Why Did Bragg Do It?

 

Donald Trump is a dangerous enemy of the United States who should be prevented from holding office in this country again. One way to do this is to convict him of one of his crimes. Based on what is known publicly, federal prosecutors have a strong case on both his attempt to overthrow the election in late 2020 and early 2021 and his later behavior with classified documents, and local prosecutors have a strong case on his attempt to get officials in Georgia to manufacture enough fake votes for him to have won that state. In contrast the case brought by Bragg in New York City seems remarkably weak as to both fact and law and unlikely to stick.

There are two easy conjectures about why Bragg’s case came first. The naive explanation is that Bragg acted on his own out of a disinterested commitment to justice without consulting or taking orders from anyone, and that the other cases, driven by a concern for justice and the good of the country, will go on independently to an appropriate conclusion. The cynical explanation is that the people calling the shots in the Democrat party, fearing they will lose in 2024 to anyone not named Trump, decided to work to make sure they will be running against someone named Trump. So they sent Bragg out with an indictment on a case so weak as to support Trump’s claims about being persecuted, stir up Republicans voters, and give Trump a political boost. The feds and the people in Atlanta would then keep investigating and stalling for at least another year until the stupid Republicans select Trump, and the Democrats get four more years.

It will be months before we learn which conjecture is closer to the truth. But in recent American politics the on base plus slugging number of cynics has been pretty high, and the evidence here supports cynicism. The grand jury in Georgia has  made its recommendations without any further action. Trump has said and done enough on record and in public to justify action in the federal cases, but nothing has happened. Bragg has put off his action until next winter and spring, just in time to give Trump help in the primaries. I hope that the  naive explanation will be more nearly accurate, and that Smith-Garland and whoever is calling the shots in Georgia will do their duty, irrespective of the needs of their party, but a person shouldn’t bet his grocery money on it.

Parental Control

 

Conservatives talk a lot about the rights of parents with respect to their children, and they are right to do so. Parents have the right and should have the authority to make many decisions about their children and about how and what their children are taught in schools, since they are responsible for their minor children. What the conservatives seem to miss is that all parents have that right, not just the ones who would make decisions conservatives like. They should realize that if they believe in parental control, then banning drag queen shows is as wrong as mandating training in “gender fluidity.” This is a country of great diversity of opinion among its people, which leads naturally to diversity of styles in and beliefs on raising children. Children have rights. Parental authority is not absolute, and officials should act to stop or prevent abuse or dangerous neglect. But other than preventing abuse and neglect, the correct public policy is to accept diversity in parenting, since the alternative is a uniformity determined by whoever has the political power at any moment to dictate it.

Schools should be left free to offer different alternatives, and parents should be left free to choose among those alternatives. That requires real school choice, meaning the government money goes out per kid to be spent at the school the parents choose. Schools would offer different options, content, and approaches, and parents would choose among them.

If that ever happens, some of the choices will be bad ones. There are parents who believe and teach their children all sorts of false and harmful things. They are likely to select schools which conform to their notions. There are politicians and bureaucrats who believe and would like to have children taught all sorts of false and harmful things. In the present system they are able now to make whole systems conform to their notions. With school choice there should be a general improvement in quality of schools driven by competition, as in other areas. There also would be more opportunities for making good choices, and some people would take advantage of them.