"Lighten Up, America"

 Tuesday morning my wife and I will go to the polls at the Essex Town Hall. Afterwards, we will drive to the Griswold Inn, also here in Essex, where my daughter-in-law Beatriz Williams and her two co-authors, Lauren Willig and Karen White, will discuss their latest book, An Author’s Guide to Murder, over lunch. The book is being released that day. The event promises to be good fun – three delightful, smart, articulate and funny ladies, as they take the audience through a rollicking good mystery. Agatha Christie, eat your heart out!

 

On Wednesday we begin a six-day trip to visit two grandchildren in college in Pennsylvania and one in boarding school in Virginia, so your e-mail in-box will be free of my offerings, at least for a few days.

 

God speed, and may your candidate win…though I hope mine does!

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Lighten Up, America”

November 3, 2024

 

“Like a welcome summer rain, humor may

suddenly cleanse and cool the earth, the air and you.”

                                                                                                                The Book of Negro Humor, 1966

                                                                                                                Langston Hughes (1901-1967)

 

While Kamala Harris began her campaign with a promise of joy, it soon deteriorated into character smears against her opponent, with Ms. Harris calling him “fascist” and a “Hitler,” and with President Biden referring to Mr. Trump’s supporters as “garbage.” What makes the “fascist” label ironic is that, as Victor Davis Hanson wrote in last Thursday’s issue of American Greatness, “…he [Trump] has been the target of fascists machinations from her own party and supporters for nearly a decade.”

 

Mr. Trump has always appeared devoid of humor, except when polls swing his way. Writing in the current UK issue of The Spectator, Kate Andrews noted “…in the past few weeks, something has restored Trump’s humor.” As the audience left a recent rally in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, she quoted a man speaking to his family: “That was better than Netflix.”  Most of us smiled when Mr. Trump, wearing an orange reflector vest (and in response to Mr. Biden’s remark), jumped into a garbage truck in Green Bay, Wisconsin. Nevertheless, Mr. Trump does have a habit of calling his opponents names that would make Gordon Gekko blush. Amidst this war of words, America seems an unhappy place. Last Thursday, The Washington Post editorialized: “…in an increasingly angry nation…incidents of road rage escalate across the country.”  As in 1888 Mudville, there is little joy in the U.S. today.

 

We have, as J.D. Vance recently reminded us, become overly sensitive, unable to distinguish between a comedian’s attempts at humor and the mean-spiritedness of a politician. Nevertheless, as a society, we (if not our politicians) have also become more sensitive to the feelings of others, a good thing. For generations, tasteless ethnic, racial, religious and sexual jokes were common. Perhaps because of that we were told that words could not hurt us. However today, we are told they can. Students and employees are warned against using “harmful” words. One consequence: we may become less of a melting pot than in those pre-and-post-World War II years – that our differences, not our similarities might define us. When my wife grew up in New York City, Little Italy, Chinatown, Germantown and Spanish Harlem were distinct places. While new enclaves have developed with new immigrants, those old boundaries can now be found only in history books. Immigrants of yesteryear, whether from Scandinavia, Eastern Europe, Puerto Rico, or Asia, found it more comfortable, initially, to live in neighborhoods with people who spoke their language and understood their customs. Many new immigrants do so today. As time went by, those earlier immigrants added to the quilt that is the American people, and they became indistinct from their neighbors. Let us hope that today’s politics aimed at dividing us will not prevent the natural forces that unify us. Integration into our nation’s culture is evolutionary, not revolutionary.

 

It is important to remember that the build-out of a diversified population over the past half century happened despite an array of tasteless ethnic, religious and racial jokes. Those jokes – common forty-fifty-and-sixty-years ago – did not hinder the intermarriage of immigrants’ children and grandchildren. The Census Bureau reports that White-Hispanic marriages, White-Asian and White-Black marriages have soared over the past few decades. In 2022, 19% of newlyweds in the United States were married to someone of a different race or ethnicity, versus 3% in 1967. Will political correctness, which has led to the compartmentalization of people, cause that trend to slow or reverse? I don’t know. I am not advocating we revert to telling ethnic jokes. What I am saying is that, accompanied by self-deprecation, that form of humor did no lasting damage.

 

Campaigns, politics and governing are serious endeavors. But perspective is wanted. As the late, legendary ballerina Margot Fonteyn once said: “The one important thing I have learned over the years is the difference between taking one’s work seriously and taking one’s self seriously. The first is imperative and the second is disastrous.” In dividing people into groups – ethnic, religious, racial, gender – progressive politicians have focused on our differences rather than our similarities. The poking of fun is no longer allowed. This fear of offending others has ushered in a culture of avoidance, for fear of affronting – widening already existing gaps between political parties, and gender and ethnic groups.

