"The Boy Who Cried Wolf"

 I yearn for a Ronald Reagan-type figure to emerge from our political landscape. The idea of doing a deal with Putin that would satisfy a few days demand for diesel fuel, and at the same time bad-mouthing Mr. Zelensky who has done miracles for the people of Ukraine, strikes me as dangerous and the height of idiocy. And certainly I would never buy a watch stamped “Trump.” And the idea that we should make a martyr, through a public execution, of U.S. Army major Nidal Hasan, an Islamic terrorist who killed 13 people at Fort Hood in Texas seven years ago is unnecessarily provocative and just plain stupid.

 

What has happened to us, or, I should say to our political leaders. The loudest voices on the left are advocating a path toward Socialism. Are there any common-sensical politicians out there? 

 

Perhaps. I read with admiration Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s speech last Wednesday in Athens – a call for Western nations to reconnect with their civilizational and historical roots. I just hope his wisdom and decency prevail. If you have not read it, pull it up on the internet.

 

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

Thought of the Day

“The Boy Who Cried Wolf”

October 14, 2026

 

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populous alarmed (and hence clamorous

to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

                                                                                                                                    H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

                                                                                                                                    In Defense of Women, 1918

 

Almost sixty years before Mencken wrote the line quoted above, Ralph Waldo Emerson, in his essay “Self-Reliance,” expressed similar concerns: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.” In his dystopian novels Animal Farm and 1984, George Orwell wrote of his misgivings for “groupthink” and “doublethink” – where the desire for group harmony overrides critical thinking and reasoned debate.

 

In last Tuesday’s The Wall Street Journal, Steven Koonin and Dr. Scott Atlas wrote analogously, in an op-ed titled “Covid, Climate and the ‘Consensus Trap:’” “We should neither be wholly distrustful of expertise nor subservient to it without critical challenge. We must institute safeguards that make expertise trustworthy: transparency about uncertainty, protection for those who test it, and real consequences when things go wrong.”

 

While Koonin and Atlas were writing of global warming scares, the 2008 credit crisis and Covid, they could have included the recent reaction of many, including mainstream media, politicians and some industry leaders to potential dangers stemming from AI. This is not to suggest that the planet is not in a warming cycle, that debt does not pose risks, that contagious respiratory diseases should be ignored, or that artificial intelligence cannot be used for nefarious purposes. Life is filled with risks, which must be carefully assessed. But sensible risk-taking is integral to a free society that seeks advancement. A police state promises security, but at a price no lover of freedom wants to pay. 

 

There are natural risks over which we have little control. Paleontologists tell us that during the Mesozoic Era (250 to 60 million years ago) the Earth’s temperature was ten to fourteen degrees warmer than it is today. During the peak of the last ice age (10,000 to 11,000 years ago), the temperature was ten to twelve degrees colder than today. Paleoclimatologists attribute those changes to small adjustments in the Earth’s orbit, the tilt on its axis, atmospheric greenhouse gasses, volcanic eruptions and ocean currents. However, these same people estimate that the Earth will survive another four to five billion years. Certainly, man has had an effect on the environment and the weather, but are his effects existential? When I note a ten degree upward (or downward) change in the outside temperature in 24 hours, I marvel at the power of nature – the energy required to warm (or cool) millions of cubic feet of the Earth’s atmosphere in a relatively short time. We face many challenges, but I doubt climate catastrophe is in our immediate future. 

 

The 2008 credit crisis was largely a consequence of political pressure to increase home ownership through government guaranteed loans, while encouraging rating agencies to make subprime mortgages appear safe to lenders. When the economy turned down jobs were lost and foreclosures increased. Yet no one – not politicians, Wall Street bankers, or homebuyers who took on more debt than they should have – assumed responsibility. Largely ignored today by both media and politicians is a real crisis – the size of the federal government’s debt and its entitlement obligations. 

 

Lockdowns of schools were seen as one answer to Covid, even as the lethality was largely centered on the elderly. The human cost can be seen in declines in student academic performance, but have we seen or heard any mea culpas?

 

Mencken was right. Alarming voters propels some politicians into seats of power. As well, such tactics enrich others. Artificial intelligence seems to be the latest target. We have been told that mankind could become extinct in a few years, that a billion people might die. What they mean – but what gets little press – is that a bad actor (a human) could gain control. That is true, as it would be if, for example, Iran got an atomic bomb, and as it was when Mohamed Atta took control of American Airlines Flight 11 on 9/11. Good and evil are not characteristics of weather, markets, pathogens or software. They are traits of humans. The technology already exists to shut down our banking system, close our power grid and interrupt air control. It is critical that we stay ahead of those individuals and nations who would do us harm. Regulation may be needed; for that reason President Trump appointed National Intelligence Director Jay Clayton, former Chair of the SEC, to serve as the Administration’s AI leader.

