"Rebecca," Daphne Du Maurier

 

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Burrowing into Books

“Rebecca,” Daphne Du Maurier

November 28, 2020

 

“I can close my eyes now, and look back on it, and see myself as I must have

been, standing on the threshold of the house, a slim awkward figure in my

stockinette dress, clutching in my sticky hands a pair of gauntlet gloves.”

                                                                                                The narrator thinks back on her arrival at Manderley

                                                                                                Rebecca, 1938

                                                                                                Daphne Du Maurier (1907-1989) 

 

Rebecca, among the most famous book titles, opens with one of fiction’s most recognized sentences: “Last night I dreamt I went to Manderley again.” Two years after publication, Alfred Hitchcock directed the Academy Award film starring Joan Fontaine and Laurence Olivier. In 2020, Ben Wheatley directed a new version, with Lily James and Arnie Hammer. While Hitchcock does a better job in portraying the dark mood of the story, neither, in my opinion, captures the novel’s full range.

 

Daphne Du Maurier wrote historical novels. She was a master of creating an atmosphere of dark moods and mysterious characters. Born in London, she spent much of her life in Cornwall. Novels like Jamaica Inn, Frenchman’s Creek, The King’s General and My Cousin Rachel were set in England’s west country. Manderley, Max de Winter’s home, is a large estate on the rocky coast of Cornwall; the time is the 1920s. 

 

The story is told through a narrator, whose name we are never told, though Max de Winter tells her, “You have a very lovely and unusual name.” When we meet her, she is a paid companion to a wealthy, overbearing American, Mrs. Van Hopper – “…her short body ill-balanced upon tottering high heels, her fussy, frilly blouse a complement to her large bosom and swinging hips…”. They are staying in Monte Carlo in late winter. While the narrator is never described, we are led to understand she is English, about twenty years old, comely not beautiful, innocent not worldly – the antithesis of Rebecca, which is what attracts Mr. de Winter. He is a widower; his wife Rebecca having died the previous May. He is “tall and slim, with dark hair,” wealthy, aristocratic, in his early forties.

 

The dead Rebecca hovers over the novel, like a dark cloud. She obsesses the narrator who has become the new Mrs. De Winter. Rebecca was tall, clever, fond of sport, “a very lovely creature…full of life.” Mrs. Danvers, formerly her childhood nurse, is now housekeeper at Manderley. We first meet her through the eyes of the narrator: “Someone advanced through the sea of faces, someone tall and gaunt, dressed in deep black, whose prominent cheek-bones and great hollow eyes gave her a skull’s face, parchment-white, set on a skeleton’s frame.” The ghost of Rebecca, a deceitful phantasm, hovers over the large, isolated estate, made real through the devious intrigues of Mrs. Danvers.

 

Neither movie ends as does the book. Movies are a visual, but passive, art form, where the eye works and the mind can nap. Books require concentration and are most effective when the reader employs his or her imagination, guided by the author. Rebecca’s last sentence, as Max and the narrator drive home to Manderley: “And the ashes blew toward us with the salt wind from the sea.” Not the end a movie requires, but perfect for this story; you will be captivated by Ms. Du Maurier’s creative genius. I will say no more.

"Thanksgiving Thoughts 2020"

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Essay from Essex

“Thanksgiving Thoughts 2020”

November 24, 2020

 

“On Thanksgiving Day, we acknowledge our dependence.”

                                                                                               William Jennings Bryan (1860-1925)

                                                                                               Speech, American Society, London, November 26, 1903

 

Thursday is Thanksgiving, a uniquely American holiday. (And, with sheltering in place, unique to this year!) Like Christmas and Easter, it is a religious holiday, as the Pilgrims who we celebrate, and who landed in what is now Plymouth, Massachusetts 400 hundred years ago this month, were escaping religious persecution. But, while the Pilgrims were Christians, this holiday is spiritual in a broader sense. The God we thank when we sit down to feast may be whatever God we choose. After all, according to a 2019 Pew Research survey a third of Americans – 35% – do not consider themselves Christian, but all celebrate Thanksgiving. So, no matter one’s religion, if any, all give thanks for the good fortune to live in this Country.  

 

The Pilgrims were Puritan refugees from England, where they had wanted a simpler and purer church than the Church of England offered. They went to Leiden, Holland around 1610, but returned to England to sail from Plymouth to the new world, in September 1620. Not one of the 102 passengers or 30 crew members would have made that trip without a belief that God would guide them. They crossed three thousand miles of unchartered ocean to an unknown destination, to arrive in November as winter was taking hold.

