"Our Revolutionary Origins & Today's Paternalism"

The photo – ‘Old Glory’ flying over the Old Lyme Beach Club on the evening of July 17, 2025.

 

Sydney M. Williams

https://swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Our Revolutionary Origins & Today’s Paternalism”

July 21, 2025

 

“But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution

was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people;

a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations… This radical change in the

principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution.”

                                                                                                                  Letter from John Adams to Hezekiah Niles

                                                                                                                  February 13, 1818

 

In this year of the semiquincentennial of our Declaration of Independence, have we swapped individual independence for dependence on government paternalism? 

 

Threats to democracy, a current rallying cry of the Left, have been a constant since our founding. They have come from both the right and the left. They fade, however, when exposed to unfettered free debate, and an unbiased study of the classics and our history. Today, supported by main-stream media, the Left puts the blame for such threats square on Republicans, especially those of the MAGA variety. Disallowing dissension, they wave their hands, and with crocodile tears flowing and with Republicans in control of both Houses of Congress they cite the deportation of illegal migrants, including those with criminal records, piggish billionaires, corrupt corporations and cuts to government services. It is ironic that Mr. Trump is accused of being authoritarian, when his attempts to reduce the size of government are at odds with Democrats who prefer a larger, more paternal government.

 

Beginning with Franklin Roosevelt’s ‘New Deal’ ninety years ago, through Lyndon Johnson’s ‘Great Society’ in the 1960s, to Barack Obama’s ‘Cradle to Grave Care’ thirteen years ago, the United States has moved irrevocably toward a more paternalistic state. My point is not to argue that all federal welfare programs are wrong and should be abolished, but to point out that major entitlement programs consumed about 50% of the 2023 federal budget and are growing faster than all other programs. With total federal debt at $36.6 trillion and rising, interest expense already consumes over 13% of the federal budget, entitlement programs will be unaffordable for future generations. As well, some programs discourage aspiration, hard work, self-sufficiency and independence. Welfare reform is badly needed.    

 

While I keep a skeptical eye on MAGA Republicans, Democrats should look in the mirror as regards threats to democracy. Their demand for conformity can be seen in the expanding interest in Socialism, the ultimate in paternalism. From Bernie Sanders in the Senate to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the House, Democrat Socialists of America (DSA) rose from the ashes of the early 20th Century Socialist Party of America. Today it has 90,000 members, including an aspiring candidate for mayor of New York City, a young man who followed a privileged path to power. Socialists oppose capitalism and the personal freedom that allowed the talented and aspirant, regardless of economic and social class, to rise in our country – the magnets that attract so many to our shores.

 

Socialists abhor the concept of personal freedom; they want government to control the lives of its citizens, as well as the means of production. It is not a government of, by and for the people – it is a false promise of equal outcomes – an impossible dream. It is the political leaders in Socialist/Communist countries that are the principal beneficiaries of government, as can be seen in China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela. It is they who place at risk those individual values that helped make the United States what it is – a love for freedom, a belief in the future, a willingness to work hard, honesty, and compassion for those unable to care for themselves. It is paternalism, in all its forms, that is a threat to democracy. While most Americans celebrated the July 4^th with parades, fireworks and cookouts, a few thousand American Socialists met in Chicago at an event called Socialism 2025 – a four-day conference that brought together Socialists and radical activists from around the country.

 

In this vein, the upcoming New York City Mayoral election is something to watch. A self-described Socialist and anti-Semite has become the Democrat nominee for a city that includes over two million Jews. Zohran Mamdani refuses to condemn the phrase “Globalize the Intifada,” a phrase that calls for the annihilation of Israel. Socialism is rooted in its opposition to capitalism and a belief in the concept that government should be all-powerful. Diversity to these people is limited to skin color, gender, and sexual orientation. It does not include differences in opinions, which threaten their paternalistic preferences.

 

……………………………………………….......

 

The 56 delegates from thirteen British colonies who signed the Declaration of Independence were subjects of the British Empire. In signing the document, they committed treason, putting their lives at risk. It was a revolutionary act, in the midst of a war that had begun a year earlier at a bridge in Concord, and would end five years later with Cornwallis’ surrender at Yorktown. The consequence was the birth of the United States, a country based on the concept that all men are created equal – that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights 

 

Our Declaration of Independence was a revolutionary response to the authoritarianism of British rule. Our Declaration acknowledged self-evident truths. It preceded our Constitution, which created a government that did, among other guarantees, assure the right to speak freely, to practice the religion of one’s choice, to protect against unreasonable search and to provide a defense against foreign enemies; the Constitution bestows on every citizen equality before the law, due process and a trial by one’s peers. It celebrates the individual. It is not paternalistic. It assumes that freedom is desired, even when requiring dedication, effort and sacrifice. The rise of Socialism is a return to authoritarian paternalism, disguised as compassionate and virtuous. Those are attributes of individuals and should be encouraged; they do not apply to governments.

 

"Tit for Tat - Not a Good Strategy"

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

Thought of the Day

“Tit for Tat – Not a Good Strategy”

June 5, 2025

 

“All things are double, one against another. Tit for tat; an eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth;

blood for blood; measure for measure; love for love. Give and it shall be given you.”

                                                                                                Attributed to Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)

 

“Tit for Tat: The infliction of an injury or insult in return for one that one has suffered,” Oxford English Dictionary. Wikipedia: “It is an alteration of tip for tap ‘blow for blow,’ first recorded in 1558.”

…………………………………………………………………….

