The suicide rate in America is increasing. That not only makes it an important public health issue. It has also become an election year issue.

Antonio Delgado is a congressional candidate in New York. His tweet explained that, “Suicide rates increased in nearly every state from 1999 through 2016, including an increase of 29% in NY. We must commit funding to help those suffering from mental health conditions and let them know that they are not alone.” Illinois congressional candidate Sara Dady reported that, “Suicide rates are up across gender and age in the US. Take a minute on World Suicide Prevention Day today and tell someone that they are important to you – it could save a life.”

First, let me assure you that the numbers I just cited are correct. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the suicide rate rose in all but one state, with increases across age, gender, and ethnicity. It is also worth noting that in more than half of those suicides in 27 states, the people had no known mental health conditions before they ended their lives.

Second, suicide is being viewed not only as a mental health problem but as a public health one. Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death. Suicides account for more than twice as many deaths as homicides.

Finally, there are many reasons for suicide. Mental health professionals point to the economic downturn ten years ago. The dramatic rise in opioid addiction is another reason. A third concern is “suicide contagion.” That is the idea that exposure to suicide may increase the chance of suicide for some.

Suicide has become a major public health issue, and that’s why we are hearing more about it in political campaigns.

During the confirmation hearings for Judge Brett Kavanaugh we saw lots of protesters screaming outside the hearing room. Senator Dick Durbin declared that, “What we heard is the noise of democracy.” Actually, what we heard was the noise of a mob. And this is exactly what the Founders of this country feared.

First, we need to remind our citizens that we are a republic and not a democracy. We elect representatives to federal, state, and local governments to consider legislation that affects our lives. This was the intentional plan put forth at the Constitutional Convention.

And that brings us to the second point. The framers of the Constitution did not want a democracy. They feared it would be a mobocracy. James Madison defined a democracy as “a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person.” He went on to explain that, “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention.”

Why was he, and other framers, so critical of democracies? All you have to do is read Federalist Paper #10 to see that Madison was concerned with how factions could tear a country apart. Wisdom, prudence, and good judgment quickly go out the window when a mob of angry people begins to push for a particular law or policy. The framers established checks and balances to prevent a “vigilante spirit” that would hastily push forward a wrong-headed policy.

That is why it takes so long to pass legislation in America. The framers wanted to provide ample time for reflection and consideration. It was an attempt to tamp down the
“noise of a mob” and carefully craft legislation that would serve all the people rather than just a few people trying to force their will on the rest of us.

What we saw this month was not the “noise of democracy” but the noise of a mob intent on trying to bully Congress and subvert the republican form of government given to us by the founders.

Conspiracies have been around for centuries, but the Internet has made it much easier to promote a conspiracy that has the potential of going viral before rational people can begin to tamp down the hysteria. The older conspiracies were presented and promoted primarily by people who believed the government wasn’t telling the whole truth. The National Treasure series of movies and television shows like The X-Files probably even fed into some of that skepticism.

The latest conspiracies are coming from the Left who apparently see Nazi symbols and White Power symbols just about everywhere. Here are two examples.

During the confirmation hearings for Judge Brett Kavanaugh, attorney Zina Bash was sitting behind him. As a former law clerk for the judge, she was helping steer his nomination to the Supreme Court. Apparently, she has a tendency to rest her fingers on her arm in what could best be described as a “reverse OK sign.”

One twitter post complained that she was “flashing a white power sign” because they “want to bring white supremacy to the Supreme Court.” That post alone got more than 15,000 retweets. The Internet uproar forced her husband to publicly defend Zina and point out that she is Jewish, Mexican-American, and the descendant of Holocaust survivors.

Another series of examples is the number of times someone on the Left sees Nazi symbols. A comedian asked Twitter user Bill Presson “are u wearing a Nazi outfit?” The profile picture was actually of his father in an Army uniform who was killed in Vietnam. A New Yorker staffer was forced to resign when she accused a veteran who lost his legs in Afghanistan of being a Nazi. She assumed that one of his tattoos was an Iron Cross when it was really the symbol for his platoon.

The last few weeks have provided lots of examples of people on the Left believing some bizarre conspiracies.

Whenever you are having a debate or discussion, it is essential that you define your terms. This is especially true in any discussion about socialism. Actor Jim Carrey recently said he was tired of hearing talk show commentators say that socialism is a failure. He concluded that, “We have to say yes to socialism: to the word and everything.”

