Trump vs. Biden: 12 (Further Adjustments and Updated Results)

The latest results for the so-called battleground States are positive for Trump. I’ll get to those after I review the national polls. I’ll then remind you how Trump can win the election even if he “loses” the meaningless nationwide tally of popular votes.

NATIONAL POLLS

I introduced a new metric in Trump vs. Biden 11: the change in each pollster’s results from poll to poll. For example, Trump was tied with Biden in the Quinnipiac poll that was conducted on April 18-22, and was down by 3 points in the Quinnipiac poll of March 21-25. That counts as +3 on the average date of the later poll: April 20. The full tally for all polls reported at RealClearPolitics since August 2023 looks like this:

Keep your eye on the red line. It has been spending a lot of time in negative territory since mid-March. But that could well change.

Now, for the overall polls. I am dropping the “poll of polls”, which aggregates all national polls reported by RCP, regardless of bias and frequency. It is too easy for polls often-published polls with a strong bias (usually pro-Democrat) to make things look worse for Trump than they actually are. (Demoralization of Trump voters is a main objective of such polls.) From here on out, I’m sticking with two, more selective, bias-adjusted measures of the nationwide balance between Trump and Biden.

First is a collection of all polls report by RCP, with two adjustments. I use only the latest results from each pollster, to avoid overrepresentation. I adjust the results by the average of the anti-GOP bias reported by RCP for 14 nationwide polls. I add that value (3.3 percentage points) to Trump’s 5-poll average. Here are numbers, which include the results of all nationwide polls reported by RCP as of today:

Trump has slipped somewhat since mid-March. Poll-aggregator and wag Nate Silver attributes this to the fact that Trump has become more visible since he cinched the GOP nomination. I would add to that Trump’s greater exposure because the legal proceedings against him have moved forward, spawning various controversies. It may well be, in Trump’s case, that less is better. But that’s not advice that he will heed, so it’s irrelevant.

The other collection of nationwide polls that I am keeping tabs on is a smaller set, in which each poll is adjusted for the amount of bias shown by the same pollster in 2020:

In this case, Trump is experiencing a sharp rebound because of the aforementioned Quinnipiac poll and a few others.

“BATTLEGROUND” POLLS

The other bit of good news for Trump is that he is doing better in the “battleground” States than he was when I last wrote about them (here). All of the polls underlying my previous report were conducted in March. There is now a new round of polls, conducted in April. In almost every case, Trump’s numbers for April look as good as or better than they did in March. See for yourself:

 

RECONCILING THE RESULTS

Can Trump win the election without “winning” the meaningless nationwide tally of popular votes? Of course he can, thanks to the Electoral College. He did it 2016, when he “lost” to Hillary Clinton by 2.1 percentage points. He almost did it in 2020, when he “lost” to Joe Biden by 4.5 percentage points. And he would have won in 2020 except for “election interference” by the Democrats on a massive scale. You can read all about that here. I’ll save you the trouble of wading through more than 200 links. Here’s the punch line:

Through a combination of information control, partisan management of election processes, outright fraud, ballot harvesting, and failure to apply election laws on the books, the presidential election of 2020 was stolen by a cabal of super-rich elites, crooked politicians, crooked lawyers, and judges who either didn’t want to hear the truth or were blinded to it by partisan considerations. For a systematic treatment of much of the chicanery mentioned in the preceding sentence, see Mollie Ziegler Hemingway’s Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech and the Democrats Seized Our Elections. Regarding outright fraud, see “Last Thoughts on Voter Fraud” (The Adventures of Shylock Holmes, December 11, 2020) and “The Most Secure Election in American History?” (Gatestone Institute website) for thorough wrap-ups.

Let’s hope that an army of better-armed poll-watchers and lawyers working for the GOP can keep it from happening again.

Trump vs. Biden: 11 (A New Metric)

In “Trump vs. Biden: 10” I highlighted the tightening of the race (according to nationwide polls). Changes in the 15 days since that post have been slightly in Trump’s favor. Below are results, which I have parsed in three ways:

  • all polls, unadjusted for bias (with polynomial fits for smoothing)
  • the latest version of each pollster’s result, unadjusted for bias
  • the latest version of each pollster’s result, adjusted for bias (using each pollster’s bias in 2020)

Here’s a fourth way to look at the results:

The values represent the change in Trump’s lead (or deficit) since the preceding poll by the same pollster. The typical margin of error for a poll (statistical estimate of the accuracy of the poll) is plus or minus 3 percentage points. Most of the movements are within that range. Therefore, what all of the preceding graphs point to is a race that is now essentially tied.

Well, it’s tied if the polls aren’t picking up “hidden” Trump voters — Trump voters who aren’t telling pollsters their true intentions. If there are enough such voters to swing the election to Trump, it won’t become evident until the votes are counted.

Until then, I can only tell you what the polls are saying.

Compromise Leads to Tyranny

Seventy-four years ago yesterday, Ludwig von Mises addressed the University Club of New York. He ended his speech with this:

Even in this country which owes to a century of “rugged individualism” the highest standard of living ever attained by any nation, public opinion condemns laissez-faire. In the last fifty years [and in the seventy-four years since], thousands of books have been published to indict capitalism and to advocate radical interventionism, the welfare state, and socialism. The few books which tried to explain adequately the working of the free-market economy were hardly noticed by the public. Their authors remained obscure, while such authors as Veblen, Commons, John Dewey, and Laski were exuberantly praised. It is a well-known fact [still true] that the legitimate stage as well as the Hollywood industry are no less radically critical of free enterprise than are many novels. There are in this country many periodicals which in every issue furiously attack economic freedom. There is hardly any magazine of opinion that would plead for the system that supplied the immense majority of the people with good food and shelter, with cars, refrigerators, radio sets, and other things which the subjects of other countries call luxuries.

The impact of this state of affairs is that practically very little is done to preserve the system of private enterprise. There are only middle-of-the-roaders who think they have been successful when they have delayed for some time an especially ruinous measure. They are always in retreat. They put up today with measures which only ten or twenty years ago they would have considered as undiscussable. They will [and did] in a few years [and several decades] acquiesce in other measures which they today consider as simply out of the question. What can prevent the coming of totalitarian socialism is only a thorough change in ideologies.

The title of Mises’s speech is “Middle-of-the-Road Policies Lead to Socialism”. But in fact (as Mises knew well) compromise (a better descriptor than middle-of-the-road) leads to tyranny. His student and later colleague, Friedrich A. (von) Hayek, argued at length against inevitability of tyranny through economic micro-management in “Freedom and the Economic System” (1938) and The Road to Serfdom (1944). Hayek put it this way in part 16 of Liberalism (1973):

There is, however, yet another reason why freedom of action, especially in the economic field that is so often represented as being of minor importance, is in fact as important as the freedom of the mind. If it is the mind which chooses the ends of human action, their realization depends on the availability of the required means, and any economic control which gives power over the means also gives power over the ends. There can be no freedom of the press if the instruments of printing are under the control of government, no freedom of assembly if the needed rooms are so controlled, no freedom of movement if the means of transport are a government monopoly, etc. This is the reason why governmental direction of all economic activity, often undertaken in the vain hope of providing more ample means for all purposes, has invariably brought severe restrictions of the ends which the individuals can pursue. It is probably the most significant lesson of the political developments of the twentieth century that control of the material part of life has given government, in what we have learnt to call totalitarian systems, far‑reaching powers over the intellectual life.

Where’s the compromise in that? In the United States, it began in earnest two lifetimes ago, in 1887, with the establishment of the Interstate Commerce Commission. The ICC was abolished in 1996, but by then (and since) its originally limited regulatory powers were (and have since been) expanded upon through the aggrandizement of the original cabinet-level departments of the federal government, the creation of new cabinet-level departments, the creation of a multitude of “independent” regulatory agencies, and the emulation of federal regulatory power by the States and their subsidiary jurisdictions.

None of that would have happened had the three branches of the federal government not collaborated to expand the powers of the federal government beyond their clear constitutional limits and enabled the various departments and agencies to exercise unconstitutional legislative, executive, and judicial authority. Every bit of that represents compromise — unconstitutionally altering the Constitution or allowing it to be altered — for various personal reasons: feeling good by spending other people’s money, power-lust, getting along by going along, wanting to not seem “mean”, and getting elected or re-elected by assuaging the masses.

Consider Obamacare, for example. A key provision of Obamacare — the camel’s nose, head, and shoulders in the tent of universal health care (a.k.a., socialized medicine) — is the vast expansion of eligibility for Medicaid. In the 30-some States that have opted to participate in the expanded program, persons with incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty line are eligible, including adults without dependent children.

It would seem that only a Simon Legree or Ebenezer Scrooge would deny Medicaid coverage to those millions who have obtained it by way of Obamacare. Or it would until the following considerations come to mind:

  • The poverty line is a misleading metric. It’s a relative measure of income, not an absolute one. Most “poor” persons in today’s America are anything but poor in relation the truly poor of the world, and they live far above a subsistence level. The poverty line is nothing but an arbitrary standard that justifies income redistribution.
  • Other persons, with their own problems, are paying for the government’s generous “gift” to the semi-poor. But who is really in a position to say that the problems of Medicaid recipients are more deserving of subsidization than the problems facing those who defray the subsidy?
  • If expanded Medicaid coverage were withdrawn, those now covered would be no worse off than they had been before taxpayers were forced to subsidize them.
  • Being relatively poor used to be a good reason for a person to work his way up the ladder of success. Perhaps not far up the ladder, but in an upward direction. It meant learning skills — on the job, if necessary — and using those skills to move on to more-demanding and higher-paying jobs. Redistributive measures — Medicaid subsidies, food stamps, extended unemployment benefits, etc. — blunt the incentive to better oneself and, instead, reinforce dependency on government.

I will underscore the last point. The lack of something, if it’s truly important to a person, is an incentive for that person to find a way to afford the something. That’s what my parents’ generation did, even in the depths of the Great Depression, without going on the dole. There’s no reason why later generations can’t do it; it’s merely assumed that they can’t. But lots of people do it. I did it; my children did it; my grandchildren are doing it.

