As the country continues to suffer through the coronavirus pandemic and its associated ills, along with the shock of the attempted insurrection at the Capitol on January 6th, it is a fairly good time for some national unity. In President Joseph R. Biden’s inaugural address on January 20th, he repeatedly emphasized his call for unity (indeed, the whole celebration had the theme of American unity), “that most elusive of things in a democracy”. There is little room to argue with such a sentiment, for as a nation, Americans still hold much in common, despite our disagreements. The question arises, however, as to what Mr. Biden means when he says ‘unity.’ If he meant the reaffirmation of those unifying ideals that undergird America – a commitment to freedom, liberty, respect for natural rights, and equality under the law, then one would be hard-pressed to quarrel with him. But actions, as the saying goes, speak louder than words. Mr. Biden’s behavior, and that of his party, since his taking office point to a very different definition of unity. This ‘unity’ is not voluntary, and it certainly is not about finding common ground. No, this ‘unity’ is about falling in line with the more extreme priorities of the Democratic Party — and make no mistake, many of the policies coming out of the Biden administration are incredibly radical.
Truth, as Mr. Biden suggested in his inaugural address, is an essential facet of a prosperous, free, and civil society. Leaders have “a duty and a responsibility… to defend the truth and to defeat the lies.” The consequences of lies was made painfully clear on January 6th, when criminals stormed the Capitol Building, emboldened by the continuous perpetuation, since President Trump’s defeat on November 3rd, of the untruth of a supposedly ‘stolen’ election. What is painfully ironic, however, is that immediately after Mr. Biden rightly decried the lies that have infected the American polity, he proceeded to spout lies of similar stature. He chose to further the lie of ‘systemic’ American racism, a lie that helped add oxygen to the raging fire of riots and unrest that erupted last June. These were the same riots that caused billions of dollars in damage, devastated cities, and destroyed thousands of businesses and livelihoods. These were the same riots that saw statues of many American heroes, from George Washington to Frederick Douglas, desecrated. And these were the same riots that resulted in the injuring of hundreds, and the deaths of numerous individuals, including Officer David Dorn, whose wife spoke at the RNC in August of 2020. Despite the horrors America witnessed for months on end, Mr. Biden still chose to perpetuate one of the lies that served – indeed, still serves – as the keystone for the unrest.
Racism still exists in America, and every instance of it must be rooted out – end of story. There can be absolutely no tolerance for racism in society, and it should be called out and confronted whenever it rears its ugly head. America’s governing institutions, however, can no longer be reasonably branded as racist. Legal barriers or penalties based on race have long since been removed, and discrimination long since made illegal. What is left of racism in America occurs almost entirely on an individual basis, and is certainly not widespread. Of course, this is utilizing the definition of racism that the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. would have understood, not the modern, all-encompassing definition of the Left. Racism, properly defined, is the mistreatment of or discrimination against others because of their race. That is not the definition Mr. Biden and his party often adhere to, however. For most of the Left, racism is understood as Ibram X. Kendi defines it: any inequality between race groups. Many on the Left blame everything from wealth inequality to health variations on racism – despite the lack of hard evidence. If one floats any other possibility, no matter how substantive, he must be racist, as he is either blinded by his privilege or interested in perpetuating inequality. Those that question the orthodox opinion are branded as rotten human beings, deserving of being cast out of polite society. In reality, there are plenty of other explanations for existing disparities – explanations that do not include casting broad dispersions upon the nation and its citizens. Take inequality in wealth between black and white Americans, for example. Much of it can be tied to other, very serious, issues, such as the high rate of single-parent households in the black community, or the fact that millions living in the inner city are forced to attend abysmal local public schools (it is worth noting that it is mostly the Democrats, Mr. Biden among them, that refuse to allow school choice). Not all disparities between races are due to racism, but for many on the Left, disparities between races necessarily means racism, and ‘systemic’ racism has become a matter of Gospel truth. Thomas Sowell, one of the greatest economic and political thinkers of recent history, describes this phenomenon well: “Some things are believed because they are demonstrably true, but many other things are believed simply because they have been asserted repeatedly.” ‘Systemic’ racism is believed not because it is backed by solid evidence, but because it is repeated unceasingly as though it is unquestionably true. Going down the rabbit hole of supposed ‘systemic’ racism both stymies efforts to deal with the real problems at hand and divides America along racial lines. But this is beside the point. The problem is that Mr. Biden chose, rather than to further unity through fact, to further disunity through partisan manipulation of the truth.
