Press "Enter" to skip to content

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.

Bring Back the Party Bosses, and Bring on Tom Cotton and Andrew Cuomo

In the good old days, political pros and party bosses would meet in smoke-filled rooms to identify political talent and select presidential candidates.

That’s how we ended up with relative titans as president, and as failed presidential nominees—men like Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon.

Today, by contrast, democracy rules and the people decide; and, as a result, we have… Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Trump is mentally ill and obviously incompetent, while Biden clearly shows signs of senility and dementia.

It gives me no joy to say this. I sincerely wish it were otherwise. But the truth is the truth. It should give all of us serious doubts about the wisdom of pure, unadulterated democracy. More filters, checks, and balances, please.

Party Bosses. Why, just imagine if the political parties were stronger than they are now, and if the party bosses were true bosses, and not figments of our historical memory. Who, then, would be our two major 2020 presidential candidates?

There are, I think two obvious choices: New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, and Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton, a Republican.

Why Cuomo and Cotton? First, unlike Trump and Biden, they both pass the threshold test of being physically and psychologically healthy—of sound body and mind.

Part of this is age: Cuomo is 62 and Cotton turns 43 in May. Trump and Biden, by contrast, are 73 and 77, respectively.

But age, in itself, is not the problem. While Trump is obese and may be a heart attack waiting to happen, he is, nonetheless, spry of mind.

Moreover, Anthony Fauci, M.D., who heads up the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, is 79 years old, and no one would ever accuse him of being too old for that or any other job.

Biden and Trump. However, people age in different ways and at different paces. Joe Biden today is clearly and obviously not the same man he was 12 years ago when Barack Obama selected him as his running mate.

Age has taken its toll. Biden often loses his train of thought and sometimes has conspicuous difficulty articulating full sentences and coherent thoughts.

Trump, meanwhile, is a narcissist with the maturity of an insecure and needy adolescent. He has shown no interest in mastering the difficult art of governance, nor in applying himself as a student of public policy. He is beyond his depth in a big way, and it shows each and every time he tweets or opens his mouth.

Cotton and Cuomo, by contrast, are capable and competent in ways that Trump and Biden simply are not. Indeed, agree or disagree with them, no one can deny that Cotton and Cuomo are on top of their game and can effectively wield political power.

Cuomo has spent his entire life in politics and government, learning at the knee of his father, the late great Mario Cuomo, the former governor of New York.

Cotton is younger but whip-smart and a combat veteran to boot, with tours as an infantry platoon leader in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard in just three years before earning a law degree from Harvard as well.

As important, both Cotton and Cuomo have proven themselves equal to this moment in history.

Cuomo has distinguished himself through his steady and sure-handed management of the coronavirus. His daily press briefings have been informative and uplifting—reassuring not just New Yorkers, but all Americans during this time of doubt, darkness, fear, and confusion.

Cuomo’s leadership stands in marked contrast to Trump’s dismal and dismaying lack of leadership during this crisis. For Trump, it’s always about him. For Cuomo, it’s always about us. 

Cotton, meanwhile, was arguably the only political leaders who saw the coronavirus coming, and who tried valiantly, back in January, to alert the Trump administration and the nation to the impending danger.

Of course, for doing so, Cotton was mocked and ridiculed by the media, which was willfully blind to the virus emanating from Wuhan, China.

Still, Cotton was right—and his prescience and wisdom become increasingly apparent each and every day as we learn more about the origins of the coronavirus and China’s duplicity and deceit regarding its spread and transmission.

History. In an earlier era in American politics, the two major political parties, and the so-called party bosses, would have realized that Cotton and Cuomo should be running for president. They, not Trump and Biden, should be competing on the national stage for America’s biggest and most coveted political prize.

Cotton and Cuomo, after all, are natural political leaders, who have stepped up in a big way at this moment of national crisis. Thus they are deserving; Trump and Biden are not.

And while the vox populi may not fully understand or appreciate this, the political parties and the party bosses do. We need them back—and we need less pure, unadulterated democracy, and more filters, checks, and balances. And we need this precisely to save American democracy from itself.

Feature photo creditTom Cotton (Mark Wilson/Gett Images via Slate) and Andrew Cuomo (Pat Arnow via Wikipedia).

Mask Diversion

Mask fetishists are pushing higher-quality respirators and surgical masks to stop or slow COVID, but they don’t have a scientific leg to stand on.

