"Anger"

 

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Anger”

June 28, 2022

 

“Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in

which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured.”

                                                                                                                Attributed to Mark Twain (1835-1910)

                                                                

The essayist and author Lance Morrow recently penned an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal: “Could this be an Antebellum Age?” It certainly seems that way, though with luck a Civil War will not break out as it did in 1861. Nevertheless, anger dominates our politics, media and our culture. It separates friends and divides families. It affects judgements and makes impossible civilized debate. It permeates school board meetings, clouds differences regarding climate change, denies respectful discussion of gender politics; it was the impetus behind the January 6 riots and the subsequent, eponymous Congressional commission, and it has distorted the meaning of the Supreme Court’s decision rescinding Roe v. Wade. 

 

It is through the airing of differences that a consensus is found. Debate is integral to our government and our way of life. In his 1990 autobiography, An American Life, Ronald Reagan, wrote that when he became president of the Screen Actors Guild in 1947, he “learned while negotiating contracts you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: ‘I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.’ If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later...” 

 

In a country as large and as diverse as ours there will always be differences in terms of what constitutes the best way forward. It is why we have elections, and it is why, at least nationally, power ricochets back and forth between the two political parties. Compromise has worked in the past, Consider the relationship between two politicians who had in common only their Irish American heritage, Republican President Reagan and Democrat House Speaker Tip O’Neill. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 was based on mutual trust and compromise. Similarly, a decade and a half later, Democrat President Bill Clinton reached out to Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and the result was the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. Yet, similar discussions between President Biden and Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy are as impossible to imagine as President Trump inviting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for a quiet sherry and constructive talk.

 

The “woke” left pontificates about diversity, yet they disrespect those whose opinions diverge from their own; they speak of equity, yet they call those with whom they disagree “deplorables;” they urge inclusion but are intolerant of those who express views contrary to their own. We, who once had the ability to laugh, have grown fearful of provoking offense.

 

Why have we become so divided, so angry? Politicians find it useful to incite their bases, but why does the media not provide perspective instead of fanning the flames of hatred? Is it because profits come before civility? Why did Speaker Pelosi not allow the minority party to appoint members to the January 6 Commission, as had been done with all former such investigating bodies? Was she trying to hide her role regarding security for the Capitol on January 6? Why do some people choose to believe that nine un-elected judges make better decisions than a free, self-determining people through their elected state legislatures? In truth, the decision regarding Roe v. Wade will have little impact on the lives of most people. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in dissent: “States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so.” In seventeen states, the right to abortion on demand is protected by state law. In most others, it is permitted through the first trimester. More states will pass laws protecting abortion rights. Sadly, some will not. But the world will not end.

 

We should not let anger destroy the fabric of this special nation. Joseph Joubert (1754-1854), the French essayist and moralist, once wrote: “The best remedy for a short temper is a long walk.” His words were true when he wrote them and are true today. Turn off the TV; shut down your computer, silence your cell phone, place The New York Times on the floor of the bird cage, take your loved one by the hand and go for a long walk. Let nature blossom, not your anger.

"Why Have Politics Become So Hateful?"

 To replace the retiring Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Stephen Breyer, President Biden promised an “historic appointment,” a black woman. Consider how much more powerful his words would have been (and more important to the appointee) if he had promised to nominate the most qualified individual, and then named a black woman.

 

Last Thursday was Holocaust Remembrance Day, something we should all honor in a world with rising anti-Semitism. I recall my father telling me, about a decade after he had returned from combatting the Germans in Italy’s Apennines, to never forget what the Nazis did, in attempting to eliminate the Jewish people.

 

Here in Connecticut, we are getting a full winter blast – low temperatures, a blizzard and high winds. It is beautiful to look at, as long as one can remain indoors.

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

Thought of the Day

“Why Have Politics Become So Hateful?”

January 29, 2022

 

“Don’t let anger control you.

Don’t let hate enslave you.

Don’t let negativity overcome you.

Don’t let bitterness conquer you.”

