"Freedom"

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Freedom”

August 28, 2024

 

“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.”

                                                                                                Eleanor Roosevelt (1884-1962)

                                                                                                You learn by Living: Eleven Keys to a More Fulfilling Life, 1960

 

The word freedom is inherent to our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. It is ingrained in what it means to be an American: “And so let freedom ring,” spoke Martin Luther King on August 28, 1963, “from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire…” The Oxford English Dictionarydefines the word: “The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint,” which is not too different from the definition Noah Webster assigned the word in his 1828 Webster’s Dictionary: “A state of exemption from the power or control of another.” Freedom from fear and freedom from want (two of FDR’s “Four Freedoms”) are offerings of the state, but they do not meet the classical definition of freedom.

 

Democrats see the state as providing the conditions, through rules, laws, and regulations, that allow individuals opportunities – what are now called “positive” freedoms. The Swiss-French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau believed that men are born free but “everywhere he is in chains.” So the state exists to guarantee his liberty and freedom from the restraints of society. Without the state, he believed, there is no freedom. Voltaire disagreed. The state can be a trap: “It is difficult to free fools from chains they revere.” 

 

Republicans define freedom, in accordance with John Locke and Thomas Jefferson, as natural rights, characterized by the absence of external (the state) constraints on individual freedoms. These freedoms are now referred to as “negative” freedoms. Locke, two generations earlier than Rousseau, had argued that people are naturally free and equal, and have a right to life, liberty and property that are independent of society’s laws, ideas borrowed by Thomas Jefferson in 1776: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” The Bill of Rights, adopted in December 1791, exemplified individual freedom. The colonists had lived under a tyrannical king. Fearful of autocracy that could stem from a strong central government, they desired a limited, federalist government, one composed, as Lincoln later said, “of, by and for the people.”  In a September 25^th, 1961 address to the United Nations’ General Assembly, President Kennedy warned: “Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth.” 

 

No matter one’s definition, we should all agree that the freedoms to think, to pray, to write and to speak as one chooses are natural rights – gifts to us from God, inherent to us as Americans. We should also all agree that living in a community means that we must respect the rights and freedoms of others, that one person’s freedom to walk where he pleases may violate another’s right to privacy, so that government is necessary to adjudicate differences. The Constitution may give a person the right “to bear arms,” but that does not give that individual the right to kill his neighbor. Some freedoms, such as the right to abortion, are complex, as it contradicts the right to life. The decision to have an abortion, in my opinion, is best decided between the mother, the father, her doctor, her parents and perhaps a spiritual advisor. President Clinton came closest to my own belief: abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” While we all know that government is necessary for society to function, we should also realize that rules, regulations and taxes, while imperative to civil society, are inhibitors to free expression. Arriving at a consensus means that, individually, we forego some freedoms in the interest of the greater good. We are fortunate to live in a country in which our democratic form of government allows for differences to be debated so as to find common solutions. Even so, as government swells in size, individual freedoms shrink.

 

There will always be areas of conflict between your freedom and mine. Taxpayers pay the salaries of public-school teachers. Teachers should have the freedom to unionize, but that should not prevent parent’s from having the freedom to choose which education system best fits their children – traditional schools, vouchers, or non-unionized charter schools. University professors and high school teachers have the freedom to think and speak as they wish, but they also have a responsibility to instruct students to think independently, to perhaps come to conclusions different from their own. Censorship, “harmful words” and “safe places” are antithetical to the concept of free expression. In a March 15, 1783 address to the officers of the Continental Army, George Washington spoke: “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to slaughter.”

 

Democrats, at their Chicago convention, adopted freedom (along with “joy”) as their theme. According to a New York Times word-count, the word “freedom” was used 227 times in speeches over their four-day convention. I was happy that they did. But there is irony, hypocrisy and perhaps a touch of deviousness in a Party that talks up freedom but which defenestrated its sitting President, nominated Vice President Harris without a single primary delegate vote, wants to mandate EVs, prohibit gas stoves, limit school choice, and that weaponized federal agencies. This is the Party that uses the excuse of “disinformation” to censor political speech, that has done away with the concept of separation of powers by embracing the administrative state; it is the Party which would like to have the Supreme Court come under the purview of Congress. Yet they waved a banner of freedom at their convention. As a skeptic one is forced to ask: What freedom do they mean? Freedom for the state to do as it pleases? Freedom for me, or freedom for thou?