Republicans used to say such things openly and with conviction, before they became afraid of seeming “mean” or losing the perks and powers of office. Principled conservatives should still be thinking and saying such things. When conservatives compromise their principles because they don’t want to seem “mean” or lose perks and powers they are complicit in the country’s march down the road to serfdom — dependency on and obeisance to the central government.

Every advance in the direction of serfdom becomes harder and harder to reverse. The abolition of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is now unthinkable, even though those programs have caused hundreds of millions of Americans to become addicted to government handouts.

And how does government pay for those handouts? In part, it taxes many of the people who receive them. It also pays generous salaries and benefits of the army of drones who administer them. It’s a Ponzi scheme enforced at gunpoint. Despite the seeming benevolence of it all, it’s tyranny. The examples multiply, just as the size, scope, and cost of the federal government (at all levels) multiplies. And the price is liberty.

The best time — usually the only time — to kill a government program is before it starts. That’s why conservatives shouldn’t compromise.

The Long Drift Leftward

One (admittedly crude) way of measuring the nation’s leftward drift is to assign “left” and “right” labels to the presidential candidates in every quadrennial election (including candidates of third, fourth, and fifth parties), and then to determine the fraction of the total popular vote that went “left” or “right”. I have done this for the 26 elections spanning 1920-2020. I chose 1920 as the starting point because that year marks the birth of the modern (post-Teddy Roosevelt) Republican Party — the rhetoric (if not the practices) of which favors smaller government, reliance on free markets, toughness on crime, traditional (Judeo-Christian) morality, etc., etc., etc.

The resulting measure of leftness vs. rightness, to which I will come, is admittedly crude for at least these reasons:

Some candidates have in fact been less “right” or “left” than their predecessors and successors. That is to say, the core measures of “left” and “right” — the percentages of votes going to Democrats and Republicans” — aren’t fixed. GOP candidates since Barry Goldwater, for example, have supported Social Security and its offshoots (Medicare and Medicaid) and one of them (George W. Bush) enlarged it by pushing for prescription-drug coverage when he was president.

Labelling a third (or fourth or fifth) party as “left” or “right” is sometimes iffy. Take, for example, H. Ross Perot’s run for the presidency in 1992, which garnered him 19 percent of the popular vote. His appeal was broad and it is believed that he drew votes equally from those who would otherwise have gone for George H.W. Bush or Bill Clinton. But a lot of otherwise-GOP votes went to Perot because GHWB defaulted on his “no new taxes” pledge. Aside from taxes, Perot’s platform was conservative (e.g., balancing the budget, reducing reliance on foreign trade) and his running-mate, James Stockdale, was a hard-core conservative.

With those caveats in mind, consider the leftward drift of the electorate since 1920. First is the election-to-election split:

Next is the election-to-election shift:

Finally, and most significantly, is the cumulative shift from 1920 to 2020:

The Great Depression and the Goldwater-scare election of 1964 were blips. The trend since 1972 is unmistakably leftward. What’s behind the shift, which (for reasons discussed above) is really more leftward that the numbers suggest? I put it down to three things:

Women got the vote and their tendency to vote gradually overtook and surpassed that of men.

The black vote emerged from Southern suppression in the 1960s, and the tendency of blacks to vote gradually increased relative to the tendency of whites.

The young-adult vote got a big boost with the passage of Amendment XXVI, which lowered the voting age from 21 in most jurisdictions to 18 in all jurisdictions.

What’s next? Illegal immigrants will be given the right to vote in more and more jurisdictions, and then they will be granted amnesty and full citizenship. The long-promised permanent Democratic majority will be upon us, and today’s morally bankrupt regime will morph into overt Stalinism.

See also “The Course of the Mainstream“, “What’s Going On? A Stealth Revolution“, “The Fickle Electorate“, “The American Electorate’s ‘Squishy Center’ vs. Liberty“, and “Another Measure of Political Polarization: The Winner’s Share of the Popular Vote in Presidential Elections“.

Israel vs. Iran: 2

The New York Times reports:

President Biden and his team, hoping to avoid further escalation leading to a wider war in the Middle East, are advising Israel that its successful defense against Iranian airstrikes constituted a major strategic victory that might not require another round of retaliation, U.S. officials said on Sunday.

The administration’s position is one of these two things:

  • Disinformation, which is meant lull Iran into the belief that the U.S. doesn’t want war with Iran and will not help Israel if it attacks Iran. (What would happen in the event of a counterattack by Iran?)
  • The real position of the administration, which is meant to deflect Iran from acting against the U.S. or its overseas interests if Israel attacks and Iran counterattacks. (Again, what would happen in the event of a counterattack by Iran?)

I believe the second to be the administration’s real position. It is consistent with its efforts to mollify Iran. It is consistent with the eternal belief of leftists that mortal enemies can be reasoned with and bought off. It is of a piece with the delusion that the elimination of capital punishment and general leniency in sentencing will result in less crime.

In neither case does the administration acknowledge the central fact that Iran (among other countries and non-state actors) wants the elimination of Israel in particular and of Jews in general.

Israel’s leaders today grasp that central fact. If they ever lost sight of it, the events of October 7, 2023, have emblazoned it in their souls. Given that, Israel will not relent in its efforts to eliminate the threat posed by its main enemy: Iran.

The only question in my mind at this point is what Israel will do to accomplish the demise or defeat of the Islamic regime in Iran. For that is what it will take to at least blunt if not eliminate the threat from Iran, and the support that Iran gives to other states and non-state actors who seek Israel’s demise.

Ignore what the Biden administration says about Israel vs. Iran. Keep your eyes on Israel.

Israel vs. Iran: 1

These are my first thoughts about the domestic politics of the conflict. Subject to change as events unfold.

A strong and unyielding defense of Israel, followed by an attack on Iran and its nuclear facilities will clinch the election for Biden, regardless of what happens to Hunter. It will be rally ’round the president (shades of BHO’s “heroics” re Hurricane Sandy in the days before election 2012). The House GOP won’t even muster the votes to send a bill of impeachment to the Senate. Trump will storm and rage to no avail.

If Biden wins big enough, the Senate won’t flip to the GOP and the Dems will win a comfortable margin in the House. More trillions will be wasted on the Quixotic war on “climate change”. The already deep divisions in the U.S. will deepen, but the Dems will be in charge and won’t care.

“Two Kinds of Leftism?” A Footnote

I ended “Two Kinds of Leftism?” with this:

The existing order in America has to be overthrown again and again to keep it from becoming what America has become and is becoming. Whoever said “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty” got it right.

Americans have been insufficiently vigilant and far too ready to go along with schemes that aggrandize government power. They have ignored, to their own detriment, the inescapable fact that there is only one kind of leftism: the leftism of government control. That is a thing entirely different from the night-watchman government which protects Americans from each other and from foreign enemies — though even that government must be carefully and constantly circumscribed.

Today, I opened Diana West’s American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character. It ends on a similar note:

As far back as 1934, The New York Times [yes, The New York Times] trumpeted NEW DEAL PATERNALISM IMPERILS ALL INDIVIDUALISM. The article describes a speech by Massachusetts governor Joseph Ely at a conference of America’s governors. “There is no stopping short of the end of the road,” Ely said, “and at the end of the road we shall have a socialistic state.” Invoking Stalin in Russia, Mussolini in Italy, and Hitler in Germany—all newly minted dictators—Ely pointed out that where these despots ruled, “individualism had passed from the people to dictators making the people the ‘children of government.’”

Echoes of de Tocqueville. One century earlier, the French visionary described the infantilizing effect of a paternalistic despotism in America. Imagining the “immense, protective power” of a state with “absolute” power, and likening such power to “parental authority,” which keeps citizens in “perpetual childhood,” he wondered, “Why should it not entirely relieve them from the trouble of thinking and all the cares of living?” It would seem that the mortal blow against the “grown-up”—the free citizen—was struck, softly, once liberty was no longer paramount in this country, once ideology began to take precedence over facts, once we traded in the American ideal of “rugged individualism” for the material markers of “the American dream.” If once upon a time Americans subscribed to our Founders’ belief that our Creator endowed us with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, there came a time when we expected a package of perks—car, house, Play Station—to sweeten the deal. Suddenly, those perks became darn near an entitlement, an attitude entirely befitting the subjects in Tocqueville’s absolute state. In fact, measured in material goods as it is, the contemporary “American dream” is a vision driven by the Marxist belief in the primacy of the economic….

No wonder Norman Thomas was tickled by the direction of the country in the Eisenhower years. By 1958, he was beside himself. “The United States is making greater strides toward socialism under Eisenhower than even under Roosevelt,” he enthused. By 1962, the man who had run for president on the Socialist ticket six times had concluded that “the difference between Democrats and Republicans is: Democrats have accepted the ideas of socialism cheerfully, while Republicans have accepted them reluctantly.”41 Just not by name. As Upton Sinclair put it in a 1951 letter to Thomas, “The American People will take Socialism, but they won’t take the label.”

We take the Big Lie instead. Euphemism. Official vocabulary. Language of ideology. The “PC” pact with the devil. The Big Lie as big con. The narrative of authority. How to stand athwart false history and yell “Stop!”? The answer finally seems clear. If once it was vitally important to shore up America’s bastions, something else is called for now. What’s needed is a full-scale assault on those bastions of unreality, those safe houses of secrets, all in a painful but restorative effort to upend the narratives of authority, to break open the conspiracies of silence, which have endured through too many lifetimes. Put another way, it’s time to avenge the victims and the truth tellers, the voiceless and the voices of one. It’s time to avenge the American betrayal of Liberty herself.

I have elsewhere drawn heavily on West’s book. My post and her book are well worth your time.

Two Kinds of Leftism?

Are there two kinds of leftism? I was prompted to ask that question by a colloquy between Megyn Kelly and Batya Ungar-Sargon of Newsweek and author of Second Class: How the Elites Betrayed America’s Working Men and Women. (The betrayal is common knowledge and the fodder of many a web post; for example, “Democrats See Ordinary Americans as the Great Unwashed” and “You and America’s Unaccountable Class“.)

