This is nuts

Saturday night saw a “teen takeover” of downtown Chicago, organized on social media. Gang members burned cars, brawled, jumped on top of cars, and broke the barricades of outnumbered police on Michigan Avenue and in the area of Millenium Park. Two kids were shot; thank God, they both are going to be OK.

Mayor-elect Brandon Johnson, a “progressive” Democrat who narrowly defeated moderate Paul Vallas a few weeks ago, wasted no time in saying, “In no way do I condone the destructive activity we saw in the Loop and on the Lakefront this weekend.”

Fine. But he didn’t stop there. “However,” he continued, “it is not constructive to demonize youth who have otherwise been deprived of opportunities in their own communities.”

Really? Not even when they attack policemen, commit violence against others, and burn $120,000 Teslas? Not even when they disrupt the bus lines and shoot each other? It goes without saying that kids should not be demonized because they have been deprived of opportunities. But does that give them carte blanche to commit mayhem? Why did Chicago’s new mayor find it necessary to qualify his condemnation of the inexcusable?

Brandon Johnson is an extremist. That’s one reason why I was pulling for Vallas in the mayoral runoff. The new mayor went on to talk about the social and recreational opportunities he wanted to create for such kids, and that’s well and good. But why did he feel it necessary to water down his condemnation of this weekend’s violence by giving those involved an excuse? These are two different issues. Granted, they are not unrelated. But in no way, shape, or form does the lack of recreational and social opportunities for inner-city youth change the fact that what happened in downtown Chicago this past weekend was inexcusable. Period.

Why couldn’t the mayor-elect simply condemn it out of hand, and talk about programs to remedy the causes later? I admit that I haven’t studied Johnson’s program in detail, but at least thus far I haven’t heard him propose anything outrageous. Maybe I’m wrong. But as far as I know, my problems with the guy don’t fall into the area of policy. They have to do with what seems to be an inability to say that what happened was inexcusable without immediately appearing to justify it. Whatever the causes of the violence in downtown Chicago Saturday night, society didn’t commit it. The kids who committed it committed it, and one would have hoped that the city’s new mayor could have done better than to condemn the violence and then immediately start making excuses for it, however valid the connection between the lack of opportunities these kids had for more constructive activity and what they actually did.

Of course, the incoming mayor has an excuse: practically everybody is an extremist these days. I doubt that many law-and-order types would have been at all concerned about the underlying social causes of the rioting, either. But while the second doesn’t mitigate the responsibility of those involved for their behavior, the two are not unrelated. There will be a time for addressing those. I simply wonder whether the immediate aftermath of the violence was the time for that.

I would have felt better about the way the new mayor of the city in which I was born treated the situation if he had simply and unequivocally called these kids out for what they did Saturday night, and let it go it that- and then undertaken a comprehensive program for addressing the reasons why those kids were gathered downtown Saturday night. Can Mayor-elect Johnson really wonder why so many Chicagoans were uneasy about his becoming mayor when he can’t unequivocally condemn outrageous behavior by minority youth without making excuses for it? Can he really not see the double message he sent with his statement, not only to the rioters but to the frightened people who voted for Paul Vallas in the runoff?

Happy St. What’s His Name Day!

My family emigrated from Scotland to Northern Ireland in Restoration times. It was a sort of homecoming. Many centuries ago, my ancestors, the Scots (or Scoti, as the Romans called them) moved from Ireland across the North Channel to southwestern Scotland, forming the ancient kingdom of Dalriada, essentially consisting of northeastern Ulster and Argyll. Eventually, Dalriada lost the Irish part of its territory and joined the Picts to form the nation of Alba, the cornerstone of the modern country of Scotland. So even if my grandmother had not been born in Downpatrick ( “Dun Padraig.” or “Patrick’s Fort” in Gaelic), where the saint is buried, I would have plenty of reason to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day.

St. Patrick (Padraig, auf Gaelic, meaning “noble”) was allegedly born Maewyn Succat (Maewyn meaning “warlike”). This, however, is disputed. There is no direct evidence of his ever having been known as anything but Patricius, or of his having called himself anything else. He was the son of a couple named Calphurnius and Conchessa and was born in Dunbarton, Scotland, in the year 387. His father, Calphurnius, seems to have been a priest or deacon. His grandfather was also a Christian clergyman, but like many “P.K.s,” Patrick was not particularly religious at first. But since he was a Romanized Briton whose father and grandfather had Latinized names, and whose mother was a relative of St. Martin of Tours, it would be hard to explain why Patrick would have been given a Gaelic one like “Maewyn Succat.” But the legend persists. His faith was apparently kindled into a flame when, at the age of sixteen, he was kidnapped by Irish pirates and sold into slavery in what is today County Antrim, in Ulster, the ancestral home of the Waters family.

His captivity seems to have been a relatively mild one. His duties consisted mainly of tending sheep- an occupation that left him plenty of time for contemplation, meditation, and prayer. Not surprisingly, Patrick turned into something of a schwaermer by the long, solitary days and nights tending his master’s flocks; nevertheless, this time of spiritual reflection stood him in good stead in the years to come.

So did the external circumstances of his captivity. Patrick quickly became fluent in Celtic. And as it happened, his master, Milchu,  was a Druid high priest. A better background in the pagan religion it would be his life’s work to combat would have been hard to obtain.

Six years into his captivity, Patrick had a mystical experience- described variously as a dream and as an actual visit from an angel- in which he was commanded (contra the general advice of St. Paul to those in his condition) to run away from his master and return to Britain. That he did, and from there he went to France, where he was ordained to the priesthood by St. Germain. When Germain was sent by Pope Celestine on a mission back to Britain to combat Pelagianism there, he took Patrick as one of his companions.

It was there that Patrick once again had one of his visions: this time a group of Irish children, exhorting him, “O holy youth, come back to Erin, and walk once more among us.” Entrusted by Pope Celestine with that very task, Patrick was consecrated a bishop by St. Maximus of Padua, and returned to the land of his former captivity to begin a missionary career that would, in the space of 33 years, convert that nation from a stronghold of Druidical darkness into “the island of saints and poets.”

His first act upon arriving back on Irish soil was to return to his former master and buy his own freedom. Sadly, as Patrick’s fame spread and more and more Irishmen were won from his former master’s Druid religion to Christianity, Milchu was said to be humiliated, and- to Patrick’s horror- burned himself to death, along with his fort and all his possessions, his pride unable to bear “the thought of being vanquished by his former slave.”

No, Patrick did not drive the snakes out of Ireland; there were never any snakes there, to begin with. It’s commonly believed that the snakes in the legend were, in fact, paganism and pagan values and attitudes. And the incident probably most associated with him- and which gave birth to this day’s most familiar symbol- may also never have happened. Nevertheless, it’s worth recounting. Interestingly, though everybody wears green today, the color historically associated with Patrick is blue.

Anyway. the story is that Patrick was confronted by a sword-wielding Druid chieftain named Dichu-  whom, unarmed except by his faith, Patrick simply faced down. Awed by his courage, Dichu asked for instruction and was baptized. Dichu told Patrick of a feast being given for all the Irish chieftains by the Ard Righ (“High King”), Laoghaire, at Tara, the traditional seat of the High Kings (Ireland in ancient days was divided into five kingdoms- Ulster, Connacht, Leinster, Meath, and Munster; each had its own king, who effectively ruled his own realm while owing titular fealty to the High King at Tara). Patrick crashed the party, which supposedly began- auspiciously- on Easter Sunday, 433. The fun began, however, the night before- symbolically interesting because that year it was not only the Vigil of Easter but also the Feast of the Annunciation.

The Vigil of Easter is one of the oldest and most beautiful and significant Christian liturgies. We celebrate it in abbreviated form in my congregation. In ancient times it was that the catechumens were baptized, spending the night in prayer, chant, and meditation.

The liturgy traditionally begins around the Paschal fire, usually kindled outside a church. In Patrick’s case, of course, the vigil was held out in the open, on the hill of Slane, on the opposite side of the valley from Tara. When Patrick kindled the Paschal fire, it was in direct violation of a royal edict, that no fires were to be lit until the High King’s own signal fire was kindled at Tara.

Patrick’s reputation for miracles and for gaining converts had proceeded him. Laoghaire’s Druid advisors told him, insightfully, “O King, live forever; this fire, which has been lighted in defiance of the royal edict, will blaze forever in this land unless it is this very night extinguished.”

So they tried to put it out. They couldn’t. Nothing they could do would extinguish the flame. Neither- despite their best efforts- could they harm Patrick or his companions!

One thing about St. Patrick: he had style. The next morning- Easter Day- he traveled the length of the valley in full liturgical procession, wearing a miter, bearing a crozier, fully vested as a bishop, and proceeded by an acolyte bearing a copy of the Gospels aloft. Arriving at Tara, he soon found himself in full confrontation with the Druids. The story is that by their incantations they cast a deep cloud over Tara, enveloping the entire hill in darkness. Patrick defied them to remove the cloud. They tried and failed. Thereupon Patrick uttered a simple prayer. The cloud instantly vanished, and the hill was bathed in sunshine.

The Arch-Druid Lochru tried to impress everybody by flying. Patrick simply knelt and prayed that God would vindicate His truth- and Lochru fell to his death.

That pretty much settled matters. Though forbidden by the High King to show Patrick or any of his company the slightest sign of respect, the whole assembly rose to pay homage to Patrick and his God.

It was then that the incident supposedly occurred which gave this day- and the entire island- its most familiar symbol. Someone supposedly asked how it could be that the Christian God would be Three but at the same time only One. Patrick replied by leaning over and plucking from the grass at his feet a simple clover of a variety which -contrary to legend- grows not only in Ireland but in almost every country and halfway temperate climate on Earth. Holding the shamrock aloft, he asked, “Is this one leaf, or three?”

They couldn’t answer. “If human wisdom cannot comprehend the mystery of a piece of clover,” Patrick is said to have responded, “how can it hope to understand the mystery of God’s very nature?”

I never cease to be amazed at the number of “shamrocks” one sees at this time of year which are, in fact, four-leaf clovers- which, of course, completely destroys the entire symbolism of the shamrock!

Patrick is said to have spent the balance of Easter week catechizing and baptizing the High King and his entire court. At its end, he was given the High King’s own official patronage for the missionary endeavor which was to occupy the remainder of his life. He is also well known for his beautiful prayer known as Saint Patrick’s Breastplate. It is sung as a hymn in many churches.

Patrick died on March 17, 493 (some sources say 460, or 461) at Saul in what is now Downpatrick, County Down, where he is buried. Downpatrick, by the way, is the birthplace and childhood home of Grandmother Waters, and the burial place not only of Patrick but also of Sts. Columba- interestingly, the native-born Irishman who brought the Gospel to Britain, and in particular to Scotland and the Picts!- and Brigid, who is often commemorated by a representation of the hand-woven cross, made from the reeds along the banks of the River Shannon, she once fashioned for a dying pagan to hold while she told him the story of Christ.


On any account, Patrick was one of the greatest missionaries the Christian Faith has ever produced- and the honor he is due is too great to be confined to any single people (even the Irish!). All the faithful have cause to wear green this day in his honor, without fear of being accused of being full of blarney regardless of their ethnic origin.


HT: The Catholic Encyclopedia, The Catholic Community Forum

The far right’s perverse reaction to the Griner release

There was a time when the release of a wrongfully-detained American citizen by an authoritarian enemy would have been greeted by the far right with flag-waving and cheers. That time has apparently passed.

Judging from the reaction of conservatives, the fact that Brittney Griner is: a) a lesbian; b) a supporter of Black Lives Matter (a loose, unorganized grouping of people some of whom advocate violence); c) not one of several supposedly more deserving Americans being held by Russia whose release in exchange for Russian arms trafficker Victor Bout was not offered; and/or d) was released as a result of negotiations by a Democratic administration, means that instead of being an occasion for celebration, her homecoming after incarceration for unknowingly violating a ridiculous Russian law against the possession of a non-psychoactive cannabis derivative duly prescribed by a doctor is an outrage.

Not sure whether Griner’s race or sexual orientation or political views make her less than a human being in the eyes of the MAGA crowd and maybe less of an American, or whether the absurdity of the law and the accidental character of Griner’s violation of it demands remorseless retribution in the minds of these people rather than serving as rather substantial mitigation. But the attitude of those who are unhappy about her release stinks. Yes, other Americans in Russian custody also deserve their freedom. But they were not the ones whose freedom was offered, and the mean-spiritedness of Americans who begrudge Griner her freedom makes me sick.

The reaction of so many on the far right to the Griner/Bout exchange is another example of the moral and philosophical perversity of what passes for conservatism these days. Coinciding as it does with a week in which conservatives either excused or minimized Donald Trump’s proposal that the Constitution be ignored if it serves a goal he regards as desirable, and I have to think that Bill Buckley and Barry Goldwater and Bob Taft are rolling like dervishes in their graves over what was a political movement based on ethics and even-handedness and reverence for that Constitution.

It’s been a while

I haven’t posted on this blog for a while. There have been several reasons for that. I won’t get into them; suffice it to say that I’m going to try to do better. For now, though, like to talk about two things.

Last month I lost someone very dear to me. Lisa Marie Stapp was a writer, at one time a professor of Ethics, and a devout Lutheran Christian- a far better one than I. She was born with Spinal Muscular Atrophy, a genetic condition that prevented her muscles from developing. She divided her life between her bed and her wheelchair. She had a powerful but gentle intellect, a wry sense of humor, and an incredible amount of courage. She was my hero. She was also the most important person in the world to me. She made me want to be a better person and a better Christian. I miss her terribly. My grieving will go on for a very long time, but that’s OK. She was worth it. Her memory will loom large in my mind and heart however many years still remain in my life. I can hardly wait until the moment comes my pastor pointed me toward when I get to heaven and Lisa, who never even walked in this world and couldn’t even adjust the glasses on her nose, runs up to me, throws her arms around my neck, and gives me a big hug.

The second thing on my mind is Dobbs v. Jackson, the Supreme Court decision that reversed the ill-considered Roe v. Wade. The extremists in both parties are having a great time with Dobbs. Republicans- many of them- are going beyond the traditional pro-life position and advocating the outlawing of abortion even when the mother’s life is in danger. This is quite rightly being called out as abortion extremism, and we are hearing a great deal about the voters’ displeasure at it. Predictably, we hear very little about the position taken by literally every 2020 Democratic presidential candidate with the exceptions of Joe Biden and Amy Klochobar, supporting a “right to choose” throughout pregnancy, right up until the moment of birth. This, of course, goes far beyond Roe, and poll after poll shows that it’s just as out of step with the American public as the Republican position I just described. Yet somehow, the abortion extremism which continues to characterize the average Democratic politician doesn’t get characterized as such by the media.

Doubtless, it was the extreme positions being taken by Republican politicians, rather than Dobbs as such, against which the voters reacted so strongly at the polls earlier this month. In fact, the polls I’ve seen that accurately characterize Dobbs as simply returning abortion law from the Federal level to the states, where the Constitution intended such things to be, show support and opposition to the decision as divided just about equally. Yet prejudicially-worded polling questions and the strong pro-choice bias of the media obscure the fact that we remain a nation closely divided on the subject of abortion.

Americans don’t want abortion outlawed across the board, including in cases of rape, incest, a threat to the life of the mother, and gross fetal abnormalities incompatible with life. But on the other hand, they don’t want abortion on demand in the third trimester, either! The American public takes a thoughtful and nuanced position on the matter. But sadly, as is so often the case these days, the public debate is being carried out between the extremes, and the spin doctors of both the right and the left are distorting where we as a society actually stand on abortion. Truly accurate information is becoming harder and harder to come by. Both politicians and the media seem more concerned with advancing agendas than with meeting Americans where they are. And tragically, a deeply divided nation is led to believe that it’s even more deeply divided than it actually is, and the task of consensus-building and dialog upon which democracy depends is becoming more and more impossible.

The Democrats who cried ‘Wolf!’

I have said this many times before, and no matter how much my liberal friends may squirm, I’m right: crying wolf was a bad strategy when Reagan and Romney, and the Bushes were around.

Charlie Sykes wrote this in his column this morning, quoting Carl Cannon of Real Clear Politics:

By 2000, calling George W. Bush a racist was the liberals’ standard operating procedure, a tactic used against Romney as well. . . . If Reagan and George W. Bush are routinely portrayed as warmongers, if both Bushes (and Reagan and Romney) are painted as bigots . . . how do we expect rank-and-file conservatives or grassroots independents to respond when Trump is dubbed by the media as an existential threat to democracy?

It was a classic case of “the boy who cried wolf.” The next time liberal Democrats want to know why Donald Trump gets away with behavior that would have made him an electoral pariah not so long ago, and why it’s impossible to hold him accountable for anything, they have only to look in the mirror. They have only themselves to blame. Now the racist, the authoritarian, the existential threat to democracy and American values has come- and nobody is listening anymore when they point it out.

Why I just quit Twitter

Let’s get a few things straight right off the bat.

First, freedom of speech has nothing to do with Twitter. The First Amendment protects our speech from suppression by the government. It simply does not apply to privately-owned platforms like Twitter.

Secondly, much of what Twitter restricts could be restricted without violating the First Amendment even if the government owned Twitter. Libel (which Twitter actually permits, and is engaged in quite freely by extremists on both ends of the political spectrum) isn’t covered by the First Amendment. Neither is subversion or false information likely to cause actual harm to people or property. Restricting COVID misinformation isn’t a violation of free speech. It’s common sense and common decency. In Justice Holmes’s famous formulation, “Freedom of speech does not grant the right to falsely shout ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theatre.”

