GOP presidential candidate Donald J. Trump delivering his “Contract with the American Voter” speech
at Gettysburg, PA on October 22, 2016.
- About Political Policy
- The Russell Kirk Center For Cultural Renewal
- The Heritage Foundation
- Goldwater Institute
- Catholic Charities
- Intercollegiate Studies Institute
- The Leadership Institute
- College Republicans
- The College Conservative
- Young America's Foundation
- Young Conservatives Coalition
- Young Republicans
- Support Our Military
- Submit An Article
- Contact Political Policy
Sunday, November 27, 2016
On July 11, 2016 a group of historians collaborated in an open letter to the public arguing against Donald J. Trump’s presidential candidacy. The following opinion piece entitled “Professors, Stop Opining about Trump” by Stanley Fish published in the July 15, 2016 New York Times Sunday Review section is a rebuttal to that open letter.
Professors are at it again, demonstrating in public how little they understand the responsibilities and limits of their profession.
On Monday a group calling itself Historians Against Trump published an “Open Letter to the American People.” The purpose of the letter, the historians tell us, is to warn against “Donald J. Trump’s candidacy and the exceptional challenges it poses to civil society.” They suggest that they are uniquely qualified to issue this warning because they “have a professional obligation as historians to share an understanding of the past upon which a better future may be built.”
Or in other words: We’re historians and you’re not, and “historians understand the impact these phenomena have upon society’s most vulnerable.” Therefore we can’t keep silent, for “the lessons of history compel us to speak out against Trump.”
Saturday, July 16, 2016
This essay is authored by Mike Adams. It is reprinted by permission from TOWNHALL
Recently, I have made some pretty charged statements about Black Lives Matter. In a nutshell, I have argued that the organization is not a pro-black civil rights group. Instead, it is an anti-white anti-free speech mob. Evidence of my contention isn’t very hard to gather. In fact, you have to have your head buried pretty deep in the ground in order to miss it.
Consider the following examples:
Consider the following examples:
- In August of 2015, Black Lives Matter protestors overtook a Bernie Sanders event in Seattle. They physically stormed the stage and demanded that they be heard lest they shut the event down altogether. They actually shouted, “Your event will be shut down” as they yelled in the faces of those who were rightfully there speaking. They finally strong-armed the Sanders campaign into relinquishing their First Amendment right to speak – not by using reason but instead by using physical intimidation to take over the stage.
- In the fall of 2015, the Mizzou “safe space” controversy made national headlines. When journalists tried to film their protest, a now-infamous Black Lives Matter activist/professor asked for some “muscle” to physically intimidate members of the press, who were simply seeking to exercise their First Amendment rights on public property. The protestors gleefully complied and strong-armed the reporters.
- In the spring of 2016, pro-lifers at Purdue sponsored an “All Lives Matter” event denouncing the disproportionate abortion of black babies. Black Lives Matter protestors denounced them as racists, shouted them down, and demanded that they apologize – simply for exercising their free speech rights. Predictably, the Purdue pro-life pansies complied and even apologized to the activists for the “crime” of exercising their own civil rights.
- Soon after that, Black Lives Matter thugs stormed the stage while Milo Y-Can’t-I-Pronounce-His-Last-Name was giving a speech at DePaul University. One of the protestors actually assaulted Milo – although he did not strike him hard enough to mess up his fabulously moussed and highlighted hairdo. Muscle trumped free speech on that particular occasion. The thugs then rallied to prevent Milo from coming back to campus later. In other words, they went from physical restraint all the way to prior restraint of free speech.
- Earlier this summer, protestors stormed a stage where LGBT activists were trying to hold a vigil for those slain in the Orlando nightclub massacre. Without any sense of irony, the Black Lives Matter spokesperson began lecturing the audience, but only after expressing apprehension over the fact that most people in the audience were white. For the record, the Orlando shooter was not white, although many of his victims were.
Monday, June 6, 2016
This essay is authored by Alfred S. Regnery. It is reprinted partially by permission from THE INTERCOLLEGIATE REVIEW, a publication of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.
Over the past half century, conservatism has become the dominant political philosophy in the United States. Newspaper and television political news stories more often than not will mention the word conservative. Almost every Republican running for office—whether for school board or U.S. senator—will try to establish his place on the political spectrum based on how conservative he is. Even Democrats sometimes distinguish among members of their own party in terms of conservatism.
Although conservatism as we know it today is a relatively new movement—it emerged after World War II and only became a political force in the 1960s—it is based on ideas that are as old as Western civilization itself. The intellectual foundations on which this movement has been built stretch back to antiquity, were further developed during the Middle Ages and in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century England, and were ultimately formulated into a coherent political philosophy at the time of the founding of the United States. In a real sense, conservatism is Western civilization.
