"April Fools' Day"

 This is sent a day early, as later this morning we leave for New Hampshire to attend a memorial service tomorrow for a beloved brother-in-law of sixty-one years.

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

More Essays from Essex

“April Fools’ Day”

April 1, 2023

 

“The first of April is the day we remember

what we are the other 364 days of the year.”

                                                                                                                Attributed to Mark Twain (1835-1910) 

 

Growing up, we loved April Fools’ Day: “Your fly’s unbuttoned!” My fingers reached for the front of my trousers. “April Fool! Made you look, you dirty crook/Stole your mother’s pocketbook!”

 

Like “success,” the origin of April Fools’ Day has many fathers. For a few, it refers to the time when Pluto, king of Hades, carried off Proserpina, daughter of Ceres, goddess of agriculture. Ceres followed the sound rather than her daughter – a fool’s errand. Others suggest the date resembles Hilaria, a festival held in ancient Rome in late March, or India’s celebration of Holi, which welcomes spring. But the likeliest origin is the Gregorian calendar, introduced by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582. The new calendar changed the start of the year from April 1 to January 1. The change was adopted by Catholic Europe but not Protestant, at least not immediately. It was not until 1752 that England accepted January 1^st as the start of the new year. 

 

Who’s that girl behind you?

 

The best April Fools’ prank of all time, according to the Museum of Hoaxes, a website created in 1997 by Alex Boese of California, was the April 1, 1957 “Swiss Spaghetti Harvest,” perpetrated by the BBC show Panorama. They reported that thanks to a mild winter the dreaded Spaghetti Weevil had been virtually eliminated, so farmers enjoyed a bumper crop. Many viewers were taken in. How, they asked, does one grow a spaghetti tree? The answer: “Place a sprig of spaghetti in a tomato sauce tin, and hope for the best.”

 

There have been other fun ones. The April 1985 issue of Sports Illustrated announced that the New York Mets had acquired a pitcher named Sidd Finch who could throw a fast ball 168mph, an art he mastered in a Tibetan monastery. Ecstatic Mets fans were disappointed to learn that the story had been written by George Plimpton who left a clue in the sub-heading of the article. On April 1, 1996, Taco Bell took out a full-page ad in six major newspapers, which claimed the company had purchased the Liberty Bell and renamed it the Taco Liberty Bell. Hundreds of outraged people called the National Park Service in Philadelphia. A few hours later Taco Bell admitted it was an April Fools’ joke. The best subsequent line came when President Clinton’s Press Secretary Mike McCurry was asked about the sale: “The Lincoln Memorial has also been sold and will now be known as the Ford Lincoln Mercury Memorial.”

 

Why is there a parrot on your shoulder?

 

Our childhood pranks had none of that originality. We knew, despite being aware of the day, that we would fall victim, lending truth to the old Welch proverb: “If every fool wore a crown, we should all be kings.”

 

Hey, your shoe’s untied!

 

April Fool!  

"Books - Censorship, or Choice?"

 Fifty years ago today, the last U.S. combat troops left Vietnam. It hardly seems possible that so much time has gone by. Troops that were not honored then should be remembered today with thanks and appreciation.

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Books – Censorship, or Choice?”

March 29, 2023

 

“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all

subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.

                                                                                                                             Justice William O. Douglas

                                                                                                                             Speech, Author’s Guild Council, NYC

                                                                                                                             December 3, 1952

 

The Left has the annoying habit of blaming the right for transgressions of which they are guilty, from weaponizing government to tabling stories that put them in a bad light, like Hunter Biden’s laptop. Cloaked in bogus virtue, with mainstream media in their corner, they leave no doubt as to the righteousness of their positions. They profess concern for the aged yet are unwilling to address the impending financial collapse of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid – virtually a certainty in the next ten to fifteen years, unless action is taken. They claim to represent the poor yet propose and implement inflationary policies whose victims are the lowest income families.

 

The Left complains about censorship from the right, while they intimidate conservative college speakers, like commentator Charlie Kirk at the University of California Davis, Judge Kyle Duncan at Stanford Law School and causing Mary Eberstadt, author of Primal Screams, to cancel this week’s talk at Furman University. In 2016, public figures as diverse as Barack Obama, Clarence Thomas, and Michael Bloomberg warned about political correctness gone awry. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) agreed: “One worrisome trend undermining open discourse in the academy is the increased push by some students and faculty to ‘disinvite’ speakers with whom they disagree from campus appearances.” Seven years later, the situation has worsened. People have the right to protest, but school and college administrators should promote diversity in speakers and in books, not cling to a partisan political ideology.