Vulgarity and, I would argue, hate speech cannot be constitutionally restricted by the government. But the Constitution in no way prohibits a private platform like Twitter from restricting them, and I, for one, have until now been grateful that for the most part, Twitter has done so in the past. Apparently, it will not do so, or at least do so consistently, now that Elon Musk is in charge.

Conservative opinions are not being suppressed on Twitter under the current rules. Proven lies, particularly vicious and widespread slander of individuals and groups unsupported by actual evidence or even logic, hate speech, treason, and the kind of misinformation that has cost tens of thousands of lives are being restricted, and it would be irresponsible and immoral to do otherwise. But it seems that under the new ownership Twitter will throw responsibility and ethics to the winds.

A strong argument can be made that Twitter was toxic all along. Nothing resembling reasoned discussion and debate takes place there. Instead, malice, invective, wild claims and accusations, and groundless conspiracy theories abound. These thrive on a platform like Twitter, which is ideally suited to promote assertions but woefully inadequate to hold them up to the light of scrutiny. The very format militates against reasoned argument and is guaranteed to produce heat, but very little light.

I, personally, am not the most patient of people, especially when it comes to those in the grips of the Dunning-Kruger effect; who consider themselves possessed of a great deal of accurate information, the judgment to discern truth and falsehood, and the intelligence to form reasonable opinions, but who in fact possess none of them. Debating with fools is a fool’s errand at best, and too often I’ve been foolish enough to have allowed myself to be drawn into it by the folly of others. One cannot, as the saying goes, reason people out of what they were never reasoned into. Reason is useless in conversations with people who are either unwilling to resort to it or simply lacking in rationality. Suffering fools gladly is not my strong suit, alas, and all to often I have found myself descending to their level on Twitter, resorting to insulting people with whom it is impossible to reason. I do not like the person I become when I use Twitter the way it’s intended to be used. So I don’t do it often.

But Twitter has had its purpose. It’s been a platform for this blog. And it’s a place to post memes and links to important news stories or columns and editorials I think need to be widely read.

But with Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter, a bad situation will be made infinitely worse. Conspiracy theories and other insane assertions will be everywhere, spread in an environment whose very nature protects them from challenge. Lies will be easily spread, as Donald Trump proved so convincingly before reason prevailed and he was denied access to Twitter. The “tweet” format is perfectly suited to spreading lies and other mere assertions. But truth- and above all, the information needed to refute those lies- is often more complicated than mere assertions. Facts need more words to be asserted in the face of lies than the lies need. That’s the crucial reason why the restrictions against the most dangerous lies were so important on Twitter. It’s easier to start a fire than to put it out, and in a forum like Twitter, lies and paranoia have a huge built-in advantage over truth and sanity.

Now, with Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter under the false flag of “free speech,” truth and sanity won’t have a chance. Twitter is about to become nothing but a cesspool of assertions which cannot be as easily challenged as they are made. It will become a snakepit of lies and distortions, of shrill paranoia and bigotry from both ends of the political spectrum in which reason and sanity and temperence and moderation will simply have no chance. If it ever was a forum for rational debate and discussion, it will cease to be one now.

I suppose I could continue to use it as a forum for posts from this blog, and memes, and links to articles I think need to be read. But in a forum in which logic and evidence and truth will now be drowned out by lies and hate and conspiracy theories and every other paranoid and evil thing that can be so easily spread but not challenged in such a forum, it’s not hard to see what will happen next. There will be nobody left on Twitter who would read them or get the point if they did.

Sane and reasonable people are going to stop beating their heads against the wall of willful and self-impressed ignorance. They will stop trying to confront easily-tweeted lies with more complicated facts and truth. The fever dreams which are the far right and far left Twittersphere- the fantasy worlds of the hard-core Trumpers and the the most delusional of the Woke- will be the sum and substance of Twitter. There simply will be nothing of any substance or sanity left worth mentioning. All that will be left will be assertions, no matter how malicious, false, destructive, or downright crazy, and no way left to refute them.

It may take a while for some to realize it, but with hate speech and proven lies and medical misinformation and the vulgarity of the darkest places in our hearts now set loose upon Twitter, it will no longer be possible for truth and reason and sanity to make a stand there. Before long, the reasonable and the thoughtful and the kind-hearted will abandon a forum for which they are so ill-suited and for which the simplistic and the cruel and the ignorant and the malicious are right are empowered and at home.

Twitter under Elon Musk and his twisted notion of “free speech” will have no place for intelligence or real debate, and even less for nuance. It will be all about shouting, not discussing. Well, if the truth be told, maybe it always has been. But now there will be no limits to the lies and the libel and conspiracy theories in a forum in which they are easily spread and essentially impossible to refute. And in a society already so deeply immersed and crippled by the ease with which lies can spread between minds and hearts eager to believe even the craziest of them, Twitter will be a forum in which there is no limit to how crazy and dark the lies may be, and the light of reason, truth, and knowledge will be extinguished.

One cannot reason people out of what they were never reasoned into. And under Elon Musk, Twitter will no longer be a place where reason has even the tenuous place to stand it has now.

The hour of the Neo-Con

While I’m hard to categorize politically- I have a social conscience that has always made me an awkward fit in conservatism as a movement- a case can be made that I’m a neo-conservative, a critter defined by Irving Kristol as “a liberal who has been mugged by reality.” Neo-conservatism is looked upon these days as an archaic viewpoint. It had its heyday in the administration of the second President Bush. “Paleocons” (traditional conservatives who are often somewhat isolationist in their foreign policy convictions) regard it as discredited. It is not.

What is discredited is the neo-con concept of nation-building. Our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan (and, in retrospect, in Vietnam) have taught the hard but necessary lesson that the United States cannot simply create democracies in countries that have no tradition of democracy and liberal values. A society has to evolve to a certain point before freedom of speech or freedom of the press are ideas that matter to people. Survival, loyalty to clan and tribe, matter more to most people in less developed societies. than political philosophy or ideology. That’s especially the case in places with longstanding and unexamined traditions of feudalism and outright authoritarianism.

But this remains a dangerous world in which history has placed the United States in a unique role, Somebody has always filled that role throughout history, There has always been a predominant power, economically and militarily, to which all the other nations look for leadership and stability. Rome filled that role in ancient times. England played it for centuries. It is not a role nations seek, but one history thrusts upon them.

For a long time, we tried to evade that role. We are, after all, located on the opposite side of the world from the other great powers. We are in a unique position to be economically self-sufficient in a way the nations of the Old World cannot be. And we have the world’s two great oceans to hide behind. The temptation to retreat into a “Fortress America” has always been there. The isolationist instinct that first gave birth to the slogan “America First” back in the Thirties led us to attempt to stand aloof from the gathering storms in Europe and Asia, and a strong argument can be made that it played a major role in allowing Hitler to achieve a degree of dominance in a conflict-shy Europe that made him much harder to stop than he might have been otherwise.

Pearl Harbor discredited the ideology that ironically pretends that neo-conservatism was discredited by Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan. A nation that has Hawaii as its western outpost really isn’t protected by the Pacific Ocean after all. Even during the second third of the Twentieth Century, the world was a much smaller place than it was in the day of sailing ships and news taking weeks to travel back and forth between Europe and the New World. World War II, the jet plane, and the intercontinental ballistic missile should have been enough to convince us that isolationism simply isn’t an option in the modern world.

But as a colonel in the North Vietnamese army observed decades ago, democracies have trouble dealing with sacrifice and tend not to be very patient. Democracies have a great deal of trouble staying the course when it comes to lengthy wars, even relatively unbloody ones like Afghanistan. The mistaken wars in Vietnam and the second one in Iraq, and the mishandling of Afghanistan by several consecutive administrations of both parties, have produced a suspicion of foreign military involvement rooted in simple weariness with continual wars whose relationship to our immediate national security are hard to see, and which have failed spectacularly in achieving satisfactory results.

And as that North Vietnamese officer pointed out, authoritarian countries have a far greater capacity for long-term commitments and lengthy wars than democracies, whose people readily grow weary and can vote their nations out of them. Late in the Vietnam War and thereafter, the Democrats became the “dovish” party. Republicans, having abandoned their traditional antipathy for foreign entanglements, became the party of the muscular and assertive international projection of power, the party of the “hawks.” This reached its zenith when the Reagan and first Bush administrations drove the Soviet Union into the dustbin of history.

But with the takeover of the Republican Party by Donald Trump, who revived the discredited slogan “America First,” the GOP returned to its isolationist past. People like Pat Buchanan and the Pauls ceased to represent a minority viewpoint on foreign policy among Republicans. Incredibly, we find ourselves today in a war-weary and profoundly isolationist nation, in which neither of our great political parties is a reliable advocate of the robust projection of American power and the vigorous defense of our national interests abroad. The world lacks a leader. This creates a vacuum that is an open invitation to mischief by bad actors. Ironically, our current squeamishness when it comes to projecting power has made the development of situations in which it becomes necessary for us to do so more likely.

Donald Trump has consistently questioned our membership in NATO. He speaks for the short-sighted but long-standing attitude which sees foreign conflict as “none of our business,” and fails to take into account how profoundly our economy and security are affected by what happens elsewhere. It decries “globalism,” as if withdrawing from our culturally, economically, and politically interdependent Twenty-First Century world and returning to the days when the world was bound together by clipper ships rather than jet planes, television, and the Internet were even an option.

It’s a profoundly unrealistic and self-defeating way of dealing with the world. In the wake of our ignominious abandonment of Afghanistan, negotiated by Trump and implemented by Biden, has largely convinced a world that has already seen what happened in Vietnam and Iraq that the United States is a broken reed, an unreliable ally, a friend that can be counted upon only to abandon you when things get rough. There is no sheriff in town, so the guys in the black hats can run wild.

But the Xi and Putin gangs seem to have revived the appetite of the American people for realism and responsibility just a bit. Recent polls have shown pluralities of the American people favoring the use of force, if necessary, to defend Taiwan from China. And the Russian invasion of Ukraine has resulted in a heart-warming and reassuring reaction of sympathy for a smaller nation heroically resisting conquest by a far larger and far more powerful bully.

There is reason to hope that the American people are waking up again to the realization that a series of foolish, ill-considered, and mismanaged wars is a reason to avoid foolish, ill-considered, and mismanaged wars, not to retreat into Fortress America and hide our heads in the sand. It fills this aging neo-con’s heart with hope that we as a nation might yet regain its awareness of how small and interdependent a world we live in and the impossibility of America side-stepping the place in the world to which history has called us.

For centuries, each nation in Europe has sought to avoid any of the others becoming the dominant power on the continent. The development of the European Union is lessening that fear to some extent, but it still remains. If there is going to be a military and diplomatic alliance among the democracies of Europe to prevent the continent from being dominated by a paranoid, expansionist, and authoritarian Russia, it must be led by something relatively new in history: a great power linked culturally and economically to the nations of Europe but which is not itself a European nation. The domination of Europe by a hostile and paranoid Russia would be an economic and cultural disaster for the United States. And there simply is no other nation which, as a practical matter, can lead an alliance of Europe’s democracies than the United States.

Our economy is also deeply interconnected to the nations of the Pacific and the Middle East. A Pacific region dominated by China would be an economic disaster for the United States, and the democracies of Asia and the Pacific depend upon a uniquely powerful Pacific nation like America for leadership and support. And in the post-9/11 era, it’s hard to avoid the significance of the Middle East to American security even without considering the region’s oil. Vital American interests are at stake all over the world, and all over the world, circumstances place the United States in a unique position to lead the way to peace and stability.

Vladimir Putin would like to destroy NATO. Donald Trump would like to destroy NATO. Neither makes any bones about it, and we dare not allow that to happen. Nor can we retreat from the other great theatres of international events. The notion of a “Fortress America” in which events in other parts of the world can be safely ignored is a delusion, and a dangerous one.

The well-being of not only the United States but of the world itself is absolutely dependent on our adopting a posture of vigorous internationalism purged of the foolish and discredited concept of nation-building. Our foreign policy needs to be less ambitious than it was in the administration of the second Bush and of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. But our well-being as a nation and the welfare of the human race both hang upon our willingness to be intelligently aggressive in the pursuit of our interests and those of our allies up to and including, where necessary and as a last resort, the use of military force to pursue well-defined and prudently-conceived objectives.

So no more “nation-building.” But as the American people seem at long last to have realized once again, there is no corner of the world in which events are removed from America’s vital interests. Hopefully, the result will yet be the re-birth of a neo-conservatism purged of the idealistic notion of remaking the world in America’s image, but soberly determined to protect America’s interests. Our security, and that of the world, depend upon it.

This is an odd moment in our history. Both of our political parties, and especially the Republicans, are profoundly dysfunctional. That must change, or else a new party or parties will have to emerge. But the good news is that the hour of the neo-con has come again, and we are showing signs of regaining contact with geopolitical reality.

The good guys are winning for a change

Donald Trump is backtracking from his assertion that Vladimir Putin is a “genius” for invading Ukraine. Tucker Carlson actually admits that he was wrong about Ukraine- although it’s Joe Biden’s fault that he’ was wrong.

America and the world have united behind a brave people determined to remain free and their heroic citizen-president. Russia thought overrunning Ukraine and putting a puppet in President Zelenskyy’s place would be easy. It’s turning out not to be.

Putin has been fighting with one hand behind his back. He’s been trying for propaganda reasons to at least appear to be exercising restraint. The more frustrated he becomes, the more likely that he takes the gloves off and fights dirty like he did in Chechnya. He will be even more discredited in the eyes of the world, but it won’t be pretty to watch much less experience. Not that it’s actually pretty now.

Putin has stepped in it. This invasion may be his undoing. But the odds are still overwhelming that Ukraine will be overrun. I don’t think President Zelenskyy will leave, and I’m very much afraid that Putin will have him killed. May God protect him.

But the salient reality is that Ukraine is going to be impossible for Russia to hold. The people of Ukraine won’t accept Russian occupation. A continuing insurgency will make Ukraine a hell for Russia. It will only be a matter of time before Ukraine recovers its independence.

Even Switzerland is joining in the sanctions. Germany has overcome its traditional reluctance to be actively hostile to Russia. Finland and Sweden are considering joining NATO. And barring a return of the Cheeto Benito to the Oval Office, NATO will not only survive but will be stronger and more united than ever.

Brave people are dying and will continue to die. The valiant people of Ukraine are suffering terribly and will probably continue to suffer for a long time. But what looked a couple of weeks ago like it was going to be another bleak triumph for authoritarianism and the bullies of the world seems to have turned completely around and rallied the world to the cause of humanity and democratic values.

However much suffering they inflict, it seems clear that at the moment the bullies are on the run. The forces of illiberalism and reaction are reeling. Right now, the good guys appear, at least in the long term, to be winning. It’s been a long time since that was the case, and it feels good.

Slava Ukraini!

Russia must howl

The invasion of Ukraine- you know, the one Vladimir Putin wasn’t going to order- is underway. Predictably, so is the idiocy from the MAGAverse.

Donald Trump- who never met an authoritarian he didn’t like- just loves Vladimir Putin. He fawned over Putin throughout his presidency, defending him from charges that Russia was involved in hacking the computers of both major American parties during the 2016 campaign despite conclusive evidence to the contrary obtained by the American intelligence community. He enabled Putin’s ongoing goal of undermining NATO by insulting and even lying about other members of the alliance and openly questioning whether NATO was even necessary now that the Cold War is over.

Putin, on the other hand, takes a different view, whether he admits it or not. This invasion is motivated by Putin’s objection to the possibility that Ukraine might someday join NATO. Despite the fact that every invasion over the border between Russia and the rest of Europe since World War II has been an invasion staged by Russia (this is Putin’s second invasion of Ukraine, and he’s recently attacked Georgia and has virtually taken over Belarus), Putin sees the expansion of NATO to the borders of Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union as “encirclement.” This fits well with Russia’s historic paranoia about invasion from the West, even though the West has far greater reason in recent history to fear invasion by Russia!

Nevertheless, Russia sees the presence of a country allied with the United States on its border as somehow a provocation. And international law aside, he believes he has every right to invade any such country and- well, make it not aligned with the United States. Tucker Carlson’s odd nightly attempts to justify this by suggesting that we would be justified in invading Canada if it were aligned with Russia make sense only to those who don’t stop to reflect that no, we wouldn’t be justified in doing that and that moreover, we would be unlikely even to consider it. The Putin/Carlson view of the matter makes sense only to the paranoid and those not in the habit of thinking much before forming their opinions.

Putin’s overarching goal is to undermine and, if possible, destroy the Atlantic alliance. Donald Trump, of course, is on board. It’s worth reflecting that on one occasion while he was president Russian state television jokingly referred to him as a Russian “asset,” and suggested that, in view of his service to the Rodina, he be offered an apartment in Moscow to move into when he left the White House.

Ukraine is not, at present, a member of NATO. There were no plans for it to become a member of NATO any time soon. If it were, we would face an even darker situation tonight- that is, if Putin invaded Ukraine at all. If Ukraine were a current member of NATO, he probably wouldn’t. The reason is simple: under Article Five of the NATO charter, an attack on any member of the alliance would obligate all of the other members to treat it as an attack on each of them, and respond accordingly. If Ukraine were currently a member of NATO, Putin’s invasion would be tantamount to a declaration of war on the United States, Germany, the UK, France, and the rest of the Atlantic alliance. We would be obligated to respond accordingly.

