Category Archives: POTUS

Thomas Jefferson: Revolutionary: A Radical’s Struggle to Remake America

In our present Age of Social Justice, study of America’s founders, if it’s being conducted at all, can be summed up in hashtags. The centuries of hard won wisdom which the founders sought to institutionalize through the creation of a constitutionally limited democratic republic are reduced down to a collection of puerile slogans.  The central propositions of individual liberty, property rights, limited government and equality under the law are routinely denigrated as a system of white supremacist, patriarchal colonialism by the academic intelligentsia. Of all our nation’s founders, the one whose entire legacy is increasingly subject to reductionist caricature is Thomas Jefferson. Thanks to a steady drumbeat of smug, ahistorical SJW revisionism from artists and academics alike, Jefferson is likely to be perceived merely as the guy who had sex with his slave to the average American. 

The prevalence of these leftist cartoons is exactly what makes Kevin Gutzman’s new book about Jefferson such an essential read. Thomas Jefferson: Revolutionary is a tour through Jefferson’s thought. Specifically, it highlights what distinguishes him from other national founders and why he lives up to the designation “revolutionary”.  These core ideas include federalism, freedom of conscience, colonization, racial assimilation, and the establishment of the University of Virginia. Gutzman’s exhaustively researched book gives us a portrait of a true Renaissance Man; a man whose depth of genius extended beyond his corpus of political thought and spanned every discipline from architecture to anthropology and archeology. As wonderful as Gutzman’s reading of the Jeffersonian record is, it also illustrates the myriad ways his legacy has been overrun, hijacked and discounted. 

The first section of the book focuses on the Jeffersonian idea of federalism, and the various ways he fought for it throughout his political career. Federalism is more commonly known as “state’s rights”, but Jefferson’s concept was even more radical than the narrow construction to which we’re presently confined. For Jefferson, it meant that the federal government was strictly constrained by the powers enumerated in the Constitution and that anything that was not expressly within federal purview would redound to the states. He stood by this principle throughout his political career, and it put him at odds, often acrimoniously, with Federalists like Alexander Hamilton and John Adams. From his stinging rebuttal to the Hamiltonian Bank Bill to his opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts, what emerges is an unbroken line of thought which distinguishes Jeffersonian federalism. Time and again, Jefferson appealed to a strict construction of the Constitution. Specifically, he emphasized the power reserved by the States enshrined in the 10th Amendment, whether to enforce federal law. It might be easy for the modern academic to take Jefferson’s stance towards the Missouri Crisis as an endorsement of slavery, but it should be viewed as evidence of his steadfast adherence to this principle.

Though Jefferson formed what are technically the ideological roots of the modern Democratic Party, I am doubtful you’ll find a single modern progressive who subscribes to the belief that the Constitution is to be strictly constructed or that federal power should be constrained in any way.  One need look no further than the treatment Neil Gorsuch received in his confirmation hearing to see how the Left views a strict reading of the Constitution. 

His defense of federalism during the Missouri Crisis dovetails into the subsequent section which explores his equally fervent belief in freedom of conscience. Just as he believed the federal government had no jurisdiction over an individual State’s sanction of slavery, he fought just as hard to ensure that the State held no power to compel thought of any nature. Especially in matters of faith.  

Any modern progressive who’s championed the separation of Church and State owes a debt of gratitude to Jefferson. Gutzman chronicles the numerous pieces of legislation penned by Jefferson which actively severed the State’s ability to compel any form of Christian teaching or ritual. Jefferson’s ultimate legislative triumph which culminated his thought and enshrined the church-state separation was The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.

Jefferson’s insistence on severing Church and State didn’t go down so well with some of the more devout Americans.  Like the hysterical tantrums of the contemporary progressive Left, New England Congregationalists voiced their opposition to Jefferson’s candidacy in 1800 in the most hyperbolic terms. If you took Timothy Dwight’s paranoid rantings and replaced the Biblical references with the Left’s infantile memes bemoaning the demise of Democracy, the net result would be the same. Opposition to liberty never changes, apparently. Only the slogans. 