 

The Mayflower Society, made up of 150,000 descendants, estimates there are 35 million people who could trace their ancestry back to the Mayflower. The concept of the power of compound interest proves the point. Of the passengers and crew members, about one third died that first winter. Most of the rest (about 80 people) stayed. Since I can trace my ancestry back to William Bradford, I know that I am, through his son and granddaughter Mercy Steele, the 11^th generation – William Bradford would be my nine-greats grandfather, his genes diluted by the fact that I also carry the genes of another 2047 nine-greats grandparents![1] (Apparently through William Bradford, Clint Eastwood and Hugh Heffner are cousins!) While many children died in infancy, most families were large, as children were assets. If one assumes, for sake of argument, that each family had three children and that twenty-three of the seventy-five survivors had children one gets to 35 million in the 13^th generation, my grandchildren’s generation.[2] The actual number of Mayflower descendants may be far higher. Other ships, carrying mostly British subjects, began arriving in 1621. Conclusion: The Mayflower Society, to which I do not belong, is not exclusive.

 

As science and technology advanced, we became wealthier, but more secular. Science uncovered mysteries, explaining the color of our hair and eyes, our height, intelligence and athleticism. But what gives some people drive and determination, and other none? What provides a moral sense? Can those characteristics be learned? Why were we born and not someone else? What guided a specific sperm to a specific egg? Was it by chance? There are mysteries of life still unsolved.  Their presence does not mean an absence of science. Is it not possible that there is a power greater than us? 

 

There is a bigger message in Thanksgiving, something that gets lost in the materialistic world in which we live. Civilities, those actions and words that allow societies to coexist and prosper, are disappearing, and, in doing so, we banish tolerance and respect, and we forget to give thanks for what we have. Growing up in the late 1940s and early 1950s, we were taught simple rules: to honor our mothers and fathers, to respect our elders and to obey our teachers. We were taught the Ten Commandments and had to memorize the Golden Rule. We were told to be polite, to look the person addressing us in the eye and to shake hands firmly. We did not have to agree with everyone, but we were expected to dissent with civility.

 

Technology has made the world smaller. A two-month voyage from Plymouth, England to Plymouth, Massachusetts now takes about five hours. Through social media and smart phones, we are more connected than ever, but are personal relationships more intimate or less? Have we substituted knowing a few people well for knowing a lot of people casually? Are there roses that go un-smelt? Are there consequences to this haste? In his college newspaper, The Brandeis Hoot, my grandson Alex Williams, in a column titled (with thanks to Dr. Seuss) “Oh, the Places We’ll Go,” recently wrote: “In many ways, we don’t want to make the world a smaller place, to drain it of its wonder and deprive it of its sense of dimension and sprawl.” We need time to think, time to read, time to appreciate one’s own culture and time to talk to strangers and learn something of others. What a difference a hundred years has made. When my maternal grandfather was responsible for U.S. Rubber’s plantations in the 1920s, his business trips would last nine months. He traveled by steamer to Britain, then through the Suez Canal to what is now Malaysia, the largest producer of rubber in the world at the time. He would return, moving east across the Pacific, through the Panama Canal, down to Brazil and up the Amazon to Manaus, before returning to New York. The downsides of such trips are obvious. My mother spoke of how much she missed him. It is not a life I would have wanted. But he had time to reflect and to learn other cultures. When I knew him in the 1940s, he always took time to take us grandchildren to ‘Bruin’s Lair,’ a small clearing in the woods where he, who had shot tigers in Bengal, would tell us of the friendly bear we believed existed, but never saw.

 

Thanksgiving is a day to slow down (except for those cooking), a time to reflect. “The technologies that are inspired from wonder,” as Alex wrote in his essay,” should not take us to a place as fast as possible, but to service the more imaginative inclinations of our human experience.” Thanksgiving is a day to express gratitude. In his London speech from which the rubric is taken, William Jennings Bryan, a great fan of our independence from Britain, reminded his listeners of our dependence on so much. “We did not,” he said, “create the fertile soil that is the basis of our agricultural greatness; the streams that drain and feed our valleys were not channeled by human hands...; we did not hide away in the mountains the gold and silver. All these natural resources…are the gift of Him before whom we bow in gratitude tonight.”

 

On this particular Thanksgiving, we celebrate without our extended families, but we should still think of the freedom that is ours. We should think of those less fortunate, and of those who live in countries less free. We should remember those who have gone before us, and we should be thankful for our ancestors, from whence and whenever they came. They struggled to come here, so their descendants would live in religious and political freedom and have opportunities for success. We should recall and be thankful for the culture and values taught us by our parents, for they comprise the glue that binds our society.

