Senator Chris McDaniel

Senator Chris McDaniel The personal FB page of Senator Chris McDaniel (R-MS).
Taft, Goldwater & Reagan conservative. Art. Reading. I love my mom.

Put Mississippi values first, not join the DC club. Will defend the 2nd Amendment and civil liberties. Decrease taxes and make government small.

I am a former federal law clerk, an attorney, conservative commentator, and was lead counsel for the State of Mississippi in seeking to declare Obamacare unconstitutional. The political philosophy to which I adhere represents traditional c

onservative thought – a fusion of Judeo-Christian principles, free enterprise, limited government, fiscal responsibility, free-market policies, reduced tax rates, morality in government, strong national defense, federalism, and constitutional checks and balances. Steeped in the heritage of Western civilization, it represents a consensus of reason operating within tradition, and it recognizes its origin as the 1787 Constitutional Convention. It fights for our capacity for self-government and will never abandon the ideas of the American Revolution, refusing to confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves. The American Constitution has set down for all men to see the essentially Christian and American principle that there are certain rights held by every man which no government and no majority, however powerful, can deny. I am also a partner in a law firm and licensed to practice law in Texas and Mississippi, litigating cases throughout the United States. I'm a longsuffering Chicago Cubs fan. When I'm not watching the Cubs break my heart, I return to my old love, the Boston Red Sox (American league, remember?). I also enjoy basketball (Celtics) and Hockey (Bruins) (Blackhawks). And please don't hold this against me, but I think Roger Staubach is the greatest QB ever (go Cowboys!). I still want Tom Landry back as coach. For my hobbies, I love music (all of it). My favorite snack is Peanut M&M's. I've also never turned down a chocolate chip cookie. I read everything (even if I disagree), and I'm open to changing my mind if the argument is sound. My family. And I miss my dad. Every day.

08/31/2026

Some civilizations are better than others. That isn’t hatred or prejudice. It’s a historical fact.

A civilization that protects human life, restrains the power of government, respects private property, and allows a man to worship according to his conscience is better than one that doesn’t. A civilization that builds universities, preserves knowledge, rewards discovery, and lets ordinary families live without fear has done something worth defending.

The modern West was built upon those convictions. They gave us the common law, representative government, religious liberty, scientific research, and the old understanding that even a king must answer to something higher than himself. We inherited all of that, yet we’ve somehow raised a generation that enjoys its blessings while being embarrassed to speak well of the society that produced them.

There are places in Europe where folks still remember what their leaders have forgotten. Walk beneath the vaulted ceiling of an old cathedral, and you can feel the centuries gathered around you. On a narrow street in Florence, with church bells carrying over the rooftops, you can imagine a time when men believed beauty was worth a lifetime of work.

Sit in Vienna and listen to Mozart. Stand before a Rembrandt in Amsterdam, watch the evening descend upon Paris, or walk among the ruins of Rome. You begin to understand that Western civilization didn’t simply appear one morning, whole and finished, like something ordered from a catalog.

Let’s not forget that people built it. Strong people. Forgotten craftsmen laid those stones and monks copied its manuscripts by candlelight. Architects drew arches that must’ve seemed impossible, while brilliant composers wrote music they’d never live long enough to hear celebrated. Soldiers defended it, farmers fed it, and mothers softly spoke its prayers to sleepy children.

Europe gave us Shakespeare and Dante, Bach and Beethoven, Michelangelo and Rembrandt. It gave us great libraries, old universities and churches whose bells have marked the passing of generations. Much of the inheritance of the modern world came from those little countries crowded together across the Atlantic.

Southerners ought to understand what that means. We know that a place is more than the dirt beneath it. Tear down the old courthouse, close the church, forget the family names and pave over every field where the children once played, and the town may remain on the map. But something called home will have disappeared.

That’s what much of Europe is gambling with now.

After surviving wars, plagues, invasions, revolutions and tyrants, its political class has come to regard borders as an embarrassment and national identity as something faintly shameful. Assimilation has been recast as cruelty. People who want to preserve the language, customs and character of their country are expected to apologize before they’re permitted to say so.

