"Threat to Democracy"

 There are many things that need concern us. One, that gets little attention from mainstream media, is the decline in population among Western nations. A recent report from the Gatestone Institute, pointed out that more children are born in Nigeria each year than in Europe, which has more than three times the population. In fact, the number of babies born in Nigeria each year is roughly equal to the number born each year in Europe and the United States.

 

While these statistics will not affect people my age, the world our grandchildren and great grandchildren inherit will be markedly different than what we have known. Will it be better or worse? No one knows, but it is food for thought.

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Threat to Democracy”

September 26, 2022

 

“…the only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough

to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well

enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over its government.”

                                                                                                                                Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945)

                                                                                                                                Radio “fireside chat”

                                                                                                                                April 14, 1938

 

Accusations of “threats to democracy,” are being tossed around with the abandon of rolls being thrown at a Drones Club dinner. This has especially been true from the “anointed” left toward their conservative opponents. They see a fascist behind every Republican. “With…democracy itself in the balance…” wrote Sara Burnett and John Hanna of the Associated Press in a recent article on Governor’s races taking on new prominence. CNN’s S.E. (Sarah Elizabeth) Cupp recently wrote of the ascendancy of right wing nationalism and “in some cases fascism,” in which she grouped Donald Trump with Jair Bolsonaro and Viktor Orban, and Liz Truss with Marine Le Pen. Hillary Clinton recently compared a Trump campaign event in Ohio to a Nazi rally, I guess “deplorables” wasn’t strong enough.

 

Catchy slogans are ubiquitous in politics. Most, unsurprisingly, have a positive slant: “Why not the best?” – Carter in ’76; “Morning in America!” – Reagan in ’80. A few carry an accusatory tone: “It’s the economy, stupid!” – Clinton in ‘92. Others are egotistical: “We are the ones we have been waiting for!” – Obama in 2008. And then there was Trump’s upbeat slogan in 2016, “Make America great again,” which Democrats, using the acronym “MAGA,” have turned into a pejorative in 2022.

 

Like the Left’s call for net-zero-emissions (which in reality is a regressive tax), the words “Republicans represent a threat to democracy” serve as a red herring, to detract from real issues, like inflation, the economy, immigration, jobs, crime, school choice, and the student mental health crisis. Yet democracy is fragile, so should be watched and handled with care. Our Constitution provides for a government based on the rule of law, with checks and balances cast in three co-equal branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. The purpose – to make it difficult for any individual to wrest control. As early as September 1787, Benjamin Franklin allegedly responded to a query about the new government, that it was “a Republic, if you can keep it.”  In the same year, in “Federalist 26,” Alexander Hamilton addressed the debate between legislative power and individual liberty. In the 1830s, Alexis de Tocqueville saw the threat of tyranny from unchecked demands of individuals and groups. A Civil War was fought in the early 1860s to combat slavery, but also to preserve the union. The American political system is not supposed to be efficient. It is designed for debate and collaboration, aimed at reaching a consensus. While advocacy is expected from political parties, constraints on government are critical for continued individual liberty.

 

To associate the Republican Party with fascism is absurd. Granted, there are extremists in the Republican Party, just as there are extremists in the Democrat Party. But in neither case do they constitute a majority. Michigan Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib and Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene may not seem, to most of us, to reflect American values, but they do represent distinct voices within America. 

 

Democrats have divided Republicans into many “Trumpers” and few “non-Trumpers.” But the truth is more complicated. Most Republicans believe in the sanctity of an individual who is responsible and accountable. They believe in conserving what has worked in our culture, while welcoming change that improves people’s lives. In terms of change, they are gradualists, not revolutionaries. Economically, they believe in free-market capitalism with limited regulation and favor progressive taxes that are not secretly regressive, like those imposed by limiting energy production or promoting gambling. They believe choice in schools should not be limited to the wealthy. They believe that respect for our borders is necessary, and that a strong military is required. They believe in the rule of law, not men. They believe we are all equal in our rights as citizens, but recognize we are not equal in our abilities and aspirations. Many of us liked much of what Trump accomplished, while disliking his character. But of this, I feel certain, he was never a “threat to democracy.” He was watched too closely and too critically.  Unarmed protesters invading the Capitol was wrong, and Trump was wrong not to call them off. But if armed capitol police had been there in force and done their job, the rioters would have been stopped before they entered the Capitol. If this had been a dangerous insurrection, why did the Dow Jones Industrial Averages, a barometer of such activity, rise modestly on January 6, 7, and 8? Regardless, Republican Vice President Michael Pence acceded to the law. 

