"Is Political Centrism Possible?"

 The cartoon I took from the internet, with the understanding we should be able to laugh at ourselves. Nevertheless, extremism is a serious concern. As Clint Eastwood, at age 94, said in a February 20, 2025 interview, “And when you go far enough to the right you meet the same idiots coming around from the left.” And I would suggest we have more than our share in Washington (and in many state capitals and large cities) today.

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Is Political Centrism Possible?”

April 13, 2026

 

“The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good ground

exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holders lack of rational conviction. 

Opinions in politics and religion are almost always held passionately.”

                                                                                                                                Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)

                                                                                                                                Skeptical Essays, 1928

 

“They told us they wanted a culture that could tolerate disagreement without treating it as heresy.”

                                                                                                                                Katherine Dee (c.1993-)

                                                                                                                                “Exit Strategy”

                                                                                                                                The Spectator World, March 30, 2026

 

In his 1920 poem, “The Second Coming,” William Butler Yeats included lines that have pertinence to our cultural and political lives today:

 

“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,...

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.”

 

Recent polls conducted by Gallup and Pew Research suggest that the number of Americans identifying as political moderates has declined, from 43% in 1992 to 34% in 2024. Not surprisingly, Pew Research notes that far-left and far-right voters contribute more money, attend more political rallies, and have higher turnout rates at elections than their more moderate brethren. In both parties, social media users with moderate views are reluctant to post about political and cultural issues. In 1992, James Carville, strategist for Bill Clinton, coined the phrase, “It’s the economy, stupid!” It helped Mr. Clinton win the election. In 2026, the phrase could be: “It’s the extremists, stupid!” In this environment it is fair to ask: Can the center hold?

 

Ironically, this is happening at a time when more Americans have been doing better financially than at any time in history. In a recent survey conducted by the American Enterprise Institute, reported on by Aimee Picchi of CBS six days ago, the “core” middle class no longer represents the largest group of Americans. Now, for the first time, that honor belongs to the upper-middle class. Yes, there are more people classified as “rich” – 3.7% in 2024, versus 0.3% in 1979 – but those categorized as “poor or near poor” have shrunk from 29.7% to 18.7%. Are things perfect? Of course not, but the trend is in the right direction.

 

Yet extremists continue to play to emotions. Extremism is not a new phenomenon that one can blame on Donald Trump and J.D. Vance or Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. It has been gestating for years. In an article from last October, Johanna Dunaway of Syracuse University’s Institute for Democracy, Journalism and Citizenship, and who sees Americans as more divided today than at any time since the Civil War, wrote: “Much of the polarization that escalated in recent decades was largely driven by misperceptions people have about ordinary partisans on the other side – the everyday people in your neighborhood or office who happen to support the other party.”  She was writing of people like us, Nixon’s “silent majority,” or Trump’s “forgotten man and woman.” Social media has aggravated the situation. While instant communication has benefits, one of its drawbacks is that people react; they don’t think. 

 

Trump-hatred plays a role. Like Andrew Jackson who became President 197 years ago, Mr. Trump elicits emotional responses far in excess of any rational policy differences. Iran is a perfect example. For forty-seven years the Country has been a theocracy run by religious fanatics. Unlike Russia or China, whose governments forbid freedom but whose leaders are conscious of the risks of nuclear annihilation, Iran’s leaders would be unafraid of unleashing a nuclear holocaust, as they seek paths to Paradise, in shahada (martyrdom). Preventing Iran from getting the bomb was (and is) in the interest of all mankind. Yet Presidents from both parties have been ineffective in stopping them, that is until Mr. Trump. Now their nuclear capabilities have been curtailed and most of their ICBMs obliterated, thanks to the President and to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Yet Iran retains the ability to deprive the world of badly needed fossil fuels and fertilizers. The Strait of Hormuz lies in international waters. It is not a toll booth. It needs to be open for trade. 

 

Yet Democrats in the House and Senate will not support any initiative begun by President Trump, no matter whether to do so would be good for us and the free world. For example, listening to Senator Chuck Schumer belittle the President, one could easily conclude that he would prefer to see Mr. Trump humiliated than for the U.S. and Israel to defeat Iran and bring peace to the Middle East.

