Issue: Pop Culture

Dolly Parton, whose death yesterday at the age of 80 brought an intense outpouring of grief, was that rare cultural icon beloved by everyone.

“We Will Always Love You, Dolly,” proclaimed the New York Post cover. The Free Press elaborated:

Equally beloved by Baptist church ladies and buxom drag queens, Dolly’s Southern charm drew everyone into her orbit.

She is remembered as “Dolly Parton, Pure Product of America” (also the Free Press, by Caitlin Flanagan):

Try to think of anyone who has made as deep and long-lasting a mark on American culture as she has.

“From rags to rhinestones – farewell to the Queen of Country” is the headline to a story that celebrates her “more than 200 songs throughout her incredible career, including hits such as Jolene and 9 To 5, and I Will Always Love You, made famous by Whitney Houston’s cover in the 1990s.” Choked up Tennessee Governor Bill Lee told Gillian Turner that his state had “lost its favorite daughter.” Just FYI: The Governor’s favorite Dolly Parton hit is “Coat of Many Colors.” Her appeal, writes James B. Meigs in the Wall Street Journal’s Free Expression section, “went beyond her larger-than-life image.” She was “the only voice in the world,” adds Bob Greene.

Even George Will loved Dolly. Will’s column is headlined “Gifted in Song and Storytelling, She Got the Rainbow.” Will recalls that Ms. Parton’s “ethic of self-reliance.” It’s a terrific column, and I bet Ms. Parton would love it:

The doctor who ushered the infant Dolly Rebecca Parton into the world in 1946 was paid with a sack of cornmeal. Such was the transactional nature of health care for some around the Great Smoky Mountains in East Tennessee. Her father and mother had been 17 and 15, respectively, when they married, and could not have imagined how the world would be their daughter’s oyster.

But not immediately. …Her family knew the old story of a cheerful preacher saying to a hardscrabble farmer, “This is a right nice place you and Lord have here,” and the farmer replying, “You should have seen the som’bitch when the Lord had it hisself.” Young Dolly was steeped in the ethic of self-reliance.

Another Plucky Southern Woman. Trump-endorsed Senator Darline Graham narrowly won the Senate runoff yesterday in South Carolina. The sister of the late Senator Lindsey Graham defeated Rep. Ralph Norman. Axios notes:

The victory underscores Trump’s continued sway with Republican voters and positions Graham as the odds-on favorite to win a full term in November.

James Antle writes in the Examiner that the victory of Senator Graham, who flubbed a national defense question, has a message for the GOP for midterms:

Maybe voters, including even Republican primary voters, are more interested in the economy and domestic issues than foreign affairs.

Maybe Too Plucky. Michigan Senate hopeful Abdul El-Sayed tried to fend off a question about gender treatment for minors from Fox host Jesse Watters by asking Watters if he was circumcised. Bethany Mandel suggests that El-Sayed’s “dodge-and-weave” performance will hurt Democrats:

El-Sayed wasn’t just unprepared to answer questions on transgender medical interventions for children; he was equally unable to intelligently discuss Sharia law, reparations, healthcare costs and windmills on Lake Michigan. 

His smarmy performance has been a gift to Republicans who see in the candidate a dark turn toward a new generation of extremists running as Democrats: elites promoting socialism while remaining deeply disconnected from the concerns of everyday Americans. 

“Ascendant No More, Democrats Are a Coalition of the Pathetic” is the intriguing headline on Matthew Continetti’s WSJ column. Ronald Brownstein coined the term “coalition of the ascendant” to describe Obama voters, who were destined to hold an “enduring advantage” over Republicans. But the coalition was not so enduring:

What has replaced the coalition of the ascendant is a coalition of the pathetic: Very Online millennials and zoomers with college and graduate degrees, few prospects and far-out beliefs. They take their cues from Sen. Bernie Sanders, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani and the Democratic Socialists of America. They want to cut off aid to Israel, abolish private health insurance and immigration enforcement, nix the Electoral College and even the Senate, pack the Supreme Court and grant statehood to Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. Establishment Democrats want to harness its energy while encouraging it to become more moderate. Good luck. …

Grievance drives the new socialism—outrage that their educational credentials haven’t delivered them wealth and status. According to Nate Silver, Americans with advanced degrees and incomes of $30,000 to $60,000 are the most Democratic voting bloc. The three largest self-described occupations in the 2021 DSA member survey were “unemployed, disabled, retired” (15%), “white collar” (13%) and “teacher, scholar, academic” (10%).