 

Happy Thanksgiving!

"A Cultural Revolution?"

                                                                   Sydney M. Williams

30 Bokum Road – Apartment 314

Essex, CT 06426

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

November 21, 2020

“A Cultural Revolution?”

 

“…the Cultural Revolution’s most enduring legacy in China was…

the destruction of the bonds of organic trust which hold together a society.”

                                                                                                       Xiao Li

                                                                                                       Pseudonym for an academic based in America

                                                                                                       UnHerd, a British news website

                                                                                          (The author’s father was imprisoned and punished 

                                                                                                During China’s Cultural Revolution. He later 

                                                                                                emigrated to the United States).

 

For a democracy to collapse into authoritarianism, what are required is a man or a woman and a movement. In Trump, we have a man but no movement. On the Progressive Left, we have a movement but no one person. To be effective, the movement must have the backing of the media, the academy and a sufficient number of bureaucrats who run government – advantage, the Left. 

 

Trump is criticized by his detractors as a neo-fascist, a would-be dictator, but, apart from his love for America and his call to “clean the swamp,” he has no overriding political philosophy. The Tea Party did not expand during his White House tenure. The Progressive Left calls for an expansionist government that will provide more regulation, a “green new deal,” free college, all of which will mean higher taxes and limit individual freedom. They have on their side mainstream media, the academy and most of the bureaucracy that runs Washington. But they have no one individual around whom they gather.  Some might look at this as an optimistic appraisal – a leader with no real movement and a movement with no one leader – and assume an Alfred E. Neuman stance. 

 

However, there are cultural trends abroad that should worry a believer in a free and open society. In the essay, from which the rubric was drawn, Mr. Xiao wrote about his father and his contemporaries, now living in the United States: “…they can feel a certain febrility in the air which reminded them of the events of half a century ago.” Former President Obama, in a recent speech, prescribed “a combination of regulations and standards within industries to get us back to the point where we at least recognize a common set of facts,” suggesting a need for an Orwellian Ministry of Truth. In a speech on November 12 before the Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention, Justice Samuel Alito warned that “tolerance for opposing views is now in short supply in many law schools, and in the broader academic community.” Richard Stengel, who joined Joe Biden’s transition team, wrote in an op-ed in the Washington Post in October 2019: “All speech is not equal. And where truth cannot drive out lies, we must add new guardrails.” Whose Truths? Whose lies? Whose guardrails? 

 

Students at Harvard, America’s oldest and best-known university, called on college officials to ban Trump officials from giving talks or holding positions on campus. Like tyrants in dictatorial countries, the students called for the administration to “set up a system of accountability for high-level political appointees and Trump administration consultants before they are invited as fellows or to teach or speak on campus.” The letter went on: “Harvard should stand firm with its stated commitment to a just Harvard and a just world, to free and honest inquiry in the unfettered pursuit of truth” – except when that search uncovers a truth opposed to their narrative.

 

Religious liberty has become a “disfavored right,” so spoke Justice Alito. Social media platforms police conservative ideas; schools expunge history that does not accord with their pre-determined story; colleges promote a cancel culture and encourage safe places for students against “harmful words,” and politicians compartmentalize voters, creating a salad bowl of diversity rather than the melting pot traditionally promised immigrants. These actions have led to identity politics where the narrative of victimization has replaced the concept of individual responsibility. The consequence is an ideology that “seeks to displace all prior traditions and institutions, with,” using Hannah Arendt’s definition of a totalitarian society, “the goal of bringing all aspects of society under the control of that ideology.”

 

When government recommendations become edicts, when enforcement of rules, such as the wearing of masks or keeping family gatherings below a fixed number, relies on neighbors or friends informing on others, we reach a tipping point. One of the most powerful books to be published in the wake of China’s Cultural Revolution was Nien Cheng’s Life and Death in Shanghai. In it, she wrote: “One of the ugliest aspects of life in Communist China during the Mao Zedong era was the Party’s demand that people inform on each other routinely…This practice had a profoundly destructive effect on human relationships…It encouraged secretiveness and hypocrisy.” We have not reached that point in the U.S. However, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her squad, after the recent election, suggested that information should be collected on anyone who might ever had said anything positive about Trump, lest such people scrub their records and pretend they were critical of him all along. To do so, she believes, would be a “public service.” To do so, in my opinion, would put us further down the road to serfdom, to borrow a title from Friedrich Hayek.

