Cautious, or…?

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s Saturday article headlined Harris Was Hamstrung by Caution. Now She’s the Democrats’ Driving Force[] had a couple of examples that don’t bode well for our nation under a Kamala Harris administration.

In her first months as vice president, Kamala Harris’s staff faced a dilemma: when a military officer saluted her as she boarded Air Force Two, should she salute back?

Her Vice President predecessors had routinely returned the salutes. Harris, though, listened to her “national security advisor” Nancy McEldowney, who told her she’d be overstepping her bounds if she returned the salute, so at the first encounter, she did not. And caught flack for the implied disrespect. Rationalizing that, and trying to justify her own poor advice, McEldowney said,

She really wanted to do the right thing and did not want to be out of step either with military protocol or with perceptions of her role as vice president.

If Harris truly had been interested in “doing the right thing,” she could have asked an actual military man, someone like, say, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or even the man in charge of the Presidential—or Vice Presidential—detail that provides personal security and crews for the President’s and Vice President’s transportation. In any event, it’s not that she wasn’t capable of asking actual experts; she just didn’t want to risk rocking the boat from her Number Two position.

Then there’s this.

She also was wary of offering her own policy views and in building out her political infrastructure. Much of her behavior has been driven by a desire not to overshadow President Biden and to demonstrate loyalty to a man she vigorously attacked during the 2020 Democratic primary.

Never mind that a Vice President’s role is to offer his/her own policy views, even to play devil’s advocate, in order to ensure the President is getting a variety of perspectives. See, for instance, then-Vice President Joe Biden’s advice to then-President Barack Obama to not pull the trigger on the operation that got Osama bin Ladin. Biden was the only one in the room offering that advice. Or that a Vice President needs his/her own political infrastructure in order to offer competent and informed advice. Further, a Vice President demonstrates loyalty—to the extent personal loyalty ever is appropriate—by doing his/her best to carry out the President’s decisions once those decisions have been made.

Now that she’s at the top of the Progressive-Democratic Party and unchallenged in any serious way, she’s becoming more aggressive—becoming Party’s driving force.

That she didn’t want to expose herself to differences or differing opinions, keeping her head down even when that was counterproductive, unless and until she was the absolute top dog indicates a dangerous weakness for our nation—for her—as she faces aggressive enemies like Russian President Vladimir Putin, or People’s Republic of China President Xi Jinping, or Iran’s mullahs; even aggressive friends like France’s President Emmanuel Macron or Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. In those milieus, she’ll be back to her status as not the top dog, but worse than before: having to deal with other top dogs person to person without the excuse that she isn’t herself highest in her hierarchy.

Part of the Problem

Posted on by
Reply

US News & World Report Executive Chairman and CEO Eric Gertler, in his Wall Street Journal op-ed, accidentally exposed a significant part of the problem in higher academia management and that management’s failure to provide for an open learning environment for the students (and too many pupils) attending their institutions.

Most college presidents have résumés that stand out in the academic world of scholarship, theory, and ceremony. That background isn’t always suited for a role that requires one to juggle the competing interests of students, donors, alumni, faculty, trustees, and community members.

This is a basic misunderstanding of what the job of a college president is.

The interest of students is to learn how to think critically and how to debate positions—including, as an important pedagogic tool, in favor of those with which they disagree—learn their course material, and learn how to get along with fellow students who have different beliefs. They have no other legitimate interest while attending the college or university.

Faculty members have no interest other than to teach those things to their students and those pupils who deign attend a class. They have no legitimate school governance interest and they have no legitimate political interest once on the school campus. That they’ve gained so much influence in school governance is a failure amply demonstrated by the disruptions and riots at their institutions over the last few years.

“Community members” have no interest in the school’s operation other than that they are paid on time and fully by the school and the students and pupils for services rendered.

The only interests to which a college president need be responsive are the following. Donors, who have an interest in their money being used as they’ve designated. Alternatively, the school’s management team is free to reject a donor’s money if the designated use is antithetical to the school’s education mission.

Alumni, to the extent they recognize that their role is to support the school’s mission and not to try to impose their personal political agenda on the school.

Trustees, who are the senior managers of the institution.

The mission of a college or university to provide an environment conducive to educating all of its students, regardless of their religious belief, and then to provide that education as outlined above.

A president who cannot do those things, or who disagrees with the narrowness of those things has no business being a president of that institution.

Separately, but closely related, Gertler identified an additional major impediment to a college’s/university’s ability to satisfy its mission.

Harvard now charges incoming students $85,000 in tuition and living expenses. It has more than 25,000 students and almost 20,000 employees, including some 2,500 faculty members.

Leave aside the enormous charge to students for tuition and living expenses by an institution with an endowment of nearly $51 billion and growing. That endowment, by the way, would pay for 596,470 student-years, or more than 23 years for class cycles of those 20,000 students, longer if we’re doing dynamic scoring on that growing endowment.

The larger problem embodied by Gertler’s statistic are those 20,000 “employees” compared with those 2,500 actual teachers. That’s badly out of whack.

A Misapprehension

Posted on by
Reply

Kimberly Strassel, of The Wall Street Journal, opened her editorial with this:

Minouche Shafik is this week’s casualty of activist protesters, although her resignation as Columbia University’s president resurrects a pressing question for Democratic leaders: how long do they think they can duck their own confrontation with their angry left?

