"Tariffs and Other Thoughts"

 

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Tariffs and Other Thoughts”

April 9, 2025

 

“So set aside the folk memory of the Great Depression, and try to look

at tariffs in a non-hysterical way, as a policy with rational political aims.”

                                                                                                                                David Frost (1965-)

                                                                                                                                Former British diplomat & politician

                                                                                                                                The Spectator, 3 April, 2025

 

President Trump bears responsibility for the rout in the world’s equity markets. His tariffs, if used to raise revenues, as he claims, will cause a global recession, or worse. If they are used to negotiate lower tariffs on U.S. exports, which he also claims, they will strengthen the economy and may lead to global free trade. He is right, however, in his complaint that there is much in our politics and culture that has gone wrong over the past several years. We are a country, like much of the West, with a spending problem. Federal debt, as a percent of GDP, is higher than it was in 1945 (121% in 2024 versus 112% in 1945). Both political parties are at fault for excessive spending. As well, there has been a rise in anti-Semitism, fueled, in my opinion, by dislike for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and often masked as anti-Zionism. And, of course, our border was open throughout President Biden’s term in office.

 

In this age of technology, we must focus on ensuring access to needed raw materials. Over the past several years, we have let defense spending lapse, while permitting China unchallenged access to commodities and markets across Africa and South America. We have allowed unfettered (and illegal) migration into our country, and not just for those seeking political refuge from despotic governments, but for criminals and gang members, some of whom brought in fentanyl, a drug that has killed an estimated quarter of a million Americans since 2018. We have seen the Democratic Party take a sharp turn to the left, as it became increasingly patronizing in tone – do as I say, not as I do. The Party has focused on equity, not equal opportunity. In the name of diversity, it has encouraged racial division and allowed identity policies, rather than ability and diligence, to become the standard for admissions into colleges and businesses; it has let universities become beacons of “social justice,” rather than pinnacles of learning where students debate controversial subjects in a respectful and tolerant manner; it has encouraged sports venues to allow males to compete against females. Just last year, the Party knowingly nominated a man for President who was mentally unfit, and now we have a Supreme Court Justice who is unable to define a woman. In all of this, mainstream media has been complicit. 

 

None of us want to return to the past. Each generation builds on the previous. Much of manufacturing, in the 21^st Century, will be done by robots, so bringing industries back to the U.S. will not necessarily bring back jobs. Three hundred years ago, and thousands of years before that, the principal source of wealth was land, and the crops grown and the minerals mined. Wealth gaps were enormous and slaves and serfs who worked the land had little or no freedom. The Industrial Revolution, which began almost two hundred years ago, gave rise to a new group of capitalists – those who were innovative, creative, aspirant and diligent. Income and wealth gaps were still enormous; but new products, from railroads to plumbing, improved lives. And that period saw trade expand beyond borders. Industries, to stay competitive moved production facilities. After World War II, in my home state of New Hampshire, textile mills relocated to southern States, to take advantage of cheaper labor and other economic incentives. While those moves hurt New Hampshire’s economy, lower prices of finished goods benefitted consumers across the nation. 

 

More recently, finance and technology have provided sources of wealth. Life is never fair, and there will always be those who have more than others. But definitions of poverty have been defined upwards. Capitalism has improved lives. Keep in mind, the role of government is not to redistribute wealth or equalize outcomes, but to set rules and regulations, enact and ensure adherence to laws, provide a system of equal justice, and offer access to ladders that lead to opportunities for success, recognizing that the rungs on a ladder go down as well as up. And education represents the first and most important step on that ladder. So, education should be a principal concern of government. Yet, because of the power of teachers’ unions – major supporters of the Democrat Party – education has been neglected, as test scores show.  

 

Mr. Trump’s flaws are legion; they include an over-sized ego (a characteristic common to all politicians) and his preference to surround himself with sycophants (another characteristic common to most politicians). And just as his enemies are blinded with hatred, his acolytes are blinded by devotion. Nevertheless, tariffs, as proposed, are not the answer the Administration claims. In fact, left standing, they will cause more damage to markets and the economy. So, the question is: Will they remain as they are? I don’t know.

 

I want to end, however, on a positive note. The people of the United States recognize the extraordinary luck they have to live in this country. This is the only country in the world founded on the principle that men and women are born free, with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, yes, I recognize our history has not always been just, that injustice is part of our past. But I also recognize the great strides we have made over the years and the acknowledgment of those injustices by leaders in politics, education and business. Overseas, the United States must continue to practice and project the moral standards that have defined our nation for the past 250 years. 

 

Volatility in the stock market is a concern, but it is worth repeating Benjamin Graham’s quote: …that the market, in the short term, can be seen as a “voting machine,” influenced by investor sentiment and emotions, but in the long run it acts as a “weighing machine,” reflecting the value of companies based on their fundamentals. Current volatility, while putting at risk traders with short time horizons, offers opportunity to long term investors seeking value.

 

As for our nation, Martin Luther King, Jr. reminded us: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” It is true that Founders like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison owned slaves, but it is also true that they provided the framework, in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, that permitted America’s moral universe to bend toward a fairer and more inclusive society. And that arc is still bending. History is a continuum. 

