I Miss Shame

Years ago, I sat nearly alone in an undersized, hard-to-findtheater downtown to watch a movie titled “Weiner”.

It wasn’t what you might be thinking. The venue was charmingand above-board, I was there with my wife, and the 2016 filmwas a documentary about former Democratic congressman AnthonyWeiner’s ill-fated New York mayoral run in 2013.

Weiner was a lightning-rod for controversy, and some mayrecall that his campaign effectively ended when — after thepolitician had just recovered from a similar scandal in 2011 —further (and more recent) evidence of his online sexualdepravities surfaced.

It was a fascinating but dark documentary on many levels,presenting a candid, often cringe-worthy look into thepolitician’s personal and political demise.

A couple of particularly memorable scenes show Weiner,

desperate to try and salvage his damaged campaign, in the backof a vehicle discussing with staffers how he should addressthe unfolding controversy in upcoming media interviews. Thechallenge, as Weiner outright states, is providing answersthat won’t conflict with the numerous lies he had told inearlier interviews. It’s really quite amazing to watch him layout the web of deception he had created, carefully work hisway through it (at least rhetorically), and then formulatecreative new talking points that he hopes will allow him toescape accusations of dishonesty and hypocrisy.

As we soon find out, even on liberal-friendly networks likeMSNBC, it didn’t work.

What strikes me today, when I look back at that film, is thatas much as it said about Weiner’s perversions and lack ofcharacter, it also said a heck of a lot about how different ofa political environment we lived in back then.

Think about it for a minute. 2013 wasn’t really all that longago, yet even the most shameless politicians back then — ofwhich Weiner was certainly one (even before the sexualrevelations) — were politically scared to death of (and workedexhaustively hard to prevent), coming across as a liar orhypocrite.

Were there exceptions to the rule? Yeah, a few (Harry Reidtalking about Mitt Romney’s taxes comes to mind). Still,outright lies and glaring hypocrisy were largely viewed as apolitical liability that could very well come back to bite youon the ass.

Boy how times have changed.

Less than a decade later, it feels like we’re living in thewild west. Blatant dishonesty and breathtaking hypocrisyrarely deal anything more than a glancing blow (usually noteven that) to the political figures who routinely demonstratethem. If an elected leader or even a political pundit doesn’t

like a particular fact, no problem. He or she can just denyit, and make up some counter-narrative for their base toconsume, adopt, and repeat.

Sure, political opponents will protest all day long, but dothey really matter? In today’s intensely tribal landscape,such gripes effectively become background noise, even to themoderates — many of whom are fed up with the daily back andforth, and finding themselves less and less politicallyengaged.

Less engagement means less accountability for conduct, whichis why hypocrisy, also, no long carries the stigma it oncedid.

Yes, shame is in very short supply in today’s politics, and Itruly miss it.

I wrote a lot about this topic during the Trump years (when itwas mainstreamed on the right) because it was, and continuesto be, particularly disheartening to watch so many people onmy side of the aisle, including many I used to respect,abandon all such mindfulness.

I mean, literally, as I’m writing this, video-clips of TedCruz are being posted online showing Cruz, at some eventtoday, mocking other Republicans for kissing up to DonaldTrump.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) mocks *other Republicans* for kissing upto Donald Trump while campaigning for PA Senate candidateDave McCormick (R). pic.twitter.com/f3Dk043s3m

— The Recount (@therecount) May 13, 2022

You may recall that this is the same Ted Cruz who reducedhimself to a longtime, slobbering Trump-sycophant after Trumptrashed his wife’s looks, and linked his father to the JFK

assassination.

(Frankly, if the senator stays true to form, he’ll probablyturn up on Tucker Carlson’s show early next week to humblyapologize for today’s remarks — not for his hypocrisy, butbecause of the point I’m about to make).

