Category: Commentary Page 1 of 10

This is the home of grumpy opinions.

What Is Fascism Anyway?

On March 29, 2025

Fascist! The very word conjures up images of totalitarianism, militarism, suppression of dissent and brutality. Unfortunately, it’s become a ubiquitous portion of our political discourse. Each side, at one time or another, has accused the other of being fascist. But what do they really mean by fascist? Do they understand the definition and the reality of fascism? Or do they simply mean: “I disagree with you, and I really want to make you sound evil.”

I decided I needed to know more about fascism, so I’ve done some research, and I’d like to share the results with you. As I frequently do, I’ll start with the dictionary definition. According to Merriam-Webster fascism is a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

As with many dictionary definitions, it gives us the 50,000-foot view without any real detail. What I’d like to do is cover the origins of fascism, its basic principles and how it rose to prominence in the middle of the 20th century. I also want to compare fascism to communism—another ideology that shaped much of the 20th century—and to provide insights into the differences and similarities between these two systems.

The Origins of Fascism

Fascism emerged in the early 20th century, primarily in Italy, as a reaction to the perceived failures of liberal democracy and socialism. The term itself comes from the Italian word “fascio,” meaning a bundle or group, symbolizing unity and collective strength. It also references fasces, a bundle of rods tied around an ax symbolizing authority in the Roman Republic. It was appropriated as a symbol by Italian fascists in an attempt to identify with Roman history, much as American patriotic symbols are being appropriated by the radical right in the U.S. today.

Benito Mussolini, an Italian political leader, is often credited as the founder of fascism. He established the groundwork for first fascist regime in Italy beginning in 1922 after he was appointed Prime Minister. Fascism arose in a period of social and economic turmoil following the First World War. Many people in Europe were disillusioned with the existing political systems, which they believed had failed to prevent the war and its devastating consequences. The post-war economic instability, along with fears of communist revolutions like the one in Russia, provided fertile ground for the rise of fascist movements.

Moussolini, together with Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile, published “The Doctrine of Fascism” (La Dottrina del Fascismo) in 1932, after he had consolidated political power in his hands. It lays out the guiding principles and theoretical foundations of fascism, stressing nationalism, anti-communism, the glorification of the state, the belief in a strong centralized leadership, and the rejection of liberal democracy.

The Philosophical Basis of Fascism

Fascism is rooted in several key philosophical ideas:

Nationalism and Militarism: Fascism places the nation or race at the center of its ideology, often elevating it to a quasi-religious status. The state is seen as a living entity that must be protected and expanded through internal police action and external military strength.
Authoritarianism: Fascists reject democratic institutions, believing that a strong, centralized authority is necessary to maintain order and achieve national greatness. Individual freedoms are subordinated to the needs of the state.
Anti-Communism and Anti-Liberalism: Fascism is explicitly opposed to both communism and liberal democracy. It views communism as a threat to national unity and social order, while liberal democracy is seen as weak and indecisive.
Social Darwinism: Fascists often believe in the idea of the survival of the fittest, applying this concept to nations and races. They argue that conflict and struggle are natural and necessary for the advancement of the state.

Implementation and Practice of Fascism

Fascism has been implemented in various forms, with Italy under Mussolini and Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler being the most prominent examples. In practice, fascist regimes are characterized by:

Centralized Power: Fascist governments concentrate power in the hands of a single leader or party, often through the use of propaganda, censorship, political repression, and mass imprisonment and execution of opponents.
State Control of the Economy: While fascists generally allow for private ownership, they maintain strict control over the economy, directing resources toward the state’s goals, particularly militarization.
Suppression of Dissent: Fascist regimes are intolerant of opposition, often using violence, imprisonment, and even assassination to eliminate political rivals and suppress dissent.
Cult of Personality: Fascist leaders often create a cult of personality, presenting themselves as the embodiment of the nation and its destiny.

Comparing Fascism and Communism

While both fascism and communism reject liberal democracy, they differ significantly in their goals and methods.

