Press "Enter" to skip to content

The Coronavirus Shows That Free-Markets and the Profit Motive Are Required to Safeguard the Public Health

Democrats want to give the government more control over our healthcare system. Our experience with the coronavirus shows that this would be a big and costly mistake.

Does the coronavirus show that we need a bigger and more dominant government that assumes greater decision-making authority over “unfettered market processes”?

That’s what left-wing journalists, academics, and politicians argue. They say the coronavirus shows that free markets are incapable of addressing a public health crisis. Thus, in their view, to protect the health and well-being of the public, the federal government must play a more dominant role vis-à-vis the private sector.

As Columbia University political theory professor Jean Cohen told The Atlantic: “If you want to  serve the public good instead of private profit making, you need government to come in and make sure that’s done.”

But the notion that “private profit making” and “the public good” are two separate and distinct things which necessarily are opposed to each other is ludicrous and in defiance of commonsense and all empirical evidence.

Profit Motive. In truth, the profit motive is precisely the means by which we incentivize people and businesses to serve the public good.

At least that’s how we do it in the United States of America and in countries that allow for free markets and private commercial exchange.

For example, we Americans enjoy a bountiful supply and an infinite variety of inexpensive and affordable food—not because the government has intervened and mandated it, but rather because private sector companies realize that there is money to be made by “serving the public good” and meeting this need.

Other countries, such as the former Soviet Union, have tried to “serve the public good” by empowering the government at the expense of the private sector, and the results have been disastrous. Freedom works; government control and coercion do not.

The iPhone and personal computer, likewise, were not produced by the government. They were produced by entrepreneurs who saw that there was money to be made by “serving the public good” and helping to fulfill our natural yearning for greater autonomy, control, creativity, and connectedness. 

In fact, to the extent that we do suffer “market failure” (a favorite term of derision by left-wingers such as Professor Cohen), it is precisely because the government exerts too much control and power over decision-making processes that are best left to the private sector.

Government Failure. Indeed, what is typically called “market failure” is more accurately described as “government failure.” Case in point: the coronavirus.

The United States has been embarrassingly and shamefully tardy on testing for the coronavirus, lagging far behind other countries such as South Korea and Australia. Why? Because we relied upon the feds to administer and manage testing; and they, unsurprisingly, botched it

The Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel explains:

The single biggest mistake so far came from the government. The feds maintained exclusive control over early test development—and blew it. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s failure delayed an effective U.S. response, and the private sector is now riding to the rescue.

But don’t take Strassel’s word for it. Here is what the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Anthony S. Fauci, M.D, told radio host (and Trump apologist) Hugh Hewitt:

The regulatory constraints, which under certain circumstances are helpful and protective of the American people were not suited to the emergence of this particular outbreak


I believe now that the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] (CDC), and the [Food and Drug Administration] (FDA), and the Department [of Health and Human Services]—that we’ve got it right now:

Because we’re handing much of it over to the private sector [and] to heavy hitter companies that do this for a living. And I think what you’re going to be seeing looking forward is a major, major improvement in the availability of testing.

“The government’s failures affected every step of the testing process, from the initial throat swab to the genetic sequencing,” report Dan Vergano and Ben King in BuzzFeed News .

“Even now,” they note, “state and local health departments have a confusing patchwork of requirements for testing.”

“Federal officials,” moreover, “waited until early March to invite large private labs, which can run thousands of tests a day, to begin coronavirus testing, leaving the U.S. with a backlog of swab samples even as case numbers double every two days.”

Unfortunately, failure in government is endemic because there are no competitive market mechanisms that force public-sector agencies to adapt and innovate as in the private sector.

Private-sector companies fear going out of business and adapt accordingly. Not so in the government or public sector, where agencies live on indefinitely no matter how badly they might fail.

“The botched rollout of COVID-19 tests,” observes Reason magazine’s Ronald Bailey, “is largely the fault of America’s medical regulatory bureaucracy—specifically, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the FDA.

“As recently as Feb. 26,” he writes, “the CDC told state and local officials that its own testing capabilities were ‘more than adequate,’ the Wall Street Journal reports.”

However, according to Bailey, 

A Utah molecular diagnostics company is all set to produce 50,000 coronavirus tests per day, though its having trouble obtaining “reagent chemicals” that are necessary for a latter stage of the procedure, according to Desert News.

Co-Diagnostics’ COVID-19 test, which costs just $10 per patient and produces results in only 90 minutes, is already in use in Italy, Germany, the United Kingdom, Turkey, Greece, the Philippines, Thailand, Australia, Paraguay, Ecuador, Israel, South Africa and Canada.

But in the U.S. it had only been available for certain entities and research institutions, per guidance from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

It was not until Tuesday night, [Mar. 17, 2020], that the FDA gave Co-Diagnostics emergency approval to distribute the test more generally to U.S. hospitals. Deseret News’ [Art Raymond] reports:

"The company said U.S. shipments to date have been in accordance with the FDA's policy change on Feb. 29 that allows certified U.S. laboratories to use the Co-Diagnostics' test under certain conditions.

"As a result of the change announced Tuesday night by the FDA, the company's test kit will soon be available for use by a wide array of U.S. laboratories, without first requiring emergency use authorization.

