• strict warning: Non-static method view::load_views() should not be called statically in /home/conserva/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 864.
  • strict warning: Non-static method view::db_objects() should not be called statically in /home/conserva/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/includes/view.inc on line 1417.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/conserva/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_argument.inc on line 744.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/conserva/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 607.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/conserva/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 607.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_node_status::operator_form() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::operator_form(&$form, &$form_state) in /home/conserva/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/modules/node/views_handler_filter_node_status.inc on line 13.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_plugin_style_default::options() should be compatible with views_object::options() in /home/conserva/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/plugins/views_plugin_style_default.inc on line 24.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_plugin_row::options_validate() should be compatible with views_plugin::options_validate(&$form, &$form_state) in /home/conserva/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/plugins/views_plugin_row.inc on line 134.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_plugin_row::options_submit() should be compatible with views_plugin::options_submit(&$form, &$form_state) in /home/conserva/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/plugins/views_plugin_row.inc on line 134.
  • user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM cache_filter WHERE cid = '2:83922bf44f064ffb5b3f13fefbacbbed' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 27.
  • user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: UPDATE cache_filter SET data = '<p>2020 ELECTION: November 15, 2019</p>\n<p><img alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.conservativechronicle.com/sites/default/files/Barone.gif\" style=\"width: 300px; height: 116px;\" /></p>\n<p>Michael Bloomberg has delivered his latest delicious hint about running for president. Former Attorney General Eric Holder is fresh from taking credit for the new Democratic legislative majorities in Virginia, making it known he might be interested. And former Gov. Deval Patrick joined the presidential race after reportedly discerning a demand for another presidential candidate from Massachusetts. At this point, it might be helpful to note some patterns in former Democratic presidential nomination contests that might help late entrants.</p>\n<p> THE FIRST is that opinion sometimes flows very rapidly and sweeps everything in its path, like lava down a volcano, like mud after the collapse of a dam, like the tide ebbing in the Bay of Fundy.<br />\n One example goes back to 1984 when Democrat Walter Mondale won 49% in a field of (only!) eight candidates in the Iowa caucuses. A fine performance, but all the attention went to Gary Hart, who, with his &ldquo;new Democrat ideas,&rdquo; ran second with 17%. Hart swept New Hampshire 37 to 28% and won states like Florida and Massachusetts. Only Mondale&rsquo;s appeal to blue-collar whites &mdash; a splinter group among today&rsquo;s Democrats &mdash; helped him recover in Michigan, Illinois and New York and win the nomination.<br />\n Opinion flowed even more inexorably 20 years later. Anti-Iraq War Vermont Gov. Howard Dean attracted huge crowds and led polls in 2003, and on primary eve, Des Moines, Iowa, was swarming with Deaniacs in characteristic orange knit caps. But opinion was flowing away from Dean to the long-lagging John Kerry, who beat Dean 38 to 32%. After that, opinion just kept flowing. Kerry lost Vermont, the Carolinas and Oklahoma and won the rest of the states.<br />\n Sometimes Democratic opinion doesn&rsquo;t move much. The same demographic divisions prevailed in the close 2008 and 2016 races. In 2008, Hillary Clinton got enough support from &ldquo;beer Democrats&rdquo; to lead Barack Obama in votes and primary delegates, but his support from blacks and &ldquo;wine Democrats&rdquo; got him enough caucus wins and superdelegates for the nomination.<br />\n In 2016, Clinton lost beer Democrats to Sen. Bernie Sanders but won big-enough majorities from blacks, Hispanics and wine Democrats to win the nomination. This year, the holds of any candidate on these groups seem weak enough that a late enterer might hope that opinion will flow like lava to them.