FROM THE RIGHT

Tampa Bay Times - - Opinion -

“Can Democrats Ex­plain Why The Bor­der Wall Is ‘Im­moral?’ “by David Harsanyi in the Fed­er­al­ist at http://bit.ly/2Ft­s0sq.

The con­text, from the au­thor: The blan­ket op­po­si­tion to any “wall” has a num­ber of log­i­cal and po­lit­i­cal in­con­sis­ten­cies.

The ex­cerpt: We might not need a wall, but if a wall is in­her­ently “im­moral,” why isn’t a bor­der or sovereignty also im­moral? I’ve not heard a good ex­pla­na­tion.

“Why Con­ser­va­tives Should Op­pose the Death Penalty,” by Arthur Rizer and Marc Hy­den in the Amer­i­can Con­ser­va­tive at http://bit.ly/2M2Z9wf. The con­text, from the au­thors: The state is not God, and cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment is not in­fal­li­ble. The ex­cerpt: A core be­lief among con­ser­va­tives is that the gov­ern­ment is too of­ten in­ef­fi­cient and prone to mis­takes. Why should the death penalty’s ad­min­is­tra­tion by gov­ern­ment bu­reau­crats be any dif­fer­ent? We know in­di­vid­u­als are wrong­fully con­victed — and to be sure, some wrong­ful con­vic­tions are un­avoid­able. How­ever, when deal­ing with cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment, that in­evitabil­ity could have ir­re­versible con­se­quences and can never be tol­er­ated in a free and law-abid­ing so­ci­ety. This is why gov­ern­ment should not be in the busi­ness of killing its cit­i­zens. This view hews to a core con­ser­va­tive tenet, that the gov­ern­ment should be in­fe­rior to

the peo­ple from which it de­rives its power.

“Farewell, Mas­culin­ity: We’ll Miss You When You’re Gone,” by Heather Wil­helm in the Na­tional Re­view at http://bit.ly/2QFFAea.

The con­text, from the au­thor: Ac­cord­ing to the Amer­i­can Psy­cho­log­i­cal As­so­ci­a­tion’s new “Guide­lines for Psy­cho­log­i­cal Prac­tice with Boys and Men,” “tra­di­tional mas­culin­ity,” the “harm­ful” ide­ol­ogy of mas­culin­ity — marked by “sto­icism, com­pet­i­tive­ness, dom­i­nance, and ag­gres­sion” to­gether with “anti-fem­i­nin­ity, achieve­ment, es­chewal of the ap­pear­ance of weak­ness, and ad­ven­ture, risk, and vi­o­lence” — has got to go.

The ex­cerpt: But what about brav­ery? What about risk? What about, well, testos­terone? What about the wild idea that there might be a nat­u­ral, non-so­cially-con­structed dif­fer­ence be­tween women and men? The APA’s sum­mary re­port ad­mits that some em­blems of “tra­di­tional mas­culin­ity” might be worth keep­ing: “courage,” for in­stance, and “lead­er­ship.” More­over, an APA-af­fil­i­ated team is now work­ing on a “pos­i­tive-mas­culin­i­ties scale to cap­ture peo­ple’s ad­her­ence to the pro-so­cial traits ex­pected from men.” Oh boy. I can’t wait. Just kid­ding! I can def­i­nitely wait.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.