"The Man Who Isn't There"

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

Thought of the Day

“The Man Who Isn’t There”

June 25, 2021

 

“Look in his eyes for a dying flare,

Look for the wind in his yellow hair,

And pretend

You see the man

Who isn’t there.”

                                                                                                                                     Oren Lavie (1976-)

                                                                                                                                   “The Man Who Isn’t There.” 2007

 

In a 2006 report, Jonathon R.T. Davidson, Professor (now Emeritus) of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Duke University, utilizing biographical sources, wrote about the first thirty-seven U.S. Presidents (Washington through Nixon). His conclusion: eighteen of them had some form of mental illness, from depression and anxiety to bipolar disorders and alcohol abuse/dependence. Given the pressure under which Presidents operate, perhaps such findings are not surprising.

 

In 1964, in response to a group of psychiatrists claiming Barry Goldwater unfit for office the American Psychiatric Association issued a statement, which said in part: “…it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.” That caveat has not stopped “armchair psychiatrists” from offering unfavorable opinions about Presidents, especially Republican ones, including Ronald Reagan who was called an “idiot savant” and who some said showed signs of early onset Alzheimer’s, and George W. Bush who was called a “puppet of Dick Cheney” and who others said exhibited “deep feelings of inadequacy.”

 

But no President was ever mentally scrutinized as closely as was Donald Trump. Even before the election Representative Karen Bass (D-CA and without a medical degree) launched a petition to have Mr. Trump psychologically examined, claiming he exhibited signs of narcissistic personality disorder. In December 2017, more than a dozen members of Congress invited a Yale University psychiatry professor Dr. Bandy X. Lee to evaluate Trump’s behavior. Without ever meeting him, and in contravention of the 1964 statement issued by the American Psychiatric Association, she was quoted by Politico: “He’s going to unravel, and we are seeing the signs…Trump is going to get worse and will become uncontainable with the pressure of the presidency” In response to non-stop attacks on his fitness for office, Donald Trump, in 2020, took the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, a brief test of about thirty questions. He claimed he “aced” it, though Canadian inventor of the test, Dr. Ziad Nasreddine, said Mr. Trump’s score showed “normal performance.” 

 

Given that Presidents have the “Gold Codes,” which are the launch codes for nuclear weapons, does it not make sense to ensure our Presidents are mentally sound? Jimmy Carter thought so. In the December 1994 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, he wrote: “Many people have called to my attention the continuing danger to our nation from the possibility of a U.S. President becoming disabled, particularly by a neurological illness.”  A commission was considered but never created, thus the sole determinant of a candidate’s mental and physical fitness to serve is the rigor of the campaign.

 

That brings us to President Biden. I am an observer, not a psychiatrist or psychologist, so my opinions carry no authority. Nevertheless, like many others, I worry about the acuity of our 46^th President. Campaigning largely from his Delaware home during last year’s pandemic, the American people were unable to get a sense of his mental fitness. His speeches were and are scripted, as are his press conferences. It is true that he has a stutter, which can be confused with mental lapses. And to give him his due, Mr. Biden’s personal life has been tragic: His wife and one-year-old daughter were killed in an automobile accident in 1972. His son Beau died of brain cancer at age 46 in 2015. His surviving son, Hunter, with his business dealings in China, Ukraine and Russia, his oft-use of the N-word, and his new career in art where his patrons are not identified, are embarrassments or worse.  

 

Some of Mr. Biden’s problems are self-inflicted: His habits of unwelcome hugs, touches and smooches to women are creepy. Some of his verbal transgressions suggest racial condescension and a temper: In 2006, about Americans who had emigrated from India – “You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. And I’m not joking.” About Barack Obama in 2007 – “You’ve got the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate, bright and clean.” In 2020 to black radio host Charlemagne The God: “Well, I’m telling you, if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.” 

 

However, when one watches him on TV, one wonders if he is “the man who isn’t there.” Slurred words, cognitive freezes and vacant eyes mar some speeches and press conferences, even when he has the aid of a teleprompter. Also, even with a friendly media, he seems to lose his temper more often than he did.