For decades, European governments admitted enormous numbers of immigrants from societies often very different from their own. Their citizens were told that nothing fundamental would change. When they asked about crime, public services, religious extremism or the loss of social trust, many of their leaders didn’t answer. They called them backward, fearful, or intolerant.

The message was plain enough. Loving the country your grandparents left you had become an ethical failing.

There’s nothing cruel about limiting immigration. There’s nothing hateful about expecting newcomers to obey the law, learn the language, and respect the customs of the nation that welcomes them. France has every right to remain recognizably French, Italy recognizably Italian and Britain recognizably British. A people shouldn’t have to beg permission to remain a people.

A nation isn’t merely an economy or a place where taxes are collected. It’s a memory held in common. It’s the stories children hear, the holidays families keep, the monuments in the square and the songs played at weddings and funerals. It’s old recipes, familiar prayers, local accents and the graves of people who belonged to that ground before any of us arrived.

Those things don’t appear on a government spreadsheet. People still know when they’re being lost.

A country doesn’t have to close its doors, but the doors ought to belong to somebody. The people inside have a right to decide when they open, how many may enter, and what’s expected of those who come.

Without limits and assimilation, a country can be changed faster than its people can absorb. Neighborhoods become unfamiliar, public institutions strain, and old customs retreat from public life. The citizens who notice are then scolded for wanting their home to resemble the country they inherited.

The greater blame belongs to the politicians. They were supposed to enforce the law, protect the nation’s character and decide how much change their countries could bear. Instead, too many congratulated themselves for their compassion, left ordinary people to live with the consequences and treated every objection as proof of bad character.

They didn’t build Notre-Dame or paint the Sistine Chapel. They didn’t write the Ninth Symphony, establish Oxford and Cambridge, carve the statues, or lay the streets underneath their feet. They inherited those things from people who suffered, sacrificed, and believed there’d be another generation waiting to receive them.

No generation owns a civilization. We keep it for a while, the way a family keeps an old house or a piece of land. We repair what’s broken, remember who came before us, and leave something standing for the children.

Europe still has time. But it takes courage to say that borders matter, that citizenship carries duties, that assimilation is necessary, and that its history is worth preserving. Tolerance doesn’t require surrender, and hospitality doesn’t mean giving away the house.

The gravest danger facing the West may not be that an army will conquer it. It may be that those entrusted with its care no longer remember why it was worth defending.

08/30/2026

There are evenings in Mississippi when the heat finally gives up, and the whole world seems to draw a long breath. The pine trees go dark against the sky. A dog barks somewhere beyond the pasture. The last light catches the dust above a gravel road, and for a few minutes the years don’t seem to have gone anywhere at all.

It’s at such times that I think about my sons.

When Cambridge was small, we took long walks in the woods. He never needed much persuasion. If I said there might be something worth seeing beyond the next rise, he was ready to go. The woods were still large to him then, full of hidden paths, unnamed creeks, animal tracks, and all the possibilities a boy could imagine.

Cambridge has always met the world that way. With both hands open and his eyes looking toward the next adventure. He’s become an able fisherman, a hopeful hunter, and a tireless chaser of baseballs. He takes to people easily. He welcomes them before they’ve given him much reason to, and he has a way of making them feel they’ve been expected.

Chamberlain, my youngest, came into the world with a different understanding.

He was more cautious about people. Cambridge would open the gate and wave you through. Chamberlain wanted to know who you were, why you’d come, and whether you intended to stay. Folks had to work their way into his life, as though he required some private proof of their goodness before admitting them.

There was wisdom in that, even when he was young.

He loves sports, especially baseball. These days he follows his brother to fishing holes, dove fields, and batting practice. He watches, learns, and joins in when he’s ready. Where Cambridge has always rushed toward the day, Chamberlain takes its measure first.

They are brothers, but they aren’t copies. I’m thankful for that.

One trusts the world quickly. The other makes it earn his trust. One sees an adventure and starts walking. The other wants to know where the trail leads. Yet there they are together. Rods in hand, shotguns carried safely, ball gloves tucked under their arms; moving through the same fields and along the same roads.

