Monday, November 30, 2020

Trump’s Disgraceful Endgame

National Review Online

Monday, November 30, 2020

 

President Trump said the other day that he’d leave office if he loses the vote of the Electoral College on December 14.

 

This is not the kind of assurance presidents of the United States typically need to make, but it was noteworthy given Trump’s disgraceful conduct since losing his bid for reelection to Joe Biden on November 3.

 

Behind in almost all the major polls, Trump stormed within a hair’s breadth in the key battlegrounds of winning reelection, and his unexpectedly robust performance helped put Republicans in a strong position for the post-Trump-presidency era. This is not nothing. But the president can’t stand to admit that he lost and so has insisted since the wee hours of Election Night that he really won — and won “by a lot.”

 

There are legitimate issues to consider after the 2020 vote about the security of mail-in ballots and the process of counting votes (some jurisdictions, bizarrely, take weeks to complete their initial count), but make no mistake: The chief driver of the post-election contention of the past several weeks is the petulant refusal of one man to accept the verdict of the American people. The Trump team (and much of the GOP) is working backwards, desperately trying to find something, anything to support the president’s aggrieved feelings, rather than objectively considering the evidence and reacting as warranted.

 

Almost nothing that the Trump team has alleged has withstood the slightest scrutiny. In particular, it’s hard to find much that is remotely true in the president’s Twitter feed these days. It is full of already-debunked claims and crackpot conspiracy theories about Dominion voting systems. Over the weekend, he repeated the charge that 1.8 million mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania were mailed out, yet 2.6 million were ultimately tallied. In a rather elementary error, this compares the number of mail-ballots requested in the primary to the number of ballots counted in the general. A straight apples-to-apples comparison finds that 1.8 million mail-in ballots were requested in the primary and 1.5 million returned, while 3.1 million ballots were requested in the general and 2.6 million returned.

 

Flawed and dishonest assertions like this pollute the public discourse and mislead good people who make the mistake of believing things said by the president of the United States.

 

Elected Republicans have generally taken the attitude that the president should be able to have his day in court. It’s his legal right to file suits, of course, but he shouldn’t pursue meritless litigation in Hail Mary attempts to get millions of votes tossed out. This is exactly what he’s been doing, it’s why reputable GOP lawyers have increasingly steered clear, and it’s why Trump has suffered defeat after defeat in court.

 

In its signature federal suit in Pennsylvania, the Trump team argued that it violated the equal-protection clause of the U.S. Constitution for some Pennsylvania counties to let absentee voters fix or “cure” their ballots if they contained an error while other counties didn’t. It maintained that it was another constitutional violation for Trump election observers not to be allowed in close proximity to the counting of ballots. On this basis, the Trump team sought to disqualify 1.5 million ballots and bar the certification of the Pennsylvania results or have the Pennsylvania General Assembly appoint presidential electors.

 

By the time the suit reached the Third Circuit, it had been whittled down to a relatively minor procedural issue (whether the Trump complaint could be amended a second time in the district court). The Trump team lost on that question, and the unanimous panel of the Third Circuit (in an opinion written by a Trump appointee) made it clear that the other claims lacked merit as well. It noted that the suit contained no evidence that Trump and Biden ballots or observers were treated differently, let alone evidence of fraud. Within reason, it is permissible for counties to have different procedures for handling ballots, and nothing forced some counties to permit voters to cure flawed absentee ballots and others to decline to do so.

 

Not that it mattered. The court pointed out that the suit challenged the procedures to fix absentee ballots in seven Democratic counties, which don’t even come close to having enough cured ballots to change the outcome in the state; the counties might have allowed, at most, 10,000 voters to fix their ballots, and even if every single one of them voted for Biden, that’s still far short of Biden’s 80,000-plus margin in the state.

 

The idea, as the Trump team stalwartly maintains, that the Supreme Court is going to take up this case and issue a game-changing ruling is fantastical. Conservative judges have consistently rejected Trump’s flailing legal appeals, and the justices are unlikely to have a different reaction.

 

Trump’s most reprehensible tactic has been to attempt, somewhat shamefacedly, to get local Republican officials to block the certification of votes and state legislatures to appoint Trump electors in clear violation of the public will. This has gone nowhere, thanks to the honesty and sense of duty of most of the Republicans involved, but it’s a profoundly undemocratic move that we hope no losing presidential candidate ever even thinks of again.

 

Getting defeated in a national election is a blow to the ego of even the most thick-skinned politicians and inevitably engenders personal feelings of bitterness and anger. What America has long expected is that losing candidates swallow those feelings and at least pretend to be gracious. If Trump’s not capable of it, he should at least stop waging war on the outcome.

Businesses, Residents Left to Fend for Themselves as Anti-Cop Fervor Drives Retirement Surge

By Ryan Mills

Monday, November 30, 2020

 

It was mid-afternoon when the sport utility vehicles pulled up in front of Tim Mahoney’s downtown Minneapolis restaurant.

 

It was a sunny Friday in mid-June, a glorious time of year in Minnesota as spring turned to summer. Dining rooms statewide had just reopened after months of mandated coronavirus closures and weeks of protests and riots in the wake of George Floyd’s death during an encounter with four city police officers. Mahoney expected a busy evening at his Loon Cafe.

 

But the young occupants of the SUVs had their own plans that day.

 

They took over the patio of the restaurant next door to the Loon, smoked pot, drank Hennessy from a bottle they’d brought, and blocked paying customers from entering.

 

Mahoney and the owner of the neighboring restaurant asked them to leave. They refused.

 

Mahony called the Minneapolis Police Department’s non-emergency line; there was nothing the police could do, they said. He tried 911, but was told no officers were available.

 

So Mahoney walked to a nearby police precinct and tracked down an officer he knows.

 

“He said, ‘Tim, we’re not coming,’” Mahoney recalled. The officer told him, “We don’t have the time. We don’t have the resources. We don’t have the manpower, and we’ve been told not to get in conflicts like this. You’re going to have to handle it yourself.”

 

So at 3 p.m. on a sunny Friday, Mahoney and his neighbor closed their restaurants for the day. Less than a week later, the neighboring restaurant closed for good.

 

Crime has been a growing concern for Mahoney and other downtown Minneapolis business owners for years. Last fall, representatives of the Minnesota Vikings, Twins, and Timberwolves authored a joint editorial in the Minneapolis Star Tribune urging the city’s leaders to invest in public safety for downtown Minneapolis. There weren’t enough officers, and the city “isn’t as safe as it once was,” they wrote. Other major employers have threatened to leave.

 

Now, in the wake of Floyd’s killing and the ensuing civil unrest in this city and others, concerns about crime are bordering on panic in some quarters of Minneapolis.

 

Crime skyrocketed over the summer after some far-left city leaders vowed to defund and dismantle the police department. Carjackings and violent robberies are on the rise. More than 500 people have been shot so far in 2020, double last year’s total. And the city is on pace for its highest number of homicides in more than two decades.

 

The turmoil and lack of support from city leadership has taken its toll on the beleaguered police force, which has seen a staggering number of officers retire and resign in the past six months. The Minneapolis Police Department is authorized for 888 officers and had an actual headcount of about 840 earlier in the year, said Bob Kroll, president of the city’s police federation.

 

Now, with a surge of retirements, pending retirements, and officers out on personal leave – some suffering from symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder linked to the Floyd riots – the number of Minneapolis police officers actually coming to work is down to 715, Kroll said, the lowest number since he joined the force in 1989. Kroll suspects they haven’t hit bottom yet.

 

“A lot of them aren’t retirements,” he said. “We’ve got a guy, he’s leaving now to go become an excavator. We’ve got a lot of other younger officers that are not retiring, but they’re going to other agencies.”

 

Some worry Minneapolis is in a vicious cycle: surging violence and anti-police rhetoric leads to a flood of officers leaving the force, leading to more crime, more violence, and more accusations that the city isn’t getting its money’s worth from the overworked cops who remain.

 

And Minneapolis isn’t alone. Police forces in big cities across the country have similarly reported “unheard of” numbers of officers retiring or otherwise leaving their forces since the streets erupted in violence after Floyd’s killing in late May.

 

Some of the 2020 retirements are structural, tied to a mid-’90s hiring boom and pension quirks. But police union heads and criminal-justice experts say the summer’s civil unrest, combined with anti-cop rhetoric from far-left city leaders and a lack of support from progressive rogue prosecutors, has hastened police-officer departures.

 

More than 2,000 officers have left the New York Police Department this year, already the most in a decade, and city leaders have slashed the department’s budget by a billion dollars.