Among those, like Cruz, who work in Republican politics or theright-wing political media, this sea-change towardshamelessness came to fruition mostly out of professionalsurvival. I could write a James A. Michener sized book on allthe political and ideological about-faces I’ve witnessed fromnotable righties since 2015, and there’s really only onereason for it. The MAGA era, and the transformation of the GOPinto a personality cult, put these people in the unenviableposition of having to either abandon their principles andrebrand themselves around the whims of Donald Trump, or runthe very real risk of losing their constituencies andaudiences, and having to find work elsewhere.

Most, by far, chose the former.

For many regular folks on the right, the shift came from thedeluded but self-assuring belief that we on the right are atliteral war with the left. And thus any damage we can inflicton liberals (even superficially, rhetorically, or counter-productively, at which Trump excelled) is both necessary andentirely justifiable… not only politically, but also morally.

Conservative columnist David French refers to this phenomenonas “The Great Rationalization,” and recently wrote a must-readcolumn on how it’s been adopted by a disturbing number ofAmerican Christians as somewhat of a religious doctrine.

Many people thought (or at least hoped) this sentiment woulderode after January 6 and Trump leaving office, but it’s stillvery much in play and echoed through reflexive denialism,whataboutism, and other mechanisms indicative of a “desperatetimes call for desperate measures” view of things.

The lasting result is a long list of conduct and positionsdeemed wholly unacceptable by the right whenever the leftborrows from it, but perfectly appropriate (and even virtuous)when the right uses it.

Of course, the shamelessness is by no means limited to theright. With the Democrats back in power in Washington, it’sbeen front and center in a big way.

Joe Biden ran for president on a platform of healing thenation — or at least turning down the volume and temperatureafter four years of Donald Trump. Yet, he has made stoking thepolitical divide a hallmark of his tenure, still blaming Trumpand the Republicans for his woes as president, and focusinghis efforts on sweeping (and extraordinarily costly)ideological initiatives, some of which occasionally compel himto compare political opponents to historical racists.

With the very real possibility that Roe v. Wade will beoverturned this summer, many lefties, who (rightly) decriedthe violation of political norms under Trump, are nowshrugging off the norm-desecrating leak of Justice Alito’sdraft, while ratcheting up calls for President Biden to stackthe Supreme Court with liberal justices — a move that wouldalter its number of seats for the first time in over 150years.

Democrats have been right in their condemnations of, as WhiteHouse Press Secretary Jen Psaki recently put it, “voices onthe right” who remained “silent for years on protests thathave happened outside of the homes of school board members,the Michigan Secretary of State … or even an insurrectionagainst our Capitol.” The problem is that she used those wordsin defense of liberals protesting outside of conservativeSupreme Court justices’ homes, with the intent of intimidatingthose justices into changing their vote on Dobbs v. JacksonWomen’s Health Organization (to preserve Roe v. Wade).

And while I stopped responding to my Facebook friends’political posts some time ago (a practice I highly recommend),it’s taken some real discipline not to reply to the many memesI’ve seen (echoed by numerous Democratic politicians andliberal-media personalities) arguing that men should have nosay in abortion decisions, with the below picture of thejustices who decided Roe v. Wade back in 1973.

I’ve long understood that politics is a contact sport, andthat it’s not for the faint-hearted, and all of those othertired old euphemisms. But at least, in the past, politicalbattles were a means to an end. Today, they often feeldirectionless. Guiding principles have given way to tactics,and lots of times it’s not even clear what exactly is beingfought for.

Case in point, again as I’m writing this, here’s a messagejust in from Elise Stefanik, the third-raking HouseRepublican:

The White House, House Dems, & usual pedo grifters are so out

of touch with the American people that rather than presentANY PLAN or urgency to address the nationwide baby formulacrisis, they double down on sending pallets of formula to thesouthern border. Joe Biden has NO PLAN

— Elise Stefanik (@EliseStefanik) May 13, 2022

Usual pedo grifters? What does that even mean? There’s a groupof pedofiles out there somewhere, who Stefanik knows by name(since she referred to them as “usual”), who are denyingAmericans of baby formula? If so, this is an outrage. What’sStefanik and her party doing to stop them?

