Trains Magazine's David Lassen is disappointed with the passenger service on Deutsche Bahn.
It would be difficult to understate how disappointed I was with the performance of the Deutsche Bahn while I was in Germany. I was in the hands for the DB for three trips, each scheduled to have one train change:  Zurich-Nuremburg, Nuremburg-Berlin and Berlin-Zurich. The railroad let me down on two of those trips. I missed a seven-minute connection on the way to Nuremburg (by no means an unusual bit of scheduling) because my first train was exactly seven minutes late; I made it off the first train just in time to watch the next one depart. And the train into Zurich was so late that it was annulled in Frankfurt, requiring an hour wait to catch a train that was, as a result, filled with two trains’ worth of passengers. In both cases, I arrived at my destination more than two hours’ late, and since those were my only evenings in either city, essentially lost my opportunity to see even a small part of either one.
Yes, years ago a planned day trip from Wien to London broke down over a six minute connection in Köln.  Got as far as Brussels to rebook the next day on Eurostar; there the Eurostar agents noted that the connection in question frequently failed.

But in other ways, Deutsche Bahn is becoming more like a railroad.
I’ve heard Deutsche Bahn is no longer the flawless operation it once was, and I believe it — based not just from my own experience, but on conversations with other passengers. If and when I get back to Germany, I will be a little more conservative (perhaps pessimistic is a better word) when it comes to trip planning.
Yes, and the diner sometimes runs out of food.  And yet, you can go almost anywhere, even with the occasional change in travel plans (just call it an adventure.)  Try going from Washington, D. C. to Ottawa (or Montgomery, Alabama) or Chicago to Toronto on a train.


Inside Higher Ed's Betsy Lucal sees the nasty side of neoliberalism at work making higher education jobs less desirable.  Read carefully, though, and you'll see other influences at work.
How soon will it drown us all in its insistence on small government and free markets, competitiveness, deregulation and privatization? Its celebration of ever-lower taxes, consumerism, individual empowerment and self-interest has had dire effects on education in general and on higher education in particular.

Tuition skyrockets, students bear staggering debt burdens, cost cutting must always be prioritized -- even over learning. Institutions lean ever more heavily on poorly paid contingent faculty members (don’t even ask about fringe benefits), pit faculty against administrators and create a culture of accountability that takes time and energy away from the important and difficult work of teaching. Students focus on earning a credential and pray that all the debt they are taking on is worth it. (No wonder many of them only seem to care whether this information will be on the exam and if a course fulfills a particular requirement.)
Was it the Chamber of Commerce, or the nonprofit Advertising Council, that, before anybody coined the word "neoliberalism" (originally to distinguish the Gary Hart Democrats from the Hubert Humphrey Democrats) was pushing "to get a good job, get a good education?"  Fifty years of hearing that (it's inaccurate advice, but that's Mike Rowe's bailiwick) is likely to turn a lot of matriculants instrumental in their focus.
Life as a faculty member is not what it was when I began my first full-time job. As the dean of my college said just a few weeks ago, we used to have fun. We used to deal with everyday, mundane concerns. We used to complain about grading and entertain each other with amusing stories about hapless students. We would cheer when we passed something by vote in a faculty meeting because it was so uncommon.

Now we debate the meaning of DFW rates (drop-fail-withdrawal -- funny how no one talks about grade inflation these days) and wonder not whether, but how much, the budget will be cut this time. We obsess over retention and graduation rates and wait on tenterhooks to find out if our summer courses have sufficient enrollment to be taught and allow us to support our families through those months. We feel pitted against our administration rather than valuable, and valued, partners with it.
Perhaps fretting about attrition rates reflects the business fad of being "data driven."  (Translation: you only do things you can measure.)  But perhaps attrition rates are a consequence of the access-assessment-remediation-retention mindset, where access is a euphemism for "admitting unprepared students."  And the battles with the administration?  Those deanlets and deanlings might exist in order to avoid prosecution by the Office of Civil Rights, or perhaps to implement the identity-politics priorities the faculty were complicit in implementing without proper review, that is, until the demands of the special education bureaucracy made it impossible to teach at the college level any more, even if the intake of Distressed Material was under control.

Start treating college like high school, don't be surprised when it turns into high school, complete with the cliques and the burnouts.


The presidential debates may not be the final pieces of information voters receive.
Costs for individual Obamacare policies are expected to be 24 percent higher next year. Voters will see for themselves the huge premium spikes when open enrollment starts just a week before Election Day.
Oops.  Depend on the opposition to call attention to the prices.
Insurers are pulling out of the exchanges after losing billions of dollars, leaving people with fewer choices. Deductibles are soaring to as high as $12,000 on exchange policies, and many people say they might as well be uninsured.

This Obamacare inflation impacts everyone. August saw the biggest monthly gain in prices for medicine, doctor appointments and health insurance since 1984, according to a recent report by Kaiser and the Health Research & Education Trust. The average employer-sponsored family policy now costs more than $18,000 a year.
Count on the opposition to point out, in particular, this component of Let Us Continue, which is Mrs Clinton's theme, slogans notwithstanding.
Clinton owns the failures of Obamacare after telling Iowa voters: "I will defend the Affordable Care Act, but as president I want to go further."

So Clinton actually wants to double down on Obamacare, even after seeing public support for the health law tumble. She wants to create another big government "public option" health insurance plan. The "option" would have unlimited calls on taxpayer dollars and government force and would quickly drive remaining private insurers out of the market, leaving people with only the "choice" of a government-run health plan.
First, tie down the private insurers with regulation, then attempt to create a public agency to pick up the pieces. We tried that with railroads.  Fortunately, transportation policy doesn't attract a lot of attention, and on occasion wiser heads prevail.

Perhaps the quasi-public, not for profit cooperatives provide a cautionary tale.
The idea might have more traction were it not for the experience of a similar experiment the nonprofit, citizen-run health insurance cooperatives concocted by Obamacare. The co-op program cost taxpayers $2.4 billion, but 17 of the 23 state co-ops have failed, forcing hundreds of thousands of people to scramble to find new policies.

Nonetheless, supporters of the law proclaim its success to a skeptical public. They boast that the law has reduced the number of uninsured to 29 million still a far cry from the promised universal coverage.

Many of the 10 million receiving insurance through the health insurance exchanges are there because they lost their earlier policies. And Medicaid has been expanded by 16 million since 2010, relegating beneficiaries to one of the worst health care programs in America.

The uninsured rates may be falling, but unhappiness with our health system is rising. Deservedly or not, Obamacare is taking the fall. It has become a symbol of broken promises and distrust in government. It is an albatross for Clinton.
Perhaps those symbols will be sufficient inducement to consider something else.  Interstate competition among insurers?  Health savings accounts?  The end of the bundling of health insurance with employment?



George Leef is less than impressed with the recent book.  "The Slow Professor is a tedious, self-absorbed, word-salad of a book. Still, it prompts this thought: Why have colleges and universities become so “corporate”?" His hypothesis: it's all that public money, pushing first for greater access (invoke the Reynolds Law) followed by a push for greater completion rates.  There are several economists participating in the bull session.  (The economists are often the contrarians in higher education, whether it's about politics or about holding the line on standards.)

My view: there's enough free agency among academicians, particularly those still holding tenured posts, that academic work life is a bundle of self-made purgatories.