 

And mainstream media has been no better. Their biases, along with their sanctimonious idiocy, know no bounds. CNN anchor Dana Bash, sounding like Orwell’s O’Brien in 1984, recently said: “Objective reporting now, rightly so, means explaining what someone says when its false or when it’s not right or when it’s misleading.” I understand that Mr. Trump can be coarse and rude to both friend and foe. He is not the leader I would prefer, but no other President has taken on Iran’s leaders. He speaks to them in language they understand. The United States is stronger when its people are not torn apart by self-serving politicians and media-types, but the United States and the West will be safer with Iran neutered. 

 

While I cast more blame on Democrats for this state of affairs, populist politicians in both parties, along with their partisan media allies, play to their choirs, offend their political opponents, and leave the public to make sense of their lunacy. A Rachel Maddow or a Tucker Carlson has no interest in persuading the skeptic; their only interest is in playing to their partisan (and perverted) acolytes. 

 

And yet, most people I speak with are reasonable, despite the fact we have fundamental differences in terms of the role government should play. Most appreciate the beauty of our political system and understand why it has lasted so long – the sovereignty of the people, the three independent branches of government, and the rules of laws that are constructed by Congress through debate. 

 

Is political centrism possible? Perhaps, though it seems unlikely in the near term. Nevertheless, we should keep in mind the wisdom expressed by Dwight Eisenhower at a press conference on November 17, 1963: “The middle of the road is all of the usable surface. The extremes, right and left, are in the gutters.” The success of Artemis II is reason to celebrate a unified American. Can we at least do that?

"Creating Problems to Secure Elections"

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

Thought of the Day

“Creating Problems to Secure Elections”

April 28, 2021

 

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.

It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s

cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for

our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

                                                                                                                  C.S. Lewis (1898-1963)

                                                                                                                  God in the Dock: Essays on Theology, 1970

                                                                                                                  Published posthumously

 

A problem endemic to successful countries is the need to create issues that get people excited when things are going relatively well. Since the end of the Cold War in 1991, except for a few years following 9/11, the United States has not faced a major crisis that galvanized and unified the nation. In 2008, we faced a credit crisis. It could have undone the global financial system but, truth be told, the crisis was over by the end of calendar year 2008 when the TED spread – a calculation used to measure risk in financial markets – narrowed sharply from its October-November highs, and high-yield bonds began to rally. The pandemic caused by COVID-19 last year was seized by politicians and called a crisis. A (deliberate?) confusion of correlation with causation regarding reported deaths was used as an excuse to expand governmental power and curtail individual rights. Despite conventional opinion, however, we do not know if shutting down the economy did more harm than good. 

 

The United States has achieved high living standards and diminished poverty because of capitalism and individual freedom. Is everything perfect? No. Should we rest on our laurels? Of course not. There is always more to be done. But the world, and especially the West, is richer and more at peace than at any time in history, which is a problem for politicians whose campaigns are all about needed change. 

 

It is true that external problems lurk. China threatens peace in the western Pacific. Russia is flexing its muscles along borders of its old empire in Ukraine. Iran, an impoverished state with little to risk and much to gain, is disrupting the Middle East with a revival of its nuclear program. North Korea, another state so impoverished it has little to lose, is led by a man who in a normal country would be committed.

 

However, in this time of relative prosperity and peace, Progressives convert addressable issues into partisan crises. While there are several, two, in my opinion, are forefront: race and climate. Others include policing, guns and immigration, with the latter having become a serious problem on our southern border. Methods used to create and promote crises are insidious: claim the moral high ground, censor speech, disallow gender-specific pronouns and cancel history. A consequence is the intimidation (and worse) of those in academia, corporate offices, entertainment, and professional sports who do not hew to an approved narrative. 

