Press "Enter" to skip to content

Trump’s Failure to Act Early on the Coronavirus Has Endangered American Lives

President Trump is obviously not responsible for the coronavirus. However, he is responsible for his administration’s weak and tardy response to the coronavirus— and for failing to anticipate the gravity of the problem, even as evidence mounted in other countries (such as Italy) that without early and decisive action tens of thousands of Americans, potentially, could die.

Trump, moreover, has repeatedly downplayed the problem; lied about the availability of testing to address the problem; shirked responsibility for confronting the problem; and, most pathetically and disgracefully, tried to blame others—mainly his predecessor, Barack Obama—for his own (Trump) administration’s belated and inadequate response to the problem.

Trump’s loyal base may not hold him accountable for his utter inability to lead during this crisis, but history surely will. Indeed, as Peter Wehner observes in The Atlantic: 

The president and his administration are responsible for grave, costly errors—most especially the epic manufacturing failures in diagnostic testing, the decision to test too few people, the delay in expanding testing to labs outside the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and problems in the supply chain.

These mistakes have left us blind and badly behind the curve, and, for a few crucial weeks, they created a false sense of security.

What we now know is that the coronavirus silently spread for several weeks, without us being aware of it and while we were doing nothing to stop it.

Containment and mitigation efforts could have significantly slowed its spread at an early, critical point, but we frittered away that opportunity.

Leadership. Let’s be clear. Bureaucratic errors happen. No one blames Trump for bureaucratic errors that are beyond his control.

But that’s why we elect political leaders: to ensure that bureaucratic errors are quickly corrected and do not forestall the type of timely and decisive action needed to safeguard the American people during a crisis. 

Yet, there is absolutely no evidence that Trump acted with dispatch even as the federal bureaucracy literally stopped or prevented early testing for the coronavirus.

To the contrary: Trump was more concerned with downplaying what he said was a minor problem that would soon disappear.

But we don’t elect presidents so that, in times of national crisis, they can throw up their hands and blame the bureaucracy (or their predecessor three years removed), which is what Trump has done. Instead, we elect presidents so that they can tame, manage, and rein in the bureaucracy.

The Republicans who foisted Trump upon us called this “draining the swamp” and “putting America first.” Yet, when it mattered most, Trump was asleep at the switch.

He didn’t drain the swamp; he bathed in it. And he didn’t put America first; he put his own twisted political priorities first. 

Trump admitted, for instance, that he preferred to leave Americans stranded on a cruise ship off the coast of California after it was discovered that some of the passengers there were infected with the coronavirus.

Politico’s Dan Diamond reports that “health department officials and Vice President Mike Pence came up with a plan to evacuate thousands of passengers” as a way to stop the virus from spreading and infecting many more people as had happened on a similar cruise ship, the Diamond Princess.

“But President Donald Trump had a different idea,” Diamond writes: “Leave the infected passengers on board—which would help keep the number of U.S. coronavirus cases as low as possible.”

Wehner reports:

“I like the numbers,” Trump said. “I would rather have the numbers stay where they are. But if they want to take them off, they’ll take them off.

“But if that happens, all of a sudden your 240 [cases] is obviously going to be a much higher number, and probably the 11 [deaths] will be a higher number too.” 

Cooler heads prevailed, and over the president’s objections, the Grand Princess [cruise ship] was allowed to dock at the Port of Oakland.

Travel Ban. Trump did one thing right. On Jan. 31, he banned most foreigners who had recently visited China from entering the United States. That bough us time and helped stop the spread of the virus.

But this was a relatively modest measure that, in itself, is woefully inadequate unless combined with rapid and comprehensive testing, which was never forthcoming.

Yet, Trump talks of his China travel ban as if it were a game changer, which it most definitely was not.

Trump’s subsequent actions have been uninspiring and largely beside the point.

Last week, he imposed more travel restrictions on Europe. But as his own former homeland security adviser, Tom Bossert, has explained, additional travel restrictions now aren’t of much help since the virus is already widespread.

“We have nearly as much disease here in the U.S. as the countries in Europe,” Bossert tweeted. “We must focus on layered community mitigation measures. Now.”

Testing. For this same reason, even additional testing is, at this late point, of limited use. The time to test was six to weight weeks ago, when Trump was still in denial and insisting that everything was manageable and well contained.

Testing, after all, is most important early on before a virus has spread throughout a country or region. When relatively few people are infected, it is more feasible to limit or contain contact spread of the virus from person to person.

But we are long past that point with the coronavirus, which epidemiologists say is now widespread, albeit underreported, in the United States.

That doesn’t mean we should give up on testing; we shouldn’t and we aren’t. But at this point, extreme social distancing is our best and most effective preventative measure. Testing will have limited public health utility or benefit.

Meanwhile, in the absence of presidential leadership, leaders in state and local government, as well as the private sector, have stepped forward to fill the leadership void left by Trump. Indeed, as the New York Times Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman report: 

Within the United States, as the coronavirus spreads from one community to another, he [Trump] has been more follower than leader.

While he presents himself as the nation’s commanding figure, Mr. Trump has essentially become a bystander as school superintendents, sports commissioners, college presidents, governors and business owners across the country take it upon themselves to shut down much of American life without clear guidance from the president


Beyond travel limits and wash-your-hands reminders, Mr. Trump has left it to others to set the course in combating the pandemic and has indicated he was in no rush to take further action.

That was Thursday, March 12. On Friday, March 13, in an effort to regain the initiative and control the political and media narrative, Trump gave another, better-received address with business executives at the White House. But it was too little too late I’m afraid.

The die has been cast. Trump’s failures of leadership are too many too count, too grave, and too consequential.

Buck Passing. Harry Truman famously said that, as president, “the buck stops here,” with him. The president is responsible for what happens on his watch.

Truman was right then, and what he said then still applies today: The buck stops with the president.

Unfortunately and sadly, as president, Trump is more interested in buck passing than in assuming the responsibilities of the office to which he was elected.