 

To the best of my knowledge there is no magic formula that erases evil from mankind. But the teaching of ethics is not a bad place to start. The Bible teaches that all humans have the capacity to do harm and good. Morality is not relative; it is universal, as the Ten Commandments make clear. Artificial Intelligence, in the wrong hands, makes easier the ability to cause harm, which is why it is imperative we, as a nation, stay in the lead in its development. Democracy may not be the perfect form of government and free-market capitalism may not be the most equitable economic system, but history shows that no better system has ever been devised.

 

The title of this essay comes from Aesop Fables. Its moral: Because the boy had shown himself a liar, when a wolf did appear no one believed him, and the sheep were scattered. A few of those who warn of the evil of Artificial Intelligence may truly believe in the Frankenstein traits of what they have created. Others fear liability suits or want to discourage competition. Some see warnings as a way to enhance their profile. Politicians see virtue in scaring the public, as it sends people running for the cover of a benevolent government. And there will be a small number whose interest is in having U.S. companies slow their research and development, which would allow China and others to surge ahead.

 

Beware the alarmists.

"End of the West? Not so Fast"

 The accompanying photo has nothing to do with today’s essay, but I loved the contrast of the snow-covered branches silhouetted against the bright blue sky.

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“End of the West? Not so Fast.”

January 7, 2026

 

“In this character of the Americans, a love of freedom is the

predominating feature which marks and distinguishes the whole.”

                                                                                                                Edmund Burke

                                                                                                                Speech on Conciliation with the Colonies

                                                                                                                March 22, 1775

 

“What we once called the normative West no longer exists in this form.”

                                                                                                                Friedrich Merz, German Chancellor

                                                                                                                Speaking to business leaders in Berlin

                                                                                                                December 9, 2025

 

“My single most important responsibility as President is to keep the American people safe,” stated Barack Obama during his Presidency, a sentiment echoed by his successors, Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump. But what about their responsibilities to ensure those freedoms cited in our Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by our Constitution? Safety appears to have superseded freedom. Keeping people safe is an important government responsibility, but ensuring individual freedom is its most important duty.

 

In his first inaugural, Thomas Jefferson wrote of the need for “a wise and frugal Government, which will restrain men from injuring one another, [but] shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement...” In his letter from Birmingham jail (April 16, 1963), Martin Luther king wrote: “We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom.” Ludwig von Mises, in The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science: An Essay on Method, defined what differentiates Western governments: [1] “The essential characteristic of Western civilization that distinguishes it from the arrested and petrified civilizations of the East was and is its concern for freedom from the state.” One has only to look at the plight of citizens in dozens of nations, from China to Venezuela, to recognize that freedom is our most valuable possession.

 

For many politicians, however the dependency of the people on government is an asset. What politician wants to ask their people to work harder or to save more to help ensure a brighter future. Yet, when the state assumes responsibilities better left to individuals, personal freedom lessens as restraints on choice take over. As the power of the state expands, people may feel safer, but it becomes riskier to speak out in opposition. 

 

Those politicians who prefer safety to freedom cite those places where individual freedom leads to personal choices, which, combined with differences in abilities and diligence, leads to vastly different outcomes. People are not equal in abilities. The best gymnast and the best physicist are masters of their respective crafts, but they could not switch places. Those who prefer freedom to safety have history on their side. Individual freedoms, along with the rule of law, the right to own property, tradition and personal virtue, are fundamental to the foundation on which Western civilization was built.   

 

Of course those who carry the greatest influence, teachers and the media, are overwhelmingly of the left, yet voter registration suggests a more nuanced nation – roughly 37% of voters nationally are registered as Democrats, 31% as Republicans, 28% as Independents, according to BallotPedia. In Connecticut, where I live and where all Congressional seats are held by Democrats, unaffiliated voters represent the largest bloc of registered voters at 42%. However, big government is still the preference of most politicians on the right as well as on the left. Benefits once granted are almost impossible to remove. Nevertheless, expanding welfare states have been accompanied with declines in marriages and births. More welfare spending impedes economic growth as investment dollars get diverted. They have, however, increased debt to a level where the easiest decision for a politician is to cheapen the currency. In this, Republicans have been as guilty as Democrats.

 

It is important to understand that individual freedoms, inherent to democracies and fundamental to our concept of the West, are always at risk, as they confound and hinder those who seek political power for personal purposes. “Freedom,” Ronald Reagan said in a 1961 speech in Phoenix, “is never more than one generation away from extinction.” Even so, as long as thought, debate and speech are not cancelled, the West has a weapon unavailable to tyrants – the power of individuals to speak and act.