The engine terminal at Brunswick, Maine, is now in place (some locals are still not happy about it) and a shopping excursion to L. L. Bean of Freeport, Maine will offer additional rail options.  Restoration of additional passing tracks promise even more trains by sometime in 2018.  We're still a long way from the frequencies and the long-distance service of the mid-1950s, and the summer service to Rockland is gone.  And yet, frequency, connectivity, and food service bring passengers.


The White House and the anointed doddering successor to Our President continue to suggest that tough talk from Donald Trump only encourages the Sillies.  "'Donald Trump is being used as a recruiting sergeant for ISIS,' Clinton said on Monday morning. 'The kind of language and rhetoric Trump has used is giving aid and comfort to our adversaries.'"  Yeah, those are the intellectual heirs of the people who got the vapors when Ronald Reagan correctly described Yuri Andropov's USSR as an evil empire.

I wonder if any critics of That Man in the White House seized on this effort, from Japan.

That's in a collection at the National World War II Museum in New Orleans.  Here's the reason President Roosevelt was a recruiting sergeant.

As I noted at the time, "The display includes the obligatory obeisance to contemporary sensibilities, otherwise understood as the reflection of people, upon having won a war, asking, 'did we really do that?'  But there can be no hope of victory in a future war until people are willing to countenance official scorn for their enemies."  Unofficial scorn, undermining the bad guys with mockery, is also useful, particularly building morale on the home front.

Unfortunately, Our President's attempt at mockery (Just because the jayvee puts on Lakers jerseys ...) didn't work.  Perhaps as the aptly named spinner Josh Earnest has it, this is a tougher conflict to define than a global war.
"When it comes to ISIL, we are in a fight, a narrative fight, with them, a narrative battle," said Earnest "And what ISIL wants to do is they want to project that they are an organization that is representing Islam in a fight, in a war against the West, in a war against the United States. That is a bankrupt, false narrative. It's a mythology. And we have made progress in debunking that mythology."
Sean Davis of The Federalist is having none of it.
Earnest’s comments come after a weekend of narrative violence across the U.S. A pipe narrative exploded in a garbage can near a Marine Corps race in New Jersey. In New York City, a separate narrative blast injured 29 people on Saturday. Law enforcement authorities believe the same wicked wordsmith was responsible for both narrative explosions. On Saturday evening, another vicious narrative stabbed nine people at a mall in St. Cloud, Minnesota. That word terrorist was finally stopped by an NRA-certified concealed carry instructor’s sick burns and also multiple rounds from the instructor’s personal sentence pistol.
Make of yourself what it says about Life in Obama's America that several of the bombs were discovered or broken by dumpster-divers.

Because the Sillies are simultaneously waging war on secular and Christian populations and on Moslems who adhere to the Wrong Kind of Islam, we're not dealing with the standard war of nation states against nation states.  But standing up for American Values has not been a strong suit for the current crop of tranzis running the war effort.  And Donald Trump, at some level, may be grasping this.  "[T]here has to be a traditional conservative message that expands the base of support for law enforcement and against the pernicious cult of authenticity that enables the crazies as somehow deserving of celebration."  Mr Trump is no traditional conservative, and the pernicious cult of authenticity also enables his reality-show life.  In his own way, he's doing his bit to keep the home front angry.

The contemporary analogues to the Navy starving the enemy of resources, the Air Force destroying the industrial capacity and depriving the civilian work forces of house, and a Manhattan Project concentrating the minds of the true believers remain to emerge.

But final victory looks like this.

USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay.
Unattributed photograph retrieved from Ace of Spades.

We are nowhere near the beginning of the emergence of the resolution of the conflict.


Stephen Moore's "No Thank You, Obama" notes that fifteen years of bipartisan failure oughtn't be cause for celebration.  Plus:  "As the great Reagan economist Arthur Laffer has put it so aptly, we keep punishing success through taxes and rewarding failure through welfare, and then we wonder why we are getting nothing but failure."



Public subsidies for Commuter Rail tend to focus on providing utilitarian transportation for as many passengers as can be crammed onto the cars with little regard for comfort.  Thus the bar car is often threatened, even in the land of the three-martini lunch and the eighty-six-proof-anaesthetic-crutches.  Stop the presses!  Metro-North will be restoring bar cars on rush hour trains out of Grand Central.  "Good news for thousands of commuters, although I must say they don’t look as homey as the originals." Trains and Travel's Jim Loomis goes on to observe, "I’m not sure this qualifies as the first indication that a return to the Golden Age is imminent, but it’s a damn good start!"  The restoration of a state of good repair (Make the New Haven Great Again?) might be accomplished more easily on the rails than in the popular culture.  Chicagoans, however, will continue to have to bring their own (except on those weekend departures when the container ban is in effect.)


The contemporary successor to the motor torpedo boat has been under development for at least ten years as a class of littoral combat ships.  They're being built at a shipyard in Marinette, Wisconsin -- presumably safely removed from Iranian PT boats and Russian submarines.  The seventh of the series, LCS 13 Wichita, was launched over the weekend.  They're not steaming properly out of the harbor.
All three littoral combat ships delivered to the Navy from Marinette have suffered setbacks since leaving Wisconsin. Last December, the USS Milwaukee suffered an engineering casualty during its journey to California.  In January, the USS Fort Worth’s engine was damaged while out in Singapore. In mid-July, the USS Freedom sustained damage to its diesel propulsion systems during Navy exercises when seawater got into an engine system.

The engine failures and problems caused by crew members have placed a spotlight on the entire LCS program.

U.S. Rep. Reid Ribble (R-Wisconsin) says the problems with the LCS program aren’t so much the ships themselves, but with all the new technology, there’s a gap in training.
Perhaps accompanied by a lack of urgency, there's nothing on the threat board comparable to putting a bomb-damaged Yorktown into drydock at Pearl Harbor to do enough patching in three days to have her ready to sortie to Point Luck and add her weight to the carriers defending Midway.  (The Japanese thought their four carriers would be sufficient, and Shokaku and Zuikaku went back to Japan for a more leisurely refit.  Oops.)

RUNNING EXTRA.  A Littoral Combat Ship is a powered frigate designed by a committee.
The U.S. Navy effort to abandon the frigate and reinvent it with the quite different and very innovative LCS design was risky, and it largely failed to achieve its objectives. The innovative design did not work out as expected. What many sailors really wanted was a replacement for the 4,100 ton Perrys, which were very popular with their users.
Recent developments in induction-motor and laser-based weapons are likely to render the ships obsolete reasonably soon.


Democratic Review quotes, at length, a statement by the Harvard Republican Club that makes as cogent a case as I have seen for #NeverTrump #NeverHillary.
This fall, we will instead focus our efforts on reclaiming the Republican Party from those who have done it considerable harm, campaigning for candidates who will uphold the conservative principles that have defined the Republican Party for generations. We will work to ensure both chambers of Congress remain in Republican hands, continuing to protect against executive overreach regardless of who wins the election this November.

We call on our party’s elected leaders to renounce their support of Donald Trump, and urge our fellow College Republicans to join us in condemning and withholding their endorsement from this dangerous man. The conservative movement in America should not and will not go quietly into the night.

A longtime student of American democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville once said, “America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

De Tocqueville believed in the United States. Americans are a decent people. We work hard, protect our own, and look out for one another in times of need, regardless of the color of our skin, the God we worship, or our party registration. Donald Trump may not believe in that America, but we do. And that America will never cease to be great.
It's not clear, for reasons that I've remarked on previously, and for saecular reasons that require further elaboration, what "conservative movement" refers to.  And yet, respecting the separation of powers as spelled out in Article I of the Constitution is clearly conservative, in the sense of respecting established institutions.