That’s her misapprehension: that “angry left” is the center of the Progressive-Democratic Party. This is the party whose leadership—Progressive-Democratic President Joe Biden and Progressive-Democrat Vice President and Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris—actively opposes Israel in the extermination war the terrorist entity Hamas has inflicted on it and continues to pursue.

This is the party whose Presidential candidate agreed with her fellow leftists that Pennsylvania’s Progressive-Democrat Governor Josh Shapiro was unfit to be her Vice President running mate because he’s a Jew, and chose instead Minnesota’s Progressive-Democrat Governor Tim Walz, a man who after 24 years of honorable service in our military, chose in his moment of truth to retire from the military rather than stay with his unit while it was under a Warning Order to prepare for deployment to an actual combat zone.

This is the party that is actively pursuing the nuclear armament of Iran with its begging Iran to be allowed to reenter a JCPOA that itself (as agreed by Biden’s Party predecessor Barack Obama) codified Iran’s ability to develop and deploy nuclear weapons.

This is the party that is paying only lip service to preventing Iran-backed Houthi disruption of commercial shipping through the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea.

This is the party that wants to continue business as usual with the People’s Republic of China, pushing investment and associated American technology and intellectual property in that nation, never minding that that nation controls vital inputs to our economy, inputs like rare earths, lithium and processed lithium for batteries; a nation that is ramping up its threats to the Republic of China with no response by us; a nation that is rapidly expanding its military establishment, including nuclear weapons, even as Party works assiduously to reduce real spending on our own defense and to weaken through a variety of Woke policies our rump defense capability.

This is the party that is afraid to confront land-grabbing Russia, choosing instead to hamstring Ukraine in its ability to defend itself, for all that far too many Republicans support that supplication.

Domestically, this is the party that insists on increasing taxes on those of us American citizens of whom they disapprove and increasing spending on social policies that us average Americans do not want.

This is the party that demands to indoctrinate our children in its leftist ways, rather than teaching our children how to think, using our history, our language, our civics, math, and science as vehicles for that end. This is the party that opposes school choice in order to keep our children trapped in failing public schools run by Party’s indoctrination arm, the teachers unions.

As Party confronts their angry left, it is confronting itself. And agreeing with itself.

Preemption or Not?

Posted on by
Reply

Michael Oren, former Israeli ambassador to the US, has a piece in The Free Press in which he asks that question regarding Israel’s current situation against the backdrop of Israel’s decision to preempt at the outset of Israel’s 1967 defensive war vs Israel’s 1973 war for survival when it decided to let its enemies strike first.

I suggest the question has a broader historical scope than that. The question of preemption goes at least as far back as St Augustine’s early 5th century assertion that preemption was ipso facto immoral and so unjustified and unjustifiable. The pace of combat and the level of technology of those days gave practical support to the claim: an attacked nation could absorb the first blow and still have the wherewithal to respond and successfully defend itself.

Today is nothing like those days. Combat pacing and the technology in arms, mobility, and cyber make it very nearly suicidal for a nation under irrefutable threat of imminent attack to sit quietly and accept the enemy’s opening set of blows before responding. That opening set may well be fatal, with the attacked nation unable to respond at all. This is especially the case with nuclear weapons, which for instance, Iran is on the verge of achieving.

That makes sitting by today and accepting the enemy’s first strike, whether conventional, possibly coupled with cyber attacks, or nuclear the immoral move, as suicidal as sitting by may well prove to be.

Preemptive war does require strong evidence that the enemy intends to attack and that the enemy is about to do so. In Israel’s case, Hamas leadership has openly announced he intends to continue Hamas’ war of extermination—already underway. Iran’s leadership has announced that it intends to strike massive blows against Israel in response to the killing of a Hamas leader in Tehran. Hezbollah’s leadership is prosecuting its own lower-key war of extermination from the north.

In 1967, Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol agonized for three weeks before deciding to preempt, and when he did, Israel settled that war in six days with far fewer casualties—friendly and enemy—than would have been the case had he decided Israel should absorb that first blow. This is demonstrated by Prime Minister Golda Meier’s decision to do exactly that in 1973’s war and that war’s costs.

Certainly preemption is more difficult when striking an amorphous network entity like the terrorist entities of Hamas and Hezbollah than it is against formal nation states like Iran. It’s no less important to be done for that, and “more difficult” means “possible.”

Preemption has become the moral imperative for the nation about to be attacked. That applies today for Israel, especially in the case of Iran, where preemption is not only necessary, it may well limit Hamas’ and Hezbollah’s abilities to continue.

Hmm….

Posted on by
Reply

The wonders in New York City’s government has spent some $4.88 billion on means of support for illegal aliens “migrants” in the city over the two years ending with the end of FY2024.

Imagine the benefits to the city’s residents and to their city’s economy were those billions of dollars spent on a couple of alternatives:

  • increased policing with more cops on the beat, and/or
  • increased prosecution of criminals rather than releasing them on no bail, and/or
  • recriminalizing misbehaviors like shoplifting, vandalism, assaults

Even [trigger alert] leaving some of that money in the hands of city residents through tax rate reductions.