Why Supporting the Death Penalty Goes Against Conservative Values

Back in the 1970s and 1980s, crime rates were spiking in the United States. In response, both the Left and Right in the U.S. took a "tough on crime" approach in which tougher sentencing was seen as a solution to a dire problem. The strict sentencing and mass incarceration have shown their uglier unintended consequences, which would help explain why prominent figures on the Left and Right have been denouncing "tough on crime" policy in recent years. As nice as it is to have clarity on such an important issue, there is one issue within criminal justice policy that is lagging a bit: the death penalty. At the same time, support for the death penalty has declined from its 83 percent peak in 1993 to 54 percent in 2021, according to Gallup. The Pew Research Center puts support for the death penalty in the U.S. at 60 percent. In any case, there is still a fair majority that supports the death penalty. 

That is why it was intriguing to come across an article published earlier this month from Left-leaning news site Vox about how Republicans are becoming increasingly anti-death penalty. Looking at the Pew findings (see below), there remains a staunch majority of Republicans who support the death penalty, at 77 percent. Such red states as Kentucky, Georgia, Missouri, and Kansas are looking to curtail or eliminate the death penalty (Vox). The Utah legislature made an attempt to repeal the death penalty, although it was rejected by the majority of the state legislature. 

This trend on the Right to be more anti-death penalty is captivating because being pro-death penalty has been a notoriously conservative stance as long as I can remember. As such, this particular question wanted me to dig into why this is happening. I am sure that there are those on the Right who have done some soul-searching and realizing something incongruent with their other conservative beliefs and their position on the death penalty. I am neither speaking as someone who is conservative nor is pro-death penalty. At the same time, I used to be conservative and I used to be pro-death penalty. I understand the arguments in no small part because I used to make them myself. That is why I want to look at the death penalty from a conservative vantage point and outline facets that show why the death penalty is at odds with conservative values. 

1. Innocence and Error Rates. The government is run by people, and thus, is prone to error because humans are fallible. Here are some payment error rates from government programs: 25 percent error rate with the Earned Income Tax Credit [EITC], 21.4 percent for Medicaid, and a 10.7 percent improper payment rate for unemployment insurance. Since the government is fallible, why do pro-death penalty conservatives suddenly believe that the government is going to be flawless when it comes to the death penalty? Is it simply because it is a policy idea that these conservatives happen to like? The government does not magically give us what we want because it is appealing to our moral sensibilities. The truth is that government also makes mistakes when it comes to the death penalty. The risk of executing an innocent person is real, whether a wrongful conviction is brought on by a mistaken eyewitness, an overzealous prosecutor, an incompetent defense attorney, coerced confessions, scrupulous jailhouse snitches, or botched forensics. In addition to the 186 individuals that have been exonerated since 1973 (Innocence Database), the National Academy of Sciences made a conservative estimate that 4.1 percent of those prosecuted under the death penalty are innocent (Gross et al., 2014). Not only does the government wrongly execute people from time to time, there are times where the errors take place with the execution itself. According to University of Amherst professor Austin Sarat, 276 executions, or 3.2 percent of executions, between 1890 and 2010 were botched. 
• We are talking about a literal matter of life and death. One mistaken execution is too many, never mind an erroneous conviction rate greater than one in 25. If conservatives find comparable improper payment rates unacceptable with various government programs, they should a fortiori be all the more outraged with the death penalty's erroneous conviction rates. 
2. The death penalty is not shown to deter crime. One of the main arguments that the pro-death penalty side uses is that the death penalty is a deterrent, particularly for would-be criminals who are thinking about committing heinous crimes. The issue is that there is not evidence showing that the deterrent effect exists. The National Research Council reviewed more than three decades of evidence and were unable to find credible evidence that the death penalty deters. The studies the NRC analyzed that claimed a deterrent effect were considered flawed since they did not take non-capital punishments, e.g., life without parole, into account. The Brennan Center for Justice released a report to figure out what caused the decline in crime in the 1990s and 2000s (Roeder et al., 2015; p. 43). Among the Brennan Center's findings was that there was no evidence that the death penalty contributed to this decline. 
• If the death penalty were as unambiguously as much of a deterrent as proponents believe, the evidence would be there. I know there are multiple factors that can attribute to the murder rate. However, it becomes difficult to argue that the death penalty is such a strong deterrent when the murder rate of death penalty states consistently remains higher than the rate of non-death penalty states (Death Penalty Information Center; Federal Bureau of Investigation). 
• My final point has to do with expert opinion. Yes, the following data come from 2009 since that is the most recent polling available. At the same time, both criminologists and police chiefs at this time overwhelmingly believed that the death penalty does not act a deterrent. 
• Deterring future crimes is one of the main arguments used by proponents of the death penalty. The lack of evidence for a deterrence effect means that the death penalty is not keeping us safer. 
3. The death penalty collides with a pro-life stance. Not everyone on the Right holds to an anti-abortion stance, but most do. As of 2021, 74 percent of Republicans identified as pro-life (Gallup). The premise behind the pro-life stance is the belief that human life is sacred. Those who are against abortion argue that personhood is [one of] the main considerations for their anti-abortion position. If applied consistently, advocating for the totality of life would include accused murderers. Since alternatives such as life without parole (LWOP) can adequately punish without making the permanent decision of ending a life, a pro-lifer should prefer LWOP over the death penalty. 
• It presents a moral conflict to consider oneself pro-life but support a practice that literally has the word "death" in its name. The moral qualm from a pro-life stance is more pronounced when considering the erroneous conviction rate or that the death penalty has not been shown to protect more lives, as previously detailed. 
4. High cost of death penalty goes against fiscal conservatism. I wrote about the fiscal costs back in 2014, but it is worth a bit of an update. In 2017, the Oklahoma Death Penalty Review Commission found that capital cases cost over three times the amount of non-capital cases. For Nebraska, that would be a difference of $1.3 million between a capital case and a non-capital case. A fiscal impact report from the State of New Mexico calculated that it would cost the State an additional $7.3 million over the first three years of implementation. Susquehanna University also calculated the extra cost of a capital case, which is $1.12 million [in 2015 dollars] (McFarland, 2017). It makes sense that a capital case would cost more. There are greater expenditures in a capital case, ranging from more lawyers, witnesses, experts, and pre-trial motions, as well as a more extensive jury selection process and a separate trial for sentencing. Those are the costs before accounting for the lengthy and costly appeals process. 
• Looking at the death penalty from a strictly fiscal lens, a capital case is a bloated, inefficient program that drives up the costs of law enforcement. These are dollars that could go elsewhere in law enforcement, such as numerous unsolved homicides, violence prevention programs, services for victims' families, or modernizing crime laboratories. They could go to other programs, as well as helping reduce government debt. The cost of implementing the death penalty is more startling when you consider that the death penalty has taken innocent lives or that there is no evidence that it keeps us safer. 
5. Limited government. For those who are limited-government conservatives, the main premise is to restrain government power to make sure it does not overreach. Just read the amendments in the Bill of Rights and you can see a pattern of limiting what a government can and cannot do. Limited government also implies that the government still has some powers, including prosecuting murderers, arsonists, rapists, and fraudsters. Even in a pursuit of justice for victims of the most heinous of crimes, we need to limit the power of government. The death penalty is state-sanctioned power over life and death. As Lord Acton once wrote, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." How is supporting the death penalty congruent with supporting limited government? 
• Giving the state a power that potent and that fatal is the opposite of being for limited government. There are nonlethal methods that are less costly (see previous point) and still deliver justice, which means that the size of government stays smaller as a result of not having the death penalty.

