"Choices"

 Given today’s politics, it is easy to become dispirited, at least it is for me. It is why I enjoy reading novels and history – history to remind me that much of what we experience has happened before and to put in context our experiences versus what has happened to those in the past; novels because they allow me to escape to other times, and because good novelists create characters that provide insight into people today, showing that good and evil have always been with us.

 

Attached is another essay – not to convince you of the correctness of my position – but to explain why I think and feel as I do. As an essayist, I find that I write primarily for myself.

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swstotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Choices”

January 29, 2024

 

“It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.”

                                                                                              Dumbledore, head of Hogwarts, speaking to Harry Potter

                                                                                              Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, 1998

                                                                                              J.K. Rowling (1965-)

 

Free choice, where it does not break the law or infringe on the rights of others, is fundamental to our rights as Americans. We make hundreds of choices every day, some significant, others not so. Next November’s election represents a significant choice. It has been portrayed as critical because, or so we are told, democracy is on the line. Progressives, and their propagandists in mainstream media, would have us believe that the election of Donald Trump would signify the end of democracy. And there is no question he is mean-spirited, has spoken of retribution against those who oppose him, and may go to jail. On the other hand, many of us on the right believe democracy is at risk because current political trends suggest we are, with the degradation of individualism, headed toward group-think, socialism, and central planning. One is reminded of Yeats: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst/ Are full of passionate intensity.”

 

As for Trump, despite his well-publicized flaws, consider what he faced in his first term: the weaponization of the intelligence services; retribution by his political enemies; along with the pursuit of identity politics, the elevation of the group over the individual, the imposition of DEI into many aspects of our lives, and the inflicting of ESG into our investment and financial organizations – the phony feel-good elements of Wokeism. Keep in mind, threats to democracy can come from the left as well as the right. So what does a thoughtful voter do? Colleen Hoover, a writer of romance stories for young teens, wrote in Hopeless: “Sometimes you have to choose between a bunch of wrong choices and no right ones.” Given what our options for President are likely to be in November, voters may face a similar ineluctable conundrum – a “Sophie’s Choice” between two bad options, the rock shoals of Scylla or the whirlpool of Charybdis. However, there are nine months to go until election day and much could happen, especially with two far-from-ideal elderly candidates.

 

In my opinion, it is too early, at least for Republicans, to raise the white flag. This may also be true for Democrats, as Biden’s polls are the lowest for a sitting President since Jimmy Carter. “Forever Trumpers” on the right and the Progressive wing of Democrats, along with their minions in the media, have already decided that Trump will be the Republican nominee and Biden the Democrat. That is what leaders of both Parties want. “Forever Trumpers” care more about the man than the Party, while Democrats see Trump as the Republican candidate easiest to beat. Republicans – the smaller of the two parties – are the Party of the individual, so managing them is like herding cats. Democrats, in contrast (and at least outwardly), remain unified behind an aged, cognitively-impaired man. As President, Mr. Biden has been marching to the beat of Obama-era Progressives – those who believe in big government, that race and gender supersede class distinctions, that racial and gender equity should repudiate merit, and that the imagery of a tossed salad better describes America than the concept of a melting pot. The latter is particularly jarring, as it promotes segregation rather than assimilation.

 

Is it not possible that the wishes of a majority of Americans – Independents along with moderate Republicans and Democrats – are being ignored by Party leaders and mainstream media? 

 

To win the Democratic nomination, the winner must have the votes of 1,969 delegates. While Biden won New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary via write-ins (against the wealthy Minnesota businessman, Representative Dean Phillips), his name was not on the ballot, so, at this point, Biden has no delegates. To win the Republican nomination, the winner must have the support of 1,215 delegates. As of now Trump has 32 and Nikki Haley has 17. While Trump, like Biden, appears to have the advantage, the race for Party nominee is not over. Most polls show Haley as the more formidable candidate against Biden. As for Biden’s competition at this point, Dean Phillips will likely not warrant a footnote in a history of 21^st Century American politics. Third party candidates could cause a change: No Labels may in fact nominate someone, and the impact of Robert Kennedy, Jr’s. run for the White House is unknown. Nevertheless, with two aging white men just out of the gate and hobbling down the track, the race is yet to be run.