Anders Hagstrom (Daily Caller News Foundation) in one of his videos asks, “What does socialism mean to him?” He says that conversations about socialism often go like this: “A liberal says we should be socialist. A conservative points to Venezuela, and says socialism doesn’t work. A liberal says, What about Sweden and Norway? The conservative then points out that those countries aren’t actually socialist.”

Even if we accept the comment by liberals, there is a problem. “Nordic countries have tiny populations of less than 10 million. And copying and pasting their policies to a country of 330 million isn’t going to work.” These Nordic countries were successful before they adopted the redistributive policies they have now. And in the previous commentary, I explained that if Sweden were to join the U.S. as a state, Sweden would be poorer than all but 12 states.

There’s a more important point. Anders Hagstrom reminds us that the policies of true socialists like Senator Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez go far beyond what the Nordic countries have. For example, Bernie Sanders wants a planned economy. None of the Nordic states have this. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez wants to abolish profit. None of the Nordic countries have done that. And both of them want a universal minimum wage. None of the Nordic states have that.

Are there any socialist countries that have those policies? Yes those would be the countries of Venezuela, Cuba, and the former Soviet Union. Those are the countries conservatives often point to as why we don’t want socialism. Remember this in your next discussion about socialism.

Two weeks ago I happened to turn on a campaign rally where President Trump was speaking. As usual, he talked about “fake news” and made a statement that I knew would be criticized by historians.

He said, “You know when Abraham Lincoln made that Gettysburg Address speech, the great speech, you know he was ridiculed.” The point he was making is the there was “fake news” then so we shouldn’t be surprised we have it today. He then went on to remind everyone that Lincoln’s speech was revered year later and believed that would happen to him.

Let’s ignore Donald Trump’s comparison to Abraham Lincoln so that we can focus on an important historical point. How was Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address received at the time?

Generally the northern newspapers were favorable to Lincoln’s speech, while the southern newspapers predictably attacked it. But even looking at the northern papers, you get a bit of a mixed reaction.

Writers doing a fact check on Lincoln’s speech remind us of two different reactions in Chicago newspapers to the Gettysburg Address. The Chicago Times suggested that, “the cheeks of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly, flat and dishwater utterances.” By contrast, the Chicago Tribune praised the speech and believed it “will love among the annuals of man.”

Some of the social media criticism of Donald Trump’s statement about the media reaction to the Gettysburg Address cited the New York Times news story. However, if you read the story, the author merely mentions that Lincoln spoke “in a very deliberate manner” and doesn’t praise the speech. In fact, in a previous sentence, the story describes the prayer of Reverend Stockton as “touching and beautiful.” Nothing like that is attached to Lincoln’s speech.

So it is fair to say that President Trump was at least half right. Some newspapers (the so called “fake news” of the day) attacked the speech. But others also praised it.

One axiom in the news business is the reality that good news isn’t really news. Thousands of airplanes land safely. That is not news. An airplane crashes. That’s news.

Because of this we rarely hear good news about our world. We certainly hear lots of bad news. This is especially true in an election year when challengers paint a dismal picture of our world so that you will elect them instead of the incumbents.

After Jim Geraghty wrote a column predicting trouble ahead for our nation, he was convicted that he should follow it up with some positive statistics. Here is a short list of good news that you probably don’t hear too often.

The crime rate is way down from the 1990s. Drunk driving rates hit an all-time low a few years ago. Air travel is getting safer and cheaper.

The teen pregnancy rate is steadily declining. The abortion rate is the lowest since Roe v. Wade was passed in 1973. And the infant mortality rate is low and getting lower.

High school graduation rates are the highest ever. Teen drug use (if you exclude marijuana) is down dramatically. In the past, I have talked about this nation’s opioid epidemic. So far, very few teenagers are involved. And it is worth mentioning that teenage binge drinking is lower than it was in the 1990s.

Some good news you have heard (at least in my Viewpoint commentaries) concerns unemployment. As you know, unemployment figures for certain minorities is the lowest ever. Perhaps the most amazing the fact is that there are currently more job openings than unemployed workers. And recently I talked about how the median family income is the highest ever.

In the midst of some of this good news, you still have skeptics. They say that just because some of these social statistics are lower doesn’t mean they aren’t a problem. That is true. As I often remind my listeners, lower doesn’t mean zero. We certainly have more work to do, but let’s also celebrate some good news.

