RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://www.swtotd.blogspot.com

For a democracy to collapse into authoritarianism, what are required is a man or a woman and a movement. In Trump, we have a man but no movement. On the Progressive Left, we have a movement but no one person. To be effective, the movement must have the backing of the media, the academy and a sufficient number of bureaucrats who run government – advantage, the Left.

Trump is criticized by his detractors as a neo-fascist, a would-be dictator, but, apart from his love for America and his call to “clean the swamp,” he has no overriding political philosophy. The Tea Party did not expand during his White House tenure. The Progressive Left calls for an expansionist government that will provide more regulation, a “green new deal,” free college, all of which will mean higher taxes and limit individual freedom. They have on their side mainstream media, the academy and most of the bureaucracy that runs Washington. But they have no one individual around whom they gather.  Some might look at this as an optimistic appraisal – a leader with no real movement and a movement with no one leader – and assume an Alfred E. Neuman stance.

However, there are cultural trends abroad that should worry a believer in a free and open society. In the essay, from which the rubric was drawn, Mr. Xiao wrote about his father and his contemporaries, now living in the United States: “…they can feel a certain febrility in the air which reminded them of the events of half a century ago.” Former President Obama, in a recent speech, prescribed “a combination of regulations and standards within industries to get us back to the point where we at least recognize a common set of facts,” suggesting a need for an Orwellian Ministry of Truth. In a speech on November 12 before the Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention, Justice Samuel Alito warned that “tolerance for opposing views is now in short supply in many law schools, and in the broader academic community.” Richard Stengel, who joined Joe Biden’s transition team, wrote in an op-ed in the Washington Post in October 2019: “All speech is not equal. And where truth cannot drive out lies, we must add new guardrails.” Whose Truths? Whose lies? Whose guardrails?

https://www.city-journal.org/bidens-covid-advisors-ignore-high-costs-of-lockdowns

For the lockdown-weary, a brief window of hope opened after the presidential election. With Joe Biden victorious, Democratic politicians and their media allies lost their incentive to weaken Donald Trump’s economy and stoke Covid-19 panic among voters. And with Republicans well-positioned to retain the Senate, governors and mayors in blue states could no longer count on a windfall from a Democratic Congress to rescue them from the consequences of their lockdowns. Finally, cooler heads could prevail—right?

So much for that fantasy. Instead of reconsidering their policies, local officials are restricting more businesses and closing more schools, as New York City has just done. Journalists continue treating Covid deaths as the only ones that matter, while ignoring the mounting medical and social toll from lockdowns. Promising more restrictions, Biden has created an advisory board comprised of individuals who favor stricter lockdowns and foresee restrictions continuing until late next year, even if a Covid vaccine is quickly approved.

Biden and other leaders claim to be following “the science,” but that obviously doesn’t include the research showing the high costs and low benefits of lockdowns and school closures. Closing schools was a dubious move in the spring, when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warned that it would likely do little to stem the pandemic (and noted that school closings in other countries had failed to make a discernible impact). Today it makes even less sense in light of the accumulated evidence.