 

Twice in my lifetime the West was threatened – in the mid 1930s through 1945 from Nazism and Fascism and from 1945 to 1991 by Soviet Communism. In both cases the West was ultimately triumphant, though at enormous costs in human lives. Today, external threats come from Islamic terrorists, a nuclear-armed Russia, and an aggressive Communist China. The latter seeks to extend her military, technological and economic control throughout the world. As well there are internal threats from those who seek to enlarge the role of government, by providing goodies, citing “fairness” and promising to keep us safe. In his January 1^st inaugural address as New York City’s new mayor, Zohran Mamdani spoke for those who see government as the answer to all life’s ills: “We will prove that there is no problem too large for government to solve, and no concern too small for it to care about.” Contrast his words with those of President Reagan (the greatest proponent of individual freedom in my lifetime) at a 1986 press conference where he cited the languages’ nine most terrifying words: “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”  

 

What gives me hope is that there are indications that some in the West are backtracking on the nanny state – an excessively protective state that interferes with personal choice. Some signs: the declining influence of climate tyrants, skepticism regarding men competing against women in sports and “gender-affirming” (sex changes) for minors, expanding acceptance of the University of Chicago’s 1967 Kalven Report, which declared that a university is “the home and sponsor of critics but is not itself the critic,” and an acknowledgement that Black Lives Matter (BLM), always a divisive organization in a nation where all lives matter, has lost support. In 2020, when Nancy Pelosi took a knee, along with other publicity seekers, BLM had the support of 67% of the population. Today that is around 45%. The re-emergence of talk, at least in some quarters, of accountability, responsibility, mutual respect, and the celebration of our nation’s semiquincentennial all suggest the early stages of a return to the virtues that propelled Western civilization. 

 

Western civilization is not Utopia, it is not perfect. But it has provided more innovation, better economic and social outcomes, and more individual freedoms than any other. Can the West survive today’s assault on its bulwarks from without and within? The honest answer is no one knows.  But, despite Hollywood’s despicable reimaging of George Orwell’s Animal Farm to be released this spring, I suspect the answer is ‘yes.’ Threats to the West in the past have arisen and fallen. Current ones may worsen, but the call of freedom has echoed through the ages with a clarion tone. It is heard by people around the world.

 

 

---

[1]What is referred to as the “West” should not be construed as a geographic term, but as those nations who adhere to the concept of individual freedom, so includes countries like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand.  

"Threats to America"

 

Sydney M. Williams

https://swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Threats to America”

October 21, 2024

 

“The extraordinary thing was the way in which everyone took it for granted that this oozy, bulging

wealth of the English upper and upper-middle classes would last forever, and was part of the order of things.”

                                                                                                George Orwell (1903-1950)

                                                                                                Such, Such Were the Joys,

                                                                                                 Published posthumously, 1952

 

The differences between today and the years preceding World War I are far greater than any similarities. Nevertheless, I worry that the collapse of the Soviet Union 1991, and the concomitant elevation of the United States to global hegemon, has caused complacency toward persistent external threats – a complacency not unlike that which existed in Europe in the first decade and a half of the 20^th Century, before the Great War provided reality in its horrors.

 

………………………………………………………………………

 

The West has enemies, those to whom liberal democracies represent a threat. The autocrats in China, Russia, Iran and North Korea are fearful of what free speech would do to their positions of power. Democracy is an anathema to ideological authoritarians, be they on the Left or the Right, which is why the United States is portrayed as the “Great Satan” by the zealot Ali Khamenei and his followers, and why it is challenged by all four authoritarian states. Nothing is more fearful to a tyrant than freedom.

 

Yet other threats consume the media, particularly so-called “threats to democracy,” by which Progressives mean the re-election of Donald Trump to serve a second term; the flood of undocumented immigrants; abortion; and the threat of climate change. Largely ignored, as well as enemies abroad, is the imminent threat of financial default because of unending federal budget deficits that have grown our debt, as a percent of GDP, from 33% in 2000 to 121% in 2023. It is a trend that was aggravated by the long period of extraordinary low interest rates following the 2008 credit crisis. Nevertheless, all threats should be taken seriously. Democracy is fragile. It can fall to enemies from within or without. Allowing possible terrorists into our country, along with known criminals has consequences for our citizens. Abortion, in my opinion, was best described by President Clinton – it should be “safe, legal, and rare.” As for climate, Earth and the solar system are not eternal. At some point they will cease to exist. Will man be the cause? I don’t know, but I suspect not. The best way to improve the environment is to promote economic growth. And reckless government spending will negatively impact our standards of living.

