www-us.org

Chapter 73: The Lockdowns

As the campaign entered its final, frenetic stretch, Julian agreed to a series of long-form, one-on-one interviews. The most anticipated was with Sarah Kaiser, the host of a major network news program and the last of a dying breed of tough, deeply researched, and scrupulously fair political journalists. She was not a pundit; she was a reporter, and she did not suffer fools gladly.

They sat opposite each other in a quiet, simply lit studio. Kaiser began with a series of sharp questions on his economic and foreign policy plans, which Julian answered with his usual, calm precision. Then, she pivoted, moving in for what she clearly believed would be a more revealing line of questioning.

“Mr. Corbin,” she began, her tone shifting slightly. “Let’s talk about the pandemic. Many people look at the chaos of the early COVID response as a profound failure of leadership. Surely you would agree that President Trump’s cavalier attitude towards the science, particularly his open hostility to the lockdowns that were being implemented, was a disaster.”

It was a classic leading question, a slow, easy pitch designed to get him to join the chorus of Trump’s critics, thereby aligning himself with her and her audience.

Julian did not swing.

“I agree that the early federal response was chaotic and suffered from a profound lack of clear, consistent communication,” he replied, acknowledging the valid part of her premise. “But on the specific, data-driven question of broad societal lockdowns, President Trump’s instincts were, in fact, closer to the correct and emerging international consensus than those of many of his most vocal critics.”

Kaiser was visibly taken aback. This was not the answer she had expected. “Closer to the correct consensus?” she repeated, a note of incredulity in her voice. “The vast majority of public health experts in this country were advocating for those lockdowns.”

“They were,” Julian agreed. “And for a brief period, at the very beginning of a novel crisis, that was an understandable, if panicked, response. But the data on the secondary effects of these policies began to come in. And the consensus began to shift, even if our own public discourse did not.”

He leaned forward, his demeanor that of a man who was about to present a single, irrefutable, and surprising fact.

“By the autumn of 2020,” he said, his voice clear and precise, “the United Nations—a global, humanitarian, and political body, not a right-wing think tank—had reviewed the data from around the world and issued a clear and urgent directive, sent by their special envoy on COVID-19. His message was simple: ‘We in the United Nations do not advocate lockdowns as a primary means of control of this virus.’ They argued that the lockdowns were causing a catastrophic secondary crisis, particularly for the world’s poor, and were making global poverty ‘go up dramatically.’”

He looked directly at Kaiser. “The UN’s position, based on a global, humanitarian analysis of the data, was that the harm of the lockdowns was outweighing the benefit. While many politicians in this country were still demanding more and stricter restrictions, President Trump, for whatever his reasons, was advocating for a position that was, in effect, more aligned with the UN’s data-driven, humanitarian conclusion. That is not an opinion. That is a fact. And a fact remains a fact, regardless of who happens to be the one saying it.”

The interview was a firestorm. The clip of Julian “agreeing with Trump” was immediately ripped and played on a loop on every rival news network. The progressive wing of the media erupted in fury, accusing him of being a secret Trump apologist, of betraying science, of pandering to the MAGA base. The right-wing media was equally, if not more, confused. They had no idea how to process a man who could so calmly and surgically agree with their leader on one point, while simultaneously proposing to dismantle his entire economic and foreign policy platform.

But in the quiet center of the country, the moment had a different, more powerful impact. It was a stunning demonstration of Julian’s core promise. He was not a partisan. He was not a tribal warrior. He was a man who, in a world of political spin and emotional outrage, was willing to follow the data, no matter how politically inconvenient or uncomfortable the conclusion. It was an act of profound and, in the context of modern American politics, deeply shocking intellectual honesty.

The Discourse, 73; The Principle of Intellectual Honesty

Section 73.1: The "Uncomfortable Agreement" as a Political Strategy

The interview showcases a rare and high-risk political strategy: the uncomfortable agreement. In a hyper-partisan political environment, the single most important unwritten rule is to never, under any circumstances, give credit to or agree with the other side on a substantive issue. To do so is seen as a sign of weakness, a betrayal of the tribe, and it provides the opponent with a potential soundbite.

Julian Corbin’s decision to agree with Trump on the issue of lockdowns is a deliberate violation of this rule. It is a calculated act of political heresy. This act serves several crucial strategic purposes:

• It demonstrates true independence: It proves that his political philosophy is not simply a reactive, "anti-Trump" or "anti-Democrat" position. He is not defined by what he is against, but by what he believes to be factually correct.

• It scrambles the narrative: It makes it impossible for his opponents to paint him as a simple, one-dimensional partisan. The right cannot easily call him a liberal, and the left cannot easily call him a conservative. This complexity forces an engaged observer to abandon their lazy, pre-conceived categories and to actually engage with the substance of his ideas.

• It builds trust with potential converts: While the right-wing media is confused, this moment sends a powerful signal to a subset of thoughtful conservative and independent voters. It tells them that Corbin is a fair-minded actor who is willing to acknowledge a truth even when it comes from an unlikely or unpopular source.

Section 73.2: The Appeal to a Specific, Surprising Authority

Corbin's argument is so effective because he does not simply state his own opinion. He appeals to a higher, non-partisan authority: the data as interpreted by a specific, surprising, and credible international body, the United Nations. This is a masterful choice of evidence. The UN is an institution that is almost universally respected by the progressive left, the very group most hostile to the anti-lockdown position.

By using a source his liberal interviewer would find credible to make a point that aligns with a conservative position, he is performing an act of intellectual jujitsu. He is using the left's own trusted institutions to validate a point they find politically distasteful. This elevates his argument from a political opinion to a factual statement backed by a source his opponents are ideologically inclined to trust. It makes the argument far more difficult to refute without appearing to be selectively applying one's own principles.

Section 73.3: "A Fact is a Fact" as a Core Brand Promise

The interview culminates in Corbin’s simple, powerful statement: "A fact remains a fact, regardless of who happens to be the one saying it." This line is the thesis statement of the entire event and a core promise of his brand.

In a political era that has been defined by the rise of "alternative facts" and a deep, partisan epistemological divide (where each tribe has its own set of acceptable truths), this statement is a radical and refreshing act. It is a call for a return to a shared, objective reality. This moment is a litmus test. It asks the audience a fundamental question: do you want a leader who will confirm your pre-existing biases and fight for your tribe, or do you want a leader who will, to the best of his ability, pursue the objective truth, even when it is politically inconvenient? The Corbin campaign is betting on the belief that a sufficient number of Americans are exhausted with the former and are desperately seeking the latter.