Anglospherics

TOUGH BEAT FOR iDENTITARIANS:

The meaning of “All men are created equal” (Lewis Waha, 6/11/26, Center for Faith & Freedom)

A century later, Martin Luther King, Jr. again invoked that same truth. In his “I Have a Dream” speech, King expressed the hope that “this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed … that all men are created equal.”

There’s a solid throughline from the Declaration to the Gettysburg Address and to King’s speech. It’s America’s championing the God-given reality of human dignity. Whereas some dismiss dignity as sentimental fluff, and others count it a useful fiction, Americans understand human dignity as self-evident truth.

Christians in particular understand human dignity as due to all human beings bearing the image of God. It’s a natural inference from the Declaration of Independence to the book of Genesis. All men being “created equal” and “endowed by their Creator” evokes the moment when God said, “Let us make man in our image.”

WAIT, I CAN’T HATE MY NEIGHBOR?:

J. D. Vance’s Contemptuous Conversion Memoir (Jessica Winter, June 19, 2026, The New Yorker)

The invocation of “explicitly Christian arguments” is one of several instances in “Communion” when Vance’s approach to political campaigning and governance can seem borderline theocratic. One of his everyday challenges as Vice-President is to figure out “how to take an accepted moral principle and apply it in the real world as a Christian leader.” This conflation of public service with puffed-chest religious crusading is especially jarring when he writes, at length, about his 2025 visit to the Vatican, shortly before the death of Pope Francis, and his tense interactions with officials there, mainly over U.S. immigration policy. “Here I was, the most senior Catholic in the United States government,” Vance recalls, affronted, “and the Vatican seemed unwilling to move its moral guidance past the point of trite platitudes.” He goes on, “I’m one Christian statesman who would welcome an institutional faith less focused on platitudes and more focused on reality.”

It’s hard to imagine a reality-based conversation about the intersection of Catholic ethics and immigration policy with a man who campaigned for the Vice-Presidency by spreading calumnies about Haitian immigrants eating the pet cats and dogs of their neighbors in Ohio. Or who, after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent shot and killed a mother of three during the agency’s siege of Minneapolis, condemned the victim as a “deranged leftist” whose death was a “tragedy of her own making.” Or whose career has been largely bankrolled by the co-founder of Palantir, which has a thirty-million-dollar contract with ICE to provide A.I. surveillance and data-mining technology for hunting and deporting immigrants. Or who uses Elon Musk, the tech trillionaire and former Department of Government Efficiency overseer whose cuts to public-health agencies and infrastructure are projected to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide, as an exemplar of how “immigration can bring benefits to the host country in its own right. Just think of Elon Musk and the hundreds of thousands of jobs that trace directly to his decision to come to the United States.”

BUT THEY DID FAIL TO TAKE ADVANTAGE…:

Brexit 10 Years Later: The Economic Collapse That Never Happened: Voters were warned that leaving the EU would trigger recession, mass unemployment, and lasting economic decline. Comparing Britain’s performance with its G7 peers suggests a more nuanced picture. (John Phelan, June 19, 2026, Daily Economy)

Why did Brexit fail to live down to the economic warnings?

First, the EU is an economic laggard. As Figure 3 shows, since 2011, the EU’s economy has grown by 20.6 percent while the US economy — the second biggest destination for British exports after the EU in 2016 — grew by 39.9 percent, nearly double the rate.


Second, Britain’s economy was one of the least reliant on its EU colleagues. As Figure 4 shows, in 2015, just 42.3 percent of British exports went to the EU, a share lower than in each of the 27 other members. This is partly because, as Luis Garicano, a former member of the European Parliament, noted recently, the “Single Market” is largely a myth.

…of the opportunity to massively deregulate business and expand free trade.

NO CREATION, NO UNIVERSALISM:

Reading the Declaration of Independence as Holy Text: How the American creed emerged—and evolved—over 250 years (Kathryn Lofton, 6/08/26, Yale Review)

To achieve independence in 1776, the founders needed people besides themselves to believe in it and practice it. The message of their Philadelphia story could have been many things. Social coherence is something religion provides, often through repeating a story and asserting its moral. Creed is the word scholars use for those incantatory phrases that convey and perform adherence. all Men aRe cReated equal is a creed, in gOd we tRust another. libeRty is a third. Saying a creed publicizes commitment, claims distinction, and tests orthodoxy. A person can have a creed they describe as personal, but a creed is ultimately corporate, something other people can hear and repeat back: “Me too.”