<br />\n Moreover, and this is my second point, wine Democrats may be numerous enough now to be analyzed as two demographic segments. Sen. Elizabeth Warren&rsquo;s and Bernie Sanders&rsquo; big-government promises have attracted many white college graduates. But polling suggests they are &ldquo;jug wine&rdquo; folks, teachers and social workers with grad school degrees entitling them to public-employee union wage increases, and millennial 30-somethings still hoping to find themselves.</p>\n<p> THAT MAY leave &ldquo;champagne Democrats&rdquo; up for grabs. In 2016, Sanders got more votes than Clinton from whites, but she handily carried the communities with the highest income &mdash; Manhattan; Greenwich, Connecticut; New Trier Township in suburban Chicago; Lincoln and Lexington, Massachusetts; and Grosse Pointe and Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. Sanders&rsquo; bland approval of 70% tax rates probably hurt him, and Warren&rsquo;s wealth tax may hurt her more, an obvious possible opening for a newcomer.<br />\n The third opening for late entrants could be black voters. Current polling shows Joe Biden, former President Barack Obama&rsquo;s vice president, leading among blacks. But Eric Holder, self-described as Obama&rsquo;s &ldquo;wingman,&rdquo; has claims for that credential. He and Deval Patrick might enthuse the many black voters Sens. Cory Booker and Kamala Harris have failed to stir.<br />\n More important perhaps is the fact that black voters, with their above-average religious ties, currently say they&rsquo;re &ldquo;less liberal&rdquo; than most white Democrats on many cultural issues including supposed racial issues. As Columbia undergraduate (and rap performer) Coleman Hughes and New York Times writer (and veteran political reporter) Thomas Edsall both report, younger blacks are more concerned about creating jobs than climate change and believe that individual behavior is holding many blacks back more than societal racism. Reparations are not their thing, and they&rsquo;re the demographic group least supportive of same-sex marriage and trans rights.</p>\n<p> TRADITIONALLY, blacks have voted almost unanimously for one candidate, a rational strategy for voters who see themselves as part of a group subject to systematic discrimination and disrespect. But there&rsquo;s evidence &mdash; Bernie Sanders&rsquo; holding Hillary Clinton to 68% of black votes in Michigan in 2016 and recent polls showing young black men significantly less Democratic than their elders &mdash; that suggests such unanimity may be outmoded as blacks&rsquo; incomes surge upward and overt discrimination becomes less and less common.<br />\n So a late-starting presidential campaign may not be hopeless, maybe not even for Hillary Clinton.</p>\n<p> Michael Barone is a senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and longtime co-author of The Almanac of American Politics.</p>\n', created = 1574243257, expire = 1574329657, headers = '', serialized = 0 WHERE cid = '2:83922bf44f064ffb5b3f13fefbacbbed' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 112.
  • user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM cache_filter WHERE cid = '2:2476f86a3827ea37e6e7ca72f344949c' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 27.
  • user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: UPDATE cache_filter SET data = '<p>TRUMP PRESIDENCY: September 13, 2019</p>\n<p><img alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.conservativechronicle.com/sites/default/files/Barone.gif\" style=\"width: 300px; height: 116px;\" />Around Washington, in sundry upscale locales, in large quadrants of the internet, you still encounter lamentations about Donald Trump&rsquo;s takeover of the Republican Party and prophecies of the party&rsquo;s approaching doom. Never-Trumpers are less thick on the ground than among ordinary voters, but they have an echo in affluent southern and southwest suburbs that have switched from Republicans to anti-Trump Democrats. And they&rsquo;re eager to tell you that nothing like this has ever happened before.</p>\n<p> WELL, NOT so fast. I&rsquo;ve got a book coming out in October called &ldquo;How America&rsquo;s Political Parties Change (and How They Don&rsquo;t),&rdquo; on the history of our 185- and 167-year-old political parties, and I can report that things like this have happened before. One example of many: Franklin D. Roosevelt, undeniably a great president, especially as a war leader, but one whose policies also drove some prominent members of his own party to the opposition and some of whose actions seemed, well, eccentric. Like his sitting in bed in mornings in 1933 and setting a new price of gold &mdash; up 21 cents one day because, as Amity Shlaes recalls in &ldquo;The Forgotten Man,&rdquo; &ldquo;it&rsquo;s a lucky number, because it&rsquo;s three times seven.&rdquo; Sounds sort of like setting tariffs in tweets. Or setting up a ramshackle National Recovery Administration charged with setting prices and wages for 700 industries, a law ruled unconstitutional by a 9-0 Supreme Court.