Did Democrats make hate speech attractive? Our free society allows it within pretty broad limits, in part because hate speech means different things to different people. We learned from Kathy Griffin that at least one kind of expression is intolerable, in large part because it makes vehement anti-Trumpers look appallingly bad. That’s a good example because it set the stage for how we will react to yesterday’s shootings in Virginia.
Two recent events raise questions about what an attack on Americans means. How should we respond when foreigners accost us on our own soil? The answer is that it depends on who the foreigners are and how much political value they have.
What we learned is that foreigners from south of the border can do pretty much what they want.
After the media eagerly spread the news of a scuffle involving Montana Republican congressional candidate Greg Gianforte, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi announced that it was Donald Trump’s fault:
And to see this person who wants to be the one Representative in the House of Representatives from Montana, sort of a wannabe Trump, you know, use language like that, treat people harshly like that that’s his model.
In his Saturday address President Trump talked about Senate action on his first Supreme Court nominee that will “protect the rule of law and democratic way of life that is absolutely a birthright of all Americans.”1 That democratic way of life may be our right, but how often does it work for us when something needs to get done?
Income tax is one of those painful things that should happen to other people. There will always be reasons we should pay less and others should pay more. As taxpayers we don’t have much say one way or the other. Washington will spend our money as it sees fit, though despite what we like to think much of that spending is mandatory, not discretionary.