"Threat to Democracy"

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

 

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

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Threat to Democracy”

September 26, 2022

 

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

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

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

                                                                                                                                Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945)

                                                                                                                                Radio “fireside chat”

                                                                                                                                April 14, 1938

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

  

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

 

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

 

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

"Will Cooler Heads Prevail?"

                                                                 Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Will Cooler Heads Prevail?”

January 13, 2021

 

“Traditional American democracy is ‘deliberative democracy,’ a process by which elected

representatives use reason and debate to shape public policy. Participatory democracy

tells the aggrieved: Never mind the legislature. Go to the streets to get what you want.”

                                                                                                                                Mary Anastasia O’Grady

                                                                                                                                Wall Street Journal

                                                                                                                                January 11, 2021

 

Sadly, we have moved away from the concept of a legislature deliberating, and respectively (and reflectively) debating what is in the best interest of Americans. The metaphor of the squeaky wheel getting the grease is more fitting in an atmosphere where the disenchanted or ‘victims’ take to the streets. This past summer’s Antifa and BLM protests turned into destructive and lethal riots in cities across the country. Last week’s riot, which emanated from a giant Trump rally, reached a crescendo when dozens of Trump supporters (and perhaps others) stormed the U.S. Capitol.

 

Why has this happened? In August 2014, Ashley Parker, writing on the front page of the New York Times, noted: “A generation ago, here in the Senate Dining Room, Mike Mansfield, a Democrat of Montana and majority leader, and George Aiken, a Republican of Vermont, met most mornings to have breakfast together, a scene almost unimaginable in today’s polarized climate.” Now, six and a half years later, polarization has worsened into a hyper-partisanship that is probably the worse since the pre-Civil War days. It is not only politicians and extremists who face diametrical opposition, families and friends have become isolated because of political differences.

 

The question is why? The United States has never been wealthier or militarily more powerful. Soldiers have been brought home from, seemingly endless, overseas wars. More young people are in college than ever before and now women outnumber men on campuses. Poverty has declined. Employment and incomes for minorities reached record levels a year ago, and the segregation of the 1950s is a distant memory.  The nation has become energy independent for the first time since 1957, according to the Institute for Energy Independence. Government and industry, working together created a vaccine in record time. Why is there no effort to look at what has been done correctly, and then build on mutual successes, rather than focusing on grievances? Perhaps it is an excess of leisure time? Perhaps the ubiquity of the internet, social media, C-SPAN and 24-hour-news no longer allow time for reflection.

 

As partisanship intensifies, hope for reconciliation fades. Calls for unity and healing are offset by acts of retribution and division. We see it in Washington, and I see it in responses to my essays. Democrats have used identity politics, as a means to reach out to minorities and women. However, by their nature, identity politics, which serve to divide, are racist and sexist. Universities, media and big tech companies have exorcised conservative speech.

 

Amidst this maelstrom, the Presidential Inaugural Committee announced their theme, one badly needed: America United. We can only hope this time unity takes traction. Every president’s inaugural has made similar requests, including President Trump’s, yet disunity continues to rise. Mr. Biden faces opposition to unity from his own party. Both Senator Chuck Schumer and House Leader Nancy Pelosi have called for the invocation of the 25^th Amendment or the impeachment of Mr. Trump. Do they believe that such actions will help unify the nation, when there is a week to Inaugural? Mr. Trump will be gone on January 20. It was his acts of self-destruction that caused Republicans to lose the Senate and that will tarnish his legacy. The small number of rioters who invaded the Capitol did more harm to Mr. Trump and the Republican Party than did four years of persistent Democrat opposition. Kimberly Strassel put it well in last Friday’s Wall Street Journal: “The pity is that Mr. Trump’s conflagration will mostly harm the Americans he went to Washington to help. They will bear the higher taxes, the higher costs of regulation, the higher unemployment, the loss of freedoms.” Is piling on in his last days the way to mollify the 74 million Americans who voted for him in November? 