We can only hope and pray that tens of thousands of American do not pay the ultimate price for Trump’s inability and unwillingness to lead, and his failure to act with dispatch when it mattered most.

Feature photo credit: Bastiaann Slabbers /Nurphoto /Getty via The Atlantic.

To Win, the GOP Need to be Conservative, Not Populist

Republicans will win in 2024 if they eschew Trumpian populism and embrace Bush-Cheney conservatism.

Although former President Trump is obviously responsible for the Republican Party’s disastrous and historically unprecedented subpar performance in the 2022 mid-term elections, his diehard defenders and apologists are warning the GOP not to abandon the “populist agenda” that supposedly made Trump, in their view, a successful politician.

Fox News host Laura Ingraham, for instance, credits Trump with energizing and “reinventing the GOP,” while setting it upon the path toward becoming a “multiracial working class party.”

In Ingraham’s view, Trump rejected the “pro-war” and “pro-CCP” (Communist Chinese Party) establishment GOP epitomized by former President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and 2008 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

Ingraham warns Republicans against reverting back to the establishment’s supposed love for amnesty, open borders, endless wars, and unfair trade with China.

She essentially acknowledges that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is the presumptive 2024 GOP presidential nominee and warns him against being cooped by the dreaded GOP “establishment.”

Of course, this is a badly distorted and self-serving analysis that ignores many inconvenient truths.

For starters, Trump’s supposed political success is far less impressive than Ingraham suggests. The man won one fluke election (in 2016) against a very weak Democratic opponent (Hillary Clinton), and he did it by narrowly winning three states—Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania—with a large contingent of white working class voters.

Since then, thanks to Trump, the Republicans have been decimated in two of these states (Michigan and Pennsylvania), while barely hanging on in the third (Wisconsin).

Biden won all three states, of course, in 2020; and all three states have Democratic governors who just won election or reelection.

Pennsylvania and Michigan have two Democratic senators; Wisconsin has one. The sole Republican Senator, Ron Johnson in Wisconsin, barely won reelection against an extraordinarily weak Democratic opponent.

Dems, meanwhile, flipped both houses of the Michigan state legislature for the first time in nearly four decades, while apparently winning control of the Pennsylvania state House of Representatives.

The bottom line: the Republican Party in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin is in far worse shape, thanks to Trump, than it was seven years ago before he came on the political scene.

Michigan’s reelected Governor, Gretchen Whitmer, would be a very formidable Democratic presidential candidate in 2024. Ditto Pennsylvania’s newly elected governor, Josh Shapiro.

As a result, it is difficult to see how any Republican can win these states in 2024. And without winning at least one of these three states, it is difficult to see how any Republican can win the White House in 2024. The Electoral College math simply does not compute.

George W. Bush. In fact, to win in 2024, the Republicans’ best bet might be to essentially update or tweak what George W. Bush did in the Electoral College when he was elected and reelected president in 2000 and 2004, respectively.

That is, sweep the South and the West, while winning Iowa and New Hampshire, but losing Colorado, New Mexico, and Virginia. That would give the Republican presidential candidate 271 Electoral College votes: one more than necessary to win the presidency (see the Electoral College map below).

That, of course, is precisely how Bush won the 2000 presidential election (see the Electoral College map above).

The Likely 2024 Electoral College map, courtesy of 270ToWin.com.

Yet, ironically, Ingraham derides Bush as the exemplar of all that is wrong with the Republican Party: because he was committed, supposedly, to “endless wars,” open borders, and trade with China.

Bush’s Policies. But while the Iraq War may have been a mistake, it was essentially over and won by the time Bush left office in 2008, thanks to “the surge” of U.S. troops and adoption of a winning military strategy.

The war in Afghanistan was still in a low boil, but if he had a third term, Bush almost certainly would have replicated “the surge” in Afghanistan to successfully end the war, or at least make it manageable without an abject American defeat and withdrawal.

It is true that Bush tried to solve the immigration crisis, but it is not true that he was committed to amnesty and open borders.

Unlike Trump, Bush did not support building a wall along the southern border, but remember: Trump himself never really built the wall either. He talked a good game, but failed to deliver. Just ask Ann Coulter.

Bush did try to engage China; but so, too, had every American president, Republican and Democrat, since Richard Nixon. This was a good-faith, decades-long effort that had to change as China’s adversarial posture vis-Ă -vis the United States became increasingly clear and transparent.

Thus a President Romney or a President McCain would have confronted China, but in a far more effective way than Trump: by better leveraging the strength of our allies in the Pacific—and without the collateral economic damage that resulted from ill-advised tariffs or taxes on American manufacturers and consumers.

Trump’s Policies. Moreover, Trump’s political success, such as it was, resulted from traditional conservative Republican policies, not newfound populist ideas.

Corporate tax reform, for instance, ushered in the lowest unemployment rate in nearly 50 years and the lowest black unemployment rate in recorded history. And energy deregulation resulted in American energy independence for the first time in our nation’s history.

Trump also stopped the flow of illegal immigrants pouring across the U.S.-Mexican border, albeit without the wall or in spite of the wall.

Trump accomplished this belatedly in his administration by finally adopting regulatory reforms, such as a “remain in Mexico” policy for would-be asylum seekers and DACA restrictions, that effectively secured the border.

On the international stage, Trump definitely was not an isolationist or a non-interventionist. He ordered ISIS destroyed and Iranian General Qasem Soleimani killed, and he achieved both of these objectives quickly through the use of American military power.

Bush v. Trump. Yet, despite these policy successes, Trump failed to win a majority of the popular vote in both 2020 and 2016. As David Frum points out:

He lost the popular vote in 2016. He lost the House in 2018. He lost the popular vote and the Electoral College in 2020. He lost the Senate in 2021.

Since 2000, there have been six presidential elections, and thus 12 presidential nominations by the two major parties. In his share of votes cast, Trump finished tenth and 11th out of the 12: behind Mitt Romney, behind John Kerry, behind Al Gore.

