Monday, March 27, 2017
The following is adapted from a speech delivered on February 15, 2017, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in Phoenix, Arizona.
Vladimir Putin is a powerful ideological symbol and a highly effective ideological litmus test. He is a hero to populist conservatives around the world and anathema to progressives. I don’t want to compare him to our own president, but if you know enough about what a given American thinks of Putin, you can probably tell what he thinks of Donald Trump.
Let me stress at the outset that this is not going to be a talk about what to think about Putin, which is something you are all capable of making up your minds on, but rather how to think about him. And on this, there is one basic truth to remember, although it is often forgotten. Our globalist leaders may have deprecated sovereignty since the end of the Cold War, but that does not mean it has ceased for an instant to be the primary subject of politics.
Vladimir Vladimirovich is not the president of a feminist NGO. He is not a transgender-rights activist. He is not an ombudsman appointed by the United Nations to make and deliver slide shows about green...
Monday, March 27, 2017
There is an old saying that if the clock strikes 13, it casts doubt not only on that, but also on everything that went before. If we cannot believe the clock when it strikes 13, should we have believed it when it struck 10 or 11? Should we believe anything it ever did?
Some time ago, I saw a prominent criminal-defense attorney being interviewed on TV regarding his client, who was accused of a serious crime. The lawyer declared pompously, “I can’t say there is a shred of evidence against my client.”
This statement was literally true. Of course he couldn’t say anything implying that his client was guilty ‒ he would be disbarred, and even if he were not, no one would hire him. His career would be over. And it turned out that there wasn’t a shred of evidence against his client ‒ there was a mountain of evidence. The lawyer’s statement was the worst kind of lie ‒ a half-truth intended to give a wholly false impression to the listener.
What does all this have to do with the accusation that candidate Trump or his associates were surveilled, and that the contents of their communications were revealed to the Democrats and the media? Let me try to make...