fbpx

Trump’s Rage, Washington’s Prudence

The crowd was angry.  The people were rumbling that something had been stolen from them—something to which they had a right. They had put their faith in the promise of a democratic government and their representatives.  They would defend the noble cause of self-government against an elite which was blind to their plight. The time to demand justice was slipping away. They turned to their leader. He was over six feet tall and was one of the most recognizable men in America.  Towering over other men in both height and reputation, he seemed like a great man who would vindicate their claims to justice. 

This is a tale of the worst of times and of the best of times.  One tale from a winter of despair and another from a spring of hope.

On January 6, 2021 just as Congress was scheduled to meet to count and certify the votes of the Electoral College, President Donald Trump — a tall man who, because of his wealth and media savvy, had cast a shadow on American culture for decades – stood before a crowd outside the White House in Washington, D.C.  Four years before, Trump won the presidency by appealing to Americans’ suspicion of elites and now, as his presidency was coming to an end after a failed re-election bid, he stirred the crowd’s passionate indignation by telling his supporters that the election had been stolen. 

He encouraged them to march on Congress to demand the restoration of our democracy before it was too late.  The subsequent scenes of protestors forcibly entering our legislative halls and vandalizing the seat of our democracy are now familiar to all.  An ancient fear that a tyrant might emerge out of a democracy, exploit the people’s passions, and aggravate their sense of grievance became a pressing twenty-first century concern as Americans despaired that their proud tradition of the peaceful transition of power might come to an end 234 years after our first president, George Washington, left office.

The tale need not end in despair.  We can turn back the page to March 15, 1783, early spring in Newburgh, NY and, metaphorically, in the history of democratic government in the United States.  The Revolutionary War was all but concluded with a peace treaty on the near horizon.  The victorious, but beleaguered, Continental soldiers and their officers were anxious to receive the pay and the pensions promised to them by the Continental Congress.   If Congress could not pay them before it signed the peace treaty and disbanded the army, the soldiers might never again have the opportunity to press their claims.

In that spring of 1783, an anonymous letter circulated through the military’s ranks at Newburgh.  Purportedly written by a “a fellow soldier” and one “whose past sufferings have been as great…as yours,” the letter cast suspicions upon the Continental Congress; it had neither the ability nor the intention to pay the soldiers.  “Faith has its limits,” the author insisted, “as well as temper; and there are points beyond which neither can be stretched, without sinking into cowardice, or plunging into credulity.” 

The, now-infamous, Newburgh letter urged the soldiery to demand their just due. They had just secured victory against the British Empire, the world’s foremost military power.  They stood at the apogee of both their moral and physical strength.  Now was their moment, the letter argued, before the swords were “taken from your sides,” leaving them with no “mark of military distinction left, but your wants, infirmities, and scars!”  Those whose spirits revolted at the notion of being left abject beggars and the objects of ridicule and scorn would “assume a bolder tone,” would “awake” to the injustice they faced, and “oppose tyranny, under whatever garb it may assume.”

The Newburg letter circulated to General George Washington.  Like President Trump Washington stood over six feet tall and loomed large in the American imagination.  Washington had got wind of similar plans almost a year earlier.  In May 1782, Washington received a letter from Colonel Lewis Nicola, inviting him into a mounting conspiracy against the Congress and intimating that Washington could be crowned monarch of the new United States.  Any human being, motivated as we all sometimes are by self-interest and ambition, might easily have been tempted.  Washington responded unequivocally. “I am much at a loss to conceive what part of my conduct could have given encouragement to an address which to me seems big with the greatest mischiefs that can befall my County.  If I am not deceived in the knowledge of myself, you could not have found a person to whom your schemes are more disagreeable.” 

Washington understood better than the Newburgh conspirators that martial strength secured independence, but republican government would require moral fortitude.  Self-government would require a tempering of the passions and an adherence to the rational design of political institutions.  A year later, standing before the assembled officers at Newburgh, Washington educated the soldiers in democratic self-government.  Unlike aristocratic regimes, the nascent democracy relied on citizens to volunteer to serve in the army.  Therefore, soldiers all had – as all citizens do – a claim to equality.  Rather than allowing his soldiers to indulge base passions, Washington elevated his men. 