The answer is nothing, because this is shameless and perversepolitical garbage that would have faced sharp consequences afew years ago. But in the year 2022, I doubt anyone willremember it three days from now.

God, I miss shame.

Bernie’s Q&A: Mark Esper,Elon Musk, Roe v. Wade, andmore! (5/13) — PremiumInteractive ($4 members)

Welcome to this week’s Premium Q&A session for PremiumInteractive members. I appreciate you all signing up andjoining me. Thank you.

Editor’s note: If you enjoy these sessions (along with theweekly columns and audio commentaries), please use theFacebook and Twitter buttons to share this page with yourfriends and family. Thank you!

Now, let’s get to your questions (and my answers):

Bernie: Multi-layered question regarding the Supreme Courtleak: Who do you think leaked Alito’s brief? Why do you thinkthey leaked? Will they get caught under this investigation byRoberts? If caught, what should be the punishment? Will theybe punished by Democrats if found to be on the left, or byRepublicans if found to be on the right? Finally, how willthis change how the court operates and/or vets clerks andother aids? — Steve R.

I’m thinking the leak came from a liberal inside the SupremeCourt … because they were outraged with the apparent decision

… and wanted to put pressure on the conservative justices tochange their opinion. Will the leaker get caught? Yes. Therearen’t that many possible suspects. The leaker will bepunished whether he or she is a liberal or a conservative. Theleak was a gigantic breach of trust, both sides agree on that.Not sure how it would change the way the court operates —because the breach, so far, is unique. So not sure the currentchecks and balances won’t work going forward. But some tweaksprobably will come about.

Lately I’m hearing progressive left wing pundits angrilylamenting the fact that after Roe v. Wade was established bythe Supreme Court, that the Democrat Presidents (specificallyJimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama) did not codifyRoe v. Wade, even when they had the political ability to doso, which begs the question: why didn’t they? Why do you thinkthey didn’t when they likely could have? Your thoughts areappreciated. — “Woulda’ Coulda’ Shoulda’” regards from TheEmperor

Maybe they didn’t want to stir up a hot issue that might verywell have hurt them more than it would help. And it would bewise if Republicans, should they take control of Congress, notgo down that road, either. Let the state’s decide. If votersdon’t like what’s going on where they live, they can at leasttry to vote out of office the officials who came down on the“wrong” side of the issue.

Mr. G., Can you shed a little on how DNC & RNC “TalkingPoints” are crafted & distributed each day? How broad are theyshared? Are they also released daily officially orunofficially to News media and to TV and Radio show opinionhosts to help drive bias? It’s amazing to me how consistentthe daily parade of BS talking points is. The Left top tobottom in the lineup leads the league in pushing talkingpoints. –ScottyG

I’ve never been a Washington reporter (by choice) so I was

always out of the loop on talking points — and glad of it. Butthey are shared with opinion (and other) news people, mainly Isuspect on cable TV where opinion is king. I assume it’s putout on the letter head of the DNC or the RNC but as I say,I’ve (happily) never been on either side’s mailing list. Thereason that the Left leads the league is because there aremore liberal news organizations out there in the so-calledmainstream media than the other way around.

Solid [Monday] piece, per usual. But no mention of theabortion question now being returned to the states as a newfactor in the ’22 midterms. Was this intentional?

Realize…the Dem’s, running on this abortion question, may nowhave a lane to press their case with the voters: The privacyargument used to justify abortion also roots other issues tothe Dem’s advantage; notably gay marriage and inter-racialmarriage. Would not any ‘threat’ to these settled questionslikely antagonize voters, currently focused on Penn’s ‘fearindex’, to step back and rethink how they vote?

Consider how Mississippi Governor (Reeves?) fumbled whenrecently asked if any reconsideration of the ‘privacy rights’in the Constitution could cause a review of access to birthcontrol?

Any thoughts? — Andrew M.