 

The United States has never had an aristocracy, a landed gentry or a permanent ruling class. But it has always had exceptional people who have risen to the top of their field – politics, business, finance, the arts, media and the world of sports. Attempts to pull up the ladders that provide opportunity, something we see in inner cities where school competition is denied, should be resisted. The U.S. stands alone, a beacon of freedom based on the rule of law and the rights of individuals. The nation is unique. For generations, it has set standards for other nations.

 

Is there a cultural revolution underway in the U.S.? The evidence suggests there is. It is fascinating to witness how many of us (including myself) have, with the pandemic as an excuse, willingly complied with directives from the state – succumbing to mask-wearing everywhere and staying away from family and friends. Is it enough to plunge us into an authoritarian regime? I think not at this time. Nevertheless, there are those who have exhibited authoritarian tendencies, like Andrew Cuomo of New York and Gary Newsom of California. I worry that a charismatic leader, adored by the media, could emerge. And I know that I would rather encounter an impolite man with a bark than be seduced by the mellifluous voice of a temptress. We do not want a cultural revolution.

"The Essential Scalia"

                                                                   Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Burrowing into Books

“The Essential Scalia,” Antonin Scalia

November 17, 2020

 

“Utterly central to the law is the meaning of words, and the meaning

of a word often changes over time, as any reputable dictionary

will show by its use of a parenthetical description such as ‘obs. (obsolete).”

                                                                                                                Justice Antonin Scalia

                                                                                                                Speech, “The Freedom of Speech,” 2012

                                                                                                                The Essential Scalia, Antonin Scalia

 

This book, with a foreword by Justice Elena Kagan, was edited by two of Justice Scalia’s former law clerks, Jeffrey S, Sutton and Edward Whelan. It is arranged into four sections – General Principles of Interpretation, Constitutional Interpretation (the longest section), Statutory Interpretation and Review of Agency Action. Within those sections, the book is composed of speeches and court decisions: majority opinions, concurrences and dissents. Justice Scalia wrote with unusual clarity, so those with no law school education, like me, can follow along, at least most of the time.

 

Scalia’s belief in originalism is based on the concept that it is not the role of courts to try to understand the intent of those who wrote the Constitution or subsequent Amendments and laws, but to let the words written speak for themselves, using the definition in place at the time. “Far from facilitating conservative opinions, originalism prevents judges, conservatives and liberals alike, from judging according to their desires.” Justice Scalia recognized that attitudes toward social behavior change over time. But, as a firm believer in the separation of powers, he believed that justices should not impose their personal feelings in interpreting the law. Laws can be added, cancelled or amended, which is the role of the Legislature, not nine men and women in black robes. “The reality is that originalism is the only game in town – the only real, verifiable criterion that can prevent judges from making the Constitution say whatever they think it should say. Show Scalia the original meaning, and he is prevented from imposing his nasty, conservative views upon the people.” “The living constitutionalist is a happy fella, because it turns out the Constitution always means precisely what he thinks it should mean,” he added with an obvious smile.

 

In a chapter on textualism (similar to originalism), Scalia wrote: “It is the law that governs, not the intent of the law giver…Men may intend what they will; but it is only the law that they enact which bind us.” Justice Scalia spoke often, at universities and before Congress, on the importance of the constitutional structure of government – separation of powers, a bicameral legislature, our system of federalism – and its need to be preserved against “the ineradicable human lust for power.” It is the structure, not the Bill of Rights, that make us unique. The latter represents “the fruit and not the roots of our constitutional tree.” 

 

He notes, in a chapter on federalism, that the Constitution “established a system of dual sovereignty.” It is a compromise between “…the disunity, the conflict of independent states” and “the uniformity, the inflexibility…of one centralized government.” We read his opinions on abortion, violent video games, hate speech, political patronage, prayer and marriage. In a 1992 Dissent regarding prayer at public meetings, Justice Scalia wrote: “…that fortress, which is our Constitution, cannot possibly rest upon the changeable philosophical predilections of the Justices of this Court, but must have deep foundations in the historic practices of our people.” In a case where the Court ruled 5-4, concluding that two Kentucky counties violated the Establishment Clause in displaying the Ten Commandments, Justice Scalia, in his Dissent, quoted the Northwest Territory Ordinance of 1787 (the first legislative act to outright ban slavery): “Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education, shall forever be encouraged.” In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Court ruled state laws that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman violated the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Scalia dissented on the basis that such decisions should be left to the people through their representatives: “A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.” 