The well-credentialed are likely to push “postmaterial” causes such as climate alarmism, transgenderism, defunding the police and opposition to Israel. But the ideas that motivate the new coalition repel parts of the old one.

“Most Depressing Election of the Year” is Best of the Web columnist James Freeman’s headline:

One can argue that Los Angeles voters have only themselves to blame after a primary mayoral election in which they rejected the candidate urging a new approach to the city’s rising homelessness.

On the other hand, more timely reporting of the depth of the crisis might have made a difference in a fairly close election. Regardless, it’s almost as if the city’s working, taxpaying residents are now being taunted by candidates asking which flavor of tragic boondoggle they prefer.

Germane. In “California’s Billion-Dollar Union Machine,” in City Journal, natch, Chris Rufo and Schrupp write about public-sector unions that harvest taxpayer cash and rule the state.

The Supreme Court, as you’ve likely heard, lifted the hold on President Trump’s executive order enlisting the U.S. Postal Service to help restrict mail in voting. But, as an editorial in the Wall Street Journal complains, the Justices did not address the legality of the president’s order but only the pause. The midterms are looming, but the core issue remains undecided:  

Yet the Court emphasizes it takes no position on the lawfulness of whatever concrete changes might result from Mr. Trump’s order: “On that score, time will tell.” As it happens, the USPS on Friday published its final rule, effective immediately, though it’s currently blocked by a second injunction, issued by the same judge in a separate case. The Trump Administration also wants that one dissolved, though a challenge to the final rule will arrive before long.

It’s hard to imagine Mr. Trump’s plan could take effect before November, and the timing is getting worse.The Administration first asked the Justices for help on July 27. What took so long? The main opinion is 10 pages. A dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, is four pages and says the decision “merely postpones” the case.

As usual, one Justice distinguished herself:

Then comes Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, with a separate 23-page dissent, diving into the merits. “The President does not have any legal authority to require that elections be conducted in accordance with his preferences,” she says, “or to withhold delivery of mail-in ballots that are not formatted consistent with the President’s wishes.” If she’d resisted the urge to write this and deploy the word “Kafkaesque,” could the Court have ruled sooner?

What is the fastest-growing religion in the U.S.? You’ve probably read about young people converting to Catholicism, but the fastest-growing religion is Islam. Paul Sperry addresses the refusal of a large segment of Muslims to assimilate to U.S. culture in “American Medinas: Turning US Cities Into ‘Beachheads’ for Islam.”

But the West seems eager to adjust our culture to that of recalcitrant newcomers. In “Welcome to Britain. Remember Not to Rape Anyone,” Louise Perry writes about the leaflets the U.K. prepared for immigrants. “We Shall Leaflet Them on the Beaches,” promises Mark Steyn in response to the U.K.’s helpful reminders.  

Reinstated. The Washington Post has been forced to rehire columnist Karen Attiah, who called Charlie Kirk a “white man that espoused violence.” She’s a charmer all right:

In another post that day, she wrote: “Refusing to tear my clothes and smear ashes on my face in performative mourning for a white man that espoused violence is … not the same as violence.”

The Path to Zero. That’s the title of a new Wall Street Journal documentary on our catastrophic Joe Biden-ordered withdrawal from Afghanistan, which you can view online. It is billed as an “unflinching account of America’s disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, told by the people who lived it.”

We did it, America!

It only took us 250 years, but we finally chased the last remnant of Brit royal hangers-on from our shores: Harry and Meghan are going back to the U.K.

People magazine had the scoop: “Prince Harry and Meghan Markle to Make Shocking Move Back to the U.K. with Kids Archie and Lilibet”:

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are relocating with Prince Archie, 7, and Princess Lilibet, 5, to the U.K. for an extended period beginning this month, PEOPLE understands, with the children set to begin school there in September.

King Charles was made aware of the couple’s plans on Sunday, August 16, PEOPLE understands, and welcomes the opportunity to see more of the Sussex family in a private and personal capacity.

Charles is said to have been clear there will be no change to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s status as private individuals and non-working members of the royal family, in keeping with the wishes they expressed and the agreement reached when they stepped back from royal duties.

Those close to Harry believe his recent visit to Britain reflects his conviction that the more the public interacts with Meghan, the more they appreciate her….

Hmm. Ms. Must thinks Harry has the wrong end of the stick here. Increased exposure to Meghan tends to have the opposite effect. Meanwhile, “The Return will be Duchess’s biggest challenge yet,” suggests the headline on royal expert Camilla Tominey’s Telegraph piece. Initially, the latest Sussex update was difficult to absorb:

Talk about a marmalade dropper. If you were breakfasting in Montecito when the news broke, you could have been forgiven for spitting out your As Ever jam (t’interweb still drowning in $12 jars).