Postscript

The death penalty comes with multiple issues from a conservative point of view. If conservatives were to apply its criticism of government inefficacy consistently, they would scrutinize the death penalty as much as they scrutinize government welfare programs, unemployment insurance, and numerous government regulations. The costliness of the death penalty alone should make a conservative cringe. Combining that with conviction error rates, the percentage of botched executions, and the lack of evidence on deterrence should make that cost all the more unjustifiable. The fact that the death penalty is not proven to save lives makes the "pro-life/pro-death penalty" moral stance all the shakier. And how can a conservative maintain a limited government stance while supporting a Big Government policy that is inefficiently run and makes mistakes? I hope that support for the death penalty continues on a downward trend and that conservatives contribute to that decline. 

Some Health and Spiritual Benefits of Fasting

Food and drink play vital roles in shaping culture. More to the point, they are essential components of living. Without them, we would end up dying. It would explain why the practice of fasting seems like such an arduous task. At first glance, it seems to border on the masochistic to not eat and/or drink for a relatively extended period of time, especially if done on a regular basis. We need food and drink to survive. They can also make life more enjoyable. Why would anyone deprive themselves of something so necessary or pleasurable? This is a question I was asking myself after the minor Jewish Fast of Esther (תענית אסתר) last week. Fasting certainly is countercultural in a society that emphasizes instant gratification and convenience. In spite of fasting being counterintuitive, the practice comes with a number of benefits. 

Health Benefits

While fasting deprives us of necessities on a short-term basis, such a break from caloric intake can provide multiple benefits to our health. When one fasts, the body cleanses itself of toxins and forces cells into processes it would not otherwise undergo. Granted, there are those with legitimate health issues that would prevent them from fasting. If anyone has questions, they should ask their doctor first. However, generally, I believe people could benefit from such a practice. Here a few of the health benefits of fasting:

1. Weight loss. This benefit should be the most obvious. If you eat fewer calories than the amount of calories expend, you will run a calorie deficit. If you run enough of a calorie deficit, you lose pounds. Fasting has been shown to reduce body weight and body fat (e.g., Tinsley and La Bounty, 2015). Short-term fasting can also increase metabolism (Zauner et al., 2000), another component that contributes to weight loss.
2. Improved blood sugar control. Fasting can reduce resistance to insulin (Baronsky et al., 2014). Combined with lowering blood sugar sensitivity, it can help with keeping blood sugar steady. This is especially useful for those with risk to diabetes. 
3. Inflammation and cardiovascular disease. Fasting has been shown to reduce inflammatory markers, as well as body mass index, body weight, fat percentage, and blood pressure (Samudera et al., 2020; Aksungar et al., 2007). This effect in turn allows for a lower likelihood of cardiovascular disease. The lower inflammation can help with arthritis and diabetes (Pahwa et al., 2021).
4. Improved brain function. Fasting has the potential to reduce anxiety and depression (Zhang et al., 2015), as well as better social connections (Nair and Khawale, 2016), because it makes such hormones as serotonin more available to the brain.
5. Fasting can improve hunger. Another function of fasting is helping regulate hormones, ghrelin in particular (Muller et al,. 2002). Being able to fast longer and experience true hunger means that your body can better signal when you are full and thus better regulate caloric intake.

