If the Senate won’t confirm his nominees, he declares it in recess and installs them anyway. “As to limits, you set your own,” observed Dan in that editorial. This is our president’s motto.

Mr. Obama doesn’t need anyone to justify his actions, because he’s realized no one can stop him. He gets criticized, but at the same time his approach has seeped into the national conscience. It has set new norms. You see this in the ever-more-outrageous proposals from the presidential field, in particular front-runners Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

Mrs. Clinton routinely vows to govern by diktat. On Wednesday she unveiled a raft of proposals to punish companies that flee the punitive U.S. tax system. Mrs. Clinton will ask Congress to implement her plan, but no matter if it doesn’t. “If Congress won’t act,” she promises, “then I will ask the Treasury Department, when I’m there, to use its regulatory authority.”

Mrs. Clinton and fellow liberals don’t like guns and are frustrated that the duly elected members of Congress (including those from their own party) won’t strengthen background checks. So she has promised to write regulations that will unilaterally impose such a system.

On immigration, Mr. Obama ignored statute with executive actions to shield illegals from deportation. Mrs. Clinton brags that she will go much, much further with sweeping exemptions to immigration law.

For his part, Mr. Trump sent the nation into an uproar this week with his call to outright ban Muslims from entering the country. Is this legally or morally sound? Who cares! Mr. Trump specializes in disdain for the law, the Constitution, and any code of civilized conduct. Guardrails are for losers. He’d set up a database to track Muslims or force them to carry special IDs. He’d close mosques. He’d deport kids born on American soil. He’d seize Iraq’s oil fields. He’d seize remittance payments sent back to Mexico. He’d grab personal property for government use.

Mr. Obama’s dismantling of boundaries isn’t restrained to questions of law; he blew up certain political ethics, too. And yes there are—or used to be—such things. Think what you may about George W. Bush’s policies, but he respected the office of the presidency. He believed he represented all Americans. He didn’t demonize.

Today’s divisive president never misses an opportunity to deride Republicans or the tea party. He is more scornful toward fellow Americans than toward Islamic State. This too sets new norms. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid now uses the chamber to accuse individual citizens of being “un-American.” Asked recently what “enemy” she was most proud of making, Mrs. Clinton lumped “Republicans” in with “the Iranians.” Ted Cruz rose to prominence by mocking his Republican colleagues as “squishes.” Mr. Trump has disparaged women, the other GOP contenders, Iowans, wives, the disabled, Jews. (Granted, he might have done this even without Mr. Obama’s example.)

Can such leaders be trusted to administer Washington fairly? Of course not. That guardrail is also gone...

Sobering.

And there's still more.

Alarming Increase in the Deaths of Middle-Aged Whites

I saw something on this the other day, even in passing. Perhaps at the Wall Street Journal, "The Death Rate Is Rising for Middle-Aged Whites."

The piece is cited by Dr. Helen Smith, "Why are middle-aged whites dying at such high rates?" And Instapundit links, and recomments to "see the discussion in the comments."

Then there's the piece out this morning from Ross Douthat, at the New York Times, "The Dying of the Whites." Douthat's speculative, but good in debunking the prevailing leftist memes about the superiority of the European welfare state model.

More on this from Tom Maguire, "No Country For Middle Aged White Men. Or Women."

Finally, head back over to NYT for an update on the phenomenon, "More Details on Rising Mortality Among Middle-Aged Whites."

Missouri High School Protests as Transgender Student Demands to Use Girls Locker Room (VIDEO)

Yeah, the, um, transgender "girl" refused to use a private restroom, no doubt so "she" could scope out all the high school talent in the girls' locker room.

More leftist depravity for you.

Watch, at Progs Today, "High School Students Protest When Transgender Student Who Was BORN MALE Wants to Use GIRLS LOCKER ROOM (VIDEO)."

CEO Who Gave Employees $70,000 Minimum Wage Faces Massive Backlash and Financial Ruin

Well, he's already being sued by his brother. At the Seattle Times, "Gravity Payments CEO, who set $70K minimum pay, sued by brother."

And now the dude's business is collapsing amid the onslaught of media fame and customer revolt.

It's practically a far-left workshop on how to kill a successful business.

At the New York Times, "A Company Copes With Backlash Against the Raise That Roared":

There are times when Dan Price feels as if he stumbled into the middle of the street with a flag and found himself at the head of a parade.

Three months ago, Mr. Price, 31, announced he was setting a new minimum salary of $70,000 at his Seattle credit card processing firm, Gravity Payments, and slashing his own million-dollar pay package to do it. He wasn’t thinking about the current political clamor over low wages or the growing gap between rich and poor, he said. He was just thinking of the 120 people who worked for him and, let’s be honest, a bit of free publicity. The idea struck him when a friend shared her worries about paying both her rent and student loans on a $40,000 salary. He realized a lot of his own employees earned that or less.