In our political discussions we often tend to use the terms “liberal” and “leftist” interchangeably along with other terms like “progressive.” Dennis Prager has provided a public service by defining and distinguishing the two. A year ago, he wrote about this and more recently put it in one of his Prager University videos.

His argument is that traditional liberalism has far more in common with conservatism than it does with leftism. Here are just three examples he uses to make his point.

One of the most important differences in in the area of race. The traditional liberal position on race is that the color of one’s skin is insignificant. By contrast, leftists argue that the notion that race is insignificant is itself racist. Liberals were committed to racial integration and would have rejected the idea of separate black dormitories and separate black graduations on university campuses.

Nationalism is another difference. Dennis Prager says that liberals always deeply believed in the nation-state. Leftists, on the other hand, oppose nationalism and promote class solidarity. Superman comics illustrate the point. When the writers of Superman were liberal, Superman was not only an American but one who fought for “Truth, justice, and the American way.” The left-wing writers of Superman comics had Superman announce a few years ago that he was going to speak before the United Nations and inform them that he was renouncing his American citizenship.

Another example is free speech. American liberals agree with the statement: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Leftists today are leading a nationwide suppression of free speech everywhere from the college campuses to the Big Tech companies.

Dennis Prager has other examples of the significant difference between liberals and leftists. His earlier article and his latest video remind us of this important fact.

Early voting for the mid-term elections begins in a few weeks. That is why I had Eric Eggers on the Point of View radio talk show to discuss his book on voter fraud. He has put together lots of facts and statistics that election officials need to consider.

The potential for mischief is very great. Approximately 248 counties in this country have more names on their voter rolls than the total number of people of voting age in those counties. That is reason enough to clean up the voter rolls, especially since the Supreme Court ruled that clean-up procedures (like the ones used in Ohio) are indeed constitutional.

On the program, I told the story of James O’Keefe and Project Veritas. They have used hidden cameras to demonstrate election-day ballot problems. Perhaps the most notable was a twenty-something white kid who was offered the ballot that should have been given to the then-Attorney General Eric Holder who is a 60-something African-American.

Eric Eggers gave another story of the New York City’s Department of Investigation that sent people to cast ballots on behalf of elderly citizens, felons, and people who had moved. All but two of them succeeded with no challenge or question. “One of the few unsuccessful attempts occurred when an officer attempted to vote using the name of a felon listed on the rolls, only to be informed by the poll inspector that he was requesting the ballot of the poll worker’s son.”

One study estimates more than five million noncitizens voted illegally in 2008, and the book provides perspective on those who doubt those figures. The book also provides pages of documentation for the number of double votes in Florida broken down by country. The number exceeds 2100.

Any or all of these so-called “voter irregularities” could make the difference in some close congressional and statewide races. That’s why we need to pay attention to the potential problem of voter fraud.

Later this week, the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee vote on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. We may be treated to more of the antics that took place during the confirmation hearings. If so, that will provide yet one more reason why the Senate leadership should get rid of the confirmation hearings.

Even when there aren’t all the theatrics, the confirmation hearings aren’t very helpful. This time you had Democrats ask Judge Kavanaugh essentially the same questions over and over about abortion and guns. He wasn’t going to give conclusive answers no matter how many times you repeated the question.

All of that goes back to what some have called the “Ginsburg rule” established by Senator Joseph Biden back when Ruth Bader Ginsburg appeared before the committee. Republicans and Democrats can debate whether this so-called rule should apply, but we all know the nominee isn’t going to answer specific questions. And it is worth noting that most of the senators asking questions already made up their minds even though that didn’t stop many of them complaining they ONLY had a half million documents.

Another obvious reason for ending these hearings is the fact that they have been the occasion for lots of political grandstanding. Senators Corey Booker, Kamala Harris, and Richard Blumenthal provided numerous examples of political posturing and media manipulation. But it was more than just the interruptions and motions to adjourn. Once the hearings got underway, we had to listen to speeches by each and every member of the committee. Very few were even worth remembering. Most were forgettable and irritating.

Finally, we need to acknowledge that the confirmation hearings have become a circus (with apologizes to people who work in a circus). On the first day of the hearings, 70 were arrested. It didn’t get much better the rest of the week. And outside you have people dressed in costumes, yelling and screaming.

I’m ready to eliminate these Senate hearings, and I suspect many Americans agree with me.