Now that cloths masks have been shown to be useless at stopping the spread of viral respiratory infections, mask fetishists are pushing respirators and surgical masks (N95s and KN95s) to stop COVID. Are they right to do so?

Evidence. Let’s look at the empirical and scientific evidence.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) claims that masks “are effective at reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, when worn consistently and correctly…

“Properly fitted respirators, [including N95s], provide the highest level of protection.” However, it is important, says the CDC, “to check that [your mask] fits snugly over your nose, mouth, and chin,” and therein lies the rub.

Can people—especially young school-age children—reasonably be expected to wear a tightly fitted mask all day when interacting with others?

The undesirability of being masked, especially with a tightly fitted respirator or surgical mask, is obvious. Masks are irritating and they can cause health problems, especially when worn incorrectly and for prolonged periods of time. Masks also inhibit social interaction and communication.

For these reasons, no one enjoys being masked. Which is why there is good reason to doubt that these higher-quality masks would do much to stop or slow the spread of COVID in the general population (as opposed to a tightly contained surgical room).

Michael Osterholm and his team of researchers at the University of Minnesota, for instance, found that, since the beginning of the pandemic roughly a fourth of the population has consistently worn their masks loosely and incorrectly, under their nose, with plenty of room for viral leakage.

Is there any reason to think that people would be more fastidious about how they wear respirators and surgical masks?

Mask Study. The media has trumpeted the one and only randomized controlled trial involving respirators and N95 masks; but, in fact, this study showed only a very modest reduction in the spread of COVID. And it occurred in a poor country, Bangladesh, that bears little resemblance to the United States.

“The study did not find a significant impact of masks on coronavirus spread,” writes U.C. Berkeley Professor Benjamin Recht.

My takeaway is that a complex intervention including an educational program, free masks, encouraged mask wearing, and surveillance in a poor country with low population immunity and no vaccination showed at best a modest reduction in infection

Needless to say, and as this pandemic has shown, the American people are fiercely independent and not easily led or corralled into compliance. We are a vast, diverse, and unruly continental nation.

For many of us, “live free or die” is a way of life. Good luck, then, achieving the same results here as the researchers allegedly achieved in Bangladesh with surgical masks.

And even if universal masking here were as effective as the researchers claim it was in Bangladesh, is it worth the costs and tradeoffs involved?

Unimpressive Results. As Professor Recht observes, “community masking improved an individual’s risk of infection by a factor of only 1.1x… That’s not a lot of risk reduction.” In the MRNA vaccine trials, by contrast, the risk of symptomatic infection was reduced by a factor of 20x.

Moreover, the effect size in the study is “too small to inform policymaking.” Ostensibly because of masking, only 20 fewer people out of more than 340,000 participants were found to be seronegative or free of COVID.

“The corresponding efficacy is 11%, still woefully low.” The study thus lacks “statistical significance,” Recht writes.

The bottom line: there is little reason to believe that even higher-quality respirators and surgical masks (N95s and KN95s) would do much to stop or slow the spread of COVID in the general population.

Real-world settings and everyday social interactions simply are not analogous to a surgical room. And the one randomized controlled trial involving respirators and N95 masks yielded unimpressive results that are unlikely to be replicated in the United States and other freedom-loving countries.

Instead of wasting time on masks, public health authorities should focus on what works: vaccines, social distancing, and therapeutics. Masks are a mass diversion.

Feature photo credit: a registered nurse wears an N95 mask in the acute care unit of Harborview Medical Center, Friday, Jan. 14, 2022, in Seattle, Washington (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson), courtesy of KTLA Los Angeles.

Trump Lost Arizona—and the Presidency—in 2020 When, in 2015, He Gratuitously Attacked John McCain

Trump won Arizona in 2016, but lost the state in 2020, and it looks like this loss has cost him the presidency. Yet, Arizona was eminently winnable for Trump—if only he hadn’t made an enemy of John McCain.

As I write (at 1:30 p.m. EST, the day after the election), there are six states—Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Georgia, and North Carolina—that are in neither the Trump nor Biden column; and so, we still do not know who will be president Jan. 20, 2021.

However, barring a major counting error or other surprise, we know that Trump has lost one important state—Arizona, with 11 electoral votes—that he won in 2016. And Trump’s loss of Arizona could well be the reason Trump is denied a second term.