Spiritual Benefits

1. Self-discipline. Fasting gives us an ability to control ourselves, especially our passions and appetites. By strengthening our muscle of self-discipline, we are better able to choose our own reaction to external situations instead of becoming victim to forces beyond our control. 
2. Compassion and empathy. Many in the Western world have more than plenty from a material standpoint. Some people have never gone to bed hungry in their lives, myself included. By depriving oneself of food and/or drink, one can truly understand the feeling of true hunger, a feeling that too many in this world sadly have felt. It can create a sense of solidarity with other. However, the fasting would need to go beyond pity and translate into action if it is to mean anything. In the Book of Isaiah (58:3-7), G-d ask us to have a fast that inspires us to become better people, to help free the oppressed, and to share food with the poor. 
3. Gratitude. Not only can fasting transform us in compassion, it can also be helpful with gratitude. After fasting, you are less likely to take your food for granted. Especially if you accept the theory of the hedonic treadmill, it can help reset your sense of satiation, which could help make you more grateful for your culinary experiences. Fasting can also give us an opportunity to appreciate how well the body functions and processes food. 
4. Humility. Fasting reminds us just how frail the body is. While the body can theoretically last without food for three weeks, it can only last without water for three to four days. We are mortal beings that constantly need nourishment to keep our bodies going. We are not all-powerful or completely independent. Fasting is a practice that can remind us of our limits and our mortality. 
5. Better spiritual reflection and introspection. This is one of the main reasons I fast, particularly when it comes to the Jewish fast of Yom Kippur. I make sure I have enough food and drink before the fast starts beforehand. Once it begins, eating and drinking are too less things I need to worry about. I can focus on the loftier things in life and get my spiritual house in order.  
6. Being comfortable with the uncomfortable. I wrote on this in October 2020, but we can learn a lot about learning from being uncomfortable. One of those main lessons is that discomfort is not automatically bad. Fullness is not automatically good since "the constant craving for pleasure can be detrimental, and occasional discomfort can be exactly what we need." The paradox is that emptiness can sometimes lead to us being filled. 

Biden's Ban on Russian Gas and Oil Is Much More Likely to Harm Other Countries Than It Will Russia

The search for policy options to help Ukraine continues. I have already covered how neither U.S. military intervention nor a no-fly zone would be helpful. On March 8, President Biden presented another option. He announced that the U.S. government would not allow the import of Russian, oil, natural gas, or other forms of energy on U.S. soil. Since natural resources accounted for 60 percent of Russia's GDP as of 2019, it seems at first glance that such a ban would hit Russia where it hurts. The idea is to cut off revenue to Russia so that it is less capable of carrying out its war against Ukraine. 

The market for petroleum is a global one. What does this mean? If the U.S. decides to not import Russian oil, the demand would simply be reallocated in a way in which other countries pick up the imports. As the Cato Institute brings up in its critique of the Biden administration's misunderstanding of energy markets, "The global market for oil depends on the amount demanded and supplied, not where it comes from or where it goes." In other words, the nature of the petroleum market means that the unilateral ban will have next to no impact on the demand of Russia's natural resources. It is possible that Russia would make less on its natural resource exports, which could diminish some of its revenues. However, it is not plausible that a unilateral ban from the U.S. will harm Russia enough to incentivize it to pull out of Ukraine. 

Even if the market for petroleum did not work as described in the previous paragraph, the United States would not be able to make the desirable dents. In 2019, the United States accounted for 7.5 percent of Russian oil exports. The United States does not import natural gas from Russia. In contrast, Europe accounts for more than half of Russia's oil exports. How Europe decides to respond is much more meaningful than what the United States does. Given the European Union's reliance on Russia natural resources, it would be hard-pressed to join the United States in this endeavor, although Anglo-Dutch oil company Shell has already been pressured to cease business with Russia. Economists at the University of Chicago's Initiative on Global Markets overall predict a high likelihood that such a move would result in recession throughout Europe. After all, those who trade together are likely to stay together. 

Yes, the United States is looking to negotiate with other countries for more oil. Meanwhile, the citizens of the United States is going to see higher prices at the gas pump. The import ban will almost certainly attribute to the volatility that already exists in the petroleum market because speculators are trying to build in that possibility into oil prices. If the import ban is not unilateral and Europe catches on, it is likely to reduce energy supply and cause these commodity prices to spike further, according to Caroline Crane of Capital Economics. Economically, that makes sense. An import ban reduces supply. A reduction in supply increases prices. That insight hardly surprises me. 

