Policy Minute: Conservatism Today
Roy Moore Allegations Not Proven Nor Debunked So Far
This article originally appeared on my Newsmax column.
Recently, allegations came to light that Roy Moore, the Republican candidate in the Alabama senate race, may have molested a 14-year-old back in the 70s. With his strong social conservative views and controversial record of being kicked off the Alabama Supreme Court twice, Moore is already a candidate surrounded by conflict. This new development could, and might, result in the former State Supreme Court justice having to step down as the Republican Nominee.
The allegations come from Leigh Corfman, who claims that when she was 14 and the Republican candidate was 32, Moore allegedly made sexual advances upon her. In addition to Corfman, three other women told The Washington Post that they had been romantically pursued by Moore when they were between the ages of 16 and 18, however they did not report that Moore forced them into a relationship or sexual conduct.
Though the stories have yet to be confirmed, the Post was thorough in its interviews with Corfman and others, and did comprehensive research before releasing the story, that doesn’t prove that the allegations are true. However, The Post did conduct 30 interviews with people who knew Moore between 1977 and 1982, when the alleged conduct took place. Additionally, none of the women initially contacted the Post — Post journalists reportedly found out about the allegations independently and sought out the potential victims. Though, there is much more vetting that must be done in the coming days before anyone should make a negative assumption about Roy Moore or his accusers.
In a written statement, the Moore campaign denied the allegations. He accused the Democratic party of attempting to defame him and destroy his candidacy. However, Moore has yet to officially give much in specifics at the time of the writing of this article. His campaign responded that if these allegations were true, they would have come to light many years earlier in his prior campaigns. This, however, though a relevant point, doesn’t conclusively prove Moore’s innocence. It is an invalid argument to simply say because no one found out in other political races then it must not have occurred. Though I will say my state is notoriously nasty when it comes to political campaigns.
However, it’s important to remember that reports like this must be confirmed before jumping to conclusions and condemning someone of deplorable acts. Roy Moore has a reputation for being an impulsive speaker but even his most ardent critics don’t describe his personal ethics in a negative manner. The evidence in this case looks serious enough to explore it further but wisdom would dictate that we should let all the facts come out before we destroy a man’s reputation. I have spoken to many high-ranking officials in the GOP in my state and they unanimously stated that if the allegations involving the 14-year-old prove true, then Mr. Moore cannot represent the state of Alabama in the U.S. Senate.
The reports about Moore come at a time when sexual misconduct allegations have been making many headlines, following the recent Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey scandals. Stories like these are horrible, but they shed light on an important historical problem — entitled wealthy men in a position to take advantage of those less powerful and often get away unscathed. If the allegations about Moore are true, it’s fortunate that these women spoke out before Moore won the Senate race. Not only would he then be a national face, but his election would be a disgrace to the Senate, the state of Alabama and the Republican Party.
Time will reveal the truth to all those involved and we will soon know the answers we are looking for… but let’s all just take a step back and not assume Moore’s guilt until further evidence is brought to light in coming days. Scripture teaches in Proverbs 18:17 that, “In a lawsuit the first to speak seems right, until someone comes forward and cross-examines.” As someone who is very good at cross examining witnesses, I can attest to this and simply say that we should not cast judgment or Moore nor his accusers until the facts come out. But if the accusations are true then Judge Moore will join Governor Bentley in the ranks of embarrassing and unethical Alabama politicians.
Why Comparing Steve Bannon to Satan is Libelous and Unfair... To Satan
Steve Bannon, former White House advisor and CEO of Breitbart News, descended on Alabama once again on Tuesday to stump for Roy Moore. Appearing at a rally in Fairhope, Bannon Romney for his lack of military service saying, "You hid behind your religion. You went to France to be a missionary while men were dying in Vietnam. Do not talk about honor and integrity." He then had some choice words for Romney’s family. "You ran for commander in chief and had five sons — not one day of service in Afghanistan or Iraq. We have 7,000 dead and 52,000 casualties, and where were the Romneys during those wars?" The remarks elicited cheers from the crowd, despite the fact that President Trump received five draft deferments from Vietnam and that not one of his sons has ever served in the military.