Yet almost overnight, a decision by one small-business man in the northwestern corner of the country became a swashbuckling blow against income inequality.

The move drew attention from around the world — including from some outspoken skeptics and conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, who smelled a socialist agenda — but most were enthusiastic. Talk show hosts lined up to interview Mr. Price. Job seekers by the thousands sent in résumés. He was called a “thought leader.” Harvard business professors flew out to conduct a case study. Third graders wrote him thank-you notes. Single women wanted to date him.

What few outsiders realized, however, was how much turmoil all the hoopla was causing at the company itself. To begin with, Gravity was simply unprepared for the onslaught of emails, Facebook posts and phone calls. The attention was thrilling, but it was also exhausting and distracting. And with so many eyes focused on the firm, some hoping to witness failure, the pressure has been intense.

More troubling, a few customers, dismayed by what they viewed as a political statement, withdrew their business. Others, anticipating a fee increase — despite repeated assurances to the contrary — also left. While dozens of new clients, inspired by Mr. Price’s announcement, were signing up, those accounts will not start paying off for at least another year. To handle the flood, he has already had to hire a dozen additional employees — now at a significantly higher cost — and is struggling to figure out whether more are needed without knowing for certain how long the bonanza will last.

Two of Mr. Price’s most valued employees quit, spurred in part by their view it was unfair to double the pay of some new hires while the longest-serving staff members got small or no raises. Some friends and associates in Seattle’s close-knit entrepreneurial network were also piqued that Mr. Price’s action made them look stingy in front of their own employees.

Then potentially the worst blow of all: Less than two weeks after the announcement, Mr. Price’s older brother and Gravity co-founder, Lucas Price, citing longstanding differences, filed a lawsuit that potentially threatened the company’s very existence. With legal bills quickly mounting and most of his own paycheck and last year’s $2.2 million in profits plowed into the salary increases, Dan Price said, “We don’t have a margin of error to pay those legal fees.”

As Mr. Price spoke in the Gravity conference room, he could see a handful of employees setting up beach chairs in the parking lot for an impromptu meeting. The office is in Ballard, a fast-gentrifying neighborhood of Seattle that reflects the wealth gap that Mr. Price says he wants to address. Downstairs is a yoga studio, and across the street is a coffee bar where customers can sip velvet soy lattes on Adirondack-style chairs. But around the corner, beneath the elevated roadway, a homeless woman silently appeals to drivers stopped at the red light with a cardboard sign: “Plz Help.”

In his own way, Mr. Price is trying to respond to that request.

“Income inequality has been racing in the wrong direction,” he said. “I want to fight for the idea that if someone is intelligent, hard-working and does a good job, then they are entitled to live a middle-class lifestyle.”

The reaction to his salary pledge has led him to think that if his business continues to prosper, his actions could have far-reaching consequences. “The cause has expanded,” he said. “Whether I like it or not, the stakes are higher.”

Corporate socialism doesn't work, obviously, to say nothing of state socialism.

Let this be a lesson to the collectivist left: More of these minimum wage disasters are coming down the pike. It's only a matter of time.

Still more.

ADDED: Now a Memeorandum thread.

Oh My! Radical Leftist Freddie deBoer Calls for Legalizing Polygamous Marriage!

Well, so much for the widely derided right-wing "slippery slope" on legalized polygamy.

Yesterday Salon's Sophia Tesfaye was mocking conservatives who raised the possibility of legalized polygamy: "“Polygamy, here we come!” Right wing melts down over gay marriage victory."

But a quick search shows that Salon's backed polygamy for years, "Legalize Polygamy!"

And then of course radical leftist Fredrik "Freddie" deBoer was off the blocks with the case for legalized polygamy as well, almost as soon the Supreme Court issued its ruling. See, at Politico, "It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy":

Well, that didn't take long. http://t.co/UDmysj6fwR pic.twitter.com/wyCozIugpw

— T. Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) June 26, 2015

Just can't convince some people that I wrote that piece because I genuinely believe in a natural moral right to group marriage.

— Freddie (@freddiedeboer) June 27, 2015

Welcome to the exciting new world of the slippery slope. With the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling this Friday legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states, social liberalism has achieved one of its central goals. A right seemingly unthinkable two decades ago has now been broadly applied to a whole new class of citizens. Following on the rejection of interracial marriage bans in the 20th Century, the Supreme Court decision clearly shows that marriage should be a broadly applicable right—one that forces the government to recognize, as Friday’s decision said, a private couple’s “love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family.