 

So, stay positive and stay focused. There is good and bad in all people. We have not yet seen the final act in this play about tariffs. Applause or catcalls should wait.

"We Are All Americans"

Sydney M. Williams

Thought of the Day

“We Are All Americans”

February 11, 2023

 

“America was not built on fear. America was built on courage,

on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand.”

                                                                                                                                President Harry Truman

                                                                                                                                Message to Congress

                                                                                                                                January 8, 1947

 

Public debates, be they high school, college or Presidential, are aimed at diminishing one’s opponent and convincing the audience of one’s superior argument. It is rhetoric, the art of persuasion. Like political campaigns, its goal is to win. In contrast, debates in the classroom – at least in years past – and in legislative bodies – at least when no press is present – are to test one’s argument, to listen to one’s opponent. The purpose is to learn and to come to a consensus. When I was young, I argued with my father; only later did I realize I was trying to understand why he believed as he did. 

 

…………………………………………………………….

 

In a polyglot society, such as the United States, individual identities are natural and differences in ideas are to be expected. The latter should be encouraged, for it is through respectful debate that common ground is found. On the other hand, the political exploitation of group identifications has caused a widening divide among an already fractionated people. Factionalism was a concern of the Founding Fathers. In “Federalist 10,” James Madison warned that it could lead to “…instability, injustice, and confusion…the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished.”

 

Yet politicians today have found that splitting the electorate into manageable pieces makes it easier to campaign and win on specific issues. Thus, we have been divided into victims and assailants. This division makes the insulting assumption that certain races are incapable of competing on merit; so different standards are used for Asians, blacks, and whites in college admissions and jobs. We have been divided by cultural preferences, where gender is seen as a matter of choice, not biology. Dependency on government has come at the expense of individual responsibility and accountability; the concept of equal opportunity has been subordinated to a demand for equal outcomes, and the dignity of work seems an abandoned philosophy. Diversity and inclusion, the battle cry of the Woke, does not include diversity of ideas or the inclusion of those who dare challenge conventional thought.

 

The people of the United States represent most every nation on the planet. We speak hundreds of languages and dialects. We represent virtually every religion. In those senses, we are unique as a nation. We are born equal in our basic rights and before the law, but we are not born equal in mental abilities or physical attributes, nor do we all aspire to the same heights. No amount of political talk and promises can change that fact. We are of different economic classes, races, religions, and ethnicities. We must play the cards we were dealt. In his critically acclaimed novel, Trust, Hernan Diaz wrote: “Whatever the past may have handed us, it is up to each one of us to chisel our present out of the shapeless block of the future.” There is no question that a white child born in a suburb has a head start over a black child born in an inner city. Similarly, a black child born in suburbia has an easier start on life than a white one born dirt-poor in Appalachia. The promise of the United States is not the impossible gift of equity, but the real gift of opportunity – access to the social and economic ladder, the ascent of which is limited only by personal ambition and talent. Fundamental to climbing that ladder is education, which is why good schools are critical. 

 

We have reached an odd place – where our unique culture is at risk, where stories of deprivation and racism are not offset by stories of the success of men and women overcoming enormous odds, where values are muted or deemed relative, and where good and evil are not contrasted. It is not just politicians who have placed us in this spot. It is also the proliferation of a biased media. The news, whether on-line, TV or paper, has become little more than political propaganda. It is our universities where students are protected against “harmful” words and where truth has succumbed to ideology. It is social media, which has invaded our privacy with the tenacity of a four-year-old screaming for his popped balloon. Shared values become scarcer when individuals adopt the questionable memes of internet “influencers,” rather than the virtues gathered from classical literature, traditions, and customs.

 

What the people of the United States need are debates, not rhetorical flourishes designed for political campaign-style harangues; but debates with straight talk, to help citizens understand the problems we face and the opportunities we have. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are an example. No one wants to cut payments to retirees, or not provide healthcare to the needy. But we must face the fact that unless something is done money will run out. There are policies we could pursue: Raising retirement age, means-testing benefits, and/or increasing the minimum taxable wage from $160,000. I am sure there are other ideas. But to pretend that the problem does not exist, as was the message from both sides during last Tuesday’s State of the Union, insults the intelligence of the American people. 

 

The United States is fortunate. It is laden with natural resources and uniquely positioned geographically. We are fortunate to be citizens of a nation of laws not men, a nation without an aristocracy, a nation whose men and women comprise myriad ethnicities, races, religions, and sexual orientations – a nation where a black man and a black woman sit on the highest court. “Vive la différence,” is a well-known French expression, generally used to celebrate the differences between the sexes. We, too, should laud our differences. But we cannot let them smother what we have in common – “a government of the people, by the people, for the people.”

 

But democracy is work. Without attention, it collapses. As Jesus said, a house divided against itself cannot stand. We cannot let differences destroy the symmetry history has given us. In his recent book Leadership, Henry

Kissinger wrote that we cannot let sectarian passions overwhelm traditional structures.[1]It is a challenge that must be met, else society unravels. We must not forget that what we have in common is individual freedom: free to pray, to speak, and to assemble; free to use the special gifts God gave each of us, to succeed or fail. We are all Americans.