 

As the United States’ government grows larger and more complex, individual freedom, definitionally, lessens. According to the Office of the Federal Register, the number of final rules published each year ranges between 3,000 and 4,500. Wikipedia claims that approximately 200 new federal statutes are enacted each year. Most of these rules and laws are designed to benefit the people. But we should never ignore the fact that every new law and each new regulation has an impact – perhaps minor – on individual freedoms. Freedom is more than a slogan for conventioneers. It is why migrants come to these shores, even as most of us take freedom for granted. Freedom is not dependent on forgiveness of student debt, or dollars spent on entitlements. It comes with responsibilities, as Eleanor Roosevelt reminded us sixty-four years ago. It is an attitude, a belief. It is a gift from God. “Freedom isn’t free,” as the song goes.  It is rare, must be defended and should be treated as endangered. Fifty-seven years ago, in his first inaugural address as California’s new governor, Ronald Reagan said: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the blood stream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.” Amen.

"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?

"It's Not My Fault!"

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

Thought of the Day

“It’s Not My Fault!”

December 11, 2021

 

“In the long run, we shape our lives, and we shape ourselves. The process

never ends until we die. And the choices we make are ultimately our responsibility.”

                                                                                                                                Eleanor Roosevelt (1884-1962)

                                                                                                                                You learn by Living, 1960

 

Being accountable for one’s actions and taking responsibility are fading qualities in our “woke” age. In the mid 1960s, on a snowy street in New Hampshire after a day’s skiing, my father, driving home, knocked a woman down, sending her to the hospital. The police told him it was not his fault. Nevertheless, he assumed responsibility, visiting her regularly until she recovered and was released. Such chivalry no longer exists. Like merit, hard work and objective truth, gallantry and graciousness are now, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote in the December issue of The Spectator, “manifestations of heredity and ‘whiteness,’” – therefore to be condemned. 

 

“Victory has a thousand fathers, while failure is an orphan,” is an old quote used by President Kennedy. Today’s politicians no longer take blame for policies gone wrong. Instead, they follow advice Napoleon is alleged to have given: “Never retreat, never retract, never admit a mistake.” When the January 6 march on the Capitol turned disastrous, Donald Trump never admitted that his words that afternoon helped provoke it. But neither has Hillary Clinton accepted blame for the Steel dossier, which was at the heart of the $40 million (taxpayer money) discredited Mueller investigation. Governor Andrew Cuomo placed COVID-19 infected patients in nursing homes, leading to a plethora of unnecessary deaths. Has he expressed remorse or assumed responsibility? No. Has he expressed sorrow for abusing women who worked in his office? No. “Oh yes, the past can hurt,” says the shaman Rafiki in The Lion King, “but you can either run from it or learn from it.” Politicians choose to run from their past, not learn from it.

 

Dr. Anthony Fauci belittles those who disagree with him by claiming an attack on him is an attack on science. Yet the science about COVID-19 has changed as more has been learned. But his arrogance forbids any display of humility, or admission of personal responsibility regarding helping to fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. (Dr. Fauci’s denial gained two Pinocchio’s from left-leaning The Washington Post.) The recent rise in energy prices, according to Senator Elizabeth Warren, is due to oil and gas producers “putting their massive profits, share prices and dividends…ahead of Americans.” Apparently higher prices have nothing to do with restrictions on drilling and cancellation of the Keystone XL Pipeline extension, policies which the Massachusetts Senator supports. In a recent article in The Epoch Times, Victor Davis Hanson wrote, regarding the disastrous flight from Afghanistan: “Few, if any, high-ranking officers have yet taken responsibility – much less resigned – for the worst military fiasco in the past half century.”  