The purge of all things Jeffersonian from the historical record is easily understood. The current Social Justice Cultural Revolution is pathologically fixated on slavery, racism, and all forms of oppression real and perceived. Many prominent historians have revised their positions on Jefferson downward as PC sentiment rises. Besides being a slave owner, Jefferson held some views which were rather controversial. His advocacy for human liberty was seemingly completely at odds with being a slave owner. It’s easy to look through a contemporary lens and condemn him for holding these views. Gutzman doesn’t sugar coat Jefferson’s thought, but he takes a more even handed approach than his contemporaries.

Jefferson’s written record indicates that he held views that were, in fact, supremacist in nature. With respect to the emancipation of blacks, Jefferson viewed colonization as the preferable alternative to integration fearing that America might see a Haitian-style slave rebellion of its own. He contended that blacks stood a better chance of achieving the type of self-government for which he fought within the context of an ethnically and culturally homogeneous society rather than a mixed one. In this respect, Jefferson was a sort of proto-Richard Spencer.  

Gutzman takes the view that Jefferson’s thinking on this topic was unenlightened and that blacks, by and large, view American ideals with respect and forbearance. I believe he is largely correct, but I am also inclined to believe that the Ta-Nehisi Coates’ of the world will continue to exploit Jefferson and his legacy to fuel their own grievance industries. 

Another popular lamentation actively cultivated by the progressive grievance machine is the treatment of the Native American population at the hands of the Founders. Jefferson’s views towards the Native Americans were oddly contrary to those he held towards the black population since he believed them to be equal in mind and body to the white man. Though it will doubtless do little to assuage the merchants of American antipathy, his policy was hardly the agenda of genocide that you’re likely to hear from the more hysterical voices. Jefferson held that Native Americans had a “right of preemption” against other nations which entitled them to acquire or dispose of property rights through contract or, if necessary, war. Native Americans eventually assimilated American values which were due in no small part to economic and agricultural policies enacted by Jefferson. However, the eventual dispossession of the Native American land is also directly attributed to Jeffersonian doctrine. Just as with the black population, one wonders whether the lamentations of cultural destruction which emanate from Native American activist circles will ever be put to rest.

Thomas Jefferson’s quest to expand primary and higher education through the creation of the nation’s first university was largely geared towards the preservation of republicanism, creating civic cohesion and building what he described as a “natural aristocracy”.  Reading what he wrote about the importance of public education, his rhetoric bears at least a superficial resemblance to progressives like Horace Mann or even Bernie Sanders. Jefferson believed that true populist republicanism could only be preserved through a general elevation of public knowledge.  Needless to say, public education is now an unchallenged article of faith amongst the electorate, but Jefferson didn’t share the progressive belief in the institutions as the engines of human perfection.

Jefferson’s views towards the education of young girls will not endear him to the feminist intelligentsia.  Nor would his insistence that the UVA ethics professor teach the proof for the existence of God curry favor with the atheist crowd. What mattered to Jefferson is that education serve the greater goal of building a civic minded youth culture. 

Is Yvette Felarca the type of public educator Jefferson envisioned best equipped to instill an appreciation for republicanism? Is the Black Femininities and Masculinities in the US Media course offering at UVA building the type of “natural aristocracy” for which Jefferson hoped? Or is it building a different kind of aristocracy?

