That Delicate Thing, the Rule of Law, Is Dying. Who Is Killing It?
By Selwyn Duke
As with representative government, the “rule of law” has been an anomaly on the world scene, historically speaking. The Romans had it; in fact, they essentially gave us the concept of the rule of law. It is the norm today, too, in the lands they most influenced, those of the modern West. But with the default for man being the rule of men, there’s ever the threat of regression to the mean or “behavioral relapse.”
Enter 21st-century America, where the rule of law has been eroding notably.
Etiology of an Ideology: An Examination of Trump Hatred
By Selwyn Duke
“The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.” This paraphrase of G.K. Chesterton could come to mind when pondering now notorious TDS — Trump Derangement Syndrome. A bizarre phenomenon affecting millions, it yields an irrational hatred for the president that dwarfs hostility other politicians have faced. Why, Democratic officials themselves are so overcome with it (by appearances) that they rarely express love for what’s behind them. That is, they almost never articulate policy ideas now. It’s just attacking one man, Donald J. Trump, viciously and unrelentingly, assassinating his character while sometimes hoping to assassinate him.
Oh, it’s not that spewing hate is new for the Left. Liberals despised President Ronald Reagan, calling him “Ronald Ray-gun.” (Now they may co-opt his memory, claiming “Reagan would neeever approve of today’s Republicans!”) Likewise it was with George W. Bush, who was sometimes portrayed as a monkey. And both men were labeled stupid. Then there were the vicious attacks on anti-communist crusader Senator Joe McCarthy (R-Wis.), impugned as a lying, drunken, unstable man. Yet if these were conventional attacks, with Trump the Left has gone nuclear. What explains this unprecedented rage?
Radical Atheists (and Others) Sue Over Religious Statues — in State Founded by Puritans
By Selwyn Duke
“Religious liberty might be supposed to mean that everybody is free to discuss religion,” observed G.K. Chesterton in 1935. “In practice it means that hardly anybody is allowed to mention it.”
This could come to mind hearing about yet another “separation of church and state” lawsuit. This time the issue involves Catholic statues being erected in Quincy, a Massachusetts city. Far from the Bay State’s Puritan roots, too, the plaintiffs aren’t Calvinist Protestants objecting to Catholic imagery in particular. Rather, involved are the usual suspects: anti-theists and others who, Chesterton might say, too often believe that hardly anybody is allowed to mention religion at all.
Professor: SCOTUS Saying “Bye-bye, Living Constitution; Hello, Originalism”
By Selwyn Duke
It has essentially been said that you can have a living Constitution or a surviving Republic.
But you can’t have both.
And, a University of Tennessee civics expert states in so many words, today’s Supreme Court will increasingly choose civilizational survival.
This means that a majority of the Court rejects the “living document” notion. (Generally marketed via the euphemistic label “pragmatism.”) This holds that the Constitution can be interpreted based on “what’s best for society” — according to judges, of course.
Related and unsaid: People will speak of the various legal-philosophy “isms.” Thus may we hear of jurists who are constructionists, structuralists, legal realists, consequentialists, purposivists, and pragmatists, among other things. In reality, though, there are only two kinds of judges: good judges and bad judges.
Puerto Rico: Statehood for a “Nation” That Will Never, Ever Assimilate?
By Selwyn Duke
“Puerto Rico doesn’t have to be ‘American’ to be a friend of America. Let it be what it already is — a nation.”
So editorializes Javier A. Hernández, a Puerto Rican author, linguist, educator, and former federal official. And Hernández is one more thing, too: a pro-Puerto Rico sovereignty advocate. So his passions are clear. Yet so is his point:
Should Puerto Rico ever become a state, it would never, ever assimilate into the United States.
Nor would it be reasonable to expect it to.
Absorbing the island would be, in fact, a bit like accepting Spain as the 51st state and counting on assimilation. Far from this, however, the “Pearl of the Caribbean” would become what Quebec (French-speaking province) is to Canada — on steroids.
