Bill Gibbons v. Holy Cross

An esteemed community member and basketball legend, former Women’s Basketball Coach William Gibbons is bringing a civil suit against Holy Cross for emotional distress and other damages. On January 31, 2019, Coach Gibbons was suspended for unclear reasons, and eventually terminated after an ambiguous process. Critically, Coach Gibbons was relieved from his position at a time when two faculty members at Holy Cross were accused of sexual misconduct, thereby creating a false impression that he was facing similar accusations. 

The Holy Cross community must stand against any effort to assault the dignity and well-being of another human being, whether along sexual, racial, gender, or religious lines. Mr. Gibbons’ good name must be cleared from the shroud of secrecy and misinformation that has implicated him in any act of discrimination and tarnished his reputation. Decades of HC women’s basketball players and alumni of Coach Gibbons’, such as Marcy McManus Vandale ‘87,  have come forward to defend his character, and to advocate for a reasonable settlement in his suit against the College. 

Judge Ricciardone of the Western Worcester District Court has already sided with Coach Gibbons’ lawyer, Stephen G. Abraham, on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, allowing that count to move forward. More counts remain to be determined, including breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, personnel record statute violation, loss of consortium and defamation.

To understand the situation of Mr. Gibbons, one must first examine the record of facts leading from his suspension to his termination. The College began an investigation into Mr. Gibbons after a November 15, 2018 on-court disagreement between him and an assistant coach. Coach Gibbons made a substitution with which assistant coach Danielle Parks disagreed. After this, she “loudly and insubordinately remarked, ‘Wow, Wow, Wow, Wow, Wow’ (5 times), so loud that players, parents and others clearly heard,” according to the lawsuit. Gibbons, finding the assistant coach’s remarks undermined his authority, responded “Wow what? Don’t ever question my decision during a game in that way again, or you will not be working here.” Coach Gibbons addressed the incident at halftime with Ms. Parks and again with other assistant coaches the next day, emphasizing that the coaches must “remain unified in front of the team at all times.” He explained that he wanted their input on decisions, but that his as head coach was “the final one.” Then-Athletic Director Nathan Pine reviewed the game videotape and affirmed that Mr. Gibbons’ actions were “appropriate” and that he handled the situation “well.” Pine also stated that the insubordinate assistant, not Coach Gibbons, deserved to be suspended. 

Meanwhile, without the knowledge of Coach Gibbons, Ms. Parks had gone to the College’s human resources office on the morning of Nov. 16, 2018. She claimed that Mr. Gibbons’ statements to her constituted a “threat” rather than  “constructive criticism.” Over the course of further meetings with HR (Dec. 17, 2018 and Jan. 10, 2019), Ms. Parks would claim that Coach Gibbons had been ignoring the input of assistant coaches, and also displaying “racism” towards her and some minority players on the team. It goes without saying that any racist act towards an individual or group is unacceptable, and must be met with punishment. However, in his suit,  Mr. Gibbons describes these allegations as “fabricated stories” that were never corroborated by any players and that the claims were meant “to advance a hidden agenda of the assistant coaches.” It is unclear whether the assistant coaches acted with any agenda, or what the nature of these efforts might have been.

In mid-December of 2018, HR Director David Achenbach notified Coach Gibbons that a complaint had been made, and that an investigation would take place. Coach Gibbons received few details about the investigation, but stated that it was not necessary. Interim Athletic Director Brendan Sullivan responded that it was “just procedural” and nothing to worry about. During further meetings with HR, Coach Gibbons was assured that he would have an opportunity to review an investigative report. But according to Coach Gibbons’ suit, he never had an opportunity to review any report or to speak with Achenbach before a 60 day suspension was announced on Jan. 31, 2018. Coach Gibbons emphasizes that “This sequence of events was completely in violation of the appeal procedure” outlined in his employment agreement. 

In addition to never having been able to review an investigative report or speak to the HR Director, Coach Gibbons was never able to respond to any of the accusations put forth by Ms. Parks. Coach Gibbons’ suit alleges that “In bad faith, Holy Cross eschewed the word of a deeply loyal and exemplary thirty-eight year employee, for the fabricated allegations of the disloyal, manipulative assistants who were scheming to disparage Coach Gibbons for their own benefit.” It would seem logical to provide Coach Gibbons with the chance to address such serious accusations before making any decision about his employment at the College. According to the suit, Coach Gibbons was also unable to appeal the suspension to the College’s senior vice president — a right outlined in the Coach’s contract. 

Coach Gibbons’ lawyer, Stephen G. Abraham, argues that because this confusing process took place during a string of sexual assault allegations on campus, the College “intentionally and recklessly created a false impression to the public that Coach Gibbons had been found guilty of inappropriate sexual behavior or improper behavior toward a student.” A reasonable onlooker in the situation may have inferred that this was the case, and that Coach Gibbons was being investigated for similar charges. This incorrect public speculation may have been prevented if the College had issued a public statement explicitly stating the reasons for the suspension, or at a bare minimum stating that the suspension was separate and unrelated to the other investigations taking place. 

Coach Gibbons is fighting to overcome the negative image in which he has been shrouded. One can only imagine the negative impact that a litany of false rumours would have on someone. As outlined in the suit, “This false impression has irreparably damaged Coach Gibbons’ sterling personal reputation and has caused him to sustain emotional, mental and physical damages, for which he has required medical care.” Following the 60-day suspension period, the College announced in March of 2019 that Coach Gibbons would not be returning to his position. On April 2, 2019, Coach Gibbons and his wife went to the College to collect his personal belongings. During this time, there were arguments and disagreements between Coach Gibbons and the administrative staff. According to the suit, “there ensued, once again, miscommunication between Achenbach and Sullivan” and “further false allegations from Parks and McInerney about Coach Gibbons” that resulted in “a second unfair, inappropriate and unjustified ‘no trespass’ order.” The suit also alleges that Coach Gibbons’ ability to gain future employment has been “severely damaged” by the College’s actions, as he has not received any phone calls about coaching vacancies elsewhere. 

It is always necessary to explore all sides of a story, especially one as charged and difficult as the case between Coach Gibbons and Holy Cross. The Holy Cross community must seek justice in all actions and gestures, including in listening to the words of a man who has demonstrated a superb character and loyalty to the College for thirty-eight years. There is strong evidence that the College breached Mr. Gibbons’ contract, and more importantly, denied him an opportunity to defend himself and his name. Any individual under this amount of scrutiny would have a very difficult time, and it is disheartening to see a beloved Holy Cross coach facing this difficult situation. It is in the hope of truth and justice that the College and court determine a reasonable avenue of remediation for Coach Gibbons and his family. 

Questioning the Narratives

Many narratives posited by progressives are popular because they are simply phrased and easily repeated. However, the answers to a few simple questions can demonstrate that those narratives lack a basis in fact. If you are willing to put what you think you know to the test, answer the following questions and see if the narratives hold true.

Narrative: The minimum wage is good for all workers. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that because of the minimum wage, 800,000 people will be lifted above the poverty threshold.

Question: What is the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the effect on employment of a $15 an hour minimum wage as proposed in the Raise the Wage Act of 2021?

A. 1.5 million jobs created

B. 800,000 jobs created

C. 800,000 jobs lost

D. 1.4 million jobs lost

Answer: D. The minimum wage may help some people rise up out of poverty, but it will cause a much larger number of people to lose their jobs. That definitely is not good for all workers.

Narrative: There is a significant income inequality between the highest earners and the lowest earners in the United States.

Question: How much do the top 20% of earners in the United States make compared to the bottom 20% after taxes and transfer payments ?

A. The top quintile makes 3.8 times the income of the bottom quintile

B. The top quintile makes 7.7 times the income of the bottom quintile

C. The top quintile makes 10.6 times the income of the bottom quintile

D. The top quintile makes 17.1 times the income of the bottom quintile

Answer: A. The average household in the top 20% pays $109,125 in taxes and is left, after taxes and transfer payments, with $194,906. That is only 3.8 times as much as an average household in the bottom 20% which would have income after taxes and transfer payments of $50,901. 

Question: Accounting for taxes and transfer payments, what has happened regarding income inequality in the United States over the last 50 years from 1967 to 2017?

A. Income Inequality Decreased by 7%

B. Income Inequality Decreased by 3%

C. Income Inequality Increased by 7%

D. Income Inequality Increased by 20%

Answer: B. Despite claims of worsening income inequality, the facts actually show that income inequality has been decreasing over time. Further, both income inequality and the wealth gap decreased from 2016 through 2019.

Narrative: Wealthy taxpayers don’t pay their fair share of taxes.

Question: In 2018 (the latest year for which data is available), the top 1% of taxpayers earned what approximate percentage of income in the United States?

A. 10%

B. 20%

C. 40%

D 50%

Answer: B. In 2018, the top 1% of taxpayers earned 20.9% of the total United States income.

Question: In 2018, the top 1% of taxpayers paid what percentage of the total federal income taxes?

A. 10%

B. 20%

C. 40%

D. 50%

Answer: C. In 2018, the top 1% paid 40.1% of the total United States income taxes while the bottom 50% paid 2.9% of the total United States income taxes.

Question: What effective federal income tax rate is applied to the top 1% of earners?

A. 10% 

B. 15%

C. 20%

D. 25%

Answer: C. In 2018, the top 1% of taxpayers averaged a 25.4% individual income tax rate, which is more than seven times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50%, who paid at an average rate of 3.4%. 

Although there can be genuine debate about what tax rates are appropriate, the taxes paid by the top 1% are significant. The top 1% earn 20% of the income in the United States, but pay 40% of the nation’s federal income tax. The top 1% also pays taxes at a rate that is nearly 7.5 times the rate paid by the bottom 50%. Those figures demonstrate that the taxes paid by the wealthy are not patently unfair.