Co-Diagnostics CEO Dwight Egan said the rule change puts his company in a position to have positive impacts on the critical need for COVID-19 testing capacity in Utah, the U.S. and around the world."

The ramifications of this new FDA policy are significant for our company," Egan said in a statement.

"This change will quickly afford Co-Diagnostics even more opportunities to serve the needs of laboratories nationwide, as we play an even larger role in responding to this pandemic.

"We applaud the FDA's decision to recognize the dire need for increased access to high-quality COVID-19 tests, and to adapt as the situation demands in light of a public health emergency."

It’s smart for the biomedical company CEO to publicly thank the powerful agency that holds the keys to its fate. But no one else should be thanking the FDA
 

People are quite literally going to die because the regulatory state was insufficiently adaptive to a crisis.

Democratic Smears. Yet, too often in this country, Democratic politicians such as Bernie Sanders vilify CEOs and entrepreneurs such as Dwight Egan as “crooks” and “thieves” motivated by avarice and “greed.”

The Journal’s Strassel rightly has little patience for this populist smear. The “crooks” at drug company Roche,” she writes, 

had started on their own high-volume test in January, and were finally able to get approval from the Food and Drug Administration.

Google is up with a website advising people on symptoms; retailers like Walmart and CVS are converting parking lots for drive-through tests; private labs are standing by to process them.

As for other “moneyed interests,” no fewer than 30 Big Pharma and small biotech firms are racing for treatments and vaccines. Moderna turned around a vaccine batch in just 42 days.

Gilead Sciences is already in Phase 3 trials for its remdesivir treatment for Covid-19. Straight off President Trump’s announcement of FDA approval for antimalarial drugs to treat the disease, Bayer announced it would donate three million chloroquine tablets.

To be sure, government has an important role to play in protecting and safeguarding the public health. Securing the borders, for instance, is an important federal governmental function, and is necessary to keeping public health threats out of the country to the greatest extent practicable.

The government also can set national goals and priorities, while marshaling public-sector resources and coordinating public-private partnerships.

But having an energetic and effective government is very different from having a big and dominant government that preempts the private sector and tries to do things that are best done by commercial companies driven by the profit motive and responding to market signals and market incentives.

We need an energetic and effective government, not a big and dominant government. In fact, a big and dominant government typically is anything but energetic and effective, which is precisely the problem.

Critical Debate. This matters in a big and fundamental way because policymakers and the public will draw lessons and conclusions from the coronavirus: what worked, what didn’t, and what must change as a result. And it is critically important that they—we—not draw the wrong conclusions.

The problem was not that the private-sector failed; it was that the private-sector was bypassed and short-circuited.

And what must change is not our reliance upon private-sector companies, markets, and the profit motive. What must change is our deprecation of entrepreneurship and commercial interests in medicine and public health.

In fact, we need to make more effective use of incentives and competition in medicine, precisely to protect and safeguard the public health. Expecting the government to shoulder this burden exclusively is a surefire recipe for further disaster. 

2020 Election. These questions are especially pertinent now because a presidential election is rapidly approaching, and the Democratic Party has lurched far to the left and embraced increasing government control of our healthcare system.

They do so in the name of “fairness” and “compassion.” But there is nothing fair or compassionate about an inert and dysfunctional public-sector monopoly that fails the American people when they are most in need.

We can and must do better. But we can only do so by embracing the private sector, markets and the profit motive, which are good and praiseworthy things, indeed.

Feature photo credit: Co-Diagnostics CEO Dwight Egan as shown on YouTube.

Wit and Humor are Ron DeSantis’s Keys to the White House

Just ask Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley, Jr., and Antonin Scalia.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is widely seen as the Republican Party’s strongest presidential candidate in 2024.

As a highly successful governor who is cruising to reelection in America’s third-most populous state, DeSantis has executive experience and a proven record of accomplishment that none of his likely GOP rivals (speechifying senators, mostly) can match.

There is, however, one thing that might hold DeSantis back and keep him from ever reaching the Oval Office: his lack of wit and a sense of humor.

“It’s not apparent to me that DeSantis has a sense of humor,” Dexter Filkins told Andrew Sullivan on The Dishcast. “He’s not a very jokey guy, at least not in public.”

Filkins knows of what he speaks. In June, he published the most insightful reportorial piece to date on Florida’s governor.

Filkins told Sullivan that, based on his reporting,  DeSantis would wipe the floor with most of the Democrats who would likely run against him in any general election matchup. However, he warns, DeSantis’ “entire persona is strident and angry,” and the governor does not excel at small talk.

This is a glaring red flag and a real problem for DeSantis. Wit and a sense of humor, after all, are integral to political success, especially for conservative Republicans. Why?

Because conservative Republicans are seen as more hard-edged and tough-minded. A sense of humor thus helps to soften their image and humanize them in the public mind.

Social conservatives in particular run the risk of being caricatured as harsh and judgmental, rigid and dogmatic. Wit and humor can compellingly show otherwise and put the lie to this caricature.

Ronald Reagan. It is no accident, after all, that the most successful conservative politician in American history, the man who won reelection as president in an historic 49-state landslide, was Ronald Reagan.