<br />\n Roosevelt supported Democrats&rsquo; traditional policy of low tariffs but left implementation to subordinates like Secretary of State Cordell Hull &mdash; which looks something like Trump&rsquo;s desultory support of Republican tax cuts.<br />\n On other issues, FDR abandoned Democrats&rsquo; traditional support for laissez faire economics and its aversion to national uniformity and local options. That earned him bitter opposition from the two preceding Democratic presidential nominees, Al Smith and John W. Davis, much as Trump was opposed by the two George Bushes and John McCain.&nbsp;<br />\n Other conservative-minded Democrats swallowed the New Deal with reservations and stuck around to serve the country constructively in Roosevelt&rsquo;s and Harry Truman&rsquo;s administrations. Examples include Texas cotton brokers Jesse Jones, whose Reconstruction Finance Corporation bankrolled defense industries, and Will Clayton, who helped set up the Marshall Plan.<br />\n Roosevelt was not above some really divisive partisan rhetoric. Campaigning for reelection in 1936, he attacked &ldquo;the old enemies of peace,&rdquo; rich men. &ldquo;They are unanimous in their hatred for me &mdash; and I welcome their hatred,&rdquo; he said. He went on in words that made even New Deal historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wince: &ldquo;I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.&rdquo;</p>\n<p> AS SCHLESINGER understood, there were nasty echoes in those words of what was going on across the Atlantic at the time. But while Roosevelt threatened to pack the Supreme Court, he mostly obeyed court orders, and while he flouted tradition by seeking a third term, the voters, in a time of international peril, unambiguously granted it to him.<br />\n Roosevelt, though not a scholar like his cousin Theodore Roosevelt, was obviously a far more learned man than Donald Trump, although his aide Raymond Moley complained after he was fired that he &ldquo;never knew him to read a serious book.&rdquo; And Roosevelt had an uncanny knack for picking the right person for jobs he considered important, particularly his superb choices as military commanders in World War II.<br />\n But for other posts he appointed many duds and often left them in place to conduct turf wars with other duds, which sounds sort of familiar. And he gave the fact-checkers of his time plenty of raw material, though surely not as much as his current successor.<br />\n Of course all historical analogies break down at some point, and there is obviously an enormous difference between Roosevelt&rsquo;s times and ours. Roosevelt came to the presidency in times of economic collapse and won his third term when Hitler and Stalin were allies who seemed poised to seize control of the landmass of Eurasia. America faces no threat of remotely similar magnitude today.<br />\n Similarly, the actions and policies of Franklin Roosevelt and his like-minded successors shifted very large segments of the American electorate both toward and, in time, away from his party. Those changes were orders of magnitude larger than the small percentages of voters Trump has shifted toward and away from the Republican Party.</p>\n<p> MY POINT is that the current ructions in our politics are not out of the ordinary and are less disruptive than many others in the past. Time to get off Twitter and calm down, America.</p>\n<p> Michael Barone is a senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and longtime co-author of The Almanac of American Politics.</p>\n', created = 1574243258, expire = 1574329658, headers = '', serialized = 0 WHERE cid = '2:2476f86a3827ea37e6e7ca72f344949c' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 112.
  • user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM cache_filter WHERE cid = '2:d7f0d8454fd670750d2e10ba9a2edf0f' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 27.
  • user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: UPDATE cache_filter SET data = '<p>THE LEFT: September 6, 2019</p>\n<p><img alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.conservativechronicle.com/sites/default/files/Barone.gif\" style=\"width: 300px; height: 116px;\" /></p>\n<p>Wars by the elites on the people are flaring in English-speaking nations on both sides of the Atlantic. It&rsquo;s being waged fiercely in the Palace of Westminster House of Commons and in the House of Lords. And in the newsrooms and greenrooms of American journalism.</p>\n<p> THERE&rsquo;S MUCH that can be said about it. You could argue it&rsquo;s the subject, open or veiled, or almost all recent British and American opinion journalism. But what I find most interesting is that the same elites who proclaim themselves the guardian of accepted mores and norms of civility have been freely, and self-righteously, abandoning those mores and norms without a hint of embarrassment.