Dr. Gutzman’s reading of the Jefferson legacy is the antidote to the hegemony of the Ron Chernows and Doris Kearns Goodwins of the world. As much the elite might want to consign the Jefferson legacy to the #SocialJustice Memory Hole, Gutzman’s book reminds us that Jefferson’s thought is hardwired into America’s genetic code. Jefferson was not a saint nor are his ideas beyond criticism or reproach. But that shouldn’t preclude a vigorous reexamination of his record and a reappraisal of his ideas in an age of ever expanding state power and the overwhelming dominance of PC multiculturalism. If anything, the Jefferson legacy leaves us with questions. Can a genuine republican nationalism be created in a multicultural society?  Is it even possible to forge a multicultural, Jeffersonian style republicanism when the progressive intelligentsia have an ongoing incentive to foment antipathy towards American thought? I, for one, am hopeful that this book is the catalyst for that discussion. 

  

Advertisements

What I Learned From the 2017 Womyn’s March

Hundreds of thousands of #STRONG womyn and their obedient m*le allies marched in several major cities on Saturday to protest President Literally Hitler. This display of #BRAVERY included some dumb pink hats, lots of selfies with besties, signs emblazoned with idiotic clichés, plenty of references to female genitalia, and lots of yoga pants that are cute but not objectifying. Of course, it was an occasion to collectively whinge about living under the bootheel of white supremacist, capitalist patriarchy. Or something. 

This is the overarching message I received from all of this posturing:

1. Though it was called a Womyn’s March, it was really about feminism. Since feminism is a political agenda almost exclusively aligned with the political Left, we’re going to call it a Womyn’s March because we want people to equate women with feminism in their minds.  Since women are virtuous, wonderful and oppressed and m*n are violent PYGS, we want to advertise to everyone that we are the ones who support womyn. Not like those sexist #ReTHUGliKKKans.  

2. Since feminism presents itself as a liberation ideology which is aligned with Women’s Suffrage and we believe perfectly analogous to the Civil Rights movement and the abolition of slavery, everything for which we currently advocate is Virtuous and Good by definition and proves that we are on the Right Side of #Hxstory. Feminism is the Correct Ideological Position to take if you actually care about the entire spectrum of beleaguered groups suffering under the oppression of the Trumpocalypse and white supremacy in general. Feminism stands for all races, cultures, sexual orientations and gender identities that aren’t white, European or Christian. Everyone who opposes us is a misogynist and a Nazi.  

3. Though we carry signs which virtue signal how “kind” and “loving” we are, what this is really about is ensuring the survival of the feminist (i.e. Democrat) legislative agenda and promoting the idea that the only people fit to govern are Democrats. Womyn are only truly empowered when the taxpayer subsidies are flowing towards our preferred institutions and causes. If it doesn’t, it’s fascism. Everyone who opposes even one piece of the agenda is a racist, sexist #BIGOT.  

4. Our advocacy for this legislative agenda proves that we are Good People® who are #WOKE.  If you make even one attempt to suggest otherwise, you’re a hateful, sexist #BIGOT and a white supremacist. 

5. In feminist media and academia, we will rail against biological gender dimorphism and gender signifiers like the color pink, but in the March, we’ll jettison all of that and wear pink pussy hats, wear lots of makeup, and carry signs proudly advertising female anatomy all while insisting that we are not determined by gender and expect to be taken seriously as individuals. After the March, we will resume calling opponents of gender construction theory transphobic #BIGOTS. 

6. We will happily don an American flag hijab to show our #SOLIDARITY with Muslims, but we will actively ignore the oppression of women in Islamic countries.  Besides, it makes us look like the Shepard Fairey painting and it looks super cute with Snapchat filters and we’ll get lots of likes on Instagram.  Most importantly, we’ll completely disregard Hillary Clinton’s ties to Saudi Arabia, her active support for the invasions of Libya and Iraq and the incalculable damage each caused, as well as Linda Sarsour’s open advocacy of Sharia Law in America.  #StayWoke, SYSTERS!

7. “Reproductive rights” means taxpayer subsidies for abortion and contraception. We’ll remind all of the #TROGLODYTES and #RePYGliKKKans that taxpayer funding doesn’t fund abortion cuz Hyde Amendment and shit and condescend to you for being an ill informed luddite who listens to Fake News. Any and all opposition to any taxpayer funding for either abortion or contraception means you are a hateful misogynist. It’s HEALTHCARE! WHY DO YOU HATE WOMYN?! And we’re talking to you, pro-life “feminists”. 