The soldiers’ pleas to him were “addressed more to the feelings of passion,” he told them, “than to the reason & judgment.”  In his address at Newburgh, Washington never denied the soldier’s right to their demands for pay and pensions.  He asked instead that the soldiers seek redress in a manner that was “consistent with your own honor, and the dignity of the Army.”  And, just to make sure that the soldiers understood, Washington reminded them of his honorable conduct, suggesting parallels to their own service.  “I have never left your side one moment when called from you on public duty.  As I have been the constant companion and witness of your Distress, and not among the last to feel, and acknowledge your Merits.”  Washington went on to observe that his personal reputation and ambition were tied to the broader institution of the military, just as it should be for any volunteer solider in a democratic regime.  “I have ever considered my own Military reputation as inseparably connected with that of the Army,” he declared, and, because his personal reputation was inseparable from that of the institution, Washington pledged himself to defend the integrity of it rather than seek to gratify his ambition in other ways.  Though his fellow soldiers had sought to hoist him onto a pedestal and crown him with the laurels of tyranny, Washington, despite his fame and stature, subsumed individual interest back into the institutional mechanisms of democratic governance and the commonweal.

Washington asked his soldiers to do the same.  “Let me entreat you, gentlemen,” Washington urged, “not to take any measures, which, viewed in the calm light of reason, will lessen the dignity & sully the glory” not only of their current cause but also of their past victories on behalf of the new nation’s democratic project.  Honorable men would have to submit to the slow deliberations of their representatives in Congress, who weighed their just claims and balanced them with the interests of others.  “Like all other large bodies, where there is a variety of different interest to reconcile, their deliberations are slow…  why then should we distrust them?” 

This past week, amid the fiery rhetoric and violence, Vice-President Mike Pence recognized these same lessons.  President Trump, like the Newburgh conspirators, had repeatedly insisted Vice-President Pence might be his own personal savior figure.  Trump had something in common with the Newburgh conspirators and with his own supporters.  All believed that a single individual was the key to the crisis.  Rallying with his supporters on the Ellipse, just south of the White House and only a short while before some of those same supporters breeched and then ransacked the Capitol Building, President Trump called upon Pence to “stand up for the good of our Constitution and for the good of our country,” adding, “if you’re not I’m gonna be very disappointed in you.” 

In this, our most recent Newburghian moment, it was Vice-President Pence who best echoed Washington’s faith in reason and in the institutional structures that the framers built to help us channel the energies of passion away from the dangerous and slippery slope of demagoguery.  “Our Founders were deeply skeptical of concentrations of power and created a Republic based on separation of powers and checks and balances under the Constitution of the United States,” Pence wrote in the statement he delivered just as the Joint Session of Congress convened to certify the Electoral College results.  “Vesting the Vice President with unilateral authority to decide presidential contests would be entirely antithetical to that design,” Pence rightly concluded.

Our republic will never be saved by just one man – neither president nor, in Mr. Trump’s case, vice-president.  That is not the system our founders built.  We will not be saved by passion either.  Institutions.  Reason.  Those are the cornerstones of American democracy.  Those were the seeds of optimism that Washington offered to the new nation in that springtime of hope in 1783.  In what seems to be a winter of despair here in early 2021, they can be the seeds of hope still.

As Washington had served, so too had the assembled soldiers – for the same cause and to the same ends.  Like Washington, the once angry soldiers would put their trust in the Congress and the rational, albeit slow, democratic process.