<br />\n Consider what&rsquo;s been happening in Westminster. Some 21 MPs elected as Conservatives voted against Prime Minister Boris Johnson and effectively placed control of the agenda in the hands of the leftist, anti-Semitic Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn. That goes against the long-established norm of voting with your party.<br />\n They were able to do so only because the House speaker, John Bercow, has abandoned longstanding precedent to allow such a vote, making it clear he did so to undermine Johnson&rsquo;s policy on Brexit. That goes against the long-established norm that the British speaker (unlike the speaker here) is politically neutral and follows precedent whatever the political effect.<br />\n The issue that divides Johnson and the large majority of Conservative MPs from the party rebels and the speaker (who was originally elected to Parliament as a Conservative) is, of course, Brexit.<br />\n British voters in June 2016, more than three years ago, voted to Leave rather than Remain in the European Union. Turnout was huge; discussion was thorough and dominated by the pro-Remain leaders of all parties and the pro-Remain BBC. Nonetheless, some 52 percent of British voters voted for Leave &mdash; a larger number than has ever voted for any party in the nation&rsquo;s history.<br />\n Yet Britain hasn&rsquo;t left yet, for reasons set out by Christopher Caldwell in the Claremont Review of Books. Johnson&rsquo;s feckless predecessor, Theresa May, made unilateral concessions to EU negotiators, guided by pro-Remain career civil servants. The Commons rejected her agreements three times by nearly 2-1 margins. She effectively abandoned the alternative that Britain would Leave without a deal, reverting to World Trade Organization trade rules.<br />\n Johnson has said he&rsquo;ll negotiate with the EU but, absent an agreement, will Leave on the Oct. 31 date Parliament voted for and revise the parliamentary schedule to facilitate that.<br />\n Remainers in Parliament and the press attacked his determination to carry out voters&rsquo; solemn verdict as &ldquo;undemocratic.&rdquo; Some called for a &ldquo;unity&rdquo; government, as if a position rejected by voters could forge unity. They routinely dismissed Leave voters as ignorant, bigoted or manipulated by campaign trickery. The two lead editorials in the pro-Remain Economist lament voters&rsquo; cynicism and urge overturning voters&rsquo; Brexit verdict.</p>\n<p> CONTEMPT FOR voters as ignorant and bigoted unites English-speaking elites on both sides of the Atlantic. Here it is apparent, or lightly disguised, in New York Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet&rsquo;s remarks at a newsroom meeting of reporters and editors last month.<br />\n The precipitating event seems to have been a Times headline reading, &ldquo;Trump Urges Unity Vs. Racism.&rdquo; This accurate description of a presidential speech inspired Twitter rage from readers and Democratic politicians and was dropped for one with an anti-Trump hit, &ldquo;Assailing Hate but Not Guns.&rdquo; So much for the norm of journalistic objectivity.<br />\n Baquet also reflected on the Times&rsquo; coverage of the Trump presidency. He said, according to Slate: &ldquo;Chapter 1 of the story of Donald Trump, not only for our newsroom but, frankly, for our readers, was: Did Donald Trump have untoward relationships with the Russians, and was there obstruction of justice?&rdquo; But then he went on to say, &ldquo;The day Bob Mueller walked off that witness stand, two things happened. Our readers who want Donald Trump to go away suddenly thought, &lsquo;Holy (expletive), Bob Mueller is not going to do it.&rsquo;&rdquo;<br />\n One of the hallmarks of a great journalist is an instinct for stories that are going to pan out. By his own account, Baquet and the Times lacked it for two years. So what&rsquo;s the paper&rsquo;s new No. 1 story? &ldquo;(T)o write more deeply about the country, race, and other divisions,&rdquo; Baquet says, according to Slate. Hence the Times&rsquo; 1619 Project. The news hook is the arrival of slaves in Virginia 400 years ago, with articles repeatedly asserting the centrality of racism in America ever since, in everything from the lack of universal health care, to the routes of the freeways in Atlanta.</p>\n<p> IN OTHER words, having failed to oust Trump on Russia, The Times will try to discredit the elected president, his policies and his voters as racists. Contempt.</p>\n<p> Michael Barone is a senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and longtime co-author of The Almanac of American Politics.</p>\n', created = 1574243258, expire = 1574329658, headers = '', serialized = 0 WHERE cid = '2:d7f0d8454fd670750d2e10ba9a2edf0f' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 112.
  • user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM cache_filter WHERE cid = '2:6bcda8c7268549bad7d94bc013d4601d' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 27.
