The alleged death of Regan conservatism, proclaimed even by many on the right, is not just greatly exaggerated — it’s outright wrong. It has to be wrong because Reagan conservatism is true conservatism, and conservatism conserves the time-tested principles, values, and traditions that are, well, true. Ronald Reagan himself put it this way:  Conservative wisdom and principles are derived from willingness to learn, not just from what is going on now, but from what has happened before. The principles of conservatism are sound because they are based on what men and women have discovered through experience in not just one generation or a dozen, but in all the combined experience of mankind. Subscribe to The American Spectator to receive our fall 2024 print magazine, which includes this article and others like it. Reagan there was speaking almost verbatim from conservatism’s preeminent philosophical spokesman, Russell Kirk (1918–1994), who had quoted G. K. Chesterton on that combined wisdom. Kirk called conservatism not an ideology but an attitude. Conservatives endeavor to conserve what Kirk and Edmund Burke (1729–1797) described as an “enduring moral order.” Think about that: a moral order that endures. Sure, a country and culture and its corrupt people can leap off a cliff and descend to hell in a handbasket, but an enduring moral order nonetheless remains, rooted in the timeless traditions of biblical and natural law that the conservative conserves. Reagan conservatism is genuine conservatism. If it isn’t winning today for Republicans, well, that’s not the fault of conservatism; that’s the fault of the conservatives. The problem isn’t the message but the messenger. This article is taken from The American Spectator’s fall 2024 print magazine. Subscribe to receive the entire magazine. Sure, I’m the first to acknowledge that certain such principles, especially those related to eternal teachings on matters like marriage, family, life, and gender, are now rejected by wide swaths of a degenerate culture, but that doesn’t mean the principles are wrong. And sure, a Republican candidate running on conservative positions on marriage, family, life, and gender can today lose on that platform. But still, there is more to conservatism, and Reagan conservatism, than moral–social issues. Ronald Reagan was both a social and economic conservative, and he urged fellow conservatives to embrace both. In 2014, I published a book titled 11 Principles of a Reagan Conservative. It has gone through several printings. The Young America’s Foundation has a special edition of the book, which it has given out to students nationwide by the tens of thousands. That book has resonated with conservative youth because it lays out succinctly what Ronald Reagan really believed — a handy thing to know given that countless conservative candidates since the 1980s have called themselves Reagan conservatives. Here are the eleven principles: Freedom, Faith, Family, Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life, American Exceptionalism, the Founders’ Wisdom and Vision, Lower Taxes, Limited Government, Peace Through Strength, Anti-communism, and Belief in the Individual. Art by Bill Wilson I need not delineate each of those principles here. Most are self-evident to readers of this magazine. Our readers, too, will agree that Ronald Reagan articulated those beliefs with splendid appeal to the nation at large, in a way that won him two landslide elections. Reagan, an unflinching and unapologetic conservative, twice won states such as New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, California, and even ultra-liberal Massachusetts. Reagan’s conservatism never lost at the ballot box, nor in the eyes of the American public. Reagan’s successor, George H. W. Bush, won the presidency in November 1988 because Americans felt he was their best chance at something approximating a third Reagan term. Reagan conservatism never died, even when Bush lost in November 1992 (especially because Bush abandoned Reagan’s tax cuts). Newt Gingrich viably resurrected it in 1994 with his tremendous capture of Congress by conservative Republicans. Pretty much every major conservative running for national office since Reagan left the White House in January 1989 has extolled his core principles. So, what accounts for the current claims of the death of Reagan conservatism? I think the claims are more of a complaint, an attitude, not one of conservatism but of defeatism. They come from folks on our side who didn’t like the rise of neoconservatism during the George W. Bush years and, more so, today lament Donald Trump’s inability to exceed 50 percent of the vote against the unlikable Hillary Clinton, the pathetic Joe Biden, and the downright awful Kamala Harris. (Even if Trump wins in November 2024, I don’t think it will be with 50 percent–plus of the vote; he never polls above 50 percent.)  