 

There is no question that there are racists in the United States. A country of 330 million people harbors every conceivable type of good and bad individual. Has racial equality been achieved? No. Bias against race is embedded in all societies, including in parts of ours, and change always happens more slowly than proponents would like. But positive change has occurred. In 1970, according to U.S. Census data, 60% of all Americans had a high school education, while only 30% of blacks did. By 2020 those trends had almost converged, with 90% of all Americans having a high school diploma and 88% of blacks. Interracial marriages have increased. In the 1967 decision Loving versus Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that anti-miscegenation marriage laws were unconstitutional. It is hard to believe today, but 54 years ago such marriages were illegal in seventeen states. Since that decision there has been a five-fold increase in interracial marriages, so that today, according to a Pew Research study, one in six marriages is interracial. Race is still an issue, but the situation is miles from where it was half a century ago. We are not systemically racist, and Critical Race Theory is derisive to blacks and disruptive to society. The assumption that blacks are victims and cannot compete against whites is an insult to the black community. Consider the success of black Americans in every field, from finance, medicine, politics and law to literature, the media, sports and entertainment. The term “victim” is tossed out too freely, as when LeBron James (worth an estimated $500 million, according to Forbes), Tweeted “Your next,” beneath a picture of Columbus, Ohio police officer Nicholas Reardon, to his 50 million followers. When followers complained his message was inflammatory, he asserted he was a victim. What kind of a country do Progressives want? Do they believe Reverend Jeremiah Wright was on target to preach after 9/11: “No, no, no, not God bless America! God damn America!” No true American has ever claimed we have achieved perfection. But we should all be able to say we are a better Country today than we were 200, 100, even 50 years ago. We must take care that we continue to move forward, not backward. The teaching of Critical Race Theory is guaranteed to foment discrimination and segregation, pushing us backward into the Jim Crow era. 

 

The public debate over climate is another issue Progressives have cynically seized for political purposes. Their arguments ignore knowledge and promote advocacy, which was clear a few years ago when “global warming” became “climate change.” An apocalypse has been falsely predicted by many. In 2006 former Vice President Al Gore, who sold his cable channel company Current TV to Al Jazeera for $500 million in 2013, said that unless drastic measures were taken to reduce greenhouse gasses within ten years the world would reach a point of no return. Led by China and India, greenhouse gasses have continued to increase, yet no apocalypse has arrived. Nevertheless, like the problem of race, there is truth in the fact we face climate change. And there is no question that man has affected what has always been the case – that climate is in a constant state of flux. The Earth has warmed and cooled over the millennia and will continue to do so. In his new book, False Alarm, Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish economist who has been studying and writing about climate for twenty years, quoted the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) that had studied flooding around the world and “found that it’s not clear whether it’s getting more or less frequent, [or whether] there is a human fingerprint involved.” Lomborg points out the value of wealth and adaption in addressing climate concerns. (Wealthy people prefer to live in a clean environment yet continue to build homes in flood-prone areas). A review of the book in Forbes noted: “In the 1920s, climate-related disasters killed almost 500,000 people each year. Today the number is lower than 20,000.”

 

President Obama’s Under Secretary for Science in the Department of Energy Dr. Steven Koonin recently published Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t and Why It Matters. In an op-ed about his book, published in the New York Post, Dr. Koonin made certain points that would shock those who believe we are headed for catastrophe: “…Heat waves in the U.S. are now no more common than they were in 1900…The warmest temperatures in the U.S. have not risen in the past fifty years…Humans have had no detectable impact on hurricanes over the past century…Greenland’s ice sheet isn’t shrinking any more rapidly today than it was eighty years ago.” Man’s impact on climate has been real, but, despite claims by Progressives, it is unclear what exactly that impact has been. To add perspective, in his op-ed Dr. Koonin quoted a former colleague at Caltech, Professor Richard Feynman (1918-1988), a theoretical physicist known for his work on quantum mechanics who gave the 1974 commencement address: “Give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution, not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another.” Humility among politicians is a rare, but treasured, commodity. What is ignored is that, like the problem with race, we are moving in the right direction. With natural gas substituting for coal, U.S. per capita carbon dioxide emissions declined 24% between 2000 and 2017, while U.S. GDP rose 94 percent.  

 

A hundred and fifty years ago, in the December 1870 magazine, New and Old, James Freeman Clarke (1810-1888), an American theologian, penned words whose wisdom still applies: “A politician thinks about the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.” “Woke” Progressives claim the moral high ground, but it is passion, not reason, that motivates them. Passion may help win elections, but thoughtfulness and reason help politicians become statesmen. In his poem “The Second Coming,” William Butler Yeats wrote: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are full of passionate intensity.” Bertrand Russell, in his 1945 book A History of Western Philosophy, expressed similar sentiments: “the whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always sure of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubt.” Beware politicians whose promises lead to the tyranny C.S. Lewis warned of in the rubric that heads this essay.  