 

I do not worry that he will do something rash like launch a nuclear attack, because I am certain his handlers will prevent such action. But that is the source of my greatest concern. Who is in charge? Who is the ‘Oz’ behind the curtain pulling the strings and levers? It is this not knowing who is steering the ship of state that is worrying. Mr. Biden’s forty-seven years in public service would not suggest the progressive policies he now promotes. With the election of Mr. Trump, you may not have liked what you got, but you knew what you were getting. With Mr. Biden, you may have liked what you thought you were getting, but you cannot be sure of what you got. If the Democrat leadership knowingly ran a man for President who was in mental decline that would be a black mark against the concept of free and fair elections.

 

One is reminded of lines by Alfred Joyce Kilmer, the American poet who was killed in France on July 30, 1918:

 

“I suppose I’ve passed it a hundred times, but I always stop for a minute

And look at the house, the tragic house, the house with nobody in it.”

 

A house now inhabited by a 78-year-old man whose blond hair has turned white, a man who may not be there.

"Conservative Agonistes"

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

Thought of the Day

“Conservative Agonistes”

June 21, 2021

 

“The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being

overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often and

sometimes frightened. But no price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself.”

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Interview with Arthur Gordon

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Readers Digest, 1935

 

Most of us conservatives who take our politics seriously have struggled with the phenomenon that was (and is) Donald Trump. We were taught that character matters, but we also know that so do issues. When they collide, on which side should we stand?

 

All of us, regardless of political leanings, struggle to fit today’s partisan political environment into the moral universe we inherited. As a conservative, I struggle to keep my moral compass firmly fixed in a world turned increasingly woke, where facts are subordinated to the narrative, where truth is relative and where censorship is applied. As an essayist, it is not my function to convince the reader of the righteousness of my positions, but to explain why I believe as I do. The ethical standards I apply to political thought are based on my parents, lessons from school and college, from travel and conversations, and from reading.

 

I grew up during and just after World War II, when distinctions between good and evil seemed clear. We were raised to respect our elders, especially parents, and taught manners and civil behavior. We were read to from Aesop’s Fables with its universal moral lessons, and we were taught accountability and personal responsibility. In school, we saluted the flag and sang the Star-Spangled Banner. We were patriots, believing in the good of America. We knew she was not perfect, for we had learned our Founders met “to form a more perfect union,” not a perfect one. Memorial Day was a big holiday for us, as was the 4^th of July. We celebrated, as separate holidays, the births of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. While we were taught humility, we were proud (and felt fortunate) to be Americans.

 

Yet, beneath that surface of 1950s calm lay social inequalities of which we were partially aware. Women were not treated as equals in the job market and segregation was a fact of life, and not just in the South. However, from our studies of American history we knew that progress had been made over the decades. And from our studies of world history, we learned of the uniqueness of the United States – not perfect, but better than the countries from which our ancestors had emigrated. That knowledge did not make us complacent; it made us aware of how we could effect change for the common good. In our later teens and early twenties, we witnessed historic changes in Civil and women’s rights, and we embraced those changes.

 

As a member of the “silent generation” (1928-1945), I was fortunate to be born where and when I was. Like many, I was too young for World War II and Korea, and had done my military service before Vietnam. While some were born to wealth and position, we knew success was a function of talent, aspiration, diligence, hard work and luck, and that while we had equal rights, we were not equal in any of the characteristics that lead to success. We had to make good with who and what we were. But we cherished the fact we were equal before the law, and we treasured opportunities to improve our lot through education and our system of free market capitalism, even if we didn’t exactly understand the latter. We never looked upon ourselves as oppressors or victims, but as individuals whose future, we were told, was in our hands. 

 

 

Perhaps change is happening too fast for this old man. But, having witnessed the advances over the past several decades, I do not believe the country is systemically racist. The same is true for women’s rights. The comparison to fifty years ago is dramatic. Surely, more can be done, but perhaps we should stop and applaud the advances we have made. Keeping one’s moral compass is difficult in an age of political correctness and paradoxical wokeism. While we believed Martin Luther King to be correct when he said character, not skin color, should be the arbiter of acceptance and success, wokeism claims that color blindness is racist, that all whites are oppressors, and, in racial condescension, that all people of color are victims. Critical Race Theory claims race is a social construct, not a function of skin pigmentation. Even in professional sports where blacks excel, victim status is claimed. In my youth, women were recognized as anatomically different from men, but they were to be treated as equals, as well as with respect. While I agree that transwomen have rights, I believe that sending biological men into women’s bathrooms is wrong, and it is unfair to have biological men compete against women in sports. Differences between people are manifest. Similarities are often hidden. Identity politics elevate the tribe and obviate the individual, the backbone of the American experiment.