Philosophical Differences:
- Fascism: As mentioned earlier, fascism emphasizes nationalism, authoritarianism, and social hierarchy. It seeks to create a strong, unified state that can compete with other nations on the global stage.
- Communism: Communism, based on the ideas of Karl Marx, advocates for a classless society where the means of production are owned collectively. It seeks to eliminate private property and achieve equality among all citizens.
Economic Systems:
- Fascism: Fascists allow for private ownership but maintain state control over key industries and direct economic activity to serve the state’s interests.
- Communism: Communism advocates for the abolition of private property, with all means of production owned and controlled by the state (or the people in theory). The economy is centrally planned and managed.
Political Structures:
- Fascism: Fascist regimes are typically one-party states with a strong leader at the top. Political pluralism is non-existent, and the government exercises strict control over all aspects of life.
- Communism: Communist states are also typically one-party systems, but they claim to represent the working class. In practice, these regimes often become highly centralized and authoritarian or totalitarian, similar to fascist states.

Comparative Examples

Italy and Nazi Germany (Fascism): Both Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Germany exemplify fascist regimes. They were characterized by aggressive nationalism, military expansionism, and the suppression of political opposition. Hitler’s regime, however, took these ideas to their most extreme and horrifying conclusion with the Holocaust, a genocide driven by racist ideology.
Soviet Union (Communism): The Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin provides a clear example of a totalitarian communist state. The government abolished private property, collectivized agriculture, and implemented central planning. Political repression was severe, with millions of people imprisoned, starved to death or executed during Stalin’s purges. It is important to recognize that Stalinist communism differed significantly from the theoretical communism of Karl Marx.

Conclusion

Fascism and communism, despite their profound differences, share certain similarities in practice, particularly in their authoritarianism and intolerance of dissent. However, their philosophical foundations and goals are fundamentally different: fascism seeks to elevate the nation above all else, while communism theoretically aims to create a classless society. Understanding these ideologies and their historical manifestations is crucial for anyone interested in the political history of the 20th century and its lasting impact on the world today.

We can use our understanding of fascism and its comparison to democracy to ask important questions. What kind of government do we want? Are there any possible crossovers or compromises between the two? And, importantly, should there be?

Postscript

Many of the ideas in this post were inspired by two excellent books on the subject, “The Origins of Totalitarianism” by Hannah Arendt and “Fascism: A Warning” by Madeleine Albright.

Choosing Not to Know

By John Turley

On March 19, 2025

In Commentary

Why We Avoid Truths That Make Us Uncomfortable

One afternoon during the COVID lockdown I was scrolling through online news sites looking for something to read. I realized I was intentionally bypassing sites I knew I would disagree with. This surprised me because I have always been a proponent of critical thinking. Here I was practicing its antithesis— willful ignorance—intentionally avoiding evidence that contradicts my beliefs or preferences.

This behavior may seem irrational, yet it persists across all aspects of life, from personal relationships to religious beliefs to political ideologies. Understanding why we cling to falsehoods, what value we derive from this behavior, and how we can counter it is essential for fostering open-mindedness and informed decision-making.

We often assume that willful ignorance is something that affects “them”—the people with whom we disagree. Anyone can fall victim to willful ignorance, even you and me.

When we encounter evidence that contradicts our beliefs, we experience cognitive dissonance—a state of mental discomfort caused by holding two conflicting ideas simultaneously. To resolve this discomfort, we often reject new evidence rather than altering our existing worldview.

We tend to seek out and interpret information in ways that confirm our pre-existing beliefs while ignoring or dismissing evidence to the contrary. This conformation bias reinforces our opinions and shields us from uncomfortable truths.

Our beliefs are often tied to our social identity. Having our beliefs challenged can feel like an attack on our sense of self or on our group affiliations. Maintaining allegiance to a shared belief—whether religious, political, or cultural—can feel more important than factual accuracy.

Contradictory evidence can create fear and uncertainty, especially if it undermines our understanding of the world. Clinging to familiar falsehoods can provide us a sense of security and predictability.

We invest time, energy, and emotions into our beliefs. Admitting we were wrong may feel like a personal failure or a waste of effort, making it easier to reject new information than to reconsider long-held positions.