 

………………………………………………………..

 

Roughly 200,000 books are published in the United States each year. The Library of Congress holds approximately 50 million titles. The average public library contains about a million titles. According to a January 2022 survey from the Pew Research Center, 75% of American adults said they read at least one book in the past year. The average person, according to that study, reads twelve books a year. While women read about 50% more books than men, they cannot come close to reading everything published. Choices must be made. 

 

According to an article in last Friday’s The Wall Street Journal, the American Library Association (ALA) claimed that attempts to ban books in 2022 nearly doubled from a year earlier: “The organization found 2,571 titles were under scrutiny – most focused on or written by LGBT individuals and people of color.” On a positive note, according to an ABC news report on January 12, 2023, the ALA also said, “most book challenges fail to remove books from classroom or library shelves completely.” Censorship or efforts to ban books from the Left merits less attention. The same ABC report, which consisted of 1165 words, devoted 63 words to Progressive’s efforts to ban books, like Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men, Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn, and several Dr. Seuss titles, all “in the name of anti-racism or progressive ideals,” books that not too long ago were considered classics of their genre.

 

It is the Left, which purports to be respectful, tolerant, and wise, that has purged “offensive” language from novels by Agatha Christie, Ian Fleming, and others. Such actions raise questions. Will the Bible be re-written to accord with woke sensitivities? Will Shakespeare, Milton, or Locke? Are “drag queen” story hours appropriate for elementary grade school students? Does the altering of words and/or the rephrasing of sentences by “sensitivity readers” and “inclusion ambassadors” provide a more honest rendering of our history? How deep and wide will political correctness take us? Is not our past part of who we are?  

 

When the ALA released their data last week, the Associated Press reported the story, with the headline “Record book ban attempts in 2022.” They wrote of a shift from individuals to conservative organized groups, “targeting a wide swath of books that don’t align with their political, religious or moral views.” Only The Wall Street Journal, of the papers I read, interviewed the co-founders of Moms for Liberty, one of the groups: “We say – write the book, print the book, sell the book; but if it does not have age-appropriate material for school children, don’t put it in school.” That seems a reasonable request. Is that logic present among those who would like to ban books that have been classics for generations? 

 

Censorship, in any form, is bad. Political propaganda should not substitute for literature in schools. Books that serve to divide should be considered carefully, especially among young readers. Books assigned in schools should be age appropriate but, most important, those selected should promote a love for reading. Not all will agree as to age appropriateness, and it will vary from one child to the next. But parents should be involved along with teachers. We make choices throughout our lives, and education should be aimed at helping people make better choices for themselves, their families, their communities, and their country.

 

In books, we have more choices than in most aspects of our lives. I consider myself relatively well-read and have kept track of books read for over twenty years – almost equally divided between fiction and non-fiction. As a general rule, I prefer dead authors of fiction and living writers of non-fiction. However, during those twenty years, three or four million books have been published, on top of the many millions of books already published; so, barely a dent has been made in what was and is available. Nevertheless, we read to learn, and we read to be entertained. The choices we make are important.

 

Perhaps these competing claims are part of a bigger problem – the United States appears to be pulling back from core values that once defined it. A recent poll conducted by the Wall Street Journal-National Opinion Research Center (NORC) revealed that tolerance for others, which four years ago was deemed “very important” by 80% of Americans, had fallen to 58 percent.  As for books, people’s tastes vary; what I read may not appeal to you. You should be able to read Maia Kobabe’s Gender Queer, and I should be able to read Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men. It is important to have choices; what is more important is that we read.

"The Call of the Tribe," Mario Vargas Llosa

 I briefly met the author about a dozen years ago in Vienna, when I attended a colloquium hosted by the Liberty Fund of Indianapolis and the Hayek Institute of Vienna. I have no memory of what transpired, apart from being honored to meet someone I admired through his writings.

 

The Call of the Tribe eloquently expresses the importance of liberty, which we risk losing today to a state where political corruption has become common and government bureaucracy more powerful. The opening chapter alone is worth the price of the book.

