Chelsea Clinton Proves My Two Cultures Theory

I am a theory guy, and I am always trying to think up cute theories to explain the human condition. Like my Three Peoples theory.

But I also have a theory about the basic culture of men and women. Men have a Culture of Insult and women have a Culture of Complaint.

What I mean is that men relate to each other by insults, from the harmless barroom banter up to the fighting words that can only be decided by pistols at dawn across the Hudson at Weehawken, New Jersey. But women are the eternal complainers, which I characterize in the eternal whine: "I can't believe she said that."

That is all very well, you may say, but what about a real world illustration of this wild-eyed theory?

Thank you Senator. I am glad you asked that.

To illustrate my theory I offer the tweets of Chelsea Clinton, Princess of the Blood. They were made in response to a comment by the handsome and talented Steve Bannon about White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer.

Asked why Sean Spicer wasn't appearing on camera, Bannon said "Sean got fatter." Then Chelsea Clinton chimed in.

The White House using fat shaming to justify increased opacity. 2017.

See what I mean? The Steve Bannon comment was classic guy talk: in other words a joshing insult. If these chaps were Irish from Worcester, Mass., the insult would have concluded with a friendly "yer bastard."

But Chelsea Clinton is a woman, for all that she is the daughter of her mother and a princess of the blood. One might say precisely because she is the daughter of her mother. So she utters the classic female "I can't believe he said that" complaint.

Now it is my belief that the reason for the Two Cultures is the profoundly different roles that evolution has carved out for men and women. The essence of being a man is male honor, which James Bowman defines in Honor: A History as the reputation among men for courage, for standing in line of battle with his brother soldiers. Thus the worst insult a man can suffer is an attack on his courage. But honor among women is the reputation for chastity. I do not mean just sexual chastity, but purity in all its possibilities. The accusation: "I can't believe she said that" is an attack on another woman's chastity, her reputation of being a good woman. It is one step away from saying that the other woman is a bitch. But typically a woman will never say that to another woman's face. Instead she will "share" with her friend that "she can't believe that this other woman said that," implying that the other woman is a bitch. And the friend will smile and agree with the complainer. Then she will go off and "share" with her friends what her friend just said and say "I can't believe she said that."

Obviously the whole campus froufra about "microaggressions" and "safe spaces" and
"mansplaining" and so on are pure examples of the woman's Culture of Complaint.

But it is my instinct that you cannot conduct matters in the public square according to the woman's Culture of Complaint. Also I suspect that institutions conducted according to the woman's Culture of Complaint will come to a bad end. That's because I think that a basic frankness and honesty is required to conduct public business, and that an absence of this frankness and its substitution by whispering behind other peoples' backs will harm and ultimately destroy the institution.

But let us do the Eisenhower thing, knowing that if we have a problem we cannot solve, the answer is to make it bigger.

In my view the whole intersectionality movement is a flailing admission that the sexual revolution was a disaster for women. Women are not sexual adventurers and never will be. Women are not the equal of men in the simulated warfare of the political or corporate battlefield, and never will be. Men are fighters and designed to be warriors in the eternal border wars of the tribe. But now that border wars don't matter any more we humans have found other things for men to do that use the talents and instincts of the border warrior. Women are lovers and carers, designed to keep the kids alive until it is time for them to leave the nest, and they always will be. But now that a woman's life is not wholly consumed with childcare we have come up with other caring things for women to do, from nursing to HR to charitable work. But I am sorry: most women are not cut out for battling for corporate market-share. Many women can do it at a pinch, but it makes them look ridiculous.

Here is a real world example of what I mean.

As Steve Sailer has written, women started disappearing from tech about the time, in the early 1980s, that computing stopped being a career and became an adventure. You don't see women in tech start-ups because tech start-ups are reckless expeditions across uncharted oceans, and there is no room for a Culture of Complaint when you have one day's food left and you are a month away from port.

The Reign of Liberal Injustice

Ever since the French Revolution the left has been all about Justice. So whatever the issue, whether workers, women, blacks, gays, and now Muslims, conservatives have always been put on the defensive. Who could be against Justice?

At the beginning of each push for justice, the left had a point. The workers worked long hours in miserable conditions back in 1850. Women did not have formal political rights in 1900. Blacks did not have full civil rights in 1950. Gays could not marry in 2000. Something had to be done.