In the same vein, one of Mr. Biden’s first executive orders was to reverse the former administration’s crackdown on the teaching of Critical Race Theory (CRT) and its analogues in the federal government and among federal contractors. CRT, with its basis in Marxist critical theory, is highly controversial, and rightly so. It pushes the notion that American society, in everything from its social structures to its institutions, is compromised by racism. Everything is viewed through the lens of race and power. It is not about recognizing the great sins of America’s past and the progress it has made; it is about perpetuating the falsehood that America is still deeply racist. Thus, CRT is also extremely dangerous, as it fundamentally undermines the American system – with adherents often endorsing calls for the ‘overthrow’ of institutions – and teaches Americans to hate both their country and, in many cases, themselves. Using federal taxpayer dollars to promote such an ideology is not only immoral, it is also extremely divisive. If Mr. Biden was looking to promote unity, this was not the best route to take. (For an in-depth look at one of CRT’s analogues, the modern anti-racism movement, see the recent article by Staff Writer John Dashe, “Anti Racism: Creating More Racists?”)
Another major executive order, signed during Mr. Biden’s first hours in office, was the revocation of the construction permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. Mr. Biden claims to have taken the action in an effort to stem the progression of climate change and to protect the environment. If these claims were founded in fact, then cancelling the pipeline would be a reasonable policy. Unfortunately, they are more founded in political expediency than anything else. According to Forbes, the Keystone XL pipeline was supposed to transport crude oil from Canada, mainly derived from tar sands, to the Gulf Coast, where most American oil refineries capable of handling this type of crude oil are located. Oil must be refined for it to be of any use, and often refineries are located great distances away from the oil’s point of origin, as is the case with Canadian oil and the Gulf Coast refineries; thus the need for adequate transportation infrastructure. Further, oil will continue to be needed – in vast quantities – for the foreseeable future, so canceling the pipeline will just force its transport via different methods (the alternatives being truck, train, or boat). If the concern is climate change, then Mr. Biden’s executive order is entirely nonsensical. Trucks, trains, and boats all produce far more carbon dioxide than pipelines do, and without adequate pipelines, those alternatives will be the only options. Even if the concern is for oil spills, the case for canceling the pipeline is also lacking. According to the Manhattan Institute, while “pipelines release more oil per spill than rail” (pipelines release less per spill than road), crude oil pipelines have the lowest incident rate compared to road and train transport, making them the safest transport option:
“Road had the highest rate of incidents, with 19.95 per billion ton miles per year. This was followed by rail, with 2.08 per billion ton miles per year. Natural gas transmission came next, with 0.89 per billion ton miles. Hazardous liquid [including crude oil] pipelines were the safest, with 0.58 serious incidents per billion ton miles.”
In canceling the permit, Mr. Biden did little for the environment (aside from arguably making the situation worse by forcing transport by more accident-prone methods), and greatly harmed American infrastructure and jobs, despite the devastated economy. It is hard to see how this does anything to further the cause of national unity.
Executive orders aside, Mr. Biden’s rhetoric on key issues since taking office has also been severely damaging to his stated goal of unity. On the 48th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, Mr. Biden reiterated his goal of codifying Roe into federal law: “The Biden-Harris Administration is committed to codifying Roe v. Wade and appointing judges that respect foundational precedents like Roe.” Since 1973, over 62 million children have been murdered – killed via premature expulsion, mutilation, being torn apart by suction, or through similarly gruesome methods. Codifying Roe would force every state and territory to follow federal abortion policy, all but wiping out states’ abilities to restrict abortion access, and guaranteeing that millions more children will be killed for decades to come. It would codify the stripping of the most basic human right, the right to life, from society’s most vulnerable. Despite the fact that 61% of the Americans believe that there should be restrictions on abortion access, and despite the extreme divisiveness of the issue, Mr. Biden apparently had few qualms with jumping right to the extreme end of the spectrum. It is made worse by the fact that he readily proclaims himself to be a devout Catholic, despite his views on abortion being utterly and undeniably antithetical to the teaching of the Church. Indeed, the Church proclaims the evil of abortion to be the preeminent issue in the nation, and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops called Mr. Biden’s comments “deeply disturbing and tragic”. Mr. Biden not only preaches in support of the nonexistent ‘right’ to murder children, he does so while claiming the mantle of religion. Here, too, it is difficult to pull something unifying out of Mr. Biden’s behavior – it seems to indicate something closer to unity by forced submission. (To read about the secular case against abortion, read my article in the September 2019 edition of the Fenwick Review.)