  • user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: UPDATE cache_filter SET data = '<p>DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES: August 30, 2019</p>\n<p><img alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.conservativechronicle.com/sites/default/files/Barone.gif\" /></p>\n<p>Anyone heard anything about Martin O&rsquo;Malley lately? Four years ago, he was busy out in Iowa running for president. After two successful terms as mayor of Baltimore (homicides fell during his years) and as governor of Maryland, he seemed like a plausible candidate. Strumming his guitar and singing Irish songs, he seemed more likable than either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.</p>\n<p> YET AS A candidate, like most of the Democratic candidates running this year, he got just about zero support. In the Iowa caucuses, he won just 0.54 percent of &ldquo;state convention delegate equivalents&rdquo; (the Iowa Democrats&rsquo; metric); it appears that of the 171,000 Democrats who showed up on caucus night, only about 1,000 voted for him. There just wasn&rsquo;t much demand for a white male non-socialist that year.<br />\n At least not one who bridled at identity politics. While other Democratic candidates and officeholders heaped praise on the Black Lives Matter movement, O&rsquo;Malley was shouted down and forced to apologize when he said, &ldquo;All lives matter.&rdquo; A statement that most Americans would find anodyne is regarded as heresy in Democratic politics.<br />\n What&rsquo;s interesting is that O&rsquo;Malley was the kind of politician who was most successful in the first decades of the current primary-dominated, Iowa-and-New-Hampshire-vote-first electoral process: a white male officeholder with a generally liberal record but with affinity for traditional middle-class culture. Not every nominee from 1972 to 2004 precisely fit that mold, but it&rsquo;s a fair descriptor of most.<br />\n One reason for that is there were many more moderate, and even conservative, voters in Democratic primaries. George Wallace, routinely called a Republican by millennial journalists, was a strong competitor in Democratic primaries in 1972 and 1976.<br />\n More important, after Democratic nominees won just 43 and 38 percent of the popular vote in 1968 and 1972, respectively, and as Democrats lost five of six presidential elections up through 1988, even liberal Democratic primary voters were wary of an outspoken liberal&rsquo;s chances. It was assumed, probably correctly, that a woman or a black could not be elected.<br />\n The Democratic mindset is different today. Democratic voters know that their party&rsquo;s nominees have won pluralities of the popular vote in six of seven elections since 1992. While many may mutter imprecations about abolishing the Electoral College, as if that were easier than adjusting party stances to appeal more in heartland states, most take it for granted that if a weirdo like Donald Trump can get elected president, so can just about anybody the Democratic Party nominates.<br />\n Yet just about every Democratic primary poll this year &mdash; the recent Monmouth survey appears to be an outlier &mdash; shows Joe Biden leading the pack, often with a statistically significant lead. He&rsquo;s the kind of candidate who prevailed in the 1972-2004 period, and his own 1988 candidacy was doing well until it was ended by gaffes and a health problem. But by 2008, he was only running at O&rsquo;Malley levels, with just 0.9 percent of state convention delegate equivalents in Iowa.</p>\n<p> BIDEN RUNS best with older Democrats and those classing themselves as moderate, and there&rsquo;s been speculation that when the candidates polling at O&rsquo;Malley levels pull out, as four already have, their presumably younger and more liberal supporters will go to a Biden rival.<br />\n But there aren&rsquo;t that many of them. If you add the average recent poll numbers of the 15 candidates under 2.0 percent, you get just 7.2 percent. That&rsquo;s fewer than the 11.4 percent listed as undecided, and many more seem only loosely attached to their current choice.<br />\n On the other hand, if the Biden candidacy implodes &mdash; possible if he underperforms expectations in Iowa and New Hampshire &mdash; then where do his voters go? Presumably not to his closest competitors in current polling, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, whose platforms are headed in a socialist direction Democrats in the old days would have shunned.<br />\n Perhaps they would head to incumbent senators like Cory Booker, Michael Bennet or Amy Klobuchar, all currently running at Martin O&rsquo;Malley levels. Or perhaps elsewhere. &nbsp;</p>\n<p> I HAVE LONG thought that the presidential nomination process is the weakest part of our political system, and it seems to be getting weaker as it attracts more and more candidates &mdash; more than a dozen Republicans last time, two dozen Democrats this time.<br />\n Why risk Martin O&rsquo;Malley&rsquo;s fate in a zero-sum game in which all but one player must lose? Perhaps because in a zero-sum game, however weak the field, one player must win. And that won&rsquo;t be you if you don&rsquo;t run.</p>\n<p> Michael Barone is a senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and longtime co-author of The Almanac of American Politics.</p>\n', created = 1574243258, expire = 1574329658, headers = '', serialized = 0 WHERE cid = '2:6bcda8c7268549bad7d94bc013d4601d' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 112.
  • user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM cache_filter WHERE cid = '2:f69bbcc951bf26ecae708d6838b22dd1' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 27.