Yet when you get over the shock of it, when you come to terms with the pure cheek of it, is it actually all that surprising?

I appreciate that the couple left the UK because of its evil media and racist Royal family. The “truth”, according to the Sussexes, was that Meghan was almost driven to suicide by living in this green and pleasant land, with its unconscious bias towards white people like William and Kate.

Prince William has not been on speaking terms with his brother for years. So, King Charles is probably not the only member of the royal family to have had his Sunday ruined. You might also enjoy “Get the Barf Bag Ready: Harry and Meghan Are Moving Back to UK — and Wait, Trump’s to Blame?“

Is it time for President Trump to launch his own Biden-style Basement Campaign?  I fear that Wall Street Journal political columnist Karl Rove is suggesting just that (“Midterm Lessons from Bush to Trump“). Rove writes:

You can imagine how Mr. Trump wants this campaign season to roll out. He wants to fly from rally to rally, inserting himself in the middle of every important contest—he’s headed to South Carolina Friday presumably to do just that. In battleground states and districts, the president will walk on stage to Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless the U.S.A.,” then launch into an hour-plus of pontificating, warning of the dangers of the “Dumocrats,” and predicting “nothing but death, squalor, poverty” if these “communists” get elected. The crowds will go wild.

A far better course would be to minimize the president’s political profile after Labor Day. Mr. Trump is unpopular. His approval in the RealClearPolitics average is 39%. A season of political rallies won’t improve that. Less campaigning might.

Florida’s primaries remain topic A. “Byron Donalds and Florida’s Future” is the headline on a Wall Street Journal editorial. Rep. David Jolly, the Democratic candidate for Governor, who will go against Donalds, is a more an establishment Democrat than socialist Angie Nixon who won the Democratic Senate nomination:

As November approaches, the contrast between Mr. Jolly and Ms. Nixon could make for a fascinating campaign. The Democratic Party has been veering left, with nobody manning the brake. Will Mr. Jolly try? It’s hard to imagine Florida’s electorate is eager to go along for the ride. Enough of the state’s voters, including Cuban-Americans, already have enough experience with socialism.

The Wall Street’s Kimberley Strassel looks at the Florida primary results across the board today with special focus on—populist—right contender James Fishback, who made a surprisingly abysmal showing in his race for the GOP gubernatorial nomination. “For elected Republicans flirting with progressive populism,” the Fishback lost is a warning sign, according to Strassel.

Hold on to Your Bonnets. “Trump’s Iran Strategy May Actually Be Working” is the headline on a National Review story by Noah Rothman. Rothman writes:

CNN could not independently verify Energy Secretary Chris Wright’s claim that “combined oil transits through the strait and rerouted around the waterway totaled around 15 million barrels per day,” which approaches the pre-war average of 20-million barrels. But it couldn’t gainsay the experts. As one industry analyst conceded, “It increasingly looks like Iran has at least partially lost control of the strait.”

The Iranian regime is feeling the pain. 

Meanwhile, a CNN contribution, by David Goldman, has this encouraging headline: “Iran has lost significant control of the Strait of Hormuz.”

Progressives may be thwarted (but not enough, alas) in their attempt to raise and impose new taxes on absolutely everything. “It’s Hard to Tax Things That Move,” is the headline on an op-ed by University of California at Irvine economist Richard B. McKenzie:

They miss an important economic reality. Their policy dreams will be checked by a force as unrelenting as it is unheralded: the growing mobility of capital, over which they will have shrinking influence. They risk becoming like New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, whom Florida’s Chamber of Commerce crowned “Florida’s Economic Developer of the Year” for inducing New York City wealth to move south.

Another disappointment for the radical left: “‘Late Capitalism’ Is Nonsense,” according to James B. Meigs. “Using the phrase is a dead giveaway that you’re smug and overeducated,” argues Meigs.

“How the Anticop Left Embraced Antisemitism,” by Edward Conlon, a former cop. He writes:

Police departments represent one thing to their critics: state power. If you hate the state, you hate the people hired to enforce its laws. “The Jews” serve as symbolic villains for a bewilderingly contradictory collection of theological, social and political views. They are somehow behind both international finance and international communism. In the antisemitic imagination, Jews can stand for anything.

Zohran Mamdani made the connection in a 2023 statement at a Democratic Socialists of America convention, which resurfaced during his campaign for New York mayor last year: “We have to make clear that when the boot of the NYPD is on your neck, it’s been laced by the IDF.”

