Monday, August 2, 2021

Paul Krugman Keeps Getting COVID Wrong

By David Harsanyi

Friday, July 30, 2021

 

When you believe every tribulation of mankind can be solved by a smart technocratic state mandate, you tend to see everything through the prism of politics. So it goes with Nobel Prize–winner Paul Krugman, who now claims that the Delta variant spike — the one that ran through Britain recently — is a “red-state crisis” with “nakedly political roots.” And by “political roots,” Krugman is talking about the reluctance of certain governors, specifically Ron DeSantis, to embrace draconian shutdowns and mandates.

 

Throughout the pandemic, Krugman would write a breathless column about the coming apocalypse in Florida or Texas every time a new spike occurred. Alternatively, he would simply ignore inconvenient spikes elsewhere. “Getting other people sick isn’t an ‘individual choice,’” Krugman groused last summer, calling Florida the COVID-19 “epicenter,” with the “daily death toll now consistently exceeding that of the whole European Union.” A few months later, when California, one of the most aggressively mandated states, experienced infection rates that were “unparalleled” in the nation according to CNN, Krugman, as far as I can tell, had nothing to say.

 

There is always an element of unsightly wish-casting to his selective outrage. “Reality is coming for white supremacists driving golf carts,” he warned last summer, linking to a Bloomberg piece about rising infection rates among people 75 and older in Florida. Krugman kept insinuating that Florida would surpass New York. Thankfully for Floridians, as with most Krugman prophecies, this one never came to pass.

 

New York State’s fatality rate — Krugman was a big Cuomo booster — is 279 per 100,000, second worst in the nation after New Jersey. Florida remains at 170 per 100,000, which is 25th in the nation. (In the end, California performed better with 163 per 100,000, right behind MAGA-land, West Virginia.) Still, Florida had better outcomes than numerous blue states. Add to that the fact that the state happens to be home to an older, more susceptible population, and the lower fatality rate is even more impressive. Florida’s fatality rate for citizens over the age of 65 is lower than 40 states’. Ron DeSantis prioritized the elderly early but limited state interference in business, and this is what irks Krugman the most.

 

Krugman points out that New York has five COVID patients hospitalized per 100,000 today, while Florida has 34. He’s great at making arguments using snapshots. Hospitalizations are indeed a problem in Florida right now. Deaths from the Delta variant, however, remain low everywhere.

 

Overall, the United States vaccine rate isn’t an outlier. Nearly 57 percent of Americans have one shot, slightly below the European Union average. And 49 percent of Americans are fully vaccinated, which is slightly better than the European Union average. (New Zealand, Krugman’s favorite nation, is at 14.5 percent.) The state of Florida has a 48.7 percent vaccination rate — higher than in many European nations, all red states, and also Illinois, Georgia, Arizona, and Michigan.

 

Vaccine hesitancy, of course, is a complicated matter. No doubt, conservatives in rural areas are less trustful of government. As are minorities in urban areas. Krugman glides over this latter, inconvenient problem by claiming that nefarious conservative ideology drives skepticism in Florida, but that black and Hispanic skepticism is fueled by lack of “information and trust.”

 

First of all, there are plenty of reasons not to trust public-health officials who have corroded societal trust by politicizing “science” and inconsistent messaging. But lack of information? In New York City, the information capital of the world, the black vaccination rate is 31 percent — lower than any state average. One suspects the lack of trust in Brooklyn is quite similar to that in Oklahoma. But Krugman would never waste a good crisis.

 

Instead, he wants us to return to “mask mandates for sure, and maybe even partial lockdowns” — even though the evidence shows us they’ve failed. Safetyism is the lifeblood of statism, and COVID has given people the excuse they need to normalize endless intrusions.

How America Should Deal with Iran’s New President

By Victoria Coates

Monday, August 02, 2021

 

By adapting the Obama-era policy of “strategic silence” in the wake of the selection of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s enforcer Ebrahim Raisi as president of Iran, the Biden administration is tacitly endorsing his appointment, presumably in hopes of persuading him to return to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or nuclear deal, after his inauguration in August. The ballooning social protests across Iran, however, suggest that a return to “strategic silence” at this critical juncture could be as great a missed opportunity this summer as it was twelve years ago when the then Obama administration studiedly ignored the greatest threat to the Islamic Republic since its inception in 1979. A more productive policy might be to revisit the successful Cold War precedent, summed up in the word “solidarity,” for forward-leaning engagement with the Iranian people.

 

In June 2009, as tens of thousands of brave Iranians took to the streets to protest the fraudulent reelection of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president, John Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, wrote in the New York Times to caution “neoconservatives” to “think before you speak” about developments in Iran. Kerry cautioned that, while he was “inspired” by the protesters and “sympathized” with their aspirations, strongly supporting them would only empower the hardliners. President Obama, on the other hand, by keeping quiet and “offering negotiation and conciliation to Tehran,” had “put the extremists on the defensive.” The result of this remarkable discretion was the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or Iran nuclear deal.

 

Following the corrupt and undemocratic selection of Raisi as president, the Biden administration has reprised the silent treatment, declining even to put out an anodyne statement on this theater-of-the-absurd form of democracy from the State Department let alone anything from President Biden himself. This glaring omission began to get so much attention that the State Department spokesman felt compelled to respond that comments in his daily briefing were the statement, a claim that is laughable given State’s routine practice of putting out statements on elections, great and small,  around the world. The decision not to condemn the elections is so obviously the price for the ongoing nuclear talks in Vienna that it hardly requires articulation.

 

But for two reasons the Biden administration might want to reconsider its decision to not condemn the Iranian “elections.” First, Raisi is a particularly dangerous combination of thug and cleric. Second, the Iranian people may be waiting for just the sort of robust encouragement the Obama administration withheld in 2009.