The question presents itself: Where does the next advance come? The answer is going to make nearly everyone uncomfortable: Now that we’ve defined that love and devotion and family isn’t driven by gender alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals? The most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy—yet many of the same people who pressed for marriage equality for gay couples oppose it.

This is not an abstract issue. In Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissenting opinion, he remarks, “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.” As is often the case with critics of polygamy, he neglects to mention why this is a fate to be feared. Polygamy today stands as a taboo just as strong as same-sex marriage was several decades ago—it’s effectively only discussed as outdated jokes about Utah and Mormons, who banned the practice over 120 years ago.

Yet the moral reasoning behind society’s rejection of polygamy remains just as uncomfortable and legally weak as same-sex marriage opposition was until recently.

That’s one reason why progressives who reject the case for legal polygamy often don’t really appear to have their hearts in it. They seem uncomfortable voicing their objections, clearly unused to being in the position of rejecting the appeals of those who would codify non-traditional relationships in law. They are, without exception, accepting of the right of consenting adults to engage in whatever sexual and romantic relationships they choose, but oppose the formal, legal recognition of those relationships. They’re trapped, I suspect, in prior opposition that they voiced from a standpoint of political pragmatism in order to advance the cause of gay marriage.

In doing so, they do real harm to real people. Marriage is not just a formal codification of informal relationships. It’s also a defensive system designed to protect the interests of people whose material, economic and emotional security depends on the marriage in question. If my liberal friends recognize the legitimacy of free people who choose to form romantic partnerships with multiple partners, how can they deny them the right to the legal protections marriage affords?

Keep reading.

And remember, if you're not down with legalized polygamy, you're a hater!

See, "The Same-Sex Marriage Bait-and-Switch - You Will Be Assimilated!"

ADDED: DeBoer responds to his critics:

But why publish it on the day gay marriage becomes law?

Because I do think, despite what so many progressives have halfheartedly said, that marriage equality meaningfully influences the legal and moral case for polygamy, and that this is a good thing. I waited until that day because, with marriage equality now the law of the land, with broad popular support, the political risk of association with polygamy has died, and so the time has come to make the case for polygamy, a natural outgrowth of social liberalism and one of several moral imperatives for us going forward. I wrote the piece because I believe in a natural moral right to group marriage, and for the reasons I said in the piece. You can agree, or disagree, but you cannot dictate my reasons or my views.

Homosexual Marriage Ruling Starts New Religious Freedom War

At IBD, "Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Starts New Religious Freedom War":

#SupremeCourt Gay Marriage Ruling Will Harm #ReligiousFreedom, Marginalize Biblical Worldview: http://t.co/c6aRo5CIT7 pic.twitter.com/0L7mzKKwBP

— The Christian Post (@ChristianPost) June 26, 2015

Observant Christians — and adherents of other faiths — are reeling from the Supreme Court's declaration of a constitutional right to same-sex marriage and preparing for an unprecedented struggle for their right to express their beliefs and live their lives accordingly, as new battles will now be waged unless and until a future Supreme Court reverses course.

The Constitution says nothing about marriage or abortion. Yet in 1973 the Supreme Court declared a constitutional right to abortion, resulting in decades of relentless political and legal conflicts.

Now the Court has held that the Constitution likewise forbids the 50 states from defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. But many people of faith disagree, and the First Amendment promises that they have the right to do so. Devout Christians are already enmeshed in legal battles over this issue.

Navy chaplain Wes Modder, sportscaster Craig James and others have lost jobs or are losing their jobs because they hold Christian beliefs on sex and marriage.

Business owners face more than losing their businesses, as Washington florist Barronelle Stutzman could lose her home and life's savings, and Colorado baker Jack Phillips risks jail time if he continues refusing to bake cakes celebrating gay marriage. There are others, and the list grows monthly.

Keep reading.

The Only Way to Guarantee 'Peak Leftism' Is to Fight Leftism and Destroy It

A masterful piece from William Kristol, at the Weekly Standard, "‘Peak Leftism’?":

It’s the summer of 2015, and the left is on the march. Or perhaps one should say—since the left presumably dislikes the militarist connotations of the term “march”—that the left is swarming. And in its mindless swarming and mob-like frenzy, nearly every hideous aspect of contemporary leftism is on display.

We see a French Revolution-like tendency to move with the speed of light from a reasonable and perhaps overdue change (taking down the Confederate flag over state buildings) to an all-out determination to expunge from our history any recognition or respect for that which doesn’t fully comport with contemporary progressive sentiment. The left’s point, of course, is not to clarify and sharpen appreciation for our distinctive history; the point is to discredit that history.

And the point is not to advance arguments and criticize alternative views; it is to deny the legitimacy of opposing arguments and to demonize opponents and purge them from the public square.

