I have some problems with Julie Sunderland’s determination at Project Syndicate that we are overreacting to the coronavirus outbreak in China:

Every few years, humanity succumbs to mass hysteria at the prospect of a global pandemic. In this century alone, SARS, H1N1, Ebola, MERS, Zika, and now the coronavirus have all generated reactions that, in retrospect, seem disproportionate to the actual impact of the disease. The 2002-03 SARS outbreak in China (also a coronavirus, likely transmitted from bat to human) infected 8,000 people and caused fewer than 800 deaths. Nonetheless, it resulted in an estimated $40 billion in lost economic activity, owing to closed borders, travel stoppages, business disruptions, and emergency health-care costs.

Such reactions are understandable. The prospect of an infectious disease killing our children triggers ancient survival instincts. And modern medicine and health systems have created the illusion that we have complete biological control over our collective fate, even though the interconnectedness of the modern world has actually accelerated the rate at which new pathogens emerge and spread. And there are good reasons to fear new infectious diseases: the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) estimates that a highly contagious, lethal, airborne pathogen similar to the 1918 Spanish flu could kill nearly 33 million people worldwide in just six months.

Nonetheless, the fearmongering and draconian responses to each outbreak are unproductive.

She wants to

1. Increase presumably public investment in “science and technology”
2. Reinstate the National Security Council’s unit for coordinating responses to pandemics
3. Have a “coordinated global response”.

Let’s start with the last one first. If she wants a coordinated global response, she’s addressing the wrong audience. The article should be in Chinese. How is such a response possible when the country in which the pandemic if it is one originated and in which there are several orders of magnitude more people with the disease and more mortality refuses to allow external observers to come to their own assessment of the scale of the risk? Giving those who believe in world government the benefit of the doubt, I think their intentions are good. However, if there is one thing we should have realized over the last 30 years it is that there is no global consensus either about means or ends, there are very few common values. Without some sort of consensus about values world government is unworkable.

I have no opinion about the NSC’s unit for coordinating responses to pandemics. I can’t make a determination as to whether it was a titanic boondoggle and waste of money or a vital contingency factor. It was probably some of both.

As to the first the federal government alone spends over $1 trillion per year annually on health care with the states spending nearly as much. Health care reached the point of diminishing marginal returns to incremental spending decades ago. Every penny of that is spending on “science and technology”. Presumably, that’s not what she means.

However, if she means research, the same argument applies. The numbers are just smaller. There is at this point essentially zero evidence that more spending on medical research will produce more results faster. It might or it might not. What I will predict is that the biggest effect of a lot more research spending all at once will mostly be giving raises to researchers without producing more results faster. The supply of researchers with the appropriate knowledge, background, and credentials just isn’t that elastic. Substantially increasing medical research in a productive manner will require a gradual effort taking place over many years.

There’s something else she doesn’t seem to understand. The money to spend more, as she appears to want to do, must come from somewhere. What is it that she doesn’t want to do that we are presently doing?

There are really only a handful of candidates. We can spend less on pensions, we can spend less on health care, or we can spend less on our military. Our military is already underfunded relative to the tasks we’re asking it to perform. What missions does she think should end?

Finally, I don’t know how one can determine whether we are overreacting to the outbreak in China, responding exactly as we should, or drastically underreacting. I think something depends on what’s actually happening in China and the truth is we just don’t know. I think it matters whether there have been 1,000 fatalities in China or 50,000. It might be that we are overreacting to the facts as we understand them but drastically underreacting relative to the risk. We just don’t know.

I was somewhat disappointed by George Friedman’s analysis at Geopolitical Futures of the geopolitical implications of the coronavirus outbreak in China. On the one hand, he’s prudent to point out that the last few years have been sort of a perfect storm for China. There have been a significant number of events that did have geopolitical significance happening in rapid succession: their handling of the Uighurs in Xinjiang province, Trump’s trade war, and political unrest in Hong Kong. I would add to those President Xi’s consolidation of power in his own hands. If American and European analysts do not consider that of geopolitical significance, I can only speculate that they have short memories.

Unfortunately, I think he cops out on the coronavirus outbreak:

Now, to the coronavirus. Assume that the fears that are being expressed do not turn out to be exaggerated. Assume that in response to this, massive trade restrictions and embargoes were imposed on China and that freighters were not permitted to dock in Long Beach or Rotterdam, nor would they be permitted in Shanghai. With the Russians already screening China’s northern border, China would be isolated.