 

In Chicago, officers have been retiring at double the normal clip, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. City leaders blame the retirements on a change in health-insurance benefits, but union leaders point at a lack of support from Democratic Mayor Lori Lightfoot.

 

In Colorado, hundreds of officers retired or resigned after the Democratic governor signed a law that made police personally and financially liable for their on-duty actions, the Denver Post reported.

 

In Seattle, police chief Carmen Best resigned over the summer after the city’s progressive leaders slashed her budget by $4 million and cut the force by as many as 100 officers.

 

Even some smaller cities have seen an uptick in retirements and resignations. In Asheville, N.C., 31 officers quit between June 1 and September 10, a number the city’s police chief called “unprecedented” and attributed to “very vocal opposition to law enforcement,” according to reporting by the Asheville Citizen-Times.

 

One Asheville police officer sent a going-away message to neighborhood groups he’d worked with, telling them he was moving to Colorado to start a new career because “being a cop has been very difficult for me” and “it has taken a toll on my personal life.” He was blessed, he wrote, “to exit this job with only emotional scars.”

 

Some business leaders and police-union heads expect the exodus of officers to continue into the new year, typically the most common time for officers to announce retirements. In the longer term, they worry that cities such as Minneapolis will hollow out as progressive leaders increasingly defang the dispirited officers that remain.

 

In Minneapolis, officers are discouraged from enforcing low-level, so-called “livability laws,” which prohibit things such as loitering, public gambling, and drunk and disorderly conduct. Historically, officers have used those laws as tools to check for warrants and keep illegal guns off the street, but critics say the laws are disproportionately used against minorities.

 

The result in Minneapolis, Mahoney said, is emboldened criminals have increasingly taken over the downtown streets, where drug-dealing and drug use now take place in the open.

 

Mahoney worries that sports fans, theatergoers, and law-abiding residents won’t return to downtown, even after the city comes out on the other side of the coronavirus pandemic.

 

“There is no doubt in my mind that crime is a bigger issue in my neighborhood than COVID,” Mahoney said. “No one is going to come downtown Minneapolis if they feel unsafe.”

 

Many reasons police officers are leaving

 

To some degree, an increase in police-officer retirements was expected about now, even if there had been no global pandemic or massive anti-police protests and riots.

 

In the mid-1990s, there was a surge in the number of police officers hired by law-enforcement agencies around the country, in part because of then-senator Joe Biden’s controversial crime bill. In addition to imposing tougher prison sentences and funding new prisons, the 1994 bill also provided funds to put 100,000 new officers on the streets.

 

More than 25 years later, those officers are coming to retirement age. And with a significant uptick in overtime this year, many of those officers are incentivized by their retirement plans to leave now, after what may be their peak earning year.

 

“Ideally, in policing, you’ve got a steady number in and a steady number out,” said Jim Pasco, executive director of the national Fraternal Order of Police.

 

One problem with large hiring surges is the inevitable brain-drain 20 to 30 years later when those veteran officers leave, he said.

 

“If 500 officers leave a major police department, I don’t care if you get the 500 most qualified people you can find by way of education and diversity and commitment to the mission. You cannot . . . come close to replacing the experience you lose when a police officer retires,” Pasco said. “It will take almost a generation to catch up.”

 

While many big-city officers were prepping to leave law enforcement anyway, the challenges of 2020 likely pushed many of them out the door faster than they’d planned.

 

Because of the nature of their job, law-enforcement officers have been particularly vulnerable to the coronavirus. More than 275 officers have died of COVID-19, according to FOP data, including 64 officers in Texas, 35 officers in New York, and 22 in Louisiana.

 

The riots, looting, and violence that followed Floyd’s death in Minneapolis – including the killing of a black police captain in St. Louis and the ambush shooting of two police officers in Los Angeles – followed by the anti-cop rhetoric from left-wing city leaders was “like gasoline in the fire in terms of attrition,” Pasco said.

 

“Police officers don’t sign up to get rich, and they don’t,” Pasco said. “They sign up for a variety of reasons, most of them good. They want to make a difference in the community. They want to be seen as role models. It sounds corny, they want to make things better. When the perceptions of police officers in those contexts goes away, police officers, their reaction is predictable. They’re hurt. They’re angry. They’re frustrated.”

 

As the Minneapolis City Council vowed to defund its police department, protesters nationwide unified under an “All Cops Are Bastards” slogan, and marched with “F*** the Police” signs.

 

Anti-police protests and riots have been ongoing in Portland, Ore., since late May, with regular reports of rioters throwing rocks, bottles, and mortars at officers. The protesters insist it is the police, not them, who are to blame for the violence in the city.

 

Prominent protest leaders in the liberal city are demanding the city’s police department be defunded, in part because “Black people live with the everyday reality of being subjected to a police occupation.”

 

“There is a very loud drumbeat, especially on the left, that the police are the problem, that police are systematically racist, that the criminal-justice system is systematically racist,” said Cully Stimson, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation. “That poisons the well right there, because the last thing you want to be called when you’re putting on the uniform and putting your life on the line is a racist.”

 

As police officers began retiring in droves over the summer, violent crime spiked. The National Commission on COVID-19 and Criminal Justice, which is tracking crime trends in 27 U.S. cities during the pandemic, found that aggravated assaults were up 14 percent in the summer of 2020 compared to summer 2019, while motor-vehicle theft was up 11 percent and homicides were up a whopping 53 percent.

 

In Minneapolis, police leaders were forced to gut specialty investigative units to focus on keeping up with 911 calls. The department’s violent-criminal apprehension team – the cops who track down dangerous suspects in killings, rapes, and robberies – was dismantled. Homicide investigators, whose unit is staffed at levels more appropriate for less-deadly years, are “running ragged,” Kroll said.

 

“The bad guys know we’re spread thin,” he said. “No proactive policing is being done. Everything is responsive.”

 

Earlier this month, Minneapolis police chief Medaria Arradondo and Democratic mayor Jacob Frey were barely able to muster a majority of city-council votes for a plan to spend $500,000 to bring in help from outside agencies. Arradondo told councilmembers “our city is bleeding.” Opponents of the plan said it would make it harder to find money for mental-health responders and violence-prevention programs that proponents of fundamentally changing policing want.

 

The attrition at the Minneapolis Police Department is due to a “combination of everything,” Kroll said. But he believes it’s mostly a result of the “disdain” city leaders have for police.

 

“Can you imagine going to work every day where your employer absolutely despises you?” Kroll asked. “They don’t treat public works that way. They don’t treat fire that way.”

 

“This is what happens when you elect progressive activists to positions of leadership.”

 

The impact of rogue prosecutors

 

The lack of support for police isn’t just coming from progressive mayors and city councils, it’s also coming from rogue district attorneys who dismiss many of the cases police officers bring them under the guise of “prosecutorial discretion,” Stimson said.

 

Crime has spiked in cities such as Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia after the election of progressive prosecutors who are openly attempting to reverse-engineer the criminal-justice system, which they see as racist, Stimson said. Prosecutors such as Rollins are usurping the role of state legislators by refusing to prosecute the laws they’ve passed.

 

“You used to have D.A.s who were pro-victim and pro-law-and-order, and now you have D.A.s who are pro-defendant and anti-police and anti-prosecution,” he said.

 

Last year in Boston, progressive district attorney Rachael Rollins issued a 65-page “policy memo,” laying out 15 charges her office would decline to prosecute – including trespassing, shoplifting, disorderly conduct, and drug possession – because they are typically non-violent crimes.

 

“If you’re a police officer in Dorchester, which is in south Boston, it’s a rough neighborhood, and you see somebody committing one of these crimes, you may as well not even arrest them,” Stimson said. “It’s a freebie for them.”

 

In June, after Floyd’s killing, Rollins praised local protesters and said she was exhausted because police officers “shoot us in the streets as if we were animals.” It’s ironic, she told a crowd, that the officers telling protesters not to be violent are the “very people that murder us with impunity.” Local police-union leaders called her remarks “dangerous” and “divisive.”

 

Pasco, the FOP director, said the anti-police rhetoric and the talk of defunding police “was a stupid idea to start with.” But reform shouldn’t be a dirty word among police officers, he said. It’s up to law enforcement not to let recent events blow over without change.

 

Police leaders should be open to working with any community organizations that want to make a good-faith effort to improve policing.

 

“It’s to all of our advantage to improve policing,” he said. “We need community support to do our jobs optimally.”

 

Greg Ketter, who was recently attacked inside his Minneapolis bookstore near the site of Floyd’s killing, said officers arrived to his store in minutes. He agrees that police are important, and for the most part are good at their jobs.