This isn’t the language of policy debate. It’s an ideology that frames its opponents as agents of irredeemably sinister forces, for whom reform is neither desirable nor feasible.

Hence the acronym “ACAB,” meaning “All Cops Are Bastards,” that proliferated across social media and on signs at protest marches in the summer of 2020…

The obligatory phrase in reporting from the era [the summer of 2020], “mostly peaceful protesters”—technically accurate but analogous to describing Luigi Mangione as “mostly nonmurderous”—reluctantly admits that more than a few in the crowds weren’t motivated by their better angels.

“Gender Surgery for Minors Faces a Legal Reckoning,” by David H. Napier in City Journal has encouraging news: “A new Justice Department brief gives employers good reason to reconsider coverage of gender-transition procedures for minor dependents.”

Newest Chapter in War on Conservative Women. I wrote about Natalie Harp, the aide to President Trump, who was catapulted to national notoriety after Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff unaccountably and out of nowhere attacked her. Now we are treated to another privacy shattering USA TODAY story featuring Ms. Harp’s brother speculating that his sister “has an obsession” with the president. Obviously, neither the brother nor the Senator is a gentleman.

I’m going way over budget this morning to quote from a London Spectator story that is positive about both the President and the aide:

She is the perfect secretary to the CEO of America. Trump doesn’t trust men and enjoys the platonic company of women. “The girls,” as he called them back in his Apprentice years, have always had a special role to play in his career. Trump’s critics often sexualize these relationships. Yet they seem emotional more than physical. 

Susie Wiles, for example, exercises a bizarre hold over Trump and has earned her the title of Trump whisperer. Ivanka, during the first term, played a similar role: listening, soothing and deftly exercising the President’s will. So too, in her own unique way, did Kellyanne Conway. Matriarchal authority mixed with filial devotion is an essential component of the Trump machine. 

For all the rumor and innuendo, Trump is a man who respects feminine power. And it helps that Natalie Harp isn’t married to Jared Kushner. She doesn’t take days off to go to family weddings in the Bahamas. She doesn’t leave his side.

Three cheers for women who like men and men who like women!

Well, when the jocks at the White House gathered around the proverbial water cooler … the mood was glum:

In the hours after the U.S. secured its first victory in a World Cup knockout match in more than 20 years last Wednesday, the mood inside the White House was anything but celebratory.

The game, held 2,400 miles away in Santa Clara, Calif., had been marred by a controversial red card for the Americans’ top scorer at this tournament, striker Folarin Balogun—and it meant he would be automatically suspended for the next match.

That’s when senior Trump administration officials hatched a plan that would go down as one of the most audacious in the 96-year history of the World Cup. 

The New York Times broke the story that President Trump called FIFA President Gianni Infantino on Thursday about Balogun’s suspension, and Infantino reportedly said he would look into the matter. Andrew Giuliani, the executive director of the White House’s World Cup task force, and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick were reportedly also in communication with FIFA.

The suspension was lifted and Belgium—the other team in tomorrow’s match—was informed. At this point, it appears that top scorer Balogun will be playing and the U.S. “Trump Card” is a trending headline this morning (here and here, for example). Reuters reports that FIFA’s decision has churned up a storm. U.S. fans react.

Fresh from his soccer victory, President Trump heads to the NATO summit, where he will likely create another storm. In a Wall Street Journal editorial headlined “The Elephant at the NATO Summit,” the editors are critical of the president’s threat to withdraw U.S. troops from Europe, which they contend would be “a dangerous signal to Putin.” A news story in the Wall Street Journal gets behind the rupture between the U.S. and Europe.

Meanwhile, Rodríguez Castro, 42, grandson of Fidel, designer-apparel clad, who has never before spoken to the American media, says he’s willing to negotiate with President Trump. Rodriguez isn’t in a great position. USA TODAY reports:

There’s no time to waste. Cuba faces a cratered economy, a humanitarian crisis and an oil blockade from the Trump administration. It wants to avoid being the next Venezuela as the United States levels sanctions and raises a military threat unseen between the countries since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

“Did the Supreme Court Steal the Midterm Elections?” is the headline on Allysia Finley’s Wall Street Journal column on the Supreme Court’s 6-3 majority ruling striking down federal limits on what political parties can spend in elections. The liberal media is claiming it’s a win for the GOP, but Karl Rove said on the Wall Street Journal’s weekend show Saturday that it’s a win for both parties and curbs the power of consultant-driven PACS (sorry, no link).