Putin has already sliced off a piece of Ukraine- the Crimea- in a previous invasion. He seized nearly a quarter of Georgia. We did very little about either. This invasion is the next step in his ongoing quest- which Mr. Trump is apparently fine with- to reassemble the Iron Curtain, establishing Russian hegemony over Eastern Europe once again and creating a buffer zone of client states between itself and the rest of Europe. He has, again, no justification in recent history for thinking that he needs a buffer zone; he’s the guy who does all the invading. Whatever happened in Operation Barbarossa, today’s Germany is unlikely to repeat it any time soon!

But here’s the problem: Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia- pretty much all of the remaining states of the old Soviet empire- are member states of NATO, as, of course, is Germany. Among other things, the invasion of Ukraine is a test case of NATO’s resolve. We did little when Crimea and much of Georgia were conquered or when Belarus was virtually annexed. This is a test case of our resolve. The next step in Putin’s long-term plan will almost inevitably be to move against one of the former satellite states- probably Estonia or one of the other Balkan nations- that are members of NATO. An invasion of one of them would trigger Article Five, and one of two things would happen. Either the United States and its NATO allies would come to the defense of the member state that was attacked, resulting in a major war that might well turn into World War III, or they wouldn’t. And if they didn’t, NATO would be revealed as a toothless paper tiger, and effectively collapse- and Russia would effectively dominate the European continent.

The European Union would be of little use in preventing that. For centuries, each of the European states has had as its primary foreign policy goal the prevention of any one of the others from dominating Europe. France managed it for a little while during the Napoleonic era. Germany managed it during World War II. It didn’t turn out well for anybody else either time. The EU is a delicate balance of power in the political and economic realms; everybody is anxious to prevent any one nation from assuming clear and undisputed leadership. And while Donald Trump and the neo-isolationists don’t seem to grasp the point, that’s why the only powerful Western democracy that isn’t a part of Europe has to lead NATO. That’s why the existence of NATO is vital to European security and stability, and to world peace. And that’s why the United States has to lead it.

Mr. Trump is notoriously ignorant when it comes to international relations, as is the case with many other things. He doesn’t realize all this. And insofar as the only apparent organizing principle of his foreign policy seems to be a fondness for authoritarians and bullies, that’s why he’s rooting for Russia in its war with Ukraine. I doubt that Tucker Carlson even has a reason for siding with the bully, other than that it’s what Trump does. The same is true of a good many MAGA neo-isolationists.

That, and the utterly clueless argument that what happens in Europe is “none of our business,” and “doesn’t affect us.” Of course, it does affect us. It affects us profoundly. The economic consequences of a Russian-dominated Europe for the United States alone would be catastrophic, just as would be the case if China achieved hegemony in Asia. And unless we come out of the current war in Ukraine with Russia deterred from continuing Putin’s quest to undermine NATO and achieve European hegemony, the only alternative would be a strong possibility that sometime in the near future the United States and Russia are going to come to blows militarily.

Which, by the way, literally nobody is advocating at the moment. Despite all the voices being raised to warn against our intervening militarily in Ukraine, literally nobody is suggesting that. Nobody. Although I am intrigued by Jonathan V. Last’s suggestion that while we shouldn’t attack any Russian naval vessels, it might not be out of place for the U.S. Navy to send the yachts of some of the Russian oligarchs who make up Putin’s power base and happen to be docked in foreign ports to Davey Jones.

President Biden is being blamed by Trumpworld simultaneously for not doing enough to push back against Putin and for doing too much. The illogic is typical, considering the source; opponents of the orange god-king subject themselves to the disapproval of the cult not for the substance of their actions or positions, but merely for opposing Trump. In Trumpworld, as among extremists generally, emotions rather than logical arguments drive people’s attitudes, and it’s unnecessary to make sense. When you live in an alternate universe, truth is the least of your concerns, Any fact that disagrees with what one wants to believe is either false or irrelevant and any lie that supports it- however bizarre and transparent- is the truth.

But for honest people in contact with reality, any consideration of the situation has to begin with praise for Mr. Biden because at least he’s standing up to Putin. That’s refreshing after four years of a president who was Putin’s lapdog and who seems actually to be on board with Putin’s ambition to destroy NATO. The heroic people of Ukraine will fight bravely for the cause of freedom while many Americans either stand by apathetically or even, like Tucker Carlson, openly root for a bully and tyrant. But the thoughtful among us realize that America’s interests are deeply affected by the events in Eastern Europe, and those who are truest to our founding values will be rooting for the good guys.

The people of Ukraine will fight and die and inevitably lose. This war is a mismatch. There is no question as to its outcome, and tragically, we can’t help Ukraine avoid the inevitable. The democratically-elected government will be deposed, and a puppet regime with Putin pulling the strings will take its place. It’s too late to prevent that. Bolstering our military presence in Eastern Europe might have made a difference at some point as a token of our resolve. It might have made Putin think again. But it’s too late for that now.

All we can do is honor and pray for the heroic people of Ukraine, and resolve to make Vladimir Putin howl with sanctions so crippling that he gives up his ambition to recover Russian dominance of Eastern Europe and destroy NATO. That, and make sure that his orange lapdog doesn’t get anywhere near regaining a position from which he can help Putin achieve those objectives.

We can hope that Joe Biden is tougher and more resolute than Barack Obama and Donald Trump were. And maybe torpedo a yacht or two, if that’s what it takes to make Putin and the kleptocrats who keep him in power think again before repeating this crime.

Was she thinking of Seinfeld’s ‘Soup Nazi?’

Not content with comparing the D.C. jail to the Gulag (has she ever read Solzhenitzen’s book or anything else about the Gulag?), Marjorie Taylor Green has accused House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of operating a “Gazpacho police.” Now, the Senate cafeteria is famous for its bean soup, but I’ve never associated the House with gazpacho. I doubt that anyone else has, either. Mona Charen saw a tweet today wherein someone wondered whether the Gazpacho operated in Vichysoisse France.

This is a member of Congress, folks. She compares an American city jail to a brutal series of concentration camps mostly above the Arctic Circle in which a cruel and inhuman regime worked and starved political dissidents to death (or did she mean to say that the D.C. jail is a goulash?), and then goes on to confuse the Gestapo- Hitler’s secret police- with a cold Spanish vegetable soup. I’m speechless, and very few things make me speechless. If only Rep. Greene, who regularly embarrasses herself, her constituents, the Republican party, and the nation, were speechless more often, it might be a good thing.

This is Donald Trump-level cluelessness, and that says a great deal. In the words of our last president in commemorating Bin Laden’s victims, “Never forget Seven-Eleven.” And as he also once reminded us, we should always remember and honor the heroic soldiers of the Continental Army, who courageously liberated the airfields from the British during the Revolutionary War.

The idiocracy is real.

Useful idiots

Here’s a brain teaser for you: When was the last time Russia was invaded by those awful people to the West of them in Europe. You know. The ones who are “encircling” them?

Hint: 1941, when Hitler double-crossed Stalin and staged Operation Barbarossa. And of course, there was Napoleon.

Now. When was the last time Russia invaded one of those countries? Answer: When they invaded Ukraine in 2022, as they had previously in 2014. And then there was Georgia in 2008. And Czechoslovakia in 1968, Hungary in 1956, Estonia in 1941, Finland in 1939, and Latvia in 1944. And they never really left the satellite countries they invaded in World War II until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Tucker Carlson wants to know how we would react if one of our neighbors- say, Mexico- was a hostile power. Interesting; I always thought the Trumpenvolk thought that Mexico was our enemy! Well, two things. First, Ukraine is “hostile” to Russia only inasmuch as Russia would kind of like to gobble it up, and Ukraine is reluctant to be gobbled. And secondly, as Mona Charon pointed out yesterday, whatever would do in that situation, we wouldn’t be massing troops on the Rio Grande preparing to stage a pre-emptive invasion!

Yeah, I know. We kind of did that a long time ago, and Mexico was no more hostile to us than Ukraine is hostile to Russia today. But that was before the Civil War, in which the people who were hungriest to grab Mexican land with which to carve out new slave states lost.

William Buckley pointed out many years ago that it won’t do to draw a false analogy between America’s sphere of influence and Russia’s. A man who pushes an old lady in front of a bus and a man who pushes her away from the bus and to safety are both pushing an old lady around, but their behavior is not morally equivalent. The events in Eastern Europe are not the playing out of some Russian equivalent of the Monroe Doctrine. Not all “spheres of influence” are morally or legally equal. Attempting to dominate one’s neighbor through military intimidation and coercion in direct violation of international law is simply not the same thing as guaranteeing the independence of one’s neighbor against somebody else doing so by the threat or use of military power. The argument that the United States is being hypocritical by maintaining its own sphere of influence while denying Russia’s right to do the same is about as disingenuous as you can get.

Yes, there have been times- the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the CIA-engineered coup against the Marxist but democratically elected Allende government in Chile come to mind- when the United States has acted just as Russia is acting now. But those incidents simply do not justify Russia in doing the same thing, nor do they destroy the distinction between protecting one’s neighbors from outside aggression and committing aggression against them ourselves!

Russia has a history of being an expansionist power. And it has just as long a history of being paranoid about “encirclement” from the West- although how it’s possible to be “encircled” on only one side is hard to see. Vladimir Putin doesn’t really expect NATO to invade Russia, and besides, Ukraine isn’t a member of NATO. At least not yet. But he does want to dominate Europe. That means weakening the EU and especially NATO as much as possible. Donald Trump did a great deal of the work for him when he scoffed at NATO’s significance, lied about the degree to which our NATO allies were contributing to the alliance, and generally undermined our alliances in Europe as well as in the rest of the world. The Nord Stream pipeline drove a further wedge in NATO and Germany seems more concerned with oil than with European security.

This past week I read a letter to some editor or other by a guy who wanted to know why we should care about Ukraine. Well, here’s the thing: if Putin can manage to divide NATO when it comes to the invasion of Ukraine, it won’t simply be a matter of a precedent being set for strong countries to invade and bully smaller ones and get away with it. It won’t simply be a matter of it becoming clear that bad guys can get away with that kind of stuff with impunity and that no effective mechanism exists for getting in the way. It won’t simply be a matter of our hand in Asia being weakened by further evidence that the United States has become an isolationist paper tiger that will let anybody get away with anything and will simply cave in if pushed. It won’t simply be a matter of our economic and geopolitical interests all over the world- and especially in Europe, where the countries with which we have our closest cultural and economic ties are located- being threatened. The mechanisms by which world peace has been maintained, more or less, ever since the end of World War II will be to all intents and purposes destroyed.

This isn’t the Eighteenth Century anymore. However the unrealistic among us might want to decry “globalism,” we are a part of a global economy in a world which jet planes and ICBMS have made uncomfortably small. The nations of the world- including ours- depend on each other, and what happens in one part of the world affects everyone, and not only the people in that particular region. The day is long, long past when the United States can depend upon the oceans on either coast which seperate us from the Old World to protect us from what happens on their opposite shores. World War II was caused to no small extent by the blindness created by the very kind of isolationism and false security which characterizes both political parties and most of the American people right now. If Russia dominates Europe politically and economically, or if China not only dominates Asia but replaces us as the strongest political, military, and economic power on the planet the consequences for the United States and everybody who lives in it will be catastrophic.

Putin and his pipeline have driven a wedge into the NATO alliance, and Ukraine invasion #3 will doubtless weaken the alliance further. Our precipitate bugouts from Iraq and especially Afghanistan (where we had suffered a grand total of 212 combat casualties since 2014) have strengthened the impression around the world that the United States lacks the will to follow through on its commitments; Putin would love nothing more than to cause our allies to waver in their commitment to NATO. Germany is already waffling. The next step: an invasion of one of the NATO member states in the Baltic, also former Soviet satellites.

Ukraine is not at present a member of NATO, and Russia is determined that it should not be. We are not formally obligated to come to the defense of Ukraine, and that’s a good thing, because given the state of our military deployment in Europe (and NATO’s) there isn’t a thing we could do to stop Putin from doing whatever he wants in Ukraine. But an invasion of, say, Estonia would be a different matter. The heart of the NATO alliance is Article Five of the NATO treaty, which obligates all member states to come to the aid of any other member state that is attacked. Estonia is a member of NATO. If Russia invaded Estonia or another NATO member state, and NATO didn’t respond with military force, NATO would effectively cease to exist and Putin would have a free hand in Europe. If some of the members of NATO balked at fulfilling their obligation to Estonia under the treaty, the alliance would be seriously and perhaps fatally wounded.

Donald Trump’s undermining of the alliance and his alienation of the other members of NATO, combined with the growing impression around the world that the United States does not honor its commitments to its allies, has caused members of the European Union to increasingly move in the direction of making their own arrangements for the defense of the continent on the assumption that America simply cannot be relied upon. Doubtless the isolationists who make up such a large proportion of the American electorate would see that as a good thing, laboring as they do under the delusion that Russian expansion would be anything but economically and strategically disastrous for the United States, not only in the area of trade and military relations with the nations of Europe but around the world. China is watching what happens in Ukraine with great interest. So is Taiwan. After all, yet another example of America’s lack of resolution would go a long way toward encouraging Bejing to move against its democratic former province which it longs to bring back into the fold.

There is no doubt that the United States has engaged in some foolish military adventures in past decades. We failed to see the folly of taking over for the French in Vietnam. The second Gulf War was an unmitigated blunder; it was widely foreseen that whatever one might say about Saddam Hussein, his removal would plunge Iraq into chaos. Ironically, Afghanistan- a war we engaged in because the Taliban was sheltering Osama bin Laden and al Quaeda- was one of the least costly wars in our history; we sustained slightly more than two thousand casualties in the twenty years we fought there. Now that the Taliban is back in control, al Quaeda, ISIS, and other Islamic terrorist organizations will once again have an unchallenged and essentially invulnerable base of training and operations. Even so, a case of sorts can be made that we should have been satisfied with deposing the Taliban and driving al Quaeda out of the country (though it’s hard to see what would have been gained by accomplishing that and then allowing them to regain power once we left). The alternative would have been the very permanent garrison in Afghanistan, playing mostly a support role, that both of our last two presidents and apparently the American people thought was too high a price to pay despite the lack of casualties.

Clearly, there was never going to be a democratic Afghanistan, any more than there could have been a democratic Iraq or a democratic Vietnam. Nation-building and the notion that it’s possible to establish democracies in countries with no tradition of democracy has been thoroughly discredited. There are plenty of lessons to be learned from the blunders of the past several decades. But we seem to have learned the wrong lessons. And in the process, we seem to have forgotten the lesson that we should have had etched in our memories for all time by the most disastrous war in modern history.

Instead of learning discrimination and discernment in our use of military power, and its intelligent and careful use to achieve specific, well-defined, achievable and limited objectives, our mistakes seem to have taught us not to use it at all, and to repeat the blunder of withdrawing into Fortress America and sticking our heads in the sand, somehow assuming that what happens on the other side of the world doesn’t affect us. That’s a conclusion which no thoughtful, intelligent person can take seriously in the Twenty-First Century. As the World Wars should have taught us, it wasn’t even a viable proposition in the Twentieth. The world has grown too small, and its nations too interdependent. And there is no going back.

Vladimir Lenin used to talk about the “useful idiots” in the West, who helped advance Russia’s agenda through their naivette and gullibility. Such people helped pave the way for Adolf Hitler in the years leading up to the Second World War. The isolationists of that period even used some of the same slogans we hear today. “America First” was the battle-cry of Hitler’s enablers before it was adopted by the enablers of Vladimir Putin.

The actions of Putin and Xi and the other bad actors in today’s world affect us even more directly in today’s interdependent world than did those of their predecessors in the 1930’s. This is a dangerous world we live in. Forces are on the move which we cannot allow to work their will unopposed. At this point there is little that we can do to deter Putin. He will almost certainly invade Ukraine, and impose a government friendly to Moscow and hostile to the United States and NATO. The divisions in NATO will be exposed, and draw us closer to the day when a move against the Baltic states by Russia will bring about an Article Five crisis which likely will achieve Putin’s goal of effectively destroying the alliance and putting Russia into a position it was unable to achieve throughout the Cold War: effectively becoming the preeminent power in Europe. And only a fool can believe that we will not pay a heavy economic, political, and strategic price for letting it happen, not only in Europe but throughout the world.

We are about to find out that economic sanctions such as President Biden threatens will not be enough to deter Putin. And neither the nations of Europe nor the American people seem to have the stomach for the military buildup and the resolute use of hard power which alone can stave of a hard lesson in why what happens on the other side of the world does affect us and is absolutely our business.

Hopefully, this time we won’t learn that lesson through another world war. We need to revitalize both our commitment to NATO and the alliance itself. We need to vastly increase our military presence in the region and thus our ability to speak to Putin in the only language he understands. However unpopular the axiom, “If you would have peace, prepare for war” might be, history leaves no doubt as to its wisdom. The only way to deter Putin from staging another invasion that actually would trigger Article Five of the NATO treaty and bring about World War III is to make it as clear as we can that it would be a bad idea. And the only way to do that is to present him with a situation in which the cost of invading his neighbors is high enough that he will decline to pay it.

Liberty and anarchy are two very different things

During the Carter administration, a peace demonstrator at the White House carried a sign which read, “Nothing Is Worth Dying For.”

Unlike most signs carried at protests and demonstrations, that one drew a great deal of attention. Someone pointed out that if nothing is worth dying for, then neither is anything worth living for. I would guess that the young man who carried that sign hadn’t thought his slogan through that far. People who are caught up in movements often don’t.

Being a history buff, I’ve long been aware of the White Rose, a group of idealistic German students who opposed the Nazi regime. Hans and Sophie Scholl are the best-known of the many members of the group who paid for their courage with their lives. The Scholl siblings were guillotined for passing out anti-Hitler leaflets at the Ludwig Maximillian University in Munich.

