"Money and Politics"

Like other problems that defy solutions, such as cleaning up the 54 million gallons of nuclear waste that exist around the world, money and politics are conjoined twins. We must live with it, but we should be aware of what has been going on, even when regarded with a light touch.

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Money and Politics”

October 15, 2023

 

“The way to solve all the money in politics is not to pretend we can get money out of politics.

That will never happen. We have to channel it in ways where we can see it and hold it accountable.”

                                                                                              Attributed to Mark Shields (1937-2022)                                                                                                                            American political columnist

 

If a resurrected Frank Sinatra were to sing “Love and Marriage,” the first line might go “Love and marriage, love and marriage / Go together like pols and cabbage.” Politics and money are inseparable. A February 11, 2021 report from Open Secrets was headlined: “Political spending in the 2020 election totaled $14.4 billion, more than doubling the total cost of the record-breaking 2016 presidential election cycle.” What will the tab be for 2024? On November 8, 2022, CNN reported: “The five most expensive Senate races of 2022 (Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Ohio) have seen nearly $1.3 billion in spending across the primary and general elections…a staggering sum that speaks to the massive amounts of money flooding the political system.” This has long been the case. In Will Rogers’ Daily Telegram for June 28, 1931, he wrote: “Politics has got so expensive that it takes a lot of money even to get beat nowadays.”

 

PEW Research, in a study released on September 19, 2023, found that both Republicans and Democrats say major donors and lobbyists have too much influence on Congress – 83% of Republicans and 80% of Democrats. 71% of Republicans and 76% of Democrats believe there should be limits on the amounts individuals and organizations can spend on elections, but what those limits should be was left unsaid. Nearly six-in-ten Americans (58%) say it is possible to have laws that would effectively reduce the role of money in politics, with 66% of Democrats saying this is possible and 52% of Republicans. However, the study did not explain what laws should be enacted. 59% of respondents suggested donating money to a charity or non-profit would be “extremely, or somewhat, effective” in causing positive change, but which charities or non-profits were left unnamed. Ironically, 50% suggested donating money to a candidate or party. 

 

The Citizens United Supreme Court decision in January 2010 is generally blamed for the increase in political campaign spending, and history suggests some validity to that allegation. According to Open Secrets, the 2008 Presidential campaign was the first to exceed a billion dollars, while four years later the 2012 campaign, according to the same source, cost $6.3 billion. 

 

The ability to vote in America has been an evolutionary process. In the late 1700s, voting was limited to white male landowners, at most a few hundred thousand. In the ensuing decades, the right to vote was gradually expanded to non-landowning white males. The 15^th Amendment, ratified in 1870, ensured the right to vote could not be denied based on race, though many southern states erected barriers, such as poll taxes and literacy tests. The 19^th Amendment, ratified in 1920, gave the right to vote to women. (It still amazes me to think that my paternal grandmother, who I knew well, could not vote until she was forty-five!) The 24^th Amendment, ratified in 1964, prohibited Congress and the states from implementing a poll tax, or other type of tax, as a requirement for eligibility to vote in federal elections. And the 26^th Amendment, ratified in 1971, guaranteed that no citizen aged 18 and older could be denied the right to vote. As the voting franchise expanded – in 2022, there were, according to statista.com, 168.42 million Americans registered to vote – the cost of influencing elections rose. Of course, the proliferation of the internet and social media expanded the number of avenues to reach voters. And, of course, we cannot forget that the media is a primary beneficiary of increased spending on elections.

 

Most voters agree there is too much money in politics, causing one to speculate that P.J. O’Rourke could have written another book: “Don’t give money to politicians, it only encourages the bastards.” There is little agreement as to how to reduce the billions spent on elections. I doubt that even Lucretia Hale’s Lady from Philadelphia could find the answer. Reversing Citizens United is desired by many but would violate the concept of free speech and encourage a greater use of “dark” money. Public financing would benefit incumbents, and, anyway, why should my tax dollars be used to support someone I don’t like? Mark Shields, in the rubric at the top of this essay, offered, in my opinion, the most sensible solution. Sunshine. The name of every individual who contributes to a politician, PAC, or political campaign, regardless of amount, should be in the public domain. No organization that contributes to a politician, his policies, or a political campaign should receive tax-exempt status. Political Action Committees should publish the names of all who contribute to them. Many people respect the secret ballot, so would not want their name associated with a particular candidate. Congressional term limits would have the benefit of diminishing the relative importance of any single member of Congress. 

 

There is no satisfactory answer; for the question of money and politics is largely rhetorical. Like the weather, in those innocent pre climate-catastrophe days, money and politics is something about which everybody talks but no one does anything. As for my response, I do not contribute to any state or national politicians, PACs, or their campaigns – it only encourages the bastards. 

