"A Good Education Has Never Been More Important"

The photo is one I found on the internet, which I thought pertinent to the subject of this essay.

It is never fun watching markets dissolve, but I still believe that Israel and the U.S., in confronting Iran, have done the right thing, especially as we have been joined by most of the Arab states. With their continued work on an atomic weapon and with missiles capable of hitting Diego Garcia 2500 miles away, that means Iran could as easily hit Vienna or Athens. They do represent a threat to world peace. They need to be stopped.

 

This essay represents something I have been thinking of for some time.

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“A Good Education Has Never Been More Important”

March 28, 2026

 

“The objective of education is to prepare the young to educate themselves throughout their lives.”

                                                                                                                Attributed to Robert Maynard Hutchins (1899-1977)

                                                                                                                Former Chancellor & President, University of Chicago

 

There is an old Chinese proverb that is appropriate in this age of AI, increased dependency on government, wokeism, and at a time when education needs a re-boot: “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” While we all are dependent on others, especially for love and companionship, a free individual is not one dependent on the state except in the case of dire and exceptional need. Reason and soundness must replace foolish ignorance.

 

.................................................................................

 

It is not simply artificial intelligence that makes our age unique and so badly in need of the ability to reason logically and to think independently, it is also the fact that extremism has kidnapped our politics, and that ignorance and foolishness have laid waste to common sense and made our cultural heritage something to shun rather than to celebrate. 

 

If Mark Ziuckerberg needs a robotic assistant, what about us? Do we need some piece of machinery to remind us to send flowers on Mother’s Day, book lunch on Tuesday, and reply to this morning’s e-mails? That might simplify our lives, but are not personal connection and human empathy important? How much of our personal lives do we want to lay off on a piece of software that might be hackable? Will our AI assistant, to get in our good graces, heap false praise on what we have done or are about to do? Or will it provide the analytic criticism needed to improve our performance? Efficiency without empathy does not necessarily lead to a happy life. Will we lose our ability to sense emotion and to think critically if we rely on artificial intelligence? These are questions best considered when one has read widely.

 

Without a classical liberal arts education that includes biology, we are at risk of accepting as fact that men can be woman (or vice versa) if they so choose – that one’s sex is not a matter of science but of choice. Consider who benefits from such allegations. It is not only certain male athletes, but clinics willing to perform gender-affirming surgeries. Skepticism is a bi-product of a good education. Remember how Paul Ehrlich amassed a fortune, stating as fact that millions would die because of a planet unable to feed its population. In the years since 1968, when The Population Bomb was published (and which sold over two million copies in its first three years), the world population has more than doubled, while the percent of the population suffering from hunger has declined. Millions of people accepted his conclusions without questioning.

 

And think of climate wars. It was in elementary school that we were first taught of how Earth had warmed and cooled over the millennia – from the Tyrannosaurus Rex during the Cretaceous Period to the Wooly Mammoth during the Pleistocene Epoch. That is not to say we can ignore our environment or changes in climate. The Earth does not sit still, and man has a responsibility to all forms of life and to the planet he lives on. Yet we are scolded by supercilious tree-huggers if we drive a gas-powered vehicle, use more than a gallon of water to flush the toilet, or fail to re-cycle the plastic yogurt cover. Personally, I am conscious of the environment and I re-cycle, but I don’t like to be scolded by a bigot who scoots off in his private jet, or on their 200-foot yacht. A good education teaches one to differentiate between a policy based on facts and prescriptions based on ideologies.

 

Political extremism has become ubiquitous. In both parties, extremists control the message. A few minutes spent listening to a speech by President Trump or a response by Senator Chuck Schumer reminds one of the lament that starts Rudyard Kipling’s Ballad: “Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.” The one exception to this polarization appears to be the Supreme Court – the only adult branch of government. Thus far in the 2025-26 term, which began in October 2025, the Court has released 20 opinions, five of which were 9-0 decisions. If Ketanji Brown Jackson and Clarence Thomas can agree 25% of the time, why can’t Congress?