Modeling equality in a democratic republic required of Washington something Mr. Trump has always seemed to be unable to muster – the ability to subordinate the individual and the self to the institutional.  Equality requires humility.  To elevate his men above their mere passions, Washington had to diminish himself.  That is the great irony, perhaps, of what transpired at Newburgh.  Washington sits enshrined in our national pantheon of heroes.  Parson Weems’ fables paint a picture of a man whose physical and moral example the rest of us cannot hope to aspire to.  But, that is not what Washington aimed for that spring day at Newburgh.  Indeed, it is quite the opposite.  If we have forgotten that, then, we as a nation need to refocus.

After he finished addressing the gathered crowd at Newburgh, Washington opened a letter from a member of the Congress that he intended to read to the soldiers.  But, Washington was 51 years old that day at Newburgh, and his eyesight was not what it once had been.  Washington could not see, and so he fumbled in his pockets to find his reading glasses. 

A Virginia planter who served in the Continental Congress, Washington might easily have shared the Congress’ blindness to the conditions of the soldiers before him.  As a soldier, he might also have shared his compatriots’ blindness to the exigencies that the Congress faced as it sought to finish the war, conclude a peace treaty, and establish a new national government.  This was a scene that seemed to demand sharper focus.  Washington knew that.

As he drew out his glasses, he looked out at the soldiers and uttered a now famous sentence:  “Gentleman, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country.”  After he finished reading the letter, after he removed his glasses and put them back into his pocket, the crowd stood silent.  Passions had ebbed.  No longer was anyone willing to overthrow the Congress in an act of self-interest.  As Washington had served, so too had the assembled soldiers – for the same cause and to the same ends.  Like Washington, the once angry soldiers would put their trust in the Congress and the rational, albeit slow, democratic process.

Such is the outcome when we choose to refocus.  Washington saw this.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on January 19, 2021 at 07:15:33 am

While Trump and Washington are men of different characters, the situation that each was faced with was radically different. Washington was at the beginning, there to set the tone of things and Trump there because everything Washington and the other founders strove to give the regime have been so degraded that very little of the greatness of the American regime was left. Washington was not only a military leader of the revolution but also the man the framers permitted the power to define the Presidency (as the Framers at Philidephaia didn't want to define the office too much fearing it would lead Washington not to accept it if they did. Whereas Trump came to office as reluctantly as Washington, only because things were so bad and none among the ruling elites were willing to do anything to respond to the American people being ignored and marginalized and set against each other by the current ruling elites.

Washington was turned to by the angry soldiers because he served with him. Today's vets are led by men who sold their souls to the elites who promised them membership in their club if they played their game. Even someone like Jim Mattis was mostly bought and paid for and willing served the interests of his paymasters. Thus, the choice the people have of who can stand for them is few and far between--and this is why someone imperfect as Trump was used. Because he was willing......

read full comment
Image of Clifford Angell Bates, Jr
Clifford Angell Bates, Jr
on January 19, 2021 at 09:29:13 am

Well put.

read full comment
Image of Michael Bond
Michael Bond
on January 19, 2021 at 07:28:41 am

Highest praise. Reading this post affected "the quality of the day".

The writers are truly those leaders "we have been waiting for".

read full comment
Image of Latecomer
Latecomer
on January 19, 2021 at 08:51:32 am

Using the words democracy, democratic republic raises the hair on my neck regarding describing the U. S. A. form of government. The Constitution is the basis for a federal republic.

read full comment
Image of Terry Schuck
Terry Schuck
on January 19, 2021 at 13:36:40 pm

I agree but it makes little difference. As Jean Bodin noted, if we rip up all the popular states that ever existed and examined them closely, we ould find that the supposed rule by the people was never true. The reality shows that behind the throne of power there will always be a small oligarchy that pushed the buttons and pulled the strings. Freedom demands that government be so small that who is in charge is not relevant. The solution comes from free markets in everything.

read full comment
Image of Vangel Vesovski
Vangel Vesovski
on January 19, 2021 at 09:24:34 am

Unrefined academic high-mindedness. You can fool some of the people all the time and all day with this stuff, but ... Firstly, the comparison is critically flawed from an anachronistic/philosophical/cultural point of view alone, not to mention other fundamental problems. The elisions, occlusions, tacit misdirections and obfuscations and the like are prominent and indeed are fundamental to the argument, contra Trump, being made. But ... the cheap pile-ons, refined and unrefined, shall continue. Harumph, harumph - we distinguished academes - harumph, harumph, harumph.

