At RealClear Politics, Frank Miele considers the possible cross-party, Reaganesque appeal of Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman. Miele, a conservative, concedes that he doesn't agree with many of the Senator's positions, but notes:

He is one of the few U.S. senators of either party who seems to follow his conscience instead of party bosses, and he speaks with simple straightforward authenticity that is sadly lacking among almost all elected officials.

That last would come as a welcome break from Trump's bombast, rambling, and thin-skinned touchiness. But more important, while some of Fetterman's positions -- such as his acceptance of "climate change" catastrophism -- concern me, Fetterman seems like a reasonable person, who has changed (and would change) his mind when confronted by facts or solid arguments:

On quite a few issues, Fetterman has planted himself firmly on the side of reason and tradition. He supports Israel's right to defend itself 100 percent, and reminds his radical colleagues that Hamas started the Gaza war and has only itself to blame for the deadly outcome. Likewise Fetterman enthusiastically supported President Trump's decision to decimate Iran's nuclear capability with a bombing sortie that left no doubt that Trump would follow up his words with actions. In both cases, Fetterman angered his fellow Democrats and won new supporters among Republicans.

On other issues, he has staked out a position as a sensible reformer. Originally against fracking, for instance, he has moderated his position to acknowledge the importance of fracking for keeping energy prices low, but insists on environmental protections being in place. Perfect position for an independent.

...

Most of his positions ... fall on the same side as the majority of Americans. His support for abortion rights may rankle many Republican politicians, but polling shows that most people agree with him that abortion is a choice "between a woman, her doctor and a God if she prays to one."

Miele partly addresses the concerns of people like me who view Fetterman with skepticism, given his "progressive" past: Some of Fetterman's positions have since become mainstream, and he has changed his mind about some. (In my mind, while the former isn't ideal, in that it would thwart efforts to walk back from them, it also means less new damage would likely come from his support for those positions than if they weren't already mainstream.

Miele's column is thought-provoking without being Pollyanna-ish about what supporting Fetterman would entail for Republicans and right-leaning (or formerly right-leaning) voters, and he ends fittingly:

Maybe no one's calling themselves a Fetterman Republican yet, but as the rest of the politicians beclown themselves over the next year, I suspect they will.

Given that Donald Trump and the MAGA swamp are completely discrediting the party that let them take it over, normal Americans need to give serious thought to which Democrat might be his best or least-bad successor.

Trump is otherwise paving the way for a President Ocasio-Cortez or worse.

-- CAV

"The sudden resignations this week of BBC director-general Tim Davie and CEO of news Deborah Turness has focussed minds on the role of the media. It has been startling – and grimly predictable – to watch senior figures at the BBC scrambling to defend their failures by muttering darkly about ‘right-wing conspiracies’ and ‘inside jobs’. Few, if any, have paused to consider whether the real problem might be their own cowardice.

"The same rot runs through mainstream media across the world. In Ireland, I’ve met too many well-paid figures at RTÉ, the 'Irish Times' and the 'Irish Independent' who seem serenely proud of their refusal to touch anything remotely controversial. ... [appearing] particularly self-satisfied, even self-righteous, about [their] ability to avoid difficult issues. ...

    

"I’ve thought a lot about how these individuals can so confidently defend their inaction. Most, when pressed, admit they knew everything all along and that, when it mattered most, their courage failed them. It raises the question of how long high-status professionals should serve a system they know is doing harm. How long before they find the courage to break ranks and refuse to comply?"

~ Stella O'Malley from her post 'The trans reckoning has arrived'

"Readers will be aware that the BBC’s current travails over impartiality stem from the leak of a 19-page memorandum by the journalist Michael Prescott who was for three years an advisor on editorial standards to the Corporation. Prescott’s dossier includes the revelation that President Trump’s remarks were falsified in a BBC documentary before the 2024 presidential election ... The memorandum, brought to light and published by the 'Daily Telegraph,' can be read here:

"In a full discussion of many of the BBC’s distortions, one page of the nineteen is devoted to [our] History Reclaimed [website]. In 2022 Alex Gray compiled our own dossier of the Corporation’s historical mistakes and prejudices, based on four programmes and two news bulletins over the preceding two years which covered subjects including slavery and the slave trade, the restitution of the Benin Bronzes, the Irish Famine of the late 1840s, the Bengal Famine of 1943-4 and the imputed racism of Winston Churchill. History Reclaimed called for accuracy and impartiality, the presentation of the full range of historical interpretations, the use of experts rather than ‘presenters,’ and the establishment of a panel of qualified historians to advise and assist the BBC. You can find our report here:

"We did not receive a direct reply, but the BBC put out a dismissive response accusing us of ‘cherry-picking a handful of examples.’ We now discover that Mr Prescott thought our points ‘fascinating and compelling’ and also ‘reasonable,’ and that he encouraged a meeting with us, but this was ‘judged inappropriate’ by the BBC.

"History Reclaimed notes that like so many other organisations and people in British life, we too have been ignored by the BBC when making accurate criticisms of their content and modest proposals for its improvement. We take heart from Mr Prescott’s endorsement of our points. We will watch with interest to see if the presentation of history on BBC radio and television improves. Given that we were brushed aside then and that the BBC is trying to deny its systemic failings now, we are not optimistic. Perhaps President Trump will have better luck."

~ from the History Reclaimed blog post 'BBC Scandal Confirms History Reclaimed’s Warnings'

At Reason, Ilya Somin takes a recent wave of resignations from the Heritage Foundation as his point of departure en route to discussing the decline of that institution since the mid 1990's from one of the better conservative think tanks to what sounds like a cesspit of nativism and nationalism.

After noting that the shift was enough for him to turn down an invitation to contribute to a Heritage publication in 2022, Somin names the problem:

[T]he problem here goes beyond the bigotry of a few "influencers" or the flaws of specific leaders at Heritage and some other conservative institutions. Rather, as Kim Holmes put it, this is the predictable consequence of "replacing conservatism with nationalism." A conservative movement that increasingly defines itself in ethno-nationalist terms as a protector of the supposed interests of America's white Christian majority against immigrants and minority groups cannot readily avoid descending into anti-Semitism, as well.

My Cato Institute colleague Alex Nowrasteh and I wrote about the connections between nationalism and bigotry in some detail in our 2024 article "The Case Against Nationalism." We are working on a follow-up piece that specifically addresses links to anti-Semitism and related current controversies surrounding the conservative movement. [links omitted, bold added]

Somin's piece is short but valuable for: (1) containing many helpful links the interested reader can follow to get up to speed on this controversy, (2) acknowledging that anti-Semitism is also a problem on the left, and (3) ending with the following comment on Robert George's invocation of inalienable rights in his resignation letter:

Unlike nationalist movements focused on ethnic particularism, the American Founding was based on universal liberal principles. Those principles remain the best protection for Jews and other minority groups. Left and right alike would do well to recommit to them.

Somin's attempt to rectify his past omission may or may not be as good as having said something earlier, but it is nonetheless a great service to American patriots and other friends of liberty.

As Ayn Rand once put it so well, "The smallest minority on earth is the individual." An institution that descends into collectivism of any form is no friend of the individual.

-- CAV