  • user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: UPDATE cache_filter SET data = '<p>CHINA: August 23, 2019</p>\n<p><img alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.conservativechronicle.com/sites/default/files/Barone.gif\" style=\"width: 300px; height: 116px;\" /></p>\n<p>Will the demonstrations in Hong Kong come to be seen as the end of a 30-year period, beginning with the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, of the American-Chinese economic engagement and entanglement christened &ldquo;Chimerica&rdquo; by historian Niall Ferguson?<br />\n Quite possibly, and without regard to what happens in Hong Kong. President Donald Trump&rsquo;s on-and-off tariff threats to China have shown his willingness to upend U.S.-China economic ties. Unlike his predecessors, he regards imports from China as harmful. They may provide cheap clothes and toys to American consumers, but they also seem to have destroyed more American manufacturing jobs than expected.&nbsp;</p>\n<p> IN ANY CASE, Chinese economic growth has been flagging, and its workforce has essentially stopped growing. Post-Tiananmen annual growth, unparalleled in history, ranged from 8 to 14 percent from 1991 to 2013 but has tailed off, probably below the official 6 percent level.<br />\n And, thanks to China&rsquo;s longtime one-child policy, its working-age population has been declining, down 3 percent since 2011. For years, one big question about China was whether it would get old before it got rich. The answer seems to be that it has gotten old about halfway up the path. Poverty is way down, but incomes significantly lag those in North America, Western Europe and East Asia, including Taiwan and Hong Kong. Meanwhile, just as the United States once lost low-skill manufacturing jobs, so China is now.&nbsp;<br />\n The reasons for an American strategic partnership with China have vanished into the mists of history. Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon, noting little-reported skirmishes on the Chinese-Russian border, saw China as a counterweight to the Soviet Union in a three-way Cold War. That vision became obsolete as the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 and the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991.<br />\n But Deng Xiaoping&rsquo;s decision to kill thousands &mdash; maybe tens of thousands &mdash; in Tiananmen Square showed the permanence of the communist regime, which had already started to spark &mdash; or permit &mdash; economic growth.<br />\n George H.W. Bush decided to stabilize the relationship, and his three successors, despite some contrary campaign rhetoric, concurred. A bipartisan congressional majority voted for normal trade relationships in 2000, and U.S. leaders appreciated China&rsquo;s economic stimulus in the 2007-09 financial crisis.<br />\n The hope through these years was that a more prosperous China would also become more democratic and tolerant at home, and less aggressive abroad. But as foreign affairs journalist James Mann pointed out in his 2007 book, &ldquo;The China Fantasy,&rdquo; and as longtime Kissingerian Michael Pillsbury wrote in his 2015 book, &ldquo;The Hundred-Year Marathon,&rdquo; China&rsquo;s leaders weren&rsquo;t interested in following this script.</p>\n<p> ON THE CONTRARY, Pillsbury argued that they had their own scenario, in which China would embark quietly but steadily on a long-term race to world supremacy by 2049, the 100th anniversary of Mao Zedong&rsquo;s victory over Chiang Kai-shek.<br />\n China would use strategy and tactics laid out by Sun Tzu 2,500 years ago and restore the state to the primacy it enjoyed before the civil wars and invasions that started with the Taiping rebellion in 1849 and ended with Mao&rsquo;s death in 1976, costing millions of Chinese lives. Before this strife, China had 40 percent of the world&rsquo;s population and economic production, and an emperor reigning 60 years, who reportedly told the British envoy Lord Macartney in 1793, &ldquo;Our Celestial Empire possesses all things in prolific abundance&rdquo; and has &ldquo;no need to import the manufactures of outside barbarians.&rdquo;<br />\n Xi Jinping, as he disapprovingly watches peaceful marchers in Hong Kong week after week, perhaps feels similarly. His attempted crackdown on the independent judiciary Hong Kong was promised until 2047, and abolition of his 10-year term limit amounts to jumping the gun on Pillsbury&rsquo;s 100-year-marathon finish line of 2049.<br />\n Presumably, Xi has the power to squelch the Hong Kong demonstrators as his predecessors squelched Tiananmen protesters 30 years ago. But not without significant economic cost, which he may be willing to pay. The economic ties symbolized by &ldquo;Chimerica&rdquo; are already unraveling. They could be completely split if the Red Army ravages Hong Kong.</p>\n<p> THE COST WOULD not be just economic. &ldquo;(I)n defying Beijing,&rdquo; Claudia Rosett, who covered the Tiananmen Square massacre for the Wall Street Journal, writes from Hong Kong, the demonstrators &ldquo;may be taking on the Goliath of modern tyrannies, but even against terrible odds, they are committed to this contest. That&rsquo;s how much they value freedom.&rdquo;<br />\n Brute force may prevail for a time. But the yearning for freedom can still somehow survive.</p>\n<p> Michael Barone is a senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and longtime co-author of The Almanac of American Politics.</p>\n', created = 1574243258, expire = 1574329658, headers = '', serialized = 0 WHERE cid = '2:f69bbcc951bf26ecae708d6838b22dd1' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 112.
