Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in October 2020

Joe Biden Is No Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. His Administration Will Be Much More Radical and Much, Much Worse.

America survived Bill Clinton and Barack Obama because the Democratic Party then was center-left. But America likely will not survive Joe Biden because the Democratic Party has become radicalized and is now a “progressive” or socialist party.

Many center-right voters who don’t like Donald Trump’s obnoxious personality and unpresidential behavior are thinking about voting for Joe Biden. Here’s why, and here’s why that would be a serious mistake.

Point. Their thinking goes like this: America survived Bill Clinton; we survived Barack Obama; and we’ll survive Joe Biden. Clinton and Obama were liberal Democrats, after all, and yet, Republicans lived to fight another day.

The republic did not end. Free-market capitalism endured. America remained free and prosperous. Surely, the same thing will happen if Biden is elected president:

Democrats and Republicans will have their policy disagreements, of course; and sometimes one party or the other will win; but we’ll return, at long last, to a state of political normalcy.

Quiet. “The first thing you’ll notice [in a Biden presidency] is the quiet,” writes New York Times columnist David Brooks.

There will be no disgraceful presidential tweets and no furious cable segments reacting to them on Inauguration Day…

It will become immediately clear that in a Biden era politics will shrink back down to normal size. It will be about government programs, not epic wars about why my sort of people are morally superior to your sort of people…

It will also become immediately clear that in a highly ideological age, America will be led by a man who is not ideological.

“I’m sure there are Republicans and independents who couldn’t imagine crossing over to support a Democrat,” said former Ohio Governor John Kasich, Republican, during his Democratic National Convention speech endorsing Biden.

They fear Joe may turn sharp left and leave them behind. I don’t believe that. Because I know the measure of the man—reasonable, faithful, respectful. And you know, no one pushes Joe around.

Counterpoint. Brooks and Kasich are wrong. The idea that a Biden Presidency would be a garden-variety, center-left Democratic administration is badly mistaken and wishful thinking.

To believe this, you have to ignore all of the political and cultural forces that, in the past decade, have been relentlessly driving the Democratic Party further and further to the left:

  • Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, George Soros;
  • Black Lives Matter, reparations, defund the police;
  • the public option, Medicare for all, amnesty, open borders;
  • end the filibuster, abolish the Electoral College, pack the Supreme Court;
  • ban fracking, end fossil fuels, enact the Green New Deal;
  • D.C. statehood, Citizens United, Modern Monetary Theory;
  • Critical Race Theory, intersectionality, the 1619 project, et al.

In short, the Democratic Party today is far more radical than it was when Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992 and significantly more radical than it was when Barack Obama ran for reelection eight years ago in 2012.

Clinton ran for election as a “New Democrat” from the South, and he eschewed the liberal fundamentalism that had dominated his party for more than a generation.

Obama, meanwhile, campaigned as a non-ideological Democrat who rejected labels while espousing “hope and change.”

More importantly, Clinton and Obama ran in a Democratic Party whose center of gravity was well to the right of where it is now.

Today, by contrast, the intellectual ferment and activist energy lies entirely within the “progressive” or socialist wing of the party.

Biden is not a socialist, but that doesn’t matter: He is a weak and physically frail politician who will accommodate the progressive left because he knows no other way and has no other choice. As the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board explains:

What evidence is there today that Mr. Biden will restrain his increasingly radical party? Across his long career he has been the consummate party man, floating right or left with the political tides.

As a presidential candidate this year he has put no particular policy imprint on the Democratic Party—not one. The party has put its stamp on him.

Little wonder, then, that Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and “The Squad” are among Biden’s most fervent supporters. They know he will do their bidding.

Biden, in fact, has tacked left since winning his party’s nomination. Thus last summer he signed a 110-page “unity” manifesto with Bernie Sanders.

The manifesto “envisions the socialism of an all-encompassing welfare state, with virtually every need a right, and every right guaranteed by taxpayer funding,” writes economist (and former Texas Senator) Phil Gramm.

