Is the WSJ Editorial Board a group of racists who support vigilantes?

An earlier post called the outrage over what Tucker Carlson said about vigilantism a sham and a shame. I wonder if an editorial by the WSJ will generate the same reaction. Here are the first and last paragraphs of the editorial.

"The violent protests of the last three months in Portland, Ore., escalated on Saturday night into a right-left confrontation that resulted in one man shot dead in the streets. This is what happens when political leaders fail to perform the most basic responsibility of government to protect innocent lives and property.

...

"Vigilantism isn’t the cause of the current urban violence, but it could become one result of the failure to control violence. Americans have watched for weeks as rioters burned and looted businesses that people spent a lifetime building. Yet mayors like Ted Wheeler have let it happen. Inevitably, average citizens will move to defend themselves if elected officials won’t protect them. The proper place to do that is at the ballot box, however, not in the streets with guns."

Stating that "average citizens will move to defend themselves" is a more restrained way of asking "[h]ow shocked are we that 17-year olds with rifles decided they had to maintain order ... ?"

Is Tucker Carlson a racist who supports vigilantes?

The uproar over what Tucker Carlson said after a teenager allegedly shot and killed two people and shot and wounded a third is a shame and a sham. Here is what he said.

"Kenosha devolved into anarchy because the authorities abandoned the people. Those in charge, from the governor on down, refused to enforce the law. They’ve stood back and watched Kenosha burn." (Tweet, almost verbatim transcript.)

"Are we really surprised that looting and arson accelerated to murder? How shocked are we that 17-year olds with rifles decided they had to maintain order when no one else would?"

Reaction has been severe. Folks says that Carlson justifies or defends the shooter. Robert Reich says “If they don’t take action after this, every one of Fox News’s executives, directors, and advertisers is complicit in Tucker Carlson’s racist, murderous rants."

I see a difference between what Carlson says and a justification, defense, or racist murderous rant. I see a prediction that 17-year olds with rifles decide to maintain order when the government does not. If saying that people steal more when no one stops them does not justify or defend the thief. Nor does saying that more people defend their property themselves when the government fails to protect the property justify or defend the vigilante. Neither response is surprising because the response is predictable. Neither statement justifies or defends the response. 

I suspect that what Reich says about Carlson is a despicable attempt to attract eyeballs; Carlson does not mention race during the segment and takes care to proclaim both that he does not have all the facts and that a trial will determine whether or not the shootings were murder. Reserving judgement is neither racist nor murderous.  

Carlson is no angel here. The headline, "Two people killed in riots", makes the riots appear to be the cause of death. In fact, the allegation is that a vigilante killed two people. That the vigilante was responding to the riots does not make the riots the cause of death.

Discussing the consequences of violent protests and the governments reaction or lack of reaction to them is an important component of a meaningful analysis of the impact of defunding the police and reforming policing. We need more meaningful analysis of the impacts, not partisan narratives.

Should we "follow the science?"

The emphasis by some politicians and reporters that public policy should follow the science is a shame and a sham. By following the science, they mean implementing policies that Dr. Fauci and others who study rates of infection, hospitalizations, ICU and ventilator usage, and deaths from COVID-19 recommend. If these expert scientists tell us that imposing shutdowns, masks, or other dictates would save some level of lives because the rates exceed some level, "following the science" means that the politicians would follow the recommendation and impose the recommended shutdowns, masks, or other dictates. This singular focus on the adverse impacts of COVID-19 ignores the reality that the implementing the recommendations imposes its own costs. What happens to current income when the government commands people not to work? What happens to learning and future incomes when the government commands students to learn remotely? What happens to death rates from other diseases? What happens to rates of depression and suicide now and in the future? This sample of questions shows that anyone trying to determine the best response to COVID-19 should balance many competing priorities.

I agree that the "most elemental duty of the politician [is] the balancing of competing priorities." Politicians who say or imply that that COVID-19 is the only priority shirk their most elemental duty. For reporters not to press them to ask about how they balance competing priorities stifles the honest and difficult debate we need.  

Trump claims mail-in voting leads to voter fraud without evidence

The repeated editorial comment by the media that Trump fails to present evidence to support his claim that mail-in voting leads to voter fraud or that the claim is unsubstantiated is a shame and a sham. Any sentient human knows fraud occurs. It also understands that mail-in ballots are more prone to fraud than in-person voting. Moreover, substantial evidence exists that fraud occurs. See this report by Politico, this database complied by the Heritage Foundation, this academic study of voting by non-citizens, and the recent problems with and abuses of mail-in and absentee ballots in New York, North Carolina and New Jersey. 

Commentators can argue about whether fraud is widespread or not and how many outcomes it affects. The argument is constrained because we don't know how much fraud occurs. We don't know because we don't examine many elections or ballots closely. Prosecutors have little reason to investigate unless the fraud is egregious or obvious. Moreover, if the "right" candidate won the prosecutor may not want to investigate. Not finding fraud when no one is looking for it does not prove that fraud does not exist. 

Is Biden's claim about masks accurate?

I fear that Biden's claim about the efficacy of wearing masks and the media's complacency in reporting it are both shams and and shames. Biden claimed that "The estimates by the experts are that it [mandatory mask wearing] will save over 40,000 lives in the next three months." A quick Google search reveals no support for the claim. The search does reveal that in June the IHME forecast that wearing masks would save 33,000 by October. Perhaps Biden rounded up and presumed that the mandate would make people go back in time to change their behavior retroactively. Otherwise, how would wearing masks for three months save 40,000 lives when wearing them for five months would save only 33,000?

Compounding the exaggeration is the lack of any attempt that I have seen by the media to press him on the basis for his recommendation. The media stresses the inability of Trump to "follow the science" and repeats endlessly that he makes statements "without evidence". What is the science that says wearing masks for the next three months would save 40,000 lives? What evidence did he provide to support his claim other a vague reference to "experts"? The media mocks Trump when he says, "people say". Saying "experts say" is no better.