The View from Right Field

Vaccine Equity

It’s interesting how ideas bounce around the world.  Back in February and March, the stories in the United States were about how hard it was to get the vaccine and whether shots were being distributed “equitably”.  There were complaints that minority communities were not getting their fair share of vaccines and that whites were getting shots that “belonged” to minorities.

Much the same thing happened earlier this month in New Zealand.  David Seymour, the head of ACT New Zealand, a right/libertarian party, got in trouble for publishing a “Priority Access Code for Maori” for Covid vaccinations.  But as Mr. Seymour explained, his publishing of the code had no practical effect.  The code wasn’t private; other people knew it; and the people giving the shots were vaccinating anybody who showed up anyway.  Plus, New Zealand has had fewer than 2,000 cases of Covid and just two deaths since January 1, so it really doesn’t matter the exact order in which people get shots.  The key is getting them vaccinated.

The Diversity We Are Missing Today

In of his new book, Three Days at Camp David: How a Secret Meeting in 1971 Transformed the Global Economy, Jeffrey Garton writes about the meetings at Camp David on August 13 to 15, 1971, when Richard Nixon and small group of advisers¹ broke the link between gold and the US dollar (i.e., “closing the gold window”), instituted wage-and-price controls, and more.²  In describing the meeting Mr. Garton emphasizes there was a real diversity among those present.  It was not, course, a diversity of race or sex.  They were all white men.  (It was, after all, 1971.)  But there was a diversity of viewpoints.  Coming into the meeting, some opposed wage-and-price controls (President Nixon had always opposed them because of his experience in the Office of Price Administration in 1942); some were okay with them.  Some thought we needed to close the gold window immediately; others wanted to do the rest of the program and then wait and see.  The investment tax credit, which had recently been repealed, was to be reinstated.  The key was that a number of people with different viewpoints met, talked, and in a weekend came up with a set of policies to change the world economic system.³

Teaching American History in an Age of Woke-ism*

The Wall Street Journal recently had a review of a new book about Berlin after World War II – and especially the Airlift.¹  It looks fascinating.  I have read other books about the Airlift and have been to Berlin to see the sights of it – more than once.  It is a great story: How we turned a former enemy into an enduring friend, while defending freedom in the heart of Europe.² 

But I wonder how the Airlift is taught in school today.  Well, it probably isn’t.  But I wonder how it would be taught, if it was.  Would it be taught as a triumph of American policy and determination.  As a success story in the early days of the Cold War.  Something for Americans to be proud of.

Covid-19, Vaccines, and Systemic Racism

An article in The Washington Post notes the difficulty Washington, D.C., is having in getting younger Blacks vaccinated.  According to the article, young Blacks worry about side effects from the vaccine.  Also, some “are wary of the medical establishment" or don’t think they will get a severe case.

In addition, according to Ankoor Shah, the head of the city’s vaccine program:

“The solution is not only some program or initiative.  I think these are systematic and systemic and historical, structural problems that have happened for hundreds of years.  Institutional and structural racism that’s embedded through all parts of our society is making itself known.”

If that’s true, then it’s hopeless.  It’s already too late for this pandemic and maybe the next one, too.  I don’t know what the solution is.

Why Plessy v. Ferguson – and What Might Have Been

Earlier this month was the 125th anniversary of the decision in Plessy v. Ferguson.  The New York Times had an op-ed by Peter Canellos on the only justice to dissent in Plessy: Justice John Marshall Harlan.¹

In his article, Mr. Canellos said this of the Supreme Court’s decision in Plessy:

“The Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson … is duly remembered as one of the great abominations in legal history.  By endorsing the notorious separate-but-equal doctrine, it consigned most African Americans to a state of rank oppression.  In the space of no more than 5,000 words, it violated the plain language of the Constitution, engaged in expansive racist dissembling and defied the outcome of the Civil War.”

Communist. Fascist. Racist. What’s Next?

From what I read in the newspaper and hear on the radio, apparently I am a racist because I am not in favor of changing the name of Lake Shore Drive to Jean Baptiste Point DuSable Drive.¹  The fact that “Lake Shore Drive” is a classic Chicago street name, known pretty much around the world, right up there with “State Street, that great street,” and “Michigan Drive, the Magnificent Mile,” doesn’t matter.  Jean Baptiste Point DuSable was a Black Haitian and not wanting to name Lake Shore Drive after him is racist.²  It’s sort of like Humpty Dumpty:

“‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master – that's all.’”

Are Joe Biden’s Problems Greater Than Franklin Roosevelt’s?

In Monday’s Financial Times, Rana Foroohar, in defending Joe Biden’s tightening of “Buy American” rules for federal government purchasing, said “the political challenges facing the Biden administration … are arguably greater than Franklin Roosevelt faced in the 1930s.”¹

While I understand President Biden faces challenges, to compare today’s problems with the 1930s is to not appreciate the situation then.  The unemployment rate in 1933 was 24.9%.  With no nationwide unemployment insurance system, no job meant no money.  When thousands of banks failed in 1933, people’s money was gone because there was no national deposit insurance scheme.  While these might be called economic problems (as opposed to political problems), if they were not dealt with to at least some extent, they would have resulted in real political problems.

Do Uighur Lives Matter? – Part Two: Do We Care?

In an earlier post I talked about why I thought saying “Uighur Lives Matter” could be problematic.  But beyond that, I don’t think “Uighurs Lives Matter” would carry the day in the United States, even if saying it wasn’t problematic.  Let me mention a couple of reasons.  First, a number of Americans just don’t care about what is going on elsewhere in the world.  It is part of their America First approach.  They feel we need to make economic deals with China.  We have to take care of ourselves; we can’t worry about the Uighurs.  This is certainly what former National Security Adviser John Bolton says that President Trump told President Xi Jinping. 

Second, lots of individual Americans and American companies are intimidated by China.  They see over a billion Chinese and decide sales and profits are more important than principles and doing what is right.

Do Uighur Lives Matter?

Black Lives Matter has swept the United States.  It is on tee shirts and signs outside churches.  It is painted on city streets and basketball floors.  Along with the pandemic, it is the thing most associated with 2020. 

My question is: What about “Uighur Lives Matter”?  The Chinese have been cracking down on the Uighurs for years.  The repression has gotten worse since President Xi Jinping took office.  Uighurs are labeled terrorists, and police are everywhere.  Reports are that over a million Uighurs are in forced labor camps, which the Chinese call re-education or training centers.¹

Who Gets to Decides the Chicago Police Department’s “Use of Force” Policy?

Who runs local government?  The voters and their elected officials – or somebody else?  That is the question that came to mind when I saw this article in last Saturday’s Chicago Tribune (here are the first four paragraphs):

“The union that represents rank-and-file Chicago police officers has filed a complaint with the Illinois Labor Relations Board alleging the Police Department violated its collective bargaining agreement by implementing changes to its use-of-force policy without union approval.

In its petition, the Fraternal Order of Police said this marks the latest in a pattern by city officials to make changes to Police Department policies on their own without negotiating them through the collective bargaining process.  The two sides are in the midst of contract negotiations.