Kamala Harris used her acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention Thursday night to draw a sharp contrast with her Republican rival in the presidential race. Yet Ms. Harris and Donald Trump have something important in common: a populist streak on economic policy. 

Both major candidates have made populist appeals in recent days, arguing that to protect average Americans, powerful interests must be confronted. 

Former President Trump’s solution includes higher tariffs on trading partners that take advantage of the United States. Democratic nominee Ms. Harris’ solution is specific steps to address middle-class living costs through a higher child tax credit, down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers, and a “first-ever federal ban” on grocery price gouging. It’s that ban that’s caused the most uproar in recent days.

In her televised speech from the convention, she didn’t resolve confusion over whether her proposal might open the door to some form of price controls. She did pledge policies to “lower the cost of everyday needs” like groceries – while also pointedly rebuking what she called a “Trump tax” of expanded import tariffs.

Of course, on the campaign trail politicians of all stripes use populist us-vs.-them language to paint themselves as champions of the everyday American against entrenched forces – and offer superficial solutions to complex economic problems. What worries many business leaders and economists is that Mr. Trump or Ms. Harris might follow through with proposals that harm the very workers and consumers they claim to stand for.

“The Era of Good Economic Policy Is Over,” read the headline of a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Monday by an investment banker.

“There’s a turning point with both sides,” says Michael Bordo, an economics professor and director of the Center for Monetary and Financial History at Rutgers University, New Brunswick. “Their platforms are populist. And they are thinking in terms of simple solutions.”

That doesn’t make their policies – and potential impacts on everyday life – identical. 

Eduardo Munoz Alvarez/AP

A woman inspects produce at a Walmart superstore in Secaucus, New Jersey, July 11, 2024. Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris says she will help reduce middle-class living costs by seeking a federal ban on grocery price gouging.

Former President Trump’s latest economic proposal is to slap a tariff or tax on imported goods. “We are going to have 10% to 20% tariffs on foreign countries that have been ripping us off for years,” he said at a rally last week. There’s little doubt he would follow through. As president from 2017 to 2021, he imposed stiff tariffs on certain imports. In June, he proposed a wider 10% tariff on all imports and, last week, called for tariff rates that could go as high as 20%.

Trump and the perils of protectionism

The appeal is simple – the notion that tariffs would create more jobs by allowing U.S. companies to make some of those goods. Meanwhile, tax revenues from import tariffs could narrow the federal deficit or fund the extension of his tax cuts. The reality is more sobering. 

A 10% tariff would make imports of everything from food to car parts more expensive, effectively imposing a new $524 billion annual “tax” on Americans, shrinking the economy by at least 0.8%, and eliminating the equivalent of 684,000 full-time jobs, according to an estimate by the Tax Foundation. And the history of tariffs is downright scary.

When President Herbert Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley tariffs into law in 1930, it set off a tit-for-tat trade war with Europe that cut U.S. exports and imports by two-thirds, making the Great Depression even worse. (The Tax Foundation analysis did not take into account such retaliation and what further costs would come from a present-day trade war.)

But to Mr. Trump’s followers, such warnings carry little weight, because the former president’s populist message has already framed the enemy as a corrupt liberal-leaning elite who can’t be trusted. 

Economists on the right and left alike are sounding alarms. “What disturbs me is the lack of understanding of basic economic issues so displayed by Mr. Trump,” Peter Morici, a former top economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission, wrote Wednesday in a column for the Washington Times.

Eric Risberg/AP/File

A container ship passes the Golden Gate Bridge in 2019, the year the United States and China raised tariffs on billions of dollars' worth of imports. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump says he favors a broad new tariff boost.

Many companies and industries, while drawn to Mr. Trump’s promises of lower corporate taxes and less government regulation, now must figure in the risk he poses to their exports. 

Questions over Harris food price proposal

Ms. Harris’ commitment to populist policies has yet to be tested. It’s possible she is using populist language to address her biggest economic liability – the soaring inflation during the Biden administration. Politically, her proposed ban on price gouging on food may play well with voters angry about the postpandemic jump in prices at the grocery checkout lane. But it could also backfire.