 

Over the long-term extremism never succeeds – there are simply not enough extremists. But we also know from Iran that extremists in government can persevere for many years. Forty-seven years of rule by fanatic mullahs have caused millions to suffer and tens-of-thousands to die. It is the study of history that provides perspective. In a recent issue of The Spectator – in an article titled “Those Who Believe in Liberalism Must Now Fight For It” – Adrian Wooldridge wrote: “The best resource we have in preventing a return to the 1930s is the memory of the 1930s.” The best way to understand the present is to read of the past.

 

None of us can predict the future. Change is coming, but that has always been true. The best way to deal with the world we face is with a good education – whether its change wrought by AI, dealing with (sometimes well-intentioned but always misplaced) wokeism, or political extremism. Sadly our public schools, especially those in inner cities, are governed by unions more interested in growing membership than in the students they are supposed to educate, and too many of our universities, with costs having risen about three times the rate of inflation over the past fifty years, are more focused on diversity than on excellence. 

 

A good education is a life-long pursuit, and it is the encouragement of that, as Mr. Hutchins is quoted in the epigraph, which should be the job of schools, universities and parents. We should never stop learning. An educated individual understands the risks of open borders, as well as the primacy of legal immigration. She or he realizes and perils of mercantilism and socialism, while recognizing the advantages of capitalism. They know the differences between equality and equity, and between diversity and assimilation. Years ago Sy Syms developed his iconic marketing slogan: “An educated consumer is our best customer.” An educated electorate is the best defense of democracy.

 

My argument in favor of education is not because I believe a university degree will assure a higher paying job. It may or may not. It is because I believe a liberal arts education will make one a more informed citizen, one better able to navigate disruption caused by technology or anything else, to make sense of polarized political views, and to appreciate our history, our form of government, and our cultural heritage.

"Who Else Besides Trump?"

  

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Who Else Besides Trump?”

November 19, 2024

 

“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community,

they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.”

                                                                                               Senator Charles Schumer

                                                                                               The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC

                                                                                               January 3, 2017

 

“Too much power has been delegated to unaccountable bureaucrats.

Undoing this is necessary to restore American greatness – but

fraught with risk. The unelected elite are powerful and fight dirty.”

                                                                                                Liz Truss

                                                                                                Prime Minister, Great Britain, 2022

                                                                                                The Wall Street Journal, November 13, 2024

 

The paradox in Senator Schumer’s statement – a statement unchallenged by Ms. Maddow – is that he admitted to (and would have agreed with) Ms. Truss’s words written five years later – that unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats exert unacceptable power over our nation’s most powerful people, let alone the rest of us. Neither he nor Ms. Maddow acknowledged the irony embedded in their exchange.  

 

……………………………………………………………….

 

As I wrote on November 6, I felt relief, not joy, with the election’s verdict. But as my wife and I spent six days driving around Pennsylvania and Virginia visiting grandchildren, I thought of the election and its consequences. And I concluded that the growing power of the state and its threat to individual freedom has become so powerful that a traditional Republican candidate might not be willing to confront such an oppressive force – that it would take an individual unafraid to incur the wrath of the administrative state. 

 

There is no question that a government that looks after 335 million people needs a professional bureaucracy. The President and the Executive Branch appoint roughly 4,000 individuals, a tiny fraction of the two million federal civilian employees. The Hatch Act, passed in 1939, prohibits partisan political activity among civilian employees in the executive branch of the Federal and District of Columbia Governments, even as it excludes those Presidential appointees whose jobs depend on Senate confirmation. Nevertheless, violations of the Hatch Act have become rampant in recent years, especially in intelligence agencies and within the Justice Department, as “lawfare” was waged against Mr. Trump and some of his backers.

 

It is, though, the natural instinct of people to defend their jobs, to expand their bureaucracies; it is how they personally advance. It is why slaying the dragon of government bureaucracies is so difficult. But unchecked government growth leads to inflation, bloat, bias, waste, and ultimately to either a government that collapses, or one that assumes dictatorial controls. That being an unpleasant prospect, some restrictions on that growth must be imposed, no matter how unpopular.