In the spirit of the maxim that a lie (no matter the intent) can travel half way 'round the world before the truth can put its boots on, I'm not going to attempt a complete rebuttal. It would demand five thousand words and more given the omissions alluded to. However, the anachronistic, etc. problem can be summarized most succinctly in the phrase I employed in response to the adjacent column and review today by Richard Reinsch, a review of Legutko's wonderfully titled The Cunning of Freedom: Saving the Self in an Age of False Idols.

The problem is the misology of the age, the witches high sabbath of delight in the upending and the undermining of language/meaning that besets seemingly every attempt at honest discourse and veridical interest in general. The modernist problems (see the review of Legutko again), the post-modernist boost and elaboration those problems are given, reflect their own and still other philosophical/ideological problems. The tactics/strategies can be found in terms such as Gramsci, Alinsky, Cloward/Piven, gaslighting, Kafkatrapping, sophisticated forms of disinformation (lies surrounded by a bodyguard of truth to use Natalie Grant Wraga's succinct and telling definition), false flags and other terms as well, certainly. But they (all) reflect a contempt for and undermining of language/meaning and the people who wish to uphold republican virtues and the values reflected in the Declaration and the Founding in general.

George Washington was a magnificent leader and founder. He would NOT have been up to the present task.

read full comment
Image of Michael Bond
Michael Bond
on January 19, 2021 at 12:45:42 pm

This is an utterly bizarre comment on an excellent piece of writing. Your comment is an example of the pitched rage and anger that Washington so clearly sought to temper. Your premise is that "the comparison is critically flawed from an anachronistic/philosophical/cultural point of view alone..." The comparison is sound; if Trump wants to compare himself as the greatest president for Black people since Abraham Lincoln -- and he said this during a presidential debate -- then he invites us to compare him to other presidents, especially George Washington. The language that you use here is not one that invites us to engage in the common bonds of citizenship that we so desperately need.

read full comment
Image of J. Hector
J. Hector
on January 19, 2021 at 14:32:47 pm

There is no "rage" and claiming such reflects an outrageous presumption and charge on your part. You owe me an apology for such a presumptive, ill tempered accusation. Even the anger I have is not at all of the kind you are suggesting, it is of a well directed and measured kind, tempered to the circumstances. The remainder of what you have to say is likewise uncomprehending, obtuse. You're unimaginably tiresome.

read full comment
Image of Michael Bond
Michael Bond
on January 20, 2021 at 17:04:13 pm

Your use of the word "veridical" led me to veracious, which is not the same as voracious. Good distinction to know! Thanks.

read full comment
Image of R2L
R2L
on January 19, 2021 at 11:18:50 am

Far be it from me to find fault with yet another of L&L's assembly-line production of factually-unsustainable, intellectually-inconsistent, philosophically-unprincipled Trump Derangement Syndrome articles:)

So, I won't find fault with this one. Why waste my time, when Bates and Bond do such a bang-up job? (I'll call them "Truebnb.")

But I can't resist posting my irritation at having, for the umpteenth time, to see that much-abused literary war-horse trotted out again, the "spectacles" trope about Washington growing almost blind in service of his country. And today's authors make that ground down tale the centerpiece of their essay! Poor writing ALWAYS reflects poor thinking or the deliberate distortion of language. If you doubt me, just read by way of abundant example the rest of L&L's four-year production of Trump Derangement stuff or Obama's genre-specialty, the literary trash of political falsehood wrapped in moral bromide.

read full comment
Image of paladin
paladin
on January 19, 2021 at 18:26:53 pm

Paladin,

I think some insight into the persistence of Trump-averse commentary on this site might be provided by Adam Smith in Part VI, Section III of The Theory of Moral Sentiments:

The attention of such persons, however, being always principally directed, not to the standard of ideal, but to that of ordinary perfection, they have little sense of their own weaknesses and imperfections; they have little modesty; are often assuming, arrogant, and presumptuous; great admirers of themselves, and great contemners of other people. Though their characters are in general much less correct, and their merit much inferior to that of the man of real and modest virtue; yet their excessive presumption, founded upon their own excessive self-admiration, dazzles the multitude, and often imposes even upon those who are much superior to the multitude.