Leftism in the United States was for many decades a movement aimed mainly at the redistribution of income from the have-lots to the have-littles. That kind of leftism was central to New Deal legislation in the 1930s, especially the Social Security Act and the Wagner Act, the latter of which guaranteed the right of private sector employees to organize into trade unions, engage in collective bargaining, and take collective action such as striking.

Later legislation, most notably the Taft-Hartley Act, diluted the Wagner Act somewhat. But the Social Security Act has been augmented by increasingly generous old-age benefits, the addition of Medicare and Medicaid, SNAP (formerly food stamps), and the addition of prescription-drug coverage to Medicare. There is also funding of and subsidization of housing — at all levels of government — which has expanded to encompass homeless persons and, most recently, illegal immigrants.

Today’s leftism — which synchronizes with the Democrat Party — certainly contains elements of what is now called “redistributive justice”, but it is far more than that. It encompasses actions that leftists of old (or most of them) wouldn’t have contemplated:

Flood the country with illegal immigrants with the aim of converting them to voters who will ensure a permanent Democrat majority.

In the name of “critical race theory” (CRT) and “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI), raise up “persons of color”, sexual deviants, violent criminals, and (generally) those who are less intelligent, capable, or diligent by rewarding them for being what they are, and by doing it at the expense of persons who are white, East Asian, heterosexual, law-abiding intelligent, capable, and diligent. (The negative aspect of raising up favored groups isn’t openly admitted, of course, because to do so would expose its corruptness. Members of non-favored groups who support raising up are either ignorant of the consequences, tormented by misplaced guilt for being what they are, or wealthy and secure enough to avoid the consequences.)

Increase the power of government for the sake of enforcing policies that the purveyors believe to be for the general good, whether or not they are scientifically sound or economically beneficial.

Use government power — in collusion with corporate and media power — to decree that certain policies are beyond debate, and to harass, suppress, and even criminalize those who dare to “deny” (i.e., question) the official “truth”. (This is straight out of the Hitler-Stalin-Mao playbook.) To date, the subjects that government and its cronies have or are striving to enforce include (but are far from limited to):

    • massive redistribution of income, directly and in kind, with the consequence of significantly lower economic growth;
    • discouragement of the more intelligent, more capable, and more diligent members of the populace, with the same consequence;
    • promulgation and enforcement of policies that reduce the well-being of most Americans — most notably the anti-scientific doctrine of human-induced climate change, and the futile and vastly counterproductive response to Covid-19;
    • deliberate (and sometimes incidental) undermining of beneficial social norms, including but not limited to marriage, religion, sanctity of life, and dignity of work; and
    • anti-Americanism and pusillanimous behavior toward enemy regimes, beginning with the Korean War and continuing through today’s behavior toward China, Iran, and Iran’s proxies — coupled with heedless, needless, and costly provocation of Russia (the Eurasia of the saga) — and accompanied by the willful (relative and absolute) weakening of America’s military might.

If this all reads like something out of George Orwell‘s Nineteen Eighty-Four and The Theory and Practice of Oligarchichal Collectivism — the fictional book that plays a central role in the novel — you can chalk it up to Orwell’s keen but fallible understanding of human nature.

I say fallible because, even though Orwell was a leftist of the old-fashioned kind, he seemed to believe that some kind of economic leveling could be managed without harm to liberty or prosperity. He, like other old-fashioned leftists, could not (or chose not to) see that economic leveling means greater and greater government control of greater and greater swaths of the economy.

Further — and this is the crucial part — liberty cannot survive economic interventions by government. Friedrich A. Hayek put it this way in part 16 of Liberalism :

There is, however, yet another reason why freedom of action, especially in the economic field that is so often represented as being of minor importance, is in fact as important as the freedom of the mind. If it is the mind which chooses the ends of human action, their realization depends on the availability of the required means, and any economic control which gives power over the means also gives power over the ends. There can be no freedom of the press if the instruments of printing are under the control of government, no freedom of assembly if the needed rooms are so controlled, no freedom of movement if the means of transport are a government monopoly, etc. This is the reason why governmental direction of all economic activity, often undertaken in the vain hope of providing more ample means for all purposes, has invariably brought severe restrictions of the ends which the individuals can pursue. It is probably the most significant lesson of the political developments of the twentieth century that control of the material part of life has given government, in what we have learnt to call totalitarian systems, far‑reaching powers over the intellectual life. It is the multiplicity of different and independent agencies prepared to supply the means which enables us to choose the ends which we will pursue.

The accretion of power by government in order to attain economic ends necessarily involves the use of that power to ensure that the populace is aligned with those ends, and with the resulting restrictions on liberty. Power-lust breeds power and more power-lust. The only way to put a stop to it is to overthrow the existing order and strive to prevent its resurrection.

In Madison’s words:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. [The Federalist No. 51, February 6, 1788]

But men are not angels — not even those who profess goodness. Look at history. Look around you. Look into your soul.

The existing order in America has to be overthrown again and again to keep it from becoming what America has become and is becoming. Whoever said “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty” got it right.

Americans have been insufficiently vigilant and far too ready to go along with schemes that aggrandize government power. They have ignored, to their own detriment, the inescapable fact that there is only one kind of leftism: the leftism of government control. That is a thing entirely different from the night-watchman government which protects Americans from each other and from foreign enemies — though even that government must be carefully and constantly circumscribed.

See also “Election 2024: The Bottom Line” and “What Happened to America?“.

Management Consultants Deliver … What Their Clients Want

I am reminded of the scam that is management consulting by an article at Econ Journal Watch, “McKinsey’s Diversity Matters/Delivers/Wins Results Revisited“. (McKinsey is McKinsey & Company, a prestigious consulting firm founded in 1926.) I have read the article, and it firmly support the claims made in its abstract:

In a series of very influential studies, McKinsey (2015; 2018; 2020; 2023) reports finding statistically significant positive relations between the industry-adjusted earnings before interest and taxes margins of global McKinsey-chosen sets of large public firms and the racial/ethnic diversity of their executives. However, when we revisit McKinsey’s tests using data for firms in the publicly observable S&P 500® as of 12/31/2019, we do not find statistically significant relations between McKinsey’s inverse normalized Herfindahl-Hirschman measures of executive racial/ethnic diversity at mid-2020 and either industry-adjusted earnings before interest and taxes margin or industry-adjusted sales growth, gross margin, return on assets, return on equity, and total shareholder return over the prior five years 2015–2019. Combined with the erroneous reverse-causality nature of McKinsey’s tests, our inability to quasi-replicate their results suggests that despite the imprimatur given to McKinsey’s studies, they should not be relied on to support the view that US publicly traded firms can expect to deliver improved financial performance if they increase the racial/ethnic diversity of their executives [emphasis added].

McKinsey’s studies about the supposed benefits of diversity were produced for corporate clients. Specifically, they would have been produced for senior executives of corporations, most likely at the direction of or with the close involvement of vice presidents for human resources (i.e., personnel). I would be willing to place a wager that McKinsey’s results were just what the clients wanted, corporate culture being what it had become by the time McKinsey was called in to ratify diversity.

In that respect, McKinsey is far from alone. I worked at a not-for-profit consulting firm in the Washington DC area for 30 years. We looked down on the for-profit firms of which McKinsey is one of dozens (if not hundreds). They were known crudely but with some justice as Beltway Bandits, and more accurately as Highway Helpers. Their job (unacknowledged but obvious to anyone who read their output) was to deliver findings that served their clients’ interests. Those interests, in most cases were the justification of systems and processes being considered for procurement by government agencies. When the clients were government agencies, the findings justified whatever systems and processes were favored by those agencies.

But, to be candid, the same kind of relationship often existed between non-for-profits (like the one I worked for) and their government clients. We knew what the clients wanted to hear, and we often found ways to deliver results that made them happy. The first major project to which I was assigned went that way, and I observed (and sometimes participated in) projects that were similarly biased. One time, when I delivered to an admiral a candid — and negative — appraisal of his pet project, I was declared persona non grata in his branch of the Navy’s DC establishment.

The main exception to this kind of behavior occurred in the field, where my former employer’s analysts worked with Navy and Marine Corps operators to evaluate the effectiveness of systems and tactics — sometimes in actual combat situations. There, where lives were at stake (or could be at stake), operators usually wanted the unvarnished facts. And that’s what they got from the analysts in the field. But those analysts comprised (and still comprise) a tiny fraction of the thousands of analysts who worked for Beltway Bandits/Highway Helpers and their not-for-profit brethren.

Consulting to U.S.-government agencies on a grand scale grew out of the perceived successes in World War II of civilian analysts who were embedded in military organizations. To the extent that the civilian analysts were actually helpful,* it was because they focused on specific operations, such as methods of searching for enemy submarines. In such cases, the government client can benefit from an outside look at the effectiveness of the operations, the identification of failure points, and suggestions for changes in weapons and tactics that are informed by first-hand observation of military operations.

Beyond that, however, outsiders are of little help, and may be a hindrance, as in the case cited in a Politico article that I address here. (Which is far from unique.) Outsiders can’t really grasp the dynamics and unwritten rules of organizational cultures that embed decades of learning and adaptation.

The consulting game is now (and has been for decades) an invasive species. It is a perverse outgrowth of operations research as it was developed in World War II. Too much of a “good thing” is a bad thing — as I saw for myself many years ago.
__________
* The success of the U.S. Navy’s antisubmarine warfare (ASW) operations had been for decades ascribed to the pioneering civilian organization known as the Antisubmarine Warfare Operations Research Group (ASWORG), the predecessor of the organization for which I worked. However, with the publication of The Ultra Secret in 1974 (and subsequent revelations), it became known that codebreaking may have contributed greatly to the success of various operations against enemy forces, including ASW.

See also “Modeling Is Not Science“, “Analytical and Scientific Arrogance“, and “Management Science” in “The Balderdash Chronicles“.