 

According to Ballotpedia and as of 2022, Democrats comprise 38.8% of registered voters, Republicans 29.4%, and Independents 28.6%. While extremists now appear to control both Parties, to win a victor must appeal to Independents and to moderates in both Parties, which is why, in my opinion, Nikki Haley would be the better (and more redoubtable) Republican candidate. And it is the reason why mainstream media has been so quick to argue the helplessness of her quest and the inevitability of both Trump and Biden.

 

But even if Biden and Trump are on the ballot in November, the choice then confronting us would be more than personality differences between two aged, flawed men. Who would be their running mates? More important is what the election of either man would mean in terms of the future of the country. Progressive Democrats – the Obama branch of the Party – advocate statism with a larger role for government. Last week in New Hampshire Representative Dean Phillips (D-MN), promised to provide thousand-dollar American Dream Accounts for every baby born in the country, offer free college tuition for all, and guarantee a $15.00 per hour minimum wage.  Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA), who leads the polls to become his state’s next Senator has promised to abolish the Senate filibuster rule, increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court to thirteen from nine, cancel at least $50,000 in student loan debt for every borrower, increase the corporate tax rate from today’s 21% to 35%, legalize the harvesting of votes, and institute a pilot program for a “Universal Basic Income.” And these Democrats claim to be preserving democracy!

 

We live in the greatest democracy the world has ever known. It is not perfect, but it has evolved over time into a fairer system and will continue to evolve. There is no end of history. We face threats from China and Russia, as well as rogue states, and challenges unknown to those who came before us: artificial intelligence and cyber warfare. Thus it is most important not to lose focus on the principles upon which our nation was founded, those embedded in our Constitution and Declaration of Independence, in the “Golden Rule,” and in the moral and ethical lessons from our Judeo-Christian heritage. The voting booth is where we exercise our choice as to who will represent us in government. We do not seek the perfect candidate, but rather the one who best represents our opinions and beliefs. Voting is a privilege, an honor, and a duty. So think carefully; don’t be influenced by slogans, bullied by advocates, or hustled to decide betimes.

 

As Dumbledore said to Harry Potter, the choices we make define who we are. “We are our choices” is a line often ascribed to Existentialist philosopher and novelist Jean-Paul Sartre. And we are all familiar with Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol when Ebenezer Scrooge is confronted with the ghost of his late partner Jacob Marley. “‘You are fettered,’ said Scrooge. ‘Tell me why.’ ‘I wear the chains I forged in life,’ replied the Ghost. ‘I made it link by link, and yard by yard; I girded it on of my own free will, and of my own free will I wore it.’” Come November and no matter whom you vote for, the consequences will not be as dire as they were for Jacob Marley. But in a country that has survived and thrived for almost 250 years voting should be taken seriously. Make sure you exercise the privilege. The choice is yours. The future belongs to our children and grandchildren.

"Chameleons Who Masquerade as the Media"

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“Chameleons Who Masquerade as the Media”

May 1, 2020

“I was always an unusual girl.

My mother told me I had a chameleon soul, no moral compass pointing due north,

no fixed personality; just an inner indecisiveness that was as wide and as wavering as the ocean.”