8. Disagreement with any aspect of our agenda is bigotry, hate and fascism. We’re Tolerant® people, after all.  

Consider that patriarchy SMASHED, feminists!

Hollywood Proselytizes for the Cult of Obama to the Bitter End


If Meryl Streep’s steaming pile of smug and the generally ignominious and partisan tone of the Golden Globes weren’t a sufficient reminder that Hollywood is a de facto propaganda arm for the Democrats and all things Obama, I present this towering feat of kiss ass.

This creepy, outrageously obsequious and idolatrous ode to the Obama Cult of Personality comes courtesy of celebrity sycophants, and a Diverse© pool of Marginalized P*rsxns engaged in a breathless and vacuous recitation of talking points. This is virtue signalling that would make Kim Jong Il jealous. Obama is obviously concerned about the demolition of his legacy so the self-congratulatory vibe is cranked to 11.

In the Soviet Union, artists were required to glorify the State.  In America, it’s a way to telegraph that you’re a Good P*rsxn and totally #WOKE while indulging a fantasy that you’re being edgy and contrarian despite being in a bubble of near perfect ideological conformity.

Positively loathsome. 

Betsy DeVos Versus the Government Education Establishment


I have family members and close friends who currently or previously worked in public education, and I can assure you, dear reader, that the libertarian argument for free market education isn’t a position that’s held in high regard in my world. It is my sincere hope that those of you reading this who also oppose a competitive market for education services will take this post in a spirit of promoting a real diversity of political opinion. 
Betsy DeVos has been nominated for the Chair of the Department of Education, and as is the case with everything Trump says or does, the progressive establishment is having a conniption. Whether it’s her lack of Ivy League credentials, her advocacy of charter schools or her positively abhorrent donation to FIRE, Betsy DeVos has been branded Public Education Enemy Number 1 by the entire government education apparatus. In his recent piece in Reason, Robby Soave very carefully and methodically points out why all of them are wrong and it is they who are the ideologically hidebound zealots. 

Here’s the deal. 

Pretty much everyone agrees that education is important. The larger and more important question is over how best to promote real education; as in independent thought, critical thinking, a curious mind, marketable skills and a lifelong love of learning, versus just going to school.

It’s easy to view education as a “right”. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it’s not. If you are honest, you will easily be able to recall numerous occasions when school felt pointless and utterly without value. And the real world bears this out.  Unless you cultivate entrepreneurial skills, a high school education is basically worthless in the marketplace.  A bachelor’s degree doesn’t necessarily add much more value to your marketability either. When you treat any good or service into a “right” for which the government makes provision, you destroy the incentive to provide actual value. 

Whenever the failure of public schools is discussed, “Reform” is the default cliché deployed. Anyone who suggests a market based alternative is just someone who hates children and only wants rich people to have education. Sadly, the Left is very good at painting opposition to government education as opposition to education itself while portraying themselves as Guardians of Knowledge and Social Justice from the mindless hordes of conservatards who just want to plunge America into a regressive New Dark Age of mandatory Christianity. It should be obvious to everyone that there is no such thing as “Reform”. Once you place a giant institution like education behind the government wall, there’s little you can do to truly reform it.  

Institutional learning only reinforces deference to itself. If you want to promote real individuality and critical thinking skills, a bureaucratic, compulsory school system won’t produce that result.  

I have plenty of skepticism over whether Betsy DeVos is going to make any meaningful difference, but I’m certainly willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. The public school bureaucrats are the real zealots here. It’s easy to point the finger of reproach when you enjoy the tacit protection of the government. And no, it doesn’t make one goddamn bit of difference that she doesn’t have fancy degrees.  She’ll be in charge of a gigantic bureaucracy which sets the agenda for other bureaucracies. 