 

In the Essays of Michel Montaigne, the 16^th Century French philosopher wrote: “The highest wisdom is continual cheerfulness; such a state, like the region above the moon, is always clear and serene.” Humor prevents us from taking ourselves too seriously. It helps us find the balance between being sensitive to the needs and wants of others, while being honest about ours, and others, strengths and weaknesses. When the going gets tough, humor greases the skids. Mark Twain is alleged to have once said: “Humor is the great thing, the saving thing after all. The minute it crops up, all our hardnesses yield, all our irritations and resentments flit away, and a sunny spirit takes their place.” 

 

We live in serious – some might say perilous – times. Nevertheless, laughter has long been an antidote to dreariness. In his 1851 novel Moby-Dick, Herman Melville wrote: “However, a good laugh is a mighty good thing, and rather too scarce a good thing; the more’s the pity.” It is not mindless ‘joy’ we seek, but respectful and good-humored toleration of our differences, be they racial, gender or political. Ella Wheeler Wilcox’s opening stanza to her 1883 poem, as printed in The New York Sun, lends pertinence:  

 

“Laugh, and the world laughs with you;

Weep and you weep alone:

For the sad old world must borrow its mirth,

But has trouble enough of its own.”

 

…………………………………………………………………………..

 

In two days the tension of the election will be behind us. Half the country will be happy; the other half disappointed, but we will survive. Results of elections are never as good as winners would have us believe, nor as bad as losers claim. My recommendation is to pick up a Wodehouse. Sink back into Edwardian England where the sun always shone, birds flew overhead, bees buzzed about, and Uncle Fred could be found flitting along a garden path, spreading “sweetness and light.” Whether or not your choice for President was successful, a smile will crease your face.

"Desperate Democrats"

 Everyone wants us to vote early. Resist the urge if possible, unless external factors make that your only choice. While there are only eight days to go, much can happen. Besides, there is a sense of community in going to the Polls on election day. Voting is a privilege limited to democracies and a responsibility of all eligible citizens.

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Desperate Democrats”

October 28, 2024

 

“When a man has reached a condition in which he believes that a thing must happen because he does

not wish it, and that what he wishes to happen never will be, this is really the state called desperation.”

                                                                                           Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

                                                                                           Studies in Pessimism

                                                                                           Translated by Thomas Bailey Saunders, 1913

 

Polls tell us the election is too close to call, and I am not going to argue with those who make their living predicting what people will do. Nevertheless, Democrats act desperate; they act as though they expect to lose. They know they have played badly the hand they were dealt. That President Biden had been in mental decline was known by all who have watched his appearances over the past few years. Yet Democrats played Sergeant Schultz – “I know nothing” – and re-nominated him anyway. It was only after his disastrous debate with former President Trump on June 27, when his decline could no longer be denied, that he was unceremoniously dumped.

 

That gave Democrats less than two months to consider candidates who would appeal to a majority of delegates at an open convention to be held in Chicago from August 19 to the 24^th. Instead they chose to coronate Vice President Kamala Harris who had only once visited the border for which Mr. Biden had given her responsibility – about her only real responsibility. Previously, she spent four years in the U.S. Senate, where The Hill, based on roll-call votes, placed her as the second most liberal Democratic senator to serve in the U.S. Senate in the 21^st century, second behind Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. Prior to the Senate, she had served thirteen years as an Attorney General, first of San Francisco and then of California. 

 

A few weeks of “joy” accompanied her selection, but with her refusal to hold a news conference, to submit to other than “friendly” interviews, or to explain her change of opinions on policies, the bloom of excitement over her selection wilted. 

 

Her campaign has struggled to focus. She has been the Vice President for almost four years, but she cannot defend an economy, which brought the highest inflation since the 1970s. We have had unprecedented border crossings, which brought fentanyl and crime into the country, and that changed the composition of towns across the land. The Biden-Harris foreign policy has given us a revanchist Russia; a destabilizing, militaristic China; a North Korea sending troops to Russia; and an Iran intent on securing a nuclear bomb, while using proxies to eradicate Israel. As well, anti-Semitism has been on the rise on college campuses by students whose loans Mr. Biden would like to forgive – in other words, to have taxpayers assume the burden of repayment. Unsurprisingly, public trust in government is half what it was twenty years ago. Ms. Harris no longer talks about climate change, wind power or EVs, as they are associated with elites, those whom she claims to disdain. The abortion issue (her only issue) has been tempered with reasonable responses from both Trump and Vance. She has been left with bashing Trump as a would-be dictator, a Fascist, even though she does not seem to know the word’s socialist origins. As the Wall Street Journal editorialized last Friday: “But the climb up the rhetorical dictator chain in the final stages of this election looks like a last-ditch Democratic strategy to save Ms. Harris from defeat.” In comparing Mr. Trump to Hitler, her handlers are insulting fifty million or so Trump supporters. And, as Daniel Henninger pointed out in his recent Wall Street Journalop-ed, at the same time moderate Democrat Senators Baldwin, Casey, Slotkin, Tester – all up for re-election – have adopted Trump-like positions on energy, tariffs, and U.S. manufacturing. Leaders of the Democratic Party are looking desperate as they attempt to preserve a progressive, out-of-touch candidate, but many of their down-ballot candidates are acting pragmatically.   