"Illiberal Liberals"

                                                                   Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Illiberal Liberals”

September 19, 2021

 

“The individual is foolish, but the species is wise…We have inherited from the past the instruments

which the wisdom of the species employs to safeguard man against his own passions and appetites.”

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Russell Kirk (1918-1994)

                                                                                                   The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot, 1953  

 

While healthy policy differences separate Republican from Democrat, extremist woke culture, propagated by sanctimonious, illiberal progressive elitists, has infested schools, universities, the arts, churches, banks, large corporations and sports teams. It threatens to transform our Country and do irreparable harm, with emotion replacing reason. It was behind the fatal decisions in Afghanistan, where military leaders had debated single-sex bathrooms and focused on gender identity and white oppression, rather than considering the consequences of an inauspicious withdrawal. Wokeism is a danger to all who love freedom.  

 

……………………………………………………

 

Wokeness is a belief in presentism. It is an ideology endorsed by people ignorant of history and unaware of consequences for the future. It exists under the banner of social justice, embedded in words like diversity, equity and inclusion. It inspires virtue-signaling by privileged whites feigning awareness of “social inequities.” It is a manifestation of the illiberal liberal. Its leaders are intent on uprooting liberal democracy, which cherishes free markets and individual freedom and replacing it with authoritarian socialism, where government’s powers are enhanced, and individual’s rights and liberties are suppressed. The responsible citizen is replaced with the obedient subject. Fear of government too large was important to the founding fathers. In 1787, Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison: “I own I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.” Yet, a 2018 Gallup Poll showed that 57% of Democrats had a positive view of socialism, while only 47% felt the same way toward capitalism.

 

The world of the woke is filled with hypocrites: During the recent California gubernatorial election, a white woman wearing a gorilla mask threw an egg at Republican Larry Elder, an African American who the Los Angeles Times called “The Black face of white supremacy.” There was nary a peep of complaint from mainstream media. To be racist is okay if it is worn under a mantle of wokeness. Last year, California’s Governor Newsome kept public schools closed to in-person learning, while sending his children to private schools where all classes were held in person. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wore the words “Tax the Rich,” embroidered in red on her white, designer gown, to a $30,000-a-seat benefit at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, an annual event where elites outdo one another, to impress the media and the masses, knowing that their wokeness, despite their privilege, exempts them from condemnation as oppressors. Hypocrisy and wokeness are partners among illiberal liberals.

 

A belief in those aspects of character which inspired Martin Luther King and that made the United States an exceptional nation – aspiration, initiative, merit, talent, hard work, tolerance, personal responsibility and adherence to families and churches – have disappeared into a mire of political correctness. Critical race theory, a Marxist view which teaches that racial prejudices and preferences determine academic and economic outcomes, has divided the nation into white supremacists and people-of-color victims. While critical race theory has been around for half a century, with some legitimacy to its tenets, it has been adopted by those on the left to Balkanize the American people. And it is racist, in that it is the group not the individual that is condemned or praised, based on perceptions, not facts.

 

It has been this freedom of the individual, where allegiance is to the law – not to men – that makes Western culture unique: Freedom to express ideas, freedom to pray as one chooses, freedom to own property, freedom to be considered innocent until proven guilty, freedom to have a trial of one’s peers,  freedom to avoid the siren call of presentism, freedom to learn from the past and to profit from its lessons for the future, freedom to believe in colorblind justice, freedom to understand one’s talents, as well as one’s limits – all freedoms that illiberal liberals, with their woke police, would banish.

 

In a 1961 debate with Barry Goldwater, Norman Thomas, a perennial socialist Presidential candidate on the Socialist Party ticket between 1928 and 1948, argued that in a world that consists of an “anarchy of nations” a government of elected officials and administrators is needed to “manage our extraordinary scientific and technological achievements and our resources for the common good.” Has that been true for students in inner-city schools? Wealthy urban, white progressives have options in school choice, while Black and Hispanic parents and children have no choice, except for the few Charter schools where demand exceeds supply. A true liberal would offer inner-city parents a choice and not be hornswoggled by powerful teachers’ unions Have unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats, ever “managed” our achievements and resources well? There have been examples of collaborative efforts, like the War Production Board during World War II and Operation Warp Speed set up in 2020. Both were successful because government-imposed regulations were eased. Creativity and Innovation are manifestations of free-market capitalism.  

 

In terms of tax policy, “Pay your fair share” and “Tax the Rich” are empty slogans of illiberal liberals. The proposed tax bill is thousands of pages long, filled with exemptions and exclusions for the very wealthy. If a fair tax was wanted, Congress would enact a flat tax, with no exemptions. But, one suspects, those in the legal and accounting fields would not react well to a bill that deprived them of an income. And what is fairanyway? According to taxorganization.org, in 2020 the top one percent of income earners in the U.S. paid 38.5% of all income taxes. The bottom 90% paid 29.9 percent. 