 

“I don’t believe we could do without police,” he said.

 

But he does believe police are stretched thin, responding to calls, particularly mental-health calls, where they have no particular expertise. Ketter believes in increasing funding for mental-health units to respond to those calls. “They just have too many things to do,” he said of police.

 

Kroll, the Minneapolis-police union head, said they’re up for conversations about creative ideas to save officers’ time and divert them from calls where there are better options. But the devil is in the details. He worries about the community’s reaction when a call turns deadly after a civilian responds to a heated scene rather than an armed police officer.

 

“The reality is you can dispatch someone to a call that seems nonviolent, … but when you get there things turn bad,” he said. “You don’t have a crystal ball to say what call is safe to send an unarmed civilian to handle.”

The Stolen-Election Narrative Needs to End

By Jim Geraghty

Monday, November 30, 2020

 

Sunday morning, President Trump called in to Maria Bartiromo’s program on Fox News and laid out his account of what happened in the 2020 presidential election:

 

A glitch is supposed to be when a machine breaks down. Well, no, we had glitches where they moved thousands of votes from my account to Biden’s account. And these are glitches. So, they’re not glitches. They’re theft. They’re fraud, absolute fraud. And there were many of them, but, obviously, most of them tremendous amounts, got by without us catching. We got lucky to catch them. I think we caught four or five glitches of about 5,000 votes each, and different states. And, again, they’re not glitches . . . This election was over. And then they did dumps. They call them dumps, big, massive dumps, in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and all over. If you take a look at — you just take a look at just about every state that we’re talking about, every swing state that we’re talking about. And they did these massive dumps of votes. And, all of a sudden, I went from winning by a lot to losing by a little.

 

. . . We’re talking — there are a lot of dead people that so-called voted in this election. But dead people were, in some cases, in many, many cases, thousands of cases, voted, but, also, dead people made application to vote. They were dead 10 years, 15 years, and they actually made application. This is total fraud. And how the FBI and Department of Justice — I don’t know. Maybe they are involved. But how people are allowed to get away from this stuff — with this stuff is unbelievable. This election was rigged. This election was a total fraud. And it continues to be, as they hide. And the problem we have, we go to judges, and people don’t want to get involved . . .

 

. . . they had judges making deals. And they had electoral officials making deals, like this character in Georgia, who is a disaster. And the governor’s done nothing. He’s done absolutely nothing. I’m ashamed that I endorsed him. But you — I look at what’s going on. It’s so terrible. They stuffed the ballot boxes. You know, I have been hearing that expression for many years. You have too, stuffed the ballot — they stuffed the ballot boxes. And they used COVID as a means to stuff the ballot boxes. Joe Biden did not get 16 million more votes than Barack Hussein Obama. He didn’t get it.

 

Since Election Day, President Trump has repeatedly insisted that the election was a fraud, rigged, or stolen, and that massive numbers of votes for him were secretly switched to Biden by the voting machines or by the officials running the elections in the counties. Yet his legal team has not made these assertions in court, nor have they presented any evidence in court that persuaded any judges. The legal team’s much more limited efforts, disputing much smaller numbers of votes, have almost entirely failed.

 

President Trump also wants his supporters to go out and vote for incumbent Republican Georgia senators David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler in the runoff elections in January. It is hard to see why. If Democrats, along with corrupt Republicans, along with every election official in the state, and every county official and local volunteer, and the management of the Dominion voting machines, and perhaps the Venezuelan government, and perhaps the Department of Justice and FBI and whatever other co-conspirators all worked together to steal the state from Trump . . . why would they not also steal the election for the Democrats running for Senate?

 

What is the point of voting if the elections are rigged, as the president insists?

 

If the president is telling the truth, why should Georgia Republicans participate in the charade of an election scheduled for January 5?

 

And if the president isn’t telling the truth . . . why shouldn’t Georgia Republicans — or anyone else — come out and say that he isn’t telling the truth?

 

China Hopes You Forget How This Whole Pandemic Thing Started

 

The Guardian notices that in China, “state media has been reporting intensively on coronavirus discovered on packaging of frozen food imports, not considered a significant vector of infection elsewhere, and research into possible cases of the disease found outside China’s borders before December 2019.” The Chinese government really wants the world to believe that the virus jumped into humans in some other country, was brought into China, and only then attracted attention with the outbreak in Wuhan.

 

That Guardian article pours cold water on a theory offered earlier this month that the coronavirus reached Italy months before the outbreak in Wuhan:

 

Reports of Covid circulating in Italy in autumn 2019, based on samples from a cancer unit, seem “weak”, said Prof Jonathan Stoye, a virologist at the Francis Crick Institute in London. “The serological data [from Italy] can most likely be explained by cross-reactive antibodies directed against other coronaviruses.” In other words, antibodies found in the cases in Italy had been triggered in individuals who had been infected by different coronaviruses, not those responsible for Covid-19.

 

You may recall that back in June, a study that had not yet been peer-reviewed suggested that SARS-CoV-2 had been found in the sewage of Barcelona way back in March 2019. I was skeptical then, and since June there has been almost no follow-up coverage or additional research, and the original study still hasn’t been peer reviewed. This thread from June lays out the evidence that the study’s testing either was not precise enough or had a false-positive testing result.

As the trail to the virus’s origin grows colder, what we’ve learned about the virus adds new complications to the hunt for that origin — and in Beijing, we’re already dealing with a dishonest authoritarian government that is determined to cover up anything that could reflect badly upon the country.

 

Right now, doctors believe that roughly 40 percent of people who catch SARS-CoV-2 are asymptomatic. If 40 percent of people consistently don’t develop symptoms across all populations, tracking down “Patient Zero” — the first human being to be infected — is even trickier. At some point, the virus jumped from an animal — probably a bat or pangolin — or animal tissue to a human being, creating Patient Zero. But there’s a roughly four in ten chance that patient zero never felt sick, didn’t know he (or she) had the virus, and went about his life . . . spreading the virus to someone else. And that person had a four in ten chance of being asymptomatic as well, and so on. (There’s also a decent possibility that an infected person only develops mild symptoms and thinks it’s a routine cold or the usual flu.) Authorities only learn about the existence of the virus when someone suffers from the virus badly enough to go to a hospital. The first onset of symptoms in the first hospitalized patient was December 1, 2019, according to The Lancet.

 

But Patient Zero may not know he is “patient zero,” because he never got sick.

 

For those who subscribe to the “lab accident” theory, those same odds apply to lab technicians as well. If someone mishandles biohazardous material . . . there’s a four in ten chance they didn’t develop symptoms. That person may not have even known they mishandled the material! And then that lab technician goes on to interact with other people, who interact with other people . . . until someone develops symptoms severe enough to go to the hospital.

 

Between the inherent challenges in tracking the spread of the virus, lack of cooperation from China, and the world’s seeming lack of interest in tracking down the origin, we may never definitively know where SARS-CoV-2 originated. And we will remain as vulnerable to another virus as we were to this one a year ago.

Poland Is Better Than Its Current Ruling Party

By Nicholas Frankovich

Monday, November 30, 2020

 

More than once, Poland saved Western civilization, M. D. Aeschliman explained in Crisis magazine some years ago. Read his two-part essay on the topic. It’s high-information and insightful. I learned from it.

 

He points to a series of events. Polish soldiers arrived at the last minute to defeat the invading Turks at the Battle of Vienna in 1683. In 1920, at the Battle of Warsaw, the Polish army defeated the invading Red Army, thwarting, at least for a time, the Soviet Union’s imperial designs on the continent to its west. During the Cold War of 1945–90, Polish dissidents took a leading role in bringing about the collapse of communist rule in Eastern Europe.

 

Recently on National Review’s The Corner, Aeschliman suggested that respect for that noble history should temper international reaction to the politicization of Poland’s present-day judicial system: “European Union criticism of Poland and Hungary for alleged human-rights abuses or judicial deficiencies strikes me as a classic example of amnesia and present-mindedness inflicted on peoples and nations whose vast sufferings in the long past and the recent past are almost impossible to conceive.”

 

Or is it vice versa? Perhaps the reason that the judicial controversy in Poland alarms people, including Poles, is that they remember the closed societies and authoritarian regimes that afflicted Europe last century.

 

Aeschliman lauds National Review for its attention to Eastern Europe over the years. He cites Radek Sikorski and the late John Lukacs, both of whom wrote for the magazine. Sikorski was a foreign correspondent for National Review from the 1980s until shortly before he entered the Polish government in 2007. He served as defense minister and foreign minister and then in parliament.