Sometimes I look at them and see the little boys they were. At other times I catch a glimpse of the men they’re becoming. That’s one of the strange things about fatherhood. Your children grow before your eyes, but some part of you keeps expecting to turn around and find them waiting at the edge of the woods, ready for one more walk.

The South of my own childhood has changed. But I still miss the smaller things: the sound of tires on gravel, supper waiting in the kitchen, a screen door slamming harder than it should, and the porch light left burning because somebody hadn’t made it home yet. Back then, we didn’t talk much about what was being handed down. We simply lived among it. It was in the names people carried, the stories told and retold, the old Bibles and pocketknives, the family land, the Sunday dinners, and the quiet expectation that your handshake ought to be worth something.

A father passes along more than he knows. His sons watch how he treats other people. They notice what he does when he’s tired, angry, disappointed, or wrong. Much of what they learn from him is taught without a lesson ever being announced.

I haven’t always taught those lessons as well as I should have. No father does. There are days I’d like to have back and words I’d choose differently if given another chance.

But I hope Cambridge and Chamberlain have always known that I saw them clearly. I never needed one to become more like the other. Cambridge, with his appetite for the next bend in the trail, and Chamberlain, with his careful heart and measured trust, have each been exactly themselves.

And each has been perfect to me.

One day, if God grants it, they may sit outside near sundown while their own children run through the yard. The air may turn cool. The trees may go dark against the sky. Perhaps one of them will remember a walk through the woods, a quiet fishing hole, a dove field, or the sound of a baseball settling into a glove.

Maybe, when that happens, they’ll think of me.

I have fewer years ahead of me than I once did. It’s simply the truth that comes for every man if he lives long enough to see it. My journey is closer to its completion than its beginning, while so much of theirs is still waiting beyond the horizon.

There was a time when that horizon seemed far away. The boys were small, the summers felt longer, and I foolishly believed there would always be another walk through the woods. Another ballgame. Another fishing trip. Another evening when I could call their names and hear them answer from somewhere nearby.

But time doesn’t take those things all at once. It takes them slowly and without warning.

A boy stops needing your hand. Then he stops needing directions. One day you notice that his shoulders have broadened, his voice has changed, and he’s carrying burdens he no longer brings home for you to fix.

Nobody tells a father when the last little-boy day has passed. There’s no ceremony. No warning. Your son walks out the door one morning, and when he returns, some small part of his childhood has been left behind where neither of you can recover it.

I hope my sons won’t remember my failures first, though there were plenty of them. I hope they’ll remember that I loved them. That I paid attention to who they were. That I never needed one to become more like the other. And that there was never a moment when I wasn’t proud to be their father.

That’s the hard bargain of fatherhood. You spend your life teaching your sons how to stand without you, knowing that if you’ve done your job, one day they will.

And you pray that you’ve given them enough.

Enough faith for the nights when God seems quiet. Enough courage for the days when life is cruel. Enough kindness to remain gentle in a world that often rewards hardness. Enough memory to know where they came from when the road carries them far from home.

All a father really gets is a little time.

A few walks beneath the pines. A few fishing holes. A few baseball seasons. A few Mississippi evenings when the boys are still close enough to hear him call.

Then the light goes down, as it always does.

The boys become men. Their father grows old. And the road that once seemed endless begins to narrow toward its final turn.

When mine does, I hope Cambridge and Chamberlain will understand that they were the best part of the journey.

And I hope that somewhere inside them, long after they can no longer hear it, the sound of their father’s voice will still mean home.

08/28/2026

I have to admit, I’m enjoying the outrage over Lake Ontario being renamed Lake America.

For years, we were told that names matter. Names carry meaning. Names make statements about who we are and what we value. Whenever some old name offended the political sensibilities of the moment, changing it wasn’t treated merely as permissible. It was regularly celebrated as an act of moral courage.