Reagan had a wonderful sense of humor that endeared him to the American people, even those who strongly disagreed with his conservative political philosophy and public policies.

Consider, for instance, how the 73-year-old Reagan handled concerns about his advanced age during a 1984 presidential debate with Walter Mondale:

I want you to know that, also, I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.

As Politico reports: “Many members of the audience, gathered in the cavernous Municipal Auditorium in Kansas City, Mo., applauded and laughed. So did Mondale.”

And, as a result, Reagan won more than the debate. He won, by an overwhelming margin, a second term in the White House.

Buckley and Scalia. After Reagan, the next two greatest conservative public figures in recent decades are author and columnist William F. Buckley, Jr. and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. And what distinguishes these two men aside from their towering intellects?

Their wit and sense of humor, which showcased a humanity and a warmth of personality that made them impossible to demonize.

When asked, for instance, what would be the first thing he would do “if he actually won his rollicking, long-shot campaign for mayor of New York City in 1965,” Buckley responded: “Demand a recount!”

As for Scalia, “he had a great sense of humor,” admits left-wing comedian Stephen Colbert:

People have actually broken down the transcripts for [Supreme Court] oral arguments and he told more jokes and got more laughs than any of the other justices.”

“In a big family,” quipped Scalia, the father of nine children, “the first child is kind of like the first pancake. If it’s not perfect, that’s okay. There are a lot more coming along.”

“We should start calling this law SCOTUScare,” he amusingly wrote in a dissent from a Supreme Court decision upholding the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

That quip even drew a chuckle from Chief Justice John Roberts, who had written the Court’s decision that aroused Scalia’s ire.

Ron DeSantis. If DeSantis wants to succeed at the highest level of American politics, if he wants to win the presidency and move America in a socially conservative and economically dynamic, free-market direction, then he has no more urgent task than to emulate Reagan, Buckley, and Scalia.

He needs to understand that for a conservative Republican especially, having and demonstrating wit and a sense of humor are of paramount importance.

Wit and Humor. To be sure, wit and humor are not things that can be instantly conjured up and created. They take time, effort, and practice. They are a reflection of life and personality, playfulness and camaraderie, joy, triumph, anguish, and even pain.

“Humor: a difficult concept to learn,” Spock tells Admiral Kirk in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. “It is not logical.”

True, but wit and humor can be developed. Jokes can be incorporated into political stump speeches. Witty remarks can be crafted and used out on the campaign trail. A politician can consciously cultivate a more joyful public persona that wins converts even as it disarms critics.

And make no mistake: this matters, politically. Why? Because, as one website helpfully explains:

Humor is a great leveler. It is almost impossible to remain angry with someone who is making you laugh.

Donald Trump. Exactly, and yet, this is precisely what Donald Trump did not do. Trump did not disarm his critics. He did not make people laugh in recognition of his humanity.

To the contrary: Trump angered and repelled too many voters by his insistence on being “tough” (read: nasty and unpresidential) and refusing to show “weakness” (read: humanity). Consequently, a record number of voters turned out to vote in 2020 precisely so they could vote against Trump.

Ditto the 2018 election cycle, which flipped the House of Representatives from Republican to Democratic control. A critical mass of voters turned out to vote Democrat for Congress because Trump so angered and repelled them.

DeSantis needs to avoid Trump’s mistake or politically fatal character flaw. He needs to show voters that he cares; that he has a heart; that he’s human; and that he is worthy of leading this great nation. And the best way, the most effective way, to achieve this is through wit and humor.

Is there a political market for this? Absolutely.

Consider, for instance, the astounding success of the The Babylon Bee, a conservative Christian satirical website, as well as the sky-high ratings of  Fox News’ Greg Gutfield, whose late-night show is tops in the nation.

Gutfield! is “beating CBS’ The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, NBC’s The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon, and ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live—with FNC outpacing the broadcast networks even through their fall premieres,” Forbes reports.

As for The Babylon Bee, it is the most popular satirical site on the Internet, with more than 20 million page views per month, reports Ben Shapiro. “Fake news you can trust,” is the site’s witty tagline.

Conclusion. Politics and culture increasingly intersect. The political marketplace is waiting for a conservative Republican politician who can do politically what The Babylon Bee is doing journalistically and Greg Gutfield is doing for late-night television or streaming.

DeSantis has crucial executive experience and a highly successful track record as governor. These make him a compelling Republican presidential candidate.

But he is wants to be a winner and not just a contender, DeSantis will have to demonstrate that he can make people smile and laugh, even as he himself smiles and laughs. He will have to showcase a sense of humor that, thus far, has been conspicuously absent in his public appearances.

Can he do it? Yes, but only if he works at it. Only if he consciously makes liberal use of humor to achieve conservative political ends.

Only if recognizes that a politician elevates himself through self-deprecation, not self-promotion; and that while successful public figures take ideas seriously, they do not take themselves too seriously. Just ask Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley, Jr., and Antonin Scalia.

Feature photo credit: (L-R): Author and columnist William F. Buckley, Jr., President Ronald Reagan, and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, courtesy of National Review, FramedArt.com, and YouTube, respectively.