Regardless of whether this energy import ban is unilateral or more multilateral, we have a policy of a natural resources import ban that will do little to nothing to change the outcome in the Russo-Ukrainian War. We are dealing with a geopolitical minefield. In the interim, the volatility will continue to drive up gasoline prices and could cause economic downturn, especially in Europe. 

Biden could do things to ease the pain at the gas pump such as repealing the Jones Act, reinstating the Keystone pipeline, or reviewing offshore projects in the Gulf of Mexico. Those would be sensible things to do. Instead of finding ways to increase U.S. energy production or make the costs of production and shipping cheaper, Biden's agenda and policy decisions suggest he will simply select policies that will drive up energy costs. It would be great to write about a policy that could actually help peacefully put an end to the Russo-Ukrainian War, but as my studies in public policy and time analyzing public policy have taught me, there are many more incorrect policy responses than there are correct ones.

Why a No-Fly Zone Over Ukraine Should Be a No-Go

The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has the world on edge. Concerns range from the casualties and the refugees fleeing Ukraine to increasing gas prices and the possibility of nuclear war. People are scrambling to find solutions to end the conflict in Eastern Europe. Last week, I covered why the U.S. military should not intervene in Ukraine. This week, I would like to cover a different policy alternative, one that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky requested: a no-fly zone over Ukraine. 

A no-fly zone (NFZ), or an air exclusion zone (AEZ), is when one military power establishes an area in which another military power is not permitted to fly its aircraft. These zones are most commonly set up during a military conflict with the intent of preventing an enemy power from flying in the designated demilitarized air zone. The modern idea of a no-fly zone did not exist until the 1990s, in no small part due to the development of stealth and precision-strike technologies. The first time that a NFZ was implemented was by the U.S. military in the Gulf War in 1991. The second time was when the United Nations prohibited military flights from the Bosnian air force in the Bosnian War. The third place was the military intervention in Libya: once in 2011 and again in 2018 and 2019. The NFZs in Iraq and Bosnia were successes, whereas the attempts in Libya did not work out as well. While we do not have hundreds of data points, three case studies are still better than nothing. 

If the NFZs in Iraq and Bosnia were so successful, why would precedent not be a reason for me to support a NFZ in Ukraine? Because the case studies of Iraq and Bosnia really do not serve as guidance for Ukraine. With the Iraq and Bosnia examples, their air power was inferior in comparison to the powers that were implementing the NFZs. There was no doubt of who could command the skies in those conflicts. In Iraq and Bosnia, the NFZ acted more as a deterrent than anything else. That is not the case in the Russo-Ukrainian War. In terms of size of air force, the Russian Air Force is second only to that of the United States Air Force. And let us not forget that Russia has nuclear weapons. Let us keep that context in mind as we move forward. 

It is not as if declaring a NFZ makes airspace free of enemy aircraft, no more than declaring a building a gun-free zone means that the space will not have guns or crime. Declaring a NFZ means making a commitment to shoot down planes. If the United States or NATO decides to declare a NFZ, it has one of two options. The first option is not enforcing it. If the United States or NATO declared a NFZ and decided not to enforce it, it would be a paper tiger. The reputation of the U.S. military or NATO forces would be severely undermined. The second option would be to enforce the NFZ, which would mean using firepower in the event that Russian pilots decide to violate the NFZ. Enforcing the NFZ would be an act of war. To declare war would be to make an undesirable situation worse.

Aside from the potential to start World War III or some other considerably larger military conflict, there are other considerations. One is that this is still early in the war. Russia only controls a small portion of Ukraine, and as such, cannot employ air forces in a country in which it does not have near or complete control. Furthermore, the Russian military possesses S-300 and S-400 long-range missiles, which can enter Ukrainian airspace without Russian pilots ever needing to enter said airspace. Even if NATO were itching to implement a NFZ, it would not make sense from a military strategy standpoint to do so at this time. 

There is also the logistical component to consider. As the Dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies Dave Deptula brings up, the nation of Ukraine covers twice the air space than the Iraqi NFZs. To have around-the-clock patrols, there would need to be hundreds of fighters to cover that space, as well as the thousands of men to fuel, arm, and maintain the fighters. Combine that with the preparation and clear mission, it would be a huge undertaking to enforce the NFZ over Ukraine.  

To quote Vox political correspondent Zac Beauchamp, "We can't treat Russia like it's ISIS or Qaddafi; the brute realities of the balance of military force change the kinds of tactics and strategies we can bring to bear." The no-fly zone is not some low-risk option that requires little effort. It is an option that takes a lot of resources, would risk military intervention, and would do very little to help the war efforts given that much of the Russian military is primarily using its army. President Joe Biden and NATO officials are correct in rejecting such an option, and I hope they continue to stay the course on this decision. 

7 Reasons Why the U.S. Military Should Not Intervene in Ukraine

Conflict between Russia and Ukraine is not new. In 1917, the Bolsheviks fought with the Ukrainians for four years in the Soviet-Ukrainian War. More recently, Russian President Vladimir Putin annexed the Crimean region in 2014 in the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War. Last Wednesday, Putin took the conflict to a whole new level by launching a general invasion of Ukraine.

