On the April issue:

A New World

To the Editor:
It may be, as Eli Lake writes, that a renewed Cold War is inevitable and that free countries must adopt policies that reflect that reality (“The World Has Changed and We Must Change Along With It,” April). But we need to do so with our eyes fully open to the possibility that our standard of living will decline as a result. It is not just Russia and China that have benefited from integration into an open global economy. As Adam Smith would have predicted, Western democracies have gotten wealthier through their access to the products in which those two countries specialize: Russian oil and gas sold to Europe and relatively cheap Chinese-manufactured goods sold to North America. A world that coalesces into one trading bloc for democracies and another for autocracies may, from a Western perspective, be safer and morally sound, but it will also almost certainly be poorer.
Daniel Gormley
Toronto, Ontario, Canada

To the Editor:
Eli Lake’s approach to our handling of Russia, China, and others was excellent. In 1980, I returned from a Foreign Service assignment in Spain. I worked in the trade-policy section of the Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA, and I was amazed to hear staff ask whether the U.S. could maintain hegemony absent economic power. In other words, how can the country survive if it no longer manufactures a lot of various goods? This was forward thinking.

I have watched for about 25 years as our trade balances moved from black to red. We have, ourselves, brought on the current predicament. Since the end of World War II, we have left out Russia and China from numerous trade negotiations, and those countries continue to benefit. To allow this to continue would be suicidal.
Robert Knapp
Versailles, Kentucky

To the Editor:
The ideas in Eli Lake’s article constitute a radical change in our worldview, our business strategies, and the citizen’s perception of his role in a free society.  It’s a new approach that changes almost everything that is vital to us—from our water supplies, to civil defense, to investment at home and abroad. We would do well to hear more arguments in support of this proposed change in personal priorities and national strategy.
John Connelly
Glen Allen, Virginia

To the Editor:
I appreciated Eli Lake’s article on what to do about Russia and other bad actors. It raised the discussion out of the realm of the near-sighted and into a broad vista of policy options. Lake presented a good long-term formula for fighting our adversaries.
Donald Gluck
Albuquerque, New Mexico

Eli Lake writes:
Daniel Gormley is correct that a policy that curtails or ends trade with China, Russia, and other authoritarians will almost certainly shrink Western economies. This is why I think some trade can and should continue with these countries, and the kind of economic resilience I support should be done carefully over time to avoid as much economic disruption as possible. But we should also recognize that trade with Russia and China have economic downsides. The outrageous theft of intellectual property and technology by China is due in part to the willingness of Western corporations to submit to Chinese regulations when they establish subsidiaries there. European dependence on Russian natural gas has given the Kremlin a valuable weapon against our allies in the form of energy blackmail.

I thank Robert Knapp for the kind words on the essay. And I agree that it would be good to make some products in America again. Among these should be the components of cell towers and medical supplies. That said, I would hope that the market, and not heavy-handed government policy, would dictate these decisions.

I appreciate the thoughtful letters of John Connelly and Donald Gluck. I wrote the essay to spark a conversation about a new long-term strategy. And I look forward to hearing more constructive suggestions and objections to my thinking.

On Neoconservatism

To the Editor:
I write to thank John Podhoretz for making the rhyming connections between American withdrawals and the advances of evil men into a perceived vacuum (“Neoconservatism: A Vindication,” April). There is another parallel to be watched for and hopefully avoided: the abandonment (some might say betrayal) of U.S. allies when it is politically expedient to do so. That’s what happened, for example, in our forcing peace on South Vietnam, and it is shameful. The lesson here is that Ukraine should either be returned to the 2014 status quo ante or get full NATO membership. Drew Gibson
Hometown withheld

To the Editor:
Reflecting on John Podhoretz’s column on neoconservatism, it’s worth noting that Ronald Reagan showed the way 40 years ago by proclaiming “peace through strength.” That approached led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The obverse of that phrase is “war through weakness.” We saw this when Barack Obama drew a red line in Syria using disappearing ink, allowing Russia to take control of that country. More recently, Joe Biden re-created the Saigon withdrawal in Kabul, and America’s enemies took note. (A decade ago, Biden voted against taking out Osama bin Laden. He has been nothing but consistent.)