 

One thing the election made clear is that the Supreme Leader no longer sees a benefit to paying lip service to useful-stooge “reformists” in the regime, such as outgoing president Hasan Rouhani and foreign minister Javed Zarif. Raisi’s background suggests that he has a very important — and potentially personal — role in maintaining the Khamenei family’s control of Iran.

 

The new president cut his authoritarian teeth in the 1979 Islamic revolution, and he quickly became prominent in the Iranian judiciary, a position he used to coordinate the brutal crackdowns on any dissent, including the 1988 wholesale massacre of political prisoners, which was part of the case the Trump administration built in 2019 to sanction him under Executive Order 13876 targeting the inner members of the Supreme Leader’s circle. Raisi also spent three years as the chairman of Astan Quds Razavi, an organization that is ostensibly a religious charity but is actually part of the shadowy network of slush funds making up the Khamenei family fortune.

 

Raisi therefore knows where the bodies are literally buried in the Supreme Leader’s support structure, as well as how to clamp down on any burgeoning opposition — making him the ideal candidate to oversee any unrest that might emerge around the time of Khamenei’s abdication or death. This is not to say there is any precise knowledge of when that might take place, but it would be logical to assume it might well be during the four or eight years of Raisi’s tenure. While the Supreme Leader’s ultimate goal is likely to ensure the elevation of his son, Mojtaba (also sanctioned under E.O. 13876), to the Supreme Leadership, Raisi would be an excellent caretaker to ensure that the succession takes place and that the family’s fortune is preserved.

 

While these developments are certainly in the best interests of Khamenei, they are not likely to be well received by the Iranian people, for whom regime corruption is a top concern. They know perfectly well that as they have suffered and starved under the international sanctions placed on Tehran, the top clerics and generals have grown enormously wealthy off profiteering and illicit oil sales while stifling what little (if any) opportunities exist for democratic change. Regime apologists explained the shockingly low participation in the June 18 presidential elections as voter “apathy,” but apathy does not appear to be the cause, as the second-place finisher, after Raisi, was a blank or deliberately voided ballot. While we cannot know the precise number, this organized campaign combining boycott and rejection of all the candidates may have gotten as much as 75 percent of the vote. The Iranian people may not be so apathetic after all.

 

In addition, protests have broken out across Iran in recent weeks, but, unlike the primarily political protests of 2009, these uprisings are being fueled as well by social issues, such as unrest among the labor unions over reduced wages and dangerous conditions, particularly in the petroleum sector. These demonstrations pose a significant challenge to the regime, as indiscriminate murders of these workers could provoke additional strikes and disruptions in production in this critical industry that the weakened Iranian economy could not sustain. In addition, protests in Khuzestan Province over a severe water shortage are spreading across the country, in a sort of collective cri de coeur against the systemic corruption and mismanagement by Tehran that has turned a wealthy, resourceful country into a barren desert.

 

When directly asked in press conferences, the State Department reports that it is “monitoring” the situation, but it took more than three weeks to issue any official statement, and then only from the press secretary, who “urged the Iranian government to allow its citizens to exercise their right to freedom of expression and to freely access information, including via the Internet,” which is hardly a robust expression of support from senior officials in Washington.

 

As Raisi prepares for his inauguration this week, it has been revealed that Iran is responsible for the attack on the Mercer Street (a civilian commercial vessel tied to Israel) in the Arabian Gulf that killed two members of its crew, in a clear signal that Tehran is doubling down on its belligerent hostility toward the United States and our allies regardless of the conciliatory gestures and concessions from the Biden administration. But if the demonstrations continue to intensify, there could be one last opportunity — before the Iranian regime entrenches itself for another generation — for American political leadership to change course and speak up powerfully on behalf of the protesters and to galvanize international opposition to the regime that has oppressed Iranians for so long.

 

After all, such a tactic helped the United States win the Cold War: America successfully supported the Polish labor movement in the 1980s through mechanisms such as the congressionally funded National Endowment for Democracy, and it encouraged U.S. unions to support their Polish counterparts. Potential Iranian regional allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, which are at the cutting edge of water security, can publicly outline plans to reverse Iran’s catastrophic water shortage. Congress can finally move to provide free and uncensored satellite Internet access so the protesters can organize and get their story to the outside world. This show of solidarity might be just what the Iranian people need to reshape their destiny, but it won’t happen if President Biden and his administration continue to pursue a strategy of silence.

COVID-Vaccine Campaign Suffers as Feds Drag Their Feet

By Jim Geraghty

Monday, August 02, 2021

 

The heart of our problem is that the threat we face moves at the speed of a highly contagious virus, and the solution moves at the speed of bureaucracy.

 

Is our primary goal to persuade the unvaccinated to get vaccinated? Then we need to get the FDA to issue final approval, not just an emergency-use authorization, for the available vaccines. It’s not the only solution, but it’s a key part of a solution.

 

The New York Times estimates, based upon survey data, that 10 percent of U.S. adults describe themselves as unvaccinated but potentially persuadable to getting the vaccine, which the Times calls the “wait and see” group. That’s about 21 million people.

 

In a Kaiser survey in June, nearly half of the “wait and see” group (44 percent) said they would be “more likely” to get a vaccine if one of the vaccines currently authorized for emergency use received full approval from the FDA.

 

That’s about 9.2 million American adults. It is likely that at least some of those adults are exaggerating how important full approval is in their decision-making. But not all of them are.

 

The argument from most vaccination advocates is that for the average person trying to avoid COVID-19, there’s no real difference between the FDA’s granting an emergency-use authorization, and the FDA’s approving a biological-license application. In both cases, the FDA is declaring to the public that, “This vaccine is safe, and you should take it to protect yourself from the virus.”

 

But if we ask, “If there’s no real difference, why can’t the FDA just grant final approval?” we’re told that the FDA hasn’t finished looking at the data yet. Clearly, there is a difference. There’s something absurd about the FDA’s saying it doesn’t have enough data about how these vaccines affect people to make a final decision, when 191 million Americans have received at least one shot. The data are all around us!