If nothing else, she should do everything in her power to squelch the Title IX jihadists and the campus star chambers dispensing extrajudicial “justice”.

Mao or Hillary?

Enable every woman who can work to take her place on the labour front, under the principle of equal pay for equal work. This should be done as quickly as possible.~ Mao Tse Tung, 1955

We hail from all corners of the country and have joined together for a common revolutionary objective…. Our cadres must show concern for every soldier, and all people in the revolutionary ranks must care for each other, must love and help each other. ~ Mao Tse Tung, September 8, 1944

Unite and take part in production and political activity to improve the economic and political status of women.~ Mao Tse Tung, July 20, 1949

By increasing women’s participation in the economy and enhancing their efficiency and productivity, we can bring about a dramatic impact on the competitiveness and growth of our economies. ~ Hillary Clinton, September 16, 2011

Don’t Vote Third Party, Proles. It’s Counter-Revolutionary

Jef Rouner doesn’t want you to vote third party.

He suggests that it’s the equivalent of thoughts and prayers, but he is projecting. He is the sanctimonious scold. Voting for either major party is the very epitome of thoughts and prayers. You have no control over what these people do once elected.  You’re voting for a collection of promises and a bunch of rhetoric. No political promises are ever kept, and even laws that get passed do not achieve what the politicians claim.

There is no “work” involved in going into a voting booth and checking a box.  He’s not writing laws, and I doubt he has the slightest inkling of what’s contained in a single federal law or regulation. Yet he’s saying he is somehow responsible for the outcomes because he checked a box in a voting booth. He is complicit in the sense that he paid mindless obedience to the system.

Mr. Rouner wants to take credit for the ACA. Does he accept responsibility for the premiums which have increased for average citizens because healthy young people aren’t singing up to subsidize the older and sicker?  Does he accept responsibility for all the money wasted on failed state level exchanges? 

Or how about his passing mention of Obama’s drone program? Doesn’t the mass murder of thousands kind of nullify any claim on a moral high ground? The invasion of Libya, anyone? The militarization of the police?  Arms sales to Middle Eastern regimes? The ongoing impenetrable mess in Syria? 

Since he seems so keen on conflating the individual with the State, how about those achievements, Mr. Rouner? 

Anyone else? 

He invokes the 12th Amendment as the source of the two party duopoly. Since this only codified the process by which the President and Vice President would be elected, this seems little more than an appeal to tradition.  

I don’t have any objections to anyone voting third party. If you find their ideas compelling, then go for it. The idea at the center of the American idea was individual liberty, and that should include freedom of political thought.

It’s true that the system doesn’t favor third party candidates at the federal level. It is possible to pull off being an open socialist or libertarian at the local level and win, and there are examples of both.

I would argue that the real work of the political process is the battle for ideas, and the current system crowds out any vigorous debate of ideas. For Mr. Rouner to suggest that “nothing Stein or Johnson says matters” completely diminishes and downplays the power of ideas.  Third party candidacies are good for the country in the sense that they are vehicles for trenchant criticism of the system and the advancement of unconventional and heretical ideas.  Between the two third party choices, there’s a little bit of both. I also find Jill Stein’s agenda utterly abhorrent, but I appreciate some of the criticisms she’s leveled at Hillary. Despite the fact that Gary Johnson is not the most inspiring champion of libertarian philosophy, it’s refreshing that at least one candidate is promoting actual liberty. 

Slavery notwithstanding, the American system of government was meant to enshrine property rights and the liberty of the individual. The idea behind federalism was to decentralize power and disperse it throughout the states. I also contend that this is why the 2nd Amendment makes reference to militias.  It was meant to be a bulwark against the greatest threat to liberty: a standing army. 