But then there is my notion that there is no such thing as justice. Only injustice.  If it is true, then it would not be surprising to learn that leftist politics leads not to justice but injustice.

Here is an example of what I mean. A young Jewish kid back in the 1980s is lectured by a black preacher about Affirmative Action. If you fold a piece of paper, the preacher said, and then straighten it, the fold is still there. You need to fold the paper the other way to take the fold out.

This is to make the point that in order to erase an old injustice the only just thing to do is to create a new injustice. I don't think so.

But first let us stipulate the basic fact about our age, the Great Enrichment. Back in 1800 per-capita income in the US, adjusted for inflation, was $3 per day. Today in 2017 it is $144. In other words, per-capita income in the US is about 50 times what is was back in 1800. As Deirdre McCloskey writes, there has been nothing like it, ever.

The left argues that it is its education programs, its wage and hour laws, its emancipation of women, its civil rights for minorities that has brought people out of want and marginalization. Really? So has leftist politics made people 50 times more prosperous and liberated? I don't think so. Politics had nothing to do with the Great Enrichment. It merely rode it and took credit for it.

In fact all along, right up until the present moment, all the people in the know have known that nothing but disaster faced us in the future. That  is what Marx was predicting in 1850. Right now they are saying that Amazon is carpet-bombing the economy, or that training programs can't hope to retrain older workers and keep them in the workforce. So we need new government programs -- just what I can't imagine -- to force the economy to... well, to do something.

I argue that the left's program of "refolding" the fold to reverse the legacy of injustice is nothing but simple injustice, and that it only makes things worse.

Let's start with the workers and the wage-and-hours laws and union legislation that began in the 19th century. Do we know what the workers wanted back then? Did they want to work eight hours a day, or did they want the money from a ten-hour day? We do know that the reason children worked was, usually, because that was the only way to get food in their bellies. Whenever parents could afford it, they sent their children to school instead of to work. Union legislation seemed like a good idea, but it ended up letting the workers loot the corporation. That's why basic steel companies and auto companies in the US are shadows of their former selves.

And the main point here is that the workers were walking as fast as they knew how from the country to the jobs in the city. Why was that? Today the same thing is happening in China, where something like 12 million people a year are moving from the country to the city. And of course it is happening right now with the migration from the Middle East and Africa to Europe and the US. Living in a crowded tenement or a Grenfell Tower apparently is a small price to pay for getting out of the countryside. I wonder why that is? Could it be the grinding work or the grinding poverty in the countryside? Or both?

Either way, the left's good intentions have turned into manifest injustice as the white working class dies of despair after the collapse of the good jobs at good wages in unionized manufacturing. I wonder what would have happened if we hadn't racked up a stew of privileges for "organized labor" and instead allowed the natural dynamism of the market to direct management and labor into other channels?

Let us look at women. As Georg Simmel wrote a century ago, women have been moving into the public square and they have been adjusting the public square to suit their more feminine sensibility. The reason they have been moving into the public square is that work has become less physical and more social, and that home work, from washing to food preparation, takes less time than a century ago. Also, women are not dying in childbirth like they did. Also, minivans and SUVs allow women to run around all over town and do things that were impossible when you did everything on foot.

But I wonder whether the sexual revolution, abortion, no-fault divorce, and careers for women are really such a good idea -- for women. Sexual revolution and abortion? If you ask me they have turned sex into a meat market, which is exactly the way young men like it. Careers for women? Sure, except that most women want to stay home and raise their children, and want a part-time job. No-fault divorce? Used to be that the rich were getting divorced and the poor were not. Now it is the other way around. Go figure. How about we de-politicize the Woman Question and let women figure it out on their own without the prodding and the conceit of well-born left-wing political activists?

It is perhaps in race politics that the left has left the biggest precipitate of injustice. For it is in race politics that the left has achieved most clearly the opposite of what it advocated. African Americans have struggled to rise in the decades since the civil rights era of the 1960s. And the reason is simple. Liberals have enacted a mountain of injustice on the smoldering remains of Jim Crow. They have enrolled blacks in the lefty activist army and marched them around. But for what? African Americans exhibit the highest crime rates, the lowest marriage rates, and struggle to get out of the city and into the suburbs. Is that what the civil rights revolution was all about?

What about gays? Well, I think it is too soon to tell what the unanticipated consequences of gay politics will be. My only comment, as a 70-year-old grandfather, is to wonder what it means to be a 70-year-old without children and without grandchildren.