 

Win at any costs has become the mantra of Progressives. In a recent interview with Mathias Döpfner of Germany’s Axel Springer, Henry Kissinger commented on the belief that American society has been immoral from its beginnings: “It’s a revolutionary view in the sense it aims for victory, not compromise.” The cost is societal division. A lack of civility has become common. People are not held accountable. Rules of behavior are not taught at home. Schools don’t demand respect from students. Great books are no longer required reading, and civics and history are no longer emphasized. Equity, as a goal, has replaced equality. Victimization has been substituted for personal responsibility. The crises Americans face are ones of behavior and epistemology, not structural racism or a climate apocalypse.

"Even More Post-Election Thoughts"

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Even More Post-Election Thoughts”

November 14, 2020

 

“We have, in fact, two kinds of morality, side by side: One which we preach,

but do not practice, and another which we practice, but seldom preach.”

                                                                                                                                Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)

                                                                                                                                Skeptical Essays, 1928

 

It may seem odd that I, a conservative, would quote Bertrand Russell in the rubric that heads this essay. But I find the sentiment expressed fitting for the world in which we live where hypocrisy and double standards are the standard. In my opinion, a hypocrite is one who professes virtues he does not possess, in the hope his words will camouflage his actions. It is a condition common to the halls of political power. 

 

I was mocked for my prediction in my last essay – perhaps deservedly – that Trump would be as gracious in defeat as he was competitive in battle. It is still too early to know. Mr. Trump has not yet conceded, and Congress has yet to certify the election. But (and on this I am more certain) what he and his followers will not do is become the sore losers who created the “resistance” four years ago. Mr. Biden will not be subject, from the media, academia and our cultural elite, to the never-ending barrage of personal attacks Mr. Trump endured. Nor will the intelligence agencies and their flunkies in Congress try to upend his Presidency, as they attempted to do with Mr. Trump throughout his four years. 

 

It is not easy to cast Donald Trump as the principal character in a morality tale, a “heroic but stubborn and self-fixated Antigone,” as Victor Davis Hanson, writing in National Review, described him. However, there is about Mr. Trump the possible makings of an heroic, but tragic, figure. He exposed much of Washington’s ruling class to be corrupt and self-serving, and he showed the media to be the partisan attack dogs they are. He brought to light the role universities have played in censoring conservative speech. He unmasked the hypocrisy of politicians for their refusal to accept school choice for poor and minority students, and he watched the Left’s double standards regarding masks in riot-torn streets. He ignored Chuck Schumer’s advice in 2017 about taking on the intelligence community. For this, he received no acclamation.

 

He accomplished some things both sides wanted, but which the Left hesitated to support, like reducing the number of illegal immigrants, and moving the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, in accordance with a resolution passed by Congress in 1995.  He walked away from the Iran nuclear deal, which would have set Iran on a path to nuclear weapons, and he authored the Abraham Accords between Israel and, the United Arab Emirates. He confronted China, with their theft of our technology. He forced the UN to face charges of human rights’ violations. He brought American troops home from endless wars in the Middle East. He made the U.S. energy independent. For this, he received no accolades.

 

He did a few things that Democrats might not have done, but which have helped all Americans. His tax bill and deregulation efforts juiced an economy that had slowed. The tax bill, widely reviled by the Left, reduced the deduction for SALT (state and local taxes) deductions, thereby negatively affecting high-earners in high-taxed states, like New York, California, New Jersey, Connecticut, Hawaii, Oregon, Minnesota and Vermont, an income-equalizing factor, hypocritically ignored by Progressives. He created Operation Warp Speed to develop therapeutics and a vaccine for COVID-19, compressing what is normally a 72-month process (for a vaccine) into an 11 to 13-month time frame. Would Democrats have done the same? His pre-COVID-19 economy increased employment and wages among minorities and, in doing so, lowered the wealth and income gaps that have plagued the country for three decades. Despite these accomplishments, he was not granted a second term.

 

Divisiveness increased during the Trump years. His comments about Indiana-born Judge Gonzalo Curiel in May 2016 were inexcusable. During his first campaign for President, he called for a ban on Muslims entering the United States. He has a habit of speaking without considering the weight of his words. He should have condemned outright far-right hate groups. But the spirit of un-cooperation did not begin with Mr. Trump. Mr. Obama, as America’s first black President, had a choice. He could have been a unifier; instead, he chose to raise the temperature of racial tensions. And, Democrats have never condemned far-Left hate groups, like Antifa.