In fact, the only Republican presidential candidate to win a majority of the popular vote in the past 32 years (eight presidential elections) was George W. Bush, in 2004.

So let’s not pretend that Trump achieved unparalleled political success when he clearly did not. And let’s not pretend that he outperformed his Republican predecessors at the ballot box when the facts show otherwise.

In truth, Trump achieved some political and policy success by forthrightly addressing, or trying to address, new problems that had arisen in the new millennium.

For the most part, he adopted traditional conservative policies that proved successful. When, on occasion, Trump deviated from these conservative policies to embrace Ingraham’s preferred  populist positions, he was far less successful.

Trade is a good example. As Douglas A. Irwin explains, Trump’s ill-advised tariffs increased the trade deficit; eliminated tens of thousands of U.S. manufacturing jobs; reduced household incomes; and were a drag on economic growth.

“Numerous studies, add Jeb Hensarling, the former chairman of the House Financial Services Committee (2013-19), “have shown that almost all the costs of tariffs initiated under the Trump administration were paid by American consumers and businesses.”

Conservatism, Not Populism. The truth is Trump’s political success has little to do with populism and everything to do with conservatism.

Populism, in fact, got Trump in trouble. Jan. 6 populism, for instance, was an unmitigated disaster. It haunted Republican candidates nationwide in the 2022 mid-terms, while destroying whatever chance Trump had to win a second term in 2024.

Ingraham, then, has it precisely backwards. The danger for Gov. DeSantis and the Republican Party is that they try to ape Trump’s populism while giving short shrift to the conservative policies that actually proved successful, substantively and politically, for Trump.

Conclusion. In other words, contra Ingraham, we need a more conservative and less populist Republican Party.

We need a Republican Party that applies tried-and-true conservative principles to modern-day problems. We need a Republican Party that believes in markets, American military power, and parental sovereignty and choice.

Therein lies public policy success. Therein lies political victory—in 2024 and beyond. Populism is a mirage that will only lead Republicans astray down the primrose path to defeat and permanent minority status.

Feature photo credit: the 2000 presidential election Electoral College map, courtesy of 270ToWin.com.

Why the Right-Wing Critics of Ukraine are Wrong

They don’t understand the crucial nexus between Ukraine, Russia, and American national security.

Most Americans support Ukraine, and most Congressional Republicans support Ukraine. Yet a small but vocal contingent of so-called America First conservatives opposes U.S. aid to Ukraine.

Like former President Trump, these so-called conservatives call for a negotiated solution to the conflict now before, they say, it “escalates” out of control and leads to “nuclear war.”

These so-called conservatives are grievously and historically wrong. Here we expose and debunk their arguments for abandoning Ukraine and appeasing Putin’s Russia.

Right-Wing Lie #1: Ukraine is corrupt and illiberal and thus undeserving of American support.

Yes, there is corruption in Ukraine, but so what? Corruption exists in many countries, including the United States. But this is very different from saying a country is defined by its corruption.

In truth, Ukraine is a relatively new and fledgling democracy. Like many new and fledgling democracies, it has problems—including corruption—that it is working to overcome. For this reason it deserves our support.

If we held every country in the world to an impossible standard of utopian perfection, then we would have no foreign policy or engagement with other countries, since they all would fall short.

As for being illiberal, this is nonsense. Ukraine is fighting to be part of Europe, part of the West, which is defined by its commitment to (classically) liberal principles of personal autonomy, personal responsibility, and democratic self-rule.

Do Europe, America, and the West deviate from these principles in ways that are sometimes alarming and disconcerting? Does Ukraine?

Of course they do—we all do—but again: so what? If an impossible standard of utopian perfection is what must guide U.S. foreign policy, then we have effectively jettisoned the idea of a foreign policy.

Right-wing critics who complain about alleged Ukrainian corruption and illiberalism also miss the crucial clarifying context, which is Russia.

Indeed, the alternative to Ukrainian self-rule is not American-style democracy; it is Russian imperialism, which is orders of magnitude more illiberal and authoritarian than anything proffered by the Ukrainians.

Oscar Wilde famously said, “You can judge a man by his enemies.” So, too, with a country. Ukraine’s enemy is Russia, and that tells us a lot about what Ukraine is fighting for and against.

Ukraine is fighting against a truly corrupt and illiberal authoritarian dictatorship (Russia), and it aspires to be a liberal democracy that is an integral part of Europe and the West. Enough said.

Right-Wing Lie #2: Ukraine and Russia are enmeshed in a heated “border dispute” that does not implicate American national security

Calling Russia’s war on Ukraine a “border dispute” is like saying the American Civil War was about “regional differences.” Both assertions are literally true, but they obscure far more than they reveal.

In truth, Ukraine is fighting for its nationhood and its very existence as a free and sovereign country. The so-called border dispute exists only because Russia seeks to erase from the map any and all Ukrainian borders.

This is a dramatic moral difference that talk of a “border dispute” hides or conceals. In the same way, talk of “regional differences” obscures the larger-scale moral truth that the American Civil War was about slavery first and foremost.

As for the American national security interest in Ukraine, it is real and significant.

The truth is: America is an international commercial power, with a clear and demonstrable stake in the international order. To allow Russia to subsume Ukraine would be to invite America’s enemies to do the same (illegally seize sovereign territory)  in other parts of the world.

Think China vis-à-vis Taiwan, for instance.

Moreover, U.S. foreign trade with Europe dwarfs our trade with any other region and is a driver of American prosperity. The idea that the United States can be indifferent to the fate of Europe in the 21st Century ignores the economic facts of life, the military facts of life, and the importance of alliances to keeping Americans safe and secure.

Right-Wing Lie #3: Ukraine is not America’s concern, it is Europe’s problem; and it is a diversion from our real 21st Century strategic challenge, which is the rise of China.