Of course, the Trump years have seen a new kind of conservatism, or Republicanism. It is decidedly more populist, nationalist, and even protectionist. Still, if you look at those eleven principles of a Reagan conservative, most have been taken up by Trump. Trump certainly heralds the ideas of freedom, American exceptionalism (it was Reagan who in 1980 coined the now-Trumpian phrase “Make America Great Again”), lower taxes, limited government, peace through strength (particularly against the likes of the communist Chinese), and belief in the individual. Really, if you take a hard look at the eleven principles, there isn’t one that Trump and his supporters reject. And even if one doubts that Donald Trump is a believer on matters like faith or the sanctity and dignity of human life, as Ronald Reagan was, he at least appealed to and has been supported by those constituencies. More so, to Trump’s credit, he did way more for the pro-life cause than Reagan was able to achieve. That includes appointing three Supreme Court justices — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — who reversed Roe v. Wade. Of Reagan’s three picks, Justices Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor were profound disappointments on the life issue and much more. Indeed, they affirmed Roe via the hideous 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which contained the stupidest statement in the history of high-court jurisprudence, namely Kennedy’s laughable “mystery clause.”  Ronald Reagan batted only one for three on his Supreme Court picks: Antonin Scalia was a fabulous choice. Kennedy and O’Connor were grave betrayals. Trump’s three high-court picks, by contrast, have all been home runs. But to return to the point: Today’s leader of the Republican Party, Donald Trump, could check the Reagan box on pretty much all those Reagan principles. At the least, the policies that President Trump pursued align with those Reagan principles. That being the case, why hasn’t Trump had greater success with this Reagan conservatism if Reagan conservatism isn’t dead and is, indeed, as my article here proclaims, alive and well? The answer isn’t the principles but the person. Donald Trump can’t get over 50 percent of the popular vote because over 50 percent of the populace loathes the man. They don’t merely dislike him; they hate his guts. Conversely, Ronald Reagan was the most-liked figure of his generation. Over the last one hundred years, only Eisenhower and FDR compare in terms of likability among presidents. Remember that Reagan’s conservative predecessor for the GOP presidential nomination, Barry Goldwater, was just as principled as Reagan but, like Trump, was not liked. Goldwater was slaughtered by LBJ in 1964. He won only six states and lost the popular vote 61 percent to 39 percent. How did Reagan fare with conservative principles similar to Goldwater’s? He did profoundly better. In 1980, he crushed Jimmy Carter, an incumbent president, by 51 percent to 41 percent (there was a third-party candidate, John Anderson). Reagan won 44 of 50 states and took the Electoral College 489 to 49. In 1984, Reagan received nearly 60 percent of the votes, won an incredible 49 of 50 states, and took the Electoral College by an astounding 525 to 13. He did a total reversal of Goldwater; same principles but different personalities. It was said that whereas Barry Goldwater was conservative with a frown, Ronald Reagan was conservative with a smile. That was spot-on accurate. Reagan not only smiled, but joked, laughed, and communicated so well that he will be forever remembered in American politics as the Great Communicator. Donald Trump oozes personality, but he lacks Reagan’s winsome disposition. That winsomeness is a winner. Likewise, so is conservatism. Successful politics requires matching the right person with the right principles. Conservatism conserves the timeless truths that need to be conserved. Eternal truths don’t suddenly become untrue, even if a depraved people insist otherwise. The key is finding the right conservative politicians, especially at the presidential level, to attractively communicate that conservatism. Subscribe to The American Spectator to receive our fall 2024 print magazine. The post Reagan Conservatism Is Alive and Well appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The probability that the human race will be drastically reduced in magnitude has risen meaningfully in modern times. As an economic historian, I have always been fascinated by big changes occurring over  time. The ultimate change, over the longest possible passage of time, relates to the creation and destruction of galaxies, planets, and related celestial debris. Confining ourselves to Earth, it relates to the creation and destruction of various forms of life over time. Arguably, we are at the beginning of the end of Homo sapiens. Put differently, planetary human