                                                                                                            “Ride Monologue”

Linda Del Rey (1985-)

American singer, songwriter

Mainstream media spent the last three and a half years trying to destroy President Trump, or, if not him personally, his Presidency. He was accused of having had Russia interfere in the 2016 election on his behalf; a two-year, $35 million investigation by Robert Mueller exonerated him. Second, he was impeached and tried in the press for abuse of power and obstruction of justice. He was found innocent. Then, he was said to be responsible for thousands of deaths because of his slow response to COVID-19. One snarky reporter asked him if he deserved another term, as more people had died from the virus than had died in the Vietnam War. No mention was made of the 100,000 Americans who died in 1968 of the H3N2 virus. Mr. Trump has been accused of racism, misogyny and xenophobia. He is said to be scientifically illiterate with demagogic tendencies. Yet none of the charges have proved legitimate and none of them have caused him to change his behavior. The media remains undeterred. In Ground Hog Day fashion, they persist in their assassination of his character. Like chameleons, they change to suit the goal.

By the end of June, other concerns will face Mr. Trump’s opponents, among which will be the Durham report. His critics will be looking for other ways to expose his weaknesses. By the end of July, second quarter preliminary GDP estimates will be out and his critics will accuse him of causing a second Great Depression. The preliminary estimate for the first quarter, reported on Wednesday, showed an annualized decline of 4.8%, a quarter that included only two weeks of lockdown. Early estimates for the second quarter range from –20% to –30% by Kevin Hassett, former economic advisor to the President, to –40% by J.P. Morgan, with unemployment expected at 20%. In fact, in the past six weeks 30 million Americans have filed for unemployment, almost 20% of the 160 million labor force. These numbers rival or exceed what happened during the Great Depression. During that time, U.S. GDP declined 15% between 1929 and 1932 and unemployment reached 25 percent. For political purposes, the economy will supplant COVID-19 as the focus of the media. And who will be deemed responsible for that decline? Why, Mr. Trump, of course.

Mr. Trump is not a man without faults. But his critics are unprincipled. Consider the Steele dossier, paid for by the Clinton campaign in 2016, the politization of the IRS, FBI and the CIA by the Obama Administration, or the abuse of power by Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) in his futile impeachment of the President. Consider the financial ties of the Bidens’ to Ukraine and China, and the Clinton’s financial dealings with Russia. Politics is a rough game, often played by the unprincipled whose sole goal is to win. With power as the objective, patronage is the lubricant with which loyalties are formed and votes are secured. The bureaucracy of the administrative state wields enormous influence and Trump, an outsider, was always a threat to the comfortable way of life of those who reside inside the beltway.

As for COVID-19, facts about death rates have been manipulated and used to justify lockdowns: According to NPR on April 20, 58% of deaths in New York State from COVID-19 occurred in nursing homes in New York City. The CDC says that 80% of deaths occur in those over age 65; other organizations put that number higher. According to broadcaster WBEZ, 81% of deaths in Chicago are individuals with hypertension, high blood pressure or diabetes. The total number of deaths has been exaggerated: On April 8, Dr. Deborah Birx said: “…if someone dies with COVID-19 we are counting that as a COVID-19 death.” Perspective is needed. While COVID-19 is a novel virus, we still have been fed a diet of misinformation with a sauce of fear. A rational policy reaction that protected the vulnerable, practiced commonsensical health practices, like social distancing, masks where needed and scrubbing one’s hands would have allowed the economy to adjust naturally. The assumption that people are irresponsible – that they need to be under the tutelage of government officials – is the way of dictators to justify a totalitarian state.

The result is the economic downturn we have been in for the past several weeks. As George Gilder, Senior Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, wrote recently: “President Trump had better take notice. He will soon own this gigantic botch of policy and leadership. No one will notice that his opponents urged even more policy blunders.” This recession (depression) will become the story over the next several weeks, one even “blue-state” governors will be unable to ignore. Connecticut, for example, is a small state of 3.5 million people, but it includes 8500 restaurants with 160,000 employees. Ninety percent of them are out of work. Most of the restaurants are small, family-owned places. Many will go bankrupt. Restoring the economy must be Mr. Trump’s priority.

