Why did Trump make an appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience while the Harris camp said it simply wasn't doable at the present time? Why has Harris, in large part, ducked and dodged serious media interviews? It is ostensibly because Harris has no ideas of her own and can barely articulate her party's ideas. And frankly, one reason I cannot wait for this election to be over is that I will never hear the phrase "word salad" again. At least I hope not.
Harris's incompetence aside, it is worth remembering that with a progressive agenda, it is largely the agenda, not the results or even the optics, that matters. We can see this in the last four years of fiscal, domestic, and foreign policy and the approach to the border.
There can be little argument that for the upper echelons of the Democrat Party and the progressive movement, their policies are designed to consolidate power and accumulate wealth. I can tell you from experience that for the lower ranks, the results of bad policy are negligible and can be worked out later, presumably with more policies.
Furthermore, if a policy, law, mandate, or order comes from the Left, it is inherently good by virtue of its origin. The fact that it infuriates conservatives is merely a bonus. It's a great bonus but a bonus nonetheless. So long as those two factors are in place, the negative results of any governmental action can be met with a mere shrug.
JD Vance is aware of this. He pointed it out on Saturday while in Harrisburg, Pa., during a town hall discussion at Rock Church. According to the New York Post, Pastor Joshua C. Robertson hosted the discussion. Robertson is the author of a piece in The Wall Street Journal about school choice and the Democrats' reluctance to engage on the issue.
The subject of transgender participation in school sports came up, and Vance commented that he thought it was "crazy" to allow biological males to compete in girls' sports. He added, “But even if you disagree with me, I think that it is such a terrible thing to take food out of the mouths of poor children because they don’t do what the Biden-Harris administration wants them to do.”
While not mentioning it by name, Vance was likely referring to a May 2022 memo from the Biden-Harris Department of Agriculture. Under this memo, the USDA could freeze federal funding, including school lunch funding for states that do not permit students to participate on teams of the opposite sex.
The memo, written in murky federalese with a variety of citations liberally sprinkled throughout, does not directly address school sports or school lunches. Its focus is on discrimination and ensuring that it does not occur regarding SNAP benefits. However, many conservatives, including Vance, contend that it allows an interpretation that would provide the necessary rationale for withholding school lunch funds over the issue of transgenderism.
It reads in part:
State agencies and program operators should expeditiously review their program discrimination complaint procedures and make any changes necessary to ensure complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation are processed and evaluated as complaints of discrimination on the basis of sex. State agencies and program operators are advised that the interpretation outlined in this memo does not determine the outcome in any particular case, which will depend on the specific facts and circumstances of that case. Any action taken by USDA in a specific case will take account of all relevant facts and legal requirements, including, where applicable, Title IX’s religious exemption, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq., and any other applicable exemptions.
State agencies are reminded to distribute this memorandum to local agencies, Program Operators and Sponsors, and all other subrecipients of Federal financial assistance. Local agencies, Program Operators and Sponsors, and all other subrecipients should direct questions concerning this memorandum to their State agency. State agencies with questions should contact the appropriate FNS Regional Civil Rights Officer.
The logic and opportunity for abuse are transparent to anyone who has kept an eye on the Biden-Harris administration and the Obama administration before that. If a state does not toe the federal line on transgender issues, the feds could withhold funding for school lunches, and poor kids would go hungry. The administration can then state that it desperately wants to provide that benefit to underprivileged students but a state government that refuses to act in concert with federal law is restraining it from doing so.
Under such a scenario, the children in question would not even be chess pieces so much as cannon fodder to advance an agenda. That will sit well with the upper echelons. To the average progressive on the street, the thought of children going hungry because of federal intransigence would never even occur.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member