Press "Enter" to skip to content

The Moral Myopia of Populist ‘New Right’ Republican Foreign Policy

Russia’s war on Ukraine was never about a “territorial dispute” between the two countries. Instead, it is a battle between good and evil; and, in that fight, America cannot be impartial or indifferent.

One of the most fallacious, disgraceful, and repugnant assertions made by some isolationists or anti-interventionists is that, when it comes to Russia and Ukraine, both countries are morally and ethically besmirched; and so, the United States should refrain from taking sides in their “territorial dispute.”

Of course, such moral equivalence has absolutely no basis in fact. It has been cut out of whole cloth by populist “New Right” Republicans eager to have America disengage from messy and bloody overseas conflicts.

Horrific Russian War Crimes. In truth, as anyone familiar with Russian history and Vladimir Putin well knows, Russia is a criminal state that has habitually committed horrific war crimes, and this is true in Ukraine today.

Indeed, Russia deliberately and routinely launches missile strikes against Ukrainian civilian population centers, schools and hospitals; pillages Ukrainian cities and homes; rapes Ukrainian women; tortures and executes Ukrainian men; and abducts and kidnaps Ukrainian children.

And these are not scarce or isolated incidents or the work of a few bad actors who have gone rogue. Instead, these horrific war crimes are widespread and the deliberative actions of a Russian state that has long seen barbarism and criminality as necessary instruments of war and statecraft. As Rich Lowry observes:

Where the Russian military goes, war crimes are sure to follow. It is a reflection of a twisted Russian political culture that has never developed an appreciation for individual worth, democratic accountability or humanitarian norms.

Vladimir Putin is not to be confused with Lenin or Stalin—he paints his horrors on a much smaller canvas. But his cold-eyed brutality is characteristically Russian…

What the Russian lacks in planning and proficiency, it makes up in barbarity and utter disregard for humanity. War is hell, but almost all advanced nations try to keep it within some bounds of decency. Russia is an outlier. For it, the cruelty is the point—and the reflexive practice.

The Associated Press reported in April that, according to Ukrainian Prosecutor General Andrea Kostin, “nearly 80,000 cases of war crimes have been registered in Ukraine since the war began in February 2022.”

Ukrainian military action against Russia is in no way comparable. The Ukrainian military does not rape, torture and pillage; it does not target schools and hospitals; and it does not employ terror as a weapon of war.

Instead, the Ukrainian military fights to liberate its country and to free its people of Russian tyranny.

The worst that can be said of Ukraine is that, after a year of horrific Russian war crimes, it began to launch retaliatory drone strikes against Russian airports and military infrastructure inside Russia. But none of these drone strikes compares in intensity or firepower to the horrific missile strikes launched by Russia against Ukrainian civilian targets.

False Moral Equivalence. Yet despite the sheer moral clarity of this war and the stark differences between Russia and Ukraine, populist “New Right” Republicans have tried to draw a moral equivalence between these two countries.

In practice, this has meant seizing upon any evidence that Ukraine might be anything but a pure and perfect liberal democracy; and arguing that the war between Russia and Ukraine stems from a messy “territorial dispute” that is of little interest to the United States.

In truth, Ukraine is a fledgling liberal democracy that aspires to be part of the West, and which fundamentally shares our liberal democratic values.

And we Americans should care about Ukraine because, as the world’s most powerful and influential nation, the United States has a preeminent interest in maintaining a liberal, rules-based international order. American economic preeminence, after all, depends on international trade and commerce, especially with Europe.

Moral clarity also is an integral part of American foreign policy. Countries and people the world over know that the United States does not covet land, territory, or people. They view us as an honest broker who can be trusted, more so than any other country, to be fair and just and to do the right thing.

Our moral standing, in fact, gives us tremendous leverage and influence, militarily and diplomatically. Which is why we mustn’t squander it by trying to pretend that Ukraine and Russia are equally culpable and blameworthy; and that Russia’s war on Ukraine is of little interest to the United States.

Nothing could be further from the truth. This war is fundamentally a battle between good and evil; and in that fight, America cannot be impartial or indifferent. This is, as Ronald Reagan once said, a time for choosing.

Feature photo credit: A Ukrainian civilian population center targeted and destroyed by the Russian military, courtesy of Alexander Ermochenko/Reuters, published in The Globe and Mail.

Biography

John R. Guardiano [pronounced Guard-Dee-On-Oh] is a writer, analyst, investor, and observer in Arlington, Virginia. His interests include American politics, defense and foreign policy, options trading, equities investing, health and fitness. He is a Marine veteran of the Iraq War and holds a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from Binghamton (Phi Beta Kappa) and a Master’s Degree (with distinction) in National Security and Strategic Studies from the Naval War College.

Financial Disclosure: ResCon1 is a news and information site designed to correct error and promote truth. There are no “tip jars,” no “GoFundMe” solicitations, and no corporate or governmental donations. This is a voluntary, non-profit, charitable endeavor. I report and analyze the news and write what I think without fear, favor or prejudice—and without concern for the almighty dollar. If I have a financial or professional interest in something that I write about, I will disclose that.

Political Disclosure. I write from a conservative perspective; however, I am not a Trump Republican. In fact, I dislike our former president for his vulgarity, lack of professionalism, and incompetence. Yet, I find much to like about his administration and its policies.