Despite its drawbacks, willful ignorance offers psychological and social benefits that make it appealing. Ignoring uncomfortable truths can protect us against guilt, shame, or fear, while providing a sense of inner peace and emotional comfort. We may attempt to maintain our sense of self and group identification by avoiding information that threatens our worldview. Engaging with complex or contradictory information requires mental effort. Ignoring it simplifies decision-making, reducing cognitive load. Aligning with a group’s shared beliefs—regardless of their accuracy—fosters social cohesion and acceptance.

While anyone can fall into willful ignorance, certain factors may make some groups more prone to it. Studies show that individuals across the political spectrum exhibit willful ignorance, though the issues they ignore vary. For example, conservatives may deny climate change, while progressives may overlook the economic costs of policies they favor. Groups that emphasize doctrinal adherence may be more resistant to evidence that challenges theological teachings. Older adults may resist evidence that challenges long-held beliefs. However, younger individuals can also exhibit willful ignorance, particularly in social media echo chambers.

We are more likely to reconsider our beliefs in an environment where we feel we have been heard and understood rather than attacked and ridiculed. Constructive dialogue, rather than confrontation, opens the door to change. Facts alone often fail to persuade. Framing evidence within emotionally resonant stories can make it more effective. Presenting new information in small, digestible portions helps reduce cognitive dissonance and makes new ideas less threatening. We are more likely to accept information from sources we trust, particularly those who share our cultural or ideological background.

Convincing someone that their beliefs are counterproductive requires tact and patience. But, before trying to change others, we must first examine our own beliefs to ensure we are not guilty of the same behavior. Self-examination is the first step in addressing willful ignorance.

Willful ignorance thrives in environments of fear, division, and mistrust. Countering it requires empathy, compassion, and truth. If we engage with others in a spirit of understanding rather than confrontation, we have a better chance of bridging divides and creating meaningful change.

The journey is challenging, but the rewards—for both individuals and society—will be worth the effort.

Don’t Forget Climate Change

By John Turley

On March 18, 2025

In Commentary, Politics

It Affects Us All

Climate change, one of the most critical challenges facing humanity in the 21st century, seems to be forgotten in all the controversy surrounding DOGE. Regardless of everything else going on, we can’t ignore climate change because it affects global temperatures, weather patterns, ecosystems, and economies. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that human activities—primarily the burning of fossil fuels—are driving climate change.

The existence of climate change and the impact of human activity, like any other field of science, includes areas of disagreement among researchers. One of the principal areas of disagreement is about the sensitivity of the climate to the increase in CO2 production and the rate at which global warming will occur. There’s also discussion about how effective climate models may be with some arguing that the models may either overestimate or underestimate certain effects. A significant area of disagreement is over what is known as the “tipping points”. This is a debate about when or if certain events such as ice sheet collapse, permafrost thaw or ocean circulation changes might occur. Some argue these events could trigger rapid self-reinforcing climate shifts while others believe changes will be more gradual. Even with this disagreement there is broad acceptance that climate change has increased the frequency and intensity of heat waves, heavy rain and extreme weather.

As intense as some of these scientific debates maybe, they pale in significance beside the political debates being generated around climate change.

When the possibility of climate change was first recognized in the 1970s and 1980s there was bipartisan support to address possible remediation of long-term impacts. Republican President Richard Nixon signed landmark environmental laws including the Clean Air Act.

During the 1990s climate change became more polarized. President George H. W. Bush begin to frame climate change policy as an economic threat. George W. Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol to avoid “economic hindrance”.

By 2008 the partisan divide had significantly increased. Republicans increasingly dismissed climate risks while Democrats amplified the urgency of taking action. By 2023, 78% of Democrats prioritized climate policy, but only 21% of Republicans viewed climate action as urgent despite increasing climate risks in some GOP dominated states such as Florida and Texas.

The partisan gap expanded as conservative science skeptics continued to raise issues about rates of change, economic impacts and potential solutions. These conservatives tend to view climate policies as government overreach, while progressives hold the position that the government led initiatives are essential to combat environmental threats.

As they have in many other issues, the media have lined up into conservative and progressive camps. The conservative leaning media downplays climate risks while the liberal leaning media emphasizes the danger and need for urgent action. As with many other things this leads to a “echo chamber” effect simply reinforcing political beliefs without adding anything new of significance to the debate.