 

Threats to democracy occur when individuals or parties seize the reins of government and use their power, with the backing of the media, to destroy opponents. Combatting that trend, Alan Dershowitz, a liberal Democrat has been willing to accept conservative Republicans as clients when he believes their rights are in jeopardy. He recently wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that it is wrong for Biden administration officials “to abuse the law, particularly the criminal justice system, against our political opponents.” 

  

There is much that concerns me, such as the Left’s threats to do away with the Senate filibuster and expand the Supreme Court. I worry about political and “woke” indoctrination, along with the elevation of victimhood, in our schools and colleges. I worry about the subordination of our Judeo-Christian values to some relative moral standard. I worry – but have no answers – about bureaucrats’ self interest in supporting the Party that assures their continued employment. I worry about unscrupulous politicians colluding with independent agencies to pursue personal and Party agendas, such as we saw with Lois Lerner and the IRS in 2015, and in the Department of Justice today, where, like the Soviet’s Laventiy Beria, New York’s Attorney General Letitia James first named the suspect, then searched for the crime.

 

But I am not seriously concerned about a “threat to democracy.” The hyperbolic words reflect the partisanship of our time. While I am not so naïve as to expect I will ever read unbiased newspapers or watch cable or network news that gives equal airtime to each side, I do not worry about democracy, so long as the Washington Post and the New York Post publish what they each claim to be news, and as long as Fox News, CNN, and PBS promote their versions of events. We are free to read and watch what we choose. We are divided, but we have not yet been rendered asunder. 

 

As long as we remember FDR’s words in the rubric that heads this essay, and recall Lincoln’s words at Gettysburg in late 1863, that we are “a government of the people, by the people and for the people,” our nation will remain free and democratic, even when diffuse and spirited.

"Common Sense"

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

Thought of the Day

“Common Sense”

September 19, 2022

 

“Do not be bullied out of your common sense

by the specialist; two to one, he is a pedant.”

                                                                                                                     Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. (1809-1894)

                                                                                                                     Over the Teacups, 1891

 

Webster’s defines common sense as “sound and prudent judgement, based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.” Lucretia Peabody Hale’s The Peterkin Papers provides fictions best (and most amusing) examples of common sense – with the “Lady from Philadelphia” offering obvious solutions to what seem insurmountable obstacles to the Peterkin family.

 

…………………………………………………………….

 

A year ago, I wrote an essay regretting the loss of common sense in the political realm: “Common Sense – Where has it Gone?” (September 29, 2021). It was a lament, without answer. 

 

Now, three disparate events remind me that common sense remains AWOL: First, I have been re-reading a 1999 collection of essays by Thomas Sowell, Barbarians Inside the Gates. The book speaks to the loss of common sense in political, social, and cultural realms. Second, Queen Elizabeth’s death was a reminder of the importance of personal traits like common sense, stability, tradition, and personal virtue, which Western culture has replaced with silliness, variability, ignorance, and social virtues. And third, a eulogy for Common Sense was recently sent me. I had seen it before, but it is worth re-reading.