 

When Donald Trump was sworn in as the 45^th President of the United States on January 20, 2017 I suspect he was as surprised to be there as anyone. He had been a successful real estate developer, and for thirteen years he hosted “The Apprentice,” a successful reality TV series. But he had never run for political office. As a businessman, he donated to both Jimmy Carter’s and Ronald Reagan’s campaigns in 1980. His political affiliations have changed: a Manhattan Republican in the 1980s; member of the Reform Party in 1999; a Democrat in 2001; and back to a Republican in 2009. By some, he will always be criticized for his changing political affiliations and his out-spoken manner. But he was democratically elected President.

 

For those who make their living in politics, Donald Trump’s success was a threat. His victory was incredulous to Republicans in the primaries and to Democrats in the general election. How could this “orange-haired” man who garbles the English language have won? How could an interloper beat them at their own game?

 

America is a different place than it was a generation or two ago. Civility has declined; anti-social and unethical behavior have increased; and violence has become more common and, worse, acceptable. Scam phone calls have risen by over 20% in each of the last five years. In 2023, the United States Capital Police (USCP) investigated 8,008 threats against members of Congress. A disturbing number of young Leftists cheered on the two attempts on Donald Trump’s life, as well as the attacks on Tesla dealerships. Anti-Semitism has increased, On May 21 a young Jewish couple, Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim, were shot and killed outside the Capital Jewish Museum. Four days later, in Boulder, Colorado, a man shouted, “Free Palestine,” as he threw Molotov cocktails at demonstrators, injuring fifteen men and women, as they marched in support of Israeli hostages held by Hamas.

 

Political parties have changed. The Democrat Party, once the Party of the working class and poor now appeals to wealthy, suburban whites, and monied groups like trial lawyers, hedge fund managers, and Wall Street tycoons. Like the switch of white southern Democrats to Republicans in the 1960s and ‘70s, former “country club” elitist Republicans, in the wake of Vietnam and Civil Rights, abandoned their traditional Party. Democrats have long dominated academia, but they have become more entrenched. As private sector unions lost members, Democrats lost interest, so concentrated on union leaders and on expanding public sector unions, especially teachers’. Republicans have picked up middle-class, working Americans. They have kept in their fold most religious groups, except Episcopalians. 

 

As well, the sense of what it means to be an American has been derailed by politicians from both parties whose leaders appeal to extremists. Politics has become more partisan. The economic divide between ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots,’ regardless of race, has widened. When Barack Obama was elected as the first black man to become President, instead of acknowledging the economic divide, he made race the issue. He squandered an opportunity to pull America together on race, to close the chasm, to acknowledge the vision and promise of Martin Luther King in his 1963 “I Have a Dream” speech: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” That was not the path Mr. Obama chose to take.

 

Not surprisingly, the competent, but ungracious, Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election to the political outsider Mr. Trump. During his first term as President, he was demonized by the Left, even called a Nazi. While he is coarse in speech and offensive in language, he was falsely accused of Russian collusion by his illiberal Democrat opponents – a story that originated in Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. The contempt for him was visceral. It was not just political. No President has ever been treated with the disdain he was. He had invaded the establishment’s sanctuary and succeeded. In their bid to destroy him, Democrats were supported by the Justice Department and joined by a chorus of media enablers. In unprecedented actions, he was impeached twice and indicted four times. And he lost re-election in 2020.

 

Yet after four years of Mr. Biden – a situation for which Democrats have no one to blame but themselves – Mr. Trump won the Presidency again. This time he increased his vote. Notably, he expanded his votes among those who have traditionally been Democrats – blacks, Hispanics, and the working class – those who Democrats have ignored, as they pursued their far-left progressive agenda. They condemned “harmful words,” yet allowed violent anti-Semitism protests on campuses; they opened the southern border to an influx of millions of illegal migrants, including many with criminal records; and they emphasized identity politics, including the allowing of biological men to compete against women in high school and college sports. They abandoned large portions of America’s middle classes.

 

Is revenge a motivating factor in some of Mr. Trump’s actions now? I suspect it is. I don’t support revenge, but I understand it. He is now accused of weaponizing the Justice Department, the same Justice Department that was weaponized against him. In Shakespear’s play Measure for Measure, the title refers to the principle of retributive justice, where actions are judged and punished accordingly – an eye for an eye, for example. In my opinion, it is that principle that has been the impetus behind much of Mr. Trump’s behavior early in his second term. I suspect he believes that those who are being penalized – like prestigious universities being challenged over recruitment and DEI policies, illegal migrants being deported and foreign college students with ties to the CCP having visas revoked – are receiving their just deserts. 

 

But revenge is alien to democratic principles. As a conservative, many of my virtue-signaling Leftist friends remind me of Little Jack Horner who pulled out a plum and, blithely, said, “What a good boy am I!” This while he spoiled the plum pie for others. When these friends condemn Mr. Trump as a tyrant and his supporters as ignorant rubes they should remember that we live in a democracy, and that Mr. Trump won the election. While I will never wear a MAGA hat, I voted for Mr. Trump and, given the option, I am glad I did. When we disagree, we can (and should) take issue even with those we support, and we should not be afraid to speak out against those we do not, but we should do so civilly. And we all should condemn the unacceptable rise in violence.  

"The Curious Attraction of Donald Trump"

 

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

Thought of the Day

“The Curious Attraction of Donald Trump”

October 14, 2024

 

“‘But he hasn’t got anything on,’ a little child said.”