Sanders “may not sit in the Oval Office next year,” notes the Journal, but Mr. Biden will be implementing Bernie’s dreams.” 

If the Republicans controlled Congress, or even one branch of the Congress, they might serve as a useful check on a Biden presidency that is otherwise preordained to swerve sharply left. But the reality is that if Biden captures the White House, the Democrats almost certainly will gain control of the Senate.

Our politics have become too polarized for much split-ticket voting. And the Dems are expected to retain control of the House of Representatives.

Clinton and Obama, by contrast, had to contend with a Republican-controlled Congress for six of the eight years that they each were president.

The bottom line: if Biden wins, his administration will be staffed by hardcore progressives working in tandem with the socialist left, both in and out of Congress, to pursue what the Journal rightly calls the most left-wing policy agenda in decades.

Irreversible Socialist Change. Bad public policies, of course, typically can be changed or reversed legislatively by future presidents and future congresses. But if Biden and the Dems take over, that may not be an option.

That is because the progressive left is hellbent on instituting structural “reforms” that will make it impossible for a future Republican president or congress to reverse their radical policy agenda.

  • D.C. statehood, for instance, would add two very liberal senators to the Senate, thereby giving Democrats an all-but-guaranteed lock on that legislative body for at least a generation.
  • Ending the filibuster would mean that, unlike in our nation’s past, major reform legislation no longer would require bipartisan support and cooperation.

Instead, the Dems could steamroll the Republicans while enacting new and costly tax-and-spend redistribution schemes, including reparations.

  • Packing the Supreme Court with “progressive” justices who legislate from the bench would allow Democrats to create new and permanent “rights” for favored classes and reciprocal political and financial obligations for less favored and ostensibly “privileged” Americans.
  • Repealing Citizens United would pave the way for the worst legislative and regulatory assault on free speech in American history.

Unprecedented. That is why this election is not like past elections; and it is why electing Biden as president would yield a very different result than what happened when Clinton and Obama were elected. This time, to a real and worrisome extent, America itself is at risk.

Indeed, when the Democrats are done, there likely will be no going back: A dynamic, diverse and freewheeling commercial republic will be replaced by a sclerotic and slow-growing statist democracy with fewer jobs, less opportunity, and more bureaucratic constraints.

Basic Constitutional liberties, such as freedom of speech, religious worship, and the right to bear arms will be under sustained assault. And our national memory and understanding of our political inheritance will wither away as the activists who have toppled statues now implement bureaucratic decrees that erase our nation’s history.

A Defeated Nation. Sure, all of this may happen quietly, as Brooks and others hope or expect. There will be no juvenile, cringe-inducing tweets from a President Biden, as there are too often from President Trump.

But the quietude will reflect the dull and subdued resignation of a tired and aging nation burdened with an entitlement state that it cannot long support and lacking the economic dynamism and cultural wherewithal needed to sustain and support its people.

Moreover, far from making politics a less invasive force in our lives, as Brooks hopes, a Biden presidency instead will extend the reach and influence of Washington, D.C. That, after all, is what the Democrats’ progressive base demands: a more assertive, domineering, and activist federal government.

This will be the “new normal” ushered in by the “progressive” or socialist Democrats who will dominate a Biden presidency. Be careful whom you vote for, we just might get it.

Feature Photo Credit: Political twins Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders (Elise Amendola, Associated Press, courtesy of Citizens Times).

Balderdash! and Backlash! ‘Credentialed’ Is Not Synonymous with ‘Educated’ and ‘Wise’

Balderdash!

“More Americans are educated now than at any time in history.”

Tom Nichols, Professor, Naval War College

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, “for the first time in history, 90 percent of Americans over 25 years of age have finished high school. In addition, more than one-third of Americans over the age of 25 have a college degree or higher.”

Backlash!

In truth, more Americans are credentialed than at any time in history. But don’t equate credentials with education and wisdom. Being credentialed is not the same thing as being educated and wise.