Those who want to bash Trump can certainly find something they like in this passage. It seems to represent the perception, as well as the justification for endless sniping, criticism, and condemnation. It provides some measure of contrast by which the Trump-denouncers might highlight their own perceived virtues. However, two sentences later Smith observes:

But when those pretensions are supported by a very high degree of real and solid merit, when they are displayed with all the splendour which ostentation can bestow upon them, when they are supported by high rank and great power, when they have often been successfully exerted, and are, upon that account, attended by the loud acclamations of the multitude; even the man of sober judgment often abandons himself to the general admiration.

In other words, what may be most vexing to Trump-dissenters is that both observations may be true. Trump may "have little modesty; [be] often assuming, arrogant, and presumptuous" as well as having "a very high degree of real and solid merit." It is quite possible that a number of people preferred doing without the latter in order to be rid of the former. One may then ask if this itself derives from sense of entitlement on the part of the voters, and reflects an irrational standard. Maybe one of the defects in the body politic is that it adopts something analogous to the demands of Agnes Skinner in an episode of the Simpsons, in which she demands all her groceries be placed in a single bag, but that the bag not be heavy. Maybe we have become accustomed to allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

read full comment
Image of z9z99
z9z99
on January 20, 2021 at 17:15:13 pm

The perfect is the enemy of the good enough, at least in engineering design anecdote. But for the wokererati, the perfect is the enemy of the perfect, as they cannot be satisfied with anything, always seeking "progress" no matter the feasibility or cost trade off in reaching the "next step up".

read full comment
Image of R2L
R2L
on January 21, 2021 at 10:04:52 am

Glad to see you back. The handful of intelligent "first responders" had dropped to four fingers in your absence.

read full comment
Image of paladin
paladin
on January 20, 2021 at 22:16:35 pm

I just now saw your reply.
I think that you wrongly credit Trump's opponents with high character, good taste, and a modicum of principle, all of which they lack. Their ground for relentlessly opposing the former president was not their contempt for (what they said was) his boorish behavior, but their fear of the threat he posed to their power. And you underrate the political skills of Trump's enemies, both the left and the Never-Trumpers (and the small ball likes of L&L) who recognized very early that Trump posed a grave threat to their credibility, as the most formidable political foe they've faced. We are in a class war, in which Trump represents the middle class, which the left opposes and which Establishment Republicans and classical liberals have abandoned. Further, Trump is not an ideologue; he was a principled pragmatist with principles they oppose and with novel, powerful political skills they had never before fought, which made Trump their most dangerous enemy and required their resort to full-scale, relentless, no-holds-barred opposition. They literally declared war on the man in 2015, after he won the nomination.
The Trump hatred from the left and Establishment Republicans was, thus, wholly politically-driven, not the result of his boorish behavior. All that stuff about they fought him because of his lack of character was a lie, a media front, and, coming from his enemies, it was rank hypocrisy to boot. He threatened their power, so they accused him of everything despicable, fabricated almost all of it and fought him with every means available, lawful and illegal, fair and ruthless, including unrelenting character assassination. It worked, the incessant lies, illegal prosecutions, ungodly persecutions, and illicit election tampering drove him from office.