 

Is Mr. Trump the right man for the job? Obviously, the question is unanswerable. It is not that I am without concerns. Some of Mr. Trump’s nominations, especially former Florida Representative Matt Gaetz, I find troubling, as I do the possibility that he might use “recess appointments” to bring on board those who may not receive Senate confirmation. Adhering not only to the words of the Constitution, but also to its intent, is paramount to the survival of our Republic. However, when I weigh what Mr. Trump proposes versus what has happened overseas, at our border, to inflation, to crime in our cities, and to our culture, schools, and universities over the past few years, I side with those calling out, “Halt!”

 

…………………………………………………………………….

 

Mr. Trump does not satisfy the traits I seek in a friend. He is crude. His bluntness in public is rude. He is incapable of humility. He seems barren of humor, especially the ability to laugh at himself. He is not introspective, nor does he seem to have an interest in history, or even in political philosophy. I don’t understand his love affair with the three trillion-dollar cryptocurrency market, and I believe markets that size should be regulated. I wish he had nominated Nikki Haley and Mike Pompeo to be in his cabinet rather than the abrasive Matt Gaetz or the untested Pete Hegseth. But none of us get everything we wish.

 

Character is important, but that and my personal preferences are not necessarily the qualities we need in a political leader when we are drowning in debt, living with a collapsed border, and enduring an education system – the most expensive in the world – that has failed our youth, all at a time when cultural issues are more important to elements of the Democratic Party than defending the country’s citizens. The problems we face are not unique to the United States. Classical western liberalism is under threat, as western democracies seem to have forgotten that individual freedom needs defending against those who seek power, as exemplified by dictators in countries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. Evil, as the Bible teaches us, is ever-present. The United States is not perfect as we all know, but its form of government, and the liberty it provides the individual, is unique in the annals of human history. It is a country that has benefitted from capitalism, that understands the critical nature of Adam Smith’s “invisible hand,” encourages entrepreneurship, a country that offers, not equality of outcomes but equal opportunities to those who have ability and aspiration. Trump is a fighter for those things he believes in, for working-class people – regardless of race, nationality, or gender – and for all those who love this country, warts and all.

 

Despite being harried by a media that hates him and hounded by political opponents who used the power of the state to try to destroy him, and opposed by bureaucrats who do whatever it takes to defend their turf, he never quits. He is tenacious. The media and his political enemies claim he wants to become a dictator, but they don’t listen to all that he says – if they understood his proposal for a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) – they would realize he wants to limit the power of the state, to remove onerous regulations and to reduce the taxes that fund the leviathan that has become our federal government. Writing about DOGE in Saturday’s New York Sun, Newt Gingrich stated: “Unearthing what is wrong and discovering what could be right is the ultimate contribution of this project.” A smaller government, with power returned to the people, is the goal. Nevertheless, there are risks. Can Musk and Ramaswamy work their magic with DOGE, without disrupting the economy and/or financial markets?

 

Mr. Trump is not my ideal of a President, but I understand why history called him at this moment: Respect for the opinions of others, accountability and personal responsibility are traits needed but in short supply in the media and in our governing classes, as the world moves further into the 21^st Century – a world that will never be free from enemies to democracy. Will Mr. Trump be up to the task of navigating these shoals? I don’t know, but I suspect it will take someone outside the slipstream of politics as usual. We need a course-correction – a secure border, increased defense spending, mutual respect, an assurance that the concept of personal responsibility is alive and well, and accounta

"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.

"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?

"Do Ends Justify Means?"

The attached I expect to be my last TOTD of 2022. It is my 34^th of the year (along with 12 More Essays from Essex and 11 book reviews). Keeping busy, for a retiree, is like aging for cheese and wine; it brings out the best…or so I hope, at least in my essays.

 

As I grow older, my mind wanders back, unsurprising for an octogenarian, as the past is far larger than the future. However, with ten grandchildren I care deeply about the kind of world they will inherit, not that there is much I can do about it. At heart. I am an optimist, but as a realist as well, I know we will never achieve perfection and that events beyond our control can overwhelm. I sometimes think of those born around 1890 who faced the trenches of World War I and then, twenty years later, sent their sons into the jaws of World War II. What a time to have been born! I think of Gandalf’s advice to Frodo: “All we have to decide is what to do with the time given us.” (J.R.R. Tolkien was born in 1892.)

