On the January issue:

The Future of the GOP

To the Editor:
John Podhoretz’s article on the state of the Republican Party is terrific (“GOPocalypse Now?” January). It explains quite fully what has happened to it over the past few years.

I do, however, disagree with Podhoretz’s characterization of the Democratic Party. Although wokeness, cancel culture, and elitism have monopolized Democrats’ attention and shifted the party’s focus away from the common man, it remains our option for moving forward. Climate change, health-care, the pursuit of science, and the general welfare are better addressed by a center-left party than by today’s Republicans. Democrats face their own set of challenges if they are to get back to their FDR roots. But Republicans need to go back even further—to the wisdom of Lincoln. Thank you for a great article.
Bill Byrne
Hilton Head, South Carolina

To the Editor:
I share John Podhoretz’s horror at the influence Donald Trump has had, and continues to have, on the Republican Party. I am part of the Republican base, and I voted for Trump twice, holding my nose the second time. But I have learned a costly lesson. No matter the policies I may have had in common with the man, he possesses such a narcissistic, sickening character that ultimately everything he touches turns to dust.

I live in McLean, Virginia, and watched as Glenn Youngkin became our governor by distancing himself carefully from Trump in such a way that he would not excite Trump’s irrational hatred for non-loyalty and turn Trump into an enemy. It worked. By refusing to campaign with Trump and avoiding his name, he won easily and brought on many Democratic voters. This strategy is the GOP’s best chance for the future. The Republican leadership needs to join ranks, agree that Trump is an albatross, and work together to block his influence. The Trump faithful will always vote Republican, but Republicans need not let Trump fill the ballots with his personally chosen gang of losers anymore.
Lynda Wilson
McLean, Virginia

Stoppard and Herzl

To the Editor:
Howard Husock wrote a thought-provoking article on Leopoldstadt (“Tom Stoppard and the Failure of ‘Diasporism,’” January). I feel as if it were written for Jewish and Gentile readers who, like me, are concerned about modern American anti-Semitism.

Bringing Herzl’s Altneuland face to face with Veblen’s not currently well-known remarks about the contribution of the Diaspora to world culture recalls the truth of Amalek’s protean threat to the peace of mind of a religious Jewish quietist. We must take our hats off to Husock for commenting concretely on these points made by Stoppard’s timely, brilliant, and finely tuned drama. The play and the article remind us that Am Yisrael Chai is still a hopeful cry because of our tiny, but great and sovereign, Middle-Eastern Judenstaat.
Robert S. April
New York City

Howard Husock writes:
Robert S. April’s kind words underscore the tragic truth of
Stoppard’s play: Diasporism is tempting owing to its periodic golden ages. Yet, as we see even in the U.S. that some of us dared to think of as a new Zion, Amalek lurks.

Military Educators

To the Editor:
Robert Pondiscio’s article about using retired military personnel in the classroom brought back vivid memories of my own experience with this idea (“From the Halls of Montezuma to the Halls of Central High,” January). I retired from the Navy as a captain in 1998.  I was a submarine officer and commanded two nuclear submarines and the submarine base in Pearl Harbor.  My last tour of duty was three years as a professor of naval science at MIT. And at Boston University, I taught a leadership course to my senior midshipmen. Interested in teaching math or science at the middle- or high-school level and knowing that I was going to retire in Northern Virginia, I researched the local requirements for an alternate teaching-certificate program. After learning the number of educations credits required for various subjects, I enrolled in the relevant classes at Boston University. I got all the required credits and made straight A’s.  

I then sent my résumé and Boston University transcripts to every middle- and high-school principal in Fairfax County. In time, I received only one reply thank me and letting  me know that the school would keep my résumé “on file.” I even tried to get an interview with the principal at the Fairfax County high school I graduated from.  He was apparently too busy.

I finally gave up and got another great job. Soon after, the Washington Post featured a front-page article noting that Fairfax County was very short on math and science teachers. I wrote a letter to the editor explaining my experience, and an investigative reporter responded, saying he wanted to look into my story. He reported back to me that the cover story for my rejections was that I was overqualified. He said the truth, however, was that they didn’t want to hire a military officer who might actually challenge the system and try to improve it.
Mike McHugh
Jacksonville, Florida

To the Editor:
My own experience bolster’s Robert Pondiscio’s argument.  In 2005, I enlisted in the Marine Corps out of high school and spent five years on active duty. I have no training in childhood education, but I taught my five-year-old daughter how to read at roughly a second-grade level the summer before she started kindergarten. All it took was using the basic and obvious principles of phonetics. Now in first grade, she remains far and away one of the most literate children in her class, and perhaps even compared with kids a grade or two above her. It’s not rocket science. People who say otherwise are running a grift.
Chris Casberg
Madras, Oregon

To the Editor:
I agree with Robert Pondiscio that using veterans to teach in public schools is a very good idea. Ironically, many university departments of education now no longer teach future teachers how to teach at all. They teach everything else instead.