We see a pitiful aversion to standing up to barbarism abroad and a desperate willingness to accommodate and appease. This requires an amazing ability to shut one’s eyes to reality, and an extraordinary refusal to make tough decisions and assume real responsibilities. As Harvey Mansfield put it in the 1970s, “From having been the aggressive doctrine of vigorous, spirited men, liberalism has become hardly more than a trembling in the presence of illiberalism. .  .  . Who today is called a liberal for strength and confidence in defense of liberty?”

We see a wanton willingness on the part of leftist elites to use sophistic arguments to override democratic self-government when the people might not endorse the outcome (say, “marriage equality”) that the left has decided “progress” requires. We see a desperate desire to find a secular substitute for religious belief in the embrace of abstract doctrines (“global warming”) that are appropriately renamed (“climate change”) when the facts complicate matters. And we see a cavalier willingness to impose costs on others less fortunate and less well-protected for the sake of the left’s moral self-regard (by, for example, pledging to end “the era of mass incarceration,” also known as the era of crime reduction).

But as Alexander Hamilton (another recent object of the left’s perpetual discomfort with human achievement) wrote in Federalist 70: “There can be no need .  .  . to multiply arguments or examples on this head.” All the trends and tendencies, the pathologies and perversities that have made the modern left so corrosive of national spirit, so corrupting of self-government, so damaging to Western civilization, are on display front and center in today’s America. As the title of a brilliant article by Kevin D. Williamson in National Review puts it, “We Have Officially Reached Peak Leftism.” ...

The only way to ensure leftism has peaked, and to ensure that it doesn’t drag us further down into the abyss, is to fight it and defeat it. We either overcome peak leftism, or we’re doomed.

I've snipped some of it, so go read it all.

After Sundown, Democrats Light Up White House in Rainbow Colors to Celebrate Homosexual Ruling! (VIDEO)

We have gone officially mad.

Watch: "VIDEO - White House Lit in Rainbow Colors to Celebrate New Chapter in Same Sex Rights - 6/26/15."

WATCH LIVE: As sun goes down, White House lights up rainbow colors to celebrate SCOTUS ruling http://t.co/yKJ71mR4fY pic.twitter.com/VezIVQpOvJ

— The Hill (@thehill) June 27, 2015

Fighting Fatalism After the End of America As We Know It

From Jon Gabriel, at Ricochet, "Fighting Fatalism":

NEVER. GIVE. UP. pic.twitter.com/c3RSqpmRrg

— Stay Puft (@staypuft) June 26, 2015

Despite the multiple crises, our betters are screeching about utter nonsense. Whether a flag should be displayed in an iPhone game, whether people can choose their race and gender, if old ladies should be publicly flayed or just put out of business for not baking a cake.

Eventually the electorate will come to its senses — I mean, they have to, right? As Glenn Reynolds often says, “what cannot continue, won’t.” But what cataclysm will it take to shake us out of our navel-gazing, microaggressed, Brawndo-swilling stupor?

An even worse financial collapse than in 2008 with no borrowed money left to rescue the banks? A deadlier act of war than 9-11? And if either happens, God forbid, will Americans just use the moment to blame each other in even uglier terms?

My ultimate hope, as a Christian, is knowing that God is in control. Being a student of history, I know that cultures have endured far worse calamities than our comfortable decline. But I want to know how you keep your hopes up. Fatalism will never win hearts and minds, let alone elections, so do you have advice on keeping political setbacks from dragging you into despond?

RTWT.

Added: From Ed Driscoll, at Instapundit, "IS THIS WEEK THE RIGHT’S VALLEY FORGE? From Rick Moran at the PJ Tatler."

Veep Joseph Biden Congratulates President Obama on #SSM Ruling: 'This is a big f*cking deal' (PHOTOS)

See all the celebratory photos from White House photographer Pete Souza, at Medium, "Behind the Lens: When the President Heard the News of the Supreme Court Decision on the Affordable Care Act." (Via Memeorandum.)

Elizabeth Warren Wears Feather Boa to Celebrate Homosexual Marriage Ruling in Massachusetts

Well, it's a "boa" at the tweet, but c'mon. Is there any other kind?

From Jacklyn Friedman:

Don’t know if you can see her here, but Senator Warren is wearing a boa at the State House right now. pic.twitter.com/uFClUBBoRk

— Jaclyn Friedman (@jaclynf) June 26, 2015

Outrage as Giant Penis in Norway Goes Around 'Ejaculating' Glitter at People (VIDEO)

It's for "safe sex." But it's Norway. It's safe man-on-man butt sex as much as anything else.

Coming to America.

Watch: "Outrage as giant penis creeps up on people and sprays them for safe sex campaign."

More: "Giant glitter-spraying penis stars in Norwegian sex education advert."