The Milwaukee area Oktoberfest takes place at the Bavarian Inn, which used to be called Old Heidelberg Park, and it has long had a soccer field.  (The field might also have been a drill field for the German-American Bund, but that was a long time ago.)  And during the day of Oktoberfest, there was a game going on.

There's that deep bench in U. S. women's soccer developing (as well as what appears to be a properly organized goal rush.  But as is often the case when you ruin a good run in the grass with the necessity of kicking the ball at the net, no score.)

In the Milwaukee area, the soccer collectives tended to have ethnic names, such as Bavaria using the Old Heidelberg Park field.  Here are three young ladies wearing the Bavaria colours conducting a 50-50 raffle.  (Not bad prizes if you win.)

No longer are the soccer collectives made up of their European tribes.  There were also several young ladies in the red and white colours of Polonia getting in on the Gemütlichkeit.  The soccer moms were quaffing beer, the kids not so much.  Let's be grateful that the Serbia collective and the Croatia collective no longer re-litigate Tito's insurrection.

The raffle didn't sit too well with some of the people attending the festival.  (At weekends, wedding parties visit German outdoor cafes selling small bottles of schnapps for good luck, the raffle might be a Midwestern version of the same thing.  On the other hand, roast potatoes rather than potato salad, and cole slaw along with sauerkraut??)

But give these kids an America to buy into, and an America that buys into these kids, and we'll be OK.


After I posted about the recent developments in steel economics research and the mills that closed, I did some digging to find out what happened after the legacy steel companies quit.  (Mostly there's some cheap real estate to be had.)  I also turned up this December 1981 essay by Staughton Lynd, explaining why, in the depths of the shakeout of the steel industry, United States Steel was spending money buying Marathon Oil.
Steel is a very capital-intensive business, and, for this reason, investment in steel is not as profitable as investment in downtown real estate, or chemicals, or, apparently, oil. Therefore, American steel companies have been reducing their steelmaking capacity and investing elsewhere. For American society, which needs a steel industry to retain its economic independence, this raises the question of whether the profit motive can be relied on to reindustrialize steel.
The profit motive can be relied upon.  Mr Lynd, in common with many observers of the time, was looking for the investment in the wrong places.
Today, it is generally recognized that the American steel industry is sick because it has failed to modernize. Imported steel is a symptom - not the disease. The competition of European steel companies may be ''unfair,'' in the sense that there are heavy government subsidies, but this is not true of Japan. Japanese steelmakers can undersell American steelmakers in the American market because they have installed modern equipment that dramatically reduces the cost of making a ton of steel.
That was the received wisdom, back in the day, but all of that scrap metal in the form of abandoned factories and redundant railroads was a feedstock, provided someone could figure out how to get good product out of it.  (That every third world country was exporting steel, and a lot of that steel was Distressed Material, simply contributed more feedstock.)
Every mill closed in Youngstown made steel in antiquated open hearths. An open-hearth furnace takes hours to make a ''heat,'' or batch of steel, that a basic oxygen-process shop, which is standard in Japan, can make in 45 minutes. And not one of the mills closed in Youngstown had a continuous caster to semi-finish the raw steel as it came from the furnace.
Yes, and every mill closed in Youngstown had an annual capacity of two to three million tons of raw steel, located far from a deepwater port, subjecting them to the double disadvantage of unexploited scale economies and high inbound transportation costs.  There was another shakeout in progress, the abandonment of inefficiently small basic oxygen shops.
The most intriguing implication of this research is that the "lethargic" steel producers who postponed the replacement of their open-hearth furnaces or only recently replaced them with large electric furnaces made an optimal choice. Early adoption of a (too small) basic oxygen converter may have been a mistake.
I still revisit those research notes from time to time. But building a model open hearth shop with working smokestacks strikes me as more fun.  But Mr Lynd didn't see the revolution coming.
It remains to be seen whether tax breaks and other subsidies, granted on condition that the money provided be reinvested in steel, would induce U.S. Steel and other steel companies to rebuild aging mills in places like Pittsburgh, Gary, Ind., and Lackawanna, N.Y. If not, the people of the United States will have to consider doing the job themselves. In the 1930's, the Governmen created the Tennessee Valley Authority to provide electric power to areas that private utilities could not profitably serve. A Pittsburgh steelworker has suggested formation of a ''Monongahela Valley Authority'' that could use the power of eminent domain to acquire and operate steel mills that the industry did not wish to modernize.
As I asked a few years ago, "Anybody seen Bethlehem Steel lately?"  Raw steel production in North America is as cost-efficient as anyone's, and the modernization came from outside.  That authority would have kept in place precisely the inefficient capacity that has been wrung out, and it likely would have precluded a lot of the creativity that makes recycling scrap into automotive-grade sheet and heavy structural shapes standard practice.


Here's a clip in which Chris Matthews along with McKay Coppins and Katty Kay discuss a leaked Colin Powell electronic mail in which the retired general and secretary of state is less than impressed, shall we say, with the major parties' presidential offerings.  There's the usual Chris Matthews foaming at the mouth about the Cheenies.

Toward the end, Mr Coppins gets into Mr Powell's reservations about "nation building" (rightfully so: the fatal conceit is the fatal conceit and it's harder to translate institutions across cultures.)  But Mr Matthews's followup is instructive.  "We're still trying to figure out Newark and Detroit."  Make of that what you will.



The Litany of Abuses accompanying the Framing of the Constitution surely includes the limitation of the franchise to men with property and the codification of conditions under which the property became proxy votes.  The Framing, however, has been overtaken by the Fatal Conceit of Governance by Wise Experts.  It's not for the good, argues William Voegeli.
Progressives introduced a new determination to organize and improve modern life by applying, vigorously and if need be forcibly, the insights being uncovered by a clerisy of social scientists. Eleanor Roosevelt, for example, believed that the emergency posed by World War II called for government experts to rationalize every aspect of national life. Three months after Pearl Harbor, she contended that “all of us — men in the services, and men and women at home — should be drafted and told what is the job we are to do.” Only through such regimentation could each of us confidently gain the satisfaction that comes from knowing he was “complying with the wishes and doing the things which those in authority thought should be done.”

The -ism of progressivism is the belief that movement toward a better future is a goal, a right, and the highest imperative. “Progress,” in its most direct, literal sense, simply means getting closer to some objective, one both comprehensible and manifestly superior to the current state of affairs. The early progressives believed that ascertaining and mastering the processes that shaped society and history would move mankind to a better future, just as understanding the natural laws of the physical universe had improved the human condition through steam engines, telegraphs, anesthetics, and other modern marvels.

Liberalism, however, came to regard its faith in progress as untenable. The rejection was, in part, a reaction to historical developments. Complying with the wishes of those in authority lost much of its appeal when the authorities turned out to be men such as Robert McNamara and McGeorge Bundy, smart fools who provided detailed charts and graphs to justify each augmentation of America’s catastrophic misadventure in Vietnam. At home, liberals came to detest the progressivism of Robert Moses and other power brokers, experts whose idea of urban renewal was to bulldoze any city block that had the temerity to evince charm or social cohesion in ways not part of a government agency’s master plan.
The "liberalism" to which Mr Voegeli refers is the radical chic version, which sometimes these days flies under the rubric of "progressivism" new style, in which the regimentation is tempered by lip service to "diversity" or "inclusion."  But it's still about the Wise Experts.  Robert Moses, Robert McNamara, McGeorge Bundy, Jonathan Gruber, policy failure is policy failure.