Our country, sadly, has declined so far that it may be incapable of being led by a man such as Trump, a highly talented leader with the skills and character of a statesman. We may be able, henceforth, to suffer only fools, liars and
crooks as president, all of which qualities reside in the White House tonight.

read full comment
Image of paladin
paladin
on January 21, 2021 at 00:55:32 am

Paladin,

I don't think we are talking about precisely the same things. I do not directly disagree with your assertion, but I think we are thinking of two overlapping, but not quite identical groups when we each speak of "Trump's opponents." I mentioned a sense of entitlement on the part of voters, while you refer to those whose power Trump threatened and those possessed of political skill. I do not disagree with the comments pertaining to the group you identify, nor do I think that I mischaracterized those to whom I refer. I would submit that the grounds for this apparent misunderstanding are significant.

When I refer to the anti-Trump voter, I have in mind those whom I know from personal acquaintance. Their reasons for voting against Trump included: "he lies," (this was someone who voted for him in 2016), "he was married three times," and
"he disrespected John McCain's service." If more prominent examples of the same phenomenon are needed, see Rod Dreher's deep thoughts:

The case for Trump, at least to me, is about him standing as the last bulwark against the woke left taking over the federal government, and using its power to advance the cultural revolution. That’s not nothing.

Then in the next paragraph

There have been times when I have considered voting for Biden just to get Trump out of office.

Got that? "Trump is the last bulwark against the woke left taking over the federal government, but I'll vote for the other guy just to get him out of office."

We are, in effect, talking about two different groups of people: those that view voting as a statement of personal ideals; and those for whom politics is about power 24/7 with or without regard to election results. Mr. Dreher represents the former, and Paul Ryan, Chuck Schumer and the swamp creatures are examples of the latter. Note that this is not a distinction between different policy views, but two totally different views of politics. The people in Georgia who stayed home instead of voting in the Senate run-off races apparently sided with the view that the "power" aspect of politics represented by the likes of Ryan, Pelosi, Schumer, Bezos, Soros, Gates, et al. make elections little more than formalities. It is a view explicitly expressed by George Carlin. I think that this view is myopic. Politics seems manipulated, and the playground of "powerful," wealthy narcissists when the average person is complacent enough and apathetic and uniformed enough to have his vote determined by the candidate's personality traits. This will not go on forever. When the public is forced to choose competence over appearance, democracy will demonstrate its potential. Until then, we seem to be content with senile, corrupt, dim "leaders."

read full comment
Image of z9z99
z9z99
on January 21, 2021 at 18:03:44 pm

I am truly sorry to disagree with you, perhaps because each of us observes the same behavior, yet attributes that behavior to different motivations. You say the get-Trump sentiment was motivated in part by a distaste for the man's character. I say that that is an excuse, a socially-acceptable lie (or self-deception) intended to explain more fundamental, ulterior motives, the actual political, psychological, professional and economic reasons why that (small) segment of the anti-Trump army chose to join in the campaign to destroy him. The members of that small subset of the Never-Trumper army needs to justify its behavior to others and to itself without admitting its true motivations. Call it an intellectual apologia, call it psychological repression, call it a willingly told lie, the result is the same. The reasons the hated Trump are not the reasons which they discuss publicly.

read full comment
Image of paladin
paladin
on January 21, 2021 at 19:23:18 pm

Don’t feel sorry for disagreeing. To quote Gen. Patton: “If everyone thinks alike then someone isn’t thinking.”

read full comment
Image of z9z99
z9z99
on January 19, 2021 at 11:55:30 am

This website is totally upside down! The comments have more merit than any of the articles!

read full comment
Image of Larry
Larry
on January 20, 2021 at 17:06:50 pm

I agree, at least 30 to 50% of the time that is true, which so far has been sufficient attractant to keep me coming back.

read full comment
Image of R2L
R2L
on January 19, 2021 at 12:03:17 pm

"Washington understood that martial strength secured independence, but republican government would require moral fortitude."
One wonders how Mr Washington would have reacted had he been graced with a Speaker of the House who had consistently exemplified the "moral turpitude" he exhorts in the manner evidenced by Nancy Pelosi?