The Trump administration has signaled its desire to undo many of the climate change initiatives put in place by Democratic administrations. On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14162 directing the immediate withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Climate Agreements and related international climate commitments. He has declared a “National Energy Emergency” to accelerate fossil fuel development and ease restrictions on the construction of new oil and gas projects. As part of this effort, he has weakened environmental reviews. This is expected to significantly increase fossil fuel consumption and associated greenhouse gas emissions. The Trump administration has begun the rollback of environmental regulations. Lobbyists for the oil, gas and chemical industries have been appointed to the Environmental Protection Agency to reverse climate regulations and pollution controls.

The administration is withdrawing funding for clean energy initiatives including those aimed at reducing carbon emissions and promoting renewable energy resources. The administration has initiated a review of the “legality and continued applicability” of the EPA’s endangerment finding which is the basis of most federal regulations on greenhouse gas. The administration rolled back regulations limiting methane emissions from oil and gas operations. The definition of “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act was narrowed, potentially allowing increased pollution in streams and wetlands.

We can expect increases in severe weather because of Trump’s environmental policies. These policy decisions collectively hinder efforts to mitigate climate change, potentially leading to increased greenhouse emissions and global warming. Reduction in funding for climate change research and the rollback of environmental regulations will have long term adverse effects on both domestic and global environmental health.

Significant budget cuts and layoffs within agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) could impair the ability to forecast and respond to severe weather events. For instance, the reduction of meteorologists and environmental scientists may hinder critical forecasting services, affecting public safety during events like hurricanes, tornados and floods.

The U.S. withdrawal from international climate initiatives, such as the Loss and Damage Fund, reduces financial support for developing countries dealing with climate-induced disasters. This could lead to inadequate infrastructure and preparedness in vulnerable regions, potentially increasing the severity of weather-related impacts.

While it is challenging to attribute specific future weather events to current policy changes directly, the administration’s environmental policies will likely contribute to conditions that favor more frequent and intense extreme weather events. The combination of increased greenhouse gas emissions together with weakened environmental regulations, reduced climate research capabilities, and diminished global climate cooperation collectively enhance the likelihood and impact of severe weather phenomena. This damage to our environment needs to be prevented! Once it occurs it will be difficult to ever reverse and our children and grandchildren will suffer as a result.

Don’t Cut and Run on Ukraine

By John Turley

On March 5, 2025

In Commentary, Politics

Like many Americans, my wife and I were both embarrassed and disgusted by the Oval Office ambush of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy by Donald Trump and JD Vance. We were so upset by this disgraceful treatment of the visiting president of a sovereign nation, that we followed the lead of a friend and immediately ordered “I Stand With Ukraine” T-shirts.

The oval office meeting held on February 28, 2025, was ostensibly intended to finalize a mineral rights agreement between the United States and Ukraine. The deal was seen as a strategic move to reduce US dependence on Chinese rare earth minerals and to support Ukraine’s economy amidst its ongoing conflict with Russia.

In what appeared to be a planned attack, Vice President Vance berated President Zelenskyy, making false claims of ingratitude on the part of Ukraine. President Trump quickly escalated the situation by criticizing Zelenskyy’s approach to the war and asserting that the Ukraine was “gambling with World War III.” He then demanded that President Zelenskyy admit that he was responsible for the war and could end it at any time by making a deal. Trump further demanded that Zelenskyy admit that it was Ukraine that was responsible both for initiating and prolonging the war.

If there is any doubt this was a planned and likely scripted meeting on the part of the Trump administration, you only have to look at Donald Trump’s closing statement for the meeting. “I think we’ve seen enough. This is going to be great television.”

The fallout from this event has significant implications for international diplomacy and the ongoing conflict in Eastern Europe. The suspension of U.S. military aid to Ukraine following the meeting has raised concerns about Ukraine’s ability to defend itself against Russian advances. Ukrainian officials expressed disappointment but remained defiant with one military official stating, “we will fight with or without their help.”