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

Burrowing into Books

“The Call of the Tribe,” Mario Vargas Llosa 

March 22, 2023

 

“‘Spirit of the tribe.’ This is the term given by Karl Popper to the irrationality of

the primitive human being that nests in the most secret recesses of all civilized people,

for we have never completely overcome that yearning for the traditional world – 

the tribe – when men and women were still an inseparable part of the collective…”

                                                                                                                Mario Vargas Llosa (1936-)

The Call of the Tribe, 2023, English translation

 

Mario Vargas Llosa, born in Peru and a Nobel Prize winner for literature, is a journalist, novelist, and essayist. As he writes in the introduction, he conceived of a book on liberalism after having read what Edmund Wilson had done for socialism in To the Finland Station. This is a collection of essays on seven individuals who contributed to liberalism: Adam Smith, José Ortega y Gasset, Friedrich August von Hayek, Sir Karl Popper, Raymond Aron, Sir Isaiah Berlin, and Jean-François Revel. Six of the seven grew up in 20^th Century Europe when freedom was threatened by both fascism and communism. 

 

As well, the author reveals his personal views. “Liberalism is a doctrine that does not have answers to everything, as Marxism purports to do, and it has a place for divergence and criticism around a small but unequivocal core set of convictions, for example that freedom is the supreme value; it is not divisible or fragmentary, but rather indivisible, and must be evident in every sphere – be it economic, political, social, or cultural – in a genuinely democratic society.” He writes that liberals are not anarchists, that they want a “strong and efficient state,” which “must guarantee freedom, public order, the respect for law, and equal opportunities.” But, as he writes: “Equality before the law and equality of opportunities do not mean equality of income, something no liberal would propose. For that would be possible only in a society run by an authoritarian government that would ‘equalize’ all citizens economically through an oppressive system, doing away with different individual capacities…This would imply the disappearance of the individual, subsumed into the tribe.”

 

The essays are chronological, based on the birth date of the subject. Adam Smith (1723-1790), while called ‘Father of Economics,’ was more interested in “how society functions.” Vargas Llosa writes: “He always thought of himself as a moralist and philosopher.” He quotes Smith: “No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.” In writing of José Ortega y Gasset (1883-1890), The author notes of how he differs from Marx in the use of the word “mass,” a word which to Marx meant the proletariat, a social class with no significant ownership in the means of production. To Ortega the mass “is a group of individuals who have become deindividualized, who have stopped being freethinking human entities and have dissolved into an amalgam that thinks and acts for them, more through conditioned reflexes – emotions, instincts, passions – than through reason.”

 

We read that Friedrich August von Hayek (1899-1992) is one of three modern thinkers to whom he (Vargas Llosa) owes the most from a political perspective – the two others being Popper and Berlin. Vargas Llosa writes: “The great enemy of civilization is, for Hayek, constructivism or social engineering, which looks to develop intellectually an economic and political model and then implant it in reality, something that is only possible by force – violence that degenerates into dictatorship – and which has failed every time it has been attempted.” The notion of central planning – something we now see in the West – was detested by Hayek and Sir Karl Popper (1902-1994). Austrian born to a Jewish family that two generations earlier had converted to Protestantism, Popper saw first-hand how the call of the tribe (in the form of anti-Semitism) spread quickly in a society he thought so open: “Planning, taken to its logical conclusion, leads to the centralization of power….to the destruction of freedom and to totalitarian regimes…”

 

Raymond Aron (1905-1983) was “a dispassionate intellectual, with a penetrating but showy intelligence and a cold clear prose…” Like all of the individuals about whom Vargas Llosa writes, Aron grew up in an unstable Europe. He quotes him: “…the highest living standards have been achieved in states that have political democracy and a relative free economy.” “But,” Vargas Llosa adds, “this panorama does not justify optimism, because developed, democratic society is under threat today. Its main enemy is the state, an entity that is essentially voracious, oppressive, and bureaucratic…”

 

Isaiah Berlin (1909-1997), a Latvian educated in England, became a professor of social and political theory at Oxford. “Berlin’s liberalism consisted, above all, in the exercise of tolerance, in his constant endeavor to understand his ideological enemy…” Berlin is quoted: “I am bored by reading people who are allies…What is interesting is to read the enemy…” In writing about Jean-François Revel (1924-2006), a man who spent most of his life as a socialist, Vargas Llosa writes: “With his independence…and his systematic defense of freedom whenever it is threatened or diminished. Revel seems like an Albert Camus or a George Orwell for our times.” Like them, Revel was misunderstood by many of his compatriots.