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on January 20, 2021 at 17:25:46 pm

In the picture above, he still has a sword hanging from his left hip. More than suitable for "running someone through" should the occasion require it. Thinking about that image just a little bit, and I can readily see Washington at the head of a "mob" [aka militia] assaulting the Capitol to right a perceived wrong (Whiskey Rebellion, anyone?) Which in turn leads to wondering why Trump did not lead a throng down there himself? If he had (and setting aside the reality that the crowd was already inside the building at least 20 minutes before his speech at the Ellipse ended) perhaps things would actually have gone in a more orderly and respectable manner.

Probably would not have changed the ultimate political and constitutional outcome, but might have defused some of the later insanity?? Woulda, shoulda, coulda's aren't usually this much fun.

read full comment
Image of R2L
R2L
on January 20, 2021 at 17:43:38 pm

Good point on the riot beginning BEFORE The Trumpster had finished speaking.

My first response to the "insurrection", as it has come to be called was this:
"geez, Edith, why did it take so long?"

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on January 19, 2021 at 12:20:10 pm

What then, is the meaning behind this post?
Perhaps, one should read this post while reflecting on the meaning of hindsight, regarding 2020.

If there was one thing President Trump should have done, from the beginning it became clear that Dr. Fauci should be fired, and replaced with The Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance. due to his failure to admit that he himself was familiar with the safety and effectiveness of certain drugs that were mainstream and could be used to fight the symptoms associated with Covid 19, is fire Dr. Fauci and his ilk.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, whose “expert” advice to President Trump has resulted in the complete shutdown of the greatest economic engine in world history, has known since 2005 that chloroquine is an effective inhibitor of coronaviruses.

How did he know this? Because of research done by the National Institutes of Health, of which he is the director. In connection with the SARS outbreak - caused by a coronavirus dubbed SARS- CoV - the NIH researched chloroquine and concluded that it was effective at stopping the SARS coronavirus in its tracks. The COVID-19 bug is likewise a coronavirus, labeled SARS-CoV-2. While not exactly the same virus as SARS-CoV-1, it is genetically related to it, and shares 79% of its genome, as the name SARS-CoV-2 implies. They both use the same host cell receptor, which is what viruses use to gain entry to the cell and infect the victim”, and I would add, that The Covid 19 bug, unlike SARS Cov 1, has the addition of a furin mediated site in it’s spike protein”, which is also found in The Middle Eastern Respiratory Virus.

read full comment
Image of N.D.
N.D.
on January 19, 2021 at 22:08:42 pm

That should read:

“Dr. Anthony Fauci, whose “expert” advice to President Trump has resulted in the complete shutdown of the greatest economic engine in world history, has known since 2005 that chloroquine is an effective inhibitor of coronaviruses.
How did he know this? Because of research done by the National Institutes of Health, of which he is the director. In connection with the SARS outbreak - caused by a coronavirus dubbed SARS- CoV - the NIH researched chloroquine and concluded that it was effective at stopping the SARS coronavirus in its tracks. The COVID-19 bug is likewise a coronavirus, labeled SARS-CoV-2. While not exactly the same virus as SARS-CoV-1, it is genetically related to it, and shares 79% of its genome, as the name SARS-CoV-2 implies. They both use the same host cell receptor, which is what viruses use to gain entry to the cell and infect the victim”, and I would add, that The Covid 19 bug, unlike SARS Cov 1, has the addition of a furin mediated site in it’s spike protein”, which is also found in The Middle Eastern Respiratory Virus.

read full comment
Image of N.D.
N.D.
on January 19, 2021 at 12:36:59 pm

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/india-develops-covid-treatment-kit-for-less-than-3-per-person-with-miraculous-ivermectin

https://www.pnas.org/content/111/42/15214

https://web.archive.org/web/20200506140801/https://onenewsnow.com/perspectives/bryan-fischer/2020/04/27/fauci-knew-about-hcq-in-2005-nobody-needed-to-die

Here is some of the evidence, in no particular order, as the veil continues to be lifted, with Time, events will continue to unfold.