It is usual to fault the left for its genocidal crimes: the Ukrainian famine that killed 10 million in the 1930s, the Great Leap Forward that killed 30 million and the Cultural Revolution that bullied and shamed millions more, the Cuban revolution that has kept Cubans in poverty and oppression, the Venezuelan meltdown that is starving millions.

But I want to focus on the other things the left has done, that are not quite crimes but that have misled and ruined the lives of millions. I am talking about leading the workers away from learning how to work with, rather than against, capitalism and the price system. I am talking about force-marching women in a feminist direction rather than allowing them to discover for themselves how to create a more feminine public square. I am talking about stopping civil rights at civil rights and avoiding the injustice of Affirmative Action that has fallen so heavily on the shoulders of the white working class and on its supposed beneficiaries, African Americans.

I believe that we are just beginning the pushback against liberal injustice, and I also believe that, unlike the Enlightenment in the 18th century and the rise of the Left in the 19th century, the pushback is occurring without an intellectual vanguard to prepare the ground. This means that for the current leftist ruling class the pushback is occurring totally unexpectedly out of a clear blue sky, without the usual warning clouds on the intellectual horizon.

That is why the left is so outraged right now. And that is why we are not even at the end of the beginning of the new age, whatever it is and whatever it will become.

Ordinary people are finding out that their lives have been made worse by the intellectual ruling class of the last century. But nobody knows what they will do about it.

All we know is that political power is unjust. And eventually people must rise up against injustice or disappear into the dustbin of history.

Oh Dear. Not Another Push to Make Government More Efficient

Oh dear. The tech titans are meeting at the White House today and one of the items on the agenda is to bring the government up to date. The idea, apparently, is to make the federal government "operate like a modern technology enterprise." After all, "modernizing government services is not politicized."

Oh please. The reason that government is such a mess is not because government hasn't kept up with the new technology. It is because government tries to run the country as though it were a feudal fief, with the lord providing protection to his vassals in return for their fealty or support. And the problem with such vertical relationships is that they are notoriously resistant to change.

The reason we no longer have a feudal system is that it is a system that does not increase human welfare, because it cannot respond to new information. In fact, under the feudal system, the poor go to the wall when periodic famine occurs. Sorry about that.

But under the price system and the exchange economy change is constant and ceaseless and everyone, whether they like it or not -- and usually they do not -- must adjust to the  price signals.

Not surprisingly, people go to government for help when they want to escape from the price system. That's when government sets up a new program to shelter its supporters from the harsh winds of the price system.

But  what about 30 or 50 years down the road? Do we update the program? Do we make it more efficient? Do we blame the program's failure on greedy bankers or uncaring corporate CEOs?

Let us look at a specific example, the catastophic fire at London's Grenfell Tower. This building is what we in the US would call government housing, and the Brits call "social housing" or "council housing." It was built according to fashionable notions in the 1970s (think Pruitt-Igoe) and was refurbished recently according to modern ideas of green energy. Unfortunately it is not owned by the Trump Organization but by government and its unaccountable bureaucrats. And the tenants are not no-nonsense Manhattanites who would be outta there if the management didn't keep the place up; they are welfare recipients and immigrants who only know protest and complaint.

So the question about Grenfell Tower is not who to blame, and whether Theresa May is sufficiently compassionate as the feudal lord of the helpless serfs, but why in the world do we have the government getting into the housing business anyway?

Why does Grenfell Tower exist, 30 years after everyone agreed that tower blocks were a terrible way to warehouse the poor? It is because even though there is garbage in the hallways and discarded mattresses in the doorways, and the residents are always complaining, it is still a pretty good deal for the tenants who are getting half-decent housing at way-below-market rents. Humans will put up with a lot of inconvenience and humiliation when they are getting free stuff.

Grenfell Tower really is a poster-boy for government in general. After years of complaint they put up "cladding" to spiff up the building and make it greener with more insulation. So the bureaucrats were killing two birds with one stone. The first is that such "tower blocks" are stunningly ugly; the second is that they are energy inefficient, being designed before the first OPEC oil embargo. Wonderful. Only the bureaucrats made it worse, because the new cladding was not fire-resistant or fire-retarding but a fire accelerant.

