Tag Archives: michael medved

Medved: Is Democratic Supreme Court Frenzy Really About Timing?

This is Michael Medved at michaelmedved.com for Townhall.

In their furious reaction to confirmation plans for a successor to the late Justice Ginsburg, Democrats insist it’s all about timing. But even if she’d passed, or resigned, two years earlier, would Democrats offer more cooperation in approving a successor? Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were both appointed years ahead of any presidential contest but still drew near-unanimous Democratic opposition.

Meanwhile, Republicans made no similar attempts to destroy Democratic nominees, giving bi-partisan support to Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer and, yes, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Why the contrast?

Democrats view the judiciary as a political branch of government—for enacting progressive reforms that lack popular support for legislative action. Their resulting politicization of the confirmation process makes the judiciary the target of narrow and destructive partisanship.

I’m Michael Medved.

Read More »

Michael Medved: Debate Questions for Joe Biden

Joe Biden and his team must prepare to face tough questions in the first presidential debate on September 29.

For instance:
• You’ve supported nationwide demonstrations for racial justice, but would you want them to continue after you’re president? How would you scale down the occasionally violent protests?
• In the primaries, you moved sharply left—on abortion funding, free college, climate policy and more. As president, would you continue that shift as demanded by your party’s progressive wing?
• Did you grow up with “white privilege”—the advantages that purportedly benefit people of European descent? How would you erase such privilege in the future?
• Many Christian and Jewish friends of Israel appreciate the pro-Israel policies of President Trump. Would you build on those policies, or alter them and, if so, how?
• Would you appoint a 78-year-old as a top Cabinet official and, if so, how would you make sure that candidate was up to the job?

Read More »

Michael Medved: The Obnoxious Term “Latinx”

The term “Latinx”, has become the increasingly common substitute for the terms “Latino” or “Hispanic” in the politically correct, prestige press. The “For Kids” section of the New York Times helpfully explained that “the X is an effort to make the word more inclusive, because it accounts for a wider spectrum of gender identities than just male and female.”

The problem for this self-proclaimed “inclusive” approach is that Hispanics themselves overwhelmingly reject it. In an August Pew Research Survey, 61 percent preferred the word “Hispanic” while another 29 percent chose “Latino”, amounting 90 percent of Hispanic Americans. Only 3 percent said they used “Latinx” to describe themselves, while 12 percent who had even heard of the word, said they actively disliked it. The crushing disregard for the clumsy formulation “Latinx” provides a reassuring reminder that the cutting-edge activists of the radical left won’t make easy headway in the Hispanic community, with its solid, more traditional, cultural values.

Read More »

Medved: “Acknowledging” Flaws Different From “Focusing” on Them

A new study by Pew Research uses tricky language to exaggerate differences between Trump and Biden voters when it comes to views of America’s past. The report shows nearly all Biden voters agreeing with the statement: “It makes the U.S. stronger when we acknowledge the country’s historical flaws.”

Meanwhile, nearly half of Trump voters support the alternative view: “The U.S. may not have been perfect, but focusing on its historical flaws makes the country weaker.”

Actually, reasonable people should embrace both formulations: sure, it’s healthy to acknowledge shortcomings in our history, but focusing on those flaws, at the expense of all America’s worthy accomplishments, can be sick and destructive.

The Pew survey actually indicates that conservatives and liberals agree that it’s appropriate to recognize the nation’s imperfections.

Read More »

Michael Medved: Lessons From Urban Unrest

The fiery riots convulsing American cities have begun to resemble the devastating violence of the late 1960s, and will likely end the same way. Between 1965 and 1969, more than 150 American cities exploded in episodes of race-based destruction, beginning with LA’s Watts Riot that killed or injured more than 1,000 and destroyed 1,000 buildings.

Princeton scholar Omar Wasow studied the election that followed the riots, finding that areas scarred by unrest showed sharp increases in support for “Law and Order” candidates. By 1972, Richard Nixon, the proudly proclaimed “Law and Order” president, carried 49 states with an epic 61% popular vote landslide, by denouncing the leftist takeover of the Democratic Party with the candidacy of George McGovern.

In other words, Americans overwhelmingly rejected the violent protesters in both inner cities and on college campuses, so that radical “resistance” soon subsided—a crucial lesson for today’s nihilistic agitators and their feckless apologists.

Read More »

Medved: Should Senator Harris Receive Reparations?

The selection of Senator Kamala Harris as Joe Biden’s running mate has produced irrelevant arguments about whether she qualifies as African-American, since both her parents were born abroad.

But her history-making Vice Presidential candidacy does raise an uncomfortable question for advocates of identity politics. On what basis could Senator Harris possibly qualify for the slavery reparations she says she supports? Her parents immigrated from Jamaica and India; now none of her ancestors were ever enslaved in the United States. In fact, the Harris example exposes the lack of logic behind all reparations proposals.

Prominent Black politicians, including Harris, Corey Booker and Barack Obama, were all born to highly educated, hard-working, successful parents, and the idea of government pay-outs to products of privilege of any race is, obviously, ludicrous and unjust.

Read More »

Michael Medved: For Great Debates, Upgrade the Format

The three presidential debates that begin September 29th may shape the election’s outcome, but don’t expect deep insight on America’s problems. For the future, the debate commission should upgrade the format, recalling the celebrated oratorical combat that electrified the country during an 1858 Illinois Senate race.

Incumbent Senator Stephen Douglas, and the underdog Republican challenger Abraham Lincoln, debated seven times, with no panel of journalists asking “gotcha” questions. Instead, the gladiators went directly at each other and the issues.

The first debater spoke for sixty minutes, his opponent responded for ninety minutes, and the first candidate finished with a thirty-minute rebuttal. These exchanges drew cheering crowds of 20,000 people, listening without microphones. Lincoln lost the Senatorial race, but his persuasive arguments, captured in newspaper transcripts, made him president two years later. It may be hard to imagine, but wouldn’t it be glorious if today’s televised encounters could approach those old levels of substance and eloquence?

Read More »