Again, in a world where millions of Americans travel and do business internationally, the idea that we can indifferent to the fate of Europe simply is not credible. And the idea that the Chinese will not draw lessons and inspiration from any Western appeasement of Putin in Ukraine is delusional.

In truth, Russia and China are aligned, formally and on paper. So by ensuring Russia loses in Ukraine, we weaken the Sino-Russian alliance and send a powerful signal to Beijing about Western resolve in the face of aggression.

Right-Wing Lie #4: Putin’s Russia is not an enemy of the United States; it is a potential ally whom we foolishly risk losing because of our misplaced concern for Ukraine.

This is unadulterated nonsense. In fact, well before Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Putin had demonstrated, by his words and his actions, that he viewed the United States as an enemy.

For this reason, Russia has worked assiduously and unceasingly to undermine American national security interests—in Syria, Iran, and the Middle East; within Europe and NATO, Taiwan and the South China Sea; in the United Nations and other international bodies; and on social media (Twitter and Facebook).

A few throwaway lines about cancel culture, woke ideology, and LGBT designed for gullible American and European conservatives does not make Putin’s Russia a potential U.S. ally.

In truth Putin’s Russia is  clear and demonstrable enemy of the United States. Thus inflicting a catastrophic defeat on Russia in Ukraine will help to weaken one of our nation’s most significant and implacable adversaries.

Right-Wing Lie #5: Whatever the merits of aiding Ukraine, the United States cannot afford to spend tens of billions of dollars more on another “endless war.” We already are $30 trillion in debt. On this path lies financial ruin, which will truly devastate American national security.

True, the national debt is a very serious problem that must be addressed. But the idea that it is caused by excessive military spending, let alone excessive aid to Ukraine, is simply untrue.

The United States spends less on a defense as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product than it did during the Cold War. Meanwhile, entitlements—Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security—have been skyrocketing and consuming an ever-increasing share of the federal budget.

Entitlement spending, not military spending—and certainly, not aid to Ukraine—is what is driving America’s growing debt crisis.

For greater context, aid to Ukraine amounts to tens of billions of dollars in a federal budget that is trillions of dollars. And it is money well spent to safeguard the rules-based international order that drives American prosperity.

Ukraine, moreover, is not asking for Americans to fight and die on its behalf. Instead, Ukraine is asking for armaments and battlefield intelligence.

We aid Ukraine now to forestall and prevent a worse crisis later, which will cost us much more, potentially, in dollars and lives lost should Russia win and Ukraine lose.

Right-Wing Lie #6: The war in Ukraine is another “endless war” that we should exit before it needlessly saps our blood and treasure.

Projecting the American experience in Iraq and Afghanistan onto Ukraine is a big mistake. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, Ukraine is a European country with a relatively advanced and capable military that has no need for American combat troops to fight on its behalf.

In fact, recent Ukrainian battlefield successes demonstrate that the country’s military can and will inflict a catastrophic defeat on Putin’s Russia—provided the West maintains its support and assistance.

And so, we can see a clear end to the war, a time when (within the next 9-18 months, most likely) all Russian troops are expelled from all of Ukraine, including Crimea.

Right-Wing Lie #7: The biggest danger right now is that America “escalates” the conflict in Ukraine, thereby risking a “nuclear war” with Russia. This is madness! We must step back from the brink and find ways to “deescalate” the conflict.

This is an emotional appeal that defies reason. Escalation sounds bad, but what it actually means is accelerating our shipment of arms and munitions to Ukraine, so that the Ukrainians can successfully drive the Russian invaders out of their country.

This is a good and necessary thing, not a bad and dangerous thing.

As for the risk of “nuclear war,” this is another emotional appeal that defies reason. Any time you are confronting a nuclear-armed state (which Russia is) there obviously is a risk of nuclear war. But that risk is negligible if the United States and NATO have a real and credible deterrent, which they do.

Moreover, the real risk is not a strategic nuclear war, which would threaten cities in Russia and the United States, but rather a regional nuclear war in Ukraine involving tactical or battlefield nukes.

A regional nuclear war in Ukraine would be bad, obviously; but it is not nearly as bad or as dangerous as a full-fledged strategic nuclear war that could endanger Washington, D.C. and Moscow.

Finally, Russia derives no military advantage from using nuclear weapons in Ukraine. And any Russian nuclear strike would require the connivance of hundreds of individuals in the Russian military and civilian chains of command. Such connivance is unlikely to say the least.

So the idea that Putin could launch a nuke in a fit of pique or because his “back is against the wall” is silly. As Timothy Snyder points out:

States with nuclear weapons have been fighting and losing wars since 1945, without using them.  Nuclear powers lose humiliating wars in places like Vietnam and Afghanistan and do not use nuclear weapons.

Putin’s Russia today will be no different.

Or, if it is different, it will be so in a small and militarily insignificant way. Putin will detonate one or more tactical nukes to try and scare the world and intimidate the West into backing down. Sorry, but that won’t work—nor should it.

Right-Wing Lie #8: America should force Ukraine and Russia to negotiate now and reach a compromise solution that will end the war.

This sounds good. Who, after all, doesn’t want to end this horrendous war, which has wrought so much death and destruction on Ukraine? But what, exactly, is there to negotiate? And, at this point, what could a “compromise solution” possibly mean?

Russia wants to conquer and subsume Ukraine. Ukraine wants to be free and independent of Russia. This an irreconcilable difference that cannot be negotiated or compromised away.

Russia either will take Ukrainian territory or it will be driven from Ukrainian territory. The only thing Ukraine can compromise on, after all, is its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Thus the problem with forcing Ukraine to negotiate now is that it means Russia wins and Ukraine loses.

That is and ought to be a nonstarter.

The bottom line: authentic American conservatives support Ukraine. They recognize that critical America national security interests are at stake, with ramifications that extend far beyond Ukraine. Failure, they realize, is not an option.