The leaflets were slapdash, typewritten, and mimeographed affairs, and it’s easy to see them as naive and futile gestures. It’s hard to see what practical effect they could possibly have had. But practicality was beside the point. They said things that needed to be said:

Isn’t it true that every honest German is ashamed of his government these days? Who among us has any conception of the dimensions of shame that will befall us and our children when one day the veil has fallen from our eyes and the most horrible of crimes—crimes that infinitely outdistance every human measure—reach the light of day?

and

Since the conquest of Poland, 300,000 Jews have been murdered in this country in the most bestial way … The German people slumber on in dull, stupid sleep and encourage the fascist criminals. Each wants to be exonerated of guilt, each one continues on his way with the most placid, calm conscience. But he cannot be exonerated; he is guilty, guilty, guilty!

The White Rose bore witness. Like the “Tank Man” of Tiananmen Square, its members stood in the way of totalitarian terror and shouted, “Stop!” Many of its members paid with their lives. They considered what they had to say worth dying for. And bearing witness against the Nazi nightmare gave their lives meaning, as well as their deaths. Few of us will lead lives as worth the living as Hans and Sophie Scholl.

Just today, I became aware of another youthful resistance group in Nazi Germany with a floral name. It was far more practically oriented and far larger. Many of its members, too, paid for their defiance of the regime with their lives. Its members, too, said “no!” to coercion and terror. But without denigrating the individual sacrifices of the Edelweißpiraten (“Edelweiss Pirates”), their agenda wasn’t quite as lofty.

The Edelweißpiraten weren’t protesting the Holocaust or the other crimes of the German government. They simply were opposed to compulsion in principle. They didn’t like being told what to do. Again, without diminishing the courage of its individual members, some of whom were just as nobly motivated as the members of the White Rose, the program of the Edelweiss Pirates as a group boiled down to words which needn’t be chiseled into granite on any monument: “You can’t make me!” Some had no particular political or moral agenda at all. They simply didn’t want to be told what to do.

Sometimes a thin line can separate principle and childishness. None of us likes to be told what to do. But the grownups among us not only are willing to be told what to do in certain areas but insist on it. Any thoughtful adult realizes that rules are necessary for any group to function in a peaceful and constructive way and that without laws that restrict individual liberty, civilization itself would be impossible.

“You can’t make me!” might almost be America’s national slogan. ” Liberty!” was the battle-cry of the American Revolution, and when Baron von Steuben came here from Prussia to train George Washington’s army, he nearly despaired. How can an effective army ever be built, he wondered, when the soldiers who comprised it refused to follow an order unless the reason for it was explained first, and they agreed with it?

But follow orders they did- and disobedience was duly punished. Although the first Continental soldier to be condemned for cowardice and desertion, Ebeneezer Leffingwell, received an eleventh-hour pardon from Washington because of his “previous good character,” the general warned that those who emulated Leffingwell in the future would be shot. And they were.

Washington did not hesitate to order the compulsory vaccination of his soldiers against smallpox, a precedent that seems to be lost on a great many contemporary Americans, including certain Republican governors. And the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that compulsory lockdowns and quarantines as public health measures lie well within the constitutional authority of states under the Tenth Amendment. In fact, the principle is so well established in American law- and has been, since the earliest days of the Republic- that it’s difficult to take the odd claim that quarantines and lockdowns and vaccine mandates violate individual rights seriously. Such objections are really more on the order of a childish, petulant “You can’t make me!”

The idea that there is somehow a constitutional right to endanger the health of others- and thus their rights- by refusing both vaccination and reasonable restrictions on their movements and activities if they decline to be vaccinated would be a hard one to defend from the writings of the Founders or the history of American constitutional law. Far from being somehow a violation of the principles of liberty, “vaccine passports” are not only reasonable, at least in principle, but well established in legal precedent as constitutionally legitimate tools in times of pandemic. In fact, in 1824, John Marshall, the fourth Chief Justice of the United States, made the parenthetical observation in Gibbons vs. Ogden, a case involving maritime rights, that quarantine laws “form a portion of that immense mass of legislation which embraces everything within the territory of a state not surrendered to the general government.” If, for religious or other reasons, an individual declines vaccination, fine. But in such a case it falls well within the authority of the state to quarantine that person for the sake of the public good, a point which the Supreme Court has acknowledged ever since the days of John Marshall!

Why are we even debating this?

Are mandates and lockdowns and quarantines necessary? Are they prudent? Nobody argues that unnecessary restrictions on the bodily autonomy or movements of American citizens are legitimate or desirable. But whether they are necessary or prudent in any specific case is a medical question rather than a legal one, to be answered by epidemiologists rather than by lawyers, judges, and politicians. And despite the ongoing attempt by COVID-minimizers to exaggerate the very small number of medical professionals who dissent from it, and often their credentials, the consensus of the medical experts is firmly on the side of their use, at least in general principle, and has been ever since the pandemic began.

Granted, it’s inevitable that a society that places as much emphasis on individual liberty as ours, there should be a perennial debate about its limits. Tom Paine railed against taxation, for example. Even Chief Justice Marshall wrote that “The power to tax is the power to destroy.” But the courts have consistently upheld the power of taxation, despite the healthy suspicion of its use by conservatives ever since the foundation of the Republic. The reason is obvious. George Washington put it well: “It is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant.” James Madison, the author of the Constitution, wrote, “The power of taxing people and their property is essential to the very existence of government.”

But perhaps the most relevant quotation of all comes from Benjamin Franklin: “Friends and neighbors complain that taxes are indeed very heavy, and if those laid on by the government were the only ones we had to pay, we might the more easily discharge them; but we have many others, and much more grievous to some of us.  We are taxed twice as much by our idleness, three times as much by our pride, and four times as much by our folly.”

One of the “taxes” we have paid in this pandemic has been laid upon us by folly, levied through our slowness to embrace and implement sensible and reasonable public health measures in the face of what is now the deadliest pandemic in the nation’s history. We have paid it in the lives of friends, neighbors, and relatives, at the present moment about 837,000 of them. The number of deaths we suffered in the Civil War is not precisely documented, but it seems to have been somewhere around 750,000. During this pandemic, America has matched and exceeded the butcher’s bill for the deadliest war we’ve ever fought, and in half the time. Yet amazingly, there are those who continue to minimize the pandemic and resist common-sense measures whose constitutionality is established beyond any reasonable doubt on the ground that they violate “individual liberty!”

There is a difference between a prudent suspicion of heavy-handed government (and there can be no doubt that in some cases the government has been heavy-handed in its handling of this pandemic) and what the British call “bloody-mindedness.” There is a difference between a proper concern for the preservation of our legitimate rights and the selfish, unreasonable assertion of the “right” to compromise the rights of others.

Those who strive to preserve individual freedom against arbitrary and unnecessary government restrictions are worthy of praise. But it seems to me that modern libertarianism- and conservatism generally- more and more frequently mistake principled resistance to tyranny with a petulant, childish whine of “You can’t make me!.” Sometimes, as was the case with the White Rose and the Edelweiss Pirates, people and movements find themselves fighting the good fight side by side. But that doesn’t mean that their motivations are identical, equally thoughtful, or equally valid. To be an extremist and a selfish jerk is not the same thing as being a freedom fighter!

A liberal society (in the broad, Enlightenment sense of the term “liberal”) seeks to strike the optimum balance between protecting individual rights from being violated by an overbearing government, and from being violated by other individuals. Achieving that balance requires a clear understanding that, as someone once said, “You have every right in the world to swing your fist- but only until it comes into contact with my nose.”

And to refuse to be vaccinated without taking measures to avoid exposing others to a virus one may be carrying without even knowing it is to make firm contact with the nose of others. Not only is it to risk being a personal vector of infection, but it also means keeping us further from reaching herd immunity and giving the virus further opportunity to spread and evolve. True, the Omicron variant seems to be less deadly than previous iterations of the virus, but it’s also far more contagious and seems to have made some progress toward making our vaccines less effective.

Contrary to what many of us seem to think, “I don’t wanna, and you can’t make me” isn’t really the same thing as “Give me liberty or give me death!” License and liberty are entirely different animals. Speaking theologically, human government is fallen, potentially dangerous, and worthy of suspicion not because it’s government, but because it’s human.

But individuals are also potentially dangerous, and also worthy of suspicion because they, too, are human, and therefore fallen. My political faith tells me that the Constitution has invested in the individual the authority to serve as a check on the fallen, human government. But my religious faith, on the basis of Romans 13, tells me that in His wisdom God has instituted the government as a check on the fallen, human, individual.

To lose the proper balance between the two is to risk either tyranny on one hand, or anarchy on the other. And human rights evaporate just as quickly under the one as under the other.

ADDENDUM: The Supreme Court has struck down President Biden’s requirement that employees of large businesses either be vaccinated or undergo weekly testing by a vote of 6-3. It did uphold the mandate for healthcare workers by a worrisome margin of only 5-4.

Given the conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court, I’m not surprised. But I guess it just goes to show that conservative justices are just as liable as liberal ones to allow controversial political debates to cloud their reading of the Constitution.

ADDENDUM II: Or not. The Court did uphold the mandate for healthcare workers, and the Tenth Amendment argument is predicated on the authority to quarantine and to utilize other restrictive measures in times of pandemic being vested in the states and not in the Federal government.

A very strong case can be made that the United States led the world in COVID deaths during too long a period (a nation with four percent of the world’s population- the most scientifically advanced nation in the world- for quite a while had 20% of the world’s COVID deaths) because while every other industrialized democracy on Earth was undertaking a coordinated nationwide effort to control the pandemic, we had a president who claimed that the virus was no worse than the flu, would mysteriously vanish overnight, and to the extent that it was worth addressing at all was an issue for the states alone. In the process, Mr. Trump ignored the obvious Federal role in coordinating the efforts of the individual states, even to the point of mismanaging the allocation of equipment and supplies under Federal control, arguing that it wasn’t the Federal government’s problem. The degree to which a worldwide (and therefore nationwide) pandemic demands a greater role for the Federal government is a matter worth debating, even to the point of asking whether the Federal government’s mandate in the Preamble to the Constitution to “promote the general welfare” might not in extraordinary circumstances modify the Tenth Amendment’s reservation of such powers to the states. But thinking the matter through, I have to admit that the Court’s ruling in the matter of the Biden mandate for the employees of large companies is in accord with precedent after all.

I would argue that the mandate itself was a matter of common sense. But a strong case can be made that under the Tenth Amendment, it’s something the states rather than the Federal government should address.

Again, we face the troublesome difficulty presented by our living in a smaller world in the Twenty-First Century than the one in which the Constitution was written, in which commerce is global and the automobile and the jet plane have replaced the horse and carriage and the wind-powered ship. Worldwide pandemics weren’t the threat in 1789 that they are today; even viruses had a harder time traveling back then. What once were national problems are now global ones, and what were once local and state problems now have national and even worldwide implications. As an adherent of Antonin Scalia’s “dead Constitution” philosophy, which sees the Court’s role as interpreting the words of the Constitution as written rather than adapting them to a changing world, I actually have a certain amount of theoretical sympathy for what apparently was the Court’s reasoning.

Maybe amendment is the answer. Maybe the Federal government needs explicit constitutional authority to deal with matters which in the modern world are as national as they are local, if not more so. But I have to think that the extraordinary situation posed by COVID justifies the view that “promoting the general welfare” in a nationwide epidemiological crisis implies Federal authority under the Constitution to act even in a realm that historically has been seen as the purview of the states.

95 Theses for today

These appeared on Reformation Day several years ago; I don’t know who wrote them. But they’re still so timely and on-target with regard to the condition of contemporary Christianity that I thought I’d share them again. Here’s what Martin Luther might post on the door of the Castle Church (or Saddleback) today:

1. When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said “Repent,” He willed that the whole life of believers should be one of repentance.
2. To “repent” means to be contrite for one’s sins and to trust Jesus Christ and solely in His completed work for one’s forgiveness, life, and salvation.
3. Those who describe the Christian life as purpose-driven deny true repentance, confuse the Law and the Gospel, and obscure the merits of Christ.
4. Impious and wicked are the methods of those who substitute self-help and pop-psychology for the Gospel in the name of relevance.
5. This impious disregard for the Gospel wickedly transforms sacred Scripture into a guidebook for living, a pharisaic sourcebook of principles, and sows tares among the wheat.
6. Relevance, self-help and pop-psychology have no power to work true contrition over sins and faith in Jesus Christ.
7. Like clouds without rain, purpose-driven preachers withhold the proclamation of the forgiveness of sins won by Christ on the cross and enslave men’s consciences to the law which they cleverly disguise as so-called ‘Biblical Principles’.
8. By teaching tips for attaining perfect health, debt-free wealth, and better sex in marriage, the purveyors of relevance undermine true fear, love and trust in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
9. They are enemies of Christ, who distort the Word of God by tearing verses from their original context in order to use them as proof texts for their self-help, pop-psychology agendas.
10. Injury is done the Word of God when it is used as a source book for practical, relevant “life applications.”
11. In the name of relevance, our Lord Jesus Christ is reduced to a life-coach whose “gospel” assists and motivates people to achieve the objectives of their self-centered delusions of grandeur.
12. Apart from the Holy Spirit, the seeker cannot understand the things of God for these are “spiritually discerned” (1 Cor 2:14).
13. The natural man does not naturally seek the Gospel. “I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me” (Is. 65:1)
14. The true Seeker of men’s souls is our Lord Jesus Christ who came to seek and to save the lost by His death on the cross (Luke 19:10).
15. The truly “seeker-sensitive” church proclaims God’s wrath against our sin and His mercy for Jesus’ sake.
16. The preaching of Christ crucified is a stumbling block to purpose-driven pragmatists and foolishness to church growth consultants.
17. The true gold of the Church is the Most Holy Gospel of the glory and the grace of God.
18. But this treasure is a stench in the nostrils of fallen and sinful men because it exposes man’s complete lack of ability to save himself by his own religious efforts.
19. On the other hand, the fool’s gold of self-help is preferred by sinful men, for it creates the illusion of moral progress and a life that is pleasing to God apart from repentance.
20. The gold of the Gospel is the net by which Christ would make us fishers of men.
21. The fool’s gold of self-help is a snare by which purpose-driven purveyors of relevance attempt to capture the riches and approval of men.
22. The church is holy sheep who hear the voice of their Shepherd.
23. How can sheep hear the voice of their Shepherd when false shepherds preach self-help and pop-psychology?
24. Purveyors of purpose-driven relevance are not shepherds of men’s souls but wolves in sheep’s clothing.
25. Purveyors of relevance claim that self-help, life-applications and biblical principles are the means to reach the unchurched because they meet people’s felt needs.
26. Yet a person’s greatest need is one he does not by nature feel, namely the need for the righteousness that comes from God through faith in Jesus Christ.
27. The true means by which fallen sinners are reached is the preaching of Christ and His sacraments. (Romans 10:17)
28. The true need that mankind is seeking but does not know is justification by grace through faith for Christ’s sake.
29. Since justification is through faith and not through works, natural man neither seeks it nor desires it.
30. Therefore, the teaching of justification by grace through faith is neither seeker-sensitive nor relevant to a world that naturally seeks self-justification.
31. To be in the church is to be union with Christ through faith.
32. Regardless of the number of people in attendance, the church does not grow unless men are granted repentance and faith by God through the action of His Word.
33. Scripture clearly teaches that the means by which God grants faith are the hearing of the Word of Christ (the Gospel) and the water of Holy Baptism.
34. Therefore, even if a congregation, through their own marketing methods and business prowess were able to draw 100,000 people every Sunday, if the Gospel is not heard and the sacraments are not administered according to the Gospel there is no church and the true Church of Jesus Christ has not grown by a single soul.
35. If numerical growth is a measure of God’s approval, then we must conclude that God approves of Islam and the Mormons.
36. If financial success is a measure of God’s approval, then we must conclude that God approves of pornography and gambling.
37. Cancer and crabgrass both grow rapidly, as does the church that obscures the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
38. The purveying of purpose-driven relevance is the theology of glory; the preaching of Christ crucified for sinners is the theology of the cross.
39. The theologian of glory says that the kingdom of God is visible now in buildings, people, and dollars; the theologian of the cross says that the kingdom of God is an article of faith.
40. The theologian of glory asks “How much?” and “How many?”; the theologian of the cross preaches Christ regardless of how much or how many.
41. The theologian of glory prepares people to receive health, wealth, and happiness; the theologian of the cross prepares people to suffer and die in faith.
42. The theologian of glory preaches that God wants to grant you favors; the theologian of the cross preaches the favor of God for the sake of Christ crucified.
43. The theologian of glory proclaims 40 days of purpose; the theologian of the cross preaches daily dying and rising in Jesus.
44. God established the Church to be a “mouth house” of forgiveness not a madhouse of activity.
45. Christ wills that His voice be heard in His Church and not the voice of man when He says, “He who hears you, hears me.” (Luke 10:16)
46. Purveyors of purpose-driven relevance obscure the voice of Christ and so draw the sheep away from the Good Shepherd.
47. Christ saves from sin and death not through the motivation of the sinner to do good, but through baptismal death and resurrection.
48. The mission of the church is not to transform the world but to disciple the nations by baptizing and teaching (Matt 28:19-20).
49. Anyone who preaches a vision and demands allegiance to it sets up a new papacy among the churches.
50. A synod or church body is a human institution that exists by the will and consent of its member congregations and pastors.
51. A synod or church body is not merely an affiliation of churches that agree on a common purpose.
52. A synod or church body is not the Church, properly speaking, but a fellowship of churches sharing a common confession of faith and practice.
53. Synods are not of the church’s essence (esse) but for her well being (bene esse).
54. Synodical leaders are not lords over the churches, but servants of the churches and stewards of their common possessions.
55. Synodical leaders are not called to promulgate visions but to execute the collective will of the synod’s churches.
56. The old papacy arrogated the Church’s treasury of merits; the new papacy arrogates the Church’s treasury.
57. The old papacy said, “As the coin in the coffer clings, so the soul from purgatory springs.”
58. The new papacy says, “As the coin in the church coffer clings, so another program out of debt springs.”
59. The old papacy counted plenary indulgences; the new papacy counts money and people.
60. The old papacy suppressed the Gospel through canon law; the new papacy suppresses the Gospel through constitutions and by-laws.
61. The old papacy was a friend of Caesar; the new papacy is a friend of Mammon.
62. The old papacy bound a man’s conscience for the sake his wallet; the new papacy binds a man’s wallet for the sake of his conscience.
63. The old papacy promulgated infallible dogma; the new papacy promulgates undebatable visions.
64. The old papacy claims to sit on the seat of Peter; the new papacy claims to sit on the mandate of the majority.
65. The old papacy reserved the right to judge doctrine and practice; the new papacy judges doctrine and practice by commissions and committees.
66. The old papacy issued “bulls;” the new papacy issues task force reports.
67. The old papacy had a college of cardinals; the new papacy has high-priced consultants.
68. Just as popes and councils have erred in the past, so synodical leaders and synodical conventions err in the present.
69. A synod that is concerned for the true unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace does not excuse unionism and syncretism.
70. Unity in doctrine and practice means discernible interchangeability in teaching, preaching, and practice.
71. Unity in doctrine and practice does not consist in signing confessional statements, but in word and deed.
72. Worship is doctrine put into practice.
73. As one worships, so one believes.
74. As one believes, so one worships.
75. Christian worship consists in God’s service to us through His giving and our receiving in faith the gifts of Christ’s Word, Body, and Blood, and our service to God by our prayer, praise, and thanksgiving.
76. Worship that is focused on principles for Christian living obscures the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His gifts and is detrimental to faith and salvation.
77. While Christian liberty allows that worship forms need not be altogether the same in every time and place, unity in faith and practice requires that worship forms must not be altogether different in every time and place.
78. Worship forms serve as identifying banners in the confessional field of battle.
79. Peculiar and novel worship forms obscure the unity of the churches and extol the creativity of the worship leaders.
80. In matters neither commanded nor forbidden in the Word of God (adiaphora), the churches of God are free to change ceremonies according to circumstances, as may be most beneficial and edifying to the churches of God. (Epitome, Art X.4)
81. Such changes must avoid all frivolity and offenses, particularly with regard to those who are weak in faith (Epitome, Art X.5).
82. Where the Gospel is at stake, concessions in ceremony must not be made so as to suggest unity with those who deny the Gospel (Epitome, Art X.6)
83. Therefore, it is contrary to the doctrine of adiaphora to hide the substance of Lutheran doctrine behind a non-Lutheran style of worship.
84. To create and sustain saving faith, God established the office of the holy ministry in the church to preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments according to our Lord’s institution.
85. No one may publicly preach, teach, or administer the sacraments in the churches without his being called and ordained.
86. Those who introduce novelties into the church are the true agents of division
87. The ordination of women is a novelty that has caused great division in the church.
88. The introduction of worship forms not held in common by the churches is a cause of division and a stumbling block.
89. The church belongs to no man but to Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, and Lord of the church.
90. Woe to the false prophets who cry, “Unity, unity” when there is no unity.
91. Again, woe to those who say, “Peace, peace,” when there is no peace.
92. Again, woe to those who say, “Gospel, gospel,” when there is no Gospel.
93. Blessed are those who say, “Cross, cross,” when there is no cross.
94. Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through all suffering, death, and hell;
95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven through many trials and tribulations, rather than through the assurance of outward peace, unity, and happiness.