The Biden administration changed the federal names of hundreds of geographic features because the existing names contained a term it considered derogatory. The Pentagon renamed military installations across the South. Fort Bragg became Fort Liberty. Fort Hood became Fort Cavazos. Fort Benning became Fort Moore. Fort Polk became Fort Johnson.

Nobody told us names were sacred then.

Princeton removed Woodrow Wilson’s name from its School of Public and International Affairs. Yale removed John C. Calhoun’s name from one of its residential colleges. The Cleveland Indians became the Guardians. The Washington Redskins disappeared and eventually became the Commanders. Aunt Jemima became Pearl Milling Company. Uncle Ben became Ben’s Original.

Even mountains weren’t immune. In 2015, the Obama administration officially changed the name of Mount McKinley to Denali for federal purposes.

And through it all, we were told pretty much the same thing. That language evolves. Culture changes. Names are symbols. If a name no longer represents our values, change it.

Fair enough.

But apparently that rule came with an asterisk.

Donald Trump changes Lake Ontario to Lake America for purposes of the United States government, and suddenly everybody discovers an almost religious devotion to historical nomenclature. Now we’re told the old name is centuries old and carries historical importance. So did plenty of the names they wanted changed. Now we’re told renaming something is unnecessary, provocative, and political.

Welcome to the last decade.

But that really isn’t the point.

The point is that the people now acting horrified by politically motivated renaming helped create the age of politically motivated renaming. They spent years teaching us that names aren’t merely descriptions. They’re declarations. They told us government has every right to reconsider the names it uses, and that changing an old name can say something important about the values of the present generation.

Trump apparently listened.

The difference is that instead of renaming something because America should be embarrassed by its past, he renamed something because he thinks America ought to be proud of itself. And I suspect that’s what bothers some of his critics more than the name itself.

For years, the approved direction of travel was away from old American names, old American heroes, and old American traditions whenever somebody found them insufficiently enlightened. Trump went the other direction.

And it's driving the liberals crazy.

Is it necessary? Probably not. Is it subtle? Not remotely. Is it quintessentially Trump? Absolutely.

But spare me the argument that renaming things for political or cultural reasons is some shocking new violation of American tradition.

That ship sailed a long time ago.

They just never expected Trump to climb aboard.

08/28/2026

Career politicians have become remarkably good at looking concerned.

They furrow their eyebrows at the proper moment. They issue statements. They hold hearings. They appear on television and speak gravely about problems they’ve ignored for twenty years. If the cameras are rolling, they can summon outrage on command.

What they can’t seem to summon is courage.

Courage might cost them a favorable headline. It might anger a donor, offend a lobbyist, or require them to disagree with their party’s leadership. Worst of all, it might make the next election a little more difficult. So they wait. They study the polls. They hire consultants to tell them what they already believe and then call their fearfulness “prudence.”

Meanwhile, the country keeps coming apart.

The national debt climbs. Social Security moves closer to a crisis everyone has known was coming. Roads and bridges age. Families struggle to afford groceries, housing, insurance, and medicine. Our borders, schools, hospitals, and institutions strain under problems politicians have discussed for years but rarely possess the courage to solve.

Every failure arrives with a press release.

That’s the modern political art. Don’t fix the problem. Position yourself around it. Find the safest phrase. Blame the other side. Make certain your name appears in the headline. Then hurry home and tell the voters that Washington or Jackson would be working perfectly if everyone else would simply get out of your way.

The career politician is always an outsider when he returns home. He may have occupied the same office for twenty or thirty years, but listen to him long enough, and you’ll think he just arrived yesterday. Nothing is ever his responsibility. The debt belongs to somebody else. The broken system was inherited. The failed program was beyond his control. He’s forever campaigning against the government he has spent a lifetime running.

And we keep falling for it.

That’s the part we don’t like to discuss. These men and women didn’t seize power in a coup. They weren’t carried into office by invading armies. We elected them. Then we reelected them. We watched the debt rise, the promises disappear, and the institutions weaken, and still we returned the same people to office because we recognized their names.

We complain about Congress and then vote for our congressman. We condemn the establishment and then support its candidates. We say we want fighters, but too often we punish anyone who actually fights because fighting is noisy, uncomfortable, and sometimes impolite.