I pride myself on being independent-minded and thus criticize the president and GOP lawmakers frequently when I believe they have erred. I do not censor myself or pull my punches because I think that something I write might hurt the GOP or the conservative cause. If it does, too bad. The pursuit of truth regardless of the consequences is what guides me.

Copyright. Media organizations and individual writers are free to borrow or publish anything that I post to this site. I ask only that you credit me for my work; and that if you do compensate writers and contributors, you do so for me as well.

The 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis Is No Template for 2022 Ukraine

Pretending otherwise will result in NATO negotiating with itself, appeasing Putin, and abandoning Ukraine.

Washington Post foreign policy columnist David Ignatius thinks the 1962 Cuban missile crisis might offer clues on how President Biden can simultaneously achieve U.S. foreign policy objectives in Ukraine, while also giving Russian dictator Vladimir Putin an “off-ramp,”or some “face-saving way out” of his dire predicament.

Ignatius, of course, is rightly concerned about Putin’s threat to use tactical or battlefield nuclear weapons. However, the historical template that he cites is misplaced and decidedly unhelpful.

Simply put, 2022 Ukraine is not 1962 Cuba, and pretending that it might be will lead President Biden and other policymakers astray.

  • For starters, Russian missiles in Cuba were a direct threat to the American homeland. Which means they were an existential threat to the United States. Tactical or battlefield nukes in Ukraine, by contrast, do not threaten the American homeland. Nor do they threaten any NATO country.

Russian tactical nukes do threaten Ukraine, obviously. But pretending that they spell worldwide armageddon is hyperbolic and untrue.

  • Second, when Russia deployed nukes in Cuba, the West had reason to believe it was facing a formidable military and economic power. No one has any such illusions about Russia today.

As the Financial Times notes, “the Russian economy is not globally significant, though individual sectors such as oil and gas do matter.” The Russian military, meanwhile, has show itself in Ukraine to be utterly incompetent and incapable of waging war, and it now teeters on the verge of collapse.

Russia does have the world’s largest arsenal of nuclear weapons, and that is, indeed, worrisome. However, Russia never has launched a nuclear strike against a NATO country because it knows that would result in an immediate retaliatory strike against Moscow.

Deterrence worked throughout the Cold War and deterrence will work today—if President Biden and other NATO leaders do not waver and remain resolved and determined.

  • Third, in 1962 Cuba, Russian dictator Nikita Khrushchev was looking for an off-ramp. In 2022 Ukraine,  by contrast, Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, clearly is not—something Ignatius himself admits.

Instead, by word and by deed, Putin has demonstrated that he interested in gobbling up as much of Ukraine as he possibly can now, while husbanding his resources for its complete subjugation later.

Given this reality, it is beyond futile to try and give Putin something he clearly does not want. We end up negotiating not with Putin, but with ourselves. This results in more self-defeating self-deterrence and appeasement.

  • Fourth, 1962 Cuba was a communist territory firmly ensconced in the Soviet orbit. 2022 Ukraine, by contrast, is a Western democracy valiantly and heroically seeking to free itself of Russian domination or attempted Russian domination.

For this reason, it arguably made sense for President Kennedy to pledge (as he did) that the United States would not invade Cuba or intervene in Cuban internal affairs in exchange for the removal of Russian missiles there.

But given the very different status of Ukraine today, any substantive concession that the United States or NATO pledges to Russia re: Ukraine will result in the unconscionable abandonment of that country and its people. This is and ought to be a nonstarter.

Ukraine’s entry into the EU and NATO, for instance, is more necessary and inevitable now than it was before the Russian invasion.

  • Fifth, like many observers, Ignatius laments Ukraine’s determination to defeat Russia on the battlefield and drive Russia out of all of Ukrainian territory. He laments this because Ignatius would like to see Ukraine give Putin something Russian can crow about and call a victory. That, after all, would make a “face-saving compromise” possible.

But the only thing a “face-saving compromise” can possibly mean is giving some Ukrainian territory to Russia and abandoning millions of Ukrainians to the tender mercies of Russian rule and domination.

Given all that we know about Russian rule, this is truly unconscionable and wrong. It also violates a fundamental principle, the territorial integrity of nations, that underlies the international order.

The danger of rewarding Russian military aggression should be obvious. The precedent established will inevitably result in other countries (China perhaps) unilaterally using military might to redraw the world’s national boundaries and territorial claims.

  • Sixth, Ignatius suggests that Ukraine is still poised to lose to Russia. He says that Ukraine “needs a reality check about its longer-term battlefield prospects”

This is a remarkable statement. It might have made sense back in February, when Western intelligence estimated that the Ukrainian Army would quickly crumble, Kyiv would fall within days, Zelensky would flee the country, and Russian rule would be established.

In fact, as we now know, nothing of the sort happened. In fact, the opposite has happened. David has heroically beaten back Goliath. And David might well defeat Goliath if America and NATO stop slow-walking their delivery of aid to the Ukrainian military out of an utterly misplaced fear of “provoking” or “cornering” Putin.

“Despite the large quantities [of military aid] flowing to Ukraine,” writes Eliot A. Cohen,

the fact remains that it is not enough, and that the logistical system can handle more…

Some capable countries, [i.e., Germany], are unwilling to give at scale…

Most other countries, including the United States, continue to refrain from the level of industrial mobilization necessary. It is too much business as usual…

Some of the hesitancy, too, has stemmed from a patronizing wariness about Ukrainian capabilities. Yet if we have learned anything in this war, it is that the Ukrainians, smart and driven as they are, can absorb even the most advanced systems fast, and exploit them shrewdly.

