A recent commentary on political courage in the United States critiques both current and past figures for their perceived failures to act decisively amid political and social challenges. The piece examines a contemporary work titled *Profiles in Cowardice*, which seeks to identify individuals who, despite having opportunities to oppose former President Donald Trump, chose silence or inaction.
The author of *Profiles in Cowardice* assembles a list of eight individuals deemed to embody this political timidity, framing them as part of a broader failure across the American political landscape. The critique extends to figures from both major parties, suggesting that Democrats, particularly White House staff, displayed political cowardice by sustaining President Joe Biden’s 2024 campaign despite internal doubts about his capacity to serve effectively. According to journalists cited in the commentary, these aides knowingly perpetuated a political strategy aimed at securing Biden’s re-election and suppressing potential challengers such as Vice President Kamala Harris.
Among those criticized is Jeff Bezos, owner of The Washington Post, who is singled out for allegedly enabling Trump’s political resurgence. Yet the critique also acknowledges complexities, such as the example of Sian Beilock, president of Dartmouth College. Beilock reportedly diverged from other Ivy League leaders who condemned what they termed “political interference” threatening academic freedom. The commentary suggests that claims of standing up for academic values are complicated by reports of unaddressed antisemitism on campuses following the October 7 attacks on Israel, as well as broader declines in academic freedom linked more to progressive movements than to Trump-era policies.
The discussion draws on Harvard academic Steven Pinker’s observations from his book *When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows...*, which highlights growing intellectual repression exemplified by editorial policies at *Nature Human Behavior*—a major journal that pledged to reject or retract articles perceived to cast human groups negatively, regardless of scientific validity. Pinker compares this climate to a severity greater than that seen during the McCarthy era, implying that Beilock’s stance may represent courage in the face of prevailing academic orthodoxy.
The overall assessment recognizes *Profiles in Cowardice* as a polemic that deliberately draws sharp lines, inviting debate over who deserves the label of cowardice in contemporary American politics. It juxtaposes this with the enduring influence of *Profiles in Courage*, a classic work focused on political bravery, suggesting that both texts will remain reference points as the United States reflects on this turbulent period and its political lessons.