In fact, many people with impressive academic credentials are poorly educated, remarkably ignorant, and unwise.

“The American higher education system has fostered civic and historical illiteracy,” reports the Washington Times.

The American Council of Trustees and Alumni, the Times notes “has issued survey after survey, all of which confirm that we have an epidemic of civic and historical illiteracy.

In 2000, ACTA released the results of a survey of the historical knowledge of college seniors at the 55 top-ranked colleges and universities in the country.

More than 80 percent of those surveyed would have received a “D” or “F” if it had been an exam.

A 2012 survey found that less than 20 percent of American college graduates knew the effect of the Emancipation Proclamation, and only 42 percent knew that the Battle of the Bulge occurred during World War II.

And in 2014, a survey found that more than a quarter of college graduates didn’t know Franklin D. Roosevelt was president during World War II, and one-third didn’t know he was the president who spearheaded the New Deal.

And all of these questions were multiple choice.

It is not without reason that William F. Buckley, Jr. famously said:

I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the Boston telephone directory than by the 2,000 people on the faculty of Harvard University.

The average non-credentialed American, Buckley observed, shows more wisdom than our credentialed political leaders and so-called intellectuals.

Next!

Feature photo credit: Two wise men: William F. Buckley, Jr. and Ronald Reagan (National Review).

Chris Christie’s WSJ COVID Op-Ed Leaves Too Much Fat on the Bone

Chris Christie wants desperately to get back in the good graces of the media and political elite. So he wrote a self-serving op-ed that misleads the public about masks, while failing to tell the truth about what really must be done to combat COVID.

Chris Christie thinks he erred by not wearing a mask. I’m here to tell you that his real problem is gross obesity; and that if he cares about his health, he needs to go on a diet and exercise, and worry less about wearing a mask.

And what is true of Christie is true of most Americans: Our biggest health risk, by far, is not that we fail to cover up (our faces); it is that we fail to cut back (on our consumption of food).

Christie, of course, is the former Republican governor of New Jersey. He contracted the coronavirus after huddling in close quarters with President Trump and other advisers as they prepared Trump for his Sept. 29, 2020, presidential debate with Joe Biden.

“I should have worn a mask,” Christie writes in the Wall Street Journal.

It was a serious failure for me, as a public figure, to go maskless at the White House. I paid for it, and I hope Americans can learn from my experience. I am lucky to be alive. It could easily have been otherwise.

Evidence and Data. In truth, there is no real evidence or data to demonstrate that a mask would have prevented Christie from contracting the coronavirus. His problem was not that he failed to wear a mask; it was that he failed to social distance by going to the White House in the first place. (Have you heard of Zoom or FaceTime, governor?)

And, as far as being “lucky to be alive,” this is hyperbolic. Again, the data show otherwise: According to Johns Hopkins University’s Coronavirus Resource Center, the case fatality rate in the United States for COVID19 is 2.6 percent.

In other words, more than 97 percent of those who get the virus here (confirmed cases) do not die as a result.

In fact, because physicians and patients understand the virus better and have developed better therapeutics and better treatment regimens, increasing numbers of Americans—including, for instance, President Trump—are recovering remarkably quickly and with fewer side effects and complications.

Obesity. But if you’re obese—as millions of Americans are—you are at heightened risk not only of contracting the virus, but of suffering serious complications as a result, including death. As Yale Medicine reports:

“We all know that older age is the greatest risk factor. But obesity is emerging as one of the next most important ones,” says Dr. Ania Jastreboff, MD, PhD, a Yale Medicine endocrinologist and obesity medicine physician.

“Additionally, if you consider other diseases implicated with COVID-19 severity such as type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or hypertension, obesity is a common contributor underlying all of them.”

And it looks like the excess weight itself is problematic, not just the other health conditions it causes.