At this point, they know more about high-intensity warfare than we do.

Exactly. There is a time and a place to negotiate and to try and offer one’s adversary an “off-ramp” or a “face-saving way out.” That worked in 1962 Cuba. It will not work in 2022 Ukraine. The differences between these two times and places are too stark, and pretending that they’re not will lead President Biden and other policymakers astray.

What America and NATO must now do is accelerate their military aid to Ukraine to ensure Russia’s utter and abject defeat.

At the same time, the West must ensure that Russia is under no illusions. Russian use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine will result in the swift demise of the Russian military there via conventional NATO military means.

Then and only then can a real and lasting peace be achieved.

Feature photo credit: Russian dictators Vladimir Putin (2022) and Nikita Khrushchev (1962), courtesy of the The Telegraph.

Why Italy’s New Conservative Prime Minister Supports Ukraine

—and why American conservatives should, too.

Italy’s new conservative Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni, has much to teach American conservatives—especially so-called nationalist conservatives, who too often have been hostile or indifferent toward Ukraine.

Not Ms. Meloni. She is, reports the Wall Street Journal, “robustly pro-Ukraine.”

“We are fully committed to supporting Ukraine and condemning Russia,” said Raffaele Fitto, a senior member of the Brothers of Italy party, which leads a right-wing alliance that polls suggest could win around 60% of the seats in Parliament.

“Sanctions must be supported,” he said, “no ifs or buts.”

Western Civilization. Amen. Ukraine today is at the epicenter of the fight for Western Civilization; and Italy, of course, is one of the cradles of this civilizational inheritance. Our civilizational inheritance.

Indeed, the rule of law, the Judeo-Christian moral code, market-based commerce, and representative democracy all owe a debt of gratitude to the Romans who pioneered these concepts in the Italian peninsula and beyond in the millennium before Christ.

So it is perhaps not surprising that modern-day Italians are among the strongest supporters of Ukraine in its fight for independence against an alien and countervailing political tradition manifest in 21st Century Russia.

As Ms. Meloni explains:

We did not fight against and defeat Communism in order to replace it with a new international regime, but to permit independent nation-states once again to defend the freedom, identity, and sovereignty of their peoples.

Ms. Meloni’s remarks were not directed toward Ukraine specifically, but they apply there nonetheless. To translate:

the West did not defeat the Soviet Union in order to replace it with an imperial Russia that tramples upon the rights and liberties of free and sovereign nation-states like Ukraine.

America Conservatives. Yet a disconcerting number of American conservatives, especially so-called nationalist conservatives, are soft on Putin’s Russia and antagonistic toward Ukraine. Bizarrely and perversely, some so-called conservatives even hold up Putin as a sort of model leader. Why?

Part of this is simple ignorance and a lack of education. Generations of dismal public schooling have taken their toll. Consequently, too many Americans are ignorant of the origins of Western Civilization and the struggles of our ancestors as they attempted to form a more perfect union in these United States. Novus ordo seclorum.

This lack of historical understanding and appreciation is overlaid with an obsession over current events and the very recent past, which, together, distort our understanding and confuse matters.

Iraq and Afghanistan. For Americans, especially younger Americans, the very recent past is Iraq and Afghanistan. All conflict is viewed the prism of these two wars. And so, the fear all along has been that Ukraine might become yet another “endless war” that consumes our time and our resources at the expense of other, more pressing issues like China.

But of course, as we’ve noted, Ukraine is neither Iraq nor Afghanistan. It is a very different country in a very different time and place. And the war in Ukraine is orders of magnitude more important to the United States than the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan ever were.

A Taliban-run Afghanistan overrun with jihadists who seek to do us harm is a problem, to be sure. But terrorists in caves do not pose the same level of threat as a Russia, nuclear-armed and China-aligned, that is intent on expanding westward to gobble-up Eastern Europe.

The Italians, fortunately, are not burdened with the legacy of Iraq and Afghanistan. Thus they are able to see Ukraine for what it is: a war the West must win.

Grazie a Dio per l’Italia.

Feature photo credit: Italy’a new Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni, courtesy of Wikipedia.

Should American Christians Pray for Putin or Ukraine?

Prominent Christian calls to “pray for Putin” are wrongheaded and discordant with the American political tradition and American religious history.

Remember reading about the American prayer vigils for Soviet dictators Joseph Stalin and Nikita Khrushchev during the Cold War? What about all the times Americans were beseeched to pray for Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini during World War II?

You don’t remember that? Neither do I, because it never happened.

You see, back in the day, Americans prayed not for despots and dictators, but for the people enslaved by these despots and dictators—and for our soldiers and diplomats who were working to stop these despots and dictators and free the enslaved.

“Pray for the peoples of the ‘Captive Nations‘ behind the Iron Curtain,” was, in fact, a common American religious refrain in the 20th Century.

It is, after all, more than a little twisted and perverse, not to mention heretical, to pray for objectively bad men as they perpetrate genocide and mass murder while enslaving innocent peoples worldwide.