You learn something new every day

Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted on all charges by a Wisconsin jury tonight.

Thus we learn that one cannot be held accountable in this country for insinuating oneself into a riot, taking an assault rifle to the party, and going hunting for people you disagree with politically.

I very much believe in our system. But I have less and less confidence that the American people (or at least a large percentage of them) have the common sense of a radish. And I continue to wonder why such a large percentage of American adults continue to believe so passionately that it is fitting and proper in the midst of the most advanced society in history not only to play cowboys and Indians with real guns,
but to be safeguarded from accountability when one does so with blatant irresponsibility and clear disregard for what is absolutely guaranteed to happen as a result.

Are the American people capable of governing themselves in 2021? Honestly, I have real doubts.

The cost of stupidity

After Donald Trump negotiated our unforced surrender in Afghanistan and Joe Biden delayed implementing it a bit and then carried it out, the idiocy of getting out of Afghanistan has been made clear by the attacks at the Kabul airport yesterday, the bloodiest day since 2011 in our longest but least-bloody war.

Former Defense Secretary and CIA Director Leon Panetta put it bluntly: “Now we’re going to have to go back in and get ISIS.”

This isn’t hard. We’ve left twice the troops we’d need in Afghanistan as a permanent garrison in Korea for SEVENTY YEARS. If anything, stopping ISIS and al-Qaeda is even more important to our security. The only thing that has changed is that pulling the rug out from under the Afghan government and driving the Afghan army into despairing dissolution will now make it harder and bloodier to get back to where we were a couple of years ago.

Trump would have ignored reality and claimed that everything was fine and that he’d done the right thing no matter what the consequences turned out to be. We will now see whether Joe Biden suffered a temporary lapse of judgment in following through on the Trump surrender, and will recognize the mistake and do what our national security and common sense requires despite the isolationist mentality that has seized the nation. If not, the crisis of clueless bad judgment we thought had ended with the defeat of Donald Trump may well continue through another adminstration.

If we’d kept the American people better informed about the fact that in the 48 hours preceding yesterday’s attack we’d lost more American lives to COVID-19 than we had in the entire twenty years of the war in Afghanistan, I have a hunch that public opinion might have taken a different turn. If we stopped to reflect on the consequences of having nowhere at all in the region to use as a base for our own operations against al-Qaeda. ISIS, and their Taliban buddies, yesterday’s tragedy, the ongoing agony of the Afghan people, and the self-inflicted body blow we’ve taken not only to our prestige but to our credibility all over the world due to this bi-partisan blunder could have been avoided.

It’s too late now to save the lives of those who have died due to the combined stupidity of the Trump and Biden bugout obsession. But it’s not too late to stop things from getting worse.

Joe Biden needs to do what Donald Trump could never bring himself to do about anything: admit that he was wrong, bite the bullet, accept responsibilty like a man, and protect our country.

ADDENDUM: Apparently that isn’t going to happen. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says that the military advised President Biden to keep 250,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, a number which might have been enough in a support role to prevent the dissolution of the Afghan army and keep the Taliban and al Quaeda out of power. Mr. Biden denies that.

I see no reason for Gen. Miley to lie. Did the president misunderstand the advice he was given? Did it somehow not sink in? Did he forget it somehow? I’d prefer to think that he isn’t simply doing a Trump and substituting a reality he’d prefer for what actually happened. Even if the malicious claims that the Commander-in-Chief is in his dotage are true, a senile Joe Biden is still more competent than Donald Trump was on his best day. But even so, I’m beginning to about how much of an improvement the foreign policy of the new administration is going to be over the comedy act that preceded it. And I really wish that we had a viable alternative.

That’s the really scary part. Since 2016, we haven’t had a realistic and responsible alternative to the Democrats. The Republicans just aren’t a rational option, and I don’t expect them to become one any time soon. And that puts our nation- and the world, which depends on it far more than contemporary isolationists would like to think- in a difficult bind.

If I lived in Ukraine, Estonia, or Taiwan right now…

…I would be very, very nervous.

The United States has a military second to none. Nobody is even close. No country in the world could defeat us- if we had the will to defeat them instead.

It would be difficult right now to make the case that we could summon the will to much of anything. Two consecutive administrations, one of each party, has been naive enough to believe that the Taliban and al-Qaeda are not two sides of the same coin, and that the fall of Afghanistan would not give them once again an entire nation to use as a training and staging-ground from which to attack us. Yes, al-Qaeda is active elsewhere. But since the invasion of Afghanistan they haven’t had a whole country to play with. Today, they have Afghanistan back again.

There is no “Taliban 2.0,” They remain the same brutal outfit we kicked out of power twenty years ago. For all their talk of moderation, we will hear about the mass executions and atrocities again very soon. The Trump administation was naive and feckless and just plain clueless enough to think they could negotiate a deal with them and that they would keep their word. Mike Pompeo and company were so deluded that they even suggested that the Taliban would keep al-Qaeda in line and even fight them if necessary to keep them from using Afghanistan as a base again. But they’ve been using the Taliban-controled areas of Afghanistan as training bases for quite a while. The only reason the Taliban’s alter ego has not been launching terrorist attacks on the West of late is that they’ve been concentrating all their resources on defeating us in Afghanistan. Well, now they have.

The discussion below is between three journalists with extensive experience both in military matters and in counter-terrorism. Tom Jocelyn in particular has forgotten more about Aftghanistan than it would appear a great many of those who have been fashioning our foreign policy and military strategy ever knew. David French is a veteran of the war in Iraq as well as one of the sharpest political columnists we have. Steve Hayes, too, has been covering this stuff for a very long time. You are about to learn things we should have been hearing from the last three presidents. Instead, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden have each focused their attention on assuring that this day would come, and that there was no way that it could be prevented. Ever since George W. Bush, the government of the United States has made it clear that its number one objective in Afghanistan was getting out. The objective of the Taliban, on the other hand, was always winning.

Not on a negotiated settlement. Not on power sharing. On winning.

I’ve written before about North Vietnamese Col. Bo Tin’s observation that his government and the Viet Cong planned all along to simply wait the Americans out, because democracies lack the will to stay in a long fight until the end. One of the most interesting parts of the discussion below is French’s explanation of why the Afghan army- and the South Vietnamese army, too- fell apart so completely and so suddenly. President Biden’s insulting statement that it “refused to fight” ignored the 66,000 casualties it had just taken before the collapse.

As French points out, something changes when the United States enters a war. The side we support knows that we’re the toughest kid on the block. They know that are soldiers are trained professionals, let at least in theory by competent officers. They know that they’ll have American air support on their side. The entire dynamic of a war changes. America’s allies believe that because we’re fighting beside them, they can win.

That belief is diminished when it becomes clear, as it did in both Vietnam and Afghanistan, that we aren’t fighting to win, but rather that our objective is simply to get out. As happened with the South Korean army in the face of the Chinese invasion during the Korean War and with the South Vietnamese army a couple of decades later, any army ceases to be an effective fighting force when it ceases to believe that it can and will win. American troops were able to step into the breach and turn the tide in Korea. The ROK army was able to believe again that with us at their side, they could win. The Chinese and the North Koreans were driven back. The war ended in, at worst, a draw.

Not so in Vietnam. Not so in Afghanistan. In neither case was it any secret that the United States was looking for a convenient exit, not for victory. In neither case did this reassure our ally. And there comes a point, as it did just before the fall of Saigon and again just before the fall of Kabul, that it sinks in that we don’t have their backs, that they are on their own, that we’re going to abandon them. And the lose the thing that motivates soldiers, the thing that the very intervention of the mightiest nation on Earth first gave them: hope. And when they lose that, the army collapses. It melts away. And it can all happen in a matter of days.

We remain the mightest nation on the planet. Nobody can match our power, or even come close. But even might as massive as ours is useless without will. And it has been decades since not only the world but thoughtful Americans have had such good reason to doubt America’s will.

We don’t even know how many Americans are in Afghanistan right now. We have told them to go to the airport in Kabul. We have also told them that we cannot guarantee their safety on the trip. And there are Taliban checkpoints everywhere that they will have to get through. Some won’t. And in coming days or weeks or, at most, months, the Taliban will be taking American hostages, and threatening to behead them if we don’t make humiliating concessions.

Having won the war, humiliating the United States will be their next objective. We don’t know yet when the next 9/11 will be attempted.

Certainly at this point it’s nearly hopeless to think that most of the Afghans who have put their lives on the line for us- the soldiers, the translators, the cooks, the secretaries, the teachers, the clerks- will be saved. Some will. But President Biden has shamefully disclaimed any American obligation to them. The Trump administration thought it could negotiate a peace with monsters who have no honor and whose word was worthless; the Biden administration could have denounced the betrayal, and if it exited at all done so in a deliberate, orderly fashion. Instead, the incompetence of two consecutive American administrations- arguably three- has doomed the people who risked everything to be our friends, and innocent people all over Afghanistan.

By the way, it’s no coincidence that the final Taliban offensive began on May 1. That, after all, was the day President Trump had set for our exit as part of a “negotiated settlement.” Today he praised the Taliban and their courage, claiming-falsely- that they’d been around for “thousands of years.” The plan has been to humilate the United States all along, and their goal was advanced by the fact that they were negotiating with a fool, a sucker.

Already the Chinese state media are tormenting the Taiwanese with the message, “You put your faith in the Americans. Are you watching what’s happening in Afghanistan?” American prestige is not all that has taken a beating from this. Our credibility is at an all-time low. The European Union seems to share in the impression that we have been building all over the world for decades that America simply cannot be trusted, that our word is no good, and that we will always betray our friends. Several European leaders have spoken of the need to make their security arrangements without depending on us. The process of alienating our allies, begun and earnestly pursued by the Trump administration, seems to have been vastly advanced by the Biden administration, and the hope of its friends that the comic-opera incompetence of the Trump administration had been replaced by something better and wiser has been deeply shaken.

No power on Earth can match the military might of the United States. Russia, China, and bad actors all over the globe are given pause by that power, and hesitate to provoke us because they only suspect, and are not entirely sure, that we lack the will to use it and to press our cause to final victory.

They are considerably surer tonight. No, I would not want to be a citizen of Estonia or Ukraine or Taiwan tonight. The realization that melted the hearts of they Afghan army is nagging them. Once again, we have proven to the world that while we have the might to keep our committments, we lack the will, and will always let our allies down. And it’s only a matter of time until Russia or China decide to take the risk and put that theory to the test.

Dispatch Live: Afghanistan from The Dispatch on Vimeo.

A truly warped concept of “freedom-” and ethics

Leaving aside the fact that nowhere in the Constitution, in the history of classic American political theory, in the law, or in any respected ethical or theological tradition is there a right to infect others with a deadly virus as a matter of personal freedom, the time has come to stop coddling people who permit and even excuse things like this.

We need vaccine passports, especially in schools; mask mandates where necessary (certainly including schools in areas of high transmission, if the schools are open at all) and those who find these to be violations of their own sensibilities should be invited to join Tucker Carlson and emigrate to Hungary or other truly authoritarian states. This is what you can expect of the kind of people with enough chutzpah and little enough ability to reason from (a) to (b) that they can claim to simultaniously be disciples of Ayn Rand and of Jesus Christ. What in God’s name have we come to when we value illusory, sociopathic “freedom” to selfishly refuse to take simple, common sense public measures above he lives of human beings? And yes, children can indeed get COVID- and get very sick and even die from it. The Delta variant is just as contagious as chickenpox or Ebola. We were on the verge of eliminating COVID in the United States. And now we’re letting the chance slip between our fingers.

A hard time to be a Cubs fan

My first trip to Wrigley Field, as I recall, was in 1957. I was seven years old. Dad took the whole family to the ball park for a double header with the Phillies which, if I remember right, we split.

Having watched baseball at Wrigley on TV for years (involuntarily; 1957 was the first year it actually caught my interest), I was in awe to see the place I’d watched in black-and-white for so long not only in living color but in person. I got a comparable thrill in my late 50s when the Cub coaches gave a hitting clinic for young fans before a game I attended, and I was allowed to fulfill a lifelong ambition and actually walk around on the field. Well, the outfield, anyway. It was amazing to see the place from the same perspective Billy Williams and “Moose” Moryn and Lee Walls and Andre Dawson had back in the day. When nobody was looking, I swiped a tile from the warning track. The idea was that if I ever proposed to the fanatical Cub fan I was dating back in Iowa, I would have it made into an engagement ring. It never happened, but it was a nice thought. I suspect that my ex-wife, though also a Cub fan, threw it away, still in the plastic sandwich bag I kept it in.

I was a Cub fan on the South Side. This was an interesting experience. Nearly all my schoolmates and the kids I played with were Sox fans. The aunt and uncle’s next-door neighbor was the engineer for the WCFL broadcasts of the White Sox games. When we went to visit Uncle Johnny and Aunt May every week, Mr. Swanson and I would always give each other a hard time. He got Dad and me into Comiskey Park one Saturday free to see the Sox play. I got a foul ball on the second pitch, and got to meet Sox owner Bill Veeck after the game. “So, son,” Veeck said. “Are you a Sox fan?” “Hell, no!,” I replied, or words to that effect. He threw back his head and laughed, as my embarassed father explained that he’d grown up across the street from the old Cubs Park on the West Side, where the team played before moving into Wrigley, and that Cub Hall of Fame catcher and manager Gabby Hartnett was a distant cousin of ours. They had a long talk about Veeck’s dad, who had owned the Cubs at one point. It was only later that it dawned on both of us that we’d forgotten to ask him to autograph the ball!