China is a nation whose core dynamic is based on international trade. Under pressure from the United States, a dangerous virus would inevitably cripple that trade at best. At this point, the Chinese government, like any government, would be blamed for what went wrong, and it would be blamed for mismanaging the virus and failing to understand the economic consequences. From here you can play out the game.

The reason for this exercise is to point out that the coronavirus is neither a geopolitical nor a political event. Diseases emerge with some frequency. But given the Chinese dynamic and China’s current condition, the virus could readily evolve into a geopolitical and political event, in which tension within China might explode, with the coronavirus the last straw and China’s international position transformed.

To emphasize, I have no idea what “2019-nCoV” is or what it will do, but judging from what is being said about it and the level of anxiety, I will assume for the sake of argument that it is more dangerous than not. Then, given the evolution of the past year or two, and given the fear that always follows new, deadly diseases, we could see a fundamental transformation of the international system.

Not all events are geopolitical. They do not arise out of relations between nations. But events that are unconnected to geopolitics can connect themselves to the system and disrupt it. This is meant as an exercise in geopolitical theory. It is not insignificant in the case of China, which has had a difficult period and doesn’t need to be quarantined by the world.

To the contrary, I think the coronavirus outbreak is already of geopolitical significance and that is entirely a creation of the Chinese authorities. Had they been more forthcoming than they have been and opened up to outside observers that might have been avoided. The only questions now are whether its effects will be persistent and precisely the form they will take. Those remain to be seen.

in her Wall Street Journal column Kimberley Strassel describes the internecine warfare being waged within the Democratic Party:

That there are two, extremely polarized sides is also the one clear takeaway from the Iowa muddle. While the Sanders and Pete Buttigieg campaigns argue over how many state-delegate equivalents can dance on the head of a pin, the bigger point is that they ended the final vote with near equal numbers. Overall, the two candidates unapologetically pushing Medicare for All (Bernie and Elizabeth Warren) took 47% of the final vote, while the three more “moderate” contenders (Mr. Buttigieg, Joe Biden and Amy Klobuchar) took 51%.

The chasm in the party has been on display particularly under Speaker Pelosi’s leadership. It brewed in the bitter spring fights over which wing got its way on how to sanction Rep. Ilhan Omar for anti-Semitic comments; which wing spoke for the party on climate and health care; which wing set its antigun agenda. And most consequentially, which wing won the day on impeachment. Mrs. Pelosi ultimately gave in to threats against her speakership and allowed her firebrands to serve as the face of the party in a weak and doomed impeachment proceeding.

The present circumstances, with one half of the Democratic Party seeking to purge the party of its history, oust the other half of the party who won’t support their ideological program, and rebuild the party in their own image on the skeletal remains of the party of Jefferson, Jackson, Wilson, Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Clinton who will become un-persons. That explains the panic expressed by Hillary Clinton, Rahm Emanuel, and James Carville among others. They’s concerned they’re about to become oustees.

In his Wall Street Journal column Daniel Henninger suggests that the Democrats in general and Nancy Pelosi in particular have been producing a great trilogy of movies, based on Star Wars:

The first episode was “The Russian Collusion Narrative” in which “Trump” conspires with the head of the Russian Empire to destroy American democracy. The second installment, taking up where the Mueller cliffhanger left us, was “Obstruction of Justice,” which after the “Collusion” blockbuster had a strikingly short run.

Then came the “Trump” trilogy’s final installment: “Impeachment,” with headliners Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler. The box office for “Impeachment” was awful, and it ended up getting 52 thumbs down in the U.S. Senate.

Like a Hollywood studio over-invested in sequels, the Democratic Party has bet the ranch and its chances of winning the presidency on the American people concluding from this saturation that they are in the grip of “Trump.” And that’s not going to change.

I agree with Scott Adams’s claim that Trump supporters and Trump haters are playing different movies in their heads. What movie are Trump supporters playing?

Contrary to my normal practice, I listened with at least half an ear to the Democratic candidates’ debate last night. I am away profoundly discouraged.

The question that got my dander up was about the assassination of Soleimani. After listening to mealy-mouthed answer after mealy-mouthed answer, I blurted out angrily, “They’re a bunch of consequentialists and I’m a deontologist!” My wife, puzzled, asked “What does that mean?” “It means I think you don’t murder people because it’s wrong.”