President Trump must pivot to the economy. He had better understand the risk if he does not, and I suspect he does. He cares, I believe, for what has happened to out-of-work families. He is anxious to set the economy free, or, at least, freer than it has been. He has had a surfeit of advisors, not all with good advice. As for the public, misinformation has been the common experience. When models, which were proved inaccurate, showed devastating consequences, stringent measures were imposed, like shutting off flights from and to Europe and the UK and shutdowns of businesses, sports venues and schools. Throughout January and into March, the media never questioned the models and/or the conflicting assumptions made by medical experts and scientists. They took on faith what China said. Their interest was Trump destruction, not truth. The media has, as the song goes, “a chameleon soul” with no moral compass to drive their opinions. As a result, Americans never received a true picture of the virus.

While the press is filled with tragic stories of loss and happy stories of survival, at least two aspects of our three-and-a-half-month experience with COVID-19 do not show us in a good light: one is the willingness of people to obey without question those in positions of authority; the second is an on-going pessimism for the future, already reflected in declining marriages and birthrates. Both are in contrast to traits that helped create the American nation. We are told to wear masks, for example. So, people wear them, even outdoors when alone where the mask interferes with healthy air breezes. The optimism embedded in the image of a “city on the hill,” memorialized by John Winthrop in 1630 and then by Ronald Reagan in 1989, has become what Daniel Henninger called a “mind-set whose instinct is to diminish hope.”

Yet there are those who look at the facts and see promise. Mitch Daniels, president of Purdue University, recently sent a letter, “sober about the certain problems COVID-19 virus represents,” but welcoming students in August. Other voices of optimism are governors and those who plan to open, under guidelines, their businesses. It would be good to hear President Trump give one of his speeches – not a bickering exchange with the press – but one like those he gave in Warsaw, London and Davos, where, in grandiloquent terms, he elevated hope, not away from reason but toward a way out of the mire of negativity into which we have fallen, with COVID-19 and our excessive response. With a “can-do” attitude, the economy just might come back, perhaps stronger than ever.

           

"What Has Become of Us?"

Sydney M. Williams

swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“What Has Become of Us?”

October 31, 2019

“Have we lost our minds?”

                                                                                    Andrew Cuomo (1957-)

Governor, New York

                                                                                    October 26, 2019

While Governor Cuomo’s exclamation was in response to the increasing number of assaults by the mentally deranged in New York City, it is one that has applicability across our political landscape, not just for the unhinged way Leftist politicians treat truants and criminals in our cities, but in most all ways political. Have we all gone bonkers? I wince at President Trump’s coarseness and grimace as he Tweets as fast as a Shetland Pony sheds its winter coat. Then I listen to anti-Trumpers and their lemming-like hatred that betrays an emotional response rather than a reasoned reaction. Seen as a threat to the comfortably established elite, the majority of Democrats wanted to impeach Mr. Trump on November 9, 2016. And I wonder: What ever happened to e Pluribus Unum?

Phrases and words: Identity politics; victimization; equality; wokeness. Identity politics is segregation by a different and more politically correct name. Real victims are ignored, while perpetrators are mollycoddled as deserving of special care for having been “victims” of society governed by old, white men. Equality has morphed into homogenization, deflating the individual to an inflated collective. The cream in our public schools can no longer find its way to the top. Wokeness is a Tesla-like vehicle for social justice warriors.

Politicians, abetted by a media that has foregone any semblance of investigative independence, to become a propaganda arm of the Party they prefer. They have given new meanings to those phrases and words mentioned above. The consequence has been a shock to the Judeo-Christian culture in which most of us were raised, when Albert Einstein once wrote, and we all believed, that “only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.”