Sox fans hate the Cubs. It’s been said- and in many cases, I think it’s true- that given the choice between the Sox winning and the Cubs losing, Sox fans would prefer the latter. Part of the reason is class warfare. While working-class Chicagoans are divided in their allegience, generally depending on which side of Madison Street they live on, the Cubs have always been the more upscale of the two. There’s a story about a kid on the South Side who went to school one day wearing a Cubs can. “Why are you a Cubs fan?,” his Sox fan teacher asked. “Because my parent are,” he replied. “That’s not a good reason!,” she replied. “If your parents were a drug dealer and a prostitute, what would that make you?”

Without missing a beat, the kid replied, “A Sox fan?”

Wrigleyville is a neighborhood of small theatres, fashionable restaurants, and fern bars. It’s Yuppie heaven. Chicago’s affluent gay community is concenrated in the area of Wrigley Field. On the other hand, there used to be a tee-shirt that said, “I went to a game at Comiskey Park, and all I got was these bullet holes in my tee-shirt.”

Economics aside, Chicago has always been a Cubs town. The Cubs and the Sox have each won three World Series. The Sox have been in a grand total of six. The Cubs, on the other hand, have been in eleven. Historically, the North Siders have been a far more successful team. And of course, when Sox fans brag about having won a larger percentage of the World Series than the Cubs have, we point out that while we may have lost eight World Series, at least we’ve never thrown one.

Yeah. They play hard ball in this rivalry.

When the Sox won the pennant somehow in 1959, I was all set to root for the Dodgers in the Series. My dad talked me out of it. The Sox, he pointed out, were a Chicago team, and we should get behind them. So we rooted for the Sox. They lost.

Sox fans as a group, on the other hand, are traditionally jerks when the Cubs do well, and when the Sox got to the Series again in 1985 I rooted for the Astros. In 2006, when the Cubs played the Florida Marlins for the National League pennant, there were bars on the South Side where the drinks were on the house when the Marlins hit a home run. Sox fans, on the whole, hate the Cubs more than Cub fans hate the Sox. But there is no love lost either way.

I lived in the suburbs of St. Louis during the 1987, 1988, and 1999 seasons. I went to Busch Stadium just about every time the Cubs came to town (clergy get free general admission to Cardinals games). Each team won a division championship during that time, but the Cubs finished ahead of the Cards two of the three years I was there. Having been a Cub fan both on the South Side and in St. Louis, I can definitely say that I would rather be hated than patronized.

Cub fans tend to patronize Sox fans. We’ve certainly done a great job of patronizing them since 2015. Alas, while Theo Epstein managed to build our first world champion since my dad lived across the street from the old Cubs Park in 1908, he proved unable to maintain his success. I don’t know how much influence the financial fortunes of the Ricketts family had on his behavior, but we never did get a center fielder or a leadoff man to replace the departed Dexter Fowler after 2016. Gaping holes in the team went unaddressed for years; some of them have been there ever since. One of Theo’s personal rules was that the worst time to make a trade is when you have to, because it’s hard to negotiate well out of desperation.

It’s hard to object too hard about the one-year rental of closer Aroldis Chapman in 2016 even at the expense of prize prospect and future All-Star Gleyber Torres. After all, it’s doubtful whether we would have won the Series that year without Chapman. But when we sent Elroy Jiminez and Dylan Cease to the Sox for the mediocre Jose Quintana in a moment of desperation… well, in retrospect, there was no excuse. We squandered our impressive farm system without managing to repair the holes, and what we thought was going to be a dynasty turned out to be a one-and-done.

What remained of thr 2016 team was inconsistent and streaky. They struck out alot. They managed to win several division championships, but never got any further. And the Ricketts family was either unwilling or unable to spend the money to sign the available free agents, plug those holes, and get us back to the Series.

I’ve realized for a number of years that what happened this past week was necessary. The only way back to glory was to re-stock the farm system with prospects, and as much as Cub fans hate to admit this, the only way to get value in a trade is to give value. Kris Bryant, Anthony Rizzo, and Javy Baez are among the most beloved players in Cub history. But each of them demanded more money in their new contracts than they were worth, money nobody is going to give them. That’s especially the case after the huge financial hit the Ricketts family took in their hotel business and other investments due to the COVID pandemic.

I love those guys, and I hate to lose them. I’ve actually had a couple of nightmares about the trades the last few nights. Like most Cub fans, I have a hole in my heart right now. I comfort myself with the strong chance that once he realizes that he isn’t going to get what he’s asking for elsewhere at least Rizzo will come back to the Cubs over the winter.

It hurts. But it was necessary. In place of the strikeout-prone El Mago, our shortstop will now be contact-hitter Nico Hoerner. As a result of the Kimbrel trade, we will have high-average contact hitter Nick Madrigal at second. These are exactly the kind of players the Cubs need. They will give us what Baez and Bryant did not: consistency. Future star Brenden Davis, an outfielder, will be coming up from Iowa to play at Wrigley next year. Pete Crow-Armstrong, the former first-round draft choice of the Mets who we got in the Baez deal, is another highly talented outfield prospect, as is Alexander Canario, a low-strikeout hitter whose mediocre batting average masks a stellar OBP. The Cubs have been addressing an area Theo neglected in the last rebuild- pitching- in recent years, and have a number of high-quality hurlers in the pipe. They got a couple more in this week’s trades. And Jason Heyward, who despite his defensive prowess has never lived up to his potential at the plate, will doubtless be gone after next year, taking his huge contract with him.

The wild-card in all of this is the improving financial situation of the Ricketts family and the amount of money they will save as a result of unloading Bryant, Baez, and Rizzo, and soon, Heyward. For the first time in years, the Cubs will be in a position to sign some free agents, perhaps including Rizzo. And taking that into consideration, given the improved look of the organization it won’t be many years before the Cubs are back on top. This rebuild will not take the ten years the last one did, or anything close to it. And this time, it won’t simply a matter of building a talented team. It will be a team built around contact hitters and offensive consistency, the very thing the Bryant/Baez era Cubs so conspicuously lacked.

In short, as depressed as Cub fans are right now, this had to happen. Perhaps it’s almost overdue. The remnants of the 2016 world champions were not going to win another world championship. Now the Cubs are doing what they have to do to build a team that can, and I truly don’t think it’s going to take that long.

But then, there’s the other thing.

I’ve never been exactly a fan of either New York team, but I’m still pulling for Rizzo and Baez. I have nothing in particular against the Giants; that rivalry cooled off decades before I was born. But I’m actively rooting for Kris Bryant. I doubt that more than one of them will be back, and I both expect and hope that it will be Rizzo.

I’m going to have a tougher time rooting for Kimbrel and Tempera. They weren’t part of the 2016 team, of course, and didn’t occupy the same place in our hearts Rizzo and KB and El Mago did. And they are, after all, playing for… that other team.

The shoe is on the other foot now. The Sox are well-situated for a run at another world championship, and will be for several years. The Cubs will be also-rans for at least a few years. That will be a hard to take as losing the Big Three this past week has been.

I’d find it easier to pull for the Sox if their fans weren’t such jerks about the Cubs. As it is, we’ll see what we will see. In the meantime. the Sox deserve their due. They’re a hell of a team, and despite their occasional obnoxiousness their fans deserve their turn to howl.

But before you know it, we’ll be back. The White Sox ascendency will only stoke the fire in our guts. So far, Chicago has only seen one Subway Series, in 1906. The Sox won that one in six games.

Here’s to a rematch sometime in the next five years. And a different outcome.

At this point, it’s a self-inflicted pandemic

Way back when the pandemic was first gathering steam, The Federalist ran a bizarre article by a doctor (a non-practicing, currently unlicensed dermatologist, as I recall) advocating the recruitment of young, healthy adults to voluntarily become infected with COVID-19 so as to defeat the virus via natural herd immunity– i.e., by getting a large enough percentage of the population infected, recovered, and theoretically immune that that virus couldn’t retain a footload in the population. The headline went further and actually advocated “chicken pox parties” such as parents often schedule to get their kids exposed to that harmless childhood disease! Clearly, the staff at The Federalist had no idea what they were talking about when addressing the subject of COVID-19! And they still don’t.

Neither, it seems obvious, does the Republican Party or the far right in general.

The article was so outrageous that Twitter temporarily suspended The Federalist’s account.While I suppose the guy who wrote it deserves points for thinking outside the box, it was a ridiculous idea because it overlooked three things.

First, while the death rate for COVID-19 isn’t huge (currently 1.8% in the United States, largely though not entirely restricted to the elderly, the obese, and those with underlying health conditions such as heart disease or diabetes), it was already one of the most contagious viruses we’d encountered from its very first iteration. It has become significantly more contagious with each mutation; the currently endemic Delta variant is about 50% more contagious than the Alpha varient, which in turn was about 50% more contagious than the original. The contageon of the Delta variant of the virus is approximately the same as that of chicken pox. In that sense, if in no other, the article in The Federalist corresponds to reality.

Fewer than two deaths out of a hundred doesn’t sound like much. But while the COVID minimizers have been so fixated on the mortality rate that they haven’t noticed it, COVID-19 has infected 34,672,690 Americans at last count, and killed more Americans than died in both world wars in only two years. The COVID pandemic (613,223 American deaths) is closing in on the 1918 Spanish Flu (675,000 American deaths) and perhaps even the the Civil War (likely 750,000, though only 620,000 are documented) as the deadliest event in American history, and in half the time it took the Civil War to get there!

BTW, the same system is used in computing deaths due to COVID as has always been used in gathering such statistics. Only where a person who had multiple causes of death would probably not have died except for their having COVID is it given as a “cause of death.” The lie to the contrary has been spread very widely and continues to be widely repeated.

But still, the radical right doesn’t see the problem. It’s still ignoring- and slandering- the CDC and people like Dr. Fauci. It points out that their advice keeps changing, apparently unable to follow the rather obvious point that the best available advice changes as we learn more about this new virus.

Only a few months ago, we seemed to be on the verge of having COVID on the run, at least in the United States. But human stupidity- and yes, sometimes simply a lack of information, or the bad habit many of us have formed of listening to crackpots rather than the experts- has torpedoed that. We spent all that time and effort “flattening the curve” until a vaccine was available. With the original virus, if we got to the point where 70% of the population had either been vaccinated or had the disease, we might well have reached herd immunity- the point at which there were not enough vulnerable people left for the virus to survive.

But that’s water under the bridge. With the emergence of the Delta variant and its vastly increased contageon, it would probably take 80%-90%. And that would be doable- if we could get 80% to 90% of the population vaccinated.

But after an initially positive response, the rate at which Americans are being vaccinated has hit a brick wall. The Biden Administration had hoped to have 80% of the country vaccinated by this point, effectively ending the pandemic at least in the United States. Instead, 49.8% of us are fully vaccinated, and 57.7% have had even one dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.

There is some good news. 77.8% of those over 75 have been vaccinated, as have 81.8% of those aged 65-74. 67.3 of those 50-64% are protected. But only 57.8% of those in their 40s have had both shots, but only 48.7% of those 25-39 have gotten the vaccine, as have only 48.3% of those 18-24.

Those most at risk of death because of age are mostly protected, though a significant minority remains vulnerable. We have no statistics to tell us how many of those suffering from health conditions ranging from obesity through diabetes through heart disease and compromised immune systems remain unvaccinated. We know that age and underlying medical conditions generally- though by no means always- are contributing factors in COVID deaths, so it isn’t surprising that immunization rates drop with age.

But that brings us to the second fatal flaw in the argument made by The Federalist article, one that seemingly has yet to sink in on the radical right: it is not only impossible but simply absurd to think of isolating either the unvaccinated elderly or the unvaccinated younger population from each other. It simply can’t be done. As long as fewer than 80-90% have either natural immunity or have been vaccinated, the virus will continue to circulate in the unvaccinated population and will continue to mutate into still more contageous forms.

The current outbreak of the Delta variant, which is more deadly as well as significantly more contageous, is a pandemic of the unvaccinated. I can’t quite bring myself to adopt the attitude many people with an otherwise rational attitude toward the virus have embraced that because it is almost exclusively the unvaccinated who are going to die, the next phase of the pandemic is “natural seletion in action,” killing only those whose own foolishness has left them vulnerable. For one thing, that isn’t true; there are many people who haven’t been vaccinated for logistical reasons, and a huge percentage of the unvaccinated publication has been confused by the propaganda and misinformation being spread by irresponsible people and media like The Federalist, Fox News, Breitbart, Newsmax, OAN, and the far-right blogosphere. Vaccine hesitancy is my no means the exclusive domain of the willfully ignorant. People who have been deceived by extremists do not deserve to die for it, or even to get sick.

A great deal of vaccine hesitency seems to be based on the fact that the CDC has only granted emergency authorization to the vaccines. For some inexplicable reason it has not yet permanently and definitively certified them as safe. That fact is hard to understand. At this point the evidence that the vaccines are safe is overwhelming. Not only have huge clinical trials been conducted with favorable results (contrary to the propaganda of #TeamVirus), but close to half of the American people have received them, almost entirely without ill-effects and with overwhelming evidence of their extreme effectiveness. Experts estimate that the Pfizer vaccine, for example, while over 90% effective against previous iterations of the virus, is still 88% effective against the Delta variant. But in actual practice, the “breakthrough cases” in which fully vaccinated people come down with even mild cases of COVID represent fewer than one-tenth of one percent of the vaccinated population. And even among those cases, death or serious illness is vanishingly rare. Clearly full approval of the vaccines is being held up by bureaucratic red tape, not by actual concerns about their safety or effectiveness. Up to a third of the unvaccinated population says that it would consider being vaccinated in full approval was given. There is no excuse for the delay. The CDC needs to get its case together and issue that approval. It is a public health necessity, and again, there is no reasonable doubt that it would be justified.

And while children rarely die from COVID, some do. Fewer than 15% of those under 18 have been fully vaccinated. Of course, the CDC has yet to approve the vaccination of children, either, although that approval is supposed to be close.

As long as we remain below the 90% threshold required for herd immunity, the pandemic will continue, even though its worst ravages will be restricted to those who have voluntarily refused the vaccine. They are correct in saying that they have every right to continue to refuse. But as the saying goes, one person’s right to swing his fist ends at the point of another person’s nose. There is no right to spread a deadly disease, or to put others at risk.

The third thing The Federalist article missed is that there is precedent for the sensible steps the government has taken to protect us from COVID, and that unlike “chickenpox parties,” they are actually known to work. Ever since George Washington ordered the compulsory vaccination of the Continental Army against smallpox, the armed forces have required their members to receive mandatory vaccinations against a range of diseases. And every school child has to be vaccinated against a great many viruses already. The same is true of private employers. There is nothing new about vaccine mandates, and it’s not only silly but intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise. There is no constitutional issue here; the matter is one of long-established precedent.

Quarrantines and lockdowns have a long history in America and other Western nations. They are reasonable and necssary public health measures which violate nobody’s rights. The ignorant may question their necessity, but when the evidence justifies them the government’s only responsible course is to issue them. And by the same logic, the government has every right and even the duty to require that people who can transmit a potentially deadly virus- and we now know that even vaccinated people who have mild break-through cases, as rare as they are, can do that- wear masks in close quarters indoors.

The CDC has recommended that due to the Delta variant outbreak spurred by the large percentage of Americans who have remained unvaccinated and made possible by their prevention of herd immunity, we all go back to wearing masks in such circumstances. We are mostly ignoring that advice. That is a tragic blunder that will cost lives. We are all sick and tired of this pandemic. But precisely for that reason, wouldn’t it make sense to engage in behavior that will get it over and done with rather than ignoring reasonable precautions and keeping it going?

For the same reason that quarantines and lockdowns are both constitutional and reasonable, so are “vaccine passports.” In my view, the government would be remiss in not making proof of vaccination mandatory for especially large gatherings of people, and especially for those who chose not to wear a mask. Again, there simply is no right to endanger somebody else’s life or health.

Finally, I recently came across a proposal that I think deserves serious consideration. It will, of course, be opposed by isolationists and “America First” types. Yet it is a perfect example of why that philosophy is not only misguided and foolish but hopelessly out of date. In the modern era, those two oceans no longer protect us from the rest of the world. Decry globalization as loudly as you want, but it’s an unavoidable consequence of modern technology.

The Third World is almost completely unvaccinated. There has been an outcry over the way the developed nations are “hogging” the vaccine for their own use. Certainly, any government has the health and safety of its own population as its first responsibility. But although I recognize that it would be hugely expensive and that we really can’t afford it, a strong case can be made that the United States should pay for vaccinating the world’s underdeveloped nations. I would argue that this is in our best interest for two reasons.

First, from a purely selfish point of view, as long as this virus is spreading and mutating unchecked anywhere in the world, it will continue to grow more deadly and more contageous. It doesn’t take much in the way of imagination to see the distinct possibility that a strain might develop against which our vacines are ineffective. In that case, only a fool would imagine that despite any and all precautions we might take, sooner or later it will manage to get into the United States. We will not be completely safe from this virus as long as it continues to spread and mutate anywhere,

Secondly, the international prestige of the United States s close to being at an all-time low. Though it increased somewhat with the election of President Biden, the damage to it done by his predecessor was massive and well-nigh incalculable. Though the Cold War is behind us, we remain in a struggle for world leadership and for the future of the planet with China, and to a lesser extent with Russia and with radical Islam.

I can think of nothing that would restore American prestige and strike a greater blow against the international influence of our enemies than saving the underdeveloped world from COVID. I don’t know whether do ing so would be practical and I do know that there are powerful economic arguments against it. But I also wonder how many aircraft carriers, sixth-generation fighters, and missiles we’d have to build at how great a cost to add as much to our national safety and security.

Good-will can be as powerful a weapon as the most advanced weaponry. We knew that once. Maybe it’s time to create some, if only because it’s in our own best interest.