 

Both Pfizer and Moderna submitted their biological-license applications back in early May. Johnson & Johnson submitted its application about a month later. In the middle of July, Pfizer announced that the FDA had granted its application “priority review,” which means that the goal date for a decision by the FDA was . . . January 2022. On Friday, the FDA announced that it had “rolled out an all hands on deck” approach to expediting final approval. It seems fair to wonder just what the agency was doing before the “all hands on deck” approach.

 

Among other consequences, the U.S. military cannot require personnel to get a vaccine that does not have full approval from the FDA. Right now, about 885,000 U.S. military personnel are fully vaccinated, and about 480,000 aren’t. And company mandates requiring employees to get vaccinated against COVID-19 will be on much more solid ground against legal challenges with a vaccine fully authorized by the FDA, instead of one that is authorized for emergency use.

 

Again, when the FDA gives that final approval, about 9 million people said that factor would get them off the fence. Maybe they’re lying, and just using the lack of full approval as an excuse. But there is something contradictory about telling people “Trust the science!” and then quietly acknowledging that “the science” hasn’t given its full, final approval to the vaccine.

 

Is our primary goal to protect children from COVID-19?

 

Then we need kid-friendly versions of the vaccines available as soon as possible — and the FDA’s current estimate of “midwinter” availability isn’t good enough.

 

Because of the different timelines for FDA approval, some people may believe that the kid version, the teen version, and the adult version of the vaccines are all different formulas. In fact, they’re all the same! The adult and teen vaccines are even the same-sized doses, although the clinical trials of the children’s vaccines are testing doses of varying sizes.

 

Moderna and Pfizer started recruiting kids for vaccine trials in March. But the FDA wants four to six months of safety follow-up data for kids under age twelve.

 

One of the more frustrating moments of Biden’s press conference last week was his tone-deaf plea: “Parents, get your children vaccinated. You do it for so many other things right now.” Parents of kids under twelve don’t have that option — at least, not without lying about their child’s age. There’s something bizarre about seeing calls for vaccine mandates for all students in all schools, including elementary schools, when everybody in sixth grade and below can’t get it yet, and reportedly may not get it before 2022.

 

Is our primary goal to ensure that our elderly citizens don’t have waning immune-system resistance against COVID-19 variants? Then let’s authorize boosters.

 

If I had to guess the next headache in the Biden administration’s messaging on the pandemic, it will be this statement from President Biden on Thursday: “I also know many of you are wondering if you’ll need a booster shot to add another layer of protection. As of now, my medical advisors say the answer is no.  No American needs a booster now. But if the science tells us there’s a need for boosters, then that’s something we’ll do.”

 

Israel is giving citizens over age 60 booster shots. It’s doing this after a study determined that the two-shot Pfizer vaccination, after six months, is still 91 percent effective at preventing hospitalization . . . but only 39 percent effective at preventing infection and transmission. That’s not the worst possible news, but it’s ominous. The elderly generally have weaker immune systems and are just more vulnerable to infections of all kinds — more infections among this demographic will almost inevitably result in more hospitalizations and deaths, even if those dire outcomes are much rarer than they would be among the unvaccinated elderly.

 

Quite a few Americans who received their shots in December and January have passed or are coming up on that six-month anniversary. In fact, Joe Biden received his second shot of the Pfizer vaccine January 11, which means he was fully vaccinated January 25. Six months after January 25 was . . . a week ago, Sunday.

 

Right now, an American senior citizen cannot get a third shot. (I’ve heard from some people that if you go to a different spot than where you got your first shots, they may not check against any available records in the Vaccine Administration Management System. I’ve also heard that some places are being less than strict about the twelve-or-older age requirement.) Our current policy is to offer $100 to people who don’t want to get vaccinated and to deny a third shot to those who want one. This is an inflexible, bureaucratic mindset at work.

 

The first U.S. vaccine trials began 75 days after the first reports of pneumonia in Wuhan; the first shot went into the first arm on March 16, 2020. We can develop potential vaccines with remarkable speed.

Sunday, August 1, 2021

Stop the Progressive Left’s Assault on the Rule of Law

By George J. Terwilliger III

Sunday, August 01, 2021

 

The heartbreaking death of a six-year-old caught in a crossfire last month in a Washington, D.C., neighborhood ought to be the catalyst for a political wake-up call to all those standing idly by as the progressive Left pushes ahead with an assault on the rule of law. That neighborhood, ironically known as Congress Heights, is within sight of the Capitol dome. The death of a child in D.C., caught in the crossfire of thugs, ought in particular to shake Congress out of its acquiescence and seeming lack of concern about crime. The progressive Left’s assault on the rule of law has hastened the wave of violence washing over the nation’s urban cores. For far too long, America has tolerated a level of violent crime in inner cities, principally victimizing racial minorities, that would be totally unacceptable in tonier suburbs. As opposed to the imagined insults that progressives see flowing from institutional “whiteness,” tolerating a different standard of acceptance for the robbery, rape, and killings, including too often of children, in inner cities is a real mark of racism.

 

The mainstream media — mainly from a distance — report now that crime is “running rampant” in U.S. inner cities; that is an understated cliché. Rather, current conditions and trends are better expressed by reference to the number of dead and wounded in those places — a national tragedy. Trends in 2020 — continued halfway through 2021 — include a 25 percent increase in murders nationally over 2019. Chicago 2020: 770 murders, a 50 percent increase over 2019, plus 1,000 more shooting victims; New York 2020: 150 more homicides than in 2019, a 40 percent increase, plus 700 additional shooting victims. In 2021, New York, Chicago, and other cities have reported attacks on passersby, even in Times Square.

 

There really is a war on cops, and that child and all those newly dead and wounded statistically summarized above are its bloody casualties. But “defund the police” and similar nonsense is just one piece of a frontal assault by the progressive Left on the rule of law. That cultural and philosophical war should rightly be seen to threaten all who believe in our constitutional system and who seek public safety anchored in ordered liberty.