 

It is the call of the tribe that concerns Mr. Llosa. The tribal spirit is “a source of nationalism [that] has, along with religious fanaticism, been responsible for the largest massacres in human history…In certain countries, and not just in the third world, this ‘call of the tribe,’ which democratic and liberal culture – ultimately, rationality – had sought to free us from, has reappeared in the form of charismatic leaders, under whom citizens revert to being a mass in thrall to a caudillo…Nothing has illustrated the return of the ‘tribe’ better than communism, under which sovereign individuals regress to being part of a mass submissive to the dictates of s leader…”

 

This is a short (276 pages) but important book, especially in today’s world of soundbites. At a time when dissent is increasingly disallowed, The Call of the Tribe is a paean to liberalism, to freedom. In writing of Hayek, he thinks of today: “Ideas that, for him, played such an important role in the life of free nations have deteriorated, and in the modern world images now have the prominence that ideas once had…screens have replaced books as the primary source of knowledge and information for what is called public opinion.”

 

How true. Once read, this book should remain on your shelves for reference and re-reading.

"Sustainability"

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Sustainability”

March 18, 2023

 

“We can chart our future clearly and wisely only

when we know the path which has led to the present.”

                                                                                                                        Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965)

                                                                                                                        Speech, Richmond, VA, Sep. 20, 1952

 

Sustainability is an over-used word. Or is it? Googling the word generates over three billion hits, almost three times the number of hits generated by its parent, sustain. It is a relatively new word, first appearing in the United Nation’s 1987 Brundtland Report, which defined sustainable development as meeting “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” It generally refers to climate and the environment and what man is doing (or not to doing) to sustain it, along with racial, gender and equity issues. Wikipedia defines sustainability as “a societal goal that relates to the ability of people to safely co-exist on Earth over a long time.” (Sustain is defined: to support, uphold, or strengthen.)

 

In 2015, the United Nations adopted a collection of 17 interlinked objectives called Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which include: the elimination of poverty, reduced inequalities, climate, peace, justice, decent work, responsible communities, and strong institutions – all goals with which no reasonable person would disagree, but also words whose definitions are amorphous, and which can vary with user. Nevertheless, woke universities and colleges have been quick to add “Sustainability Institutes.”

 

But might the word be more inclusive? We must harbor our resources and protect the environment. But we must not constrain man’s propensity to create and adapt. It was underestimating man’s capacity to innovate that led to Thomas Malthus’ faulty prediction in 1798, that population growth would exceed resources. People need the freedom to express ideas, and the freedom to go where aspiration, ability and dedication take them. For that they need a sustainable political environment, which allows for individual freedom, functions under the rule of law, includes property rights, and provides access to free markets. 

 

As Governor Stevenson is quoted in the rubric above, we should not, in our quest for sustainable climate destroy (or ignore) the political, social, and economic paths that have brought us this far. Sustainability needs to apply to individual freedom, our system of free markets, population growth, and to a defense system that ensures the safety of our nation and its people. Freedom is at the core of our democratic society.

 

Yet, while concerns for climate, environmental, racial, equity, and gender sustainability in the U.S. have waxed, concerns about freedom and families have waned. The Human Freedom Index, an annual report that measures human freedom in 165 countries, is co-published by the Cato Institute, the Fraser Institute of Canada, and Switzerland’s Liberales Institut. It is the most comprehensive measure of freedom yet created. It assesses categories like rule of law, security and safety, religion, and freedom of expression. For 2022, in terms of personal freedom, the United States (the “land of the free”) ranked 24, just behind the Czech Republic and Italy and just ahead of Uruguay and Spain. As for family formations, a Pew Research study shows a steady decline in the rate of growth over the past forty years. 