What escalated the conflict between these two nations? In March and April of 2021, Putin amassed troops on the Russo-Ukrainian border. Putin was using this as an opportunity to pressure Ukraine to not join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), as well as reducing NATO troops and hardware stationed in Eastern Europe. The Russian government made baseless allegations of genocide in the Donbas region, a claim that was refuted by the European Commission. The Donbas region, which had previously been in a stalemate for the past few years, had escalated fighting on February 17. 

February 21 was a significant day for the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Putin upped his rhetoric by accusing Ukraine of being a neo-Nazi nation. While there is a far-Right presence in the country, that allegation is nevertheless ironic given that both the President and Prime Minister of Ukraine are Jewish. The Russian government alleged that Ukraine was responsible for shelling a Russian border facility. That same day, Russia recognized the independence of two separatist regions in Ukraine: Donetsk and Luhansk. Finally, Russian troops entered the Donbas region.  

By the time February 24 came around, Russia had launched its full-scale attack on Ukraine, which was a blatant violation of international law. A day later, Russia fired missiles on the capital of Kiev. For all we know, Ukraine could just be the beginning for Putin. We could see an expansion of Russian power and influence that has not been exhibited since Joseph Stalin was in power. Aside from the humanitarian crisis being created, there is concern that prices in global markets are going to increase as a result. The United States government has already imposed economic sanctions on the Russian financial institutions, including cutting off Russia from the U.S. financial system.  

Imposing economic sanctions on Russia is enough for some to try to punish Russia for violating Ukraine's sovereignty. While we are less than a week into the conflict, it is already being declared the worst incidence of conventional warfare on European soil since World War II. Only U.S. military intervention will satiate those with a hawkish foreign policy. At least for now, President Biden is not looking to take that hawkish approach. As tempting as it might be to help in a humanitarian crisis and bring democracy to eastern Europe, here are seven reasons why the U.S. military should not get involved in Ukraine.

1. Ukraine is not of vital geopolitical importance for the United States. Ukraine is over 5,000 miles away from the United States on another continent. Saying that Ukraine is vital to U.S. national security is like saying Canada or Mexico is vital to Russia's national security. Even if Russia is successful in invading Ukraine, the invasion would not jeopardize the citizens of the United States, its borders, or its national prosperity. While Ukraine is not an enemy of the United States, Ukraine does not exactly stand out as a major ally of the United States. If Ukrainian sovereignty were of vital interest to the United States or other Western powers, Ukraine would have been a member of NATO by now. The United States has no treaty-based obligation to defend Ukraine (e.g., NATO Article Five). At best, the United States' geopolitical interest in Ukraine is peripheral. 
2. Ukraine will always mean more to Russia than it will to the United States. For Russia, the geopolitical argument is different. Moscow's interest in Ukraine is existential in no small part because Russia shares a 1,200-mile border with Ukraine, not to mention a shared history and similar culture. Having a large country on Russia's border become more Westernized also has symbolic meaning. It signifies that Russia continues to lose power on the global stage, both in the militaristic sense and in terms of soft power. NATO's expansion eastward does not justify Russia invading Ukraine, but I at least can understand Putin's move through the balance of power theory. Russia will continue to view Ukraine as vital to its national security. Russia is willing to put more skin into the game to neutralize Ukraine than the United States is willing to secure Ukraine. If Russian history has taught us anything, it is that the current Russian regime is willing to subject its people to a lot of suffering to advance its geopolitical status. This is a way of saying that the probability of deterring Russia from its current military actions in Ukraine is next to nil.  
3. Borders have changed as a result of conflict multiple times since WWII. One of the arguments for military intervention is that if we do not stop Russia, Russia will take over all of Europe and it will cause instability on a global level never witnessed. This is nothing more than the slippery slope fallacy in action. We had international borders change through conflict multiple times since 1945. To name a few: Kashmir; Taiwan; Israel's legally just annexation of the West Bank, Golan Heights, and Sinai Peninsula as a result of a defensive war (i.e., the Six-Day War); Sino-Indian border disputes; NATO member Turkey's invasion of Cyprus and establishment of the Turkish republic of North Cyprus; the separation of Kosovo from Serbia; the Indonesian seizures of West New Guinea and East Timor; the separation of East Pakistan by India; the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia; and the Moroccan seizure of the Western Sahara. All of these changes to international borders and we have not destroyed the international system or descended into chaos. There is no plausible explanation to suggest that a hypothetical annexation of Ukraine would be so unique compared to the aforementioned border changes that it would result in an apocalyptic outcome. 
4. Russia is limited in what it can do. Let us assume that Russia is looking to expand territorially in the hopes of reliving its former glory days as Mother Russia. The only other bordering non-NATO nations aside from Ukraine are Moldova, Finland, Georgia, and Belarus. There is only so much territorial expansion that Putin could risk without triggering a full-scale war with NATO members. Even if Russia were to annex Ukraine and a few of these other states, it would most probably not be enough to threaten Western powers or become the superpower it was during the Cold War. But if Russia were to opt for fighting Western powers, its demographics do not suggest that it would prevail. Russia has a declining population, a small GDP relative to the U.S. and European powers, and its military spending cannot outmatch those of Western powers. Russia only has so many resources and it only has so many options it could take before triggering war with more powerful adversaries. 
5. U.S. military intervention could lead to nuclear war. The United States and Russia account for about 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons. Both nations have nuclear triads and secondary-strike capabilities. This nuclear reality points to the doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD). MAD states that two countries with full-scale nuclear capabilities would cause the complete annihilation of both sides. It would be irrational, dare I say mad, to escalate a conflict to that level. MAD helps explain why the United States and former Soviet Union fought proxy wars throughout the Cold War instead of fighting head-on in conventional warfare. As much as Putin is driven by ambition, he also will be disincentivized to escalate the conflict to the point where NATO feels they need to get involved, especially to the level where nuclear weapons are used. Even so, it is not out of the realm of possibility. That possibility of MAD is what is disincentivizing President Biden from getting militarily involved in Ukraine. 
6. U.S. military intervention could lead to non-nuclear escalation. We do not need to go to the extreme of nuclear war to be worried about military escalation. First, Russia is a near-peer adversary that would have geographical advantage in the eastern European theatre and would be better positioned to dominate air, land, and sea space. The United States would need to heavily invest militarily speaking to outflank Russia. Otherwise, the United States is asking for a lot of trouble with little to no return on its military spending. The United States does not need a repeat of Vietnam or Afghanistan. Second, the United States provided $2.5 billion in military aid to Ukraine since 2014, which did not de-escalate the situation. Third, as the Cato Institute brings up, there are other ways that Russia could retaliate. Supporting a guerrilla war to stage a proxy war would intensify Russia's grievance of NATO's expansion, and thereby anger Putin. Russia's escalation could go beyond eastern Europe. Russia could improve its relations with Iran and China, thereby creating more headache for the United States on an international level. Russia could meddle in other countries where there are U.S. troops, such as Syria or Iraq. Russia could even make trouble for the United States by stirring up trouble in Central or South America. There is no shortage of scenarios that could make international relations get out of control if the United States decided to intervene militarily in the Russo-Ukrainian War.  
7. The U.S. is not obligated to promote democracy. A chief obligation of the U.S. government is to protect the American people (see the U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4), not to promote democracy across the world. Even if you were to argue that we need to promote democracy in Eastern Europe, the truth is that there are too many authoritarian regimes out there that would "need saving." We would need intervene in multiple countries, including Iran, Congo, Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam, and China. There is too much authoritarianism in the world and not enough resources to bring democracy to these authoritarian nations. You would have thought we would have learned that lesson when the U.S. military failed to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan, but here we are. 