Narrative: President Biden’s infrastructure plan is great for the economy. 

Question: The Biden administration has said that the “American Jobs Plan” is going to bring millions of jobs to the economy. Approximately, how many jobs is President Biden’s “American Jobs Plan” projected to create?

A. 2.7 Million

B. 7.5 Million

C. 12.4 Million

D. 19.1 Million

Answer: A. White House officials have said that the proposal will bring 19 million jobs; however, that number is not quite accurate. The “American Jobs Plan” will only bring 2.7 million jobs on its own while the rest of the economy is expected to create 16.3 million jobs even without the passage of the plan.

Question: Approximately, how much will the total output of the United States economy be affected by the “American Jobs Plan?” 

A. Increase of 5%

B. Increase of 1%

C. Decrease of 1%

D. Increase of 5%

Answer: C. By 2031, experts at the Wharton school of business project that the size of the economy’s total output will have shrunk by 0.9 percent as a result of the American Jobs Plan. The reason for that decrease in the economy is the secondary effects of higher government debt and higher taxes.

Thus, the Biden Administration’s “Jobs Plan” has been overly exaggerated and will actually be a long term disadvantage for the US economy.

Voter Laws

The Narrative: Georgia’s new voting law, which requires voter identification for mail-in ballots and set rules regarding early voting, is “racist” and out of sync with laws in the rest of the country.

Question: How many states had laws requesting or requiring voters to show some form of identification at the polls that were in effect at the end of 2020?

A. None

B. 11

C. 25

D. 36

Answer: D. Thirty six states, including North Carolina whose law was upheld by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in December 2020, have voter identification laws.

Question: According to a 2016 Gallup Poll, what percentage of non-whites support voter identification laws?

A. 22%

B. 33%

C. 55%

D. 77%

Answer: D. In the Gallup Poll, 77 percent of non-white respondants and 80% of respondents of all races supported voter identification laws. It is difficult to characterize a policy that is supported by an overwhelming majority of people of every race as being racist.

Question: How many days of early voting does Delaware (Joe Biden’s home state) and Georgia have, effective for the 2022 elections?

A. Delaware 17 Days, Georgia 0 Days

B. Delaware 17 Days, Georgia 10 Days

C. Georgia 17 Days, Delaware 0 Days

D. Georgia 17 Days, Delaware 10 Days

Answer: D. Georgia has 17 days of early voting and Delaware has 10. You get partial credit for C, because in the 2020 election, Delaware did not have any days of early voting. Joe Biden really can’t criticize Georgia’s new law because his home state of Delaware provides fewer days of early voting.

Narrative: Due to the prevalence of shootings of unarmed black people by police, the police are systemically racist and should be defunded.

Question: In 2020, how many unarmed people of all races were killed by police?

A. 7

B. 80

C. 287

D. 1,497

Answer: B. Of the 80 people, 31 were white, 27 were black, and 15 were Hispanic. All of those deaths are tragic and we should do everything we can to reduce them.

Question: Since the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014, the number of police killings of unarmed black people have:

A. Increased by 200%

B. Increased by 100%

C. Stayed the Same

D. Decreased by 50%

Answer: D. The number of unarmed black people that were killed by police was 64 in 2014 and 78 in 2015. In contrast, the number of unarmed black people killed by police was 28 in 2019 and 27 in 2020. Although this progress is hopeful, there is more that can be done.

Question: Since the death of George Floyd and the subsequent protests in Minneapolis, what has happened to the homicide rate?

A. Decreased by 50%

B. Decreased by 20%

C. Stayed the Same

D. Increased by 70%

Answer: D. In Minneapolis, the number of homicides has increased from 48 to 82 last year (70 %) and gunshot wound victims increased from 269 to 551 (105%) compared to 2019. Similar increases have happened in other cities, causing some to rethink defunding the police.

Question: Approximately, what percentage of black people would like to see the same or more police activity within their communities?

A. 80%

B. 60%

C. 40%

D. 20%

Answer: A. A 2020 Gallup Poll showed that 81% of black Americans want to see more or the same amount of policing in their communities. The reason would seem obvious, black people are significantly more likely to be victims of crime. In the United States in 2019, there were 7,484 homicides of black people. That represents 54% of all homicides which is significant because black people represent about 13% of the population. The call by affluent, mostly white, progressives to defund the police will have a disproportionate impact on the poor and on minorities. Often, the first thing to be cut from police budgets is training. That training is a large part of the solution to police killings of unarmed people. Rather than defunding the police, a better narrative is that we need to fund better policing.

Narrative: The filibuster is racist and must be abolished.

Question: President Biden stated that “last year alone, there were five times [as] many” uses of the filibuster than in the past and indicated that the filibuster is “being abused in a gigantic way.” How many times did each party use the filibuster in 2020?

A. Republicans 15: Democrats 56

B. Republicans 1: Democrats 327

C. Republicans 174: Democrats 70

D. Republicans 300: Democrats 33

Answer: B. That number of uses of the filibuster is somewhat deceiving because it only measures the number of cloture votes used. A large number of those cloture votes are on judicial nominees and are also of votes that invoke cloture ending debate and permitting a vote to begin. This is however, the measure that President Biden was using in his statement. The Democrats were able to keep five Republican proposals from advancing to a vote in the Senate where those proposals would have passed.

Question: Which party filibustered a bill proposed by a black Senator to address policing issues regarding minorities and to make lynching a federal crime?

A. Republicans

B. Libertarians

C. Democrats

D. Socialists 

Answer: C. The Democrats blocked Senator Tim Scott’s JUSTICE Act from being voted on. The JUSTICE Act would have restricted no-knock warrants, encouraged bans on chokeholds, increased use of body cameras, developed a database of police discipline records, made lynching a federal crime and directed the Justice Department to develop and provide training on deescalation tactics.

The Democrats also filibustered two COVID-19 relief bills (one in the spring and one in the fall) and the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act which would have requried that babies which survive abortions be provided with medical care. All of those bills had sufficient votes to otherwise pass the Senate. The filibuster isn’t racist (despite the Democrats filibustering a law making lynching illegal in 2020), rather, it is merely a mechanism that is about, in the prior words of Joe Biden, “engendering compromise and moderation.”

If the answers to my questions are correct, just maybe, the narratives are wrong. At the very least, the facts are more complicated and the issues more nuanced than the narratives suggest. Let’s discuss the facts and debate the issues rather than just restating the narratives.

Nuclear Deterrence is Indispensable to National Security and World Peace

After the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, it has been the constant temptation of Americans to overlook or diminish the importance of the nuclear arsenal. The nation’s triad, however, is at a critical juncture, facing significant concerns over age and reliability, and falling behind near-peer adversaries. As an essential component of America’s deterrent against aggression, the modernization of the country’s nuclear forces is a strategic imperative. Equally important is the maintenance of America’s longstanding nuclear weapons strategy. President Joseph R. Biden, however, has voiced criticism over the cost and necessity of efforts to bring the triad up to date, and supports significant departures from existing strategy, calling into question the extent to which the country will be able to provide a credible deterrent well into the 21st century. 

Nuclear weapons tend to be perceived in a negative light, as tools of Armageddon, devices that have no place in the modern cosmopolitan world. Such perceptions lead to calls for disarmament, for a world free of nuclear weapons, with the belief that such a circumstance would contribute greatly to world peace. On its surface, that is a reasonable contention: fewer weapons should lead to fewer lives endangered. But what is often lost in the moralistic rhetoric of undoubtedly well-meaning activists is a careful analysis of the state of world peace. The past 75 years have been unprecedented in modern history: not since the Second World War has there been a direct and major conflict between the great powers of the world. World peace is taken for granted, but a look back at the previous 500 years reveals that doing so would be a major mistake. Until 1945, a major conflict between great powers occurred at least once every fifty years, with the longest peace (43 years) being between the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71 and the First World War in 1914.

It would, of course, be a vast oversimplification to claim that nuclear weapons alone are responsible for the current unprecedented peace. The maintenance of the international order established by the United States post-WWII, the spread of democracy and Western Civilization, along with the integration of world economies, have played indispensable roles. But while each of these developments serve to reduce conflict, they cannot, alone, prevent it. Nations inevitably (I use this word sparingly) have varying and often contradictory interests, making the soft power of economic and cultural integration unreliable in the maintenance of peace. Nations with opposing aims do not abide by ‘international norms’, because one's own interests — in this case the nation’s — will always take precedence over the interests of the international community. For better or worse, selfishness is what characterizes state-to-state relations. The point is that, in the end, force is the only thing standing between international order and anarchy. The potential destruction of oneself at the hands of an opponent is the strongest tool to enforce order, and by consequence, peace. 

Hence the importance of nuclear weapons. Unlike conventional military strength, which, because similarly matched adversaries can reasonably assume that they will not be destroyed in a conflict, does not provide a guarantee of deterrence, nuclear weapons are the great peacemakers of international relations. There is no defense against nuclear weapons when possessed in large quantities. There can be no reasonable assumption that one will not be destroyed in a nuclear war — one most certainly will. Thus, in a world of rational actors, nuclear weapons are as close to a guarantee of peace as one can achieve. There are, of course, caveats to this. It is the responsibility of nuclear powers to take proper precautions and maintain open communications with adversaries to prevent miscalculations. In this sense, limiting the growth of arsenals is also a net positive, when kept within reason. There is a certain number of nuclear weapons that a nation must maintain for it to have a credible deterrent, which must be enough to destroy the two greatest adversaries of that nation (thus the number varies by country). For nuclear weapons to be a positive, they must be maintained at a level where adversaries know that they could never win a nuclear war. If a nation does not maintain enough, then their deterrent is not entirely credible. Therefore, having too many or too few nuclear weapons is a negative, but at roughly the right amount, nuclear weapons are the keystone of international peace. 