We claim to want courage. What we frequently reward is familiarity.

The incumbent understands this. He knows that a ribbon cutting is safer than a roll-call vote. He knows that a photograph beside a new building will be remembered longer than the quiet subsidy, debt, or tax burden that paid for it. He knows that most voters won’t read the bill, examine the budget, or look closely at the record. They’ll remember the handshake, the Christmas card, the football game, and the television commercial filmed beside a tractor.

So he gives us politics as theater, and we applaud because the costumes look familiar.

None of this means every incumbent is dishonest or every newcomer is brave. There are still a few good people in public office, and there are opportunists waiting outside it. The question isn’t how long a person has served. The question is what he has done with the time entrusted to him.

Did he confront the problem when it was still possible to solve? Did he tell the truth when a lie would have been easier? Did he stand against his own party when his party was wrong? Did he risk his position for a principle, or did he protect his position and call that principle?

Those are the questions voters should ask.

Political courage isn’t measured by how fiercely someone attacks the opposing party. That’s easy. The real test comes when the threat is sitting beside you at the caucus meeting, controlling your committee assignment, financing your next opponent, or inviting you to choose between your convictions and your career.

That’s when we learn who came to serve and who came to stay.

For years, we’ve watched politicians postpone every hard decision until the choices became worse. We’ve allowed them to purchase today’s applause with tomorrow’s money. We’ve mistaken speeches for action, anger for conviction, and seniority for wisdom. Then, when the consequences arrived, we pretended to be surprised.

We shouldn’t be surprised anymore.

A free people can’t escape responsibility for the government it repeatedly chooses. We may not create every crisis, but we help preserve the system that refuses to solve them. Every time we return a failed leader to office because he’s familiar, well-funded, or connected, we teach the political class that failure carries no penalty.

They’ve learned the lesson well.

If we want different government, we’ll have to become different voters. We’ll have to examine records instead of advertisements. We’ll have to stop being impressed by access, titles, and photographs. We’ll have to demand something more than a headline, a slogan, and another promise that the next term will be different.

The country isn’t falling apart because nobody saw the problems coming. It’s falling apart because too many politicians lacked the courage to act, and too many voters lacked the courage to replace them.

They chose their careers.

We kept choosing them.

08/26/2026

There was a time, not so terribly long ago, when a man could disagree with you without hating you. I remember that time.

I remember front porches in the evening, when the heat had finally begun to loosen its grip on Mississippi, and the grown folks settled into rocking chairs while children chased lightning bugs across the yard. Somebody would bring out a pitcher of sweet tea. Somebody else would complain about the governor. Politics would come up, as politics always does in Mississippi, and before long two old friends might be arguing about taxes, Washington, or the county supervisors.

They could argue pretty hard, too. But when the evening was over, one of them would help the other carry his chair inside.

That seems like a small thing now. Maybe it wasn’t.

We lived by certain unwritten rules. You said “yes, ma’am” and “no, sir.” You held the door for the person behind you and gave up your chair when an older person needed it. You didn’t curse in front of children. When somebody died, casseroles appeared on the porch before the family had thought to ask. If a neighbor’s barn burned down, people showed up the next morning with work gloves and lumber. Nobody stopped to ask how he had voted.

We weren’t perfect people. Heaven knows that. There was meanness then, too, along with gossip, hypocrisy, and every other failing that has followed mankind since Cain looked across the field at Abel. The past deserves no sentimental pardon.

But people still understood that some things simply weren’t done. A decent person didn’t mock a man’s dead mother or laugh at somebody’s sick child. He didn’t humiliate an old person for sport. He didn’t cheer when tragedy visited the home of a political opponent. If he did, he knew enough to be ashamed of himself.

Somewhere along the way, we began confusing cruelty with courage. The loudest insult became the cleverest argument, and humiliation became entertainment. Behind the safety of a glowing screen, people began saying things they would never say across a kitchen table. Strangers became enemies. Their mistakes became our recreation, and their pain became something to share.

