"Our Revolutionary Origins & Today's Paternalism"

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

 

Sydney M. Williams

https://swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Our Revolutionary Origins & Today’s Paternalism”

July 21, 2025

 

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

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

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

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

                                                                                                                  Letter from John Adams to Hezekiah Niles

                                                                                                                  February 13, 1818

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

……………………………………………….......

 

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

 

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

 

"The Fate of the Generals," Jonathan Horn

 For the benefit of new readers and as a reminder to older ones, these short essays on books are not critical reviews. They are simply brief write-ups on books I have enjoyed.

 

Yesterday was the first full day of summer, and what a beaut it turned out to be, with temperatures in the 80s, a slight breeze, and a family lunch at the beach. 

 

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

Burrowing into Books

The Fate of the Generals, Jonathan Horn

June 22, 2025

 

“In those desperate days, the United States had needed two very

different generals: one for the headlines and one for the front lines.”

                                                                                                                                Jonathan Horn

                                                                                                                                The Fate of the Generals

 

“War is hell,” is a truism popularized by General William Tecumseh Sherman during the American Civil War. In The Gathering Storm, Winston Churchill wrote: “In war as in life, it is often necessary when some cherished scheme has failed, to take up the best alternative open, and if so, it is folly not to work for it with all your might.” In war there are choices, but none that are perfect. 

 

………………………………………………………………

 

Jonathan Horn tells the stories of Generals Douglas MacArthur and Jonathan Wainwright who found themselves in the Philippines at the time of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Both men were born into military families. MacArthur’s father won the Medal of Honor for heroism during the Battle of Missionary Ridge in 1863. After the Spanish-American War, he served as Military Governor of the Philippines. Wainwright’s grandfather was a naval officer who was killed during the Battle of Galveston in 1863, and his father died in the Philippines while serving as an U.S. Army Officer during the pacification period. Both MacArthur and Wainwright were first captains of their respective West Point classes. 

 

The Philippines lie strategically, south of Japan, China and Taiwan. To the west is the South China Sea and the India Ocean, and to the east is the Philippine Sea and the Pacific Ocean. At the time, the Philippines were transitioning from a Protectorate of the United States to full independence. General MacArthur was the Commander of U.S. Armed Forces in the Far East, which gave him command of all U.S. and Philippine military forces. General Wainwright was commander of the North Luzon Force and the senior field commander of Filipino and U.S. forces, under General MacArthur. 

 

The first six months of the War went Japan’s way, at least until the Battle of Midway in early June when the U.S. Navy decisively defeated the Japanese Imperial Navy. On December 8, 1941, the Japanese invaded the Philippines; on Christmas day Hong Kong surrendered to the Japanese; Singapore fell to the Japanese in February 1942, and the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) in March. Under orders from President Roosevelt, General MacArthur left the Philippines on March 11, promising to return. General Wainwright stayed behind, knowing his position was hopeless. On May 6, 1942, he raised the white flag. While MacArthur realized his promise in October 1944, Wainwright and close to 70,000 American and Filipino Soldiers endured the Bataan death march and imprisonment over the next three-plus years, until the Japanese surrender was announced on August 15, 1945. Fewer than half survived.

 

Using primary sources, Jonathan Horn contrasts the fates that were in store for MacArthur and Wainwright, two very different men. While MacArthur’s words and actions have long been controversial, the author neither reveres nor demonizes the man. Facts are presented. Judgement is left to the reader.

"The Curious Attraction of Donald Trump"

 

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

Thought of the Day

“The Curious Attraction of Donald Trump”

October 14, 2024

 

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

                                                                                                                The Emperor’s New Clothes, 1837

                                                                                                                Hans Christian Anderson

                                                                                                                Translated by Jean Hersholt, 1952

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

"A Conspiracy of Silence"

 Apologies for two of these essays in three days. This one, however, had been started before the extraordinary events of the past ten days – the assassination attempt on Mr. Trump and the decision by Mr. Biden to not seek a second term. With these developments, the future always unclear has become further obscured.

