Follow Dr. Waddy

Submit your email address below to receive updates on new articles, videos, and posts. Don't miss out!

Tuesday, September 18, 2018

Loose Lips Sink Ships

Friends, my latest article analyzes the recent bombshell developments in the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation battle.  How should Republicans respond to the Christine Blasey Ford allegations?  Will Kavanaugh ultimately prevail and join the Supreme Court?  Read on and find out!

In Defense of Brett Kavanaugh, Republicans Shouldn't Descend to Democrats' Level

With some glee, Democrats are celebrating what they presume is the demise of President Trump's nominee to be the next Justice of the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh. The allegations made against Kavanaugh by Professor Christine Blasey Ford are indeed serious, but in the end they will fail to deflect Kavanaugh from his path towards confirmation. Kavanaugh will soon be on the court – and Republicans should, in the meantime, avoiding overreacting to the political gamesmanship in which Democrats are engaged, and most of all they should not smear Professor Ford, whose motives are ultimately as unknowable as the events which transpired on that fateful day in 1982.

In opposing the Kavanaugh nomination, leftists and Democrats have shown a willingness to use inflated rhetoric, false and misleading claims, ruthless character assassination, and disingenuous tactics of delay and obfuscation. In short, liberals seem to believe that the complexion of the Supreme Court is so important that they should stop at nothing to defeat the nomination of Kavanaugh. The way in which Democratic Senators talked down to Kavanaugh and twisted his record and his past remarks during his confirmation hearings was a new low point for decorum and respect in the United States Congress. Commentators have been saying for a long time that Americans' commitment to democratic norms and civil discourse has eroded to a dangerous degree, and the fight over Kavanaugh has been an obvious case in point. Democrats spoke early in the process of their desire to “bork” Kavanaugh (referring to their successful campaign to defeat Reagan's pick for the high court, Robert Bork, in 1987), but in truth Brett Kavanaugh has been handled much more roughly than Bork ever was. He has been put through the proverbial ringer.

The latest Democratic efforts to derail Kavanaugh, by weaponizing a vague and unverifiable claim of sexual assault from his teenage years, is a fitting capstone to what has been a truly grueling and repugnant confirmation process. The question now becomes, though, will Republicans respond in kind? Will they, fearing for their grip on the Supreme Court if Kavanaugh is defeated and Democrats take control of the Senate in 2019, overreact and lash out at Professor Ford? Will they attempt to discredit Ford by questioning her motives, her veracity, or even her sanity? My view is that this would be a serious mistake, as well unfair to Ford herself.

Talking heads in the media, and millions of Americans sitting in their living rooms, will naturally want to get to the bottom of what, if anything, happened between Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford 36 years ago. The truth, unfortunately, is that we can scrutinize their claims as much as we like, but we will never know the answer. A polygraph test cannot resolve the issue, because such tests are unreliable, and in addition recollections can be wrong, even if sincere. 

In the end, therefore, Senators, and the American people, will face a simple question: should Brett Kavanaugh's sterling record and reputation be ignored, because he might have behaved improperly towards Professor Ford, or is he, in the best traditions of American justice, innocent until proven guilty, and therefore deserving of confirmation? Much as some in the #MeToo movement might wish it were otherwise, this is still a country of laws, and one in which evidence matters. One cannot destroy a man simply by accusing him of wrongdoing. The election of President Trump in 2016 proved that, beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Republicans and conservatives, therefore, should have confidence that, going forward, Brett Kavanaugh, unless he suddenly admits guilt in the Ford matter, will be our next Supreme Court Justice. Frankly, the motives, veracity, and sanity of Professor Ford are irrelevant. Even if she were the most credible witness in the history of Senate hearings, her performance, no matter how compelling, should not be – cannot be – sufficient to end the career of Brett Kavanaugh. It is only facts that can accomplish that, not suppositions or posturing, and in this case the facts – the evidence – supporting the allegations are very thin indeed. Thus, we must in all fairness conclude that Kavanaugh is innocent.

On the other hand, Republicans face real danger. If they were to treat Professor Ford with, well, the same savagery and contempt that has been inflicted on Brett Kavanaugh, there is a possibility that public sympathy for the Judge would evaporate, and the whole affair could turn into an ugly mess. 

No, Republicans must be the adults in the room. They must treat Judge Kavanaugh, and his accuser, with the sort of fairness, circumspection, and respect that has eluded their Democratic colleagues throughout the process. Republican Senators thus far have shown every indication that they intend to do exactly that: they will act responsibly and judiciously, and they will show sensitivity to Professor Ford and allow her to keep her dignity. Americans will thus be left in no doubt about which party is acting in good faith.

The entire bare-knuckles campaign to defeat the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh can be likened to a leftist tantrum, characterized by vitriol as well as futility. The numbers in the Senate, after all, are with Republicans, and thus the truth has always been that, as long as Republicans keep their cool and close ranks to support a solid conservative nominee, nothing and no one can prevent them from confirming a good man like Brett Kavanaugh.

Democrats can fume all they like, but we won in 2016, and we will win again in the next few weeks, as we make Brett Kavanaugh a Justice of the Supreme Court, and, in the process, tilt the Court even further to the (responsible) right.

Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at: He appears weekly on the Newsmaker program on WLEA 1480.

Friday, September 14, 2018

The Lesser of Two Evils

Friends, difficult though I find it to root against any political candidate with the last name "Nixon", I think it's safe to say that Cynthia Nixon would have made a dreadful governor, and thus we can be glad that she was defeated by Andrew Cuomo in yesterday's Democratic primary.  We shouldn't be surprised, though, because Cuomo had a massive lead throughout the contest, and Nixon's brand of uncompromising kookiness, while it may appeal to the white granola crowd, doesn't cut it with typical Democratic primary voters, who tend to be working class people of color and not rarefied limousine liberals.  Nixon, of course, never was running for Governor of New York.  She was running for attention, and to annoy Andrew Cuomo.  She accomplished both objectives.  Well played!  The other big news is that the Super Kook, Zephyr Teachout, did not prevail in the Democratic primary for Attorney General.  Again I say: thank heavens!

For me, the other big takeaway from the election in NY is this: my instincts told me that Nixon would lose, but that she would outperform many of the polls that had her getting the support of 20-25% of voters.  I guessed she would win a third of the vote, and she did just that.  My insights are vindicated!  That's good news, because my instincts also tell me that the polls that indicate that Democrats are leading by ten points or more in the race for control of Congress are pure drivel.  My guess is that that Democrats may narrowly win the national vote for the House of Representatives, but they may still fall short of capturing control, nonetheless.  This has happened before, and recently too, in 2012.  My instincts also tell me that Republicans can and will hold on to most of their gains in state legislatures and governorships, and, most importantly, the Republican majority in the Senate will actually grow.  Mark my words: the "blue wave" will disappoint.  You heard it here first!

Thursday, September 13, 2018

Lord, When Will You Lift This Plague of Cuomos?