Here we are now, three years after the fact, yet a refusal to accept the outcome of the 2016 election persists. Civil discourse is a thing of the past. We have intelligence agencies that colluded against a Presidential candidate. Public schools, especially those in inner cities who keep a watchful (and jaundiced) eye on equality, teach to the lowest common denominator, which means that those who have been identified as “gifted and talented” cannot be separated, so taught differently and thus given a chance to disengage from the claws of mediocrity that entrap them. In many of these same cities, the homeless – some mentally sick, others addicted to drugs and/or alcohol and a few simply down on their luck – ply our parks and streets. Instead of offering the dignity of a job and asking proper behavior in return for food and shelter, we provide them free needles and let them soil streets, sidewalks and parks. In our desire to explain away criminal acts and civil misbehavior as a consequence of victimization, we ignore the plight of real victims. Men and women are tried in the press, without benefit of due process. The “broken windows” policy of policing, first described in 1982 by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling and based on the theory that if man lives in a neighborhood where property and people are respected crime rates will decline. It worked in New York City in the ‘90s and early 2000s but has been abandoned because of accusations that minorities were unfairly targeted. To paraphrase Dr. Seuss: “How did we get so stupid so soon?”

We have coastal mayors and governors who tell us, in dystopian language, that we are facing imminent danger from man-caused climate change; that streets will soon be under water and fires will rage, unless we address these immediate apocalyptic climate threats, which always involve more spending. As Holman Jenkins wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal regarding the California fires: “PG&E can’t keep trees off its power lines but can supply exact numbers for how many LGBTQ workers it employs.” The coming Armageddon due to climate change is a rallying cry in political campaigns and an argument used when suing oil companies in these blue, coastal cities and states, yet the bonds these same entities issue carry little or no warnings of any climate scare. Can it be that these paragons of virtue are not so direct when it comes to the interest rate costs they would have to pay if honesty prevailed? An op-ed on this subject, written by Peter Schweizer of the Government Accountability Institute, was in this past week’s Wall Street Journal.  When a psychotic individual commits mass murder, we first blame the weapon and second cite the NRA as facilitator, yet, to my knowledge, no NRA member has been accused of mass killings. Cities with some of the toughest gun laws in the country have the most gun deaths. Gun safety, taught by the NRA, is never considered an option. Mark Zuckerberg is demonized for saying that Facebook is committed to supporting free expression, while Google is lionized for walking away from a U.S. defense contract based on ideological concerns. California has allowed the non-profit NCAA to pay student athletes. But, have they considered the negative effect on college athletic programs, like skiing, swimming, hockey, rowing, squash, softball, track and field that rely for funding on profitable sports like basketball and football? Where California goes, New York, Connecticut and New Jersey will follow. “How did we get so stupid so soon?”

Politicians use their index fingers to sense the direction of the wind, then go with the flow. It matters not the long-term consequences of their decisions. It is winning they want. If Socialism is wanted, even if misunderstood by the electorate and the politician, then Socialism it shall be.  Yet, as Anthony Trollope wrote about politics and politicians more than 150 years ago in Phineas Redux: “The best carriage horses are those which can steadily hold back against the coach as it trundles down the hill.” Like the three blind mice, Paul Krugman, Frank Bruni and Nicholas Kristof (among dozens of similarly endowed columnists for the New York Times and Washington Post) chase after one another in their end-of-the-world prophecies if the Trump Presidency continues. Yet, minority employment is at record highs and overall unemployment at record lows. Even the third quarter GDP, which was expected to be slow, came in at plus 1.9 percent, better than expected, and above the average for Obama’s eight years. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) placed in charge of the impeachment inquiry (a rare event), bizarrely parodied before Congress the President’s telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky – the phone call that was the basis for the impeachment inquiry in the first place.  “How did we get so stupid so soon?”