 

The fumes propelling “wokeism” are expelled by the narrative, not by facts. In Tuesday’s The Wall Street Journal, Dr. Marty Makary of Johns Hopkins lamented that the CDC, with 21,000 employees and an annual budget of $15 billion had been unable to produce detailed research on COVID-19, on the numbers of people with natural immunity, and on breakthrough infections, despite having data on 40 million individuals who have tested positive for COVID-19 and 200 million who have been vaccinated. “This isn’t,” he wrote, “the Manhattan Project. Its epidemiology 101.” Could it be that facts are secondary to the narrative?

 

………………………………………………………..

 

In his book, The Conservative Mind, Russell Kirk wrote that he became a conservative because he was liberal. He was open to debate, the free flow of ideas and, surprisingly, to change. In that same book, Mr. Kirk expressed one of the canons of conservative thought: “Science must alter, for prudent change is the means of social preservation; but a statesman must take Providence into his calculations, and a stateman’s chief virtue, according to Plato and Burke, is prudence.” In contrast to the woke, true liberals want to preserve the good of the past and learn from mistakes made. They understand reality. They know it is wrong to ban books and tear down statues. Such actions do not change the past; they simply change one’s perception. Real liberals seek equality of opportunity and equality before the law for everyone, regardless of race, religion or gender, not a false promise of equity. Today’s progressives tell us they are liberal, but their policies are illiberal. Barton Swaim ended a recent column in The Wall Street Journal on the loss of liberalism with an appropriate sentence: “You can’t fix the city as long as the souls are a mess.” 

"Back to Basics - A Christmas Wish"

 As the Holidays are upon us and as the New Year approaches, I want to thank you for your readership. I recognize that not all of you share my views, and I appreciate your forbearance.

 

2020 was busy – 60 Thoughts of the Day, 19 book reviews and 12 Essays from Essex – a level made larger, I am sure, because of the pandemic. This will be the last of my communications for the year. My batteries need re-charging, and my pile of un-read books has been increasing. 

 

With days now getting longer and with a vaccine soon to be administered, my optimism for more social interaction with family and friends in 2021 is growing. Zoom calls cannot replace a hug.

.

 My best wishes for the Holidays and for a healthier and happier New Year!

 

Sydney

 

Sydney M. Williams

30 Bokum Road – Apartment 314

Essex, CT 06426

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Back to Basics – A Christmas Wish”

December 22, 2020

 

“A member of a large and powerful tribe, whose influence in human affairs

has always been dominant and controlling. He sets the fashions of opinion and

taste, dictates the limitations of speech and circumscribes conduct with a deadline.”

                                                                                                                                        Definition of “Idiot”

                                                                                                                                        The Devil’s Dictionary, 1906

                                                                                                                                       Ambrose Bierce (1842-c.1914)

 

Ambrose Bierce was a Civil War veteran, newspaperman, wit and satirist, not well known today, but appreciated in his time for his sardonic humor. Now in this age of political correctness, “cancelled” history, “hurtful” words and “safe” places, levity, when exercised by the Right, is disallowed. Nevertheless, Bierce’s definition of “Idiot” reminds me of administrators and faculty that populate our universities, members of the press who forsake reporting for advocating, and Washington’s politicians and bureaucrats.

 

A last Saturday Wall Street Journal article, “Why Are Americans So Distrustful of Each Other” by Kevin Vallier, was sobering. In 1968, 56% of Americans “believed most people can be trusted.” In 2018, “after a half century of increasing [political] partisan division, only 31% did.” Perhaps not surprising, the level of social trust is lowest among young people – not a good sign for our future. Professor Vallier, who teaches philosophy at Bowling Green State University, wrote that social scientists have found three factors behind a country’s level of social trust: corruption, ethnic segregation and economic inequality. But none explain fully the decline in social trust in the United States today. He added: “Some social scientists are convinced that polarization increases political distrust, and it may play a role in increasing social distrust as well.”

 

In my opinion, there is truth in that statement. My conservative views, in “Blue State” Connecticut make me hesitant to offer opinions when in a social setting. In the same edition of the Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan wrote of the divide that separates elites from owners of small businesses, like restaurants and bars: “The professional class of politicians, media people, scientists and credentialed chatterers care about business in the abstract…But they have no particular heart for them.” For Democrats, this is particularly true. In their bar-bell approach to the electorate – wealthy, global, coastal elites on the one hand, and so-called “victims” of oppression on the other – they have no room for middle class Americans, who love their country and who value their families, religions and the virtue of success through hard work.

 

While I vacillate between being registered as a Republican and Independent, I treasure the principles and values inherent in conservativism, starting with the value of family and the critical importance of individual freedom. I know dependency leads to subservience. However, I am not an anarchist. I believe in government and in James Madison’s words, in Federalist 51: “If men were angels no government would be necessary.” But because men and women are flawed, I also believe in its corollary: “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” Thus, I believe in government with reins: “…you must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” The latter is difficult for arrogant politicians, which is why I believe in the rule of law, not men. But I am concerned about bigness – big government, big business, big tech companies, big unions – as their future relies on government as a partner, not as a referee in disputes and guarantor of our rights. 