 

Ordered liberty, that is, securing both liberty and order through adherence to the rule of law, is a fundamental principle in our constitutional system. Adherence to that principle exalts individual liberty while at the same time protecting communities of individuals with rules necessary to public safety. Progressives want none of that. For them, the individual must be subservient to the state, and individual rights are an obstacle to statist controls over individual choice: The rule of some replaces the rule of law.

 

I am well aware that “experts” will disagree with me as to the “root causes” of the crime surge. They will cite the pandemic, economic factors, pent-up anger, etc., etc., etc. Maybe some of that explains part of the motivation behind some individual crimes of violence. The wave of violence, rather, has been generated by what millions saw in 2020 going completely unaddressed by the criminal-justice system: widespread criminality, looting, shooting, arson, no-cop zones, and other criminal acts of violence and destruction coupled with the progressive mantra of “death to the police.” To the progressive-Left mind, police are oppressors of minorities and instruments of majoritarian oppression.

 

The progressive Left’s disregard for the rule of law could not have gained the foothold it has in our country without the political support that the Democratic Party has improvidently provided. The president, who once touted the tough 1994 “Biden Crime Bill,” seems to have fallen prey to the political need to serve the leftist agenda of his party, one that gives short shrift to government’s core responsibility to secure public order. The absurd risks these policies visit on our citizens are so apparent that real pros among Democratic pols must be recognizing that, because they are in charge of the national government as well as many major-city governments, they are on the cusp of owning a huge political liability by presiding over a massive breakdown in public order. Thus, recently the White House hastily assembled a meeting with law-enforcement types and the president, designed no doubt to provide shots for some future campaign video that might attempt to put some distance between administration policy and the results of the progressive Left’s assault on the rule of law. But I am not sure that the voting public will buy it now because the bodies are piling up too fast, and fear for public safety is expanding into new constituencies. It may be just plain too late for them to wrest control of Democratic Party policy and convince anyone that they give a damn about urban violence.

 

The “broken windows” theory of crime control calls for fixing vandalized windows so as to provide notice that the rule of law will be applied to matters great and small. The nation gaped last summer as perpetrators in full view openly smashed windows with impunity, giving all of us a view through the broken glass of what a nation surrendering to disorder looks like. First, urban leftist leaders turned a blind eye and had an impotent response to the unchecked violence that had rioters, looters, and other criminals making a mockery of public order in the summer of 2020. Then the criminals got the message that the cuffs were off, and now the echo of gunfire reverberates through urban neighborhoods, toward which the suburbs look warily. The progressive Left’s agenda includes no response to that ensuing wave of violence.

 

Government, at all levels, has obviously evolved to serve a multitude of purposes, including many that fall into the “social welfare” category. We should hope for many such programs’ success even while despairing at their history of failure. Those are things that government might do if they really could be effective. But there are some things governments must do because they are part of its core, mandatory responsibilities. The response to September 11 so strongly united the country and crossed political lines because it was necessary to rectify a failure by government in the core function of providing for the national defense. Such core responsibilities of government are fundamental, a product of the social compact whereby the people give their consent to be governed and to allow government itself, in return for which the government provides the means for peace and tranquility in our communities.

 

Has violent crime suddenly increased because there is an uprising among criminals that has abruptly evolved? Not at all. Rather, criminals are taking advantage of a number of progressive initiatives that are simply providing them with more opportunity to engage in more criminal acts. These include abandonment of hard-won laws and judicial decisions that reformed bail and sentencing provisions to recognize that some criminals need to be incapacitated from committing more crime. Progressive policy has freed too many of those who would otherwise be in prison for a prior conviction or in jail awaiting trial, having been shown in either case through a lawful process to be a danger to the community at large.

 

Progressive thought cannot abide that there are some individuals whose propensity to commit crimes, including violent crimes, means that unless they are incapacitated, they will be committing crimes. That isn’t a belief; it is a statistic. Every day, people are arrested who have demonstrated this propensity by virtue of their criminal record. Rap sheets irrefutably attest to a propensity that becomes statistically undeniable. Once in a while, before some agonizing judge, this leads to a point when the undeniable propensity for crime moves even the self-described liberal mind to recognize that the choice is either incapacitation or further victimization of innocents. It takes a lot of prior victims to get there, though.

 

Another reason crime is rising alarmingly is that some are free to violate the law because, even if they are caught by the police, progressive-minded prosecutors are dropping whole categories of cases. Those prosecutors oppose the broken-windows approach to crime control, the effectiveness of which was measured and proven in combating the crime epidemic that peaked in the ’90s. Today’s progressive prosecutors think we must abide petty violations. Anyone who has successfully raised children knows that is a failing strategy. Some of those prosecutors even think we should let serious violations, such as violent crimes with victims, go unaddressed as well, because the criminal and the crime are our fault, the product of social injustice, not the result of an individual’s refusing to conform his or her conduct to the requirements of just laws that apply equally to all. Broken-windows, in contrast, worked because it clearly marked boundaries that the law establishes. You do not have to worry about being over the line if you learn to stay away from it. We have remarkable freedom inside those boundaries. Take those boundaries down, and we will see what mayhem results when we fail to police ourselves by respecting the concept of ordered liberty. That mayhem takes liberties from all.

 

Yet another cause of the crime surge is the progressive war on the police function itself, which is far more broadly waged than just through “defunding” law enforcement. As anybody familiar with life on the street can tell you, policing is a tough business requiring cops who have the experience, the training, and the good judgment to be equipped to best address on the street those determined to commit crime. “Stop and frisk” worked in part because it was a way for the law to provide notice of a lawful boundary on behavior to those prepared to disregard it. It said that the law is watchful of those testing the line. Progressives in charge of city governments undid that, as well as other effective means of identifying crime hot spots that merited more-intensive police presence. Good policing is not just putting more cops on the street. It requires sound policies, practices, and good judgment born of training and experience.