 

Five years ago, Donald Trump, like a bull in a china shop, descended into this politically correct maelstrom. He was a humorless, narcissistic, impolitic businessman, with a tendency to exaggerate or lie about his accomplishments. But he had something politicians did not have. He understood the insidiousness of the federal bureaucracy. He recognized that the working-class electorate, of all races and genders, had been under-represented by an elitist political class. He was willing to use his own money and fight for the rights of these people by taking on the establishment, which had infested agencies like the IRS and the FBI. The establishment hated that he threatened their comfortable lifestyles. As well, Mr. Trump saw citizens divided more by economic class than by race or gender. The key to economic mobility, he knew, is education, so he took on the powerful teachers’ unions. As President, he was constantly harassed by accusations that proved to be without merit, but which were costly to him and to the American taxpayer, the best example being the two-year futile Russian investigation by Robert Mueller. In a politically fragile world, Mr. Trump eschewed diplomacy, which upset career diplomats, including some of our allies, but he put the interests of the United States first. Domestically, his policies made the U.S. energy independent. Deregulation and tax cuts spurred the economy, so that wage gaps narrowed, and black unemployment reached its lowest level ever. His mannerisms were off-putting to cultured elites; nevertheless, lies about him exceeded any he had told. And, without the media behind him, he was never the autocratic threat detractors feared.  

 

Nevertheless, with his coarse language and narcissistic manner, Donald Trump is a challenge to the ethical standards on which many of my generation were raised. While his manner may have been necessary to make a course correction to the route the country is taking, Now, after his loss last November, it is time to turn the page. Republicans need new leaders who Mr. Trump should promote. For a conservative like me, it is the struggle between the good he has done and the spitefulness of his character. But there is, in my opinion, no question that he was (and is) better than the Progressive alternatives.

"Summer Days"

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

Essay from Essex

“Summer Days”

June 19, 2021

 

“In the trees the night wind stirs, bringing the leaves to life,

endowing them with speech; the electric lights illuminate the green

branches from the underside, translating them into s new language.”

                                                                                                            E.B. White (1899-1985)

                                                                                                            Here is New York, 1949

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Written, as White notes in his foreword,

                                                                                                           “…in the summer of 1948 during a hot spell.” 

 

On the eve of the summer solstice, June 21, 2008 Caroline and I, as guests of a friend, attended a black-tie benefit at the Hermitage in Saint Petersburg, one of the world’s most beautiful museums. At 58.8 degrees north, there were only six hours of night, a strange sensation for someone living in Connecticut, 1300 miles south and 4,000 miles west.

 

Forty-eight years earlier, in the summer of 1960, I had a summer job working with a Canadian mineral exploration company, which was owned by Thayer Lindsley (a friend of my parents) and led by Doug Wilmot, along the South Nahanni River on the border of the Yukon in Canada’s Northwest Territories. We were close to the 61^st Parallel, or about 850 miles north of the U.S.-Canadian border. I recall traipsing up dried-up-river beds, carrying a pick looking for minerals and a rifle, in case of an unfriendly Grizzly. At night, lying in my sleeping bag, I was happy that night creatures had only a few hours to make their rounds. 

 

Two years later, on August 11^th, I was at Fort Dix, beginning eight weeks of basic training. The camp, which no longer functions as an Army training center, sat on 6,500 acres in New Jersey’s Pine Barrens. Fort Dix had been integrated eleven years earlier. By my day all recruits, regardless of race or class, were treated with equal disrespect – a necessary tactic to mold us into the soldiers we were to become. I was assigned to Company A, of the Third Training Regiment, where we were taught to become “the ultimate weapon” – an optimistic goal for a bunch of Army reservists. That summer we marched along hot, dusty roads; crawled under barbwire with machine guns firing live ammunition over our heads; trained with bayonets (which I prayed I would never have to use); bivouacked in fields and crawled through swamps in night-time maneuvers. In my yearbook there is a photo of me with two friends, Jerry (Girard) Stein and Marcel Shwergold. Cigarettes in hand, we are on a ten-minute break.