 

If the election taught us anything, it is that we all need to return to the basics of what is necessary for a participatory civil society to function: honesty, diligence, patience, humility, kindliness, mutual respect and tolerance. We need to encourage the formation of traditional families, the importance of volunteerism and the value of religion, as the latter provides our moral and ethical foundations. We need to teach rules of conduct and manners, as they lubricate the wheels of social interaction. It is vital to know our Country’s true origins. Students should be required to take a course in civics, in which they read the founding documents of the United States: The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist Papers. They should learn how totalitarian regimes, like China, Russia, Venezuela and Cuba, differ from our democratic republic. They should realize the great good fortune they have to live here. 

 

Youth should be taught the basic principles of economics, to understand how and why revenues and incomes must balance. They need to understand that governments have no source of revenue other than what they take from citizens in the form of taxes and fees – that all income is generated within the private sector and that, while rules and regulations are important, they impede profitability, so regulations must be weighed for the positives they bring against the economic and social costs they entail. Students should know that low interest rates encourage borrowing while high interest rates encourage savings, and the obvious, but too often forgotten, precept that borrowed money must be repaid.

 

Among the basic tenets to which it would be healthy to return is to admit what we do not know and what we cannot know – that life is the constant pursuit of knowledge. Whether it is COVID-19 or climate, we are told to “follow the science,” yet mixed messages are delivered because scientific research is inexact. It is not a sign of ignorance to admit we cannot measure precisely how many meters reflect proper “social distancing,” nor can we measure with precision what is man’s effect on climate. In our data-driven world, experts are expected to be precise. Agnostics are not allowed. Yet, skepticism and humility are signs of strength, not weakness. As well, there are sensations we cannot define exactly. In his letter to Virginia O’Hanlon, in 1897, the editor of the New York Sun, Francie Pharcellus Church, wrote: “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy.” Mr. Church did not define the words love, generosity and devotion because their meanings are personal. We know what we mean when we express or experience them. But your definition of love may not be precisely mine.

 

How do we return to basics? How do we get rid of the idiocy Ambrose Bierce described? I do not pretend to have the answer, and this essay may be no more than an exercise in wishful thinking. But I believe that introspection is healthy, as well as acknowledgement that none of us have all the answers. I do have one year-end political wish, and that is term limits for members of Congress. I have long had an instinctive bias against limits, as I have felt people should be able to vote for whomever they choose, including the rascal that now represents them. However, I believe Washington’s swamp has become too familiar, with people moving seamlessly from elected office, to bureaucracies, to lobbying firms, in closed-knit fashion that is difficult for outsiders to penetrate. Thus, I think term limits are in our interest. Members of Congress no longer see themselves as servants to the people, but as masters of the governed. The Christmas season, with its promise of charity, forgiveness and love, is a good time to look in the mirror and take stock of what we have wrought. What we see reflected is not pretty. We could do worse than going back to basics.

"Post-Election Thoughts"

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Post-Election Thoughts”

November 5, 2020

 

“Just because you do not take an interest in politics

does not mean politics will not take an interest in you.”

                                                                                                                Attributed to Pericles (c. 495BC-429BC)

 

It behooves us to learn of the government gifted to us by the Founders and to understand its uniqueness at the time of its formation, and of its rarity today. It is its structure, formed by the Constitution, not the Bill of Rights, that gives us the freedom to speak and assemble freely, to worship as we please. Many authoritarian governments have a Bill of Rights more expansive than ours, yet their citizens live under totalitarianism. Ours is unique – three separate but equal branches, a bi-cameral legislature and a system of federalism. No matter which Party achieves the Presidency, it is in the interest of us all that its structure be maintained.

 

While the results of Tuesday’s Presidential election are unknown at the time this is written, there was no wave, not a blue one nor a red one. But that lack of a wave is worth celebrating, for, as everyone who lives near the shore can testify, waves can cause structural damage, to homes, piers, businesses, bridges and roads. Had Democrats won the White House, the Senate and kept the House, there was concern for the damage they might do: The progressive left would have tried to “pack” the Supreme Court, done away with the Electoral College, end the filibuster, and possibly add two new, assuredly Democratic, states – Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia.

 

The wisdom of our Founders was to create the government they did. It should receive more attention and greater appreciation. There is, in man, a proclivity to accumulate power. We have, as humans, innate tendencies for both good and evil. It was the latter that concerned James Madison when he warned, in Federalist 51, against that inclination: “But what is government itself, but the greatest reflection of all on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependency on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government, but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” It is an abrogation of separate but equal powers when the Supreme Court renders an opinion that is properly the venue of Congress, when the Executive circumvents Congress by issuing Executive Orders, or when Congress interferes unconstitutionally with the affairs of the Executive. 

 

Government efficiency should not be the goal. In October 2011, Justice Antonin Scalia testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He spoke of how Americans “talk about dysfunctional government because there is disagreement.” They should, he said, instead, learn “to love gridlock, which the framers believed would be the main protection of minorities.” Government prowess, favored by autocrats, was never the aim of the Founders. They viewed government as necessary, but were wary less power become concentrated.