 

The result of those earlier tough-on-crime measures was oppression — of criminals — and the liberation of neighborhoods previously subject to their grip. Now, per progressive policy aims, the police are not merely being defunded, they are being defanged — that is, robbed of the well-developed tools and technology and the proceeds of years of learning that can establish how to best police a community in order to maintain peace. Liberal Democrats have opted to support this progressive agenda, including by using the power and authority of the Justice Department to hamstring legitimate police functioning with rolls of red tape imposed under federal consent decrees. Have some minorities been treated unequally and unfairly by some police? Yes, without question. Some cops are bad. So are some drivers dangerous. So, should we set a national speed limit of 25 mph? Instead of focusing on removing rotten apples in police ranks and being a force for reform among police departments, the DOJ approach too often brands an entire department as rotten and imposes all-encompassing procedures that result in a weakened police function. This serves progressive-left aims well.

 

What happens if the progressive Left’s assault on the rule of law prevails, and the criminal-justice system, starved for both resources and the tools it needs to succeed, collapses? The progressive Left’s future crime policy could make the MAGA response to being a forgotten American look like a lawn party compared with a Make America Safe Again movement. A militia could too soon be a vigilante squad. It is imperative that policies that provide for more crime, not less, be actively opposed. A majority of people in the inner city want to be safe, and they have a right to be so. Republican senior officials ought to take up the mantle of leadership on criminal-justice issues critical to inner-city minorities. Republican outreach needs to embrace those inner-city people who shoulder a grossly disproportionate share of being victimized by violent crime. The tent needs to be big enough to bring in urban leadership — black, white, or Hispanic. Bring them in to fight the common enemy: boundless violent crime in their constituent communities flowing from progressive Democrats’ uncaring disregard for their well-being while arrogantly assuming nonetheless that they’ll continue to win those communities’ votes.

 

The response to the ’90s crime explosion was to impose order through law, utilizing federal as well as local law-enforcement authority. Sometimes, an unflinching, tough approach to policing is the only way to start wresting control of community order from the hands of criminals who, without policing, would control it to their benefit. The faces of organized crime — from neighborhood gangs to international cartels to the Mafia — are all good examples of why tough criminals merit tough countermeasures. But there can be more to good policing policy. There is a place for other types of expertise in the effort to maintain peace and good order. Mental-health professionals can aid the police function, especially since mental-health crises and issues underlie many difficult-to-manage police–citizen encounters. The same is true of social services and enlightened policies that may help bring hope to members of a community frustrated and angry about the lack of access to economic opportunity and quality education.

 

But none of those have proven capable of deterring the repeat offender awaiting any propitious opportunity to commit crime. As outlined above, the progressive Left is creating the opportunities in obvious ways. Taking those opportunities away is not just a job for the police, but for law enforcement more broadly and for the criminal-justice system as a whole. The people and their elected representatives need to demand sound public-safety policies, procedures, and resources. A recent poll of Detroit residents is a great example of urban residents, particularly minorities, needing and wanting to put a high priority on public safety. City-core dwellers are too often forced to cower behind barred windows while criminals roam free on the streets. Reversing that requires affirmatively rejecting the progressive Left’s anti-police and anti–criminal justice agenda. Democrats eager to keep their progressive wing happy are not doing so, and Republicans have largely just decried the problem without pursuing solutions.

 

The rationale — the principled basis — for rejecting the progressive Left’s assault on the rule of law is simple. No community of Americans should be subjected to the systemic violence that is visited upon too many of our cities today. Equal protection of the law in this context means just what those words state. A citizen ought to be as safe in the poorest inner-city neighborhood as in any of our toniest suburbs. They are not, because government is failing to live up to its responsibilities to secure ordered liberty. That sorry state of affairs is not only the result of bad policy and practice. It is trending that way because progressives want it that way; it is part of their rejection of the rule of law. With an understanding of their aim to undermine the rule of law as a fundamental principle in our society, no rational political mind should have any trouble rejecting an agenda that would sacrifice public safety to advance progressive political objectives.

Does Ukraine Exist?

By Kevin D. Williamson

Sunday, August 01, 2021

 

In mid July, Russian caudillo Vladimir Putin published a remarkable essay in which he argued that Ukraine does not, in some important sense, exist. Later this month, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will visit Washington to remind President Joe Biden that it does.

 

Putin’s essay is, in its redundant way, a declaration of war. He insists that there is no such thing as a Ukrainian people (“We are one people,” he writes — in fact, a “triune people,” with the Belarusians also thrown into the mix), that the Ukrainian state is illegitimate and acts against the interests of its citizens because it is dominated by foreign actors, and that, to the extent that there is such a thing as Ukraine, it is a bandit state occupying “territorial gifts” of land that is legitimately Russia’s.

 

Modern Ukraine is entirely the product of the Soviet era. We know and remember well that it was shaped—for a significant part—on the lands of historical Russia. . . . We can disagree about minor details, background and logics behind certain decisions. One fact is crystal clear: Russia was robbed, indeed.

 

Continuing in the Orwellian mode natural to a man in his position, Putin proposes to obliterate Ukraine’s actual sovereignty in order to save its “true sovereignty,” which, he insists, the Ukrainian people may possess “only in partnership with Russia. . . . For we are one people.”

 

Putin dwells at length on the situation of Russian-speaking Ukrainians. Most Ukrainians speak Russian, largely as the result of a brutal program of “Russification” undertaken during the Soviet era. Estimates vary, but the Kyiv Post puts the number of Ukrainians who consider Russian their native language at 14 percent. For context, that is almost exactly the same share of Americans who are native Spanish speakers. There were some left-wing crackpots who had a moment in the 1990s arguing that the southwestern United States and Mexico were in effect a single nation — the “bronze people” — that should be unified politically. But Vladimir Putin is not a dopey UCLA student radical. He is a superabundantly well-armed dictator who already has annexed parts of Ukraine.