As Americans, we are fortunate to live in this extraordinary country, with its democratic government, free-market capitalist system, its people and natural resources. Yet, do we appreciate what we have? Michael Walzer, a professor emeritus at Princeton, writing in the Spring 2002 edition of ProQuest, said that maybe “…the guilt produced by living in such a country and enjoying its privileges makes it impossible to sustain a decent (intelligent, responsible, morally nuanced) politics.” Even the poorest among us live lives of luxury (central heat, flush toilets, prepared foods and cell phones) unimaginable by our forefathers. And now, progressives put all that at risk. California is the epicenter of progressive thinking. If it were to stand alone, the State would be the world’s fifth largest economy, producing 3.5% of the world’s GDP. Its people have had a living standard as high as any in the world and it produces just one percent of global emissions. But that lifestyle is at risk, as the State insists on policies harmful to the economy, yet helpful to the wealthy – rebates for electric vehicles – while detrimental to the poor and middle classes – gas and energy prices that are the highest in the United States, zoning that forces low and middle income people into long commutes and urban public schools that pay attention to union demands rather than the needs of students of poor and middle class families. In a First World State, they today have a Third World electrical system. The Left insists that progressive states like California, New York, Hawaii, Connecticut, Oregon, Massachusetts, Vermont and New Jersey are the future. “How did we get so stupid so soon?”

In The Devil’s Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce described a politician as “an eel in the fundamental mud upon which the superstructure of organized society is reared,” a description which is indisputable. I look upon what we have wrought and recognize that the Founding Fathers would be aghast. I answer Governor Cuomo’s exclamative question, “Have we lost our minds?” with a resounding Yes!

"Impeachment, Instead of Debate Over Capitalism and Sovereignty"

Sydney M. Williams

swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“Impeachment, Instead of Debate Over Capitalism and Sovereignty”

September 30, 2019

 “‘No, no!’ said the [Red] Queen. ‘Sentence first – verdict afterwards.’”

‘Stuff and nonsense!’ said Alice loudly. ‘The idea of having the sentence first.’”

                                                                                    Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, 1865

                                                                                    Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

                                                                                               

In the case of the President Trump and impeachment, a verdict has been rendered without a trial. A visceral hatred for Mr. Trump, an outsider who campaigned on cleaning the swamp that was (and is) Washington, D.C., is all that Democrats need as prima facie evidence.

Outside this maelstrom of malice, the West faces stark alternatives. But instead of debating issues that will affect us, our children and grandchildren, specifically capitalism and sovereignty, politicians have chosen to throw up red herrings, like climate change, white supremacy, equality, gender identity, immigration, etc. Progressives have tried to undo the will of the people, i.e. to deny Brexit to the people of the UK and to declare fraudulent an election in the U.S. Debate is impossible when personal, venal hatred replaces deliberative and respectful disagreement. An intentional consequence has been unprecedented scrutiny of Mr. Trump and his appointees. With individuals vilified and high legal expenses incurred, lives have been destroyed for some and bankrupted for others. Is it any wonder so many have left the Administration?

This is not meant to trivialize these other issues. The constant effect of an ever-changing climate is something we must monitor and do what we can to alter and/or adapt, but we shouldn’t let emotions substitute for reason, or use children to score political points. No real conservative denies the existence of white oppression and privilege, but we question its ubiquity. Where it exists, it must be confronted and addressed. Equality is tricky and subject to interpretation – are we referring to equality of opportunities or equality of outcomes? Conservatives believe in the former, while progressives desire the latter. Conservatives are mindful that the favored should bear some responsibility for those less fortunate, but they believe that concern should be manifested in the actions of individuals, not diktats of the state, for morality and compassion are characteristics of people, not bureaucracies. Al genders deserve respect. As for immigration, politicians believe this crisis unresolved is better than were it resolved.

The last few days have seen more red herrings sown. A Presidential election is just over a year away. The economy, the single most important consideration in a Presidential election, is humming, not as fast as Mr. Trump would like, but better than it had been. Unemployment is at record lows and employment at record highs, especially for African Americans and Hispanics. Incomes have increased, particularly for those at the low end of the income scale. The tax bill and deregulation have not only helped the economy and tax receipts, they have helped the poor and hurt the wealthy in high-tax states. Joe Biden, in my opinion, has been permanently sidelined by the disclosure of his and his son’s antics in Ukraine. With the exception of candidates like Tulsi Gabbard, Amy Klobuchar and Michael Bennet (all polling in single digits), Democrat Presidential candidates have swung far to the left, putting at risk their aspirations and that of their Party. Candidates could, legitimately, question excessive spending on the part of Republicans, but their (Democrats) proposed programs would result in even more spending and greater deficits.  