 

“It’s not my fault; the dog ate my homework!” has become a common response. Running away from personal responsibility has infested society. “Failure is not an option,” is a phrase one associates with NASA; but was taken literally by Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos who never apologized for misleading investors, instead placing blame on her Svengali-like partner. There have been no mea culpas from journalists following four years of filling airtime and front pages of newspapers regarding the discredited Russian collusion story? Teachers are not held responsible for the failure of their students in international testing. Global warming is the fault of selfish consumers, not the elitists who pompously pontificate when stepping off private jets. The surge in crime during the “summer of Love,” when billions in dollars in property was destroyed and twenty-five people were killed, was not the fault of the perpetrators. It was the ‘system’ and white supremacists who made them do it. The Biden Administration places blame for the increase in crime on COVID-19 – “…the virus is a root cause in a lot of communities,” is the way White House press secretary Jen Psaki put it last week. In a June 18, 2020, New York Times article, Professor Robin D. G. Kelley of UCLA, wrote: “Given that we are in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, looting should not surprise anyone...stealing commodities isn’t senseless” Really? And that makes it okay? Mightn’t the surge in crime have something to with disparaging and defunding the police? 

 

Alec Baldwin – certainly inadvertently – shot and killed cinemaphotographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of the movie Rust, a film of which he is one of the producers. Has he taken responsibility? No. In fact, he claims he didn’t pull the trigger. Nevertheless, Ms. Hutchins was killed by a bullet discharged from the firearm he was holding. Still, Mr. Baldwin says the killing was not his fault. Has Jussie Smollett expressed remorse for concocting a crime meant to increase his ratings? This nationwide attitude of denying personal responsibility suggests a “woke” and nihilistic culture that permeates our society and threatens our nation.

 

Mahatma Gandhi is quoted in his posthumously published The Essential Writings: “It is wrong and immoral to seek to escape the consequences of one’s acts.” The United States has survived for almost 250 years because its people are free to succeed or fail, to act in their own interest, within the law. In the same book quoted in the rubric, You Learn by Living, Eleanor Roosevelt 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.” Being free means being accountable. The words, “It’s not my fault,” have become too pervasive and suggest we are moving in the wrong direction. Errors are the fault of those making them. There may be understandable excuses, but faults should be acknowledged and corrected.

"Personal Responsibility in an Age of CRT"

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

Thought of the Day

“Personal Responsibility in an Age of CRT[1]”

July 1, 2021

 

“In the long run, we shape our lives, and we shape ourselves. The process never

ends until we die. And the choices we make are ultimately our responsibility.”

                                                                                                                 Eleanor Roosevelt (1884-1962)

                                                                                                                 You Learn by Living, 1960

                                                                                                                                Preface

 

As we near our nation’s 245^th birthday, celebrants could do worse than consider the consequences of an increase in government dependency and a decline in personal responsibility.

 

Among truths that underly my beliefs are two relevant to this essay: One, life is not fair. We are born into different circumstances, with different attributes and abilities. A brother was born with Prader-Willi Syndrome, a condition that adversely affected his physical, emotional and mental development. While he and I were born of the same parents, his life, in the challenges he faced, was far more difficult than mine. And two, we are not equal (and never can be) in looks, physical prowess, emotional and social skills, or mental acuity. It is unlikely Michael Jordan could have developed the theory of relativity, and it is equally unimaginable that Albert Einstein could have played shooting guard for the Chicago Bulls.  The attempt to mandate equity, a dream of Progressives, is a Utopian nightmare. In his novel He Knew He was Right, Anthony Trollope put it like this: “Each created animal must live and get its food by the gifts which the Creator has given it…” No amount of government coercion will make life completely fair and make us equal. We must each work with who and what we are. In his 1901 autobiography, Up from Slavery, Booker T. Washington wrote: “Few things help an individual more than to place responsibility upon him, and to let him know you trust him.”