“Early data support that obesity is an independent risk factor, meaning that if you control for diabetes, heart problems, hypertension, and other medical conditions, obesity—itself a chronic disease—may potentially be the unifying disease involved in exacerbating COVID-19,” Dr. Jastreboff says.

In fact, one study out of New York City showed obesity was a stronger factor predicting hospitalization for COVID-19 than high blood pressure, diabetes, or cancer—or even pulmonary, kidney, or coronary disease.

Another study, which looked at hospitalized COVID-19 patients under age 60 in New York City, found that individuals who have obesity were twice as likely to be hospitalized and even more likely to require critical care than those who do not have it.

This matters because obesity is an epidemic problem in America. Some 42.4 percent of adults, and 20.6 percent of adolescents (12-19 year-olds), are obese, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Christie is one of them. He has been chronically obese his entire adult life. Yet, nowhere in his Wall Street Journal mea culpa does Christie mention his weight—or obesity in general—as a problem or risk factor for COVID. But doing so, obviously, would have been a real public health service.

Nor does Christie mention the fact that patients who have taken Vitamin D and Zinc supplements have averted the worst outbreaks of the virus. But again, doing so would have been a real public health service.

Instead, Christie gratuitously attacks a straw man: people who don’t wear a mask because they supposedly think a mask is a sign of weakness or political virtue signaling.

Unmasked. In truth, there are perfectly legitimate reasons not to wear a mask. These include:

  • the fact that there are no valid scientific studies or data to demonstrate that masks are effective at stopping the spread of the coronavirus or any other virus;
  • masks instill in many people a false sense of confidence that they are safe and protected by a mask, worn either by themself or by others; and that they can refrain, therefore, from social distancing;
  • masks inhibit effective communication—including, importantly, non-verbal, facial communication; and
  • in places that have good ventilation, and which allow for social distancing, masks are, at best, superfluous, redundant, and unnecessary.

Polarization. Christie also laments the “polarization of something as practical as a mask.” But who has polarized the mask and made it a symbol of seriousness about COVID19?

The media and political elite, who have been on hair-trigger alert for whenever a political or public figure—especially President Trump—is or is not wearing a mask.

The President, by contrast, has been a model of tolerance and open-mindedness: by choosing sometimes to wear a mask and other times not to wear a mask. Trump, moreover, has allowed his staff to don masks without judgment or pressure from him either to do so or not to do so.

In short, Christie’s complaint about the polarization of the mask is misplaced; and his focus on the mask as the critical public health measure that we all should embrace is equally misplaced.

And Christie’s focus is deliberately misplaced because he is less interested in performing a genuine public health service than he is in getting back in the good graces of the media and political elite.

In truth, if you want to avoid coming down with a bad case of the coronavirus, go on a diet, exercise, and lose weight. Take Vitamin D and Zinc supplements. Social distance and avoid crowds.

Wear a mask if it makes you feel better, but as the data clearly shows: wearing a mask is the very last thing you should worry about.

Just don’t ask Chris Christie. He’s too interested in what the media and political elite think than in what the science demonstrates.

Feature photo credit: Chris Christie courtesy of Chance Dagger’s Notes on Contemporary Life.

When Biden Says ‘Follow the Science,’ He Means ‘Ignore My Politics’

The American people have a right to know what policies a President Biden would pursue to combat COVID. A politically self-serving declaration that he will “follow the science” is pure obfuscation.

“Let’s end the politics and follow the science,” declares Joe Biden.

Biden’s declaration is politically self-serving because it suggests that, as president, his policies to address COVID will be apolitical and simply science-based. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

As Faye Flam points out at Bloomberg:

Joe Biden’s promise to “follow the science” does not amount to a strategy. It’s just a slogan.

A strategy to deal with the pandemic needs to set priorities and incorporate values that science isn’t equipped to provide. If Biden and his fans think following the science is the plan, they misunderstand the nature of science and its limitations.

Science can give insights into the nature of the pandemic, but there is no scientific formula pointing to a solution

“This year has driven home as never before the message that there is no such thing as ‘the science,'” writes Matt Ridley in the Wall Street Journal. “There are different scientific views on how to suppress the virus.”