 

However, it is the threat of another major war, one that sets the U.S., Europe and the West against elements of totalitarianism – Russia, China, Iran and North Korea – that is the subject of this essay. In that regard, understanding some of the causes of the First World War are instructional. Apart from the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s and today’s war in Ukraine, Europe has gone for almost eighty years without a continent-wide conflagration, a situation with some similarities to Europe during the ninety-nine years following the end of the Napoleonic wars, wars in which an estimated five to six million people died. Like today, Europe was not entirely free of war following Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo in 1815 – the Crimean War of 1853-1856 and the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871 together caused less than a million deaths. Nevertheless, one asks: Does absence of war mitigate its horrors, thereby rendering it more likely?

 

Just as Britain and France were not prepared for war in 1914 (this despite Britain, with their Empire encompassing over 20% of the world’s population, being the hegemon of that era), the United States is not prepared today. The idea of war seemed impossible in 1914. “…nothing really mattered: not them, or the world, or even herself” is the way Robert Harris puts it in his new novel, Precipice. Close ties of heads-of -state combined with diplomacy and negotiation made the prospect for war seem unlikely then, just as victory over the Soviet Union brought us Francis Fukuyama’s “end of history” in 1991. In 1985, as Reagan was prosecuting Soviet Communism, U.S. defense spending, as a percent of GDP, was 6.6%. In 2023, at 3.4%, it is just over half that level. The real purpose of a strong defense is to prevent wars by limiting what enemies might do. Ironic as it might sound today, the sign at the entrance to Pease Air Force Base in Portsmouth, New Hampshire (a SAC base at the time) in the early 1960s read: “Peace is Our Profession.”

 

It has been reading Precipice, mentioned above, which has me thinking of this issue. The novel, which begins in early July 1914 and goes through May 1915, is largely based on the author’s access to letters written by Britain’s Prime Minister H. H. (Herbert Henry) Asquith to his paramour, the socialite Beatrice Venetia Stanley, a woman less than half his age. Christopher Clark’s 2011 book The Sleepwalkers is a history of events and alliances leading up to August 1914. That first decade of the 20^th Century was characterized by strong industrial growth in Europe, abetted by trade and raw materials from their Empires. Peace and prosperity were the rule, as displayed in characters from P.G. Wodehouse’s novels. Like today’s tech billionaires, the wealth of European aristocrats in that first decade was expected to last forever. While democracy and individual freedom were not up to today’s standards, and royalty still reigned in most European countries, progress toward liberalism had been made. 

 

Today, two allies of liberal democracy are fighting existential wars of survival. Israel is at war against two of Iran-funded proxies – Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in northern Israel and southern Lebanon. As well, a third Iran-funded proxy, the Houthis in Yemen who have attacked more than 80 merchant ships in the Red Sea. (Last week’s U.S. led B-2 attack on some of their fortifications was a welcome, albeit belated, response.) That Israel fights an existential threat does not appear to be appreciated by those who encourage her retaliations to be “proportional,” whatever that means. If we were attacked as Israel was we would strive to annihilate our enemy. The loss of the one democratic state in the middle East would have a cataclysmic, destabilizing effect on the Middle East and for Western-style liberal democracy in other parts of the world. While we can sympathize with innocent Palestinians in Gaza, the terrorists who represent them must be destroyed, as their goal is the total eradication of the State of Israel. And that is why mullahs who govern Iran must not be allowed to get a nuclear weapon.

 

The February 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is the second instance where the United States must be firm in its support. Does anyone really believe that Mr. Putin would be satisfied with a few eastern provinces when its fertile western plains, or steppes, are considered the world’s “breadbasket?” Yet, the Biden Administration has been slow in giving them the kind of offensive weapons they need to win, and former President Trump seems only interested in reaching an unexplained settlement.

 

Neither political party puts foreign policy near the top of their lists of concern. The Biden-Harris team has made some massive blunders: the withdrawal from Afghanistan and the abandonment of the Bagram Airbase; restarting negotiations with Iran, which has allowed them to come within weeks of a nuclear weapon;  the release of $6 billion in frozen Iranian assets; a failure to deter Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2021 and then, in June 2021, suspending $100 million military aid package to Ukraine after Russia assured Washington it would halt aggressive troop movements near Ukraine’s border; allowing Russia’s Nord Steam 2 to continue to operate, thereby allowing them to fund their fight for Ukraine; failing to fully support Israel, our closest Middle East ally, in their existential fight against Iranian-backed terrorist organizations, Hamas and Hezbollah; side-lining the Abraham Accords agreed to by the Trump Administration; permitting a China spy balloon to transverse the United States.