The agony of being a Blackhawk fan with Stan Bowman as GM

There is no planet in this or any galaxy in the known universe in which Seth Jones is worth Adam Boqvist and an eight-year contract totalling $77 million, let alone the draft choices my Blackhawks gave to Columbus in Stan Bowman’s latest genius-level trade. It’s kind of hard to rebuild without draft choices. This year alone, the Seth Jones trade cost us not only Boqvist, but three players more highly rated in the draft than the guy we took with the last pick in this year’s first round. And we will continue to hemorrhage future talent in drafts yet to come for a guy who may or may not be able to return to the level of play he showed himself capable of before last year.

Please, Rocky Wirtz. Fire Bowman now, before he ruins the team for a generation. I really want at least one more Stanley Cup before I die, and preferably more than one. We’re just not going to get there with this guy as GM.

Is China actually a paper tiger?

Just heard a very interesting podcast by Charlie Sykes of The Bulwark. It was interview with commentator and former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum. Much of it is about the nature of fascism, and the degree to which that label can be accurately applied to the movement Donald Trump started and still heads. It’s worth listening to, if only to sharpen one’s own thinking about what fascism is and is not, and how it historically has functioned. Spoiler: both men agree that it actually has less to do with ideology or even policy than with style and attitude.

But the part of the interview I found the most interesting comes at the very end. Frum makes the case that China is, excuse the expression, a paper tiger. The Chinese, he argues, are not going to overtake the United States in any of the ways we fear. They’ve been faking their economic statistics for years. No university in China- not even Bejing University- ranks among the great universities of the world. You do not build great universities by putting shackles on the human mind.

The United States, and not China, continues to be the place from which new ideas and scientific discoveries come. Even their COVID vaccine doesn’t work as well as ours. Like the Soviet Union before it, China gives every indication of being a hollow shell, very big on appearances but more menacing in rhetoric and posturing than in fact.

I would argue that it’s still worth taking seriously. It’s the only nation in the world that even might rival us economically, militarily, or geopolitically. I would argue that we need to be taking Putin’s Russia seriously, too, even though it’s a less formidable threat. It may no longer be the superpower it once was, but it is neither the toothless relic Barak Obama seemed to think it was nor the cute, friendly puppy Donald Trump pretended. The Russian bear still has claws and teeth, and it is neither our friend nor the friend of freedom.

In any case, we seem to be losing our mojo. We, as a nation, seem to be resigned to decline and stagnation. Certainly we’re doing nothing ourselves to avoid that path. Slogans like “Make America Great Again” are used to advocate the abandonment of the very ideals that made our nation great in the first place. A large part of the American population and a great many of our leaders seem to have stopped believing in our country and its ideals. The very slogan “Make America Great Again” implies that it is not great at the moment. Many of our people and politicians want to run away from the world instead of engaging it, as if that were even an option in the 21st Century. We live in a post-truth society in which ignorance is weaponized for political purposes and what we want to believe seems to have a stronger influence on policy than what the evidence says is true.

But maybe it’s time to stop being so quick to believe it when other nations and even voices within our own borders with agendas of their own talk trash about the United States. The whole podcast is worth hearing. But that bit at the end is especially worth taking to heart.

It seems quite likely that rather than being the nation to whom the future belongs, China is, in Mao’s phrase, a “paper tiger.”

Trump’s ‘authenticity’ should repel Christians

Bob Vanderplaats, one of the most prominent leaders of Iowa’s “evangelical” community, says that if the Former Guy doesn’t run in 2024, his churchgoing supporters here will be looking for someone with his “authenticity,” but without his “demeanor.”

But how does one seperate the two? It’s a revealing- and disturbing- statement. A notoriously unethical businessman, a lifelong bully, a self-confessed serial molester of women who has been accused by one of them of having raped her as at a Jeffrey Epstein orgy when she was 13 (and has an eye-witness to the event), who is a serial adulterer, an apologist for racism and bigotry who continues to lie about having been cheated out of a second term, and above all the most prolific liar, slanderer, and libeler in the history of American politics is virtually the antithesis of the values of Jesus. Yet he claims to be a devout Christian. He is hardly a paragon of authenticity, and the fact that so many conservative Christians miss that point is, one might say, a scandal of biblical proportions.

What does it say to those outside the Church when those inside it praise the “authenticity” of such a man? To be blunt, the fact that they can both praise his “authenticity” and support him casts Jesus Christ and the Gospel in a bad light indeed. As a conservative Christian myself, I have to wonder how many souls will be lost because of “evangelical” support of Donald Trump. Beyond that, it suggests that a great many American Christians may be confusing a deal with the devil- a blind eye to evil in exchange for political power and support for a political agenda aimed at winning its victories by legal compulsion rather than the changing of hearts- with the advancement of the Kingdom of God.

Martin Luther, in commenting on the corruption of the medieval Church and its mistreatment of the Jews, wrote early in his career that if he were a Jew, he would rather be a pig than a Christian. It’s time contemporary American Christians began asking themselves what message they are sending the people whose primary mission is supposed to be the spreading of the Gospel when they can give the “authenticity” of such a man as their reason for supporting him.

Or are the negative things what Vanderplaats means by Trump’s “demeanor?” Strange term to use for established personality characteristics. And strange personality characteristics for a politician so strongly favored by “evangelical” Christians!

The GOP moves to enable the spread of COVID-19

In a move of moral perversity ignoring the logic of every public health effort ever undertaken, Republicans nationally are pushing legislation granting protection against discrimination to- wait for it- unvaccinated Americans.

Yes, that’s right. Republicans are on record as supporting the granting of special rights to potential carriers of the COVID-19 virus, and effectively adding sociopathy to race, religion, sex, national origin, and sexual orientation as legally protected characteristics meriting special status under civil rights legislation. It continues to become clearer and clearer that the GOP believes that there is a constitutional right for ethically depraved narcissists to selfishly risk spreading a deadly virus among the rest of us.

Well, no. I should retract that. The logic of the general Republican position would not discriminate. It would grant legal protection to all viruses. Logically, it would mean that people who might be infected with smallpox could freely mingle with the rest of us, and their movements could not be consistently restricted. Folks potentially exposed to Ebola could jostle us in the subway, and there wouldn’t be a thing the government could do about it. Ain’t freedom wonderful?

How do people become so preoccupied with their own supposedly unbounded and unlimited “rights” that they fail to see that for a person who might be a carrier of a potentially deadly and highly contagious disease to mix freely with the rest of the population deprives everyone else of their right to remain healthy and alive? I guess that’s what happens once we elect a narcissist president. All of a sudden, a movement arises to make narcissism our national ethos forevermore.

You can’t make this stuff up. It can’t be emphasized strongly enough that this is not a debatable matter about which reasonable people might disagree, any more than Republican efforts to disenfranchise minority voters (well, except for sociopaths and the willfully ignorant, whom they apparently want to make protected categories). This simply nuts. The position that sees lockdowns, masks, and strong incentives to be vaccinated as somehow violations of individual liberty is pure, unadulterated moral and intellectual perversity, and if we let the sociopathy from which it springs prevail (which I’m confident that we won’t), we all deserve the consequences natural selection will inflict upon us.

As well it may. At this very moment, a new flare-up of the Delta variant is occuring in the states with the lowest vaccination rates. What we’re experiencing now is a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.” If the consequences were restricted to them, one could argue that they would simply be the result of decisions the newly-infected had made for themselves. But some people are becoming infected because for one practical reason or another they can’t be vaccinated. And as long as Missouri, Mississippi, and the other hotbeds of resistence to vaccination remain, the virus will have a chance to mutate in their midst and produce new variants- variants against which the vaccines may no longer be effective. It is not an exaggeration to say that those who willfully refuse to be vaccinated are responsible for keeping the pandemic going not only in their own midst, but potentially elsewhere. They are putting us in danger of losing a golden opportunity to put COVID-19 behind us. They are not only endangering the lives of those in their midst who cannot be vaccinated. They are potentially also endangering the lives of those of us who have, but who can’t assume that Missouri and Mississippi and the other vaccine-resistent states will not be statewide Petrie dishes, breeding variants of COVID-19 against which the vaccines will be useless.

The rhetoric to the contrary, nobody is advocating compulsory vaccination. But it seems only reasonable to treat vaccination against COVID the same way we’ve historically treated vaccination against smallpox, polio, and other diseases. It’s not simply reasonable that unvaccinated people be prevented from participating in activities through which they might potentially spread the disease to others. “Vaccine passports” stand firmly in the mainstream of the way in which ours and other democratic societies have always dealt with situations like this.

It’s not merely the entire history of Western political theory and of constitutional law that tells us that one’s right to swing one’s fist ends at the point of the next guy’s nose. It’s common sense. But common sense seems to have entirely vanished from a conservative movement increasingly dominated by the fruitcakes these days, and there seems no limit to the absurdities it can unabashedly embrace.

A covenant with death

From CPAC.

This is what conservatism has become: paranoid fantasies about life-saving vaccines and an active alliance with a deadly virus against humanity. Cheers for the fact that we have thus far failed in this country to vaccinate enough people to achieve herd immunity and put the pandemic behind us. The alliance with ignorance that lies at the heart of the Trump revolution has clearly and frankly become a covenant with death.

There is blood on these people’s hands, and no sane or decent person should have any illusions about it. To discourage people from being vaccinated, to keep the pandemic going, to stop us from reaching herd immunity, to give COVID a chance to mutate further and undo a golden opportunity to end a scourge that has killed over 600,000 Americans already is simply evil.

The issue when it comes to vaccination is not a mere difference of opinion. The anti-vax position is not simply an alternative viewpoint, any more than resistance to lockdowns, masks, and other common-sense public health measures were differences of opinon. Given the amount of misinformation the radical right has spread about COVID, the pandemic, and the vaccines, to be confused and a little hesitant is certainly understandable. But to actively promote that disinformation is barbaric.

Tens of thousands have already died unnecessarily because of the misinformation spread by these extremists. At this critical moment when COVID could be dealt a decisive blow and the pandemic put behind us, nobody should be confused about the fact that the product being sold by people like this guy is not merely confusion and ignorance, but death itself.

As “pro-life” as a MIRVed ICBM

Appropos of yesterday’s post on the incredibly bad logic behind the radical right’s anti-vax rhetoric, Charlie Sykes of The Bulwark had a piece today on the “depraved indifference” of #TeamVirus’s campaign of disinformation and sociopathic posturing in opposition to the efforts of the Biden administration to get us to herd immunity and end this pandemic once and for all by getting enough people vaccinated.

This all started because Donald Trump a) popped off about another lunatic conspiracy theory that struck his fancy and, of course, refused to back down when it was shown to be nonsense, as usual; and b) recognized the economic impact of common-sense public health measures to control the pandemic, realized that it would destroy the healthy economy that was the only real argument for re-electing him, and placed a greater value on his own re-election than on human life.

The willingness of such a great percentage of American Christians to show themselves to be hypocrites by casting aside the very “pro-life” values they used as an excuse to support Trump if that was the cost of getting him re-elected is one of the great scandals of church history. This is not to say, of course, that every pro-Trump Christian is a conscious hypocrite about the sanctity of innocent human life. A great many just got carried away with the “us vs. them” mentality that permeates both sides of the political divide these days, and failed to think the matter through.

But there it is. This issue is a perfect illustration of why I cannot be a Republican any more, and why I have a difficult time understanding how anybody with a conscience and the ability to reason can go along with #TeamVirus, now that it doesn’t even have the excuse of saving Donald Trump’s political hide anymore.

Tens of thousands of Americans are dead who would otherwise be alive because of this depraved, performative pretense that enabling the spread of a deadly virus is somehow a protection of “individual liberty.” One wonders how many unneccessary deaths will be necessary before people with an iota of ethical sensitivity wake up and smell the decomp.

Look. It doesn’t matter that COVID seems only to have a fatality rate of one percent. This is one of the most contageous viruses we’ve even had to deal with. Even with that comparatively low a fatality rate, it’s killed 600,000 Americans in a little over a year.

This isn’t rocket science. And it isn’t just a tragedy. It’s an ethical stain on a large percentage of the American people, and a cause of scandal for American Christianity,

One wonders how many more have to die.

The fallacy that’s driving #TeamVirus

One of the amazing things about the idiotic controversies surrounding lockdowns, masks, vaccines, and practically every other aspect of the pandemic is the degree to which the extreme right fails to understand the purpose of public health measures.

Let me be blunt: There is a difference between libertarianism and sociopathy. When people claim that compulsory lockdowns, mask-wearing, and so forth violate their individual rights, they are operating out of the erroneous and self-centered assumption that their purpose is to protect them. They point out that they’re capable of making their own decisions about the risks they take with their health. And if that were the issue, they would be right.

But it’s not the issue. Admittedly, the CDC, the WHO, and the public health establishment generally have failed miserably to communicate the fact that while masks, for example, do seem to provide protection for their wearers from contracting COVID-19 (while the pores are big enough to allow the virus to pass through, they are not big enough to let the droplets through which the virus is spread get through, and people who wore masks in public throughout the pandemic seem to have contracted the virus half as often as those who never wore them) that has never been their primary purpose. Remember back in the beginning of the pandemic, before we knew as much about the transmission of the virus as we know now and masks were not recommended by Dr. Fauci and others except for people who actually had been exposed to the virus? The purpose of masks is not primarily to protect their wearers. It’s to protect others with whom the wearers come into contact.

Nobody- literally nobody– knows for certain that they are not carriers of the virus, spreading it everywhere they go. A huge percentage of infectious carriers- perhaps most– are asymptomatic and don’t realize that they have the virus! And that is why we’ve all been encouraged to wear masks- not for our protection, but for the protection of others! There has never been any doubt that even paper masks are effective in preventing people from spreading the virus. And that is, and always has been, the point!

Lockdowns weren’t mainly intended to protect people from being exposed to the virus. Again, if they were, those who have opposed them on the grounds that they are capable of deciding what risks to take with their own health and that their individual rights were being violated by being forced to stay home would have a point. But they weren’t. Again, the purpose of lockdowns was primarily to prevent carriers- including carriers who might well not even know that they were carriers- from mixing with people who didn’t have the virus and giving it to them!

The rate at which people are getting vaccinated against COVID is lagging. There is worrisome evidence that it may be reaching its ceiling. The idea that both the government and private entities have both the right and the responsibility to require vaccinations against infectious diseases as a condition of participating in activities through which various viruses might be spread (including going to school and serving in the military) is both well-established and simple common sense. In a pandemic, there is an additional factor in play.

Obviously, there are a small number of people who for one reason or another- sometimes medical, sometimes logistical- cannot be vaccinated. They clearly are not to blame for circumstances beyond their control. But herd immunity- the percentage of the population that is immune to a virus at which the virus ceases to spread from person to person for lack of available new hosts- is somewhere between 70% and 90%. Nobody knows exactly where the critical percentage falls with COVID. But the virus will continue to spread until the percentage of the population who as either been vaccinated or has had COVID and recovered from it reaches that point.

A refusal to be vaccinated, again, is not a matter of individual freedom. It affects all of us, not just the person who isn’t vaccinated. It prevents us from reaching herd immunity and keeps the pandemic going. And the longer the virus is circulating, the more it will mutate. The available vaccines continue to be effective against the rapidly-spreading Delta variant of COVID, but to a lesser degree. The Pfizer vaccine, for example, is 90% effective in preventing people from becoming infected by other strains. But against the Delta variant, its effectiveness drops to 65%. At this point, the chances of a vaccinated person coming down with specifically the Delta variant remain small. But the longer it’s circulating, the greater the chances will be. Worse, the longer the virus continues to spread, the more it will mutate. It’s entirely possible that new variants may arise against which the vaccines are less effective.

The percentage of the population that has been vaccinated varies from state to state. States such as Missouri or Mississippi, for example, in which relatively low percentages of the population have been vaccinated, are breeding grounds for new variants. It’s not only the populations of those states who are endangered. It’s all of us. If a new variant that is resistant to the vaccine develops, say, in Missouri, it’s only a matter of time before it spreads to the states where the majority of people have been vaccinated. There is no question of individual freedom involved here. People who decline to be vaccinated are putting all of us in danger.

The situation is complicated, obviously, by people like former President Trump, Tucker Carlson, and the far right media, who continue to spread misinformation about the virus, the vaccines, and the danger. #TeamVirus is large and influential. Ignorance ceases to be a private concern when it endangers others. And the resistence to vaccination is driven by ignorance and misinformation, just as resistance to lockdowns and mask-wearing have been.

Freedom is never unlimited. To paraphrase a famous statement by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, freedom of speech does not protect someone who falsely shouts “Fire!” in a crowded theater. John B. Finch once described a hypothetical conversation that might well have been about face masks or the refusal to be vaccinated:

“Is not this a free country?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Have not I a right to swing my arm?”

“Yes, but your right to swing your arm leaves off where my right not to have my nose struck begins.”

The right to exercise one’s personal freedom when one’s own safety is one thing. But there is no right to endanger other people.

There is no right to spread a deadly virus.

There has never been a question of prudent public health measures being a violation of individual rights simply because they restrict or mandate behavior that otherwise might be a matter of individual choice. The argument to that effect is simply silly. This is not a matter of freedom. For most of us, it’s a matter of personal responsibility.

It’s a matter of obligation. Nobody is saying that anyone should be forced to be vaccinated. But the government would be derelict in its responsibilities if it didn’t protect the rest of us by restricting the activites of those who refuse to be. And resistance to that premise isn’t libertarianism. It’s sociopathy.