                                                                                                                The Emperor’s New Clothes, 1837

                                                                                                                Hans Christian Anderson

                                                                                                                Translated by Jean Hersholt, 1952

 

Despite the fact that he is coarse, rude and humorless, Donald Trump is attractive to millions of Americans. Most are religious and believe in their families and communities; they are patriotic, diligent, and endowed with an uncommon level of common sense. But what accounts for this attraction? While I don’t pretend to have all the reasons, simply addressing the question is instructional. He is despised by those who have made service in government their life’s work. He is despised by those who find vulgar his ravaging of the English language. He is despised by those who cannot stand his orange hair and red ties. On the other hand, he is loved by those who represent what Franklin Roosevelt once referred to as the “Forgotten Man” – America’s working men and women at the middle and lower end of the economic scale. His acolytes are those who do not neatly fit into an elitist identity – meaning they are largely white, working class people from fly-over states, those who Barack Obama once derided as clinging “to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.” In other words, he is attractive to America’s broad middle class.

 

These people have watched as Democrat-led, Washington’s establishment divided people into identifiable sectors – women, people of color, proponents of LGBTQ, etc. – those seen as victims of white oppressors. His fans, the so-called oppressors regardless of social position or economic status, love that he is nemesis to progressive politicians; to administrative lawyers who feed off government; to university professors and administrators who rely on public grants; to private sector union leaders (but not union members); to school boards who protect predators and approve schools dispensing tampons in boy’s bathrooms; to spoiled college students who want their student loans paid off; to a media enriched by political ads, and to those enthralled with a sense of their own virtue; and to an entertainment industry that lacks any moral sense.

 

Using data from Statista and OpenTheBooks, spending on federal elections (President, Senate and House) compounded annually at roughly 14% between 2000 and 2020, while government spending compounded at about 7.5% over that same time. However, over those same twenty years median household income only compounded at two percent. The consequence is that lower and middle-income families have been left behind, as government bureaucrats, bankers, and media people have grown fat. Has this increased spending helped the middle classes? Last week, The Connecticut Mirror reported that United Way estimates that 40% of Connecticut’s households faced poverty in 2022. Keep in mind, Connecticut ranks eight when states are measured by median household income. Also donors, be they individuals, corporations or unions, expect a return on their investment. Remember Solyndra, the California-based solar panel company that in September 2009 received $535 Million from President Obama’s Energy Department and two years later filed for bankruptcy.

 

But I believe there is more to this. Political Parties are not static entities; they change over time, reflecting changing demographics and their own self-interests. For twenty years – 1932-1952 – the Democrat Party held the White House. Over the next forty years – 1952-1992 – roles were reversed, with Republicans holding the White House twenty-eight years and Democrats twelve. During those sixty years, only one election was close in terms of the popular vote – 1960. The elections of 1948, 1968 and 1992 were affected by third party candidates. But in most contests over those sixty years victors won overwhelmingly. However, in the past thirty-two years – 1992-2024 – Presidential elections, with the exception of 2008, have been close, reflecting a more divided (and less compromising) nation.

 

In the 1960s, Republicans were the Party of East Coast elites, big business and Wall Street. In 1968 they adopted a “Southern Strategy,” a term popularized by political strategist Kevin Phillips. Since 1932, the “Party of Lincoln” had been losing the Black vote to Democrats, so the Southern Strategy involved a plan to go after conservative white southern voters who, since the Civil War, had been Democrats. That, in my opinion, was a mistake – a short term fix to a long term problem. Today, once again the two political parties are undergoing another fundamental change, with Republicans pursuing working people, regardless of race, as Democrats implement a bar-bell approach – wealthy coastal elites, university professionals, media types, etc. on the one hand, offset with immigrants, students, and those who claim victimhood on the other.

 

I do not pretend to be able to predict the outcome of this election. Neither candidate would be my choice, though Mr. Trump’s actual Presidency (2017-2021) was better than his current campaign would suggest – and certainly better than the last four years of Biden-Harris, in terms of the economy, inflation, immigration, and foreign affairs. As for the Democrat alternative, what would we be getting? Ms. Harris’ performance on CBS’s 60 Minutes gave lie to her politics of “joy.” Like the child who viewed the Emperor’s new clothes in the epigraph above, there is little she has provided on which we can judge her. 

 

Donald Trump’s appeal reflects the fact that, even after almost ten years in the political limelight, he remains an outsider. He is an amateur politician in a coliseum of lions. It is as though a high school physics teacher and amateur tennis player stepped onto the courts at the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center and won the U.S. Open. He is despised by the establishment because he is not one of them. He promised to “drain the swamp,” which he never did, but he is still seen by Washington insiders as a threat to their comfortable lives. He has been attacked relentlessly. The Mueller investigation (begun in May 2017) into possible Trump campaign collusion with Russia during the 2016 campaign found, two years and $30 million later, no evidence of coordination or cooperation with Russia during the campaign. That investigation, like the failed impeachment attempts and the more recent Fani Willis and Jack Smith prosecutions, have only increased his support. Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is real; its amplification by the media feeds his fans.  

 

The “progressive” Left is driven by a self-righteous sense of personal virtue. Think of President Obama telling Black men that if they do not vote for Kamala Harris they are misogynist. His sanctimony did not allow that they have minds of their own. In assuming this mantle, Democrats have abandoned the broad middle class of working voters – most of whom are white – those who once comprised their base. President Trump recognized that failure, which provided an opening. That, in my opinion, is at the heart of his attraction to so many Americans. 

"Mission: Preserve the Republic"

 Over the weekend we saw the movie Reagan, with Dennis Quaid playing the title role. It brought back waves of nostalgia for a time and a President so different from what we have and what we are offered. But pining for yesteryear does no one any good. As the saying goes, we must play with the cards we are dealt. Nevertheless, the movie – the first for me in a theater in over five years – is worth seeing. 