There is settled science on this and if you disagree you are a denier. The settled science is called the Law of Unintended Consequences, and it applies to all government programs. Actually it applies to life in general. In life, when you are faced with an unintended consequence, you fix it. In government you have to wait 30 years until the program is irretrievably broken. And then you paper the problem over with a new efficiency program or technology update and hope that it will go away.

The question remains. Is it better to paper over a failing government program and throw good money after bad? Or not.

Yes, But Who Defines "Good"

Conservatives like to paint the difference between conservatism and liberalism as the difference between absolute values and relativism. Hence George Neumayr in The American Spectator on the aftermath of the baseball shootings.

All of the post-Enlightenment ideologies that inform modern liberalism reject a divinely mandated moral law, which in the end is the only real prohibition on violence. If man’s will is the measure of morality, everything in principle is permitted and politics becomes a game of power that culminates in totalitarianism.

Under liberalism, the central question of politics shifted from goodness to power, from God’s plan for his creatures to man’s unfettered will.

This is all very well, except that liberals deny that there is a God and that there is a divinely mandated moral law. Also, liberals do not say that "man's will is the measure of morality." Rather, they would say that the so-called "divinely mandated divine law" is nothing more than God's will or, worse, the will of some priest determining that he had discovered the mind of God. On that view the "mandated divine moral law" is merely some conceited human's will demanding to be taken as the measure of morality.

The whole point of the Enlightenment was to rethink human society on the basis of human reason, rather than God's will.  Thinkers engaged in an effort to replace morality that issued from God's will or some prophet's will to morality based on the truth discovered in reason. But there is obviously a problem with this. Any great philosophical system is no less an expression of human will than the revelation of God's will in the mind of a priest. And in fact the Enlightenment did in fact birth some of the most horrible human "mandated moral law" in history in the disastrous socialist experiments of the 20th century.

Let us take the principle proposed by Martin Luther King Jr. and echoed by President Obama, that "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." That would be a beautiful notion, but many people get the idea that the moral universe needs a bit of agency. That is how President Obama understands it when he says that "you can bend the arc of history in a better direction." Who is "you," Kemosabe? Obviously President Obama did not have Donald Trump in mind as the "you." Who gets to define "justice," and what powers shall they have?

In my view there is a way to get around this: it is to admit that any idea an individual human or a group of humans may have about the "moral law" or about "justice" is going to be incomplete, and that experience will show it to be incomplete and error-ridden. So we must start with the notion that whatever brilliant ideas we come up with for divining the meaning of "life, the universe, and everything," they are bound to be riddled with errors. Moreover, I would argue, any attempt to bend the arc of history is just as likely to bend the arc towards injustice as towards justice. Thus any human effort to discover the principles of the moral law and/or justice must start from the humble admission that "we" don't have all the answers. Or, as some wag said, the ideas of big minds can always be improved by small minds.

OK. So what does this mean? Well, it could mean that the best way to implement "change" is to follow the example of the business "start-up," by starting small and then, after solving the teething problems at a small scale, scale up to a larger size. It could mean that the wrong way to do "change" is to introduce a comprehensive and mandatory government program that starts at full scale, like Obamacare. It could be that capitalism is a very useful system because it is based on the price system that signals to all participants every day what is working and what is not working so that they can discover errors in their thinking and correct them. It could be that government programs in general are a very bad idea because it is almost impossible to change government programs on a day-to-day basis; indeed it is almost impossible to fix government programs when they break.

Today is the birthday of Adam Smith, famous for two works: The Wealth of Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments. According to Fred Smith, these books develop two ideas that have decisively shaped the modern world.

Smith noted that humans’ evolved self-interest trait encouraged people to seek wealth-creating exchanges. That was the key element of his famous work The Wealth of Nations. But Smith also realized that such exchanges require that each party have some knowledge of what the other party seeks and what it would view as a fair deal. And that realization led Smith, in his book The Theory of Moral Sentiments, to focus on another human trait, empathy.

Self-interest and empathy. We need them both, and both are entwined with each other, in the Hegelian sense where the positive and negative are related to each other. Our own self-interest, in a world where piracy and plunder are discouraged, provokes us to think about other people: what do they need and what are they prepared to pay to satisfy their needs? To serve our own self-interest we have to empathize with the Other and think about what whey want and need in the process of getting what we want and need.

So maybe we discover the nature of the Good by serving our own self-interest through empathizing with the needs and the self-interest of the Other, rather than by divining moral laws and arcs of history.