I have an entire column on the abortion issue coming on onMonday; that’s the reason I didn’t get into it in lastMonday’s column. But it’s a fair question that you ask.Regarding the argument that overturning Roe would lead toother rights being overturned … that’s a big part of my newcolumn … but yes, that fear — real or otherwise —understandably would energize Democratic voters, along withmoderate swing voters in battleground states, a crucial bloc.As for the Mississippi governor: I’m sure a lot of Republicanswish he had waited at least until after the midterms to take

his case to the Supreme Court. Check out my column on Monday.Thanks.

Bernie, Mark Esper is the latest Trump official to release abook detailing a lot of crazy stuff that went on behind thescenes at the Trump white house. This time, we learned thatTrump wanted to fire missiles into Mexico and shoot GeorgeFloyd protesters in the legs. What are your thoughts on peoplelike Esper keeping such information under wraps until they canprofit off of it in a book? Do you think they have a duty tothe country to come forward earlier when such things happen,or do you think they shouldn’t say anything at all unless thepresident followed through with something really bad? — Ben G.

Good question, Ben. If I were in the Trump Administration andhe talked about firing missiles into Mexico and shootingprotestors in the legs, I would have said, Adios — I’m out ofhere. But he says he chose to stay on to make sure someonedidn’t come in who would actually go along with that kind ofwhacko stuff. I’ll go this far: It looks just as you suggestit looks … that he kept the information under wraps to sell abook. And that’s not a good look.

Bernie, just a quick thought and a request. When I hear youdiscuss the shenanigans of the Democrats, I never hear you sayor infer that there are basically no tactics that are off thetable for them. The latest leak from the SCOTUS is the latestexample. I agree that Trump’s lawyers could have been farbetter in their approach to their assertions vis a vis the2020 election; however look at the corruption they had toovercome to even present their case. They were formidable.Just wondering if you have seen Dinesh Desousa’s new film 2000Mules? It is an excellent expose of some of the“irregularities” that occurred. Moreover, why is nobody on theright even talking about the film? For those of us who believethe election was stolen, we ponder as to what will stop thepowers that be from doing this again? I think we haveestablished the fact that there is little that they wouldn’t

do to retain or gain control. Desousa’s film is prettycompelling. What am I missing Bernie? — Thomas C.

I didn’t see the film. If it had truly blockbuster stuff init, it would be all over Fox and right wing websites. As youknow Thomas I’m no fan of the left; I don’t make excuses fortheir tactics. But you’re stuck on the idea that “the electionwas stolen.” I’m no longer going to argue with you about that.I won’t waste my time. But that belief must leave you unhappy— how could they steal the election and get away with it. Theonly problem is they didn’t. Believe whatever you want. Youseem like a good guy. But please, try to move on to otherstuff.

What was hinted [in this week’s No BS Zone], but unanswered,is why the extreme elements of both political parties are nowso influential, unlike the past? Has gerrymandering makingsafe political seats meant only the primary matters, socandidates pander to the more extreme elements? Or have moreAmericans themselves become more extreme — at both ends of thepolitical spectrum? In the end it’s government OF THE PEOPLEby the people for the people. — John R.

I don’t think more Americans have become more extreme, thoughI guess that’s possible. I think that there are significantmegaphones that amplify what the extremes have to say. CableNews for example. As for their influence: No one wants to get“primaries” — something we didn’t hear about a while back. Andif they don’t cater to the extremists, they likely will get aprimary opponent. And in primaries, the extremes turn out inbig numbers, generally. Hope I threw out some possible answersto your question, John.

Elon Musk says when he assumes ownership of Twitter – he willrescind its ban on Trump, who has already said he doesn’t planto return. However, if Trump were to regain the 83 millionfollowers he lost on Twitter when his account was terminated –is this a good thing for the GOP – in relation to the mid-

terms AND 2024? Because as you say, the Dems continue to wantto drag Trump into the conversation. They hate him butdesperately need him – to help them slow the bleeding. BecauseI bet every time Trump tweets something, he will be givingexactly what the Dems want – blared repeatedly by asympathetic media intoning about a second apocalypse should heponder a run in 2024 – a media that has tanked in ratings andcirculation – since Twitter pulled the plug on a formerPresident’s voice – while letting hard core activists andheads of states abroad run wild with their own brand of hate –which in most cases, makes DJT’s former blatherings seem likekindergarten.