The New Orthodoxy. But according to some Christian conservatives, that is so passé. Their new orthodoxy requires that we shower prayer and affection on despots and dictators, not their victims. Thus the prominent Christian evangelist and missionary Franklin Graham tweeted:Rod Dreher, a prominent Christian author and journalist, replied:Now, of course, praying for God to work a miracle in Putin’s heart is all well and good; but not, I’m afraid, “so that war can be avoided at all cost [emphasis added].”

If the price of peace is the Russian annexation of Ukraine and the Russian enslavement of the people of Ukraine, then no thanks. That cost is too high and too exorbitant—and too detrimental to American national security interests.

Christianity, after all, has never demanded that the faithful be pacifists. In fact, quite the opposite: As Catholic author and journalist Austen Ivereigh has observed, under certain conditions “to refuse to go to war may in fact be a great evil.”

Ivereigh quotes the great Christian apologist C.S. Lewis: “If war is ever moral, then sometimes peace can be sinful.”

Christians who urge that we pray for Putin insist that they are praying not for his success, but “for his conversion to peace with his neighbors“—or, as David French puts it: “I’m praying that God turns Vladimir Putin’s heart from war.”

But of course, that’s not what Graham said. Graham said he was praying for Putin “so that war could be avoided at all cost [emphasis added].” And Rod Dreher agreed, saying “I have been praying for exactly this.”

Damnable Prayers. French’s clarification about what he is praying for is helpful; however, it does not exonerate Graham and Dreher for their damnable prayer requests.

Nor does it negate the fact that urging the faithful to pray for despots and dictators is discordant with the American political tradition and American religious history.

Because in truth, as a practical matter, people pray for those whom they are rooting for and wish to help, aid and assist.

The fine distinction that French makes—that he is praying not or Putin, but for Putin’s Christian conversion—is lost on most people and lost in most prayer requests. It certainly appears to be lost on Graham and Dreher as evidenced by their damnable tweets.

For this reason, contra Graham and Dreher, let us pray not for Putin, but for the people of Ukraine. And let us pray that American and NATO leaders have the wisdom and resolve to stop Putin and save Ukraine.

Anything less than that would be, dare I say it, unAmerican and unchristian.

Feature photo credit: Christian evangelist and missionary Franklin Graham (L) and Christian author and journalist Rod Dreher (R). Graham’s pic is courtesy of BillyGraham.org. Dreher’s pic is a screen shot from a YouTube video posted by The American Conservative.

Trump Is Right About Cuomo’s Failure to Procure Ventilators, and the So-Called Fact Checkers Are Wrong

As we reported here at ResCon1, Tuesday, March 24, New York’s Democratic Governor, Andrew Cuomo, bears significant responsibility for his state’s lack of ventilators.

U.S. intelligence agencies and public health experts, we observed, warned Cuomo and other government officials years ago of likely pandemics that would overburden our hospitals and healthcare system.

A New York state task force, in fact, specifically warned Cuomo of the lack of ventilators during a pandemic. Cuomo, though, opted not to purchase the requisite number of ventilators.

These are all facts, not opinion or conjecture, and this a matter of public record.

What is a a matter of opinion is Cuomo’s assertion that Trump needs to “nationalize” the medical supply chain, because doing so would mean that 30,000 ventilators would suddenly be produced and descend upon New York State hospitals.

Trump, as we reported here at ResCon1, has wisely resisted Cuomo’s call to have the federal government take over the medical supply chain, because doing so would not solve anything.

Instead, nationalization would create more problems because the government is inept at running commercial businesses. That is simply not a public-sector comparative advantage. 

Trump, meanwhile, hit back against Cuomo in a Fox News virtual town hall:

This [article] says that New York Governor Cuomo rejected buying recommended 16,000 ventilators in 2015 for the pandemic—for a pandemic; established death panels and a lotteries instead.

So he had a chance to buy, in 2015, 16,000 ventilators at a very low price and he turned it down.

I’m not blaming him or anything else, but he shouldn’t be talking about us. He’s supposed to be buying his own ventilators. We’re going to help.

But, you know, if you think about—if you think about Governor Cuomo, we’re building him four hospitals. We’re building him four medical centers.

We’re working very, very hard for the people of New York. We’re working along with him, and then I watch him on the show, complaining. And he had 16,000 ventilators that he could have had at a great price and he didn’t buy them.

As a result of these comments, two news organizations, The Dispatch and FactCheck.Org, have published overly long, tendentious, and convoluted criticisms of Trump for allegedly not telling the truth about Cuomo and the ventilators. But their criticisms really miss the mark and are beside the point.

FactCheck.Org flags Trump for charging that, because New York failed to purchase more ventilators years ago, it would be forced to employ a “lottery system” and “death panels” to ration the use of available ventilators. This is “misleading,” they argue.

Moreover, says FactCheck.Org, the New York State task force that looked into the matter in 2015 “did not recommend whether the state should buy more ventilators (and hire the staff necessary to operate them).”

But this is splitting hairs. As Betsy McCaughey explains in the New York Post,

In 2015, that task force came up with rules that will be imposed when ventilators run short.

Patients assigned a red code will have highest access, and other ­patients will be assigned green, yellow or blue (the worst), ­depending on a “triage officer’s” decision.

In truth, a death officer. Let’s not sugar-coat it. It won’t be up to your own doctor.