                                                                                                Attributed to Matshona Dhliwayo (1982 -)

                                                                                                Zimbabwean-born Canadian author

 

In a September 2021 Public Agenda/USA Today/Ipsos poll, 72% of Americans thought it would be “good for the country” if there were less political hostility and a greater focus on common ground. Yet only 9% of respondents thought hostilities would decrease in the next decade, while 42% expected them to increase. Why have political differences made us so bitter? Why do we hate those with different opinions so intensely? What does this anger mean for the future of our nation?

 

Political hatred has had a long gestation.  It is easy to blame the crude and narcissistic Donald Trump. But this bitterness preceded him. He made things worse, but he was not its genesis. He reflected the animosity felt by rural and mid-Americans toward coastal elites. He widened and deepened the divide, but he was not its cause. Barack Obama, as the first African American elected President, was one who could have bridged racial dissensions. Instead, he made things worse. It is true that Mr. Obama was despised by a few right-wing racists, but most criticisms of his policies were assumed by his supporters to be race-based. President Joe Biden ran on a platform of unity, yet he has fanned the flames of partisanship; an example – when in Georgia he referred to Republicans as similar to Jefferson Davis, George Wallace and Bull Connor, ironically all Democrats. Political hatefulness has deepened because of social media and cable TV.

I do not presume to know all reasons why we have become so angry. But I suspect three culprits play a role: wokeism, identity politics, and a breakdown of traditional ethical norms. Wokeism is a creed that uses Jacobin tactics to foster economic chaos and property destruction, as it obsesses about climate, race, class and gender. Climate evangelists call opponents deniers – those who suggest adaption and see natural forces as an important cause of climate change. Then we have transgender women allowed to compete in women’s college sports. Wokeism in the classroom and the boardroom has replaced meritocracy with equity, in the belief it will produce equality of outcomes. In their unbridled zeal, these acolytes of wokeism, with their self-righteousness and absence of common sense, remind one of Dickens’ Mrs. Jellyby. 

 

As for identity politics, for years politicians compartmentalized the electorate into addressable groups. Old people care about health and security. Young parents care about schools. Farmers care about vicissitudes of the weather. Coal miners care about loss of jobs, while environmentalists worry about climate change. Immigrants (legal ones) care about citizenship, while Americans who live along borders care about illegal crossings. The wealthy care about tax rates, while the needy care about assistance. Now, promotion of gender and racial politics have aggravated differences. Affirmative action was used to address years of discrimination, and which, while necessary fifty years ago, has had the consequence of again, segregating people by race. Once divided, these groups became difficult to stitch back together.

 

Perhaps it is unsurprising that in a multicultural country, traditional ethical behavior is seen as “too white,” too reflective of western values. Yet it has been those values, along with rule of law, protection of private property and guarantees of free expression, that attracted immigrants to this country. But is the U.S. still that country? Civics and civil behavior are no longer taught. Church attendance has been in decline. since the early 1960s. Family formations have been in decline for forty years. The average age of Americans in 1960 was 29.5. In 2000, it was 35.3 and today it is 38.3. To help fill diminishing state treasury coffers, states like “blue” Connecticut promote gaming, the lottery, and on-line and sports betting, while dismissing the attendant increase in gambling addiction and the regressive nature of such funding. People become disillusioned when sold false promises of riches. An aging and shrinking population hampers economic growth, which leads to impatience that gives birth to stress. 

 

Barring a war or national emergency, unity is difficult in any country. But it is especially so in a multi-racial nation of assorted ethnicities. The government’s handling of COVID created dissension. One would have thought that a Chinese-originated infectious disease – whether from a wet market or a lab – would have unified the U.S. (and the world) against China. Instead, the disease was politicized. Inter-governmental agencies with financial ties to China have impeded investigations as to the pandemic’s origins. “Follow the science” became the mantra, even as the science was changing. Special powers were granted governors. “You are with us or against us” are the words of a tyrant. There was no middle way, no room for debate.