And perhaps that Governance by Wise Experts is not enough, as the People have too much freedom to choose who appoints the Wise Experts.  Thus Georgetown political philosopher Jason Brennan makes a modest proposal.
The trick is to find a political system that both 1) spreads power out enough to prevent people from using power selfishly and 2) weeds out or at least reduces the power of incompetent decision-makers.

In some sense, republican democracy, with checks and balances, was meant to do just that. And to a significant degree it succeeds. But perhaps a new system, epistocracy, could do even better.

In an epistocracy, political power is to some degree apportioned according to knowledge. An epistocracy might retain the major institutions we see in republican democracy, such as parties, mass elections, constitutional review, and the like. But in an epistocracy, not everyone has equal basic political power. An epistocracy might grant some people additional voting power, or might restrict the right to vote only to those that could pass a very basic test of political knowledge. Any such system will be subject to abuse, and will suffer from significant government failures. But that’s true of democracy too. The interesting question is whether epistocracy, warts and all, would perform better than democracy, warts and all.

All across the West, we’re seeing the rise of angry, resentful, nationalist, xenophobic and racist movements, movements made up mostly of low-information voters. Perhaps it’s time to put aside the childish and magical theory that democracy is intrinsically just, and start asking the serious question of whether there are better alternatives. The stakes are high.
Let's leave aside the echoes of #BasketofDeplorables and take the proposal seriously, as Rod Dreher has. (Property qualifications? Literacy tests? Weren't we there earlier?)
Brennan is not wrong to criticize the flaws in democracy. Giving people the vote is no guarantee that they will use it wisely. But restricting the vote to the cognitive elite is no solution. I would rather be ruled by the first thousand people through the gates at the Daytona 500 than the people in that room Friday night with Hillary Clinton and Barbra Streisand. Guess who holds more power already in our society? That’s right: the cognitive elite. That’s how it works in a meritocracy. Prof. Brennan’s epistocracy would only give them more — for our own good.
Never mind that single-use zoning is for our own good, as is uneven regulation of controlled substances and Common Core.  That the epistocracy can be as subject to preference cascades and group think ought be reason enough to limit their powers.
I am no fan of racism, sexism, and the litany of deplorable thoughtcrimes that Mrs. Clinton mentioned on Friday. But I am genuinely frightened of powerful people like those gathered in that room who get to define what constitutes racism and all the rest, and use that as a way to destroy heretics who deviate from their puritanical gospel.
"Heretics" is about right. But by their fruits, whether parking craters or health insurance collapses, shall we know them.


Paul Rahe, in Ricochet, sees in Unhealthy #CrookedHillary's #BasketofDeplorables remark a rallying opportunity.
Hillary Clinton let the mask slip on Friday. She said out loud what she and a majority of her fellow liberals think about the rest of us, and a great many liberal opinion leaders chimed in to indicate their agreement. Every Republican candidate should seize on this, and they should all challenge their Democratic opponents to repudiate the Democratic candidate’s vilification of their fellow Americans.

There are moments when the truth slips out. We cannot rely on Pravda-on-the-Hudson, on Pravda-on-the-Potomac, and on Pravda-on-the-Airways to do anything but deep-six Mrs. Clinton’s remarks. They will be burned into the memories of the American people if and only if the Trump campaign and the Republicans running for office unite in hammering away at this theme. When this electoral season is over, Mrs. Clinton’s remarks should be the one thing that everyone remembers. For her remarks have one great virtue: they crystallize what everyone fears about her and about today’s Democratic Party.
Heck, anyone who has ever been hung up in strip-mall stroad traffic, because the geniuses who zoned all the land for commercial use, and failed to synchronize the traffic lights controlling ingress to and egress from the mandatory parking craters, ought to recognize that a government which fails at a relatively simple task ought not be entrusted with health care or urban renewal or any of the Hero Projects, and ought only be authorized war powers under the most difficult of circumstances.

Mr Trump is using #CrookedHillary's remarks to motivate voters.
Hillary Clinton made these comments at one of her high-dollar fundraisers in Wall Street.

She and her wealthy donors all had a good laugh. They were laughing at the very people who pave the roads she drives on, paint the buildings she speaks in, and keep the lights on in her auditorium.

Hillary Clinton is an insider, supported by powerful insiders, attacking Americans who have no political power.

Hillary Clinton spoke with hatred and derision for the people who make this country run.

She spoke with contempt for the people who thanklessly follow the rules, pay their taxes, and scratch out a living for their families.

While Hillary Clinton lives a sequestered life behind gates and walls and guards, she mocks and demeans hardworking Americans who only want their own families to enjoy a fraction of the security enjoyed by our politicians.

After months of hiding from the press, Hillary Clinton has revealed her true thoughts.

She revealed herself to be a person who looks down on the proud citizens of our country as subjects for her to rule over.
That's the nature of the gentry.  By all means, read the entire speech.


America's Ugly Strip Malls Were Caused By Government Regulation, argues Scott Beyer in Forbes.  The culprits?  Start with single-use zoning, which might be necessary to allow a relatively simple computer program like the original Sim City to run on a Commodore 64, but which gets in the way of emergence.
Let’s assume, just for the sake of conversation, that nobody finds a corporate fast-food establishment particularly attractive. The visual impact of these places is nonetheless minimal and sporadic in mixed-use, urban settings, where they bump up against different building types, or sit at ground level within buildings. But along many American strip malls, fast-food chains—and other low-budget retail—are clustered side by side, extending into infinity with their loud signage, cookie-cutter design, drive-thru windows and parking lots.

We can thank single-use zoning for this. Most cities’ comprehensive zoning maps separate residential, commercial and industrial uses. They usually allow commercial retail on just a handful of key roads that run from downtown to the suburbs. So that’s where most of the retail ends up. It’s as if the government has taken uses that are fundamentally ugly, and crammed them together, causing the ugliness to spread. People still shop on these strips because they have no other choice, but don’t celebrate the areas themselves, often finding them distasteful and congested.
I wonder if the argument generalizes to New Zealand.

Paraparaumu, North Island, 7 January 2000, as observed from the Wellington to Auckland day train.

The very rules that seek to encourage expansive use of land also encourage cost-cutting.  "Because government regulations are limiting the value that developers can accrue from their land, they throw up something hasty and cheap to get a quick return."  The best thing for government to do might be to go away, notes Rachel Quednau of Strong Towns.  "Until we change the government regulations that induce strip mall development (or until every strip mall fails completely), we're stuck with these low-returning investments in our towns and cities."  Strip mall failure?  Perhaps, in Vancouver, comes the first signs.
At a recent job fair, 3,000 jobs were available but only 500 potential applicants showed up. The minimum wage jobs and poor transit connections will hinder hiring. The lack of a good separated sidewalk and protected bike lane from Tsawwassen to the mall will also thwart local residents who are active transportation users.
Yes, and sometimes the mall developers deliberately keep the bus stops away, so as to make access by deplorables less easy.


Isn't it Time to De-Escalate the Arms Race?, asks George Leef.  No, it's neither a reprise of the Cold War, or the latest marketing effort for Truck Month.  Rather, it's his suggestion that university administrators stop lusting after Football Glory.
[University of Houston president Renu] Khator isn’t satisfied and wants to get Houston into the Big-12, declaring that “we have no choice but to keep becoming better so we could get into the Big Five.” And if not, she added, it would be “difficult for Houston to sustain” its athletics program.

