"The Lesson of Charlie Kirk"

 This has been put together quickly, so I am sure there are errors and omissions. Nevertheless, this is my say.  In certain respects, I feel an interloper in that I did not know much about Charlie Kirk before his assassination. But he was obviously an extraordinary young man. He has been compared to a youthful William Buckley, but Buckley had the advantage of wealth, a prestigious family and a Yale education. Kirk, without those advantages, reached out to young people, to high school and college students, to get them to think about politics and their beliefs. Like Buckley, he eschewed violence. And he was enormously successful in what he did. And he died far too early, a young husband and father, at age 31. 

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

Thought of the Day

“The Lesson of Charlie Kirk”

September 13, 2025

 

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible

will make violent revolution inevitable.”

                                                                                                                President John F. Kennedy

                                                                                                                Alliance for Progress

                                                                                                                March 13, 1962

 

Until his assassination last Wednesday, I never knew much about Charlie Kirk. But from what I have read, I believe his life and message provided a roadmap for a better Country. He loved to debate ideas and was a passionate believer in free speech. Sadly, he was killed exercising that freedom. 

 

Most everyone agrees that our Country has become divided, that extremism, on both the left and the right, has voided those things most of us have in common – a belief in a nation of infinite possibilities, a belief in the wisdom of our founders and the Constitution they bequeathed us, a Judeo-Christian heritage and its traditions, our history, and an appreciation for the benefits the Enlightenment brought to a darkened world. 

 

Self-righteousness of the Left and Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) have, in my opinion, brought great harm: Political correctness, despite its claim for doing good, censors speech, and inhibits freedom of thought and expression by denigrating and denying opposing opinions. Some words may offend sensitive feelings, but they do not beget violence. Identity politics has divided us by race, religion, and gender. The long-standing motto of the United States, E pluribus unum, seems no longer to apply.

 

How to subdue the flames of partisanship that consume us? Charlie Kirk believed the way forward was through debate, not lectures and certainly not violence. On college campuses, he invited those who differed to express their opinions, to debate him. It was, he believed, a better substitute than anger and violence. Ironically, it was during such a forum he was shot and killed.

 

How do we dampen those flames. The most expedient way to address the intolerance that permeates our politics would be for political leaders to act like responsible adults – to stop vilifying their opponents, and then temperately and respectfully debate the issues, as Kimberley Strassel advised in Friday’s Wall Street Journal. It would be helpful, but probably even less likely than politicians assuming a measure of maturity, if the media, rather than sanctimoniously blaring opinions, focused on news. I don’t know about you, but I have pretty much stopped watching cable and network news.

 

In my opinion, the best long-term answer to the political division and hatred that runs amok and mars our politics is to focus on education. Besides all the critical STEM programs, children, from an early age, should be taught to read history – to know our history but also that of other countries, especially that of Rome and Greece, the world’s first attempts at democracy. For perspective, they should read classical fiction, to imbibe the works of Shakespeare, Milton, Austen, the Brontës, and others who have influenced generations of teachers, philosophers and politicians. They should be taught the history of wars, for sometimes wars must be fought – why they began, how they were conducted and how concluded. They should process all they have learned so that they can form and articulate independently-arrived opinions – with the understanding that a democracy can only function when a citizenry is informed.

 

Sadly, that is not happening. The nation’s report card, the latest National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), yielded the worst fourth grade reading outcomes in twenty years, with 40% of students scoring below basic proficiency. For eighth graders, reading scores hit an historic low, with a third of the students performing below basic proficiency. In the meantime, chronic absenteeism was up, as were grade inflation and misbehavior. Teachers, administrators and their unions should be held accountable.

 

In high schools and colleges, students should be taught the rudiments of debate, and he encouraged them to debate issues respectfully and intelligently. When I was on a high school debate team, we were assigned topics and then told as to whether we would be arguing the affirmative or the negative. And we had to be able to debate both sides. Teachers and professors should leave their opinions in the cloak room, unless they are welcoming disagreement and debate. As Charlie Kirk would say, teachers should then ask: show me why I am wrong?

 

It is that which is the lesson of Charlie Kirk. Be passionate in your beliefs but don’t let passion morph into hatred and violence. Befriend those with whom you disagree. Be willing to listen to what they have to say and be comfortable debating your differences. I hope we never reach a point where we act like sheep, where we all accept, without debate, which policies are best. Neither the Right nor the Left has an exclusive on the correct way forward. But together, in discussion and debate, we should find the route most compatible to most people. Remember our motto; it still fits: Out of many, one.