 

In a 1996 case regarding Virginia Military Institute, the Court ruled 7-1 (Clarence Thomas recused himself) ruled that their single-sex policy violated the Equal Protection Clause. Justice Scalia was the sole dissenting voice, referencing the concept of separation of powers: “The people,” he wrote, “may decide to change the one tradition, like the other (here he refers to the three service academies, where Congress approved the change), through democratic processes; but the assertion that either tradition has been unconstitutional through the centuries is not law, but politics-smuggled-into-law.” The non-golf playing Justice Scalia dissented in PGA Tour v. Martin, which ruled in Martin’s favor. Carey Martin, a professional golfer, was prevented from playing because of a degenerative disease that precluded him from walking the course when carts were not permitted. While his decision was not popular with those who feel he unfairly hindered a handicapped individual, it was based on a strict adherence to the rules: “…the very nature of competitive sports is the measurement by uniform rules, of unevenly distributed excellence. This unequal distribution is precisely what determines winners and losers – and artificially to even out that distribution, by giving one or another player exemption from a rule that emphasizes his particular weakness, is to destroy the game.” He admitted that the PGA could change the rule or permit an exception, but that, he added, “is a different question than the one before the Court.”

 

There is consistency and clarity in the written opinions of Justice Scalia. Readers will be surprised by the number of times he is joined by “liberal” members of the Court. He reminds us that Justices cannot be like Humpty Dumpty, who said words mean just what he wanted them to mean. In our world, words have definable meanings, and the presumption is that laws are (and were) written by those who understood their meaning. He respects the Founders and their wisdom, expressed in the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, and in creating separate governing bodies – a Congress that represents the People and which writes laws, an Executive who carries out those laws and a Court, the only non-political body, that ensures laws passed comply with the Constitution and that adjudicates disputes. Even for a non-lawyer like myself his wise words are fun to read and easily understood.

"Even More Post-Election Thoughts"

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Even More Post-Election Thoughts”

November 14, 2020

 

“We have, in fact, two kinds of morality, side by side: One which we preach,

but do not practice, and another which we practice, but seldom preach.”

                                                                                                                                Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)

                                                                                                                                Skeptical Essays, 1928

 

It may seem odd that I, a conservative, would quote Bertrand Russell in the rubric that heads this essay. But I find the sentiment expressed fitting for the world in which we live where hypocrisy and double standards are the standard. In my opinion, a hypocrite is one who professes virtues he does not possess, in the hope his words will camouflage his actions. It is a condition common to the halls of political power. 

 

I was mocked for my prediction in my last essay – perhaps deservedly – that Trump would be as gracious in defeat as he was competitive in battle. It is still too early to know. Mr. Trump has not yet conceded, and Congress has yet to certify the election. But (and on this I am more certain) what he and his followers will not do is become the sore losers who created the “resistance” four years ago. Mr. Biden will not be subject, from the media, academia and our cultural elite, to the never-ending barrage of personal attacks Mr. Trump endured. Nor will the intelligence agencies and their flunkies in Congress try to upend his Presidency, as they attempted to do with Mr. Trump throughout his four years. 

 

It is not easy to cast Donald Trump as the principal character in a morality tale, a “heroic but stubborn and self-fixated Antigone,” as Victor Davis Hanson, writing in National Review, described him. However, there is about Mr. Trump the possible makings of an heroic, but tragic, figure. He exposed much of Washington’s ruling class to be corrupt and self-serving, and he showed the media to be the partisan attack dogs they are. He brought to light the role universities have played in censoring conservative speech. He unmasked the hypocrisy of politicians for their refusal to accept school choice for poor and minority students, and he watched the Left’s double standards regarding masks in riot-torn streets. He ignored Chuck Schumer’s advice in 2017 about taking on the intelligence community. For this, he received no acclamation.

 

He accomplished some things both sides wanted, but which the Left hesitated to support, like reducing the number of illegal immigrants, and moving the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, in accordance with a resolution passed by Congress in 1995.  He walked away from the Iran nuclear deal, which would have set Iran on a path to nuclear weapons, and he authored the Abraham Accords between Israel and, the United Arab Emirates. He confronted China, with their theft of our technology. He forced the UN to face charges of human rights’ violations. He brought American troops home from endless wars in the Middle East. He made the U.S. energy independent. For this, he received no accolades.

