The news from the last few weeks of impeachment inquiry and the Inspector General’s report both raise an important question. Who will guard the guardians? That was a question first asked by a Roman poet, and it is relevant today.

James Madison makes a similar statement in Federalist Paper #51. “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

Our government leaders are supposed to control the governed, but who is controlling them? Of course, we have checks and balances. But government works much better when we have moral people, but many of our government leaders have failed us.

We discover that an FBI lawyer altered an email in order to make it easier for the FBI to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on a Trump campaign official. We are informed that there were 17 failures or “significant inaccuracies” in securing that warrant and that evidence that would have prevented the warrant was withheld.

The former FBI Director was fired, in part because he leaked his own memos of private and confidential conversations with the president. Others in the leadership at the FBI may be brought up on charges because of their leaking.

Recently I interviewed the head of a conservative organization that discovered that someone at the IRS listed them as closing down thus harmed their ability to raise funds. It reminded me of how the IRS in the past was found to be targeting any group that had the words “tea party” in their title. All of this was supposed to be merely clerical error. But as I said in a past column, that explanation would be easier to accept if it ever happened to a progressive group.

The question from two millennia is still relevant today. Who will guard the guardians?

Here is one of the great contradictions in our world today. Our economy is healthy and growing. Our social fabric is weak and tearing apart.

Rich Lowry in his column suggested two ways to measure our social vitality: births and deaths. Both the fertility rate and life expectancy are declining. That is a certain sign that Americans feel less secure and have little hope. Our society is “characterized by less procreation and more self destruction.”

Let’s first look at births. The fertility rate in 2018 dropped for the fourth straight year. Sure, the US is doing better than other advanced countries. In previous commentaries, I’ve talked about a demographic winter sweeping through Europe. But when a country starts having fewer births, it tells you something about its view of the future. The younger generation isn’t as hopeful about the future especially when loaded with student debt and high housing costs.

We not only have fewer births, but increasing deaths. One study from the Journal of the American Medical Association reports the decline of life expectancy in this country since 2014. By the way, the decline is not hitting older Americans but actually affecting young people in the prime of their lives.

Drug overdoses are a major reason for the decline. Midlife mortality from drug overdoses has increased almost 400 percent over the past 20 years. Here’s an arresting statistic. “In 2017, an astonishing 150,000 Americans died from drug or alcohol abuse and suicide, more than the US combat deaths in World War I, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War combined.”

A declining fertility rate and declining life expectancy illustrate the hopelessness of a secular society focused on self and ignoring God. And it also shows the desperate need for a spiritual revival.

We live in a world where context and perspective seem to be missing. In sports, we hear that a particular player is the GOAT (greatest of all time). Dismal futurists predict the end of the world as we know it. People have been losing perspective for some time, so its not surprising that it surfaced in many of the impeachment hearings.

Representative Ken Buck tried to put some of the testimony in perspective when he asked law professor Jonathan Turley to apply the proposed impeachment standard to other presidents. For example, would it apply to when Lyndon Johnson directed the CIA to spy on his presidential opponent? Would it apply when Franklin Roosevelt directed the IRS to conduct audits on his political enemies? How about when President Kennedy directed his brother (the Attorney General) Robert Kennedy to deport one of his mistresses as an East German spy?

How about the statement by law professor Michael Gerhardt that President Trump’s conduct was “worse than the misconduct of any prior president.” No it wasn’t, as David Harsanyi details in his recent column. In addition to the examples already mentioned, he adds that two presidents (John Adams and Abraham Lincoln) suspended habeas corpus. Andrew Jackson ignored courts and laws and used his power to ethnically cleanse lands that he had a financial interest in. Roosevelt signed an executive order that interned 120,000 Japanese Americans.

The list of presidential misconduct is long, and citing it isn’t meant to justify anything this president or recent presidents might have done. But what is lacking is any perspective. The broad, sweeping statements are made without any context. Sadly, they can often get away with it because so many Americans don’t know their history.

A little over a week ago the Washington Post published a lengthy story with the title, “The Confession.” It told the rest of the story to anti-homosexual slurs that were sprayed on the walls of a church in Indiana. These were posted shortly after Donald Trump’s election and got national attention. Late-night host Stephen Colbert showed an image of one of the church walls in his opening monologue.

As you might imagine from the title, a police investigation led to a confession that this was yet another hate crime hoax. Let me give credit to the writer and the Washington Post for covering the story even though some believe it was a partial attempt to rehabilitate the image of the hoaxer. The article also mentions the well-known story about Jessie Smollett. In fact, you could even argue that the incident at this Indiana church provided the template for other hate crimes hoaxes that have been in the news the last few years.

