Scientific American’s Presidential Endorsement

Scientific American‘s presidential endorsement disappointed me. As a person gritting my teeth about the upcoming election, I had hopes of finding some logical and reasonable arguments in this “scientific” article. You’ve probably heard about the endorsement, or maybe you’ve even have read it. It appeared a few days ago, accompanied by the rather proud boast that this was only the second time in its 179-year history that the editors are endorsing a candidate for president (read that endorsement here).

No matter what your political orientation is, I invite you to read to the end of this post. Why? Because I’ll focus on what I believe is the most fearsome danger our country now faces, a vulnerability not even mentioned by the magazine’s endorsement, and one that remains much under-reported by our national media. Nonetheless, it is a genuine peril that is becoming more ominous day by day.

I’ve read Scientific American sporadically in the past, and I actually expected to learn some interesting facts from that publication’s editorial, some insights concerning factors I might otherwise not have considered. (If you’ve followed my blog, you know that I believed our choice between Biden and Trump was dismal (see here for one example). Now, with the substitution of Harris for Biden, my opinion hasn’t changed. In fact, I think it’s possible that these two are the worst presidential candidates ever to run for office during the 179-year history of Scientific American. For this reason, I’ve been in a quandary trying to decide whom to vote against. Yes, you read that right. My goal is simple: to decide which one would do the most damage to our country. If I can figure that out, I’ll put an X in front of the other candidate. I know, that’s terrible, but it’s what I honestly believe.

With that in mind, I read the arguments presented by Scientific American with some eagerness, expecting the piece to be relatively logical, possibly with a pro versus con format for each candidate. I was wrong! Both the tone and the arguments themselves disappointed. While reading it, I had the impression that it could have been written by a high school student who had just been fed Democrat talking points; or it could have been composed by an AI bot trained exclusively from leftist sources.

To illustrate, here’s the subheading of the article: Kamala Harris has plans to improve health, boost the economy and mitigate climate change. Donald Trump has threats and a dangerous record. That subhead pretty much previews what follows, which is plenty of opinions, along with scattered facts that are interpreted as positive when related to the Biden-Harris administration, and negative when related to Trump. If you want unbiased information, or in-depth analysis, you will find little of value in that piece.

Climate Change versus the Unnamed Peril

Scientific American of course mentioned climate change (Harris pro, Trump con), a topic that often is described in our media as an existential threat. That is almost laughable when you consider the following.  The fearsome worry I referred to earlier is a growing threat to the very survival of our country, and a danger far more terrifying than the possibility that our planet’s temperature could be increased by 2 or 3 degrees some fifty years from now. So, what exactly is this real threat? It is the likelihood that we soon could be embroiled in war, possibly with nuclear weapons (see below), and that we are unprepared. I’ve discussed the relative threats of global warming versus nuclear winter in an earlier post (see here).

The danger of war, and the unpreparedness of our country to engage in one, are not figments of my imagination. This potential recently was carefully analyzed by a select group of eight experts appointed by senior Democrats and Republicans in Congress. This elite and nonpartisan group waded through a huge range of both public and classified information. It then analyzed this massive trove and issued a unanimous report that is absolutely scary to read. That report can be found here, and I highly recommend that you take a look at it. When it came out in July, it should have been front page news in every major newspaper in the country, and the story should have been reported on every national TV news segment on the very day it was released. If that happened, I didn’t see it. I stumbled on it recently. See the teasers below.

Short Excerpts from the Report

A phrase from the Forward of that report: We also address our report to the American public, who have been inadequately informed by government leaders of the threats to U.S. interests—including to people’s everyday lives . . .

The first paragraph of the Summary: The threats the United States faces are the most serious and most challenging the nation has encountered since 1945 and include the potential for near-term major war. The United States last fought a global conflict during World War II, which ended nearly 80 years ago. The nation was last prepared for such a fight during the Cold War, which ended 35 years ago. It is not prepared today.

More to consider

WWI was started by an assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, although other factors were involved. WWII started abruptly when Hitler invaded Poland, although again there were other factors. Compare those events with what is going on today.

* Russia invaded Ukraine over two years ago, a war that still is causing death and destruction (over a million killed, and countless cities destroyed). That war is being escalated by contributions to Ukraine from the West, and contributions to Russia from the East.

* The Mideast is ablaze as the conflict between Israel and its enemies, Hamas and Hezbollah, intensifies daily. Again, certain other countries are supporting both sides.

And more

* China is flexing its might in the South China Sea: Here’s a recent quote from Time: Experts say that China appears to be baiting a military response from opposing claimants in the South China Sea (or their allies) that would trigger an even more dangerous but legally justifiable use of force on its part, but so far none of the nations involved have militarily engaged with China over the issue.

* Nine countries have nuclear weapons, including Russia and the USA who have nearly 6,000 each (Putin has threatened to use his against Ukraine, and the USA, you’ll remember, used two in WWII). Other countries ready with bombs ready to explode on potential enemies include China, France, United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, Israel, North Korea, and likely soon, Iran. Detonation of a few of those bombs could set in motion a cascade of deaths similar to, or possibly even exceeding, the one that marked the extinction of the dinosaurs.

 

What do you think?

Should our selection of a presidential candidate include a consideration of how that candidate would build up our national defense (which recklessly has been allowed to weaken)? I think the answer can be nothing but an unequivocal YES. So, I still am gritting my teeth over that crucial selection. And that’s why is Scientific American presidential endorsement disappointed me.

A request

If you have friends or relatives who might find this information interesting, I ask you to consider forwarding this post to them. Thank you!