 

Sikorski is now a leading critic of Law and Justice, the ruling party, which seeks to remove sitting judges whom it considers partisan and to replace them with jurists more sympathetic to its agenda. Members of the National Council of the Judiciary, the body that nominates judges and reviews ethics complaints against them, used to be appointed by two independent associations of jurists. In 2017, the lower house of parliament, with Law and Justice in the majority, passed a bill to transfer to itself the power to appoint members to the council.

 

Facing public protest, President Andrzej Duda vetoed the bill in July 2017, but it was reintroduced, and in December of that year he signed it into law, against objections from Polish judges, the European Union, the Council of Europe, the U.S. State Department, and former Polish presidents including Lech Walesa and Donald Tusk. Parliament proceeded to stack the council with party loyalists.

 

Viktor Orban, the prime minister of Hungary, with which discussions of illiberalism in Eastern Europe tend to be linked these days, supports the Polish government in that maneuver. No surprise there.

 

Lukacs, the Hungarian-American historian who wrote for National Review on occasion, penned an open letter to Orban in 2014. He described what he saw as the prime minister’s longstanding aversion to the West and to the idea that Hungary belongs to it. Lukacs’s rebuke was gentle and brief but pointed. He did not rehearse there his worry that democracy in the West had for decades been sliding toward a dangerous populism — an origin that, he stressed elsewhere, communism, fascism, and Nazism all shared — and so I won’t either, except to mention it.

 

No one should question the sincerity of the anti-communism that motivates Fidesz and, in Poland, Law and Justice. For many, communism in Eastern Europe is a living memory. But some seem to lose sight of the possibility that, in their determination to prevent anything resembling a recurrence of communist dictatorship in their countries, they are borrowing some of the tactics that, as they saw firsthand, did help repressive regimes hold on to power for a while. 

Sunday, November 29, 2020

The Taliban Crime Syndicate Waits Out Trump

By Kevin D. Williamson

Sunday, November 29, 2020

 

The good news is that Afghanistan has developed a new industry that gives it something valuable to export other than heroin. The bad news is that it is methamphetamine.

 

As everybody who became an expert in the chemistry of methamphetamine cooking by watching Breaking Bad knows, one of the hurdles to setting up an illegal methamphetamine factory is the acquisition of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, the key ingredient in most meth production. For years, meth producers relied on such laborious measures as buying vast amounts of over-the-counter cough syrup and slowly extracting pseudoephedrine from it, thereby producing the raw material out of which methamphetamine ultimately is synthesized. Afghanistan is not a country that one would describe as richly blessed with natural resources, but it is home to wild-growing Ephedra sinica, a shrub native to northern China, out of which may be extracted ephedrine and pseudoephedrine.

 

A thousand pounds of dried ephedra plants can produce about 17 pounds of meth, which Afghanistan-based journalist Kern Hendricks reports is worth about $50,000 locally. In foreign markets, that quantity of meth ultimately might fetch as much as a few hundred thousand dollars.

 

Of course, the Taliban bosses are up to their turbans in the meth trade, imposing a “tax” on drug producers that puts millions and millions of dollars a year into their coffers.

 

That new money is pumping new life into the operations of a resurgent Taliban. And the Taliban is patient.

 

One of the Trump administration’s final acts in office will be attempting to execute a hasty and headlong retreat from Afghanistan, with the president having announced, via Twitter, a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops by year’s end, which came as a welcome surprise to the Taliban and a nasty surprise to the U.S. military. Trump being Trump, the announced move may or may not actually come to pass, but the Taliban expects that it will see a partial or complete return to national power in the vacuum left behind by the expected American drawdown. It already is able to boast that when the Trump administration was seeking to conclude American affairs in Afghanistan, it mainly negotiated with the Taliban, not with the Afghan government.

 

Joe Biden’s attitude toward Afghanistan so far does not differ radically from Trump’s; rather than a complete withdrawal, he says he favors leaving a small counterterrorism force in the troubled country. “A Biden administration strategy of maintaining a residual force — even a narrowly focused one — would require a renegotiated deal with the Taliban, which the insurgent movement has already rejected,” the Associated Press reports. “The Afghan government, which has complained bitterly about being sidelined in U.S. negotiations with the Taliban, wants the deal scrapped entirely.” Biden, like Trump, views the U.S. engagement in Afghanistan principally as a drain on national resources that could be better used filling potholes in Poughkeepsie — “nation-building at home,” Biden calls it, echoing language used both by Donald Trump and by Barack Obama.

 

Since first invading Afghanistan in pursuit of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda nearly 20 years ago, the United States consistently has failed to achieve its goals there. Brute force is not sufficient: In 2001, there was bumptious talk of bombing Afghanistan “back into the Stone Age,” a hollow threat to a country that already was there. The country is backwards, savage, and intractable. Americans have found it very easy to kill Afghans but impossible to govern them. And the Afghans, unhappily, have not had much more luck governing Afghans.

 

One of the fundamental reasons for our failure in Afghanistan is the persistent inability of the United States to comprehend the character of our adversary there: The Taliban is not first and foremost an atavistic Islamic religious movement — it is that in the minor part, but it is first and foremost a crime syndicate.

 

Like the old Sicilian Mafia or the modern-day Hamas, the Taliban is both a violent criminal organization and a provider of social services and municipal or quasi-municipal governance in the areas it controls. Both the 19th-century Sicilian Mafia and the Taliban simultaneously acted as enforcers of public morality and entrepreneurs in criminal vice; if that Mafia history is redolent of the Saudi mutaween, it offers a reminder of Sicily’s history as an Islamic emirate and the seat of Muslim power in Italy. Sicily’s Mafia, like the ’Ndrangheta of Calabria, has always had a political and religious character. So has the Taliban. And, like the drug cartels of Mexico and similar enterprises elsewhere in Latin America, the Taliban was able to insinuate itself opportunistically into public affairs because it was able to compete successfully with a weak state. The Taliban was born in the poppy fields as much as it was in the madrassas.

 

Either the Afghan state will control the Taliban or the Taliban will control the Afghan state. Until September 11, 2001, the United States had no urgent belief that what happens in Afghanistan matters here. We learned our lesson the hard way, but we have nonetheless begun to forget it. The problems of Afghanistan may not be as close to us as the problems of Mexico, but in both cases there really is no alternative to building state capacity and effective institutions. The partial reversal of earlier successes in Colombia remind us that this is an uncertain business in which even modest advances must be defended jealously for decades before they become truly durable.

 

We do not want to turn Afghanistan into an American garrison state or colony, and it is long past time to admit frankly that the optimism of the “democracy project” of the George W. Bush years has proved unfounded. At the same time, American interests will not be served by abandoning the Afghan government to a revanchist Taliban and thereby courting anarchy or worse.

 

Above all, we should not enter into the delusion that we can make a deal with the Taliban any more than we can make a deal with the Mexican drug cartels or the mob, or indulge the even more dangerous delusion that we can simply wash our hands of Afghanistan — because if we do, the meth will be the least of our troubles there.

Debt, Deficits, and the Donald

By Veronique de Rugy

Thursday, November 12, 2020

 

Speaking to a CNBC reporter back in January, White House aide Larry Kudlow boasted about economic growth under President Trump (and blamed the Fed and others for its not being even higher): “You’ve gone from 1.5 percent to 2 percent growth. We had it going at almost 4 percent, then the Fed tightened. . . . We’re now down to 2.5 percent to 3 percent. I’m looking for faster growth.”

 

Kudlow was correct to prioritize economic growth. In a paper for the Mercatus Center, William Beach and I noted that if the economy were to grow at an inflation-adjusted rate of only 2 percent, it would take 35 years for the size of the economy to double. Three percent growth would double the economy in 23.5 years, and 4 percent growth would achieve that in less than 18 years.

 

The opportunity cost of slower growth has also been widely documented. As Hoover Institution economist John Cochrane has summed it up: “If the US economy had grown at 2% rather than 3.5% since 1950, income per person by 2000 would have been $23,000 not $50,000. That’s a huge difference. Nowhere in economic policy are we even talking about events that will double, or halve, the average American’s living standards in the next generation.”

 

So, yeah, economic growth is a big deal. The good news is that we know how to promote it. The building blocks of economic growth are property rights, the rule of law, and sound money. While far from perfect on these fronts, the U.S. is in relatively good shape. Additional causes of growth include less burdensome taxes, less regulation, and — contrary to conventional wisdom — substantial spending restraint.