Friends, some things never change, and one of them appears to be New York State's subservience to the Cuomo clan.  Sure, we briefly enjoyed the benevolent rule of George Pataki (remember those halcyon days?), but by and large we've been in thrall to one Cuomo or another since 1983.  Incredible!  Now, Governor Andrew Cuomo seems poised to win the Democratic nomination for Governor yet again, and no doubt he will go on to victory in November.  Is it conceivable that someday a Republican could beat him?  Yes, but almost certainly NOT in 2018, which will likely be a challenging year for Republicans.  So...take a deep breath, my fellow conservatives, and brace yourselves for more of the same!

All this and more, including FBI leaks designed to undermine President Trump, the race to become New York's next Attorney General, the excesses of the #MeToo movement, the near certainty of Brett Kavanaugh's imminent conformation to the Supreme Court, and the myth of "voter suppression", are discussed between me and Brian O'Neil in my latest Newsmaker interview.  Don't miss it!

Wednesday, September 12, 2018

The Axis of Evil: Steyer, Soros, Bloomberg?

Friends, you've probably heard of George Soros, the billionaire who backs countless left-wing candidates and causes, but Tom Steyer and Mike Bloomberg are giving old George a run for his money in the race to become Public Enemy Number One of American democracy. They are plowing hundreds of millions of dollars into Democratic campaigns, voter registration drives, pro-impeachment propaganda, and efforts to undermine the 2nd Amendment.  My latest article focuses on yet another tentacle in their monstrous plot against Trumpism and liberty: they are lavishing resources on a sometimes-covert effort to undermine the energy industry with nuisance lawsuits.  To them, you see, elections are but one tool in their well-equipped toolbox -- litigation is often more attractive, because they can count on a sympathetic hearing before elitist, liberal judges.  Thus far, these lawsuits haven't gone far, but we need to be vigilant, and we need to fight back against Steyer, Soros, and Bloomberg on every front: public relations, campaign funding, voter mobilization, and civil and criminal litigation.  They leave no stone unturned.  Let's match them stride for stride.

Thanks to The Daily Caller for publishing my latest article!

Monday, September 10, 2018

Colin Kaepernick: the Greatest American Hero of All Time?

Friends, if you're as disgusted and perplexed by Nike's decision to embrace Colin Kaepernick, anti-American crybaby millionaire, as I am, then you might want to read my latest article, which happens to be on that very topic.  I perceive one clear lesson here: corporations see how active and passionate leftists are, and they want to capitalize on that energy.  So where is the energy among conservatives?  We better find it, or cultivate it, soon...or else!

Sunday, September 9, 2018

We Have Not Yet Begun To Fight (China)!

Friends, don't believe everything you hear in the mainstream media.  In fact, believe as little of it as possible.  You hear over and over how trade wars are "stupid" and will only end up hurting all sides.  In fact, the media portrays Trump's trade dispute with China as a mistake of epic (even economically suicidal) proportions.  The truth, as you see in this article, is that thus far the tariffs against China are limited in scope, and have not even succeeded in reducing our trade deficit!  That is, Chinese exports to the U.S. are up, not down!  This is true partly because the Chinese are cooking the books, as usual.  They have devalued their currency to counteract the effects of our tariffs.  They want to maintain their grip on the U.S. market at all costs.  In any case, the "trade war" is only in its early days, and President Trump intends to greatly increase the percentage of Chinese goods subjected to tariffs.  Thus, the medium- and long-term effects of this trade dispute are something that we can only speculate on, at this stage.

The WaddyIsRight perspective?  This trade war has been a long time in coming, and it is absolutely necessary to realign our trading relationship with China and ultimately the rest of the world.  No other president, sadly, would have cared enough about American interests to push things as far as they have gone to date, but China needed to be called on its trade manipulation and hypocrisy, and -- thank God! -- Trump has done it.  My view is that the U.S. and China are already too economically interdependent, and, if this trade war leads us ultimately to diversify our trading links, and deepen our trade ties with countries other than China, that's all to the good.

In sum, the sky isn't falling, despite what the Chicken Little crowd in the mainstream media claims.  President Trump has thrown down the gauntlet, and, in the end, the Chinese will buckle and make a deal, just like South Korea and Mexico have done already.  And, if they don't, we'll buy our tvs and our tennis shoes elsewhere.  So be it!

Tuesday, September 4, 2018

Bang, Bang -- Your Second Amendment Rights Are Dead!

Friends, today I recommend to you two articles, the first of which, although on the long side, will give you some great historical and global perspective on the problem of "mass shootings".  Now, mass shootings are real and they are tragic, but there is little doubt that statistics about such incidents are frequently manipulated to support an anti-gun rights agenda.  The Left is famous, or at least it should be, for falsely claiming to have a monopoly on "science", "facts", and "data", but all too often this claim is based on chicanery and blatant dishonesty.  As this article makes plain, violence and gun violence are global problems, and they have been around for a very long time.  Moreover, as Chicago has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, "gun control" offers no solution.  Let's study the problem dispassionately and see what common sense measures can be taken to reduce mass shootings -- but let's NOT throw the baby out with the bathwater and take away Americans' constitutional rights.  Are you with me?

The second article is depressing, but perhaps not shocking, given the fallen world we live in: it concerns Nike's decision to make Colin Kaepernick a spokesman for their "Just Do It" advertising campaign.  Kaepernick certainly doesn't merit such adulation based on his football career.  No, it's his "courageous" decision to disrespect the American flag, in the pursuit of his private political agenda, that has Nike swooning.  Many Americans are showing their outrage by destroying their Nike sneakers and gear.  I must admit, I'm tempted to do so myself, although such a response smacks of leftist "snowflake" theatrics...  What do you think?  Should I light the match...or not?'s-not-in-NFL

Thursday, August 30, 2018

Pope Francis: Holier Than Thou?

Friends, in my latest appearance on the Newsmaker program, hosted by Brian O'Neil, we delve into the top issues of the day, including: Lanny Davis and media bias, the politics of grief surrounding the death of Senator John McCain, the fate of Paul Manafort, judicial activism and the subversion of legislative control over Congressional redistricting, the nomination battle surrounding Judge Brett Kavanaugh, and the debate over Pope Francis's role in the alleged coverup of sexual abuse within the Catholic Church.  As always, we leave no stone unturned!

Sunday, August 26, 2018

Socialism and Your Kids

Friends, I recommend to you this very interesting article which appeared on the FoxNews website.  It claims that "democratic socialists" are targeting the teaching profession, because they believe that turning children into leftists will ultimately bear fruit for their movement.  Of course, they're right, but in reality this is something of a non-story, because leftist radicals and Marxists have been infiltrating our public school system (to say nothing of higher ed) for decades.  It's not a conspiracy, so much as it's a titanic cultural shift in education to the left.  Already, conservatives are pointedly not welcome in many school districts, and the curriculum includes a strongly leftist bias.  Many Christians and conservatives are choosing to home-school their kids, or send them to private schools, because the liberal indoctrination in the public schools has become so pervasive and severe.  The examples are legion.