 

I believe that freedom is the natural state of mankind – free to think, speak, write, and pray as one chooses. But I also believe in community, especially of the family, but also that, individually, we are but one cog in the machinery that comprises our towns, cities, states, and nation – that we should all get along, obedient to our laws, diligent in our work, respectful of our differences, and joyful in our similarities.

 

May the year ahead bring peace to all people.

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Do Ends Justify Means?”

December 12, 2022

 

“The principle that the end justifies the means is in individual ethics regarded as the

denial of all morals. In collectivist ethics it becomes necessarily the supreme rule.”

                                                                                                                                The Road to Serfdom, 1944

                                                                                                                                Friedrich von Hayek (1899-1992)

 

 

In a 1928 dissenting opinion, in Olmstead v. the United States, Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote: “Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites everyman to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means – to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal – would bring terrible retributions.”

 

In 1928, Roy Olmstead was a suspected bootlegger. Without judicial approval, federal agents wiretapped his home. He was convicted based on those wiretaps. In 2016, Donald Trump was a successful real estate investor and entertainer. Politically, he was a novice. He was disruptive to establishment politicians, and to federal bureaucrats whose careers depend upon an ever-expanding government. Following his election, but before his inauguration, Senator Chuck Schumer spoke about Mr. Trump’s taunting the intelligence agencies: “He’s being really dumb…Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community and they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.” A truth Mr. Trump was to discover. Those who used unlawful means to marginalize Mr. Trump did so because they felt that the end – the destruction of his political career – justified any means employed. However, as Theodore Roosevelt said in a speech in Chicago on April 10, 1899: “No man is justified in doing evil on the grounds of expediency.” 

 

Over six years have elapsed since Mr. Trump won the Presidency. And we now know that senior executives in the FBI and the Justice Department were culpable in the “Russian collusion” story, as well as four years later being responsible for suppressing the authenticity of what was found on Hunter Biden’s laptop. Ten years ago, Lois Lerner, then IRS Director, Exempt Organizations, singled out conservative organizations. These federal bureaucrats used illicit means to achieve a preferred political end. What they did was despicable. Will they be punished? Probably not, as long as mainstream media sees their role as propagandizers, rather than seekers of truth and disseminators of news.

 

It is true that in times of crises, our government adopted undemocratic means toward what it felt was a noble and necessary end: During the Civil War, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, to silence dissenters and rebels. The Sedition Act of 1918 curtailed free speech during World War I. Franklin Roosevelt interned Japanese Americans in camps. Were any of those actions justifiable? I suspect not.

 

One consequence of this illiberal behavior has been a decline in the public’s confidence in government. A Pew Research Center survey reported on June 6, 2022: “Only two-in-ten Americans say they trust the government in Washington to do what is right ‘just about always’ (2%), or ‘most of the time’ (19%). In 1958, three-quarters of the American public trusted government to do what was right, always or most of the time. The decline has been steady, except for a bump during the Reagan years and in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. There are many factors that have led to this decline, including the quality of candidates, political corruption, and an abundance of politicians and bureaucrats interested in using public office as a stepping-stone to private wealth. 

 

Are there times when an end justifies any means? Yes. Henry David Thoreau wrote of civil disobedience – the disruption of custom and law for an honorable cause. Martin Luther King, in advocating for civil rights, violated existing, though unjust, laws. He was assassinated for his beliefs. Anti-war protestors in the late 1960s were jailed, but their efforts helped bring an end to the Vietnam War.  In all cases, individuals were willing to suffer the consequences of doing what they thought was right. Those who fought for freedom in late 1760s and early 1770s Boston used means that were illegal under British rule. A few Germans, with the goal of ending Nazi rule, engaged in activities in the 1930s that were forbidden by the Third Reich. In both cases – the eventual success of the American Revolution and the ultimate defeat of the Nazis – the perpetrators put themselves at personal risk. Had the United States failed in its bid for independence, its leaders would have been hung as traitors. Most of those who tried to sabotage Hitler’s Nazis were tortured and shot. On the other hand, government bureaucrats who worked to derail Mr. Trump’s Presidential campaign (unsuccessively in 2016 and successively in 2020) did not take personal risk. Most operated anonymously. Many of those exposed have left government service and have, for the most part, retired with full pension benefits, paid for by taxpayers.

