Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

The positives and potential pitfalls of the Trump coalition’s approach

The most popular and encouraging part of the upheaval unleashed by the Trump presidency may be the administration’s fierce determination to break the grip that wokeness, the new racialism, and gender ideology have had on all levels of government, as well as on the commanding heights of civil society. As William Voegeli perceptively argues in the latest issue of the Claremont Review of Books, Trump speaks for the 80% of Americans who are appalled by “anti-racism” being turned into a weapon of war by other means; who want free speech to be respected again; who are alarmed by limitless social engineering, the genital mutilation of the young, and literally open borders; who do not want women’s sports to be dominated by biological men; and who deeply resent the constant invective being directed against the noble American project itself.

President Trump has repeatedly spoken of a “common sense revolution,” a “revolution” that puts the lie to the para-Marxist claim, beloved by academics, journalists, and almost all politicians, that the concerns of citizens are almost exclusively “bread-and-butter” ones, and that “culture war” issues are at best a distraction and at worst an exercise in demagoguery, racism, and homophobia.

That view was perfectly—and predictably—expressed by Piotr Smolar, the Washington correspondent of the influential French leftist newspaper Le Monde. A few days after Trump’s inauguration, he contended that Trump’s promise of a “revolution of common sense” was nothing more than “a conservative reaction to certain recent developments in American society, notably the recognition and promotion of sexual and racial diversity.” Never mind Trump’s broad appeal and his success in building a genuinely multiracial, patriotic coalition. For Smolar and his ilk, the appeal to reinvigorated civic common sense is nothing more than an exercise in “populist newspeak,” at once dangerous and irrational.

Trump’s response to the woke revolution is indeed “reactionary” (rather than revolutionary) since it aims to undo, or at least significantly mitigate, the harm done to the country by left-liberal currents who confuse “diversity” with a Manichean cult of victims and exploiters, who deny the reality of the sexual binary—the natural and fecund complementarity of men and women—and who confuse liberty with limitless liberation and a crude coercive utopianism.

Trump did not start this culture war. That was the work of those who repudiate our moral and civic inheritance in the guise of fully actualizing liberty and equality. But he is to be credited for refusing to treat its destructive work as “historically inevitable,” and thus irreversible.

Too many of his critics on the establishment Right, the Freedom Conservatives, for example, proceed as if the moral foundations of democracy have not been brutally assaulted by a cultural and political Left grown ever more destructive and illiberal. These soi-disant conservatives may oppose woke fanaticism, but they are not willing to do much about it. They confuse moderation with a not-so-slow accommodation to the intellectual zeitgeist, and thus succeed in conserving very little. They direct their misplaced ire at those who (perhaps indelicately) resist the culture of repudiation and the revolution of nihilism. We have little to learn from such faux moderation.

As Megan Messerly pointed out in an astute discussion of Trump’s “common sense” culture war in a Politico piece from February, Trump is building a tent that houses far more Americans than merely the social and religious conservatives of old. He opposes abortion-on-demand and has pardoned unjustly held pro-life prisoners (many of them old and infirm) who were given draconian sentences for violating trespassing laws. As Messerly points out, social and cultural conservatives welcome “the revolution of common sense,” even if some worry that Trump will tend to downplay pressing moral issues that cannot galvanize mass 80% support (or opposition).

Nearly the entirety of Trump’s supporters—and many others besides—are opposed to “transgender wokeness, the indoctrination of kids, the oversexualization of kids,” as one senior White House official told Messerly. These are increasingly winning issues. But as Messerly also points out, many in the secular wing of Trump’s coalition have bought into the premises (for example, diversity, openness to moderate forms of gender ideology, an easygoing moral relativism) that allowed woke “bull***t” (as Trump has bluntly called it) to metastasize in the first place.

They had little or no concern with these notions ten years ago. In a word, many have revolted against the ideological fanaticism without quite knowing the reasons why. Perhaps this is best understood as an inchoate form of what Leon Kass once called “the wisdom of repugnance.” My guess is that many of the more egregious DOGE revelations—surely an American version of glasnost—aptly highlighted in President Trump’s Joint Address to Congress in March (almost all centering around supporting and promoting sexual and cultural transgression) will only make more citizens stand up to wokeness. The revelations about USAID alone, which, per J. Michael Waller, has “become an out-of-control agency spending billions a year in bloated crony contracts, rotten from top to bottom with systemic fraud, corruption, and politicization,” are enough to justify Trump’s case to the American people. But these good folks need to know why their “resistance” is perfectly reasonable, and thus nothing to be ashamed of.