Right-wing populist imposters, by contrast, are stooges for Putin. They don’t understand the crucial nexus between Ukraine, Russia, and American national security.

Consequently, their criticism of American foreign policy a vis-Ă -vis Ukraine is grievously and historically wrong. Their objections to Ukraine and to American support for Ukraine cannot withstand critical scrutiny.

In truth, America First necessarily means Ukraine wins and Russia loses.

Feature photo credit: So-called America First conservatives (L-R): Ned Ryun, Laura Ingraham, and Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis (Ret.) via a Fox News screenshot.

Only the Private Sector Can Deliver the Ventilators NY Gov. Cuomo Says He Needs to Combat the Coronavirus

The severe shortage of ventilators in the United States to cope with the anticipated wave of coronavirus patients who will require them illustrates what government can and cannot do—or at least should and should not do.

The government should plan and prepare for likely or predicted pandemics and other potential mass-scale medical emergencies by ensuring that hospitals and healthcare providers have the necessary supplies and equipment that they need to treat and care for patients.

I say likely or predicted pandemics because we obviously cannot anticipate every possible medical emergency. And it is not practical, feasible, or economical to prepare for everything that might happen, no matter how unlikely or remote.

But the truth is: the coronavirus is a pandemic that we were warned was coming, and which our elected representatives should have anticipated and prepared to combat. As NBC News’ Ken Dilanian reports:

For years, American intelligence agencies have been warning about the increasing risks of a global pandemic that could strain resources and damage the global economy, while observing that the frequency and diversity of global disease outbreaks has been rising.

In a worldwide threats assessment in 2018 and 2017, intelligence analysts even mentioned a close cousin of the current COVID-19 strain of coronavirus by name, saying it had “pandemic potential” if it were “to acquire efficient human-to-human transmissibility.”

For this reason, writes Betsy McCaughey in the New York Post, a New York State task force found, in 2015, that the state had “16,000 fewer ventilators than the 18,000 New Yorkers would need in a severe pandemic.”

Yet, state officials decided not to buy these 16,000 ventilators. The governor of New York at the time: Democrat Andrew Cuomo.

Ventilators. This is the same Andrew Cuomo who has been eloquent about his state’s need for 30,000 ventilators. Otherwise, he warns, hospitals in New York risk being overwhelmed with coronavirus patients.

And, if that happens (as it already has happened in Italy), hospitals and physicians will be forced to make heart-wrenching decisions about who gets a ventilator and who does not—meaning who gets to live and who does not.

Of course, it never should have come to this. State officials like Cuomo should have heeded the warnings of public health experts years ago and prepared for this foreseeable and predicted pandemic.

But we are where we are. What, then, is to be done?

Unfortunately, there are no quick and simple solutions. It takes time and money to manufacture ventilators, and, as Cuomo himself admits:

You can’t find available ventilators no matter how much you’re willing to pay right now, because there is literally a global run on ventilators.

For this reason, Cuomo and his left-wing allies in the media and in Congress want the federal government to provide the ventilators; and they fault Trump for allegedly not using the full powers of the presidency to make it happen.

They specifically fault Trump for supposedly failing to invoke the Defense Production Act to manufacture ventilators.

“I do not understand the reluctance to use the federal Defense Production Act to manufacture ventilators,” Cuomo tweeted. “If not now, when?”

But as the Wall Street Journal points out, Trump already has invoked the 1950 Defense Production Act

that lets a President, during a national emergency, order business to manufacture products for national defense, set wage and price controls, and allocate materials.

On Tuesday the Federal Emergency Management Agency used the Korean War-era law for the first time in this crisis to procure and distribute testing kits and face masks


[But] businesses know their workforce capacities and supply chains better than the government—and how to retool them to maximize efficiency…

Ford said on Tuesday that it would start assembling plastic face shields and work with 3M and GE to make respirators and ventilators.

General Motors is also exploring how to use its global automotive supply chain to make ventilators.

Ford’s CEO said its ventilators could be available by June, and it isn’t obvious that a government takeover of manufacturing would speed this up,

In short, having the government order or mandate something doesn’t magically make it happen. If that were the case, the Soviet Union would have won the Cold War and we’d all be speaking Russian.

Private-sector companies and manufacturers, moreover, already are stepping up in a big way to provide ventilators, masks, gowns, nose swabs, and other critical health gear and equipment needed to combat the coronavirus. And the Trump administration is watching and prodding them as best it can.

Private Sector. Cuomo says that “only the federal government has the power to deliver” the ventilators. But this is nonsense and shows how little Cuomo knows. In truth, only the private sector has the power to deliver—and it will if the government lets it.

Indeed, contra Cuomo, what is needed is not nationalization of the medical supply chain, but rather deregulation of the medical supply chain. This so that private sector companies are free to innovate and rapidly produce the supplies and equipment that our healthcare professionals need.

And, on that score, there is some good news. Reason magazine’s Scott Shackford reports 

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is easing up on some regulations so that ventilators can be manufactured and implemented more quickly to respond to the spread of COVID-19.

In new guidance issued on Monday, the FDA said that it will practice “enforcement discretion” by allowing manufacturers of ventilators to allow for some modifications of hardware, software, and materials.

This allows manufacturers more flexibility in response to supply shortages that could keep them from ramping up production.

The new guidance will also allow for the quicker addition of new production lines and alternative production locations.

[In other words], if other companies that have space to install production lines of their own (GM, for example, has offered unused space in its shuttered plants) those companies are free to do so. 

In short, Cuomo has identified a real problem that he had it in his power to address years ago. However, he lacked the foresight and wisdom to do so. Thus he now urges the federal government to act. But he misdiagnoses the problem, and his recommend cure is no cure at all.

The best thing the government can do is to identify early on big issues and problems that need to be addressed, and then leave the private sector free to experiment and innovate its way toward a solution.

They know, far more than the state bureaucracy, what must be done to get us out of our logjam.