That’s where we get the “arms race,” since many other universities are similarly trying to improve so they can outshine all the rest and get into a power conference. Huge sums are diverted away from academic programs and into stratospheric salaries for coaches, state-of-the-art facilities for the athletes, bigger and better stadiums, and so on.

But it would be a mistake to think that this only affects a small number of big schools that are at the top of the athletics food chain.
Of course not. The logic of rent-seeking is that each rent-seeker is prepared to spend up to the expected value of the rents in quest of the rents.  Thus, when two new memberships in a power conference open up (just watch, we will see four major conferences of sixteen teams each before this is done), there might be multiple aspirants to those rents.  "After all, with 17 programs in the running to join the Big 12 this time around, at least 15 institutions are guaranteed not to receive an invitation."

But large student fees to support sports the students don't watch (sometimes because they're juggling jobs and making use of on-campus food pantries) have changed some minds in higher education about staying in the athletic positional arms race.


The productivity gains in North American steel came with massive shakeouts of suboptimal capacity and today's steel business employs about a quarter of the workers it did as recently as the late 1970s.

Here's a #ThrowbackThursday visit to some of the plants that closed.

The gate of the closed Youngstown Sheet and Tube Campbell Works, in Youngstown, Ohio, with the open hearth shop across the footbridge behind.  The still-manicured lawn goes with an office building of Youngstown Sheet.  Sign on the open hearth shop gives speed limits for plant trucks: 30 mph, but not exceeding 10 mph on bridges and ramps.  Memorial Day, 1983.

Along the Mahoning River that weekend, the old Youngstown Sheet Brier Hill Works was partially in operation under the ownership of a minimill company, Campbell Works was closed, the Republic plant to its south was closed, and the United States Steel facilities were gone.

A subsequent trip took me to Homestead, Pennsylvania.

The open hearth plant of United States Steel's Homestead Works was still active.  I asked permission at the guardhouse to take this picture from a public sidewalk on the Monongahela River bridge.  Scrap and alloying ores arrive on the upper tracks, hot metal below.  The slag cars and ingot buggies arrive and leave on the other side of the furnaces, which are in the center of the picture.

Detroit, during the second World War, might have claimed to be the arsenal of democracy, but Homestead had a legitimate claim to be the forges of democracy.

A mill building belonging to Mesta Machinery.  The external stacks suggest an open hearth plant, but they're spaced too closely (compare the Campbell Works picture) and the building does not include the supply tracks on multiple levels characteristic of an open hearth shop.

Blue diesel locomotives are U. S. Steel intraplant power.  Homestead pictures taken 5 August 1983.



John Harris asks, Does the Left Have a Future?  This is a think-piece in The Guardian, thus not to be confused with someone at Reason or National Review spiking the football.
The western left faces three grave challenges, which strike at the heart of its historic sense of what it is and who it speaks for. First, traditional work – and the left’s sacred notion of “the worker” – is fading, as people struggle through a new era of temporary jobs and rising self-employment, which may soon be succeeded by a drastic new age of automation. Second, there is a new wave of opposition to globalisation, led by forces on the right, which emphasise place and belonging, and a mistrust of outsiders. And all the time, politics rapidly fragments, which leaves the idea that one single party or ideology can represent a majority of people looking like a relic. The 20th century, in other words, really is over. Whether the left can return to meaningful power in the 21st is a question currently surrounded by a profound sense of doubt.
Complex adaptive systems tend to do what they darn well please, and when a new social order is emerging, a Vanguard to Lead the Way has the same problems as everyone else, namely, Where Are We, and What's The Most Promising Way to Go?
Meanwhile, as deindustrialisation ripped through 20th-century economies, the instability and fragmentation embodied by the financial and service sectors was taken to its logical conclusion by new digital businesses. In turn, the latter have spawned what some now call “platform capitalism”: a model whereby goods, services and labour can be rapidly exchanged between people, companies and multinational corporations – think of Uber, eBay, Airbnb or TaskRabbit, which link up freelance workers with people who need help with such tasks as cleaning, deliveries or moving home – with little need for any intermediate organisations. This has not only marginalised retailers and wholesalers. It calls into question the traditional role of trade unions, and further reduces the power of the state, which is now locked into a pattern where innovations take rapid flight and it cannot keep up.

In retrospect, the left’s halcyon era was based on a straightforward project. When the archetypal factory gates swung open, out came thousands of men – and by and large, they were men – united by an unchanging daily experience, and ready to support a political force that would use the unions, the state, and the fabled “mass party” to create a new, much fairer world in their monolithic image.

Now, an atomising, quicksilver economy bypasses those structures, and has fragmented people and places so thoroughly that assembling meaningful political coalitions has begun to appear almost impossible.
The new institutions will emerge. But if people who think of themselves as "progressive" reflect on how often their form of progress destroyed the old mediating institutions, perhaps they'll be less destructive in future.
People on the left should be thinking about extending maternity and paternity leave and allowing its reprise when children are older; reviving adult education (often for its own sake, not just in terms of “reskilling”); assisting people in the creation of neighbourhood support networks that might belatedly answer the decline of the extended family; and, most obviously, enabling people to shorten their working week – think about a three-day weekend, and you begin to get a flavour of the left politics of the future.

The deep changes wrought by our ageing society will anyway begin to increase the numbers of people beyond working age, and accelerate the shift away from paid work towards caring. But the most radical shift will be caused by automationand its effects on employment. If the Bank of England now reckons that as many as 15m British jobs are under threat from technology, and if a third of jobs in the retail sector are predicted to disappear by 2025, does the myopic, often macho rhetoric of work and the worker really articulate any meaningful vision?
I expect we'll be revisiting these ideas.


Some years ago, I estimated the minimum efficient scale of a fully integrated steel plant as about six million tons of raw steel per year.  The turmoil that was going on along the rivers of Ohio and Pennsylvania I interpreted as a shakeout of suboptimally small capacity at locations with relatively high inbound transportation costs.  My subsequent research suggested that, Rust Belt lamentations notwithstanding, steel was a lively corpse.  That was the message of The Renaissance of American Steel, reviewed here.

The creative destruction goes on.
The US steel industry really stands out: over the period 1972-2002, it witnessed impressive productivity growth – 28% compared with the median of 3% – and this while the sector contracted by 35%. The starkest difference was the drop in employment of 80% compared with a decline of 5% for the average sector. This left the industry with only 100,000 workers in 2002 compared with about 500,000 in 1972.
That wasn't the effect of Chinese dumping, either.
The increase in productivity in the US steel industry can be directly linked to the introduction of a new production technology: the ‘minimill’. We find that minimill plants were significantly more productive than traditional steel plants, and that this productivity premium initiated a reallocation process whereby minimills displaced the older technology. Minimill plants were significantly more productive than traditional steel plants, and that this productivity premium initiated a reallocation process whereby minimills displaced the older technology known as vertically integrated production. The reallocation of output was responsible for about a third of the increase in the industry’s total factor productivity. In addition, the productivity of minimills steadily increased.
Plus the ability of the minimills to recycle scrap into ever-better products improved.  (Tramp elements in reinforcing bar are less of a problem than those same elements in sheet intended for automobile fenders.)
We see the exit of vertically integrated producers in precisely the product segments where they competed head-to-head with minimills. The entry and expansion of minimills was thus responsible for the reallocation process among incumbents.

