[Excerpted from the latest Radio Derb, now available exclusively through VDARE.com]
Of the sixteen persons nominated for a cabinet position, as listed in the January 23rd issue of The Economist [After the chaos of the Trump era, what can Joe Biden hope to achieve?] nine have now been confirmed by the U.S. Senate and have assumed office. So we are better than halfway through the confirmation process.
You can’t help but notice the diversity. Not one of them—not one of the sixteen—is a non-Hispanic white Protestant heterosexual male. To put that another way: Not one of the sixteen comes from the same slice of the diversity pie as did every single one of our nation’s Founding Fathers.
(Am I still allowed to say “Founding Fathers“? “Founding persons,” whatever.)
Only one of the sixteen is a white male Protestant: Peter Buttigieg, the Transportation Secretary; and as an Episcopalian, his Protestantism is borderline. I used to be an Episcopalian, and I recall that bit in the liturgy where we prayed for the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Confessionwise I count eight Roman Catholics, four Jews, two Protestants, one Hindu, and one unknown. By sex they break down as ten guys and six gals. Cutting by race and ethnicity: ten white, three black or blackish, three Hispanic. By sexual preference: fourteen apparently heterosexual, one homosexual, one unknown.
Concerning the confirmation process itself: There is a customary understanding—a sensible one, I think—that a new President is entitled to his cabinet picks, and that the Senators should practice forbearance in challenging them, with due allowance for a bit of televised grandstanding on particular issues. Given that, and the present balance of parties in the Senate, these confirmation hearings are somewhat of a formality.
Justice in the U.S.A. is in serious trouble. It has been politicized. Our Ruling Class has been seized by an ideology: the one loosely called “Wokeness,” although as a longtime fan of Professor Paul Gottfried, I prefer “Cultural Marxism.” This ideology has many facets, but its most central characteristics are 1) deep hostility to the founding stock of the U.S.A.—as illustrated by the statistics I just gave you on Biden’s cabinet picks—and 2) fierce intolerance of all dissent.
In the matter of justice, the effect of that ideology has been to give us a two-tiered system, a shameful double standard. Anarchist mobs who burned, looted, and murdered their way through our cities last year have been smiled on by the courts. The motley protestors who entered the Capitol on January 6th, by contrast, are being hunted down and crushed like bugs: no bail, no celebrity support, no GoFundMe pages, no allowance for personal circumstances.
Sample quote from my new journalistic heroine, Miranda Devine:
As for Portland, Oregon, charges were dropped for 90 percent of rioters arrested in September’s anti-cop violence. One 23-year-old charged with attempted murder, arson, possession of a destructive device, and rioting was released on a $1,000 bond.
Seattle was as bad. Mayor Jenny Durkan lauded the lawlessness that would lead to the fatal shooting of 19-year-old Horace Lorenzo Anderson in July as a “summer of love.”
These were the deadly protests Biden benignly described as “peaceful” and [Kamala] Harris said are “not going to stop … and they should not.”
Yet after a few hours of madness one day in January, every Trump supporter in the country is to be treated as if they flew a plane into the World Trade Center. They all are under suspicion for what Biden said last week was “the greatest threat … in America: domestic terror.”
[ There shouldn’t be a double standard for law & order: Devine , New York Post, February 21, 2021]
Plainly—it could not be more plain—there is one system of justice for persons who hold approved opinions, another for dissidents.
Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence has of course always allowed intent as a factor in the dispensing of justice: an unintended homicide is treated differently from an intended one.
But that principle has now been distorted to:
- If I burn down your store because of some grudge I bear, not towards you but towards society in general, I will not be punished so long as my grudge is a good fit for the Ruling Ideology.
- If I enter some federal building unarmed with the vague intention of disrupting a parliamentary procedure—even if uniformed security personnel let me in—and then I put my feet up on a legislator’s desk, I shall be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, so long as my intention, or any of my personal connections, are at odds with Regime Ideology.
This gross and obvious double standard is Third World jurisprudence. It’s how things are done in Congo, Uzbekistan, China, or Guatemala.
No American jurist with any respect for our nation’s history or constitution should tolerate it.