We are not at war with Iran. Iran has been provoking us for years. Some think that we have been provoking them for years, too. I think that is greatly exaggerated and the belief is largely the result of Soviet propaganda. Before we go to war with Iran we should declare war. If we are at war we should destroy their command and control facilities, not pursue and murder individual generals or leaders.

When you’re not at war, seeking out and killing someone is murder. Murder is wrong. You don’t sit around and argue whether murdering someone would be good for Middle East peace. You don’t do it because it’s wrong. It would be wrong for me. It was wrong for Trump. It would be wrong for Biden. It would be wrong for Buttigieg or Amy Klobuchar or Elizabeth Warren. It’s wrong.

In my opinon consequentialists, people who believe that the morality of actions can only be judged based on their consequences, cannot be trusted with power. Under the right circumstances they would murder me, you, your family, or their own families. Everything depends on the consequences including the political consequences.

I also don’t think that we can survive as a nation or as a society with such beliefs.

Presumably, all of the above disqualifies me from being president, for which I thank God.

I wanted to remark on Peggy Noonan’s latest Wall Street Journal column. She opens with an interesting observation. Although their presidencies were separated by 20 years, John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan were contemporaries:

Democrats, when they’re feeling alarmed or mischievous, will often say that Ronald Reagan would not recognize the current Republican Party. I usually respond that John F. Kennedy would not recognize the current Democratic Party, and would never succeed in it.

Both men represented different political eras but it’s forgotten that they were contemporaries, of the same generation, Reagan born in 1911 and JFK in 1917. They grew up in the same America in different circumstances, one rich, one poor, but with a shared national culture. By the 1950s, when JFK was established in the political system and Reagan readying to enter it, bodacious America had settled into its own dignity. It had a role in the world and needed to act the part. Both men valued certain public behaviors and the maintenance of a public face. It involved composure, coolness, a certain elegance and self-mastery. They felt they had to show competence and professionalism. They knew they were passing through history at an elevated level, and part of their job was to hold high its ways and traditions.

Their way is gone, maybe forever.

Despite the difference in their upbringing, the years in which they were born is just the tip of the iceberg of the common experiences they shared. Both had lived through the Depression and World War II. Both had experienced military service. IMO the degree to which the common experience of military service shaped America over a period of 30 or more years goes unappreciated.

There is nothing like that now. For a while, in the days of three major networks, television provided such a commonality of experience. That’s gone now. I don’t think there is any replacement for it. We are fated to become increasingly divided.

She continues

Democrats blame this on Donald Trump, and in the area of historical consciousness he is, truly, a hopeless cause. But this week Democrats joined him in the pit.

Do they understand what a disaster this was for them? If Mr. Trump wins re-election, if in fact it isn’t close, it will be traceable to this first week in February.

Iowa made them look the one way a great party cannot afford to look: unserious. The lack of professionalism, the incompetence is the kind of thing that not only shocks a party but shadows it. They can’t run a tiny caucus in a tiny state but they want us to believe they can reinvent American health care? Monday night when the returns were supposed to be coming in, it was like the debut of ObamaCare when the website went down.

Let’s digress into the subject of professionalism for a moment. My definition of professionalism is that a profession is a learned craft that subscribes to a common, written code of ethics and operates for the public good. Professions limit their own membership. Physicians and lawyers at least used to be professionals. Now I’m not so sure.

Politics is not a profession, never has been, and never will be. The very idea is outlandish. And software development is no profession, either. If it were 99.9% of its present practitioners would never make the cut.

The only sense in which either of those is a profession is in the much narrower sense that they take money for what they do. If that’s your standard prostitutes, prize fighters, and hucksters hawking spoonbean on a street corner are professionals, too. I don’t think that’s what she means.

Onwards:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi shattered tradition, making faces, muttering, shaking her head as the president delivered his State of the Union address. At the end she famously stood, tore the speech up and threw down the pieces.

“But he didn’t shake her hand.” So what? Her great calling card is she’s the sane one.

She introduced him rudely, without the usual encomiums. Oh, snap.

The classy lady was not classy. She forgot she has a higher responsibility than to her base, but—yes, how corny—to her country, the institution, the young who are watching and just getting a sense of how to behave in the world.

