Plus: Democrats have amnesia about Kamala Harris, Border Czar.
• By next week, they’ll be telling us Harris was never even in the Biden administration.
• Joe Biden quit the presidential race, but in his national address on Wednesday night he did not really tell us why. The closest he got was a vague, cursory reference to being unable to unite his party: “In recent weeks, it has become clear to me that I need to unite my party in this critical endeavor. I believe my record as president, my leadership in the world, my vision for America’s future, all merited a second term. But nothing, nothing can come in the way of saving our democracy.” Perhaps he felt that the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and Chuck Schumer had pried the nomination out of his hands. But it was obvious from the polls and his age that he had no path to reelection. Once again the president looked and sounded every one of his eighty-one and a half years—speaking in a soft, raspy voice, failing to enunciate, and mumbling at times. Like it or not, Joe Biden intends to remain commander in chief for the next six months. May God watch over him, and us, for all of those days.
• Sometimes political parties coalesce around a new presidential nominee slowly and begrudgingly. Sometimes they do it quickly and enthusiastically. In the case of the 2024 Democratic Party and Vice President Kamala Harris, party unity was achieved with the speed and ease of the drive-thru lane at McDonald’s. After Biden’s abysmal performance in the debate and subsequent doddering, forgetful appearances, Democrats developed the political equivalent of post-traumatic stress disorder—they’d welcome any nominee who didn’t seem geriatric and who could pound the podium about abortion. The gripes that Harris didn’t earn the nomination don’t hold that much water. If you were one of the 14 million people who voted for Biden in the primaries, you were voting to keep Harris one octogenarian’s heartbeat away from taking over. After news of Biden’s withdrawal from the race broke on Sunday, any one of those other Democratic options could have announced a challenge to Harris—Gavin Newsom, Gretchen Whitmer, etc.—and they all, rationally, took a pass. Democrats seem to consider her a perfect encapsulation of their party, and who are we to disagree?
• After years of characterizing Harris’s role overseeing the migration crisis at the southern border as that of “border czar,” the mainstream media are now claiming that she was never actually the border czar and are attempting to fact-check Republicans who describe her as such. Axios wrote that “the Trump campaign and Republicans have tagged Harris repeatedly with the ‘border czar’ title—which she never actually had,” even though Axios published an article in 2021 that noted that Harris had been “appointed by Biden as the border czar.” Of course, “border czar” is not an official government title. It is an informal description coined to refer to Harris’s White House role, which, according to President Biden, was to “stem the flow” of migrants arriving at the southern border. Because Harris failed to do that, Democrats and their media apologists are trying to get the public to forget that managing the migration crisis was ever her job in the first place. Don’t let them fool you.
• If Harris supports the programs she supported the first time she ran for president, the federal budget is in even more trouble. Harris went big during her failed campaign for president in 2020, blowing through $40 million and then dropping out before the first primary election. Her policy positions demonstrated a similar level of fiscal discipline. She supported Bernie Sanders’s “Medicare for All” (until she didn’t), a $3,000 per year refundable tax credit for low- and middle-income families (which would be on top of all the other welfare programs and tax credits that already exist), universal pre-K, child-care subsidies, elder-care subsidies, and a plan that would have given most Americans $2,000 per month for the entire pandemic-emergency period. Her proposed tax increases would do a lot to damage investment and economic growth and, compared with the spending, little to balance the budget. Republicans are plenty irresponsible too, promising large tax cuts and no entitlement reforms. It’s a competition to break the bank, and Harris looks likely to take the lead.
• “I know nothing about Project 2025,” Donald Trump posted on his social-media platform, Truth Social. His political opponents and the media insist, for once, that Trump is much more knowledgeable than he claims. Several former Trump-administration officials are associated with the project, organized by the Heritage Foundation, that seeks to inform the policy agenda of the next conservative White House. Its proposals fall squarely within the mainstream of modern conservative thought, with an added emphasis on the president’s rightful power over the executive branch and a random walk through social issues. (The drafters would enforce the law against interstate shipment of abortion agents and ban pornography but otherwise leave abortion unregulated at the federal level and leave governmental recognition of same-sex marriage undisturbed.) “Some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal,” said Trump. Democratic officials and the media have referred to the project in such terms as a “dystopian plot” and a “deranged plan for a far-right authoritarian government.” These critiques would benefit from specificity about discrete items in Project 2025’s nearly 1,000-page plan. But that would require reading it.
• Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that if there was one takeaway from his speech to a joint session of Congress, it should be: “Our enemies are your enemies. Our fight is your fight. And our victory will be your victory.” Notwithstanding Netanyahu’s deft attempt to bridge the divide, the reaction to his presence revealed the chasm that now divides the two parties when it comes to supporting Israel, which was once an uncontroversial position. At least 80 Democratic members of the House and six senators boycotted the speech. Harris, who is supposed to preside over joint sessions of Congress in her capacity as president of the Senate, chose to attend a sorority convention in Indiana instead. Democrats have attempted to portray their attacks on Israel’s conduct as opposition to Netanyahu, a polarizing figure even in his own country. But many of the issues on which Democrats have attacked Netanyahu during the war (broadly, rules of engagement against a monstrous enemy that uses its own civilians as shields) are policies that likely would have been pursued by any Israeli prime minister in response to Hamas’s attack. The anti-Israel coalition among Democrats is only going to grow as younger radicals supplant older Democrats.