 

Republicans love to focus on the tax part. Tax cuts as economic and political salvation have been a core tenet of Republican dogma since the 1980s, when Jack Kemp likened selling voters on cutting spending to selling them on a root canal. He suggested that GOPers instead focus on cutting taxes as a way of both growing the economy and reducing deficits and debt. Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, has said on multiple occasions that “Republicans have been put on earth to cut taxes.” Indeed, many GOP candidates just finished campaigning on Trump’s signature tax cut and warning that Biden and his fellow Democrats would raise taxes.

 

But Republicans’ singular obsession with cutting taxes obfuscates a profound truth: If you cut taxes but continue to spend excessively, the result is debt, debt, and more debt. And unless the cuts allow revenue to grow faster than debt (wishful thinking), the pressure to impose growth-inhibiting tax hikes or monetary shenanigans only intensifies. Milton Friedman often counseled, “Keep your eye on one thing and one thing only: how much government is spending, because that’s the true tax.” Unfortunately, on this front, Republican administrations and Congresses have utterly failed.

 

When Democrat Bill Clinton left the White House — and congressional Republicans at least pretended to care about federal spending — gross federal debt was close to $6 trillion in nominal terms (55 percent of GDP), and the budget was balanced. The end of the Cold War and a booming economy had reduced for both parties the urgency of fiscal policy. But in hindsight, it’s clear those were the good old days. By the time Clinton’s successor, Republican George W. Bush, had left the White House eight years later, the national debt was around $12 trillion (82 percent of GDP). And when his successor, Democrat Barack Obama, left office another eight years after that, the debt had risen to around $20 trillion (over 100 percent of GDP).

 

This debt explosion happened even though, during the 16 years under Bush and then Obama, Republicans enjoyed more congressional majorities than Democrats. But the Obama administration and congressional Democrats have been just as complicit. And the Democratic agenda has arguably never been more fiscally radical — more insistent on growing government’s size and scope — than it is now, as Joe Biden prepares to move into the White House. But here’s the difference: Democrats have been mostly honest about their desire to grow the government. Republicans have generally been — to put it politely — hypocritical.

 

Hypocritical, that is, until the Donald. He never even pretended to be a small-government Republican. On the campaign trail he joked about being the “king of debt” — though he doesn’t like paying interest on that debt — and called for willy-nilly military-spending increases. He also was honest about his refusal to touch Social Security and Medicare, our two biggest entitlement programs and two of the three main drivers of our indebtedness (the third is Medicaid). As a result, annual government spending just before the coronavirus pandemic was $1 trillion higher than it had been when Obama left office, and the budget deficit was on track to hit $1 trillion despite a historic economic boom.

 

Unsurprisingly, when COVID-19 hit, politicians on both sides of the aisle tripped over themselves to fling at the problem as much money as they could grab, without taking a moment to think seriously about what the best course of action might be. The result was a massive $2.2 trillion relief package, passed in March with the full support of the White House.

 

One can easily understand the impulse. Within a matter of days, the U.S. was hit with a deadly pandemic, businesses closed everywhere, the unemployment rate rocketed above 14 percent, and growth collapsed. It was necessary to put the economy on life support. Today, however, the unemployment rate is down by more than half, the economy is growing again, and businesses across the country are reopening their doors. The White House is nevertheless negotiating with Nancy Pelosi for another relief package of $1.8 to $2 trillion, which would include many programs that have proven counterproductive, such as an unemployment-insurance bonus, and other crony programs, such as additional bailouts for airlines. With Republicans like these, who needs Democrats?

 

So what now? After conducting a presidential campaign that was utterly silent on the national debt, President Trump has lost, and President-elect Biden will likely face a Republican Senate. The good news is that when the Democrats hold the presidency, Republicans tend to remember their talking points about small government and the need to reduce the deficit and the debt. After Barack Obama was elected president, sweeping Democratic control of Congress in with him, big-spending Bush Republicans vigorously attacked (rhetorically, at least) our mounting debt. They even made cutting spending the central talking point of their successful 2010 campaign to retake the House of Representatives. And they certainly deserve credit for making it impossible for Democrats to implement some of their most left-wing policies.

 

The same should prove true this time around. Fortunately, divided government will mean no Green New Deal, no federally mandated and funded paid leave, and no Court-packing. But it probably won’t mean less spending. We saw in 2013 that House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan was willing to make a reckless budget deal with Democratic senator Patty Murray, perceiving it to be a political necessity. We were told there was no other option than to make this ginormous compromise and that fiscal rectitude wasn’t in the cards. We can presumably expect to witness the same sad profligacy under the coming divided government. In fact, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell has already announced that we can expect another COVID-relief bill, one containing many of the Democrats’ favorite provisions, such as bailouts of the states.

 

Hang on to your wallets!

The Supreme Court Got Church Restrictions Right

National Review Online

Sunday, November 29, 2020

 

Andrew Cuomo thinks he can limit the capacity of churches and synagogues to ten people in areas besieged by COVID-19 — while other, more “essential” activities face no limit at all. The Supreme Court quite rightly disagrees.

 

Legally, the Court’s recent decision in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo only pauses the enforcement of these rules against the litigants who’ve challenged them — including the eponymous diocese and Agudath Israel of America — while the case proceeds. But a majority of the Court thinks the restrictions cross the line.

 

Under longstanding precedent, states typically may enact religiously neutral, generally applicable laws without running afoul of the First Amendment, even if those laws sometimes burden religious practices. But if a law that burdens religion is not generally applicable, it must satisfy “strict scrutiny”: It must be narrowly tailored to promote a compelling government interest using the least restrictive means available. Cuomo’s restrictions in areas classified as “orange” or “red” (in terms of COVID-19 prevalence) are neither generally applicable nor narrowly tailored.

 

Within these areas, different types of establishments are treated differently, with houses of worship facing some of the strictest rules. Religious services are limited to ten people in red areas, for example, while many nearby businesses, including acupuncture clinics and liquor stores, are deemed “essential” and may admit as many customers as they want.

 

This policy was clearly not tailored to minimize damage to religious observance. It doesn’t even allow higher attendance in bigger buildings. As the Court noted, some churches in New York can seat more than 1,000 people while others accommodate far fewer, yet none could host more than 25 people in orange areas and ten people in red.

 

The Court’s ruling is neither surprising nor alarming. Cuomo’s rules discriminate against religious services and thereby run afoul of the Constitution. And to fix the problem, Cuomo would not need to exempt houses of worship from the law everyone else follows, but merely ensure that churches aren’t relegated to second-class status. One approach may be to classify churches as essential and to assign all essential activities a capacity limit that takes establishment size into account. Another would be to simply let the hard capacity limits go, since houses of worship in orange and red areas are still required to keep to a low proportion of their total capacity (a third and a quarter respectively) — and because the areas at issue in the lawsuit aren’t classified as orange or red anymore anyway.

 

Going forward, the question is how the Court should treat less egregious restrictions, as the Court’s opinion is rather vague as to where the line is. In a concurrence, Justice Brett Kavanaugh writes that whenever a policy creates a preferred, less regulated category — “essential” businesses, in this case — states must either include religion in that category or carry the burden of justifying churches’ exclusion. This strikes us as fair, though it goes somewhat beyond existing precedent.

 

Perhaps the thorniest issue here, though, is exactly what it should take to justify different sets of restrictions in different circumstances. As two dissenting justices point out, religious services often involve people congregating in groups for protracted periods and singing; this creates different risks from, say, running into a store to pick up a bottle of wine. It is absurd to nearly shutter religious activities, even those following strict rules to prevent COVID-19 spread, while liquor stores face no capacity limit at all. But in future cases the Court will have to draw its lines carefully to avoid micromanaging the states’ COVID responses.

 

In the current decision, however, all the Court does is reiterate the law. Americans have a right to worship as they see fit, and the government may encroach on that right only in limited circumstances, which don’t include targeting churches for unjustifiably poor treatment the way Cuomo’s rules do.

Saturday, November 28, 2020

Pompeo Rejects the ‘America Alone’ Narrative

By Jimmy Quinn

Saturday, November 28, 2020

 

President Trump’s combative and defiant brand of nationalism enraged his critics — some within his own administration — as much as it buoyed his base. The narrative, which calcified to a stubborn degree these past four years, was that he coddled adversaries and cold-shouldered allies, leaving America isolated.

 

Setting aside that Trump counter-claims Joe Biden would go easy on Iran and China, his top diplomat has another rebuttal to these kinds of charges. The claims of a go-it-alone approach, he contends, simply aren’t true.

 

“I hear some attack us, saying we don’t build coalitions, it’s America alone,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told National Review. “I mean, this fact is just nonsense.”

 

Sitting down with NR in Abu Dhabi last weekend, Pompeo reflected on an eventful three years in this post as he wrapped up an extensive tour through the Middle East. His seven-country trip featured visits to numerous U.S.-allied countries. (Click here for more from that interview.)