 

A few readers have told me that they are so incensed by Mr. Trump’s behavior that he belongs in jail. But they were not so outraged by the behavior of the Obama Administration four years ago when agents from the FBI and the Justice Department used a phony dossier, which was paid for by the Clinton campaign and that alleged Russian intervention in the 2016 election, to harass and intimidate Mr. Trump and his incoming Administration. Most were silent during this past summer when thugs from Antifa and BLM killed people and destroyed property, including minority-owned businesses. We don’t need condescending hypocrites. We need people to take responsibility for their actions, and we need an honest accounting of events.

 

As conservatives, we must not descend into the rabbit hole of immoral equivalence. Just because Democrats behaved badly is no excuse for Republicans to up the ante. With Trump, because of the swamp that had become Washington, we willingly (and knowingly) made a pact with the Devil. In my opinion, Mr. Trump is not a bad man. He is flawed, but who amongst us is not? Conservatives pride themselves in a belief that morality is absolute, not relative. Gerard Baker, in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal, wrote: “The path for a reinvigorated conservative movement is a narrow but fruitful one. It must articulate and address the legitimate grievances of Americans, while resisting the temptation to win them over with simplistic fictions.” Extreme partisanship sees the world as black or white, but grey is the dominant color.

 

Special moments bring opportunities. This is such a time. By the end of the day on January 6, with two weeks to go to inauguration, Mr. Trump was finished as a politician and his legacy was impaired if not destroyed. I write that even though Alan Dershowitz, professor emeritus at Harvard Law School and a distinguished civil rights lawyer, wrote of Mr. Trump’s speech to protesters: It [the speech] “was misguided and wrong but completely protected by the First Amendment.” No matter how culpable Mr. Biden may feel Mr. Trump to be for last Wednesday’s invasion of the Capitol, he should not remain silent. He should try conciliation rather than accusation. The late Italian psychiatrist Roberto Assagioli once wrote words that speak to us today: “Without forgiveness, life is governed by an endless cycle of resentment and retaliation.” Mr. Biden has a unique opportunity, not to forgive Mr. Trump, but to reach out to the millions who voted for him. This will not be easy, as hatred for Mr. Trump has been a unifying factor among Democrats. But this moment will pass once Mr. Biden is inaugurated, and more pressing matters face him, and intolerance, once again, rules the way forward. 

 

Will cooler heads prevail? The odds would say no, but surprising things happen. One of the better comments I have read about that fateful afternoon of January 6 was from First Lady Melania Trump, a woman whom the media has largely ignored: “It is inspiring to see that so many have found a passion and enthusiasm in participating in an election, but we must not allow that passion to turn to violence.” Words that cool in an over-heated time.

"Impeachment"

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“Impeachment”

November 7, 2019

“Why not amend the Constitution so that any President

who is impeached and acquitted is permitted to serve a third term?”

                                                                                                William Mattox

                                                                                                “Impeachment Needs a Replay Booth”

                                                                                                Wall Street Journal, October 23, 2019

                                                                                               

Like most clever but sensible suggestions for Congress – the elimination of frivolous impeachment attempts – Mr. Mattox’s proposal will never be adopted. It makes too much sense for a Congress that prefers political theater to judiciously carrying out their responsibilities as legislators.  

The American journalist and satirist H.L. Mencken once wrote: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the people alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.” And the granddaddy of all hobgoblins is impeachment, at least here in the fourth quarter of 2019, a year from a presidential election that will see the most vilified President we have ever had run against one of the most far-left leaning candidates ever nominated. “Fasten your seat belts; it’s going to be a bumpy night,” said Bette Davis in the 1951 movie “It’s All About Eve.”  For us Americans, it will be a bumpy year.

