"Political Parties are Dynamic"

 

 I wish for you a Holiday to remember and a New Year that is healthy and joyous. 

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Political Parties are Dynamic”

December 20, 2024

 

“Some men change their party for the sake of their principles;

others change their principles for the sake of their party.”

                                                                                                                Attributed to Winston Churchill

 

Democrats are puzzled that their majorities among the working-class, blacks and minorities are shrinking. Why, they wonder, is the Party that long showed concern for working Americans being abandoned by those same people? They have forgotten that political parties are not static entities. Democrats’ current bar-bell approach, with coastal elitists offset by those dependent on government, ignores the vast middle-class. Smugness and complacency have enshrouded their leaders, as they did Republicans half a century earlier. 

 

Political parties change, adapting to demands from their wealthiest backers and noisiest constituents. Prior to the Civil War, abolitionists joined the new Republican Party, while slave-holders were mostly Democrats. But over time, the Party of Lincoln morphed into northeast coastal elitists, while Democrat segregationists of the mid-Twentieth Century south joined with civil rights activists. Now, another change, which has been underway for the past few decades, is reaching a climax. New England, dominated by Republicans in the 1950s and ‘60s, has become – with the exception of New Hampshire – a bastion for Democrats. In the past thirty years, there has been only one New England State that voted for a Republican president, and that was New Hampshire in 2000. In contrast, in the 36 years ending in 1988, Republican presidential candidates won more than twice as many New England states as Democrats.

 

There is a scene in the Bing Crosby and Danny Kaye 1954 movie White Christmas that captures the image: Entertainers Crosby and Kaye follow two girls (Rosemary Clooney and Vera-Ellen) they had met in Florida to the Columbia Inn in Pine Tree, Vermont, an inn now run by their former World War II commander, General Waverly (Dean Jagger). Because of a lack of snow, Waverly is having a tough time. Crosby and Kaye decide they must do something, something unusual: “What do you think would be a novelty up here in Vermont?” asks Bing Crosby. “Who knows?” replies Danny Kaye. “Perhaps we can dig up a Democrat.” Today Democrats outnumber Republicans in Vermont by more than two and a half to one. However, empirical evidence suggests Republicans are, once again, beginning to narrow the gap.

 

Recognizing this dynamic, Ronald Reagan, in his 1966 bid for the California governorship, noted a change in the Democratic Party: “…may I suggest you take the 1932 platform on which Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected. Look again at its promises which were so overwhelmingly approved by Americans of both parties. The promise to reduce the cost of government by twenty-five percent; to restore those rights and powers which even then it was claimed had been unjustly seized from the states and the individual by the federal government; and its promise of restoration of constitutional limits on the power of that government. Ask yourself: ‘Which party would be most at home with those promises today?’”

 

Now, at a time when the U.S. faces existential challenges – massive inflows of illegal immigrants, crime-ridden inner cities, inflation, substandard education results, war in Eastern Europe, a Mideast in flames, and an untethered China pushing its Belt & Road initiatives – Democrats focused their energies on social extremists – politically correct, supercilious virtue signalers: climate extremists who claim man alone is responsible for a warming planet; teachers and administrators who permit schools to offer sex changes without parents knowledge or approval; sports teams that allow transgender women into women’s bathrooms; those who claim science is settled, when scientific discoveries are but a stop on a continuing search for truth; social justice warriors who divide people by race and sex into oppressors and oppressed; those who push DEI, where diversity ignores opinions, equity equates to equal outcomes, and inclusion leads to exclusion of the politically undesirable; university, government and businesses that promote ESG (environment, social and governance) trends, without regard to the financial or human costs; and those who lead divisive organizations like #MeToo and BLM. In satisfying these self-important social extremists, Democrats ignored the working middle class, people who are concerned with mundane matters, like making a living, raising a family, crime in the streets, and providing their children a good education. 