 

He discussed the prospects for more normalization agreements between Arab nations and Israel, the war in Afghanistan, and more. But a common thread in his outlook, and in his overall assessment of the administration’s foreign policy, is a stern rejection of the charge that it acted without the support of partners.

 

Pompeo’s comments came one day before former Trump defense secretary Jim Mattis co-authored an article for Foreign Affairs arguing, “In practice, ‘America first’ has meant ‘America alone.’”

 

In disputing such claims, Pompeo pointed first to Afghanistan, maintaining, to the backdrop of the president’s controversial decision to withdraw more troops from the country, “We’ve built up partners and alliances that are performing [the mission] together.” Pompeo, a day earlier, had met with Afghan government and Taliban representatives in Doha, where negotiations over a settlement to the protracted conflict have stalled.

 

But Pompeo also ticked off coalitions he said were assembled to combat ISIS, isolate Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro, and bring Southeast Asian nations together as Beijing attempts to fortify its territorial claims in the South China Sea. Some of these efforts — namely, the coalitions in Afghanistan and against ISIS — started under previous administrations.

 

But his comments and his mindset shed light on how the secretary of state — a proponent of a more conventional Republican foreign policy who has staffed his State Department with 2016-era Trump opponents — has thrived in an unconventional presidency.

 

“It all starts with telling the truth and not having a bias towards appeasement,” Pompeo told NR. “Once you do those two things, you can build a realistic platform that others will want to become part of.”

 

Pompeo doesn’t leave much daylight between himself and Trump — a strategy that’s put him in the president’s good graces. But his celebration of certain alliances and international coalitions would appear to stand in contrast to Trump’s broader views on these issues.

 

“You know in many ways our allies treat us worse than the enemy,” Trump said during a rally in Florida in the closing days of the 2020 presidential campaign. “The enemy at least we have our guard up. Our allies, what they have done to us in terms of military protection and trade is disgraceful.”

 

President-elect Biden and his supporters have argued that Trump damaged America’s alliances and compromised its leadership in the world through questioning NATO’s collective self-defense guarantees, imposing tariffs on some key allies, and withdrawing the United States from several international treaties and organizations, such as the Paris Agreement and the Iran nuclear deal.

 

More than a few Republican officials have endorsed some of these critiques, particularly regarding Trump’s withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, his first-year anti-NATO barbs, and the withdrawal of troops from Syria, Germany, and Afghanistan. (The president’s tough talk on NATO, however, has also been credited with convincing member states to up their defense spending.)

 

During a November 24 event to unveil his picks for key national-security posts in Biden’s incoming administration, the former vice president called them “a team that reflects the fact that America is back, ready to lead the world, not retreat from it.” His intended nominee for secretary of state, former deputy secretary of state Tony Blinken, has been portrayed by Biden supporters and the media as an advocate for strong alliances who is being brought in to repair America’s global reputation under Trump.

 

The nature of the strained relations between the U.S. and some of its European allies was on full display during the trip’s awkward first stop in Paris. According to the Associated Press, the French Elysée called Pompeo’s visit there a “courtesy visit,” though readouts from his low-key, closed-door meetings with President Emmanuel Macron and Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian noted discussions about the importance of maintaining the trans-Atlantic relationship and cooperating on counterterrorism and China.

 

The Trump administration has found itself at odds with France and others over Iran. As the State Department led a push to reimpose U.N. arms embargoes set to expire under the 2015 nuclear agreement, the European parties to the deal voted against those efforts at the Security Council. At the time, a furious Pompeo accused them of “siding with ayatollahs.”

 

On Sunday, his comments about the Europeans’ reluctance to act on Iran were not as blunt, expressing confidence that the European people “share the American view that says that the right way to approach this is what we think about as sort of this idea of conservative realism, where we centrally acknowledge the truth, build up coalitions around that, and then act in a way that protects Americans and builds out prosperity around the world.”

 

This gets to the heart of Pompeo’s stated strategy. He was warmly welcomed later in the trip by other countries that have enjoyed close ties with the United States under Trump, such as Israel, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia, demonstrating that as the president has alienated some foreign governments, his administration has reassured U.S. partners elsewhere by calling out the behavior of Iran and China.

 

The administration’s diplomatic push on countering China is another that Pompeo addressed in his interview with National Review.

 

“See the agreement between the Australians and the Japanese yesterday,” he said, referring to a recent security cooperation pact between the two countries. “It’s historic. You see the relationship between the United States and India and the Quad.” The Quad is a grouping of the U.S., India, Japan, and Australia that appears poised to contest China’s bid for dominance in the Indo-Pacific.

 

“These are historic sets of relationships built up by the Trump administration based on simple facts that we laid bare for the whole world to see,” he said.

 

Pompeo’s acknowledgement of the central importance of certain alliances hasn’t necessarily put him at odds with the president. It appears more a translation of Trump’s instincts and tough talk into global coalitions against malign actors.

 

Later in the interview, the secretary of state answered a question about how he would like to be remembered for his time at Foggy Bottom. While stressing his efforts at coalition-building, he did not shy away from the America First worldview that brought Trump into office:

 

“For every hour that I have as America’s secretary of state, I’m going to continue to do my best to take President Trump’s guidance and implement it and demonstrate American leadership all around the world in a way that fundamentally addresses the president’s America First view.”

Natan Sharansky and the Meaning of Freedom

 By Matthew Continetti

Saturday, November 28, 2020

 

Natan Sharansky has been a computer scientist, a chess player, a refusenik, a dissident, a political prisoner, a party leader, a government minister, a nonprofit executive, and a bestselling author. He never expected to be a school counselor.

 

But the coronavirus dashes expectations. In early March, when the virus began to appear in Jewish communities outside New York City, Sharansky found himself online, in an unaccustomed position. He began to share with students and parents whose schools were closed how he had coped during years in confinement.

 

“At first, it seemed absurd, even obscene,” Sharansky writes in his latest book, Never Alone, coauthored with the historian Gil Troy. “How could my experience of playing chess in my head in my punishment cell compare to being cooped up in gadget-filled homes wired to the internet — with computer chess — especially because this isolation is imposed to protect people, not break them?”

 

What Sharansky realized is that the costs of lockdowns do not depend on the reasons behind them. The sudden and seemingly arbitrary interruption of individual plans, movements, and relationships causes psychological harm. Sharansky recorded a brief YouTube video for the Jewish Agency — you can watch it here — offering his five tips for quarantine. Recognize the importance of your choices and behavior, Sharansky advised. Understand that some things are beyond your control. Keep laughing. Enjoy your hobbies. Consider yourself part of a larger cause.

 

“Surprisingly,” Sharansky writes, “this short clip went viral, reaching so many people all over the world within a few days that it made me wonder why even bother writing this book.” His reaction was another example of his droll and often self-deprecating wit. The video, however helpful it may be, does not match the power and wisdom of Never Alone. Part autobiography, part meditation on Jewish community, the book ties together the themes of Sharansky’s earlier work, from his prison memoir, Fear No Evil (1988), to his defense of cultural particularity, Defending Identity (2008). It is a moving story of emancipation and connection, of freedom and meaning.

 

Sharansky was born in 1948 in the Ukrainian city of Stalino. His given name was Anatoly. His parents were educated professionals who downplayed their Jewish identity. They did not want to risk political and social reprisal. “The only real Jewish experience I had was facing anti-Semitism,” he writes. The precocious youth spent his early years playing chess. He learned to navigate a Soviet system that maintained its rule through fear. He became captive to doublethink. He repeated official lies and myths not because it was the right thing to do, but because it was the safe thing to do.

 

Sharansky enrolled in the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology. “I dived into the republic of science,” he writes. “This world seemed insulated from the doublethink I had mastered at home.” Israel’s victory in the Six-Day War prompted him to discover his heritage. “Realizing how little I knew about this country that so many people were now asking about made me hungry to learn more.”

 

Sharansky studied representations of Biblical scenes hanging from the walls of Moscow’s galleries. He came across a samizdat copy of Leon Uris’s Exodus, a potboiler historical fiction that describes Israel’s founding. “It drew me into Jewish history, and Israel’s history, through my Russian roots. It helped me see myself as part of the story.”

 

The following year the Soviet nuclear physicist Andrei Sakharov wrote his “Reflections on Progress, Peaceful Coexistence, and Intellectual Freedom.” Sakharov argued for freedom of inquiry. He demanded the protection of human rights. “Sakharov was warning that life in a dictatorship offers two choices: either you overcome your fear and stand for truth, or you remain a slave to fear, no matter how fancy your titles, no matter how big your dacha,” Sharansky writes. “Ultimately, I couldn’t escape myself or my conscience.”