 

 

While regional and class differences have made for uneven progress, broadly speaking Americans have, over many years, enjoyed increases in standards of living, as measured by GDP per capita and life expectancy. This has been largely due to free-market capitalism, yet a June 2021 survey by Axios and Momentive showed that only 49% of young Americans (18-34 year-olds) held a positive view of capitalism, while 51% held a positive view of socialism. This repudiation of capitalism by youth suggests ignorance of our history, and a lack of awareness that, according to the 2019 Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finance, more families than ever own, in some form, publicly traded stock – 53% versus 32% in 1989. It is troubling, as well, that labor force participation has declined from 66.3% in 2003 to 62.5% in 2023. If we cannot sustain an economic system that has benefitted so many, living standards will inevitably decline.

 

It is possible that concerns about the sustainability of climate have negatively impacted population rates, especially in the developed world. Total Fertility Rates (TFRs), which measure the average number of births to a woman over her lifetime, have been declining worldwide for several decades. The world TFR in 2000 was 2.7; today it is 2.4. (2.1 is deemed replacement rate.) most of the decline is in East Asia countries like Japan, South Korea, and China, and in Europe and North America. In 2022, the U.S. TFR was 1.64, versus 2.1 in 2000. The decline is worldwide. Forty years ago, the continent of Africa had a TFR of 6.5; today it is 4.2, and the United Nations predicts it will decline to 2.1 by 2100. Life on earth will not be sustained should populations age and shrink.

 

We can ask: Can we maintain our leadership position in the world, as a beacon of freedom and opportunity, without sustaining an educated citizenry? Reading and math scores have consistently fallen for young U.S. students on international tests. U.S. students are at or below the median for scores on reading, math, and science on PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) rankings. The closing of schools during the pandemic accelerated a trend already in place.

 

While the United States still out-spends all other countries in terms of defense, and while the proposed budget – unadjusted for inflation – calls for the largest amount ever, we should be concerned. Over the past fifty years, with brief exceptions during the 1980s and in the aftermath of 9/11, defense spending as a percent of GDP declined from 6.5% in 1972 to just over 3% in 2022.  Today, China has the world’s largest navy and the most men and women in uniform. With rising threats from China and Russia, military spending as a percent of GDP is inadequate. Yet total federal spending, as a percent of GDP, is 20% above where it was in 2019. Transfer payments comprise most of the difference. With an unprotected southern border, a military falling short of recruits, and a navy that has half the vessels of China, is our defense sufficient? 

 

Of all the world, we are among the luckiest people. It is not because of our efforts, but because of the wisdom, fortitude, and diligence of our forebearers. The world has been, is, and always will be a risky place, as we saw this past week with the failure of SVB and other banks. Are we prepared? I would say no. Our responsibility is not just to sustain the life we have, but to build upon what we were gifted.

 

As Governor Stevenson said in the quote that heads this essay, to know where we must go, we must first understand how we got here. Yet, none of the factors – individual freedom, democracy, accountability, rule of law, capital markets, property rights, defense – which contributed to our success as a nation and a people are included in the UN’s SDGs. We should sustain them and improve them, gradually and over time. As for the sustainability of climate, science and history tell us that cannot be done by man alone. The Earth will warm, and it will cool. We can minimize its harmful effects but, ultimately, we will have to adapt.

 

Sustainability is an ill-defined and ill-used word. It should be used with care, or it should be returned to the place from which it emerged.

"Superstitions...With a Smile"

 Hard to believe, but tomorrow brings Daylight Savings, which means we lose an hour of sleep as clocks spring ahead. As a morning person, and as one who likes his sleep, this is a practice I do not like.

 

I hope you enjoy today’s short essay and that it brings a smile on what is an overcast day in Connecticut.

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

More Essay from Essex

“Superstitions…With a Smile”

March 11, 2023

 

“I had only one superstition. I made sure to

touch all the bases when I hit a home run.”

                                                                                                                           Attributed to Babe Ruth (1895-1948)

 

Edmund Burke (1729-1797), 18^th Century British statesman and philosopher, wrote in Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), “Superstition is the religion of feeble minds.” I quote Burke as a warning about this essay, as I have long held superstitions (or some might, kindly, say “habits”).

 

While I don’t meditate each morning or watch the sunrise as I drink a smoothie, I do make sure a towel’s label is to the left when hung. With children and grandchildren flying around the world, I text, “safe flight” before their plane departs. When my wife takes a bath, I say, “be careful getting into and out of the tub.” I “knock on wood” most days and “cross my fingers” almost as often. On the first of the month, I text my children and grandchildren: “Rabbit, Rabbit, Rabbit,” which is supposed to bring good luck for the month. Why rabbits? Their feet, as talismans, date back to early Celtic tribes in Britain. I may be feeble-minded, but I feel better – perhaps because no rabbits had to sacrifice their feet.