Politics once knew its place. Now it occupies the whole house. It has found its way into our football games, grocery stores, churches, schools, and family suppers. We sort one another into camps, and once someone lands in the wrong one, it becomes easier to forget that he is still a human being.

That may be the saddest change of all.

Before we were Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, we were neighbors. We buried one another’s fathers. We watched one another’s children. We loaned tools we never got back and carried food to houses where somebody had cancer. We sat beside hospital beds with people whose politics we didn’t know and wouldn’t have cared about if we had.

Truth matters. Conviction matters. There are principles worth defending and arguments worth having. But being right has never given anyone permission to be cruel.

I don’t want to go backward in every way. There were wrongs that needed correcting. But surely we can carry the good things forward. This new age doesn’t require hardness of heart, and modern life doesn’t prevent us from having manners.

Maybe we could recover a little of the old gentleness.

Call your mother while you still can. Visit your father and listen to the story you’ve already heard a hundred times. Wave at the neighbor you don’t particularly like. Take something warm to a grieving family. Put the telephone away during supper and let a disagreement remain a disagreement.

Teach your children to shake hands, look people in the eye, and say “I’m sorry” when they’ve done wrong. Let them see that kindness isn’t weakness and forgiveness isn’t surrender.

When someone falls, resist the modern temptation to dance. Help him up.

Years from now, nobody will remember most of the arguments that consume us today. The politicians will be gone. The scandals will have faded. The angry posts will disappear into whatever electronic graveyard awaits such things. But our children will remember how we treated people.

They’ll remember whether the house was warm. They’ll remember whether Daddy laughed at the supper table and whether Mama made room for one more. They’ll remember the old men talking beneath the pecan trees, the screen door slamming in July, the sound of a ballgame drifting through an open window, and the porch lights coming on one by one as darkness settled over town.

If we’re fortunate, they’ll remember that the people who raised them believed something simple: a good life wasn’t measured only by what you achieved, accumulated, argued, or won. It was measured, in no small part, by how you treated the people God placed along your way.

I miss that America.

Maybe it isn’t gone. Maybe it’s only waiting for us to behave like we remember it.

08/25/2026

Somewhere tonight, in the long blue shadow of the Smoky Mountains, the porch lights will seem to burn just a little dimmer.

Dolly Parton died today at eighty, and it’s difficult to imagine the country without her. She’d been there so long, singing in that clear mountain voice, laughing at her own jokes, and calling to mind a South that was poor in money but rich in memory.

She was born one of twelve children in Sevier County, Tennessee, in a cabin where hardship was familiar, and faith was close at hand. She never tried to scrub that place from her voice. The farther she traveled, the more faithfully she carried home with her.

Americans are sometimes embarrassed by where they came from. Dolly never was. She loved the mountain people who raised her, spoke openly of God, honored her parents, and remembered what it meant to go without. Fame gave her no reason to look down on anyone.

There was something deeply conservative in the life she lived, though there wasn’t anything partisan about it. She believed in work, guarded the ownership of what she created, stayed loyal to her family, invested in her native Tennessee, and gave away her own money where she believed it would do some good. Her Imagination Library placed books in the hands of children whose names she’d never know. She understood that prosperity carries an obligation to those who haven’t yet found their way out.

All the glitter caused people to underestimate her, and she encouraged the mistake because it amused her. Behind it stood a gifted songwriter, an influential businesswoman, and a woman who knew exactly who she was. She had the old Southern gift of laughing at herself before anyone else could, leaving cruelty very little room in which to operate.

The mountains will still be there tomorrow, ancient and blue. Her songs will still drift from radios, kitchens, pickup trucks, and little country churches. Somewhere a child will open a book because Dolly Parton decided that child ought to have one. Somewhere a young woman will hear her sound and realize that an obscure beginning doesn’t have to become a small life.

May she rest in the arms of the Savior she trusted. May God comfort her family and the people of Tennessee.

The South has lost one of its brightest lights. America has lost one of its best.

08/25/2026

The most dangerous place in Mississippi is between a politician and a ribbon-cutting camera.

But we ought to remember who really deserves the credit.