‘New’ Information About How George W. Bush Prepared America for a Pandemic Will Raise His Historical Standing

History doesn’t change, of course, but how we understand or view history most definitely does change in light of new circumstances and new perspectives.

Things that we might have considered unimportant and of little significance a generation ago can take on increased importance and become much more significant with the passage of time.

That’s why historians always say it is impossible to ascertain how history will view or judge a president while he is still president. You need perspective, and you need time.

You need to see how a president’s current decisions and policies affect the future—how they affect future administrations and subsequent presidential decision-making.

You need to see what issues or concerns that journalists and policymakers downplayed at the time have since risen to the forefront and must, therefore, be given greater weight and consideration today.

George W. Bush. These thoughts come to mind in light of new information about President George W. Bush and his remarkable and hitherto unremarked upon prescience about a pandemic—and his insistence as president that his administration and the nation prepare for such an eventuality.

I say new information, but it is not really new. Bush gave a very public speech about the importance of pandemic preparation in November 2005 at the National Institutes of Health. But of course, no one paid much attention then or now because a pandemic seemed so unlikely and remote.

ABC News’ Matthew Mosk reports:

In a November 2005 speech at the National Institutes of Health, Bush laid out proposals inn granular detail—describing with stunning prescience how a pandemic in the United States would unfold.

Among those in the audience was Dr. Anthony Fauci, the leader of the current crisis response, who was then and still is now the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

“A pandemic is a lot like a forest fire,” Bush said at the time. “If caught early it might be extinguished with limited damage. If allowed to smolder, undetected, it can grow to an inferno that can spread quickly beyond our ability to control it.”

The president recognized that an outbreak was a different kind of disaster than the ones the federal government had been designed to address. 

“To respond to a pandemic, we need medical personnel and adequate supplies of equipment,” Bush said. “In a pandemic, everything from syringes to hospital beds, respirators masks and protective equipment would be in short supply.”

Bush told the gathered scientists that they would need to develop a vaccine in record time.

“If a pandemic strikes, our country must have a surge capacity in place that will allow us to bring a new vaccine on line quickly and manufacture enough to immunize every American against the pandemic strain,” he said.

Bush set out to spend $7 billion building out his plan. His cabinet secretaries urged their staffs to take preparations seriously. The government launched a website, www.pandemicflu.gov, that is still in use today.

But as time passed, it became increasingly difficult to justify the continued funding, staffing and attention, Bossert said.

Now, though, as America and the world cope with a coronavirus pandemic that few saw coming until it was on our doorstep, Bush’s speech, and the actions that led to his speech, seem remarkably wise and prescient.

Consequently, any and all subsequent historical analyses and assessments of the Bush 43 presidency will have to consider Bush’s leadership in preparing the nation for a pandemic.

This was not something that anyone had considered especially important before the coronavirus. However, it now obviously matters a lot more when we consider the successes and failures of Bush as president.

Historical Standing. Bush’s leadership here certainly will raise his historical marks and relative standing vis-à-vis other presidents; and it will lower, surely, Trump’s historical marks and relative standing. Bush showed prescience and foresight. Trump, by contrast, has shown myopia and shortsightedness.

Again, the facts of history have not changed; but how we view or understand those facts in light of new or modern-day circumstances does change. It is an historical truism: time will tell. It always does.

Here is the ABC News clip: it is well worth watching.

Feature photo: Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images via ABC News.

Only a Quick Ukrainian Victory Can Avert ‘World War III’

Ironically but predictably, Biden’s timidity in arming Ukraine is increasing the possibility of a larger-scale war involving not just Russia, but China and Iran.

The concern, articulated this weekend by U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, that China is giving serious consideration to providing lethal aid to Russia for its war on Ukraine has raised anew the possibility of “World War III,” or a larger-scale war that involves not just Russia and Ukraine, but their confederates, China and Iran.

Of course, no one, save for the enemies of freedom, wants a larger-scale war on three different fronts: in Europe over Ukraine; in Asia and the first island chain surrounding Taiwan; and in the Middle East over Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.

But unfortunately, China and Iran are formally aligned with Russia and are working to prolong the war in Ukraine. Both countries realize that if America and the West are tied up in Europe, they will be less capable of responding to threats in Asia and the Middle East.

Which is why we have argued, forcefully, for the United States to fully and quickly arm Ukraine, so as to bring about a swift Ukrainian victory and a thorough Russian defeat. The Biden administration, however, has had other ideas.

Misplaced Fear. The administration has feared “provoking Putin” and doing anything that might “escalate” the conflict and thereby precipitate “World War III.” Of course, these fears never made any sense.

Putin, after all, does not need to be “provoked.” He already is hellbent on subjugating all of Ukraine, and nothing other than Russia’s outright military defeat will disabuse him of this notion. For the entire past year’s duration of the war, remember, he has consistently shown no interest in diplomacy, “off-ramps,” or compromise of any sort.

As for “escalation,” that presupposes an ability to “escalate,” militarily; but Russia has no such ability. It already has thrown its entire military apparatus at Ukraine, including an estimated 97% of the entire Russian army, which is now in Ukraine, reports British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace.

Yes, of course, Russia has a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons; but tactical or battlefield nuclear weapons give Russia no military benefit or advantage other than shock value and frightening the West.