Electoral Math. Indeed, Trump could win Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes) while losing Michigan (16), Wisconsin (10), and Nevada (6), and still win reelection—but only if he retains Arizona.

Otherwise, Trump falls an excruciating three electoral votes short of the requisite 270 needed to win.

This interactive map from 270towin.com spells it all out:

Arizona matters because I believe Trump will win Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Noth Carolina while losing Michigan, Wisconsin, and Nevada. Which means that, because he lost Arizona, Trump has lost the presidency.

Yet, Arizona was completely winnable. Although it has become more competitive in recent years, the state has voted Democrat for president only one time since 1948, and that was in 1996, when Bill Clinton was cruising to reelection against a lackluster Republican opponent (Sen. Majority leader Bob Dole, R-Kansas) just as the Internet-fueled economic boom was heating up.

And why did Trump lose Arizona? In large part because he stupidly made an enemy of the late John McCain. 

Political Feud. Enmity between the two men dates back to 2015, when Trump said that McCain is “not a war hero… because he was captured” by the North Vietnamese during a bombing mission over Hanoi.

This was a stupid and wrong-headed attack. McCain, after all, spent five-and-a-half heroic years as a prisoner of war in the “Hanoi Hilton,” where he was tortured and often placed in solitary confinement.

All Americans owe McCain a debt of gratitude for his courageous wartime service on behalf of our nation. Trump should have said as much and moved on.

Instead, he lashed out at McCain. As a result, McCann’s wife, Cindy McCain, agreed to be featured in Biden campaign commercials that figured prominently in Arizona.

https://twitter.com/marklevinshow/status/1323843582369894400?s=20
https://twitter.com/HotlineJosh/status/1323844269124313088
https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1323850146069860353?s=20

Political Lessons. Trump’s loss of Arizona and its 11 critical electoral votes reminds us that in politics, as in sports, the team that makes the fewest mistakes—even if less talented—typically wins. And the team that is more focused and self-disciplined typically makes the fewest mistakes.

Trump, unfortunately, is the antithesis of focused and self-disciplined. Consequently, he made a major mental error by gratuitously going after McCain. That cost Trump Arizona, and, it looks like, a second term.

Feature photo creditCNN.

Federalism and the 50 States Are Key to Combatting the Coronavirus and Reopening America

The key remains: together as ever as one. We have to push as one for solutions to protect our families and our fates. So what do you say? Let’s get after it.” 

—Chris Cuomo, Cuomo Prime Time, Apr. 21, 2020

This is Cuomo’s schtick. He begins his prime time show every night on CNN with a blessedly brief and snappy introductory monologue that culminates in his plea for Americans to work “together as ever as one” to combat the coronavirus.

Politically speaking, what Cuomo means is this: we need a unitary national effort as opposed to 50 disparate state efforts, and a public policy oriented around “science” and what the public health “experts” say and counsel. 

It sounds so high-minded, commonsensical, and appealing. But Cuomo is wrong and he has it precisely backward:

Far from a unitary national effort, we need 50 laboratories of democracy combating and responding to the coronavirus in various ways that reflect the very real regional and demographic differences in the spread of the virus itself.

Scientific Understanding. Moreover, our scientific understanding of the coronavirus is not some settled piece of Biblical scripture that compels “The Ten Scientific Commandants.”

To the contrary: our scientific understanding is rapidly changing and evolving as we learn more about this new or novel coronavirus. Hence the provisional name nCoV before it was named SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19.

“Over 2.43 million people around the world have contracted COVID-19,” the disease caused by the virus, and there are more than 1.6 million active cases,” reports Business Insider.

However, ongoing research on and about these patients has revealed that many of our best original assumptions about the virus weren’t fully accurate—or in some cases misguided.

After China confirmed the first case of the mysterious “pneumonia-like” illness at the end of December, for example, it turned out someone else likely started spreading it there in November.

Symptoms of COVID-19 also turned out to be far more expansive and peculiar than anyone initially realized. Even our understanding of how the virus transmits itself from one person to the next has changed.

But even if our scientific understanding of the coronavirus were fixed and settled, this understanding needs to be applied within a larger-scale analytical framework that considers the tradeoffs involved in various public policy options.

The goal of social distancing, remember, was never to eliminate the coronavirus and protect everyone from infection. That is well-night impossible.