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Mission: Preserve the Republic”

September 23, 2024

 

Elizabeth Willing Powel: “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”

Benjamin Franklin: “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

                                                                                                      Philadelphia, September 17, 1787

 

That exchange took place 237 years ago outside Independence Hall, where delegates had met to discuss weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation, as they pertained to the central government. It was recorded in the journal of Maryland delegate James McHenry (1753-1816), a journal now in the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress. (The Articles of Confederation, agreed to in 1777, were replaced a decade later by the United States Constitution, which provided for a stronger central government.)

 

Democrats have seized the expression “save democracy,” which means elect them, not Republicans who they argue would destroy democracy. They express concern of storm troopers led by Donald Trump who they say would tear down our democratic institutions. But might this be an example of projection?

 

Our Founders were concerned about despotism, including what James Madison called “the tyranny of the majority.” So they constructed a Republic, with checks and balances, a federal government with three equal and independent branches – legislative, executive and judicial – to protect the rights of both the majority and the minority. 

 

In a recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, George Washington University law professor Jonathon Turley wrote: “In an October 2020 interview, Harvard law professor Michael Klarman laid out a plan for Democrats should they win the White House and both congressional chambers. They would enact ‘democracy-entrenching legislation.’ But what does that mean? They have called for the elimination of the Electoral College. They want to increase the size of the Supreme Court, and widen the reach of the federal bureaucracy through new administrative agencies. They would give Congress the ability to impose term limits on Supreme Court Justices and have the Court abide by a code of ethics prepared by Congress. Their plans would emasculate the concept of federalism and require amending the Constitution.  

 

On the Republican side, the Heritage Foundation published a 920-page document, reflecting their vision for a second Trump administration, Project 2025. A copy of the plan was brought to the Democrat convention in Chicago where it was presented as a blueprint as to what they claimed Republicans would do: transform the FBI, abolish the Department of Education, dismantle NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association), terminate the legal status of 500,000 “Dreamers,” and curtail women’s rights. Unmentioned was the fact that the Heritage Foundation has, every four years, released a “Mandate for Leadership” since the early 1980s, or the fact that Mr. Trump has distanced himself from Project 2025.

 

None of this is to belittle risks to our government, which is unique in the annals of mankind. Fifty-seven years ago, at his inaugural as California’s Governor, Ronald Reagan stated: “Freedom is a fragile thing, and it’s never more than one generation away from extinction.” Yet threats continue. Sixteen years ago, speaking to a crowd in Columbus, Missouri, Barack Obama proclaimed: “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” What did he mean? And now we have the unelected wife of an elected President running a cabinet meeting. Where was his Vice President? Shades of Edith Wilson?

 

Fundamental to our system of government, whether you choose to call it a democracy or a republic, is freedom of expression, with the obvious exceptions of – without cause – yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, or declaiming in front of the Supreme Court, as did New York’s senior U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer: “I want to tell you Gorsuch. I want to tell you Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” In a nation of 330 million people such threats can have unintended consequences, as assassination attempts on Mr. Trump have demonstrated. On the other hand, censorship, whether practiced by the government, as in the Russian collusion story in 2015-2019, or by the media, as in the Hunter Biden laptop story of 2020, is detrimental to inherent freedoms, and thus to the preservation of our democratic republic.

 

The Founders decided on a bicameral legislature so that smaller states would have equal representation in the U.S. Senate, to offset the House of Representatives, which is based on population. The Electoral College, which elects the President, is a combination of the two, being allocated votes equal to its number of Senators and its number of Congressional districts. Keep in mind, in 1787 this reflected magnanimity on the part of Virginia, which was the largest state in the union and home to principal authors of our founding documents – the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and The Federalist Papers. As well, Virginia was home to four of the first five Presidents. If Washington, Jefferson, Madison or Monroe had preferred a pure democracy they could have railroaded one through. 

 

Our form of government has survived a British invasion in 1812-1814 and a Civil War. It has survived the scourge of slavery, years of Jim Crow and reconstruction, a debilitating depression, segregation, and the anti-war protests of the 1960s. It has survived the assassinations of four U.S. Presidents. It went to the aid of Europe in 1917. It saved the world from Nazism and Imperial Japan in the 1940s. It has produced more Nobel and Pulitzer prize-winners than any other nation. Its economy and freedom have been a beacon for the world’s oppressed, drawn by opportunities the Country offers. At its heart are personal, political and economic freedoms. It is a nation that adheres to the lesson of the old Chinese proverb – “Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime.”

 

Yes, our mission should be to preserve the Republic gifted us. I am not happy in the choices we have for President in 2024. Neither political party seems concerned with our massive debt, which can (and will) destroy our way of life, especially as we face demographic challenges unknown to our forefathers. And I am not happy that both Parties focus on what they can do for us, rather than emphasizing the opportunities free markets offer to those talented, aspirational and diligent. I am not happy when diversity is reserved solely for color, race, sex, or creed, and when it excludes abilities, opinions, and interests.

 

As we head to the polls, we should consider: Which political party is more likely to shrink regulations, limit spending, and stop the dangerous silliness of letting boys compete against girls in school sports? Which party is more likely to give the aspirational opportunity to succeed in the fields of their choice? Neither candidate is one I would choose. Harris is vacuous, either by design or by nature. And I wonder: Who is the “Oz” behind the curtain guiding Mr. Biden, and is there a “Toto” to pull back the drapes? The bombastic Mr. Trump is personally unappealing, but at least we have his four-year record as President, in which he – even though the Country was hit by Covid – performed well. And with mainstream media lined up against him there is little chance of his becoming authoritarian. Preserving our Republic should be our priority.