Sweden. As we’ve previously noted, for instance, Swedish scientists and public health authorities have taken a strikingly different approach to combating COVID than their counterparts in the United States.

The Swedes have eschewed lockdowns and mandatory mask orders and instead, have focused their efforts on protecting the most vulnerable members of the population. Thus schools, restaurants, and fitness centers have remained open.

Early on in the pandemic, as Ridley notes, the Swedish approach looked foolish and shortsighted. “Now, with cases low and the Swedish economy in much better health than other countries,” he observes, Swedish public health authorities look prescient and wise.

“Different countries,” explains Flam, “can ‘follow the science’ to different strategies.”

Science. Yet, “follow the science” resonates with us because it appeals to our belief that politics involves opinions and value judgments about which people can and do vigorously disagree. Science, by contrast, deals with facts and empirical reality which we all must acknowledge and recognize.

If only it were that simple! In truth, our scientific understanding of the coronavirus is not fixed and settled dogma; it is developing and evolving based on new discoveries and new empirical realities.

“In 2020,”writes Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz,

science has gone from a gradual accumulation of knowledge to a train at full steam.

It’s worth remembering that what is true today will almost certainly be proven false next week, and that when people appear to change their minds it is an inherently good thing—adapting to new evidence is the cornerstone of science.

Just last week, for instance, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) acknowledged for the first time that the coronavirus sometimes can spread through airborne particles “that can linger in the air for minutes to hours,” thereby infecting people “who are further than six feet apart.”

The implications of this finding, though, are a legitimate source of political debate. Is the risk of airborne infection serious enough to warrant a different public health strategy? Or is the risk sufficiently low that no change in strategy is warranted?

“The science” ought to inform how we answer these and other public health questions; but ultimately, policymakers must make value judgments that balance competing interests, assess what is most important, and determine how much risk the public should assume.

Politics. In short, the science of COVID cannot be divorced from the politics of COVID. It is, therefore, too glib and self-serving for Biden to declare that his strategy for combating the coronavirus will be simply to “follow the science.”

As Bruce Trogdon observes, this is a great political “sound-byte. But the scientists don’t even agree and the consensus is constantly shifting. Which scientist? Which study? Which day?”

We don’t know because Biden won’t say.

Bide says he’ll “follow the science,” because he wants us to ignore his politics, which mirror those of blue state governors like Michigan’s Gretchen Whitmer and New York’s Andrew Cuomo, who embrace lockdowns.

Joe Biden is the shutdown candidate,” explains the Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Hennninger. “At last week’s presidential non-debate,” he writes,

perhaps the most consequential remark by Mr. Biden was about living with the virus. “You can’t fix the economy,” Mr. Biden said, “until you fix the Covid crisis.” Virus first, economy later.

I take that to mean Mr. Biden’s coronavirus policy would be to support reviving shutdowns if the virus-case metric goes up, and support governors who push back against openings.

As such, his policy would reflect minimal adjustment of the Democratic party’s lockdown bias, no matter the country’s experience with the virus since March.

That’s a legitimate position to take, even if it is, as I think, seriously mistaken and misguided. What is utterly illegitimate and wrong is for Biden to continue to dodge the question in an effort to deceive the American people.

Voters have a right to know precisely what the former Vice President means when he says he’ll “follow the science”: because, as he surely knows, the meaning of that phrase is anything but self-evident and self-explanatory. It is, though, politically self-serving.

Feature photo credit: The Yeshiva World.

Unmasking the Lies About Masks

Our elites tell us ad nauseam that masks will stop the spread of COVID. There’s only one problem: they’re wrong, and Sweden shows why.

Now that President Trump has contracted the coronavirus, our elites have renewed their heavy-handed push to try and shame everyone into wearing a mask.

