Press "Enter" to skip to content

ResCon1

Tucker Carlson’s Real Target Is Not Winston Churchill; it’s Ukraine

Tucker Carlson and Darryl Cooper want to rewrite the history of World War II so that they can justify appeasing Vladimir Putin today.

Tucker Carlson’s plaudits for an obscure crackpot writer, Darryl Cooper, who argues that Winston Churchill, not Adolph Hitler, is the “chief villain” of World War II, have been widely condemned and rightly so. The historical narrative that Cooper presents is riddled with glaring errors, not the least of which is a basic timeline or chronology of events.

Indeed, as historian and Churchill biographer Andrew Roberts points out:

Cooper’s first argument was that Churchill “was primarily responsible for that war becoming what it did, something other than an invasion of Poland.” Yet in the moment that Adolf Hitler invaded Belgium, Holland, and Luxembourg at dawn on May 10, 1940, Winston Churchill was not even prime minister.

Unless Mr. Cooper is arguing that from his position as First Lord of the Admiralty—the head of Britain’s navy—Churchill was somehow able to force Hitler to unleash Blitzkrieg in the West, his first argument falls to the ground.

But the bigger question that has not been addressed is: why, at this moment in time, is Carlson elevating and promoting the false and inaccurate notion that Winston Churchill is the “chief villain” of World War II?

Ukraine. The answer is not hard to discern. He is doing so because of Ukraine.

“I’m just highly distressed,” Carlson told Cooper, “by the uses to which the myths [sic] about World War II have been put in the context of modern foreign policy, particularly the war in Ukraine.”

Churchill, remember, was a fierce critic of the British government’s policy of appeasement in the years leading up World War II. He warned repeatedly of the grave and gathering Nazi German threat. Hitler had to be stopped, not appeased, Churchill argued.

Carlson and Cooper, by contrast, are modern-day appeasers. They want to appease Putin. They recognize the obvious parallels between Europe in the 1930s and Europe today.

They understand quite well that if yesterday’s appeasers can be vindicated and Churchill vilified, then it will be easier for today’s appeasers to prevail in Ukraine and in other parts of Eastern Europe (the Baltic States and Poland), which Putin views as rightful parts of a new Russian empire.

As Faulkner famously put it, “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”

Myopic Critics. Yet, inexplicably, even critics who heap opprobrium on Carlson and Cooper feel compelled to downplay or deny this obvious fact.

For example, in an otherwise superb takedown of Cooper’s false and inaccurate history, Mark Antonio Wright writes:

I will go ahead and concede at the outset Carlson and Cooper’s complaint that the “Munich 1938: Churchill vs. Chamberlain and the Appeasers” dynamic has been used and abused in the post-war period, often to our detriment. Not every foreign adversary is Adolf Hitler, and not every international negotiation is Munich 1938.

This is obviously true, but Wright concedes too much. He ignores the obvious parallels between Nazi Germany and modern-day Russia. He ignores the echoes of Adolph Hitler in Vladimir Putin. He ignores Russia’s horrific war crimes and attempted genocide of Ukraine.

1930’s Style Appeasement. In truth, Putin’s Russia is attempting to conquer and subjugate Eastern Europe, just as Hitler’s Germany tried to do in the 1930s and ’40s. Then as now we heard all of manner of excuses for appeasing the fascist aggressors. But the appeasers were wrong then and they are wrong today.

As Yale historian Timothy Snyder has observed, our present-day historical moment is similar to that of 1938:

This is 1938, but Czechoslovakia [read: Ukraine] has chosen to fight… So you have an imperfect democracy… [that], when threatened by a larger neighbor [read: Russia], it chooses to resist. In that world, where Czechoslovakia resists, there’s no Second World War.

Snyder’s argument is that we can avoid a great powers war with Russia in Europe if we learn the lesson of the 1930s and stop Russia in Ukraine. A Russia that has subsumed Ukraine, he explains, will be a far more formidable enemy to combat, just as Nazi Germany was a far more formidable enemy to combat after it had subsumed Czechoslovakia.