 

He did a few things that Democrats might not have done, but which have helped all Americans. His tax bill and deregulation efforts juiced an economy that had slowed. The tax bill, widely reviled by the Left, reduced the deduction for SALT (state and local taxes) deductions, thereby negatively affecting high-earners in high-taxed states, like New York, California, New Jersey, Connecticut, Hawaii, Oregon, Minnesota and Vermont, an income-equalizing factor, hypocritically ignored by Progressives. He created Operation Warp Speed to develop therapeutics and a vaccine for COVID-19, compressing what is normally a 72-month process (for a vaccine) into an 11 to 13-month time frame. Would Democrats have done the same? His pre-COVID-19 economy increased employment and wages among minorities and, in doing so, lowered the wealth and income gaps that have plagued the country for three decades. Despite these accomplishments, he was not granted a second term.

 

Divisiveness increased during the Trump years. His comments about Indiana-born Judge Gonzalo Curiel in May 2016 were inexcusable. During his first campaign for President, he called for a ban on Muslims entering the United States. He has a habit of speaking without considering the weight of his words. He should have condemned outright far-right hate groups. But the spirit of un-cooperation did not begin with Mr. Trump. Mr. Obama, as America’s first black President, had a choice. He could have been a unifier; instead, he chose to raise the temperature of racial tensions. And, Democrats have never condemned far-Left hate groups, like Antifa.

 

…………………………………………………..

 

Nevertheless, and apart from Trump, what was fascinating in this election was how well Republicans did. At least two state legislative bodies switched from Democrat to Republican. Republicans added to their governorships. Greg Gianforte, a Montana Republican, was elected, defeating Mike Cooney. He will replace incumbent governor, Democrat Steve Bullock. In the House, Republicans picked up seats and elected at least twelve freshmen women: Nancy Mace (SC), Yvette Herrell (NM), Lauren Boebert (CO), Kat Cammack (FL), Maria Elvira Salazar (FL), Marjorie Taylor Greene (GA), Mary Miller (IL), Lisa McClain (MI), Michelle Fischbach (MN), Stephanie Bice (OK), Diana Harshbarger (TN) and Victoria Spartz (IN). What this suggests is that while Mr. Trump’s personality rankled some, his policies, and conservativism in general, fared well.  

 

While re-counts should continue and legal arguments will be heard, at least until votes are certified, the numbers suggest Mr. Biden won the election, although not by much. (As of this writing, there are still seven House seats that have not been called.) The election highlighted concerns with early voting, on-line registration, universal mail-in voting, vote harvesting and a lack of voter ID requirements. The election suggests a divided country. It is one in which, with most states being strongly blue or red, many candidates face a David versus Goliath competition. With mainstream media, late-night television hosts and social media aligned against them, Republicans did well, suggesting a repudiation of the culture Progressives have been pushing, in universities and on social media.

 

It is possible that a recount in Georgia might swing that state into the Trump column, but it is difficult to conceive of enough votes being changed in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan or Nevada for Mr. Trump to win re-election. However, and despite allegations to the contrary from those like the self-righteous Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT), there is always fraud in elections. Democrats, especially, are good at scouring cemeteries for votes, and harvesting ones when they need the count. While not enough votes will be found to make a difference in this election’s outcome, it is hypocritical for Biden’s team to suggest everyone should accept as inevitable the result declared by the media. Keep in mind, Hillary Clinton’s advice to Joe Biden: if results show you lost, do not concede, under any conditions.

 

As a final observation, as one who believes less government is better than more and that more individual responsibility and freedom are better than less. I am wary of those who promise “a chicken for every pot,” as did an ad for Herbert Hoover in 1928, or tuition-free public colleges and universities, as did Bernie Sanders in 2020. The United States is not perfect, but as a nation of 330 million who represent every ethnicity, religion and race in the world, there is no other country in which the vast majority would want to live. We have our differences, but we are lucky to be here.

"Veteran's Day, 2020"

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Essay from Essex

“Veteran’s Day, 2020”

November 11, 2020

 

“In Flanders fields the poppies blow

Between the crosses, row on row,

That mark our place; and in the sky

The larks, still bravely singing, fly

Scarce heard amid the guns below.”

                                                                                                                               “In Flanders Field,” May 3, 1915

                                                                                                                                John McCrae (1872-1918)

 

While this is a day for remembering and honoring those who serve and have served in our nation’s armed forces, it is remarkable how distanced most of us have become from military personnel and from the duties they perform that help keep us free. It was not always so. 

 

Out of a population of 132 million Americans in 1940, 16 million served in World War II, roughly 0.12% of the population. Today, 1.4 million Americans are on active duty, or 0.004% of today’s population. In 1960, before Vietnam but when the Draft was still in force, 2.5 million Americans were in the armed forces, or 0.014% of the then population of 181 million.