Instead, the goal was to “flatten the curve” and thereby slow the spread of the virus, so that our hospitals and healthcare providers were not overwhelmed to the breaking point as happened in northern Italy.

And that, thank God, has been achieved. New York City and its surrounding suburbs were pressed to the breaking point, but they did not break.

Indeed, despite the genuine and well-founded fear that there might be too few ventilators and that rationing would ensue, the truth is: no one who ever needed a ventilator was ever denied a ventilator. New York, consequently, has actually given away some of its ventilators to other more needy states.

This is a remarkable achievement, which, two or three weeks ago, no one thought possible. It doesn’t’ mean we should abandon social distancing because all is well and the coronavirus is a thing of the past.

However, it does mean that we need to begin making reasonable accommodations to the reality of the virus and start reopening the U.S. economy.

We cannot wait for a vaccine, which, in the best scenario, is 12 to 18 months away. “The fastest vaccine ever developed for a viral infection is the Ebola vaccine, which took five years,” notes Avik Roy in the Wall Street Journal.

If we wait that long to reopen the U.S. economy, there will be no U.S. economy to open. America will lie in ruins. As George Gilder explains:

The health-care system saves lives; the economy provides everything we need to live. The damage being done to the economy—if sustained—could easily cost more lives world-wide than the coronavirus. 

Federalism. The genius of the American political system is federalism and decentralization, and it is the answer to our dilemma between, on the hand, protecting the public health and, on the other hand, protecting our economic livelihood and survival.

Federalism allows each of the 50 states to balance these competing concerns and decide for themselves which precise accommodations to make for the coronavirus. This is appropriate and wise.

It is appropriate because the coronavirus is having widely disparate effects on different states and regions, all of which have different and divergent demographics.

Sixteen states, for instance, each have fewer than 100 COVID-19 deaths and, together, account for just 634 deaths versus 54,021 for the country as a whole. Another 24 states plus the District of Columbia have between 100 and 1,000 COVID-19 deaths.

Some 40 percent of the deaths have occurred in New York. New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey account for nearly 60 percent of the virus’s fatalities, observe NPR’s Elena Renken and Daniel Wood

“The curves are flattening; hospital systems haven’t come close to being overwhelmed; Americans have adapted to new etiquettes of social distancing,” writes Bret Stephens in the New York Times.

“Many of the worst Covid outbreaks outside New York (such as at Chicago’s Cook County Jail or the Smithfield Foods processing plant in Sioux Falls, S.D.),” Stephens points out, “have specific causes that can be addressed without population-wide lockdowns.”

We also will learn from what each of the states do—what works well and what doesn’t—and can adjust our efforts accordingly. That’s the advantage or wisdom of having 50 laboratories of democracy as opposed to one sole and exclusive federal policy or decision-point.

Competition and experimentation in governance breed excellence. Monopolistic federal government control, by contrast, breeds mediocrity and failure.

Public Policy. Of course, public policy must continue to be informed by our rapidly evolving scientific understanding of the coronavirus

In fact, says Avik Roy: 

The starting point for a more realistic strategy is the key fact that not everyone is equally susceptible to hospitalization and death due to Covid-19. There is considerable evidence that younger people largely avoid the worst health outcomes.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, those over the age of 65 are 22 times more likely to die of Covid-19 than those under 55.

That is not to say that younger people are invulnerable…

Still, the much lower incidence of death among younger people warrants a reconsideration of our one-size-fits-all approach to stay-at-home policies, especially outside the hard-hit tri-state region of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.

Georgia and Oklahoma are the first states to begin reopening their economies, and good on them for it. Governors Brian Kemp (R-Georgia) and Kevin Stitt (R-Oklahoma) made careful and deliberative decisions based on the data and informed by the science.

Georgia and Oklahoma aren’t abandoning social distancing. Instead, they’re incorporating social distancing into the workplace and social settings to allow residents and businesses to get on with their lives. All Americans will learn and benefit from these pioneering efforts.

The key remains: together as ever, not as one, but as 50 distinct and sovereign states. We have to push not as one nation, but as many states or jurisdictions, for potential solutions.

What do you say? Let’s get after it. Georgia and Oklahoma already are doing so. Let’s watch, observe, learn, and follow.