WHAT ENLIGHTENMENT?:

The Forgotten Foundations of Constitutional Law (Nicholas Aroney, 6/08/26, Public Discourse)

Sir William Blackstone once observed that “Christianity is part of the laws of England.” Although this statement struck the mind of Thomas Jefferson as a kind of “judicial forgery,” Blackstone was expressing an idea that was commonplace among English lawyers. The question is not so much whether Christianity is part of the common law, but what parts and in what respects it is, or has been, integral to the body of law as a whole. And what can be said of the common law in general can also be said of constitutional law in particular. Certain important parts of our contemporary inheritance of constitutional law have been shaped decisively by Christian beliefs, practices and institutions, and the whole body of constitutional law, in its variegated national forms, reflects numerous specific Christian influences.

Christianity is not, of course, the only influence on the common law and on constitutional law in particular. Many interweaving historical influences have shaped modern constitutional law. Among these, four broad strands stand out as especially influential: Greek philosophy, Roman law, Christian theology, and Enlightenment principles. While the exact contribution that each of these has made—and should continue to make—is a matter of debate, there is little doubt that each has contributed substantially to how constitutional law is conceived and practised in our day.

Greek philosophy introduced a taxonomy of constitutional types and the concept of the rule of law. Roman law contributed the crucial notion of jurisdiction, a fundamental aspect of contemporary constitutional law. Christian theology provided a framework that qualified the authority of civil government by a higher natural or divine law, with the church’s spiritual authority placing practical limits on temporal powers. The powers of civil and ecclesiastical rulers were tempered through various means, including the administration of oaths of office and the issuing of charters guaranteeing the rights of religious, social, economic, and civil associations of many kinds. And while the Enlightenment is rightly associated with the modern principle of the separation of powers and the establishment of written constitutions enforced by judicial review, these principles also owe much to practices established prior to the Age of Enlightenment, especially those developed and extended during the Reformation. Despite important Greek, Roman, and Enlightenment contributions, constitutional law would not be what it is today if it were not for the influence of Christianity.

After Magna Carta the rest follows.

TOO EXTREME FOR FELLOW EXTREMISTS:

Frustrated by Courts, Trump Weighed Suspending a Constitutional Right (Maggie HabermanJonathan Swan, 6/15/26, NY Times)

The man who outlined his concerns in the memo, Mr. Scharf, was no resistance figure. A trim, balding, Harvard-trained lawyer who had run for office in Missouri, he had bemoaned John McCain as too moderate for the 2008 Republican nomination, and believed Mr. Trump had been vindictively prosecuted after his 2020 election loss.

He had helped develop the Trump team’s legal arguments behind the successful effort to get the Mar-a-Lago classified documents indictment thrown out, as well as the arguments behind the presidential immunity case that prevailed at the Supreme Court. He had embraced the most contentious elements of Mr. Trump’s agenda, but was quickly coming up against the limit of what the Constitution, in his reading, could be made to bear.

The Constitution, Mr. Scharf wrote in his memo to Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff, permits suspension of habeas corpus only in cases of rebellion or invasion. Courts have almost uniformly held that only Congress can do it.

He added: “Even where Congress has explicitly suspended habeas corpus rights, the Supreme Court has held that some alternative process must be provided to defendants, with procedural safeguards akin to a habeas corpus action.


“It prevents, in effect, governmental actors from detaining, imprisoning or executing individuals arbitrarily,” Mr. Scharf wrote.

Always bet on the Deep State.

CAPITALISM/DEMOCRACY/PROTESTANTISM:

What happens when liberalism loses? (Mani Basharzad, 9 June 2026, CapX)

Liberalism loses when it attaches itself only to economics. Yes, it is easy to blame the populist movements of both Left and Right that seek to undermine liberalism. But on one point, liberals should look at themselves. A liberalism that defines itself solely in terms of economic freedom cannot win the battle of ideas. Free markets are part of classical liberalism, but they are largely a by-product of the more important principles and institutions of a free society. When you have the rule of law, you can have property rights and effective contract enforcement. When you have the liberal attitude of tolerance, you can have the Royal Exchange, of which Voltaire wrote that when you enter, ‘all nations assemble for the advantage of mankind’, and ‘the Jew, the Mahometan, and the Christian bargain with one another as if they were of the same religion, and bestow the name of infidel on bankrupts only’.