Postscript

I am not here to defend Russia's actions. Russia is in the wrong both morally and legally. Ukraine is tragically stuck in a dangerous part of Europe with a powerful, abusive neighbor on its eastern border that feels existentially threatened by the increased Westernization and democratization in Ukraine. As much as I hope that the casualties and humanitarian costs in the conflict are at a minimum, there is no rationale based on U.S. interests that would justify the U.S. military fighting in the Russo-Ukrainian War. 

I know it sounds callous to some to say this, but the hard truth is that the U.S. government only has so many resources and it needs to be able to prioritize its alliances. Since World War II, the United States has been too quick to insert itself into faraway conflicts with dubious and unclear national security interests. The United States only recently (and rightfully) got out of Afghanistan. Recent polling from YouGov and Concerned Veterans of America suggests that about a quarter of the U.S. population favors going to war, and more importantly, that 60 percent of veterans are against U.S. military intervention in Ukraine. If Ukraine's sovereignty is that vital for peace on European soil, European allies should do the heavy lifting due to their geographical proximity to Ukraine. In short, I hope that President Biden remains steadfast in militarily staying out of the conflict so we do not make a bad situation worse.

Whoopi Goldberg's Holocaust Remarks: Some of My Thoughts on Anti-Semitism, Race, Cancel Culture, and Forgiveness

Actress Whoopi Goldberg found herself in hot water last week when she made comments that got her suspended from The View for two weeks. What did she say that was so offensive? She said that the Holocaust was not about race. It was not a stutter or a woeful misstep. She repeated it three more times shortly afterwards. Goldberg said that the Holocaust was not about race, but rather about man's inhumanity to man. Someone should have told Hitler. 

It is true that Jews are not strictly a race. Jewish identity is more complicated. I should know. I was not born Jewish. Judaism works a lot like U.S. citizenship. The U.S. Constitution states that you can either be a U.S. citizen by being born as a U.S. citizen (Fourteenth Amendment) or going through the naturalization process (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4). It works similarly with Judaism. Either you are born Jewish because one of your parents (traditionally the mother) is Jewish. Alternatively, you can convert to Judaism. Plus, the idea that Jews can be of any ethnicity, whether it be white, black, Asian, or Latino, should dispel the notion of Judaism being a strictly ethnical concept. 