“The Democrats are certainly trying to reclaim the populist mantle with their strong support for unions, bashing of billionaires, and price-gouging corporations,” Michael Kazin, a historian at Georgetown University, writes in an email. “But I think they are still largely perceived as a party dominated by urban cosmopolitans with college and post-grad degrees. So that makes it hard for them to speak convincingly in cultural populist ways.” 

Economically, it’s her price gouging ban that has caused the greatest backlash. Ms. Harris’s economic announcement on Aug. 16 has stirred confusion, including worries by business interests as well as many economists that she might support price controls – a practice that has historically harmed, rather than helped, consumers. If instead it’s limited to battling the price gouging that sometimes occurs after a natural disaster or other emergency – as some of her allies say – it won’t do much day-to-day harm or good.

And blaming inflation on greedy corporations is wrong-headed, economists say. Their widely held view: The surge in prices stemmed from a combination of pandemic-era reductions in the supply of many goods, federal rescue packages that put money directly in Americans’ pockets, artificially boosting demand, and the Federal Reserve’s slow response to counter the resulting inflation.

Ms. Harris’ proposed ban hints at a more active role for the Federal Trade Commission, a corporate watchdog that has become more aggressive under the Biden-Harris administration than previous ones. That can be useful in industries where competition has been distorted, such as health care, says Professor Bordo, the Rutgers economist. But, he adds, “it discourages innovation and discourages discovery.”

Sean Rayford/AP/File

An employee checks a car on the assembly line at the BMW plant in Greer, South Carolina, Oct. 19, 2022. Tariffs on imports can encourage production of more goods domestically. But the economy overall often takes a hit, as consumers face higher prices.

What’s notable about this political year is that neither candidate is defending the benefits of open trade, a tenet of free-market economics going back to Adam Smith. In fact a key component of Reagan-era economic policies, economic globalization, was embraced by both parties to varying degrees all the way through the Obama administration. Supported by free-trade policies, the U.S. economy has tripled in size since 1981, President Ronald Reagan’s first year in office.

But President Joe Biden has kept most Trump-era tariffs. And Vice President Harris has stood by those policies.

The need for fairness as well as growth

Populism’s core appeal is not hard to fathom. Unbridled economic growth isn’t necessarily fair. Poorer and less-educated Americans, especially those in manufacturing jobs and rural areas, have not reaped many benefits from that growth. Instead, gains have flowed to richer, better-educated, stock-owning voters, especially those in urban areas. The discontent has swelled the ranks of populists on the right.

The Great Recession and the pandemic called into question the wisdom of relying on global supply chains and the durability of growth based on low taxes and minimal regulation. Such millennial skepticism of corporate America has bolstered the populism of the left.

Populism doesn’t provide answers for the future as much as it signals deep discontent with the status quo. Movements often spring up during or after economic crises. Many of the original populists of the late 19th century were farmers who saw crop prices plunge and endured terrible drought even as monopolistic railroads were raising rates to transport goods. 

“[P]opulists roil the waters,” author John Judis concluded in his 2021 book, “The Politics of Our Time.” “They signal that the prevailing political ideology isn’t working and needs repair, and the standard worldview is breaking down.”

The 2024 Democratic National Convention is officially in the books. 

Just one month after Vice President Kamala Harris became the Democratic standard-bearer – and with less than three months until the election – the four-day gathering of party faithful gave Ms. Harris and Democrats a prime opportunity to reintroduce her to the nation and woo undecided voters.

Here are some of the main themes and memorable moments – what the Democrats talked about, and what they avoided.

Filling in Harris’ biography

Most Americans are still getting to know Ms. Harris – and the race for the White House may be decided by the race to define her. More than one-third of Americans say that they still don’t know what Ms. Harris stands for, according to a recent CBS poll. This convention sought to answer that question, with countless speakers talking about her personal biography and her work as a prosecutor and California attorney general.

The speakers, and Ms. Harris herself, talked a lot about her middle-class upbringing – how hard it was for her single mother to save enough money to buy a home, how the vice president worked at McDonald’s during college.

She used that history to argue that she’ll fight hard for working Americans, promising to fight to lower costs on items like health care and groceries and pledging to “end America’s housing shortage.”