I will not pretend to know what the ‘perfect’ number of nuclear weapons would be for the United States, but some speculation can be had. The military maintains a nuclear triad, whereby there are three separate methods of delivery: air, ground, and sea. This system was devised so that the nation always has a credible deterrent capability, because it would be nearly impossible for an adversary to neutralize all three branches of the American nuclear response. Assume that there was only one branch, sea, as there is in the United Kingdom, where the only deterrent is submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs). An adversary could hypothetically neutralize that threat if they could detect the few deployed submarines (the US only has 14 ballistic missile submarines, and they are never deployed all at once), which would leave the United States without any credible nuclear response. Each branch of the triad must be capable, by itself, of providing a credible deterrent, which would mean that the US’ stockpile will have to be relatively large, certainly at least 1550, which is the limit imposed by New START (an arms limitation treaty signed in 2010 between the US and Russia). This may seem large, but one has to factor in the potential for technical failure, preemptive and counter-strikes by the adversary, and the US’ worldwide deployment, among other issues, making several hundred per branch of the triad the bare minimum. It is not worth saying much more regarding numbers, because a precise estimate would require extensive analysis not suited to an article. 

While the US maintains a sufficiently large nuclear stockpile numerically at the moment, numbers can be deceiving. US nuclear forces are woefully outdated and in dire need of modernization. The land-based component, the silo-launched Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) was designed in the 1960s, and is nearly 40 years past its original retirement date. They are widely considered to be incapable of continued life extension programs (LEPs), as the technology is simply too old, and essential components are out of production. The sea-based component, the Trident II D5 submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) was designed in the 1980s, and is a few years past its original retirement date, with the current retirement date set for 2042. The air-based component, the AGM-86 air-launched cruise missile (ALCM) was designed in the 1970s, and is nearly 30 years past its original retirement date. As equipment ages, it loses its technological edge, and reliability becomes a significant concern. This equipment is delivering a weapon with massive destructive capacity, and high reliability is key to providing a credible deterrent — if adversaries suspect the delivery systems are unreliable, they are more likely to engage in provocative and dangerous behavior. Therefore, it is imperative that delivery systems are kept up-to-date and capable of meeting the needs of the present and the near future. Russia and China are quickly modernizing their nuclear forces and producing brand-new delivery systems, making the modernization of America’s arsenal a pressing concern.

The other problem facing US nuclear forces are the warheads themselves. Every warhead currently deployed was developed and tested during the Cold War, making them all at least 30 years old. Part of the problem is the inability of the US to test its warheads due to the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, which leaves computer simulation and AI as the only methods by which the efficacy of the current stockpile can be assessed. There is no clear data on the impact of such extreme age (30+ years) on a nuclear core from deployed warheads, and that data is impossible to produce absent a nuclear test. Tests do not have to be open-air, they can occur underground in a ‘controlled’ setting, and do not have to be the full-yield of the weapon. There is suspicion that Russia and China have engaged in low-yield underground testing, and if this is the case, it leaves the US at an even greater disadvantage. The US is developing a new warhead, the W93, which will replace the current SLBM warheads in both US and UK inventory. While this is a positive development, the problem is that it will be developed and deployed without any testing. No one would ever use a brand new vehicle if it did not go through any testing, and this should no less be the case for a weapon that will serve as the core of US nuclear deterrence for decades. Mr. Biden also potentially has the W93 on the proverbial chopping block, which could pose serious challenges, particularly for the UK, which relies on US nuclear weapons for its own stockpile. In short, there needs to be a return to testing of nuclear warheads — this can be low-yield underground testing — if there is to be certainty about the efficacy of the US stockpile.

A final problem is the state of the US nuclear establishment, which while still very capable, is a cause for concern. According to the US Department of Energy, much of the infrastructure utilized is over a half century old, if not older: “Nearly 60 percent of facilities and equipment are more than 40 years old. Nearly 30 percent of facilities were constructed during the early Cold War era, and 10 percent are deemed excess to mission needs.” While the infrastructure can be updated or replaced with (relative) ease, the talent that is lost is a resource of far greater value and one that is much harder to replace. The US is also not producing enough plutonium pits (the cores of warheads) to replenish current stockpiles (a plutonium pit’s lifespan is estimated to be “somewhere between 45 and 60 years”) and produce the necessary warheads. Currently, the system is capable of producing around 10 per year, although this is expected to be ramped up to about 80 by around 2030. This is certainly a step forward, but Lisa Gordon-Hagerty, Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, said in March 2020 that, “The Nation must be able to produce no fewer than 30 pits per year during 2026 and produce at least 80 pits per year during 2030 to maintain stockpile effectiveness… Any interruption or delay to pit production, due to the lack of resiliency, will have huge cost increases across the entire NSE [Nuclear Security Enterprise] in the future.” In other words, the US will be cutting it very close.

The state of the US nuclear deterrent is not dire at the moment, but if the country does not continue to commit a full-scale modernization program, it may become dire in the near future. Mr. Biden has criticized the decade-long modernization plan, which is estimated to cost between $1.2-1.5 trillion, as too expensive, and some of the procurement as being unnecessary. While undoubtedly expensive, the nuclear deterrent of the country is well worth the cost, as has been argued above. The President’s criticisms of some of the procurement programs are more precise, but equally wrongheaded. One of the most important criticism is of the deployment of the W76-2 low-yield warhead on the Navy’s Trident II D5 SLBMs. His contention is that the deployment raises the likelihood that nuclear weapons will be used, because the low-yield of the warhead will make it more suitable for a response short of full-scale nuclear war. In some sense, he is correct, the deployment does provide a recourse for military commanders short of all-out nuclear war. Somewhat counterintuitively, however, this is actually a great advantage. The deployment was not conducted in a vacuum; it was in response to Russian deployment of low-yield warheads. The concern with the Russian deployment was that the US did not have a proportionate response: there is nothing that the US could use (before the deployment of the W76-2) that would serve as a proportionate deterrent to the Russian threat, which would make the Russians more likely to use a nuclear bomb, because they would know that the US would not pursue full-scale nuclear war over a low-yield attack on, say, a Carrier Strike Group — the cost-benefit analysis simply does not add up. Therefore, the likelihood of the use of nuclear weapons would actually increase if the US did not deploy the W76-2, because there is not a proportionate deterrent that the US could use in response. It is better to have more options than to be relegated to choosing between defeat and full-scale nuclear war.

The AP reports that Mr. Biden’s campaign website states, “the sole purpose of the U.S. nuclear arsenal should be deterring — and if necessary, retaliating against — a nuclear attack.” The problem is what is excluded from this statement: current US nuclear policy states that nuclear weapons may be used in response to “significant non-nuclear strategic attacks” in “extreme circumstances.” The conclusion to be drawn from this omission is that Mr. Biden does not believe a nuclear response would be justified against, say, a serious biological or chemical weapons attack. Reducing the stated willingness of the United States to respond to a massively destructive non-nuclear attack with a nuclear response makes the country less safe. It simply encourages adversaries to turn to non-nuclear weapons of mass destruction in any potential conflict. 

Mr. Biden has also indicated that he supports the US adopting a no first use policy, whereby the United States relinquishes the right to launch a preemptive strike. On the surface this position seems reasonable: the US would not want to be the first one to pull the trigger of mass destruction. But that is not the full picture. The policy of calculated ambiguity (the potential willingness to strike first) has been key to deterring adversaries from taking provocative and potentially deadly risks by creating “uncertainty in the mind of a potential aggressor about just how the U.S. might respond to an act of aggression, and this ought to reinforce restraint and caution on the part of that potential aggressor.” A no first use policy nullifies the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons in part because it incentivizes, or at least does not deter adversaries from launch significant non-nuclear strikes on US or allied assets, for they know that the US would not respond with a nuclear strike. At a time when America faces strengthening adversaries, particularly in the Asia-Pacific, adopting a no first use policy could prove disastrous. The US is ill-positioned to respond to a massive conventional strike in the Pacific, in part due to the anti-access area denial strategy of the Chinese along the first and second island chains (in short, the Chinese have so heavily fortified their coastline with long-range anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles that any approach within a few hundred miles of the eastern seaboard of mainland China would be incredibly costly). China, by contrast, would be fighting in its back yard. Should they choose to launch a conventional attack on US installations in Japan, Guam, or the like — which would be more likely without the threat of nuclear war — it would be very difficult for the US to muster a credible response. The result could very well be rapid escalation culminating in nuclear or massively destructive conventional conflict. There are no costs to having a calculated ambiguity posture — the US has full control over when and where it uses nuclear weapons, but there are significant risks in abandoning such a policy.  

If it is not already clear, one of the most important facets of nuclear deterrence is its psychological effect. The threat of nuclear war is the very thing that prevents major conflict (and potentially nuclear conflict) in the first place. That threat needs to be clear and ever-present. Weakening it — by indicating, for example, that the US would be less willing to use nuclear weapons — weakens the psychological effect, which in turn means adversaries will be more willing to act in provocative and dangerous ways. The same goes for creating clearly defined characteristics of the situations where the US would launch a nuclear strike. By clearly limiting the parameters, America gives its adversaries a confident sense of just how far they can push. In a time of war, the adversary will go as far as it can to achieve victory, and circumscribing US nuclear strategy encourages the enemy to go right to the limit. If there is ambiguity around when the US would launch a nuclear strike, the adversary is forced to exercise caution and relative restraint. The key is to look at the deeper, often counterintuitive effects of policy. Good intentions do not mean that the result will be good.