 

One thing that could help restore a sense of unity would be a political leader with the self-deprecating humor of a Lincoln, Coolidge or Reagan. Lincoln, when accused of being two-faced: “If I had another face, do you think I would wear this one?” Coolidge, when asked what it felt like to be President: “Well, you got to be mighty careful.” Reagan, when in debate with Mondale and the subject of age arose: “I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.” None of these quips were nasty or injurious. Non-aggressive humor, unlike today’s political cartoons and late-night TV, has a bonding effect. Such humor is missing in today’s partisan swamp.

 

Differences are important in a democracy and debate is critical to understanding. But so is civility. We will never (nor should we) agree on everything. Compromise is not a four-letter word. There is unnecessary nastiness in Democrats claiming that a Republican win in the midterms will put democracy at risk, as Nancy Pelosi declared in her re-election announcement. Keep in mind, it was the Democratic Party that issued mandates, canceled speakers, censored speech, enforced segregation – now against Asians and whites – and jailed without habeas corpus many of those who invaded the Capitol last January 6.  This is not a call for blind patriotic devotion, but neither is it to agree with Samuel Johnson declaration: “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” It is to acknowledge that just as evil exists, so does goodness, in people and in nations. It is to argue that the United States, despite obvious historical and current warts, has been a force for good in this world, more so than any other nation – deserving of pride. And it has been so because it has always put first the freedom of the individual, while combining, as the late conservative political philosopher Roger Scruton noted, a suspicion of government with the acknowledgement of its necessity.

 

Without a reduction in political animosity, how will the U.S. address the real problems we confront: China’s and Russia’s aggression; nuclear weapons in rogue states; the failure of our K-12 public schools? Balancing the budget. Problems at home and in the world are real. Hatefulness will not solve them.

"Is Past Prologue?"

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Is Past Prologue?”

November 12, 2021

 

“We have two classes of forecasters – those who don’t know

and those who don’t know they don’t know.”

                                                                                                                             John Kenneth Galbraith (1908-2006)

                                                                                                                              Attributed

 

Yogi Berra is alleged to have said: “Forecasting is very difficult, especially when it involves the future.” Republicans were quick to conclude that Glenn Youngkin’s victory in Virginia last week promises wins for Republicans in next year’s midterms. I hope they are right, but there is a lot of time between now and then. Such predictions can lull candidates into complacency.

 

However, the election may have put a stop – perhaps temporarily – to the leftward shift of the Democratic Party. Sanity was the winner in Virginia and a handful of other states, with derangement the loser. Even deep-blue New Jersey appeared to have second thoughts about their fall into leftist lunacy, though the heavily taxed state chose to stay with its spendthrift governor. In its aftermath, Congress passed a $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill, with the help of thirteen Republicans (from swing districts) and with six Congressional Democrats (including all four members of “The Squad”) voting no. Nevertheless, following Virginia’s election, progressives showed their colors: Michael Eric Dyson, a guest on MSNBC’s “Reidout,” called Virginia’s newly elected Lieutenant Governor Winsome Sears, a “black voice for white supremacy.” Jemele Hill, a former host on ESPN, tweeted that Ms. Sears is a white supremacist.  New York’s Chuck Schumer and California’s Nancy Pelosi, ignoring Tuesday’s elections, assured Progressives they will pass the far-more-expensive “human infrastructure” legislation (Build Back Better) by Thanksgiving – a single bill whose all-in costs equals what total annual federal spending had been in 2014.

 

One lesson for Republicans is that the personal presence of Donald Trump may prove a hindrance, at least in blue and purple states. Mr. Trump alleged that without his endorsement Mr. Youngkin would have lost by fifteen points. My guess is that the reverse is true – if he had personally campaigned for him, Mr. Youngkin, would have lost by ten points. As President, Mr. Trump was victim of what probably was the largest political scandal in our nation’s history – the Clinton campaign-inspired Russian collusion story. As well, he was confronted with one of the worst pandemics to hit this nation. Yet he reduced regulatory red tape, increased economic activity at home, raised wages for black and minority workers, brought energy independence to the country, slowed illegal immigration, and, with the Abraham Accords, brought glimmers of peace to Israel and her Arab neighbors. But his narcissistic personality and polarizing ways accentuated the divide of an already ruptured nation. His policies were correct, His character was not.