 

Sowell’s book, published in 1999, was prophetic, as conditions he then wrote about remain with us – racism, declines in education standards, hyperbole over man-caused climate change, the advocacy for socialism and the criticism of capitalism in the West, and political extremism. Sowell is a realist who relies on facts and who cares little for sentiment. His observations reflect his intolerance for the idiocy of most politicians. In an essay titled “From Marxism to the Market,” he wrote: “The rhetoric of socialism may be inspiring, but the actual record is dismal.” In another, “The Multiculturalism Cult,” he wrote of how real people around the world do not “celebrate diversity;” they “pick and choose which of their own cultural features they want to keep and which they want to dump…” In a third, “Life is Culturally Biased,” he noted: “As limited human beings, we must make our choices among the alternatives actually available.” A fourth essay, “Anti-Elitism in Education:” “…you cannot let everyone go to Stuyvesant (where Sowell went in the late 1940s) without its ceasing to be the kind of school that makes them want to go there.” That the problems he wrote of so long ago have only worsened is a sad commentary on our social, cultural, and political life.

 

Much has been written of the remarkable saga of Queen Elizabeth’s 70-year reign. In death, if not always in life, she was admired from those across the political spectrum. I have read several obituaries, including those in England’s Spectator and The London Telegraph. The best, in my opinion, was Andrew Roberts’ essay in the September 10-11 edition of The Wall Street Journal. He wrote: “Would to God that more of our leaders in public life had a fraction of her grace, her gravitas and, above all, her common sense.” In her 1957 Christmas message, as Britain was transitioning from Empire to Commonwealth, Elizabeth warned against “carelessly” throwing away “ageless ideals.” While I am not a monarchist, I applaud the Queen’s role in helping unwind the Empire, and I appreciate the unity she helped bring to Britain, something that in the U.S. was once provided by universal respect for the ideals – if not the lives – of the Founders. Today, we have imposed current moral standards on historical individuals and cultures (along with the divisive and historically erroneous 1619 Project), which have destroyed what had been a near-universal faith in the words embedded in the writings of the Founders. No matter our political leanings, we all – immigrant and native born, white and black, men and women – once believed in the universal truths expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers. Sadly, that is no longer true. With the death of the Queen, Brits – no matter their sex, religion, or country of origin – have rediscovered their British commonality. 

 

As for the obituary for common sense (“Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense”), it first appeared in The London Times at least twenty-four years ago. The obituary mentions that “he” was preceded in death “by his parents, Truth and Trust; by his wife, Discretion; by his daughter, Responsibility, and by his son, Reason.” While it makes one smile, its truth makes one cringe.

 

We see the loss of common sense in the hypocrisy of our immigration policy, where elites who favor open borders squeal when migrants land in their backyards. We see it in the exaggerations of our climate scaremongers who play Canute, while ignoring extreme climate changes that have occurred naturally over millions of years. We read of it in the wacky assumption that increased spending will somehow bring down debt and reduce inflation. We see it in the lack of choice in public schools for the poor, especially in inner cities. We see it in the political indoctrination of college students, and in racism that persists against Asians and whites. We see it in a call for diversity and inclusion that excludes conservative speakers and opinions. We see it in the spewing of hatred and in the absence of civility. Common sense is the antithesis of political correctness. Worse, its absence is never mentioned by mainstream media.

 

Common sense interferes with politicians’ desire for control. They are less interested in answers than in keeping alive issues. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization did not ban abortion. It threw the decision back to the states, to allow the people to decide, as is proper in a democracy. Our Founders did not create a country to be run by an oligarchy of nine unelected judges in black robes. Common sense tells us that we, the people, should make such decisions through our elected representatives. The Left explains, commonsensically, that higher taxes on tobacco and booze reduce consumption of both. However, they fail to apply the same logic when it comes to higher taxes on employers and capital investments. Common sense uses reason, not emotion. It employs restraint, not indulgence.

 

Will common sense be resurrected? I hope so, but I worry. The Hoover Institute’s Thomas Sowell does not hold out much hope. He once wrote: “What is so rare as a day in June? Common sense on the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals.” Sad, but true.

"Know Thyself"

 Welcome to the post-Labor Day period, traditionally, the beginning of the fall political campaign season, though in today’s world that season has no beginning and no end.