 

It is not just the choice of a bad candidate, or the fact that Biden’s mental decline was kept hidden. Over the past several years, Democrats have abandoned their middle-class roots, as they adopted a bar-bell approach toward the electorate. On the one hand, the sanctimonious, cultural and economic elites who believe their self-proclaimed moral superiority justifies calling political opponents low-IQ “deplorables” – misogynist, racist, homophobic and xenophobic. On the other end of Democrat supporters are those who feed off government largesse – “green” companies, government employees, university administrators and professors who feed off the government teat, union leaders (but not all union members), indebted students, and illegal immigrants. Independent voters, however, do not vote in blocs. They are individuals. Contrary to President Obama’s harangue, Black men who do not support Ms. Harris are not misogynists. They simply believe her policies are not in their best interests. Progressive Democrats, who control the Party, have no tolerance for those who question why biological men should be able to compete against women in sports. They have little forbearance for those who live by Christian values, or those who support legal immigration but not its illegal cousin. “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me,” is a 500-year-old proverb that is applicable to millions of American voters.  

 

Most Americans are not happy with our choices for President. Most of us believe that the first five Presidents – Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, men who helped found this nation – would be appalled that we must choose between Kamala Harris or Donald Trump. But now, Democrats feel that desperate times call for desperate measures. But whether name-calling will work is anyone’s guess. The polls have the race too close to call. But I wonder. Thirty-seven years ago, Random House published Donald Trump’s book, The Art of the Deal. It reached number one on The New York Times best sellers list and stayed there for thirteen weeks. In it he wrote: “The worst thing you can possibly do in a deal is seem desperate to make it. That makes the other guy smell blood, and then you’re dead.” Will his words prove prophetic? In Walden, Henry David Thoreau offered sensible advice: “It is a characteristic of wisdom not to do desperate things.” In The Art of the Deal, Trump was writing of business deals; nevertheless, his words are applicable in today’s rancorous political environment: Caveat candidatus!

"The Curious Attraction of Donald Trump"

 

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

Thought of the Day

“The Curious Attraction of Donald Trump”

October 14, 2024

 

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

                                                                                                                The Emperor’s New Clothes, 1837

                                                                                                                Hans Christian Anderson

                                                                                                                Translated by Jean Hersholt, 1952

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

"Mission: Preserve the Republic"

 Over the weekend we saw the movie Reagan, with Dennis Quaid playing the title role. It brought back waves of nostalgia for a time and a President so different from what we have and what we are offered. But pining for yesteryear does no one any good. As the saying goes, we must play with the cards we are dealt. Nevertheless, the movie – the first for me in a theater in over five years – is worth seeing. 

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Mission: Preserve the Republic”

September 23, 2024

 

Elizabeth Willing Powel: “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”

Benjamin Franklin: “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

                                                                                                      Philadelphia, September 17, 1787

 

That exchange took place 237 years ago outside Independence Hall, where delegates had met to discuss weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation, as they pertained to the central government. It was recorded in the journal of Maryland delegate James McHenry (1753-1816), a journal now in the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress. (The Articles of Confederation, agreed to in 1777, were replaced a decade later by the United States Constitution, which provided for a stronger central government.)

 

Democrats have seized the expression “save democracy,” which means elect them, not Republicans who they argue would destroy democracy. They express concern of storm troopers led by Donald Trump who they say would tear down our democratic institutions. But might this be an example of projection?

 

Our Founders were concerned about despotism, including what James Madison called “the tyranny of the majority.” So they constructed a Republic, with checks and balances, a federal government with three equal and independent branches – legislative, executive and judicial – to protect the rights of both the majority and the minority. 

 

In a recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, George Washington University law professor Jonathon Turley wrote: “In an October 2020 interview, Harvard law professor Michael Klarman laid out a plan for Democrats should they win the White House and both congressional chambers. They would enact ‘democracy-entrenching legislation.’ But what does that mean? They have called for the elimination of the Electoral College. They want to increase the size of the Supreme Court, and widen the reach of the federal bureaucracy through new administrative agencies. They would give Congress the ability to impose term limits on Supreme Court Justices and have the Court abide by a code of ethics prepared by Congress. Their plans would emasculate the concept of federalism and require amending the Constitution.  

