Dear Weekend Jolter,
Mike Watson of the Hudson Institute described in one of NR’s December cover stories how the post–Cold War West had “built and inhabited an elaborate fantasy,” one in which the collapse of the Soviet Union brought peace to the realm at last, and all that remained was a bit of clean-up of “the nasty old world of conflict and chaos.”
Not every member of the Western foreign-policy elite shared each aspect of this dream, but enough of them picked up enough parts of the story to push the United States and its allies into hubris and overreach. Like the Pompeiians in search of fertile soil, they forgot the wisdom of their ancestors, ignored the dangers, and moved steadily closer to the mouth of Vesuvius.
Now, the rumblings from the caldera are shaking the foundations of this fantasy world.
The deadly, Iran-linked drone attack on American forces in Jordan last weekend is another sign of the eruption that is either coming or already under way, adding to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, China’s Taiwan rumblings, Hamas’s slaughter of Israelis and the resulting war, and Houthi attacks on Red Sea vessels. The strike increases the potential for an expanding confrontation in the Middle East, one the Biden administration so clearly wishes to avoid but, paradoxically, might be unable to if it wishes to contain it.
On Friday, the U.S. began what is likely to be a campaign of retaliatory strikes for the killing of three Americans and wounding of 40 others — hitting dozens of sites in Iraq and Syria including “command and control operations centers, intelligence centers,” and more. The military response is likely to be carried out in stages; according to the Wall Street Journal, the administration wants to retaliate in such a way that deters further attacks on U.S. forces, short of entering a new war in the Middle East (Jim Geraghty provides a menu of options here). At the same time, the White House has stressed, “We do not seek to escalate.”
The last 20 years of U.S. engagement in what was once the cradle of civilization — now its tormentor — no doubt inform their hesitation. But Noah Rothman argues that Biden is “obliged to respond dramatically” here and that, in doing so, he would not be starting a war; rather, he would be “reimposing sobriety” on an enemy that’s been waging “an unreciprocated war against the U.S. and its allies for months.” As is tragically evident, the administration’s warnings and military reactions so far have not deterred our adversaries and those eager to join their ranks. And as Jim notes, expectations of a “proportionate” reply will continue to allow those adversaries to determine the force of the counterpunch — until such time as those expectations are challenged.
Time will tell whether the ongoing strikes achieve this with respect to Iran and the forces it controls. NR’s editorial predicts that “this wave of violence will not stop until the costs of Iran’s campaign of aggression become unendurable.” The military response to the Yemeni Houthis provides another example of how the current approach has not, to this point, deterred those actors exploiting what they see as an opportunity. The Houthis continue to strike Western naval assets and commercial vessels, as our editorial notes, while Iranian proxy groups hit U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria. The Houthis boasted Wednesday of firing more missiles at a U.S. warship, and vowed to keep doing so; one Houthi missile reportedly came closer than ever to hitting its American target.
Andrew McCarthy aims to reset the conversation around “proportionality”:
For about the millionth time, the law-of-war concept of proportionality does not hold that a response to an attack has to be on the same scale as the attack itself. . . .
The driving question in a proportionality calculation is: What is the military objective? If that objective is legitimate (which, under the United States Constitution, we get to decide for ourselves), then the use of force must be reasonably proportionate to what is required to achieve the objective. If the objective is to end or drastically diminish the aggression of Iran and its proxy forces, then a proportionate use of force would be whatever is necessary to break the enemy’s will to continue (and even escalate) that aggression.
Arguing against an interminable tit-for-tat, he concludes: “The point of a response is not to even the score. It is to end the contest.”
The caldera will either be capped or hurl its terrible contents. Jay Nordlinger, zooming out on the globe, highlights recent remarks from Admiral Rob Bauer, chairman of the NATO Military Committee, primarily addressing the threat from Russia and the pressure being put on “the rules-based international order.” As “the tectonic plates of power” shift, Bauer warned, “we face the most dangerous world in decades.” A menacing cartel of rogue states and their proxies appear determined to prove him right.
NAME. RANK. LINK.
EDITORIALS
The Iran editorial, once more, is here: Iran Must Pay
Speaking of disproportionate: End the FACE Act Farce
On D.C.’s feeble response to rampant violence: The Deadly Capital Crime Wave
Time to clean, then close, house: End UNRWA
This policy change makes no sense: Biden’s Destructive Decision to Stymie Natural Gas
ARTICLES
Brittany Bernstein & Audrey Fahlberg: Biden’s Black-Voter Problem
Noah Rothman: Put an End to the U.N.