The investigator for the sheriff’s department felt something didn’t make a great deal of sense. The walls were defaced with black spray paint showing a swastika along with the words “Heil Trump” and “Fag Church.” The actions and phraseology didn’t fit. You can read the article to see why he began to suspect the homosexual church organist.

The story goes on to argue that real hate crimes outnumber fake ones. Not everyone agrees. Fox News host Tucker Carlson has argued that, “In real life, hate crimes are rare. Hate hoaxes, by contrast, are common.” Whatever the actual percentage, we should be concerned that we do see a number of hate crime hoaxes that waste the time, energy, and money of law enforcement.

This latest article once again illustrates why some of us are willing withhold judgment about the authenticity of a reported hate crime. It is a reminder that it is sometimes wise to be skeptical.

Psychoanalyst Erica Komisar is a therapist to families and especially children in private practice in New York City. Her periodic columns for the Wall Street Journal on childrearing are treasures. I first noticed the one on why moms should prioritize being home with their babies for their first three years. This practical wisdom almost goes without saying. Some of her points might shock or seem retro, if they weren’t timeless and backed up with stats and tons of experience.

Her latest piece concerns the cultural shift surrounding religion, something we Christians lament. Erica Komisar is a practicing Jew. She writes that one of the most important — and neglected — explanations for the depression and anxiety that is so prevalent among children is “declining interest in religion.”

She cites a 2018 study in the American Journal of Epidemiology in which Harvard researchers looked at 5000 children or teens who reported that they attended religious services at least once a week. These kids scored higher in psychological well-being and had lower risk of mental illness than their peers who did not attend services. Plus they were more likely to volunteer, have a sense of mission, to forgive, and were less likely to use drugs or engage in early sexual activity.

Ms. Komisar writes: “The belief in God—in a protective and guiding figure to rely on when times are tough—is one of the best kinds of support for kids in an increasingly pessimistic world. That’s only one reason, from a purely mental-health perspective, to pass down a faith tradition.”

When someone close to a child dies, she writes, “Belief in heaven helps them grapple with this tremendous and incomprehensible loss.” A parent might ask, what if I don’t believe? Her shocking counsel: “Lie.”

Much better — explore the claims of Christ. Take your kids to church. Provide them a spiritual center, a buffer, and the natural community of church involvement. For their sake, go and drink deeply.

Lately politicians on both the left and the right have been criticizing capitalism. Senator Elizabeth Warren calls for “accountable capitalism.” Senator Marco Rubio proposes what could be called “common-good capitalism.” Senator Bernie Sanders proposes “democratic socialism as an alternative to unfettered capitalism.”

By the way, they aren’t the only ones using the term. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz argues in his book, A Bit of Everything, for a new social contract. He says we need to get rid of “the kind of selfish, unfettered capitalism” we had for the last 40 years.

Jonah Goldberg, in a recent column, asks the same question I have been asking. “What on earth are these people talking about?” Decades ago, during the Progressive Era, presidents did all they could to restrain capitalism. Teddy Roosevelt broke up the trusts and Franklin D. Roosevelt created dozens of government restraints during the New Deal.

Jonah Goldberg then asks another good question. “If you think there are no restraints on the market or on economic activity, why on earth do we have the Department of Labor, HHS, HUD, FDA, EPA, OSHA, or IRS?”

Yes, our economy sometimes benefits certain people and organizations more than others. That isn’t because of unfettered capitalism. It’s due to the fetters government puts on certain sectors to the benefit of others. That’s called crony capitalism. Laws and bureaucratic regulations benefit select businesses and industries in agriculture, manufacturing, banking, and a variety other fields.

If you think the government needs to spend more or regulate more or tax more, than make your case for doing so. But let’s stop arguing against the straw man of unfettered capitalism.

The common refrain from Democratic presidential candidates proposing massive spending programs is that only the rich will be heavily taxed. They insist we could afford a European-style welfare state if only we taxed the rich like they do in Europe. The editors at the Wall Street Journal have an answer to that: “Europe’s beleaguered middle class knows better.”

First, let’s admit that most European nations do have larger welfare and entitlement programs than in America. Part of the reason is these countries don’t have to spend as much on defense, because the US spends enough on defense to defend this country and the European countries.

But high spending in Europe has to be funded by more taxes. The editors explain that, “Europe has learned the hard way that the rich aren’t rich enough to pay for their entitlements, so the Continent duns the middle class.” These European nations have found lots of ways to tax their citizens. Let’s count some of them.

European income tax rates are higher than the US because the highest marginal rates kick in at much lower levels. And it is also true that the progressive tax rate is much higher in those countries than in this country.

Higher income tax rates, however, are not enough to fund these welfare states. Governments also impose payroll taxes that are called “social insurance contributions.” Again, these rates are much higher than what Americans pay for Social Security and Medicare.