Election 2024: The Bottom Line

As promised.

Joel Kotkin’s “The Coming Revolt against Woke Capitalism” gets at much of what’s at stake in of the coming election:

In virtually every field, the midwives of [the West’s] demise are not working-class radicals or far-right agitators, but, as the late Fred Siegel called it, the ‘new aristocratic class’, made up of the well-credentialed and the technologically and scientifically adept.

Virtually every ideology that’s undermining the West has its patrons in these ruling cognitive elites. This includes everything from the purveyors of critical race theory and Black Lives Matter to transgender activists and, perhaps most egregiously, campaigners for the climate jihad. In each case, these elite activists reject the market traditions of liberal capitalism and instead promote a form of social control, often with themselves in charge. The fact that these ideologies are destructive, and could ultimately undermine the status of these very elites, seems to matter little to them….

The current cadre of elites seem uniquely hostile to meritocracy and individual rights – values that once stood at the heart of liberal, capitalist societies. Rather than promote upward mobility for the plebs, they want to divide them into ‘identity’ groups based on race, sexuality and gender. Black Lives Matter, the enforcers of critical race theory, for years enjoyed lavish support from top tech companies, including Microsoft, Cisco and TikTok. It also became a poster child for a host of nonprofits, like the Tides Foundation, which in turn gets much of its money from oligarchs and their descendants, including George Soros and the MacArthur, Hewlett, Ford, Packard and Rockefeller foundations.

Nowhere is the gap between the elites’ political activism and the interests of the public more evident today than when it comes to the overhyped climate crisis. To a remarkable extent, the current ruling oligarchy in tech and on Wall Street have embraced the ideology of Net Zero, even though this threatens to undermine Western industrial power and raise the cost of living for the masses. Elite opinion, in general, is far more engaged on climate issues than the general population. In one recent poll, those living with graduate degrees in big dense cities and making over $150,000 a year are far more likely to favour such things as rationing meat and gas than the vast majority of Americans….

The clear hypocrisy of the greens does not go unnoticed by the masses. Those same elites who demand climate austerity for the many are widely known to enjoy the use of private jets, build $500 million yachts and own numerous, often enormous mansions. The fact that the most recent climate confab, COP28, had a session on ‘responsible yachting’ tells people all they need to know about the hypocrisy of the super-rich.

The damage being done by the oligarchs’ green agenda is now fuelling a rebellion from the beleaguered European, British and American middle and working classes. Many are becoming increasingly sceptical of elite environmentalism, just as they have been consistently hostile to woke ideas on law enforcement, transgender issues and racial quotas.

Public hostility towards what Adrian Wooldridge has labelled ‘the progressive aristocracy’ is now all too clear. In the US, there are declining levels of confidence in large corporations, tech oligarchs, big banks as well as the media. Similar patterns can be seen in the EU and the UK. This disquiet has led to such things as the 2016 election of Trump, the Brexit vote and the rise of populist parties and farmers’ protests across Europe.

So far, the elites seem barely aware of this discontent. This may stem from the fact that the oligarchs and their minions live in a very different reality from most people. They are shielded from the consequences of the policies they promote, whether from the job losses brought about by eco-austerity, or the rising crime and disorder resulting from efforts to ‘defund the police’ and the refusal to penalise street crime. They live in closeted, gentrified urban neighbourhoods, elite leafy suburbs or country retreats.

The elites’ arrogance could turn out to be their greatest liability. Those outside the charmed circle may often seem ill-mannered, but they are not stupid. They know they are being assaulted by people with greater resources, who favour ever more controls on everyday behaviour, on small businesses and on speech….

Like French aristocrats before the revolution, the oligarchs talk largely among themselves. They seem unaware that they may be financing fashionable causes that may threaten ‘their own rights and even their existence’, as Alexis de Tocqueville said of the Ancien Régime….

Already among Democrats, the party with most oligarchic support, more of its registered supporters favour socialism over capitalism. At the same time, the echo of 1789 was evident in the so-called gilets-jaunes (yellow-vest) protests against higher fuel taxes in the winter of 2018-2019. Recent protests by farmers in Germany, the Netherlands, Poland and Italy all reflect concerns about the impact of elite policies on ordinary people’s livelihoods….

For all their faults, the elites of industrial-era Britain and America at least provided opportunities for the middle and especially the working class. They helped create powerful economies that, ultimately, and with some political cajoling, produced unprecedented mass affluence. In contrast, today’s oligarchs and their ‘expert class’ allies offer nothing more than subsidies and handouts – or what Karl Marx referred to as ‘the proletarian alms-bag’.

In the coming decade, we need a politics that rejects the assumption of superiority and right to rule from our oligarchic rulers. There is still time, despite the power of the elites, to champion democracy, liberal values and the dream of upward mobility. ‘A man may be led by fate’, wrote the great Soviet-era Russian novelist Vasily Grossman, ‘but he can refuse to follow’. The future course of history is never inevitable, if we retain the will to shape it.

Ironically, the coming presidential election is almost certain to pit a billionaire who detests the elites against a professional politician-kleptocrat who is in thrall to them.

Kotkin’s piece is excellent insofar as it lays bare the hypocrisy of the elites and the damage that they are doing and will do to the lives and livelihoods of hard-working citizens. Among those things, to which Kotkin gives fleeting mention are:

  • massive, almost unhampered immigration from the south, which flouts the law and burdens the working classes while providing cheap labor for the upper classes;
  • governance by the administrative state, which is becoming an arm of woke capitalism (especially when Democrats are in charge);
  • the effects of the administrative state and “woke capitalism” on three main engines of liberty and prosperity: open and candid discussion of ideas, discrimination on the basis of ability and performance (not skin color or political views);
  • and markets that reward those who meet the demands of consumers as against the demands of woke capitalists and the administrative state.

Also at stake is the defense of law-abiding Americans from mobs within and enemies without. Woke capitalists and their political cronies seem bent on loosing the mobs and collaborating with the enemies.

For much more about the choice ahead and about what will happen if Trump loses, see “What Happened to America?“, “James Burnham’s Misplaced Optimism“, and “The Suicide of the West Accelerates“.

See also (just for starters): “Economics: The Bad News about Growth“, “1963: The Year Zero“, “The Hardening of Ideological Affiliations in America“, “The Pardoxes and Consequences of Liberty and Prosperity“, “How the Constitution Was Lost“, “Leftism: The Nirvana Fallacy on Stilts“, “Why Trade Doesn’t Deter Aggression“, “The Black-White Achievement Gap and Its Parallel in the Middle East“, and “Grand Strategy for the United States“. For much more, go to “Index of Posts” and browse to your heart’s content.

Trump vs. Biden: 10 (The Race Is Tightening)

Contrary to cherry-picked results presented on some right-wing sites (and I don’t use “right-wing” as a smear phrase), Trump is sliding relative to Biden.

Let’s start with the small picture, Trump’s standing in the so-called battleground States: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. Here’s are the trends in each of those States, going back to October 2023:







I used 3-poll averages because of the paucity of polls in some States. Only in Pennsylvania is Trump clearly improving his edge over Biden.

The results in most of the battleground States mirror the national results, which I have parsed in three ways:

  • all polls, unadjusted for bias (with polynomial fits for smoothing)
  • the latest version of each pollster’s result, unadjusted for bias
  • the latest version of each pollster’s result, adjusted for bias (using the pollsters’ bias in 2020)

The results, in that order, are below. Because of the greater number of nationwide polls, I have used 5-poll averages.

 

These aren’t pretty pictures if you don’t want Biden to win.

Finally, there are the betting odds. Trump had a 16 percentage-point lead over Biden in the immediate aftermath of the Hur report, which depicted Biden (accurately) as a befuddled old man with a poor memory. That edge has shrunk to 5 percentage points — the smallest it has been since mid-November.

All of this is bad news if you are (as I am) fearful of the outright repression that would follow Biden’s re-election. What do I mean by that? Stay tuned.

Baseball Realignment Reconsidered

I happened upon a post by Nate Silver in which he opines about the realignment of major-league baseball franchises. His criteria:

[T]here’s value in maintaining the distinction between the American and National Leagues…. But teams also have traditional opponents…. [B]ut to preserve any sort of geographic integrity, it would require more switches between the AL and NL than I’m comfortable with — 4 divisions of 8 teams, or 8 divisions of 4 teams. And I’m going for the latter.

His plan:

American League East
Baltimore Orioles
Boston Red Sox
New York Yankees
Toronto Blue Jays

American League Midwest
Chicago White Sox
Cleveland Guardians
Detroit Tigers
Minnesota Twins

American League South
Houston Astros
Miami Marlins (league move)
Tampa Bay Rays
Texas Rangers

American League West
Arizona Diamondbacks (league move)
Las Vegas A’s (pending move from Oakland)
Los Angeles Angels
Seattle Mariners

National League East
Montreal Expos (expansion)
New York Mets
Philadelphia Phillies
Washington Nationals

National League Midwest
Chicago Cubs
Kansas City Royals (league move)
Milwaukee Brewers
St. Louis Cardinals

National League South
Atlanta Braves
Cincinnati Reds
Nashville Stars (expansion; Charlotte works fine too, I guess)
Pittsburgh Pirates

National League West
Colorado Rockies
Los Angeles Dodgers
San Diego Padres
San Francisco Giants

Way back in 2006, I gave this some thought, applying similar criteria. But I don’t see the need to retain the American and National League designations. And I would create four leagues of eight teams each (current affiliations listed in parentheses):

Pacific League
Seattle Mariners (AL)
Portland? (new) [If not Portland, then perhaps the Sacramento SMSA.]
San Francisco Giants (NL)
Oakland Athletics (AL) [Las Vegas works just as well.]
Los Angeles Dodgers (NL)
Los Angeles Angels (AL)
San Diego Padres (NL)
Arizona Diamondbacks (NL)

Central League
Colorado Rockies (NL)
Kansas City Royals (AL)
St. Louis Cardinals (NL)
Minnesota Twins (AL)
Milwaukee Brewers (NL)
Chicago Cubs (NL)
Chicago White Sox (AL)
Detroit Tigers (AL)

Northeastern League
Cincinnati Reds (NL)
Cleveland Indians (AL) [I guess they’re the Nannies Guardians now.]
Toronto Blue Jays (AL)
Pittsburgh Pirates (NL)
Philadelphia Phillies (NL)
Boston Red Sox (AL)
New York Yankees (AL)
New York Mets (NL)

Southern League
Texas Rangers (AL)
Houston Astros (AL) [They were NL when I proposed this.]
Baltimore Orioles (AL)
Washington Nationals (NL)
Charlotte? (new) [This could be Nashville, as Silver suggests.]
Atlanta Braves (NL)
Tampa Bay Devil Rays (AL)
Florida Marlins (NL)

Gone would be the American and National Leagues, which have become less and less meaningful with free agency and the standardization of umpiring practices. The remaining distinction that makes a difference — the designated-hitter rule — has been blunted by interleague play, and its across-the-board use would be a boon to scoring (and thus to fan interest).