 

This is not written in support of Donald Trump, whose well-publicized character flaws have magnified since he left office. While I voted for him twice, I could not vote for him now. This is written because of my fear of non-elected bureaucrats, convinced of their superior knowledge, who assume extralegal powers. They are not, as one would expect in a democracy, kept in check by the media. The powers of the state are awesome and must be thwarted. History tells of democracies degrading into autocracies. Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, in an interview with German novelist Georg Klein on December 10, 2004, compared Nazism to Communism, that in both their philosophies “the end justifies the means.” That cannot happen to us.

 

As many have written, from both sides of the political divide, democracy is fragile. The French author Georges Bernanos (1888-1948) is quoted in his posthumous book Why Freedom?: “The first sign of corruption, in a society that is still alive, is that the end justifies the means.” Once shredded, democracy is not easily repaired. The means government uses to accomplish its goals must be forthright; they must reflect respect for the individual and the standards of civil behavior. Regardless of one’s political leanings, I trust the issue of accountability and integrity in government is something about which we all remain vigilant.

 

……………………………………………………………………..

 

In the meantime, I thank you for your patience with my rantings over the past year; I wish for all the happiest of holidays and the healthiest of New Years. 

"Donald Trump - Antihero?"

 If we weren’t so uptight and fearful of offense, one might find humor in today’s politics. A hundred years ago Finley Peter Dunne would have had fun with what our political class has provided. Mark Twain would have enjoyed chronicling John Kerry’s chasing around the globe in his exhaust-spewing private jet warning the multitudes to stay out of the gas-guzzling vehicles they need to get to work. Mel Brooks, in his prime and without the puritans who now dominate our cultural and media institutions looking over his shoulder, could have made us look in the mirror at what we have done to ourselves and our society. But, sadly, the ability to laugh at ourselves has become a lost art.

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Donald Trump – Antihero?”

July 28, 2022

 

“Recently, scholars have used antihero archetypes to describe politicians and

explain their effect and affect, including former U.S. President Donald Trump.”

                                                                                                                                Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                                                                                                                                July 23, 2022

 

Antihero is defined as a character who lacks qualities of a traditional hero – morality, courage, an obeisance to traditional rules of behavior. Wikipedia lists such fictional characters as typifying the antihero: Shakespeare’s Othello, John Milton’s Lucifer, Jane Eyre’s Edward Rochester, F. Scott Fitzgerald’s Jay Gatsby, and George MacDonald Fraser’s Harry Flashman. Do you, as does Wikipedia, see our former President among that group? I leave you to be the judge.

 

No matter one’s opinion, the word ‘antihero’ may make wince the large swath of Americans who see Mr. Trump as a villain – some for his character, which was revealed in his lack of positive response during the afternoon of the January 6 riots; others for his antiestablishment/anti-elitist credentials, which threatened official Washington, including members of January 6 committee. ‘Hero,’ even when preceded by ‘anti’ would not be to their liking. 

 

Yet even those who despise him cannot ignore the fact he was (and is) a hero to his estimated twenty to thirty million die hard supporters, most of whom live in non-elitist communities and work in non-establishment jobs. His supporters, who encompass all genders and races, see big-city and suburban financial and cultural elites as sanctimonious, hypocritical, and uninterested in the social and economic mobility that has characterized the United States. In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, Joseph Epstein, wrote “My sense is that just as Mr. Trump gave us Joe Biden, liberal culture earlier gave us Mr. Trump.” I agree. Mr. Trump was thrust upon us, in reaction to those who derided American history, patronized minorites and who treated millions of white, working-class Americans as ‘deplorables.’  Those who now reject him most vehemently bear primary responsibility for his political rise. 

 

Donald Trump went to Washington to clean out the “swamp,” and the “swamp” fought back just as Senator Chuck Schumer said it would, when he told Rachel Maddow on MSNBC in January 2017: “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you…he’s being really dumb to do this.” Ms. Maddow did not follow up, as a good investigative journalist would have done, on the implication that intelligence services have too much power, that they embody the “swamp.”