Meanwhile, there are real and consequential downside risks to being the first country since World War II to use nuclear weapons. Russia would become a pariah nation everywhere and would antagonize especially India and China, which currently buy its oil and provide Russia with significant non-lethal aid.

Strategic nuclear weapons are also a nonstarter. Russia is not about to risk a strategic nuclear war and the destruction of Moscow for the sake of conquering Ukraine. It hasn’t done so thus far and it won’t do so in the future because Ukraine, unlike Moscow, is not part of Russia and Putin knows it.

As for “World War III,” this conjures up images of a long, drawn-out war involving multiple countries in different theaters of operation similar to how World Wars I and II were fought. But what has been most notable about the first year of this war is that Russia fights alone and in Ukraine only.

Certainly, this was the case for the first six months of the war.

Before the war began, China and Russia signed an agreement pledging “no limits” to their mutual support. Yet China thus far has refrained from providing Russia with military weapon systems and battlefield assistance. Iran began providing Russia with cheap drones six months into the war.

The problem is that the longer this war drags on interminably, the more likely it is that it metamorphoses into “World War III.” The more likely it is that China and Iran opt to step-up or increase their support for Russia. And the more likely it is that both countries opt to open up new fronts: in Asia and the Middle East, respectively.

After all, when, earlier on in the conflict, a Russian defeat looked possible and perhaps even likely, it made eminent sense for China to avoid actively supporting Russia. What good would that do? Why back a loser? Why throw good money after bad?

China’s Shifting Calculus. But now that a Russian defeat looks less likely and not at all imminent, China’s calculus has undoubtedly changed. If the war can be prolonged indefinitely, then America, NATO, Europe, and the West can be kept occupied, and drained militarily and economically. That certainly would serve China’s interests, especially as it considers acting to subjugate Taiwan.

Ditto for the mullahs in Iran as they seek to dominate the Middle East. If America and the West are bogged down in Europe, that gives them less ability to oppose Iranian hegemony in the Middle East.

For these reasons, it behooves the Biden administration to act with a sense of urgency in aiding Ukraine.

A long war is morally unconscionable because it means more death, destruction, and misery. But a long war also increases the likelihood of a true world war fought in three different theaters of operation. And this is a war the United States is unprepared to fight, given its disgraceful lack of a defense industrial base.

Seth Jones reports, for instance, that in a war with China over the Taiwan Strait,

the United States would likely run out of some munitions—such as long-range, precision-guided munitions—in less than one week… [And] it would take an average of 8.4 years to replace Major Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP) inventories at surge production rates.

The bottom line: “World War III” was never a possibility so long as the United States was committed to a swift Ukrainian victory. But utterly misplaced fears about “provoking Putin” and “escalating” the conflict have caused the Biden administration to play for a tie, not a win, in Ukraine.

The result has been a long and protracted war with no end in sight; and this, ironically, is making a true “World War III” scenario an increasing possibility.

As Luke Coffey puts it: “Right now we are arming Ukraine so it can survive. We need to start arming Ukraine so it can win.” The and only then might we avert disaster. Then and only then might we avert “World War III.”

Feature photo credit, courtesy of the Express. The axis of evil (L-R): Iranian mullah/president Ebrahim Raisi, Chinese dictator Xi Jinping, and Russian dictator Vladimir Putin are all being empowered by the Biden administration’s timidity in arming Ukraine.

What’s Happening: Thur., Nov. 26, 2020, Thanksgiving

The Supreme Court upholds religious liberty against discriminatory COVID restrictions; Trump pardons Gen. Flynn; and new data shows masks are largely useless and the schools should be open.

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1331837982433812480

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1331706255212228608

https://twitter.com/GenFlynn/status/1331934828812496898

https://twitter.com/KimStrassel/status/1331850236201897984

https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/status/1331591177292943361

Studies, Data Show COVID Doesn’t Spread in Schools and Classrooms

The question about transmission is the primary question in schools.

In a study of 35,000 kids in North Carolina, there’s not a single case of transmission from child to adult out of 100 infections.

Insight for Education studied 191 countries, looking at the countries that reopened, and found that it did not drive the pandemic or outbreaks any further.

And Utah, which has the best data on schools, found that any increases or outbreaks were attributed to teens, and that infection was on off-campus congregate settings—namely, the parties, not the classrooms.

So it’s pretty clear the classroom is extremely safe, and the transmission from kids to adults is minimal.

—Marty Makary, MD, MPH, Professor of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

The Story with Martha MacCallum, Fox News, Nov. 20, 2020

The Virtuous Meaning of Thanksgiving

Thanksgiving has been a time to stop and take stock of the blessings enjoyed by family and community.

As the English settlers overcame the trials they faced that first year in Plymouth, qualities that Americans have come to honor as integral to our national identity were on full display: courage, perseverance, diligence, piety.

These are the virtues that helped to shape the American character.

The Pilgrims displayed another virtue, one they practiced every day and which stood at the heart of the First Thanksgiving. Cicero called it the greatest of the virtues and the parent of all the rest: gratitude.

—Melanie Kirkpatrick, as cited by James Freeman, in the Wall Street Journal, Nov. 25, 2020

Feature Photo Credit: Mike White, Fine Art America.