My advice?  Don't send your kids to public school, if you can avoid it, and if you must send them to public school try to make sure that the local school administration is at least remotely commonsensical.  In addition, get out there and serve on school boards, volunteer, and perhaps even enter the teaching profession yourself.  We need more conservative patriots in our schools, even if they feel a bit besieged at first.

It's trite to say that "children are the future," but inevitably they are, so let's not abandon them to leftists!

Thursday, August 23, 2018

Elegy for Silent Sam: Twice a Victim of History

Friends, while the mainstream media obsesses about the legal travails of Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort -- and obfuscates the inconvenient fact of President Trump's innocence of any crime -- my eyes have been turned to recent events in the Tar Heel State: North Carolina.  There, days ago, a mob of left-wing activists tore down the statue of "Silent Sam," who was a memorial to Confederate war dead.  The disrespect these protesters showed, not only to fallen Confederate soldiers, but also to the rule of law, American history and heritage, and basic standards of decency, is profoundly shocking.  Actually, I take that back -- it is disgusting, but not shocking, because the passion for silencing their opponents, and destroying all symbols of a hated past, seems to infuse the modern Left.  We have seen it before, and we will see it again.  At any rate, I wanted to register my disapproval.

Silent Sam” Wasn't Silent Enough for a Liberal Mob

Recently we witnessed the tragic and grossly illegal toppling of the “Silent Sam” statue on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill by a crowd of enraged protesters. Silent Sam had stood for over 100 years as a memorial to fallen soldiers of the Confederacy. He represented not a single, specific individual, but a great mass of several hundred thousand Confederate soldiers who died fighting for their homeland, albeit a homeland that practiced slavery. He especially stood for the UNC alumni who died in the Civil War.

A campaign to have the statue removed from campus had been active for years, but the mob that formed on August 20th was not inclined to wait. Silent Sam was knocked to the ground and stomped on by euphoric radicals. All this was done in the name of anti-racism and to defeat “white supremacy,” which in point of fact receded as a meaningful force in American politics decades ago. Besides a tiny fringe of genuine hardcore racists and “Nazis” in the U.S., white supremacy has become, more than anything, a rallying cry for the Left, and an excuse to bully, silence, and even physically assault conservatives. Racism is and ought to be condemned by the vast majority of Americans, but the use of violent and illegal tactics to achieve one's political goals is never acceptable.

The Left's rationale for the removal of the Silent Sam statue rested largely on the fact that it was dedicated by, among others, the avowed racist Julian Carr, who saw Silent Sam as embodying the “Anglo Saxon race” in the South. This was indeed an inauspicious start for the statue, but the fact is that Silent Sam himself had no explicit connection to white supremacy – he is, or was, simply a weary Rebel soldier, who represented ordinary combatant Southerners, the vast majority of whom did not own slaves, but who did feel a duty to defend their homeland from what was perceived as “Northern Aggression”. Regardless of the justice of their cause, these men fought and died in appalling numbers, and it is not unreasonable that the people of North Carolina, and the state of North Carolina, would honor their courage and their sacrifice.

While we must concede that the Left is correct that Silent Sam does have some potentially negative associations, the bigger problem is that the Left's desire to expunge historical symbols with such “baggage” is extremely selective. Very few historical personages rise to the level of moral purity and perfection demanded by the modern-day acolytes of political correctness. And, if all historical heroes and heroines are flawed, who are liberals to decide which of these luminaries are to be consigned to the dustbin of history?

To take an obvious example, liberals are united in celebrating the contributions of Susan B. Anthony to the cause of women's liberation and female suffrage. The fact of the matter is, however, that Anthony was a racist, who opposed passage of the 15th Amendment, which enfranchised black men, because she believed that white women, due to their superior “intelligence, justice, and morality”, should received the vote first, and “the negro” last. She referred to newly emancipated black men as “densely ignorant”. That racist philosophy, however, has never prevented leftists from lauding Susan B. Anthony, from erecting statues in her honor, or from pushing for her face to appear on the currency of the United States.

Liberals seem to take the view that, if an historical personage was, in the main, “on the right side of history,” then his or her sins, no matter how inexcusable by modern standards, can be forgiven and forgotten. In fact, even to raise questions about his or her virtues, as I have with Susan B. Anthony, is to invite a charge of racism or sexism on oneself. Simply put, the heroes in the liberal pantheon are effectively beyond reproach. They occupy holy ground on which no critical thinker may tread.

If, by contrast, liberals simply don't like an historical figure, or they associate him or her with retrograde or conservative beliefs, that individual's flaws becoming defining features, and he or she can never be celebrated or memorialized, and can only be discussed in the context of evil, oppression, and injustice. The fact that even people who do bad things can have good qualities, worthy of examination and even admiration, offends the black-or-white moral code by which liberals live. To them, the verdict of history is an all-or-nothing affair: you are either with us, or you are against us, and “us” means the modern Left itself, the views of which are the only (self-referential) standard of rectitude liberals recognize. No higher law exists than this: the Left must prevail – over the past, over the present, and over the future.

In the end, conservatives must oppose the toppling of the Silent Sam statue for two reasons. First, because it is an affront to the rule of law and an instance of mob rule. Second, because how we interpret history is a reflection of the cultural and moral values that we practice and hold dear. We simply cannot afford to hand our nation's heritage over to leftists, who will expunge and destroy everyone, and everything, that fails to live up to their totalitarian vision of the perfect society. After a few years, we would have nothing left but a jerry-rigged gallery of purported heroes and villains, useful only as props in liberal propaganda.

Sadly, Silent Sam was twice a victim of history. He died first on the battlefields of the Civil War, fighting for a cause that was arguably doomed from the start. Last week, he died a second time – a victim of liberal rage and intolerance, and of political correctness gone berserk.

Let's do all that we can to make sure that the next chapter in American history won't be written by a left-wing mob.

Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at: He appears weekly on the Newsmaker program on WLEA 1480.

And here's the version that appears in The Daily Caller: 

Wednesday, August 22, 2018

David Hogg: The New Face of the Left?

Friends, don't miss my latest Newsmaker interview with Brian O'Neil.  We cover a lot of ground, including the political aspirations of David Hogg (I opine that his arrogance might make him the ideal Democratic candidate for high office), the toppling of the Silent Sam statue in North Carolina, the banning of Alex Jones from many social media platforms, Governor Cuomo's "America was never that great" gaffe, the revocation of John Brennan's security clearance, and more!

Sunday, August 19, 2018

Unhinged: Is the Left Losing Its Grip?

Friends, your reactionary hero, Dr. Waddy, has been in Florida for the past week, so this blog has been quieter than usual.  Let's put an end to that right now!