For all this, I am inclined to give two cheers to the common sense “revolution,” and not the proverbial three. Common sense has been under sustained assault both theoretically and practically for a very long time now. Its undoubted truths (and good sense) are not self-evident. It needs a theoretical defense and an articulation by writers, thinkers, and theorists who are in a position to expose the sophistry of social constructivism and deep-seated moral relativism.

One cannot adamantly oppose the repudiation of common sense and continue to ignore the grounding of free and decent political life in certain unchanging truths about human nature and the nature of reality. These provide the ultimate ground, the surest foundation, of a politics of common sense, as our Founders surely knew. Human beings are not autonomous, and liberty is always liberty under God and a non-arbitrary moral law. We aim to conquer nature—and human nature—at our own peril, as the 20th-century experience with totalitarianism, and our own recent experience with uncontrolled biotechnological experimentation, surely show.

Too many members of the common-sense coalition have unthinkingly adopted the language of gender (think “gender reveals”), not knowing that this mode of discourse implicitly liberates “gender identity” from any grounding in natural and biological reality. Hence, the truly mad assertion, as far from common sense as one can imagine, that men and women are just two possible “genders” among 73 or, for that matter, 173.

While a majority of Americans are right to assert the inherent dignity of our homosexual friends and neighbors, it was surely a mistake to separate marriage from any grounding in the nature of things (that is, the sexual binary, and the accompanying “production” of new human beings and citizens). We must face a damning truth: de-naturalized marriage led inexorably to the terrible excesses and fantasies of transgenderism. As C. S. Lewis put it so well in his incomparable The Abolition of Man:

In a sort of ghastly simplicity, we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the gelding be fruitful.

The appeal to a reinvigorated common sense, to a broad anti-ideological coalition, is indeed a necessary first step in the recovery of moral and civic sanity. But it is not enough. We must ultimately recover common sense’s roots in practical wisdom, in right reason (the intellection of the true, the good, and the beautiful), and in a humanizing appreciation of moral limits and self-restraint. As the great political philosopher Eric Voegelin liked to point out, the Anglo-American world was once a bastion of common sense and sound constitutional politics, and thus was seemingly immune to the totalitarian temptation. But beginning in the 1960s, an inchoate, ill-defined, and ill-defended Anglo-American common sense increasingly gave way to the ideological deformation of reality. We must not let that happen again. The common sense “revolution,” which is really a noble restoration, must never take the self-evidence of common sense for granted, especially in an age deformed by ideological lies.

*****

This article was published by The American Mind and is reproduced with permission.

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

Independent Women applauds the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for executing on its implementation of President Donald Trump’s day one executive order — “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” — in issuing clear guidance on the definition of sex-based words like ‘male’ and ‘female’ to the U.S. Government, including federal agencies, external partners, and the public. Guidance from the HHS is a critical step in ensuring unelected bureaucrats stop redefining language to fit a false narrative and erase women.

Independent Women is the original architect of the model that laid the groundwork for President Trump’s sex-definition executive order to define ‘woman’ and other sex-based terms in law and code, preserve the legal existence of women as distinct from men, and protect women-only spaces. In July 2022, Independent Women’s Forum won the Heritage Foundation’s Innovation Award for the development and popularization of sex definition model legislation. Since then, Independent Women has ushered the model legislation into law in nine states, with bills in over a dozen state legislatures now, impacting the lives of over 17.5 million women and girls.

Having clear and precise definitions of sex-based terms is not only necessary for the protection of single-sex spaces and opportunities but also protects the integrity of sex-based data collection to accurately reflect biology.

Importantly, HHS uses Independent Women’s recommended definitions of ‘sex,’ ‘female,’ and ‘male’ in Trump’s executive order as based on reproductive potential, rather than chromosomes, to ensure clarity and protection for all individuals.

Jordanne Kemper, state affairs director for Independent Women, said: “Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has made it clear that he believes in objective truth and sound scientific research. Defining the sexes and offering clear guidance that biology is real is a gift to the American people after years of the Government ignoring science, biological truth and real and important differences between the sexes. We know that sex matters, particularly when it comes to vital data statistics that help measure the impact of chronic diseases on males and females. I look forward to turning the page on the insanity we’ve been subjected to through the Biden-Harris administration and seeing what HHS achieves in their quest to Make America Healthy Again.”