 

My Random House Webster’s defines superstition as “an irrational belief in, or notion of, the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, etc.” Indicative of our times, the word has assumed more secular tones over the past 200 years. In 1828, Noah Webster (one of my thirty-two four-great grandfathers) defined the word: “Excessive exactness or rigor in religious opinions or practice; extreme and unnecessary scruples in the observance of religious rites…”

 

A good friend whose husband died a few years ago told her children that every time they saw a shiny penny it meant their father was with them in spirit. I now stay alert for shiny pennies; seeing one, I know that Michael is in the area. My mother-in-law used to say, if you drop a knife a man is coming. She wouldn’t say why, when, where, or who. My wife tells me that if I spill salt to toss a pinch of it over my left shoulder, which is where the devil (temptation) sits. An angel (conscience) resides on my right shoulders. When I fell and tore my rotator cuff last year, it was my right shoulder; so advantage, in my case, to the devil.

 

Superstitions have a long, literary history. They are found in Homer and the Bible. And who can forget the three witches who told MacBeth he would become Thane of Fife and then King. Witches were perceived as evil beings by early Christians. If a battle were lost, crops failed, or the cow got sick, it was the fault of a witch. Superstitions about witches in Salem caused the deaths of twenty-five, mostly older women, in 1692. Because witches were creative and intelligent women, my paternal grandmother once proudly told me that we descend from a witch. I like to think she was right.

 

Superstitions are not the same for everyone. Cracked mirrors distort reflections. Walking under a ladder is ill advised. Groucho Marx once said: “If a black cat crosses your path, it signifies that the animal is going somewhere.” And my wife tells me, as long as you can see the cat’s white teeth, all will be well.

"Freedom versus Dependency in a Polarized World"

 

Today’s essay covers a subject that I have written on before, one that, in my opinion, represents the biggest threat to democracy we have ever faced – Like a frog placed in water that is gradually heated to boiling, we are experiencing the piecemeal encroachment on individual freedom by a government determined to play a more ubiquitous role in our lives. I do not believe it is malevolence on the part of politicians, but the inevitable consequence of unrestrained government.

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Freedom versus Dependency in a Polarized World”

March 7, 2023

 

“The call of the tribe…clearly touches chords deep within the human heart.”

                                                                                                                                Mario Vargas Llosa (1936-)

                                                                                                                                The Call of the Tribe, 2023

 

Two conflicting yearnings embody all men and women – the desire to be free and the desire to be a part of a tribe: family, club, group, community, nation, etc. At their extremes, the two result in either anarchy or dependency. Anarchy can lead to the emergence of a strong, unscrupulous leader, a tyrant. Statism can lead to a loss of independence, the abandonment of personal responsibility and the rise of authoritarianism. 

 

It is to mitigate the worst outcomes of either extreme – to live together as individuals, civilly and productively – that governments were created. Throughout history, most governments minimized individual freedom, while emphasizing security. The United States was (and is) different. In 1776, the Founders met in Philadelphia to address independence from Great Britain. The final paragraph of the Declaration of Independence speaks of the “Representatives of the united States of America,” with the “u” in united not capitalized. To reduce the threat of autocracy, the Constitution established a federal government of three separate but equal branches. It created a representative government – “of the people, by the people, for the people” – that provided freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, the press, and petitions, all to ensure individuals remained free. It was (and is) a government based on the rule of law, on equal rights, and one that recognizes the private ownership of property. (And the “u” in United States was capitalized in 1781).

 

Nevertheless, “the call of the tribe” (to use Mario Vargas Llosa’s title) is strong; it has been deployed by both the right and the left to attract disaffected members of the political public – groups like the Tea Party and Proud Boys on the right and Antifa and Black Lives Matter on the left. However, extremist groups, while they should be monitored for violence, are generally small and do not represent real threats to democracy. The real threat to the United States is more subtle. It is (and has been) the gradual usurpation of regulatory power by non-elected bureaucrats, and the seduction of American voters through financial inducements – “the call of the tribe” – creating dependency on “compassionate” government.