"Thoughts on Israel and the Palestinians"

                                                                    Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Thoughts on Israel and the Palestinians”

December 16, 2023

 

“War must be, while we defend ourselves against a destroyer who would devour all;

but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its

swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.”

                                                                                                                                J.R.R. Tolkien (1892-1973)

                                                                                                                                “The Two Towers,” Part 2

                                                                                                                                The Lord of the Rings, 1954

 

War has been around as long as has man. President Obama said as much in his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize on December 10, 2009: “War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man.” Efforts to outlaw war, or even to impose rules as to its conduct, have failed. The Kellogg-Briand Pact, an effort to outlaw war, signed on August 27, 1928 did not prevent Japan (a signatory) from invading Manchuria three years later. Nor did it stop Germany (also a signatory) from invading Poland eleven years later. The best means to prevent war is to prepare for it. When I was at the University of New Hampshire, I often drove past Pease Airforce Base with its seemingly oxymoronic, but in fact accurate, sign, “Peace is Our Profession.” The projection of strength is necessary to curtail war. Unfortunately, that air base, and the entire Strategic Air Command was “disestablished” in 1992 after the fall of the Soviet Union.

 

The conduct of modern war is supposed to follow rules of international humanitarian law established under the Geneva Convention of 1949, as they pertain to non-combatants, the wounded and treatment of prisoners of war. But such good intentions are never followed, as we have seen throughout all subsequent wars, and as Senator John McCain, along with thousands of other servicemen, learned during their years as prisoners of war in North Vietnam. As Carl von Clausewitz noted in On War, “The object of fighting is the destruction or defeat of the enemy.” The Swedish war historian Peter Englund, in his new book November 1942, wrote of a British tail gunner flying over Germany: “The aircrews are not guided by moralistic motives or complex explanations; they are given orders to carry out their missions…”

 

Hamas and the Palestinian Authority (PA) are not asking for a two-state solution. Their call for Palestine to be free “from the river to the sea,” is a call to eradicate Israel. When terrorists hide among civilians it is they who are causing civilian deaths. “Wars are just to those to whom they are necessary,” wrote Edmund Burke, in Reflections on the Revolutions in France, but “just” is in the eyes of the beholder. “Unjust war is to be abhorred,” spoke President Theodore Roosevelt at the University of Berlin on May 12, 1910 (only four years before Europe embarked on a four-year war of devastation), “but,” he added, “woe to the nation that does not make ready to hold its own in time of need against all who would harm it.” And woe to the state of Israel now if they do not confront and destroy Hamas.

 

War is never pretty. “War is cruelty and you cannot refine it” wrote Major General William Tecumseh Sherman to Mayor James Calhoun and the Atlanta City Council on September 12, 1864; “and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out.” Hamas brought war into Israel on October 7^th. For Israel, there is no such thing as a disproportionate response. 

 

The land Palestinians claim as their own was part of the Ottoman Empire for 400 years, until the end of World War I. Does that give Turkey a “right” to that land today? Of course not. Before that, followers of Muhammed, and earlier Byzantines, Jews, Romans, and Christians occupied that land. What we know now as the Middle East was a “cradle of civilization,” whose existence goes back almost 5,000 years. It extends from Egypt in the east to Iran in the west, and from Yemen and Oman in the south to Syria and Iraq in the north. The Middle East gave birth to three of the world’s monotheistic religions. From Judaism emerged Christianity 2,000 years ago, and Islam arrived 600 years later. Members of all three religions are descendants of Abraham, Jews and Christians through his son Isaac, with Muslims descending through his son Ishmael. Despite this common heritage, Middle East Jews, Christians, and Muslims have been at war almost continuously.

 

The Balfour Declaration of 1917, issued by the British government, supported a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, then a region of the Ottoman Empire. In 1948, following the end of World War II during which close to 50% of the world’s Jewish people were exterminated, a Jewish state was created on land that had been their historic home. To consider them oppressors and colonialists because they built a prosperous and democratic society in the desert is absurd. Even after the end of the War, Jews continued to be persecuted in the Middle East. According to the Washington Institute, 150,000 Jews lived in Iraq at the start of the 20^th Century. When the United States invaded the country in 2003 only 35 Jews remained in Baghdad. The problem for diplomats and world leaders is that Palestinians can also trace their ancestry back as far as Jews. But no Arab country, with the exception of Jordan (home to two million Palestinians) has been willing to accommodate them. Qatar, Iran, and Turkey, however, house Hamas terrorist leaders.

 

Bent on annihilating the state of Israel, Palestinians leaders have ignored the welfare of their people. Citizens of Israel, living in a democracy with rule of law and property rights, have greater freedom and higher living standards than those living under the control of the PA or Hamas. Consider the differences in annual GDP per capita between those living under Palestinian rule ($3,500 in the West Bank and Gaza in 2021) versus $53,200 for Israelis. Keep in mind, the PA has controlled about half of the West Bank for almost thirty years, while Hamas, also elected by the people, has controlled the Gaza Strip for fifteen years. 

 

While there is complexity in the religious and cultural heritage of those living in the Middle East, there is nothing complex about the different moral and ethical values between Hamas and the Israelis. This is not a war between oppressor and oppressed. It is a fight about universal values, between good and evil, between right and wrong, between the classically liberal West and those who follow an illiberal, authoritarian path. While the West, of which Israel is an integral part, has never been perfect, in comparison to those states aligned against it – China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and their allies – the West is a paragon of righteousness. Its citizens have more freedom and higher standards of living. Israel, like Ukraine and Taiwan, is fighting to defend self-government, rule of law, property rights, and individual freedom, while Hamas, which takes its orders from an authoritarian Iran, represents a people devoid of human rights. Fully supporting Israel, as well as Ukraine and Taiwan, should not be a difficult decision for any Western power.

