"The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly"

                                                                   

                                                            Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly”

October 15, 2025

 

“Before I go on with this short history, let me make a general observation – the test of a first-rate intelligence

is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.”

                                                                                                                F. Scott Fitzgerald (1896-1940)

                                                                                                                The Crack-Up, 1945

                                                                                                                collection of essays, published posthumously

 

While the good, the bad, and the ugly seems to me an apt metaphor for Donald Trump, most people would find the title too broad, too encompassing. Either he is loved or he is hated. To his fans, he is, to use his own words, the “Greatest President Ever.” To his opponents, he is an incarnation of Hitler. He is certainly not a Nazi, as his opponents have termed him, and he was not “chosen by God” to lead the United States, as his ardent supporters have said. Hyperbole, so common among todays’ politicians and commentators, is a consequence, at least in part, of the hatred that divides our nation. 

 

I see the good in Mr. Trump in his condemnation of ‘woke’ policies that have corrupted politics, schools, universities, and social organizations – manifested in identity politics, where merit is sidelined by an emphasis on race and/or sex, and where gender is not a biological term. I see it in his signing of the “One, Big, Beautiful Bill” that made the 2017 tax cuts permanent. I see it in effectively closing the southern border, so that illegal migration into the U.S. has slowed to a trickle. I see it in his combatting inner-city crime, where victims – as well as perpetrators – are overwhelmingly people of color. I see the good in Mr. Trump in his abiding support for Israel, at a time when anti-Semitism has spread throughout much of the West. And I see it in the unprecedented peace that his plan for Gaza may possibly bring to the Middle East. I see it in his straight talk with our European allies who risk economic and social collapse, with their falling demographics, increased welfarism, an over-emphasis on “green” energy, declining defense spending, excessive regulation, wokeism, and high taxes. While he is what we used to call a motor-mouth, I see good in his availability to the press. And I see the good in some of his cabinet picks, like Marco Rubio, Scott Bessent and Doug Burghum. 

 

I see the bad in Mr. Trump in his support for tariffs, which have raised prices for U.S. consumers, and in his call for lower interest rates, which stroke speculation, discourage savers, and hurt the U.S. Dollar. I see the bad in his attempt to get the Federal Reserve to bow to his demands, and in his refusal to reach out to those who oppose his politics. I see the bad in his failure to increase legal immigration, to acknowledge that the United States is, and always has been, a nation of immigrants. I see the bad in Mr. Trump in his abandonment of conservative principles that call for smaller government, rule of law, less regulation, increased competition, to be accountable, and to encourage greater individual freedom. While I see the good in Mr. Trump’s singling out universities that foster censorship and which have disemboweled conservativism, I see the bad in him demanding adherence to his rules. And I see the bad in some of his cabinet picks, including his Vice President J.D. Vance, but also in Pete Hegseth, Pam Bondi and Robert Kennedy, Jr. (Vance has been a particular disappointment, so different from the decent and respectable advocate for personal responsibility depicted in his autobiography, Hillbilly Elegy, which I read in 2016.) 

 

I see the ugly in his financial self-dealing, including his support for cryptocurrencies and meme coins. I see ugliness in his ego and in his butchering of the English language, and in his proclivity to create chaos when harmony and mutual respect are needed.  I particularly see the ugly in his retribution, in using lawfare to go after those who for eight years used lawfare against him. Mr. Trump has doubled down on one of today’s ugliest political tactics. I recognize that Mr. Trump is nemesis to the entire Democrat establishment, and he sees himself as justified in retribution. But two wrongs do not make a right. On October 7 at Turning Point USA, the organization founded by Charlie Kirk, Vivek Ramaswamy spoke of turning the other cheek: “Their brutal tactics should never cause us to change who we are...when we lower ourselves to play according to their rules, when we concede the idea that might makes right, that we settle our disputes with force rather than debate, then we lose the very thing we were fighting for, and that is our identity as Americans.” Amen.

 

Nevertheless, with all his flaws (or at least as I see them), I voted for Mr. Trump three times and, given his opponents, I am glad I did. He is unique among Presidents I have witnessed, and there is much he has done that I support. However, one would be hard-pressed to explain his political philosophy, apart from the fact he is transactional. Keeping one’s opponents off-base may be a good negotiating tactic, but it can wreak havoc among allies and in financial markets. He brings out the extremism in all of us – he is loved and hated in equal measure.

 

It will not be until two or three decades after his death before an unbiased biography will be written, one which will explain the Trump phenomenon. Sadly, those my age will never see it.