  • user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM cache_filter WHERE cid = '2:36697b7f0c804cd7ed3ec18639e44ed5' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 27.
  • user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: UPDATE cache_filter SET data = '<p>RACE: August 16, 2019</p>\n<p><img alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.conservativechronicle.com/sites/default/files/Barone.gif\" /></p>\n<p>Fact-checking journalists lean left, as Mark Hemingway documented in a canonical Washington Examiner analysis that is just as valid today as when it was published in 2011. But as John F. Kennedy once said, when asked why he wasn&rsquo;t supported by an odoriferous Massachusetts Democrat, &ldquo;sometimes party loyalty asks too much.&rdquo;<br />\n Case in point: the two solemn statements by Democratic presidential candidates. Last Friday at 2:24 p.m., Kamala Harris tweeted, &ldquo;Michael Brown&rsquo;s murder forever changed Ferguson and America.&rdquo; Half an hour later, Elizabeth Warren got more specific: &ldquo;5 years ago Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri.&rdquo; They weren&rsquo;t the only candidates noting this fifth anniversary, but others carefully avoided the M-word.</p>\n<p> CORRECTLY SO, as the intensive investigation by Barack Obama&rsquo;s and Eric Holder&rsquo;s Justice Department concluded that the officer fired on Brown in justified self-defense. Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler awarded Harris and Warren &ldquo;four Pinocchios&rdquo; and called their dismissal of the Justice Department report &ldquo;even more galling.&rdquo;<br />\n Vox&rsquo;s German Lopez wrote, &ldquo;Five years after the shooting, though, major presidential campaigns are still getting the details wrong.&rdquo;<br />\n &ldquo;Harris, Warren wrong about Brown shooting,&rdquo; reads the headline on a FactCheck.org story by Lori Robertson.<br />\n Were these fact-checkers&rsquo; responses an attempt to uphold the repute of the Obama administration, so many of whose policies have been attacked and scorned by many Democratic candidates? Unlikely. The candidates&rsquo; errors were too blatant.<br />\n But they may have been surprised to be called on it. Their staffs did not respond to the fact-checkers&rsquo; inquiries, and none retracted or explained their mistake. Perhaps they feared getting blowback on Twitter if they were to do so. Perhaps they genuinely (and unprofessionally) misremembered the incident.<br />\n And perhaps they expected that nobody, at least no one on their ideological side, would challenge an accusation of white racism. For that certainly has been the response of liberal media to Democrat Stacey Abrams&rsquo; claims that she &ldquo;won&rdquo; the election for governor of Georgia last November.<br />\n Actually, she lost, 50 to 49 percent to Republican Brian Kemp. His popular vote margin was 54,723 out of 3,902,093 votes cast &mdash; a close race but an unambiguous result. Abrams had plenty of reason to be proud of her run: She got 800,000 more votes than any previous Democrat and a higher percentage than any Democrat since 1998. But it&rsquo;s simply factually wrong to say she won.<br />\n Abrams argues that she only came up short because Kemp, as secretary of state, eliminated 1.4 million people from the Georgia voter rolls. But, as Mark Hemingway points out, that was in line with federal legislation that requires purging the names of those who haven&rsquo;t voted and haven&rsquo;t responded to attempted contacts.<br />\n Abrams wants you to think that this is voter suppression, in line with the barring of black people to vote in Georgia and other Southern states before passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In those days, black Americans risked their lives if they tried to register to vote. Saying that current requirements &mdash; like showing photo ID &mdash; are the same kind of suppression is a vicious lie.</p>\n<p> VICIOUS BECAUSE it distorts American history, because it understates the diminution of racism and racial discrimination over the past half-century, because it understates the bravery of the black and other Americans who risked everything to advance equality under the law.<br />\n Why do politicians like Harris, Warren and Abrams make such refutable (if not often-refuted) claims? The cynical explanation is that they&rsquo;re appealing to black voters and promising to redress their grievances. But how many black Americans really believe they&rsquo;re barred from voting or more vulnerable to police violence than half a century ago?<br />\n Maybe instead they&rsquo;re virtue signaling to the white college graduates who are the dominant segment of the Democratic electorate these days. What &ldquo;sounds like an exclusive appeal to minority voters,&rdquo; writes the New York Post&rsquo;s Michael Goodwin, is &ldquo;just as likely to be aimed at those whites embarrassed by their race.&rdquo;<br />\n &ldquo;People of color are not the driving force behind most of today&rsquo;s forms of racial liberalism,&rdquo; wrote political scientist Eric Kaufmann in The New York Times in March. &ldquo;The share of white liberals who say racial prejudice is the main reason blacks cannot get ahead has jumped substantially since 2014&rdquo; &mdash; the year Michael Brown was shot in Ferguson.</p>\n<p> BUT FACTS are stubborn things. The Mueller report has forced the Democrats to stop playing the Russia card. And now journalistic fact-checkers are disciplining their attempts to play the racism card. Whether either card trumps Trump for the middle of the electorate is unclear.</p>\n<p> Michael Barone is a senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and longtime co-author of The Almanac of American Politics.</p>\n', created = 1574243258, expire = 1574329658, headers = '', serialized = 0 WHERE cid = '2:36697b7f0c804cd7ed3ec18639e44ed5' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 112.