 

The United States and other Western nations have an obligation to their citizens to preserve the liberal order, whether in Ukraine, Taiwan, or in Israel. That requires, as Tolkien wrote in the rubric above, standing firm on principles of democracy and personal freedoms, while upping defense spending. It is the weak, not the strong, who are attacked and vanquished. To ignore that lesson is to let authoritarianism thrive.

"The Second Debate - Where Was Reagan's Optimism and Humor?"

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“The Second Debate – Where was Reagan’s Optimism and Humor?”

October 5, 2023

 

“Debate: A discussion for elucidating truth.”

                                                                                                An American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828

                                                                                                Noah Webster, LL.D. (1758-1843)

 

Like most Republicans, I watched Wednesday’s debate hoping for a Reagan-like figure to emerge. The venue was the library of a President who had vision, radiated confidence, optimism, humor, and compassion. Like many, I was disappointed. Haley exhibited confidence and vision but without compassion that endears politicians to voters. DeSantis had the confidence of a governor who has done well but appeared humorless. Scott exuded optimism and compassion, but without vision.  

 

Like today, in 1980 Americans did not believe in themselves. We were in a funk. A President had been assassinated seventeen years earlier; a second resigned ten years later. The Vietnam War, which bled and divided the country for ten years, ignobly ended in 1975; inflation was rampant, with high interest rates and falling real incomes. Culturally, the country was a mess. The optimism of the post-War years was gone. Early in his presidency, Reagan remarked: “What I’d really like to do is go down as the President who made Americans believe in themselves again.” That he did, and the Country, through three presidents, experienced almost twenty years of economic growth and prosperity.

 

We are living through another fallow period. The twenty-year War against Islamic Terrorism ended disastrously in Afghanistan two years ago. China is on the rise. Inflation is destroying incomes. Parents are excluded from decisions regarding their school-age children. Borders are non-existent. We are told we are a racist society, that our country was built on the backs of slaves. We are divided into oppressors and victims; and that it is okay, if one is a victim, to rampage through streets and destroy private property. Conservative speakers are not allowed on campuses. Public figures cannot define a woman, yet transwomen are allowed to compete against biological women in sports. In his farewell address to the nation, on January 11, 1989, President Reagan said, “All great change in America begins at the dinner table.” Now, the nuclear family is considered passé by many. 

 

But instead of Reagan, the elephant in the room last Wednesday was Donald Trump. In 2016, Trump recognized that elitists had captured both parties, and that large swaths of the electorate felt ignored, especially working-and-middle class Americans. Ignoring a warning from Senator Schumer, he promised to drain Washington’s swamp, where politicians and bureaucrats live and thrive. As President, he was harassed by untrue allegations and unfair investigations, which impacted his administration. He accomplished a lot, but, thin-skinned and humorless, his misbehavior after his loss in 2020 gave strength to the opposition. The country, divided by the War in Iraq, the response to the credit crisis, and by Barack Obama (a man many hoped would unite us), has been riven further apart by the antics of Mr. Trump.

 

Today, driven by a desire for personal resurrection, Trump is but a sliver of what he had been eight years ago. Yet, if he succeeds in winning the Republican nomination, as now seems possible, he will, in my opinion and barring third party entrants, lead the Party to catastrophic losses next November.

 

But back to what was termed a debate: In contrast to Webster’s definition, no truths were elucidated. Nevertheless, I preferred this to the first, as there was less in-fighting and more attacks on Biden and his policies. But like the first, what we witnessed was not a debate. Dozens of questions – some good but others snide and irrelevant – were asked, each of a particular individual who was given sixty seconds to respond. Rebuttals were allowed thirty seconds. Perfect for soundbites but not for learning. Candidates spoke over one another. The result was entertaining but hardly illuminating. And it ended with a childish, game-show-like question from Dana Perino: “Which one of you, tonight, should be voted off the island?” That question elicited the evening’s best response. Ron DeSantis: “I think that is disrespectful to my fellow contenders.”

 

In 1960, two years before her death, Eleanor Roosevelt published You Learn by Living: Eleven Keys for a More Fulfilling Life. In it she wrote: “Freedom makes a huge requirement of every human being. With freedom comes responsibility. For the person who is unwilling to grow up, the person who does not want to carry his own weight, this is a frightening prospect.”  That is true, but for the person who cherishes freedom, the responsibility to carry one’s own weight is no burden; it is a welcome obligation and opportunity. Most people prefer a person with confidence, vision, and humor, someone who looks forward optimistically. We yearn for a leader who will give us free rein, to let us succeed based on merit. Perhaps in the next debate such a candidate will emerge?

"'New Deal Rebels' by Amith Shlaes - Random Thoughts and Questions"

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“New Deal Rebels by Amity Shlaes – Random Thoughts and Questions”

August 18, 2023

 

“…it is neither humanitarian nor Democratic nor American to indoctrinate the people

of the United States with the idea that it is the duty of the government to

support the citizen, rather than the duty of the citizen to support the government.”

Speech by John W. Davis, October 21, 1936

Democrat Presidential candidate 1924

 

Davis’ words in 1936 anticipated the penultimate sentence in President John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address twenty-five years later: “And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”

 

Davis’s and Kennedy’s words expressed a longing for a time when government was limited and the individual paramount, when Horatio Alger was honored, and when children were told success was up to them, that they could become whatever they wanted, as long as they were aspirant, focused, and diligent.