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtottd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“A Conspiracy of Silence”

July 24, 2024

 

“Secrecy, being an instrument of conspiracy, ought

never to be the system of a regular government.”

                                                                                                                    Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

                                                                                                                    British Philosopher and Social Reformer

                                                                                                                    The Works of Jeremy Bentham, 1839

 

In many social settings, silence is the better alternative. As my mother would say: “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all.” Or my father: “Better to remain silent and have people think you a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.” And my mother-in-law would quote the ancient proverb: “Speech is silver, silence is golden.” 

 

Yet silence does not always contain the remedies its fans claim. In The Trumpet of Conscience, published posthumously, Martin Luther King wrote: “In the end we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”  Accepting the Nobel Peace Prize on December 10, 1986, Elie Wiesel spoke: “I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever humans endure suffering and humiliation. We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”

 

The silence of which I write does not bear the evil of which King and Wiesel wrote and spoke, nor is it the silence of my late in-laws and parents that leads to worried looks and shaking heads in social gatherings. My concern is the Omeretà, the code of silence of politicians and their accommodating friends in the media – it is the silence that deprives people of the facts necessary to make informed decisions. As the British Parliamentarian Rory Stewart wrote in the prologue of his recent book How Not to be a Politician, “The public see the appearance that someone else chooses to share.” 

 

A conspiracy of silence was responsible for a refusal to publicly debate the origin of COVID-19. It could be seen over the past three and a half years in the refusal of the media to expose the horrific effects of an open southern border; in the dire ramifications of federal debt that exceeds one hundred percent of GDP; and in the potentially disastrous repercussions of allowing Iran to build an Atomic bomb.

 

Silence has kept people ignorant of the consequences of a partisan federal bureaucracy that employs 2.7 million people in two thousand agencies – 95% of whom give money to the Democratic Party. The growth of the administrative state is usually ignored by mainstream media, as it serves their progressive goals. Considered by some the “fourth branch” of government – and unlike the other three branches, which have swung between Republican and Democratic control – it has remained reliably Democratic. 

 

This Omeretà between the media and their favored politicians is not new. The American people were kept in the dark when President Woodrow Wilson, in October 1919, suffered a severe stroke that left him incapacitated. On March 28 1944, shortly after returning from the Tehran Conference, Franklin Roosevelt, at the urging of his daughter Anna, visited his doctor, cardiologist Dr. Harold G. Bruenn at Bethesda Medical Naval Hospital. He was diagnosed with reduced lung capacity, hypertension, acute bronchitis and acute congestive heart failure. Again, his condition was kept secret from the American public.

 

Recently, a conspiracy of silence surrounded the cognitive decline of President Biden, before it was witnessed by 50 million people in his debate with Donald Trump.  Mr. Biden’s behavior exposed what most people already knew, or suspected, or at least those whose reading is not limited to The New York Times and the Washington Post and whose viewing is not bounded by MSNBC and CNN. Barton Swaim wrote in last Monday’s Wall Street Journal: “Elected Democrats, with the eager compliance of their allies in the media, dismissed any expression of concern about the president’s acuity.”  As for the debate, it was telling to read and listen to mainstream media’s analysis of what a cold or sleep-deprivation could do to an individual, otherwise in command of his faculties. Most of us who had watched with alarm Mr. Biden’s decline over the past three-and-a-half years felt like Chico Marx in the 1933 film Duck Soup: “Who ya gonna believe? Me or your own eyes?” In The Spectator on July 22, Freddy Gray wrote that Biden’s health cover-up “may well go down as one of the greatest scandals in modern American politics.”

 

Silence, when it suppresses knowledge, is a dangerous stratagem, especially in a democracy where an informed electorate is critical; for voters hold power. Politicians of all stripes play loose with the truth. It is in their DNA, so it is left for the media to uncover the truth, without bias or prejudice. Their responsibility should always be to the public, to keep people informed. Candor on the part of politicians and accurate reporting by the media might have kept at bay the hatred and distrust that infests today’s politics.