 

Preservation of minority rights is embedded in the American political psyche. Nevertheless, Alexis de Tocqueville, in Democracy in America, also warned against tyranny by the majority. The Founders were well versed in the hierarchical societies of Europe where minorities of aristocrats and clergy ruled over the majority, so the United States emerged as a class-less meritocracy, with no landed gentry and no established church. A concern that power might become concentrated in one individual or in one Party, led to the formation of three equal but separate branches, Executive, Legislative and Judicial – the first two would be political, answering to voters, while the third would be apolitical, or, at least, less political. With a population approaching four million, the Founders knew a pure democracy to be unwieldy and potentially anarchical, so they opted for a representative form of government. As federalism was critical to the Union, the consequence was a bicameral legislature – a Senate, which gave equal representation to each state, thereby protecting smaller states, while a House of Representatives reflected the national population. As the House would be closest to the people, its Speaker would become the third-highest ranking member of government.

 

……………………………………………………………

 

Some random observations on the election: Early voting was encouraged by both camps, beginning in late September in nine states. Such voting appears to have helped Biden more than Trump. More than a hundred million people voted early. Trump, on the other hand, appears to have prevailed on Election Day, when more information was available regarding record third quarter GDP growth and the growing Biden-family scandal. Pollsters were again wrong. Republicans kept their Senate majority and picked up seats in the House. Mainstream media surrendered its traditional role of impartiality. The GOP is now the Party of working people, while the Democratic Party includes those with a Silicon Valley-Wall Street-China nexus, combined with advocates from academia, the media, Hollywood and those dependent on the state, both as employees and as beneficiaries. Biden’s campaign outspent Trump’s by about $200 million.

 

One lesson, which I fear will not be learned, is how Obama-style progressives, with their emphasis on political correctness, identity politics and victimization, are leading the country away from the values instilled by the learned, moral and pragmatic Founders, with their emphasis on individual liberty and personal responsibility. It was never Donald Trump, despite his egotistical ramblings, that threatened the integrity of our government. In fact, he tried to drain the swamp that is bureaucratic Washington. The real threat has always come from those who seek a bigger, more controlling government that tightens regulations, imposes higher taxes and increases surveillance. In nominating the cognizant-challenged Joe Biden, Democrats gave the people the opportunity to elect a “Forrest Gump” who serves as a Trojan Horse to bring the Progressive Kamala Harris into the White House. 

 

Skepticism about the fairness of the election persists. While Mr. Trump is unique in the panoply of American Presidents – thin-skinned, coarse, with a disregard for conventional behavior, etc. – no President has been as ill-treated by the establishment as Mr. Trump. He has been vilified by the press, investigated by every conceivable Congressional committee, hampered by an embedded bureaucracy, hated by Democrats and by many Republicans, targeted for assassination by late-night TV personalities, and his followers have been called racists, deplorables and irredeemables. Is it any surprise he questions the validity of vote counts in battleground states, like Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin? 

 

The more one reads of our history, the more one is struck by the wisdom of the men who gathered in Philadelphia, in the late spring and summer of 1787, to write a Constitution that would hold up for the ages. And the sadder one feels that our politics have been threatened by those who tear down its structure, and that so many people are denied the knowledge of that extraordinary time in Philadelphia.

"The Deep State and the Abuse of Power"

Sydney M. Williams

30 Bokum Road – Apartment 314

Essex, CT 06426

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“The Deep State and the Abuse of Power”

October 8, 2020

 

“The essence of government is power; and power,
lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.”

James Madison (1751-1836)

Speech, Virginia Convention

December 2, 1829

 

We should forever be thankful for the brave and wise men who fought our revolution and created our government, between the years 1775 and 1789. They defeated the world’s foremost military power. Their experience with Parliament and the King made them wary of governmental power. They knew enough about human nature to recognize that power was an aphrodisiac. In February 1775, Alexander Hamilton wrote in “A Farmer Refuted:” “A fondness for power is implanted in most men, and it is natural to abuse it when acquired.” They recognized that warning applied to them – and their political heirs.

 

Later, looking back on those years, Madison, in the same speech quoted in the rubric above, spoke to the risks of different forms of government – that monarchies can become despotic and aristocracies may sacrifice the rights and welfare of the many to the demands of the few. In republics, he added, “the great danger is that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority.” It was because of the failings and risks of other forms of government, along with the fallibility of man, that the Founders created a government based on a written Constitution, which emphasized the natural rights of individuals that must be protected. It clearly stated that power would be diffused through three equal branches, with the legislative branch being bicameral – a lower chamber reflecting the population of the nation and a Senate representing each state equally. It further stated that powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited by it, are reserved for the States or the people. Freedom for the individual came foremost; governmental abuse of power was the great internal risk.

 

In 1789, the federal bureaucracy consisted of employees in three departments – State, Treasury and War. Today, the Federal Register lists 454 departments, agencies and sub-agencies.  Excluding members of the military, approximately three million people are employed in the federal government, plus about four million federal government contract employees – the fastest growing segment of the federal workforce. 