 

In Travels with Charley, John Steinbeck wrote: “What good is the warmth of summer, without the cold of winter to give it sweetness.” An understandable sentiment for a child who grew up in New Hampshire. In her novel To Catch a Mockingbird, with Scout speaking, Harper Lee wrote: “Summer was on the way; Jem and I awaited it with impatience. Summer was our best season: it was sleeping on the back screened porch in cots, or trying to sleep in the tree house; summer was everything good to eat…” Looking back, my hotly anticipated summer days were full: Summer began with a 4^th of July baseball game in Wellesley where my father grew up, and it ended just before Labor Day with a trip to the East River section of Madison, Connecticut, where my mother grew up. In between, we rode horses through the woods and along dirt roads and sometimes competed in local horseshows. We swam in Nubanusit Lake, Willard Pond, Dublin Lake, but most often in Norway Pond, which is in the center of Hancock village, four miles from our home. In the evenings, we caught fireflies, which “never equal stars in size”[1], and inhaled the soft, sweet smells of New Hampshire’s countryside. We picked blackberries on Cobb’s Hill and highbush blueberries in the “next field.” We ate watermelon in the backyard off a table my father had made with wire mesh, so no need to wipe it clean. Going to bed on the sleeping porch, we witnessed eerie shadows cast by trees, as moonlight fell on the Goat Pasture. In his poem “The House was Quiet and the World was Calm,” Wallace Stevens wrote: “The summer night is like a perfection of thought.”

 

As I grew older, summer jobs consumed much of the daytime – working in gardens, haying, giving riding lessons and working with construction crews. Coming home for summers from boarding school, I felt like Nick Carraway: “And so with the sunshine and the great bursts of leaves growing on the trees…I had that familiar conviction that life was beginning over again with the summer.”[2]  In the evenings, we attended square dances in nearby townhalls and – four times a summer – formal dances at the Dublin Lake Club, with Lester Lanin in attendance, a strange contrast to my mornings working in a hayfield. In my 1947 Ford coupe (owned jointly with my sister), a friend and I would take girls to drive-in movies in Keene.

 

Sunday will be the start of my 81^st summer. Memories run together. In 1995, we left Greenwich for Old Lyme (with a small apartment in New York). Summer weekends were spent sculling the marsh creeks along the Connecticut River’s estuary; swimming, playing “at” golf and tennis and kayaking with grandchildren. We continued to spend August in Rumson, New Jersey where my wife had spent her childhood summers, and I would take the 6:00AM Fast Ferry into New York from the Highlands. June months of twenty-four and twenty-three years ago saw two of our children married, and during the summers of 2000, 2002 and 2008 three of our ten grandchildren were born, including the oldest and the youngest.

 

Looking back on all those summers, I treasure memories of childhood, summer jobs, falling in love, watching our children laugh, play and grow up, and then watch their children do the same. These memories bring wistful smiles on languid summer days when blue skies lure us to the fields and paths that surround where we live. We marvel at the gift nature has wrought – myriad shades of green, and the wildlife that share this precious planet. “Summer specializes in time, slows it down almost to dream.”[3] The days will get shorter as August melds into September. It is preparation for the autumn, which will see much of plant and wildlife take long siestas, storing strength for the long winter and spring’s renewal. In like manner, we store up memories for our fall and winter evenings. But in the meantime, we have the start of summer days.

"ProPublica & The IRS Leak"

 

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

Thought of the Day

“ProPublica & The IRS Leak”

June 13, 2021

 

“The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.”

                                                                                                                Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

                                                                                                                Comment to his tax preparer Leo Mattersdorf

 

In a criminal act, some person (or persons) at the IRS leaked confidential information on some of the nation’s wealthiest people. It was given to ProPublica, an independent, non-profit newsroom based in New York City, which reported that they had “obtained” a “vast cache of IRS information” on “thousands of the nation’s wealthiest people,” which they then published. 

 

In the report dated June 8^th, Jesse Eisinger, Jeff Ernsthausen and Paul Kiel wrote: “ProPublica is not disclosing how it obtained the data, which was given to us in raw form, with no conditions or conclusions.” They claimed to have “verified” the information by “comparing elements of it” with dozens of already public tax details. They claim all people mentioned in the article were asked to comment. Those who responded, unsurprisingly, said they had paid whatever taxes were legitimately owed.