“Building that middle class will be a defining goal of my presidency,” Ms. Harris said. “This is personal for me. The middle class is where I come from. My mother kept a strict budget. We lived within our means. Yet, we wanted for little. And she expected us to make the most of the opportunities that were available to us, and to be grateful for them, because opportunity is not available to everyone.”

The convention also repeatedly highlighted Ms. Harris’ background as a prosecutor and former California attorney general who cracked down on sexual predators and transnational gangs. She also fought to force big banks into a massive settlement with California homeowners for their role in the 2008 foreclosure crisis.

A survivor of sex trafficking spoke and credited Ms. Harris for fighting to protect people like her. And Ms. Harris’ best friend in high school, Wanda, told the story of how Ms. Harris invited her to live with her family when she found out that Wanda was being sexually abused by her stepfather.

Mike Segar/Reuters

Second gentleman Doug Emhoff and vice presidential candidate Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz attend Day 1 of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Aug. 19, 2024.

Democrats showcase a different kind of masculinity

At the Republican National Convention, machismo ruled. Former President Donald Trump’s walkout music one night was James Brown’s “It’s a Man’s Man’s Man’s World.” The GOP convention, held just days after Mr. Trump survived an assassination attempt, frequently replayed his response of raising his fist, with blood on his face, and yelling “Fight! Fight! Fight!” His two adult sons had prominent speaking roles, while neither his wife nor his two daughters spoke (one granddaughter did give a short speech). The top-billed celebrity guests on the final night of the convention were the trio of singer Kid Rock, Ultimate Fighting Championship owner Dana White, and wrestler Hulk Hogan, who literally ripped his shirt open onstage. 

Democrats took a different approach.

Ms. Harris’ husband Doug Emhoff, the first second gentleman in U.S. history, spoke lovingly and devotedly about his wife. And he praised her and his ex-wife – who was in attendance showing her support – for making their blended family work.

“Those of you who belong to blended families know that they can be complicated. But as soon as our kids started calling her ‘Momala,’ I knew we’d be okay,” he said. Mr. Emhoff’s kids praised him for making sacrifices for Ms. Harris, pointing out that he’d left his job as a high-powered lawyer to support her career when she became vice president.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Ms. Harris’ running mate, leaned into his coach persona – he was introduced by his former high school football players and ended his remarks with a riff on a locker-room speech. But he also talked with open emotion about the difficulties he and his wife had in conceiving children, and their use of fertility treatments to create their family. “Hope, Gus, and Gwen, you are my entire world, and I love you,” Mr. Walz said.

His teenage son Gus, who was diagnosed with a nonverbal learning disorder, stood up, tears streaming down his face, and repeatedly mouthing “That’s my dad!”

Alyssa Pointer/Reuters

Oprah Winfrey speaks on Day 3 of the Democratic National Convention at the United Center in Chicago, Aug. 21, 2024.

A heavy emphasis on abortion rights

Abortion access has been at the center of Democrats’ campaigns ever since former President Trump’s Supreme Court appointees helped end the national right to an abortion. The issue has become an even clearer focus of the presidential race since Ms. Harris became the nominee.

Multiple women spoke about how their states’ laws restricting abortion had put their lives at risk, or forced them to travel for abortions after being raped.

Oprah Winfrey hit hard on the topic. “If you cannot control when and how you choose to bring your children into this world and how they are raised and supported, there is no American dream,” she said. 

Ms. Harris told the audience that Mr. Trump and his allies weren’t done, warning that if elected he would limit birth control, ban medication abortion, and enact a nationwide abortion ban. “And get this,” she added. “He plans to create a national anti-abortion coordinator and force states to report women’s miscarriages and abortions. Simply put, they are out of their minds.”

Seth Herald/Reuters

Demonstrators take part in a protest in support of Palestinians in Gaza, on the sidelines of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Aug. 22, 2024.

Skirting around Gaza

The convention’s speakers largely avoided the issue that has created the greatest fissure in the Democratic Party this year: Israel’s war in Gaza.

Very few Democrats brought up the crisis from the stage. And while Ms. Harris addressed the issue herself during the speech, she hewed closely to previous remarks. She said she and President Joe Biden were “working around the clock” on a ceasefire. She pledged her support for Israel’s right to defend itself, and talked about the horrific terror acts committed last October in Israel, but also lamented that “the scale of suffering is heartbreaking” in Gaza. It was notable that one of Ms. Harris’ loudest applause lines was when she discussed the plight of the Palestinian civilians.