Speaking of political campaigns, Michigan state Sen. Mallory McMorrow announced Sunday that she is suspending her campaign for U.S. Senate:

The announcement clears the way for the two remaining candidates — Stevens, a four-term representative aligned with the Democratic establishment, and El-Sayed, a progressive former public health official who recently nabbed an endorsement from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) — with just under a month to go until the state’s Democratic primary.

Pennsylvania’s personable Democratic Governor Josh Shapiro has been the guy that some Republicans can imagine voting for, but Jonathan Turley is disappointed that Shapiro “caved to the loons”:

Shapiro decided to deliver his defining moment on MS NOW’s “Morning Joe” when he abandoned all principle and decided to join other Democratic establishment leaders in offering up the Supreme Court to the radical left. Shapiro used the common coded reference to court packing, calling for “radical reform of the court.”

The only “radical” reform being seriously discussed is packing the institution with an immediate liberal majority to reverse a series of recent decisions and to greenlight an equally radical agenda for changes to our political system.

What is so disappointing is that Shapiro truly could have been a contender, an alternative to the cringing, accommodating politicians who are yielding to the demands of the mob. Figures from Kamala Harris to Pete Buttigieg have recently embraced the scheme to show their bona fides to a rising socialist and radical movement in the Democratic Party.

The Fourth of July was glorious, wasn’t it? It’s not too late to call your attention to Wilfrid McClay’s “America’s Indispensable Man” in City Journal. The indispensable man was George Washington:

When we celebrate the American Revolution, what do we think of? We likely recall the resounding words of Thomas Jefferson, explaining to the world our reasons for separating from our mother country, words that not only declared that we had come of age as a distinct “people” but also laid down certain truths—that all men are created equal, and enter into the world possessing rights that no government can deprive them of—that would guide and inspire this people in the years ahead.

But the Revolution was not just a matter of words but of deeds. It was deeply impressive for the Revolution’s leaders to sign their names to a document that pledged their “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor” to the cause. That pledge carried real weight, since they knew they would surely pay the ultimate price if their cause failed…. In remembering these magnificent results, we naturally think of Jefferson’s soaring words. But we should never forget the bloody struggle that followed, the profound sufferings of the men who fought and died for this seemingly unwinnable cause—and the indispensable man who led them. The deed of gift was many deeds of war.

Unfortunately, New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani chose to make a speech on July Fourth. I characterize his speech as a despicable socialist dystopian fantasy of America:

“We are told that America is exceptional because we are richer, stronger, more powerful than everyone else. The truth, my friends, is that America is exceptional because here nothing is fixed into place,” he said. “The powerful have always known their answer. America, in their view, is an arena of supremacy, where only a select few are allowed freedom, where not all are created equal. America, if you ask them, becomes less the more people it welcomes. America, they will tell you, belongs only to those with the right accent or the right shade of skin. The rest of us, they insist, should be grateful for merely being allowed to visit.”

Batya Ungar-Sargon also writes about Mamdani’s “disgraceful” speech. Her subtitle sums up the speech:

What makes America great, according to Zohran Mamdani, and the only thing that makes it great, is that it can be fundamentally changed by people like him.

America’s fabulous 250^th birthday wasn’t the only big deal extravaganza over the weekend. There was also Taylor Swift’s wedding. But what if Taylor and Travis’s big day was ten years behind the zeitgeist? An Unherd piece provocatively headlined “Taylor Swift: Modern America’s Marie Antoinette” proposes this:

Five or 10 years ago, Taylor Swift’s marriage to NFL player Travis Kelce at Madison Square Garden on Friday would have been treated as America’s answer to the Windsors. It would have been William and Kate in 2011….  

Yet Swift chose to stage an expensive spectacle in 2026, just as the country began electing more eat-the-rich populists and democratic socialists. … The details admittedly did not help. The wedding was held at Madison Square Garden in front of roughly 1,000 guests, was officiated by Adam Sandler, and reportedly cost up to $20 million. Swift and Kelce wore custom Dior which she accessorized with Cartier jewelry; celebrity guests such as Selena Gomez arrived in glittering gold gowns reminiscent of Gatsby-era decadence.

. … When a catering van handed out leftover pastries to fans camped outside the arena, the “let them eat cake” jokes wrote themselves.

It would have been better for Taylor and Travis to have tied the knot during the Michael Bloomberg era, when New York still welcomed billionaires with open arms. Instead, on the very same day she sealed herself inside Madison Square Garden, New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani delivered an America 250 speech about a nation divided between workers and the wealthy.

Maybe it should have been a Dr. Zhivago-themed on the cusp of socialism wedding.