History Will Remember that Captain Crozier, Like Colonel Roosevelt, Did the Right Thing By and For His Men

A commanding officer out on the front lines, far from home, pleads with his superiors in Washington, D.C., to take action. His men are sick and dying and need to be evacuated to a safe harbor immediately. But the brass at headquarters are slow to act. They drag their feet and mull what to do.

Throwing caution—as well as his career—to the wind, the commanding officer fires off a crisply worded memorandum, notable for its clarity and precision, explaining the dire situation, and earnestly requesting that prompt action be taken to save lives that otherwise will be needlessly lost.

The action is belatedly forthcoming. The troops are evacuated and their lives are saved, but the high command is angry and incensed. They have been publicly shamed and humiliated by widespread publication of the CO’s letter. Heads—or at least one head, the commanding officer’s—will roll.

Captain Crozier. Readers will recognize that this is an apt description (minus the lives lost) of what has just transpired on the USS Theodore Roosevelt.

Sailors and Marines there have become infected with the coronavirus, prompting the ship’s commanding officer, Captain Brett Crozier, to write a letter detailing their dire situation and pleading with the Navy to remove his men from the ship.

“We are not at war,” Crozier wrote. “Sailors do not need to die. If we do not act now, we are failing to properly take care of our most trusted asset—our Sailors.”

For writing such heresy and allowing his words to find their way to the public prints—namely the San Francisco Chronicle—Crozier was summarily dismissed and relieved of his command by Acting Navy Secretary Thomas B. Modly.

But as two astute observers—Tweed Roosevelt (a great-grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt) and Ward Carroll—point out, what Crozier did and was fired for has historical antecedents in a similar action taken by then Colonel (Theodore) Roosevelt at the end of the Spanish American War.

Well before he became President of the United States, writes Tweed Roosevelt, and before even

his rise to national politics, Roosevelt commanded the Rough Riders, a volunteer cavalry regiment, in the invasion of Cuba during the Spanish-American War.

The Battle of San Juan Hill had been fought and won, and the war was basically over. However, the soldiers, still deployed in Cuba, faced a far worse enemy: yellow fever and malaria.

As was usual in the days before modern medicine, far more soldiers died of disease than of enemy action. The battlefield commanders, including Roosevelt, wanted to bring the soldiers home.

But the leadership in Washington—in particular Russell Alger, the secretary of war—refused, fearing a political backlash. A standoff ensued.

The career Army officers, who did not want to risk their jobs by being too outspoken, were stymied. Roosevelt, as a short-term volunteer, had less to lose.

So, with the tacit approval of his fellow commanders, he wrote a fiery open letter and released it to the press.

The letter, known as the “round robin,” was printed in virtually every newspaper in the country, creating an uproar demanding that the soldiers be brought home immediately. Alger relented, and the troops were sent to quarantine on the end of Long Island, at Montauk Point.

Though hundreds of men died of disease in Cuba, Roosevelt’s actions probably saved countless more.

He did, however, pay a price. Alger was furious with him. When Roosevelt’s nomination came up for a Medal of Honor, the secretary shot it down (Roosevelt eventually received the medal, posthumously, in 2001).

Of course, Roosevelt came out the winner. Who today remembers Russell Alger?

In this era when so many seem to place expediency over honor, it is heartening that so many others are showing great courage, some even risking their lives.

Theodore Roosevelt, in his time, chose the honorable course. Captain Crozier has done the same.

Certainly, the sailors and Marines whom Crozier led on the USS Roosevelt understand this. They gave their captain a raucous salute as he departed the ship after being summarily dismissed and relieved of his command. 

“That’s how you send out one of the greatest captains you ever had,” someone says in the video—then using an acronym for greatest of all time, adds: “The GOAT, the man for the people.”

https://www.facebook.com/michael.washington.5458/videos/10216506735516262/?t=10

Crozier’s career as a naval officer is, sadly, finished. But, like Roosevelt, he will live on in the hearts and minds of his countrymen as a man of uncompromising integrity and moral courage. And history will not long forget what he did nor why he did it.

Feature photo credit: Medal of Honor Society (Theodore Roosevelt) and Navy photo via Navy Times.

Biden’s Call for Unity Puts America First

How can we reconcile the President’s call for unity with the need for robust and contentious political debate?

Joe Biden’s inaugural address—and the speeches, prayers, and musical renditions that surrounded it—beautifully met the historical moment. Our new president paid homage to American democracy and the peaceful transfer of power with a solemn and heartfelt call for unity.

But what exactly, does the President mean by unity?

Surely not unanimity of opinion: because in any real democracy—and certainly American democracy—we prize argument and debate. We vigorously protect the rights of dissenters who beg to differ, and we wouldn’t want it any other way.

That is why, after all, our founding fathers bequeathed to us the First Amendment, which expressly protects freedom of thought and freedom of speech. As Americans, we believe that only though robust and contentious political debate will the best ideas emerge and prevail.

As Mr. Biden put it:

If you still disagree [with me], so be it. That’s democracy. That’s America. The right to dissent, peaceably—the guardrail of our republic—is perhaps this nation’s greatest strength.

Yet hear me clearly: Disagreement must not lead to disunion.