In a perfect world, complete denuclearization would be a desirable outcome. Nobody wants to have weapons of such immense destruction sitting in silos or on airfields awaiting an order to begin Armageddon. But the world is imperfect, and nuclear weapons are not going anywhere. In fact, in this imperfect world, if one desires the least likelihood of another worldwide conflict, then nuclear weapons are indispensable. As a deterrent force, nuclear weapons have contributed greatly to the prevention of the great-power conflict that characterized the centuries before the end of the Second World War. The nations of the world should do all within their power to prevent rogue and dangerous regimes from acquiring nuclear weapons, but in the hands of rational great powers, they are not the force of evil that they are all-too-often branded as. The next century of America’s security will depend upon the actions the country chooses in the present day. If one wants to ensure that the US is in the best position to weather the great-power rivalry that is undoubtedly coming, then the modernization of US nuclear forces must be a paramount priority. 

The Heritage Foundation’s “U.S. Nuclear Weapons Capability” report served as an important primary source reference for this article.

Holy Cross’s New President: Causes for Hope and Concern

On February 10, the Holy Cross Board of Trustees announced Vincent D. Rougeau as the College’s new president. Currently dean of Boston College Law School since 2011, he previously served at Notre Dame Law School as a tenured professor and later an associate dean. Rougeau writes frequently on topics ranging from legal education to Catholic social thought, and currently serves as a senior fellow at the London-based Centre for Theology and Community, where his research focuses on community organizing, immigration, and citizenship. Beyond his impressive resume, he will have the notable distinction of being Holy Cross’s first lay and black president.

At Holy Cross, Rougeau will offer “strategic vision, deep experience as a faculty member and administrator, and commitment to liberal arts education,” said Board Chairman Richard Patterson ‘80 in a statement. “Both his scholarship and leadership demonstrate his profound dedication to Catholic social teaching and educating students towards seeking justice and making a meaningful difference in our world.” The question all Holy Cross students, faculty, and alumni surely have is what exactly the new president’s strategic vision and leadership will look like in practice. While much will remain unknown until he takes office in July, Rougeau’s extensive writings and administrative record at two of America’s top law schools provide useful, if incomplete, insights into what can be expected of the new president’s tenure at Holy Cross.

From a symbolic standpoint, Rougeau represents a marked departure from the College’s venerable and (until now) unbroken tradition of having Jesuit priests as presidents. Many in the Holy Cross community, including here at The Fenwick Review, hoped this tradition would continue after Father Boroughs’ retirement in June. However, given the rapidly declining number of Jesuits in the United States in recent decades, it is fair to say the day Holy Cross selected a lay president was probably inevitable. Beyond the practical difficulty of finding a stellar candidate among a shrinking pool of Jesuits, the Holy Cross student body unfortunately proved not to be incredibly invested in the idea, with only slightly more than half saying they would prefer the next president be a Jesuit in a survey taken by the presidential search committee.

All the more important, then, if the new president is to be a layperson, that they should exhibit a deep commitment to the College’s Catholic, Jesuit identity and tradition. Here, there are reasons to be hopeful. Rougeau, as he noted in his virtual introduction via livestream on February 11, comes from a deeply Catholic family with roots in the Creole community of southern Louisiana. His writing on issues facing American Catholics today, particularly in the realm of Catholic social teaching, is certainly admirable. Having a president who, at the very least, is engaged with Catholic teachings and practice is something to be grateful for.

That being said, there are also more than a few causes for concern. On this matter, it is important first to consider the present state of the College’s religious identity and its recent trajectory. Faith and spirituality are undoubtedly alive and well at Holy Cross, as evidenced by a number of active faith-based student organizations, including Students for Life, Pax Christi, Active Bible Study, and the Society of Saints Peter and Paul. The College’s student body is predominantly Catholic, and school Masses are fairly well attended.

In contrast, the Holy Cross administration’s commitment to sustaining the College’s Catholic tradition is questionable at best. At worst, it is nonexistent — as exemplified by the 2013 hiring of religious studies professor Tat-Siong Benny Liew, whose controversial scholarship was brought to light in a 2018 article by this publication. Liew is a scholar best known for his article “Queering Closets and Perverting Desires,” which described Jesus as a “drag king” who imagined His crucifixion through the lens of a “masochistic,” incestual relationship with God the Father. Such ideas would be almost laughable if they weren’t so obscene, and their consequences so pernicious — this professor was (and still is, as of Spring 2021) responsible for teaching the College’s primary introductory course on the New Testament.

Professor Liew’s appointment gave rise to a petition signed by more than 14,000 calling for his removal, and earned Holy Cross the ire of Bishop Robert McManus of the Diocese of Worcester. Bishop McManus stated at the time that he was “deeply troubled” with Professor Liew’s “highly offensive and blasphemous” views, and criticized President Boroughs’ decision to retain Liew on faculty in the name of “academic freedom.” Bishop McManus rightly noted that Catholic universities, as made clear by Pope John Paul II in Ex Corde Ecclesiae, have a duty to teach in accordance with the Church’s beliefs and intellectual tradition, and to uphold their Catholic mission and identity in “all aspects of their intellectual endeavors.” Academic freedom at Catholic colleges, he added, abides by certain limits, especially in the areas of theological education.

Challenges to the College’s religious identity do not always come in such glaring forms as the Professor Liew controversy. Smaller, everyday decisions by the administration, which may occur behind closed doors and pass with little notice, are less blatant but can be similarly pernicious if allowed to accumulate over time. By the same token, equally important to what the administration does is what it neglects to do. A case in point is Father Boroughs’ silence on the issue of abortion, despite countless statements and emails on a myriad of other recent topics, including the 2020 presidential election, the Black Lives Matter movement, and the January 6 Capitol riot. In a statement last May, Father Boroughs rightly asked the Holy Cross community to “pray for an end to the sin of racism.” But on the issue of abortion, which takes over 800,000 innocent lives in the U.S. each year, has featured prominently in the news media, and which Pope Francis describes as a “grave sin”… silence.

Evidently, the administration’s allegiance to Catholic principles extends only insofar as they are applicable to the progressive social justice causes they really care about. But if the College’s religious identity is to be abandoned, and a leftist political ideology adopted instead, the least the administration could do is ensure a tolerant atmosphere for those with different views. Unfortunately, even this appears to be too much to ask.

Two years ago, when Bishop Robert McManus visited Holy Cross for a healthcare conference to deliver an address on the Church’s moral understanding of the issue of transgenderism, his talk was blasted as “hurtful and offensive” by two of the College’s top deans. What about the president? Defending the right of a Catholic bishop to affirm Catholic teaching on the campus of a Catholic college should have been a no-brainer. But Father Boroughs demurred from making a public statement on the issue, implicitly legitimizing the deans’ unwarranted criticisms. But then again, Father Boroughs allowed the “Digital Transgender Archive” to set up shop down the hall from his office a few years ago with no complaints, so maybe this shouldn’t be a surprise. No wonder Bishop McManus says he’s “very concerned” with the present state of Holy Cross’s Catholic identity.

Unfortunately, it is not just the College’s religious identity that is in jeopardy, but also the freedom of expression of students whose views differ from the prevailing progressive ideology on campus. In 2019, when The Fenwick Review invited conservative author Heather Mac Donald to speak on campus, students from the Black Student Union and Student Government Association teamed up in an attempt to silence her voice. Showing up early, they took the majority of seats in the venue (thus ensuring many who legitimately wished to hear the speaker were unable to) and, when the event began, shouted Mac Donald down with chants of “My oppression is not a delusion!” and “You are not welcome!”

More concerning than some Holy Cross students’ desire to silence opposing views was the administration’s complete lack of concern. As National Review vice president Jack Fowler (a Holy Cross alumnus) described it at the time, “School officials seemed unperturbed by the display, with terms like ‘academic freedom’ and ‘free speech’ and ‘chilling effect’ nowhere to be found in the official comments.” From an administration so eager to cite “academic freedom” in defending the hiring of an arguably heretical theology professor, when it came to the Heather Mac Donald debacle… crickets. But, as Fowler put it, “Nothing much seems to perturb Holy Cross’s administration, as long as things traditional go by the wayside, or are upended.”

Would there be a more appropriate response from the Holy Cross administration if an incident like these were to occur in the future, under a President Rougeau? The jury is still out, but Rougeau’s tenure at Boston College doesn't give much cause for hope. In addition to his post at the helm of BC Law, Rougeau served as the inaugural director of BC’s Forum on Racial Justice in America. In an America magazine piece about the forum, Rougeau wrote, “If we are committed to [the core values of Boston College] we must, as the scholar Ibram X. Kendi has noted throughout his work, choose to be ‘antiracist.’” As many on both the right and left have pointed out — including here at The Fenwick Review — today’s “antiracism” of the Kendi variety couldn’t be farther from that of the civil rights era, and its ideas range from kooky and laughable to Orwellian and downright racist. It is a noxious, radical, and unequivocally illiberal ideology that, as education scholar Frederick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute has written, has no place in any American educational institution, much less a liberal arts college like Holy Cross. 

The BC Forum on Racial Justice in America’s website touts itself as a “catalyst for bridging differences, promoting reconciliation, and encouraging new perspectives.” This is an admirable mission. But if the forum’s discourse is centered on the work of Ibram X. Kendi and other radical ideologues, there is surely little reconciliation occurring, or differences being bridged. The Holy Cross administration has itself recently become enamored with “antiracist” ideology. Under our new president, there is reason to be concerned that it, and other divisive political causes, will become even more entrenched, at the continued peril of the College’s religious heritage and culture of free expression.