I’m not sure about the upside of DJT returning to Twitterother than bolstering his own base who will never abandon him– while roiling and reminding independents why they votedagainst him in 2020 but voted strong for the GOP in the downballot races. — David K.

Good analysis, David. First, I know he says he won’t return toTwitter but I think he will. He’s not likely to turn down avery big audience. But then you hit the nail on the head:He’ll tweet all sorts of BS and give the Dems and their mediaallies just what they want. If you want Republicans to win in2022 and beyond, pray that he stays off Twitter.

Rolling Stone is reporting that while in office, Donald Trumphad serious concerns that China could create literalhurricanes with a secret weapon, and hurl them toward theUnited States. Rolling Stone has certainly had somecredibility problems in the past, but if what they’re sayingis true, it would at least explain separate reports from acouple years ago that Trump had inquired about the possibilityof the U.S. stopping incoming hurricanes by firing nuclearweapons at them.

Bernie, you’ve reported on hurricane damage in the past, andas I recall, your own home suffered significant hurricane

damage several years ago. Does it bother you that past U.S.presidents were too cowardly to even consider nukinghurricanes, and do you think that if there’s major hurricanedevastation in the U.S. sometime in the next two years, Trumpwill retake the presidency by arguing that it would have neverhappened on his watch, because he’s tough on China andhurricanes? — John D.

Why in the world should we take the Rolling Stones seriouslywhen they opine about hurricanes and nuclear bombs. I liketheir music but who thinks they’re expert in weather orweapons? I don’t. OH WAIT. You said ROLLING STONE … themagazine … not ROLLING STONES … the rock group. As EmilyLitella might say: NEVER MIND.

Thanks, everyone! You can send me questions for next weekusing the form below! You can also read previous Q&A sessionsby clicking here.

Name: *

Email Address:

Subject:

Message: * Submit

The No BS Zone: Roe v. Wade,“Disinformation Governance”,and How Biden Can Revive HisPresidency

Welcome to episode 3 of The No BS Zone with Bernard Goldbergand John Daly. Today, the two discuss the impact of Roe v.Wade potentially being overturned, Homeland Security’sDisinformation Governance Board, the upcoming midtermelections, and how President Biden can revive his presidency.

Show Notes:

– A brief audio glitch garbled a comment John made about NinaJankowicz. He joked that she’s a good singer.

Editor’s Note: If you enjoy these video discussions (alongwith the weekly columns, audio commentaries, and Q&Asessions), please share this page with your friends andfamily. Thank you!

For the Left, Children AreEither Obstacles or ToolsAttention readers: Dennis Prager is off this week. Pleaseenjoy the following column by Ben Shapiro.

In the aftermath of a leaked Supreme Court draft majoritydecision prospectively overruling Roe v. Wade, the Left in theUnited States has gone into full-fledged panic mode. Thatoutsized panic has manifested as a variety of unconvincing orblatantly immoral arguments: the argument that abortion is anecessary adjunct to women’s freedom — as though contraceptiondoesn’t exist, and as though women are never responsible fortheir own sexual decisions and the consequences thereof; theargument that unless society provides for any number ofgovernment programs, abortion should not be prohibited — asthough the solution to lack of universal child care is thedeath of the child; the argument that conservatives will nextattempt to outlaw interracial marriage — an absurd slander onits face.