 

Politicians love to compartmentalize the electorate. It is easier to serve up government offerings to a group than to argue the benefits of a particular political philosophy. Thus, we drift toward the comfort of government dependency and away from the more difficult adherence of personal responsibility. A Washington Post article from September 18, 2012, reported: “In 2011, about 49% of the population lived in a household where at least one member received a direct benefit from the federal government.” According to an op-ed in last Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal by John Cogan and Daniel Bell of the Hoover Institute, the American Families Plan, if it were adopted, would add another 21 million Americans to the roles of government assistance programs. Forget what it does to our debt; think of the effect on our national character.

 

Ironically, Critical Race Theory (CRT) is racist, in that it teaches that one race is inherently superior to another, and in its assumption that blacks are incapable of succeeding without government assistance. It promotes victimization rather than encouraging self-reliance. It ignores individual successes of modern black conservatives like Thomas Sowell, Senator Tim Scott, Clarence Thomas, Candace Owens, Jason Riley, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and thousands more. As Martin Luther King taught us, people should be judged by who they are, not the color of their skin. Freedom depends on a responsible individual. Consider the autocracies that demand dependence and obedience and compare that to the Republic whose founding we celebrate Sunday. The Civil Rights activist and founder of the Woodson Institute, Robert Woodson in response to the 1619 Project, created an organization called 1776 Unites, which is designed to highlight “what is best in our national character and what our freedom makes possible even in the most difficult circumstances.” Booker T. Washington (1856-1915) and Frederick Douglass (1817-1895), both believed in personal responsibility. They were born into slavery, yet both became advisors to U.S. Presidents. In what other country would that have been possible? 

 

There is no question that a study of American history should include chapters on slavery and the women’s suffrage movement. But that can be accomplished by reading what has already been written. In 1853, Harriet Beecher Stowe published Uncle Tom’s Cabin. When President Lincoln met her at the White House nine years later, he is reputed to have said: “So this is the little woman that started this great war.” Keep in mind, Ms. Stowe, as a woman, was never able to vote. Yet she wrote a novel that spoke to the curse of slavery and helped bring about its abolition. Mark Twain’s novel Huckleberry Finn (1884) has been removed from many library shelves because some of its words are seen as threatening. Yet it provides modern readers a realistic look at the horrors of slavery, the dignity of the run-away slave Jim, and of the empathy of the uneducated Huck Finn. Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre (1847) and Henry James’ The Bostonians (1886) did much the same for the cause of women.

 

It is a desire for power that causes politicians to place us within the confines of race, religion and gender. They ignore how far we have come in the past 250 years. Man has been around for 160,000 years, but civilization as we know it dates back only about 2,500 years. Progress has been steady, but uneven with two steps forward and one back. The founding of the United States, with all its obvious and known faults, was a giant leap forward in the liberation of men and women from the yoke of authoritarian governments. Slavery has been around as long as man, and it has existed on every continent and involved every race and creed. While it was largely abolished in the West in the 19^th Century, it still exists in parts of the Middle East, Asia and Africa. Consider the plight today of China’s Uyghurs. They are real victims, under the Chinese Communist Party’s real oppressors. 

 

Sixty years ago, interracial marriage was illegal in much of the United States. Today, one in seven marriages are couples of mixed races. In 1960, only 3.1% of adult black Americans had graduated from four-year colleges. Today the number is 20 percent. (The comparable numbers for whites were about 18% in 1960 and 35% today.) While much good came from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, they were accompanied by a decline in personal responsibility, which led to a diminution of the family, an increase in out-of-wedlock births and a glut in absent fathers. We see its effects in other aspects of our lives. Universities select students, not on merit but on race or gender identification. We are told it is the weapon, not the behavior of the individual, that is responsible for a plethora of black-on-black shootings in inner cities. 

 

As we prepare to celebrate the 4^th, we should consider the costs to a free people of a nation that abjures personal responsibility for the Eloi-like comfort of dependency. As long as it survives, the mission of the United States will never be complete. It will always be a work-in-progress – “An Experiment in Self-Government,” as Senator J. William Fulbright titled a 1955 article. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once said, “The only title in our democracy superior to that of President is the title citizen.” It is a title that demands the rigors of personal responsibility.