"The Ascent of Power," by David L. Roll

There are two lessons that stem from these few years in the immediate post-War period: One, never before, in the almost continuous history of man and warfare, had the vanquished been treated so well by the victor. And two, the division of Europe by the Iron Curtain, imposed by the Soviet Union in 1946, clearly demonstrated the economic, personal and political advantages of capitalism versus communism.

 

For anyone interested in the foundation for the remarkable economic growth in Europe and Japan – as well as the transition in the United States from a war economy to a peace economy – in the decades following the world’s most destructive war, this book, recommended by a friend, should be required reading. 

 

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

Burrowing into Books

Ascent of Power, David L. Roll

July 7, 2024

 

“I always felt that [Truman] understood me, not as a servant to be tolerated…President Roosevelt was

genial and warm but he left one feeling, as most aristocrats do, that they really do not understand one.”

                                                                                                        Alonzo Fields (1900-1994)

White House head butler

                                                                                                        My 21 Years in the White House, 1960         

                                                                                                        As quoted by David R. Roll

 

The devastation caused by World War II is virtually incalculable. During the almost six years between Germany’s invasion of Poland on January 1, 1939 and the Japanese surrender on August 15, 1945 approximately 75 million people died, two thirds of them civilians. Poland lost 19% of its population, the Soviet Union 14% and some islands in the South Pacific lost over 40% of their pre-war populations. Twenty percent of homes in Great Britain were destroyed and 40% of those in Germany. France estimated that the cost of the war was three times their national income. In Europe alone, there were an estimated 21 million refugees or “displaced persons.” With war’s end came the job of aiding survivors, replacing infrastructure, restoring economies and preventing the spread of Communism. It was left to Truman to lead the way.

 

Franklin Roosevelt died on April 12, 1945, less than a month before Germany’s surrender; so Vice President Harry Truman inherited the Presidency. David Roll writes in the Prologue: “Framed by the presidential elections of 1944 and 1948, this study captures the illusions of a dying president and the mistakes and triumphs of his successor, an arc of world history that separated those who found freedom from those consigned to live under tyranny for decades to come.” Truman, who had not been advised or prepared by Roosevelt, made the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But his legacy – and the thrust of Roll’s story – is the role he played in Europe’s and Japan’s recovery: The Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, the creation of NATO and the United Nations, the recovery of Japan, the birth of Israel, the Berlin airlift, and Civil Rights – prosecution of lynchings in federal courts, voting rights, equal employment opportunities, protection of the nation’s civil service, and the integration of the armed forces.

 

In a report to the nation on April 28, 1947, Secretary of State George Marshall is quoted by Mr. Roll: “A fundamental objective of our foreign policy was the achievement of a coordinated European economy…It was not just a matter of humanitarian relief…it is necessary for our national security.” Truman’s election in 1948 freed him from the yoke of Roosevelt – allowing him to be his own man, to work with Republicans like Senator Vandenberg. At his swearing in on January 20, 1949, Truman invoked his Point Four Program: unfaltering support of the United Nations, the Marshall Plan, NATO, “and the inexhaustible benefits of our scientific advances and industrial progress…to help people realize their aspirations for a better life.”

 

In terms of Europe’s and Japan’s recovery, Truman’s success could be seen in that by 1960, just fifteen years after the end of the War, West Germany had the world’s third largest economy and Japan its seventh.

 

Roll’s story is of a (seemingly) ordinary man who emerged from the shadow of an iconic President to accomplish remarkable things. In doing so, he changed for the better lives of millions. Roll quotes Winston Churchill speaking to Truman in 1952: “You more than any other man saved Western civilization.”

 

This is history well told.     

"Etymological Curiosities"

 

 

Sydney M. Williams 

 

Thought of the Day

“Etymological Curiosities”

December 5, 2022

 

“Words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind.”