 

The incident raises questions: It is illegal to pass on confidential IRS data. Will the guilty party be exposed and punished? If unrealized capital gains should be taxed, as the report infers, would it be a recurring tax? And if unrealized gains can be taxed, what about unrealized losses? Could they be deducted against ordinary income? After all, there are years when stocks decline. Would future investment be inhibited by taxing unrealized gains? After all, expanding economies rely on capital investments, be it from a pension plan, the savings of an individual, or a business. But there is a broader question. What is the purpose of the IRS? Is it to levy and collect taxes so to fund the federal bureaucracy, or is its mission to redistribute income? ProPublica claims to investigate “abuses of power,” but the abuse they highlight is not the IRS, which a few years ago during the Obama Administration targeted conservative non-profits. Nor will they identify the unnamed leaker who abused his position by disclosing confidential information. No, they highlighted the assets of four wealthy individuals who had taken advantage of legitimate loopholes, all laid out in the 6,550-page Internal Revenue Code, which was passed by Congress. 

 

Of the four – Warren Buffett, Elon Musk, Michael Bloomberg and Jeff Bezos – the sanctimonious Mr. Buffett is the most off-putting. Fond of virtue-signaling, Mr. Buffett has argued that his tax rate is too low, that as a percent of his income he pays less than his secretary. What he doesn’t complain about are the deductions he is able to take, for example charitable gifts and interest expense on personal borrowings. Nor does he explain that if he wanted to pay more in taxes, he would pay himself a bigger salary, rather than relying on borrowings, capital gains and dividends. Watch what he does, not what he says. On a positive note, Mr. Buffett is among the most generous with his own wealth. Over the past fifteen years, he has donated $37 billion, or roughly one third of his net worth. Americans, as a group, donated $449 billion to charitable causes in 2019, or roughly three percent of their income – a higher rate of giving than the citizens of any other country. Are the people of the United States better off for these tax-deductible gifts? Of course. 

 

As Albert Einstein noted in the rubric above (and as Congress knows full well), the tax code has been written to add complexity to the incomprehensible. Members of Congress also know that the convoluted language of the tax code provides job security for lawyers and accountants. Complexity, as members of Congress realize, is friend to the wealthy, as they are the ones with the means of chasing every loophole and deduction, some of which Congress designed specifically for favored industries and individuals. If Congress wanted to simplify the tax code and ensure that everyone paid their “fair share” they could impose a flat tax on all income, with no exemptions or exceptions. That would be a truly progressive tax, with no place to hide. Lawyers and accountants would be up in arms, but so what? Nevertheless, I have no expectations that such a policy will ever become law. It is more likely that I will live to be 150 than Congress passes a flat tax.

 

It is the broader question, however, that is most disturbing. The IRS is a collection agency, which enforces tax laws and collects monies that fund the federal government. It is not a social-engineering organization. Its employees have access to the privileged, private information of individuals and businesses, requiring discretion, along with legal and ethical restraint. There is broad disagreement among people and politicians as to how big government should be, the size of its funding needs, and how deep into our personal lives its tentacles should reach. That is a decision for the people and Congress. It is not for employees of the IRS to decide if assets should be taxed, or which deductions should be permissible. It is possible that the leaker may have felt that, like Henry David Thoreau, his act was one of civil disobedience, that his obligation was not to obey the law, but to do what he thought was right. Thoreau argued that if the law was clearly unjust, it deserves no respect and should be broken. But there are differences. Thoreau wanted smaller, less intrusive government. The leaker wants to increase its size and clout. Thoreau was open about his dissent and was willing to go to jail, which he did for tax evasion. He never put others at risk. The leaker has remained hidden behind the skirts of ProPublica, while exposing thousands of innocent individuals.

 

According to the Heritage Foundation, the top one percent of taxpayers (approximately 1.4 million filings) earned 21% of all income and paid 40% of all taxes in 2018, and the top ten percent of taxpayers (approximately 14 million filings) earned 48% of all income and paid 71% of all taxes. Another point that went unreported by ProPublica is that all four men who were highlighted are self-made. It is the ladder to success that should always be accessible to those who are hard-working, talented, aspirant and willing to take risk. What that requires is a comprehensible legal system, the sanctity of private property and better and more competitive schools, which encourage individual initiative regardless of race, religion or gender. The nation needs more such men and women, not fewer. In focusing on increases in wealth, there is little doubt that the motivating factor behind this release was to influence the debate surrounding President Biden’s tax plan, and to endorse Progressives’ goal of redistributing money through a wealth tax.