To be clear, Rougeau has every right to express his views as a citizen, scholar, and writer. And his engagement with the pressing issues of today, both within our Church and society as a whole, is undoubtedly commendable. But serving as president of a Catholic liberal arts college comes with a unique set of responsibilities. Rougeau the citizen may, to his heart’s desire, champion whatever political cause he wishes. Rougeau the scholar and writer may argue forcefully in favor of a progressive interpretation of Catholic social teaching or US race relations. Rougeau the president of Holy Cross may still do these things, but must also balance his personal social and political views with a sense of respect for the College’s religious tradition and liberal arts environment.

Upon being named the College’s next president, Rougeau said he admired Holy Cross for its “unique place as our nation’s only Jesuit, Catholic liberal arts college.” As recent years have made abundantly clear, this “unique place” is in jeopardy due the administration’s consistent unwillingness to defend the very qualities that define the College as Jesuit, Catholic, and liberal. Rougeau also rightly added in his first statement that “Our current moment in history cries out for the mission-driven education that Holy Cross provides.” The question now is… which mission will it be? A progressive political agenda grounded in polarizing ideology? Or the mission of the College as it has been traditionally understood — a mission grounded in Catholic faith and the Jesuit intellectual tradition, and dedicated to the pursuit of truth in an environment of free expression, open discussion, and civility? Time will soon tell.

Let’s end on a hopeful note. As many questions and concerns as this article has raised, it is important we keep an open mind and offer our new president the utmost respect and goodwill as we welcome him into the Holy Cross community. Let’s all pray for him in his new role — his success will be the College’s, and we all want that.

Jargon-Free Economics: Why a Higher Minimum Wage Means Lower Standards of Living

I recently found myself surprised by the level of disagreement I have encountered among self-identified Republicans concerning the minimum wage.  Though the right side of the aisle is undoubtedly intellectually diverse, I thought they would surely agree that the federal minimum wage should not be increased by the U.S. government.  After all, the U.S. market economy’s track record has consisted historically of ensuring every household has a TV and dryer, and that multiple coronavirus vaccines are distributed within months of the virus’s emergence.  The U.S. government’s economic track record consists of — well — ensuring social security goes bankrupt and amassing $27 trillion in debt and counting.  Still, the popularity of a federally-mandated minimum wage has endured.  In my experience, this support is founded on a widespread ignorance of the principle of market incentives which have fueled and continue to fuel American prosperity.  Unfortunately, economic jargon alienates many individuals from looking further into topics such as the minimum wage.  In this article I hope to provide some clarity to these issues through simpler explanations of market behavior.

It is easy to understand why raising the minimum wage is a popular idea — everyone wants to make more money, and no one wants to see masses of people on the streets because their wage is insufficient.  With a $15 minimum wage (the number proposed by the Biden administration), everyone with a full-time job would make $600 a week!  It seems commonsense, then, that we raise the wage.  If people can make more money with one signature on a bill, why not?  This philosophy begs the question as to why the United States did not undertake such action decades ago.  Why hold higher salaries back from a segment of the American public if you do not have to?  Is it simply to enrich big bad Bezos, lobbyists, or other wealthy individuals so often reviled by the American public for supposedly hoarding wealth at the worker’s expense?  I would respond to someone advocating an increased minimum wage with the predictable question, why don’t we pursue legislation mandating a $20 minimum wage, or $50, or even $100?  If financial success for many Americans is just a signature away, why not make the minimum wage as high as possible?  Presumably, the answer would make itself evident to the minimum wage advocate at this point.  Doing so would destroy the economy, because most businesses simply cannot afford to pay employees such wages while remaining both profitable and efficient. 

Even a $15 minimum wage would have a massive ripple effect on the American economy.  Take McDonald’s and all companies like McDonald’s, which are likely to pay at least a small portion of employees minimum wage.  If the federal government enforced legislation mandating each of these businesses pay their low-level employees $15, considerably higher than the market value of their work, mass unemployment inevitably would result.  McDonald’s will simply install electric kiosks in their dining rooms in favor of cashiers, as the one-time cost of that installation would become far cheaper than consistently paying a team member more money than they bring into the company on an hourly basis.  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 1.4 million jobs would be lost if Biden’s $15 minimum wage idea becomes federal policy — mostly underprivileged, unskilled workers.  Nor will these team members be able to easily find another job which requires their skillset, as most jobs for which they are qualified will disappear from the market.  Even if a worker is fortunate enough to keep his/her job, the company must make up for lost profit elsewhere.  This may come in the form of reduced hours for workers, increased prices for consumers, or a myriad of other possibilities.

Here begins the domino effect.  As unemployment rises in the United States following the minimum wage legislation, more citizens become reliant on welfare programs in order to survive.  As the welfare state grows, the government will look to extract the necessary funds to support such programs from the pockets of Americans in the form of taxes.  Americans as a whole, then, are left with less buying power than before, thus resulting in a less-stimulated, stagnant economy.  Businesses, suffering from the decrease in buying power per household in the United States, will see decreased profit or even net losses, thus laying off workers and beginning the vicious cycle again.  Matters only worsen once the government decides printing money is the answer to a stagnant economy. Such action would decrease the value of everyone’s dollar and increase the prices of consumer goods, which would gradually become unaffordable for many Americans due to inflation.

Hopefully it is clear by now why a high minimum wage does not work economically.  One persistent argument I have encountered at this point is the fact that a minimum wage may still have merit, as there is such great wealth inequality in the United States.  It is only moral for a wealthy business owner to pay a high wage to his/her hardworking employees — legislation just ensures this happens.  After all, once businesses amass a certain level of profit, there is no incentive for them to pay or treat workers well.  Firstly, this argument ignores the fact that most business owners are not Jeff Bezos, and that minimum wage will, in fact, hit “Main Street” businesses who already operate on tiny profit margins considerably harder than it will hit large businesses who have greater resources at their disposal, which brings us back to incentive.  If potential American business owners are not led to believe the system in place values their success, where is the incentive to start a business if the risk so dramatically outpaces any potential reward?  American businesses such as Pfizer and Moderna, who are now vaccinating the world, may not exist today if their entrepreneurs did not believe there was to be payoff for starting a business which offers good products.  Alternatively, the companies may have floundered at their outset had they been compelled to operate under even narrower margins than new businesses already endure, due to a $15 minimum wage.

Furthermore, the latter part of this argument is predicated on a misunderstanding of incentives in economics.  Because we live in a relatively free market system, the incentive for Amazon, for example, to continue to pay workers well as profits increase is the fact that it needs to attract enough potential employees to compensate for the increase in demand for its services.  This principle is why many companies provide healthcare for their employees.  Businesses do not do this for fun or out of simple good will.  Virtually every activity in economics is attached to some incentive, and the incentive for high pay and employer-based healthcare is the same — namely, to ensure they are attractive to workers who will actually carry out the functions of their business on the ground.  Of course, a wider applicant pool increases a business’s chances of finding a better fit for the position, in turn increasing the quality of the firm’s output.  This view of economics also misunderstands the nature of the wealthy CEO.  Business owners generally do not simply hoard wealth in their bank accounts, sitting on piles of money laughing at their menial laborers.  Rather, they invest their wealth either back into their business, improving its efficiency, or they invest by other means such as stocks, bonds, etc., thus stimulating the economy further as a whole.  Many start charities not limited to the United States, (e.g. Bill and Melinda Gates), aiding the international economy as well, or at least affecting the lives of many impoverished populations for the better.  Surely Jeff Bezos enjoys the portion of the wealth he has chosen to access at this point, but to act like the good of the American worker and the good of the business owner are mutually exclusive is a notion born out of a caricatured view of economics.  

All of this points  to the beauty of the free market in America, principally because the preservation of the free market understands that monetary success is a strong incentive both to work well and pay well.  American products tend to be of high quality precisely because we strike that balance and let the free market work as it will.  There is a mutual understanding within a free market economy that both workers and employees must work fairly and efficiently in order to achieve success.  For instance, in 2018, Amazon, the boogeyman of successful American business, resolved to have a minimum wage of $15 per hour  for all of its American workers, without government prompting.  If businesses are robbed of some initial success due to restrictive regulations or a compulsory $15 minimum wage when there is no way to afford it, the convenient services which Amazon provides as well as the hearty salaries even its lowest-level employees may expect — without the job cuts premature legislation would have caused — may never arise.  In fact, Amazon produced half a million jobs in 2020 at a time of high unemployment, and its median wages have increased steadily since the company’s inception.  Nor is a world without any minimum wage an unimaginable travesty.  Countries such as Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland have all survived and prospered with no minimum to this day.  

With only a cursory understanding of economics and a grasp of the incentives which underlie market activity, it is impossible to seriously postulate that a minimum wage is the best way to ensure our workers’ standard of living improves or that America’s production reaches its fullest potential.

Unity, but on Biden's Terms

As the country continues to suffer through the coronavirus pandemic and its associated ills, along with the shock of the attempted insurrection at the Capitol on January 6th, it is a fairly good time for some national unity. In President Joseph R. Biden’s inaugural address on January 20th, he repeatedly emphasized his call for unity (indeed, the whole celebration had the theme of American unity), “that most elusive of things in a democracy”. There is little room to argue with such a sentiment, for as a nation, Americans still hold much in common, despite our disagreements. The question arises, however, as to what Mr. Biden means when he says ‘unity.’ If he meant the reaffirmation of those unifying ideals that undergird America – a commitment to freedom, liberty, respect for natural rights, and equality under the law, then one would be hard-pressed to quarrel with him. But actions, as the saying goes, speak louder than words. Mr. Biden’s behavior, and that of his party, since his taking office point to a very different definition of unity. This ‘unity’ is not voluntary, and it certainly is not about finding common ground. No, this ‘unity’ is about falling in line with the more extreme priorities of the Democratic Party — and make no mistake, many of the policies coming out of the Biden administration are incredibly radical.