"Republican Debate?"

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com”

 

Thought of the Day

“Republican Debate?”

August 26, 2023

 

“The good news for the party is that this was a solid event, showcasing several

capable, qualified and at times inspiring contenders for the oval office.”

                                                                                                                                Kimberley Strassel

                                                                                                                                The Wall Street Journal

                                                                                                                                August 25, 2023

 

“It was like watching a junior high school debate, complete with cool kids asking stupid

questions and the geeks fighting on the stage. I hated every minute of it, thought it

was embarrassing for all involved and found it insulting to the American voters.

                                                                                                                                Andrea Widburg

                                                                                                                                American Thinker

                                                                                                                                August 24, 2023

 

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political

prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”

                                                                                                                                George Washington

                                                                                                                                Washington’s Farewell Address

                                                                                                                                September 19, 1796

 

Wednesday evening’s debate generated different reactions, as can be seen in the rubrics from two respected, conservative commentators. And no one on the stage displayed the dignity and wisdom of our first President. In contradiction – which says more about me than the political contenders – I find myself in agreement with both Ms. Strassel and Ms. Widburg, but perhaps more with Ms. Widburg, and sad that we have strayed so far from the wisdom of George Washington.

 

Former South Carolina Governor and UN Ambassador Nikki Haley showed a forceful command of the facts, yet her voice was, at times, shrill. Governor Doug Borghum displayed wisdom in emphasizing federalism in the handling of issues like abortion, yet people were left wondering who he was. Senator Tim Scott’s optimism and decency shone through, but he generated little excitement. Governor Ron DeSantis has done wonders in Florida and remained unflustered when challenged, but he came across like a robotic humanoid. Former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchison, appearing a kindly, elderly man, was the first to signal he would not support Mr. Trump were he nominated, but he resembled a resident of our retirement community. The bright, articulate Vivek Ramaswamy, failed to acknowledge the unintended consequences of his foreign policy prescriptions. He flashed his gleaming white choppers, as he combatted the combative former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and the Godly but wooden former Vice President Mike Pence. There were moments when the debate did remind one of junior high school.   

 

Each individual was asked to explain their views on a range of subjects: climate, abortion, education, energy, crime, the border, debt, and deficits to Ukraine and the Russia-China axis – too many subjects to be handled by eight people in two hours. The moderators gave each individual sixty seconds, with thirty seconds of rebuttal. Soundbites do not add to an understanding of issues and candidates. The effect was chaos, with interruptions by panelists and cheering and jeering from an unruly audience. If the purpose was to inform not entertain, Fox News would have better served their viewers had they limited the topics (or the candidates), taking advantage of future debates.

 

At least six of the eight participants mentioned that we are a nation in decline, an accusation with which it is hard to argue when one looks at the state of our schools, urban crime, a southern border that is no border, the division of people into victims and oppressors, and out-of-control debt and deficits. New leadership in Washington is needed, but that sense of decline was reflected in the mayhem on stage and among the spectators. The theme of decline has its genesis in the identity politics of Progressivism and is manifested in the Balkanization of two cultures – Woke vs. MAGA – each intolerant of the other. The consequence has been to remove the Unum from E Pluribus Unum, dividing us into warring camps. While I believe that extremists at both ends of the political spectrum represent only a small (but growing) fraction of the population, they have consumed all the media and cultural oxygen. 

 

A question that has bothered me in the past arose again during the debate: How do we recover a sense of pride in our nation and what it has accomplished over the past two and a half centuries, in terms of material gains and social progress? It is not that we have been – nor are we – perfect. We have blemishes, but anyone who has studied the history of people and societies around the world must recognize the uniqueness of America, that change is evolutionary, and that we live better lives than our parents and grandparents. We who are fortunate to be in the United States live freer and with less poverty than most any other people in the world. To that we owe thanks to the size of our country, its wealth of resources and people, its adherence to democracy and free-market capitalism, and to those who came before us – our ancestors and the millions of immigrants who have made this country home – and to the founders from whose wisdom came our Constitution.

 

Yet, on Wednesday night that sense of pride in the progress we have made over the decades and centuries was lost in the chaos of the moment. Democrats and enemies abroad must have experienced a sense of schadenfreude as they watched what was called a debate.

"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.