I recommend two articles to you today.  The first is by Dan Gainor, and it aptly summarizes some of the most recent incidences of leftist lunacy and media bias.  Note that the inflammatory rhetoric about the dictatorial aspirations of President Trump supports one of the other themes we are seeing in liberal discourse these days: the idea that extreme rudeness, even violence, may be justified in combating "hate," i.e. conservatism.  The remark by Governor Cuomo that America "was never that great" is also to be expected, given that leftists tend to assume that any country that produces Donald J. Trump, and gives him executive authority over hundreds of millions, is beyond salvation...

The next article is about Michael Avenatti's potential White House bid in 2020.  Now, stop to ponder this: the press could not be more contemptuous of the man who was duly elected President of the United States, but they take seriously the words and moral claims made by a lawyer who represents a money-grubbing porn star.  (Don't think for a moment that I deprecate the integrity of ALL porn stars, but Stormy Daniels?  Please!)  Truly, we are living in a time when all bets are off...when anyone, ANYONE who feeds the beast that is the anti-Trump media will be welcomed with open arms, no questions asked.  Omarosa is the incontestable proof of that!

Wednesday, August 15, 2018

Cuomo vs. Trump: Battle Royale?

Friends, forget the Trump-Omarosa feud.  2020 could be dominated by a battle between Donald Trump and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo!  If only.  Frankly, I don't think even the Democrats are dumb enough to nominate Cuomo, but you never know...

In my latest interview with Brian O'Neil on the Newsmaker program, we give you the skinny on New York politics, as well as the rise of "democratic socialism", the decline and fall of Trump-hating FBI agent Peter Strzok. and the leftist obsession with race-baiting.  You'll get all this and more! 

Hop on the truth trolley with Dr. Waddy (you'll like it way more than Bill Clinton's "peace train")!

Friday, August 10, 2018

America the...Ugly?

Friends, my latest article addresses one of the least likeable traits of leftists: their loathing for America, the country that nourishes and protects them and guarantees their liberties.  Why do so many liberals hate America?  Why do so many of those who don't hate America nevertheless love it conditionally, and sometimes only when it gives them what they want?  Read on, and see if you agree with my analysis...

Why Do So Many Leftists Reject America?

The United States of America is, among many other things, a nation, and the Left has long made clear its contempt for nationalism, patriotism, and other relics of what it considers to be humanity's benighted “tribal” past. It is partly for this broad ideological reason that many liberals reject the symbols of America – the Stars and Stripes, the pledge of allegiance, the Constitution, or a statue of George Washington, for instance. 

Nationalism is not the only reason, however. Leftists also believe that America is not merely a nation, but a bad nation – a nation defined by oppression, which liberals see everywhere. It is telling that, as racism and sexism have ebbed in this country, by any objective measure, the Left nonetheless perceives an increase in prejudice and discrimination. No wonder, then, that many liberals feel justified in rejecting the most popular symbols of America. They have concluded that ours is a country beyond redemption. The election of Donald Trump as president confirms them in this belief.

The result has been a cratering of liberal patriotism: the gap between the percentage of Republicans and Democrats who are “extremely proud” to be Americans has ballooned to 42 points (74% compared to 32%) in 2018. Just 23% of self-described liberals are “extremely proud” of this country. (Incidentally, even during the Obama years, conservatives and Republicans were more patriotic than liberals and Democrats.)

Consider the anecdotal evidence as well: recently a government-funded charter school in Atlanta abandoned the pledge of allegiance in deference to the negative “emotions” it evokes in students and parents. A local elected official in Connecticut has begun to kneel during the pledge of allegiance, in imitation of the protests that recently swept through the world of professional sports. On Thursday we witnessed a renewal of those protests by NFL players, who seem indifferent to the lasting damage they are inflicting on “America's game”. Meanwhile, churches, municipal parks, schools, and universities are reconsidering their public memorials not only to Confederate heroes, but to Founding Fathers like Washington and Jefferson. The New York Times published an article on Thursday claiming that the U.S. Constitution is an “outdated relic” and that “the subversion of democracy was the explicit intent of the Constitution's framers.” The American flag was recently desecrated at a demonstration in support of firebrand Congresswoman and Trump-hater Maxine Waters. The much-reviled “War on Christmas” is being replaced by a “War on America”, or so it seems.

One of the most telling pieces of evidence that anti-American sentiment is viewed as legitimate on the Left is the oft-repeated threat by liberal celebrities, and even ordinary Democrats, prior to November 2016 that they would leave the U.S. if it elected Donald Trump as president. Virtually none of them were foolish enough to follow through, of course, but the mere fact that they would give voice to such ideas is a testament to their lack of faith in American democracy, the American people, and the American spirit. Quite a few leftists are more loyal and devoted to their cherished ideals of political correctness and creeping socialism than they are to the United States of America as a nation and as a people. That is a sad thing to have to say about one's fellow countrymen, but it is inescapably true.

The last time that the symbols and basic institutions of America were under such sustained assault was during the Johnson and Nixon years, when the U.S. public was sharply divided by the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights era. The Left succeeded in ushering President Nixon out of office, yes, but it didn't succeed in pulling the wool over the American people's eyes. 

Americans saw every night on their television screens confirmation of the extremism, spitefulness, and anti-American apostasy of left-wing activists. In those days, as is the case now, liberal rage boiled over and produced criminality and violence, usually on a small scale, but sometimes in the form of mass protests, riots, and terrorism. 

The result was predictable: the American people recoiled. They increasingly turned to the right, to the voices of patriotism and “law and order”, and to the Republican Party, which flourished and achieved its greatest electoral successes since the 1920s in the ensuing decades. The ultimate product of the leftist descent into anti-Americanism and radicalism was therefore the election of President Ronald Reagan, a principled conservative, in 1980.

One has to wonder whether the American people's response to the stridency, extremism, and disloyalty of the modern Left will be the same as it was in the 1970s and 80s. President Trump says that the 2018 midterm elections will bring a “red wave,” and Americans will definitively reject liberals' hysterical Trump-hatred, their obsession with impeachment, their advocacy of open borders, their dalliance with socialism, their ill-considered embrace of identity politics and political correctness, and, perhaps most of all, their contempt for America itself.

The talking heads guffaw, but history suggests that Trump may be right.

Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at: He appears weekly on the Newsmaker program on WLEA 1480.

Wednesday, August 8, 2018

Trump=War, or Trump=Peace?

Friends, don't miss my latest interview with Brian O'Neil on WLEA 1480's Newsmaker program. We cover a lot of ground, including New York politics and the prospects for Governor Andrew Cuomo and Lieutenant Governor Kathy Hochul, US relations with Iran and North Korea, the US-China "trade war", and the role played by non-citizen voters in "foreign meddling".

Saturday, August 4, 2018

Ah, the Tricks the (Leftist) Mind Plays...On Itself

Friends, feast your eyes on my latest article, which appears in Townhall. It's about the leftist critique of President Trump as childish and prone to bullying. I deconstruct this critique and show how it very often applies to...Trump's critics! I think you'll be amused and edified.