But we’re very far away from that idea, and I vigorously dispute that casting a vote for Trump or Hillary represents anything virtuous.  There is no “change from within” to be made. Even if you dedicated yourself to a single issue, it has the potential to consume your entire life if you allow it to. The federal government is an overgrown behemoth populated mostly by self-interested hacks who are more interested in preserving their fiefdoms than doing anything that serves the “Public Good”.

By portraying participation in government as the only path to affecting change, he’s contributing to an ever diminishing sphere of individual liberty. Mr. Rouner is destroying the possibility for voluntary, organic solutions between citizens and promoting a culture of servitude. He correctly claims that leadership and accountability are virtues. By promoting a vote for the system, he’s promoting the least accountable people on the planet. The American spirit was born of skepticism of government power, not obedience. 

The only sanctimonious cunt who’s trying to browbeat his readers into voting for this corrupt two party duopoly is Jef Rouner.

Obama on Black Crime

It is absolutely true that the murder rate is way out of whack in the African-American community compared to the general population and both the victims and the perpetrators are black. ~ Barack Obama, 7/14/2016

Thomas E. Woods: Bernie Sanders is Wrong

We’re living in dark times, and just about everyone can give you his version of evidence that civilization is on the brink of collapse.  For some, it’s Donald Trump. For others, ISIS.  Choose your preferred harbinger of the End Times.

For me, there is one person who’s proven that we’ve reached an absolute nadir and earned my deepest contempt.  The one man who provides the clearest evidence of a total collapse of American principles in politics and culture is the presidential candidacy of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. 

After spending his entire adult life as a political parasite espousing openly Marxist views and sympathies towards brutal Communist dictatorships, Sanders is currently enjoying his fifteen minutes of fame as The Principled Democratic Socialist Who’s Sticking It To The Fat Cats. Despite his highly dubious legislative record which includes support for Clinton’s Kosovo bombing campaign, the 1994 Crime Bill, four Iraq War appropriations bills as well as the notorious boondoggle known as the F-35, Sanders enjoys a largely unquestioned reputation as a politician of spotless virtue and courage. Fortunately, intellectual titan and all around champion of liberty Tom Woods, has assembled a collection of transcripts from his indispensable podcast which systematically dismantle Sanders’ carefully crafted edifice of would-be moral rectitude and misguided policy prescriptions.  

Sanders’ platform is not even remotely new or innovative, and if anything, is comprised merely of more expansive and bloated versions of pet projects that have been incubating within the Left for decades.  What’s actually new about the Sanders phenomenon is that he’s packaged them into a unified political agenda and is presenting them on a national stage as ideas which belong in the Democratic Party platform.  This is especially interesting and noteworthy given that Sanders has spent his entire political career in DC officially as a self-described Independent, but as a “democratic socialist” in public

Naturally, Sanders and his supporters have gone to great lengths to distance themselves from the undeniable legacy of misery, repression, and economic dysfunction that’s been the hallmark of every socialist regime in history by condescendingly handwaving away any comparison between Bernie’s vision of socialism and the repressive dictatorships of past and present. Bernie doesn’t want Venezuelan socialism, he wants the nice version of DEMOCRATIC socialism like they have in Scandinavian countries!  By invoking the welfare states of Northern Europe, Sweden and Denmark in particular, as irrefutable evidence that socialism is benign and benevolent, Sanders and his loyal Berners consistently and fallaciously argue that these are, in fact, socialist success stories AND that Sanders’ magical campaign promises will produce a comparable or greater outcome here without so much as a shred of evidence on which to base the ludicrous claim or the slightest concern for potentially adverse effects of implementing such an agenda.

Of course, these promises and glib pronouncements are either pathetic, manipulative delusions or outright falsehoods and distortions of reality.  Tom Woods’ magnificent little book walks you through his entire agenda point by point and succinctly illustrates exactly why Bernie Sanders is Wrong.

The book is divided into four sections which cover the central pillars of his agenda: Sanders’ designs on implementing European-style welfare state policies, government subsidized renewable energy, minimum wage, and income inequality. 