While Judaism is not about race, the Holocaust was decidedly about race. Hitler's goal was to build a society of the Übermensch. Yes, the Nazi regime ultimately systematically murdered gypsies, homosexuals, the disabled, and political dissidents along with the Jews. At the same time, the group of people that Hitler despised and targeted the most was the Jewish people. The Nazi regime started its racist policies by first and foremost targeting the Jews. It used a pseudoscientific argument to codify in German law the false idea that the Jews were biologically inferior. The Reich Citizenship Law, enacted in 1935, changed the definition of the Jewish people from a religious and cultural community to that of a race that was strictly defined by birth and blood. The Law for Protection of German Blood and German Honor banned marriage between Jewish Germans and non-Jewish Germans. These two laws became the basis of the Nuremberg Laws, which was the beginning of racial antisemitism of the Nazi regime that led to Hitler pursuing his dream of systematically exterminating the Jewish people. Furthermore, it is clear that Whoopi Goldberg did not read the book Maus, the topic being discussed on The View that day which led up to her inflammatory comments, because the epigraph of the book has a despicable quote from Hitler saying, "The Jews are undoubtedly a race, but they are not human." 

What compounded the historical illiteracy of Whoopi Goldberg was that by saying the Holocaust was "about man's inhumanity to man" is that she refused to give Jews any special identity. From her limited perspective, it was just an instance of "white-on-white violence." Goldberg could see nothing unique or different about Jewish identity, or could even perceive Jews as minorities. It is as if she were erasing the centuries of persecution and oppression the Jewish people have endured. As actress Debra Massing pointed out, Whoopi Goldberg has "All Lives Matter[-ed]" the Jewish people. 

One could easily be mad at Whoopi Goldberg. She opened her mouth and stuck her foot right in there with her misunderstanding of the Holocaust and Jew-hatred. On the other hand, she is not alone in her ignorance of the Holocaust. Holocaust education is not what I would call great. Only 19 U.S. states require Holocaust education. In 2020, a 50-state survey of millennial Americans showed that 63 percent did not even know that six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. More disturbingly, 11 percent of millennials and those of Generation Z thought that the Jews caused the Holocaust. A similar lack of Holocaust knowledge came from a U.K.-based survey in 2021.

We have to remember that she is viewing the concept of race from her experience as a 65-year-old African-American woman. From her point of view, racism only happens when black people and other people of color are being oppressed by white people, which sounds a lot like critical race theory (see my criticism of CRT here). She could not fathom that racism could also be one group of white people oppressing another group of predominantly white people that the first group of white people has deemed racially inferior. It is ironic considering that Goldberg essentially used the now-woke Anti-Defamation League's [ADL] previous definition of racism, which was defined as "the marginalization and/or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed hierarchy that privileges white people." The ADL has since changed their definition of racism, but the irony of the ADL's wokeness does not escape me. 

Leaving the politics of something as CRT aside, I can say that it is effortless to view an idea, concept, event, or occurrence strictly through the lens of your experience. However, that is limiting not simply because Goldberg's understanding of race is predated by centuries of Jews existing. It is because the world around us is so much more than what we experience. This is why having diversity, whether that of race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, socioeconomic class, philosophy, or political persuasion, is important. We learn from other experiences and improve our understanding of the world by conversing with those who are different from us. 

With that being said, what should be the fate of Whoopi Goldberg? Should she be fired? It is tricky to know how I feel on this one. In 2013, I was okay if A&E, a private entity, decided to fire Phil Robertson for his offensive remarks about gay people. Part of being free is being accountable for what we say and do. Our actions have consequences, both good and bad. ABC would be in the right to fire Whoopi Goldberg from The View, particularly if Goldberg's remarks were a violation of her contract or if those comments did damage to ABC. 

On the other hand, I highly value free speech. Freedom of speech is one of the redeeming features of American society. She should be free to express herself, much like comedian Dave Chappelle, author J.K. Rowling, podcaster Joe Rogan, or actress Gina Carano should have been before ABC's Disney decided to fire Carano. Plus, we as a society have gone off the rails in recent years regarding what is deemed offensive. The reaction of those who want Whoopi Goldberg fired is part of what makes cancel culture so infuriating. It is easier to go into mob mentality and throw stones at someone who said something offensive than it is to forgive. Yes, Whoopi said something daft. I do not think she said something out of malice because she at least acknowledged how horrible the Holocaust was. I think Goldberg's comments were straight-up ignorance. 

More to the point, Whoopi Goldberg should be educated so she can have an opportunity to learn from her mistake and better understand the nature of anti-Semitism. Too much of our society has become too polarized, too quick to judge those who are not of the same political tribe, and too stuck in echo chambers to reach out to those who disagree. Until we can reverse the trends on political discourse in this nation, we will continue to go in this illiberal, un-American direction.

Johns Hopkins Meta-Analysis Is the Latest In Showing Why Lockdowns Are Ineffective and Horrid

As we approach our third year of this pandemic, I cannot help but shake my head at the decline of discourse and debate when it comes to public health issues. Whether it was masks, vaccines, or school closures, what should have been instances of "science informing public policy" became a nasty mixture of fear and politicization. None was as frustrating for me as watching what happened with the lockdowns, especially given how encompassing and onerous lockdowns are. 