                                                                                                                           Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936

                                                                                                                    Speech Royal College of Surgeons, 1923

                                                                                                                    London

                                                                                                                

Each year, lexicographers at Merriam-Webster, Britain-based Collins Dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary, and others, select a “word of the year,” often a neologism, but not always. Gaslighting[1] (a form of psychological abuse) was the choice at M-W, while Collins chose permacrisis. The former was chosen because of the increase in lookups (up 1,740%), while the latter was selected, as it was applicable to a year that saw the first war in Europe in seventy-seven years, China’s increased aggression, and world-wide inflation. The OED selected three words, including my favorite – more a phrase than a word – goblin mode, which was also cited by Ben Zimmer in a recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal. It refers to behavior that is “unapologetically lazy, slovenly, greedy, typically in a way that rejects social norms.” It is often assigned to those who spend inordinate amounts of time on social media, as in my grandchild is in goblin mode.

 

I have been thinking of words and phrases – their origins, meanings, and appropriation by political opportunists, often leaving their opponents with the etymological dregs. Over the past few years, we have created a political alphabet soup: CRT, DEI, ESG, and BLM, reminding one of Roosevelt’s “alphabet soup agencies’ from the 1930s. But, unlike FDR’s agencies which actually put people to work, today’s alphabet soups have more in common with Humpty Dumpty: “When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”

 

Words have assumed new meanings. Yesterday’s environmentalists have become today’s climate warriors. Information to some is misinformation to others. Should it be the state that decides what is accurate and what is not? Is it too much to ask Twitter users to be personally wary of conspiracy theories and to look out for offensive language – offensive to some but not to others? And what, for example, does the European Union means when it tells Twitter that it must apply “content moderation” to the posts it allows?

 

When I read of Larry Fink pontificating as to being socially responsible, I picture a greedy John Bull with a smirk on his face and a halo above his head. And the scam artist Samuel Bankman-Fried, a promoter of progressive fads, bills himself as an effective altruist. Is not an altruist already effective? Certainly, his investors and depositors who lost millions of dollars do not see him as altruistic.

 

The definition of the word liberal has changed. In 1828, Noah Webster defined the word as “of a free heart; free to give or bestow, generous.” The 1995 edition of Webster’s college dictionary defined the word: “favorable to progress or reform…advocating progressive philosophies.” However, the OED defines liberal as an individual “willing to accept or respect behavior or opinions of others…[a} social philosophy that promotes individual rights.” Such broad and varying definitions allow almost anyone to claim to be a liberal. Other words creep into cultural use. Woke comes from African American vernacular English of the 1930s; it became a popular internet meme after the shooting of Michael Brown and is now largely used by whites, signaling, like naughty Little Jack Horner, their virtue. 

 

Consider two of my favorite etymological bêtes noires: progressive and conservative. The former makes us think of the future, the latter of the past. They were the subject of a fascinating op-ed by Professor Hyrum Lewis of Brigham Young University in the November 26 edition of The Wall Street Journal. He wrote: “Republicans have a narrative problem that originates with the idea of ‘conservativism’ itself.” He referred to William Buckley’s observation that a conservative is someone who stands athwart history and yells, stop. Progress, in contrast, is defined as a forward movement toward a better end. Which sounds more appealing?

 

Conservatives want to conserve the good of the past – the Constitution, classical education, etiquette, personal responsibility and accountability, the value of work – but they are as interested in progress as are progressives. The difference is that conservatives emphasize the role played by curious, aspirant, diligent, and talented individuals, while progressives cite the state as the principal impetus for progress. There is truth to both claims. While technological, scientific, and industrial progress has been largely due to the efforts of individuals – Alexander Graham Bell, Wilbur and Orville Wright, Steve Jobs and Elon Musk – the Department of Defense and federally funded programs, like NASA, have also produced consumer products. And while legislated social progress – emancipation, the right of women to vote, the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 – is a consequence of government, individuals played crucial roles in their adoption. 