 

Politically, Americans are divided along ideological lines, which should allow for debate and compromise. For example: How big and how accountable should government be? What responsibilities should it bear and what should be the responsibilities of individuals? At what point will government’s debt obligations infringe on economic growth? How can we tame inflation while expanding deficits? At what point does dependency on government largesse overwhelm a sense of individual freedom? These questions have been sidelined, however, by the rise of identity politics (another “call of the tribe”) – racial, gender, ethnicity – which create a sense of victimhood – us versus them – that only “omniscient” government can resolve. 

 

As well, identity politics divert attention from compelling problems: urban crime; an open border; declining education standards; infrastructure; run-away debt and deficits; inflation; changes wrought by new technologies; a simmering Middle East; a grasping, gasping Russia; the Thucydides Trap of a rising China and a faltering United States, and the struggle between advocates of an ever-expanding government, with its increasingly unaccountable administrators and regulators, and those who believe democracy and individual freedom are at risk. Keep in mind, what enticed immigrants was the promise of freedom – that one could rise as far as her or his aspiration, diligence, and talents could take them – not the assurance and comfort of a welfare state.

 

At the same time, we are more polarized than at any time since 1861. Conservatives are labeled misogynists, xenophobes, and racists. Progressives are presumed to be radicals, socialists, and communists. A few conservatives and progressives deserve those adjectives, but for most the labels are hyperbole, adding to the societal dysfunction that already exists. False accusations have become ubiquitous, denying debate, making civil discussion difficult, and negatively effecting civic behavior. However, polarization is not necessarily unhealthy. In his 1945 novel, That Hideous Strength, C.S. Lewis wrote: “Isn’t it absolutely essential to keep a fierce left and fierce right, both on their toes and each terrified of the other? That’s how we get things done.”  In a talk with the editors of The New York Magazine on February 1, 2007, Ayaan Ali Hirsi said: “There is peacetime and there is wartime, and you don’t need polarization on wartime issues. You need polarization on all other issues.” In her 2020 book Twilight of Democracy: The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism, Anne Applebaum wrote: “Unity is an anomaly. Polarization is normal.” While I am not sure that each side need be “terrified of the other,” polarization of ideas is natural and healthy, as long as reason governs discussions and debates, and pushes us toward the “anomaly” of compromise and unity.

 

But tribalism is not all bad. Families are the backbone of a successful society. Religious organizations provide a moral sense. Civic organizations give opportunities for individuals to come together in their communities. Alumni groups assure a solid future for schools and colleges, where students should be taught subjects that help them succeed in life, to learn self-reliance, and to be good citizens, not to succumb to “the call of the tribe” of race, gender, and ethnicity. We need government in multiple ways – security, infrastructure, education, to care for the needy and those unable to care for themselves. But we must ensure that dependency on government does not smother initiative; that the focus is on opportunities, not outcomes; that merit is not replaced with equity; that upward mobility is available to all, without regard to race, gender, or economic class. We must not sacrifice individual independence on the altar of “benevolent” government. 

 

Government is a hard beast to tame. Its appetite grows larger every year. The administrative state is almost impossible to shrink. Bureaucrats, aided and abetted by public sector unions, find more things to do, more ways to spend the public’s money, more ways to make more people dependent. Political power is an aphrodisiac. But nothing in life is free. As dependency on government waxes, personal freedom wanes. You cannot have it both ways.

"Roald Dahl - Thoughts on Fiction and History"

 Winter came late to Connecticut. While we had a few cold days in December and January, this year’s weather, at least here where we live, has been mild and, more surprisingly, snow-less. That changed as this monstrous storm moved across the country, dumping snow and wreaking havoc. And, finally, as February was saying adieu, it brought us some snow – not much, perhaps three inches, but enough to make the trees sparkle and to remind us of the beauty winter came bring.

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Roald Dahl – Thoughts on Fiction and History”

March 1, 2023

 

“Without memory, there is no culture. Without memory,

there would be no civilization, no society, no future.”

