This week the Good Fellows are joined by Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Victor Davis Hanson. The gentleman farmer from Selma, CA (and the author of The Case For Trump) is not known for pulling his punches, and this discussion is no different. The Good Fellows consider the recent resignation by New York Times editor Bari Weiss, the open letter published in Harper’s Magazine supporting free speech, the scourge of cancel culture in the academy and the media, as well as some ideas for enhancing higher education to make it more relevant for today’s society. And yes, Hanson proffers some unsolicited advice to the current occupant of the Oval Office about how to win in November.

Several weeks ago, I had an idea for a piece that was “Times worthy.” I thought about the editors I know there, about the pieces I’ve written there recently and mulled over the prospect of pitching it there. I decided to write it for the Washington Examiner instead; it just wasn’t worth the risk. In the aftermath of the Senator Cotton op-ed, which many other conservatives watched with amusement and horror, I realized that there was a high likelihood that if it were published, a mob would come for me and the Times would leave me out to dry; if they did it with a sitting Senator, I wouldn’t stand a chance. I wondered what Bari, a friend and editor at the Times would think of my decision until today when she published her widely-read and discussed resignation letter. The whole thing is an essential read, but for the purposes of this post, I’ll flag this portion:

The truth is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a liability at The Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become the norm.

James Bond movies are famous for having outrageous villains, and this is a common theme in many modern movies. Their evil is so exaggerated and outrageous that it’s nearly inhuman. This is probably designed to make it easier for the audience to cheer when the villain is blown to bits at the end, but I think there’s another reason. By dehumanizing villains, Hollywood attempts to show that evil is inherently inhuman, and that most humans are inherently good. I think Hollywood does this because leftism makes no sense unless that is true. Who needs God? Or stuffy traditional values? Or judgmental cultural mores? Just be who you are! Relax! Do what feels good, and don’t allow your personal growth to be restricted by outdated superstitions.

I think that this optimistic view of human nature is a significant reason that Hannah Arendt was so harshly criticized for describing Adolf Eichmann with her now-famous phrase, “The banality of evil.” At his trial in 1961, Eichmann seemed an ordinary-appearing, slender, balding man, who seemed every bit the boring bureaucrat. She described him as “terribly and terrifyingly normal.” She wondered whether evil was radical or whether it was simply a result of most ordinary people conforming to popular opinions without carefully considering the consequences of their actions. A modern progressive, who thinks that people can govern other people in centralized control structures, and consistently do so ethically and fairly, would find Arendt’s mundane description of evil to be extremely concerning, I would think.

If you think the public health response in Blue States to COVID-19 is anything other than a proxy for generalized state control of individual liberty, let me point you to Minnesota (and California). As has been detailed by Scott Johnson at Powerline blog in his series CORONAVIRUS IN ONE STATE, Democratic governor Tim Walz has been exercising autocratic rule on thin data. Remember the SARS-CoV-2 panic was started by visions of Chinese authorities welding high-rise apartment doors shut and Italian hospitals refusing ventilators to anyone over 80. The viral tsunami was coming and it was going to crash our health care system.

“Flatten the curve” was the mantra as government took extraordinary control over our lives and livelihoods for a brief period. Yes, the refrigerator trucks parked outside of New York hospitals were alarming. Yes, the mobilization of the government to provide emergency health care facilities in New York and Los Angeles was dramatic. Yes the response of private companies to providing PPE and tests was heartening and hopeful. And the wave passed. That didn’t mean there would be no more illness and death. But the health care system survived, treatment protocols were developed and shared. So now, let’s get back to living our lives, right?