Americans First. In other words, we Americans can disagree and argue, but we should always do so as Americans first—as a people with a shared history, a common set of ideals, and a singular devotion to liberty and justice for all.

We can see each other not as adversaries, but as neighbors. We can treat each other with dignity and respect. We can join forces, stop the shouting and lower the temperature…

Politics doesn’t have to be a raging fire, destroying everything in its path. Every disagreement doesn’t have to be a cause for total war.

And we must reject the culture in which facts themselves are manipulated and even manufactured.

Truth and Lies. Mr. Biden’s point about manipulating and manufacturing facts was a well-deserved rebuke of President Trump, who has been a habitual liar throughout his presidency.

Trump’s most damning lie, of course, was his fabricated notion that the election was stolen from him through voter fraud. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Yet it was this lie that inspired the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol by deluded Trump sycophants.

Bald-faced lying matters because it debases our political culture and corrupts and distorts our policy debates. And, inevitably, this leads to calls for censoring and squelching free speech, as we’ve seen recently with Twitter and Facebook.

As Mr. Biden explained:

Recent weeks and months have taught us a painful lesson: there is truth and there are lies, lies told for power and for profit.

And each of us has a duty and responsibility, as citizens, as Americans, and especially as leaders—leaders who have pledged to honor our Constitution and protect our nation—to defend the truth and defeat the lies.

Surely, no conservative—and certainly, not this conservative—can disagree. The search for truth, not power, must always and everywhere guide us.

Republicans. The problem for Republicans and conservatives in the age of Trump is that too many of them allowed their quest for political power to override their commitment to truth—the truth about Trump and the truth about their political opponents. And, as we saw Jan. 6, this too often led to disaster.

We must end this uncivil war that pits red against blue, rural vs. urban, conservative vs. liberal. We can do this if we open our souls instead of hardening our hearts.

If we show a little tolerance and humility, and if we’re willing to stand in the other person’s shoes, as my mom would say, just for a moment, stand in their shoes.

Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand. That’s how it has to be. That’s what we do for one another.

And if we are this way, our country will be stronger, more prosperous, more ready for the future. And we can still disagree [emphasis added].

Yes, we can, and we should (argue and disagree)—now more than ever.

Civility. Look, I’m a conservative Republican. Joe Biden is a very liberal Democrat. I fully expect to vigorously oppose many, and perhaps most, of the policies that he will champion over the next four years.

But I thank God we have a President who recognizes that we Americans can and should disagree and argue, but as Americans first, with a commitment to what is right, true, and just.

Amen, Mr. President, and Godspeed.

Feature photo credit: Screenshot of President Biden delivering his Inaugural Address.

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).

Trump Lost, but the Republican Party Won Big in the 2020 Election

Even in deep blue states like California, the voters rejected one-party rule and sent Republicans to Congress to check President Biden.

Before the election, we warned that a Biden win almost certainly would mean Democratic control of the Senate and the consequent “progressive” or socialist remaking of America into a very different country than the one bequeathed to us by our founding fathers.

That is because, in these politically polarized times, split-ticket voting has become passé, and the Democratic Party has moved further and further to the left in the past decade.

Well, we are pleased to report that in 2020, the American people actually embraced split-ticket voting to a degree that no one anticipated. Consequently, although Trump lost the presidential election, the Republican Party otherwise did quite well. Consider: 

  • Senate. The Republicans retained control of the Senate, pending the outcome of two runoff elections in Georgia, which they are expected to win.

Yet, in the months leading up to the election, Democrats spoke boldly about winning as many as six new Senate seats, eliminating the filibuster, making Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico new states, packing the courts, and sending the GOP into the dustbin of history.

Not anymore. Because of the GOP’s unexpected Senate wins in Maine, Iowa, North Carolina, and elsewhere, President Biden will be forced to compromise with Senate Republicans—and progressive plans to enact radical and irreversible changes to our very system of government are now dead on arrival.

https://twitter.com/GOP/status/1324062616898121729?s=20
  • House of Representatives. Republicans gained an astounding 10-15 seats in the House of Representatives. (Some House races have yet to be decided; hence the variability of these results.)

“Republicans in Congress won every incumbent seat and 28 out of 29 competitive seats identified by the New York Times’ Nate Silver,” reports Bethany Blankley in The Center Square.

https://twitter.com/henryolsenEPPC/status/1325254596252459008?s=20

As a result, the Democrats have their smallest majority in 60 years. Republicans, meanwhile, are well-positioned to retake control of the House in the 2022 mid-term elections.

Equally important for the GOP’s future in an increasingly diverse country: there will be a record number of Republican women in the House, 35, up from just 13 currently; and these new representatives include Asians, blacks, Hispanics, and Middle Easterners. 

https://twitter.com/CarlosGimenezFL/status/1327665132395229185?s=20

In New Hampshire, a blue state in the heart of deep blue New England, independent conservative Chris Sununu was reelected with a resounding 65 percent of the vote.

https://twitter.com/The_RGA/status/1324439721699954697?s=20

Sununu is young, whip-smart and a political winner. He has to be at the top of the list for 2024 GOP presidential hopefuls.