In the meantime, let us hope and pray that the entrepreneurs and the captains of industry can act quickly enough to ensure that, in the weeks and months to come, no American who needs a ventilator is denied a ventilator.

Feature photo credit: Associated Press via Salon.

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 credit: CNN.

The Truth About Voter Fraud in the 2020 Election

The media are wrong: Republicans have good reason to be concerned about voter fraud. Electoral shenanigans, however, do not explain Biden’s lead over Trump.

“Progressives” and other lefties are feigning dismay at the fact that, as Politico reports, “70 percent of Republicans don’t think the [2020] election was free and fair.”

“Republicans have declared war on democracy itself,” exclaims Washington Post columnist Paul Waldman. 

“Because the facts are not on Trump’s side, his campaign only has conspiracies and disinformation to make their argument,” insists CNN’s Oliver Darcy.

“This is what happens when lies and baseless allegations go unchecked,” writes communications consultant Brian Wagner. 

Hypocrisy. This is rich coming from the same media and political partisans who, four short years ago, were eagerly sowing doubt about the legitimacy of Trump’s election. The president-elect then, we were told, won because of “Russian interference.”

American voters, we were told, were duped by the Russians; and Trump himself, it was not-so-subtly implied, was perhaps a Russian agent or willing accomplice.

It was only much later that we learned the much-vaunted “Steele Dossier,” upon which most of these allegations were based, was, in fact, a complete hoax “paid for by the Democrats to dig up dirt on Trump.”

As Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell put it:

Let’s not have any lectures about how the president should immediately and cheerfully accept preliminary election results from the same characters who just spent four years refusing to accept the validity of the last election.

Truth. Of course, consistency and fairness have never been the hallmarks of our political and media class. The operative question is: are Republican voters wrong to suspect that foul play and voter fraud affected the outcome of the election?

The truth is: yes and no. Multiple things can be true—and in this case are true—simultaneously:

  • There is voter fraud: it is a real, if overstated, problem.

“Voter fraud exists—even though many in the media claim it doesn’t,” wrote John Fund and Hans A. von Spakovsky two years ago before the 2018 mid-term elections.

“Significant risks of potential abuse exist in many states’ election systems, as I detailed in a report in August,” wrote Cato Institute scholar Ilya Shapiro just days before Nov. 3, 2020, election.

A primary risk is ballot harvesting, which involves third parties collecting and delivering absentee ballots on voters’ behalf.

Newsweek reports: Ronna McDaniel, the Chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, told Fox News commentator Sean Hannity “that she has 234 pages containing 500 sworn affidavits alleging 11,000 incidents of various types of voter fraud.”

“Contrary to the claims of many liberals,” explains the Heritage Foundation, “the problem of voter fraud is as old as the country itself.

As the U.S. Supreme Court noted when it upheld Indiana’s voter identification law, “flagrant examples” of voter fraud “have been documented throughout this nation’s history by respected historians and journalists.”

  • Historically, Democratic political machines in big cities and large urban areas such as Chicago, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York have been cesspools of electoral corruption. This is a political and historical fact that Republicans have learned the hard way.

Indeed, as Jim Antle recounts in The Week: 

Republican lore is full of stories about dead people voting and big Democratic political machines stealing elections since the days of Tammany Hall.

Fifty years before today’s fights over Pennsylvania, Michigan and beyond, [and] 40 years before Florida’s hanging chads, Richard Nixon was narrowly defeated by John F. Kennedy—thanks, many to this day maintain, to Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and the Cook County Democrats’ malfeasance


Republicans have at the rank-and-file level become the party of voter ID because to them it is axiomatic that if you let an election get too close, the big-city liberals will steal it. 

  • By all accounts, voter fraud does not appear to have affected the outcome of this election. Trump lost too many close states by too large a margin for fraud to have caused his loss.

“Most of the theories of election misconduct, even if proven, would not change the vote totals enough to overturn the outcome,” writes National Review’s Dan McLaughlin.

Trump, he notes, would have to flip three or four states where he is trailing Biden by tens of thousands of votes and for fairly explicable reasons that have nothing to do with voter fraud—e.g., Trump’s under-performance with suburban voters.

“There is no precedent for anything like this,” McLaughlin observes,

requiring a shift of over 47,000 votes to change the outcomes in Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin and send the election to the House, or over 74,000 to flip Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania.

The margin in Michigan alone is a daunting 146,137 votes, a far cry from the 537-vote margin in Florida in 2000.

  • Trump and his toadies are exaggerating the extent to which voting fraud was a problem in the election.

“People will not accept this rigged election!” tweeted President Trump. “Watch for massive ballot-counting abuse,” he added.

“I don’t care what state you’re in, bellowed Lou Dobbs, “this computer voting system is wide open to fraud and intervention.”

Of course, it is one thing to acknowledge the reality of voter fraud. It is quite another thing altogether to insist that voter fraud was so widespread and rampant that it “rigged” the election.

There is simply no evidence to support this charge. The New York Times, for instance, 

contacted the offices of the top election officials in every state on Monday and Tuesday to ask whether they suspected or had evidence of illegal voting.

Officials in 45 states, [both Democrats and Republicans], responded directly to the Times. For four of the remaining states, the Times spoke to other statewide officials or found public comments from secretaries of state.

None reported any major voting issues [emphasis added].

  • Nonetheless, all allegations of voter fraud should be thoroughly investigated and, if found to have merit, prosecuted under the law. This is important because it will help deter voter fraud in the future and help preserve the public’s faith in our democracy. 
  • To investigate and expose voter fraud is not to “attack democracy.” To the contrary: exposing corruption is the vital and necessary means by which we strengthen our democracy and restore the public’s faith in our political and electoral institutions.  
  • We have ample time to investigate and resolve allegations of voter fraud. States have yet to certify their election results; the Electoral College does not meet until Dec. 14; and the Presidential Inauguration is not until Jan. 20.

Thus the media to the contrary notwithstanding, there is absolutely no need now to declare Biden the president-elect or Trump the president-reelect.