 

Inspired by Sakharov, Sharansky applied for a visa to immigrate to Israel in 1973. He was rejected. He was unable to leave the Soviet Union. That made him a refusenik. “My life as a doublethinker, which I had consciously begun at age five the day Stalin died, was over. The professional world I had built for myself, my castle of science, collapsed instantly. Now, I could say what I thought, do what I said, and say what I did.”

 

The twin concerns of Sharansky’s life — identity and freedom — became fused. “Democracy — a free life in a free society — is essential because it satisfies a human yearning to choose one’s path, to pursue one’s goals,” he wrote in Defending Identity. “It broadens possibilities and provides opportunity for self-advancement. Identity, a life of commitment, is essential because it satisfies a human longing to become part of something bigger than oneself. It adds layers of meaning to our lives and deepens the human experience.” Freedom offers choice. Identity provides direction.

 

It would be a while before Sharansky could enjoy his own freedom. By 1975, he was working with Sakharov. The next year he formed the Moscow Helsinki Group to pressure the Soviets to live up to the commitments they had made in basket three of the Helsinki Accords. The KGB arrested him in 1977. “I spent the next nine years in prison and labor camp,” he wrote in Fear No Evil, “mainly on a special disciplinary regime, including more than 400 days in punishment cells, and more than 200 days on hunger strikes.”

 

In prison he played chess games in his head. “I always won.” He would tease the guards with anti-Soviet jokes. He was not afraid. What could they do — put him in jail? He communicated with his fellow inmates through Morse code. They would drain the toilets and speak to one another through pipes. He read Soviet propaganda esoterically, between the lines. He figured out what was actually going on by determining what the authorities had omitted.

 

Sharansky was in prison when he heard that President Ronald Reagan had called the Soviet Union the “Evil Empire.” The year was 1983. Reagan had uttered the famous — and controversial — words in a speech to the National Association of Evangelicals. “It was one of the most important, freedom-affirming declarations, and we all instantly knew it,” Sharansky said in a 2004 interview. “For us, that was the moment that really marked the end for them, and the beginning for us. The lie had been exposed and could never, ever be untold now. This was the end of Lenin’s ‘Great October Bolshevik Revolution’ and the beginning of a new revolution, a freedom revolution — Reagan’s Revolution.”

 

Sharansky and his wife Avital had been apart since her immigration to Israel the day after they married in 1974. Throughout his imprisonment she worked tirelessly on his behalf, and on behalf of other refuseniks and dissidents. She found an ally in Israel’s U.N. ambassador, Benjamin Netanyahu. She met with Reagan, who began asking Soviet leaders to release Sharansky. Gorbachev freed him on February 11, 1986. He was reunited with Avital in Frankfurt Airport. They flew to Israel. “‘It was just one long day,’ Avital sighed later that night, in our new home in Jerusalem. ‘I arrived in Israel in the morning. You arrived in the evening. It was just one very, very long day in between.’”

 

He became Natan. He entered Israeli politics. He helped resettle one million immigrants from the former Soviet Union. He opposed the Oslo peace accords. He resigned from Ariel Sharon’s government over the policy of unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. His work as an activist was devoted to building what Reagan had described as “the infrastructure of democracy.” Sharansky distinguished between free societies and fear societies. “The structural elements that enable democratic societies to respect human rights — independent courts, the rule of law, a free press, a freely elected government, meaningful opposition parties, not to mention human rights organizations — were all glaringly absent in fear societies,” he wrote in The Case for Democracy (2004).

 

Sharansky’s career resists summary. It offers lessons in courage, freedom, justice, belonging, and hope. What makes his example especially relevant is his insistence that freedom and identity, liberty and tribe, are not just compatible but codependent. “To have a full, interesting, meaningful life,” he writes in Never Alone, “you have to figure out how to be connected enough to defend your freedom and free enough to protect your identity.” The same puzzle confronts nations. “Benefiting from the best of liberalism and the best of nationalism, together we can champion the joint mission to belong and to be free as both central to human happiness.”

 

Governments establish the conditions of liberty. But identity must come from below. The most positive and enduring sources of identity are not found in politics. They are located in civil society. The institutions of family, faith, and community tell us who we are, what we want, where we should turn.

 

People are antecedent to government. And they must remain so, if democracy is to survive. This is the unforgettable teaching of Natan Sharansky, hero and champion of freedom.

Time for Hard Choices on Federal Drug Enforcement

By Andrew C. McCarthy

Saturday, November 28, 2020

 

With controversy over the 2020 election still stirring, a notable development has escaped much attention. Not only has the national trend toward legalizing marijuana continued, a Rubicon has been crossed: Oregon adopted a ballot initiative that decriminalizes the possession of hard narcotics, including heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamines.

 

No, it is not a green-light for drug trafficking — not yet at least. The ballot initiative approved in the Beaver State aims to strike the criminal penalties for the possession of personal-use amounts of illegal narcotics, generally a misdemeanor, not possession of greater amounts, which indicates an intent to engage in felony distribution. Selling or otherwise transmitting drugs is still a state crime.

 

And all of it — possession, medical use, recreational use, and distribution — still violates the federal criminal law, which is the main issue I’ll come to, in due course. 

 

The Trend against Criminal Enforcement

 

Despite that complication, the trajectory of things is not in doubt. As Vox reports, Oregon voters also legalized the use of psilocybin, the psychoactive compound found in so-called magic mushrooms. That dispensation is only for supervised therapeutic purposes . . . at least for the time being. Moreover, five states — Arizona, Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey, and South Dakota — liberalized their marijuana laws, either legalizing it for medical purposes (which is always the first step), or expanding an already existing medical-use dispensation so that it now embraces recreational use, and larger possession amounts that are fitting for a legal commodity.

 

Once you go down this path, there are knotty knock-on effects: To what extent are employers required to tolerate drug possession or use? Must workplaces and other facilities provide medical-use space? Must they abide recreational use? If it’s legal but they oppose it, may employers inquire about drug use in the hiring process? Refuse to hire an applicant over it? Fire an employee over it? States are fitfully tackling these questions, too. It’s a Brave New World.

 

To mix in another metaphor, it’s also a Pandora’s Box. Many will prefer to don blinders and see drug use as strictly a personal liberty issue. Other analysts, prudently, are determined to force our eyes wide open. AEI’s Naomi Schaefer Riley and Hudson’s John Walters (the latter was President George W. Bush’s drug czar) published a Wall Street Journal essay last week, outlining in remorseless detail the wages of parental drug abuse on the lives of young children.

 

I don’t pretend this is simple. Many of the same claims can be made about alcohol, which no one sensible is looking to prohibit (that having worked out so well the last time). It’s reasonable to contend that using the criminal-justice system to address all this dysfunction and suffering only makes matters worse — with the added banes of gang crime, gun crime, ruined neighborhoods, and cycles of addiction and incarceration. Neither can we ignore, however, the stubborn facts that the law is the signal of what a society is prepared to tolerate, and that legalizing an addictive activity guarantees that there will be more of it, along with its inevitable train of damages.

 

We will have to wrestle for years to come with these and other policy questions. For now, I want to focus more on the implications for national cohesion.

 

Federalism and Contemporary Law Enforcement

 

To repeat, states that ease drug prohibitions do so in the teeth of federal law, specifically, the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) — an oft-amended relic of 1970 that still refers to derivatives of the cannabis plant as “marihuana.” CSA statutes continue to criminalize drug possession and use.

 

Yet, as of May 2020, all but three states have legalized the use of cannabis for medical purposes, according to the Congressional Research Service. In addition, with this year’s ballot initiatives, the number of states (plus the District of Columbia) that have removed criminal penalties on the recreational use of marijuana is nearing 20. Oregon is so far alone in easing the criminalization of other drugs, but it is only a matter of time before others join in — the states of Washington and California are candidates in the short term.

 

The Framers’ structure of governance provides for the federalist sharing of sovereignty. The states are supposed to be sovereign in the regulation of their internal affairs, particularly law enforcement. Federal power was to be reserved for national issues. Over the last century, the concept of what constitutes a “national issue” has expanded geometrically.

 

That puts great strain on the Framers’ design. Under Article VI, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” If the federal government has properly enacted law that intrudes on state affairs, even law based on dubious policy premises, the states may not enact contradictory law. On the other hand, federal law is not properly enacted if it purports to regulate intrastate activity of the kind our system is meant to leave to state police power.