Veterans with their real-life experiences used to be very much sought after by school districts.  If that’s no longer the case, it’s clearly the work of the long-politicized and corrupt teachers’ unions.
Jim Cox
Xenia, Ohio

Robert Pondiscio writes:
One of the best arguments for enlisting retired military personnel as teachers was made by that paragon of progressive education himself, John Dewey. “I believe that the school must represent present life,” he wrote over a century ago. Military service is a part of “present life” that is underrepresented in our schools. Dewey’s oft-quoted maxim is usually invoked to defend “hands-on” learning and other pedagogical fads. But it applies to our teacher corps. There’s no reason it should not include men and women who served our country honorably, and who gained essential skills and values that would be an asset to students. If our schools of education reject this notion—if they hold to the belief that they are an indispensable on-ramp to classroom success and should maintain control of the teacher pipeline—the onus is on them not just to say it, but to demonstrate it. Until then, there’s no reason not to allow veterans to continue their service: in the classroom. 

The Disinfo Beat

To the Editor:
Christine Rosen does a superb job of exposing the arrogance and sophistry of the progressive media (“How Disinformation Journalists Practice Disinformation,” January). The journalists she writes about exacerbate deceit and division within the Fourth Estate, which was once a great hope for fairness and a level playing field in matters of public discourse. 

I am a retired career newspaperman. For over four decades, I witnessed journalism devolve slowly from a fact-finding enterprise into an advocacy trade. Among journalists, a fearless commitment to the public’s right to know has been supplanted by wokeness. 

It’s hard to imagine that Russian disinformation—wherever it may actually exist—could be as devastating as American disinformation has been for the U.S. and its cherished institutions.
Dale McConnaughay
White Cloud, Michigan

To the Editor:
I admire Christine Rosen’s restraint and rationality in discussing the hypocritical disinformation police. She could easily have told us that journalists such as Ben Collins and Brandy Zadrozny are a major threat to our democracy—because they are. But in maintaining her own journalistic composure, she will gain a wider and receptive readership for this very important and insightful piece.
David Sager
Highland Park, Illinois

Christine Rosen writes:
I greatly appreciate Dale McConnaughay’s and David Sager’s comments. They are correct that the efforts of “disinformation” reporters are part of a broader movement in journalism away from the ideal of objectivity and toward open advocacy for one’s pet causes. Pure objectivity is impossible, of course; journalists are human beings with all of the attendant strengths and weaknesses. But objectivity is nevertheless an important ideal to pursue, however imperfectly. It is no surprise that such a move away from laudable journalistic standards and practices (such as checking one’s sources, striving for neutrality when writing about controversial issues, keeping one’s personal politics out of one’s stories, and making every effort not to become the story oneself) has coincided with a sharp decrease in public trust in the Fourth Estate. While the mainstream media goes all-in on such partisan practices, however, it is heartening to see a new generation of independent journalists launching their own publications, newsletters, and podcasts in an effort to restore integrity to a profession that, in the mainstream, has largely abandoned it. 

Digital Downfall

To the Editor:
James B. Meigs has written an informative synthesis of the rise and fall of some reputed tech visionaries (“Twilight of the Tech Gods,” January). One area to monitor closely going forward is nanotechnology. We don’t know with any certainty how developments in that industry will ultimately affect ordinary humans.

All these technologies can either simplify or complicate life. This is evident in people’s choice of entertainment, living quarters, and means of transportation.  

As a Boomer, I keep reminding myself of an old saying attributed to various wise icons: “Live simply, so that others may simply live.”  We certainly don’t need more gadgets or more sophisticated weapons that destroy the environment and spread suffering to millions. 

We just need to meet our basic necessities and enjoy nature in the company of others.
Susana M. Sotillo
Bloomfield, New Jersey

To the Editor:
In his January Tech Commentary column, James B. Meigs offers salient points on industries’ technocrats, but his commentary misses the big picture. Until society rejects technocracy writ large, there is little hope that CEO Media Worship will end.

In government, universities, and industry, technocracies’ creeping tendrils have slid to all corners of society. Sam Bankman-Fried is only the latest example of this trend. Before him, we had Anthony Fauci. The list goes on. The answer is a return to liberalism, à la Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek, and others. 

One of liberalism’s core tenets is humility, or the belief that we are fallible. If we accept this, we will see the risks inherent in elevating any individual to a godlike status—whether he’s a dictator, public health official, or benevolent executive.

Adam Smith maintained that he never knew “much good done by those who affected to trade for the common good.” He would’ve seen Bankman-Fried coming from a mile away. If we lean into this sentiment, maybe we would, too.
David Waugh
Managing Editor,
American Institute for Economic Research