"Rsik"

 

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Risk”

May 12, 2021

 

“If no one ever took risks, Michelangelo would have painted the Sistine floor.”

                                                                                                                                                Neil Simon (1927-2018)

 

Recently, while walking around Boone Hall Plantation and Gardens, in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, my son and his family came across an alligator. They watched it, but wisely did not approach it. Risk aversion can be a wise decision. Seth Klarman, president of Baupost Group once wrote: “In contrast to speculators preoccupation with rapid gains, value investors demonstrate risk aversion by trying to avoid loss.” But as Paul Singer, another wise investor, remarked regarding the role of government in our economy: “…the forces of risk aversion and constant conflict serve to stultify and narrow the range of ideas up for debate.” We must walk the line, avoiding obvious risks, but being unafraid to speak out and take risks. “Security,” wrote Helen Keller, “is mostly a superstition. Life is either a daring adventure or nothing.” Eleanor Roosevelt’s advice: “Do one thing every day that scares you.”

 

Every day we make hundreds, perhaps thousands, of decisions that involve risk. Many, if not most, are subconscious – standing on one leg to put on our trousers, reaching high for a coffee cup, ignoring the slippery spot on the floor, crossing a street. Do we take the short cut over the mountain, or the longer but safer route? Determining risk is a measurement of success versus failure. In investing, businesses calculate the potential for profit against the possibility of loss, which is why the Biden Administration’s proposal to strip Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson and Johnson of their patent protections for COVID-19 vaccines add risk to all future investments drug companies make in research. If patent protection can be breached, what does that say to those who invest in scientific research, and to those who risk everything in the creative arts, all of which are supposed to be protected by intellectual property rights? 

 

At a time when hesitancy has caused the number of daily vaccinations to decline by almost two thirds, the President, who was fully vaccinated in December, should not have worn a mask when outside and not surrounded by others. Yet he did just that last week when he and his wife left Jimmy and Roslyn Carter’s home. The message: the vaccine does not assure safety. When the FDA ordered Emergent BioSolutions to suspend production of Johnson & Johnson’s single dose vaccine because seven out of seven million vaccinated patients developed life-threatening blood clots, was the risk worth the cost of scaring people off being vaccinated? On Jimmy Kimmel’s show last week, Dr. Anthony Fauci said he was frustrated that nearly 26% of the population won’t get the vaccine, yet he said he would not dine in an indoor restaurant, despite being fully vaccinated. What kind of a message was he sending? Being vaccinated will not eliminate all risk of getting COVID-19, but it greatly reduces it. Responsible leaders lead, not inject fear.

 

While COVID-19 made us more risk averse health-wise, we have become more precipitate in our willingness to take financial risk. Financial and commodity markets soared over the past twelve months, especially products like crypto currencies, with the price of Bitcoins having risen over 500% from $8815.23 on May 12, 2020, to $56,871 yesterday. Given its volatility, is it possible to gauge what a cup of coffee or a tank of gas will cost in Bitcoins tomorrow or in two months? Over the past year, the value of Tesla stock has risen 280%, from $161.88 to $617.20 yesterday. While the company’s growth rate has been phenomenal, has not risk for the investor increased with a price to earnings ratio over 500 times? During that same time, the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 44%%, from 23,764.78 a year ago to 34,269.16 yesterday. Over the past year, copper prices are up 100% and wheat is up 22%, suggesting inflation may well be in our future. Stock markets reflect future economic growth and imply a discounted rate for forecasted earning. US GDP is forecast to be up 6.5% in 2021 and 3.1% in 2022. Based on consensus earnings estimates, the S&P 500 is selling at 22X 2021 earnings and 19X 2022 earnings. How does one measure risk in valuations and the likelihood that forecasted earnings will be correct? With Treasury borrowing record amounts, what interest rate should be used in discounting future earnings? In the May 1, 2021 issue of The Credit Strategist, Michael Lewitt wrote: “We are in a bubble because valuations of virtually every asset class are untethered from economic fundamentals.” However, the decision to sell assumes one can successfully time markets. But, as Laszlo Birinyi in his May Market Commentary wrote, “…since 2009 [with the S&P 500 up 280%], there have been 3,082 trading days, but just 60 of those days have accounted for the entire gain in the market.” Who among us is that astute?