 

There is no assurance a Trump-Pence team would have done better, except that Mr. Putin, after seizing the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine in 2014 when Barack Obama was President, waited until Mr. Biden became President before attacking eastern and northern Ukraine. And most foreign policy experts agree that the Trump-initiated Abraham Accords showed promise for Middle East peace. 

 

However, both political parties bear responsibility for the state of today’s sorry global situation. While Democrats and Republicans have been spinning tales (fables, really) of their opponents beliefs and behavior, our enemies have been weaving the fabric that has cloaked their desire for world domination. The media, in siding with one political faction or the other, has served to keep the American people ignorant and divided, thereby preventing rational, intelligent debate.

 

On the afternoon of August 3, 1914, with Germany about to invade Belgium, British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey observed: “The lamps are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime.” For twenty million people his words proved prophetic. Their lives were extinguished. Britain and France were not prepared for war in 1914. Today we live in another frightening time, yet we have let our defense budget lag. The United States is not interested in expanding its territory, nor does it wish to impose its way of life on others. It does, though, have a mandate to protect its people. Remember, the first purpose of a strong military is to prevent war, and only second to prosecute war if it comes.

"Power is Their Goal"

 

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Power is Their Goal”

June 24, 2024

 

“Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture

political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the

market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.”

                                                                                                                                Henry Wallace

                                                                                                                                “The Danger of American Fascism”

                                                                                                                                Essay, The New York Times

                         April 9, 1944

 

While Wallace, then Vice President of the United States, was writing of the dangers of Fascism, his words apply today to extremists on both sides of the political aisle – Progressive/Marxists on the left and Neo-Fascists on the right – those who campaign under the mantle of service but who, in reality, seek power for themselves and the state. Keep in mind, at the time Wallace wrote, the Soviet Union, with its Communist ideology and its totalitarian practices, was our ally in the fight against Germany’s Nazis. Because his socialist leanings were not broadly popular, Wallace was dropped by FDR as his choice for Vice President in favor of Harry Truman in the 1944 election. In 1946, in the early days of the Cold War, Wallace left the Democrat Party over Truman’s hard line with the Soviet Union and joined the Progressive Party. 

 

…………………………………………………………..

 

Power is an aphrodisiac, whether exercised by an individual, a cabal, or a mob. It has always existed in politics, in varying degrees. In a letter to Anglican bishop Mandell Creighton on April 5, 1887, Lord Acton (1835-1902) wrote: “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” High political office carries enormous influence – the ability to financially reward backers (as well as oneself) – that many find irresistible. While there are principled individuals who run for office for the purpose of “giving back,” we live in a time of career politicians, those who have spent their careers either in elected or appointed office. We also live in a time of polarization where slogans substitute for reason and violent protests for debate.

 

Power and the corruption that often accompanies it are not limited to one party. But single party states and cities, with an absence of competition, are more likely to attract corrupt individuals. A Wikipedia map of the U.S. shows twenty red states, twenty blue states, with seven others either leaning red or blue, and three that are purple. Of the five most populous states, three are blue – California, New York and Pennsylvania – one is red – Texas – and one is purple – Florida. BallotPedia notes that seventeen of the country’s twenty largest cities are Democrat-run. Corporate monopolies are not good for consumers, and government monopolies are not good for citizens.

 

Every ten years Congressional district maps are re-drawn. They must be contiguous and they are supposed to comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Nevertheless, Sam Levine writing in the February 17, 2022 issue of The Guardian claimed that only 27 of the 335 [out of 435] congressional districts that had been drawn thus far were considered competitive. The Cook Political Report, in looking at 2024 races, confirms that report, as they showed only 22 [out of 435] seats as being tossups. An earlier study – June 25, 2021 – from Yale University argued that the rise in safe seats has led to political polarization. Whatever the cause, single-party cities and states are unhealthy, as they lead to power and corruption. And our very size has made governing less personal. With a U.S. population of just under four million in 1790, the House of Representatives was comprised of 105 members. The Reapportionate Act of 1929 capped the size of the House at 435 members. Today, despite the addition of Alaska and Hawaii as states in 1959, and a population almost tripling in the past 95 years, the number of House seats remains 435. 

 

This concern for the power of the state is not new. George Orwell’s two masterpieces Animal Farm (1945) and 1984 (1949) warned of totalitarianism. Like all those of his generation, he had seen despotism come from the right by way of Fascism and Nazism and from the left via Communism. He was a self-described democrat-socialist, but his alertness to the excesses of political power informed the books he wrote. 

 

America’s founding fathers were well aware of the threat of tyranny, which is why they designed a government with three co-equal branches – executive, judicial and legislative. The purpose – to avoid a concentration of power. The Founders had considered the risk of what John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) later called in his 1859 essay On Liberty a “tyranny by the majority,” where the many can oppress the few. To address that concern, the legislative branch – the most important as it is the branch closest to the people – was divided into two bodies: a Senate, with two per state, and a House whose membership is proportionate to population, and they created an Electoral College to elect the President. (Keep in mind, Virginia, from which four of the first five Presidents came, was the largest state in 1789, so that was a selfless act.)