 

In 1980, 0.18% of all American were veterans; today the number is closer to 0.05% and declining. Demographics are changing. The number of male veterans is expected to fall by half over the next two decades, while the number of female veterans is expected to double. In 1975, according to a 2017 Pew Research study, 0.81% of U.S. Senators were veterans; today that number is closer to 0.20%. This has consequences, as love of country and respect for our history and flag are more common among veterans than among the population as a whole, according to the same Pew study. 

 

Both of my grandfathers served in the military – my Grandfather Williams during the Spanish-American War and my Grandfather Hotchkiss as an honorary Colonel in the First World War. Neither saw combat. However, combined, their six sons and three sons-in-law all served in World War II, and all except one – a medical doctor – in combat. One was wounded – on Okinawa – but all survived. I am the only one of my parent’s nine children and their eighteen grandchildren to have served in the military, and I was only in for six months of active duty, just prior to Vietnam.

 

“Freedom is not free” is an over-used idiom, but it bears a truth – over a million Americans have died in the Nation’s wars since independence from Britain was declared in 1776. Its words are engraved on the Korean War Memorial in Washington, D.C. Our Nation, the lamp that lights the world, would not be here were it not for those who went to war, some of whom sacrificed their lives, so that freedom would reign.

 

We should, perhaps, consider reinstituting the Draft. We do not face a major war, but preparedness is always crucial, and national service has other benefits. It helps youth mature. It gives youth a sense of their Country. It is an equalizer, in that all recruits are treated the same. It makes no difference to your drill sergeant if you are just out of Harvard, a recent graduate of Illinois Central Community College in Peoria, or if you are off the streets of Chicago. He (or she) does not care if you are black, white, Hispanic or Asian. He does not care what religion you might be, how much money you have, or who your father and mother are. He cares about one thing – preparing you to be ready for what lies ahead.

 

As we take a few minutes this day, remembering at the 11^th hour of the 11^th day of the 11^th month when the “guns of August” were finally stilled, we should discuss and debate the value of a Draft, for ourselves and our youth, and how it might bind us all closer to this Nation we call home, the United States of America.  

"More Post-Election Thoughts"

 

Sydney M. Williams

30 Bokum Road – Apartment 314

Essex, CT 06426

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“More Post-Election Thoughts”

November 10, 2020

 

“…in their considerable wisdom, the voters may have elected

Mr. Biden but they left his party and its radical ideas behind.”

                                                                                                                                Lead Editorial

                                                                                                                                Wall Street Journal

                                                                                                                                November 6, 2020

 

Mr. Trump, a non-politician, was elected President in 2016 against all odds. Cronyism and corruption had infested both parties. Washington’s swamp, which had become an Augean Stables, needed cleansing. Trump’s task was easier in one sense than that of Hercules – One man, Eurystheus, gave the latter a single day to accomplish his task, while sixty-three million voters gave Trump four years. But Mr. Trump’s task was more difficult in another sense – the creatures who inhabit Washington’s swamp are savvier and more cunning than the four-legged animals of King Augeas. As well, Washington’s swamp denizens are protected by mainstream and social media groups who long ago extinguished Diogenes’ lamp.  

 

Mr. Biden has been anointed the newly elected President by a media that has been trying to banish the hated Mr. Trump for four years. Certification of his election, however, is yet to come. Regardless, there will be no resistance to Mr. Biden like that which confronted Mr. Trump four years ago. Rioters, one should note, did not appear when Mr. Biden appeared victorious, as merchants feared had Mr. Trump prevailed. In truth, Republicans aren’t as nasty as Democrats and don’t carry grudges to the same extent. Nevertheless, what attracted so many to Mr. Trump is that he is a fighter. Mr. Obama once said he would bring a gun to a knife fight. Mr. Trump is also a fighter; it is why he is held in high regard by his admirers. He will not exit stage left without assurance that nobody emerged from the nation’s cemeteries to vote in the middle of the night. But he will exit graciously if he loses, once all legal votes have been counted.