Because of Racialist Thinking, Dems Like Biden Were Slow to Recognize and Confront the Coronavirus

Ellen, one of my most loyal readers, says I make an unfair assumption when, in my last post, I wrote:

What’s more, it is highly doubtful that Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, or any other Democratic presidential wannabe would have responded any earlier or more effectively [to the coronavirus pandemic], given their obsession with “racism,” “bigotry,” and “xenophobia.”

This obsession likely would have prevented a Democratic president from acknowledging Chinese culpability early on and then confronting China. 

But as I pointed out in the piece, I don’t think this requires any great leap of faith or logic, given what Biden, Sanders, and other leading Democratic officeholders said (and did not say) when the coronavirus first emerged as a public health concern here in the United States—and “given the Democrats’  obsession with ‘racism,’ ‘bigotry,’ and ‘xenophobia.’”

I should have included that first italicized thought in the piece, and have since updated the post accordingly. Still, even without that specific thought, the argument—and the evidence—is there, I think.

Democrats MIA. Simply put, back in January and February, when it became increasingly apparent that the coronavirus was a ticking time bomb waiting to happen, top Democrats, like Trump, were slow to recognize the problem. Dave Seminara observes in the Wall Street Journal, for instance, that:

Democratic candidates held five televised debates, lasting nearly 11 hours from Jan. 14 through March 15. They offered no policy proposals that haven’t already been enacted and said little about the virus in the four events in January and February…

At no point during any of the debates did a Democratic candidate suggest that the country should have been locked down or taken other social-distancing measures sooner.

As Arthur Conan Doyle observed: “It is easy to be wise after the event.”

On the other hand, it it is true that, as Tony Blinken observes, Biden said this in the Feb. 25, 2020, Democratic presidential debate:

I would be on the phone with China and making it clear: “We are going to need to be in your country. You have to be open; you have to be clear; we have to know what’s going on. We have to be there with you.” And insist on it—and insist, insist, insist.

Blinken is Biden’s senior foreign policy adviser. He served as Deputy Secretary of State and Deputy National Security Adviser for Obama.

In this Biden campaign video, Blinken makes a compelling indictment of Trump for being soft on China. However, his case for Biden’s prescience re: the coronavirus is much weaker.

Yes, Biden made this one tough comment about insisting on access to China. However, to the best of my knowledge, it is one comment made in isolation, and it lacks follow-through in anything else Biden has said.

Moreover, a month before Biden sounded off (once) against China, Trump already had established his coronavirus task force, while declaring COVID-19 a public health emergency.

Trump already had imposed his so-called China travel ban; and, two days earlier (Feb. 23), he had requested a $2.5 billion supplemental specifically to combat the coronavirus.

Biden, meanwhile, reports Robert C. O’Brien in the Wall Street Journal 

criticized the president’s “xenophobia” and “fear-mongering.” He stressed that “diseases have no borders.” It took until April 3 for Mr. Biden to do a 180 and come out in support of the president’s travel restriction.

O’Brien is Trump’s National Security Adviser.

Democrats’ obsession with “racism,” “bigotry,” and “xenophobia” is a real problem: it distorts their thinking and prevents them from seeing clearly looming threats, both domestically and internationally.

And even the toughest-minded Democrats can’t help but be adversely affected because they have to work within the confines of a political party obsessed with, and paralyzed by, racialist thinking and racialist modes of analysis.

Note, for instance, that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s first response was to attack Trump’s China travel restrictions as “just an excuse [for the president] to further his ongoing war against immigrants.”

Biden, moreover, bizarrely is being accused now of “racism” and “xenophobia” because of a perfectly legitimate campaign ad that says Trump “rolled over for the Chinese.”

Massachusetts Democrat Seth Moulton, likewise, withdrew his support of a bipartisan congressional resolution condemning China’s coronavirus response “following criticism that it played in President Donald Trump’s attempts to blame China for the global pandemic,” reports Boston.com.

Moulton is a Marine Corps veteran of the Iraq War and a promising national security hawk within the Democratic Party. Yet, even he felt compelled to apologize (!) for supporting this bipartisan Congressional resolution condemning China’s communist dictatorial regime.

Incredible—but, sadly, unsurprising. Moulton faces a “progressive” primary challenge and knows he must toe the line. The far left, after all, rules the Democratic Party and composes the lyrics which Moulton, Biden, and other center-left Dems must sing—or else.