Bannon is an economic nationalist and populist. He has a bizarre background: he served in the military, has an MBA from Harvard, produced films in Hollywood, was a partner at Goldman Sachs, and Chairman of Breitbart News. He served as CEO for the Trump campaign and then then briefly as Chief White House Strategist. He deserves much of the credit for connecting Trump with marginalized voters in the Republican party. Bannon is disillusioned with the Republican establishment, and is recruiting candidates to challenge incumbent Republicans in the House and Senate that he deems insufficiently supportive of the Trump Agenda. But ironically, his first success came where he backed Roy Moore over Luther Strange, the establishment candidate who was supported by President Trump
Another Bannon target is Mitch McConnell, the leader of the establishment wing that Bannon intends to destroy. McConnell is hated among many Trumpians for his weak leadership and inability to unite the party. McConnell recently launching an all-out offensive against Bannon. Not shying away from a fight, the battered majority leader has accused Bannon of anti-Semitism and posing a significant threat to the party, while his Super-PAC has spent millions of dollars fighting against Bannon-backed candidates.
Bannon has succeeded in exacerbating underlying tensions in our polity: there is little civility, cordiality, or meaningful debates over substance. In Love in the Ruins (1971), Walker Percy's futuristic novel about the failure of the American Experiment, the author prophesied: “The center did not hold. However, the Gross National Product continues to rise. There are Left states and Knothead [Right] states, Left towns and Knothead towns but no center towns … Left networks and Knothead networks, Left movies and Knothead movies.” This seems an apt description of our current, unfortunate predicament.
This article was co-written by Daniel Bruce, Chris Reid, and Professor Jack Nelson.
Scott Beason: The Voice of Alabama Conservatives
Whether on the floors of the Alabama House and Senate or over the Alabama airwaves, Scott Beason continually proves to be one of the top conservative voices in the state.
Hailing from his beloved city Gardendale and a University of Alabama graduate, Beason was first elected to the Alabama House of Representatives at the age of 28. He served there until 2006, when he was elected to represent the state’s 17th district in the Alabama Senate. In the legislature, Beason proved to be a staunch supporter of the state’s conservative values. He repeatedly advocated for Alabamians’ second amendment rights, firmly stood against reckless spending, and sometimes singlehandedly killed tax increases, saving Alabamians millions of dollars.
In 2011, Beason was one of the leading sponsors of Alabama’s anti-illegal immigration bill, HB56. Frustrated by the Obama administration’s lack of action on national immigration law enforcement, Beason drafted one of the only comprehensive immigration reform measures to pass any state legislature. The bill sought to protect critical manufacturing and agricultural jobs for Alabamians. Despite a rocky road with opposition from groups supporting illegal immigration, the bill succeeded in providing much needed change to the state’s immigration system and prompted other states to attempt similar action.
That same year, Beason again proved to be a courageous proponent of conservative values in his home state. As a years-long FBI investigation into a vote-buying scheme related to the state’s gambling industry came to a close, it was revealed that Beason, on his own volition, had agreed to wear a wire to assist in the investigation. Evidence obtained with Beason’s help lead to prison terms for multiple players in the corrupt gambling industry. It was revealed during the investigation that Beason himself was offered $1 million a year in exchange for his support of pro-gambling legislation. However, Beason stuck to his principles and weathered the storm that ensued from the lawyers of those indicted and the media outlets who had been the recipients of gambling advertising dollars.
Beason returned to private life in 2014, but continues to be a strong voice for conservatives across the state. He has continually insisted on going back to the basics – the fundamental issues of freedom – and has travelled the state informing Alabamians of these freedoms and the future of the state.
Beason now hosts his own radio show, “The Scott Beason Show,” weekdays from 10 a.m. to Noon on north and central Alabama’s 101.1 WYDE, Birmingham’s AM 1260 and FM 95.3, or on the internet at www.101wyde.com. Anchored by music that will remind you of a simpler time, Beason’s show tackles the top issues of the day and provides the very best in conservative political commentary. The show routinely features some of the biggest names in politics and news, and consistently challenges and defends the essential ideals of conservatives everywhere. Recently, Beason was able to get an exclusive one-on-one interview with Alabama senate candidate Roy Moore, following the infamous allegations of sexual assault against the judge. No matter the topic or guest, each segment of the Beason Show is guaranteed to highlight the biggest pillars of conservatism: God and Country.
With a long future ahead of him, Beason’s insightful conservative commentary doesn’t appear to be going anywhere soon. Alabama could not be more proud of their senator turned radio host, and the nation deserves to take a look into the voice of Alabama conservatives: Scott Beason.