Europe also imposes a value-added tax called a VAT tax with a flat rate that averages around 21 percent. Add to that excise taxes on fuel that are at least twice the percentage of what is paid in the US. And I might add that Britain takes more from the middle class with a stamp tax on property purchases.

Don’t believe the rhetoric that only the rich will pay. Europeans know that the middle class will pay because they are being taxed on everything.

It is hard to imagine that very many Americans who voted for Donald Trump did so because of his foreign policy statements. And he has received lots of criticism for his mercurial foreign policy proposals. But he has brought economic and diplomatic pressure on three of America’s adversaries. In a recent column, Victor Davis Hanson sums up our current standoff with China, Iran, and North Korea.

Trump’s critics described him as a Don Quixote “tilting at Chinese windmills” because of his focus on tariffs and a trade war. Yet the “US economy is still humming. The stock market is at record highs.” Meanwhile, the Chinese economy is slowing down. Human rights activists are condemning China, and riots continue in Hong Kong. Beijing seems to be hoping that Trump will not be reelected so they can force a Democratic administration to return to the status quo.

“The Iran deal in 2015 was all that Iran could hope for.” But Donald Trump ended that treaty but also ramped up sanctions on Iran but even pressured our allies to join him as well. Victor Davis Hanson reminds us the Iran was once an oil-exporting country. Today it has riots over gasoline prices.

North Korea is relatively quiet at the moment. But the leaders there must make a crucial decision soon. “Its impoverished population is reduced to a pre-civilization existence” due to the sanctions Trump brought not only to North Korea but also to China. Food is scarce. Fuel is almost impossible to find.

With these limited successes comes greater danger. China may try to wait out their situation, hoping for a change of administration next year. North Korea can’t wait. It will probably launch a missile or do something provocative in order to force Trump to negotiate away sanctions. I expect one or more of these countries to attempt to change the situation that the Trump foreign policy put them in.

Science is headed into uncharted territory. That’s why we need a reliable science guide to navigate our journey. Dr. Michael Guillen provides that guidance in his book, The End of Life as We Know It. For years he was the Emmy award-winning science correspondent for ABC News. He was on my radio program to talk about the book and his truth tour.

He addresses four areas of concern: the web, the robot, the spy, and the Frankenstein. He talks about the incredible benefits we all receive from the World Wide Web. The information superhighway has lots of lanes to important information. But it also has many dark back alleys. He cites one headline that reminds us that sometimes “the Internet Makes Us Monsters.”

In his section on robots and artificial intelligence, he once again explains how we have been the beneficiaries of machines that do routine manual labor and free us up from dangerous activities. But he also reminds us that robots are able to do more than merely put bolts on an assembly line and will take away many of our jobs.

The section on “spy” reminds us how our privacy is going away. We are living in a fishbowl. As one commentator put it, “You have zero privacy. Get over it.” Before you merely brush that off, consider what it is like to live in China where cameras and facial recognition keep track of you every single day.

His last section reminds us of all the significant benefits we enjoy from science and genetic engineering. Treating and curing genetic disease is admirable. But scientists can now “play God” by mixing and matching genetic material. Good intentions can quickly morph into dangerous outcomes.

I think his book is a good reminder that we need more Christians in the science fields in order to bring ethics and wisdom as science heads into uncharted territory.

Every time Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg enters a hospital, speculation surfaces concerning her health and future. She is a cancer survivor who has occasionally missed oral arguments. But she isn’t about to step down because she (and other liberals) fear who would replace her.

But there may be a reasonable solution to how presidents appoint justices to the Supreme Court. Perhaps it is time to consider term limits for the Supreme Court. Even though that sounds controversial, this might actually be a solution that garners bipartisan support.

In a recent column, John Fund makes the case for term limits on the Supreme Court. When the Founding Fathers granted life tenure to Supreme Court justices, the average life expectancy was 38. Today, it is more than twice that. Some of the justices in the past certain stayed past their “sell by” date.

He argues that the Constitution in Article III, Section 1 does say that judges shall hold their offices during good behavior. It doesn’t necessarily mean that they must serve for life. In fact, many federal judges retire on a fairly regular basis.

The reform group, Fix the Court, has come up with a bipartisan proposal for 18-year term limits for the Supreme Court. It would stagger the term so that a vacancy would come up every two years. That means every president could have two appointments in each term.

One poll found that six in ten registered voters favored Supreme Court term limits. Chief Justice John Roberts (appointed by George W. Bush) as well as Justice Stephen Breyer (appointed by Bill Clinton) have indicated support for the idea.

This is a proposal worth debating. It will provide a more orderly transition to the Supreme Court and possibly lower the heat in the current confirmation battles. I think this is one proposal that might actually attract bipartisan support.