“Woke Is Dead”? In Reality, the Monster Looms, Waiting to Deliver the West’s Coup de Grâce
By Selwyn Duke
Woke is Dead reads the title of journalist Piers Morgan’s recently rolled out book. President Donald Trump may subscribe to Morgan’s thesis, too; he said months ago that the U.S. is “woke no longer.”
If only.
The reality is that wokeness, asserts The Christian Post, “isn’t dead, dying, hospitalized or even hiding.” The Telegraph warns likewise, writing:
Heralding the end of woke is like heralding the end of cancer. Sane people would love it to happen, and people are working hard on it, but it’s not even remotely the case now or soon.
Good analogy, but here’s where it’s lacking: Some people are working on combating wokeness. But unlike with cancer, other people are working hard to spread it to all of us.
The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting,” G.K. Chesterton noted in 1910. “It has been found difficult; and left untried.” Perhaps this helps explain why Christian adherence is in decline in the United Sates. On the other hand, whether or not Islam is found difficult, one thing is for sure.
It’s being tried — with zeal.
The former reality has inspired glee among Christophobes; the latter, alarm among Christians (and others). An example of this alarm is the recent Daily Mailfeature, “Experts: Islam will be the dominant religion in America.” There’s an issue, however:
This isn’t really what “experts” are saying — not most of them, anyway.
In question is the United States’ (and world’s) “religious” landscape in ~2070. It’s predicted that Islam will overtake Christianity around that date as the world’s largest religion. In the United States, however, it’s poised to remain a minority faith; that is, based on current projections.
What worries many, though, are displays such as the below, in which Muslims “took over” NYC’s Union Square to pray.
Hollywood Narcissism and Celebrities Numerous “Gender Nonconforming” Kids
By Selwyn Duke
If a person’s five-year-old daughter tells you she’s a unicorn, you may say “Aww, that’s cute.” It’s red-alert time, however, if she’s making the claim at 14. (Believing you’re an animal is a real phenomenon, associated with “species dysphoria.”) It would be even more alarming, too, if her parents boasted about how they “support” the girl and her intention to have horn-emplacement surgery. Strikingly, though, something analogous is common today in Hollywood — and no one calls the men in white coats.
That is, Tinseltown celebrities have a striking number of MUSS (Made-up Sexual Status, aka “gender nonconforming”) children. They fall all over themselves publicly emphasizing how they support this “expression,” too. My, a cynic could almost believe it’s performative.
“Woke” Culture Is Just Feminine Culture, Says Writer — and It’s Killing America
By Selwyn Duke
What are the best indicators that a person will embrace left-wing authoritarianism? An interesting study, related by psychologist Jordan Peterson years ago, found that the best indicator was having low verbal intelligence.
Number two was “being female.”
None of this would surprise commentator Andrea Widburg. (I don’t think it did surprise her, either, when I recently related it to her.) This is likely ditto for PJ Media’s Megan Fox, who questioned women’s suffrage in 2016. And it certainly wouldn’t shock Helen Andrews, who recently wrote a very popular article titled “The Great Feminization.” As you may imagine, she doesn’t find it so great.
Joe Rogan, Forgiveness, and Trump: Podcaster Calls President “a Nut”
By Selwyn Duke
Image created by Grok AI.
One thing we can say about President Donald Trump is that he’s often nothing if not blunt. Sharing this quality is famed podcaster Joe Rogan, and examples of the two men’s bluntness were recently on full display.
That is, bucking the affair’s spirit, Trump said at the Charlie Kirk memorial in September that he despises his adversaries. “I hate my opponent,” he emphasized at the time — “and I don’t want the best for them.”
And responding to this when the comment was mentioned Friday, Rogan said, “I don’t agree with any of that.” He then added, speaking of Trump, “He’s a nut.”
In fairness, Rogan, who boosted Trump’s 2024 candidacy, then explained his statement. He essentially said (in so many words) that the president was a nut for our time.
By Selwyn Duke
selwynduke.com 