 

DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion), the phrase has been hijacked by virtue signalers, to distinguish them from what they claim are culturally offensive conservative bigots But, just because the initials are not tattooed on our arms, is that fair? I know of no true conservative who does not support diversity of opinions, equality of all people before the law, and inclusion of all people in public institutions. Social organizations, fraternities, sororities, private clubs select members based on common preferences, which may be based on gender or race, but may also be based on similar social preferences, regardless of race or gender. Is that so terrible? In a decision reminiscent of Nazi Germany, the Brearley School, an exclusive school for girls in New York City, recently required a signed pledge by teachers and parents that they support the school’s commitment to anti-racism and inclusion, and that they agree “to participate in required anti-racist training and ongoing reflection.” As a private institution, they have a right to act as they wish, but both teachers and parents should be conscious of what is being demanded – a request for blind loyalty. 

 

But is it words or beliefs that separate our two political parties? In broad, general terms, the main difference between Democrats and Republicans is not that one favors progress and the other favors regression. It is the emphasis each puts on the role government plays in our lives. Democrats, in general, favor more government and Republicans, less.  Resistance, for example, was legitimate when exercised by Democrats following the election of Donald Trump in 2016 – remember the pink “pussy hats” of solidarity? – but resistance to the 2020 election was deemed undemocratic.[2] In essence, the difference between the two Parties reminds one of the Chinese saying: Is it better to teach a man to fish, or to give him a fish? Americans do not to march to a single drummer, so ideologies are scattered along a broad spectrum of political thought. Republicans, if they want to become the dominant political power, must do a better job of describing their beliefs. Granted, it is easier to argue what you want government to do than what you would like it not to do. So, Republicans should highlight the individual, stress the importance of education, aspiration, diligence, and effort in ascending the economic ladder, a ladder to whom all should have access, a ladder whose first rung is education, where emphasis, above all else, should be on the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic. “Words,” as Kipling told the College of Surgeons ninety-nine years ago, are “the most powerful drug used by mankind."

"Changing Demographics and Brief Thoughts on the Election"

 Tomorrow is Veteran’s Day. It is celebrated on Armistice Day, the day World War I ended in 1918. Approximately 25 million Americans served in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. Another two million served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of those 27 million, about 400,000 gave the ultimate sacrifice. The number of battle-scarred veterans is dwindling. It is for all of those, including the millions more from around the world, both living and dead, who served in those wars, that tomorrow is celebrated as a day of remembrance.

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

Thought of the Day

“Changing Demographics and Brief Thoughts on the Election”

November 10, 2022

 

“Now, this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end.

But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

                                                                                                                  Winston Churchill, House of Commons

                                                                                                                  November 10, 1942

                                                                                                                   Following Montgomery’s defeat of Rommel

                                                                                                                   at El Alamein, Egypt

 

No “red wave” appeared on election day. While my immediate response was one of dismay, on reflection I think it may have been a “blessing in disguise.” Our nation has been divided – and still is – but it has not been the division that has been harmful, but the lack of respect for differing opinions. Mr. Trump, repudiated in this election, has been one cause. His ego-centric self-promotion engulfed what good his administration had accomplished. And he has become more disagreeable in his post-presidency. But also responsible for the division are the “goody two-shoes” who hypocritically call for diversity, equity, and inclusion. They see differences only in race and gender. Their calls have never considered diversity of opinions, inclusion of those who do not think as do they, or that both liberals and conservatives should be treated equitably.  

 

As well, the election highlighted changing demographics of our two political parties. On October 20, at a campaign event for John Fetterman, President Biden spoke a truth: “This is not your father’s Republican Party.” He spoke correctly; it is not, but neither is the Democrat Party the same one Mr. Biden joined almost sixty years ago. Mr. Biden’s words were intended as a slap at “MAGA” Republicans, who he claims are a “threat to democracy.” But is that fair? Our democracy is protected by our Constitution: separation of powers, an independent judiciary, states’ rights, due process, personal freedom, and rule of law. When those principles are threatened, democracy is threatened. When government is seen as the answer to all problems, democracy is at risk. When citizens are complacent, democracy is in danger. Agencies in Washington, when manned by men and women who forget they are servants to the people, become threats to democracy.