 

While the immediate aim of the policies and agencies created by FDR’s New Deal was to alleviate the suffering brought on by the Depression, the long-term consequence was to empower the State at the cost of personal freedom and choice. The result was the birth of the “nanny” State, where government is viewed as overprotective and interferes unduly with individual choice. Kennedy’s call in 1961 was for greater individual self-reliance. But his words went unheeded; LBJ’s “Great Society” boosted the role of government, offering more entitlements. The 1980s and ‘90s provided a respite in the rate of change, but the momentum toward bigger government persisted. Progressive candidate Barack Obama spoke in late October 2008: “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” Just as the stock market crash of 1929, provided the impetus for a more heavy-handed government response, the credit crisis of 2008 gave Mr. Obama the same excuse. As Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s future White House Chief of Staff, exclaimed after the election: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.” 

 

When Roosevelt was inaugurated on March 3, 1933, the country was in the depths of the Great Depression. While the Dow Jones Industrial Averages were 30% higher than the summer of 1932, they were down 85% from their peak in 1929. Unemployment was close to 25% and real GDP was 26% lower than four years earlier. The Country was looking for a savior, and FDR appeared.

 

Once inaugurated in March 1933, Franklin Roosevelt took dramatic action. He declared a bank holiday, which shut down banks and the New York Stock Exchange for a week. In the interim, Congress passed a series of measures to ensure the integrity of the banks, including deposit insurance. When banks re-opened the immediate crisis passed. People re-deposited funds they had withdrawn, and the stock market opened higher. Over the next few years (like his successor seventy-six later with his “pen and phone”) FDR amassed power. In doing so, he created a plethora of agencies – “alphabet agencies,” as they were known. Among them: AAA (Agricultural Adjustment Administration), CCC (Civil Conservation Corporation), ERA (Emergency Relief Act), FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation), NRA (National Recovery Act), PWA (Public Works Administration), REA (Rural Electrification Administration, TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority), and the WPA (Works Progress Administration) – all reporting to the Executive. 

 

In 302 pages and over four dozen chapters, using material from dozens of politicians, economists, commentators, judges, and academics of the era, Amity Shlaes chronicles those who rebelled against Mr. Roosevelt’s response to the Great Depression. While some of the programs then created are still with us, like the FDIC and Social Security, others like the NRA inhibited free market forces, so delayed a return to pre-crash growth. Thus in 1938, nine years after the stock market crash that ignited the Great Depression, unemployment still stood at 19%, with real GDP only 2% higher than in 1929. Escape from the Depression came with providing armaments to the Allies (and our own preparation for war). 

 

Quoting newspaper and magazine articles, texts of speeches, the Congressional Record, letters, Supreme Court concurrences and dissents, Amity Shlaes lets her New Deal rebels speak for themselves. Among the contributors are John W. Davis, Democrat New York Governor Al Smith (1923-1928), Associate Justice Benjamin Cardozo, Wendell Willkie (Republican nominee for President in 1940), Senators Joseph Bailey (R-NC) and Carter Glass (R-VA), John Maynard Keynes, Winston Churchill, Friedrich Hayek, and Alice Roosevelt Longworth. Ms. Shlaes writes in the introduction: “To travel with these critics through their time is to understand first of all there was nothing inevitable about the duration of the Great Depression.” The key word is “duration,” by which she meant ten years.

 

In the afterword of New Deal Rebels, William P. Ruger, president of the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) which published this book, quotes Edward Crosby Harwood (1900-1980), economist and founder of the AIER: “It is never too late to substitute a realistic viewpoint and wisdom for muddling good intentions, and it is surely in the interest of the Country that this be done at the earliest possible date.”

 

But is it too late for us? As a country, we have piled on debt with little concern as to how it will be repaid. In the interest of centralizing and justifying power, we manufacture or exaggerate crises: climate change, accusations of racism and homophobia, pandemics, and perceived inequities. In the meantime, we must ask ourselves: Do we have the means and, more important, do we have the will to confront our true existential threat: Communist China and its pursuit of global hegemony? Progressives market themselves as guardians of democracy and the common man. Yet they employ undemocratic methods, like kangaroo courts to legally tie up opponents, and they use (and have used) public office for private gain, i.e., the Clintons, the Obamas, and the Bidens. Questions arise: Will our debts force a devaluation of the dollar? Will increases in productivity offset declining fertility rates? Will tried and true moral standards ever return? For two centuries the United States, has stood as a beacon of freedom and opportunity to the world’s oppressed. Is that still possible, without the freedom to speak out and the tolerance embedded in a Judeo-Christian ethic? 

 

Appealing about the New Deal Rebels is its relevance, providing perspective for the optimist that past may be prologue, that we have been here before. But doubt remains: We have been divided into victims and oppressors. We are told our nation is inherently unfair, that racism dominates our history, and that answers lie with a benevolent government, run by Progressives who work to ensure fair and equitable outcomes.

 

Our Founders gave us a limited government, with three separate but equal branches, established of, by, and for the people – a government to serve the people, not the other way around. Yet today we have bureaucrats and lobbyists who move back and forth between the public and private sectors, so that three of the five wealthiest counties in the nation (Loudon, Falls Church, and Fairfax) are in the Washington metropolitan area. Harwood’s words, quoted above and published eighty-nine years ago in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune (and re-printed in Ms. Shlaes book) are as relevant today as when written. If only someone is listening.

"Who is Behind the Curtain?"

                                                                     Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Who is Behind the Curtain?”