Then, of course, there is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who downplayed the threat of the coronavirus during a Feb. 24 walking tour of San Francisco’s Chinatown, ostensibly because she wanted to combat… yes, you guessed it: “racism” and “discrimination”

The bottom line: although Trump was slow to recognize that the coronavirus was a public health emergency which required strong and decisive preventative action, there is little reason to think his Democratic opponents, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, would have responded any earlier or more effectively.

And a big reason for this is the Dems’ inability to forthrightly confront threats when doing so might invite the wrath of the PC police and bring down upon them the dreaded, albeit utterly false, charge of “racism,” “bigotry,” and “xenophobia.”

Consequently, they cannot be trusted to protect America and defend Americans.

Feature photo: CNN.

‘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.

The New York Times Censors Bret Stephens

To the Editor: I am disappointed that you deleted Bret Stephens’ reference (column, Dec. 27) to a 2005 academic study on the “Natural History of Ashkenazi [Jewish] Intelligence,” published in the Journal of Biosocial Science. In so doing, you betray the purpose of a great newspaper, which is to fearlessly search for truth regardless of the consequences.

You assert that the study’s authors “promoted racist views.” That may or may not be true. I’m skeptical that it is true, given how carelessly and promiscuously the charge of racism is hurled about; but either way, that is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the study itself. In The New Republic, Harvard Psychology Professor Stephen Pinker found the study legitimate and worthy of consideration, not racist.

You worry that, by citing the study “uncritically” [sic], Stephens leaves the impression that he thinks “Jews are genetically superior.” Balderdash! In fact, Stephens leaves no such impression. He expressly argues that Jewish achievement stems from “habits of mind,” and not intelligence per se.

More importantly, should great newspapers be worried about impressions or reality, feelings or facts, sentiment or truth? Should you aspire to be thought-provoking or just a “safe space” for readers presumably too soft and tender to handle the truth? The New York Times appears to have chosen the latter approach, and America and the world are worse off because of it.

Feature photo credit: The New York Times.

Ash Wednesday Ashes Are Important Symbols of Faith in Our Secular Culture

If you believe, as I do, that organized religion, and Christianity and Judaism in particular, is a force for good in America, and that our success as a nation is in large part attributable to the prominent role religious faith historically has played in our public life, then it was good to see prominent news anchors this evening—Fox News’ Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum, for instance, as well as CNN’s Chris Cuomo—with ashes on their foreheads.

The ashes are there, of course, because today is Ash Wednesday, which is the beginning of Lent. And Lent is the beginning of the Easter season, which, for Christians, is the most important and solemn time of the year.

Lent is, as Chris Quilpa well puts it in the Suffolk News-Herald, when we Christians “observe and commemorate the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the son of God, our Savior and Redeemer.” It is, as Father Paul Scalia explains, “a time of entering into combat: to ‘take up battle against spiritual evils.'”

But you don’t have to be a Christian to respect and appreciate the significant role Judeo-Christianity has played in American political life and in making the United States one of the freest and most prosperous countries in all of human history.

The great 19th Century social thinker, Alexis DeTocqueville, for instance, “claimed that the first political institution of American democracy was religion,” writes political scientist Michael Novak.

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports,” said George Washington in his farewell address.

Certainly, Judeo-Christianity in America has helped to foster certain habits and dispositions—industriousness, a work ethic, thrift, delayed gratification, a sense of reciprocal obligation to our fellow man, et al.—that lend themselves to political and material prosperity

Which is why the decline of religious affiliation in America, especially pronounced it seems in the past 20 years, is worrisome. All of us, as Americans, benefit from our nation’s religious and cultural inheritance. But what happens when that inheritance is exhausted and unreplenished?

Symbols Matter. The display of ashes on Ash Wednesday matter because symbols and symbolism matter. They spark interest and discussion. They incite curiosity and inquiry. They invite reflection and thought. They are a way to bear witness to the faith without being heavy-handed and doctrinaire.

Indeed, when children—and adults—see the ashes, some will ask: Why are they there? What do they mean? Why are they important to some people? And some of these children and adults will follow-up and learn more about Christianity and religious faith more generally.

Some might even become religious believers. But even if they remain agnostic, perhaps they at least will have a newfound respect for the contributions that people of faith can and do make to our commonweal.

Perhaps they will at least appreciate the role of religion in American public life. And, given our history, and given the challenges that confront us, that would not be a bad thing.

Feature photo credit: www.SevenDays.nl.