The hard-core anti-Israel protesters outside the convention were never going to accept anything but a full pivot from Ms. Harris. But pro-Palestinian Democratic delegates who wanted to find a way to support Ms. Harris were left frustrated, too. Three dozen “uncommitted” Democratic delegates who won their roles to the convention as a Gaza protest had asked for speech time for a Palestinian American to address the ongoing horrors facing Gaza’s civilian population. The convention denied them that, even as it gave a speaking slot to an Israeli American couple whose son was taken hostage in Gaza.

That led to a sit-in protest from those uncommitted delegates outside the United Center. 

Alyssa Pointer/Reuters

Former first lady Michelle Obama greets her husband, former President Barack Obama, on stage during Day 2 of the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Chicago on Aug. 20, 2024.

The Obamas warn Democrats not to abandon the center

It was striking how jubilant Democrats seemed at this convention, just one month removed from the total despondency many displayed before Mr. Biden’s exit from the race. But two of their favorite figures took the stage to warn them against self-destructive behaviors that could lose what’s essentially a tied race.

Both former President Barack Obama and former first lady Michelle Obama told their fellow Democrats on Tuesday not to alienate possible allies – or be reluctant to fight hard to elect Ms. Harris just because they didn’t agree with everything she stood for.

“Our politics have become so polarized these days that all of us across the political spectrum seem so quick to assume the worst in others unless they agree with us on every single issue. We start thinking that the only way to win is to scold and shame and out-yell the other side. And after a while, regular folks just tune out,” the former president warned. “If a parent or grandparent occasionally says something that makes us cringe, we don’t automatically assume they’re bad people. We recognize that the world is moving fast, that they need time and maybe a little encouragement to catch up. Our fellow citizens deserve the same grace we hope they’ll extend to us. That’s how we can build a true Democratic majority, one that can get things done.”

Mrs. Obama made a similar point.

“We cannot be our own worst enemies,” she said. “We cannot get a Goldilocks complex about whether everything is just right. And we cannot indulge our anxieties about whether this country will elect someone like Kamala, instead of doing everything we can to get someone like Kamala elected.”

J. Scott Applewhite/AP

From left to right, second gentleman Doug Emhoff; Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris; her running mate, Tim Walz; and his wife, Gwen Walz, wave at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Aug. 22, 2024.

Russian foreign policy experts express zero enthusiasm for another Donald Trump presidency, should he win the upcoming election. There’s a simple reason why.

They’ve already experienced one term of Mr. Trump in the White House, and it was the worst four years of their lives.

“Even if we assume that Trump genuinely wanted to improve relations with Moscow when he came in the first time, what he achieved was the exact opposite,” says Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of Russia in Global Affairs, a Moscow-based foreign policy journal. “There was chaos in Washington. There was a storm around Trump that affected anything to do with Russia, and it destroyed even the most modest efforts to start a dialogue.”

Russians remain fascinated with U.S. politics. The official media has covered each dramatic turn of the 2024 presidential race over the past couple of months with a mixture of excitement, bafflement, and dark schadenfreude. But gone is any expectation that the winner is likely even to slow the relentless downward spiral of U.S.-Russia relations, much less find the new level of mutual understanding, perhaps a U.S.-Russia compact, that they once hoped for.

Most Russian analysts seem to view Kamala Harris as a continuation of the Joe Biden administration, which has solidly backed Ukraine and hit Russia with the most intense blizzard of sanctions in history. As for Mr. Trump, even his pledge to end the Ukraine war “in 24 hours” is seen as empty verbiage at best or, more likely, a cynical effort to tap into the war-weariness of the U.S. electorate.

“The Russian media coverage of the upcoming U.S. elections seems rather objective to me,” says Lev Lurye, a St. Petersburg-based historian. “The general idea is that either Trump or any candidate from the Democratic Party will be equally bad for Russia.”

Frustration with Trump’s leadership

When it was announced that Mr. Trump had defeated Hillary Clinton back in November 2016 to become president, the entire State Duma – Russia’s lower house of parliament – rose to their feet and delivered a noisy, sustained standing ovation.