Truth, as Mr. Biden suggested in his inaugural address, is an essential facet of a prosperous, free, and civil society. Leaders have “a duty and a responsibility… to defend the truth and to defeat the lies.” The consequences of lies was made painfully clear on January 6th, when criminals stormed the Capitol Building, emboldened by the continuous perpetuation, since President Trump’s defeat on November 3rd, of the untruth of a supposedly ‘stolen’ election. What is painfully ironic, however, is that immediately after Mr. Biden rightly decried the lies that have infected the American polity, he proceeded to spout lies of similar stature. He chose to further the lie of ‘systemic’ American racism, a lie that helped add oxygen to the raging fire of riots and unrest that erupted last June. These were the same riots that caused billions of dollars in damage, devastated cities, and destroyed thousands of businesses and livelihoods. These were the same riots that saw statues of many American heroes, from George Washington to Frederick Douglas, desecrated. And these were the same riots that resulted in the injuring of hundreds, and the deaths of numerous individuals, including Officer David Dorn, whose wife spoke at the RNC in August of 2020. Despite the horrors America witnessed for months on end, Mr. Biden still chose to perpetuate one of the lies that served – indeed, still serves – as the keystone for the unrest. 

Racism still exists in America, and every instance of it must be rooted out – end of story. There can be absolutely no tolerance for racism in society, and it should be called out and confronted whenever it rears its ugly head. America’s governing institutions, however, can no longer be reasonably branded as racist. Legal barriers or penalties based on race have long since been removed, and discrimination long since made illegal. What is left of racism in America occurs almost entirely on an individual basis, and is certainly not widespread. Of course, this is utilizing the definition of racism that the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. would have understood, not the modern, all-encompassing definition of the Left. Racism, properly defined, is the mistreatment of or discrimination against others because of their race. That is not the definition Mr. Biden and his party often adhere to, however. For most of the Left, racism is understood as Ibram X. Kendi defines it: any inequality between race groups. Many on the Left blame everything from wealth inequality to health variations on racism – despite the lack of hard evidence. If one floats any other possibility, no matter how substantive, he must be racist, as he is either blinded by his privilege or interested in perpetuating inequality. Those that question the orthodox opinion are branded as rotten human beings, deserving of being cast out of polite society. In reality, there are plenty of other explanations for existing disparities – explanations that do not include casting broad dispersions upon the nation and its citizens. Take inequality in wealth between black and white Americans, for example. Much of it can be tied to other, very serious, issues, such as the high rate of single-parent households in the black community, or the fact that millions living in the inner city are forced to attend abysmal local public schools (it is worth noting that it is mostly the Democrats, Mr. Biden among them, that refuse to allow school choice). Not all disparities between races are due to racism, but for many on the Left, disparities between races necessarily means racism, and ‘systemic’ racism has become a matter of Gospel truth. Thomas Sowell, one of the greatest economic and political thinkers of recent history, describes this phenomenon well: “Some things are believed because they are demonstrably true, but many other things are believed simply because they have been asserted repeatedly.” ‘Systemic’ racism is believed not because it is backed by solid evidence, but because it is repeated unceasingly as though it is unquestionably true. Going down the rabbit hole of supposed ‘systemic’ racism both stymies efforts to deal with the real problems at hand and divides America along racial lines. But this is beside the point. The problem is that Mr. Biden chose, rather than to further unity through fact, to further disunity through partisan manipulation of the truth. 

In the same vein, one of Mr. Biden’s first executive orders was to reverse the former administration’s crackdown on the teaching of Critical Race Theory (CRT) and its analogues in the federal government and among federal contractors. CRT, with its basis in Marxist critical theory, is highly controversial, and rightly so. It pushes the notion that American society, in everything from its social structures to its institutions, is compromised by racism. Everything is viewed through the lens of race and power. It is not about recognizing the great sins of America’s past and the progress it has made; it is about perpetuating the falsehood that America is still deeply racist. Thus, CRT is also extremely dangerous, as it fundamentally undermines the American system – with adherents often endorsing calls for the ‘overthrow’ of institutions – and teaches Americans to hate both their country and, in many cases, themselves. Using federal taxpayer dollars to promote such an ideology is not only immoral, it is also extremely divisive. If Mr. Biden was looking to promote unity, this was not the best route to take. (For an in-depth look at one of CRT’s analogues, the modern anti-racism movement, see the recent article by Staff Writer John Dashe, “Anti Racism: Creating More Racists?”)

Another major executive order, signed during Mr. Biden’s first hours in office, was the revocation of the construction permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. Mr. Biden claims to have taken the action in an effort to stem the progression of climate change and to protect the environment. If these claims were founded in fact, then cancelling the pipeline would be a reasonable policy. Unfortunately, they are more founded in political expediency than anything else. According to Forbes, the Keystone XL pipeline was supposed to transport crude oil from Canada, mainly derived from tar sands, to the Gulf Coast, where most American oil refineries capable of handling this type of crude oil are located. Oil must be refined for it to be of any use, and often refineries are located great distances away from the oil’s point of origin, as is the case with Canadian oil and the Gulf Coast refineries; thus the need for adequate transportation infrastructure. Further, oil will continue to be needed – in vast quantities – for the foreseeable future, so canceling the pipeline will just force its transport via different methods (the alternatives being truck, train, or boat). If the concern is climate change, then Mr. Biden’s executive order is entirely nonsensical. Trucks, trains, and boats all produce far more carbon dioxide than pipelines do, and without adequate pipelines, those alternatives will be the only options. Even if the concern is for oil spills, the case for canceling the pipeline is also lacking. According to the Manhattan Institute, while “pipelines release more oil per spill than rail” (pipelines release less per spill than road), crude oil pipelines have the lowest incident rate compared to road and train transport, making them the safest transport option: 

“Road had the highest rate of incidents, with 19.95 per billion ton miles per year. This was followed by rail, with 2.08 per billion ton miles per year. Natural gas transmission came next, with 0.89 per billion ton miles. Hazardous liquid [including crude oil] pipelines were the safest, with 0.58 serious incidents per billion ton miles.” 

In canceling the permit, Mr. Biden did little for the environment (aside from arguably making the situation worse by forcing transport by more accident-prone methods), and greatly harmed American infrastructure and jobs, despite the devastated economy. It is hard to see how this does anything to further the cause of national unity. 

Executive orders aside, Mr. Biden’s rhetoric on key issues since taking office has also been severely damaging to his stated goal of unity. On the 48th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, Mr. Biden reiterated his goal of codifying Roe into federal law: “The Biden-Harris Administration is committed to codifying Roe v. Wade and appointing judges that respect foundational precedents like Roe.” Since 1973, over 62 million children have been murdered – killed via premature expulsion, mutilation, being torn apart by suction, or through similarly gruesome methods. Codifying Roe would force every state and territory to follow federal abortion policy, all but wiping out states’ abilities to restrict abortion access, and guaranteeing that millions more children will be killed for decades to come. It would codify the stripping of the most basic human right, the right to life, from society’s most vulnerable. Despite the fact that 61% of the Americans believe that there should be restrictions on abortion access, and despite the extreme divisiveness of the issue, Mr. Biden apparently had few qualms with jumping right to the extreme end of the spectrum. It is made worse by the fact that he readily proclaims himself to be a devout Catholic, despite his views on abortion being utterly and undeniably antithetical to the teaching of the Church. Indeed, the Church proclaims the evil of abortion to be the preeminent issue in the nation, and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops called Mr. Biden’s comments “deeply disturbing and tragic”. Mr. Biden not only preaches in support of the nonexistent ‘right’ to murder children, he does so while claiming the mantle of religion. Here, too, it is difficult to pull something unifying out of Mr. Biden’s behavior – it seems to indicate something closer to unity by forced submission. (To read about the secular case against abortion, read my article in the September 2019 edition of the Fenwick Review.)

The Democratic Party, which Mr. Biden leads, has been no less divisive, and the President has done little to steer it in another direction. Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY), who leads a razor-thin 50-50 majority (with the Vice President as tie-breaker) in the Senate, has refused to disavow a push to end the Senate filibuster. All but two of his colleagues have either openly called to end the filibuster or have followed his lead in refusing to oppose its elimination. The filibuster, a long-established rule in the Senate, requires a 60-vote margin for most bills to pass. Originally far more extensive than it is today, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) ended it for judicial nominations in 2013, changing the vote requirement to a simple majority, a policy later extended to Supreme Court nominees. On its surface this may sound fine, but that is because there is a widespread and mistaken understanding of the American system. The Senate was supposed to serve as a barrier to the temporary passions of the people, and the filibuster ensures that those temporary passions do not reign unchecked. Most bills are supposed to have broad support from the populace before they are passed, thus the 60-vote margin. Yes, this causes gridlock, but that is a good thing. A government that responds immediately to every passing passion that sweeps through the populace is a government without stability and liable to make serious — sometimes very damaging — mistakes. It is worth remembering that the parties switch between support and animosity for gridlock depending on which is in power. The party in charge now will not be in charge forever, and gridlock will eventually be something that they will come to appreciate again. Senator Schumer, along with most Democrats in the Senate, want to ram through their policy priorities, despite the fact that half the country still opposes such priorities. Eliminating the filibuster would be devastating for the political climate, for it would allow any party with a slim majority to push through any policy it desires. Mr. Biden, who has previously been receptive to ending the filibuster, has refused to push his party to abandon calls for such a divisive move. There is nothing unifying about forcing down the most extreme policy preferences of a party with a razor-thin majority. 