 

In our country, power is supposed to be reserved for the people. Free speech is integral to our individual freedom – not the freedom to falsely call out “fire!” in a crowded theater, but the ability to express opinions without being censored by “thought police” for not conforming to the “right” political ideology. Today, sadly, differences of opinions can be a mark of infamy. When I once criticized President Obama for some policy decision, I was labeled a racist. Can we not criticize women without being called a misogynist? Or a Muslim without being called out as Islamophobic? Or a Black without being termed a racist? In a November 29, 1947 letter to the New York Herald Tribune, E.B. White wrote: “One need only watch totalitarians at work to see that once men gain power over other men’s minds, that power is never used sparingly or wisely, but lavishly and brutally and with unspeakable results.”

 

Nevertheless, and in spite of my concerns, most people in the United States remain, in my opinion, centrist. Certainly, there are those with extreme opinions; they exist on both sides of the political divide. Agitators abound, and identity politics has driven us into corners where we are only comfortable with those like us, whether an identity is based on nationality, gender, race, religion, or ideology. Politicians favor compartmentalization, perhaps because it is easier to appeal to specific issues rather than to speak broadly to the opportunities available to those with aspiration, drive and ability. For the nation to succeed, it needs people from all backgrounds and with myriad specialties, and it needs to ensure that all young people are given a good education, one that teaches them to think independently, not conform to a preferred ideology.

 

Democracy is collaborative, not efficient. It is all right when legislation does not get passed. A smaller, less intrusive government is preferable to a large one. The buildup in debt has been ignored by both parties, a possible pending calamity. Still, I recognize there is much good government does, that we could not exist without it. But I also know that individual freedom is placed at risk by those desiring power, a risk ignored by leaders in Washington today. Personal power and wealth are the goals of too many who run for high office. And bureaucrats are their silent abettors, as they thrive on an ever-expanding government.

 

Our current choices for President – two aging men, both seduced by the prospect for power and buoyed by mindless, uncritical followers and partisan media. Together they reflect a sad picture of today’s politics: A Hobson’s Choice for a center-based electorate. As Gerard Baker wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal “…we suspend our doubts, swallow hard and make our imperfect choice.”  

"Equality/Inequality? - Focus on Mobility"

 

There was an item on Reuters last week, published by the New York Daily News, that shows the irony and complexity of our nation. Its headline read: “Trump is only living President whose family didn’t own slaves.” That does not mean he is a descendant of angels, only that his ancestors came to this country after the Civil War. Each of us descends from thousands of ancestors, and the ancient sages of Athens argued that we all descend from slaves and kings. We all have ancestors who have been good people and bad people. We are wiser to focus on our own habits, not worry about the past, and to try to positively influence those of our children and grandchildren.

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.bllogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Equality/Inequality? – Focus on Mobility”

July 3, 2023

 

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

                                                                                                                Animal Farm, 1945

                                                                                                                George Orwell (1903-1950)

 

Of all the canards foisted on the American public, one of the lamest is the assertion that outcomes should be equal. Equality of outcomes (something that can never be) should not be confused with the fact that we are all, as Lincoln said at Gettysburg in 1863, created equal (something that we are) – equal in the eyes of God and equal under the laws of the United States, or at least we all have been since the 14^th Amendment was ratified in 1868. Equality of outcomes should also not be confused with the idea that we should all have equal opportunities to succeed in our chosen fields, something we do not have. There are other false tales told the American public: that the Earth will self-destruct if we do not reduce fossil fuel consumption, or the assertion that one’s sex is a social construct, that fairness requires the forgiveness of student loans, and the demeaning implication that affirmative action is necessary for Blacks to achieve parity with whites. 

 

George Orwell’s Animal Farm was published in August 1945, while the Soviet Union was still a World War II ally. It was written as an allegory on how the inequalities of Tsarist Russia became replicated in the inequalities of Stalin’s Communist Soviet Union. In the 1930s and through the early 1950s, many intelligent people responded to the siren call of the “Communist utopian state.” However, the promise of state-directed equal outcomes was a lie. In fact, wealth inequality worsened. In 1900, Russian per capita GDP was roughly 30% of the United States’. Under Putin’s Russia, a hundred and twenty years later, Russian per capita GDP had shrunk to about 17% of that in the U.S. In spite of that discrepancy (or perhaps because of it), Putin is considered to be the richest world leader, with a net worth of $200 billion

 