 

…………………………………………………..

 

Nevertheless, and apart from Trump, what was fascinating in this election was how well Republicans did. At least two state legislative bodies switched from Democrat to Republican. Republicans added to their governorships. Greg Gianforte, a Montana Republican, was elected, defeating Mike Cooney. He will replace incumbent governor, Democrat Steve Bullock. In the House, Republicans picked up seats and elected at least twelve freshmen women: Nancy Mace (SC), Yvette Herrell (NM), Lauren Boebert (CO), Kat Cammack (FL), Maria Elvira Salazar (FL), Marjorie Taylor Greene (GA), Mary Miller (IL), Lisa McClain (MI), Michelle Fischbach (MN), Stephanie Bice (OK), Diana Harshbarger (TN) and Victoria Spartz (IN). What this suggests is that while Mr. Trump’s personality rankled some, his policies, and conservativism in general, fared well.  

 

While re-counts should continue and legal arguments will be heard, at least until votes are certified, the numbers suggest Mr. Biden won the election, although not by much. (As of this writing, there are still seven House seats that have not been called.) The election highlighted concerns with early voting, on-line registration, universal mail-in voting, vote harvesting and a lack of voter ID requirements. The election suggests a divided country. It is one in which, with most states being strongly blue or red, many candidates face a David versus Goliath competition. With mainstream media, late-night television hosts and social media aligned against them, Republicans did well, suggesting a repudiation of the culture Progressives have been pushing, in universities and on social media.

 

It is possible that a recount in Georgia might swing that state into the Trump column, but it is difficult to conceive of enough votes being changed in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan or Nevada for Mr. Trump to win re-election. However, and despite allegations to the contrary from those like the self-righteous Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT), there is always fraud in elections. Democrats, especially, are good at scouring cemeteries for votes, and harvesting ones when they need the count. While not enough votes will be found to make a difference in this election’s outcome, it is hypocritical for Biden’s team to suggest everyone should accept as inevitable the result declared by the media. Keep in mind, Hillary Clinton’s advice to Joe Biden: if results show you lost, do not concede, under any conditions.

 

As a final observation, as one who believes less government is better than more and that more individual responsibility and freedom are better than less. I am wary of those who promise “a chicken for every pot,” as did an ad for Herbert Hoover in 1928, or tuition-free public colleges and universities, as did Bernie Sanders in 2020. The United States is not perfect, but as a nation of 330 million who represent every ethnicity, religion and race in the world, there is no other country in which the vast majority would want to live. We have our differences, but we are lucky to be here.

"Fear and COVID-19"

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“Fear and COVID-19”

July 21, 2020

“Fears are educated into us, and can, if we wish, be educated out.”

                                                                                                Karl Menninger (1893-1990)

                                                                                                American psychiatrist

Fear is an elemental emotion. It can have positive attributes. In combat, fear is a governor on impulse. Fear of wild animals and other tribes was a factor in early man’s forming of communities. It is ubiquitous. We have fears of darkness and loneliness, of failure or rejection, of making wrong decisions. We fear becoming ill or being a burden to loved ones. Fear, we were told by Bertrand Russell, is the main source of superstition. Fear of sorcery was behind the Salem Witch Trials of 1692, which saw fourteen women and five men hung. It descends from ignorance, which wrote Herman Melville in Moby Dick, “is the parent of fear.” Unwarranted fear prevents us from expanding our horizons and improving our lives.  

Unscrupulous politicians use fear to seek and hold power. Tyrant-like, they tell us what cannot be done. Classical liberals, like the Founding Fathers, tell us what rights we have – what can be done. With COVID-19, fear has been used for political gain. By the end of 2019, President Trump’s policies had accelerated economic growth. They had provided the lowest unemployment on record, including Black unemployment. Increases in wages for low-income workers outpaced pay rises for upper-income workers. Amir Taheri, the Iranian-born, Europe-based author, wrote: “Prior to the coronavirus crisis, his [Trump’s] administration had one of the best records in job creation and the reduction of poverty among black Americans.” Since the economy is the single most important aspect in a Presidential election, Mr. Trump’s glidepath to re-election, while by no means assured, appeared to have few – and manageable – obstacles.