Exactly. Let’s not sugar-coat it. As for the reference to a “lottery system,” that came from a Feb. 27, 2020, New York Times article:

The task force that issued the report devised a formula, relying partially on medical criteria, to help hospitals decide who would get ventilators and who would not.

It also envisioned a lottery system in some instances. And age could play a role, with children being given preference over adults.

Rationing. But the larger-scale point, which we made here at ResCon1 is this: without more ventilators soon, ventilators will have to be rationed, and that means deciding who will live and who will die.

Call it what you will, that is a problem—a big and serious problem. 

And whether the task force recommended that the state buy more ventilators is immaterial. The reality is that, as Governor of New York State, Cuomo has a responsibility to safeguard the health and safety of his people, the residents of New York. He failed.

He failed by not buying more ventilators—even though he had been warned of this problem, and even though he had been warned about the likelihood of a pandemic that would require many more ventilators. 

Maybe he failed for good reason: because the tradeoffs were too difficult and too stark. Still, he failed. As governor, the buck stops with him.

The Dispatch, meanwhile, complains that “Trump provided no evidence to support his claim that Cuomo could have had the ventilators ‘at a very low price’ in 2015, and that Cuomo ‘turned it down.’”

But cost, too, is really immaterial. When it comes to public health, government has an obligation to spend whatever it takes to protect the health and well-being of their people—us.

That is a fundamental and non-negotiable obligation of the state.If government officials think the cost of public health is too high or prohibitive, then they should say so, clearly and publicly.

That way, we can openly and rationally discuss and debate the tradeoffs involved, our public policy and spending priorities, and what level of risk we, as a society, are willing to assume.

In any case, Trump was echoing what McCaughey argued in her New York Post piece. “In 2015,” she wrote,

the state could have purchased the additional 16,000 needed ventilators for $36,000 a piece, or a total of $576 million. It’s a lot of money, but in hindsight, spending half a percent of the budget to prepare for a pandemic was the right thing to do.

The Dispatch also gets lost in the weeds on the origins of the New York State task force and its precise findings; but this is all background noise and beside the point.

The bottom line is this: Cuomo was warned of a problem and yet, he did not act.

But what’s done is done. What matters now is: where do we go from here? How do we ramp up production and delivery of ventilators to New York and other states that are suffering most from the coronavirus?

The most obvious place to begin is with the Strategic National Stockpile, “the government reserve meant to fortify overwhelmed hospitals in a crisis.” But that stockpile has only 16,600 ventilators, reports the Center for Public Integrity—far fewer than the 64,000 to 742,000 that might be needed.

In truth, only an unleashed and unchained private sector free to innovate can possibly produce the requisite number of ventilators quickly enough to meet the anticipated demand. Fortunately the Trump administration is relaxing the regulatory burden and companies are stepping up to produce.

A company called Prisma Health, for instance, is using 3D printing to manufacture a new ventilator model that can support up to four patients simultaneously.

The company says that it “has received emergency use authorization” from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and is working with “COVID-19 [treatment] teams who have no more ventilator capacity, and who can initiate emergency use of the prototype.”

The good news, reports the Wall Street Journal’s William McGurn, “is that players in the private sector… have already been in touch with one another to see how they might team up.”

For example, he writes, before the coronavirus hit, one company’s “peak output was roughly 150 ventilators a month.” However, within the next 90 days, they expect to increase that to 1,000 ventilators a month.

“It won’t be easy [nor will it happen] overnight,” says Chris Kiple, “but it can be done.”

Mr. Kiple is CEO of Seattle-based Ventec Life Systems. He says Ventec is one of about a dozen players in the global market for ventilators, only about half of which are U.S.-based companies.

“Ventec,” McGurn writes, recently

announced it will work in partnership with General Motors. The idea is to combine GM’s experience of mass-production manufacturing with Ventec’s technology.

Mr. Kiple says the partnership will mean getting “more ventilators to more hospitals much faster.” The president tweeted Sunday, [March 22, 2020]: “Go for it auto execs.”

Feature photo credit: NY1

A Lesson in Left-Wing Media Bias: the NYT Obits of Sen. Tom Coburn and Fidel Castro

The media lean overwhelmingly to the left. This should be obvious to anyone who is a serious consumer of news and information. But here’s a very timely and illustrative example of this bias, courtesy of eagle-eyed John Tabin.

It concerns the New York Times’ coverage of former Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma), a highly principled conservative who, sadly, passed away Saturday at the age of 72 due to complications with prostate cancer.

Coburn was always “direct, thoughtful, and principled,” tweets Washington Examiner executive editor Philip Klein. “He will be sorely missed. RIP.”

He “was one of the finest public servants of my lifetime,” adds Klein’s colleague, Washington Examiner columnist Quin Hillyer:

[A] practicing obstetrician, [Coburn] combined fierce devotion to principle with rigorous intellectual integrity and tremendous personal decency.

One of the most hard-line conservatives in first the House and then the Senate, he nonetheless enjoyed the respect and friendship of many liberal Democrats.

Not the least of these was President Barack Obama, with whom he reportedly spoke in private, as a friend and sounding board, almost weekly throughout Obama’s White House tenure…

When Coburn arrived on Capitol Hill in the “Gingrich Revolution” Republican class of 1994, he was an unyielding ideologue.