Here at home, the promise of equal outcomes is, of course, a political ruse, meant to detract from promises unfulfilled. Merit has been subsumed by calls for diversity. While we are all, as the Declaration of Independence states, endowed by our Creator “with certain unalienable rights,” people have never been equal; they are not now, and they never will be. We are unique individuals. Some are tall, others short. Some are artistic, others athletic, and still others musical. Some have a talent for liberal arts; others for mathematics. Some are intellectually brilliant; others must study to keep up. Some are born wealthy; others are born poor. Some are born to two-parent households, others to single mothers. Some are born in small towns, while others are born in cities or suburbs. A few have the benefit of private schools; most rely on public schools. A few are born with physical, mental, or emotional challenges; others live charmed lives. Some are aspirant, others content to be followers. Yet, we are equal under the law. As citizens, we have equal rights to vote. As humans, we should expect to be treated with equal measures of respect and dignity.

 

But we are not equal when it comes to talents or personal goals. After earlier promising equality to all animals, Napoleon (the pig, not the French Emperor) told the other animals: “…some animals are more equal than others.” While Napoleon’s words justified his claim that only pigs had the right to rule, they exposed a truth of the real world: The horse is swifter than the pig; the hen lays eggs and the sheep provides wool, while the pig wallows in mud. What is true for Orwell’s animals is true for man. Universities, businesses, and government bureaucracies should require a merit-based system. It is how they can best compete. How would the New York Knicks or the Yankees fare if management demanded a balance of racial, religious and gender diversity? If in for surgery, do you care what nationality, religion, race, or gender is the doctor who will operate, or do you care about his or her abilities? In every society, there are a limited number of elites. That will never change. 

 

But in a free, fluid, and democratic society, and critical to our survivability and success, elites should be able to rise from obscurity, which leads to the question of equal opportunities. The real world tells us that opportunities are not equal – like children of single parents and those born into poverty. But we can work to mitigate the differences and, therefore, improve opportunities for all. Education is key; however, sadly, our public schools are failing our children, and school choice is being fought by teachers’ unions and the politicians they support. The key for any aspirant young person is access to economic and social ladders. And it is education that best provides the means to climb those ladders. And it is in education where we have failed the talented and aspirant, especially in inner cities.    

 

In May, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reported that 8^th grade U.S. history test scores hit an all-time low – just 13% of eighth graders met proficiency standards. Only 20% of students scored at or above proficiency levels in civics. Scores in math and reading declined by nine and four points respectively. The decline in the math score was the largest ever for this NAEP assessment. For the lowest-performing students, according to The Wall Street Journal, “math scores were the worst since the 1970s, and reading scores were lower than the first data collection in 1971.” Apart from Luxembourg, the United States spends more per student on education than any other country, yet the most recent PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) ranks the U.S. 13^th in reading and 36^th in math, out of 79 countries. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reported last year that absenteeism remains high, and behavior has worsened, particularly in the nation’s cities’ schools.

 

In my opinion, the fault lies with teachers’ unions – not with teachers, but with their unions’ leaders. Their interests are for themselves – not teachers and certainly not students. According to a report by Frederick Hess in the June 12 issue of National Review, between 2000 and 2019 student enrollment grew by 5 percent while the number of teachers grew by 9 percent. But the ranks of principals and assistant principals increased by 37 percent and that of district administrative staff expanded by 88 percent. Real per pupil spending rose 16 percent between 2012 and 2022, yet inflation-adjusted teacher pay fell 4 percent.

 

People are not equal – that is a given – but we are equal in our basic rights, and we should strive to be equal in opportunities for self-improvement. Education is the key. School choice is available to the wealthy; it should be available to all. Charter schools, vouchers for private or parochial schools, home schooling are all options. Yet they are opposed by leaders of teachers’ unions whose goal is to increase membership, and by politicians who support the unions and promise equal outcomes. A focus on gender studies, the promotion of grievances from a false interpretation of our nation’s history, and the division of people into racial and religious castes have detracted from studies of the basics – reading, writing and arithmetic. Lost has been the goal of youths’ achieving personal success. Give them the tools to move up the ladder.

"The Durham Report and History"

 

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“The Durham Report and History”

May 30, 2023

 

“Who controls the past controls the future.

Who controls the present controls the past.”

                                                                                                                                George Orwell (1903-1950)

                                                                                                                                Nineteen-Eighty-Four, 1949

 

In his 1982 story of a small Irish village, Passing the Time in Ballymenone, American historian Henry Glassie (1941-) wrote: “History is not the past but a map of the past, drawn from a particular point of view…” All histories reflect the author. But good historians account for that, differentiating between actual events and their personal opinions. The Founding Fathers were conscious of history when they selected Washington as the capital of the new United States in 1790. It was a “federal enclave,” separate from both the commercial/industrial north and the agrarian south. It was not beholden to one party or one faction.

