With its utopian quest for a society cleansed of all traces of bias or inequality and its politicization of everything from art to family life, social-justice leftism is in some ways the modern heir to 20th-century communism. While it does not command totalitarian regimes, its effect on Western liberal institutions — especially the media and academia — makes it a genuine threat to freedom. No less dangerous, however, is its role in the rise of right-wing authoritarianism. Rhetoric assailing “whiteness ” and masculinity  can lend seeming credence to white-nationalist claims that whites and men are under assault. And vilifying the liberal order as racist, sexist and oppressive is hardly a way to bolster the defense of liberalism against threats from the right.
I’m not sure that I can go along with my dear friend Roger Meiners’s call, in today’s Wall Street Journal, for a tax to reduce the scourge of robocalls. But as taxes go, the one proposed here by Roger would be far from the worst .
Christina Sandefur and Frayda Levin are correct to argue that for a worker really to want paid leave that worker must be willing to pay for it . (I “want” lots of things, including a private jet, if other people are compelled to pay to satisfy my wants.)
Speaking of paid leave, GMU Econ alum Dan Mitchell points out that the U.S. Constitution grants no power to the U.S. government to mandate such leave . (I’ve a question for all the many conservatives who are mysteriously and disappointingly jumping on the bandwagon to have some form of national-government action in favor of paid leave: where’s your allegiance to the Constitution?) Dan goes on in this splendid essay to thoroughly rebut the supposed ‘conservative’ case for any government policy aimed at promoting paid family leave.)