"The Lesson of Charlie Kirk"

 This has been put together quickly, so I am sure there are errors and omissions. Nevertheless, this is my say.  In certain respects, I feel an interloper in that I did not know much about Charlie Kirk before his assassination. But he was obviously an extraordinary young man. He has been compared to a youthful William Buckley, but Buckley had the advantage of wealth, a prestigious family and a Yale education. Kirk, without those advantages, reached out to young people, to high school and college students, to get them to think about politics and their beliefs. Like Buckley, he eschewed violence. And he was enormously successful in what he did. And he died far too early, a young husband and father, at age 31. 

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

Thought of the Day

“The Lesson of Charlie Kirk”

September 13, 2025

 

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible

will make violent revolution inevitable.”

                                                                                                                President John F. Kennedy

                                                                                                                Alliance for Progress

                                                                                                                March 13, 1962

 

Until his assassination last Wednesday, I never knew much about Charlie Kirk. But from what I have read, I believe his life and message provided a roadmap for a better Country. He loved to debate ideas and was a passionate believer in free speech. Sadly, he was killed exercising that freedom. 

 

Most everyone agrees that our Country has become divided, that extremism, on both the left and the right, has voided those things most of us have in common – a belief in a nation of infinite possibilities, a belief in the wisdom of our founders and the Constitution they bequeathed us, a Judeo-Christian heritage and its traditions, our history, and an appreciation for the benefits the Enlightenment brought to a darkened world. 

 

Self-righteousness of the Left and Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) have, in my opinion, brought great harm: Political correctness, despite its claim for doing good, censors speech, and inhibits freedom of thought and expression by denigrating and denying opposing opinions. Some words may offend sensitive feelings, but they do not beget violence. Identity politics has divided us by race, religion, and gender. The long-standing motto of the United States, E pluribus unum, seems no longer to apply.

 

How to subdue the flames of partisanship that consume us? Charlie Kirk believed the way forward was through debate, not lectures and certainly not violence. On college campuses, he invited those who differed to express their opinions, to debate him. It was, he believed, a better substitute than anger and violence. Ironically, it was during such a forum he was shot and killed.

 

How do we dampen those flames. The most expedient way to address the intolerance that permeates our politics would be for political leaders to act like responsible adults – to stop vilifying their opponents, and then temperately and respectfully debate the issues, as Kimberley Strassel advised in Friday’s Wall Street Journal. It would be helpful, but probably even less likely than politicians assuming a measure of maturity, if the media, rather than sanctimoniously blaring opinions, focused on news. I don’t know about you, but I have pretty much stopped watching cable and network news.

 

In my opinion, the best long-term answer to the political division and hatred that runs amok and mars our politics is to focus on education. Besides all the critical STEM programs, children, from an early age, should be taught to read history – to know our history but also that of other countries, especially that of Rome and Greece, the world’s first attempts at democracy. For perspective, they should read classical fiction, to imbibe the works of Shakespeare, Milton, Austen, the Brontës, and others who have influenced generations of teachers, philosophers and politicians. They should be taught the history of wars, for sometimes wars must be fought – why they began, how they were conducted and how concluded. They should process all they have learned so that they can form and articulate independently-arrived opinions – with the understanding that a democracy can only function when a citizenry is informed.

 

Sadly, that is not happening. The nation’s report card, the latest National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), yielded the worst fourth grade reading outcomes in twenty years, with 40% of students scoring below basic proficiency. For eighth graders, reading scores hit an historic low, with a third of the students performing below basic proficiency. In the meantime, chronic absenteeism was up, as were grade inflation and misbehavior. Teachers, administrators and their unions should be held accountable.

 

In high schools and colleges, students should be taught the rudiments of debate, and he encouraged them to debate issues respectfully and intelligently. When I was on a high school debate team, we were assigned topics and then told as to whether we would be arguing the affirmative or the negative. And we had to be able to debate both sides. Teachers and professors should leave their opinions in the cloak room, unless they are welcoming disagreement and debate. As Charlie Kirk would say, teachers should then ask: show me why I am wrong?

 

It is that which is the lesson of Charlie Kirk. Be passionate in your beliefs but don’t let passion morph into hatred and violence. Befriend those with whom you disagree. Be willing to listen to what they have to say and be comfortable debating your differences. I hope we never reach a point where we act like sheep, where we all accept, without debate, which policies are best. Neither the Right nor the Left has an exclusive on the correct way forward. But together, in discussion and debate, we should find the route most compatible to most people. Remember our motto; it still fits: Out of many, one.

"Books - Censorship, or Choice?"

 Fifty years ago today, the last U.S. combat troops left Vietnam. It hardly seems possible that so much time has gone by. Troops that were not honored then should be remembered today with thanks and appreciation.

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Books – Censorship, or Choice?”

March 29, 2023

 

“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all

subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.