                                                                                                                Elie Wiesel (1928-2016)

                                                                                                                NPR – “All Things Considered”

                                                                                                                April 7, 2008

 

Novels are vessels that carry our past. If we abandon or amend them, we relinquish or alter our past. Oliver Twist, published in 1838, provides a look at first-half-19^th Century London, an unpleasant place to be poor. Tolstoy’s War and Peace, written in 1869 provides a Russian perspective on the Napoleonic Wars, which were devastating for both victor and vanquished.  Joel Chandler Harris, born and raised in Georgia, wrote Uncle Remus in 1881, during Reconstruction and the early Jim Crow era, a time when blacks in America were treated badly. These books make some uncomfortable, but they are social commentaries on their time. Fiction speaks to thoughts people had, words they spoke, and actions they took. Through them we can trace the arc of civilization as it has advanced over the centuries.

 

Last week Penguin Random House made the sensible decision to rescind their earlier announcement that only expurgated versions of Roald Dahl’s books for children would be published by Penguin Young Readers Group in the U.S. and Puffin Books in the UK. Now, copies with the original language will be branded as The Roald Dahl Classic Collection, to differentiate them from edited copies for more sensitive readers. However, it is troubling that the change came only after a backlash that included such writers as Salmon Rushdie (a man who knows what it is to be censored) and Camilla, United Kingdom’s Queen Consort, who urged writers to “remain true to your calling, unimpeded by those who may wish to curb the freedom of your expression or impose limits on your imagination.” Wise words from a well-read woman. Consumers are best served when offered a choice, which is what Penguin is now doing.

 

Changing words in books is not the same as censorship, but it is illustrative of a different problem – the coddling of American youth. Young children were once taught to prepare for a tough world. The old adage: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me” has been updated to conform with today’s more sensitive culture: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can also harm me. /Stones and sticks break only skin, while words are ghosts that haunt me.” It is not that parents of my generation (and earlier) were unaware of bullying and taunting or did not love their children. They were and they did. They also wanted them to be responsible, accountable, and respective of others. We also knew the world is a tough place, and we knew that children should be prepared.

 

Both the left and the right have been guilty of banning and/or challenging books that do not conform to their ideologies. A photograph of California’s Gavin Newsome was published in the April 7, 2022 issue of Newsweek. He was “reading some banned books.” In his hands was a copy of Toni Morrison’s Beloved (banned by the right). On the table was a copy of Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird (banned by the left). On the right, books on LBGTQ subjects have been challenged or banned in some elementary schools, books like George by Alex Gino, Stamped: Racism, Anti-racism, and You by Ibram X and Jason Reynolds, and All American Boys by Jason Reynolds and Brendan Kiely. Some parents feel the books’ content age-inappropriate for their young children, and their wishes should be respected. The left has placed challenges or imposed bans on books they see as insensitive to gender and racial issues, like George Orwell’s 1984, Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn, and Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck. 

 

It took a while, and their initial, instinctive reaction was wrong, but Penguin Random House made the right decision in offering readers a choice. Roald Dahl was known as an antisemite and misogynist, but his books have sold over 300 million copies since the early 1940s. His books, and movies made from them, have entertained and enlivened the lives of millions of children in dozens of countries. Penguin’s decision ensures that millions more will have the delight of knowing Willy Wonka, Augustus Gloop, Matilda Wormwood, and many others. 

 

None of this is to argue that fiction is always accurate in its portrayal of the past. It is, after all, fiction, meant to tell a story, to make a point. And historical figures, like public ones today, are generally more nuanced than shown. Nevertheless, we get a sense of life in mid 19^th Century English debtors’ prison by reading of Charles Dickens’ Amy Dorrit and of what it was like to grow up black in 1930s Alabama by getting to know Harper Lee’s character, Tom Robinson.

 

Changing words in any book leads to a slippery slope, more associated with totalitarian regimes than with a nation of free people. Let us pray that the media coverage of the Dahl episode will cause both sides to reconsider their efforts to ban or challenge books that do not suit their particular political ideology. As Elie Wiesel said in his talk on NPR fifteen years ago, in speaking of the horrors he suffered during the Holocaust: “…our stories are essential – essential to memory.” Most writers today were not alive then, but knowledgeable and empathetic writers of fiction can provide readers a sense of time and place, of what caused the tragic events in Germany. Such stories may prevent future nightmares. Not all that is written is true, but truth only emerges when authors are free from censors, when books are not altered, challenged, or banned, and when readers are free to decide for themselves what to read.