 

On the Republican side, the Heritage Foundation published a 920-page document, reflecting their vision for a second Trump administration, Project 2025. A copy of the plan was brought to the Democrat convention in Chicago where it was presented as a blueprint as to what they claimed Republicans would do: transform the FBI, abolish the Department of Education, dismantle NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association), terminate the legal status of 500,000 “Dreamers,” and curtail women’s rights. Unmentioned was the fact that the Heritage Foundation has, every four years, released a “Mandate for Leadership” since the early 1980s, or the fact that Mr. Trump has distanced himself from Project 2025.

 

None of this is to belittle risks to our government, which is unique in the annals of mankind. Fifty-seven years ago, at his inaugural as California’s Governor, Ronald Reagan stated: “Freedom is a fragile thing, and it’s never more than one generation away from extinction.” Yet threats continue. Sixteen years ago, speaking to a crowd in Columbus, Missouri, Barack Obama proclaimed: “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” What did he mean? And now we have the unelected wife of an elected President running a cabinet meeting. Where was his Vice President? Shades of Edith Wilson?

 

Fundamental to our system of government, whether you choose to call it a democracy or a republic, is freedom of expression, with the obvious exceptions of – without cause – yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, or declaiming in front of the Supreme Court, as did New York’s senior U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer: “I want to tell you Gorsuch. I want to tell you Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” In a nation of 330 million people such threats can have unintended consequences, as assassination attempts on Mr. Trump have demonstrated. On the other hand, censorship, whether practiced by the government, as in the Russian collusion story in 2015-2019, or by the media, as in the Hunter Biden laptop story of 2020, is detrimental to inherent freedoms, and thus to the preservation of our democratic republic.

 

The Founders decided on a bicameral legislature so that smaller states would have equal representation in the U.S. Senate, to offset the House of Representatives, which is based on population. The Electoral College, which elects the President, is a combination of the two, being allocated votes equal to its number of Senators and its number of Congressional districts. Keep in mind, in 1787 this reflected magnanimity on the part of Virginia, which was the largest state in the union and home to principal authors of our founding documents – the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and The Federalist Papers. As well, Virginia was home to four of the first five Presidents. If Washington, Jefferson, Madison or Monroe had preferred a pure democracy they could have railroaded one through. 

 

Our form of government has survived a British invasion in 1812-1814 and a Civil War. It has survived the scourge of slavery, years of Jim Crow and reconstruction, a debilitating depression, segregation, and the anti-war protests of the 1960s. It has survived the assassinations of four U.S. Presidents. It went to the aid of Europe in 1917. It saved the world from Nazism and Imperial Japan in the 1940s. It has produced more Nobel and Pulitzer prize-winners than any other nation. Its economy and freedom have been a beacon for the world’s oppressed, drawn by opportunities the Country offers. At its heart are personal, political and economic freedoms. It is a nation that adheres to the lesson of the old Chinese proverb – “Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime.”

 

Yes, our mission should be to preserve the Republic gifted us. I am not happy in the choices we have for President in 2024. Neither political party seems concerned with our massive debt, which can (and will) destroy our way of life, especially as we face demographic challenges unknown to our forefathers. And I am not happy that both Parties focus on what they can do for us, rather than emphasizing the opportunities free markets offer to those talented, aspirational and diligent. I am not happy when diversity is reserved solely for color, race, sex, or creed, and when it excludes abilities, opinions, and interests.

 

As we head to the polls, we should consider: Which political party is more likely to shrink regulations, limit spending, and stop the dangerous silliness of letting boys compete against girls in school sports? Which party is more likely to give the aspirational opportunity to succeed in the fields of their choice? Neither candidate is one I would choose. Harris is vacuous, either by design or by nature. And I wonder: Who is the “Oz” behind the curtain guiding Mr. Biden, and is there a “Toto” to pull back the drapes? The bombastic Mr. Trump is personally unappealing, but at least we have his four-year record as President, in which he – even though the Country was hit by Covid – performed well. And with mainstream media lined up against him there is little chance of his becoming authoritarian. Preserving our Republic should be our priority.

"The Election - Character or Issues?"

 On Tuesday, my wife and I leave for a couple of weeks in New Jersey, where we have been going for over fifty years – my wife for all of her life. We go to the Rumson-Seabright area. While I will have my laptop and printer, I do not plan on spending much time writing. It is not that I don’t enjoy writing essays. I do. But all engines need overhauling, and mine needs a break. You may hear from me, but then again you may not.

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“The Election – Character or Issues?”

August 1, 2024

 

“If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the

people under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy.”

