"Our Revolutionary Origins & Today's Paternalism"

The photo – ‘Old Glory’ flying over the Old Lyme Beach Club on the evening of July 17, 2025.

 

Sydney M. Williams

https://swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Our Revolutionary Origins & Today’s Paternalism”

July 21, 2025

 

“But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution

was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people;

a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations… This radical change in the

principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution.”

                                                                                                                  Letter from John Adams to Hezekiah Niles

                                                                                                                  February 13, 1818

 

In this year of the semiquincentennial of our Declaration of Independence, have we swapped individual independence for dependence on government paternalism? 

 

Threats to democracy, a current rallying cry of the Left, have been a constant since our founding. They have come from both the right and the left. They fade, however, when exposed to unfettered free debate, and an unbiased study of the classics and our history. Today, supported by main-stream media, the Left puts the blame for such threats square on Republicans, especially those of the MAGA variety. Disallowing dissension, they wave their hands, and with crocodile tears flowing and with Republicans in control of both Houses of Congress they cite the deportation of illegal migrants, including those with criminal records, piggish billionaires, corrupt corporations and cuts to government services. It is ironic that Mr. Trump is accused of being authoritarian, when his attempts to reduce the size of government are at odds with Democrats who prefer a larger, more paternal government.

 

Beginning with Franklin Roosevelt’s ‘New Deal’ ninety years ago, through Lyndon Johnson’s ‘Great Society’ in the 1960s, to Barack Obama’s ‘Cradle to Grave Care’ thirteen years ago, the United States has moved irrevocably toward a more paternalistic state. My point is not to argue that all federal welfare programs are wrong and should be abolished, but to point out that major entitlement programs consumed about 50% of the 2023 federal budget and are growing faster than all other programs. With total federal debt at $36.6 trillion and rising, interest expense already consumes over 13% of the federal budget, entitlement programs will be unaffordable for future generations. As well, some programs discourage aspiration, hard work, self-sufficiency and independence. Welfare reform is badly needed.    

 

While I keep a skeptical eye on MAGA Republicans, Democrats should look in the mirror as regards threats to democracy. Their demand for conformity can be seen in the expanding interest in Socialism, the ultimate in paternalism. From Bernie Sanders in the Senate to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the House, Democrat Socialists of America (DSA) rose from the ashes of the early 20th Century Socialist Party of America. Today it has 90,000 members, including an aspiring candidate for mayor of New York City, a young man who followed a privileged path to power. Socialists oppose capitalism and the personal freedom that allowed the talented and aspirant, regardless of economic and social class, to rise in our country – the magnets that attract so many to our shores.

 

Socialists abhor the concept of personal freedom; they want government to control the lives of its citizens, as well as the means of production. It is not a government of, by and for the people – it is a false promise of equal outcomes – an impossible dream. It is the political leaders in Socialist/Communist countries that are the principal beneficiaries of government, as can be seen in China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela. It is they who place at risk those individual values that helped make the United States what it is – a love for freedom, a belief in the future, a willingness to work hard, honesty, and compassion for those unable to care for themselves. It is paternalism, in all its forms, that is a threat to democracy. While most Americans celebrated the July 4^th with parades, fireworks and cookouts, a few thousand American Socialists met in Chicago at an event called Socialism 2025 – a four-day conference that brought together Socialists and radical activists from around the country.

 

In this vein, the upcoming New York City Mayoral election is something to watch. A self-described Socialist and anti-Semite has become the Democrat nominee for a city that includes over two million Jews. Zohran Mamdani refuses to condemn the phrase “Globalize the Intifada,” a phrase that calls for the annihilation of Israel. Socialism is rooted in its opposition to capitalism and a belief in the concept that government should be all-powerful. Diversity to these people is limited to skin color, gender, and sexual orientation. It does not include differences in opinions, which threaten their paternalistic preferences.

 

……………………………………………….......