I was hoping that voluntary social distancing would have sufficed and that we would not have to implement lockdowns. As early as mid-March 2020, I expressed concern that if implemented, lockdowns would become a major problem. My fears came true on this one. In spite of the fact that most people were voluntarily doing their own social distancing beforehand, lockdowns became a reality. "Stay home, stay safe" became a mantra early in the pandemic. Politicians decided to implement the lockdowns because "we had to do something to stop COVID, and something was better than nothing." The thinking was that if we isolated healthy individuals and minimized in-person contact with other human beings, we would be able to stop or at least significantly slow down COVID transmission. The decision to implement lockdowns went well beyond violating the logical fallacy of the Politician's Syllogism. There are times where doing something is better than nothing, or in this case, that the something you suggest is worse than what you are trying to prevent. 

While sitting at home while in lockdown in early May of 2020, I was emphatic about removing lockdowns. My issues with lockdowns went well beyond those of freedom. I expressed concerns ranging from societally overreacting to the disease severity of COVID and the damage it was causing the economy and healthcare system to the fact that there was no precedent for isolating healthy individuals at this scale. 

Fortunately, we have moved beyond the lockdowns. We have vaccines that are effective at preventing severe cases of COVID. More people have developed natural immunity against COVID. Our understanding of COVID and our treatment thereof has improved. While I am cautiously optimistic that Omicron is contagious to give enough people natural immunity and help us move beyond the pandemic stage, we are still reeling from the effects of the lockdown. It will take years for us to understand the full effects of the lockdowns. A question we can answer now is whether the lockdowns saved lives. 

Last week, the experts at Johns Hopkins University released a meta-analysis of 24 relevant studies (Herby et al., 2022) examining lockdown stringency index studies, shelter-in-place order [SIPO] studies, and specific non-pharmaceutical intervention [NPI] studies. I want to touch upon the NPI aspect before getting into the lockdowns more specifically. The authors found that there was no evidence that "lockdowns, school closures, border closures, and limiting gatherings have had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality. There is some evidence that business closures reduce COVID-19 mortality, but the variation in estimates is large and the effect seems related to closing bars (p. 39)." 

In terms of lives saved by the lockdowns, the Johns Hopkins study says it depends on the type of study you use. "Specific NPI studies also find no broad-based evidence of noticeable effects on COVID-19 mortality." If you look at SIPO studies, their results for lockdowns were "only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.9% on average." That means the range for the effects on COVID-19 mortality is 0 percent to 2.9 percent. Regardless of which number on the range you select, this comes with the issue of looking at a subset of people instead of looking at the population at large. 

When I conducted my literature review of lockdown evidence in June 2021, I came across a most intriguing study from economists at the University of South California and the Rand Corporation (Agrawal et al., 2021). Those economists found that for each week shelter-in-place orders were in place, there was a 2.7 percent increase in excess deaths. Combining the 2022 Johns Hopkins study with the USC/Rand Corporation study, not only was forcing people to stay at home ineffective in saving lives, but it caused a net increase in death. This is the part where I segue into the main takeaway of the 2022 Johns Hopkins study, which is a far cry from what lockdown lovers would like to hear:

While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.

If only someone had told us beforehand, we could have saved ourselves a lot of grief. This is where I find the lockdown debacle especially infuriating: we were told beforehand. In September 2019, experts at Johns Hopkins said that quarantining the healthy would very well be the least effective NPI (p. 57). Weeks before the pandemic began, the World Health Organization [WHO] stated that isolating the healthy is not recommended "because there is no obvious rationale for this measure, and there would be difficulties in implementing it (WHO, p. 16)." Instead of "following the science" or deigning to conduct a cost-benefit analysis in order to justify such a policy, politicians across the world ignored the science and wreaked havoc on millions of people's lives. To quote the Johns Hopkins study (p. 43):

Lockdowns during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic have had devastating effects. They have contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence, and undermining liberal democracy. These costs to society must be compared to the benefits of lockdowns, which our meta-analysis has shown are marginal at best. Such a standard benefit-cost calculation leads to a strong policy conclusion: lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument. 

The difference between the advice that Johns Hopkins experts gave in 2019 and the study they released last week is that we have a strong evidence base of how ineffective and horrid lockdowns are. I am not delving into the specific costs of the lockdowns mentioned above or attempting to monetize said costs today because that is another conversation for another time. What I can say is the following. While there was bound to be some damage done by the pandemic regardless of response, a lockdown was a way to collectively shoot ourselves in the foot and make the problem worse. Whether they were doing it out of the goodness of their hearts or to consolidate their own power, politicians upended the lives of millions and caused unintended consequences that will impact our lives for years to come. 

I hope the outcomes of the lockdowns make us question whether an emergency should constitute a "we should do something" response. Like with any policy, we should ask whether the policy in question is an improvement over the situation one is trying to prevent. With the lockdowns, we can definitively say that lockdowns provided next to no benefit while devastating life as we know it. Mark Twain once said that history doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes. There will be another pandemic. Let's hope that we learned our lesson from this pandemic and the next pandemic doesn't rhyme with this pandemic by stupidly including a lockdown.