populations are peaking in the range of eight to nine billion, and are already starting to fall in large swaths of the Earth. Like the dinosaurs, are we about to disappear? If so, why? Falling birth rates? A sudden violent rise in death rates caused by humans (for example, from nuclear or deadly chemical or biological weapons), or perhaps by some extraterrestrial event, such as collusion with a large asteroid? My sense is that the chances of these things happening is rising. Maybe Elon Musk is right: We need to get to Mars because human life on Earth could be ending. Worldwide, there has been a pronounced decline in birth rates, pronounced in prosperous areas, but seen even in poor areas of Africa. To maintain a constant population, the fertility rate needs to be about 2.1 children per female. Yet in roughly 100 countries, the actual number today is below that, sometimes radically so. China, for example, has a birthrate of about 1.2, and South Korea’s birth rate is below one — more strollers are sold there for use by dogs than by human babies. In the U.S., the birth rate of about 1.7 is continuing to fall toward levels found in Europe (1.5 or lower in Germany, Russia, Italy, and Spain, for example). In prosperous modern societies, children are what us economists call “inferior goods.” As income rise, people want fewer children, just as they take fewer bus rides because they can now afford cars or travel by air. Children are viewed increasingly as expensive annoyances with high opportunity costs: They prevent us from taking exotic trips or buying nice luxuries. Kamala Harris (who has no children) is hammering Republicans because many of them oppose abortion, the most aggressive form of birth control. The declining role of the churches probably also contributes to the new anti-children milieu. The longer-term impact of all of this gets scant attention. However, uproars have occurred in France and probably soon will in China over much-needed increases in the retirement age — there simply will not be enough younger workers to feed the population, a problem aggravated by rising life expectancy. In the U.S., when Social Security began, there were over five working-age persons per senior citizen (over 65); now there are only three. Medical advantages increasing longevity and making birth control cheaper contributed to the problem. Worsening the forthcoming crisis is extreme fiscal irresponsibility arising from massive federal budget deficits. This is creating the defining domestic issue of the next decade, one completely ignored in this presidential election year. With a reduction in parenting comes reduced concern about the welfare of future generations. Most of us with children and grandchildren want our progeny to live in prosperous safety. With fewer kids, we are becoming a more selfish generation, concerned about our own future but relatively indifferent to life in America 50 years from now.  But this is not the only potential cause of a diminished human presence on Earth. For nearly eight decades, there has been no use of nuclear weapons against human beings, for much of that time largely because few possessed such weapons. But the nuclear weapon club has grown worrisomely, and some members, certainly North Korea and no doubt soon Iran, have shown through their disregard for the lives of their own citizens that they would have little hesitancy about rendering vast amounts of human destruction. Moreover, through other technological changes, new means of mass destruction are evolving, including human attacks from space stations, poisonous gas attacks using drones, deadly diseases spread by human created viruses, etc. The human ingenuity that helped expand the human race could well work to destroy it unless we start heeding the injunction included within the Ten Commandments: Thou shall not kill. Technology and a decline in virtue and morality might literally kill the human race.  Richard Vedder is distinguished professor of economics emeritus at Ohio University, senior fellow at the Independent Institute, and author of Let Colleges Fail, out next spring.   READ MORE: Jimmy Carter: A Centennial Assessment Some Colleges Still Using Race in Admissions Lies Abound In Higher Education. Now They’ve Lost Our Respect. The post Are We at the Beginning of the End of <i>Homo Sapiens</i>? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Years ago, many more than I care to admit, I was a heavy smoker. At least, I went through a lot of cigarettes. It all started in the Army. No, I’m not blaming the Army. It’s just that in those days, C-rations had accessory packs. Accessory packs contained powdered coffee, sometimes cocoa powder, salt, pepper, sugar, Chiclets, powdered cream, toilet paper, little P-38 can openers, moisture-proof matches — and cigarettes.  