The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

The #YangGang: Foreskin Fetishist Will Debate Ben Shapiro on Circumcision

Posted on | March 22, 2019 | Comments Off on The #YangGang: Foreskin Fetishist Will Debate Ben Shapiro on Circumcision


How much craziness can you handle?

Democratic presidential contender Andrew Yang agreed on Wednesday to have a debate with conservative radio host Ben Shapiro on the issue of circumcision.
The two came to an agreement on Twitter to have a conversation about the issue, which Yang is opposed to.
‘Would be happy to have a convo – my team will follow up,’ Yang tweeted to Shapiro.
‘Terrific! Look forward to it,’ Shapiro replied.
No date has been announced yet.
Shapiro discussed Yang’s long-shot candidacy on his radio show Tuesday, describing Yang as a candidate with ‘millennial appeal’ who is ‘developing a cult following.’
Yang, who is polling at about 1 percent, has garnered attention for his detailed campaign platform — particularly his call for a universal income plan — but recently came in the spotlight for coming out against circumcision.
Millennials in particular have been drawn to his idea to give every individual a $1,000 in income. He’s also promoted universal health care and a government ombudsman.
Shapiro joked Yang’s policy page ‘has more positions than the karma sutra.’

It has long been my contention that anti-circumcision activists are always either homosexuals or porn addicts who, through their exposure to “uncut” penises, have developed a foreskin fetish. There is no other reason a man would care whether he (or any other man) was circumcised, unless he had engaged in “comparison shopping” between the alternatives. Beyond the matter of Jewish ritual custom, the arguments in favor of circumcision in terms of hygiene and health are obvious enough, and certainly there is no functional advantage involved, in the grand scheme of procreative success. It is unseemly to obsess about such things, and the fact that Andrew Yang cares about this “issue” suggests to me he needs to stop watching so much porn. But the candidate’s #YangGang cult following consists of a lot of millennial guys who’ve never had sex with an actual woman — more incels than a high-school chess club meeting — and who therefore know nothing about procreative success.

In terms of political success, Yang’s popularity strikes me as evidence of how Trump has succeeded in driving Democrats crazy:

Four years ago, Democrats were gearing up for a pre-determined outcome, the anointing of Hillary Clinton as the party’s presidential candidate. Convinced they were “on the right side of history,” Democrats believed Hillary was destined to succeed Barack Obama, America’s first black president, by becoming our first female president. The only real opposition to Mrs. Clinton’s nomination came from Bernie Sanders, the socialist senator from Vermont who had never previously identified as a Democrat. The weakness of Hillary’s candidacy was exposed in the 2016 primary campaign, when Bernie and his wild-eyed supporters very nearly derailed her nomination, being foiled by the Clinton machine’s control of so-called “super-delegates.” Meanwhile, Donald Trump stunned the Republican establishment by running roughshod over a field of 16 other GOP hopefuls, then shocked the world by upsetting Mrs. Clinton on Election Day.
As the Democrats prepare for 2020, the number of entries for their presidential primary campaign is expanding rapidly and whoever gets the nomination to face Trump next year will first have to defeat more than a dozen rivals. There is no pre-anointed front-runner this time, changes to the party’s rules have diminished the power of super-delegates, and rage against the incumbent Republican has inspired a lot of Democrats who almost certainly have no chance of winning to throw their hats into the presidential ring. The announced format for the first televised debates among the Democrat hopefuls will include as many as 20 candidates, randomly divided into two separate debate groups, with such criteria as fundraising and poll numbers determining who gets on the stage. So while most of the national media coverage has focused on a handful of big names — Sanders, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, California Sen. Kamala Harris, former Texas Rep. Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke, and the long-rumored candidacy of former Vice President Joe Biden — there is a furious scramble among lower-tier candidates to qualify for those first TV debates, now barely three months away. Given the prevalence of identity politics and left-wing policy ideas among Democrats, their 2020 field is beginning to resemble a parade of clowns emerging from a circus car. . . .

Read the rest of my column at The American Spectator.



Comments are closed.