The Democratic Party, which Mr. Biden leads, has been no less divisive, and the President has done little to steer it in another direction. Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY), who leads a razor-thin 50-50 majority (with the Vice President as tie-breaker) in the Senate, has refused to disavow a push to end the Senate filibuster. All but two of his colleagues have either openly called to end the filibuster or have followed his lead in refusing to oppose its elimination. The filibuster, a long-established rule in the Senate, requires a 60-vote margin for most bills to pass. Originally far more extensive than it is today, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) ended it for judicial nominations in 2013, changing the vote requirement to a simple majority, a policy later extended to Supreme Court nominees. On its surface this may sound fine, but that is because there is a widespread and mistaken understanding of the American system. The Senate was supposed to serve as a barrier to the temporary passions of the people, and the filibuster ensures that those temporary passions do not reign unchecked. Most bills are supposed to have broad support from the populace before they are passed, thus the 60-vote margin. Yes, this causes gridlock, but that is a good thing. A government that responds immediately to every passing passion that sweeps through the populace is a government without stability and liable to make serious — sometimes very damaging — mistakes. It is worth remembering that the parties switch between support and animosity for gridlock depending on which is in power. The party in charge now will not be in charge forever, and gridlock will eventually be something that they will come to appreciate again. Senator Schumer, along with most Democrats in the Senate, want to ram through their policy priorities, despite the fact that half the country still opposes such priorities. Eliminating the filibuster would be devastating for the political climate, for it would allow any party with a slim majority to push through any policy it desires. Mr. Biden, who has previously been receptive to ending the filibuster, has refused to push his party to abandon calls for such a divisive move. There is nothing unifying about forcing down the most extreme policy preferences of a party with a razor-thin majority.
Finally, Mr. Biden has been nearly silent regarding the upcoming impeachment trial of former President Trump, which is bound to be extremely divisive. It does not help that article of impeachment, which asserts that Mr. Trump incited the Capitol insurrection, is entirely unfounded. This author was heavily critical both of Mr. Trump’s response to the insurrection and of his impact on politics in a previous article, but that does not change the fact that the charge against the former President is incredibly weak. In his highly criticized speech before the insurrection, Mr. Trump explicitly called for a peaceful protest, not a riot. But regardless of one’s views on the article of impeachment itself, there is no longer a solid purpose to the impeachment. Mr. Trump is out of office, so even if one had considered him a threat, he is now powerless. He will also not be convicted, as two-thirds of the Senate is needed to convict, and with 45 Republican Senators voting on January 26th to table the trial, it is highly unlikely that the two-thirds margin will be met. It appears that the main goal of continuing the impeachment process is for the Democrats to milk as much political gain as possible from Mr. Trump’s disgrace – including dividing the Republican Party. If Mr. Biden truly wants unity, he should be pushing his Democratic colleagues to drop the impeachment proceedings. Mr. Trump’s behavior in the months following his election were indeed egregious, and he has suffered the consequences, leaving office disgraced and with abysmal approval ratings. It is now time for the country to move on. Continuing down the road of impeachment simply impedes the healing process that Mr. Biden has repeatedly claimed to want.
How President Biden chooses to act in the coming months will be crucial to whether the country will heal or continue to fracture. He has a unique opportunity to promote unity, with broad disgust at the events on January 6th and with a widespread desire for some sort of ‘normalcy.’ Unfortunately, if his conduct since his inauguration is any indication, the unity that Mr. Biden has so often called for will not arrive any time soon – at least not the kind of unity that arises organically. The kind of ‘unity’ Mr. Biden seems to want is the kind that arises when his divisive policy preferences are forced upon every American, willing or not.