Restoring Normalcy in America: Future Directions for Colleges and More Insights
Iconoclast: Make America Normal Again
“Under the surface of both major political parties lies a concealed faction striving to emerge,” asserts Francis Buckley in RealClearPolitics, advocating for a vision to “Make America Normal Again.”
The survival of the Democratic Party “hinges on” these constituents, demanding it to “transform into the party of those they have alienated” and “vie for the support of individuals it has disconnected from”—including Catholics, laborers, and parents of young children.
Democrats must “discard the belief that their adversaries are merely bigots or unintelligent.” This arrogance, which “nearly led to the downfall of the Democratic Party,” is evident and similarly reflected in the Trump GOP.
MANA Democrats are essential “because the alternative of a one-party system is detrimental to the nation.”
Ed desk: Colleges’ Trump Challenge
“American college campuses have been humbled” by Trump’s election victory, note Ilya Shapiro & Noam Josse at City Journal, highlighting the stark contrast between students’ disappointment over Trump’s success and their previously exuberant, attention-grabbing anti-Israel activism.
Indeed, “the 2024 election served as a significant repudiation of the wokeness that universities have fostered over the last decade.”
Campuses represent “the final stronghold for ideologies such as racial preferences and speech regulations.”
If “the illiberal takeover of higher education continues unabated,” these institutions risk becoming “increasingly irrelevant to American public discourse.” (Indeed: “Complaints about decolonization and gender theory resonate poorly with average Americans.”) Trump has a mandate “to mitigate the radicalization sweeping through America’s colleges and universities.
Climate beat: Rich Nations’ ‘Immoral’ Shell Game
Affluent countries have committed to “allocate $300 billion per year for climate reparations,” but they are unlikely to provide any genuine funding, predicts Bjorn Lomborg in The Wall Street Journal.
They will likely “repeat past practices: pilfer development funds.” However, “climate assistance is the least effective method for enhancing quality of life or preventing fatalities.” It is “outmatched by the positive impact” such funding could have if directed towards “childhood vaccinations or agricultural improvements.”
“In times when individuals urgently require jobs and food, it is unethical to provide them with solar panels instead.”
President-elect Donald Trump ought to redirect “development investments toward intelligent initiatives.”
Otherwise, “less affluent nations will endure a form of climate colonialism” as Western elites “divert resources away from combating poverty” to indulge their “climate fantasies.”
From the right: Countering a Hegseth Smear
Sohrab Ahmari at Compact counters a New Yorker article that relies on anonymous sources claiming that Defense Secretary-designate Pete Hegseth “was compelled to resign” from the advocacy organization Concerned Veterans for America due to “serious accusations” of misconduct.
Ahmari shares that “Two former high-ranking CVA officials have refuted the ‘whistleblower’ allegations.”
Sean Parnell, a former CVA senior adviser, condemned the allegations as “entire fabrications;” another veteran stated that the “false claims” stemmed from a group of disgruntled employees let go by Pete.
He departed after policy disagreements with funders, they affirm, and Ahmari contends that Hegseth’s confirmation hearings should center on “the development of his views regarding American security,” not “old personnel assaults vehemently denied by his fellow veterans.”
Conservative: Jealous Judge v. Tesla Stockholders
Delaware Judge Kathaleen McCormick invalidated Tesla’s 2018 agreement to pay Elon Musk $50 billion “if the company excelled,” citing insufficient independence of the board and deeming the package “unfair,” as noted by Andrew Stuttaford in National Review. “Our apparatchik class”—the judiciary members—“has little regard for the business sector” and “holds even less respect for its maverick entrepreneurs. They also harbor disdain for their compensation.”
The “overreaching” judge has now dismissed “two” shareholder votes upholding the bonus as “irrelevant,” despite them representing “the owners’ legitimate desires for their company.”
It’s no wonder that far fewer US firms wish to remain public; it “subjects them to the impositions and encroachments of a bureaucratic class that may have opposing interests to those of the stockholders.”
— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board