                                                                                                                Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

                                                                                                                Letter to Thomas Cooper, 1802

 

While it appears that we Americans don’t agree on a lot, there is general agreement that our political center has been squeezed by extremists at both ends of the political spectrum. Democrats have moved to the left – toward European-style social engineering. Republicans have become more populist, not in an authoritarian way, but in the sense that they represent ordinary people opposed to elitists in government, labor, finance, business and education. At the far-left are those who fly the Palestinian flag, and sick climate-cultists who destroy works of art to bring attention to their agenda. At the far-right are those who fly the Confederate flag, and xenophobes who would deport illegal aliens. Political choice has become more difficult for those inclined toward a politics of consensus and collaboration.

 

An emphasis on character by the media has replaced a focus on issues that affect the electorate. While Kamala Harris may have an edge when it comes to character, she is no paragon of virtue. Both candidates are fodder for the tabloids. The crucial differences between them are not in their character; it is their policy prescriptions. Like most politicians, Ms. Harris is chameleon-like when it comes to where she stands, except on issues like abortion, climate change and Hamas. She was, keep in mind, ranked the most liberal of all U.S. Senators in 2019 by GovTrack.us, a non-partisan Congress tracker. In contrast, Mr. Trump, apart from lacking a sense of humor, being a protectionist on trade, and wanting to make America great again, seems devoid of a consistent political ideology. But he has the advantage of not being a pietistic professional politician.

 

As November draws closer, voters must grapple with multiple issues: the economy/inflation, healthcare, foreign policy/defense, immigration, debt/deficits, abortion, education, climate/environment, entitlements, infrastructure, the Supreme Court, along with myriad concerns regarding the cultural environment, from the role of families, the threat from identity politics, to biological men participating in women’s sports.

 

There are too many issues to comment on all, but allow me to make remarks regarding a few. A report from Statista.com published on July 5^th polled voters’ concerns: “government/poor leadership” (21%), “immigration” (18%), the “economy in general” (17%), and “the high cost of living/inflation” (12%). Biden of course will be gone in just over five months and with him the “poor leadership” that has been a hallmark of his Presidency. The other issues, however, remain. Open borders, both south and north, have let in millions of undocumented illegal immigrants who, with help from the federal government, have spread throughout our nation. Rounding up and deporting them will be impossible, even those with criminal records. In my opinion the number of permanent immigrant visas should be increased, but in the meantime borders should be sealed preventing anymore from arriving illegally. As for the economy, over the past seventy years GDP growth, despite productivity gains of about 300%, has been in gradual decline, from the four percent plus range in the first three decades after World War II, to around three percent plus in the last two decades of the 20^th Century, to under three percent thus far in 21^st Century.

 

During the past seventy years there have been recessions and spurts of higher growth, but under leadership from both Republicans and Democrats the gradual decline in GDP growth has been manifest. Regulation, taxes, government spending, dependency, a lack of personal responsibility and accountability, and the negative consequences of a DEI strategy have all had their effects. For example, a report from the House Budget Committee Chair, Jodey Arrington (R-TX), on April 4, 2023 cited the growth in transfer payments: In 2022 the federal government paid $4.1 trillion in transfer payments to individuals, 65% of the entire budget. The growth in transfer payments has been persistent and seemingly inexorable, from 1.5% of the budget in 1945, to 26% in 1969, to 50% in 1994. No politician from either Party wants to take away benefits, and in fact The Biden-Harris proposals of free community college, student loan forgiveness, increasing food stamp benefits and expanding Medicaid eligibility will add to what is fast approaching an intolerable burden for taxpayers. Voters must ask: which Party is more likely to address threats from the Charybdis of increased individual dependency and the Scylla of unaffordable government?

 

The world has grown more dangerous over the last three and a half years. In taking office, Mr. Biden reversed Mr. Trump’s policies toward Iran, re-engaging the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal, which emboldened the world’s greatest exporter of terrorism. He forsook the Abraham Accords. In August 2021, Mr. Biden abandoned Afghanistan to the Taliban, leaving behind billions of dollars in military equipment and bases. In February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine, initiating Europe’s longest-running war since World War II. In the past three years China’s naval fleet has surpassed that of the United States. During Mr. Biden’s Presidency another dozen countries joined China’s Belt & Road initiatives, which now includes 150 countries in Asia, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and South America. While Mr. Biden was an ardent supporter of Israel immediately following the Hamas-directed October 7 slaughter, he now urges restraint.