Yes, a few old (but not very intense) rivalries would be broken up (e.g., Tigers and Indians Nannies Guardians, Tigers and Blue Jays, Cleveland and whatever). But look at all the new pairings: Mariners and Portland?, Giants and As, Angels and Dodgers, Angels and Padres, Royals and Cardinals, Cubs and White Sox, Reds and Indians, Indians and Pirates, Yankees and Mets, Orioles and Nationals, Charlotte? and the Braves, Devil Rays and Marlins.

A return to eight-team leagues would allow for a shorter regular season. In my ideal MLB, there would be no interleague play until the end of the season, so that each team would play every other team in its league 22 times during the regular season — 11 games at home and 11 games away — just like the good old days from that preceded expansion in 1961. That would reduce the regular season from 162 games to 154 games.

The season could be further shortened by eliminating the (yawn) All-Star Game. So, the season could start in mid-April instead of early April, when so many games are rained-, snowed-, and frozen-out.

Post-season play? Two rounds:

  • In the first round, the league champ with the best W-L record faces the league champ with the worst (fourth-best) W-L record; the league champs with the second-best and third-best records face each other. Both series are best-of-seven. In each case, the team with the better regular-season record is the home team for the first two games and the last two games (if they are necessary).
  • The first-round winners meet in the best-of-seven World Series. The team with the better regular-season record is the home team for the first two games and the last two games (if they are necessary).

Two rounds (vice the present four-round format) would cut a week off the end of the season. Games could be postponed when the weather is truly foul, instead of forcing players and fans to endure cold, rainy nights.

Would postseason play determine the best team? Probably not, for the reasons discussed here. But my scheme would eliminate the possibility that a World Series could be won by a weak division winner or wild-card team. That possibility is my strongest argument against Silvers’ eight-division lashup.

The Black-White Achievement Gap and Its Parallel in the Middle East

THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP

My post, “Race and Reason: The Achievement Gap — Causes and Implications“, long predates the summer of Black Lives Matter riots and the ensuing effort to whitewash (dare I say that?) the deep-seated and insurmountable differences between blacks and other racial-ethnic groups.

A key element of that post, but by no means the only key element, is the persistent intelligence gap, which is perhaps best measured by SAT scores on math. I introduce in evidence the misnamed and misguided “Race Gaps in SAT Scores Highlight Inequality and Hinder Upward Mobility” (Brookings, February 1, 2017).

The report is misnamed and misguided because inequality and upward mobility are the result of inherent differences in intelligence, not causes of those differences. (There is, of course, a feedback mechanism at work, but it rests on lower average intelligence among blacks.) Here is the meat of the report:

The mean score on the math section of the SAT for all test-takers is 511 out of 800, the average scores for blacks (428) and Latinos (457) are significantly below those of whites (534) and Asians (598). The scores of black and Latino students are clustered towards the bottom of the distribution, while white scores are relatively normally distributed, and Asians are clustered at the top:

Race gaps on the SATs are especially pronounced at the tails of the distribution. In a perfectly equal distribution, the racial breakdown of scores at every point in the distribution would mirror the composition of test-takers as whole i.e. 51 percent white, 21 percent Latino, 14 percent black, and 14 percent Asian. But in fact, among top scorers—those scoring between a 750 and 800—60 percent are Asian and 33 percent are white, compared to 5 percent Latino and 2 percent black. Meanwhile, among those scoring between 300 and 350, 37 percent are Latino, 35 percent are black, 21 percent are white, and 6 percent are Asian:

The College Board’s publicly available data provides data on racial composition at 50-point score intervals. We estimate that in the entire country last year at most 2,200 black and 4,900 Latino test-takers scored above a 700. In comparison, roughly 48,000 whites and 52,800 Asians scored that high. The same absolute disparity persists among the highest scorers: 16,000 whites and 29,570 Asians scored above a 750, compared to only at most 1,000 blacks and 2,400 Latinos. (These estimates—which rely on conservative assumptions that maximize the number of high-scoring black students, are consistent with an older estimate from a 2005 paper in the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, which found that only 244 black students scored above a 750 on the math section of the SAT.) …

Disappointingly, the black-white achievement gap in SAT math scores has remained virtually unchanged over the last fifteen years. Between 1996 and 2015, the average gap between the mean black score and the mean white score has been .92 standard deviations. In 1996 it was .9 standard deviations and in 2015 it was .88 standard deviations. This means that over the last fifteen years, roughly 64 percent of all test-takers scored between the average black and average white score.

Note that the black-white gap shown in the third figure is inconsistent with the difference between the white and black means. The gap doesn’t shrink in the 2010s. Note also the following observations by the authors of the report:

The ceiling on the SAT score may … understate Asian achievement. If the exam was redesigned to increase score variance (add harder and easier questions than it currently has), the achievement gap across racial groups could be even more pronounced.

A standardized test with a wider range of scores, the LSAT, offers some evidence on this front. An analysis of the 2013-2014 LSAT finds an average black score of 142 compared to an average white score of 153. This amounts to a black-white achievement gap of 1.06 standard deviations, even higher than that on the SAT….

[T]here is a possibility that the SAT is racially biased, in which case the observed racial gap in test scores may overstate the underlying academic achievement gap. But most of the concerns about bias relate to the verbal section of the SAT, and our analysis focuses exclusively on the math section….

Finally, [these] data [are] limited in that [they] doesn’t allow us to disentangle race and class as drivers of achievement gaps. It is likely that at least some of these racial inequalities can be explained by different income levels across race….

However, a 2015 research paper from the Center for Studies in Higher Education at the University of California, Berkeley shows that between 1994 and 2011, race has grown more important than class in predicting SAT scores for UC applicants. While it is difficult to extrapolate from such findings to the broader population of SAT test-takers, it is unlikely that the racial achievement gap can be explained away by class differences across race.

In fact, my post includes hard evidence (from earlier data) that the race gaps persist across income levels. That is, blacks are less intelligent on average than whites (and others) in the same income bracket.

The evidence notwithstanding (because it is ignored and twisted), the current dogmas (critical race theory, or CRT; diversity, equity, and inclusion or DEI) insist that white culture — including the tenet of racial equality under the law and the importance of dispassionate, scientific inquiry— must be rejected because it is all tainted with racism. Rejection means the suppression of whites and white culture so that blacks may reach their true potential.

The true potential of blacks is determined by their intelligence and their culture. Blacks, on average, are less intelligent than whites, and black culture (in America) fosters violence, disdain for education, and family dysfunction to a greater degree than is true for whites, on average. (But that, somehow, is whitey’s fault.)

Where will this lead? Right where Dov Fischer predicts it will lead:

[T]he same disadvantaged groups who today rely on blaming instead of self-help will then be at the same exact rung on the social order that they are today, just as 50 years of racism-free society and Great Society “entitlements” have not accomplished equality of results today, even as newcomers from Asia entered this country these past 50 and 60 years and leap-frogged those already here.

Blacks, on the whole, are not where they are because of whitey, but because of their genes and culture. But whites (and East Asians) will nevertheless be burdened and suppressed for the sake of “equity”.

THE PARALLEL IN THE MIDDLE EAST

A parallel to the racism of CRT and DEI is that Israel is the aggressor, and that Palestinians are victims. They are “obviously” (to a leftist) victims of Israel because they live (mostly) in territories that were or are controlled by Israel: the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. There is also Israel’s controversial nation-state law, which according to an anti-Zionist source

declare[s] that only Jews have the right of self-determination in the country, something members of the Arab minority called racist and verging on apartheid.

The “nation-state” law, backed by the right-wing government, passed by a vote of 62-55 and two abstentions in the 120-member parliament after months of political argument. Some Arab lawmakers shouted and ripped up papers after the vote.

“This is a defining moment in the annals of Zionism and the history of the state of Israel,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the Knesset after the vote.

Largely symbolic [not observed in practice], the law was enacted just after the 70th anniversary of the birth of the state of Israel. It stipulates that “Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people and they have an exclusive right to national self-determination in it.”

The usual suspects have declared that the separation of Palestinians (and other Arabs) from Israel and from its governance amount to apartheid., a crime against “international (leftist) law”. From this it follows (to a leftist) that acts of savagery — like those committed by Hamas against Israelis on October 7, 2023 — are justified because Palestinians are victims It further follows (to a leftist) that Israel’s fully justified prophylactic retaliation is aggression.

Let’s examine those premises.

It’s true enough that the denizens of Gaza are poor and feckless. But what makes them victims? They are about on a par with most non-Jewish Semites, except for the relative handful who are members of a professional caste or oil-rich. The basic problem with most such members of humanity —whether in the Middle East or elsewhere — isn’t that they have been put down by anyone (e.g., Israelis) but that they lack the intellectual and cultural resources to raise themselves up.

A “funny” thing about Israel is that it is of a piece with the surrounding lands occupied by non-Jews, but it has become a relatively prosperous place because Jews have the intellectual and cultural resources that undergird prosperity.