Thursday, August 2, 2018

The New Normal on the Left: Imprison the Police, and Let the Criminals Go Free

Friends, I recommend to you two great articles today. The first is about the statements by Democratic candidate for New York Attorney General Zephyr Teachout (the name alone should warn voters to stay away) to the effect that she believes ICE should not only be abolished -- in addition, its officers should be prosecuted for unspecified crimes. Teachout says ICE has become "a tool of fear and illegality". Now, let's ponder this for a moment.  What this leftist is saying is that enforcing the law can itself be a crime.  In addition, causing those guilty of a crime to fear they will be arrested is, presumably, criminal behavior.  In effect, she objects to our current immigration laws so much that she seeks to invalidate them by prosecuting those who execute them.  Again, the contrast with President Trump's criticism of the FBI could not be more stark.  Trump has attacked rogue FBI agents who abused their authority -- not the institution itself.  He has not called for the abolition of the FBI.  He has not suggested that FBI agents performing their normal duties are guilty of criminal acts.  He has not called the FBI a "terrorist organization," as Cynthia Nixon has (she is challenging Andrew Cuomo for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in New York this year). It all goes to show you -- radicalism is blossoming on the Left, and they are inching ever closer to declaring it illegal for President Trump, and perhaps Republicans and conservatives in general, to speak, or even to draw breath.  To the Left, "the law" means whatever they want it to mean.  That's a scary thought, and it's the number one reason why it was so critical that we avoided a Clinton presidency in 2016.  If the Left had won that election, people who believe that it's illegal to enforce the law would have been...running the country!  Incredible.

The second article is about the union movement's divisions over whether or not to support Trump, or, more realistically, over whether or not to treat Trump like a leper. Not surprisingly, there are many leftist union officials who see Trump as the devil incarnate. On the other hand, there are those who understand that some of Trump's actions, like his tariffs against China, help many American workers. As a union member myself (though perhaps not for much longer), it saddens me that unions have become so captive to the radical agenda of the Left. All too often, unions involve themselves in political issues and races that have nothing to do with advancing the interests of their members.  Hopefully, the Janus decision will help change this, but in the meantime the debate in leftist circles, and union circles, seems to be largely one of: is Trump merely bad, or is he monstrous?  Should we just campaign against him, as in days of yore, or should we ratchet up our "resistance" and seek to imprison, dismiss from employment, or pillory anyone who says a kind word about him?  It tells you something about the Left that, these days, simply failing to excoriate Trump vehemently enough BY ITSELF can make you persona non grata.  And yet these are the times we live in.

Wednesday, August 1, 2018

Non-Citizen Voters: The Ultimate Form of "Foreign Meddling"?

Friends, you may have noticed that there is increasing support in "blue" cities (is there any other kind?) for the idea of allowing non-citizens to vote in municipal elections. Many Democrats believe immigrants, even illegals, should be allowed to vote in ALL elections. But here we are talking about changing the law.  From the Left's perspective, though, why change a law when you can simply ignore it, and thus tacitly invalidate it? Evidence is strong that non-citizens are already voting, because the encouragements to vote are myriad, and the mechanisms in place to prevent non-citizen voting are often very weak.  Probably we are only talking about small numbers of voters at this stage, but there are elections, like the Senate election in New Hampshire in 2016, where the result is extremely close, and fraud of various kinds could easily be responsible for determining the outcome. This is a problem that we need to keep on top of, if for no other reason than because it is part of the pattern of lawlessness that the Left seems to feel it is entitled to perpetrate.

Here is a FoxNews piece about the issue:

And here is my latest interview on the Newsmaker program on WLEA 1480 in Hornell.  Brian O'Neil and I discuss the issue of our growing "trade war" with China, and I highlight China's attempt to interfere in our 2018 midterm elections. We also discuss the potential for violence against conservatives, as well as against the police and ICE agents.  Don't miss out!

Saturday, July 28, 2018

Piercing the Illusions of the Eco-Left

Friends, I recommend to you this excellent article, courtesy of FoxNews. Unlike the author, I don't doubt the reality of climate change, but his broader argument is a very important one: environmentalist rhetoric should not be confused with environmentalist action. Many politicians, celebrities, and corporate leaders talk a good game when it comes to climate change, carbon emissions, alternative energy, etc. The truth, however, is that, for all the blather, global emissions keep rising, and it is largely developing countries like China that are driving the trend. Emissions are modestly down in most developed countries, but that isn't because of alternative energy. It's largely because of fracking (which environmentalists hate), and the increased use of natural gas instead of oil and coal. The bottom line is that all the much-ballyhooed climate change agreements and pledges that you've heard about have produced real world consequences that are negligible in terms of the big picture of climate change. And, as this article points out, some of the countries that are the most holier-than-thou about protecting the planet are emitting more and more carbon. In the end, I predict the following: there will be climate change, and we will survive it. In addition, you can rely on the fact that few people will ever be willing to compromise their quality of life in the service of abstract ideals. Again, talk is cheap. Never forget that.

Thursday, July 26, 2018

The China Factor: "Foreign Meddling" Reconsidered

Friends, it annoys me so end that the Left, which so often takes the side of foreigners over Americans, has twisted the issue of "foreign meddling" into one that casts Trump and Republicans as lacking patriotism.  What cheek!  My latest article shows how foreign meddling in elections is a very widespread phenomenon, and the laser-like media and Democratic focus on Russia-related meddling is self-serving and deliberately misleading.  In particular, I draw attention to one way in which China is engaging in egregious election meddling as we speak -- and the media and the Left couldn't care less...  Read all about it:

Worried About “Foreign Meddling”? Then Throw the Book at China!

Every day for the past 18 months, we have had to endure legions of news reporters and liberal lawmakers appearing on our television screens, pretending to deplore “Russian meddling” in America's 2016 presidential election. Never far below the surface of this tedious moralizing is the implication that (evil) Trump wouldn't be President if it weren't for Russia's skulduggery, and, since he surely worked hand in glove with the Russians all along, he ought to be booted from office.

The truth, as many conservatives have pointed out, is that a) Russia's “meddling” was irrelevant to the central dynamics of the 2016 election, which was lost by Hillary Clinton – a truly dreadful candidate – more than it was won by Donald Trump, and b) “foreign meddling” in American elections, and American meddling in foreign elections, is nothing new or particularly outrageous. Indeed, every election is imperfect, and yet, despite these imperfections, those who truly believe in democracy readily acknowledge that, broadly speaking, electoral results still encapsulate the people's will. This is why Richard Nixon, despite his well-founded concerns about election rigging in 1960, never contested John F. Kennedy's victory. He foresaw that this would lead to endless electoral hair-splitting and a field day for lawyers, all of which would damage the country he so loved. He thus swallowed his pride and waited his turn to run again. If only Democrats were as patriotic and far-sighted!