 

On education, Democrats are against choice; they favor subsidies to buyers of electric vehicles, and they would like Congress to pass an Amendment that would term-limit Supreme Court Justices and subject them to Congressional oversight. At the Kentland Community Center on June 7 in Landover, Maryland, Vice President Kamala Harris claimed that “the right to be safe is a civil right.” Is that what we want? Students are told that their colleges provide safe spaces, where one can hide from offensive words. Books, such as Huckleberry Finn are banned because readers might find them hurtful. Is that what we should strive for – a nation of Milquetoasts? America was discovered and settled by those who braved the elements and risked their lives. In like manner, daring astronauts took to space sixty years ago. Men and women have bet their fortunes on inventions, many of which have vastly improved lives. If we are to believe that to be safe is a civil right, what will come of risk takers, of innovation? If the nation needs defending, will anyone risk their life? In the August issue of The Spectator, the editors wrote of the adverse consequences of a society consumed with safetyism: “…a zeal for safe spaces begets academic stagnation and persecution; and avoiding the emotional risk of commitment brings with it collapsing birth rates and loneliness.” 

 

We live in a time when individual freedom confronts state supremacy. We need government to care for those unable to care for themselves, but government should be, as was originally intended, limited and constrained. It was established to guarantee are basic rights. Individually, the ingredients for a fulfilled life include independence, self-reliance, curiosity, aspiration, and a willingness to work hard and take risk. Despite the illusion of progressives, none of us are equal, something obvious to those who watch the Olympics, but we are each gifted with unique qualities. It is those we must focus on. Given the candidates in this election, Democrats and the media will speak endlessly of “threats to democracy” and will attack Mr. Trump for being Trump. Republicans, however, should stick to issues.

"First Out, Next In"

 Why would Biden first warn and then give time to our enemies before retaliating for the deaths of three American soldiers? It makes no sense for a Country that has responsibility for maintaining world peace. It is as though we have let our faults govern our goodness and reflects a failure to understand the presence of evil, and that power is an aphrodisiac. From Napoleon to Hitler, from Stalin to Mao, from the Iranian Mullahs to Putin and Xi Jinping individuals have wanted to control the world. The United States and the West have stood in their way. We must stop contemplating our navels and apologizing for past sins, both real and imagined. We cannot hide from our responsibilities. The United States and the nations of the West are not perfect, but they are good and certainly better than the alternatives. 

 

…………………………………………………………………………………….

 

Yesterday would have been my paternal grandfather’s 151^st birthday. Tomorrow is my daughter’s birthday. Birthdays, especially of grandparents we knew well, remind us of the past and bring it forward into the present. They tell us of how life has changed and how young is our country. I loved talking to my grandfather about his youth in Boston. He grew up in a world without cars, at a time when most homes did not have electricity or phones. When he died on February 3, 1963, a day shy of ninety, 98% of homes in the U.S. had electricity and there were almost seventy million cars on American roads. He was thirty years old when the Wright Brothers first flew at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. By the time he died, 58 million Americans were flying annually. Will the sixty years provide as much change? We cannot know, but with advances in technology, especially artificial intelligence, that cannot be ruled out. Medicine, communication, education, and entertainment should all benefit. And of course there will be other changes we cannot conceive. 

 

………………………………………………………………………………………….

 

Apologies for the long preamble. As for this essay, it is a look into the near future, so no more than a hope and a guess. 

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.bolgspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“First Out, Next In”

February 5, 2024

 

“It is really true what philosophy tells us, that life must be understood backwards.

But with this, one forgets the second proposition, that it must be lived forward.”

Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855)

Danish theologian and philosopher

Journals, 1843

 

Edward Bellamy’s 1888 utopian novel Looking Backward showed the difficulty of getting the future right, especially when idealism co-opts reason. National socialism proved a disaster to Germany and Italy (and the world), and state ownership of industry deep-sixed the Soviet Union. Kierkegaard suggested in the rubric above, life is best lived with an understanding of history. And as George Santayana famously wrote in Life of Reason: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

 

Divisiveness characterizes our age, like the years leading to the Civil War, the McCarthy era of the early 1950s, or the late 1960s when the Country was divided by the Vietnam War. In last Friday’s The Wall Street Journal Lance Morrow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center wrote: “Exaggeration is the traditional style of American politics, but permanent culture wars, the global pandemic, the agitations of social media and the collapse of party discipline – and, not least, the role modeling of Joe Biden and Donald Trump – have left Americans discontent with mere exaggeration.” We have, he added, “gotten addicted to apocalypse…”

 

Is there a way out? Can reason subsume emotion? Is a middle ground achievable? I think there is, but I don’t believe that either Mr. Biden or Mr. Trump will lead the way. The former is in cognizant decline and the latter has become detached from reality. There are big issues that separate the two parties, but democracy is about debate and compromise, not incoherent brawling, which is what our politics have become.

 

The title of this essay stems from my belief that the first of the two main contenders to drop out of the race for President (as unlikely as that now seems) will assure that his Party wins November’s Presidential election. At this point there is no sign that such a possibility is being considered. Neither candidate is widely admired, let alone respected, yet both appear likely to secure their Party’s nomination. In a head-to-head race, polls have them pretty much divided. As for losers, if either were to win, that would be the American public. The likelihood of a Biden-Trump rematch makes this an intractable problem for a majority of voters, as forever Trumpers battle imperious Progressives. 