 

Voters understand the challenges we face. In their pocketbooks, they see the cost of rising fuel prices caused by shutting down the Keystone XL Pipeline and limits placed on drilling. They experience higher prices at the supermarket. Wage growth is no longer keeping up with inflation. They live with supply-chain shortages, as we head into the holidays. They know their children are being indoctrinated with Critical Race Theory, while they underperform in global tests, in math, English and science. They recognize the social and economic costs associated with letting into the country two million unvaccinated illegal immigrants in less than a year. They watch as science becomes politicized. They recognize the damage to America of a deadly, chaotic exit from Afghanistan, which emboldened enemies like China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. They see an aging population, creating greater strains on already underfunded Social Security and Medicare systems. [In 1960, life expectancy was 69.8 years, the average age was 29.5 and there were 5.1 workers for every retiree. Today, life expectancy is 77.3, the average age is 38 and there are 2.9 workers for every retiree.] Voters understand the consequences of politicians ignoring these challenges.

 

Most Americans are political middle-of-the-roaders. They yearn for reason, respect and decency. They do not want supercilious, woke, far-left Democrats dividing the nation by race and gender, telling us how to live our lives. And they do not want the angry voices of Republican extremists. They want logic, common sense, civility and tolerance. They would like a media that reports the news, not one that only prints the news it sees fit to print. 

 

Joe Biden was elected, in part, because voters believed him when he promised to bring a sense of normalcy to the political scene. They did not anticipate he would become a puppet manipulated by unknowns with far-left leanings, wreaking havoc on citizens exhausted from political extremism. 

 

Does Virginia’s election foretell a more amenable, political climate? I don’t know. As John Kenneth Galbraith and Yogi Berra reminded us, forecasting can be a fool’s game. Nevertheless, I and millions of others hope that Wokeism and its reign of terror is dying, and that we are headed toward a more civil and commonsensical time. However, with the insanity and fright that come from a culture of intimidation, with the “Elect” controlling our schools, universities, media companies, Hollywood, big businesses and government bureaucracies, we worry – there may be no halting this tyranny of the left. But America has been in tough places before, and it has never been wise to bet against her over the long term.

"More Post-Election Thoughts"

 

Sydney M. Williams

30 Bokum Road – Apartment 314

Essex, CT 06426

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“More Post-Election Thoughts”

November 10, 2020

 

“…in their considerable wisdom, the voters may have elected

Mr. Biden but they left his party and its radical ideas behind.”

                                                                                                                                Lead Editorial

                                                                                                                                Wall Street Journal

                                                                                                                                November 6, 2020

 

Mr. Trump, a non-politician, was elected President in 2016 against all odds. Cronyism and corruption had infested both parties. Washington’s swamp, which had become an Augean Stables, needed cleansing. Trump’s task was easier in one sense than that of Hercules – One man, Eurystheus, gave the latter a single day to accomplish his task, while sixty-three million voters gave Trump four years. But Mr. Trump’s task was more difficult in another sense – the creatures who inhabit Washington’s swamp are savvier and more cunning than the four-legged animals of King Augeas. As well, Washington’s swamp denizens are protected by mainstream and social media groups who long ago extinguished Diogenes’ lamp.  

 

Mr. Biden has been anointed the newly elected President by a media that has been trying to banish the hated Mr. Trump for four years. Certification of his election, however, is yet to come. Regardless, there will be no resistance to Mr. Biden like that which confronted Mr. Trump four years ago. Rioters, one should note, did not appear when Mr. Biden appeared victorious, as merchants feared had Mr. Trump prevailed. In truth, Republicans aren’t as nasty as Democrats and don’t carry grudges to the same extent. Nevertheless, what attracted so many to Mr. Trump is that he is a fighter. Mr. Obama once said he would bring a gun to a knife fight. Mr. Trump is also a fighter; it is why he is held in high regard by his admirers. He will not exit stage left without assurance that nobody emerged from the nation’s cemeteries to vote in the middle of the night. But he will exit graciously if he loses, once all legal votes have been counted.