Modern-Day Appeasers. Carlson and Cooper see this obvious historical parallel even if Wright and other critics choose to ignore it. But unlike most of us, and unlike most historians, Carlson and Cooper don’t care.

They don’t care about Europe, especially Eastern Europe. They believe, erroneously, in a fortress America that can largely ignore what happens in Europe.

Their erstwhile ally, Trump Vice Presidential nominee JD Vance, agrees with them. “I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another,” he said when running for the Senate in 2022.

Indifference and History. But their indifference to the fate of Europe is contrary to the British and American historical experience. It runs counter to our historical understanding. Churchill cared and Franklin Delano Roosevelt cared because they understood that the fate of Britain and the United States is inextricably linked to the fate of Europe.

Carlson and Cooper think differently. That’s why they are attempting, unsuccessfully, to rewrite the history of World War II and to cast Hitler as misunderstood and Churchill as the villain.

The implications of their historical analysis for what is transpiring in Ukraine today are clear and frightening, and we ignore these implications at our peril.

Feature photo credit: Darryl Cooper and Tucker Carlson, courtesy of their online Twitter interview.

Why Kamala Harris Won’t Select PA Gov. Josh Shapiro as Her VP

Shapiro’s Jewish and pro-Israel, and for a critical mass of Democrats today, that’s disqualifying.

Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro is one of the greatest political talents in America today, and he would be the strongest vice presidential nominee for Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party.

Shapiro is a popular and successful governor 18 months into his first term from a critical battleground state, Pennsylvania, that Harris almost certainly must win if she is to win the White House.

Yet, it is beyond certain that Harris will not select Shapiro. Why? Because he’s Jewish, pro-Israel, and has been critical of the pro-Hamas, Jew-hating protests that have rocked some American universities and municipalities ever since the October 7, 2023, massacre of Jews in Israel by invading Palestinian terrorists.

The Democrats’ Divide. As New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg points out, the Democratic Party today is divided between more traditional Democrats who support Israel and more radical, “progressive” Democrats who do not.

“Choosing Shapiro,” she warns, “who is ardently pro-Israel and outspoken in his condemnation of the recent campus protests, would rip those wounds open again.”

CNN’s John King made a similar point when he noted that choosing Shapiro would pose “some risk” to Harris and the Democrats. King did not elaborate or explain what the risk would be, but it is not hard to figure out.

As a pro-Israeli Jew, Shapiro could cost Harris votes in Michigan, another critical battleground state that she needs to win. Michigan is home to a large Muslim immigrant population; and, in these communities, there is, sadly,  a lot of Jew hatred.

Their Political Calculation. So, the obvious question is: would Shapiro cost Harris more votes in Michigan than he might gain her there and in other swing states? And is the electoral vote balance more likely than not to be favorable to the Harris if he is the VP nominee?

Moreover, the energy and passion in the Democratic Party, certainly since October 7, is on the pro-Hamas, Jew-hating left. Does nominating Shapiro as VP dampen or extinguish this passion and energy, which Kamala needs for a close, hard-fought campaign?

The hard and difficult truth is that Jew-hating anti-Semites are now an important constituency and activist base within the Democratic Party. Democrats are wary of alienating this constituency because they need its votes and its political activism during the election season.

Congressional Appeasement. Domestic political concerns certainly explain why more than 50 House and Senate Democrats—including Vice President Harris in her Constitutional role as president of the Senate—plan to boycott Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress tomorrow.

Elected Democrats are eager to signal to their anti-Israel, Jew-hating base that they, too, are frustrated and angry with Israel because of its war in Gaza.

Appeasing bigots, of course, is nothing new for the Democratic Party. Democrats did the same thing in the middle of the 20th Century, when the accommodated racists and segregationists as an integral part of their New Deal and Great Society political coalition.

No to Shapiro. So although Shapiro no doubt would appeal to swing voters, independents, and even some Republicans in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, he is too politically toxic for core Democratic constituencies and voting groups—namely, the hard, “progressive” left, which despises Israel, and the Jew-hating anti-Semitic left, which despises Jews.