                                                                                                                             Justice William O. Douglas

                                                                                                                             Speech, Author’s Guild Council, NYC

                                                                                                                             December 3, 1952

 

The Left has the annoying habit of blaming the right for transgressions of which they are guilty, from weaponizing government to tabling stories that put them in a bad light, like Hunter Biden’s laptop. Cloaked in bogus virtue, with mainstream media in their corner, they leave no doubt as to the righteousness of their positions. They profess concern for the aged yet are unwilling to address the impending financial collapse of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid – virtually a certainty in the next ten to fifteen years, unless action is taken. They claim to represent the poor yet propose and implement inflationary policies whose victims are the lowest income families.

 

The Left complains about censorship from the right, while they intimidate conservative college speakers, like commentator Charlie Kirk at the University of California Davis, Judge Kyle Duncan at Stanford Law School and causing Mary Eberstadt, author of Primal Screams, to cancel this week’s talk at Furman University. In 2016, public figures as diverse as Barack Obama, Clarence Thomas, and Michael Bloomberg warned about political correctness gone awry. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) agreed: “One worrisome trend undermining open discourse in the academy is the increased push by some students and faculty to ‘disinvite’ speakers with whom they disagree from campus appearances.” Seven years later, the situation has worsened. People have the right to protest, but school and college administrators should promote diversity in speakers and in books, not cling to a partisan political ideology.

 

………………………………………………………..

 

Roughly 200,000 books are published in the United States each year. The Library of Congress holds approximately 50 million titles. The average public library contains about a million titles. According to a January 2022 survey from the Pew Research Center, 75% of American adults said they read at least one book in the past year. The average person, according to that study, reads twelve books a year. While women read about 50% more books than men, they cannot come close to reading everything published. Choices must be made. 

 

According to an article in last Friday’s The Wall Street Journal, the American Library Association (ALA) claimed that attempts to ban books in 2022 nearly doubled from a year earlier: “The organization found 2,571 titles were under scrutiny – most focused on or written by LGBT individuals and people of color.” On a positive note, according to an ABC news report on January 12, 2023, the ALA also said, “most book challenges fail to remove books from classroom or library shelves completely.” Censorship or efforts to ban books from the Left merits less attention. The same ABC report, which consisted of 1165 words, devoted 63 words to Progressive’s efforts to ban books, like Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men, Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn, and several Dr. Seuss titles, all “in the name of anti-racism or progressive ideals,” books that not too long ago were considered classics of their genre.

 

It is the Left, which purports to be respectful, tolerant, and wise, that has purged “offensive” language from novels by Agatha Christie, Ian Fleming, and others. Such actions raise questions. Will the Bible be re-written to accord with woke sensitivities? Will Shakespeare, Milton, or Locke? Are “drag queen” story hours appropriate for elementary grade school students? Does the altering of words and/or the rephrasing of sentences by “sensitivity readers” and “inclusion ambassadors” provide a more honest rendering of our history? How deep and wide will political correctness take us? Is not our past part of who we are?  

 

When the ALA released their data last week, the Associated Press reported the story, with the headline “Record book ban attempts in 2022.” They wrote of a shift from individuals to conservative organized groups, “targeting a wide swath of books that don’t align with their political, religious or moral views.” Only The Wall Street Journal, of the papers I read, interviewed the co-founders of Moms for Liberty, one of the groups: “We say – write the book, print the book, sell the book; but if it does not have age-appropriate material for school children, don’t put it in school.” That seems a reasonable request. Is that logic present among those who would like to ban books that have been classics for generations? 

 

Censorship, in any form, is bad. Political propaganda should not substitute for literature in schools. Books that serve to divide should be considered carefully, especially among young readers. Books assigned in schools should be age appropriate but, most important, those selected should promote a love for reading. Not all will agree as to age appropriateness, and it will vary from one child to the next. But parents should be involved along with teachers. We make choices throughout our lives, and education should be aimed at helping people make better choices for themselves, their families, their communities, and their country.

 

In books, we have more choices than in most aspects of our lives. I consider myself relatively well-read and have kept track of books read for over twenty years – almost equally divided between fiction and non-fiction. As a general rule, I prefer dead authors of fiction and living writers of non-fiction. However, during those twenty years, three or four million books have been published, on top of the many millions of books already published; so, barely a dent has been made in what was and is available. Nevertheless, we read to learn, and we read to be entertained. The choices we make are important.

 

Perhaps these competing claims are part of a bigger problem – the United States appears to be pulling back from core values that once defined it. A recent poll conducted by the Wall Street Journal-National Opinion Research Center (NORC) revealed that tolerance for others, which four years ago was deemed “very important” by 80% of Americans, had fallen to 58 percent.  As for books, people’s tastes vary; what I read may not appeal to you. You should be able to read Maia Kobabe’s Gender Queer, and I should be able to read Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men. It is important to have choices; what is more important is that we read.