President Trump has labeled Zelenskyy a dictator who is unwilling to negotiate peace. He claims that the Ukraine initiated hostilities against the Russian speaking population, requiring Russia to intervene. These claims have long since been debunked, yet Donald Trump continues to repeat them. It has been interesting this past week to watch Trump nominees try to avoid saying whether they believed Russia has invaded Ukraine. They evaded questions by saying they didn’t have all the facts, or it wasn’t appropriate for them to respond, when obviously they did not want to lie under oath and claim that Russia had not invaded Ukraine.

Russian officials and state media reacted with approval to the Oval Office clash. China, Syria, North Korea and Iran also supported the Trump administration’s approach.

The French President and the British Prime Minister both reaffirmed their commitment to Ukrainian sovereignty and condemned the manner in which the meeting was conducted.

Decide with whom you prefer to have the United States aligned, our long-standing allies and other democratic governments, or with autocrats and dictators.

We invite you to join us and proudly proclaim “I STAND WITH UKRAINE.”

Oppression in Politics: Totalitarian and Authoritarian Systems

By John Turley

On February 20, 2025

In Commentary, Politics, Uncategorized

Since January 20th there has been extensive use of the terms authoritarian and totalitarian to refer to the actions of the current administration. While totalitarian and authoritarian are often used interchangeably, they represent similar but distinct forms of governance with critical differences. If we’re going to hold rational discussions about these theories, we should be using the same terminology.

A totalitarian government seeks to control every aspect of public and private life, including political, economic, social, and cultural domains. The government uses a specific ideology to unify and dominate society. The government strives to regulate all aspects of life, leaving no room for personal freedoms or independent thought. A guiding ideology is central, often enforced by propaganda, indoctrination, and censorship. The government frequently relies on widespread surveillance, police state tactics, and brutal suppression of dissent. All institutions, media, education, economy, and religion are state-controlled.

Examples include Nazi Germany, unified under an ideology of racial purity and Stalin’s Soviet Union, ostensibly organized under a Marxist ideology. Both governments maintained control of their population through propaganda, brutal police actions, terror and murder.

An authoritarian government is characterized by strong central power with limited political freedoms, but it does not seek to control all aspects of life. Unlike totalitarian regimes, authoritarian states often allow some degree of personal freedom in areas like culture, business, or religion, as long as these do not challenge political authority. Typically, these regimes are pragmatic and focused on maintaining power, not enforcing an all-encompassing ideology. They are more likely to be organized around the personality of the dictatorial leader. While repression is common, it is often less pervasive and targeted primarily at political opponents.

Franco’s Spain had limited political freedoms but allowed religious and cultural autonomy. Putin’s Russia allows limited economic freedom for members of the Russian oligarchy.

The main distinction lies in the scope of control. Totalitarian regimes seek to control all aspects of life and demand ideological conformity. Authoritarian regimes primarily focus on political power and allow some personal autonomy as long as it does not threaten the regime.

In summary, all totalitarian governments are authoritarian, but not all authoritarian governments are totalitarian.

Waiting For The Reichstag Fire

By John Turley

On February 16, 2025

In Commentary, History, Politics

On the evening of February 27th, 1933 the German Reichstag burst into flames. This attack on the German national parliament building was viewed by many as an attack on Germany itself.

A Dutchman named Marinus van der Lubbe was found and arrested at the scene almost immediately after the fire erupted. The Nazis quickly claimed that the fire was part of a broader communist uprising and used this claim to push for emergency powers.

Van der Lubbe confessed to setting the fire alone, but the Nazi Party quickly claimed that it was part of a widespread communist conspiracy. Many people believe that the Nazis may have set the fire themselves and used it as a pretext to declare emergency rule.

Adolf Hitler persuaded German President Paul von Hindenburg to issue the “Decree for the Protection of the People and the State” which suspended civil liberties, including freedom of speech, press and assembly. It allowed for the arrest and detention of political opponents without due process. Thousands of communists and socialists were arrested.

Within a month new elections were held. While the Nazis did not win an outright majority, they used the fire to create fear that led to passage of the “Enabling Act” on March 23, 1933. The act gave Hitler dictatorial powers, effectively ending democracy in Germany.

The Reichstag Fire was a crucial point in world history. Whether it was a Nazi engineered false flag operation or the act of a alone arsonist, it provided Hitler with the excuse he needed to dismantle democracy and establish a totalitarian dictatorship. This is a chilling example of how fear and propaganda can be weaponized to erase freedom; a lesson that remains relevant today.