Cynicism fills the air. Politicians live by scruples known only to themselves. Their concern is their own welfare and that of their party. Their goal is power. That end justifies whatever means or processes are felt necessary to achieve it. Yet, they wrap themselves in cloaks of righteous indignation. “Every member should support allowing the American people to hear the facts for themselves…this is nothing less than our democracy.” Stirring but hypocritical words spoken by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, as she allowed Adam Schiff, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee to conduct impeachment hearings – hearings held in secret, where Republicans were not allowed to call witnesses and to which Mr. Trump’s lawyers were banned from attending. Schiff and the media have made much of diplomats fired, like the former ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch. Do they forget that elections have consequences? Foreign policy is the responsibility of the President and changing ambassadors is expected and common.

The imbroglio of impeachment reminds one of Alice’s adventures in court over the case of the missing tarts. When the King asked the jury to consider their verdict. “No, no said the Queen. Sentence first – verdict afterwards.” What we are witnessing is a farce, but one with sobering consequences that, at best, will rebound to impale she (or he) who wields the sword when party leadership next changes, and at worst will damage our democratic Republic. In a recent op-ed in “The Hill,” Alan Dershowitz wrote that a foresighted Alexander Hamilton had warned that the decision to move forward with impeachment will be “more regulated by the comparative strength of parties than the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” John Durham, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut and now investigating the special counsel’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election, spoke in March 2018 at the University of St. Joseph in West Hartford, CT: “One thing that I try to bear in mind, and try to encourage in new young prosecutors, particularly those who are making their bones or cutting their teeth, is an awareness of the incredible power that is wielded by law enforcement, and perhaps federal law enforcement in particular. Issuing a subpoena can destroy someone’s reputation. It can damage their business, hurt their families. It is an awesome power that we have, that should only be used in appropriate instances.” Wise words that should be heeded by powerful agencies like the IRS, the Justice Department and the EPA, as well as by members of Congress, especially the latter, as they satiate a lust for revenge that had its genesis in hatred.

In the recent vote to formally launch an impeachment investigation, the fact that not one Republican voted with the majority suggests that Hamilton’s concern is real. Looking at the three previous impeachments – Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton – two were acquitted (Johnson and Clinton) and Mr. Nixon resigned, as he likely would have been convicted, as his was a crime that could be deemed nonpolitical. The attack on Mr. Trump has been political from the GetGo, as the Resistance began before he took office. The Russian probe came to naught, as did attempts by Stormy Daniels and others to discredit him. The odor from Ukraine has more of a Biden smell than a Trump aroma. Unlike some Republicans when attacked, Mr. Trump fights back, a response that has surprised a Left used to submissive opponents.

The Left would have us believe that any defense of Trump is a “defense of the indefensible,” a phrase that has a nice ring, but one which has no applicability in this instance, as the aggressor has been for three years the Resistance, comprised of those who do not believe Mr. Trump deserves the Presidency, that he did not win  fairly, that  he is dangerous and unqualified, a potential dictator. What these detractors fail to see is their own, undemocratic behavior – using intelligence bureaucracies to find dirt on Mr. Trump, conducting closed-door meetings to which Republicans are barred, denying freedom of speech on social media and in universities, curtailing freedoms of religious expression. A government that wants to regulate one’s behavior is one that is dangerous to liberty. Which Party wants to provide Medicare for all, free college and cradle-to-grave care? As attractive as those programs sound, they come with a cost, not just in dollars, but more importantly in freedoms foregone. As Kimberly Strassel wrote in her new book Resistance: “Tyrants don’t get rid of rules; they pile them on.” Love him or hate him, President Trump has rolled back regulations, providing more freedom to individuals, not less. It is not he who is a threat to liberty.