 

While the media has been relentless in referring to Mr. Trump as a Hitler, an egoist, a racist, a misogynist, a xenophobe, a selfish materialist, it is worth remembering his wife is from Slovenia, his daughter is married to a Jew and that he was color-blind in selecting members of his cabinet and staff. Keep in mind, Mr. Trump does not fit the image of what purports to be a Republican. He was refused membership in Palm Beach’s exclusive Everglades and Bath & Tennis Clubs, which is why he formed the Mar-a-Lago Club, a club unrestricted by race, gender or religion. In cutting regulations, Mr. Trump reduced the power of the Executive branch of government, which he heads. Unlike ex-Presidents Clinton and Obama, he did not run for President to help his net worth. He gave his Presidential salary to charity ($1.6 million over four years) and, according to Forbes, saw his net worth decline by $1.2 billion, or 32%. Over the same four years, equity markets in the U.S. rose in value by about $10 trillion, or about 35%. Mr. Trump, a successful businessman, went to Washington to fight corruption and to aid “forgotten” Americans – millions of middle-income, unhyphenated American workers. 

 

Once again, as in 2016, the Polls were wrong. Real Clear Politics, according to Michael Barone, showed Mr. Trump getting 44% of the popular vote versus the 48.6% he actually received. Democrats were supposed to increase their number of House seats and garner a majority in the Senate. Republicans added to their House seats, picked up one governorship (Montana) and added to state legislatures. Even though he lost the Presidency, Mr. Trump’s coattails were longer than Mr. Biden’s.

 

While re-counts continue in a number of states – Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Arizona (and perhaps Michigan and Wisconsin) – it seems that Mr. Biden will emerge as our next President. Assuming Republicans keep their hold on the Senate, which depends on the outcome of two Georgia special elections to be held on January 5^th, Progressives should be kept at bay; so long as a President Biden governs as the moderate he claims to be…and as long as his early dementia does not noticeably worsen. That should allow Republicans to focus on the interim 2022 elections and the 2024 Presidential election. They have a strong bench, headed, in my opinion, by a new generation of leaders: Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis, Tim Scott, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Elise Stefanik, Ben Sasse and Josh Hawley – all generation Xers. 

 

With so many races so close, Mr. Trump should not concede until all states certify the vote. After all, was not that the advice of Hillary Clinton to Mr. Biden had Mr. Trump won? But once it becomes clear he has lost (which I suspect he has), he should be as gracious in defeat as he was competitive in battle, something he was not accorded in 2016. Ms. Pelosi misspoke when she said: “We lost some battles, but we won the war.” In a democratic republic like ours there is no end to the political war. She lost some skirmishes and won a battle, but not convincingly. The war goes on, as it always has and always will. If anything, this race showed that the Country is center-right in its beliefs. It showed that Democrats are torn between moderates who have been ignored and Progressives to whom House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer genuflected during the past four years. Platform programs like Medicare-for-all, the 1619 Project and the Green New Deal are outliers and will likely lie fallow.

 

The American voter is intelligent and informed. In general, they liked Mr. Trump’s handling of the economy, the tax cuts and regulatory relief. They understood that COVID-19 was a novel virus and that the scientific evidence and recommendations were inconsistent. They know that Democrats turned the virus into a political football. They recognize that the President had to thread the needle between the Charybdis of a deadly disease and the Scylla of closed schools and a shut-down economy. Most Americans feel that Mr. Trump found a peaceful resolution in the Middle East, a process that eluded professional diplomats. Likewise, most Americans, apart from NBA players, Silicon Valley technocrats and Wall Streeters, do not like how China has taken advantage of American generosity and how it has imprisoned Uyghurs, destroyed democracy in Hong Kong, threatens Taiwan and potentially disrupts trade in the South China Sea. As well, most Americans could care less if Europeans, who have benefitted for seventy years from an American military presence, are upset because they are asked to pay more for their own defense.   