  • user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM cache_filter WHERE cid = '2:1cd77f7184da2bafaa6a089469bc2384' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 27.
  • user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: UPDATE cache_filter SET data = '<div id=\"fb-root\"></div>\n<script>(function(d, s, id) {\n var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];\n if (d.getElementById(id)) return;\n js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;\n js.src = \"//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1&appId=452921018151594\";\n fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);\n}(document, \'script\', \'facebook-jssdk\'));</script><div class=\"fb-like-box\" data-href=\"http://www.facebook.com/conservativechronicle\" data-width=\"275\" data-colorscheme=\"light\" data-show-faces=\"true\" data-header=\"true\" data-stream=\"false\" data-show-border=\"true\"></div>\n', created = 1574243258, expire = 1574329658, headers = '', serialized = 0 WHERE cid = '2:1cd77f7184da2bafaa6a089469bc2384' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 112.
  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/conserva/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
  • user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM cache_filter WHERE cid = '5:26776aa5ca60f6f8eb4e7f92178ff26e' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 27.

Michael Barone

11/18/2019 - 12:24am
2020 ELECTION: November 15, 2019 Michael Bloomberg has delivered his latest delicious hint about running for president. Former Attorney General Eric Holder is fresh from taking credit for the new Democratic legislative majorities in Virginia, making it known he might be interested. And former Gov. Deval Patrick joined the presidential race after reportedly discerning a demand for another...
09/13/2019 - 5:36pm
TRUMP PRESIDENCY: September 13, 2019 Around Washington, in sundry upscale locales, in large quadrants of the internet, you still encounter lamentations about Donald Trump’s takeover of the Republican Party and prophecies of the party’s approaching doom. Never-Trumpers are less thick on the ground than among ordinary voters, but they...
09/06/2019 - 6:15pm
THE LEFT: September 6, 2019 Wars by the elites on the people are flaring in English-speaking nations on both sides of the Atlantic. It’s being waged fiercely in the Palace of Westminster House of Commons and in the House of Lords. And in the newsrooms and greenrooms of American journalism. THERE’S MUCH that can be said about it. You...
09/01/2019 - 3:31pm
DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES: August 30, 2019 Anyone heard anything about Martin O’Malley lately? Four years ago, he was busy out in Iowa running for president. After two successful terms as mayor of Baltimore (homicides fell during his years) and as governor of Maryland, he seemed like a plausible candidate. Strumming his guitar and singing Irish...
08/25/2019 - 9:43pm
CHINA: August 23, 2019 Will the demonstrations in Hong Kong come to be seen as the end of a 30-year period, beginning with the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, of the American-Chinese economic engagement and entanglement christened “Chimerica” by historian Niall Ferguson? Quite possibly, and without regard to what happens in Hong...
08/16/2019 - 4:12pm
RACE: August 16, 2019 Fact-checking journalists lean left, as Mark Hemingway documented in a canonical Washington Examiner analysis that is just as valid today as when it was published in 2011. But as John F. Kennedy once said, when asked why he wasn’t supported by an odoriferous Massachusetts Democrat, “sometimes party loyalty asks...
Syndicate content