 

President Biden comes into the picture after a period during which U.S.–Ukraine relations could hardly have been worse: One Ukrainian foreign-policy intellectual describes President Trump’s attitude toward Ukraine as that of a domestic abuser toward his victim. But President Biden’s record here is not exactly one of shining success, either: He was the Obama administration’s point man on Ukraine in 2014, when the Putin junta annexed Crimea. There were sanctions and a lot of big talk about their likely effect, but the Russians weathered them. And, of course, the Bidens have enjoyed some peculiar business relationships with Ukrainian oligarchs.

 

As president, Biden has talked a good game, declaring that “the United States does not and will never recognize Russia’s purported annexation of the peninsula, and we will stand with Ukraine against Russia’s aggressive acts.” But, as a practical matter, President Biden also sometimes seems to forget that Ukraine exists: Though NATO in theory maintains an “open door” policy toward Ukraine, there has been no progress toward bringing the country into the alliance, and the Ukrainians were surprised and dismayed that they were not invited to the most recent NATO summit. Biden refuses to say whether he supports Ukrainian membership in NATO, while NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg says that Ukrainian membership is “not the focus” at this time.

 

Recently, the U.S.–Ukraine relationship has been effectively paralyzed by the question of the Nord Stream 2 project, which would connect consumers in Germany with natural-gas producers in Russia via a new pipeline that, unlike the current one, does not go through Ukraine. There are geopolitical aspects to the Nord Stream 2 question, but much of the political debate is camouflage for more parochial financial interests: German firms have a financial interest in the pipeline, while Ukraine derives a substantial income from middleman’s fees on the current pipeline and Washington would prefer that Europeans import liquefied natural gas from the United States rather than pipe in gas from Russia. The Biden administration still notionally opposes Nord Stream 2 but has waived sanctions related to the project — a decision that was greeted in the Ukrainian press as a “betrayal.”

 

The pipeline also is opposed by some EU members, notably Poland, which, like Ukraine, will be cut out of the deal; but it was never likely that the EU would find a way to overrule the initiative of its most powerful member state in the interests of a country that is not a member. The best hope for Nord Stream 2 opponents is that the outgoing conservative government of Angela Merkel will be replaced by a Green-led government that opposes this pipeline and all others.

 

In reality, there is more going on in Ukraine than methane transit. President Zelensky currently is involved in a campaign against Ukraine’s oligarchs, which may have a hygienic effect on corruption in the country but which also brings out his own “tendency towards governance through informal means,” as Andrew Wilson of the European Council on Foreign Relations puts it: He has relied on executive authority and national-security pretexts to take on the oligarchs while frequently circumventing parliament. He is struggling politically at home, and both domestic reformers and Ukraine’s Western allies have been frustrated by his apparent lack of progress. Because Ukraine’s internal dysfunction undermines its relationships with allies and would-be allies in NATO and the European Union, Kyiv is paying an overall price for corruption that is much higher than the merely economic one. “Today, unblocking key transformations in the face of the new wave of Russian aggression is an existential matter for Ukraine,” writes Olena Prokopenko of the German Marshall Fund.

 

Ukraine, then, is in a kind of catch-22: Russian interference prevents it from dealing with corruption, and corruption keeps it from accessing the resources it needs to deal with Russian interference.

 

Vladimir Putin has made his own vision for Ukraine as clear as can be. The Biden administration has, for its part, sent mixed messages. And so Kyiv faces a reliable enemy with an unreliable ally.

One Woman’s Struggle against the Cuban Regime

By Vanessa Garcia

Sunday, August 01, 2021

 

On July 22, 2012, in the neighborhood of El Cerro in Havana, Cuba, Rosa María Payá said goodbye to her father as she would have on any other day, with a kiss on the cheek. But that day would not be like every other day.

 

After lunch, she received a series of muddled texts: An accident. Militia everywhere. Three people taken to the hospital. “Help!”

 

She called her father’s phone. Over and over again. No answer.

 

Finally, around 4 p.m., someone picked up. Immediately, Rosa María called out: “Papá, papá, papá.” A female voice responded, stumbled, claimed to be a doctor. Finally, the voice said: “There has been a fatality.”

 

That was the moment when Rosa María Payá understood her father had been murdered by the Castro regime.

 

Her father was Oswaldo Payá, head of the Varela Project, which he launched in the late ’90s, proposing freedom of speech, association, religion, and press, along with free elections, free enterprise, and the release of political prisoners in Cuba.

 

Oswaldo, a disciple of Martin Luther King Jr., had found a loophole in an otherwise sealed state. Cuban law allowed citizens to propose legal initiatives as long as they had over 10,000 signatures. Gathering 10,000 signatures, however, under a repressive regime that imprisons any voice that stands against it, or worse, cuts its life off, was not an easy feat.

 

Payá himself had been sent to a labor camp at 17, alongside hippies, gay men, Christians, writers, and anyone who held a different viewpoint from that of the state — people whom the state considered “scum”; “escoria.” He’d seen and felt the suffering and repression firsthand, in the flesh.

 

Despite all odds, Payá collected 25,000 signatures from the Cuban people, who beat down their fear and put their names and addresses down on paper in the hopes of freedom. For his work, he won the European Parliament’s Sakharov Prize in 2002 and was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize twice.

 

Instead of acquiescing to the first 10,000 signatures, as the law allowed, however, the Cuban regime changed the constitution to announce that socialism was now “irrevocable,” codifying the dictatorship. That’s the way totalitarianism works. There is no law. There is only tyranny: in this case, a dictatorship that has held its foot on the necks of its people for six decades as they have begged for the right to think for themselves — to breathe.

 

Oswaldo refused to give up, and so the Cuban regime made sure to dig its foot in deeper until it choked off his last breath.