When we evaluate the impact of a drastic technological change on aggregate productivity growth, we control for other potential drivers of productivity growth, including international competition, geography, and firm-level factors such as organization and management. We also show that mark-ups in this industry fell by 50% over the last 40 years, which is not surprising if we look at the output and input price changes in the industry. The joint increase in productivity and reduction in mark-ups led to an increase in consumer surplus of $9-11 billion per year.
Sometimes, the big steel firms had to be mugged by reality.  And -- as is the case with Marshallian improvements, steel consumers gained, but some communities and many steel workers, lost.  Social scientists will never lack for work.


Never mind the ways in which the so-called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act went wrong, it's not enough government intervention.
The latest U.S. Census Bureau data clearly illustrates that the need for a single-payer, Medicare-for-all health program has never been more urgent, the advocacy group Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) said Tuesday.

The census found that 29 million people went uninsured last year, including 3.7 million children, and that deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs have continued to rise well after the Affordable Care Act (ACA) went into law in 2010.
The state is that grand fiction by which everyone attempts to live at the expense of everyone else.  And the only response to government failure is ... more actions by the national government.
[Pediatrician and association president Robert] Zarr added, the bureau neglected to mention that the quality of healthcare in the U.S. has also decreased, with rising copay and deductible costs and narrow provider networks—an effect known as "hollowing out."

"That tens of millions of people will remain uninsured under our current arrangements is perhaps the most compelling argument for why our nation needs to swiftly adopt a single-payer system, where everyone, without exception, would be covered and get first-dollar coverage for all medically necessary care," he said.

"Too many people have skimpy policies that deter them from seeking care when they should get treatment, and that leave them unprotected against financial hardship when illness or injury strikes. And their number is growing."

Meanwhile, the recent announcement by health insurance giant Aetna that it would pull out of ACA exchanges in 11 states—and similar actions by United Health Group and other private insurers—shows the corporations cannot be trusted to protect their patients' financial security, Zarr added.

"Our patients and our economy can't wait any longer for an effective remedy to our healthcare woes," he said. "The stakes are too high. We need to swiftly move beyond the ACA to a single-payer national health insurance program."
Yes, that Medicare reimbursement rate is doing a lot to make sure that participants in the part of the health industry that is run along single payer lines get that first-dollar coverage.  The best fix is to make sure that everyone's physician is subject to monopsonistic buying practices?  I'm not having it.  Neither is Reason's Shikha Dalmia.  "Obamacare has become such a quagmire that the proposed 'fixes' may create an even bigger mess." What are those fixes?  Mandatory purchase of insurance, with a stiffer penalty for not buying.  A Government Issue policy.  "Obamacare tried to remake a sector that constitutes one-eighth of the economy from the ground up. But it made a mess that it just doesn't know how to fix. That will be President Obama's legacy. He should be worried. Very worried."

But we're likely to see the public option, or the nationalization, followed by the inevitable crash.  There's still time to move toward medical savings accounts and interstate competition among insurers and greater commercial freedom for providers of medical care, particularly that involving machinery and prescriptions as opposed to examinations and surgery.



Play the clip of Hillary Clinton trashing the basket of deplorables and listen (if you can stand it) to the usual litany of dog-whistles.  And yes, argues Neo-Neocon, they are dog whistles.  "Clinton also listed a string of types of bigotry she alleges that these Trump supporters exhibit, not just the white supremacy aspect: 'Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it.'"  Go read both posts.  She explains why it's an error to refer to sensible fears as phobias.

Rod Dreher takes the response in a different direction.
I do firmly believe that in her basket of deplorables she puts traditional Christians, thinking us “homophobic.” In fact, I would love to hear her talk about what, exactly, are the factors she considers in whether or not someone is a “homophobe,” a “xenophobe,” an “Islamophobe,” a “racist,” or a “sexist.”

For example, is it possible to hold any traditional Christian beliefs about human sexuality and not be considered homophobic by Hillary Clinton? Is there any position on immigration to the right of her own that people can hold without being judged mentally ill or morally deficient by her? How about on Islam? Let’s hear it.

Because what I hear when I listen to her words is that Hillary Clinton thinks anybody who disagrees with her on race, women’s issues, LGBT issues, and the rest, is wicked.
Plus a True Summation of Hillary of the Deplorable Health's mindset.
[The clip] plays directly into the stereotype of Hillary Clinton as an arrogant, bossypants liberal elitist. And it confirms another stereotype: that the Left doesn’t simply consider its opponents wrong, but also terrified and hate-filled, and therefore irrational and evil. You can’t reason with people like that, you know; you just have to use the power of the state to roll over them.


The point of turning rail transportation into a cartel was to limit what the punditry used to refer to as "wasteful and duplicative competition" by issuing operating authority first to railroads and then to trucks.  There was a separate cartel for air carriers that worked equally badly.  That Depression-era experiment ended 35 years ago.  But medicine is still on that course.
What does it take to open a new hospital or health facility? Certainly a building, equipment, supplies, and a staff of trained medical professionals. But in most states, this is not enough. Health care providers must also obtain a “certificate of need” from a state board certifying that there is an “economic necessity” for their services.
The controversy plays out among hospitals precisely the same way it played out in transportation.
Some economic theorists argue that when costs are fixed, free markets will lead to excess entry, making regulatory restrictions on entry desirable (Mankiw and Whinston 1986). But we should not conclude that because markets are imperfect, regulation can necessarily improve upon them—this is a logical leap which must always be taken carefully.

There are good reasons to be especially suspicious in this case. Top theorists of industrial organization, including some who published one of the first proofs of excess entry, have warned of the dangers of regulatory capture leading to too little competition (Laffont and Tirole 1993, Suzumura 2012). More ominously, theoretical work shows how even a well-meaning and well-informed regulator charged with limiting entry to the socially optimal level can be tricked by incumbents into permitting too few new entrants (Kim 1997).

CON restrictions are an example of how such entry barriers fail in practice. Certainly we see abuses and regulatory capture. Yet the real problem is not the abuse, but the thing itself. Reducing the supply of an inelastically demanded good such as health care simply isn’t a recipe for lower spending. It is a recipe for high prices and high spending, which is what we see in practice.

By repealing CON laws and allowing more health care providers and competition, states have the opportunity to attract new investment and innovation while reducing spending and keeping care affordable.
Indeed.  But regulation in the public interest generates juicy rents.


Amtrak's Saturday evening Hiawatha service will continue until further notice.  "The Saturday late evening trains have shown higher ridership during a trial period than the early morning trains they replaced."  This is a positive development.  We don't refer to Milwaukee as the Beer City for nothing.

There might be other days of the week, starting with Friday, for which a late evening train proves useful.  Perhaps the day will come when the Chicago Wolves hockey team refer to their series with the Milwaukee Admirals as the Amtrak series for reasons other than naming rights.


Laura McKenna has to protect her sons from it.
He, like all the teens in town, are “friends” with hundreds of other kids. Kids he doesn’t even really know. These “friends” post pictures and videos of their parties gleefully recording every shotgun, every pong game, every blurry eyed drunk face. Idiots. And it’s not just the skateboarding, shop class kid. It’s the AP honors kid, the going to Harvard kid, the marching band kid.