"Evil"

 Today’s TOTD is relatively short, as is another I have been working on at the same time. That second, God willing, will be sent tomorrow morning. On Thursday, Caroline and I leave on a nine-day road trip to visit four grandchildren, in four different colleges in North Carolina and Pennsylvania. We will be meandering more than driving and, while I will have my laptop, I will not be sending any essays. You have all earned a well-deserved break from my scribblings.

 

My thanks and my best to you all, Sydney

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

Thought of the Day

“Evil”

October 14, 2023

 

“In each of us, two natures are at war – the good and the evil. All our lives the fight goes on between them,

and one of them must conquer. But in our hands lies the power to choose – what we want most to be we are.”

                                                                                                                                Robert Louis Stevenson (1850-1894)

                                                                                                                                Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, 1886

 

Three days after the dastardly and cowardly attack by Hamas on Israel, President Biden responded. For the most part his words resonated well. In fact, given the chance of escalation by Iran or their surrogate Hezbollah, he said simply, “Don’t.” But he added, unnecessarily in my opinion:

 

“I just got off the phone with – the third call with Prime Minister Netanyahu. And I told him if the United States experienced what Israel is experiencing, our response would be swift, decisive, and overwhelming. We also discussed how democracies like Israel and the United States are stronger and more secure when we act according to the rule of law. Terrorists purpo – purposefully target civilians, kill them. We uphold the laws of war – the law of war. It matters. There’s a difference.”

 

Sadly, in war, there are no Marquess of Queensbury rules. The only law is victory. To eliminate the enemy. To eradicate the scourge of Nazism and Fascism during World War II, were “laws of war” a consideration? No. The Allies called for unconditional surrender. Approximately, half a million German civilians were killed in Allied bombing raids, including the fire-bombing of Dresden. Over 200,000 Japanese civilians died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Could those deaths have been prevented? Perhaps, but at what cost to Allied and Axis lives. With Hamas terrorists having paraglided into the Tribe of Nova music festival and killed 260 attendees, beheaded children, raped and burned women, and concealed hostages within Hamas headquarters and military installations, Israelis are not combatting an enemy who complies with the 1949 Geneva Conventions, or international humanitarian laws. They were brutally attacked in an act of pure evil. The Israelis job is to rid the enemy, to demand unconditional surrender, just as the U.S. and its Allies did in World War II. And Iran, Hamas’ supporter and financier, must be confronted. In a speech to the students at Harrow School on October 29, 1941, Winston Churchill spoke words that have pertinence to Israelis today: 

 

“This is the lesson: never give in, never, never, never, never – in nothing great or

small, large or petty – never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense.

Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”

 

Between Iran, Russia and China, an axis of evil exists today, just as it did in 1938.

 

Like its opposite good, evil is natural. It is found in all races, religions, and genders. It exists in all nations. We cannot wish it away. Victory in World War II, or the winning of the Cold War, did not eliminate evil. Perhaps what Hamas perpetrated in Israel will awaken the West to its presence? We hope so. The horrifying attack on 9/11 momentarily awakened the American people to the existence of evil, but it did not last. The Chinese subjugation of Uyghurs has not awakened the West to the presence of evil, nor have the atrocities committed by Russians in Ukraine. Evil must be confronted by a force stronger than itself. The democratic nations of the world, of which Israel is a part, are not perfect, but their people live better and freer lives than those in undemocratic nations. If we want to be that “shining light on the hill,” to offer hope to those less fortunate, we must increase defense spending. If we are unable to keep ourselves safe, we will be unable to rally to those when need for security arises, whether it’s us, Ukrainians, Israelis, Taiwanese, or others. And that military help must include humanitarian aid. Evil is insidious in the way it infiltrates society, one example being the recent rise of antisemitism, especially in Europe but also in the U.S. 

 

In the aftermath of the Hamas attack, some academic leaders, especially in “elite” universities, ignored the evil committed by Hamas and spoke in anodyne terms, of how we should not condemn those of different cultures – hypocritical expressions when one considers that many of the same institutions had cancelled conservative speakers in the past year. What the free world needs are honest words of wisdom, of how good and evil inhabit the world, that they always have and always will. And that we, as Robert Louis Stevenson wrote, must choose which path to follow.

"Our Political State"

 Given the Hamas-led attack on Israel yesterday, it seems unseemly to write of anything else, especially when many in the morally challenged West have abandoned the Middle East’s sole democracy, but the below was largely written earlier.