“Foreign meddling”, in any case, comes in many forms, and it is by no means the Russians who are solely, or even primarily, responsible for it. Aggressive “influence campaigns,” of the sort waged by Russia in 2016, were waged by the United States throughout the Cold War, and we still “meddle” from time to time. The Obama administration, for instance, gave money to a group that campaigned against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel's 2015 election. Moreover, the U.S. actively intervenes in Iraqi and Afghani politics. Influence campaigns are also standard operating procedure for China, Israel, Iran, and various wealthy Persian Gulf oil states.

It's not merely governments that “meddle”. Foreign citizens may be forbidden from donating to U.S. political campaigns directly, but their (paid) lobbyists in this country are not. Foreign lobbyists gave millions to candidates in 2016. (The Russians, by contrast, laid out only $100,000 for their famous Facebook ads.) The top recipient? Hillary Clinton, of course. Senator Chuck Schumer was third. The enormous foreign contributions made to the Clinton Foundation are also a matter of record – some of them made during Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State – and it is not hard to imagine that these overseas donors may have expected some backscratching in return for their largess. 

Corporate donations to political campaigns and Super PACs represent another way for foreigners to “meddle” in U.S. elections. Corporations can give unlimited amounts of money to organizations promoting political causes, rather than specific candidates, and, lest we forget, the stockholders of these corporations are very often foreigners, espousing foreign, or “globalist”, agendas. Evidence is also mounting that wealthy foreigners contribute to Super PACs directly. Safeguards to prevent this are pitifully weak.

Meanwhile, the most potent form of “foreign meddling” in the 2016 election had nothing to do with financial contributions or hacking. It came in the form of repeated statements by foreign leaders that were designed to undercut the Trump campaign and boost Hillary Clinton's chances of victory. British Prime Minister David Cameron labeled Trump's call to restrict Muslim immigration “divisive, stupid, and wrong”. French President Hollande said Trump sometimes made him want to “retch”. China's finance minister called Trump's trade proposals “irrational”. Mexico's president baldly compared Trump to Hitler and Mussolini. Clinton, by contrast, earned international plaudits. The Italian Prime Minister declared he was “rooting” for her. 

All of these statements, naturally, were intended to influence public opinion, including the views of American voters, and they represented a departure from historical norms of non-interference. Was this “foreign meddling” roundly condemned by liberals and the news media? Of course not. Prior to Donald Trump's historic victory in 2016, concerns about “foreign meddling” were decidedly muted, because it was assumed that the “right woman for the job” would win.

Now, though, China is presenting us with a new and arguably even more provocative form of election meddling. Given its timing, and given Democrats' incessant hysterical warnings about the existential threat to American democracy posed by foreign interference, you would expect that these pillars of patriotism and rectitude would be screaming bloody murder. But no – as usual, it's only Trump-related and Russia-related “meddling” that merits their attention.

And how is China interfering with our democracy? In the most naked, shameless manner possible. In response to President Trump's tariffs against China, designed to combat Chinese trade manipulation and theft of U.S. intellectual property, China has retaliated with tariffs of its own. Those tariffs, however, have been targeted against states and regions that supported Donald Trump in the 2016 election. Texas and Louisiana top the list of affected states. Rural areas have also been hard hit, with China slapping steep tariffs on soybeans, dairy products, and meat. Rural voters, lest we forget, supported Trump in 2016 by record-setting margins. In other words, China's tariffs are designed to punish Trump's key constituents. In essence, they are designed to blackmail Trump voters into abandoning their support for Trump, and by extension for his economic and trade policies. China's actions are therefore a direct and purposeful form of interference in U.S. elections and in our system of governance.

Are Democrats (and Trump-decrying Republicans) reacting to this assault on American democracy and the integrity of our elections with sanctions, threats, and general outrage? Not a bit of it. They are blaming the whole debacle on President Trump, who had the temerity to challenge China's dishonest trade practices in the first place! In other words, given the choice of siding with American consumers and U.S. workers, or with the foreign countries and interests taking advantage of them, these two-faced politicians are choosing to undercut the President of the United States and give aid and comfort to our trade adversaries! Incredible.

The sad part is that we know that President Trump's hardball trade tactics can work. They did with South Korea, and just recently they produced a deal (in principle) with the E.U. Trump's aggressive pursuit of fair trade works best, however, when Americans project an image of unity. If instead our adversaries believe that Trump will be forced to knuckle under to a fractious Congress or a critical media, they will refuse to budge in trade talks. Trump's domestic enemies know this. They know their carping is undermining America's negotiating position and exacerbating our “trade wars,” and they don't care. They want Trump, and America, to fail.

The Left and the media's utter indifference to China's attempt to manipulate American voters proves, as nothing else could, that their phony outrage over “Russian meddling” is exactly that: empty, opportunistic, and undoubtedly temporary. Our political elites have stood by for years as foreign interests exercised more and more control over American democracy, and as U.S. economic independence was forfeited. They expressed not a whit of concern about these trends before 2016. Now that Donald Trump is President of the United States, however, these political charlatans are pursuing an utterly hypocritical strategy: in disputes between the Trump administration and foreign leaders and interests, they invariably side with the foreigners; simultaneously, they falsely accuse Russia and Trump of conspiring to rig an American election, and they thus elevate a contrived discourse about “foreign meddling” to the top of the public agenda.

It is time to call these hucksters on their deceit and duplicity. Either the media and Democrats should start taking all forms of foreign meddling seriously, even when they are designed to hurt Trump and Republicans, or they should cease their moralizing altogether. As things stand now, the disconnect between the feigned, chest-thumping patriotism and the actual globalist pusillanimity and treachery of these scoundrels is shocking to behold.

Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at: He appears weekly on the Newsmaker program on WLEA 1480.

And here's the American Greatness version: 

Wednesday, July 25, 2018

Is the Left Coming for...You?

Yes, I know -- the title to this post is a tad provocative, but it's a germane question, I feel.  After all, the Left trumpets itself as "the Resistance" these days, and the Resistance (in German-occupied France) was a terrorist organization that killed thousands, mostly Frenchmen.  It was also a group staffed primarily with loyal Stalinists.  I kid you not.  And these are the people the modern Left is embracing as heroes.  The bigger point is this: if Trump=Hitler, and that's the clear implication of much leftist propaganda these days, then surely ANY means of resisting Trump, including violence against his supporters, is justified...  Thus far, most leftists, thankfully, have been either too dense or too cowardly to follow through on the logic of their own radicalism, but how long will this last?  Steve Scalise and Rand Paul know that liberal rage can break out into violence most unexpectedly.  All I'm saying is that we conservatives need to be on our guard, because we are HATED with a passion, and hatred can lead to violence.  Be prepared to duck, at the very least!