 

Demographics and time have changed the two parties. I have lived in Connecticut for fifty-seven years. I have witnessed this state – the sixth wealthiest in the nation, but 36^th in terms of freedom as measured by the Cato Institute – migrate from red to purple to blue. Fifty years ago, members of my country club were mostly Republican. Today, the majority are Democrats. According to Ballotpedia, in Presidential races between 1900 and 2000, Connecticut voted Democratic 48.4% of the time and Republican 51.6% of the time – a balanced approach. However, since 2000, the state has voted for the Democratic candidate for president 100% of the time. 

 

For seventy years following the Civil War, the Democratic party was composed of two distinct groups: working class union members, small business owners, immigrants – the “have nots” – and wealthy, southern Democrats. Republicans were the party of the “haves” – the landed gentry, college educated, bankers, and industrialists. Because of the long coattails of Abraham Lincoln, they also included African Americans. With Franklin Roosevelt’s election in 1932, northern Blacks began to vote for Democrats. Around 1948, Dixiecrats – white, southern, segregationist Democrats – began to switch to the Republican party, culminating in Richard Nixon’s 1968/72 “southern strategy.”

 

Today, the tables continue to change. Democrats have become the party of the “haves,” while Republicans are more the party of the “have nots.” Republicans were once the party of “big money,” but that mantle is now worn by Democrats. According to OpenSecrets, which follows money in politics, in 2020 Democrats received $514 million in “Dark Money” (political donations from non-profit organizations that do not have to report their donors) compared to $200 million that went to Republicans. Including campaign funds for House and Senate, as well as President, a total of $14.1 billion was spent on political campaigns in 2020, $8.4 billion by Democrats and $5.7 billion by Republicans. If one subtracts the $1.3 billion in personal funds spent by Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg, Democrats still out spent Republicans by almost 20%. 

 

The consequence is a barbell approach. One end consists of the college educated, suburbanites and moneyed elites, from tech company CEOs and union leaders to Wall Street honchos, from college professors and administrators who thrive on government grants, to media company bigshots, and Hollywood and sports stars. On the opposite end are those dependent on government handouts, a group which includes the truly needy, along with those who take advantage of government largesse, whether because of a lack of work ethic or the natural desire to have college debt forgiven. 

 

One can trace Democrats’ losing their traditional base – “blue collar” workers, the middle class, Hispanics, Blacks, and others with traditional family values; those concerned with inflation, crime, education, illegal immigration, and who aspire to the American dream – to their pursuit of radical goals: defunding the police; open borders; injecting fear about man-made climate change; disallowing school choice and promoting transgenderism. Republicans are beginning to gather in these disillusioned voters. 

 

Ironically, with all these tech CEOs in their fold, Democrats have ignored the changing workplace where more and more people have assumed responsibility for their own success. An example of the kind of individual Democrats have abandoned: A few years ago, my wife and I were picked up by an Uber driver at the Buffalo airport. He was a pleasant young African American from Buffalo, with a wife and young children. He was enterprising, anxious to improve his situation. The “gig economy” served him well. He had a job as a flight attendant, which paid his health insurance, flying from JFK to Los Angeles and back. As an Uber driver, he worked hours he could. He also was an Uber driver in Queens when there was too little time between flights to get home to Buffalo. In Los Angeles, he was a free-lance driver for Amazon. If Democrats succeed in getting Uber and like companies to unionize, they will eliminate the need for contract workers and opportunities will disappear for self-starter individuals.