And then a friend who has two teenage daughters warned me that I needed to watch out for the girls now that Jonah got so cute over the summer. She said that I would have to be careful, because girls would start launching themselves in his direction. So, we had lots of talks about all this over the weekend, but would I be a terrible feminist, if I asked the parents of girls to talk with their daughters about this, too? Perhaps teenage girls shouldn’t give themselves nicknames on their finsta-accounts that call themselves “hoes.”

Another parent in town was so dismayed by his kid’s behavior and the general culture of the town that he made his kid drop out of school and join the military. That seems a bit extreme. The parents who put their kids in fancy Catholic schools in the area say that the same problems exist there, too. In fact, the private kids are even worse, because their parents go away to Thailand for two weeks and leave the kids alone in their McMansions with an unlocked liquor cabinet.

As much as we would like, we can’t wrap our kids in cotton and lock them in their room until 25. How do you parent properly, when other parents aren’t? When other parents buy the booze for the kids? How does a kid make good choices, when he lives in a world where everybody else is making bad choices?
I should probably lodge a protest about the perpetuation of the canard that shop class is for burnouts.

But is anybody surprised, when the aspirational Leave It To Beaver and Father Knows Best give way to reality TV and the tabloid culture, and bad behavior in some circles is transgressiveness or authenticity to be celebrated in other circles, that bad choices become the default?


Her "basket of deplorables" crack did not sit well with Judge Jeanine.  It's unlikely that the judge is going to change any minds, but she's hot when she's hot.

The other half of the Trump voters, as perceived by Mrs Clinton and the rich freakazoids, exist as people to be condescended to.  Here's how the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal see it.
She said Mr. Trump’s other supporters are “people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they’re in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.”

So she thinks half of Mr. Trump’s voters are loathsome bigots and the other half are losers and dupes who deserve Democratic pity. It’s no accident that Mrs. Clinton said this at a fundraiser headlined by Barbra Streisand, the friendliest of crowds, because this really is what today’s elite progressives believe about America’s great unwashed.
But Hillary of the deplorable health, the deplorable state of what used to be mainstream America is the predictable consequence of the deplorable last seven years of Hope and Change.



That was last week's election folly.

But a taco truck is an entrepreneurial venture serving food.  That means it must be taxed and regulated.
In both Texas and California, street vendors found themselves increasingly popular with the city, but struggling to fend off concerted attacks from the city government. The San Antonio city fathers restricted hours of sale and then finally ejected chili stands from Alamo Plaza near the turn of the century, but met resistance when chili queens continued to set up stands in defiance of the law.
Instead, the Wise Experts prescribed the commercial strip, with its strip malls and nationally franchised bun-'n-runs.
Major roadways turn into strip malls fronted with parking lots and endless stretches of chain retail. These strip-mall arterials exist nationwide, robbing cities of their appeal. The common wisdom is that they result from “the market,” as monuments to American capitalism and consumerism. But that is a big fat myth—they have been forced into existence by government regulations.

Indeed, many of the regulations that prevent livelier downtown areas also harm the potential of low-density, outlying, suburban ones, by mandating that retail stay confined into this strip mall model. Below is a list of these regulations, which are enforced to various degrees across America, explaining the uniform look of our municipalities from coast to coast.
In addition to being aesthetically deadening, the strip malls and the zoning by Wise Experts are tax syphons.
At Strong Towns, we see that our cities, towns and neighborhoods are dripping with opportunity. These opportunities are not of the mega-project variety. They don't come with ribbon cuttings, press releases and legislative approvals. They are small -- seemingly beneath us, perhaps -- but they can positively transform everything about how we live our lives. A row of trees here. A bike lane there. A crosswalk. A street light. A sidewalk. Some benches. In the nation we've built, the high returning infrastructure investments are now of the details, details, details variety.
Put another way, public capital that might be complemented by a taco truck or a popcorn wagon.


Hanjin Shipping have sought bankruptcy protection.
While Hanjin’s finances are crumbling, it’s created a strange and unsettling situation on the high seas. Hanjin ships are currently docked offshore, effectively marooned as ports in Europe, the U.S., and Asia turn them away. The concern is that Hanjin won’t be able to pay port fees or crew wages — and that the contents of the ships might be seized by creditors upon entry to port. One captain near Japan was given permission to unload cargo, but his request for food and water was denied.

Hanjin’s lawyers are scrambling to arrange legal cover, and global officials must instruct ports to prevent any humanitarian disaster on Hanjin ships.

Putting aside the very serious matter of crew safety, the bankruptcy comes at a crucial time for retailers and product suppliers. They’re starting to get ready for the all-important holiday season — and even small ripples in global supply chains can create product shortages and affect companies’ bottom lines.

“Those who have containers on a Hanjin ship right now are certainly concerned about getting their cargo,” said Mike Zampa, communications director for the Port of Oakland.
And nothing might concentrate the minds of even the most technology-addled hipsters like spot shortages of smart 'phones.
Samsung said an order this week by a U.S. bankruptcy judge did not encourage the Hanjin ships to enter U.S. ports as intended, which the company blamed on a misunderstanding of maritime law, the bankruptcy code and Korean law.

The maker of electronic goods including Galaxy smartphones said the judge should issue an order barring the seizure of ships and allow it and other cargo owners to retrieve their goods by paying cargo handlers, who have been demanding payment guarantees.
Yes, and with just-in-time logistics, Christmas packages are enroute to the docks or at sea.  Isn't the existence of inventories of unsold goods one of the warnings of a recession?  "But if the larger problem is that the world wants fewer computers and clothes, there may be a lot more ships — and their parent companies — stranded at sea."

We have much to look forward to.


A Republican court intellectual suggests this year's presidential election is the "Flight 93 election."  The messy emergence is apparent in the article's summation of the ways in which the times are out of joint.
One of the paradoxes—there are so many—of conservative thought over the last decade at least is the unwillingness even to entertain the possibility that America and the West are on a trajectory toward something very bad. On the one hand, conservatives routinely present a litany of ills plaguing the body politic. Illegitimacy. Crime. Massive, expensive, intrusive, out-of-control government. Politically correct McCarthyism. Ever-higher taxes and ever-deteriorating services and infrastructure. Inability to win wars against tribal, sub-Third-World foes. A disastrously awful educational system that churns out kids who don’t know anything and, at the primary and secondary levels, can’t (or won’t) discipline disruptive punks, and at the higher levels saddles students with six figure debts for the privilege. And so on and drearily on. Like that portion of the mass where the priest asks for your private intentions, fill in any dismal fact about American decline that you want and I’ll stipulate it.

Conservatives spend at least several hundred million dollars a year on think-tanks, magazines, conferences, fellowships, and such, complaining about this, that, the other, and everything. And yet these same conservatives are, at root, keepers of the status quo. Oh, sure, they want some things to change. They want their pet ideas adopted—tax deductions for having more babies and the like. Many of them are even good ideas. But are any of them truly fundamental? Do they get to the heart of our problems?
Keepers of the status quo?  In the political sphere, that would be the Vital Progressive Center, still peddling Governance By Wise Experts in a form that either of the Roosevelt presidents or Harry Truman or Lyndon Johnson would recognize, and they'd recognize in the formulations of Hillary Clinton precisely the strategies that they were "fighting" for back in the day.