The Liberals' Parallel Legal System

The rich are different from you and me. They get a better break from the legal system. But then you and I get a better break from the legal system than the average inner-city gang member.

This is not really scandalous, writes ZMan. Of course rich kids like Joe Biden's niece are going to get a better deal out the legal system: they have more money and influence.

But we are seeing the rise of another legal system, in parallel with the official government legal system, and you might not like the justice you are likely to get from it. It is the system that is, e.g., sanctioning men for sexual behavior on campus incompatible with progressive values. Like the case of the four Michigan football players.

Here we have four players accused of sexually assaulting a woman. Instead of the cops treating this like any other criminal complaint, the school is in charge of the investigation and the cops are on the sideline. The school brought in a law firm to do an investigation, provide the cops with evidence and then conduct a wide ranging evaluation of school policy and senior personnel. They have also tried and judged the players, removing them from campus and kicking them off the football team.

Actually this is not as strange as it might seem. You would see the same thing when some church decided to "disfellowship" a member for some action or words incompatible with the church's articles of faith. Thus, offenders "are sent into exile as a warning to those who remain inside." There is nothing worse for Cloud People than to be cast out into the wasteland of the Dirt People.

A similar thing is happening with social media, says Zman. Like all rulers, our ruling class would like to shut us all up, but they don't dare do that, not yet. What they can do is outsource "crack downs on political expression" to media companies.

But can our ruling class succeed with this dual-track legal system, outsourcing moral policing to universities and opinion control to liberal corporations? Zman isn´t sure.

Like so much of the managerial state, it is not clear if it is sustainable in the medium run, much less the long run.

 My guess is that it will end it tears. I say that not because I have any crystal ball in front of me, but because the good old legal system of the bourgeoisie is a good one, that gives pretty well everyone space to be themselves within pretty broad limits. In other words it is pretty relaxed about ideological control.

The whole point of the left is just the opposite: it is about getting serious about ideological control. If only we can control the economy and the public square and the ideas in peoples' minds then we can bend the arc of history towards justice.

Only, as I keep saying, there is no such thing as justice, only injustice, the mailed fist of the ruling class or the Cloud People crushing the bodies and/or the minds of the Dirt People.

Some people think that the Trump election was the first stirring in a while of the Dirt People. But we shall see.

How About That Leftie Eliminationist Rhetoric?

Remember back in the innocent days of yore, when liberals and Democrats liked to descant on right-wing eliminationist rhetoric? Not that any right-wing eliminationists actually did much more than talk.

But you know, when ruling-class notables start blabbing about blowing up the White House (Madonna), or holding up the bloody head of President Trump (Kathy Griffin), or doing a production of Julius Caesar featuring President Trump as the famous Dictator (Shakespeare in the Park), well sooner or later some dull Bernie Bro is going to act on the foolish conceits of the fashionables and the notables and the celebrities.

After all, that's how fashion works. Some pretty rich thing gets photographed for The New York Times doing something fashionable, and pretty soon all the fashionable wannabes and doing the same.

Now, what do you think your average Bernie Bro is going to do when all the fashionables are ragging on President Trump and the Republicans and kicking up a huge fuss about Trump and the Russians?

Why, it's almost like it was in the good old days of McCarthyism when evil Republicans were waving pieces of paper around and foaming at the mouth about Communists in the State Department. Really, that was about the most shameful period in  American history. Now we are all wigged out about Trumpists conniving with the Russians to hack the election.

Which is odd, considering that the election is already hacked, by very relaxed registration procedures, to favor the Democrats. You'd think that the Democrats would be as happy as campers considering how the system is biased in their favor.

But the Democrats decided after the 2016 election that they would do the same as they did after the close 2000 election, decided by the US Supreme Court after the contested Florida recount. I think that, from the liberal point of view, the anti-Bush politics of that era turned out to be a stunning success, with the big wins in the 2006 midterms and the 2008 presidential election. Accusing Republicans of everything under the sun really paid big returns at the ballot box.

But now an enthusiastic Bernie Bro got so worked up about the eevil Republicans he learned about on MSNBC that he decided to go out a shoot him a few. Thus the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA).

Now if this were a Tea Party enthusiast shooting the House Minority Whip, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), well, you can imagine that the liberals and the Democrats and their willing accomplices in the media would be declaring the end of the world as we know it unless we immediately banned all guns except those in the hands of the security details of prominent liberals and Democrats.