There will always be extremists in a nation of 330 million people – psychos that represent the far right and the far left. They need to be watched, but they don’t represent the real risks to our democratic Republic. It is when extremism infiltrates mainstream thinking we have to worry, and that is what we are seeing in the resistance to Donald Trump. I have often expressed my dismay at Mr. Trump’s character, his Tweets, his rudeness and his profanity. But he does not represent a threat to our Country. If coarse language speaks louder than positive deeds, then criticism of Mr. Trump is warranted. But if mellifluous words disguise odious actions, then it is the Left that bears watching. The media have their eyes Right, leaving the Left unguarded. They are enamored by the “wokeness” of progressive politicians, with their political correctness and identity politics, by the charisma of Hollywood and late-night TV talk-show hosts, and with ivory tower-ensconced social justice warriors in our universities.  

Impeachment is but the latest attempt to destroy the man who was elected in 2016, the most investigated President we have ever had. In hanging Russian collusion around his neck in January 2017, the Resistance thought they had him. Two years later, the Mueller Report found no collusion. The whole idea that Putin would have preferred the mercurial Donald Trump whom he did not know to Hillary Clinton whom he knew well and whom he had handled successfully never made sense. That Mr. Trump is boorish lent credibility to the belief he was chauvinistic, but, again, nothing incriminating was found. The conversation with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, while Trumpian, was harmless and not unlike conversations other Presidents have had with their counterparts over the years. Albert Einstein defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over.” That seems to define Democrats in Congress today, in their search for a grail that contains evidence implicating Mr. Trump in some impeachable offense.

Impeachment is a distraction to a people who must decide what sort of country they want – Socialism, with its costs in dollars and lost freedoms, or free market capitalism, which offers the social and economic escalator of opportunity that takes people up and down. For all of our sakes, I hope they choose the latter.

"Words and Phrases - Fake or Twisted?"

Sydney M. Williams

swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“Words and Phrases – Fake or Twisted?”

July 9, 2018

“But no one was interested in the facts. They preferred the invention,

Because this invention expressed their hates and fears so perfectly.”

                                                         James Baldwin

                                                                         Notes of a Native Son, 1955

“The media are less a window on reality, than a stage on which

officials and journalists perform self-scripted, self-serving fictions.”

                                                                                                Thomas Sowell

The Vision of the Anointed: Self    Congratulations as a Basis for Social Policy

1995

As the two rubrics show, the concept of“fake” or“twisted” news is not new. The media has long been used for purposes of disinformation, propaganda and deceit. Aesop’s fable of the boy who cried wolf tells a story of deception gone wrong. The Federalist Paperswas written to persuade the undecided to support the Constitution. Lenin argued that capitalists bought up newspapers to control what was printed. Hitler employed Joseph Goebbels as his minister for propaganda. Using words to coax and prod others is the province of politicians, columnists, bloggers and essayists, including yours truly. What is distressing today is that editorializing has seeped into the news room, so that news is comingled with opinions. That does not mean we should be a nation of cynics, but skepticism is healthy. For whom or for what is the writer or speaker an advocate? 

One example: The front-page, top right-hand column of the July 2, 2018 New York Timeswas headlined, “Curbs on Unions Likely to Starve Activist Groups.” The article by Noam Scheiber, in reference to Janus v. AFSCME, read: “The Supreme Court decision striking down mandatory union fees forgovernment workers was not only a blow to unions…” Why did Mr. Scheiber use the word “for”? The fees are not forworkers; they are paid byworkers. They are for union leaders, certainly not for workers who disagree as to how money is spent. The editors of The New York Timeare scrupulous in words they choose; the use of “for” had to have been deliberate. One subtle example of editorializing on the front page.

Another example is the hue and cry over abortion, in regard to the replacement of Anthony Kennedy on the U.S. Supreme Court. Reality tells us that the prospect of overturning Roe v. Wade is remote. It was handed down forty-five years ago. It is embedded in law and social norms. Besides, conservatives’ respect precedent. Nevertheless, the law should not be confused with culture. Culture comprises the milieu. Law defines the boundaries. Law is – or should be – created through legislative bodies, affirmed by courts and executed by the Executive. Culture is a construct of religion, tradition, values and learning. It responds to whimsical winds of change. Yet, whenever a Republican President nominates a candidate for the nation’s highest Court, the cry goes forth – Republicans want to ban abortions. We are provided the specter of returning to back-alley doctors, dirty operating rooms and metal coat hangers.