Noah Rothman: The Gas Stove Debate’s Losers Take a Victory Lap
Charles C. W. Cooke: The ‘Taylor Swift Psyop’ Freaks Need to Go Outside
Dan McLaughlin: Why the Taylor Swift Moment Is Happening Now
John Fund: Can All of D.C.’s Money Keep the EV Humpty-Dumpty Together?
Wilfred Reilly: The ‘Intersectionality’ Canard
Michael Brendan Dougherty: Our Indefensible Mideast Military Outposts
Will Swaim: Biden Takes a Destructive California Idea National
Caroline Downey: Harvard Alums Run Outsider Campaign to Overhaul Presidential Selection Process, Eliminate DEI
Caroline Downey: USA Climbing Backs Down after Trans Activists Object to Testosterone Limits for Males Competing against Females
Yuval Levin: Nostalgia Isn’t What It Used to Be
Rich Lowry: Greg Abbott Schools the Biden Administration
Jay Nordlinger: Corresponding from Ukraine
Henry Olsen: A Longtime Advantage Has Vanished for the Democrats
David Zimmermann: Government Overreach during Covid Contributed to ‘Pandemic Chaos,’ Scathing Report Finds
CAPITAL MATTERS
Dominic Pino illustrates how the U.S. has overcorrected since President Eisenhower warned about the “military-industrial complex”: What People Miss in Eisenhower’s Farewell Address
LIGHTS. CAMERA. REVIEW.
The latest installment of Armond White’s Reading Right column looks at entertainment-media’s obsession with identity: Oscar-Season Hype: Trade Media Go Plastic
Brian Allen explains for us laypeople the importance of acquisitions for museum curators, with Texas purchases as an entry point: What’s Texas Buying? A Primer on What Museums Acquire
YOUR WEEKLY DOSE OF EXCERPTS
Brittany Bernstein and Audrey Fahlberg, writing for our Horse Race newsletter (which you should subscribe to if you don’t), break down Biden’s troubles with black voters:
President Biden appears to be in serious trouble with black voters ahead of the 2024 election, and black lawmakers and organizers are starting to panic.
“What I’m hearing in my district is how ‘Bidenomics’ hasn’t really hit them in the pocket,” New York representative Jamaal Bowman told National Review earlier this week on the steps of the U.S. Capitol. “I need him in the barbershops. I need him on the basketball courts. I need him talking to the hip-hop community. I need him talking to the sports and athletics community to really get at what is troubling black men.”
Polling suggests Bowman is right to be concerned. Just 50 percent of black adults said they approve of Biden in a national AP-NORC poll last month — a 36-point drop from July 2021. An October Siena College/New York Times poll found that 22 percent of black voters surveyed in six competitive presidential battlegrounds say they will vote for Trump over Biden in 2024, a stunning polling shift from a reliably Democratic coalition that helped Biden win the White House in 2020. That same survey found Trump’s numbers were even higher among black men.
In the 40 years he’s spent in political activism, National Black Farmers Association president John Boyd Jr. says the Biden administration has done worse than any other administration in his lifetime in opening its doors to black voters. That lack of outreach, Boyd warns, may come back to bite him in November.
“I’m at the head of this movement here and there hasn’t been a meeting, and I’ve been requesting a meeting for two years,” said Boyd, whose organization has 130,000 members. “In fact, the last time I spoke to him, the president was the one who said we were going to meet to see what he can do. And then, crickets.”
Earlier this month, the White House got a wake-up call from former House whip Jim Clyburn, a black Democrat from South Carolina who is widely credited with helping Biden win his state’s Democratic primary in 2020. “I’m very concerned” about black voters showing up at the polls for Biden in 2024, Clyburn told CNN in early January, adding that he has sat down with the president to lay out his concerns. “This president is keeping his promises,” Clyburn said, but “people keep focusing on the one or two things he did not get accomplished.” . . .
To flip the script ahead of November, the immediate challenge for Biden is to make the case that another Trump administration will make black voters worse off than they are now, says [David] Axelrod, the former Obama adviser.
“There is an accumulated sense of abandonment that is at play here,” Axelrod says. “I think Trump is trying to create a sort of multiethnic, multiracial, working class, populist movement, and it is attractive to some of these particularly younger, black men who don’t feel like they’ve benefited to the degree they thought they would, or they were told they would.”
The U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East faces an existential scandal of its own making. From NR’s editorial:
The recent allegations, based on Israeli intelligence, that have led to the current situation are as follows: Twelve of its employees took part in the October 7 attack, with two of them directly participating in the slaughter at the kibbutzim in Israel’s south; some 190 UNRWA employees are operatives of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, another terror group in Gaza; and approximately 1,200 UNRWA employees of the 12,000 in Gaza are otherwise linked to Hamas.