Of course, the efficacy of masks is always assumed and never questioned or challenged. But in truth, the scientific evidence for the efficacy of masks is utterly lacking.

The studies that purport to show masks work often conflate mask use with other practices (such as social distancing) that do work to conclude, erroneously and illogically, that masks are the independent variable which resulted in stopping or slowing the spread of COVID.

Or they point to other countries (such as Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the Czech Republic), where mask use reportedly is widespread and the coronavirus relatively contained, and conclude (erroneously and prematurely) that masks are the reason for these countries’ success.

But this assumption is a leap of faith. Association, after all, does not equal causation. In truth, as I’ve observed here at ResCon1:

there are too many other potential explanatory factors at work to explain why some countries and regions have been better able to avert or avoid the coronavirus.

Mask wearing populations may be more fastidious and disciplined about social distancing, which is effective at stopping the spread of the coronavirus.

Or they may suffer fewer medical complications and co-morbidities. Maybe they’re a younger demographic.

Sweden. Moreover, how do the mask zealots explain the relative success of Sweden and other Nordic countries, where masks are almost universally shunned?

As the New York Times reported last week from Stockholm, facemasks in Sweden are “nowhere to be seen.” Yet Sweden increasingly is seen as an exemplary model of how to manage a viral pandemic.

The Swedes made a critical mistake early-on by rationing care for nursing-home patients and failing to protect their more vulnerable elderly population.

However, Swedish leaders learned from their mistake and have since done a good job at containing the spread of the virus—and they have done so without economic lockdowns and mandatory mask orders.

“As I write this on 20 September 2020,” concedes Richard Smith in the BMJ Opinion Journal,

the difference in the number of cases in Sweden and most of the rest of Europe is striking. Most countries in Europe have a rapid rise in cases, whereas Sweden does not. Spain, which had one of the most severe lockdowns, has one of the steepest increases.

Adds the Medical Xpress:

Public health officials [in Sweden] argue that masks are not effective enough at limiting the spread of the virus to warrant mass use, insisting it is more important to respect social distancing and handwashing recommendations…

Sweden’s public health officials say they see no reason to change their strategy given the seemingly positive trend—including their stance on masks.

State epidemiologist Anders Tegnell of the Public Health Agency insists scientific studies have not proven that masks are effective in limiting the spread of the virus, suggesting they can do more harm than good if used sloppily.

“There are at least three heavyweight reports—from the World Health Organization, the (EU health agency) ECDC and The Lancet report that the WHO cites—which all state that the scientific evidence is weak. We haven’t carried out our own assessment,” he recently told reporters…

“Several countries that introduced masks are now seeing big resurgences [in COVID infections],” he said on August 14, 2020.

Politically Taintned Science. Why do Swedish public health officials have such a strikingly different view on the efficacy of masks than their American counterparts?

A big reason is that Swedish public health officials are much less politicized and tainted by political concerns. Recall that social distancing was a public health imperative in the United States—until it wasn’t because of the “Black Lives Matter” protests.

“Swedish health authorities,” explains Dr. Greg Ganske in the Des Moines Register, “are very independent and largely shielded from politics. They pride themselves on ‘following the science’ and are highly respected by the population.”

In the United States, by contrast, too many public health officials follow the political herd and say what is politically expedient, not what is scientifically necessary and warranted.

As a result, we get a lot of glib commands to “wear a mask!”—as if doing so is a self-evident truth that must be obeyed rather than a highly dubious edict that doesn’t pass scientific muster. President Trump, after all, was indifferent to masks, and look at what has happened to him!

But partisan political concerns and a desire to thump Trump in the court of public opinion should not sway or influence public health guidance. Follow the science, not the politically motivated herd.

Scrupulously social distance; avoid crowds (especially indoors); wash your hands; and practice good hygiene. And don’t worry about wearing a mask—and don’t worry about whether your fellow shoppers or neighbors are wearing a mask!

The science simply doesn’t show that masks work. Just ask the Swedes.

Feature photo credit: Washington Post.