Hijacked Healthcare- A System In Crisis

By John Turley

On February 8, 2025

In Commentary, Medicine, Politics

For more than 30 years I have watched our health care system become increasingly more politicized. As a physician I have become concerned with the direction it has recently taken.

Until the early 20th century healthcare was mostly private, and medical expenses were out of pocket. Early calls for national health insurance began with labor organizations and were quickly joined by progressive politicians. President Franklin Roosevelt wanted to include health insurance in the Social Security Act of 1935 but was unable to get it passed. President Harry Truman also proposed a National Health Insurance program in 1945, but it was denounced as socialized medicine. All these efforts were opposed by business interests, conservative politicians — particularly southern— and surprisingly, the American Medical Association.

Finally in the 1960s as part of his “Great Society” programs President Lyndon Johnson pushed for the passage of both Medicare and Medicaid. Rising costs of health care under President Richard Nixon led to the introduction of Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) as an attempt to encourage cost efficiency. President Ronald Reagan reduced federal health care spending and pushed for more privatization. In the 1990s President Bill Clinton attempted to introduce universal health coverage but it was met by fierce opposition from the insurance industry, business, and the Republican Party who labeled it as government “overreach”. Finally in 2010 President Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA) also called “Obamacare” became the most significant health care reform since Medicare and Medicaid. It also faced legal challenges and political resistance with the Republicans consistently attempting to repeal it. During his first term, President Donald Trump reduced ACA funding and repealed the individual mandate penalty that had required people who did not maintain health insurance to pay a fee. The elimination of the penalty weakened the law and reduced the number of people who sought coverage. We can expect further efforts to weaken the provisions of the ACA but given that it is well entrenched in the US healthcare system now is unlikely that it will be completely repealed.

While early health care programs faced significant controversy and strong debate, progress in providing expanded coverage and improved care was continuous. I’m concerned that we’re about to enter an era where many of our gains in public health are going to be reversed. The United States remains unique among wealthy nations as the only one without universal health care and I fear that we will begin to lose what gains we have made over the past several decades.

I’ve written previously about my concerns with vaccine resistance and the elimination of vaccination requirements for school children. I believe that this is an impending public health disaster and I’m afraid there are even greater disasters on the horizon.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr has been nominated by President Trump to be the secretary of Health and Human Services and by the time you read this he may well have been confirmed. During his confirmation hearings Kennedy has made a few positive statements. He’s expressed an intent to increase focus on chronic diseases such as diabetes and obesity. He has indicated support for rural hospitals. He would like to increase training for physicians in addiction care and increase access to treatment programs. He is also indicated plans to improve American diet by targeting ultra processed foods, contaminants in food, and placing restrictions on food additives. He also has proposed reforms to include stricter FDA oversight of the food supply.

However, there are several very troubling aspects to his nomination. He has a history as a vaccine denier although he is currently denying that denial. He said he is not anti vaccine but is pro safety. He has stated he will support polio and measles vaccines and that all his children have been vaccinated. (In 2020, while speaking on the podcast of his nonprofit organization Children’s Health Defense, Kennedy said that he would do anything, pay anything to be able to go back in time to avoid giving his children the vaccines that he gave them.) Given his history of anti vaccine statements and the fact that he profits from anti vaccine litigation it’s likely he will return to previous anti vaccine positions once confirmed.

He has proposed significant changes to both the CDC and the NIH including significant staff changes. He has proposed redirecting funding to preventative/alternative medicine.

Most troubling is his poor understanding of Medicare and Medicaid programs. During questioning he showed a lack of understanding of the funding sources and statutory requirements of the two programs.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) faces considerable threat. House Republicans have proposed a $1.8 billion cut (22%) to CDC’s budget. These budget cuts target programs that address opioid overdoses, firearm injuries and food safety monitoring. This budget conflicts with Kennedy’s statements about his priorities and it remains to be seen how this will be resolved. The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 has advocated splitting the CDC into two separate entities: one for data collection and another for limited public health guidance. The intent is to reduce its influence on social policies. The administration has already imposed communications restrictions, requiring that CDC announcements, social media posts and scientific reports undergo political review. There is currently a proposal to reduce the in-house reviews of medical research; there is even a proposal to “deputize the public” to challenge scientific findings used in regulations. This would leave medical research open to review by the least qualified. Unfortunately, he current nominee for CDC director, David Weldon, a physician and former republican congressman, has signaled his intent to narrow the agency’s scope and his support for administration policies.