 

Much has been written (and even more will be written) about this election. In my mind, it was clearly a repudiation of Donald Trump – not a rejection of conservativism. A grandson, a rational conservative spending the semester in England, texted me yesterday morning: “Fundamentally, I am delighted at the outcome.” I replied that his words were stronger than I might have used, but that I was not unhappy. Both political parties have been captured by extremists. The right wing of the Republican Party, now under the spotlight, has been called out. Will moderate Democrats call out extremists in their Party? Most Americans are nearer the center, leaning left or right to varying degrees. It is not personalities we should debate but issues. Perhaps election day saw a “purple wave?” Reading election results, Churchill’s words in the rubric came to me – maybe I am Panglossian – when I thought of possible positive effects of the election. An op-ed in yesterday’s The Wall Street Journal by Princeton’s Allen C. Guelzo reminded readers of the importance of the three words near the end of Lincoln’s address at Gettysburg, of our government being “of,” “by,” and “for” the people – words that assure us, no matter our philosophical differences, that as long as we understand them, our nation will remain free. Now, will those elected on November 8 listen?

"Know Thyself"

 Welcome to the post-Labor Day period, traditionally, the beginning of the fall political campaign season, though in today’s world that season has no beginning and no end.

 

A few words on Donald Trump. As we all know, he is not a saint. But neither is he a semi-fascist, as President Biden claimed, nor is he a lunatic, as National Review recently wrote. His super-sized ego and bombastic language are offensive. But lost in the polarization of feelings he engenders, it is worth remembering why he decided to run for President. He went to Washington for at least two reasons: He went selfishly, to raise his profile, and he went magnanimously to drain Washington’s swamp. His profile has risen, but not in ways he would have wished. Keep in mind, his net worth declined by about a billion dollars while he was President. The swamp, however, remains dense and dark. Establishment politicians of both Parties, with their enablers in Washington’s bureaucracy, banded to destroy the threat he posed to their comfortable way of life, which in hundreds of cases have converted public service to private gains.

 

The swamp remains – at an enormous cost to taxpayers – as does the job to drain it. Is there another politician from either Party willing to take on this unpopular and Herculean task, or will the swamp grow danker, deeper, and darker?

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Know Thyself”

September 6, 2022

 

“The first thing you have to know is yourself. A man who knows himself

can step outside himself and watch his own reactions like an observer.”

                                                                                                George Goodman as Adam Smith (1930-2014)

                                                                                                The Money Game, 1968

 

The words “Know thyself” were, according to legend, engraved above the forecourt in the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, located on Mount Parnassus in central Greece. A search for self-knowledge is common, and its importance has been lauded by many, from Benjamin Franklin to Lao Tzu to Pythagoras. To fatalist Greeks the saying meant that one should accept the role nature assigned one. But for those of us today who believe we are also nurtured by our environment. self-examination should be an ongoing process.

 

There are those who dismiss the concept, because we change. Andre Gide wrote in Autumn Leaves: “A caterpillar who seeks to know himself would never become a butterfly.” But a search for self-understanding is not seeking perfection in the here and now; it seeks to understand; it recognizes that change is given: We have new experiences; we meet different people, and we read. Life does not stand still and neither do we. What if Gide’s caterpillar wanted to become a butterfly? Some conflate self-knowledge with hubris – that in claiming to know ourselves we admit to knowing what we do not know. That, to borrow one of Joe Biden’s favorite expressions, is malarkey. It’s an argument used by woke philosophy professors to confuse young, impressionable minds. It is impossible to know what we do not know. 

 

Self-understanding is important in an ever-changing world. In a recent interview in The Wall Street Journal, American tennis player Danielle Collins spoke “of how to use your strengths and how to work around your weaknesses” to win matches. She understands that her weaknesses will improve with practice, and that her strengths can be harbored and utilized. It was Heraclitus (c.535BC-c.475BC) who is credited with the saying: “Change is the only constant in life.” Knowing oneself is acknowledging that truth.

 

Knowing oneself is especially important in this age of political polarization that has tipped into extremism. It is easy to get carried away by the swift-moving current of political correctness. Those of us who still believe in the premise of classical liberalism face a political mindset that invokes moral equivalence to justify a belief that the United States is inherently evil, founded on the backs of slaves – that we are no better than other despotic nations. Today, amidst a torrent of “wokeness,” we face a crisis in education, where equity trumps excellence, where conformity reigns due to a lack of diversity of ideas, and where history incorporates “presentism,” promoting ignorance of earlier eras and cultures. The consequence has been high school and college graduates who know little of our history and civic affairs, and where persistently low scores on international tests have become common. The Department of Education (DOE) recently released fourth grade test scores that show the effects of Covid-related shutdowns. But shutdowns were not solely to blame, as charts show declines in math and reading scores began ten years ago.