 

A few words on Donald Trump. As we all know, he is not a saint. But neither is he a semi-fascist, as President Biden claimed, nor is he a lunatic, as National Review recently wrote. His super-sized ego and bombastic language are offensive. But lost in the polarization of feelings he engenders, it is worth remembering why he decided to run for President. He went to Washington for at least two reasons: He went selfishly, to raise his profile, and he went magnanimously to drain Washington’s swamp. His profile has risen, but not in ways he would have wished. Keep in mind, his net worth declined by about a billion dollars while he was President. The swamp, however, remains dense and dark. Establishment politicians of both Parties, with their enablers in Washington’s bureaucracy, banded to destroy the threat he posed to their comfortable way of life, which in hundreds of cases have converted public service to private gains.

 

The swamp remains – at an enormous cost to taxpayers – as does the job to drain it. Is there another politician from either Party willing to take on this unpopular and Herculean task, or will the swamp grow danker, deeper, and darker?

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Know Thyself”

September 6, 2022

 

“The first thing you have to know is yourself. A man who knows himself

can step outside himself and watch his own reactions like an observer.”

                                                                                                George Goodman as Adam Smith (1930-2014)

                                                                                                The Money Game, 1968

 

The words “Know thyself” were, according to legend, engraved above the forecourt in the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, located on Mount Parnassus in central Greece. A search for self-knowledge is common, and its importance has been lauded by many, from Benjamin Franklin to Lao Tzu to Pythagoras. To fatalist Greeks the saying meant that one should accept the role nature assigned one. But for those of us today who believe we are also nurtured by our environment. self-examination should be an ongoing process.

 

There are those who dismiss the concept, because we change. Andre Gide wrote in Autumn Leaves: “A caterpillar who seeks to know himself would never become a butterfly.” But a search for self-understanding is not seeking perfection in the here and now; it seeks to understand; it recognizes that change is given: We have new experiences; we meet different people, and we read. Life does not stand still and neither do we. What if Gide’s caterpillar wanted to become a butterfly? Some conflate self-knowledge with hubris – that in claiming to know ourselves we admit to knowing what we do not know. That, to borrow one of Joe Biden’s favorite expressions, is malarkey. It’s an argument used by woke philosophy professors to confuse young, impressionable minds. It is impossible to know what we do not know. 

 

Self-understanding is important in an ever-changing world. In a recent interview in The Wall Street Journal, American tennis player Danielle Collins spoke “of how to use your strengths and how to work around your weaknesses” to win matches. She understands that her weaknesses will improve with practice, and that her strengths can be harbored and utilized. It was Heraclitus (c.535BC-c.475BC) who is credited with the saying: “Change is the only constant in life.” Knowing oneself is acknowledging that truth.

 

Knowing oneself is especially important in this age of political polarization that has tipped into extremism. It is easy to get carried away by the swift-moving current of political correctness. Those of us who still believe in the premise of classical liberalism face a political mindset that invokes moral equivalence to justify a belief that the United States is inherently evil, founded on the backs of slaves – that we are no better than other despotic nations. Today, amidst a torrent of “wokeness,” we face a crisis in education, where equity trumps excellence, where conformity reigns due to a lack of diversity of ideas, and where history incorporates “presentism,” promoting ignorance of earlier eras and cultures. The consequence has been high school and college graduates who know little of our history and civic affairs, and where persistently low scores on international tests have become common. The Department of Education (DOE) recently released fourth grade test scores that show the effects of Covid-related shutdowns. But shutdowns were not solely to blame, as charts show declines in math and reading scores began ten years ago.

 

We face a border crisis that is unfair to immigrants and to American citizens, where the only beneficiaries have been human and drug smugglers. We have created a national debt that has reached a size that a normalization of interest rates is no longer a viable alternative. We no longer celebrate the two-parent family, value the moral teachings of religion, or appreciate the dignity of work. We have a “semi-Socialist and semi-authoritarian” President (to borrow from Daniel Henninger) who promised to unify the nation, but who recently called his 2020 competitor a “semi-fascist.”