The cigarettes came in little boxes, with four cigarettes to the box. I remember Camel, Chesterfield, Kent, Kool, Lucky Strike, Pall Mall, Salem, and Winston, although there might have been others.  Now, I liked pretty much all the “main courses,” from canned scrambled eggs, roast beef, spiced beef in sauce, and beans and weenies, to pork steak, spiced pork in sauce, chicken loaf, and turkey loaf. I even liked the ham and lima beans  —  though most of my chums didn’t. In fact, most of my chums didn’t like any of the “main courses”  —  or the accessory packs for that matter and tended to chuck them unopened into an empty C-ration crate in a corner of the barracks. I ate pretty well. But back to the cigarettes. I wasn’t really a much of a smoker back then  —  but I did puff a few after breakfast when in the cantonment, or with a few beers (okay, more than a few) when we were off mission. The Black smokers claimed most of the menthols  —  which was fine by me. The filters, any filters, went next. That left a lot of Camels, Luckies, some Chesterfields, and some Pall Malls. I liked the compactness of the Camels  and Luckies —  and the taste of the Camels. When they phased out C-Rations in favor of tri-laminate bags of Meals-Ready-to-Eat (MREs), there went my free cigarettes. I switched to Winston and developed a three-pack-per-day habit. By then, I worked out of an office and most of them burnt up in the ash tray  —  but still. Three packs.  I tried to quit a few times  —  but to my personal embarrassment, found myself bumming smokes. When I was assigned to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, in Washington D.C., and the powers that be placed me in charge of their tri-service Smoking Cessation Program. Cold turkey didn’t work for me. I quit over time by smoking one less cigarette each succeeding day. In two and a half weeks, I was down to two packs. Easy peasy. Two and a half weeks later, down to one pack. The end was in sight. By the time I got to my last cigarette, I had to force myself to smoke it. It tasted foul. I washed out my ashtray, shut it in a drawer, and haven’t smoke cigarettes since. But I do think back from time to time to those hyacinth days of Camel cigarettes. Now, back in the late ’80s, the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (RJR) came out with a new advertising campaign, featuring Joe (or Ole Joe) Camel. Gone was the Camel hump, gone was the tail. Gone were the hooves. Joe Camel was a cool dude with an anthropomorphic face and a distinct penile-looking nose. He sported sunglasses, white smoking jackets, and played in a jazz band with his bros. He appeared on billboards, in glossy magazines, and on merchandise ranging from T-shirts and baseball caps to lighters and posters. Each pack had a couple of “Camel bucks” that could be used to buy the merchandise.  Joe had a good run but was dropped in 1997 when the Journal of the American Medical Association accused the company of marketing to minors. So, do they still sell Camels? Where I live, you just can’t go into a store, look up at the shelves behind the cashier, and read the labels of the cigarettes on sale. They are usually out of sight and locked up and you have to know what you want. And they are expensive. Yikes. Really expensive. Like $8.05 a pack expensive. I did some research. Yep, they still sell Camels  —  and in a bewildering variety of shapes, widths, lengths, packs, fillers, filters, and flavors. There are Camel Turkish Gold (an extra taste of the exotic Turkish blend), and Camel Turkish Royal (even more exotic, and sold in a in a red and gold pack).  There are Camel Ultra Lights (with a hint of mint), Camel Jade (more of a hint of mint?), and Camel Jade Silver (lighter than Camel Jade).  Then there are Camel non-filters (my old standby), Camel 99s (a longer smoke  —  99 mm long), and Camel Wide (longer and wider  —  a real “fat boy”). Presumably, with the exception of my old standby, they’re all filtered. Does anyone smoke cigarettes anymore? Well, not accounting for e-products, cigarette smoking in America is way down. The CDC’s Early Release of Selected Estimates Based Data From 2023 National Health Interview Survey reports the percentage of adults 18 or older who currently smoke cigarettes at 10.9 percent.  Even disregarding the health hazards, at $8.05 a pack? Who the heck can afford to smoke? READ MORE: Why Is Kamala Still Losing? The Rightward Rebellion: Why Young Men Are Flocking to Conservatism The post Whatever Happened to Camel Cigarettes? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The Left's Word Games Can't Conceal 'Third World' Impact of Open Borders

Rachel Maddow Smears Vance as a Fascist Speech-Squasher

How We Cope Shows Men and Women Are Different

A Houston Drug Cop's Murder Conviction Highlights the Potentially Deadly Consequences of 'Testilying'

Trump Numbers Show How GOP Went Wrong on Immigration

Politicians Steal Homes

The Presidential Candidates’ Stance on Education Is Clear