 

As an amateur observer of the political scene, it seems to me that the first to drop out would likely be Mr. Biden. His lack of mental acuity becomes more visible every day, and Democrats are the more disciplined of the two Parties. Their leaders, no matter what they now say, know that Mr. Biden’s health will continue to deteriorate and that Vice President Kamala Harris is not a viable candidate to lead the world’s most powerful nation. Mainstream media, which serves as their propaganda arm, is beginning to suggest a change would be in the Party’s best interest. On the Republican side, M.A.G.A. Republicans remain vehement defenders of a man they feel has been treated badly. But the conservative media is mixed. While Fox News and Epoch Timesare all-in in their support for Mr. Trump, The Wall Street Journal takes a more muted approach, as do The New York Sun, National Review and The Spectator. And we have both the Biden and Trump nominations being supported by mainstream media. Biden’s support stems from his identity politics and his preference for Washington’s Woke bureaucracy. In contrast, mainstream media would prefer the “deplorable,” but nationally unelectable, Mr. Trump over the electable Nikki Haley.  

 

Will either man drop out of the race? I suspect not willingly. But control of the White House reaps enormous benefits – the coattail effect of elections, control over the political direction of the country and the world, and the direct appointment of thousands of jobs. Democrats, as mentioned above, are more methodical, more controlling than Republicans; they appeal to the group, not the individual. While they have extremists, like the “Squad,” the entire Party has moved left since the Obama Presidency. On the other hand, Republicans have always been a Party of individuals, of oners, where the group is less important than the person. However, “Forever Trumpers” have changed the calculus. Their backing of Trump is less about policies and more about anger as to how he and they have been belittled. To borrow an Obama line, they believe that having Trump in their corner is like bringing a gun to a knife fight. As Hoover Institute senior fellow John H. Cochrane wrote in Saturday’s The Wall Street Journal: “…there is no better way to stick it to the elites than to vote for the man who drives them most crazy.” 

 

For a conservative like me, these are sad days. This should be a Republican cycle given Mr. Biden’s low polling numbers, our moral decay, and our decline in the eyes of the world. Consider: the Country faces an out-of-control immigration crisis; a war in the Middle East that is spreading; a Russia intent on reclaiming its past empire; a China insistent on controlling the South China Sea and its trade routes; an Iran on the cusp of becoming a nuclear power; overwhelming debt and deficits; the lingering effects of inflation; and a focus on identity that has worsened race relations. There is no question of the fervor of Mr. Trump’s followers, but, as we saw in 2018, 2020, and 2020, he has no coattails. Control of the White House without control of Congress means we tread water. Difficult problems do not get resolved.

 

Predicting the future is a fool’s game, yet as the Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard wrote life must be lived forward. So, using the past as guide we make predictions. As I wrote earlier, I believe there is a chance Mr. Biden will be persuaded to give up his quest. But for Mr. Trump to do likewise is unlikely. If Republicans want a dog fight, they should go with Mr. Trump. But the best shot for Republicans to keep the House, take back the Senate and the White House is to support Nikki Haley in the upcoming primaries. She is Republicans’ best hope for victory, and for America to take back our values, families, schools, and cities.

"Who is Behind the Curtain?"

                                                                     Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Who is Behind the Curtain?”

May 12, 2022

 

“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”

                                                                                                                                The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, 1900

                                                                                                                                L. Frank Baum (1856-1919

 

Apart from the final seventeen months of the Woodrow Wilson Administration, when the President suffered a stroke, we have never had a President appear unable to carry out his responsibilities – until now. To be honest, that assessment of Mr. Biden, while I believe it to be true, is based on observation rather than empirical evidence. In the case of President Wilson, the cover-up of his infirmities was due to his doctor, Cary Grayson and his second wife, Edith Bolling Galt Wilson. Dr. Grayson did brief Wilson’s cabinet and the question of succession arose, but the doctor refused to sign any official notice of inability, so Vice President Thomas Marshall remains a footnote, and the Presidency was allegedly managed by Mrs. Wilson.

 

At 78, Mr. Biden became the oldest person to be inaugurated President, eight years older than Donald Trump and nine years older than Ronald Reagan. In both cases, political opponents called into question their mental acuity; so, it is unsurprising that concerns for Mr. Biden have been raised. Four years and ten months after leaving office, Mr. Reagan sent a letter to the American people telling them he was afflicted with Alzheimer’s. In the summer of 2018, eighteen months after taking office, Mr. Trump took (and passed) the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test. Thus far, Mr. Biden has refused to take a similar test.

