Source: The American Conservative.

The writer observes that the indictment of Donald Trump over the Mar-a-Lago national security documents violates a fundamental Constitutional norm. To wit:

The “unitive executive theory” periodically becomes a trendy topic during newsworthy uses of presidential power, but the theory itself is simple and based in the Constitution. Because Article II of the Constitution vests the executive power of the United States in the president, then, according to the Yale Law Journal, “The executive [branch] is headed by a single person, not a collegial body, and that single person is the ultimate policy maker, with all others subordinate to him.” This theory often gets disparaged as promoting tyranny or a monarch-like president, but it is actually quite reasonable. The president of the United States is the executive, and every other member of the executive branch (from the heads of the CIA and the State Department to the janitors in the Pentagon) is subject to the president and serves at his pleasure.

Continue reading “The Trump Indictment: What Can a Unitary Executive Do?” →

Source: The Unz Review.

It is a shame there are no liberals left here at Tidewater Forum. They will miss a moment of potential edification.

In the source article Ron Unz documents some of the “alternative” history that accounts for the origins of WW II and shows, after a fashion, that the alternative once was mainstream. He argues that prominent, even eminent, historians published their researches soon after the war, often to critical acclaim; then their findings were suppressed and displaced. The result in our time is a great historical imaginarium upon which so much of contemporary liberalism is based: The hoax that WW II was a “good war” in which fascism was utterly defeated.

It is breathtaking to contemplate that FDR may have engineered WW II to provide economic recovery from the U.S.’s Great Depression. It is similarly breathtaking to contemplate that the Holocaust may be largely if not entirely fictional. Yet Unz outlines precisely these views.

Source: ZeroHedge.

Good to see that Tucker Carlson has found a venue in which to publish.

Apart from that, what do you all make of the UFO story? Here’s a link for the details:

Intelligence Officials Say U.S. Has Retrieved Craft of Non-Human Origin

Personally, I’m skeptical that craft of non-human origin have been retrieved, but I’m not inclined to dismiss the allegation out of hand. I want more information.

James Burnham was an American philosopher and political theorist. In his book, Suicide of the West (1964), he catalogs 19 ideas/beliefs/values that typify the liberal (or leftist) mentality. For contrast, Burnham presents for each liberal conception a corresponding non-liberal conception. Here is Burnham’s fourth pairing:

Elements comprising the doctrinal dimension of the liberal syndrome:

L4) Because of the extrinsic and remediable nature of the obstacles, it follows that there are solutions to every social problem, and that progress and the good society can be achieved; historical optimism is justified.

One possible set of contrasting nonliberal elements:

X4) Since there are intrinsic and permanent as well as extrinsic and remediable obstacles, the good society of universal peace, justice, freedom and well-being cannot be achieved, and there are no solutions to most of the primary social problems which are, in truth, not so much “problems” as permanent conditions of human existence. Plans based on the goal of realizing the ideal society or solving the primary problems are likely to be dangerous as well as Utopian, and to lessen rather than increase the probability of bringing about the moderate improvement and partial solutions that are in reality possible.

Burnham’s L4 reminds me of a statement often made here at Tidewater Forum: “Reality has a liberal bias.” The sentiment is, frankly, almost meaningless. It is essentially an excuse for bad behavior, especially impoliteness.

But I think Burnham’s intention in this pairing is precisely to draw attention to the disruptive revolutionary character of liberalism. Once a mentality has determined for itself that it is good, there are no limits to the evil it can commit or rationalize. Hence, Burnham’s X4 takes pains to elaborate the material obstacles to revolutionary success.

As one who actually believes that “progress and the good society can be achieved,” I’m a little uncomfortable with Burnham’s pessimism. On the other hand, I am just as inclined as he to the view that revolutionary impulses need to be restrained.

The problem is not that liberals’ feigned optimism is wrong, only that it is unregulated. That revolutions tend to harm women, children and other living things never factors in the liberal mindset.

James Burnham was an American philosopher and political theorist. In his book, Suicide of the West (1964), he catalogs 19 ideas/beliefs/values that typify the liberal (or leftist) mentality. For contrast, Burnham presents for each liberal conception a corresponding nonliberal conception. Here is Burnham’s third pairing:

Elements comprising the doctrinal dimension of the liberal syndrome:

L3) The obstacles to progress and the achievement of the good society are ignorance and faulty social institutions.

One possible set of contrasting nonliberal elements:

X3) Besides ignorance and faulty social institutions there are many other obstacles to progress and the achievement of the good society: some rooted in the biological, psychological, moral and spiritual nature of man; some, in the difficulties of the terrestrial environment; others, in the intransigence of nature; still others, derived from man’s loneliness in the material universe.

This pairing interests me in a particular, if eccentric, way. I was recently in a conversation with a young man, a devout and studied Catholic, about the nature of God and religious experience. He had taken the position — in so many words — that God and religion can only be revealed through adherence to the rules and procedures of the one true faith, which had been perfected over centuries. My counteroffer was to suggest that God is all around us all the time and anyone can prove that to himself just by taking the trouble to pay attention.