This article was written by Daniel Bruce, a media consultant at the Reid Law Firm. Daniel is a regular contributor to the Rouser, the leading conservative news source for millennial in the country. He is currently studying Political Science and Economics at Auburn University, and plans to attend law school upon graduation. Previously, he has written for the Yellowhammer News, the largest conservative news source in Alabama. You can follow him on Twitter @d_bruce96
This article originally appeared on the Rouser.
A Brief History of Liberals and Conservatives: Who We Are, Where We Came From, and Where We're Going
The words “liberal” and “conservative” have a long, complicated history. They haven’t always denoted the sharp political divide that we assign them today. Surprisingly, liberals were once pretty conservative by today’s standards, and conservatives have typically been fairly liberal. So no matter what side of the isle you find yourself on, here is a quick history of our political ideologies.
In the 18th century, a “liberal” person would typically be defined as “someone capable of freedom,” while a “conservative” would have simply described someone cautious toward risk and change. These terms carried little to no political meaning, and these liberals had a pretty limited conception of freedom that really only applied to the aristocracy. However, the belief that human beings could be their own free persons quickly lead to revolution, an overthrow of the old system, and the first political definitions for our two terms.
The end of the century (does July 4, 1776 ring a bell?) brought about a robust change to the political structures and social orders of the day. By the 19th century, “liberals” sought to bring freedom to all – well, all white male landowners, but hey, it’s a start. These “Classical Liberals” wanted to rid themselves of the reign of the aristocracy and establish a rule for the people, by the people. They believed that there were three fundamental ways to do this: protection of natural individual rights, a free market economy, and a democratic government. Thus, conservatives became those who sought to maintain the old aristocratic system and rule by the select few.
The birth of the modern industrial society in the 20th century brought about world war, revolution, and economic depression. It seemed that the Classical Liberal free market system was collapsing and needed saving. Insert Franklin Delano Roosevelt and a new faction of liberalism, “Reform Liberalism.” Whereas government was once seen as the biggest threat to individual freedom, liberals began to see government as the only protection against powerful corporations and the failures of the free market. With the birth of the New Deal, Roosevelt and his reform liberals sought to bring freedom through regulation and redistribution of income within the free market system. It was during this time that conservatives adopted the Classical Liberal belief of a free market system that is unregulated by the government.
At first glance, it seems like Conservatives have drawn the short straw throughout history. However, by the end of the 1970’s, the policies of Reform Liberalism were quickly failing. The election of Ronald Reagan brought new life to conservatives who sought to bring back the free market policies of Classical Liberalism. But, the conservative movements of the 1980’s were not a simple resurgence of Classical Liberalism. While they sought a return to an unrestricted free market system, the development of a consumerist culture sought to break free from the protestant influences of Classical Liberalism. In fact, since the 1980’s, economic policies in the United States have become increasingly more conservative while social policies have trended more liberal. A good example of this is the decline of tax rates over the past few decades. In 1969, under the Republican administration of Richard Nixon, the highest tax rate on regular income was 77 percent compared to just 39.6 percent in 2015 under President Obama.
The resurgence of these conservative principles has been labeled as Neo-Classical Liberalism. Neo-Classical Liberals tend to champion a society of self-expression as opposed to the strict protestant work ethic of Classical Liberals. While Reform Liberals sought to assuage the inequality produced by the free market through government intervention, Neo-Classical Liberals acknowledge this inequality, but accept it as an inevitable result of the free market. Government intervention in the economy, and therefore the restriction of one person for the benefit of the other, is detrimental to their expressive way of life.
With a brief history of our nation’s most important political ideologies behind us, the question is where are we going from here? The danger of Neo-Classical Liberalism is the severely nihilistic state of the world it envisions. Truth, whether moral, religious, or even scientific, becomes completely subjective in a culture fixated on individual expression. Recent elections have seen a rebirth of traditional conservative social policies and the rise of populist candidates like Donald Trump and Roy Moore in backlash against these relativistic dogmas. However, it is yet to be seen if this trend will continue.
Apart from some moral awakening or revival, it seems inevitable that social issues across the spectrum of American politics will continue to converge. Therefore, American political parties will become defined by their economic policies. The future of American politics appears to be defined by distributive justice (who gets what) rather than what is right or wrong. However, nothing is inevitable.
This article was co-written by Daniel Bruce and Madie Tidwell
The Opioid Crisis: Are Trump's Actions Enough?