Let the electoral and legal processes run their course. When these processes are completed, we will have a legitimately elected president.

Equally important, partisans on both sides will know that the election was conducted fairly; and that allegations of voter fraud were not ignored and swept under the rug.

To the contrary: such allegations, they will know, were taken seriously and addressed properly.

  • In the meantime, Trump and his team should work cooperatively with Biden and his team to ensure a smooth transfer of power should Biden be declared the president-elect.

This means sharing critical national intelligence and providing access to information and officials, so that a Biden administration is ready and prepared Jan. 20.

Unfortunately, Trump’s team reportedly is refusing to work with Biden’s team until the election outcome is completely and officially resolved. That’s unacceptable, unhelpful, and unAmerican. We the people deserve better from our leaders.

The bottom line: voter fraud is a real problem that must be uncovered, exposed, and addressed; however, it simply does not explain Biden’s apparent victory in the 2020 presidential election.

And partisans on both sides do the nation a great disservice when they either pretend that voter fraud doesn’t exist or grossly exaggerate its electoral significance.

The good news is that we have the legal mechanisms in place to fairly address and adjudicate allegations of voter fraud and other electoral irregularities—and we have plenty of time to let the legal process work and run its course before either Trump or Biden are inaugurated Jan. 20, 2021.

Legitimacy. This is important because public faith in our political and electoral institutions depends on free and fair elections. And free and fair elections, of course, depend on holding officials accountable to the rule of law and prosecuting those who break the law.

The American people are watching, and they expect and deserve no less.

Feature photo credit: WKYT.

Biden Should Use his State of the Union Address to Declare Economic War on Russia

America and NATO have the means to force Vladimir Putin from power and reverse the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Note: President Biden is scheduled to deliver the annual State of the Union Address to Congress Tuesday, March 1. In light of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, here is what the President should say.

Madam Speaker, Madam Vice President, members of Congress, my fellow Americans, and concerned people across the globe, especially the brave people of Ukraine:

This evening, I was planning to deliver the annual State of the Union Address. However, you will forgive me for parting from tradition and doing something different.

Tonight, I would like to address a much more pressing and urgent matter: the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the response from America, NATO, and the free world.

Russian Invasion. As you know, last week, Russian dictator Vladimir Putin launched a wholly unprovoked military assault against the free and sovereign nation of Ukraine. Putin’s aim: to conquer and subjugate Ukraine and make it an indissoluble part of a new and more expansive Russian empire.

America and its NATO allies have armed the Ukrainian military and we will continue to do so. A free and sovereign people deserve the right to fight for themselves, to fight for their freedom and independence. The United States of America will never be indifferent to their pleas for help and to the cause of liberty.

However, we will not wage a military war against Russia. We will not send American ground troops to Ukraine.

The time to do that, candidly was a year or more ago, before Russia invaded, when U.S. troops could have deterred Putin and prevented this military war from happening. That opportunity, sadly, has been lost.

But while a traditional military war in not something we will partake in, we will embrace every measure short of armed conflict, and short of “boots on the ground,” to ensure that Ukraine remains a free and sovereign state.

This means that America and NATO are launching an economic war against Russia. Our aims are clear and just:

  • First, as I mentioned, we will arm the Ukrainian people with as much military aid as possible as quickly as possible. America once again will be the arsenal of democracy, and our support for the brave people of Ukraine will continue for as long as they wish to fight.
  • Second, we will destroy the Russian economy through economic boycotts, sabotage, and cyberwar. This is necessary to force Russia to change course and to change its government.

Putin serves at the pleasure of a rich and cosseted Russian mafia oligarchy that has plundered Russia and stolen blood and treasure from the Russian people. By squeezing Russia economically, we will force that oligarchy to come to terms with the economic wreckage wrought by Putin’s misrule and his reckless invasion of Ukraine.

Costs. This economic war will not be cost-free for America and its NATO allies. We will suffer economic hardship and deprivation. In the short-term, certainly, the price of gas will rise dramatically. Disruptions to our electrical grid and Internet connectivity will occur.

But these will be temporary and transitory problems that I assure you we will overcome. America is rich in fossil fuels and energy abundance, and I will be unleashing the full power of our nation’s energy sector.

Our cyber capabilities, likewise, are second to none and not to be tampered with. Silicon Valley, after all, is an America creation and we will retain dominance in the cyber domain, while protecting our networks from attack.

  • Third, by means of economic warfare, we aim to force Putin from power, so that we can constructively engage a new Russian government that respects its neighbors and acts in accordance with international norms and international law.

We seek peaceful and constructive relations with Russia. And we are confident that, when Russia has a new government worthy of its history and its people, we again can have harmonious and mutually beneficial relations.

But this can only happen when Putin is removed from power and Russia has a new leader and not an international gangster at the helm who holds free and sovereign nations hostage.

  • Fourth, we demand the withdrawal of all Russian troops from Ukraine, Belarus, and Georgia; the restoration there of freely elected democratic governments; and the end of Russian meddling in the internal affairs of these and other countries.

Ukraine, Belarus, and Georgia were granted their freedom and independence in 1991 at the conclusion of the Cold War. However, all three countries have since seen their sovereignty undermined and taken by Russia at the behest of Putin.

This cannot stand. The nation-state, its territorial integrity, self-rule, and self-determination are pillars of the international order. Yesterday it was Georgia and Belarus; today it is Ukraine; and tomorrow it will be the Baltic states and Poland.

We must stop and reverse Russian military imperialism before it further unravels the world order and imperils America and the West.

Victory. Make no mistake: we will prevail. Because of Putin’s economic mismanagement and oligarchic plundering, Russia today is a poor country that has failed to realize its potential. Russia’s economy is smaller than the economy of South Korea and smaller than the economy of Italy.