Even then, though, there was a difference: Whereas some super-hard-liners are full of sound and fury without much thoughtfulness, Coburn obviously had depth and intellect…

Rather than being a gadfly, Coburn became an effective leader, without ever doing the “go-along to get-along” kind of games.

He began publishing an annual Wastebook highlighting absurd government spending and also a weekly “pork report” listing egregious examples of wasteful projects from almost every federal agency.

He took the lead in opposing Obamacare while pushing real healthcare reforms of a conservative variety, some of which have gone into law piecemeal over the years even without passage in a single, comprehensive bill.

And, often working with Democrats, he became a leader in providing effective congressional oversight and insisting that government operate with public transparency.

As Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan put it, Coburn was “tough, fearless, and more interested in facts than politics.”

Yet, the lead sentence of the New York Times obituary of Coburn describes him as an “ultraconservative” “crusader” and legislative obstructionist whom “frustrated legislators” called “Dr. No.”

In other words, Coburn wasn’t a very pleasant fellow. He was ornery and disagreeable, and he was always blocking and obstructing legislative progress. Boo!

By contrast, the lead sentence of the New York Times obituary of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro describes him as

the fiery apostle of revolution who brought the Cold War to the Western Hemisphere in 1959 and then defied the United States for nearly half a century as Cuba’s maximum leader, bedeviling 11 American presidents and briefly pushing the world to the brink of nuclear war, died on Friday. 

The Times’ obit is accompanied by a glamorous photo of Fidel smoking a cigar and looking cool, thoughtful, and contemplative. Castro must have been an interesting and colorful character! the reader is lead to believe.

I mean, who is this “fiery apostle of revolution” who, almost miraculously, outfoxed the United States decade after decade?!

In fact, Castro was a sadistic dictator who authorized the murder of tens of thousands of Cubans, while forcing the island into a decades-long immiseration that continues to this day.

People streamed out of the country, if they were able,” recalled National Review

Over the years of the Castro regime, one million Cubans have gone into exile. Some Cubans have been shot in the water, in their attempts to flee.

On one day—July 13, 1994—there was an infamous massacre, the Tugboat Massacre: Castro’s forces killed 37 would-be escapees, most of them children and their mothers.

What kind of regime does this? What kind of regime would rather kill people, in cold blood, than see them leave? Than see them have a free life?

The Castro regime, and it has been very popular, though not in Cuba.

This is how the media’s left-wing bias works. It’s not that they report outright lies and falsehoods, or blatantly “fake news.” That would be too egregious and noticeable.

Instead, it is that they use language and prose that shows real sympathy, understanding, and indulgence toward political figures on the left, but considerable skepticism and hostility toward political figures on the right.

And that is how and why the New York Times—one of the greatest newspapers in history and one of the greatest newspapers still even today—can write admiringly of a vicious tyrant like Fidel Castro, while writing critically of a dedicated family man and patriot like Tom Coburn.

Don’t call it fake news. Call it twisted and distorted news.

Feature post credit: Poynter.

Senate Republicans Must Acknowledge Trump’s Wrongdoing—Even, If, and Especially If, They Don’t Convict Him

Given that we’re less than 10 months out from the Nov. 3, 2020, presidential election, it is reasonable and legitimate to conclude that:

a) what President Trump did vis-a-vis Ukraine was wrong and perhaps even impeachable. However,

(b) because of the proximity to the election, he should not be convicted by the Senate and removed from office. Instead,

(c) the voters should decide Trump’s fate at the ballot box.

If Republicans were making that argument, there would be little to quarrel with.

Unfortunately, too many Republicans have insisted that Trump did nothing wrong: that he is the victim of a political witch-hunt and an ongoing political vendetta by angry Democrats who have never reconciled themselves to his election as president.

Trump himself, moreover, has never acknowledged any wrongdoing. To the contrary: he continues to insist that his phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was a “perfect conversation” and “totally appropriate.”

This is patently false and a complete denial of reality. In truth, as we now know beyond the shadow of a doubt, Trump abused his authority as president to try and secure personal political favors from a foreign government, and he tried to use Congressionally authorized aid to that government as leverage to secure these favors.

This is the very definition of an abuse of power and a violation of the public trust.

Now, whether this rises to the level of an impeachable offense is legitimately debatable. And whether the Senate should convict Trump for this offense and remove him from office is even more debatable. But there can be no debate about the underlying offense and wrongdoing by the president.

The facts don’t lie, but political partisans often do. And too many Republicans, in Congress and the media, are lying and spinning about what Trump did, why he was impeached, and why he is now being tried in the Senate.

In so doing, they are contributing mightily to a debilitating national cynicism that ascribes all political disputes to a raw lust for power and revenge.

To the cynics, and to the wild-eyed partisans, there can be no principled, good-faith disagreements, just high-pitched, life-and-death political struggles in which anything goes. Just win, baby. Truth, after all, is relative.

This, of course, does not serve our country and our politics well. It results in a hardening of the partisan arteries, political arteriosclerosis, and legislative paralysis. Nothing gets done because the two sides refuse even to communicate honestly, fight fairly, and legislate respectfully.

For Republicans eager to secure the border, check the regulatory state, reform entitlements, rebuild the military, and liberalize healthcare, this is an ominous and foreboding development.

