In which the Times is conservative, Hillary is “a Satan,” and I solve North Korea.
THIS IS THE FIRST piece in a new column which I’m calling “Musings.” The basic idea: concise commentary on the headlines, as well as on some lower profile news items. That way, I can hit on multiple stories all in one punchy post. As you can see above, the title gives a glimpse of what I’ll talk about, while the sub-header gives a (snarky) summary. Middle Ground’s other column, Discourse in a Discordant Society, will continue to feature longer pieces with a central thesis. With all this housekeeping out of the way, let’s get into the meat (apologies to my one vegetarian reader) of the matter.
The New York Times: A Place for Conservatives?
As Kyle Smith writes in National Review, the Times’ opinion section has in recent months lowered its drawbridges for conservative commentators. Bret Stephens, a former Wall Street Journal editorialist, was snatched up as a columnist for the Times. The op-ed (which, unbeknownst to most, stands for “opposite the editorial page,” not “opinion editorial”) section regularly features conservative writers—and not the nostalgic, not-really-a-conservative conservative types like David Brooks.
Today, for instance, Nikki Haley, the current U.N. ambassador, has an op-ed in the Times pushing her hawkish views on Iran. John Yoo, who wrote the legal doctrine for torture during the Bush administration, wrote an op-ed last month about fixing the F.B.I. This is a welcome change, and will demonstrate to the Times’ largely center-left, cosmopolitan readership that there is a such thing as a thoughtful, reasonable, smart, honest conservative. The Times is dead; long live the Times!
Robert Mueller’s Tight Ship
Yesterday, Robert Mueller, the prosecutor running the probe into Russian election meddling, indicted several Russian operatives. The charges vary, mostly focusing on how these Russians nationals attempted to sow discord and boost the Trump campaign. They created a shadowy organization called the Internet Research Agency, which took out Facebook ads to rile up devoted Trumpers and to dissuade minorities from voting for Hillary Clinton. One such ad read, “Hillary is a Satan [sic], and her crimes and lies had proved just how evil she is.”
What stands out is how little the public knew about Mr. Mueller’s indictment before the fact. That’s a good thing. Mr. Mueller’s investigation, if it is to be successful, must appear above the partisan noise. Yet the conservative media have pushed a coordinated, baseless anti-Mueller narrative. Sadly, Mr. Mueller must to some extent heed the right-wing media’s fuming, since Republican congressmen—they are mostly men, after all—are so heavily influenced by the likes of Fox News.
So any news that supports Mr. Mueller’s impartiality is good news. Yesterday’s indictments show that Mr. Mueller is concerned with Russian misdeeds even when they don’t implicate the president. The more Mr. Mueller is perceived as running a diligent, apolitical investigation, the harder it will be for Donald Trump to fire him.
The Unsolvable Riddle
This week, I wrote a piece in the Cornell Daily Sun criticizing some of the coverage of North Korea at the PyeongChang Olympics. Prior to publication, my editor suggested I might want to discuss a solution for the North Korea problem in my piece. I decided not to, as that wasn’t really the focus of the article.
But are there any feasible solutions? Some knuckleheads in the Trump administration have been arguing for a policy called a “bloody-nose strike.” Sounds pretty appealing, doesn’t it? The idea is that the U.S. would grace the North Koreans by flying a teensy-weensy targeted missile right into a Northern military facility. Then, the argument goes, the North Koreans would finally understand the indomitable might of America. With their lesson steadfastly learned, the North Koreans would thank their lucky stars that they only got a bloody nose—and nothing worse than that. Commence the kumbaya.
Dripping sarcasm aside, the bloody-nose strike idea is ridiculous, asinine, and desperate. Risking war with North Korea—which, let’s be frank, means millions of deaths on the Korean Peninsula—is absolutely not worth it over a single insignificant missile strike.
Better would be to bring back the Cold War-era strategy of deterrence and containment, as The Economist has argued. It would take diligence and clarity, but the U.S. has the leverage to keep North Korea in a box. While ratcheting up the sanctions pressure, the White House should unambiguously promise to destroy North Korea if and only if they attack America or one of its allies. This strategy of “mutually assured destruction” isn’t ideal, but its track record is nothing to scoff at. Just ask Nikita Khrushchev.