 

The Cuban government, of course, calls his death a “car accident.” Witnesses say otherwise. Autopsies have never been released.

 

Angel Carromero, who was in the car when Payá was killed — currently the secretary general of the Madrid regional branch of the Spanish People’s Party’s youth organization — says the car was rammed into time and again, terrifyingly pushing them off the road. The same thing had happened to Payá just two months before, although that time he’d escaped with his life.

 

“For those culpable of the death of Oswaldo and Harold, you should search within the dome of the Cuban dictatorship,” writes Carromero.

 

Harold was Harold Cepero, a young Cuban and dear friend of Rosa María Payá, who had often said his calling was “to fight for my people” — a fight for which he lost his life at 32.

 

“After the first two or three days of the worst kind of shock and panic,” Rosa María told me, “I knew I had to continue my father’s work. We couldn’t abandon everything he’d done. If anything, what had happened confirmed the effectiveness of what he was doing.”

 

From 2015 to the present, she has continued her father’s fight for basic human rights in Cuba, the right to think, choose, prosper, breathe. In 2015 she started a movement called Cuba Decide, toward a Cuba where there are no arbitrary arrests, where people can travel without permission from the state, where there is no religious persecution, where no one is exiled, jailed, or killed for their beliefs. A Cuba in which Cubans can decide their own future.

 

On March 16, 2016, she and other Cuba Decide leaders presented the Cuban parliament with more than 10,000 new signatures in support of the Varela Project, calling for multiparty elections. This was predictably denied. Since then, she’s met with and tried to garner the support of the international community without cease.

 

In 2019 she was awarded the Morris Abram Award at the UN Watch Annual Gala in Geneva. Also in 2019, members of Cuba Decide within the island demonstrated bravely across Cuba from Las Tunas to Matanzas, Camaguey to Santiago de Cuba, alongside UNPACU, another dissident movement on the island. Many were imprisoned.

 

By February 2020, Cuba Decide had received the support of groups within the European Parliament. In March, Paraguay officially recognized the Cuba Decide initiative as well. In May 2020, Cuba Decide achieved the largest humanitarian citizen-donations campaign for the island in decades, which the Cuban government then proceeded to block.

 

Given this background, it is perhaps inevitable that Rosa María has risen to a position of leadership.

 

She was born in 1989. Her mother rocked Rosa in her arms as the Berlin Wall crumbled and the promise of freedom vibrated amongst Cubans inside and outside the island. Instead of falling, however, the Cuban regime made a series of crooked deals that kept it in power. International corporations contributed to providing another lifeline to a regime that received the rest of its oxygen from democide and repression.

 

The first time I met Rosa María, she told me she was raised a “free person.” Despite the regime they lived under, her father always told her to speak her mind and they would deal with the consequences — consequences that, for many of us, living in the U.S., are unimaginable; consequences that her father paid for with his life.

 

“The majority of my friends at school thought like us, but had to show a different face to society, a posturing which was a result of pure fear. Generations and generations accustomed to the idea that one thing is what one truly thinks, and another very different thing is what you project in school and at work,” Rosa María says.

 

Today she is the same age that her friend, Harold Cepero, was when he was killed. She is fighting from outside the island, as she has a sentence upon her head in Cuba for insisting on living as a free person. She has not been able to return to Cuba since 2018. This is not uncommon in Cuban history. José Martí, Cuba’s most famous patriot poet, helped to liberate Cuba from the Spanish yoke from the shores of New York and Tampa, Fla.

 

On July 20, two days before the ninth anniversary of her father’s death, I had the great honor of accompanying Rosa María to testify in Washington, at a hearing regarding protests in Cuba and the crackdown on free expression. There she shared her people’s suffering and stated that what they were clearly asking for was what they were chanting in the streets, against threat of death: Liberty!

 

Actionably, she asked the U.S. to apply individual sanctions on top officials and individuals abusing human rights in Cuba by making use of the Global Magnitsky Act.

 

She asked the United States to approach Cuba as it did apartheid: requiring companies to embrace the Sullivan Principles, which call for them to support human rights in places where they do business, instead of providing lifelines for tyranny.

 

She asked that the U.S. help provide Internet access to Cubans, bypassing the censorship of the regime, which controls all lines of communication into and out of the island.

 

She asked that the U.S. invite the European Union and the Organization of American States (OAS) to take similar steps and to use all the tools at their disposal, including the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, to address threats posed by the Cuban regime.

 

She asked that the regime continue to be excluded from the Summit of the Americas until it complies with the Inter-American Democratic Charter.

 

The message was clear: The United States must do everything within international law to protect the people of Cuba and give them hope as they fight to free themselves, despite the regime’s sending black berets into the street to terrorize them, their families, their children.

 

One day after the ninth anniversary of Oswaldo Payá’s death, a full-page paid advertisement appeared in the New York Times, which turned a blind eye to the people of Cuba. It was a letter to President Biden, penned out of either malice or ignorance, and signed by Susan Sarandon, Jane Fonda, Danny Glover, and Mark Ruffalo, alongside other Hollywood stars and academics, blaming everything that is happening in Cuba on the United States and its embargo.

 

This has been the Cuban regime’s line for years. It preys upon our ability as Americans to self-criticize, though to do so without true knowledge is not only irresponsible, it’s deadly.

 

During the 2017 Emmys, Jane Fonda, who, with a net worth of $200 million, has benefited a great deal from the capitalist democracy she lives under, enjoyed with vigor the right to voice her opinion. She and Lily Tomlin (who did not sign the letter) used comedy and their platform to protest against Trump, refusing to be “controlled by a sexist, egotistical, lying, hypocritical bigot,” just as their characters had in the much-loved ’80s classic 9 to 5. I’m all for using one’s voice, but for this humorous protest, a person in Cuba would have been jailed or killed. That is not the fault of the embargo; the embargo exists because of that fact.