 

Had Mr. Trump been born five hundred years earlier, Shakespeare might have found him a candidate for one of his tragedies. He has an outsized ego and lacks principle, but he took on an adversary (the “swamp”) embedded so deeply into our culture that attempts to cleanse it were akin to Hercules’ task of cleaning the Augean Stables. Sadly, unlike Hercules, he failed.

 

Regardless of whether Mr. Trump is an antihero, hero or neither, it is my ardent wish – despite what he achieved: increased employment and incomes for minority workers, the Abraham Accords, restoration of pride in America’s imperfect greatness and more – that he retire from public life and release Republican candidates to battle issues not personalities. However, despite their demonization of him for his moral shortcomings following the 2020 election, Democrats do not want this to happen, for they recognize that their best chance of election success in 2022 and 2024 is to keep his name front and center, which is the fundamental – though unstated – excuse for the January 6 committee. Mr. Trump has become Democrats’ biggest asset and Republicans’ biggest liability. It is why Democrat PACs throw money at Republican fringe candidates supported by Mr. Trump. (Ironically and indicative of our odd state of political affairs, Mr. Biden has become Democrats’ biggest liability and Republicans’ biggest asset.)

 

Frankly, I do not care whether Donald Trump is considered an antihero or not. He is (and was) a force of nature that arose to contest an increasingly out-of-touch, entitled, moralizing and self-righteous elitist establishment – composed of people from both political parties – who instinctively disagree with the Chinese proverb that it is better to teach a man to fish than to give him a fish. While Mr. Trump was (and is) a flawed man, there was good his Administration accomplished. And his Presidency was tragic in that it cost him a fortune, damaged what reputation he had, and the “swamp,” as we know through the ongoing (and unheralded) Durham investigation, survives. That is a tragedy for all Americans.

"Will He, or Won't He?"

 Apologies for two essays in two days. Yesterday’s “June” essay was written (and mostly edited) a while ago. But I promise you it will not happen again. I warn you, however, that on Saturday I will be sending a brief – 427 words – review of a new novel, The Lost Summers of Newport, written by my daughter-in-law Beatriz Williams and two of her friends, Lauren Willig and Karen White. On Sunday, the book will appear as number 15 on The New York Times’ best-selling list.

 

Sydney M. Williams

30 Bokum Road – Apartment 314

Essex, CT 06426

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Will He, or Won’t He?”

June 2, 2022

 

“The Republican Party…is a party ready to move on…It’s a party that loves leaders who

take on the predominantly liberal media, but it wants them to be effective policy makers too…”

                                                                                                                                Michael Barone (1944 -)

                                                                                                                                Rasmussen Reports

                                                                                                                                May 27, 2022

 

The question in the title, of course, is aimed at Mr. Trump and the 2024 Presidential election. While I admire what Mr. Trump accomplished as President and for the way he battled media vilification, I find his ego, language and bullying offensive.

 

Obviously, no one knows the answer to the question, including, in all probability, Mr. Trump. The election is thirty months away, with midterms coming first. Mr. Trump will turn 76 on June 14 – granted he would be younger than was Mr. Biden in 2020, but no longer in the flower of youth, nor even in the comfort of middle age. Mr. Trump remains controversial and divisive – not the soothing, empathetic figure the nation needs when it is fraught with division as to who we are and what we stand for. (Is it really alright to let young men in high school who self-identify as women use girls’ showers? The condoning of deviant behavior in the name of social justice, no matter what the LBGTQ community may claim, is aberrant.)

 

Mr. Trump remains the dominant figure in Republican politics. A poll of potential Republican primary voters taken in March of this year by Morning Consult, a global decision intelligence company, gave Mr. Trump 55% of the vote, Ron DeSantis 12%, Mike Pence 10% and Nikki Haley 7%. Ohio’s J.D. Vance appeared to have been helped by Mr. Trump’s endorsement in the May 3^rd Senatorial primary. Other Trump-endorsed candidates like Georgia’s Herschel Walker’s bid for the U.S. Senate and Arkansas’ Sarah Huckabee Sanders’s campaign for governor were successful. Yet Virginia’s gubernatorial election last November and Georgia’s primary on May 24th suggest Mr. Trump is not a fool-proof king maker. In fact, last week’s Harvard-Harris poll showed a preference for Mr. Trump had declined to 41% among Republican primary voters.