Beth Parlato, senior legal advisor for Independent Women, said: “I applaud HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. bringing common sense back into HHS by clearly defining there are only two sexes – male and female. In order for HHS to comply with their overall mission to improve the health, safety and well-being of all Americans, it’s vital that they start with the foundational truth that females are biologically distinct from men.”

*****

This article was published by The Independent Women’s Forum and is reproduced with permission.

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

Editors Note: As details begin to leak out about the situation in England, the scale of these crimes, spanning several decades, shows deep corruption in the English government. Progressive thinking Labour and the ineffectual Conservatives have always been on the outlook to be multicultural and concerned about the feelings of Muslim immigrants. They not only covered up these crimes, they participated in them. Moreover, they have lied about this problem, up and down the political chain of authority. Once you are taught that all cultures are equal and that all formerly colonized countries have been “marginalized,” and thus due special dispensation, society has no protection from cultural usurpation. If you have been taught your country is always wrong, and your culture is indefensible, a government will no longer defend itself or its people. Lying becomes chump change when a government fails in its most basic function: the protection of the rights and safety of its people. What did Muslim leadership know or do about this catastrophe? You must read this complete story. It is a cautionary tale for us in the US. We should not allow mass immigration of people who do not fit into the basic precepts of Western Civilization. Clearly, governments cannot be trusted.  Elon Musk deserves the world’s thanks for his insistence on opening this cesspool of political lying and depravity.

The serial rape of thousands of English girls went on for many years. Few in power cared. Then Elon Musk started tweeting.

The grooming and serial rape of thousands of English girls by men of mostly Pakistani Muslim background over several decades is the biggest peacetime crime in the history of modern Europe. It went on for many years. It is still going on. And there has been no justice for the vast majority of the victims.

British governments, both Conservative and Labour, hoped that they had buried the story after a few symbolic prosecutions in the 2010s. And it looked like they had succeeded—until Elon Musk read some of the court papers and tweeted his disgust and bafflement on X over the new year.

Britain now stands shamed before the world. The public’s suppressed wrath is bubbling to the surface in petitions, calls for a public inquiry, and demands for accountability.

The scandal is already reshaping British politics. It’s not just about the heinous nature of the crimes. It’s that every level of the British system is implicated in the cover-up.

Social workers were intimidated into silence. Local police ignored, excused, and even abetted pedophile rapists across dozens of cities. Senior police and Home Office officials deliberately avoided action in the name of maintaining what they called “community relations.” Local councilors and Members of Parliament rejected pleas for help from the parents of raped children. Charities, NGOs, and Labour MPs accused those who discussed the scandal of racism and Islamophobia. The media mostly ignored or downplayed the biggest story of their lifetimes. Zealous in their incuriosity, much of Britain’s media elite remained barnacled to the bubble of Westminster politics and its self-serving priorities.

They did this to defend a failed model of multiculturalism, and to avoid asking hard questions about failures of immigration policy and assimilation. They did this because they were afraid of being called racist or Islamophobic. They did this because Britain’s traditional class snobbery had fused with the new snobbery of political correctness.

All of which is why no one knows precisely how many thousands of young girls were raped in how many towns across Britain since the 1970s.

What we do know is that the epicenter was the postindustrial mill towns of England’s north and Midlands, where immigrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh settled in the 1960s. White locals say the grooming and rapes began soon after. In Rotherham, the rundown Yorkshire city where the scandal first broke, local police and councilors were notified about systematic grooming and sex abuse by 2001. The first convictions did not occur until 2010, when five men of Pakistani background were jailed for multiple offenses against girls as young as 12 years of age.

These men targeted the most vulnerable girls—the poor and the fatherless, children in care homes—with candy, food, taxi rides, and drugs. They raped the girls, passed them around family and friendship networks, pimped them into similar networks in other cities, then discarded them as they reached the age of consent.

This pattern was repeated in as many as 50 cities across the country, including in leafy Oxford and liberal Bristol. A 2014 inquiry estimated that 1,400 girls had been serially raped in Rotherham alone.

The details are established beyond doubt in the small number of prosecutions that eventually made it to court. The suffering described in the court papers is sickening to read: The girls were drugged, beaten, sodomized, gang-raped, trafficked, and tortured…..

*****

Continue reading this article at The Free Press