 

It is hard not to become cynical when one looks at the U.S. today, to feel we have fallen so far that recovery is nigh impossible. But I am reminded of that song from Annie, “The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow.” I am reminded of Warren Buffett’s telling us to never bet against America. And I am reminded of newly elected Ronald Reagan’s confidence, sunny disposition, and humor in 1981 when the Country was in the midst of inflation and despair…And I feel better.

 

Sydney M. Williams

30 Bokum Road – Apartment 314

Essex, CT 06426

 

Thought of the Day

“Our Political State”

October 8, 2023

 

“The Rule of Law is the principle that all persons will be treated equally and justly in a

civilized society. No one is above the law. The highest aspirations of the rule of law are

established in the Constitution of the United States and the Constitutions of the various states.”

                                                                                                                             Paul G. Summers

                                                                                                                             Former Attorney General, Tennessee

                                                                                                                             The Tennessean

                                                                                                                              November 2, 2022

 

Yes, Virginia, some people are above the law. They are known as politicians, asses and pachyderms; they can be found in barns, zoos, but also in the circus that is Washington. Exhibit ‘A’ includes both the current President and his immediate predecessor. Unlike spider monkeys or black-footed ferrets, politicians are not endangered. In fact, they rank with nematode worms as one of the more prolific animal species on earth.

 

And, yes Virginia, if one had to classify into one word our two main political parties it would be that Republicans are dysfunctional and Democrats mean-spirited. Two episodes this past week provide examples: Matt Gaetz (R-FL) and his group of eight self-serving, dissident Republicans colluded with Democrats to remove Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House. A day or so earlier, as Congress was trying to pass legislation to extend government funding for forty-five days, Congressman Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) pulled a fire alarm, so as to delay the vote. Incredulously, he had the temerity to claim he mistook the bright red alarm for an automatic door opener, a mistake impossible to believe of anyone, least of all of a former middle school principal.  

 

In the wake of the French Revolution (1789-1794), the philosopher and monarchist Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821) is alleged to have written, “Every nation has the government it deserves.” Has that become our fate? Is it our fault that we have a cognitively-challenged President, an ego-centric ex-President as his main challenger, a Democratic U.S. Senator who dresses like a slob, and eight Republican Congressmen willing to sacrifice their Party for purposes of self-aggrandizement. Our Founders included Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison, giants by today’s standards. Like all humans, they were imperfect, but their positive qualities outweighed their negative ones. After 250 years, can we say our politics have evolved in Darwinian fashion? Or is our current state of political affairs an example of dysgenics – a decrease in the prevalence of traits deemed to be socially desirable?

 

Consider: We have a border that is not a border. We have mobs rampaging through urban stores. We have a Justice on the Supreme Court unable to define a woman. We have political, media, educational, and business leaders telling us that our four-billion-year-old planet will become uninhabitable in a few dozen years if we continue to use fossil fuels. We have schools that focus on gender identity and our racial past, while standards in math, science, and English have languished. We have universities that cancel conservative speakers. We have politicians unable to distinguish between debt and deficits, and who are unconcerned that borrowed money must one day be re-paid. We have a collapse of the nuclear family, and an aging population with birth rates falling below replacement rates. We have social justice warriors who claim that inequality in outcomes is a deliberate decision and has nothing to do with differences in aspiration or physical and mental abilities. Political extremism, on both sides, has divided families and friends. The title of R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr’s new memoir comes to mind: How Do We Get Out of here?

 

In an interview this weekend in The Wall Street Journal, Jason Riley quoted the 93-year-old Thomas Sowell: “The fatal danger of our times today is a growing intolerance and suppression of opinions and evidence that differ from prevailing ideologies that dominate institutions, ranging from the academic world to the corporate world, the media and government institutions.” One would hope that political evolution would have seen rising civility in the debating of ideas. That is not the case. Amidst this chaos, in a recent interview with Kelly Hanlon of the Witherspoon Institute, George Nash, historical scholar and author of Reappraising the Right: The Past and Future of American Conservativism, rhetorically asked: “What do conservatives want?...most would say: We want to be free. We want to be able to live lives, and have our families’ live lives, that are decent and well-ordered and virtuous. And we want to be safe from external and internal threats.” Wise words in a disordered time.

 

But sadly, that is not where we are. We live in a time of dysfunctional and mean-spirited politics, when many politicians, isolated from those they represent, consider themselves above the law. There is a reason Oliver Anthony’s song “Rich Men North of Richmond” has been a hit. Money flows freely, corruption is rampant, and the self-interest of many Representatives supersedes that of the nation. Think of George Santos (R-NY) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ), among others. In the same issue of the Journal quoted above, Peggy Noonan wrote of the idiocy of the Gaetz episode. She ended her column, though, on a hopeful note: “Something has to come along and break through this stasis. Something will, but I don’t know what.” From her pen to God’s eyes.