Last week, in what was advertised as a landmark speech, President Trump announced his plans to declare the national opioid epidemic a national public health emergency. He declared that “it is time to liberate our communities from the scourge of addiction.” However, is the Trump administration doing enough to fight this epidemic?
The statistics present an overwhelmingly grim picture of our nation’s dependence on opioids. According to the White House[i], in 2016, more than two million Americans had an addiction to prescription or illicit opioids. Since 2000, 300,000 Americans have died from opioid overdoses, and 52,404 died in 2015 alone. It is estimated that overdose deaths in 2016 exceeded 64,000 - a rate of 175 deaths a day This startling statistic is more than the number of Americans killed during the Vietnam War. Needless to say, we have a problem and something needs to be done.
Don’t get me wrong, the actions of the Trump administration are a good start. The public health emergency designation will mobilize each department within the administration to use its available resources to fight the epidemic. As a result, this action will expand access to telemedicine services, and allow the Department of Health and Human Services to easily appoint specialists needed to respond to the public health emergency. The action also allows the Department of Labor to issue dislocated worker grants to workers who have been affected by the opioid crisis, as well as shifts resources within the HIV/AIDS programs to help those eligible for those programs receive substance abuse treatment.
Many have praised the President for officially bringing attention to the opioid crisis and placing the full force of the federal government behind fighting this epidemic. However, the epidemic needs more than just a good start. In order to fight the opioid crisis, we need a full on attack, and that is where the President’s plans fall short.
President Trump could have declared the crisis a full-on national emergency, which would have immediately freed up billions of dollars for emergency response, addiction treatment, and efforts to curtail the illegal distribution of opioids across the U.S. This more comprehensive approach (recommended by the President’s own opioids commission) would mimic the response efforts during natural disasters, and put more money where the President’s mouth is[ii]. Currently, the public health emergency designation does little to provide funding to adequately respond to the crisis. In fact, Forbes recently reported that the declaration sets aside a mere $57,000 for response efforts[iii].
Trump also announced that the administration would produce “really big, really great advertising” aimed at promoting awareness of the epidemic and the harmful effects of opioids to the younger generations, reminiscent of the Reagan-era “Just Say No” programs. The President is on to something – the fact that it will take a culture change to truly fight this epidemic. Advertising is an effective way to bring about this change (think the ban on cigarette commercials), but it must be done right. Today, such a campaign would need to be conducted with empathy and care, and not the harsh “doom and gloom” we typically prescribe for addicts.
It is unclear who in President Trump’s administration would lead the response to the epidemic. The President was forced to withdraw his nominee for head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Representative Tom Marino, after it broke that Marino had helped drug wholesalers collude against the DEA. In addition,Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price was forced to step down because of his use of private jets.
The most success so far in the fight against the opioid epidemic seems to be coming at the state level. In Alabama, state leaders such as Attorney General Steve Marshall and Governor Kay Ivey have done an excellent job in curtailing the effects of the crisis in a state that has one of the highest opioid prescription rates in the nation. Marshall has joined several other state attorneys general to investigate the sale and marketing of opioids by wholesalers, while Ivey’s opioid council is expected to present solutions to the epidemic in the forms of legislation, policy, and community action
America’s opioid epidemic must be stopped before it spins hopelessly out of control – if it hasn’t already. While President Trump’s public health emergency declaration was a good start, it falls short of the increased funding, strong leadership, and a change in culture that are truly needed to combat this crisis. Governor Chris Christie, chairman of the President’s opioids commission recently said, “I still have not seen the passion for this epidemic that I saw in the AIDS epidemic.” Until that passion is evident from the President down to the smallest community leaders, this epidemic will continue to wreak havoc on America.
This article was co-written by Daniel Bruce and Chris Reid. Daniel is studying Political Science and Economics at Auburn University. Chris is a general practice attorney in Birmingham, and is a regular guest host on the Scott Beason Show, a conservative radio show in Alabama. He also contributes to his own column on Newsmax.
Photo Courtesy of Flickr user Gage Skidmore
[i] https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/10/26/president-donald-j-trump-taking-action-drug-addiction-and-opioid-crisis
[ii] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/26/opinion/opioids-trump-emergency.html
[iii] https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2017/10/30/trump-declaring-opioid-crisis-an-emergency-makes-57000-available/#fce16fe7f33a