 

We face a border crisis that is unfair to immigrants and to American citizens, where the only beneficiaries have been human and drug smugglers. We have created a national debt that has reached a size that a normalization of interest rates is no longer a viable alternative. We no longer celebrate the two-parent family, value the moral teachings of religion, or appreciate the dignity of work. We have a “semi-Socialist and semi-authoritarian” President (to borrow from Daniel Henninger) who promised to unify the nation, but who recently called his 2020 competitor a “semi-fascist.”

 

Except for the Reagan years, for over eight decades an expanding and “compassionate” government has been seen as the answer to problems we individually face. On January 6, 1941, in his State of the Union, President Franklin Roosevelt spoke of four freedoms: The first two were lifted from the Bill of Rights: freedom of speech and freedom to worship. The next two involved government, in a way unintended by the Constitution – freedom from want and freedom from fear. After a dozen years of depression and a European war underway, it is understandable why his words were so well received and are so fondly remembered. But all the ills of the world cannot be resolved by a pen and a phone. Want has persisted as has fear. Sadly, there will always be poverty, illness, and accidents. But, keep in mind, no political system yet devised has been better at reducing poverty and alleviating fears than a democratic-republic and free-market capitalism. 

 

As we head toward the midterm elections, we should each take stock of our own political beliefs. I can only speak for myself: I want constrained, self-paying government, with separation of powers, a fair judiciary. a government which functions under the rule of law, guarantees our enumerated rights and our borders, provides for defense – a government that allows us to freely have options, which fit individual needs. I want a vibrant, competitive, free-market economy that responds to millions of people making thousands of choices every day, not one directed by bureaucrats in Washington. We have seen the unfortunate consequences of government-managed economies, in an earlier period of Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe and today in places like China, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, Paraguay, Ghana, and Zimbabwe, among others.

 

Knowing oneself involves soul-searching and asking difficult questions. Do we like what we have become? The President has called Mr. Trump and his followers “semi-fascists.” Democratic advisor Kurt Bardella, speaking on MSNBC last week, said that modern Republican ‘playbook’ was like that of Nazi Germany: “We are watching right now a very radical and extreme Republican Party mirror what we have seen in other places like Nazi Germany, like other people, like the Bolsheviks. We have seen this playbook before.”

 

Really? Which Party weaponized the IRS in 2012 to slow-walk non-profit status for groups whose ideology was deemed unhelpful? Which Party colluded with the FBI to find dirt on their political opponents in 2016? Which Party referred to parents as terrorists in 2020? Which Party in 2022 authorized an unprecedented FBI invasion of the home of a former President? Which Party has most expanded the state and constricted the private sector, with restrictive rules and regulations? Both Parties are guilty of extremism, but the sanctimonious left, “the anointed” as Thomas Sowell calls them, has been guilty of undemocratic actions.

 

Politics historically, through debate and vote, have been used to resolve controversial issues. But we live in an age of extremism. Donald Trump, if he cares for conservative values, should remove himself, as he has become Democrats’ principal asset and Republicans’ biggest liability. But it is Democrats, with their sycophants in Washington’s bureaucracies, media and social media, universities, big corporations, and the entertainment industry who are stifling freedom and destroying democracy, not Republicans. I urge my Democrat friends to consider the rhetoric and vendettas of their Party. It has been their words and actions, plus censorship in schools and colleges, and a politicization of climate change, which imperil the freedom and prospects of the citizens of this exceptional nation. Socrates said that to know oneself is the beginning of wisdom. There is no need to navel gaze, but we should take a few moments to consider our history, to think of who we are and what we want, and to ask: What has happened? Why has so much gone wrong?

 

We are better than what we have become.