 

The 56 delegates from thirteen British colonies who signed the Declaration of Independence were subjects of the British Empire. In signing the document, they committed treason, putting their lives at risk. It was a revolutionary act, in the midst of a war that had begun a year earlier at a bridge in Concord, and would end five years later with Cornwallis’ surrender at Yorktown. The consequence was the birth of the United States, a country based on the concept that all men are created equal – that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights 

 

Our Declaration of Independence was a revolutionary response to the authoritarianism of British rule. Our Declaration acknowledged self-evident truths. It preceded our Constitution, which created a government that did, among other guarantees, assure the right to speak freely, to practice the religion of one’s choice, to protect against unreasonable search and to provide a defense against foreign enemies; the Constitution bestows on every citizen equality before the law, due process and a trial by one’s peers. It celebrates the individual. It is not paternalistic. It assumes that freedom is desired, even when requiring dedication, effort and sacrifice. The rise of Socialism is a return to authoritarian paternalism, disguised as compassionate and virtuous. Those are attributes of individuals and should be encouraged; they do not apply to governments.

 

"AI - A View from a Tech Ignoramus"

I do much of my thinking while taking solitary walks. Nature both soothes and opens the mind. I often find myself debating issues, looking for answers where none appear obvious. Walking through woods, meandering past a swamp, or crossing an open field I find helps see more clearly. We are fortunate in this part of Connecticut, and at Essex Meadows especially, to have nature close at hand. The photo depicts one of the trails on Essex Meadows’ property, a path that crosses a Birch-laden field – one I took recently while thinking of the complexities of artificial intelligence.

 

Sydney M. Williams

https://swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day 

“AI – A View from a Tech Ignoramus”

July 7, 2025

 

“These systems absorb everything from their

training, including man’s darkest tendencies.”

                                                                                                                Cameron Berg & Judd Rosenblatt

                                                                                                                “The Monster Inside Chat GPT”

                                                                                                                The Wall Street Journal, June 27, 2025

 

To borrow an expression, Artificial Intelligence is all the rage, especially Generative AI and large language models. Estimates of total investments in data centers, GPUs (graphics processing units), training centers and cloud-based applications will reach somewhere between $300 billion and $600 billion in 2025, or roughly half the total U.S. defense budget. One source suggests total data center power consumption for all of 2025 could reach 23 gigawatts, twice the total energy consumption of the Netherlands. The June 28-29, 2025 issue of The Wall Street Journal ran an article on how CEOs of “tech goliaths and heavy-weight venture capitalists are cozying up to a few dozen nerdy researchers,” as their specialized knowledge will be “key to cashing in on the artificial-intelligence revolution.” A few companies are offering pay packages for the highly skilled that can reach seven and eight figures. 

 

There is no question that much good will come from AI, like keeping truckers awake on long-haul trips, performing medical procedures, making warehouses more efficient, speeding up assembly lines, providing stock portfolio selections, or editing essays such as the ones I write. AI will generate content for publishers and news outlets, and make more efficient accountants, lawyers and financial advisors. It may prevent accidents on the freeway. However in the short term, like with any new technology, jobs will be lost. But in the longer term, also as with past technological advancements, new jobs will be created, for the economy is dynamic and new markets will be uncovered. And we cannot ignore that while AI may be able to write a Shakespearean-like sonnet or paint a Picasso-like canvas, AI will never be Shakespeare or Picasso. 

 

If I were sixty years younger – even without a talent for linear algebra and probability theory – I would be thinking of how to use AI in my job, home and every-day life – as a tool, not as a substitute for creativity or intuition, as long as it did my bidding and did not lead me. In full disclosure, I do not use AI, as I don’t want it to influence how I think or what I write. There are people who believe that AI is not just a tool, people like Yuval Noah Harari, professor of History at Hebrew University and author of Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, who see AI “as an agent, in the sense that it can make decisions independent of us.”

 

Mark Zuckerberg,  CEO of Meta Platforms, sees AI as a solution to friendless Americans, that algorithms can be personalized, as in the 2013 film Her starring Scarlett Johannsson, a film that explored the nature of love and connection in a technologically advanced world. Alexandra Samuel, a technology researcher and author, wrote in last Monday’s The Wall Street Journal that “Viv,” a word-predicting machine, is the best career coach she ever had. She wrote of how the software that runs AI can be programmed, through training and sourcing. It can mimic most anything, including a preferred world view, one that may be politically correct but factually inaccurate. In our technologically-borderless world, what’s to prevent a foreign government from influencing the naive? The possibilities are frightening. In schools and colleges, Chat GPT may make the completion of a homework assignment easier, but it is likely to impede the critical thought process. We don’t want a nation of cynics, but neither do we want a country of Pollyanna’s.