 

Except for the Reagan years, for over eight decades an expanding and “compassionate” government has been seen as the answer to problems we individually face. On January 6, 1941, in his State of the Union, President Franklin Roosevelt spoke of four freedoms: The first two were lifted from the Bill of Rights: freedom of speech and freedom to worship. The next two involved government, in a way unintended by the Constitution – freedom from want and freedom from fear. After a dozen years of depression and a European war underway, it is understandable why his words were so well received and are so fondly remembered. But all the ills of the world cannot be resolved by a pen and a phone. Want has persisted as has fear. Sadly, there will always be poverty, illness, and accidents. But, keep in mind, no political system yet devised has been better at reducing poverty and alleviating fears than a democratic-republic and free-market capitalism. 

 

As we head toward the midterm elections, we should each take stock of our own political beliefs. I can only speak for myself: I want constrained, self-paying government, with separation of powers, a fair judiciary. a government which functions under the rule of law, guarantees our enumerated rights and our borders, provides for defense – a government that allows us to freely have options, which fit individual needs. I want a vibrant, competitive, free-market economy that responds to millions of people making thousands of choices every day, not one directed by bureaucrats in Washington. We have seen the unfortunate consequences of government-managed economies, in an earlier period of Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe and today in places like China, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, Paraguay, Ghana, and Zimbabwe, among others.

 

Knowing oneself involves soul-searching and asking difficult questions. Do we like what we have become? The President has called Mr. Trump and his followers “semi-fascists.” Democratic advisor Kurt Bardella, speaking on MSNBC last week, said that modern Republican ‘playbook’ was like that of Nazi Germany: “We are watching right now a very radical and extreme Republican Party mirror what we have seen in other places like Nazi Germany, like other people, like the Bolsheviks. We have seen this playbook before.”

 

Really? Which Party weaponized the IRS in 2012 to slow-walk non-profit status for groups whose ideology was deemed unhelpful? Which Party colluded with the FBI to find dirt on their political opponents in 2016? Which Party referred to parents as terrorists in 2020? Which Party in 2022 authorized an unprecedented FBI invasion of the home of a former President? Which Party has most expanded the state and constricted the private sector, with restrictive rules and regulations? Both Parties are guilty of extremism, but the sanctimonious left, “the anointed” as Thomas Sowell calls them, has been guilty of undemocratic actions.

 

Politics historically, through debate and vote, have been used to resolve controversial issues. But we live in an age of extremism. Donald Trump, if he cares for conservative values, should remove himself, as he has become Democrats’ principal asset and Republicans’ biggest liability. But it is Democrats, with their sycophants in Washington’s bureaucracies, media and social media, universities, big corporations, and the entertainment industry who are stifling freedom and destroying democracy, not Republicans. I urge my Democrat friends to consider the rhetoric and vendettas of their Party. It has been their words and actions, plus censorship in schools and colleges, and a politicization of climate change, which imperil the freedom and prospects of the citizens of this exceptional nation. Socrates said that to know oneself is the beginning of wisdom. There is no need to navel gaze, but we should take a few moments to consider our history, to think of who we are and what we want, and to ask: What has happened? Why has so much gone wrong?

 

We are better than what we have become.

"Victimhood"

                                                                     Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Victimhood”

August 15, 2022

 

“There is a difference between victimization and victimhood. We are all likely to be victimized in some

way in the course of our lives. At some point we will suffer some kind of affliction or calamity or

abuse, caused by circumstances or people or institutions over which we have little or no control…

In contrast, victimhood comes from the inside. No one can make you a victim but you. We become

victims not because of what happens to us but when we choose to hold on to our victimization…”

                                                                                                                                Edith Eger (1927-)

                                                                                                                                The Choice: Embrace the Possible, 2017

 

 

Too often, we accept victimhood, which can come in myriad guises: A college student cowers under a torrent of “hurtful” words; a banker worries an employee will be offended by the wrong pronoun; a comedian is booed by those claiming victimhood, for humor deemed racist, sexist, or homophobic. The American people were told by elitist Democrats, and “never-Trumpers,” that we were victims of a “fascist-like” Donald Trump.  Doing so, freed his political opponents to pursue any means to destroy him: false accusations of Russian collusion; a two-year, multi-million-dollar (and futile) Mueller investigation; two impeachments, and the recent FBI raid on his home at the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach. No matter one’s view of the egotistical Mr. Trump, has not he become a victim?