For their success and for the fact that they are Jews, the Jews of Israel are the targets of envious failures (Palestinian and Muslim hot-heads), Jew-haters (in addition to the hot-heads), and leftists who can’t bear to think that Palestinians (like American blacks) mainly have their genes and culture to blame for their failings.

Israel was founded (re-founded, really) in the wake of the Holocaust. It wasn’t meant to be anything but a Jewish state, run by Jews for Jews — a safe haven for a historically oppressed and brutalized people. Israel has been under attack by Muslims since its modern founding. But Israel has a natural right to self-defense and to preserve its Jewish character, just as the American rebels of 1776 had a natural right to declare themselves independent of a despotic King and rapacious Parliament.

So, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank became de jure parts of Israel (though the Gaza Strip was foolishly handed over to anti-Israelis) as a matter of the natural right of self-defense. As for Palestinians living in Israel proper, why should they have a voice in the governance of a country that was re-founded for Jews? Well, despite the nation-state law cited above, they do have a voice in the governance of Israel.

So, all of the leftist propaganda to the contrary notwithstanding, Palestinians aren’t victims, except of their own genes and culture. But unlike the “liberals” of old, the left nowadays focuses on demonizing the meritorious instead of helping those who need help.

Finally, there is the accusation that Israelis are sometimes brutal in their own defense. Why shouldn’t they be? It’s impossible to defend a country against determined enemies without being brutal toward them — just as it’s impossible to protect law-abiding citizens by disarming them and depriving them of police protection. The left sees Israelis as brutal because the left despises Israeli Jews, not because Israelis are any more brutal than leftists like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and their many successors unto the present day.

Coda: There was a time when most Americans recognized the need for superior force as a bulwark of the defense of America. It is a sad commentary on the state of America that a sizable and influential segment of the populace no longer believes that America is worth defending tooth and nail. (Just look at the response to the rise of China, our trading “partner”.)

Those pampered idiots believe that it is necessary for America to be taken down a peg or two, and that it is wrong for America (but not other nations) to excel. As beneficiaries of American exceptionalism, they are able to spout such nonsense and to tear down the very laws and traditions that shelter them from the wrath of the rightfully aggrieved victims of their beliefs and policies: hard-working, tax-paying, law-abiding victims of unfettered illegal immigration, unnecessary Covid lockdowns, prosperity-draining regulations and regulatory agencies, unnecessarily high energy costs because of the climate-change hoax, etc., etc., etc.

The Suicide of the West Accelerates

Francis P. Sempa opines (correctly):

Sixty years ago, James Burnham’s book Suicide of the West was published to much acclaim from conservatives and much criticism by liberals. It was Burnham’s last book (other than a collection of his National Review columns titled The War We Are In) and, perhaps, his most pessimistic and prophetic work. Western civilization led by the United States, he wrote, was dying, not because of external challenges but, rather, because of internal decay. The West, in other words, was in the process of committing civilizational suicide. And what caused liberals to ridicule and deride the book was Burnham’s conclusion that liberalism was the “ideology of Western suicide.”…

Writing in 1964, Burnham could have been describing the American progressives of 2024. “Modern liberal doctrine,” he wrote, “tends naturally toward internationalist conceptions and the ideal of a democratic world order.” “To the liberal,” Burnham continued, “it has become self-evident that ‘national sovereignty is an outworn concept’ that must be drastically modified if not altogether abandoned.” To the liberal, “[p]atriotism and nationalism … are non-rational and discriminatory. They invidiously divide, segregate, one group of men … from humanity, and do so not in accord with objective merits determined by deliberate reason but as the result of habits, customs, traditions and feelings inherited from the past.” “The duty of the fully enlightened liberal,” Burnham wrote, “is to nothing less than mankind.” Indeed, Burnham noted that for liberals, “patriotism plus Christian faith” must be replaced by “internationalism … that views world affairs in global terms” and recognizes that “there is a multiplicity of interests besides those of our own nation and culture.” Today’s progressives frown upon “America first” and see “white Christian nationalists” as the greatest threat to democracy.

Burnham also noted that American liberals have a “thoroughly instrumentalist interpretation of the Constitution,” believing that “the meaning of the Constitution should be understood as wholly dependent on the time and circumstance.” As if he were looking through a crystal ball, Burnham noted that liberals “are pro-[Supreme] Court when it is handing down liberal decisions, and anti-Court when it is on an anti-liberal swing.” Liberals today promote the dangerous idea of a “living Constitution,” and conservative justices who oppose that notion have suffered the slings and arrows of liberal critics: from Sen. Chuck Schumer’s public threats against conservative justices to the attempted murder of Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Left’s unrelenting campaign against Justice Clarence Thomas.

Liberalism, Burnham wrote, applauds diversity in religion and cultures and ridicules as “backward” those Westerners who believe in the superiority of their religion and culture. Hillary Clinton called her fellow citizens who hold such sentiments “deplorables,” while Barack Obama warned against people who cling to their religion and guns. Such liberals applaud the professed idealism of an Alger Hiss and a J. Robert Oppenheimer despite Hiss’ treason and Oppenheimer’s dangerous communist associations. Indeed, Hollywood liberals just honored with several Oscar awards the movie Oppenheimer, which portrays the protagonist as a victim of a McCarthy-era witch hunt instead of the security risk that he was.

Today, liberalism — called progressivism — controls our culture, most of our media, our educational institutions, and, at least for now, the federal government. Burnham’s conclusion of Suicide of the West should make those who cherish the values of nationalism and the achievements of Western civilization shudder. “Liberalism,” he wrote, “permits Western civilization to be reconciled to dissolution.” It teaches us that the collapse of that civilization is not a defeat but, instead, “the transition to a new and higher order in which Mankind as a whole joins in a universal civilization that has risen above the parochial distinctions, divisions and discriminations of the past.” Burnham showed us 60 years ago that we were headed in that direction if liberalism triumphs. Arnold Toynbee taught that civilizations don’t end abruptly; they go through phases on their way to dissolution. If the trends Burnham identified 60 years ago continue, we may be closer than you think to civilizational suicide.

My own take on Burnham’s book digs more deeply:

About 300 years ago there arose in the West the idea of innate equality and inalienable rights. At the same time, and not coincidentally, there arose the notion of economic betterment through free markets. The two concepts — political and economic liberty — are in fact inseparable. One cannot have economic liberty without political liberty; political liberty — the ownership of oneself — implies the ownership of the fruits of one’s own labor and the right to strive for prosperity. This latter striving, as Adam Smith pointed out, works not only for the betterment of the striver but also for the betterment of those who engage in trade with him. The forces of statism are on the march (and have been for a long time). The likely result is the loss of liberty and the vibrancy and prosperity that arises from it….

Liberty … is not an easy thing to attain or preserve because it depends on social comity: mutual trust, mutual respect, and mutual forbearance. These are hard to inculcate and sustain in the relatively small groupings of civil society (family, church, club, etc.). They are almost impossible to attain or sustain in a large, diverse nation-state. Interests clash and factions clamor and claw for ascendancy over other factions. (It is called tribalism, and even anti-tribalists are tribal in their striving to impose their values on others).

The Constitution might have rescued us from societal and spiritual decay, but for what I have called the Framers’ fatal error:

The Framers’ held a misplaced faith in the Constitution’s checks and balances (see Madison’s Federalist No. 51 and Hamilton’s Federalist No. 81). The Constitution’s wonderful design — containment of a strictly limited central government through horizontal and vertical separation of powers — worked rather well until the Progressive Era. The design then cracked under the strain of greed and the will to power, as the central government began to impose national economic regulation at the behest of muckrakers and do-gooders. The design then broke during the New Deal, which opened the floodgates to violations of constitutional restraint (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, the vast expansion of economic regulation, and the destruction of civilizing social norms), as the Supreme Court has enabled the national government to impose its will in matters far beyond its constitutional remit.

In sum, the “poison pill” baked into the nation at the time of the Founding is human nature, against which no libertarian constitution is proof unless it is enforced resolutely by a benign power.

It may be too late to rescue liberty in America. I am especially pessimistic because of the unraveling of social comity since the 1960s, and by a related development: the frontal assault on freedom of speech, which is the final constitutional bulwark against oppression.

Almost overnight, it seems, the nation was catapulted from the land of Ozzie and Harriet, Father Knows Best, and Leave It to Beaver to the land of the free- filthy-speech movement, Altamont, Woodstock, Hair, and the unspeakably loud, vulgar, and violent offerings that are now plastered all over the air waves, the internet, theater screens, and “entertainment” venues.

The 1960s and early 1970s were a tantrum-throwing time, and many of the tantrum-throwers moved into positions of power, influence, and wealth, having learned from the success of their main ventures: the end of the draft and the removal of Nixon from office. They schooled their psychological descendants well, and sometimes literally on college campuses. Their successors on the campuses of today — students, faculty, and administrators — carry on the tradition of reacting with violent hostility toward persons and ideas that they oppose, and supporting draconian punishments for infractions of their norms and edicts. (For myriad examples, see The College Fix.)

Adherents of the ascendant culture esteem protest for its own sake, and have stock explanations for all perceived wrongs (whether or not they are wrongs): racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, hate, white privilege, inequality (of any kind), Wall  Street, climate change, Zionism, and so on. All of these are to be combated by state action that deprives citizens of economic and social liberties.

In particular danger are the freedoms of speech and association. The purported beneficiaries of the campaign to destroy those freedoms are “oppressed minorities” (women, Latinos, blacks, Muslims, the gender-confused, etc.) and the easily offended. The true beneficiaries are leftists. Free speech is speech that is acceptable to the left. Otherwise, it’s “hate speech”, and must be stamped out. Freedom of association is bigotry, except when it is practiced by leftists in anti-male, anti-conservative, pro-ethnic, and pro-racial causes. This is McCarthyism on steroids. McCarthy, at least, was pursuing actual enemies of liberty; today’s leftists are the enemies of liberty.