To win the battle for liberalism, liberals must not confine themselves to the material benefits of free markets, but also emphasise the moral superiority of free societies. Hayek met Churchill only once, after ‘The Road to Serfdom’ had gained popularity. Churchill knew of him because of that book. When they were introduced, Churchill was, as Hayek put it, ‘stock drunk’. Churchill said to him: ‘You are completely right [about ‘The Road to Serfdom’]; but it will never happen in Britain’. As Hayek continued, ‘Half an hour later he made one of the most brilliant speeches I ever heard’.

Why, despite travelling some distance down the road to serfdom, did Britain never lose its political freedom? Why, in Churchill’s words, would this ‘never happen in Britain’? Because there is something more to liberalism than economics. Those deeper foundations resisted the road to serfdom in Britain, and they enabled its revival through Thatcher’s conservative revolution.

Liberals have failed to shape the climate of opinion and practical politics, relying too often on what Russell Kirk described as soulless ‘pleasure and pain equations’. China today is the example of a state that, viewed solely through an economic lens, appears impressive, yet has become a threat to freedom.

THE SYSTEM IS THE CENTER:

The Center Can Hold: How Jews can rebuild a middle-ground politics (David Bernstein, June 9, 2026, Sapir)

The center is not a point on a graph. Most Americans, even today with the high number of political independents, identify with one of the two major political parties. On many concrete policy questions, that center is defined not by rigid ideology but by a blend of instincts. On immigration, for example, large majorities of Americans say immigration is good for the country, roughly two-thirds support a path to legal status, and yet many of those same voters also favor stronger border enforcement and reject permissive approaches. This “both/and” pattern — combining order and openness, rights and limits — appears in issues and reflects a more nuanced public than our polarized politics suggest.

The center can also be understood as a set of people, coalitions, and norms capable of sustaining pluralism. It includes citizens and leaders who may disagree on policy but who remain willing to engage despite differences, deliberate in good faith, and operate with a shared commitment to democratic rules. The political center, then, is not simply equidistant from the Right and the Left; it is the combination of both/and thinking and the civic capacity to translate that thinking into cooperation and governance.

American Jews have flourished in a system defined by liberal democratic norms: constitutional protections, equal citizenship, religious liberty, and a culture of pluralism. Our security has never depended on numerical strength but rather on the strength of the system itself.

MAGA IS LEFT:

What the World Cup tells us about free trade (Ben Ramanauskas, 11 June 2026, CapX)

The negotiations and enactment of NAFTA were mired in controversy and were bitterly opposed by mainly those on the left of politics as politicians, NGOs, and trade unions raised concerns about its potential impact on the environment and labour standards. NAFTA was controversial and consequential, but it was also a remarkable achievement.

The most immediate and unambiguous success of NAFTA was the sheer scale of trade it unlocked. Given that it was a Free Trade Agreement, this sounds obvious, but regional trade among the three countries grew from approximately $290 billion in 1993 to more than $1.1 trillion by 2016. This represents a near-fourfold increase that outpaced US trade growth with the rest of the world. By 2019, total trilateral trade had reached $1.23 trillion, with the United States exporting $549bn in goods to Canada and Mexico combined, making them America’s top two export markets.

UNFAIR TO VILLAGES:

Putin’s ‘Cringe’ Weekend of Humiliation: His effort to put on a show of strength didn’t fool anyone. (Cathy Young, Jun 09, 2026, The Bulwark)

RUSSIAN PUNDITS AND JOURNALISTS ABROAD HAD CHOICE WORDS to describe the just-concluded St. Petersburg International Economic Forum: “A freak show.” “A fake.” “A Potemkin village.” For that matter, even the quasi-dissident Russian businessman Dmitry Potapenko, who still lives in Russia and was in attendance at the event, remarked in a YouTube interview that there was “more cringe” (yes, “krindzh” is now a Russian word) than usual—perhaps the perfect way to describe this year’s installment a once-prestigious event dating back to 1997.

For striking examples of krindzh, look no further than the American guest list, where the big names were conspiracy-theory blogger Candace Owens (who is known for many things, but the one Russian commentators found especially juicy was her crusade to prove that French First Lady Brigitte Macron is a man) and “influencer” Andrew Tate, who is also known for many things, especially multiple charges of human trafficking and sexual assault, including against minors. Even many Kremlin loyalists were annoyed by Tate’s presence—among them Ekaterina Mizulina, a prominent crusader for “traditional values” and for a “safe Internet” (i.e., censorship), who grumbled that Russia has enough of its own “dubious bloggers” and doesn’t need to import them. For some reason, no one pointed out that the forum’s American lineup included a convicted child molester, former United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who spoke on a panel and shared his wisdom that “today Europe is a rabid dog.”