 

The United States has become an economic success beyond the dreams of those who lived only a few generations ago. It has been fortunate in its geographical location, with oceans separating it from Asia and Europe. Unlike the island nation of Britain, it did not have to depend on an empire for raw materials. These factors, along with advantages of democracy and capitalism have given the nation’s people more leisure: more time to read, to study, to travel and to seek entertainment. But it has also given time for a few to pursue selfish interests, without regard to the community’s interest.

 

Nations and empires have risen and fallen over the centuries. Greece, Rome, Turkey and Britain once ruled large portions of the known world. The United States, despite threats from China, remains the world’s hegemon. With its promise of individual freedom and property rights, it is different from past nations and empires. But nothing is certain. There are nations that, in the pursuit of power, will try to unseat us. Almost three thousand years ago, the Greek philosopher Heraclitus wrote of his belief that everything is in flux, that “change is the only constant in life.”

 

Politicians have often switched parties. Hannibal Hamlin, Lincoln’s first Vice President, a Democrat had become a Republican in 1856. Theodore Roosevelt left the Republican Party in 1912 to form a third party. Wendell Wilkie left the Democratic Party in 1939 to run as a Republican in 1940. Ronald Reagan left the Democratic Party in 1952 and became the 40^th President, a Republican. Unlike Europe, the United States has, with few exceptions, maintained a two-party system. Third, fourth and fifth parties can be appealing, but they are more likely to lead to chaos than unity, as we now see in France and Germany. Political parties must not lose sight of the principles that guided their success. No individual will find all that he seeks in one party; when we head to the polls our job is to select the individual, regardless of party, that best reflects our interests. Political parties change; and people do note that change, even when a party’s leaders do not. 

 

"Holiday Magic"

Today is the 83^rd anniversary of Pearl Harbor. On September 11^th we remembered the 23^rdanniversary of September 11. Both are dates that will be recalled in infamy, but the contrasts are compelling. Twenty-three years after Pearl Harbor was 1964, and the world had moved on. By 1964, Japan was the 6^th largest economy in the world, and a strong ally of the United States in the Pacific and East Asia. There had been resolution – unconditional surrender in 1945, combined with magnanimous support from the United States. In 2001 we are attacked by state-less terrorists. There has been no surrender, and thus no re-building.

Nevertheless, we should take a few moments to remember those lost on this date 83 years ago, and we should give thanks to the wisdom of those who allowed once enemies to become allies.

 

…………………………………………………………………………..

 

To move onto this brief essay. Like many, I have always loved this time of year. My heart beats faster, filled with expectations that stem from childhood. The photo is of the wreath on the door to our apartment. On it hang small items my wife has collected over the years.

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

More Essays from Essex

“Holiday Magic”

December 7, 2024

 

“Our hearts grow tender with childhood memories and love of kindred, and we are

better throughout the year for having, in spirit, become a child again at Christmas.”

                                                                                                               Laura Ingalls Wilder (1867-1957)

                                                                                                               The Long Winter, 1940

 

As a child, the days between Thanksgiving and Christmas were magical. They still are, though there are differences. As a child, magic explained what the mind could not reason, like how could Santa Claus actually visit the homes of all my friends in Peterborough on Christmas Eve, let alone the homes of all the children in other New Hampshire towns. We believed our mother when she told us that our horses could converse in English at midnight on Christmas Eve. There was magic in having “Mitzi,” our family’s Shetland pony, hang her horseshoe alongside our stockings from the fireplace mantle.

 

Today, the magic is on the faces of children as they climb onto Santa’s lap, in the expressions on strangers at the supermarket, in the pleasantries of the parking lot attendant, and on the kindly face of the pharmacist. We hear it in recordings of Bing Crosby singing “White Christmas,” and in the church choir’s rendition of Joseph Mohr’s “Silent Night.” It is the Christmas tree on top of the car and the red ribbon tied to the dog’s collar. “Faith,” as Fred Gailey said in defense of Kris Kringle in Miracle on 34^th Street, “is believing in things when common sense tells you not to.”