Such were the hopes aroused, not only among officials but ordinary Russians as well, by Mr. Trump’s expressions of admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin and promises during his first presidential campaign that he would find ways to “get along with Russia.”

But they quickly were dashed once he entered office.

Jorge Silva/AP/File

President Trump and President Putin talk during a photo session at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit in Danang, Vietnam, Nov. 11, 2017.

Many Russians were bemused by the #Russiagate scandal, which saw Mr. Trump mired in accusations that he had colluded with the Kremlin in unsavory ways for years, that he was profiting from lucrative business deals in Moscow, and that Russian internet trolls had helped to secure his election by manipulating social media in the U.S. Most of those accusations turned out to be false or greatly exaggerated, but at the time they dogged any conversation about Mr. Trump’s Russia policy and seemed to make any progress impossible.

It all came to a head at the July 2018 Helsinki summit, where Mr. Putin tried to press Russia’s agenda on issues like the war in Syria and nuclear arms control. But the summit was quickly overshadowed by Mr. Trump’s unusually deferential stance toward the Russian leader, which triggered a strong critical response among U.S. media and officials.

“The main thing that struck me, watching that show in Helsinki, was the total mismatch between the substantive issues that two leaders were supposed to be discussing, and the utter lack of interest in any of those things that was displayed at the press conference,” says Mr. Lukyanov. “Nobody wanted to hear anything about the actual agenda. They were only interested in some supposed secret relationship between Trump and Putin.”

“We thought that Trump was different”

The widespread view in Moscow now seems to be that U.S. hostility to Russia is hardwired, and unlikely to change regardless of whoever becomes president.

“Much of the Russian political elite thinks that the U.S. deep state is in charge, directing events, and no political actors can change anything,” says Alexei Mukhin, director of the independent Center for Political Information, a Moscow think tank. “We thought that Trump was different, but now it looks like he’s just another agent of the deep state.”

But some watch the electoral turbulence, the deep polarization, and the somewhat disorderly changes at the top with a bit of satisfaction. The way the former Soviet Union tried to reform itself with a younger leader, and then collapsed, is a staple analogy in Russian news commentaries.

Sergei Markov, a former Kremlin adviser, says Russia is less interested in U.S. political developments and more concerned about the shifting global order, in which Russians perceive the U.S. steadily losing ground. New faces such as Ms. Harris aren’t likely to reverse the underlying dynamics of decay, he argues.

“All that’s happening in the U.S. is just what we’ve been saying for some time,” he says.

“Some Russians are enjoying the spectacle of chaos in American politics, because they think that the more disruption in the U.S., the better things will be for us,” says Mr. Markov. “I think we should be careful what we wish for. This is a very dangerous time, and there is a possibility that expanding crises can lead to a real world war. That would be catastrophic.”

The Singer Sisters, by Sarah Seltzer

Songwriter Emma Cantor was born into folk music royalty. But Emma’s parents and aunt – music legends since the ’60s – hid a big secret from her. Is reconciliation possible? Seltzer’s debut novel ends on a high note that will leave readers whistling.

Burn, by Peter Heller

Storey and Jess are on a hunting trip in Maine when secessionists in the state spark a civil war. Peter Heller’s page-turners, typically set in the wild, peek beneath the hood of rugged masculinity. His complicated heroes fight to uphold human decency.

The Instrumentalist, by Harriet Constable

How to balance ego and ambition with community and kindness? Harriet Constable gives voice to violin prodigy Anna Maria della Pietà, a real-life musical genius raised in a Venetian orphanage in 1704 and taught by none other than composer Antonio Vivaldi. The city’s shimmering wealth and fetid corruption leap from the page; so, too, does music’s transcendent, radiant power.

Mina’s Matchbox, by Yoko Ogawa, translated by Stephen B. Snyder

Yoko Ogawa’s gemlike novel is a coming-of-age story about 12-year-old Tomoko, who goes to live for a year with her delightful cousin Mina and her family. The girls become kindred spirits, sharing secrets, wonderment, and several key world events. Ogawa’s storytelling is radiant.