Woods starts off by letting out the gas in the hot air balloon of Scandinavian welfare state idolatry.  Johan Norberg lays out a century’s worth of historical context around Sweden’s economic rise which includes a period of 50 years of laissez faire policy which created the prosperity for such a generous welfare state in the first place. The decline in Sweden’s overall prosperity after the implementation of the welfare state is never mentioned by Sanders or his supporters, nor are the policies which are friendlier to business. Norberg also discusses the ways in which the advent of the welfare state destroyed cultural bonds of trust that were forged over decades of organic social cooperation and market driven policy in a country that was, in fact, a white, Nordic monoculture. A fact that’s conveniently omitted by multiculturalists.   Woods chose to limit the scope of his excerpt to Sweden’s economic history and development, but this section could have been further strengthened by some mention of the failure of immigration policies and the collapse of social cohesion which has been hastened by force feeding the population feminism and multicultural social justice politics.

Professor of Economics from Aarhus University, Christian Bjørnskov, unpacks the seemingly ubiquitous myth of Denmark as “the happiest country in the world.” Naturally, the Berners will chalk this up to the size of the welfare state and government mandated benefits, but Bjørnskov provides some sobering perspective. The benefits conferred by the welfare state do not contribute to an individual’s active pursuit of happiness, but simply become baked into the expectations of each citizen that aren’t consciously chosen. Subsequently, it breeds a higher level of entitlement amongst the population as well as a disincentive to produce. Bjørnskov makes a very interesting point about how state mandated 52-week maternity leave creates an artificial incentive for women to become mothers and often diminishes their future employment prospects. He concludes with some fascinating data about how the welfare state disincentivizes actual charity as well as some intentionally neglected liberal policies, like those found in Sweden, which are friendlier to business than the US.

Robert Bryce and Alex Epstein take a sledgehammer to the deathless progressive claims of the necessity of government investment in renewable energy.  Bryce argues that if environmental protection is a priority, then the density of the energy source must be the primary measuring stick.  Outrageous calls for a 20-fold reduction of fossil fuels are little more than a death sentence since renewable energy sources are not even remotely close to filling present or rising energy consumption needs. Epstein tackles the issue from both the moral and empirical perspective and elucidates some critical points that are absent from climate change alarmist script.  Environmentalists consistently agitate for minimizing human impact for non-human life while ignoring positive metrics for humanity that are the direct result of cheap and plentiful fossil fuels. 

Of all the progressive policy myths which have been the most durable, the minimum wage has enjoyed an extraordinarily long life.  Like everything Sanders says, it has tremendous surface appeal because it gives the illusion of expanding prosperity, but the opposite is true. Former DOL economist, Diana Furchtgott-Roth swings a wrecking ball of truth against Sanders’ flimsy claims.  The arguments against minimum wage will be familiar for those who actually investigate economics for 5 minutes, but as the appeal of Sanders attests, rationality and logic has yet to prevail. If you’re truly concerned about the welfare of the poor, then don’t criminalize work for low skill laborers whose labor isn’t worth $15 per hour, and most of all, don’t try to sell low skilled labor as a lifelong career path. The fact that Sanders is peddling minimum wage as a centerpiece of his economic platform shows how bankrupt his agenda is.  For Sanders, creating wage floors on low skill labor and subsidizing college education without regard for what a student actually studies will somehow magically create prosperity. 

Loyola University professor, Thomas DiLorenzo, adds some additional historical insight into the racist origins of minimum wage while bursting the mythology of labor unions as drivers of upward economic mobility.  Progressive era business owners didn’t want to have to compete with firms who could hire cheaper black labor, so they agitated for minimum wages to price them out of the labor market and inhibit black economic upward mobility.  By using the club of the State to criminalize non-union labor, unions make the market less competitive and only enshrine a culture of entitlement and mediocrity. 