Worse still, by failing to speak honestly and forthrightly about Trump’s wrongdoing, Republican officeholders are handicapping themselves when the next Democratic President abuses her power and authority to, say, ban and confiscate guns, grant amnesty and citizenship rights to illegal immigrants, limit options and choices in the health insurance marketplace, force local schools to accommodate transgender identity and “inclusion,” and make college “free.”

What standing, after all, will Republican congressman and senators have to oppose these naked power grabs after they spent the better part of a year rationalizing and excusing Trump’s abuse of power?

A republic if you can keep it, warned Benjamin Franklin. Let’s at least try to keep it by honestly calling out wrongdoing no matter where it occurs, and regardless of which side of the political aisle it originates. That may not mean convicting Trump and removing him from office; but it surely means leveling with the American people about his abuse of power and wrongdoing.

Note: Tim Carney and Quin Hillyer at the Washington Examiner, and the editors at National Review, share similar thoughts about the Senate Republicans vis-a-vis the Trump impeachment.

Feature photo/illustration credit: QuotesGram via Tunnel Wall.

Follow the Science and Burn Your Mask

After more than a year of mask mandates and mask fetishization, the results of Uncle Sam’s latest scientific experiment are in. Masks failed.

Now that mask mandates have been lifted just about everywhere in the United States save for airlines, trains, buses, and other forms of public transportation, it’s a good time to revisit whether masks ever made much sense, did any good, or caused any harm.

The rationale for masks was always weak to begin with. Masks failed to stop the spread of the influenza virus during the 1918 pandemic and they fared no better in the subsequent decades. The New York Times reports that, according two Nancy Leung, an epidemiologist at the University of Hong Kong:

There has been no clear evidence from randomized controlled trials—the gold standard in scientific research—that masking reduced transmission of influenza viruses in a community.

The evidence for the efficacy of masks to stop or slow the spread of the coronavirus is also sorely lacking.

“There are several case studies of Covid-19 outbreaks in confined spaces despite good mask adherence, reports Connor Harris in the City Journal. Marine Corps recruits in 2020, for instance, suffered an outbreak of COIVD despite wearing cloth masks almost constantly.

Michigan v. Texas. When Texas rescinded its mask mandate March 10, 2021, COVID cases fell by 17 percent two weeks later. In Michigan, meanwhile, where masks continued to be required, COVID cases spiked by 133 percent during that same two-week period, reports Philip Klein.

Michigan did not (mostly) lift its mask requirement until June 1—almost three months later than Texas. Yet, comparative data does not show that Michigan benefited as a result.

Indeed, the incidence of COVID cases, hospitalizations, and deaths either roughly corresponds with the difference in population between these two states or is clearly in Texas’s favor.

Texas’ population is about three times that of Michigan, and the state has had 2.9 times as many COVID cases and 2.5 times as many COVID deaths. As of June 5, Texas is averaging about twice as many COVID hospitalizations and 3.1 times as many COVID cases in the preceding two-week period.

As Michael Betrus reports at Rational Ground:

California issued a statewide mask mandate in June 2020. Rhode Island issued its mandate back in May 2020, as did neighboring Connecticut in April 2020. What else do these states have in common?

They were among leaders in COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths long after implementing their mandates. Were they infected by nearby states? New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Oregon, and many counties in Nevada and Arizona also had mask mandates.

Florida did not have a statewide mask mandate. Nor did Montana, South Dakota, Wyoming, Iowa, Missouri, or Oklahoma. Other states like North Dakota, Arizona, and Indiana issued short-term mask mandates.

These states fared no worse and in most cases fared far better than states with mask mandates. Why would this be, if face masks work?

“It would be an overstatement to say that cloth and surgical masks are unambiguously ineffective or harmful,” Harris writes. “But neither is there a firm case that they provide any meaningful benefit.”

The harmful effects of masks are typically ignored or downplayed; but these harmful effects are real and should give us serious pause when, during the next pandemic, government officials try to enforce new mask mandates—especially on children, who are less able to cope with mask-induced problems.

Face rashes, headaches, bacterial infections, dental problems (cavities and gingivitis), and fiber inhalation are all problems, Harris notes, associated with masks during this pandemic.

“Potential harms to children,” he adds, “deserve special mention.

Two Italian professors of plastic surgery, for instance, have hypothesized that the pressure of elastic ear straps may give children permanently protruding ears.

Some child development researchers also worry that widespread mask-wearing may hamper children’s linguistic and emotional development.

There may even be ways by which masks might worsen Covid-19 itself. The basic reason is simple: germs caught by a mask do not simply disappear.

The evidence for these is spotty or speculative but concerning enough to merit attention. In any case, the evidence justifying mask mandates is often equally speculative.

Children. One thing that is not speculative is the educational and social damage that masks inflict on children. Non-verbal communication involving facial expressions—especially in the classroom—is one of the primary ways that teachers communicate with their students.

Social interaction between and among students, likewise, is integral to a child’s development. Yet, masks induce in children social isolation.

They signal, clearly, that social interaction is risky because it can result in contraction of the coronavirus. But the data has shown all along that children are at extraordinarily low risk of getting COVID and at even less risk of suffering serious ailments even if they do.

In short, if we are, indeed, to “follow the science,” then we must abandon the fetishization of masks. They never made much sense to begin with; they demonstrably did not do any good; and they actually inflicted serious harm on people, especially children. Good riddance.