Sunday, May 15, 2016
This essay was authored by Patric Kerouac. Mr. Kerouac writes for Molon Labe Media at http://www.molonlabemedia.com/author/kerouac/
Do you have a friend who claims to be a socialist? In the 20th century there have been numerous political systems, but in the latter half of the century there were only two survivors, Socialism and Capitalism. So we have at this time in the Western world, which for all practical purposes controls the world, two opposing political systems. (I have already previously stated that there is no basic difference between socialists and communists. There are, however, some very important factors relating to socialism of which you should be aware. Socialism will not work in a free market economy and, as a consequence it invariably deteriorates into a totalitarian state. Anyone wishing to argue that point is asked to point to one single instance where this was not the result).
It therefore behooves us to remember who the worst despotic governments of this century were: Nazis in Germany, Fascists in Italy, Communists in the USSR, [Romania, East Germany, Bulgaria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Cuba, North Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc.] and China – each and every one of them a paragon of socialist endeavor. Their leaders; Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin [Ceausescu, Tito, Pol Pot, etc.] and Mao Tse Tung. The outstanding legacy of these individuals is that they each tried to out-do the others in the total number of their own citizens which they murdered. It is a fact that each of these men killed more of their own civilian citizens than they lost in military conflict.
Monday, May 2, 2016
This essay is authored by Patrick M. Garry. It is reprinted in its entirety by permission from ModernAge and can be found in its Winter 2016 issue.
Since the recession that began in 2008, the issue of income inequality has been a central tool of political strategizing. Progressives have used the issue as a sword against conservatives, accusing the latter not only of indifference toward the plight of working Americans but of actually welcoming the widening gulf between rich and poor, as if conservatives want nothing more than to see the wealthy become wealthier, even if it is at the expense of the poor. At the same time, however, conservatives have shied away from the issue, perhaps afraid of how the issue might feed the big-government agenda of liberalism.
Even though they have had a sympathetic ear in the White House for fifteen of the past twenty-three years, progressives have used the inequality issue to put conservatives on the defensive, blaming them for the failure of the middle and working classes to match the progress made by the upper income groups. This assault against conservatives has been deceptive and distorted, but at the same time conservatives have often retreated by trying to dismiss the extent of the widening income gap.
Monday, April 4, 2016
The American Civil War spawned a vigorous debate on a plethora of concerns surrounding adherence to the Constitution. Many, if not all, of these controversial issues endure to the present day. Chief among them are the scope and scale of powers afforded to the President during a direct threat to the nation’s sovereignty and safety. Throughout the Great Rebellion the mandate of President Abraham Lincoln, America’s first Republican President, was to preserve the nation’s sovereignty and safety, and he interpreted his Executive war powers to be broad and sweeping. But he also applied them with the precision of a surgeon’s laser. Lincoln’s goal was to utilize his war powers only to the extent they would cause the warring rebels great hardship, and to end the rebellion as swiftly as possible.
In the intervening time between the outbreak of the Civil War on April 12, 1861 and the convening of a special session of Congress on July 4, 1861 up until that time President Lincoln invoked the boldest use of Executive war powers in the Republic’s history. They included increasing the size of the army and navy; appropriating money for the purchase of arms and munitions without congressional authorization; declaring a blockade of the southern coast, and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Less than two years later, on January 1, 1863, the President proclaimed an executive order known as the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing all slaves held as property within the rebellious states. The President defended his position on the Proclamation as a “military necessity” having constitutional support through his Executive war powers. “The most that can be said, is, that slaves are property. Is there-has there ever been-any question that by the law of war, property, both of enemies and friends, may be taken when needed?”
Sunday, March 13, 2016
This essay is authored by Dr. Patrick Lawrence Keeney. It is reprinted in its entirety by permission from THE INTERCOLLEGIATE REVIEW, a publication of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.
The aim of totalitarian education has never been to instill convictions but to destroy the capacity to form any. —Hannah Arendt
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between true and false no longer exists. —Hannah Arendt
Hannah Arendt (1906–1975) was a thinker of the first order but one who defies easy categorization. She fits uneasily into a category such as liberal, conservative, libertarian, or radical. And while she humbly eschewed the title philosopher, few would doubt that her writings, in all their manifest variety, provide a continuous source of insight into the human condition and, in particular, further our understanding of the political realm.
Monday, February 29, 2016
The following is excerpted from Redeeming the Time by Russell Kirk. It is reprinted in its entirety by permission from THE INTERCOLLEGIATE REVIEW, a publication of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.
Our term "liberal education" is far older than the use of the word "liberal" as a term of politics. What we now call "liberal studies" go back to classical times; while political liberalism commences only in the first decade of the nineteenth century. By "liberal education" we mean an ordering and integrating of knowledge for the benefit of the free person—as contrasted with technical or professional schooling, now somewhat vaingloriously called "career education."
The idea of a liberal education is suggested by two passages I am about to quote to you. The first of these is extracted from Sir William Hamilton's Metaphysics:
"Now the perfection of man as an end and the perfection of man as a mean or instrument are not only not the same, they are in reality generally opposed. And as these two perfections are different, so the training requisite for their acquisition is not identical, and has accordingly been distinguished by different names. The one is styled liberal, the other professional education—the branches of knowledge cultivated for these purposese being called respectively liberal and professional, or liberal and lucrative, sciences."