  • State Legislatures. Republicans retained their lock on most state legislatures: by capturing control of the New Hampshire state house and state senate, while preventing the Democrats from flipping a single state legislative body.

This even though the far left spent huge sums of money to wrest control of the states from the GOP.

The Republicans now control 30 state legislatures, with control of one state legislature split between the two parties and control of another state legislature yet to be determined.

The Democrats, by contrast, control just 18 state legislatures, albeit in three of the largest states in the union: California, New York, and Illinois.

  • Ballot Initiatives. Republicans won overwhelmingly in ballot initiatives nationwide, even in deep blue California and Illinois.

Californians, for instance, voted down an effort to repeal that state’s ban on racial preferences, and they retained their state’s cap on property taxes.

https://twitter.com/ECalifornians/status/1327017400848371712?s=20

They also decisively defeated a union-pushed ballot initiative that would have eliminated independent contractors, curtailed worker employment options, and stunted the gig economy.

Illinois voters rebuffed Democratic Governor, J.B. Pritzker, by voting down a graduated or progressive income tax measure that he had championed.

Coloradans, meanwhile, voted 57 percent to 43 percent for “a simple reduction in the state’s income tax, from 4.63 percent to 4.55 percent,” writes Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform.

However, he adds, voters in Arkansas and Arizona approved tax hikes—albeit through political deception and trickery in Arkansas and very narrowly and dubiously in Arizona.

Conclusion. As William A. Gallston sums it up, the 2020 election

was a defeat for Donald Trump but a victory for the Republican Party, which turned back most challenges to incumbent senators, fought off Democratic efforts to flip state legislatures, and made gains in the House.

The American people have voted for divided government and a less divisive tone in national politics.

Amen to that and God bless America. May our nation—and a viable two-party system committed to the Constitution and the rule of law—live long and prosper.

Feature photo credit: Rep.-Elect Michelle Steel (R-California), courtesy of her Facebook page.

Tests, Vaccines, and Medical Supplies: America Mobilizes to Combat the Coronavirus

Because the entrepreneurial spirit and rebellion against authority are part and parcel of our national and cultural DNA, you can never say America is down for the count.

Sure, things look bad right now; but it’s always darkest before the dawn. And Americans are not standing idly by and passively accepting their dire fate as predicted by the “experts.” Instead, they’re fighting back, and with notable, if underplayed and unheralded, success.

For example, Abbott Labs announced Friday that it has developed a new, portable test that can determine, within five to 13 minutes, whether someone is infected with the coronavirus.

The company expects to deliver 50,000 tests per day starting next week.

Scott Gottlieb, former head of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and a medical doctor who has been at the forefront of assessing the COVID-19 pandemic, calls the new test a “game-changer.” He says it’s very likely that other Point of Care diagnostic tests will soon be coming to market.

Point of Care testing is medical testing that can be done anywhere and not just in a hospital or laboratory setting.

Point of Care testing is critically important because it will facilitate rapid and comprehensive testing, which is integral to mitigation and containment strategies that will break the epidemic spread of the virus and allow Americans to return to work.

“If we know who is infected, who is not, and who has recovered, we could greatly relax social isolation requirements and send both the uninfected and the recovered back to work,” explain researchers Tim Searchinger, Anthony LaMantia, and Gordon Douglas.

Indeed, only “massive testing” of the entire U.S. population will allow us to avert “two disastrous and unsustainable scenarios,” they argue.

The first scenario involves essentially shutting down the U.S. economy for perhaps a year or more until a vaccine is developed.

The second scenario involves shutting down the U.S. economy (or major parts of the U.S. economy) intermittently in response to each new outbreak of the virus.

In either scenario, the result would be a severe recession, if not a great depression. And, “even with intermittent isolation,” write the researchers, hospitals likely “would be overwhelmed and many people would die.”

Thus says Gottlieb: “We need widespread testing to know where and to what extent the virus is spreading.”

Physicians, meanwhile, are making innovative, “off-label” use of hydroxychloroquine (an anti-malarial drug) and azithromycin (an antibiotic) to treat COVID-19 patients, and with promising results.

Medical researchers, likewise, are working round-the-clock to develop a vaccine, as clinical trials are underway and moving apace. 

“America is home to a vast, dynamic life-science industry,” says Gottlieb. “This is its moment. This is why decades of drug investment and development matter so much.”

The “arsenal of democracy,” moreover, is rapidly retooling to become the healthcare supplier of first resort.

Ventec Life Systems and General Motors, for instance, have teamed up to meet an urgent and unprecedented need for “FDA-cleared Level 1 surgical masks” and “sophisticated, high-quality critical care ventilators.”

“The companies are adding thousands of units of new capacity with a significantly expanded supply chain capable of supporting high volume production. GM is contributing its resources at cost,” the companies announced Friday.

Make no mistake: America was slow to realize the dangers of the coronavirus. We were caught flatfooted and unprepared. We did not realize what was hitting us.

But as Churchill famously said, “You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing—after they’ve tried everything else.”

We may not have tried everything else, but we’re certainly doing the right thing—or at least trying mightily to do the right thing. And that matters. That is why America is not yet done. Not by a long shot.

Feature photo credit: Abbott Labs in Temecula, California via Connect Media.