Feature photo credit: Americans, free at last of the onerous and counterproductive mask mandate, celebrate their newfound freedom and independence, courtesy of MedPage Today.

Why Do Some People Embrace Mask Wearing to Stop the Coronavirus?

Hint: it has nothing to do with science and reason and everything to do with politics and feelings.

I noted here at ResCon1 that there is no compelling scientific evidence that wearing a mask stops the spread of the coronavirus.

And in fact, masks can be positively counterproductive because they give people a false sense of security, “thereby leading them to take fewer precautionary measures that actually do help stop or prevent the virus’s spread.”

Yet, masks are all the rage, with some states, like Virginia, now requiring that masks be worn in all public places, including restaurants and retail stores. Why is this?

Again, it has nothing to do with science because the science is clear: As Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) emergencies program explained at a media briefing in March:

There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit. In fact, there’s some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly.

According to the WHO today, “If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19.”

Association. Still, some people have argued that because masks are commonplace in certain countries or jurisdictions that have done a relatively good job of containing the spread of the coronavirus, masks must, therefore, be effective. But this is silly. Association, obviously, is not causation.

In these same places where masks are commonplace and the coronavirus is relatively contained, people may eat healthy and hearty breakfasts and refrain from drinking alcoholic beverages. Does this mean that healthy and hearty breakfasts and the absence of alcoholic beverages stop the spread of the coronavirus and thus should be mandatory?

In truth, 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.

This matters because the victims of COVID-19 are overwhelmingly the elderly and those with with underlying medical ailments and chronic diseases.

Feelings. But despite the utter lack of scientific and empirical evidence to support mask wearing, masks have a cult-like following, and for several reasons, I think.

First, there is the understandable belief that they might do some good and, therefore, are worth the annoyance and imposition.

A member of my own family expressed this sentiment well. “If stuck in a room for 12 hours with a person who has COVID-19,” he writes, “wouldn’t you feel better if that person had a mask on?”

That’s a fair and legitimate question, and I suppose the answer is: Yes, I would. But our feelings can be deceptive. They can give rise to a false sense of hope.

That’s why public policy should not be based on feelings. Public policy should be based on facts, logic and empirical evidence.

Masks are like chicken soup. They may make us feel better; but neither a mask nor chicken soup is effective at stopping or combating a virus.

If your sore throat feels better by eating chicken soup, then by all means do so. But please don’t think that chicken soup will heal your sore throat or free you of a viral infection, because it won’t. 

By the same token, if wearing a mask makes you feel better or safer—or if it gives you the sense that you’re doing something helpful in this pandemic—then by all means, wear a mask. But please don’t think that your mask will do anything to stop the spread of the coronavirus, because it won’t.

Symbolism. Another reason public health officials push masks is because they see them as a powerful symbol to remind people that we are still in a pandemic and thus need to be extra careful.

In this view, it really doesn’t matter whether the mask actually stops the spread of the coronavirus. What matters is that it gives people pause, causes them to think, and induces them to act appropriately. 

This is the position of Dr. Anthony Fauci, who heads up the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease. Back in March, Fauci admitted that people should not be wearing a mask.

“There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask,” Fauci told 60 Minutes.

When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better, and might even block a droplet. But it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think it is.

And often, there are unintended consequences. People keep fiddling with the mask, and they keep touching their face. 

Fauci has since changed his position and says he now thinks people should wear a mask. However, his reason or rationale for changing his position is telling. It’s not that the science behind wearing a mask has changed, because it hasn’t.

Instead, Fauci says, the masks are a powerful “symbol” to prod people to do the kinds of things that they should be doing—mainly social distancing—that will protect people and the public health.

Politics. Some people, moreover, are smitten with masks because they view masks as public rebuke to President Trump, who has declined to wear a mask.

Worse yet, in the view of these anti-Trump political partisans, the president even castigated one reporter for trying to be “politically correct” when that reporter refused to remove his mask while asking Trump a question in the White House rose garden.

In this view, wearing a mask is a way to thumb your nose at Trump.

This, in fact, is why Biden has conspicuously taken to wearing a mask: It’s a way for him to identify with and bond with his left-wing supporters. And forcing all Americans to wear a mask is a way to isolate Trump and have the citizenry en mass thumb them their collective noses at him.

“What could be more delicious!” think Biden’s “progressive” partisans.

A similar and sometimes overlapping group of anti-Trump “progressives,” meanwhile, supports mandatory mask wearing as a means of keeping the citizenry fearful and the country in lockdown.

These “progressives” understand that when Americans are fearful and America is in crisis, it is much easier to impose sweeping statist measures that will “fundamentally transform” America along socialist and redistributionist lines.

Indeed, for the left, the mask is a convenient political tool that will help them to impose their statist agenda on an otherwise resistant citizenry.

The bottom line: there are several reasons, ranging from the benign to the malevolent, that people support mandatory mask wearing despite the lack of scientific evidence that masks stop the spread of the coronavirus.

But regardless of the reason or rationale, the groupthink that now dominates our politics, our media, and our culture—to wit: that wearing a mask is a self-evident good that will protect us and the public health—is counterproductive and untrue.

And no matter what you think, we all should agree: truth, science and reason should trump feelings, sentiment and wishful thinking.

Feature photo creditNew York Post.