The arrival of COVID-19 and the resulting shut-down of schools, colleges and the economy changed election dynamics. There is no question that COVID-19 was (and is) a serious health concern, particularly for the elderly and especially for those with comorbidities. Nevertheless, fear was the instrument employed by politicians of both parties. While younger people could (and do) contact the disease, and potentially contaminate riskier segments of the population, the risk to their health was not much worse than that of a bad case of the flu. We will never know what death counts would have been had there been no early shutdowns, but we do know the death tolls from the flu pandemics of 1917-19, 1957-58 and 1968, when there was no shuttering of the economy or schools. Adjusted for changes in population, death rates, with the exception of 1917-1919, were worse during the previous pandemics. In fact, in speaking to friends with whom I was at school in 1957-58 not one had any memory of the flu that year. Yet it killed 116,000 Americans when the population was about one half of what it is today.

In an on-line lecture for Hillsdale College, Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute said that the spread of coronavirus infections “…require what Japan calls the three Cs: confined spaces, crowded places and close contact.” The job of public health officials and politicians should be to limit those venues, to protect the vulnerable, and to urge the public to rely on common sensical behavior as it pertains to personal hygiene, distancing and mask-wearing. Masks, as we all know, should be worn indoors when around others. But, as we also know, they reduce the available oxygen and increase the amount of carbon dioxide we inhale. Edward Cline, in a recent essay for his Rule of Reason blog, noted that the “Occupational Safety and Health Agencies around the world confirm the minimum level of oxygen in the air we breathe should be 19.5%, while carbon dioxide should be around 400 parts per million.” Masks lower the first number and raise the second, so care should be taken when wearing one. Healthcare workers must wear them, and there is no question that they help slow the spread of the virus when one is in close contact with other people. Yet fear has made them pervasive in outdoor settings, to the extent that friends tell me they wear masks while driving alone in their cars, for the virtue-signaling message that doing so sends to others, the less virtuous (like me).

While epidemiologists have responsibility for risks from the virus, politicians have responsibility for both the health and economic well-being of the people, and the media has a responsibility to accurately report news, both that which supports their biases and that which does not. Politicians and media types, none of whom had jobs at risk, placed priority on stopping the pandemic above concerns for the economy. Yet a survey last year conducted by the National Foundation for Credit Counseling found that 45% of U.S. households (fifty-one million) have no savings and 70% have less than a $1000.00. Shutting down the economy caused 40 million Americans, a quarter of the workforce, to lose their jobs, at least temporarily. Congress alleviated economic fears by passing expensive relief packages – a necessary measure – but in doing so raised fears among those who worry about a build-up of debt that must be repaid. No government can survive long on printing presses. All governments tax the productivity of workers. A growing economy, and a concomitant expansion of government services, requires rule of law, protection of private property and an environment that encourages capital investment, all necessary for economic growth.

That fear has become pervasive in this election year can be seen in a media hellbent on defeating President Trump. One example: In last Sunday’s New York Times, a top-right two-column headline, with undisguised bias: “Passing Off Virus Burden, White House Fueled Crisis.” Just below the fold, another editorialized front-page headline covering four columns: “Rising Mistrust of ‘Warp-Speed’ Vaccine May Prolong Pandemic.” If that weren’t enough, and to ensure that readers remain comatose, the front page of The New York Times Magazine: “Why We’re Losing the Battle With COVID-19.” There is no question that the Times deliberately scares people about the virus – I am sure they would say it is for their own good – but the corollary is that economic fear is the progeny of fear of COVID-19. Thus, things worsen.

“The enemy is fear,” said Gandhi. “We think it is hate, but it is fear.” In George Lucas’ movie “Star Wars,” the Jedi master Yoda says, “Fear is the path to darkness. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” While fear has been used by tyrants forever, its use by democracies is rarer and thus more insidious. Governors have used fear of COVID-19 to rule by executive decree rather than relying on the legislative process. What they don’t acknowledge is that that fear creates psychological problems – anxiety and depression, especially for the elderly living alone. It damages our ability to control our emotions. No matter how serious has been COVID-19 as a pandemic, fear has made the problem worse.