 

While those of us who supported President Trump mourn his loss in the election, we celebrate the fact that he received the second highest number of votes ever in a Presidential election. His was a consequential Presidency. A disruptor, Mr. Trump redefined the Republican Party away from its image of moneyed, country-club types to middle class, working Americans of all races who love their country, its Constitution, history and its traditions. Despite all four member of the “Squad” (Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, of New York, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts) winning re-election, the election was a defeat for Progressive policies. High turnout among women, youth and minorities did not create the “blue wave” of expectations. In fact, Mr. Trump increased his vote share from all categories except white men. Republican gains in the House were women and Hispanics. Mr. Trump’s vote totals among Blacks was the highest for a Republican since 1960. Interestingly, those who voted later, when more information was available, voted for Mr. Trump.

 

Mr. Trump can leave office with the knowledge he made a positive difference: The rampant corruption of trading influence for dollars; the arrogance of bureaucrats toward those they are supposed to serve, and a media that has become Pravda-like in their support for one Party. He reminded us of the fortune we have to live in this great land, under the rule of law – a mixture of people from all nations, religions and races. He taught us to be proud of our history, warts and all; for no other Country has done so much for so many.

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“The Election – A Few More Things to Consider”

October 30, 2020

 

“Extreme intolerance has now replaced the liberal notion of 

negotiated compromise that is the sine quo non of democracy.”

                                                                                                                                Andrew A. Michta

                                                                                                                                Dean, College of International Studies

                                                                                                                                George C. Marshall European Center

                                                                                                                                Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany

                                                                                                                                Op-ed, Wall Street Journal, 10-27-20

 

The election will be over in four days, though the results may not be known for a while. This is written to raise questions, which give credence to the importance of this election.

 

The strongest case for Joe Biden is that he will (or so he claims) return the country to normalcy – whatever that is – and bring civility back to the White House. God knows, today’s politics do not appear normal and even Mr. Trump’s most ardent supporters would hesitate to affix the adjective “civil” when describing the 45^th President. Calling Vice President Biden “sleepy Joe,” and referring to the Speaker of the House as “crazy Nancy” would not endear Mr. Trump to Emily Post. But is he alone? Was it polite for Mr. Biden to tell the black radio host Charlamagne, “If you have a problem figuring out if you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black!”? Was it gracious for the Speaker to tear up the President’s State of the Union speech on live TV? Civility is absent in Washington. Should that be blamed on Trump or do its roots extend further back? Could anyone describe Joe Biden’s behavior as civil, when as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the 1980s, he interrogated Robert Bork, claiming his America was “…a land where women are forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors…” or what about his “high-tech lynching” of Clarence Thomas? Was Senate Majority leader Harry Reid deferential (or even wise) to eliminate the filibuster, as it applied to judicial appointments, in November 2013? A decision regretted four years later. 

 

And what is normal behavior? Is it normal to not acknowledge the results of an election, as numerous politicians did in joining the Trump “resistance” in January 2017? Have the looting, riots and killings in cities across the nation, in response to the horrific death of George Lloyd at the hands of a policeman, been normal? Was the refusal to accept the findings of the Mueller investigation, after three years and the expenditure of thirty to forty million taxpayer dollars normal? Was it normal for a sitting U.S. Vice President to allow his son to trade on his name with foreign nationals? Was it normal for the nation’s intelligence agencies to try to sabotage a duly elected President? Was it normal for the New York Times’ writer-at-large, Jim Rutenberg to admit, as he did in August 2016, that they (the Times) could not be “objective” when covering Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump?  Would it be normal, should Democrats take the Senate and the Presidency, to then try to “pack” the Supreme Court and/or attempt to make Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C. states? 