"Defying Hitler," Sebastian Haffner

While not an historian, I have read several books on Germany and World War II. This book, recommended by a friend in New York, is the best I have read in explaining how a civilized people, in a short period of time, became barbarians. It offers a lesson to us, as we abandon personal responsibility and delegate more decisions to the state. It explains why today’s trend toward “wokeness” leads to night, not morning. A powerful state – abetted by a subservient media, aided by big tech that denies free speech and supported by schools and universities that indoctrinate students – can lead to authoritarianism. The book was written in 1939 by Raimund Pretzel, under the pseudonym Sebastian Haffner. It was first published in German in 2000 and in English, with the six concluding chapters, in 2002.

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

Burrowing inro Books

“Defying Hitler,” Sebastian Haffner

June 9, 2021

 

“It is this lack of self-reliance that opens the possibility of immense

catastrophe of civilization, such as the rule of the Nazis in Germany.”

                                                                                                                                                Sebastian Haffner (1907-1999)

                                                                                                                                                Defying Hitler, 2002

 

China in 2021 is not Germany in 1933, nor is the United States. History never repeats itself exactly. The past, despite Antonio’s remark to Sebastian in Shakespeare’s The Tempest, is not necessarily prologue. But knowledge of the past provides warning signs. The book is a cautionary tale to those who believe in the goodness of big government. They forget what evil people, in the name of the common good, can do.

 

In this personal, Orwellian-like memoir, Sebastian Haffner attempts to answer the question of why “no individuals ever spontaneously opposed some particular injustice or iniquity they experienced…”, an accusation, he wrote, that applied to himself. “What,” he asked, “became of the Germans?” Haffner was born in 1907, so his earliest memories are of the Great War, a war that was not fought on German soil. “It took place somewhere in distant France.” To a generation of German school boys, war was seen as a “great, thrilling, enthralling game between nations,” which became “the underlying vision of Nazism.” By the spring of 1919 the Nazi revolution was already fully formed and potent: “It lacked only Hitler.” He quotes Bismarck who once said that moral courage is a rare German virtue but “it deserts a German completely the moment he puts on a uniform.”

 

We read of the hyperinflation of 1923, the year Haffner turned sixteen: “The old and unworldly had the worst of it. Many were driven to begging, many to suicide. The young and quick-witted did well.” The decade of 1914-1923 was a time when a sense of balance, tradition and continuity were abandoned, and many youths turned nihilistic. How, for example, were elders to explain to the young why Germany lost the Great War. As the 1920s wore on, those like Haffner wanted to see the world they loved preserved, but they were becoming a minority: “We knew we could not talk with many of our contemporaries because we spoke a different language.” Hitler was master of promising “everything to everybody.” He evoked the glorious memories of pre-war 1914, as well as the triumphal, anarchic looting of 1923. In doing so, Haffner experienced the loss of “fun, understanding, goodwill, generosity and a sense of humor.”

 

By the summer of 1932, the Nazi Party had increased their representation in the Reichstag and Hitler was offered the vice-chancellorship. Haffner compares the summer of 1932 in Germany to 1939 in England: “…the League of Nations lies moribund [in 1939]; there is no security…Spain has fallen, as have Austria and Czechoslovakia,” yet “a pathological, unreasonable optimism seized us.” 

 

Once in power, in 1933, the Nazis ruled via terror – not wild, unkempt mobs, but a cold, calculating and repressive terror, using state-sanctioned orders, a “nightmarish reversal of normal circumstances…” All designed to induce fear. Jews were not initially chosen for annihilation. Distinctions were made between “decent’ Jews and others. But fiendish questions were asked: Why do Jews represent a higher proportion of doctors and lawyers than their percent of the population would imply? Are they over-represented in the Communist Party? Did they experience fewer deaths in the Great War? An insidious incrementalism of venality brought a “systemic infection of a whole nation.”  Diabolically, they destroyed in a few years the restraints that “had been the work of a thousand years of civilization.”