 

However, over time, as its bureaucracy increased and as public sector unions took sway, Washington changed; so that today in the District, according to the Pew Research Center, Democrat registrations, among federal government employees, outnumber Republican registrations two to one. While the leaders of Washington’s agencies reflect whichever party is in power, permanent federal government employees are, on balance, sympathetic to the Democrat Party. 

 

The purpose of the Durham Report was to shine light on nefarious attempts to affect the outcome of the 2016 election – to address the widely accepted view that Donald Trump colluded with Russia to affect the outcome of the Presidential election that year. It also offers an alternative (and more accurate) perspective on subsequent efforts to undermine Mr. Trump’s Presidency. The Report details how the nation’s premier investigatory and intelligence services, in cooperation with the Clinton campaign, falsely implicated Mr. Trump as having colluded with Vladimir Putin to sway the election.   

 

While unsurprising to those of us skeptical of accusations of Russia collusion on the part of the Trump campaign in 2016, findings in the Report should concern all Americans. The idea that a few senior officials in Washington’s intelligence services would try to influence the outcome of a Presidential election campaign should send shivers up the spines of anyone who believes in our Constitution and the democratic process. I recognize there are those who believe Donald Trump was and is so vile a person that any means to keep him from office were and are justifiable, but that line of thinking leads to totalitarianism. 

 

Like many at the time, I was skeptical that Mr. Putin would prefer the mercurial Mr. Trump, a man he did not know as a politician, to a woman he did know and with whom he had dealt. The accusation, on its face, seemed absurd. What we did not know, and what the Durham Report tells us, is the extent to which leaders in Washington’s intelligence bureaucracy would go to provide federal support for one Party’s candidate. 

 

Forty years ago, Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously wrote in The Washington Post: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”  But facts can be misconstrued, mislabeled, or falsified. “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes truth,” is a law of propaganda, something known to psychologists as an “illusion of truth.” The Durham Report did not include indictments, but I suspect Special Counsel John Durham was concerned first with preventing another illicit attempt to use government employees to affect an election, but also with how history would recall the 2016 election and its aftermath. The Country does not need to be divided any further than it already is.

 

In a recent article for the Manhattan Institute, on a different subject, Zach Goldberg and Eric Kaufman wrote as to how facts can be “framed or contextualized” to increase political polarization. Compare, for example, mainstream media’s reporting on January 6 to their reports on Russian collusion. Both January 6 and the Russian collusion were undemocratic and violated the spirit of the Constitution, if not its actual principles. But one was performed in the open, for all to see. The other was done in secret, with falsified documents and lies to Congress. The January 6 riot was an illicit, but ridiculous unarmed attack on the Capital. It was not an insurrection, as the media likes to call it. The rioters were unarmed and there were no political or military leaders. The Capital police were armed, with one policeman shooting and killing an unarmed woman as she climbed through a window. The attack had no chance of succeeding. The best barometer we have to measure any shock to the nation is the stock market, an impartial assessor. On January 5^th, 2021, the Dow Jones Industrial Averages (DJIA) closed at 30,391.60. On January 6, they closed at 30,829.40, up 1.4%. On the 7^th, they rose again to 31,041.13. A week later they closed at 31,060.47.  In contrast, following the attacks on 9/11, markets were shuttered. When they re-opened six days later, the DJIA declined by 7.1%. On December 8, 1941, the Monday after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the DJIA closed down 3.5%. 

 

Yet prosecution of the January 6 participants proceeds. While participants in the Russian collusion are enriching themselves, giving speeches and selling books, more than a thousand January 6 rioters have been charged, with some languishing in jail without due process. The contrast is stark between Merrick Garland who weaponized the Justice Department and Special Counsel John Durham who chose not to indict those who had misused their power and position to pursue a false story. One abetted a polarized nation; the other helped soothe differences. What will history say?

 

The biggest scourge that faces us is not January 6 or even the Russian collusion hoax – it is wokeness, with its attack on free speech and its confiscation of the English language. It has polarized and bifurcated our nation. We need the healing that Mr. Durham offered, not the lies and the salt-in-the-wound that is the preference of Mr. Garland and minions like Adam Schiff and Liz Cheney. In Reason and Common Sense, George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Not knowing John Durham, I cannot be certain of his intent, but the consequence of his Report, as I see it, is an attempt to set the record straight as to exactly what happened and who truly colluded with Russia during the summer of 2016, and to prevent such iniquitous activities in the future. Durham did not seek retribution. He provided the nation with an honest rendering of the facts. Let history be the judge.