 

Government believes it can remove risk in people’s lives and achieve equity, by focusing on equality of outcomes, rather than equal opportunities. But does not an anti-meritocratic, government-led diversity policy risk unintended results? Historically, individuals were free to make choices, assume responsibility, and then reap the benefits or suffer the consequences of their decision. In the Republican response to President Biden’s State of the Union address two weeks ago, Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) made the point: “The beauty of the American Dream is that families get to define it for themselves.” In mediating risk, will the opportunity to better one’s life be diminished? To live freely is to accept risk. When does cradle-to-grave security interfere with the freedom to create individual opportunities?

 

We should not live in fear, yet a well-intentioned government intent on protecting us makes people Eloi-like. Schools and colleges have created an environment – now passed on to businesses, government offices, Hollywood and the media – where to challenge the consensus is to risk retribution or worse. Whites are told to view themselves as oppressors, to atone for the past sin of black slavery. To disagree is to risk condemnation. To question whether a trans woman should compete in female sports is to risk rebuke. To question Critical Race Theory, which itself is discriminatory, is to be tagged a racist. Is aversion to risk in expressing opinions what we want for our children, students, employees and citizens?

 

One result of this preference for a collective emphasis on conformity and government-ensured safety over freedom and personal choice has been a rise in pessimism for the future. A Gallop Poll last year found that pride in the U.S. is the lowest in two decades. A Pew Research survey in 2019 noted that by 2050 the U.S. will be worse off in many ways, including the national debt, political division and the cost of health care. That pessimism has manifested itself in record low fertility rates. For 2020, according to data from the CDC released last week, the total fertility rate (TFR) was 1.64, the lowest since tracking began in the 1930s. (A TFR of 2.1 is needed for a population to remain constant.) This was not simply a response to COVID-19, as total births have been declining since 2007, the last year the TFR was above replacement. By 2050, it is expected that the number of people over 65 will exceed those under 18. People who fear the future don’t have children. How do we recover the optimism of our Founders who risked so much?

 

Fifty-seven years ago, Caroline and I took a risk in getting married. I had done my military service but was still in college, with no idea as to how I would make a living. Despite a future we could not see, we had faith in each other. The road ahead held challenges and included potholes, but we believed in ourselves and in the Country in which we were blessed to be born, raised and where we lived. So, my advice: Be not afraid to take risks, just not foolish ones, like petting an alligator. “In a world that is changing really quickly,” said Mark Zuckerberg, “the only strategy that is guaranteed to fail is not taking risks.” Margaret Thatcher once wrote: “Discipline yourself to do what you know is right and important, although difficult. It is the high road to pride, self-esteem and personal satisfaction.” My advice: Be self-reliant, responsible, and accountable. Do not let government dictate choices or deter you from taking sensible risks to improve your lot. Look ahead, optimistically, with clear, wide-open eyes.

"Risk"

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“Risk”

July 15, 2020

“Only those who will risk going too far

can possibly find out how far one can go.”

                                                                                    T.S. Eliot (1888-1965)

                                                                                    Preface

Transit to Venus by Harry Crosby, 1931

Risk is confrontation with fear. Seventy years ago, my wife, as a young girl, would put on her roller skates and, with her older brother, sail down paths in New York’s Central Park. They went unaccompanied. At the same time, on a rocky farm in southern New Hampshire, I would get on my horse, along with a brother and/or sister, and gallop off along trails through the woods, also unaccompanied by an adult. Any concern our parents may have had, they kept to themselves. They loved us as much as we love our children. We were told to be careful; we respected their advice. Nevertheless, we took risks.