None of it has worked particularly well, and the dysfunction that the "do your own thing" crowd brought with them contributes to the "litany of ills."  That's the cultural dimension of the Democrat coalition (although I will argue that coalition is fracturing) and that's where the opposition to the Wise Experts and the freakazoids can claim to be conservative: it's a movement that seeks a restoration of a state of good repair in the political and popular culture.
If conservatives are right about the importance of virtue, morality, religious faith, stability, character and so on in the individual; if they are right about sexual morality or what came to be termed “family values”; if they are right about the importance of education to inculcate good character and to teach the fundamentals that have defined knowledge in the West for millennia; if they are right about societal norms and public order; if they are right about the centrality of initiative, enterprise, industry, and thrift to a sound economy and a healthy society; if they are right about the soul-sapping effects of paternalistic Big Government and its cannibalization of civil society and religious institutions; if they are right about the necessity of a strong defense and prudent statesmanship in the international sphere—if they are right about the importance of all this to national health and even survival, then they must believe—mustn’t they?—that we are headed off a cliff.

But it’s quite obvious that conservatives don’t believe any such thing, that they feel no such sense of urgency, of an immediate necessity to change course and avoid the cliff.
If all that matters, as the thesis of the article appears to be, is who sits in the Oval Office, then, yes, "conservatism" as the court intellectual sees it has been "losing since 1988."  But the coalition that was winning from the early 1970s until the end of the Cold War was a coalition united on the objective of rolling back Soviet Communism.  Which it did, while fighting the domestic fellow travellers at the same time.  The current set of secular challenges are neither as serious (on my more cranky days, I perceive the jihadis as beneficiaries of Nagasaki Syndrome) nor as easy to unite around (recreational drugs!  unisex bathrooms!)  And yet, conservatives (in the sense of limiting government) have given the self-styled progressives ownership of the non-stimulus stimulus and the two lies for the price of one health reform and the "kick me" foreign policy whilst stopping Our President from committing any more excesses and making resistance easier in several of the states.  I think the court intellectual, despite his insistence on Trump or Crash, gets it.
But we can probably do better than we are doing now. First, stop digging. No more importing poverty, crime, and alien cultures. We have made institutions, by leftist design, not merely abysmal at assimilation but abhorrent of the concept. We should try to fix that, but given the Left’s iron grip on every school and cultural center, that’s like trying to bring democracy to Russia. A worthy goal, perhaps, but temper your hopes—and don’t invest time and resources unrealistically.
There's more. Stop enabling dysfunction, you'll get less of it.  But it's a start.

The essay rated almost all the airtime on Rush Limbaugh's Wednesday show, to rave reviews and enthusiastic callers.  There's the usual category error (all about the presidency) plus recognition that something else -- that fracturing of the gentry?  -- at work.
What this column is really about is a shaming of Never Trumpers who proudly and loudly proclaim -- conservative intellectuals -- it's a infinite audience that's being targeted here.  It's not you, folks.  It's conservative intellectuals, the think tankers, the people that rely on fundraising and donations and the magazine types.  I'm not naming any names and he doesn't do so, either, but he's written for that audience, and he's basically calling them out for their holier-than-thou attitude about Donald Trump.

Because the whole point of this is this guy's opinion. He is every bit the intellectual conservative of those he's criticizing.  The point of this whole piece is that Donald Trump's the only hope, that conservatism no longer applies.  We're way past that.  Conservatism, as has been applied the last ten years, what do we have to show for it?  We have a bunch of midterm election victories, but nothing done with them.

And if you're really serious about how bad things are but you can't find yourself to oppose Hillary Clinton, then you're worthless.  That's what this is essentially saying, but in 10 pages.  It's great.
It's possible to be #NeverTrump #NeverHillary, but I wish Gary Johnson knew enough about history to explain that there were things to do to lift the siege of Leningrad that involved partnering with Russia and no troops in Karelia.

At Red State, Ben Howe reacts to the essay and to Mr Limbaugh's continued cheerleading for The Donald, by pointing out that the conservative brain trust overpromised and underdelivered.
Every single year, every single congress, every single president, the story remains the same: government grows, the economy bubbles up and bursts, and the "have nots" bear the burden of the fallout from that bubble while the wealthiest are protected by the DC elite. Then they start creating programs and initiatives that put a bubble around the old bubble and the problems get pressed into a can and kicked down the road.
Plus comprehension. It takes something to beat something, even a bundle of late nineteenth century ideas pushed by a flawed candidate.
It's not because a Hillary Clinton presidency or a Donald Trump presidency won't be disasters. They will be.

It's because it is time to break this cycle. Not out of some sense of tiredness, or election fatigue. It is precisely because we are at a tipping point that the cycle must be broken.

We can not be slaves to a 4 year election cycle any longer. We have reached a point where otherwise intelligent people are suggesting that if you don't vote for the narcissistic, power-mad, uncontrollable, spoiled, dangerous, non-conservative, blowhard liar, that democracy is dead.
The cult of the presidency is killing the Republic. Perhaps in its end, no matter whose hand is on the Bible in January, will be the beginning of the rediscovery.  That's what Robert Tracinski seems to be thinking.
Personally, I think prognostications of total doom are exaggerated, which is part of the reason I’m not so eager to risk crashing the plane. But if things are really that bad, I suggest that the solution lies, as it usually does, outside the realm of politics. If we’re so rotten we got Trump as our political savior, then our most urgent necessity is to work on becoming less rotten.

Which, come to think of it, is good advice in any case. Moral reform movements have succeeded in the past, quite often and quite spectacularly, and this year is conclusive proof that we’re in need of some moral reform. After November, maybe people will even be interested in hearing about that.
Emergence is messy. But perhaps November will be the first stirrings of a restoration.

Mona Charen is also having none of the Flight 93 metaphor.
There is much decay in America. Government, best represented by an IRS that targets Americans for their political activism and an FBI that declines to hold high officials to the same standards as ordinary ones, is corrupt. Government is also sclerotic and headed for insolvency -- with the approval of both major-party candidates. The courts are making social policy without even a pretense of constitutionality. Race relations are getting worse. The press is dominated by mindless infotainment. Men are dropping out of the labor force. The internet has unleashed the most feral appetites of the human soul -- from child porn to anti-Semitism. Manners are fraying.
That state of good repair is going to require a lot of work.

But first, turf out the people who created the disrepair.  And here there's surprising agreement that the gentry ought be tossed out.  At The American Conservative, here's Daniel McCarthy.
Resistance to the bipartisan establishment keeps growing, and even if Trump loses to Clinton in a landslide, he has carried the rebellion further than ever before by winning a major party’s nomination.

Since the Cold War ended, U.S. politics has seen a series of insurgent candidacies. Pat Buchanan prefigured Trump in the Republican contests of 1992 and 1996. Ralph Nader challenged the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party from the outside in 2000. Ron Paul vexed establishment Republicans John McCain and Mitt Romney in 2008 and 2012. And this year, Trump was not the only candidate to confound his party’s elite: Bernie Sanders harried Hillary Clinton right up to the Democratic convention.

What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy. All have opposed large-scale free-trade agreements. (The libertarian Paul favors unilateral free trade: by his lights, treaties like NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership are not free trade at all but international regulatory pacts.) And while no one would mistake Ralph Nader’s or Ron Paul’s views on immigration for Pat Buchanan’s or Donald Trump’s, Nader and Paul have registered their own dissents from the approach to immigration that prevails in Washington.
Read the whole thing. Governance by Wise Experts has failed.  Whether the gentry will be turfed out and replaced by the yeomanry remains to be seen.

Here is John Atcheson of Common Dreams, seeing something similar at work.  "People have had it with the politics of privilege, and the favoritism of the elite, by the elite."

But "had it" is not the same thing as "new order for the ages" and secular orders are emergent.