Finally, Mr. Biden has been nearly silent regarding the upcoming impeachment trial of former President Trump, which is bound to be extremely divisive. It does not help that article of impeachment, which asserts that Mr. Trump incited the Capitol insurrection, is entirely unfounded. This author was heavily critical both of Mr. Trump’s response to the insurrection and of his impact on politics in a previous article, but that does not change the fact that the charge against the former President is incredibly weak. In his highly criticized speech before the insurrection, Mr. Trump explicitly called for a peaceful protest, not a riot. But regardless of one’s views on the article of impeachment itself, there is no longer a solid purpose to the impeachment. Mr. Trump is out of office, so even if one had considered him a threat, he is now powerless. He will also not be convicted, as two-thirds of the Senate is needed to convict, and with 45 Republican Senators voting on January 26th to table the trial, it is highly unlikely that the two-thirds margin will be met. It appears that the main goal of continuing the impeachment process is for the Democrats to milk as much political gain as possible from Mr. Trump’s disgrace – including dividing the Republican Party. If Mr. Biden truly wants unity, he should be pushing his Democratic colleagues to drop the impeachment proceedings. Mr. Trump’s behavior in the months following his election were indeed egregious, and he has suffered the consequences, leaving office disgraced and with abysmal approval ratings. It is now time for the country to move on. Continuing down the road of impeachment simply impedes the healing process that Mr. Biden has repeatedly claimed to want. 

How President Biden chooses to act in the coming months will be crucial to whether the country will heal or continue to fracture. He has a unique opportunity to promote unity, with broad disgust at the events on January 6th and with a widespread desire for some sort of ‘normalcy.’ Unfortunately, if his conduct since his inauguration is any indication, the unity that Mr. Biden has so often called for will not arrive any time soon – at least not the kind of unity that arises organically. The kind of ‘unity’ Mr. Biden seems to want is the kind that arises when his divisive policy preferences are forced upon every American, willing or not. 

Thirty Years of Charter Schools: How Do They Score?

The recent Senate elections in Georgia delivered a victory to Democrats, with Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff edging out incumbents Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue. Beyond symbolic significance (Ossoff and Warnock will be the state’s first Jewish and African-American senators, respectively), the results from Georgia mark a sea change in the political fortunes of President-elect Joe Biden. With Democrats (narrowly) in control of the Senate, Biden will no longer have to rely on Republican votes to confirm judicial picks and cabinet members. Several of the President-elect’s nominees raise serious red flags (like abortion zealot Xavier Becerra for Health and Human Services), while others seem patently unqualified, if unoffensive (like Pete Buttigieg for Transportation). Still others have largely flown under the radar, like Biden’s nominee for Secretary of Education, Miguel Cardona, currently Connecticut’s education commissioner and a former public school administrator. He will likely be a shoo-in, not least because unlike a disconcertingly large number of Biden’s nominees, he’s fairly qualified for the position he was nominated for.

Arguably the most prominent issue in the American educational landscape today is that of school choice. On this matter, Cardona gives reason for hope. Upon becoming Connecticut education commissioner two years, he stated that “Charter schools provide choice for parents that are seeking choice, so I think it’s a viable option.” Since 2019, he has established an innocuous (if sparse) record on school choice, reauthorizing all 25 of the state’s charter schools, with none closing or opening during his year-long tenure. In contrast, Biden, once a school choice proponent, is now fiercely opposed, having vowed on the campaign trail that charter schools will be “gone” if he is elected. No doubt the teachers unions, with their deep pockets and tantalizing endorsements, are largely to blame for this. In a November 2019 video published by the National Education Association (NEA), the nation’s largest teachers union, NEA president Lily Eskelsen García tells Biden that charter schools are “very misguided school reforms.” She goes on to say, “You know how we feel about charter schools,” to which Biden responded, “Same way I feel.” He followed up by vowing that “No privately-funded charter school will receive a penny of federal money — none,” a shocking reversal from 2008 and 2012, when the Obama–Biden educational platform called for more charter schools. 

If Biden and his fellow public school zealots represent one extreme, the other lies with public school skeptics like former Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, a charter school advocate who in 2015 dismissed traditional public schools as “a dead end.” Before being tapped to join President Trump’s cabinet, the billionaire heiress devoted decades — and a chunk of her family’s fortune — to promoting the school choice cause. As the chair of the Alliance for School Choice, she spearheaded efforts to introduce charters and school vouchers in her home state of Michigan, with mixed success.

How can an issue like charter schools inspire such wildly different opinions? Are charter schools the panacea, as proponents argue, for the struggling American public education system? Or do they underperform, and drain public school budgets, as opponents claim? As it turns out, the answer is somewhere in between — and although charter schools are not perfect, they remain an invaluable option for underprivileged families in struggling school districts in cities across the country.

Part of the problem with making sweeping plaudits or condemnations of charter schools is that there are simply so many of them. America’s first charter school, City Academy, opened in Saint Paul, Minnesota, in 1992. In the nearly three decades since, their numbers have grown exponentially: the most recent federal data from 2016 records approximately 7,000 charter schools nationwide, educating three million students. In some states, charter schools are an unquestionable success. In Florida, for instance, the most recent data shows charter school students outperforming their public school counterparts on 83 percent of measures. Meanwhile, in New York, charter school students gain on average, over the course of the school year, two months more of math and one month more of English compared to public school pupils.

However, in other states, like California, Michigan, and Ohio — to name a few — charters perform about the same or worse than public schools. In these states, inadequate laws and regulations are a key part of the problem. Charter schools exercise a degree of autonomy from public regulations and oversight on the condition that they are accountable for achieving good results. If a charter school is underperforming, the government should be able to close or replace it. However, a Department of Education survey found that more than half of charter school authorizers encountered difficulty closing underperforming schools. In addition, of the twelve percent of all charter schools that have closed, more than two-thirds did so because of financial inviability, not poor performance. In other words, because oversight bodies lack the teeth to enforce high standards, charter schools generally remain open as long as they can pay the bills, regardless of whether they are achieving positive results for their students. When looking at the issue state-by-state, charter schools generally appear to be about as good as the oversight and regulation governing them; Michigan, for example, which has some of the laxest oversight laws, also has some of the worst-performing charter schools, particularly in the city of Detroit. Few states have the mechanisms in place needed to enforce quality control among charter schools – last year, only five states received scores of “mediocre” or above by an educational watchdog agency. This lack of adequate oversight is understandable when considering that charter schools are such a recent phenomenon, but still, without comprehensive, enforceable laws and regulations in place, the door remains open to incompetence, fraud, waste, and abuse.

Still, even in states where charter schools appear to underperform, there is a silver lining. In Arizona, for instance, charter schools reportedly perform slightly worse than public schools – on paper. However, a recent analysis that factored out virtual schools, juvenile detention programs, and schools serving primarily overage students or late transfers, found that charters actually had slightly higher — not lower — test scores and graduation rates. Another example is California, where on average charter schools perform about the same as public schools — except among low-income black and Latino students, for whom charter schools provided math and reading gains greatly exceeding those of local public schools, according to a Stanford University study. These distinctions were especially pronounced in urban areas, where many minority students are concentrated. Studies of charter schools in cities including Boston, Chicago, and New York have replicated these findings. What this means is that while charter schools may not always perform comparatively better in already-good suburban school districts serving predominantly white, middle-income students, they are succeeding where they are needed most: in struggling urban school districts serving low-income, largely minority student bodies.

Of course, test scores and graduation rates are not the only consideration — but charter schools are valuable for other reasons. For one, they are useful for expanding the educational footprint in resource-strapped states and school districts, as well as in areas experiencing population growth. Though charter schools receive public funding, the costs of actually starting a school — like constructing new buildings — is usually footed by the operating organization itself. Additionally, because charter schools are not required to provide the same level of transportation, food offerings, and student support services as traditional public schools, they are less expensive to operate.

An example of where these advantages have proven especially important is Arizona, whose warm climate and inexpensive housing makes it a unique draw for both retirees and young families. In the 2000s, the state was experiencing a population influx and, with a limited budget, was struggling to build and expand enough schools for its fast-growing student population. Rather than settle for overcrowding, Arizona turned to charter schools to fill in the gap. In addition to allowing for the construction of numerous new schools the state would not have otherwise been able to afford, academic performance has increased statewide. Last year, Arizona’s eighth graders demonstrated math skills that rivaled those of its ninth graders back in 2003. As its population continues to age, the United States will need to address a version of the problem faced by Arizona: with more money going towards programs like Social Security and Medicare for retirees, federal and state budgets will have increasingly less leeway to boost spending on schools. Charters will be an evermore appealing option for states that want the best of both worlds: high-quality care for their seniors, and state-of-the-art schools for their children.

Still, test scores, graduation rates, and cost analyses aside, the strongest evidence in favor of charter schools is simply how popular they are. Even with more than 300 new charter schools opening each year, over a million children and teens sit on waiting lists, hoping that a spot will open up for them. More so than with ballots, people vote with their feet — and on this issue, millions of American families have made themselves heard: they want a choice. It may seem like a radical concept — until just thirty years ago, for generations the norm was that every student attended a school chosen for him by his school district. But in reality, for those with means, that was never the only option. If an affluent family was unhappy with the public schools in their district, they have always been able to move to a community with better schools or pay tuition to send their kids to a private school. Even as today’s leading Democrats rail against school choice, they take advantage of a version of it in their own lives: Elizabeth Warren’s son attended an elite private school, while Joe Biden sent his sons to Catholic schools.