 

There is magic in the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Christmas is the celebration of His birth. It was celebrated in Rome in the 4^th Century. Moralizing Puritans distained the secularization of Christmas, believing it should be treated solely as a holy day. Its recent commercialization has been accompanied with self-indulgence. And, certainly, personal pleasure is part of the magic. But we do not forget those who suffer from loneliness, illness, pain or want. Generosity is part of the magic of Christmas. 

 

In the long life of Christianity, today’s celebrations are recent. Washington Irving introduced Sinterklaas (based on Saint Nicholas) in his 1809 book The History of New York, Clement Moore wrote his classic in 1823, and Christmas cards and trees were introduced in the 1840s. The day became a federal holiday in 1870. While according to Gallup church membership has been declining for over a hundred years, the magic of Christmas has not suffered.

 

It is alive and well in our home. On our front door hangs a wreath, decorated with treasures. The rooms are populated with my wife’s collection of Byer’s Choice Santas and choristers, and my childhood stocking hangs, hopefully, over the mantle of our electric fireplace. Lights strung across the porch and on wreaths lend gaiety. We will watch old movies – “Christmas in Connecticut,” “It’s a Wonderful Life,” and “A Christmas Carol,” with Alastair Sim as Scrooge. And on Christmas Eve, I will read my Arthur Rackham illustrated edition of The Night Before Christmas.

"End of Identity Politics?"

 Here we are in early December, almost a quarter of the way through the 21^st Century. Growing up in the mid-part of the 20^th Century, I thought I was living in the future. The 19^th Century – the past – was ever-present in grandparents, great aunts and uncles, and older neighbors. The “future,” foretold in books like The Time Machine, Brave New World, 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 and movies like The War of the Worlds and 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, provided fanciful entertainment, but hardly accurate predictions.

 

But the world does move on, and change is one constant we can count on.  Politically things change. The Party of Lincoln lost the black vote. The Party of segregation became the party of civil rights. Today we are going through another political change, as the Party of the working class is becoming the Party of elites, and of those dependent on government, and the mindless woke. And the Party of Lincoln, the Party of opportunity, is beginning once again to make inroads among the nation’s minorities.

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“End of Identity Politics?”

December 2, 2024

 

“If I would not vote against someone on the grounds of ‘race’ or ‘gender’ alone, then by the exact

same token I would not cast a vote in his or her favor for the identical reason. You see how

this obvious question makes fairly intelligent people say the most alarmingly stupid things.”

                                                                                                  Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011)

                                                                                                  Letters to a Young Contrarian, 2001

 

Mr. Trump’s victory on November 5^th may have marked the end of identity politics as we know it. Economic class, the election showed, mattered more than ethnicity, race or gender. Identity politics is based on the natural tendency for people of a specific race, ethnicity, gender, cultural, or religious group to band together, in friendship and to rectify past injustices. But that tendency has been employed and advantaged by politicians who, with the assistance of allies in the media, have divided people into oppressors and oppressed. Identity politics has led to an absence of focus on issues more relevant to individuals. 

 

The election showed that the American public is receptive to merit being the determinant to earned rather than “deserved” reward. DEI and ESG have fallen from favor. With the election, they fell further, defeated by common sense and real-world issues like the border, inflation, crime, disarray overseas, and excessive government intrusion and spending. Victor Davis Hanson, a classicist historian, wrote in the November 21 issue of American Greatness of culture wars: “The age of flashing pronouns, renaming iconic landmarks, statue toppling, trashing the dead, vandalizing with impunity the campus library, or spouting anti-Semitic venom is passing.”

 

But the going is sluggish. While a CBS News/YouGov poll found 59% of American adults approve of how the Trump team is preparing its return to the White House, the Progressive Left is in denial about the election, as they continue to genuflect at the altar of Wokeness. Many believe that America remains racist, a society divided between victims and victimizers – that its history must be expunged and re-written; and that, for the nation’s redemption, taxpayers should continue to fund government departments of diversity, equity and inclusion. And they feel convinced that Mr. Trump symbolizes all that is wrong with the nation. But who is out of touch with America’s electorate? Mike Gonzalez and Armen Tooloee wrote in last Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal: “Donald Trump’s most effective campaign ad featured the tagline, ‘Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.’”