Underlying all of this is a perverse and inverted view ofchildren’s role in society. To the Left, children in the wombare utterly disposable; at best, women may choose to preservetheir lives, but if not, they have no separate interests to beconsidered. In fact, children are to be treated as potentialobstacles: as Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said this week,“access to reproductive health care, including abortion,helped lead to increased labor force participation; it enabledmany women to finish school. That increased their earningpotential.” This explains why the Left has now embraced thelanguage of “forced birth” to describe laws protecting theunborn: pregnancy is no longer seen as the possible biological

outgrowth of sexual activity, but as a dramatic foreignimposition on women. The default, for the Left, ischildlessness; pregnancy is somehow unnatural. Thus, theentire Democratic Party apparatus now refuses to countenanceeven the mildest restrictions on even late-term abortion.

Once children are born, the Left then sees them as sources ofgrief and pain for their parents. This, too, cuts in favor ofabortion. As former President Barack Obama once stated abouthis daughters, “if they make a mistake, I don’t want thempunished with a baby.” Babies are life-sucking entities,depriving women of opportunity and freedom. Which explains whythe Left has now embraced the argument that unless governmentsomehow relieves parents of their responsibility to raise andcare for their own children, abortion ought to be broadlyavailable.

As children grow, the Left sees them as the center ofrecruitment efforts on behalf of their favored politics.Children should be indoctrinated in the ideas of racialessentialism and historic guilt, so as to turn them intopolitical widgets on behalf of utopian social change; childrenshould be confused about the nature of biological sex andgender, so as to justify the sexual attitudes of narcissisticadults. Hence the Left’s outsized rage at Florida’s ParentalRights in Education bill, which merely banned sexualorientation and gender theory indoctrination for childrenthrough third grade. As the San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorussang in 2021, “You think that we’ll corrupt your kids, if ouragenda goes unchecked. Funny, just this once, you’re correct.We’ll convert your children. Happens bit by bit.” No wonderPresident Joe Biden told teachers two weeks ago, “They’re allour children… They’re not somebody else’s children, they’relike yours when they’re in the classroom.”

All of this is fundamentally indecent. Adulthood lies in oneprimary task: protecting and defending children. This meansbearing children is a gift, not an obstacle; this means that

children should not be treated as autonomous adults whileadults escape responsibility for their own decisions. Thismeans raising children in line with values that ensure theirstability and happiness — even if that means a tougher lifefor adults. All of that begins with a basic supposition theLeft refuses to countenance: that they are not the center ofcreation, but that their children ought to be.

Ben Shapiro, 38, is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School,host of “The Ben Shapiro Show,” and editor-in-chief ofDailyWire.com. He is the author of the New York Timesbestsellers “How To Destroy America In Three Easy Steps,” “TheRight Side Of History,” and “Bullies.” To find out more aboutBen Shapiro and read features by other Creators Syndicatewriters and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate websiteat www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2022 CREATORS

Last Updated: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 20:31:25 -0700

A Big Problem for Democratsin the Midterms: OtherDemocrats

The op-ed in the New York Times ran under the headline,“American Voters Haven’t Been Afraid Like This in a LongTime.” Right there you knew this wasn’t going to a day at thebeach for Democrats.

But the column wasn’t the work of some right-wing Republican,which meant it could simply have been written off as partisannonsense by Democrats and their reliable allies in themainstream media. Its author was a Democrat himself, MarkPenn, who was a pollster and adviser to both President Clintonand Hillary Clinton. He’s currently the chairman of the HarrisPoll.

His piece is a somber warning to Democrats as we approach themidterm elections — and beyond to 2024. “In a rareconvergence, America’s voters are not merely unhappy withtheir political leadership, but awash in fears about economicsecurity, border security, international security and evenphysical security,” is how the column begins. “Without a U-turn by the Biden administration, this fear will generate awave election like those in 1994 and 2010, setting off a chainreaction that could flip the House and the Senate toRepublican control in November, and ultimately the presidency

in 2024.”

But asking Joe Biden to make a U-turn is a lot easier saidthan done, especially when it’s not at all clear that he’s theguy driving the car. “To combat the drag that fear has on theelectorate — what I call a ‘fear index” — Mark Penn writes,“Mr. Biden will have to move in some big and bold ways.” Butthat’s not going to be easy, either — and not only because ofRepublican opposition. Biden has another obstacle he has tonavigate around: progressives in his own party.