 

While there is concern over balance between the three branches of government – that Congress has abdicated some of its responsibility to an Executive with a “pen and a phone,” and a Judiciary that has become activist – the biggest worry lies with an unelected bureaucracy that is unaccountable, yet wields power. Like employees everywhere, federal workers want to see growth, as it provides personal opportunities. Not unnaturally, they prefer the Democratic Party, as it favors bigger government. Roughly 90% of funds raised in 2016 from government employees for political campaigns went to the Democratic Party. While the Hatch Act is supposed to restrict federal employee participation in certain political activities, that has not stopped the politicization of some departments, agencies and employees and their weaponization by unscrupulous elected politicians.

 

During the Obama Administration, we saw the IRS’s Lois Lerner target conservative non-profits. We saw the Energy Department steer stimulus payments to Solyndra, a company whose executives were Obama donors, but which subsequently went bankrupt. We saw farmers prosecuted by lawyers for the Environmental Protection Agency for violating stringent “navigable water” rules (regulations later relaxed by courts and the Trump Administration). We watched as Attorney General Eric Holder named James Rosen, a reporter for Fox News, a criminal co-conspirator and flight risk. As Kimberley Strassel wrote in the October 2 edition of the Wall Street Journal: “…voters had watched the swamp take over – IRS targeters, self-righteous prosecutors, zealous regulators – armed with stunning powers and a mentality that they were entitled to make the rules, to tell the little people what was best for them.” 

 

But the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back, and which may cascade voters disillusioned with American politics into the Trump fold, has been the Russian probe. It is (and was) unlikely that Putin would have preferred the unpredictable Donald Trump, whom he did not know, to Hillary Clinton, whom he did. In his memoir Red Notice, published in October 2015, Bill Browder, the man behind the Magnitsky Act, wrote, “…ever since Barack Obama had become President, the main policy of the U.S. government toward Russia had been one of appeasement.”  On March 13, 2017, I wrote a TOTD, “Trump, Russia and Lies:” “It has always beggared belief to conclude Putin would have preferred Trump (a political unknown and cited as mercurial) to Mrs. Clinton, a woman who had been part of an administration that had given him little pushback in Crimea, Ukraine and Syria.” Now we know the only collusion that existed was between the Clinton Campaign, employing Fusion GPS and a British agent with Russian ties, and the FBI. Will we hear mea culpas from Senators Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and Representatives Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Jerry Nadler (D-NY) who for four years promoted this Russian hoax? Not likely. Nor will we hear or read apologies from mainstream media. More likely, they will bury themselves deeper into the filth of corruption and lies that has become their milieu.

 

But I drift from the main point, which is that too much power resides in the hands of arrogant and unaccountable bureaucrats; it was that which motivated Mr. Trump to run for President – to drain the “swamp” that had become Washington. It was a job that only an outsider would dare take on. In January 2017, before the inauguration, Senator Schumer warned Mr. Trump about taking on the intelligence agencies: “He’s being really dumb to do this… Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.” So, is the answer to let those agencies continue to accrue unrestrained power? In her op-ed quoted above, Ms. Strassel wrote, “…don’t underestimate the number of Americans who fear a return to that world.” These are people who do not respond to polls, but who love and respect the United States, its history and what it stands for. They live fearful of the power that now lies in supercilious and unelected hands – a power that frightens even those like Senator Schumer, as his warning to Mr. trump made clear. These people thank God Donald Trump ran and was elected. Apparently, he was “too dumb,” too naive or too brave to fear the denizens of Washington’s swamp. He does what he promises. He has taken them on. And his foes, in Washington, Hollywood and the media, are scared silly.

 

In November 1943, Friedrich von Hayek wrote his English publisher Routledge a letter: “we shall never prevent the abuse of power if we are not prepared to limit power in a way which occasionally may prevent its use for desirable purposes.”[1] In this age of COVID-19, some governors have taken the crisis as an excuse to accrue more power, preferring lockdowns to the common sense embedded in the Great Barrington Declaration[2], which recommends people be allowed to live normally while protecting the vulnerable. Madison foresaw this risk – that the rights of the many can be sacrificed to the demands of the few.

"A Middle Way - Is It Possible?"

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“A Middle Way – Is It Possible?”

December 18, 2019

“Medio tutissimus ibis”

(You will go most safely by the middle way)

                                                                                                Ovid (43BC-c.17AD)

                                                                                                Metamorphoses

In a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal (“I’m Partial to Impartiality,” December 12, 2019) Joseph Epstein wrote, “I happen to be someone who, in politics, yearns for impartiality.” I suspect that that desire for impartiality is common to most Americans – in the current environment, it “is a consummation devoutly to be wished,” as Hamlet would say. Most recognize we live in a pluralistic society, comprised of people from every nation on earth, representing all religions and races. In our homes, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates, we speak 350 languages. Nevertheless, we have in common a love of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. We favor a middle road, which accommodates all travelers. But, in recent times, with our biases, real and imagined, we struggle for a common purpose and a common morality. Where I disagree with Mr. Epstein, whose mind and writing style I admire and envy, is that he puts principal blame on Donald Trump for the discord that has disrupted our lives. I would certainly agree that Mr. Trump has accentuated the divide, but real blame is more widely distributed.