This is just one of many topics I discussed with Brian O'Neil on the latest Newsmaker show. We also covered the threat posed (or not posed) by Russia, the Mueller investigation, the wider phenomenon of "foreign meddling" in elections, Governor Cuomo's political prospects on the national stage, the rise of "democratic socialism", and attitudes to the death penalty.  Don't miss it!

Monday, July 23, 2018

There They Go Again...

Friends, the NFL seems to have a death wish.  It's clear that last year their inaction in response to players' decision to kneel (or otherwise to show disrespect) during the national anthem did considerable damage to the League's image and brand.  It seemed that they had wised up during the off-season and had instituted a new policy that would punish players who knelt on the field.  But not so fast.  Now, under pressure from the players' union, the League is backtracking, and the policy has been put on hold.  What will happen when you tune into the first NFL games of the season?  Nothing good -- that's my guess.  Even if the NFL stuck to its new policy, given how feckless it's been on the issue, I would be shocked if some players didn't kneel regardless.  Would the League actually punish, even suspend, black players for "protesting racism"?  It's almost inconceivable in this PC age.  The sad thing is that this whole kerfuffle could have been avoided, had the NFL acted with some backbone when the first player took a knee.  President Trump is right -- that player should have been tossed out on his ear.  That would have been that.  As it is, the NFL will have to twist in the wind for another season, victimized by its own cowardice.  C'est la vie.

In other news, President Trump is considering revoking the security clearances of people like ex-CIA Director John Brennan, who called Trump's press conference with Russian President Putin "treasonous".  I say: do it!  It's one thing to criticize an administration you don't like, but men like Brennan have been running a sophisticated campaign to paint the President of the United States as a foreign agent -- without any solid evidence of collusion or "treason" whatsoever.  President Obama gave "aid and comfort" to many traditional enemies of the United States, and he was never accused of a capital crime by responsible voices on the right.  Instead he was accused of being a bad President.  That's not enough for the likes of Brennan, however.  They insist on blackening the name of President Trump and trashing the reputation of American democracy to anyone who will listen.  Brennan has, in my view, ceased to be a patriotic servant of the American people.  He has become instead an enemy of the American people and of our government.  Let him spew his venom all he likes, but he should not have a security clearance, period.

Friday, July 20, 2018

The Russian Steamroller Has Run Out of Gas

Friends, as the media features wall-to-wall coverage of supposed Trump-Russia collusion, and waxes poetic on the perils of Russian imperialism and tyranny, it pays to remind ourselves just how far Russia has fallen since the heady days of Soviet hegemony. In my view, Russia should be taken seriously.  It should be respected, and its limited remaining sphere of influence ought to be avoided by Westerners.  All this is mere prudence, but it doesn't change the fact that Russia today is utterly incapable of world domination.  It can't control U.S. elections, it can't win a low-grade conflict in the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine, and it can't even begin to compete with the West on an economic or technological plane.  The Left's narrative that the Russians are at the gates is therefore pure drivel.  It should be seen as such, it must be seen as such, before our Russophobic hysteria drives us to provoke Russia in a truly regrettable and counterproductive way.  Russia is not our friend, it's true, but neither must Russia be our enemy.  I, for one, am glad that President Trump has extended the olive branch of peace to President Putin, and I hope that, despite the media's best efforts, he succeeds in improving relations with the Russian Federation.

My latest article addresses Russia's relationship with the West, and the degree to which it is being distorted and misrepresented by leftist propaganda.  Read all about it at

Wednesday, July 18, 2018

Darth Putin Ensnares Hapless Trump? Hardly!

Friends, the Left gets more and more addled by its Russophobic hysterics every day.  You'd think it was 1962 and we were at DEFCON 2!  Is Vladimir Putin really controlling the animatronic movements of President Trump-bot by remote control???  Find out in this week's Newsmaker interview, featuring yours truly and Brian O'Neil.  We get to the bottom of it.

Sunday, July 15, 2018

All the (Fake) News That's Fit to Print

Friends, it can be hard to figure why the Left hates Trump as much as it does.  Their loathing seems off the scale.  We must keep in mind, though, that an extraordinary constellation of propaganda and "fake news" undergirds this Trump-hatred.  The drumbeat repetition of anti-Trump narratives, including the Russia collusion conspiracy theory, makes an impression, drip by drip.  To me, the miracle isn't that so many people hate Trump -- it's that, given the establishment's universal detestation of the man, he still retains the loyalty and respect of a high percentage of ordinary folks.  That's a testament to his fortitude and ingenuity, yes, but also to the reduced influence of the traditional media.  If everyone was watching CNN, as they once were, we'd be truly lost.

This story puts into perspective the media's anti-Trump obsession.  Imagine if you were getting your "news" from these people...  How warped would your worldview be?  Thus, have some sympathy for the poor slobs on the Left.  Most of them mean well, but they've been thoroughly duped.

Saturday, July 14, 2018

There but for the Grace of God go you or I...

Patriots, conservatives, and even students of human nature will want to pay close attention to the downfall of John Schnatter, a.k.a. "Papa John" of pizza fame.  Not so long ago Schnatter committed the barely-pardonable sin of remarking that the NFL's brand had been harmed, and his pizza sales had fallen, because of the controversy over NFL players' decision to kneel during the national anthem.  Schnatter was, of course, only stating the obvious, but that didn't stop the NFL from terminating its relationship with Papa John's, even after Schnatter had resigned as CEO.

All of that is small potatoes compared to the recent dust-up.  Schnatter, in a marketing conference call, unwisely used the n-word, but not to denigrate blacks -- he was using it to illustrate the profound changes that have occurred in people's racial attitudes.  He also referred to past instances of lynching targeting "African-Americans" -- not in a way that implied his approval, but his disapproval.  Nonetheless, some people participating in the call were offended, and...Schnatter is toast.  Papa John's has severed all ties with him, and it is attempting to erase even his memory at the company (he's the founder, inconveniently).  But that's not all.  Not happy with destroying the image and career of a man not even accused of racism, but mere insensitivity, the Left is demanding that Papa John's, even after its disavowal of Schnatter, must be punished as a company.  Numerous NFL and Major League Baseball teams are ending their relationships with the pizza chain.  Every single employee of Papa John's, it seems, must suffer for John Schnatter's sins.  Wow!

And what is Schnatter's principal sin?  Being white, naturally.  The n-word is offensive, yes, but let's not kid ourselves -- black people use it often.  Comedians use it.  Leftist social critics use it.  Assuming you have the right pedigree, you can use the word without undue risk to your reputation or your livelihood.  Schnatter, though, is a white male who appears to harbor some glimmerings of patriotism (thus his insistence that NFL players should stand for the anthem), and he may even be -- gulp! -- a conservative or a Republican.  Clearly, he must be destroyed at all costs.