 

Since Mr. Biden has not taken a cognitive test, comments that he has early signs of dementia are speculation. Nevertheless, concerns abound and not just among Republicans. A Politico Morning Consult poll in January 2022 found that 48% of those polled do not believe he is mentally fit. An ABC/The Washington Post poll, taken at the same time, indicated that Mr. Biden lacks the “mental sharpness” to be President. A Harvard Youth Poll showed a job approval rate of 41%, despite 57% of the correspondents having voted for him. Anecdotally, anyone who has watched his news conferences has noted his shuffling gait, his fumbling answers and his slurring of words. 

 

Again, none of this is proof of dementia, but enough questions have been raised that the White House should respond. After all, the U.S. Presidency is the most powerful position in the world, and if someone else (or some cabal) is making decisions in his name the people should know who that is.

 

My candidate for puppeteer is former President Barack Obama. In Columbia, Missouri on October 30, 2008, Mr. Obama boldly declared: “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” While he later backed away from that assertion, that is what he said. The National Catholic Register, at the time, referred to the statement as “revolutionary” and “audacious.” 

 

As the son of a white mother and a black father, Mr. Obama had the unique opportunity to bridge the racial divide in the U.S. Instead, racism worsened, and political polarization intensified during his eight years. Perhaps we should not have been surprised. From an early age, Mr. Obama had had mentors who were anti-West and anti-American: Frank Marshall Davis in Hawaii, an anti-white and anti-American former member of the Communist Party; Professor Edward Said of Columbia, a spokesperson for Palestinian terrorists; Professor Derrick Bell of Harvard Law School, an early advocator of Critical Race Theory; Reverend Jeremiah Wright whose church, Trinity United Church of Christ, Mr. Obama attended for twenty years; and Bill Ayers, a domestic terrorist in whose Chicago home Mr. Obama held fundraisers.

 

Some might argue that criticism of Mr. Obama is based solely on racial prejudice. While that certainly is true of some, most of the criticism was (and is) directed at his policies, not at the person. Extremism exists in both parties but has been more prominent on the left. It was in 2013 that #Black Live Matter was formed, in response to the Trayvon Martin murder, and Antifa rose to prominence during the Obama years. Instead of following the example set by Martin Luther King of encouraging character development, Mr. Obama pursued identity politics. In doing so, his statements stood in contrast to those of black economist and scholar, Thomas Sowell: “If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago and a racist today.”

 

The 2016 election was a surprise. Many people, but particularly Democrats, expected Hillary Clinton would win and further the progressive goals established by Mr. Obama. That was not to be. Four years later they had their chance. Covid derailed the Trump economy, which had lifted economic growth and allowed minority incomes to achieve record levels. The choice of Joe Biden as Democrat nominee was fortuitous for Mr. Obama. Mr. Biden was familiar with his agenda and was portrayed during the campaign as a moderate. However, Newsweek, on December 22, 2020, headlined an article: “Nearly 60% of Biden’s Cabinet Appointments So Far Are Obama Officials.” They include Janet Yellen, John Kerry, Susan Rice, Lloyd Austin, Alejandro Mayorkas, Denis McDonough, Avril Haines and Linda Thomas-Greenfield, among others.

 

What Democrats did not expect was the rapid decline in the Administration’s popularity – with job approval for Mr. Biden in the low 40s and the even lower ones for Vice President Kamala Harris. But how could they have been so blind? Did they not expect a surge of illegal immigrants when they loosened rules at the border? Why did they not anticipate inflation when they kept interest rates low, increased money supply, expanded government spending and tightened regulations regarding fossil fuels? Did they not realize that their calls to defund the police would result in a surge in crime? Did they not consider the consequences of a too-hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan? Did they expect parents to docilely accept the teachings of “woke” ideologies in public schools? With a military more focused on social justice, why were they so surprised at our relative unpreparedness for conflicts with Russia and China?

 

Democrats must realize that the odds favor them losing majorities in the Senate and possibly in the House in the midterms. Prospects for 2024 don’t look great either, putting their progressive agenda further at risk. Mr. Biden will be 82 in January 2025, and his cognitive infirmities will have worsened. Ms. Harris comes across as a cackling incompetent; thus, with her low polling numbers, she seems an unlikely candidate for President in 2024. It is fear that they may lose their soap box that explains the recent creation of the dystopian Disinformation Governance Board, a proposal called for by Mr. Obama that would effectively shut down free speech.

 

The risk of losing our democratic republic has always been there. Freedom is difficult to attain, but easy to lose. Elected officials and unelected bureaucrats must be held accountable. That cannot be if the people don’t know who is in charge. We’re not in Kansas anymore; we should know who is behind the curtain.