Highly contentious issues such as gender affirming care and reproductive health have already been severely restricted. It is likely that these areas will come under continued attack by the current administration.

This administration also poses a threat to global health. By executive order the US was withdrawn from the World Health Organization. Additionally, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) has been significantly reduced with all major programs placed on hold. Not only does USAID support foreign aid programs, but it is also a major player in global health.

USAID sponsored programs identify and monitor disease outbreaks, provide treatment and preventive measures for local populations and provide global disease alerts that help protect United States citizens. We are already seeing the beginnings of a worldwide humanitarian healthcare emergency. Not only will this affect healthcare systems but eventually the economic systems in countries who have lost their access to modern medical assistance. We will lose the advanced notice about disease outbreak and spread. Without this remote surveillance, it is possible that we may be caught unaware by the next pandemic until it is ravaging our population.

This administration claims to support “the average American” yet it seems to be intent on destroying all our health.

The Wisdom of Dietrich Bonhoeffer

By John Turley

On January 31, 2025

In Commentary, History

Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906–1945) was a German Lutheran pastor, theologian, and anti-Nazi dissident. Born in Poland into an intellectual family, he pursued theology at the University of Berlin, earning a doctorate at just 21. His early work emphasized the importance of the Church in standing against injustice, a principle that would shape his resistance to Adolf Hitler’s regime.

In the 1930s, Bonhoeffer became a leading voice in the Confessing Church, a movement opposing Nazi influence in German Protestantism. He condemned the regime’s treatment of Jews and rejected the idea of a church subservient to state ideology. After the Nazis banned him from teaching and speaking publicly, he joined the German resistance, working secretly with military officers plotting to overthrow Hitler.

Arrested in 1943 for his role in the conspiracy, Bonhoeffer was imprisoned for two years, during which he wrote some of his most profound theological works, including Letters and Papers from Prison. The quotes below are taken from this work.

On April 9, 1945, just weeks before Germany’s surrender, he was executed at Flossenbürg concentration camp. His legacy endures as a model of Christian resistance, moral courage, and faith in action.

Quotes from Letters and Papers from Prison

“The impression one gains is not so much that stupidity is a congenital defect, but that, under certain circumstances, people are made stupid or that they allow this to happen to them.”

“Having thus become a mindless tool, the stupid person will also be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil. This is where the danger of diabolical misuse lurks, for it is this that can once and for all destroy human beings.”

“Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Against stupidity we are defenseless.”

“Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed – in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical – and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental.”

“In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack.”

Who Will Tell Our Stories?

By John Turley

On January 25, 2025

In Commentary

The Decline of Community Newspapers

“Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” Thomas Jefferson’s words resonate now more than ever in today’s media landscape, where local newspapers—the cornerstone of informed citizenship—are vanishing at an alarming rate. But it is more than just newspapers at risk—it is our very democracy.

Growing up in Charleston during the 1950s and 60s, I witnessed firsthand how integral newspapers were to community life. From delivering The Gazette as a boy to relying on its pages for news of local events and government, newspapers were our primary connection to the world around us.

There weren’t a lot of options for news then. There were no 24-hour news channels. National news on the three networks was about 30 minutes an evening and local news was about 15 minutes. By the late 1960s national news had increased to 60 minutes and most local news to about 30 minutes. Given the limitations of time on the local stations, most of the broadcast was taken up with weather, sports, and human-interest stories with little time left to expand on hard news stories.

We depended on our newspapers for news of our cities, counties, and states and the papers delivered the news we needed. Almost everyone subscribed to and read the local papers. They kept us informed about our local politicians and government and provided local insight on national events. They were also our source for information about births, deaths, marriages, high school graduations and everything we wanted to know about our community.