It's not the government.

08/24/2026

It’s a dirty trick. The people who spent fifty years overturning old assumptions now accuse anyone who objects of being a radical. The accusation is repeated so often that it has almost become accepted without examination. But conservatism, properly understood, isn’t a radical philosophy. It’s almost the opposite. It’s an argument for restraint, continuity, ordered liberty, and respect for institutions that have survived because, more often than not, they contain wisdom we didn’t invent.

There’s nothing radical about believing parents should have the principal role in raising their children. There’s nothing radical about believing men and women are different, that borders ought to be enforced, that criminals ought to be prosecuted, that the government should live within some reasonable relationship to its means, or that citizens should be free to speak, worship, work, own property, and raise families without constant interference from Washington. Those weren’t fringe ideas when most of us were growing up. They were ordinary American assumptions.

What changed wasn’t conservatism. What changed was the country around it, and especially the institutions which shape our politics, culture, education, entertainment, and public life.

For years, the political Left has pushed one boundary after another. Each new demand was presented as modest. We were told that nobody wanted to go any farther. Then, once the new position was established, the next demand arrived, and anyone who still defended yesterday’s consensus was treated as though he had wandered in from some dark corner of history.

We’ve watched it happen on marriage, s*x, and gender. Barack Obama opposed same-s*x marriage when he first ran for president. Hillary Clinton did too. That wasn’t considered radical or hateful at the time. But the argument didn’t stop with civil marriage. It moved into disputes over whether religious believers, bakers, photographers, adoption agencies, schools, and other institutions could be required to participate in conduct that violated their convictions.

Then came gender ideology. Americans were first asked to accept that s*x and gender were separate concepts. Then we were told that men could become women. Then males began competing in women’s sports. Bathrooms, locker rooms, school policies, pronouns, and children’s education were pulled into the debate. People who said biological s*x is real suddenly found themselves treated as if they were making some shocking new political claim. In truth, they were saying what nearly everyone in America had said without controversy a generation earlier.

Who radicalized whom?

The same thing happened with immigration. There was once broad agreement in both parties that a sovereign nation had a right to control its border, enforce its laws, deport people who entered illegally, and expect newcomers to assimilate into the country they chose to join. Democratic presidents said those things. Democratic senators voted for enforcement measures. None of it was considered extreme.

Over time, however, ordinary immigration enforcement came to be described as cruel. Deportation became morally suspect. Sanctuary cities grew to be fashionable. Illegal entry was often discussed as though it were merely an administrative inconvenience, while Americans who objected to millions of unlawful crossings were accused of fear, prejudice, or worse. Eventually, a demand for a secure border became the radical position.

Race followed much the same course. The great moral victory of the civil-rights movement was the rejection of the idea that Americans should be judged by the color of their skin. The aspiration was equal citizenship, equal protection, and a country in which race mattered less, not more. Yet over time, large parts of the Left moved away from that ideal and back toward racial categories, racial preferences, racial quotas, racial guilt, and the constant sorting of Americans into oppressors and victims according to ancestry and skin color. Then, we were told that colorblindness itself was suspect, that institutions should treat people differently in the name of correcting past wrongs, and that children should be taught to understand themselves through racial identity. Conservatives who still believe the law should treat every citizen as an individual, without favor or penalty because of race, are now sometimes described as the extremists. That’s an extraordinary reversal of the principle Americans were once taught to admire.

Crime followed the same path. Americans once understood that one of government’s first duties was to preserve order. Police were supposed to arrest criminals. Prosecutors were supposed to prosecute them. Judges were supposed to impose sentences authorized by law. Then came campaigns to defund police departments, eliminate cash bail, decline prosecution of entire categories of offenses, reduce penalties, and treat enforcement itself as part of the problem.

People saw what followed in city after city. It’s becoming a nightmare. Stores locked ordinary merchandise behind plastic. Businesses closed. Families changed where they walked, shopped, and spent time. When voters finally demanded more police, more prosecution, and more accountability for repeat offenders, they were told they had moved to the extreme right. They hadn’t. They had simply grown tired of an experiment they never asked for.

