This is an edition of the newsletter Up for Debate by Conor Friedersdorf. On Wednesday, he puts together a timely conversation and solicits readers’ responses to his one thought-provoking question. He has since published some thoughtful answers. Sign up for our newsletter here.
Question of the week
What are your personal experiences with the US (or country where you live) healthcare system, and what are the big lessons you learned from it?
send reply to firstname.lastname@example.org.
When I was about 18, I discovered the Claremont Institute because its headquarters was near my alma mater, Pomona College. I have since learned that its declared mission is to “restore America’s founding principles to their legitimate and preeminent authority in our national life.” As a fan of right to life, freedom, the pursuit of happiness, and Madisonian checks and balances, it seemed like a good thing to me.
A few years later, I briefly worked as an editor and writer for a local government newsletter published by a think tank. divided house crisis, a formidable historical account of the Lincoln-Douglas debate by Claremont’s intellectual ancestor, political philosopher Harry Jaffa. The book explores and morally defends the incompatibility of slavery with the Declaration of Independence.Even today, think tanks did not speak out against Donald Trump, the cynical legal advice given to various Republican presidents by Claremont-related thinkers like John Yu and John Eastman, and Michael Anton. When I am justly criticized for the historical catastrophe of Claremont Review of Books Especially when formidable challenges to the regime aired, such as the best critiques of the executive state and Christopher Caldwell’s writings on foreign policy. I no longer believe that it is not.
I would like the Institute to return to its mission, and an opportunity presented itself to begin restoring it. report About Twitter’s questionable decision to block new york post In an article about Hunter Biden’s laptop, Trump posted an unusual statement.
Anyone associated with the Claremont Institute knows how it would react if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton said the Constitution should be suspended so it could be installed in the White House. there is An organization dedicated to restoring “the founding principles of America to the legitimate and preeminent authority in our national life.” Can an organization stand firm against Trump and defend its stated values?
It’s not there yet. sad.
On UnPopulist, Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, said that even after all of his past sins, Trump’s recent outburst is significant, and it’s also important to banish him because of it. claims.
If Trump remains the dominant figure in the Republican Party, he could potentially normalize the idea of “ending” the Constitution, and many other evils… He is not the only recent president to have attempted to circumvent the restrictions on the I have never called for a complete “termination” of the Constitution, rather than pushing it forward. .
No one has defined unconstitutionality better than Trump.
How can the dangerous normalization of unconstitutionality be forestalled? By ensuring that politicians involved in such actions pay a heavy price. Such people should at least be banished from decent political society and seen as undeserving of power ever again. . The next time an unscrupulous and ambitious politician considers whether it is a good idea to imitate Trump’s actions, he may conclude that it is better not to do so in order to avoid suffering the same fate. Mm. Trump’s defeat in 2020 and the failure of Trumpist election naysayers in several key elections in 2022 were steps in the right direction. But…as long as Trump remains a powerful figure in his one of the major parties and his anti-constitutional ideas remain part of the mainstream Republican Party, the threat of a dangerous spiral of unconstitutionality will persist.
About the American healthcare system
Atlantic published a thought-provoking cover story on the subject in 2009. Mariah Blake’s “Dirty Medicine” the following year is also a worthwhile article. Ronald Dworkin’s essay on the role of the humanities in professional medicine was astonishing. Scott Alexander explains what the doctor spends 80% of his time on.
Convergence of the pandemic
Megan McArdle claims Twitter is right to stop cracking down on its site for COVID-19 misinformation.
I spent the years of the pandemic, often to despair, voicing forcefully against such nonsense. I understand the temptation to simply tell people to shut up and go away instead of trying to steer people away from beliefs that I consider to be insufficiently evidenced and dangerous.
I have succumbed to that temptation many times.
Unfortunately, I now suspect that this may have done more harm than good. For one thing, moderators aren’t very good at determining what constitutes an actual false alarm. Much of the dangerous coronavirus nonsense circulating on social media originated from the same public health experts that social media companies used as mediators. Public health experts were the first to say masks didn’t work, and they knew the claim was false. Without good evidence, it was public health experts who claimed that covid was not airborne. And many public health experts have helped support lengthy school closures that have proven to impair learning… The public health community has finally recognized its most grave mistake. But the phony doubled. But free and open discussion on social media helped the course correction process.
euthanasia in the north
After investigating legalization in Canada, Ross Douthat denounces that country’s approach.