There Are Rivers in the Sky, by Elif Shafak

Elif Shafak’s affecting novel follows characters molded by history. In the 1840s, London-born Arthur is bent on escaping his rough-and-tumble origins via a talent for interpreting Mesopotamian texts. In 2014 Turkey, young Narin learns of her rich Yazidi heritage as threats loom. And in 2018, 20-something hydrologist Zaleekhah confronts her troubled history while afloat in the Thames. The novel offers a forceful plea for remembrance and responsibility.

The Truth According to Ember, by Danica Nava

Ember, whose background includes Chickasaw, Choctaw, and white ancestry, is applying for accountant jobs. But it’s not until she checks only the box for “white” as her race on an application that she lands an interview and gets the job. In Danica Nava’s witty rom-com, multifaceted Native characters take center stage. The story – zippy, appealing, and, heads up, spicy – explores how even small lies undermine integrity.

The Hidden Book, by Kirsty Manning

Kirsty Manning’s compassionate novel is inspired by a real World War II covert mission in 1940s Austria to smuggle out photographic evidence of the treatment of prisoners at Mauthausen concentration camp. In the 1980s, a survivor’s granddaughter is intent on bringing the hidden photo album to light.

Peggy, by Rebecca Godfrey, with Leslie Jamison

Peggy Guggenheim – heiress, modern art visionary, feminist icon, socialite, and mother – springs to life in Rebecca Godfrey’s imaginative and empathetic novel. Leslie Jamison seamlessly completed the novel after Godfrey’s death. 

Bringing Ben Home, by Barbara Bradley Hagerty

Ben Spencer was wrongfully convicted of murder in Dallas in 1987. This compelling nonfiction book tells the story of his flawed trial, the barriers built into the Texas legal system that made it nearly impossible to get the decision overturned, and how he and a small group of supporters worked to secure his release. Barbara Bradley Hagerty has written a true-crime story that reads like a legal thriller and, at same time, recounts the systemic failures of the judicial system. It is eye-opening, discouraging, and inspiring. 

The Bookshop, by Evan Friss 

Historian Evan Friss explores how American bookstores have helped shape the nation’s culture, from social movements to retail trends. Although the demise of small indie bookstores has long been forecast, devoted shop owners continue to defy this prediction. 

Reuters

Military chaplains pray with soldiers in Ukraine's Donetsk region, on Dec. 25, 2023.

Whenever the role of religion pops up in Russia’s war on Ukraine, it’s difficult for Ukrainians not to get angry. By the latest count, at least 630 religious sites have been damaged or destroyed by the Russian aggression. Dozens of priests, pastors, and theologians have been killed.

On Tuesday, Ukraine’s legislators passed a law banning any religious group in the country that supports the Russian Orthodox Church, which itself declared in March that the war has a “holy” purpose in defending a “single spiritual space” for “the Russian World.” To the Kremlin, that includes Ukraine.

Far less noticed during the war, however, has been a quiet effort by Ukraine to do what religion does best: provide spiritual solace.

Over the past two years, its military has begun to train dozens of clergy to be official chaplains and embed them with soldiers at the front lines. With help from NATO, Ukraine has now created the second-largest military chaplaincy in the world.

No matter what Ukrainian soldiers may think about the war in moral or nationality terms, many simply need help in dealing with trauma, grief, stress, and loneliness. And in a country with so many different faiths – the president, for example, is Jewish – the chaplain corps operates by a simple, ecumenical motto: “Being there.”

“We’re like doctors. We heal whoever comes to us, no matter who they are,” one chaplain, Master Sgt. Anatoly Ponomarjov, told The Christian Century.

He added, “People have their own particular practices, but here it’s a different microclimate, and we have to provide them with universal answers regardless of their religion.”

Another chaplain, Yevren Flysta, told The Associated Press last year that the soldiers are, first and foremost, “a spiritual person, and he must have strength, he must have support.”

Ukraine’s defenses during the war have been many: strong morale to defend its sovereignty, advanced weapons, and Western financial aid. But whether the country wins or loses, it has lately added another asset: spiritual security for its fighters.

One indirect battle for Ukraine’s future is Russia’s war on religious groups in the country. But for the soldiers, the war itself has become a way of reviving faith – there are, after all, no atheists in foxholes. Ukraine simply wants to make sure chaplains are there to provide compassionate care and spiritual solace.