Immigrants, from the early 17^th Century to today’s migrants, did and do take risks. The earliest immigrants had no idea what they would find when they set sail across an unmapped sea, yet they were willing to take a chance that a better and freer life could be had than the one left behind. Social media, communications and government largesse have mitigated those risks, but emigration is still a leap into the unknown.

Success is impossible without risk. Entrepreneurs take risks, as do writers, musicians and artists. However, in all societies, risk-taking is never ubiquitous. Success comes to the talented and the aspirant – and those willing to take risks. The result is a society unequal in outcomes, but a fair one. What makes for a fair society are equal opportunities and the willingness to take risks, to grab the ladder’s rungs and make one’s way up, step by step. Consider the obstacles overcome by Americans like Abraham Lincoln and Clarence Thomas. At birth, neither had material advantage. Both were born in rural poverty. What they had was diligence, a desire for self-improvement and a willingness to take risks. They both recognized that victimhood was not the answer. While they were endowed with aspiration, dedication and intellectual talent, they knew they had to take risks and work harder than their peers.

Risks associated with COVID-19 have caused businesses to shutter and jobs to be lost. Yet the risk of COVID-19 is not unitary. The risk of serious illness or death varies depending on age and comorbidities. When we avoid the risk of infection, we risk financial and mental health well-being. Fear of contacting the disease has caused authorities to re-think the opening schools, as they balance the risk of the virus spreading against the risk of limited learning, social isolation and unemployed parents. In Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal, John Hasnas, an ethics professor at Georgetown wrote about his decision to return to the classroom this fall: “There is no alternative to learning to live with the risk of infection as generations before us lived with similar dangers. COVID-19 is part of life.” COVID-19 does represent a risk, but we must either live with it or hide from it.

Risk and opportunity are ever-present. My youth preceded the concept of “helicoptering” parents. Hand-held electronic devices have now replaced daydreams we once lived. Identity politics have swept the nation, dividing people into myriad categories, including victims and oppressors. But in the world when I grew up, being a victim was unacceptable. In school, bullies picked on the vulnerable. That happened to me until one day I took a risk and fought back. Being a “victim” removes the opportunity for improving one’s self. We should take chances and challenge the status quo. Eleanor Roosevelt once told us: “Do one thing every day that scares you.” Mark Zuckerberg said, “The biggest risk is not taking any risk.”

A diminution of risk is fueled by a culture of fear, a concept used by tyrannical types to achieve and hold power, whether in sports, business the military or government. It was a tactic used by Nazis to gain support for a regime that few dared confront.  In college, academic risk expands one’s mind. The provision of safe spaces by universities attenuates risk in that it spares students hearing or reading “harmful” words. As a consequence, students learn less and universities have become more authoritarian and less diverse, as have media and entertainment businesses.

General George Patton spoke of “calculated risks,” where the odds of success are measured, but where consequences can be deadly. Risk, definitionally, is risky. On March 23, 1775 Patrick Henry spoke at St. John’s Church in Richmond, Virginia, ending with his most famous words: “Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” A little more than a year later, fifty-six men signed the Declaration of Independence. The document ends “...we mutually pledge to each other our lives our fortunes and our sacred honor.” The United States would never have been born without the willingness of those men to take risks, which would have cost them their lives and their fortunes had the Revolution failed. Today, are we willing to assume the same risks to assure that liberty survives?

The question is more than rhetorical. Risk is more than a child galloping his horse down New Hampshire’s dirt roads or roller skating through Central Park without one’s parents. Free speech today is threatened by fear of reprisal. The stakes in speaking out against the superciliousness of the politically correct have never been higher. It should not be so. Speaking one’s mind should not involve risk. The arrogance of the Left has birthed a conformity of intolerance, as can be seen on university campuses, in corporate boardrooms, in federal bureaucracies and within the newsrooms of our nation’s radio, television and newspapers. Liberty depends on the willingness of people to speak and write freely, even when doing so involves personal risk.