Politicians have compartmentalized the electorate – youth versus age, urban versus rural, rich versus poor, people of color versus Caucasians, immigrants versus nativists, gays versus straight, globalists versus nationalists. As well, there are those in the industrialized (and former industrialized) parts of the Country who have seen coastal elites become wealthy, while their incomes have fallen or grown stagnant. There are a few immigrants who have chosen not to adapt to the culture of their adopted country, and there are people who have been here for generations who fear a breakdown in the social unity they have enjoyed. A culture of victimization, identity politics and moral relativism accentuates these divides. There are secularized elites on the coasts who cannot understand why folk in rural areas cling to religion and guns. There are those who have hated Mr. Trump from when he first ran for the Presidency, people who will do anything to remove him from office. (Last week, Nancy Pelosi, in a slip-of-the-tongue, said she had been working on impeachment for two-and-a-half years. Yet, hypocritically, she claims it is with great sadness she has advanced articles of impeachment.) And, of course, social media allows factions to gather in greater numbers, with more intense focus. And there are those like me who fear that the decades-long tilt in Washington toward statism, with the acquiescence of mainstream media, risks the fundamentals of personal liberty and economic liberty on which this nation was founded. In good conscience, I cannot remain silent.

So, how do those of us who fear the loss of individual liberty compromise with opponents’ intent on subjecting the people to greater regulation and governance by the State? How do we stay midstream? If we do not, will we rip the nation apart? We recognize that the natural path of government is toward more regulation, greater power and, of course, higher taxes to support its bigger size. And what should the role of government be? We wonder, are we correct to worry? Illumination is found in a 1787 letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison: “I hold that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions indeed generally establish the encroachments on the rights of people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.”

The process of governing is never as smooth as it seems in retrospect. Violence erupted on the floor of the House in pre-Civil War days. Reconstruction wasn’t much easier. Roosevelt’s New Deal created anguish, among conservatives, as did the Civil Rights riots in the 1960s and among progressives during the Reagan years. Differences are a hallmark of a democratic system. Most people prefer a centrist approach to the extremism of today. But that requires political objectivity, a characteristic foreign to most of us, including many of those in government.

Recent events have given confirmation that fears of an imperious government are justified. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), in a report written by Clayton Thomas of the Congressional Research Service, claimed that American military and national security leaders have been lying about progress in Afghanistan for eighteen years and across three Administrations. Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report showed that FBI agents methodically lied about the Russian collusion, asserting, as Newt Gingrich recently wrote, “…that everything Congressman Devin Nunes had reported about the FBI’s activity was true, and everything Adam Schiff had said was a lie.” While Mr. Horowitz’s report suffers from double-speak and government gobbledygook and could use Strunk and White’s Elements of Style for clarity, he ends his section on the four FISA applications: “We concluded that the failures described above and in this report represent serious performance failures by the supervisory and non-supervisory agents with responsibility over the FISA applications.”  And we have yet to hear from John Durham, the special prosecutor appointed to look into the origins of the Russian investigation. Richard Jewell’s lawyer’s summation, in the eponymous movie directed by Clint Eastwood, tells the jurors a truth, that his client’s accusers were “two of the most powerful forces in the world, the United States government and the media.” It is the willful use of government power for personal or Party purposes that we should fear. On the flip side, the UK elections last Thursday saw a democratic expression of the will of people. In Boris Johnson’s election, socialist and anti-Semite Jeremy Corbyn lost, and the electorate voted for Brexit – the nation state of Britain was deemed to be a greater protector of individual sovereignty than the multinational European Union.  

The challenge for republican democracy is accommodation – how do we access the middle way – without abandoning principles. The United States is a hundred times larger, in terms of population, than it was in 1776 and far more diverse; yet the principles embedded in our founding documents are ageless. Democracy is hard work and includes an acceptance of accountability. We are a nation where the people – not elected leaders, bureaucrats or military leaders – are sovereign. Sovereignty is a privilege that presumes responsibility and requires an educated electorate. It feeds on free markets. It demands impartiality on the part of government servants. It calls for unbiased reporting by the media. Yet, both government leaders and the media have failed. We have seen their bias and how they have been used – both bureaucrats and reporters – to try to unseat a duly elected President. We need government to provide communal services like schools and roads; we need a government of laws that is a guarantor of property and human rights; one that is an arbiter of disputes and that protects the cultural cohesion of society. We need a government that is accountable to a sovereign people, people who must be responsible and accountable citizens. E Pluribus Unum tells us a middle way is possible. But we cannot abandon liberty.

It is easy to slip, Eloi-like, into the comfort of permitting the state to assume responsibility for more and more aspects of our lives. That is the promise of socialism, which is sold most easily to those forgoing the dignity that comes with hard work, who lack aspiration and personal responsibility, to those without knowledge of our civic structures and economic history. The dream of socialism may sound enticing, but the reality is servitude. A middle way, even when deemed safe, only works when we understand the stakes.