School choice has always existed – the only difference was that until thirty years ago, it was the sole privilege of middle- and upper-income families. Charter schools have leveled the playing field by providing different educational options to lower-income families who cannot afford private school tuition or housing in better school districts. Public school partisans – like Bernie Sanders, who during his primary campaign stated, “We do not need two school systems” – may argue that such choices are superfluous. If charter schools often perform little better than traditional public schools, they may ask, then what is the point of having such a choice? Such a premise assumes that test scores are the only measure of a school’s worth. In the real world, families are drawn to a school not just by its academic performance, but other factors as well. Sports, facilities, location, special courses or programs, or a spiritual/cultural atmosphere may all be important considerations. Even students hailing from excellent public school systems may elect to attend a private school for any of those reasons and more. Charter schools extend a degree of that opportunity to families of all colors, incomes, and ZIP codes. Politicians on the right and left have been arguing and pontificating on the issue of charter schools for as long as they have existed, and they likely will for years to come. But for the families of the four million children who attend — or are waiting to attend — charter schools, the question has long been settled.

In spite of the efforts of powerful teachers unions and their Democratic toadies, there are few issues less partisan and with broader general support than charter schools. A poll released last January by the American Federation for Children found overwhelming bipartisan support for school choice, with nearly 80 percent of parents in favor of the option to choose the public school their child attends. More so, the survey found that 58 percent of Democratic primary voters, 62 percent of African-Americans, and 65 percent of Latinos said they would be less likely to support a presidential candidate in favor of eliminating federal funding for charter schools. If not because it is morally right, perhaps political expediency will be reason enough for Biden to return his erstwhile support to the charter school cause. If he truly wants to “united the country” as he says, getting behind school choice would be a perfect starting point. Incoming Secretary Cardona has potential, but he can only succeed on this issue if the President-elect is willing to lead.

Enough.

What happened at the Capitol yesterday was nothing short of a national disgrace. The storming of the legislative building of the United States of America – the beacon of freedom and liberty for all of humanity – irreparably dishonored the nation, and represented a display of the highest form of treachery. This behavior, wholly and entirely unacceptable in any free nation, was the culmination of a long and dangerous trend in American political life, on both sides of the isle: the wholesale disregard of truth and reality. Elements of the American Left have long since fallen into this trap, which was clearly visible in the disgraceful riots and false narratives that were purveyed throughout the past year. But the Left is a subject for a separate analysis, and was not the cause of this latest display of un-American behavior. What happened at the Capitol was the crudest manifestation of a cancerous development in the American Right. 

Only coming to a head in the past couple of years, some sectors of the Right have increasingly taken up the same characteristics of the radical Left, eschewing evidence and objective truth in favor of concocted ‘facts,’ rumor, and political expediency. Part of this is due to the state of American media, which is effectively inseparable from partisan interests, and has no compunction with twisting the truth to fit its desired narratives. In an environment where the traditional purveyors of truth are no longer trustworthy, it should be of no surprise that people begin to create their own ‘truth’ according to the whims of the moment. But that is only part of the problem. There are three other concerns that are the focus of this article: the cult of personality that surrounds Donald Trump, the turn away from objective truth and evidence-based politics, and the complete disregard for principle that accompanies the populism Trump embodies. 

Donald Trump is undeniably a ‘larger than life’ figure in American politics – a quality that is simultaneously both to his advantage and potentially dangerous. He has managed to become the standard bearer of the fight against radical leftism (itself likely the greatest threat to the nation), but with that his personage has sucked most of the proverbial air out of the room. He has come to represent the end-all be-all for many people, the last standing bulwark between leftist tyranny and the American way of life. Further, his personality is entirely domineering – he leaves no room for alternative voices. Because of these issues, he has developed a cult of personality around him, whereby people do not so much identify with the principles of conservatism than they do with the way that Trump supposedly embodies them. In other words, they identify with the man first and the ideas second. Trump in his person, for many, determines the definition of conservatism, the platform of the Republican Party, and anyone who disagrees is simply a ‘RINO’ (Republican in name only) or a traitor, someone to be discarded. In the absence of a trusted source of truth, Trump has become the truth. 

Trump’s claims of election fraud and the ‘steal’ of the election are, indeed, utterly unfounded. Yes, there was very likely some fraud in the 2020 presidential election, probably more so than in 2016 because of the vast expansion of mail-in balloting. Yes, some states bent the constitutionally-established rules for elections. But the fraud was, by all available evidence, nowhere near enough to make up for the substantial deficit in votes that Trump currently has, and the state legislatures have certified the electors, which is final. The courts have reviewed the allegations, and they have unanimously rejected them as either unfounded or severely lacking in evidence. Many of the judges who presided over these cases were Trump appointees. So unless the entire judicial system is utterly corrupted and Trump’s judicial appointments were horrible, it should be clear that the election was won fairly by Joe Biden. 

But with the wholehearted support of Trump and in the environment of distrust that the media has created, there have been widespread rumors and supposed ‘evidence’ floating around that have severely undermined confidence in the election. Many on the Right, with the weight of Trump backing them, have produced an echochamber of sorts, throwing around allegations about widespread fraud and criminality. A now-famous uncontextualized video of hundreds of ballots in Georgia being taken out of suitcases continues to serve as primary evidence for many, despite the fact that its contents have been thoroughly explained by election officials. There are claims of Dominion voting machines being hacked or parts being changed – claims which even Newsmax retracted because they had no evidence to support them. The assertion that the Vice President could overturn the election results during the January 6th certification, which is partly what spurred the riot, is equally erroneous and unconstitutional. These make up but a small fraction of the untruths spread since the election. But Trump continues to echo these and numerous other claims, and people buy into them, not because they are backed by evidence, but because they come from Trump and his allies. 

If Americans cannot operate on the basis of hard evidence and truth, then there cannot be a functioning polity. If the word of a few larger than life politicians is sufficient to serve as proof,  if uncontextualized and uninvestigated information is turned into fact, and if there is a complete unwillingness to think critically and question sources, then Americans are jettisoning the very qualities that make human beings unique among animals: reason. If everything is relativized, with the Left having its ‘truth’ and the Right its own ‘truth,’ there is little to expect other than the collapse of the nation, something terrifyingly close to what was witnessed at the Capitol.

The populism that Trump represents has its own dangers. Populism, by its very definition, lacks principles. The foundations of populism shift with the fleeting whims of the people, whatever is in ‘vogue’ at the time is what the populist politician will latch on to. The Right has long prided itself, rightly, on its principled nature, with respect for the Constitution, the rule of law, equality under the law, and individual rights. But if the Right continues to embrace populism, it will abandon the feature, principle, that distinguishes it from the Left. Further, lack of principles is itself inherently dangerous. Anything is acceptable when principle is thrown away. There are those who argue that storming the Capitol was somehow justified. There are those who argue that overturning an election without adequate evidence is justified. What exactly is not justified in the name of some ever-changing (because there are no principles) goal? The deficit of principle also means that populism means vastly different things to different people, for there is no constant and accepted foundation. For one person populism can be a slightly modified conservatism, while for another it can mean some variant of radicalism. The inherent danger, then, is that there are no definitional limits to what populism can result in, and if history serves as any guide, government without limits is very undesirable.

It is worth noting Trump’s response to the egregious display at the Capitol, as it embodies some of what has been discussed in this article. In a video recording addressing what was then the ongoing storming of the Capitol, Trump said the following:

I know your pain. I know your hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election, and everyone knows it, especially the other side. But you have to go home now, we have to have peace. We have to have law and order, we have to respect our great people in law and order. We don’t want anybody hurt. It’s a very tough period of time. There’s never been a time like this where such a thing happened, where they could take it away from all of us — from me, from you, from our country. This was a fraudulent election, but we can’t play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So, go home. We love you, you’re very special. You’ve seen what happens. You see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel. But go home, and go home in peace.

He may have included the obligatory call for peace, and asked the rioters to go home, but it is immediately followed by a statement that completely contradicts such a message. Claiming (again, without evidence) that the election was a fraud, and that “they could take it away” is just reaffirming why the rioters stormed the Capitol to begin with! And to express sympathy and appreciation towards the very people who just committed one of the most un-American acts of the last century is equally absurd. There is no respect for the institutions of America, and there is no respect for the Constitution. This was the time that the nation most needed a national address from the President, but it did not receive one. Instead, it received a half-hearted plea for the rioters to go home while simultaneously feeding their fire. Principle, or more importantly, respect for the nation, would necessitate the wholehearted condemnation of the violence. But, of course, there is no principle to be had here.

The American Right needs to return to its Reaganesque roots, and to the principles of traditional American conservatism. It must refuse to follow the Left towards relativism and principle-free politics. It must reject the cult of personality that Trump has managed to create. This does not, and should not, mean a return to the days of Mitt Romney – far from it. It means that the Right must take the good things that the Trump presidency brought, particularly in the realm of confronting the tyrannical culture of the Left, fuse those good things with traditional conservatism, and move forward as a united, principled, and just force with which to confront the incoming Democratic government. Conservatism is just, it is right, and it is the best path forward for the nation. Trumpian populism is not.

Those that participated in the storming of the Capitol must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and should be utterly ashamed at their sickening behavior. Events such as this must never happen again on American soil. Not only are they criminal, but they also provide a propaganda coup for the enemies of freedom. This is the antithesis of the kind of politics the Founders envisioned – there is no justification for what occurred, and there never will be. Now more than ever, the nation needs your prayers.