Reactions by the Left to the prospect of a “conservative” Court have been eviscerating. They include the twisting of history and the substituting of fear for facts. Thirty-one years ago (before the “borking” of Robert Bork), Justice Kennedy was subjected to the same accusations when he was nominated by President Reagan. In 1986, Antonin Scalia demurred when asked by Senator Ted Kennedy if he would vote to overturn Roe: “I do not think it would be proper for me to answer that question.” Justice Scalia lamented the Roe decision, not because of its finding, but because the decision was based on a few Justices imposing their cultural values and not a result of a vote by state legislators. Could a nominee to the Court today be as forthcoming as Justice Scalia? No candidate for the Court should be asked to opine about cases that may or may not come before them. Such questions, in a vacuum, cannot be answered sincerely. Have we so politicized the process that straight-forward honesty is no longer possible? Should not wisdom and equanimity, along with knowledge of and respect for the Constitution – its declarations, amendments, precedents and limits – be the characteristics we should want in a Supreme Court Justice?

“Diversity” is a word whose definition focuses on what is politically correct – race, religion and sexual orientation – and ignores ideas that are deemed unacceptable. Consider a recentNew York Timesarticle about the reaction of summer residents in Martha’s Vineyard – an exclusive enclave of the liberal rich – to Alan Dershowitz, former professor at Harvard Law School. Because his defense of the Constitution has meant, at times, defending President Trump, he has become persona non grata on, “an island that prides itself on civility and diversity,” to quote the Times. The irony embedded in that sentence appeared lost to the reporter. For there was nothing civil about the treatment of Mr. Dershowitz, when his conditioned support for Mr. Trump did not conform to what was considered socially acceptable. When they are accused of being neither fair nor civil, nobody hates with the intensity and venality of the Left. 

“Equality” has lost its meaning. Are we speaking of opportunities or results? We are not equal and never can be. Is it fair that I am not equal to my neighbor in terms of wealth? Was it fair that when I was in high school the tall, blond football player ended up with the best-looking girls? We possess different abilities and bear different aspirations. We are individuals. We have different tolerances for risk. We will never be equal in aptitude, education or wealth. But we are, and we should be, equal as citizens under the law. Each individual should have equal opportunities to succeed? We should each strive to do our best and take responsibility for our deeds and words. We should acknowledge and celebrate our differences, not lament what cannot be. We should be civil and respectful of others, not use inequality as a political sledgehammer. 

“Victimization” is a word whose meaning has become diluted by overuse. It is used by universities to countenance “safe (segregated) places,” and by politicians to justify compartmentalizing (segregating) voters into easily accessible units. 

Ironically, it has been Donald Trump, often portrayed as linguistically-challenged, who has proved to be a master of words. He intentionally enflames his antagonists. He knows what he is doing when he exasperates “Never Trumpers,” “Trump Haters” and “Resisters.” His opponents, like Maxine Waters, snap at the bait. They sound and react like extremists. They suggest he is a Nazi or a fascist. They call for impeachment and even his assassination. If he were a true threat to democracy, such actions might be excusable. But, the consequences of his actions – not his words – have been to limit the reach of government, not expand it, through cuts in regulations and reductions in taxes. It is the Left that desires a more powerful executive, an enervated Congress and a compliant Judiciary. It was they who politicized the IRS and the FBI.

It is too much to ask in this age of social media, but it would be nice if we could receive our news from unbiased sources – with facts laid out, without opinion or nuance – allowing the reader or viewer to develop his or her own opinion. But we can’t, or we won’t. So, we must endure the Twittering, blogging, biased reporting, and late-night TV comedians and hosts. To counter this wealth of propaganda, we must therefore read as widely as possible, to become as informed as we can and to then make decisions that suit our own, educated interpretation of events.