Democrats, thus, have resorted to politics of personal destruction. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the self-righteous, pompous chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, lied to Congress without consequence, when last week he pretended to read a section from the transcript of Mr. Trump’s July 25^th call to the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky[1]. Schiff later claimed his words were meant “to be, at least in part, parody.” Parody! Is parody acceptable for a U.S. Congressman who is chairman of a committee investigating a sitting President under threat of impeachment? Where is his sense of decency and respect? Why have we, as a nation, seen civility sink to such depths? As well, the entertainment world and the media serve as supplicants to their elite masters on Capitol Hill, using, for example, verbs like “implores” and “demands,” as ABC News did, and “pressures” as the New York Times did, to distort the words President Trump used in his telephone conversation with the Ukrainian President. Why haven’t all news outlets printed the transcript and let the people read it for themselves? In the transcript, Mr. Trump concludes his request about Biden with the words “if you can look into it…” “When you’ve once said a thing,” spoke the Red Queen to Alice in Through the Looking Glass, “that fixes it, and you must take the consequences.” Mr. Trump is an easy target. He was never one of the “good old boys,” as he came to the Presidency with no previous political experience. He is not “of the manor born” – something, ironically, that appeals to those who claim to fight for the poor and oppressed. Mr. Trump is curt and humorless. He is no one’s image of a victim; nevertheless, like Shakespeare’s Lear, he is “…more sinn’d against than sinning.”

What is especially dispiriting is that politicians ignore two critical issues that deserve debate: Are we better off with a political-economic system based on principles of “refereed” free-market capitalism or one that tilts toward socialism and statism?  President Obama raised the specter of an all-consuming, compassionate state in his video, “Life of Julia” and in the Obamacare ad with “Pajama Boy” – a frightening prospect for those of us who value freedom, but perhaps comforting to those who prefer the cocoon of a benevolent government. The stakes have been raised further with the proposed “Green New Deal,” healthcare for all, free college and a universal basic income. With those added services, what are the costs and what individual rights would be foregone? The second issue is one of national sovereignty versus global governance. President Trump spoke of this in his speech at the UN, which received little coverage and no applause from sitting members, whose self-interest is the continued strengthening of global institutions. Nevertheless, the question needs be asked: Would you prefer to live in a world where global governance dominates individual nations, or is the world safer when sovereign nations predominate? History tells of risks to individuals when empires and reichs are forced on people and nations. Yet, the West is moving toward a world where global governments play an ever-enlarging role, and entities like the UN and the European Union are gaining ever-increasing powers. On one side, we have free people and sovereign states; on the other, unelected bureaucratic enacting and administering laws. The West deserves a serious debate on these issues and an exploration of the consequences of what current trends portend.

Impeachment is a serious business. It should be. Removal from office by impeachment is reserved for those who have been tried and convicted for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Two previous President have been impeached by the House of Representatives – Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998 – but neither was removed from office by the U.S. Senate. Richard Nixon resigned in 1974. Had he not, he would certainly have been impeached and probably removed.  Impeachment should not to be used for political purposes, to destroy a President whose crime is that some people don’t like him. The politicization of the Constitution will have long-term ramifications. It will take us down a path that leads away from the Republic that Benjamin Franklin assured us would be ours, “if we can keep it.” To stay true to that path, we should be debating and considering the issues mentioned above.

---

[1] Zelensky can also be spelled with two “y’s” or with an “i” before the “y.” I chose the simpler version.