 

There are other points to consider: Is the nihilism implicit in cancel culture, and which is rampant in our schools and universities, something average Americans want? Do we want the segregation that stems from identity politics? Are we ready to embrace the Socialism of the far Left? Will the New York Times 1619 Project replace the story of our founding in our public schools? And what about Black Lives Matter? Their lives have long mattered, as have all lives. Are the words expressed in our Declaration of Independence and in the Gettysburg Address to be discarded, along with statues of Jefferson and Lincoln that have already been destroyed? Should we ignore the long path toward racial equality over which our nation has traveled, beginning with Lincoln and furthered by Democrat President Harry Truman when he integrated the Armed Forces in July 1948? It received an assist with the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, which stated that separate schools for whites and blacks are unconstitutional and inherently unequal. And it was abetted by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower when he sent the 101^st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957, to integrate the city’s all-white Central High School. Did not the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 help the cause? 

 

Should we not allow inner-city children and their parents to have choice, as do wealthy elites, when it comes to schools, through vouchers or charters? The Country has achieved energy independence for the first time in decades. Do we want to return to dependence on Saudi Arabia, Iran and Russia? Is it healthy when three technology companies, from whom 70% of Americans get their news, genuflect to the same political ideology? I don’t pretend to have an answer, but I am sure if the shoe were on the other foot, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi would be up in arms. 

 

And what about the pandemic. In truth, what would Biden have done differently? Mr. Trump was faced with a novel virus, the first of its kind in a hundred years. On January 30, Mr. Trump declared a national public health emergency. On that same day, he barred entry into the U.S. by foreign nationals who had recently visited China, a decision Mr. Biden said was xenophobic. Four weeks later, on February 24^th, Nancy Pelosi visited San Francisco’s China Town: “Come, because precautions have been taken. The city is on top of the situation.” Because of its novelty, the handling of the Virus was experimental, on-the-job training if you will. Operation Warp Speed has been a success. A partnership between components of HHS, CDC, BARDA (Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority) and the DOD and private companies, it was introduced on May 15, its purpose is to accelerate the development of products and services to combat COVID-19, while maintaining protocols of safety and efficacy. Could the overall situation have been handled better? Perhaps. Monday morning quarterbacks can always find something they would have done differently. but the President had to balance the pandemic with the need to keep the economy alive. Now, we look forward to a bright spring, hopefully not a “dark winter.”     

 

With the prospect for peace in the Middle East more viable than ever, should we abandon Jerusalem and return to regional instability?  Should we permit China to resume its practice of stealing American technology, its unfair trade practices and its building of military bases on man-made islands in the South China Sea? Should we permit Iran to develop a nuclear weapon? Should not Europe be made to pay their fair share for defense? Should we remove the newly-erected missile defense system in Poland?

 

This list does not pretend to cover all areas, and everyone will have different things to considers. But they point to the fact that this election is important, in ways beyond the two men running. What kind of a country do we want for our children, grandchildren and all those yet to be born? Tolerance of intolerance, whether on the left or the right, is never the answer. We need debate and discussion – civilly, if possible. Nor can we forget our heritage that dates back to the earliest settlers, and which was forged in a War for Independence and, seventy-four years later, in a Civil War. It is a heritage of which to be proud and that today includes all races, ethnicities and religions – people who came to these shores and this place on sailing ships, steam ships, planes and on foot. They came for a better future. They came to become Americans, not hyphenated Americans. That is something to celebrate.

"Pardon Me if I am Skeptical"

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“Pardon Me if I am Skeptical”

April 3, 2020

“My life has been full of misfortunes, most of which never happened.”

                                                                                    Attributed to Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592)

Perhaps it is because with age has come cynicism regarding our political class and the press. I am not sure. What I do know is that I am confident in the innate ability of Americans to adapt to trying situations and, if left free, to change conditions for the better for themselves and their fellow man, be that through government or industry. But I am less enamored of our political leaders in Washington and the media.