And we are not acting alone, but instead in concert with allies who span the globe—from Europe to Asia, North and South America, Africa and the Middle East. Literally dozens of nations are joining us to reverse Putin’s dangerous assault on international norms and the international order.

Some Americans, I know, will say: why us? Why is Ukraine’s problem our problem? Why is Europe’s danger our danger?

Because, my fellow Americans, we live in a world in which America and Americans are deeply engaged, commercially and politically. Thus our well-being as a nation is inextricably and irreversibly linked to what happens far beyond our borders.

Our ability to travel and do business abroad, in all corners of the globe, will suffer mightily if Russian military imperialism is left unchecked.

And of course, as we’ve seen, Putin’s attacks have extended far beyond Ukraine. He has launched cyber attacks on America and Europe and waged a war of discord and disinformation on the West. He has undermined peace, stability, and freedom worldwide.

This will not stand. We are in an economic position to stop Putin and we will.

The path ahead will not be easy and it is not without risk. But previous generations of Americans have encountered far worse and triumphed over much greater odds. With your help and with God’s blessing, we will prevail. Freedom will be restored and justice will be done.

Thank you. God bless America and God bless the people of Ukraine.

Feature photo credit: President Biden (L) and Russian dictator Vladimir Putin (R), courtesy of Al Arabiya.

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.

Senate Republicans Shirk Their Constitutional Duty by Refusing to Hear Witness Testimony

Senate Republicans have decided that their political interests are best served by not conducting a full and fair impeachment trial involving all relevant facts and witness testimony.

As a purely political matter, they may be right: Polls show that Republicans overwhelmingly oppose impeachment and believe Trump when he derides the hearings as a “witch hunt” and a “hoax.” But as President Kennedy famously put it, “sometimes party loyalty asks too much.”

Indeed, GOP senators have greater obligations than loyalty to their party. They have an obligation to the Constitution and to history, to the rule of law and the separation of powers.

Yet, by deliberately conducting a sham trial designed to conceal the truth from the American people while covering-up for Trump, Senate Republicans are shirking these greater obligations and doing themselves and the nation a great disservice.

Specifically and ominously, they are undermining the rule of law and he separation of powers, which are bedrock pillars of our Constitutional order.

Rule of Law. Senate Republicans are undermining the rule of law by ignoring or downplaying Trump’s wrongdoing and refusing to thoroughly examine the factual record to see what laws might have been violated.

And the fact that the House of Representatives did not charge Trump with violating any specific law (though it did charge him with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress) is no excuse for the Senate’s abdication of its Constitutional responsibility to conduct a serious and credible trial.

The House did the best it could in the face of obvious Trump administration stonewalling and obstruction of justice. The Senate, because it is controlled by the president’s own (Republican) party, has far greater political leeway and wherewithal to investigate the administration than does the House.

Trump, after all, is far less likely and able to stonewall GOP senators than he is Democratic congressmen. Yet, the Senate declined to fully exercise its institutional prerogatives during the impeachment trial, and the reasons offered up by Republican senators are weak, feeble, and beside the point.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), for instance, said that because the House proved its case re: the first article of impeachment (abuse of power, by asking Ukraine’s government to “investigate” Joe Biden and Burisma), there is no need for additional witness testimony or evidence—especially since, in Alexander’s mind, Trump’s offense does not warrant his removal from office by the Senate.

But this legalistic excuse for inaction won’t cut it. Impeachment, remember, is a political act. Consequently, there is a lot more to consider than simple guilt or innocence. The Senate has a responsibility to unearth all relevant facts and information, so that the American people can make an informed political decision on election day, Nov. 3, 2020.

This is especially important since the Senate isn’t convicting Trump—in large part, says Alexander, out of respect for the electoral wishes of the citizenry. There is, he notes, a presidential election Nov. 3, 2020, and Trump’s fate should be decided then not now.

Fair enough, but how is the electorate served by short-circuiting the trial and concealing information from the public record that the American people could otherwise review, weigh and consider on election day?

In fact, because the Senate is acquitting Trump, it has an even greater responsibility to ensure that all pertinent evidence and witness testimony are part of the public record.

The Senate, moreover, doesn’t know what it doesn’t know. While the House did not charge Trump with breaking the law per se, it still unearthed a myriad of information that implicates the president with wrongdoing and abusing his authority.

It is entirely possible that a full and complete trial, with firsthand witness testimony, would have unearthed additional information that might have established clearer-cut instances of illegality by the president.

At the very least, if the Senate had taken the time do its due diligence, we would know more than we now do, and voters would have greater situational awareness and understanding when they go to the polls in November.

Separation of Powers. As for the separation of powers, Congress is supposed to be an independent branch of government that serves as a check on the executive branch. Yet, by covering-up for Trump, the Senate has turned itself into a wholly owned subsidiary of Trump, Inc. and yielded its Constitutional authority to the demands of the executive branch.

In short, when it comes to impeachment, there is no separation, as prescribed by the Constitution, between the Senate and the White House. Mitch McConnell, in fact, said publicly before the trial even began that 

“Everything I do during this I’m coordinating with the White House counsel. There will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this.”

So much for fidelity to the Constitution and its original meaning.

Of course, the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board ignores all of this and focuses exclusively on the question of removing Trump from office. They say Alexander’s “vote against witnesses was rooted in Constitutional wisdom” and is his “finest hour” as a public servant.

But while a legitimate case can be made that the Senate should not convict Trump, this does not mean it should abort its search for truth and give up on a full and fair trial. These are two separate and distinct questions, which the Journal deliberately and misleadingly conflates 

Thus far from being Alexander’s “finest hour,” his vote against witness testimony was his most disgraceful and shameful act as a senator. And far from being rooted in Constitutional wisdom, this decision instead is an utter abdication of Constitutional duty.

Senate Republicans should hang their heads in shame and be on high alert come election day. The voters may be less forgiving than the GOP’s media apologists at the Wall Street Journal.

Feature photo credit: The Nashville Tennessean via Commercial Appeal.

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.