I did not criticize Catholicism or attempt to challenge its practicality. Rather, I only wanted to emphasize the immediacy of God and God’s reality, as I consider this specific awareness to be a common one throughout the ages. It is, I wanted to say, the reason mankind developed sciences — which to my mind are attempts to account for this one ineffable yet persisting observation.

In this context I see Burnham’s X3 as unduly political. That is, the perfection of society is not the only purpose of life. Liberals, as depicted in Burnham’s L3, may be obsessed with the perfection of society, but the nonliberal mentality need not be.

To put the matter another way, I’d suggest that the many “obstacles to progress and the achievement of the good society” are not really obstacles at all. Better to understand them as musical chords. When you strike a bad note, that’s just the music telling you you made a mistake so that you can know what needs fixing in your technique.

Source: Astral Codex Ten.

This book review presents one of the most stunningly brilliant ideas I have ever come across.

Ever since Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations — and arguably even before — economists have assumed that nations are the natural, top-level structure by which an economy can be understood. The author of the book, however, proposes that cities are the natural, top-level form of economy. In fact, she argues that nations and empires fail because their rulers don’t know or understand this basic truth and therefore make destructive economic decisions.

As I understand it, the author’s proposal is partly definitional. You simply change the economic taxonomy to culminate with cities instead of nations. Thus, an individual person represents an economy in microcosm; a group of individuals engaged in trade represents the next level of organizational complexity; then large conglomerations of people all trading with one another — cities — are the ultimate level of organizational complexity.

Beyond that, basic economic processes are no longer observable in any meaningful way. In effect, a nation may be conceived of for economic purposes as a collection of cities, but the conception is illusory. It is merely theoretical.

In this scheme, national currencies tend to obscure the informational signals that city economies need to continually adapt to the changing world in which they exist. The mechanisms are the various forms of inflation and deflation which occur due to forces outside of an individual city — another line of demarcation that sets a real city economy apart from an imaginary national one.

Overall, cities become sustainable when they begin to produce goods they otherwise would have to import. They become prosperous when they begin to produce more goods than they need. They inevitably become poor whenever leaders try to control the creation and distribution of goods within them.

The idea that cities, not nations, are the ultimate economic unit strikes me as highly useful. This is not to say that nations have no economic reality. Rather, it is to clarify the boundaries of direct observation.

James Burnham was an American philosopher and political theorist. In his book, Suicide of the West (1964), he catalogs 19 ideas/beliefs/values that typify the liberal (or leftist) mentality. For contrast, Burnham presents for each liberal conception a corresponding non-liberal conception. Here is Burnham’s second pairing:

Elements comprising the doctrinal dimension of the liberal syndrome:

L2) Human beings are basically rational; reason and science are the only proper means for discovering truth and are the sole standard of truth, to which authority, custom, intuition, revelation, etc., must give way.

One possible set of contrasting nonliberal elements:

X2) Human beings are moved by sentiment, passion, intuition and other non-rational impulses at least as much as by reason. Any view of man, history and society that neglects the non-rational impulses and their embodiment in custom, prejudice, tradition and authority, or that conceives of a social order in which the non-rational impulses and their embodiments are wholly subject to abstract reason, is an illusion.

Continue reading “Learning Liberals 2” →

Source: ZeroHedge.

The war in Ukraine appears to be unfolding according to Russian plans and with complete indifference to U.S. and European interests.

Russia’s predicted capture of Bakmut (now Artyomovsk) is an inflection point. Ukraine isn’t capable of mounting an effective counteroffensive to retake territory it has lost. Russia may be capable of marching to Kiev, but one wonders if it will try.

Meanwhile, Stumble Joe fiddles while the New Rome burns.

James Burnham was an American philosopher and political theorist. In his book, Suicide of the West (1964), he catalogs 19 ideas/beliefs/values that typify the liberal (or leftist) mentality. For contrast, Burnham presents for each liberal conception a corresponding non-liberal conception. Here is Burnham’s first pairing:

Elements comprising the doctrinal dimension of the liberal syndrome:

L1) Human nature is changing and plastic, with an indefinite potential for progressive development, and no innate obstacles to the realization of the good society of peace, justice, freedom and well-being.

One possible set of contrasting nonliberal elements:

X1) Human nature exhibits constant as well as changing attributes. It is at least partially defective or corrupt intrinsically, and thus limited in its potential for progressive development; in particular, incapable of realizing the good society of peace, justice, freedom and wellbeing.

I recognize L1 from liberal commentary that has appeared at Tidewater Forum over the years. I also recognize X1 from conservative commentary I have come across in many other venues over the same period. As a result I think Burnham may indeed be describing an actual liberal mentality.

It seems to me, however, that whereas L1 is clearly naive, X1 is likely inaccurate. I tend to think of human nature as essentially perfect and good in the sense that it is the product of developmental (or evolutionary) conditions. Simultaneously, it happens to be the case that human nature is not well or comprehensively understood in any manner that approaches scientific certainty. So — at present at least — it is impossible to have a verifiable opinion in the matter.

Which is a bold mark against the “liberal syndrome,” because: To believe L1 you must believe in unprovable things.

Source: Wall Street Journal (free link).

The writer blames bureaucratic error for the failure he describes, but I suspect the cause is more fundamental.

Continue reading “How the FDA Helped Fuel the Opioid Epidemic” →