• In his address, Netanyahu criticized anti-Israel protesters who “choose to stand with evil.” Raucous demonstrators down the hill from the Capitol were quick to prove his point. As Netanyahu spoke, protesters stopped traffic in the streets, climbed parked trucks, and set off smoke bombs. When some tried to hop a barricade blocking the way to the Capitol, police deployed pepper spray. By way of Union Station, the demonstrators made their way to Columbus Circle, where they clashed with police, burned U.S. flags, and raised Palestinian flags in their place just blocks from the Capitol. The protesters left behind some compelling graffiti: “Hamas is coming,” “Long live the Intifada,” and “All Zionists are bastards,” to quote a few. What a way to win others to your cause.
• “In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing,” wrote Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck in 1971. He saw the social degradation that came with social democracy in his native land in the post-war decades. Sweden turned from that history in the 1990s, in part following recommendations from a government commission that Lindbeck led. Determined not to learn from the past, or from the copious economic literature on rent control, the Biden administration is proposing to make federal housing tax credits conditional on the capping of rent increases at 5 percent per year. What housing needs is deregulation at the local, state, and federal levels, to allow more of it to be built in more places. Lower prices will follow—without the perverse and well-documented effects of rent control.
• The House of Representatives passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act with the support of 216 Republicans and just five Democrats. It is already illegal to claim falsely to be a U.S. citizen when registering to vote, but currently federal voter-registration forms do not require documentary proof of citizenship. Evidence suggests that instances of noncitizens’ voting are extremely few. But what’s the case against it? Democrats and the White House claim that the law would impose a severe burden on many American citizens who don’t have documentary proof of citizenship, particularly many black Americans, and effectively disenfranchise them; never mind that evidence has not borne out similar claims about states’ voter-ID requirements. One could as easily say that the law would encourage those Americans who lack documentary proof of citizenship to obtain it—a reasonable price for the health of our democracy.
• Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro is supposed to be a different kind of Democrat, with a record of leadership that can rise above partisanship. But last year he backed down after saying he supported a school-choice program for low-income students, line-item-vetoing funding for it in the state budget after teachers’ unions denounced the program. Now, watchdog group Freedom Foundation alleges that the Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) and the Democratic Governors Association (DGA) executed an illegal scheme to donate general funds from the union to Shapiro’s 2022 campaign. The union put $1.475 million in an advocacy group it had created, the Fund for Student Success (FSS), which then donated twice to the DGA, which donated to Shapiro’s campaign a day after the second contribution. The alleged scheme amounts to money-laundering. It is against Pennsylvania law for unions to donate from their general treasuries to candidates. The contributions were also improperly reported. The FSS reported to the IRS that the donations went to a now-defunct group, not the DGA. The DGA did not report the contributions from FSS to the Pennsylvania government. The FSS is not registered as a political committee in Pennsylvania and therefore cannot contribute to candidates. Freedom Foundation filed complaints with federal and state authorities, outlining the suspicious donations and calling for more investigation. We already know Shapiro is weak when duty requires standing up to unions. If unions broke the law to contribute to his campaign, that only makes his capitulation more rotten.
• In July, Governor Gavin Newsom (D.) signed a law that prohibits elected school boards and other educational entities in California from enacting or enforcing policies that mandate parental notification if a student desires to transition genders or adopt nonstandard pronouns in the classroom. Activists have promoted the bill as banning “forced outings.” In reality, California has decided that the state and its officers know better than parents not only what’s best for their kids but whether parents should be in the loop at all. Governments should not try to take the place of parents—and if one did, it should definitely not be the government of California.
• Yet there is good news from California–courtesy of the U.S. Supreme Court. Newsom directed state officials to remove homeless encampments across the state on Thursday. Local leaders’ efforts to crack down on public camping had been handicapped by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for years. Its 2018 ruling found that bans against public camping constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment, so cities could clear encampments only if enough beds were available to house every person on the streets. In a June decision, the six conservative justices reasoned instead that the Eighth Amendment regulates the “method” of punishment, not what conduct should be punishable in the first place. Addressing homelessness, moreover, is not a job for judges, as Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority. The governor knows the address where he can send a thank-you.
• Ben Sasse, the former U.S. senator from Nebraska, announced that he would step down from his current post as president of the University of Florida to focus on caring for his wife. “My wife Melissa’s recent epilepsy diagnosis and a new batch of memory issues have been hard, but we’re facing it together,” Sasse wrote in a statement. “Gator Nation needs a president who can keep charging hard, Melissa deserves a husband who can pull his weight, and my kids need a dad who can be home many more nights.” Sasse’s decision to place his family and marriage above his career is courageous and praiseworthy. It’s also countercultural: In an age that celebrates personal autonomy and professional success, Sasse is an exemplar of commitment, fidelity, and sacrificing one’s desires for the good of another. He has been a voice of reason and levelheadedness in the face of campus chaos and indoctrination, and his leadership at the University of Florida will be missed, but he is doing the right thing, and we predict that his contributions to public life are not finished.