Will this change over time? Maybe, but maybe not.

What is certain is that, in 2024, Shapiro has no future in the Democratic Party. He will have to wait at least four years (and probably longer) before Democrats will ever consider him for national political office. His selection as VP ain’t happening this time around, in 2024.

Feature photo credit: Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, courtesy of the Palm Beach Post (Kathryne Rubright).

Biden’s Act of Political Suicide Is No Surprise

Biden has always been a weak-minded party man or apparatchik, who does what the party and its vocal special interests want or order him to do.

Democrats are hailing President Biden’s decision to withdraw from the 2024 presidential race as an heroic act of statesmanship befitting a man who puts country over self.

“Joe Biden will go down in history as one of our greatest presidents. This last act of sacrifice for his country guarantees it,” tweeted Stanford University Professor Michael McFaul.

McFaul is an otherwise sober-minded Democrat who served as President Obama’s ambassador to Russia. McFaul got a lot right about Russia and Ukraine, but he’s wrong about Biden.

In truth, Biden’s decision to quit the race reflects the fact that he has never been his own man; he has always been a weak-minded party man or apparatchik, who does what the party and its vocal special interests want or order him to do.

This was true in the 1970s, when, National Review reports, Biden embraced segregationist Democratic Senators like “James Eastland of Mississippi and Herman Talmadge of Georgia, both of whom steadfastly opposed racial integration and federal civil-rights protections for African Americans.”

It was true in the 1980s, when Biden supported the Democrats’ nuclear freeze, which would have given the Soviet Union a decisive advantage in its cold war against the United States and Europe.

It was true in the 1990s, when Biden tried to “Bork” or torpedo the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. Borking or torpedoing Thomas was demanded by the the legal and feminist left.

It was true in the aughts, when, like most Democrats, Biden opposed The Surge in Iraq.

It was true in the 2010’s when, as Vice President, Biden carried water for Democratic President Barack Obama: by advocating for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq.

Never mind the fact that Obama would later have to send U.S. troops back into Iraq to destroy ISIS or the Islamic State. The party’s “anti-war” demands had to be met and so Biden met them.

And it is true in this decade as president. Biden may have campaigned as a moderate, but he has governed as a leftist or “progressive,” in accordance with the demands of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and the Squad. Thus Biden’s misnamed “Inflation Reduction Act” is really a downpayment on the far left’s Green New Deal.

So it should come as no surprise that now, when confronted with Democratic Party demands that he withdraw from the presidential race because polls show he can’t win, Biden is doing as ordered.

Biden is doing as he has always done: acting in accordance with the demands of the party and the clamoring of its special interests. We should have expected nothing less. At 81 years old Biden was not about to act differently.

Biden can’t be his own man because he has never been his own man. He’s a wholly-owned tool of the Democratic Party and whatever special interests are guiding and directing the party.

Good riddance

Feature photo credit: Biden and Hollywood megastar/Democratic Party big-money fundraiser George Clooney, courtesy of Josh Telles/Getty, published in Deadline.

Louisiana’s Ten Commandments Law and the Politics of Winning and Losing

The law shows that, in Donald Trump’s Republican Party, fighting too often has become an end in itself and not a means to an end, which is winning.

Eric Erickson is a serious and thoughtful conservative. So I was surprised to hear him voice strong criticism of a new Louisiana law mandating display of the Ten Commandments in every classroom in the state.

However, Erickson’s criticism is not with the sum and substance of the law. He says he supports displaying the Ten Commandments in the classroom, as well as making the Ten Commandments part of the required course of study.

Instead, Erickson’s beef is with what he views as the state’s losing way of going about this, or losing way of fighting this political battle.

Judicial Scrutiny. For starters, he says, the law almost certainly will be struck down by the Supreme Court. A 1980 Supreme Court case (Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39) has “an almost identical fact pattern,” Erickson notes.