If she was compelled to show symbolic fealty to the “resistance” she should have taken it outside the chamber. That place is where Daniel Webster debated; she occupies the chair of Henry Clay and “Mr. Sam.”

And she set a template: Now in the future all House Speakers who face presidents from the opposing party at the State of the Union will have to be rude fools.

It’s actually somewhat worse than that. When the president delivers his SOTU speech he does so as the invited guest of Congress. Speaker Pelosi should have withdrawn her invitation. Inviting a guest only to publicly demonstrate you despise him is a breach of a sacred trust.

I think that Ms. Noonan is right about at least one thing. The events of this week will have repercussions that will redound for years. We have yet to know how that will be.

I have been seeing a number of articles recently that talk about “the final Iowa results”. We will never know the actual results of the Iowa primary. Let me explain why.

Anyone who has ever seen the inner workings of an election knows that there is no such thing as an error-free election. I don’t know what the typical margins of errors in elections are but I would assume something from .25% to 5%. If the margin of victory is smaller than the margin of error, the “true” result cannot be determined.

Let’s look at some examples. In the 1960 presidential election Kennedy and Nixon were only separated by .17% of the total votes cast. Assume a margin of error of .5%, quite small. It would be quite likely that every time a recount was done, it would get a different result. That is why when, a few days after the election, Richard Nixon announced he would not seek a recount, it was the statesmanlike thing to do. Kennedy’s electoral vote total was such that it really didn’t matter if Nixon had, indeed, won the popular vote. It would have made no difference in the outcome. In reality there was no way to determine who had won the popular vote.

In the Iowa caucuses the present totals that are being reported are Pete Buttigieg 26.2% and Bernie Sanders 26.1%. They’re separated by .09% of the vote, almost unquestionably less than the margin of error.

If by “win” you mean who got the most votes, we don’t know and we will never know who won.

Can anybody explain to me how the State of the Union address was a white supremacist manifesto? I’m seeing that claim being made, wholly unsubstantiated, and I don’t get it. Other than by definition, of course.

You know, after reading George Will’s latest Washington Post column, I’m beginning to wonder whether today’s mood is populist at all. He laments the decline of the political parties:

Doing something similar in presidential politics is difficult. The process has no gatekeepers: Remember the 2012 cycle, when Herman Cain had his 15 minutes as a front-runner? Misguided campaign finance regulations have diverted money away from experienced parties to unseasoned groups with minority agendas. The 2016 process illustrated the difficulty of aggregating voters’ preferences when there are many candidates: A demagogic charlatan won without winning a majority of primary votes until after the nomination was effectively settled. Sanders’s success so far this year demonstrates La Raja and Rauch’s warning that in a congested field of candidates, many will shun coalition-building in favor of wooing purists.

In 1924, the parties’ professionals blocked the presidential ambitions of industrialist Henry Ford, a racist and anti-Semite. In 1976, Democratic insiders helped clear the field in Florida’s presidential primary to enable Jimmy Carter to end the candidacy of the racist George Wallace. Today, however, the power of party professionals is negligible compared with that of the media. They prefer flamboyant political showhorses to transactional, coalition-building workhorses, and become accomplices of fringe candidates and combative amateurs.

La Raja and Rauch suggest various “filters” by political professionals to mitigate the “democracy fundamentalism” of today’s nomination process: e.g., more political professionals as “superdelegates” eligible to vote on conventions’ first ballots; pre-primary votes of confidence in candidates by members of Congress and governors; “abolishing or dramatically increasing” contribution limits to the parties. But a precondition for all improvement is, they acknowledge, “to change the mindset that regards popular elections as the only acceptable way to choose nominees.”

Limiting and influencing voters’ choices by involving professional politicians early in the nomination process would require risk-averse political professionals to go against today’s populist sensibility. But if this November the choice is between Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, the professionals might consider letting go of the wolf’s ears.

Is this really true?

Misguided campaign finance regulations have diverted money away from experienced parties to unseasoned groups with minority agendas.

or is what we are seeing the outcome of plutocracy? Only very well-heeled individuals or organizations have the dough to lay out enough money to finance the sorts of campaigns we’re seeing. I find it difficult to think of any campaign with three billionaires in it as “populist”. The reforms that would be required to curb that are exactly the sort that George Will has opposed for as long as I’ve been reading him.