 

I myself have wavered on the embargo throughout the years, so I understand the impulse. But it’s important not to waver now, at this crucial moment. We must help the people directly. And what I know for sure is that to make the embargo the single issue is to ignore the greater one at hand: the claws of the Cuban dictatorship. It is to ignore the Cuban people on the island as well as those who have managed to escape the regime’s teeth, like my grandparents, one of whom was a political prisoner for 15 years. It is to choose the single line of the totalitarian state that oppresses my people.

 

The people who signed this letter are also people from communities I consider myself a part of as a Ph.D. writer and screenwriter — people I can converse with and trust will not “marginalize” me for my experience and research-driven opinion. I also happen to be a registered independent who has always voted blue in presidential elections and is now penning this piece in a conservative paper. This is the kind of glorious nuance we constantly take for granted in our country, the nuance at the center of our democracy, and one that I honor daily as an American citizen.

 

All of this matters because, as Americans, our voice counts, our opinions and viewpoints count. Whom we choose to listen to on issues is everything, as we look toward policy. And so it is my responsibility to give American readers an alternative voice to that of the Cuban regime and its single story.

 

I offer Rosa María Payá as a counter: Someone who has not just scratched her nail upon the surface of a foreign people’s pain, but has been in the trenches, flesh and blood, inside the entrails of a beast that most Americans will be lucky enough to never experience, not even close. Someone who knows the difference between the voice of the Cuban people and the tentacles of a dictatorship and its propaganda machine, thrashing to survive.

The Athletic World Needs a Culture Correction

By Aron Ravin

Saturday, July 31, 2021

 

Unlike the good Kyle Smith, I continue to keep the Olympics in a place in my heart. I know I don’t “need” American dominance to be reassured that we are the best. But I do enjoy the blaze of jingoism I feel as I scroll through the total number of gold medals won by each nation on Wikipedia. I’m sure that this remains a primary lure for most U.S. viewers.

 

A problem, however, can arise when our love for watching our guys win morphs into a love for individual athletes whose role-model credentials are dubious at best. Communities elevate their homegrown stars, and parents help their kids make posters celebrating the greats as heroes. Plenty of them have earned this high regard. But the sad reality is that too many others among our darling icons are so desperately lacking in virtue, while the institutional bodies responsible for such international competitions are also sending the wrong message (more on that later).

 

To be clear, I’m not referring in any way to Simone Biles’s struggles this past week but to an entirely separate trend among our athletes. For one, when they’re not dominating the competition, our glorious Olympians are prone to indulge in the libertine. In Rio, the U.S. men’s basketball team just so happened to “accidentally” stumble into a brothel, while members of our swim team found other creative ways to commit crimes and disgrace us abroad. The most severe punishment received was Ryan Lochte’s: a measly ten-month suspension. Even then, sponsors flocked back to him within a year.

 

The famed Olympic Village is notorious for its rampant sexual debauchery, with an ever-expanding number of contraceptives offered for free (150,000 condoms? These are not the kinds of records we should be striving to set). Our liberal media often find a way to laugh about it, but it is all rather disappointing.

 

And then there is the matter of athletes’ grating performative politics. Fans understandably complained when Gwen Berry protested the national anthem. In a similar, more extreme vein, I must admit to feeling a certain sense of glee when I discovered Megan Rapinoe’s obliteration at the hands of the Swedes. Yeah, yeah. I know she is not the entire team. I never said I was proud of it. But it’s not like either of them will ever be booted off the U.S. national team.

 

Committee members and owners all know that the backlash of removing one of our golden boys or girls from competition would be more severe than the reaction against their behavior, so they ignore it. It’s pretty sad that viewers will tolerate people who are supposed to represent us being so terribly unrepresentative. Remember, we don’t watch the Olympics to see who is the best. I don’t know anyone who watched Michael Phelps set his butterfly world record at the FINA World Championships in 2009. People always tuned in to see Phelps at the Olympics, however, because we considered him to be swimming for us, not just for him. I’d rather we lose an event with an inferior sportsman than have a cheater like Marion Jones or jerks such as Lochte or Rapinoe bring home the gold. A bad symbol is worthless.

 

* * *

 

So is it any wonder that professional-athlete culture, much as celebrity culture at large, has grown progressively more disconnected from that of the general populace? Depravity is disregarded in favor of the meritocratic tyranny of shiny medallions and luscious laurels. As retired competitors join the rulemaking bodies that once governed them, the wayward culture of athletes eventually seeps into the bureaucracy, perpetuating it.

 

The wonderful Jay Nordlinger touched on this last week, but the strongest evidence of the perversion of sports culture is the recent controversy over how female athletes choose to dress. Nothing screams modernity quite like the European Handball Association’s decision to fine the Norwegian national team for wearing thigh-length shorts instead of bikinis — “improper clothing,” as they put it. Meanwhile, the German national gymnastics team has decided to dress in full-body unitards, instead of the glittery swimsuits that female Olympic gymnasts normally wear, to protest the sexualization of the sport.

 

Here, the athletes should be commended; it’s the bureaucracy that deserves our scorn. What a reflection of our time, that women encounter international attention, criticism, and punishments for choosing to wear more clothing rather than less. I suppose the embarrassment the women feel in their uniforms is irrelevant, so long as broadcasters can satisfy the prurient interests of the men lounging on their living-room couches.

 

I do not mean to suggest that all women competing in sports with revealing uniforms have an obligation to balk at tradition and join the Norwegians and Germans in showing less skin. But we should certainly praise them. Why is most of the support for this issue coming from the left? We should be up in arms — women are being penalized for modesty. It’s sickening. We ought to lend them our support. Loudly.

 

Today, the Left is far more willing than the Right to condemn what it deems socially unacceptable. But why? We should hold our American symbols, when they are at home and abroad, accountable when they do things we do not like — and come to their side, vocally, when they do the right thing. Vote with your viewership. The culture of sport will only change when we give it a reason to.