He could have taken them on early in his presidency, he couldhave discretely put out the word — either directly or throughsurrogates — that progressives may mean well but are out oftouch with most Democrats. He could have pointed out that thatthey were mostly urban elites who saw America through a darklens and were obsessed with race and gender and which pronounswere acceptable. But he didn’t say any of that. He owed themtoo much. After all, when he beat Bernie Sanders for thenomination, Bernie didn’t take his ball and go home — hesummoned his “army” to support Biden, support he desperatelyneeded to beat Donald Trump.

Biden ran as a middle-of-the road Democrat but it didn’t takelong before he moved left and was proposing trillion dollarspending bills to “fundamentally change” the economy. Thatmay have been music to progressive ears but the tune soundedoff key to a lot of Americans, and not only Republicans.

And so now his party is facing a political tsunami. There’sinflation, the biggest issue on the minds of voters and theone that rightly has Democratic congressional candidates in apanic. Less federal spending might put a dent in inflation,but progressives want more spending, not less. How does Bidendeal with that?

Americans are worried about crime. But how does Joe Bidensound like he’s tough on crime — and not just on guns — when

it’s Democrats who are running most American big cities?

When he ran for president in 2020, Biden said cash-bail was a“modern-day debtors’ prison,” and he promised to eliminateit. But even Democrats know that no-cash bail laws, passed byDemocratic legislatures, are a big reason there’s a crimesurge in America. Progressive district attorneys who seems tohave more sympathy for criminals than their victims is anotherreason it’s going to be difficult for Biden to “move in somebig and bold ways” to convince voters that it’s not only theRepublican Party that takes crime seriously.

American voters don’t want out of control immigration on oursouthern border. You hear a lot about the chaos on the borderfrom Republicans and increasingly from Democrats, especiallythe ones facing tough elections in November. But you don’thear much from progressives, who, you get the impression,would be perfectly happy if we just opened the border and letevery one in who wants to come in.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the progressive congresswoman fromNew York, doesn’t even like the word “surge” to describe theinflux of illegal immigrants coming here from Mexico andCentral America. The word, she has said, invokes a“militaristic frame” rooted in “white supremacy.” Last year,speaking to followers on Instagram, she said, “This is not a‘surge,’ these are children, they are not insurgents. And weare not being invaded. Which, by the way, is a whitesupremacist idea—the idea that if ‘an other’ is coming in thepopulation, that this is like an invasion of who we are.”

Invoking “white supremacy” every chance they get is part ofthe progressive playbook. But most Americans, I suspect,including most Democrats, have had enough; they’re tired ofhearing about what a racist country America is.

So this is Joe Biden’s dilemma, and that of his party: tofind a way (if it isn’t already too late) to recapture the

middle ground — without alienating progressives who they’llneed win elections. Democrats don’t need a politicalstrategist to get them out of the mess they created forthemselves, they need a magician.

Mark Penn ends his piece with another dire warning for hisfellow Democrats. “People are afraid of being wallopedfinancially, being injured or menaced by criminals, being in acountry without strong borders or Covid protections forimmigrants, and being under threat of nuclear weapons. If Mr.Biden and Democratic leaders cannot effectively address thesefears, the wave election will hit them in November, and thepresident will then face a sobering choice of either passingthe baton to another candidate in 2024 or finding the boldleadership necessary to reconcile his drive for moreprogressive policies with the realities of economics, politicsand a more dangerous world.”

Joe Biden isn’t the first politician to be seduced by thepromise of greatness. But if he didn’t decide early on to tobe “consequential,” to become FDR and LBJ rolled into one —without anything resembling the mandates they both had — heand his party probably wouldn’t be in the hot water they’re intoday. Their only hope to avoid what looks like theinevitable, is for Republicans do something really stupidbetween now and November. In the technical jargon of politicsthey call that “a distinct possibility.”