Another gaping hole in the Sanders platform mentioned briefly in the book is his disregard for the skill gap that already exists within the US labor force.  While Sanders touts his confiscatory plans for subsidizing every art history and gender studies degrees for middle-class Americans, he ignores the 5mm jobs that are unfilled largely due to a shortage of skilled labor.  Apparently, it’s more important to subsidize college so kids can study The Communist Manifesto and agitate for safe spaces than prepare them for adulthood with marketable skills.

Among the most revelatory chapters is the interview with physician and entrepreneur, Dr. Josh Umbehr.  Dr. Umbehr runs a concierge medical practice modeled on a Netflix/Costco-style membership which covers the general practice medical services people actually need. For a monthly fee, people can gain access to any general practice medical care they need including home, office or online consultations.  He explains how opting out of the ACA’s bureaucratic straightjacket allowed him pursue a business model that lowered costs, increased access and provided a better value for all of his patients.  Just like virtually every other scientific profession, he encountered an antagonistic attitude towards business throughout his education, but ultimately rejected the false dichotomy.

Mark Perry from University of Michigan takes another swing at the seemingly indestructible myth of the so-called gender wage gap. Aside from equally laudable takedowns of this talking point by Christina Hoff Sommers, Claudia Goldin and seemingly countless others, Sanders, the feminist media/academic industrial complex and the Tumblrista Brigade won’t let this die.  It doesn’t matter that women consistently choose different career paths that are less strenuous and less remunerative. It doesn’t matter that the Equal Pay Act of 1963 is already law. It doesn’t matter that women work fewer hours in aggregate.  It doesn’t matter that motherhood plays a major role in a woman’s career choices and ambition.  Sanders flogs this meme because it sounds good and scores “Equality” points with his base. 

Scott Winship, Don Boudreaux, and Grant Phillips round out the book with some excellent discussion of free trade, inequality, and rising living standards resulting from capitalism. Sanders focuses solely on metrics that invoke outrage, greed, and envy while ignoring the affordability and accessibility of technology and consumer conveniences that were inconceivable to previous generations.  The schism between unskilled labor and the acceleration of automation is an issue that warrants further discussion and scrutiny since it tends to validate arguments for universal income and the imminent arrival of the post-scarcity economy amongst the Berners. 

Even if one sets aside all of the failures of morality and logic inherent in Sanders’ agenda, his pursuit of the Democratic presidential nomination seems both deeply opportunistic and fully at odds with his carefully cultivated pretense of principled independence. Beside the fact that he’s carefully avoided throwing any hard punches at Hillary, he’s only embraced the Democratic Party after assiduously avoiding identification with the Democratic Party throughout his entire career in Congress. Why should the Democrats embrace Bernie-come-lately as the leader of their party? If he really saw himself as a political maverick, why would he hitch his wagon to the DNC unless he had no real intention of clinching the nomination in the first place? He blames it on “the structure of American politics”, but not only is this a whiny cop out, it’s contrary to his previous public statements about the necessity of a third party.  It seems he’s only interested in enjoying his cult of personality on the taxpayer dime while tilling the soil for a more overtly socialist tenor in Democratic Party politics.

Bernie Sanders’ candidacy perfectly epitomizes the classic socialist con game; lots of soaring appeals to secular morality, manipulative declamations around “equality”, and promises of bread and circuses which mask a naked hunger for power fueled by a blatant ignorance of and contempt for basic economics. Despite everything, Sanders’ reputation is seemingly beyond reproach to his loyal Berners. By carefully omitting his partisan support for the central bank, warfare and police state and maintaining rigid message discipline, Sanders has very skillfully avoided deep scrutiny from most of the media. The truth is that Sanders doesn’t have a single original idea in his policy toolkit, and his entire agenda should be called by its true name: soft Bolshevism. Thanks to Tom Woods’ excellent little book, he is exposed as the contemptible, parasitic fraud that he is.