 

Competing drug laws bring the tensions into sharp relief.

 

There was precious little federal law enforcement at the time of the Founding. Treason is the only criminal offense defined in the Constitution, but Article I expressly anticipated that Congress would define and punish crimes of national and international consequence, such as piracy, felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations. It was to be expected, moreover, that federal criminal law would be enacted to cover areas of paramount federal interests, such as assaults on U.S. government officials. The Constitution also laid the groundwork for Congress’s creation of a multi-layered system of lower federal courts. All that said, the Framers could not have foreseen the metastatic growth of federal criminal law and its vast accompanying enforcement infrastructure, including the Justice Department (not created until 1870) and its component agencies.

 

Why Federal Drug Enforcement?

 

Much of this law-enforcement expansion, in conjunction with Washington’s more-intrusive role in national life generally, has been driven by the elasticity of governmental and judicial interpretations of Congress’s Article I power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. This is the main source of constitutional legitimacy for federal drug enforcement.

 

The idea is that as the world has gotten smaller and economic life more integrated and complex, there is a greater need for federal regulation. While there is a lot to challenge in that premise, it is undeniably true that aspects of narcotics trafficking present a strong case for intervention by Washington. Hard drugs are lethally dangerous, and thus their manufacture and distribution should be rigorously regulated, including by criminal penalties. Many illegal drugs and their precursors do not originate in the United States. Importation and distribution networks are international and controlled by criminal syndicates. Domestically, trafficking is dominated by organized-crime groups with coast-to-coast wingspans.

 

As a practical matter, this macro level of importation and distribution could not be left to state enforcement. Unlike the Justice Department (with its FBI and DEA components, as well as its task forces that deputize state police to exercise federal enforcement authority), the law-enforcement arms of the states are not designed to investigate and prosecute criminal conduct that crosses multi-state and national boundaries, overwhelming their jurisdictional and financial limitations.

 

Nevertheless, drug use and distribution at the dealer-user level is strictly intrastate activity. In fact, with respect to marijuana, the entire sequence of activity — production, sale, and consumption — now commonly happens without anyone needing to cross a state or national boundary.

 

The tension over marijuana has been building for decades. The legalization camp unites — for different reasons — a motley combination of progressives, libertarians, and states-rights conservatives. Arrayed on the other side are other conservatives and centrist liberals, who worry about teen drug use, marijuana as a gateway to addictive drugs, and the alarming spikes in dependence and overdose deaths attributable to opioid abuse in recent years — as well as the related concerns about public health and orderly society ably raised by Ms. Riley and Mr. Walters.

 

Fraying Federal Compromise on Marijuana

 

In federalism terms, there has been something of an uneasy truce since 2014. At that point, Congress started placing appropriation riders in budget bills, denying public funding to Justice Department initiatives that could impede state efforts to legalize medical marijuana. On that medical use, there is a growing national consensus — even grudging agreement among naysayers who see the push for medical marijuana as mostly a pretext to enable recreational marijuana.

 

That, however, is where the consensus breaks down. Congressional appropriations reflect that fact: Still confined to medical use, the riders have not kept up with the inexorable progression to recreational use, the lawful possession of larger quantities (which blur the line between users and dealers), and, now, the decriminalization of hard drugs.

 

Potential conflicts have been mitigated by the doctrine of prosecutorial discretion. The states and the federal government have concurrent jurisdiction over drug crimes, and it has been a practice of law enforcement since I started as a federal prosecutor in the 1980s for the Feds to leave the vast majority of marijuana crimes and drug-use crimes to state enforcement, focusing instead on conspiracies to import and distribute hard drugs. But there was always a caveat to this exercise of prosecutorial discretion: Dormant though it was, the Feds retained their authority to investigate and prosecute the lesser narcotics offenses.

 

During the Obama administration (which made extravagant use of executive discretion not to enforce laws in many areas), the Justice Department issued guidance that prosecutors should assume a substantially hands-off approach to activities related to medical marijuana. The Trump Justice Department rescinded that guidance, but with the proviso that, in exercising their discretion, prosecutors should be mindful of not only laws but “appropriations.” That, plainly, was a nod to Congress’s de facto safe harbor for medical marijuana activities. Consequently, the Congressional Research Service observes, marijuana prosecutions dropped in 2018 and 2019 even though the total number of people charged with federal drug crimes increased.

 

Again, the federal indulgence of states’ rights to make their own drug laws has been strictly limited to medical marijuana, not recreational use. And even that safe harbor is narrow, covering possession and use of marijuana for medical purposes, but not potential crimes and collateral consequences derived from the establishment of quasi-legal medical marijuana markets — e.g., money laundering, prohibition of gun possession by unlawful drug users, and unfavorable tax, bankruptcy, and immigration consequences.

 

We have limped along in this ambiguity for a long time. Perhaps if it were limited to marijuana, we could continue this way, at least for the short term. But Oregon’s decriminalization of hard drug use changes the dynamic. It necessarily reduces the perception that felony drug distribution is a serious crime — already, we are hearing that users at this level are often dealers, it is part of the cycle of addiction, incarceration is never the answer, and so on. The Feds were not prosecuting many marijuana offenses, so a mostly blind eye to the flouting of congressional law could be rationalized; but that won’t do for hard drugs.

 

State Nullification of Federal Law — a Short History

 

It is worth remembering that the Civil War was nearly triggered 30 years before it started by the great nullification crisis. The conflict involved two very different visions of federalism and a sense of resentment in the South, with its cotton- and tobacco-export economy, that Washington was putting its thumb on the scale in favor of the North’s fledgling industrial base.

 

For South Carolina, the last straws were the so-called Tariff of Abominations in 1828 and the somewhat less harmful Tariff Act of 1832. In A History of the American People, Paul Johnson recounts that the extraordinarily high U.S. exactions hit South Carolina’s foreign customers hard, particularly Britain. Originally among the richest states, South Carolina feared becoming one of the poorest, and was losing population by the tens of thousands. In 1832, at a state constitutional convention in which talk of secession was in the air, the Palmetto State adopted the Ordinance of Nullification. It decried national tariff legislation as unconstitutional, forbade collection of duties in the state, and even provided that if federal authorities retaliated by seizing property, the owner was entitled to recover twice its value in court.

 

Though a Carolinian by birth, Andrew Jackson was a Unionist at heart. In 1833, he was also a president just reelected by a landslide, and thus at the height of his powers. In response, he prepared to put down South Carolina’s nullification by force. The power to annul a law of the United States, he wrote, was

 

incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed.” [Jackson’s italics.]

 

Near Charleston Harbor, Jackson reinforced army posts and dispatched naval vessels, while seeking Congress’s authorization to use force. South Carolina backed down, rescinding its ordinance and ceasing secession proposals. Notably, this was largely due to some face-saving compromise legislation, sponsored by Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky, which reduced tariffs over the next decade.

 

Jackson was right that it is incompatible with our constitutional order for states to attempt to nullify properly enacted federal law by adopting their own contradictory laws. To do so imperils our national cohesion. If allowed to stand, defiance becomes a trend — as we see with the plethora of blue states, cities, and counties that regard themselves as “sanctuaries” from federal immigration laws.

 

Yet nullification disputes can illustrate the foolhardiness of federal laws and overreach by Washington. South Carolina bent to Jackson, but not without tariff relief. At the end of the 18th century, to take another famous example, Jefferson and Madison backed state resolutions that claimed a right to nullify Congress’s Alien and Sedition Acts. In the end, the sedition provisions in particular were rejected in 1800 by the public: The Federalists were routed, Jefferson was elected president, and the offensive enforcement measures were undone.

 

Immigration was originally a state-enforcement issue. Narcotics regulation is patently a state-enforcement issue, at least at the all-important street level. Yet the federal government has chosen to occupy these fields, and the courts have recognized its supremacy. But it has always been an ambivalent supremacy. The Feds have neither the resources nor the will to police every drug crime or every minor immigration infraction.

 

It is beyond time to revisit both federal law enforcement at the intrastate level, and state liberalization policies. If the federal government is not going to enforce laws regarding marijuana distribution and drug use, it should formally cede that authority to the state. It should stick to what it is willing and able to address: felony narcotics importation and distribution at the macro level. That said, if some states are determined to liberalize marijuana laws and even laws prohibiting the use of hard drugs, they must be made to bear the economic and other downside consequences of these policies. Such states should not be permitted to socialize the costs, expecting the rest of the country to underwrite their dubious choices.

 

Federalism is the great safety valve in our pluralistic society. If the lines of responsibility need redrawing, then it is best done before federal overreach and state defiance provoke a crisis. That time is now.