 

In this surrealistic world, who is the victim and who the victimizer depends – not on facts – but on political ideology. When Twitter or Facebook censor news reports from conservatives to “protect” readers or viewers from “fake” or “malicious” stories, are not they promoting victimhood? If a corporation does not comply with DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) protocols, it is accused of victimizing its employees. Should investment managers seek to maximize portfolio returns, or should they find investments that are ESG (environmental, social, and governance) friendly, regardless of the comparative investment return potential? Have not some pensioners and mutual fund holders become victims to the political aspirations of portfolio managers? The acceptance of victimhood affects the way we value meritocracy and perceive equal opportunity – that past inequities and unequal outcomes make necessary the racial bigotry inherent in affirmative action, which accentuates the divide among people. Is it fair, for example, to lower college admission standards based on race, but not on economic class? 

 

Victimhood subordinates the individual to the group, which is a problem for democracy that depends on individual freedom. This is especially true in the black community. Shelby Steele, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute wrote of this situation twenty years ago in a Harper’s Magazine essay (“The Age of White Guilt and the Disappearance of the Black Individual,” November 30, 2002): “Right after the sixties’ civil-rights victories came what I believe to be the greatest miscalculation in black American history…we were faithless with ourselves just when we had given ourselves reason to have such faith…To go after America’s liability we had to locate real transformative power outside ourselves. Worse, we had to see our fate as contingent on America’s paying off that liability. We have been a contingent people ever since, arguing our weakness and white racism ignite the engine of white liability. And this has mired us in a protest-group identity that mistrusts individualism because free individuals might jeopardize the group’s effort to activate this liability.” It is demeaning to the individual when we do not ascribe success (or failure) to that individual, no matter their color, sexual orientation, or gender.

 

The consequence of these, (perhaps) well-intentioned but personally degrading, policies is that victimhood is claimed even when victimization never took place. The result is a nation of H.G. Wells’ Eloi controlled by his bureaucratic Morlocks. Victimhood results in dependency, especially dependency on government. Gone are self-reliance, dignity, and independence. Acquiescence to victimhood means avoiding personal responsibility. An unjust accusation of being a victimizer means having to apologize for actions of others, even when those actions took place hundreds of years ago. And, of course, it belittles real victims, like Salmon Rushdie.

 

The assumption of victimhood means a failure to look within. Craig D. Lounsbrough, a licensed counselor in Colorado, is quoted: “I decry the injustice of my wounds, only to look down and see the smoking gun in one hand and a fistful of ammunition in the other.” A failure to take responsibility injures society, because we live in a world where some people, regardless of color or gender, are victimized. Those that are deserve our help and support. But we should avoid the mantle of victimhood. We should look back on the life of Edith Eger, for an understanding of the difference between true victimization and imagined victimhood.

 

Edith Eger, whose quote in the rubric that precedes and gives direction to this essay, was born on September 29, 1927 to Hungarian Jewish parents in the Czechoslovakian town of Košice. In May 1944, with her family, she was deported to Auschwitz and then transported to Mauthausen and Gunskirchhen, from which she was released in May 1945 by American troops. Her parents did not survive. In 1949, with her husband and daughter, she emigrated to the United States; she received her PhD in clinical psychology from the University of Texas in 1978. I doubt anyone reading this essay ever suffered victimization to the extent did Ms. Eger during the final year of the Second World War, yet she never declared victimhood.