If Louisiana Republicans really wanted to win this fight, they would have avoided launching a doomed frontal assault on Stone v. Graham. Instead, they would have passed a law specifically designed to avoid judicial scrutiny, which would have accomplished the same thing, Erickson argues.

In other words, Louisiana Republicans would have fought to win and not fought for fighting’s sake or fought to lose. How might they have achieved this?

Winning Legislation. Erickson says Louisiana legislators could have passed two simple and Constitutionally unassailable laws that would have allowed schools and teachers to display and teach the Ten Commandments.

First, pass a law that says no school district or school board can punish a teacher for posting the Ten Commandments in the classroom.

Second, pass a resolution that says local churches and synagogues are welcome and encouraged to provide copies of the Ten Commandments to any teacher who wants them.

These two simple laws or resolutions would have accomplished the same thing as a mandatory Ten Commandments display, but without running afoul of the First Amendment’s establishment clause, Erickson argues.

The display of gay pride flags in many public schools, he explains, provides a useful example of how conservatives ought to wage their fight to display and teach the Ten Commandments in the classroom.

The state, contrary to the silly claims of some, is not forcing teachers to put up Pride flags in classrooms. [Some teachers] are doing it on their own volition.

Christian teachers should respond by putting up the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule, or useful proverbs as posters. The Kennedy case (Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 597 U.S. 507 (2022)) would clearly allow the teachers to do it on their own.

Louisiana Policy Failure. Moreover, Erickson asserts, the weakness of Louisiana’s mandatory Ten Commandments display is underscored by the fact that the Republican Governor, Jeff Landry, vetoed tort reform, and the Republican state legislature provided scant and inadequate funding for Education Savings Accounts.

Yet tort reform and school choice via education savings accounts are two highly prized conservative policy reforms.

Erickson makes an important point that needs to be heard, especially today, in Donald Trump’s Republican Party.

Trump’s Failure. Trump is often praised for being “a fighter,” and for his willingness “to fight.” But what Trump’s acolytes and sycophants don’t seem to understand is that fighting is not an end in itself, but rather a means to an end, which is winning.

Unfortunately, Trump is a poor and inept fighter. He doesn’t fight well or smartly, or with an overarching strategic and tactical purpose.

Sure, Trump throws a lot of punches, but most of his punches don’t score or connect. And many of his punches boomerang and end up hurting himself and the Republican Party.

That’s why Trump lost the 2020 election, and that’s why Republicans seriously under-performed in the 2022 midterm elections.

It’s not that Trump and the Republicans had a bad record and an unpopular agenda in 2020 and 2022. To the contrary: they had a good record and a positive agenda: peace and prosperity, tax cuts, historically low unemployment, low inflation, a booming stock market, et al.

The problem was (and still remains): Trump does not know how to fight. He doesn’t know how to pick his fights and frame issues to his and the Republican Party’s political advantage.

Republican Policy Failure. Unfortunately, Trump’s propensity to lose politically and in the policy arena has spread throughout the Republican Party.

Louisiana’s failure to pass tort reform, fund school choice, and enact a winning Ten Commandments law are all prime examples of this propensity to fight for fighting’s sake without a commitment to win and prevail.

“We keep losing,” writes Erickson, “because our supposedly strategic thinkers make more from defeat because, after all, they fight!

“They’d rather own the libs than own the future. Losing is a feature, not a bug, for them. So, too, is blaming anyone who’d like to win instead of engaging in failure theater.”

Erickson is right. Politically speaking, there are not ten commandments; there is only one commandment, and that is to win. Unless and until conservative Republicans understand this, displaying and teaching the Ten Commandments in the public schools will forever be a distant dream.

Feature photo credit: A screen shot of conservative pundit Eric Erickson via Twitter and the 2024 GOP presidential nominee, Donald Trump, courtesy of Fox Business.

The Presidential Politics of Biden’s Aversion to Winning in Ukraine and Gaza

George H. W. Bush lost the White House in 1992. Biden’s foreign policy failures are setting him up for a similar election day defeat.