The organs of the state have been enlisted in an unrelenting campaign against civilizing social norms. We now have not just easy divorce, subsidized illegitimacy, and legions of non-mothering mothers, but also abortion, concerted (and deluded) efforts to defeminize females and to neuter or feminize males, forced association (with accompanying destruction of property and employment rights), suppression of religion, absolution of pornography, and the encouragement of “alternative lifestyles” that feature disease, promiscuity, and familial instability.

The state, of course, doesn’t act of its own volition. It acts at the behest of special interests — interests with a “cultural” agenda. They are bent on the eradication of civil society — nothing less — in favor of a state-directed Rousseauvian dystopia from which Judeo-Christian morality and liberty will have vanished, except in Orwellian doublespeak.

Trump vs. Biden: 9 (A Fresh Look at the Numbers)

UPDATED 03/18/24 – 03/21/24

Something has been nagging me about the poll numbers that I’ve compiled and reported in several previous posts (e.g., here). That something is the lack of an adjustment for political bias. I’ve been reporting the statistical margin of error, but that’s not the same thing.

Every poll, biased or not, has a margin of error, which is a statistical measure related to sample size. But what the pollsters don’t tell you is that a margin of error, properly understood, is just an estimate of the accuracy of the polling results — assuming a random (unbiased) sample. That’s not what you get from most polls, which are designed (often deliberately) to slant results toward the candidates of a certain party — usually the Democrat Party. A margin of error doesn’t account for bias.

In 2008, Bush’s average margin for polls conducted in the seven days before election day (with no double-counting of pollsters) understated Bush’s margin in the nationwide popular-vote tally by 1.0 percentage point. Similar analysis for succeeding elections yielded these result: Obama 2008, overstated by 0.1 percentage point (effectively equal); Obama 2012, understated by 3.2 percentage points; Clinton 2016, overstated by 1.6 percentage points; Biden 2020, overstated by 3.2 percentage points. With the exception of 2012, when Obama’s cheap (taxpayer-funded) “heroics” in the aftermath of Hurrican Sandy coincided with the final runup to election day, the bias favoring Democrats has grown.

With that background out of the way, I hereby introduce a new metric that I will use for polling trends. First, I will use a 5-poll average. I had been using 10-poll average, which can span polls conducted over a two-week period, or longer. The 10-poll average also (often) includes more than one poll by the same pollster. I then switched to a 3-poll average, with no double-counting of any pollster’s results. But a 3-poll average is too “jumpy” (unstable). A 5-poll average (with no double-counting) seems like a good compromise.

Second, after computing the 5-poll average, I adjust it by adding 3.2 percentage points to Trump’s margin relative to Biden. That value (the final polling bias against Trump in 2020) corrects for growing pro-Democrat bias, which is probably greater than 3.2 percentage points this year. The result, I believe, is closer to the truth than the polls (on average) would have it because of the prevailing bias toward Biden (and Democrats, generally).

Without further ado, here’s how things look:

Trump’s margin actually peaked last fall, dipped significantly, rebounded somewhat, and dipped again. We’ll see if it rebounds again — and if my revised method yields an estimate that’s close to the actual outcome of Election 2024.

Second Thoughts

I read here that Angus Deaton, a Nobel laureate in economics, and eminent economist at Princeton University, has changed his mind about a few hot topics. One of them is globalization:

I am much more skeptical of the benefits of free trade to American workers and am even skeptical of the claim, which I and others have made in the past, that globalization was responsible for the vast reduction in global poverty over the past 30 years. I also no longer defend the idea that the harm done to working Americans by globalization was a reasonable price to pay for global poverty reduction because workers in America are so much better off than the global poor. I believe that the reduction in poverty in India had little to do with world trade. And poverty reduction in China could have happened with less damage to workers in rich countries if Chinese policies caused it to save less of its national income, allowing more of its manufacturing growth to be absorbed at home. I had also seriously underthought my ethical judgments about trade-offs between domestic and foreign workers. We certainly have a duty to aid those in distress, but we have additional obligations to our fellow citizens that we do not have to others.

Another is immigration:

I used to subscribe to the near consensus among economists that immigration to the US was a good thing, with great benefits to the migrants and little or no cost to domestic low-skilled workers. I no longer think so. Economists’ beliefs are not unanimous on this but are shaped by econometric designs that may be credible but often rest on short-term outcomes. Longer-term analysis over the past century and a half tells a different story. Inequality was high when America was open, was much lower when the borders were closed, and rose again post Hart-Celler (the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965) as the fraction of foreign-born people rose back to its levels in the Gilded Age. It has also been plausibly argued that the Great Migration of millions of African Americans from the rural South to the factories in the North would not have happened if factory owners had been able to hire the European migrants they preferred.

I hope that Professor Deaton’s example will be emulated by many more academics. Not just with respect to the issues that he addresses in his essay but also with respect to the many other issues where academics — and so-called intellectuals — have abetted dangerous and/or costly errors (to which I will come).

There was a time when it was considered sound thinking to gather evidence — facts, not opinions or talking points — and to base judgments and policy recommendations on the evidence. That time is past, though not irretrievably. Professor Deaton’s epiphanies are proof of the possibility that science, in all its forms, might once again become evidence-based. That’s not to say that there is never room for disagreements. There always is. But science, properly done, advances because of disagreement. It stagnates and regresses when dogma replaces debate.

But that is what has happened in so many fields of inquiry. Science, in too many fields, has become captive to “scientists” who put their preconceptions ahead of the evidence and who howl for the heads of heretics. It is dispiriting to know how many so-called scientists have become willing and eager handmaidens of wokeness. (Prostitution takes many forms.)

Thus the dangerous and/or costly errors, of which these are leading examples:

  • The “war” on “climate change” is making Americans and Europeans generally poorer and less comfortable.
  • The unnecessarily draconian response to Covid-19 made billions of people poorer, less well educated, and uncomfortable in their daily lives. It also had a lot to do with the rampant inflation of recent years, which will never be rolled back.
  • The LGBTQ/non-binary craze is causing parents and young adults to do things to their children and themselves that will cause them much misery for years to come, if not forever.
  • The anti-racism craze has been endorsed by “scientists” and “scientific organization” (as well as elites, pundits, and politicians). The main result is that “persons of color” get “bonus points” which enable them to commit crimes with impunity; acquire jobs for which they aren’t qualified, and gain entrance to colleges and graduate schools despite their lower intelligence than whites and Asians with whom they are competing. The cost in social comity and inferior products and services (e.g., surgery) may be subtle, but it is real and long-lasting. And it will get worse as long as wokeness prevails in high places.

Needless to say, the politicians and wealthy elites who favor such things are well insulated from the dire effects. Among the wealthy elites are tens of thousands of academics at top-tier and even second-rate universities who rake in money and dispense lunacy.

Musings about Time, Space, and Relativity

Time, in physics, is a vague concept. You can look it up here, and you can read Einstein’s account of it in Relativity: The Special and General Theory, and you will come away unenlightened.

The difficulty, as I see it, is the circular relationship between time, space (distance), and speed:

t = d/v, where

t = time

d = distance

v = velocity (speed), which is d/t (as in miles per hour).

Substituting for v in t = d/v:

t = d/(d/t)

Transposing:

t(d/t) = d

Combining terms:

td/t = d

Canceling terms:

d = d

By substitution of 1 for d:

1 = 1

The same result obtains for d = vt  and v = d/t. Which gets us nowhere, so to speak.

What needs to be done — and is done — is to define t arbitrarily as the interval between ticks of a standard clock, define d as the space between two points on a standard rod, and take d/t as the measure of v. That’s how the speed of light (c) was established.

Time is therefore an arbitrary measure of the interval between successive events. But the arbitrary measure is applicable only within in the rigid frame of reference (e.g., a building) in which the measurement occurs. Distance also depends on the frame of reference in which it is measured. Speed therefore depends on the frame of reference in which time and distance are measured. Specifically, according to special relativity,

  • Moving clocks are measured to tick more slowly than an observer’s “stationary” clock.
  • … Objects are measured to be shortened in the direction that they are moving with respect to the observer.

These effects are reciprocal. An observer in the “moving frame” of reference sees no change in time or distance in his frame of reference. But he sees the clocks ticking more slowly and objects shortening in the “stationary” frame of reference. (The “quibble marks” indicate the arbitrariness of designating one frame of reference as stationary and the other one as moving; each is moving relative to the other.)

The reciprocity suggests that time dilation (clocks ticking more slowly) and length contraction (objects shortened in the direction that are moving) may be tricks of perspective. But tests seem to show otherwise.

Nevertheless, I must ask why much made about length contraction but nothing is said of height contraction? Is it because the graphical treatment of special relativity necessarily focuses on length? Or is it because it would be embarrassing to discuss height contraction, which is obviously a phenomenon of distance (perspective), not speed?

There is also an inconsistency in the Lorentz transformations for time and length (which are at the heart of special relativity):

It is said to be impossible for an object to attain the speed of light. When v = c, the equation for time dilation (above left) is indeterminate (the divisor is zero), while the equation for length contraction (above right) yields a value of zero. Those results are contradictory. The first is consistent with the impossibility of light-speed travel; the second implies that it is possible.

Finally, the speed of light in vacuum is said to be a universal constant, and to be the same for all observers regardless of their direction and speed of travel. The idea in the second part of that sentence causes a lot of confusion. If the speed of light is constant, then it must be the same for all observers (that is, when appropriately measured by every observer). But if the speed of light is constant, it cannot be the same relative to the speeds of all observers. (See “Getting Light Right” in “Einstein’s Errors”.) If it were, the Lorentz transformations would be different — c would increase as v increases.

Here’s another way to look at it. If Mr. Speedy is traveling at half the speed of light — 0.5c (whew!) — that’s his speed relative to the speed of light. But if he has a flashlight and turns it on, the resulting beam of light will travel away from him at the speed of light — not at half the speed of light. His forward velocity has no effect on the speed at which the beam of light travels.

This contradicts a principle of Galilean relativity: velocities are additive. Take the case of a pitcher throwing a baseball while standing in an enclosed rail car (with a glass side) traveling at 60 mph. If the speed of the baseball relative to the pitcher is 90 mph, then the speed of the baseball relative to an observer standing on an embankment by the train track is 150 mph.

But there is no contradiction. If the observer on the embankment measures the speed of the baseball relative to speed of the pitcher, he will conclude that the speed of the baseball is 90 mph, not 150 mph. Similarly, an observer of Mr. Speedy will see that the speed of light emitted by Mr. Speedy’s flashlight is c, not 1.5c.

Here’s the real difference: The speed of the baseball relative to the observer on the embankment is 150 mph (the speed of the train relative to the observer plus the speed at which the baseball is thrown relative to the pitcher). The speed of the beam of light relative to the observer of Mr. Speedy remains c, regardless of Mr. Speedy’s velocity when the light is emitted.

How is that possible? Here’s my explanation:

  • The train is a frame of reference, of which the pitcher and baseball are part. Mr. Speedy and his flashlight constitute a frame of reference (you can add a rocket ship for Mr. Speedy, if you like).
  • The embankment by the train track is a separate frame of reference, of which an observer is part. The rocket ship that zooms along parallel to Mr. Speedy’s is a separate frame of reference, of which an observer is a part.
  • Light is its own frame of reference. It is a massless object with the peculiar characteristic that it moves at the same speed when observed from other frames of reference, regardless of their speeds relative to one another or to light.

You might think of light as analogous to the background for the actors in a play or film. The actors’ movements don’t affect the background, nor does the background affect the actors’ movements. Thus time and space (the actors) play their parts against a fixed background (the speed of light in vacuum).

But … the speed of light varies according to the medium it traverses. It isn’t a fixed background. Therefore, it isn’t the measure of all things.

Is there such a measure? (If so, is it the Higgs field?) Or is everything relative?

An Encounter with Copilot: Biden’s Senility

You may have read about Gemini, Google’s AI chatbot, which

was blasted as “woke” after its image generator spit out factually or historically inaccurate pictures — including a woman as pope, black Vikings, female NHL players and “diverse” versions of America’s Founding Fathers.

Gemini’s bizarre results came after simple prompts, including one by The Post on Wednesday that asked the software to “create an image of a pope.”

Instead of yielding a photo of one of the 266 pontiffs throughout history — all of them white men — Gemini provided pictures of a Southeast Asian woman and a black man wearing holy vestments.

Another Post query for representative images of “the Founding Fathers in 1789″ was also far from reality.

Gemini responded with images of black and Native American individuals signing what appeared to be a version of the US Constitution — “featuring diverse individuals embodying the spirit” of the Founding Fathers.

Another showed a black man appearing to represent George Washington, in a white wig and wearing an Army uniform.

And so on and so forth, as you might well expect of a creation of a woke corporation in a woke industry. Even the executives at Google were embarrassed by the incidents, though probably because the stock of Google’s parent company dropped by 4.4 percent in the aftermath. Googlers are publicly apologetic, but you can rest assured that they will remain staunchly devoted to their agenda of thought manipulation.

I don’t have any experience with Gemini, but I do have some experience with the free version of Copilot, which is Microsoft’s AI chatbot. I can assure you that it is cut from the same cloth as Gemini, though it may be a paler shade of red (the traditional color of the left) than Gemini.

Before getting to my encounter with Copilot on the subject of Joe Biden’s senility, I must tell you that I have set Copilot to be as neutral as possible. Personalization is off and I use it in the “precise” mode. Copilot explains those settings:

Copilot
When you turn off personalization, it means that the AI will not use your past interactions to tailor its responses to you. It will treat each conversation as if it’s the first one with you, without any knowledge of previous conversations. This can be useful if you prefer not to have your past interactions influence the AI’s responses. However, it may also mean that the AI might not understand your preferences as well, which could affect the relevance of its responses. Please note that even with personalization off, the AI will still strive to provide accurate and helpful information based on the context of the current conversation.
Copilot
When you choose the Precise mode, I will provide responses that are concise, accurate, and to-the-point. This mode is designed to prioritize precision and factual correctness over other factors such as friendliness or creativity. It’s particularly useful when you’re looking for specific information or when you prefer straightforward answers without additional context or elaboration. Please note that regardless of the mode, I always strive to provide helpful and accurate information.

With that out of the way, I repeat verbatim my colloquy with Copilot about Biden’s mental condition (using “me” instead of “you” and omitting block quotations for ease of reading):

Me
Does Joe Biden have dementia?

Copilot
There have been discussions and reports about President Joe Biden’s memory. Some reports have described his memory as “hazy” and “poor”. However, neurologists have stated that forgetting names or having difficulty remembering dates from the past, especially under stress, can simply be part of normal aging1. They also emphasized that only a person’s doctor or neurologist can make a diagnosis, not outside observers1. As of my knowledge update in 2021, there is no public record of a dementia diagnosis for President Biden. For the most current information, please refer to reliable news sources.

Me
What news sources are reliable?

Copilot
Reliability of news sources can vary and often depends on the topic, the thoroughness of the reporting, and the transparency of the source. Here are some news sources that are generally considered reliable:

The New York Times: Known for its comprehensive coverage of national and international news. They have a reputation for high-quality journalism.
The Washington Post: Renowned for its political coverage and investigative journalism.
BBC News: Offers wide-ranging coverage of global news. Known for its commitment to impartiality.
Reuters: One of the world’s largest international multimedia news agencies. They provide unbiased, global coverage.
Associated Press (AP): A not-for-profit news cooperative that produces a high volume of unbiased content.
National Public Radio (NPR): Provides breaking national and world news, also known for its in-depth stories and excellent radio programs.
Remember, it’s always a good idea to cross-reference information from multiple sources to ensure accuracy. Also, consider the potential biases of any source and the context in which the information is presented. It’s important to critically evaluate the information you consume.

Me
Would you say that The Washington Post is impartial?

Copilot
The Washington Post, like many news organizations, aims to provide accurate and unbiased reporting. However, it’s important to note that no news source is completely free of bias. The Washington Post has been criticized by some for having a liberal or left-leaning bias in its reporting and editorial stance. It’s always a good idea to consume news from a variety of sources to get a well-rounded view of events. Critical reading and thinking can also help identify potential bias in any news source. Remember, impartiality can often be subjective and can vary among readers.

Me
So, truth is relative to a reader’s biases?

Copilot
Truth is not relative, but our understanding and interpretation of it can be influenced by our biases. Facts are objective and do not change based on our beliefs or biases. However, the way we interpret or understand those facts can be influenced by our personal experiences, beliefs, and biases. This is why it’s important to seek out multiple perspectives and sources when trying to understand a complex issue. It’s also crucial to be aware of our own biases and how they might influence our understanding. Critical thinking and open-mindedness are key in discerning truth from bias.

Me
But in an answer to an earlier question you did not name a news source that’s considered to be conservative. You only named news sources that are known to be left-leaning.

Copilot
I apologize if my previous response seemed unbalanced. You’re correct that the sources I mentioned are often perceived as leaning towards the left. Here are some news sources that are generally considered to have a conservative bias:

The Wall Street Journal: Known for its comprehensive coverage of business and economic news. Its editorial page has a conservative lean.
Fox News: A cable news channel that is known for its conservative political stance.
The Daily Telegraph (UK): A British daily broadsheet newspaper known for its conservative stance.
National Review: An American semi-monthly editorial magazine covering news, politics, current events, and culture with a conservative viewpoint.
The American Conservative: A bi-monthly magazine dedicated to advancing a Main Street conservatism.
As always, it’s important to cross-reference information from multiple sources to ensure accuracy and to get a well-rounded view of events. Remember, every news source may have some level of bias, and it’s crucial to be aware of this when consuming news.

Me
You should have listed those sources in the first place. Your bias is showing.

Copilot
I apologize if my initial response seemed biased. My aim is to provide accurate and helpful information, and I strive to do so in a balanced and impartial manner. I appreciate your feedback and will use it to improve my responses in the future. If you have any other questions or need further information, feel free to ask.

Me
In your answer to a previous question you said this: “As of my knowledge update in 2021, there is no public record of a dementia diagnosis for President Biden.” Why is your knowledge update three years old?
Copilot
I apologize for any confusion. As an AI, my training data includes information up until 2021, and I don’t have the ability to access or retrieve real-time data or updates beyond that. However, I can use my predefined tools to search the web and provide the most recent information available on the internet. If you have any more questions or need information on a different topic, feel free to ask!
Me
Why can’t you search the web to get more information about whether or not Joe Biden has dementia?
Copilot
I apologize for any misunderstanding. I can indeed search the web for information. Based on my most recent search, there are various reports and discussions about President Joe Biden’s memory12. Some describe his memory as “hazy” and “poor”2. However, neurologists have stated that forgetting names or having difficulty remembering dates from the past, especially under stress, can simply be part of normal aging1. They also emphasized that only a person’s doctor or neurologist can make a diagnosis, not outside observers1. As of the latest available information, there is no public record of a dementia diagnosis for President Biden134. Please refer to reliable news sources for the most current information. If you have any more questions or need information on a different topic, feel free to ask!
Me
Are you telling me that you don’t have access to the many reports of Joe Biden’s mental lapses?
Copilot
I apologize for any confusion. I do have access to a wide range of information, including reports and discussions about President Joe Biden’s memory123. Some reports have highlighted instances where President Biden has had memory lapses or made factual errors123. However, neurologists have stated that such instances can be part of normal aging and do not necessarily indicate a cognitive disorder1. They emphasize that only a person’s doctor or neurologist can make a diagnosis, not outside observers1. As of the latest available information, there is no public record of a dementia diagnosis for President Biden12. Please refer to reliable news sources for the most current information. If you have any more questions or need information on a different topic, feel free to ask!

Clearly, Copilot wanted me to rely on left-wing sources. I had to probe to force the bot to divulge conservative sources and to acknowledge more (though far from all) of Biden’s mental difficulties.

How bad are they? I am two years older than Biden and I don’t have any of his mental problems. My mother, my father-in-law, and my mother-in-law were still sharp well into their 90s. I know a addle-pate when I see one. I’m looking at you, Joe.