While newspapers were central in the mid-20th century, the proliferation of digital and broadcast media in the 21st century has transformed how we consume news. There are 24-hour news networks, but they often are a case of too much time and too little news. There are the social media—X (Twitter), Facebook, Tik Tok, Instagram, Truth Social and many other online entities that claim to provide news.

Even though local television news has expanded its format and increased coverage of local hard news, it remains heavily weighted toward sports, weather, and human interest. It is somewhat akin to reading the headline and the first paragraph in a newspaper story. It doesn’t provide in-depth coverage, but hopefully, it motivates people to find out more about events that concern them.

Still, it’s the local newspapers that provide detailed news about local and state events. Here in Charleston our newspapers were consolidated into a single daily paper several years ago. Despite reduced staffing and subscribership, they still make a valiant effort to cover our local news. Eric Eyre provided Pulitzer Prize winning coverage of the opioid epidemic. Currently Phil Kabler, though officially retired, continues to provide insight into the legislature and state government. Mike Tony, another reporter deeply involved in the community, provides coverage of West Virginia energy issues and the ongoing business foibles of our former governor and now senator. Mike recently informed us of an inappropriate—possibly illegal—grant made by the West Virginia Water Development Authority to a private Catholic College in Ohio. The college espouses multiple far right conservative political positions, although they claim this will not influence their project in West Virginia. Mike also pointed out the state statutory requirements for the grant were not met and that the governor’s office, as usual, had no comment. All this was done while West Virginia communities that have been without safe drinking water for months did not receive grants or any other assistance to improve their water systems.

Will TV news ever be able to provide the details about our community? The format of the newspaper allows for more detailed presentations and for a larger variety of stories. The reader can pick which stories to read, when to read them and how much of each to read. I don’t believe that broadcast news will ever fill the role of a free press. The broadcast is an ethereal thing. You hear it and it’s gone. It is always possible to record it and play it back, but most people don’t. Newspapers by their very nature encourage critical thinking. You can read it, think about it, and read it again. There are times when on my second or third reading of an editorial or a news article I’ve changed my opinion about either the subject or the writer. A news broadcast doesn’t lend itself to this type of reflection. When listening to broadcast news I often find my mind wandering as something that the broadcaster said sends me in a different direction.

I worry about the future of newspapers. According to a study by Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism, more than 360 newspapers have closed nationally since the beginning of the COVID pandemic. Since 2005 over 3300 newspapers have closed or consolidated—more than one third of the nation’s total. The U.S. has also lost about 43,000 newspaper journalists, representing nearly two-thirds of the total. It would be a tragedy to continue losing newspapers and journalists at this rate.

I beg everyone to please subscribe to your local newspapers. I generally prefer the hands-on, physical newspaper though I understand many people prefer the convenience of the digital version and I find myself moving in this direction. Whichever version you prefer, please subscribe. Don’t pretend that online sources, such as Facebook, X, and Instagram will provide you with local news rather than just gossip. Even the online news feeds from the dedicated news networks such as CNN or Fox provide little more than headlines. There’s little you can use to make an informed decision.

Without local news, we risk losing touch with how local and state governments affect our lives. Without this knowledge, we may be at risk of losing our freedom. Many countries that have succumbed to dictatorship have first lost their free press. One of the first acts of the would-be dictator is to attempt to silence the free press.

In my opinion, broadcast news is controlled by advertising dollars and viewer ratings affecting their coverage and orientation. News seems to be treated like any entertainment program with the output designed to attract an audience, not present facts. I recognize that this can be the case with newspapers as well, but it seems to me that it’s much easier to detect bias in the written word than in the spoken word. Too often we can get caught up in the emotions of the presenter or in the graphics that accompany the story.

With that in mind, I recommend that if you want unbiased journalism, please support your local newspapers before we lose them. Once they are gone, we will never get them back and we will all be much the poorer as a result.

I will leave you with a final quote.

A free press is the unsleeping guardian of every other right that free men prize; it is the most dangerous foe of tyranny. –Winston Churchill

A Thought for Inauguration Day

By John Turley

On January 19, 2025

In Commentary

A lie doesn’t become truth, wrong doesn’t become right, and evil doesn’t become good, just because it’s accepted by a majority.

–Booker T. Washington