 

In any event, is it accurate to call Mr. Trump a racist, sexist, bigot? Piers Morgan, in the November 23 issue of The Spectator, noted that he received “so many new votes from black, Latino, female, Jewish and Muslim voters, and celebrates by dancing on stage to the Village People’s gay anthem ‘YMCA’.” Empirical evidence suggests the answer to the question is no.

 

Democrats have created a bell-bar approach toward their Party – the elite (the media, the entertainment world, college professors and administrators, coastal tech and Wall Street billionaires) on one side, and those financially dependent on government on the other. It is a policy that ignores working class people, including legal immigrants, those who had once been the backbone of their Party. It is policy that downplays the role of aspiration, dedication, and effort – traits that lead to economic success. Having lived in Connecticut for almost sixty years, I have witnessed this change – wealthy enclaves and country clubs that were once dominated by Republicans have become bastions of Democratic group-think.

 

Politicians have long campaigned by compartmentalizing the electorate. The Marxist Left Review, a semi-annual publication, in August 2021, defined the term: “Identity politics is a set of ideas and practices that aim to build recognition of and expand representation for particular identity groups” to elevate them “to moral and political pre-eminence.” The second half of the 20^thCentury saw the emergence of such large-scale political movements: women’s rights, Black Civil Rights, gay and lesbian liberation, native American movement. They were all, as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy puts it, based on claims about injustice having been done to them. And their claims were, largely, valid. 

 

But while these issues were imperative sixty years ago, the world has moved on. Those legitimate arguments have morphed into demands that male athletes be allowed to compete in women’s sports, that tampon dispensers be placed in men’s rooms, that school children should be allowed to take hormone-altering drugs without parent permission, and universities where students are fearful of expressing conservative opinions because of retaliation from professors and other students.

 

Despite what we read, see and hear in and on mainstream media and despite claims by Progressives of disinformation from conservative social media outlets, misogyny, racism, xenophobia, and homophobia have been in retreat. Are there still bigots? Of course. There always will be, but they are less ubiquitous than before. Given that the percentage of votes cast for Mr. Trump among blacks, Hispanics and youth increased suggests that the United States is approaching the goal which Martin Luther King sought – that the color of one’s skin is less important than the content of one’s character. The election was an affirmation that merit, aspiration, effort and ability are critical to success, and that affirmative action is yesterday’s answer to yesterday’s problem. The election’s outcome found that economic class was more critical to voters than race, gender or ethnicity. The U.S. is becoming more of a melting pot.

 

People should be judged by ability, effort and their accomplishments. We are each an individual. Today’s identity politics has led to racial and gender discrimination. It was the excuse Nazis used to persecute Jews in the 1930s and ‘40s, and it is what Chinese Communists do today to tyrannize Uyghurs. Its ugliness is seen in anti-Semitism on college campuses. And it is what led the ICC (International Criminal Court) to issue arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant. 

 

I hope my optimism about witnessing the dying embers of identity politics is not pollyannish – that its setback is not just temporary. On February 18, 1958 Senator John F. Kennedy spoke at Loyola College Annual Alumni dinner in Baltimore: “Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our responsibility for the future.”

 

Read and re-read Christopher Hitchens’ wise remarks that preface this essay. Once anger over the election’s outcome has subsided and common sense returned, cooler heads should prevail. In an interview with Jason Riley in last Wednesday’s The Wall Street Journal, Shelby Steele said, the election was “…a vote for individualism over group identity.” And that it was “… a real note of progress for black America politically.” Aspiration, ability, effort are not characteristics exclusive to one’s gender, race, or ethnicity. But they have not been meted out equally, which explains differences in outcomes. Each of us is unique. Government should support the concept of equal opportunity, and individuals should be encouraged to take advantage of their God-given talents. Merit, regardless of who the individual is, should be the deciding factor in college admission and job offers. If we do, we will put “paid” to the belief in identity politics, at least as we know it; and then we can concentrate on today, the future and new problems that confront us.