 

While the media has been relentless in referring to Mr. Trump as a Hitler, an egoist, a racist, a misogynist, a xenophobe, a selfish materialist, it is worth remembering his wife is from Slovenia, his daughter is married to a Jew and that he was color-blind in selecting members of his cabinet and staff. Keep in mind, Mr. Trump does not fit the image of what purports to be a Republican. He was refused membership in Palm Beach’s exclusive Everglades and Bath & Tennis Clubs, which is why he formed the Mar-a-Lago Club, a club unrestricted by race, gender or religion. In cutting regulations, Mr. Trump reduced the power of the Executive branch of government, which he heads. Unlike ex-Presidents Clinton and Obama, he did not run for President to help his net worth. He gave his Presidential salary to charity ($1.6 million over four years) and, according to Forbes, saw his net worth decline by $1.2 billion, or 32%. Over the same four years, equity markets in the U.S. rose in value by about $10 trillion, or about 35%. Mr. Trump, a successful businessman, went to Washington to fight corruption and to aid “forgotten” Americans – millions of middle-income, unhyphenated American workers. 

 

Once again, as in 2016, the Polls were wrong. Real Clear Politics, according to Michael Barone, showed Mr. Trump getting 44% of the popular vote versus the 48.6% he actually received. Democrats were supposed to increase their number of House seats and garner a majority in the Senate. Republicans added to their House seats, picked up one governorship (Montana) and added to state legislatures. Even though he lost the Presidency, Mr. Trump’s coattails were longer than Mr. Biden’s.

 

While re-counts continue in a number of states – Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Arizona (and perhaps Michigan and Wisconsin) – it seems that Mr. Biden will emerge as our next President. Assuming Republicans keep their hold on the Senate, which depends on the outcome of two Georgia special elections to be held on January 5^th, Progressives should be kept at bay; so long as a President Biden governs as the moderate he claims to be…and as long as his early dementia does not noticeably worsen. That should allow Republicans to focus on the interim 2022 elections and the 2024 Presidential election. They have a strong bench, headed, in my opinion, by a new generation of leaders: Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis, Tim Scott, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Elise Stefanik, Ben Sasse and Josh Hawley – all generation Xers. 

 

With so many races so close, Mr. Trump should not concede until all states certify the vote. After all, was not that the advice of Hillary Clinton to Mr. Biden had Mr. Trump won? But once it becomes clear he has lost (which I suspect he has), he should be as gracious in defeat as he was competitive in battle, something he was not accorded in 2016. Ms. Pelosi misspoke when she said: “We lost some battles, but we won the war.” In a democratic republic like ours there is no end to the political war. She lost some skirmishes and won a battle, but not convincingly. The war goes on, as it always has and always will. If anything, this race showed that the Country is center-right in its beliefs. It showed that Democrats are torn between moderates who have been ignored and Progressives to whom House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer genuflected during the past four years. Platform programs like Medicare-for-all, the 1619 Project and the Green New Deal are outliers and will likely lie fallow.

 

The American voter is intelligent and informed. In general, they liked Mr. Trump’s handling of the economy, the tax cuts and regulatory relief. They understood that COVID-19 was a novel virus and that the scientific evidence and recommendations were inconsistent. They know that Democrats turned the virus into a political football. They recognize that the President had to thread the needle between the Charybdis of a deadly disease and the Scylla of closed schools and a shut-down economy. Most Americans feel that Mr. Trump found a peaceful resolution in the Middle East, a process that eluded professional diplomats. Likewise, most Americans, apart from NBA players, Silicon Valley technocrats and Wall Streeters, do not like how China has taken advantage of American generosity and how it has imprisoned Uyghurs, destroyed democracy in Hong Kong, threatens Taiwan and potentially disrupts trade in the South China Sea. As well, most Americans could care less if Europeans, who have benefitted for seventy years from an American military presence, are upset because they are asked to pay more for their own defense.   

 

While those of us who supported President Trump mourn his loss in the election, we celebrate the fact that he received the second highest number of votes ever in a Presidential election. His was a consequential Presidency. A disruptor, Mr. Trump redefined the Republican Party away from its image of moneyed, country-club types to middle class, working Americans of all races who love their country, its Constitution, history and its traditions. Despite all four member of the “Squad” (Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, of New York, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts) winning re-election, the election was a defeat for Progressive policies. High turnout among women, youth and minorities did not create the “blue wave” of expectations. In fact, Mr. Trump increased his vote share from all categories except white men. Republican gains in the House were women and Hispanics. Mr. Trump’s vote totals among Blacks was the highest for a Republican since 1960. Interestingly, those who voted later, when more information was available, voted for Mr. Trump.

 

Mr. Trump can leave office with the knowledge he made a positive difference: The rampant corruption of trading influence for dollars; the arrogance of bureaucrats toward those they are supposed to serve, and a media that has become Pravda-like in their support for one Party. He reminded us of the fortune we have to live in this great land, under the rule of law – a mixture of people from all nations, religions and races. He taught us to be proud of our history, warts and all; for no other Country has done so much for so many.