 

Nevertheless, Mr. Trump still dominates Republican circles, but his Party detractors, and others, are adamant in opposition. The January 6 protest (this was not an insurrection) added fuel to a “Never Trump” flame that had been kindled by Mr. Trump’s opposition to Washington’s insiders during his 2016 campaign and during his four years as President. More recently, Illinois Representative Adam Kinzinger has led the “crossover movement,” which encourages independents and Democrats, as the Associated Press put it, “…to take down pro-Trump candidates in GOP primaries whenever and wherever possible.” Intra-Party debate, when it leads to compromise, is healthy, but when hatred becomes personal it leads to unhealable fractures. As Matthew has Jesus say in 12:25: “…every city or house divided against itself will not stand.”

 

Trump, as I have written before, has become a liability for Republicans and an asset for Democrats. Not for his policies, but for his character. His followers are loyal, vociferous and legion, but his detractors are plentiful. They control the Democratic Party, the media and cultural institutions, and a large swath of Republican and independent “Never-Trumpers.” 

 

Yet, what Trump instinctively understood is that people, collectively, make better political and personal decisions than experts, including government functionaries. He knew that elected officials are responsible to the people. He also understood that markets, reflecting millions of individual decisions, give us better products at better prices than economies managed by “experts.” Capitalism works better for more people than Socialism. Experts are important in business, education and government, but the latter should be subordinate to elected officials. Trump’s problem was capsuled by Senator Schumer when in 2017 he said: “Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence communities, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.” Did Schumer mean to imply that the intelligence bureaucracies were above reproach because of fear of retaliation? Over time, dozens of federal bureaucracies have grown large with no separation between legislative, executive and judicial functions, giving enormous power to the appointed officials that direct them. The consequence has been an abuse of power. Trump thought that addressing these issues could be a winning strategy – to return power to the people and away from Washington’s credentialed elite. It was, but the “empire” struck back.

 

None of what I have written speaks to probabilities posed by the question in the title. I don’t pretend to have an answer. But the issues that divide us are still there and pose a risk to democracy. Each month, I&I (Issues & Insights) and TIPP (TechnoMetrica Institute of Policy and Politics) conduct a unity poll. In the poll taken May 4-6, a mere 24% of Americans said the United States was “united.” These numbers, which show division deepening, confirm a PEW Research poll taken in 2020 that showed Americans divided over core American values. Extreme partisan candidates will not heal the wounds. Despite campaign promises, Mr. Biden has further divided an already divided nation. In fact, the Harvard-Harris poll, which gave Mr. Trump 41%, gave Mr. Biden only 24% among Democrat primary voters. Mr. Biden was the oldest person ever elected President and Mr. Trump the second oldest. But age has not brought wisdom to the White House. In the current instance, it appears to have brought senility. It is time to hand government’s reins to a new generation, willing to take on the Washington establishment with stamina and humor. For President we need an individual who can befriend more of their own Party and alienate fewer of their opponents. 

 

The task, especially for Republicans, will be difficult. The woke, who dominate our schools, universities and cultural entities, are selfish and unprincipled. They infest our government, tech companies and Wall Street. What is needed is a renewed effort in our schools and colleges on inclusion and diversity – of ideas. Only then will we head toward a more equitable society.

 

Will he, or won’t he? As I wrote, I don’t know; but I hope he does not. I wish Mr. Trump would graciously retire, confident that he accomplished a great deal and that he exposed the rot in Washington. But I suspect the word gracious is not in his vocabulary, nor will “never Trumpers give him credit for the good that he did. However, there are younger, talented, better humored (and thicker-skinned) Republicans who could pick up the mantle. Regardless, we are in for an interesting time, as both Parties deal with a divided nation and aged leaders. How all this plays out remains to be seen.