 

The Nazis were masters of propaganda, allowing a façade of normalcy to define everyday life. Yet fear kept people meekly accepting a gradual shift toward conformity and hatred. Once in full political mastership, the Nazis knew they must control people’s private thoughts. Haffner wrote: “Having cleared the sphere of politics of all opposition, the conquering, ravenous state has moved into formerly private spaces in order to clear these, too, of any resistance or recalcitrance and to subjugate the individual…whom he loves, what he reads, what pictures he hangs on his wall.”

 

Haffner justified his memoir: “I am convinced that by telling my private, unimportant story I am adding an important, unrecognized facet to contemporary German and European history – more significant and more important for the future than if I were to disclose who set fire to the Reichstag, or what Hitler really said to [Ernst] Röhm.” He is right, for if we are to learn anything from the horrors that Germany wrought it is to not allow such events to happen again. While most people are good, bad people exist, and so does evil. Reliance on the state leads to “groupthink,” and a loss of individual accountability and personal independence, the bedrock of freedom. Government is the most powerful instrument in any state, therefore must be restrained. How different history would be if men were still independent, standing on their own two feet, as in ancient Athens.

 

The author trained as a lawyer, to follow his father into Germany’s civil service. He had a few months of military training before taking his final exams. In 1934 he went to Paris, but soon returned home. During the next couple of years, Haffner supported himself writing harmless pieces. In early 1938, with war looming, the young Jewish woman with whom he had fallen in love was able to get to England. He followed a few months later. By mid 1939, he had become a permanent resident. After the War, the manuscript of this book lay forgotten, as Haffner’s literary career took off. He returned to Germany after the War, but this book never saw publication. He died in 1999, at age 92. Publication was left to his son Oliver Pretzel, who also served as translator. When asked: how was the rise of Nazism possible and why didn’t you stop them, Oliver Pretzel wrote: “My father’s vivid account makes the rise of the Nazis psychologically comprehensible, and it shows how difficult resistance was.”

 

Most frightening was the ease with which the German people surrendered politically, morally and spiritually – something that rings familiar to this reader. But I also suspect (and pray I am right) that Americans of the 2020s are more independent, resilient and smarter than Germans were in the 1930s.

"Facts, Truth & Honesty"

 Yesterday was my second youngest grandchild’s (a granddaughter) 15^th birthday. Tomorrow, her father, our youngest child, turns 50. Anniversaries appear with increasing frequency, as time marches forward, never taking a moment to stop and look back. That is left to us, and this essay reflects a moment of pause in busy schedules and fast-breaking news – that there is value in taking a few minutes to consider some of the more philosophical questions that daily confront us. 

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Facts, Truth & Honesty”

June 1, 2021

 

“Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom.” 

                                                                                                                Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

                                                                                                                 Letter to Nathaniel Macon, January 12, 1819

 

In the above letter to Nathaniel Macon, Senator from North Carolina, a proponent of slavery and a political foe, Jefferson explained wisdom that comes with age – that it can only be based on a foundation of honesty. If we are not honest with ourselves and others, what good are facts and truth?

 

A friend suggested an essay on facts and truth – a challenging but interesting assignment. The result is my opinion, expressed as truthfully as I was able, but it is not a factual last word. The two words are commonly used synonymously, but they are different. The Merriam Webster dictionary defines fact as “something that has actual existence…an occurrence…[or] having objective reality.” Truth is the opposite of a lie. It is defined by the same source as “the body of real things, events and facts.” But the roots of the two words provide clarity as to their differences. “Fact” comes from the Latin facio, to fashion or fabricate something, while truth comes from the old English word treoth, meaning fidelity or faith, as in “I pledge thee my troth,” an archaic wedding commitment, meaning a lifelong pledge of faithfulness.

 

Larry Walsh, founder of the technology business strategy company 2112 Group recently wrote an essay on how the technology industry must “freely share new facts” and stop “clinging to accepted truths.” He described the two words: “A fact is something that’s indisputable, based on empirical research and quantifiable measures. Truth is entirely different; it may include fact, but it can also include belief.” In my opinion, his definition of fact is too simplistic. There are facts that are unalterable, like grass is green, water is wet, and skunks are odoriferous. Other facts are subject to change, as products, mechanizations, services and research evolve and improve. A fact is a fact until it isn’t. What better examples than the use of “facts” to determine the origin of COVID-19, the cause of the Trump Russian probe, or what was behind the January 6 protests. Mr. Walsh’s definition of truth implies a deficiency in faith and historical knowledge and a supercilious attitude toward the beliefs of others. 