Pray and never cease Praying!
Hail The Cross, Our Only Hope!

https://citizenfreepress.com/column-1/breaking-fbi-arrests-left-wing-anarchist-leader-john-sullivan-for-inciting-riot-in-capitol-siege/

read full comment
Image of N.D.
N.D.
on January 20, 2021 at 12:01:20 pm

The comparison made in this article is incongruous. The subversion of a presidential election strikes at the core of our constitutional system. The authors are apparently aligned with those who choose to ignore the severity of the situation and hope it will turn out well in the end. Only those of us who see the clear danger will understand the need for robust opposition to the looming tyranny.

read full comment
Image of James
James
on January 20, 2021 at 17:59:19 pm

One wonders what the two essayists above will have to say about Presidential Prudence some four years from now (if we do not see Kamala and Pelosi invoke the 25th amendment prior to that time) when the Titular President or the President Emeritus Joseph R. Biden has instituted "non-prudential policies predicated upon the fabulist dystopian pedagogy and ideology of the virulently anti-American woke Left?
Will they endow Bidenism with the imprimatur of "Prudence". One also wonders just how prudent this President Emeritus will be considering his first act as Emeritus was to "disappear" the report of Trumps 1776 Commission.
How prudent is it to silence opposing / countering views?
Perhaps, the real question is this: "How Prudent will the "Squad" be? How prudent should they be when the Emeritus is intellectually / physically incapable of rational consideration of policy prescriptions? I will submit that a parrot would provide greater linguistic (and possibly even greater intellectual) variance of that which he is intended / induced to "parrot."
Let us therefore celebrate the inauguration of the Emeritus!!!!!
Let us also hope that like any Emeritus his duties, powers and responsibilities are constrained by practice and tradition.

I also therefore request that Richard Reinsch et al offer the above two essayists an opportunity to revisit Presidential Prudence in the not too distant future.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on January 21, 2021 at 07:26:26 am

President Trump is not part of the intellectual class, and does not use language instrumentally, not as an end in itself. The intellectual class cannot accept this, as he’s not one of them. In fact, they often cannot even understand this, it’s a concept I imagined to them. It was my initial block to accepting President Trump, in fact, but when I realized he’s not a college professor but a salesman, that block fell.

Of course, being a good salesman is a high and noble calling. And I guarantee you that these nominally classical liberal & conservative writers with TDS find that a jarring statement. They profess and believe in liberty and equality of rights, but viscerally have absorbed Marxists’ contempt for commerce and their feeling of being the vanguard, the elite with true consciousness.

read full comment
Image of Charles N. Steele
Charles N. Steele
on January 21, 2021 at 07:30:59 am

I meant to say President Trump *does* use language instrumentally.

read full comment
Image of Charles N. Steele
Charles N. Steele
on January 21, 2021 at 07:34:21 am

It’s a concept *unimagined* to them.

I seem to be channeling The incoherence of Emeritus Biden; although autocorrect shares some blame.

read full comment
Image of Charles N. Steele
Charles N. Steele
Trackbacks
on February 22, 2021 at 06:42:24 am

[…] quickly as attainable. That’s what Washington did within the case of the Newburgh Conspiracy, as Natalie Taylor and Tillman Nechtman recently noted here. But in what order ought one to […]

on February 22, 2021 at 06:48:25 am

[…] off as soon as possible. That’s what Washington did in the case of the Newburgh Conspiracy, as Natalie Taylor and Tillman Nechtman recently noted here. But in what order ought one to […]

on February 22, 2021 at 07:26:53 am

[…] off as soon as possible. That’s what Washington did in the case of the Newburgh Conspiracy, as Natalie Taylor and Tillman Nechtman recently noted here. But in what order ought one to […]

on February 22, 2021 at 07:54:13 am

[…] off as soon as possible. That’s what Washington did in the case of the Newburgh Conspiracy, as Natalie Taylor and Tillman Nechtman recently noted here. But in what order ought one to […]

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.