#TeamVirus can believe what it wants to believe. But facts are facts, lies are lies, and #TeamHumanity has the right to protect itself from those who confuse individual liberty with selfish indifference to the consequences of their behavior for the rest of us.

THE ONION is eerily prophetic

It’s not often that The Onion accurately predicts a news story. But there’s a first time for everything.

The United States is literally sneaking out of Afghanistan in the middle of the night.. Our forces abandoned Bagham Air Force Base, a major hub of our operations in that country, under cover of darkness and without telling our Afghan allies that they were going to do it. They left behind huge caches of supplies and equipment, supposedly for the Afghans- who eventually found out that the Americans had left through the grapevine, shrugged, and moved in. But the Afghan army will have to make do with what the looters left for them.

The Biden administration’s Afghan policy seems to be identical to that of the Trump administration’s: get out of Dodge just as fast as our legs will carry us; do not pass go, do not collect $200. Our armed forces can’t be blamed, of course; they take orders from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But our latest abandonment of our allies- something that is becoming a regular part of American foreign policy, and understandably causing them to conclude that the U.S. can’t be relied upon- is in some respects making the fall of Saigon look like the Alamo by comparison.

At least in Vietnam our final withdrawal came because we had lost the war and the enemy was attacking our ally’s capital city. But in the case of Afghanistan, we’ve yawned, stretched our arms, said “I’m tired and I’m going home,” and are in the process of letting the enemy win. Few doubt that they will- and given Taliban gains since we began a withdrawal that is now 90% complete, it will probably be rather quickly.

True, we have been fighting this “forever war” for twenty years. True, it’s been very expensive. But it’s cost us fewer than three thousand lives. By comparison, Vietnam cost us 57,000.

Contrary to what many people have claimed down through the years, it was not the great North Vietnamese Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap, the architect of Communist victories over both France and the United States, who was the source of the statement below. It was North Vietnamese Col. Bui Tin, who made it in a 1995 interview with the Wall Street Journal. But it’s hard to miss their significance both for our involvement in Afghanistan and in the future:

Q: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?

A: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said, “We don’t need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out.”

Bui goes on to explain that given the roles dissent and protest play in democracies, they cannot win protracted wars. Even though Bui doesn’t say so, that isn’t necessarily the case when everyone can clearly see that their own immediate welfare and that of the nation are on the line. But when the war is on the other side of the globe, and it’s hard to see the immediate consequences of failing to prevail, when a war begins to drag on and on- even if, as in Afghanistan, casualties have been minimal- the citizens of democracies tire of them. And in the long run, democracies will never be able to summon the will to see a lengthly foreign war to a successful conclusion unless the nation itself would be put in immediate danger if it failed to do so.

That, ultimately, was the lesson of Vietnam. We can win short, decisive conflicts. But in a war like Vietnam or even one like Afghanistan, in which casualties have been light, it is a built-in weakness of countries in which the people finally call the shots that unless there are obvious and fairly immediate consequences to losing, democracies simply cannot and will not stay the course..

That is a fact of life history has taught us at a considerable cost in lives and treasure. Both Donald Trump-style isolationists and George H.W. Bush and Lyndon Johnson-style internationalists should take it as a fundamental law of nature and govern their policies accordingly.

We forget that we went to war in Afghanistan originally because the Taliban was sheltering Osama bin Laden and al Queda in Afghanistan. The war was enormously popular in the United States at the time, and jolly well should have been. We kicked the Taliban out. The trouble is that Afghanistan, like Iraq, is an ancient and relatively undeveloped region, rather than a nation in the modern sense. Like Vietnam, and like Iraq, it is essentially an artificial nation cobbled together by outsiders. We defeated the Taliban, and removed them from power. But as in Iraq, we then faced the dilemma of lacking any abiding sense of mutual identity or a generally recognized central authority to install in power in place of our defeated adversary. The “forever war” has been a struggle to prevent the Taliban- which, like the Viet Minh and its successors in Vietnam, was the only truly unified force capable of forming a stable government, from stepping into what amounted to a vaccum and seizing power again.

The rule of the Taliban- a misogynistic outfit of religious fanatics intent on ruling by strict Sharia law- was a nightmare for the people of Afghanistan. It is a nightmare into which they are about to be plunged once more.

An aside: If you haven’t seen the movie Charlie Wilson’s War, based on the book by George Crille III, I highly recommend it. It’s a funny but also an important film, somewhat fictionalized but preserving the essense of what actually happened when a lovable and rather blatantly corrupt congressman combined with a bizarre collection of marginal characters inside and outside the CIA to get the Mujahideen- the Afghans fighting the Russians- Stinger missles and other military support which they could use to repel the invaders. Afghanistan was a far different experience for the Russians than it was for us. It’s misleading to call it the “Russian Vietnam,” as some do; we lost 57,000 soldiers and sailors in Vietnam, whereas the Soviet Union lost only 15,000 (our own loses in Afghanistan total 2,376). But it was enough to convince the Kremlin that the war was unwinnable, and get them to pull out.

The movie ends with a sad postscript about how, having won the trust and friendship of the Afghan people, we squandered them by losing interest and forgetting about Afghanistan. The result was the Taliban coming to power. History, it seems, repeats itself. But I can’t help but wonder what might have happened if our interest in a stable Afghanistan that wasn’t going to be a playground for bad actors had continued. Perhaps the “forever war” might never have been fought at all.

Effective and empathetic foreign aid when possible, and covert operations to support our friends, or even short, decisive military encounters when they are necessary, can and should be undertaken when they’re in our interests, and in the interests of freedom and stability. But not twenty-year wars, even when they result in fewer than 3,000 casualties over that entire period.

How do you avoid quagmires like Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan, in which we can keep the bad guys out of power only if we stay involved at a level we cannot sustain in the long run? First and foremost, you try to help avoid the circumstances in which they develop. But contrary to the paleocon/Trump/Buchanan/Paul isolationist instinct, we can’t simply shut ourselves within our own borders, behind the ramparts of two oceans, and cry “America First!” World War II proved how badly that works. Throughout history, there has always been a leading world power that has lent stability to world affairs. The Brits played that role for a long time. We are their successors. The alternative is a global power vacuum in which Hitlers arise. The days of “Fortress America” are far in the past. The world has become too small. We are too deeply effected, economically, culturally, and in many other ways by what happens on the otherside of the globe to curl up in a ball and hide.

And above all else, we can be mindful of our limitations. I’m not sure what the answer is when our military presence is or might be the only thing keeping tyrants and monsters from filling power vacuums on the other side of the world. But the Butterfly Effect is real in modern international affairs. It may be very indirectly, but we in the United States will be affected by the impending descent of Afghanistan back into the dark medieval night of Sharia law, misogyny and tyranny. And like it or not, history has cast us in the role the British played for so long, not necessarily as a world-bestriding empire but as a strong anchor for peace and order, a rallying point around which the nations can gather to protect the interests of peace and even civilization. 9/11 is a chilling reminder of what happens when we lose interest in what happens beyond our borders.

Multilateralism is part of the solution, to be sure. But then, our effort in Afghanistan has been multilateral; it’s been a NATO operation. And our NATO allies, too are democracies, subject to the short attention span of their voters.

I suppose the best we can do is to encourage enlightened people and movements non-militarily, and on a limited and even covert scale when military action must be taken, again unless it’s possible to bring overwhelming force to bear to bring about a clear, quick, decisive, limited, and well-defined outcome, as was the case in the First Gulf War.

We dare not run away from our responsibilities in the world because we cannot. The world will not let us. The fruit of any prolonged effort will be bitter indeed; as it is, the damage done to our posture in the world and our relationship with our allies by four years of Trump isolationism will probably take decades to repair. But there are limits, as a practical matter, to what even a democracy as mighty as ours can do. We need to learn those limits, stay within them, always keep a clear and limted goal in mind, and do the best we can. Reality is a harsh mistress, and we have no choice but to obey it. And in our misadventures around the world since the 50s, reality has spoken clearly, and keeps repeating itself, it seems.

We should not mishear it. We dare not respond to Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan by withdrawing from the world, or by failing what we can do to lead the world order in staving off chaos and disaster. If we won’t do it, China will- and the consequences won’t be pretty.

The Biden administration is doing its best to avoid a reprise of the disaster we experienced in the fall of Saigon. But there will be Afghans who have put their lives on the line to be our friends, and who will lose those lives because we have abandoned them. And that is a cause for deep shame.

We have lost only 2,367 lives in Afghanistan. Each of those lives is a universe for the friends and family of the casualties. But those are far fewer losses than we’ve experienced in previous wars. We are not leaving Afghanistan because the cost of staying would be too high. We are leaving, yes, because it seems unlikely given the nature of Afghanistan itself that we can finally prevail, unless perhaps we stay there for 50 or 75 or a hundred years. But fundamentally, we’re leaving because democracies can’t summon the political will to fight protracted wars unless they’re invaded, or in immediate danger of being invaded.

But leaving means that while no life lost in the defense of freedom and decency is ever spent in vain, those 2,367 lives will have been lost in a cause that failed. Perhaps if we’d paid more attention and done our nation-building in peacetime, the war would never have had to be fought and those men and women would still be alive. As it happened, we find ourselves in a situation in which final victory in Afghanistan is probably impossible. Yes, there is a case to be made for getting out before more lives are lost. But while on the whole I’m a supporter of the Biden administration, it ought to be a cause for shame that our withdrawal is not happening more thoughfully and deliberately, over a far longer period. It’s not the MRI’s and DVD’s and ordnance we’re leaving behind that bothers me.

It’s the people.

We hold these truths to be what?

Suzanne Garment has an interesting post in today’s American Purpose on what may be the central issue of our political life at this moment in history: whether the (supposedly) shared convictions upon which our nation has built can survive the current onslaught of authoritarianism from both the left and the right.

From the rigidity of politically correctness to the attempt to stifle academic freedom and limit the right to vote, it seems that we all believe in freedom for those who agree with us, but not for those who disagree. “Cancel culture” is a phenomeon on the right as well as the left, and it’s often impressed me that while the far left and the far right alike are filled with distain for the other’s attitude toward the standards of freedom and civility upon which our system depends, they resemble each other quite closely in their apparent conviction that those standards only apply when it’s convenient for “the good guys.”

A student activist violently disrupting a speech by a conservative on campus and the selectively conservative populist taking a swing at a protester at a Trump rally are nothing more or less than mirror images of one another. It’s striking how similar the rhetoric of MAGA-world and the fashionably progressive often can be. It almost seems as if Jesus had America at this moment in its history especially in mind when he spoke the words recorded in Matthew 7:1-5. And yet folks on both ends of the political spectrum quote that passage when criticizing those who disagree with them freely and with no apparent sense of irony.

One’s dedication to freedom of speech is best tested by one’s attitude toward the expression not of thoughts we agree with, or even with which we agree to disagree. The test is whether we’re willing to defend the freedom to express the very thoughts we find most repugnant. By that standard, our dedication to the values of the First Amendment these days doesn’t pass muster no matter which side of the spectrum we inhabit.

Can the Founders’ vision survive? Can our system? It’s hard to say. Voltaire never actually said, “I disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” But it’s hard to escape the conclusion that the experiment that began on July 4, 1776 can only survive if we as a people become considerably more willing to live by that principle.

Disapprobation of ugly ideas and of what we consider less than perfect rhetorical manners is one thing. There is nothing wrong with disapproving of what other people say. But except where a clear and present danger of violence or other great public harm exists, we belie our dedication to the principles we all claim to share when we try to suppress it.

“Because it’s true!”

Seems that Trump’s attorney general, Bill Barr, had a bit of a run-in with The Man a while back.

Barr describes Trump’s ongoing whine about last year’s election having been stolen from him as “bullshit.”

According to a book by ABC Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl entitled Betrayal and scheduled to be published in November, Barr says that his attitude toward Trump’s claims amounted to “put up or shut up time.” That, he says, is why he gave prosecutors the OK to investigate the claims and opened his own investigation.

“If there was evidence of fraud, I had no motive to suppress it,” Barr told Karl. “But my suspicion all the way along was that there was nothing there. It was all bullshit.”

Trump claims that voting machines all over the country were somehow rigged to switch votes from himself to the man who defeated him, President Joe Biden.

“We realized from the beginning it was just bullshit,” Barr told Karl.

“It’s a counting machine, and they save everything that was counted. So you just reconcile the two. There had been no discrepancy reported anywhere, and I’m still not aware of any discrepancy,” Barr added. And he’s exactly right. Trump and his followers to the contrary, the bottom line is that the technology to do what Trump claims was done with voting machines all over the country simply doesn’t exist, and even if it did, using it would have been absolutely impossible to conceal and incredibly easy to document. Yet Trump and his supporters have never been able to produce a single bit of evidence to substantiate his claims, and literally every court case he brought- even before judges Trump himself appointed- has been laughed out of court.

Barr also told Karl that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell urged him to speak out on Trump’s claims because they could hurt the Republican Party in the upcoming Senate runoff elections in Georgia and said that they were “bad” for both the party and the country. Karl says that McConnell confirmed the conversation when he asked him about it. McConnell apparently thought that maintaining the personal goodwill of Donald Trump was a higher priority than either the Republican Party’s prospect in Georgia or the welfare of the nation.

The way in which the nation’s Republican politicians, with rare exceptions, tremble before the wrath of the psychlogically unsound former president is an amazing thing. Apparently they are conscious of the degree to which the Republican rank and file buys into the Trump line no matter how outrageously he lies or how complete is the lack of evidence to support his claims.

Barr, who isn’t seeking elective office, faced no such constraints. But McConnell apparently believed that Trump’s support was vital in Georgia despite the damaging character of his bizarre claims about the election.

Apparently he found himself on the horns of a dilemma.“Look,” he told Barr, “we need the president in Georgia. And so we cannot be frontally attacking him right now. But you’re in a better position to inject some reality into this situation. You are really the only one who can do it.”

“I understand that,” Barr replied, according to Karl. “And I’m going to do it at the appropriate time.”

When Trump heard about Barr’s statement that there was no evidence of fraud, the Former Guy demanded to know why Barr had said it. ,“How the f— could you do this to me?,” Trump demanded. “Why did you say it?”

Barr answered, “Because it’s true.”

Interestingly, Trump didn’t dispute the statement. Instead, referring to himself in the third person, he responded, “You must hate Trump. You must hate Trump.”

The disconnect between reality and the radical right where Donald Trump is concerned is one of the things that puzzles me the most about them. I’ve cited and documented evidence that Donald Trump was unfit to be President since before the Orange One was even nominated in 2016, and routinely had it ignored by his supporters and dismissed with the accusation, “You just hate Trump.” Statements of the simple, documented and established truth continue to be dismissed as “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” And the sheer terror he strikes into the hearts of Republican politicians seems to have robbed them of any sense of duty to confront even lies they concede are hurting the country.

There can be no question but that Trump’s lies about the election have undermined his successor, damaged the country’s reputation abroad, and undermined the confidence of the American people in the integrity of our elections and of our most basic institutions. One wonders how long it will be before people like McConnell and other Republicans have enough, and put the welfare of the country ahead of their fear of an unstable demagogue.

They fear that if they do, they’ll be replaced by others who will have no compunctions about putting their loyalty to Trump ahead of their loyalty to the country. Perhaps. But one has to wonder how much worse off we would be in that case than we are now.

Old blog, new home

I started this blog over twenty years ago over at Blogger. A great deal has changed since then. At the time, I was a center-right Republican, eager to see that George W. Bush wasn’t cheated out of the presidency. Now, I’m a center-right independent giving considerable thought to becoming a “Red Dog Democrat,” doing what I can to oppose an authoritarian movement that has taken over the Republican party and lies about a lesser man having been cheated out of the presidency.

Back then, I was worried about abortion and the growing hostility of the culture to my faith. I still am. But it turns out that the Republican Party is only pro-life until a person is born. I’m sickened by the hypocrisy of a party that claims that label but apparently values the economy more highly than human life, at least from its response to COVID and basic, common-sense public health measures to contain it.

If Roe v. Wade isn’t reversed or substantially modified by the Supreme Court as presently constituted, appointing more originalist judges isn’t going to help. And very honestly, I doubt whether the theoretically pro-life supermajority on the court is going to help much. I perceive that I’ve spent too much effort trying to win a battle politically that can only be won by changing people’s hearts and minds. Until that’s done, all the judges in the world aren’t going to win the battle. But now, our very democracy is under attack.

I once was adamently opposed to same-sex marriage. I still am, in a sense. Marriage is a pre-political institution. The government doesn’t get to define it. I cannot recognize same-sex marriage as “marriage,” the divine institution, and while gay and lesbian couples can certainly raise children, they need outside help to beget or bear them. And yet it’s hard to avoid the point that gay and lesbian couples have a right under the Constitution to the equal protection of the law. I still wince at the word “marriage” when it’s used to describe their relationships. But I believe that their committed relationships deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.

The battle-lines are drawn differently now from what they were when I started this blog. A fresh start is appropriate. And when Feedburner decided to stop supporting email subscriptions, the convenience of Blogger ceased to be decisive.

So here I am. Same author. Same title. New platform, and new URL. New issues, new alliances, new battles. I thought about importing those 21 years worth of posts, with all the old baggage. But to quote Lincoln, “As our case is new, so we must think anew.” And so, here we are. A fresh start in a new home.

My opinions have changed on some things, but I don’t think my values have. Sadly, I can’t say the same either for the Republican Party or for many of my fellow Christians. I’ve been disillusioned by old allies, and made new ones. So Feedburner’s decision to drop email subscriptions comes at a fitting time.

As our case is new, so, I find, I must think anew. And it seems appropriate that I do it at a new blogging home.