At the 1992 Democratic National Convention, then-Georgia Governor Zell Miller derided President George H.W. Bush as a man who “talks like Dirty Harry but acts like Barney Fife.”

It was a cheap shot and an unfair characterization of President Bush, who had masterfully orchestrated the peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Union, the liberation of Eastern Europe, and the destruction of the Iraqi Army in Kuwait.

Nonetheless, this colorful charge had political resonance and it helped to sink Bush in the 1992 presidential election, which he lost to Bill Clinton.

But while the charge was unwarranted when leveled against Bush in 1992, it is justified when leveled against Joe Biden in 2024. Biden talks a good game, but lacks policy follow-through. He talks the talk, but doesn’t walk the walk.

Biden’s policy toward Ukraine and Israel are illustrative examples. Biden talks about the importance of “standing with Ukraine” and “supporting Israel.” He champions the transatlantic alliance.

While commemorating the 80th anniversary of the Normandy invasion, for instance, Biden warned:

Democracy is more at risk across the world than at any point since the end of the World War Two—since these beaches were stormed in 1944.

Now, we have to ask ourselves: Will we stand against tyranny, against evil, against crushing brutality of the iron fist?”

Will we stand for freedom? Will we defend democracy? Will we stand together?

Unfortunately, Biden’s actions don’t match his rhetoric. During World War II, what distinguished the transatlantic alliance was its commitment to winning the war and defeating the Axis powers.

Standing with our allies for freedom was a means to an end, not an end in itself. Yet for Biden, the means (standing with our allies) appears to be the end that he seeks, and winning is never mentioned or really pursued.

In short, Biden lacks the courage of his supposed (rhetorical) convictions. The policy result: self-deterrence and half-measures that undermine our allies, weaken our alliances, and embolden our enemies.

In Ukraine, for instance, Biden has steadfastly refused to allow Ukraine to use American long-range weapon systems, the Army Tactical Missile System (ATAMS), to strike Russian targets within Russia. This has given Russia a coveted sanctuary, or safe base of operations, from which they have repeatedly struck Ukraine civilian and military targets.

Recently, Biden finally and belatedly relented, somewhat. He has allowed Ukraine to strike a very limited number of Russian military sanctuaries within Russia. However, he did this only after the Ukrainian military risked being overrun and forced to cede significant territory, cities and population centers to Russia.

Even today, the Institute for the Study of War notes that Biden’s policy change “has reduced the size of Russia’s ground sanctuary by only 16 percent at maximum.” In other words, 84 percent of Russian sanctuaries remain off limits to the Ukrainian military.

Israel, too, has seen its hands tied by Biden, who has threatened to withhold military assistance if Israel pushes too far too fast in its effort to destroy Hamas. Biden has sought a diplomatic solution to the conflict that will appease both Israel and Hamas.

But as Matthew Continetti points out:

The war in Gaza won’t end with another ceasefire or food package or humanitarian pier. The war will end when Israel completes its task of destroying Hamas as a military force… America’s role in this task is to help our ally Israel by supplying military aid and assistance…

The problem with Biden’s aversion to winning in Ukraine and Gaza is that it is prolonging these horrific conflicts and giving America’s enemies, Russia and Hamas, reason to think they can win by outlasting us.

China and Iran, meanwhile, are watching and taking note. Does the United States lack the will to win? Will it tire of the fight? Is it a dependable ally? How committed is it, really, to the so-called rules based international order? Can it be forced to back down if bloodied?

Unfortunately, because of Biden’s weak and tepid foreign policy—because of his reluctance to articulate and implement a winning strategy in both Ukraine and Gaza—the answers to these questions are not reassuring. Deterrence is failing and Biden is courting further war and conflict as a result.

The president needs to take a page from his hero, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who committed himself to the “unconditional surrender” of Germany and Japan during World War II.

Only by winning in Ukraine and Gaza can Biden win reelection in 2024. Otherwise, like President Bush in 1992, he’s going down.

Feature photo credit: Presidents George H. W. Bush and Joe Biden, courtesy of the White House and PBS, respectively.