Education has traveled the same road. Parents once assumed that sending a child to public school didn’t mean surrendering authority over that child’s moral upbringing. Then parents began discovering controversies over race, s*xuality, gender identity, pronouns, school libraries, parental notification, and what teachers were able to discuss with young children. When mothers and fathers began showing up at school-board meetings and demanding answers, much of the political establishment acted as though the parents were the problem.

But the parents hadn’t suddenly changed. The institutions had.

The same is true of free speech. Older liberals once regarded free expression as almost sacred. They defended offensive speech because they understood that the First Amendment means very little if it protects only popular opinions. Somewhere along the way, that tradition weakened. Universities began shouting down speakers. Employees lost jobs over political opinions. Social media companies became more aggressive in policing disputed claims and political debate. Activists began describing speech itself as a kind of harm.

Conservatives responded by defending the old rule: let people speak. Let bad arguments be answered by better ones. Don’t give government, corporations, universities, or ideological mobs the power to decide what every American may say. Somehow, defending that older liberal principle became another mark of supposed right-wing radicalism.

Government has changed too. The national debt climbed into the tens of trillions. Trillion-dollar deficits became routine. Federal agencies accumulated extraordinary authority over subjects that previous generations would have considered local, private, or beyond Washington’s proper reach. Emergency powers expanded. Regulations multiplied. Unelected officials came to exercise tremendous influence over the daily lives of people who would never know their names.

Conservatives continued to make the same argument they had made for decades: government should spend less, borrow less, regulate less, and remain within the constitutional boundaries placed upon it. That position didn’t become more radical. Washington simply moved farther away from it.

Technology has made the problem even more obvious. Cameras can record license plates almost everywhere a person travels. Phones can reveal where we’ve been. Corporations accumulate vast amounts of information about our habits, purchases, interests, and movements. Government possesses surveillance capabilities that earlier Americans could hardly have imagined. Yet when someone says a free people ought to be suspicious of all this, he is often dismissed as paranoid or anti-technology.

That suspicion isn’t new. It’s deeply American. The Founders were suspicious of concentrated power because they understood human nature. They didn’t believe good intentions were enough. Neither should we.

The pattern has become familiar. A longstanding social norm exists. Progressives challenge it and insist that the proposed change is limited. Conservatives resist and are told they’re overreacting. The change is adopted. Then the next demand arrives. The ground moves again. Eventually conservatives stop retreating, organize serious resistance, and announce that there are some things they simply won’t surrender.

At that point, the resistance itself is called radical.

That’s how political language gets turned upside down.

It’s true that today’s conservative movement is angrier than it was twenty years ago. It’s more skeptical of universities, corporations, federal agencies, the national press, and even the Republican establishment. But that skepticism didn’t materialize out of thin air. People watched institutions they once trusted become increasingly hostile to their values. They watched political leaders promise one thing at election time and do another once safely back in office. They watched every compromise become the starting point for the next demand.

Eventually people noticed that compromise always seemed to move in the same direction. So they stopped moving.

That’s the part our critics refuse to understand. There is a difference between radicalism and reaction. If someone keeps moving the fence toward your house, defending your yard will eventually look aggressive to them. But you’re still standing in the same yard.

That is where a great many conservatives find themselves today. We aren’t asking America to commence upon some unprecedented social experiment. In most cases, we’re asking for things Americans took for granted within living memory: secure borders, equal treatment under the law, parental authority, recognition of biological reality, fiscal restraint, public safety, free speech, religious liberty, constitutional government, and a culture confident enough to defend its own inheritance.

For years, we were told to tolerate the changes. Then we were told to accept them. Then to celebrate them. Eventually we were told that refusing to participate in them was itself evidence of extremism.

Thankfully, some Americans have finally answered no.

That doesn’t make them radicals. It may simply mean they have remembered where the line used to be, and decided they have retreated far enough.

Address

Ellisville, MS

Telephone

+16013594088

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Senator Chris McDaniel posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Organization

Send a message to Senator Chris McDaniel:

Shortcuts

Share

Category