Deterrence gave way to deference, and neoconservatism became a pejorative term. This change resulted in Russia’s deadly and destructive invasion of Ukraine. But neoconservatism’s plaque is being burnished once again. History is being relearned.
Fred Ehrman
New York City

Greenblatt and the ADL

To the Editor:
Seth Mandel wrote a brilliant article about Jonathan Greenblatt and the ADL (“The Revolution Inside the ADL,” April). Thank you for exposing all the insanity of this organization under Greenblatt’s leadership. It’s unacceptable that he has taken hold of the most important American Jewish organization—created to focus exclusively on anti-Semitism—and twisted it to fit the sick narrative of the current woke philosophy, with all of its blatant anti-Semitic and anti-Israel views.

Greenblatt is dividing the Jewish people at a time when we desperately need solidarity. I pray that there will be others in the high ranks of the ADL who will see through the mess that he has made and restore the ADL to its original mission. Thank goodness for the leadership of Rabbi Adam Wright, who is not afraid to call out what is happening and make sure that our Jewish community, as well the larger American community, is aware of all attempts to harm the Jewish people and the State of Israel.
Judy Ladden McDonald
Mountain Brook, Alabama

To the Editor:
After reading Seth Mandel’s article on the ADL, I recalled working with the organization years ago, when it was the premier agency protecting Jews from anti-Semitism. It did stellar work in educating police departments and the FBI on how to keep Jews safe. Today, the ADL still educates police departments all over the U.S., but it is to the tune of wokeism. All of the ethnic-studies, gender, and diversity programs have wiped the Jewish community from the intersectional slate. The woke define Jews as white and privileged and not entitled to “victim” status, or much of any status.

The ADL’s denial of real Jew-hatred in radical spaces on the left and among the jihadists and other malevolent forces places Jews in a dangerous position. Many Jews are unaware of this and continue to fund the ADL and their programs. But we are facing ever-increasing threats without the benefit of sufficient leadership.
Lucie Ramsey
Banning, California

The Emotional Media

To the Editor:
Christine Rosen nailed it when she wrote, “And as stories increasingly include emotional opinions about events rather than objective analysis, feelings are elevated over facts” (“I’m OK, I’m OK,” April). The elevation of feelings about the news over the news itself is so ubiquitous that once you start to see it, you can’t stop. On both morning and evening news shows, every story is concluded with an anchor’s emotional evaluation along the lines of “very disturbing” or “just heartbreaking.” It’s slightly amusing when, say, Gayle King does it because her reactions are often simply goofy. But from the mouths of others, it’s just an irritating new journalistic tic. What they think about a given story is not news.  

Walter Cronkite had one personal reaction to news in his entire career, and that was when we landed on the Moon. Even when he announced the death of JFK, the most he did was remove his glasses and try hard not to let people know he was doing anything more than reading the news. It’s not that Gayle King isn’t Walter Cronkite; it’s that she’s clearly being ordered to be the anti–Walter Cronkite.
Jonathan Falk
Rye, New York

Christine Rosen writes:
I appreciate Jonathan Falk’s letter. The media’s embrace of overly emotional commentary and therapeutic language is both condescending and contributing to an erosion of trust.

This isn’t just journalists being lazy. The emphasis on emotion is also used to elevate subjective concepts such as “my truth” over objective facts, and to reward journalists who put their own ideologically motivated views at the center of their reporting, rather than setting them aside.

That’s fine for opinion writers, but the many ways in which this practice has infected straightforward news reporting is worrisome. It distorts the public’s ability to understand complex political issues. Assuming that most people aren’t as well informed or intelligent as journalists, those journalists condescend to readers and viewers by crafting a simplistic narrative. No wonder that people then question that narrative, find it ideologically blinkered or lacking in fact, and cease to trust media institutions.