But there were no Tea Party or alt-right enthusiasts involved in the shooting of Rep. Scalise, so really the world is not coming to an end. And, let us not forget, Republicans and Tea Partiers and alt-right are haters and racists and all the rest. So it is not surprising that some overheated Bernie Bro, marinated in the progressive enthusiasm of Democratic politics and of MSNBC hosts, would get a little more enthused about teaching Republicans a lesson than your ordinary peaceful protester or Antifa activist.

Or, as a caller said on Rush Limbaugh's show today: "Rush, I’ve studied Hodgkinson’s Facebook page. His Facebook page looks as hysterical as a 10-person CNN panel on Trump and Russia." Nuff said.

But I have a word of advice to my liberal friends. If I were you I would dial down the #Resistance folks and the Antifa guys and gals and the severed heads and the Julius Caesars in the Park featuring the Trump combover. I'm just a deplorabale racist, sexist, homophobe, but I have a sneaking suspicion that this over-the-top Trump fever is going to cost the Democrats at the ballot box.

And that is all that matters, after all.

Middlebury is Feckless, According to Murray

Libertarian scholar Charles Murray has now written down his view of the Middlebury College incident where lefty college students shouted him down before he could give a talk on his book Coming Apart at the college and students later shoved a Middlebury College professor to the ground and injured her. He calls it "Fecklessness at Middlebury."

According to Murray the ordinary students that were captured on video shouting down his proposed talk were given "probation," and the ones that took "an especially prominent role in the episode" are receiving "college discipline."

Murray has a different idea of the discipline that should have been handed down. He thinks that the students identified on video protesting in the hall should have been suspended for the rest of the term, and those involved in the assault on Murray and a female professor, Allison Stanger, should have been referred for criminal prosecution.

I have to say that if this course of action had been followed the SJWs and special snowflakes all across the land would soon have got the message.

When you compare the two approaches to the incident at Middlebury College one thing comes out clearly. The college is encouraging its students to do more of the same. The college is saying, by its actions, that it has to Do Something, for PR purposes, to pretend that the protesters did something wrong. But really the students were doing the Lord's work. Because racism is racism, and must be opposed by all woke progressives else the arc of history will fail to bend towards justice. Certainly Charles Murray should be opposed anywhere and everywhere, because The Bell Curve. Not that any liberal ever read the book.

I was inclined to think that Murray's "fecklessness" headline was giving the liberal bureaucrats too much slack. Because this culture of excusing the street thugs of progressivism from the reach of the criminal law is monstrous. Haven't liberals been telling us since forever how unjust it was for the Weimar authorities in Germany to turn a blind eye to the Nazi street thugs of the 1920s?

But then I decided that "fecklessness" is probably appropriate, because your average college administrator and/or professor is a klueless klot that doesn't know nothing about nothing. All they know is the latest liberal line handed down from the ruling class in the latest vile liberal talking points. They are not thinking about where their unjust application of the law and their betrayal of simple fair play leads, because that is way above their pay grade.

Like I say: the reason for an equal application of the law -- making your side obey the rules as well as the evil other side -- is that the alternative is injustice. If you bear down on the evil racist sexist homophobes and make them obey the letter of the law but give your own supporters the benefit of the doubt, then you are encouraging your opponents to get angry. That's because applying the letter of the law to the good guys while bearing down on the bad guys is simple injustice. It is what ruling classes all down the ages have tended to do, right up until the rebels besiege the royal palace and the army decides not to shoot the rebels and the king and his henchmen are lucky to get away with their lives, unlike Louis XVI who was really a pretty decent guy, with Marie Antoinette who was nothing more or less than your average Dis-e-ney princess. But Louis XVI ran out of other peoples' money. Never do that.

So this is my declaration of faith. I believe that the liberal "resistance" and the liberal assault on ordinary middle-class white guys, and the unjust assault on male college students, and the assault on non-lefty speakers on campus are all a strategic mistake. Whenever a ruling class starts out on a program of injustice, of beating up it opponents and turning a blind eye to the bullying tactics of its supporters, it is almost always favoring the few at the expense of the many. And it is provoking the many to get together and form a head of rebellion.

And who knows where that will end up. Unless the ruling class is prepared to go full Mao or Stalin and terrorize its opponents.

So yes, our liberal friends are indeed "feckless." They really are clueless. And that is going to cost them.