 

In geometry, it is axiomatic (taken as a truth without need for verification) that a line can extend to infinity. Facts cannot explain it. It is a universally accepted truth. Jane Austen opens Pride and Prejudice with the line: “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.” We know that not all young, wealthy, single men are looking for a wife, but many accept what she wrote as a truth. Individually, we are true to somebody or some belief, or we are not. Truth is personal and can take varied shapes. Truths, based on faith, are absolute and eternal, at least in the minds of individuals who possess them. The Wokeism that emerged from George Floyd’s tragic death speaks to the “truth” of systemic racism, white supremacy, and black victimization. And, just as the Woke maintain the truth of their beliefs, those who celebrate a higher power believe in prayer to God to help understand that which is inexplicable. Both Wokeism and Judeo-Christian beliefs represent ideological “truths” to their followers, but one practices racial discrimination and hate, while the other preaches unity and love. All truths are not equal.  

 

When Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence, he wrote: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among them are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Jefferson did not use the word “Facts.” His self-evident “Truths” are based on “natural’ rights, which means they stem from a higher power, something not provable by science, but accepted as truth. In our more secular age, some prefer facts based on science to truths embedded in belief. 

 

However, he who bases conclusions solely on facts should be viewed skeptically, for facts can be (and are) used selectively. Interpretation of facts presented in Court will vary, depending on whether presented by the prosecution or defense. Scientific facts are subject to change as research advances. The “fact” of global warming became the “fact” of climate change when weather failed to cooperate with the narrative. As well, facts can be contradictory. The southern border is an example where photographs can be used to support whatever conclusion one might prefer. A photo of an empty cage does not necessarily mean the adjoining one is not over-crowded, and vice versa. Politicians, without always lying, are skillful in the selective use of facts. Cities and states were shut down during the pandemic, with mayors and governors claiming justification in the “science.” “Follow the science” (the facts) became their mantra, as they shutdown “non-essential” businesses, putting millions of people out of work. But the science kept changing as more was learned about COVID-19, and many politicians were slow to relinquish power when facts showed the disease abating. In re-opening, can we assume all facts about the disease and its origins are known? And what about gender wars. Should a transwoman, factually a biological male, be considered truthfully a female when it comes to sports and bathrooms? 

 

Facts and truth are not mutually exclusive. In fact (to borrow a phrase), both are essential to a well-ordered society and life. But a scientist is honest when he admits what he does not know, along with relating the facts he has determined. A theory yesterday may become a fact today and discarded as not factual tomorrow. Truths change as beliefs change, and respect for the beliefs of others should be part of our fabric. Facts may be disputable, depending on what input is used. Consider the 1619 project versus the 1776 project. Honest, educators should be clear: Slaves were imported to the British Colony of Virginia in 1619, but the concept of the United States was created in 1776. And they should tell their students that the use of slave labor is as old as mankind – a fact, and that the concept of a government of, by and for the people was something new in 1776 – also a fact. A study of governments would show the fact that a combination of democracy and capitalism has done more to lift people from poverty and advance economic growth than any other form of government, including socialism. Educators should encourage debates over truths and present facts without bias, while recognizing that many are subject to change. But values immersed in our Judeo-Christian heritage should, like the North Star, always be there to guide us.

 

We will never agree on all facts, and definitions of truth vary depending on individuals’ beliefs. But there are facts that are facts without question and there are truths, such as the ones used by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, on which all Americans should agree. Honesty and respect are missing in today’s political dialogue – half-truths and partial facts fill the void left by an absence of self-restraint. After my father died in 1968, my mother wrote to her nine children of the basic values she and my father had hoped to instill in their offspring: “…namely truth and honesty – true to your beliefs and honest with yourselves.” It is advice that should be welcomed by those we entrust to govern this land. As Jefferson wrote in the rubric that heads this essay, it is honesty, about what we know and what we don’t know, that leads to wisdom, and that it is respect for the opinions of others that allows wisdom to influence society.