The rules of civilization inevitably include gray areas. In end-of-life care, it is not barbaric for the law to allow difficult choices about when to discontinue life support or how aggressively pain is managed. But it is barbaric to offer death as a credible cure for suffering and to establish a bureaucracy that hires healing specialists to provide this ‘cure’. And while worse evils may be ahead, this is not a slippery slope debate.When 10,000 people are using your euthanasia system each year, you are already entering a dystopia. The idea that human rights encompass the right to self-destruct .. Left alone, they will create a cruel and brave new world, the inhuman final chapter of the liberal narrative.
In contrast, the Canadian courts’ rulings ruled “death by medical assistance for a capable adult seeking such assistance as a result of a serious and irreversible medical condition causing lasting and intolerable suffering.” We overturned the ban. Here’s an excerpt of why.
A right to life is relevant when a law or state action directly or indirectly subjects a person to death or an increased risk of death. Here, the ban takes the life of some individuals. It has the effect of forcing some individuals to prematurely end their lives for fear that they will not be able to do so when their suffering reaches intolerable limits. It also involves the right to individual liberty and security, which addresses concerns about autonomy and quality of life.
An individual’s response to serious and untreatable medical conditions is an important issue for their dignity and autonomy. This ban denies and violates the freedom of people in this situation to make decisions about physical integrity and medical care. And it affects a person’s safety by making them endure excruciating pain. Prohibition of physician assisted dying violates human rights to life, liberty and security in ways that are not in accordance with basic principles of justice. The purpose of the ban, broadly speaking, is not to preserve life no matter what the circumstances, but more specifically to prevent vulnerable people from being induced to commit suicide when weakened. A total ban on assisted suicide clearly serves this purpose, so that individuals are not arbitrarily deprived of their rights. But the ban catches people outside the protected class. Restrictions on their rights are therefore irrelevant, at least in some cases, and prohibitions are too broad.
Taunt of the week
write in harvard crimsonBrooks B. Anderson, Class of 2025, Tells Admins the Truth.
Harvard is one of the world’s leading universities. Indeed, we invested our accumulated billions of dollars primarily in our educational programs, building an unrivaled roster of top professors, expanding student offerings, and reducing class sizes. right? Wrong. Instead, Harvard filled its halls with administrators. Across the university, there are approximately 1.45 administrators for every faculty member. Considering faculty alone, this ratio jumps to her 3.09. Harvard employs her 7,024 full-time administrators, slightly fewer than undergraduates.
what do they all do?
Most administrators have legitimate capabilities. I am happy to admit that a university needs management to operate effectively. The professor doesn’t want to deal with Title IX compliance or send agency-wide emails about Covid-19 protocols. But among the 7,000-strong horde, the primary purpose of many members is tax-exempt funding for academic work on initiatives, projects, and committees that offer little value to anyone’s educational experience. It seems to be a waste of money.
For example, last December, all liberal arts officials received an email from Dean Claudine Gay announcing the final report of the FAS Task Force on Visual Culture and Signs. belong to. This task force consisted of 24 members. There are 6 students, 9 faculty members, and 9 administrators. The task force produced her 26-page report, divided into seven sections, based on research, focus groups, and 15 individual meetings totaling over 500 people. The report was devoted to seven pages of recommendations ranging from ‘Clarifying the agency’s authority over visual culture and signage at FAS’ to ‘Creating a dynamic program for public art at FAS’. In response to these recommendations, Dean Gay announced the creation of a new administrative post, ‘FAS Campus Her Curator’ and a new committee ‘Her FAS Permanent Committee on Visual Culture and Signage’. Regardless of your stance on the goal of fostering a more inclusive visual culture, the absurdity of the procedure is clear. The president’s task force led to the creation of his FAS task force, and after devoting considerable time, effort, and resources, one administrative office and committee of nearly the same name was created as his second task force. it was done. I ask anyone not a member of the task force to identify the value that one Harvard student’s educational experience creates.
That’s it for this week. see you on monday.