Put simply, U.N. employees participated in a horrific terrorist attack. Many of their colleagues are terrorists, too.
It’s arguably the biggest scandal in the U.N.’s history, or at least very close to the top of the list. . . .
In the short term, Congress needs to pass a blanket prohibition on the use of U.S. funds for any of UNRWA’s operations. It must do this to preempt any future decision to lift the temporary suspension of funding and to set the stage for UNRWA’s eventual elimination.
UNRWA’s supporters say that cutting the agency out of the picture would leave a gap in humanitarian aid for Gaza. They ignore that much of the assistance entering Gaza is likely snatched by Hamas anyway. Most important, to continue funding UNRWA would maintain America’s de facto culpability in financing terrorism. Other U.N. agencies with a better track record, such as the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees and the U.S.-dominated World Food Program, should step in, and America should help them build the capability to do so.
Caroline Downey follows up on the Claudine Gay controversy, reporting on efforts at reform from the outside:
Since the recent resignation of former Harvard president Claudine Gay, following scandals of campus antisemitism and plagiarism in her past scholarship, prominent alumni have demanded reform.
Harvard University’s chief DEI officer, Sherri Ann Charleston, was also recently accused of plagiarizing 40 times in her academic work, such as her dissertation and a journal article, using other scholars’ writing without proper attribution, according to a Monday complaint obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
The “Renew Harvard” four want Harvard to revive the commitment to academic excellence that made it famous the world over.
But to effect change, you need to infiltrate Harvard’s fortified bureaucracy, where diversity, equity, and inclusion still reigns, despite Gay’s departure.
Cue: the “Renew Harvard” slate. Four Harvard graduates dedicated to restoring the university’s commitment to open debate are running for seats on Harvard’s Board of Overseers, the school’s second most powerful governing body, which sits under the Harvard Corporation. The board of overseers acts as a check on the smaller Harvard Corporation and, crucially, has a role in confirming the individual selected to succeed Gay as president of the university. Certain members of the board will likely serve on the presidential search committee, the Harvard Crimson reported.
“The previous selection process was conducted in record time,” [Julia] Pollak said of Gay’s selection. “It appears, though, the important questions were not asked. This time around, we will be asking all the uncomfortable questions. Is this the most qualified candidate? Is this candidate’s publication record high quality enough?”
Though it has minimal formal powers, the board has major responsibilities and the ability to impact the academic direction of the university.
ICYMI, Rich Lowry explains here how Texas governor Greg Abbott has played a huge role in changing the conversation about the border:
It is, of course, beyond Abbott’s power to secure the border in the teeth of a determined federal policy of nonenforcement. Still, he’s used the instruments available to him to force sanctuary-city mayors to confront the consequences of their own professed beliefs on immigration and to bait the Biden administration into making its perverse priorities at the border unmistakable.
Abbott has done this with relatively small-scale initiatives that have packed a big PR and political punch. . . .
By sending a small proportion of migrants where they’d probably go anyway, Abbott has achieved a couple of things.
He’s made it easier for sanctuary-city mayors to complain about the migrants, by making himself the scapegoat. They’d presumably be much more inclined to bite their tongues if they had to point the finger at the president rather than the Texas governor. That the mayors are bemoaning the situation at all adds bipartisan credibility to the idea that this is a crisis, and they obviously undermine the concept of a sanctuary city itself by begging for fewer illegal immigrants to come to their jurisdictions.
The growing confrontation with the federal government over border security features a similar dynamic of a minor action bringing an outsized political benefit. The dispute centers on a 47-acre park in Eagle Pass, Texas. Whether Texas is allowed to string barbed wire along this land or whether the federal government takes it down is not of great moment one way or another in the broader border crisis.
Yet, Abbott has managed to get the federal government in the position of actually removing physical barriers to illegal immigration at the border and insisting that it is imperative that it be permitted to continue doing so. This alone is a PR debacle for the administration, but it comes in a controversy — with its fraught legal and constitutional implications — that will garner massive attention out of proportion to its practical importance.
Shout-Outs
Matti Friedman, at the Free Press: What If the Real War in Israel Hasn’t Even Started?
Caitlin Moscatello, at New York: Inventing the Perfect College Applicant
Micaiah Bilger, at the College Fix: Cornell has 1 administrator for every 2 undergrads, analysis finds
CODA
Okay, I give in.