Why does any of this matter?  Personally, I don't know John Schnatter from Adam, nor have I so much as sampled his pizza.  That isn't the point.  The point is that a man, even a powerful one, can these days be scorched simply for failing to abide by PC values and injunctions with sufficient care and thoroughness.  As a white male, if you step out of line, even for an instant, the leftist horde is done with you.  Have you performed a litany of worthy deeds throughout your life?  Who cares.  Are you, 99% of the time, subservient and reverent towards the twin gods of Diversity and Inclusion?  Not good enough!  The Left demands total compliance -- or annihilation!

The other reason that these stories matter is fairly obvious: Schnatter's fate will intimidate, as it is meant to, other corporate leaders into towing the line of leftist orthodoxy.  If we allow this sort of nonsense to continue, well, we can kiss the idea of winning the "culture wars" good bye, because our fate is sealed.

Friends, the inmates are running the asylum.  Don't put a foot wrong -- that's my advice, because the PC crowd is taking no prisoners, and you and I are already on their naughty list.  Watch out!  And, if you can (without taking direct fire from the PC goon squad), fight back!

Read more about the Schnatter saga here:

Thursday, July 12, 2018

To Kavanaugh, Or Not To Kavanaugh? That Is The Question

Friends, my latest article addresses conservative criticism of Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump's latest pick for the Supreme Court.  I believe this criticism to be overblown, as I explain in my latest article, coming soon to American Greatness.  Will Kavanaugh be the firebrand reactionary zealot that you and I pine for?  That I can't guarantee, but I do believe he'll be a distinct improvement on Anthony Kennedy, and that's my personal litmus test.  Kavanaugh passes!  My hope, though, is that the Supreme Court is only starting its journey down the Golden Road of Trumpism.  Time will tell.
Brett Kavanaugh Isn't Defined By The Swamp That Spawned Him

Conservatives all across America are asking themselves: who is Brett Kavanaugh, and what kind of Supreme Court Justice will he make? The answers are myriad and mostly speculative.

Judge Andrew Napolitano, a senior judicial analyst for FoxNews, has written an article about why he is “deeply disappointed” in President Trump's decision to nominate Kavanaugh. While some of his concerns may be valid, Napolitano's main argument – that Kavanaugh is tainted by his associations with the DC swamp – makes little sense.

First, Napolitano defines the swamp as “the permanent government and its enablers in the legal, financial, diplomatic and intelligence communities in Washington.” Conveniently, therefore, Napolitano excludes the media from the swamp, although surely the Washington establishment relies first and foremost on its “enablers” in the mainstream media to keep it in power. Napolitano himself, as a FoxNews analyst, could be accused of swampiness. My first reaction to Napolitano's denigration of Kavanaugh as a swamp monster, therefore, is: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”.

Furthermore, we should understand that “the swamp” is ill-defined. As Napolitano admits, it seems never to include anyone we like. For conservatives, an outspoken liberal politician or a Trump-hating bureaucrat or FBI agent is a creature of the swamp, surely, but a right-minded old hand in Washington is instead a “seasoned veteran”. This just means that “the swamp” is a largely pejorative concept, and often those who employ it are engaged in plain, old-fashioned name-calling.

Now, if there is any objective, literal meaning to “the swamp”, it describes a Washington elite that is interconnected, resistant to meaningful change, and corruptly uses governmental power and federal largesse to protect and reward allies and punish and undermine perceived enemies. DC politicians vary in the degree to which they might be identified with such swampy behaviors and attitudes, but one thing is clear: both parties are equally befouled. 

We must further acknowledge that there are very few people in positions of influence in our government who are utterly divorced from the swamp, or who could be described as moral purists or true political newcomers. President Trump appointed several DC outsiders to his cabinet, yes, but even he – the swamp monster's mot-feared natural predator – had to add many “seasoned veterans” to his administration. Without them, and their experience, the Executive Branch simply could not function. Does this mean that Trump's criticism of the swamp is disingenuous? Not necessarily, because, from a practical standpoint, no swamp can be drained unless you enter it first...

The most important point is this: long-time Washington ties, and even the occasional lapse into swampy attitudes and behavior, do not and should not exclude a politician, or a judge, from recruitment into President Trump's campaign to reinvigorate America. The over-hasty denigration of political figures who are deeply embedded in the Washington establishment risks the loss of their knowledge, influence, and experience, and it neglects the obvious fact that, while they can be powerful enemies when provoked, they can also be invaluable allies when harnessed to a noble cause. Mitch McConnell, for example, may be about as swampy and sly as a Senator can get, but he has also overseen a successful strategy to prevent the judiciary from falling into liberal hands. We owe him a huge debt of thanks. I, for one, will gladly hold my nose and overlook the vile emanations of the swamp to achieve historic victories like these.

Judge Napolitano goes on in his article to suggest that Kavanaugh will be a disappointment as a Supreme Court Justice because he is infected with the “values” and the “culture” of the swamp. Kavanaugh believes, for instance, that Americans' rights to privacy should be weighed against the imperative of national security. He believes that the President should be shielded from some types of lawsuits while in office. Napolitano interprets these views to mean that Kavanaugh will support an unchecked, potentially totalitarian “deep state”. Napolitano even suggests that Kavanaugh is somehow complicit in deep state efforts to undermine Trump himself, but all of this is a gross over-reading of the few signals we presently have regarding Kavanaugh's mindset and his legal and constitutional philosophy. Simply put, Kavanaugh has never ruled on most truly momentous issues, nor has he enunciated clear views on most of them. We should suspend judgment, therefore. 

We also shouldn't assume that, because Kavanaugh sometimes associates with swamp monsters, he is captive to their “values”. Does Judge Napolitano, who teaches classes at Brooklyn Law School, accept and practice, for this reason, the radical PC “values” of academia? Of course not. It would be silly to suggest that he does. No one is defined exclusively by the company he keeps.

It might also be prudent to consider the possibility that, if Kavanaugh is in any sense a swamp monster, with a predilection for establishment “culture”, the experience of the next few weeks and months, when large parts of the swamp will be working furiously to malign and destroy him, may cure him definitively of his swamp fever. Who can say? In any case, Kavanaugh's “values”, and the degree to which they may change over the years, are largely unknowable. His decisions, on the other hand, are a matter of record, as are his partisan political leanings, and these ought to make conservatives pleased and confident.

In the end, the fact that President Trump has nominated an experienced, mildly swampy jurist with connections to the Bushes should not concern conservatives and lovers of liberty as much as Napolitano suggests. Every objective reading of Kavanaugh's record has tended to indicate that he will be a Supreme Court Justice considerably to the right of Anthony Kennedy, who he will replace. It is hard, therefore, to see his elevation to the Court as anything but a win.

Conservatives, therefore, should support Kavanaugh without misgivings. They should also keep in mind that, if they would have preferred a more forceful, fervent conservative judge like Amy Coney Barrett, she may yet get her chance. 

When it comes to Trumpifying the judiciary, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are a good start, but arguably the best is yet to come.

Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at: He appears weekly on the Newsmaker program on WLEA 1480.

And here is the American Greatness version: