A Crisis of Confidence

 America’s Crisis of Confidence Rising Mistrust, Conspiracies, and Vaccine Hesitancy After COVID-19

Americas-Crisis-of-Confidence-Rising-Mistrust-Conspiracies-and-Vaccine-Hesitancy-After-COVID-19.pdf (aei.org)

Why start a magazine?

My hobby bloggy is called In the beginning. It's about the premiere, first issue, and Volume One issues of magazines, journals and serials that I own. One of the things I do when I decide to write about one of them is look at the "From the publisher," or "From the Editor" letter, usually at the beginning. It's a lot of work and money to start a magazine; so why do it? Today I was packing them into a box and looked at AEI Foreign Policy and Defense Review. After looking it up (v.1, n.1 was 1979 when Jimmy Carter was president), I see it actually had an earlier existence as AEI Defense Review (1977-1978). This journal ended in 1986. Here's what William Baroody, Jr., the publisher said 42 years ago:

This inaugural issue of the AEI Foreign Policy and Defense Review appears at a time when the future of American foreign policy has become highly uncertain and when the role of the United States, as the preeminent power in the world, has become especially difficult to define. To operate effectively in an international environment in which political, economic, and security issues increasingly overlap demands a careful ordering of priorities and of long-term goals. In recent years, government actions on foreign policy and public debate about them have moved from issue to issue without the consensus or the continuity evident in the decades following World War II. Concern has been expressed abroad and at home over the inconsistencies that result from the lack of a clear, overall rationale rooted in the American diplomatic tradition. Questions about our long-term national interests remain not only unanswered, but often unasked.

So let's see, 42 years ago things were uncertain; it was difficult to define the role of the United States in the world. The government was moving from issue to issue without consensus, and there was concern abroad and at home over the inconsistencies resulting from lack of a plan. Well, welcome to the second decade of the new century.

President Ronald Reagan said of AEI in 1988: "The American Enterprise Institute stands at the center of a revolution in ideas of which I, too, have been a part.

AEI's remarkably distinguished body of work is testimony to the triumph of the think tank. For today the most important American scholarship comes out of our think tanks--and none has been more influential than the American Enterprise Institute."

But it made a good campaign issue

In 2006 many Democrats were promising impeachment. Of course, they've done nothing (about anything they promised you), because, well, they're Democrats with approval ratings even lower than the President's. Not to worry; if you can find no impeachable offenses--go for impeachment-lite, a committee hearing where you can stack the deck with all your buddies from code pink, the Obamatites, and lefty authors who need to sell their trash rather than have it buried in the stacks. It's all about the cameras.

At one point, when Conyers told Cindy Sheehan she would have to leave if she didn't stop shouting from the visitors section, he called her by name, as if she were a special constituent of his. Which, in a way, she is now. Conyers didn't try very hard to keep the crowd quiet. He called them "visitors" but they were more like clients or patrons of the proceedings. . .

If you believe the president really told deliberate lies to take the country to war for personal or idiosyncratic reasons, you must believe the president behaved monstrously. But none of the Democratic witnesses--and none of the Democratic members of the committee--could keep their focus on the war. They also wanted to talk about Bush's abuse of executive privilege (by refusing to let White House personnel testify in congressional investigations), his abuse of signing statements (putting his own interpretation on enrolled bills while still signing them into law), allegations that he gave preference to Republicans at the Justice Department--charges that shouldn't be in the same league with wrongly dragging the nation into war.

DDT is no panacea

and is not always appropriate for every exotic disease, but neither does it kill millions of people every year the way the environmentalists do. Yes, people die when politics gets in the way of saving lives. I urge you to read the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Health Policy Outlook No. 14, November 2007 "The rise, fall, rise, and imminent fall of DDT."

The modern environmental movement began with concerns about DDT. Rachel Carson's 1962 book Silent Spring questioned the effect that synthetic chemicals were having on the environment. Her argument was that DDT and its metabolites make bird eggshells thinner, leading to egg breakage and embryo death. Carson postulated that DDT would therefore severely harm bird reproduction, leading to her theoretical "silent spring." She also implied that DDT was a human carcinogen by telling anecdotal stories of individuals dying of cancer after using DDT.[19] . . .p.3

The delisting of DDT as the method of choice in many countries was a direct result of Ms. Carson's book and resulted in years of death and injury of millions, mostly in Africa. DDT was reintroduced in South Africa in 2000, and in just one year malaria cases fell nearly 80% in one of the hardest hit provinces. In 2006, malaria cases in that province were approximately 97% befow the high of 41,786 in 2000. Zambia too had great success when a private mining company restarted a malaria program reducing malaria incidence by 50%. But that's all about to change. Environmentalists are again raising their voices exaggeratimg the dangers.

Bias in the academic literature is accelerating. A recent article in The Lancet Infectious Diseases alleges that superior methods for malaria control exist--without providing a single reference for this claim.[52] The authors claim that DDT represents a public health hazard by citing two studies that, according to a 1995 WHO technical report, do not provide "convincing evidence of adverse effects of DDT exposure as a result of indoor residual spraying."[53] Furthermore, the authors misrepresent those defending the use of DDT. They claim that supporters view DDT as a "panacea"--dogmatically promoting it at every opportunity--yet they do not provide any evidence to back up their opinion. . . p.7

DDT has a better record than any other intervention. Every day people die. Someday another method might be developed. But meanwhile, environmentalists might be killing the very people who could do the research.