May 12, 2022

 

“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”

                                                                                                                                The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, 1900

                                                                                                                                L. Frank Baum (1856-1919

 

Apart from the final seventeen months of the Woodrow Wilson Administration, when the President suffered a stroke, we have never had a President appear unable to carry out his responsibilities – until now. To be honest, that assessment of Mr. Biden, while I believe it to be true, is based on observation rather than empirical evidence. In the case of President Wilson, the cover-up of his infirmities was due to his doctor, Cary Grayson and his second wife, Edith Bolling Galt Wilson. Dr. Grayson did brief Wilson’s cabinet and the question of succession arose, but the doctor refused to sign any official notice of inability, so Vice President Thomas Marshall remains a footnote, and the Presidency was allegedly managed by Mrs. Wilson.

 

At 78, Mr. Biden became the oldest person to be inaugurated President, eight years older than Donald Trump and nine years older than Ronald Reagan. In both cases, political opponents called into question their mental acuity; so, it is unsurprising that concerns for Mr. Biden have been raised. Four years and ten months after leaving office, Mr. Reagan sent a letter to the American people telling them he was afflicted with Alzheimer’s. In the summer of 2018, eighteen months after taking office, Mr. Trump took (and passed) the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test. Thus far, Mr. Biden has refused to take a similar test.

 

Since Mr. Biden has not taken a cognitive test, comments that he has early signs of dementia are speculation. Nevertheless, concerns abound and not just among Republicans. A Politico Morning Consult poll in January 2022 found that 48% of those polled do not believe he is mentally fit. An ABC/The Washington Post poll, taken at the same time, indicated that Mr. Biden lacks the “mental sharpness” to be President. A Harvard Youth Poll showed a job approval rate of 41%, despite 57% of the correspondents having voted for him. Anecdotally, anyone who has watched his news conferences has noted his shuffling gait, his fumbling answers and his slurring of words. 

 

Again, none of this is proof of dementia, but enough questions have been raised that the White House should respond. After all, the U.S. Presidency is the most powerful position in the world, and if someone else (or some cabal) is making decisions in his name the people should know who that is.

 

My candidate for puppeteer is former President Barack Obama. In Columbia, Missouri on October 30, 2008, Mr. Obama boldly declared: “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” While he later backed away from that assertion, that is what he said. The National Catholic Register, at the time, referred to the statement as “revolutionary” and “audacious.” 

 

As the son of a white mother and a black father, Mr. Obama had the unique opportunity to bridge the racial divide in the U.S. Instead, racism worsened, and political polarization intensified during his eight years. Perhaps we should not have been surprised. From an early age, Mr. Obama had had mentors who were anti-West and anti-American: Frank Marshall Davis in Hawaii, an anti-white and anti-American former member of the Communist Party; Professor Edward Said of Columbia, a spokesperson for Palestinian terrorists; Professor Derrick Bell of Harvard Law School, an early advocator of Critical Race Theory; Reverend Jeremiah Wright whose church, Trinity United Church of Christ, Mr. Obama attended for twenty years; and Bill Ayers, a domestic terrorist in whose Chicago home Mr. Obama held fundraisers.

 

Some might argue that criticism of Mr. Obama is based solely on racial prejudice. While that certainly is true of some, most of the criticism was (and is) directed at his policies, not at the person. Extremism exists in both parties but has been more prominent on the left. It was in 2013 that #Black Live Matter was formed, in response to the Trayvon Martin murder, and Antifa rose to prominence during the Obama years. Instead of following the example set by Martin Luther King of encouraging character development, Mr. Obama pursued identity politics. In doing so, his statements stood in contrast to those of black economist and scholar, Thomas Sowell: “If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago and a racist today.”

 

The 2016 election was a surprise. Many people, but particularly Democrats, expected Hillary Clinton would win and further the progressive goals established by Mr. Obama. That was not to be. Four years later they had their chance. Covid derailed the Trump economy, which had lifted economic growth and allowed minority incomes to achieve record levels. The choice of Joe Biden as Democrat nominee was fortuitous for Mr. Obama. Mr. Biden was familiar with his agenda and was portrayed during the campaign as a moderate. However, Newsweek, on December 22, 2020, headlined an article: “Nearly 60% of Biden’s Cabinet Appointments So Far Are Obama Officials.” They include Janet Yellen, John Kerry, Susan Rice, Lloyd Austin, Alejandro Mayorkas, Denis McDonough, Avril Haines and Linda Thomas-Greenfield, among others.

 

What Democrats did not expect was the rapid decline in the Administration’s popularity – with job approval for Mr. Biden in the low 40s and the even lower ones for Vice President Kamala Harris. But how could they have been so blind? Did they not expect a surge of illegal immigrants when they loosened rules at the border? Why did they not anticipate inflation when they kept interest rates low, increased money supply, expanded government spending and tightened regulations regarding fossil fuels? Did they not realize that their calls to defund the police would result in a surge in crime? Did they not consider the consequences of a too-hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan? Did they expect parents to docilely accept the teachings of “woke” ideologies in public schools? With a military more focused on social justice, why were they so surprised at our relative unpreparedness for conflicts with Russia and China?

 

Democrats must realize that the odds favor them losing majorities in the Senate and possibly in the House in the midterms. Prospects for 2024 don’t look great either, putting their progressive agenda further at risk. Mr. Biden will be 82 in January 2025, and his cognitive infirmities will have worsened. Ms. Harris comes across as a cackling incompetent; thus, with her low polling numbers, she seems an unlikely candidate for President in 2024. It is fear that they may lose their soap box that explains the recent creation of the dystopian Disinformation Governance Board, a proposal called for by Mr. Obama that would effectively shut down free speech.

 

The risk of losing our democratic republic has always been there. Freedom is difficult to attain, but easy to lose. Elected officials and unelected bureaucrats must be held accountable. That cannot be if the people don’t know who is in charge. We’re not in Kansas anymore; we should know who is behind the curtain.