 

It was an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal that best captured my concerns: “What Would Hayek Think of AI?” In it two professors from Northwestern University wrote of how researchers from Google praised an AI system that helped people find common ground on divisive political issues, based on the belief that conflicts stem primarily from failures in communication, rather than from a recognition that differences are more likely to come from distinctions in values. In the opinion of the two professors, the Google researchers they wrote about have a “misunderstanding of complexity itself.” The professors feared that such tools in government could lead to central planning. They point out: “Vladimir Lenin and his successors failed catastrophically because, as Friedrich Hayek observed, knowledge is inherently decentralized and dispersed throughout society.” It is why democracies do better than autocracies and why capitalism has proved superior to socialism – it is the “Invisible Hand” of Adam Smith, that the decisions of millions of people, individually (and independently) arrived at, are more beneficial to society than those of professional bureaucrats. AI can help in the decision process, but it cannot replace the diffused judgement and wisdom as reflected in the verdicts of millions of people, as they make purchases and select political leaders. 

 

I have never used AI, so my concerns may be meaningless, and I am probably in over my head. But I worry about harmful consequences. I think of the Greek legend of Prometheus who gave knowledge to humans, so was punished by Zeus, and of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, a sapient creature created from different body parts, a monster who created mayhem and committed murder. Eleven years ago when AI was in its infancy, Stephen Hawking, the late English theoretical physicist, told the BBC: “The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race…It would take off on its own, and re-design itself at an ever-increasing rate. Humans, who are limited by slow biological evolution, couldn’t compete and would be superseded.” Hawking may be right. A lot has changed since 2014. AI is more technologically advanced, and it has become more human-like, possibly realizing some of Hawkins’ concerns. Perhaps government will erect guard rails, or will devise a way to control its growth. I don’t know. But in that, I am reminded of the title of Edwin Fadiman’s 1971 book: Who Will Watch the Watchers.  

 

Much will depend on education – on our schools and universities. The world will always need philosophers, artists and musicians, perhaps now more than ever. Learning to think critically, to be skeptical, to question judgements and opinions, has never been so important, as is the teaching of history and literature – to read unbiased stories of our past and to appreciate great minds. The well-read individual is less likely to succumb to the siren call of Artificial Intelligence – at least to not forget that AI is a machine, an invention for the benefit of mankind, not an invention to replace, or substitute for, mankind.

"A Bear in Our Bed"

This is a short – 228 words – whimsical essay meant to elicit a smile on this Holiday weekend. On Monday I expect to have another Thought of the Day, titled “AI – A View from a Tech Ignoramus.”

 

I do hope you celebrated the Fourth. With all of our faults as a nation, the United States is still the freest and most remarkable country ever founded. The Declaration of Independence is unique. It was written in the midst of the Age of Enlightenment and approved by Second Continental Congress, composed of roughly 60 delegates from thirteen colonies.

 

Its words, when read aloud or even in silence, still send chills: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

 

As we all know our nation is not perfect; it is a work in progress. But as we also know it was built on a solid foundation, something for which we, its citizens, should all be thankful.

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

More Essays from Essex

“A Bear in Our Bed!”

July 5, 2025

 

“Two’s company, three’s a crowd.”

                                                                                                                Old English Idiom

 

 

Making our bed recently, I noticed a third party – a bear – had climbed in once it was made. Where he came from, I have no idea, he just appeared. Whether his name – I assume he is male – is Paddington, Winnie, or just plain Teddy, I do not know, as we have never been properly introduced. During the day he nestles comfortably among six pillows. At night he retreats to a nearby chair. His ears are large and his eyes wide open, but he is discretion itself in that he never speaks, not even a whisper.

 

Nevertheless, it is disconcerting knowing my every movement is observed. When I get up in the middle of the night to use the bathroom or to open a window, his eyes follow me. I sometimes wonder, is he an emissary from some foreign enemy, or is he a looking after Caroline’s well-being? I don’t know, and he won’t say. 

 

In the morning I make the bed under his watchful eyes. When my back is turned he climbs back up, snuggles among the pillows, arms akimbo, with a smug look his face. I have grown fond of him now and hope he stays.