The United States is the richest large country in the world. We have a healthcare system that attracts the world’s wealthiest individuals. While we may lag some Asian and European nations, we are more literate and better educated than most of the world. We value personal freedom more than any other people, having inherited a unique form of government from our forebearers. Yet, we have a history of gullibility. We believed the editors of Newsweek and Time when they ran articles in the 1970s titled, respectively, “The Cooling World” and “A New Ice Age?” We failed to understand the difference in time to a geologist and opportunistic reporters. We were frightened by Paul and Anne Ehrlich’s prophecy of doom in their 1968 book, The Population Bomb: “The battle to feed all humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death, in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.” We were shocked by stories of disasters related to Y2K and of those about asteroids. More recently, entire industries have been built around scaring people about the alleged anthropomorphic causes of global warming: Teslas to wind farms to solar panels – all of which require government assistance to survive.   

The President has said that if we adhere to a system that keeps large segments of the economy closed, if we continue to social distance and practice common-sensical hygiene, we will limit deaths attributable to COVID-19 to 100,000 to 200,000 people. If we do not, expect deaths to reach 2.2 million. China, the fount of the pandemic, has reported 3,400 deaths since the virus was discovered in mid-November of last year. World-wide deaths approximate 40,000. I understand that China’s numbers are not to be trusted, but 100,000 deaths in the U.S. would equate to 400,000 deaths in China. Are they that blatant in their lies? Is their healthcare system that superior to ours? As a dictatorship, they are able to take more draconian measures than a democracy. That I understand, but still? And what about Italy? We are told that our experience should resemble theirs. They have reported almost three times the number of deaths as China, with 1/20^th the population. Their reports are probably accurate, except in reporting deaths from COVID-19 they include those with other pre-existing conditions. Nevertheless, 95% of their deaths occurred in people over 60. Italy has a worse healthcare system, roughly half our per capita GDP and a population whose median age is seven years older than ours. As well, Italy has closer relations with China than does the U.S.  So why should we be told that our experience will resemble theirs? Why do reporters not ask? Why do they not try to determine how many deaths from Coronavirus involve those with pre-existing conditions?

The deliberate shutting down of the economy is unprecedented. J.P. Morgan suggests unemployment could reach 8.5%, Goldman Sachs says 15.5%, the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis puts the number over 30%. No one knows. What we do know is that we had been headed into an election with the economy doing well and with record high employment and record low unemployment. Now we face an economic hailstorm. Much of mainstream media and most politicians continue to be paid, as are are the roughly thirty percent of people who can work from home. Healthcare workers, the heroes and heroines of this saga, are employed but face the scare of an unknown virus every day. Those laid off are mostly in lower-income jobs. Initial jobless claims reported yesterday were 6.6 million – 23X where they were two weeks ago. The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), according to George Mason University Fellow Bruce Yandle, estimates that the activities most directly affected by the Coronavirus shutdowns account for 30 to 40 percent of GDP in advanced economies. “Social solidarity,” as Holman Jenkins wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal, “can be a perishable flower.” While we have not reached the peak in COVID-19 infections or deaths, getting people back to work should be the foremost concern of all.

Commodities have been hit. Oil prices are down 60% and lumber prices lower by 42%. High-yield bonds have collapsed in price. As for equity markets, March came in and went out like a bear. By the 23^rd, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) was down 27% for the month and 37% from the peak. With the goddess Hygieia hovering overhead, the Index recovered 17.9% from the bottom, but its quarterly decline of 23.2% was the worst since 2008. Volatility reached extreme levels. During March, there were nineteen days (out of twenty-one trading days) when the DJIA fell or rose more than 1.5%. The closest comparison would be October of 2009. The Index peaked on February 12 of this year, with the economy expanding. The decision to shut down the economy, to combat Coronavirus, was a deliberate act with unknown consequences. The effect of the market sell-off has hurt the well-off but has also impaired the retirement funds for millions of individuals.

And we cannot forget that COVID-19 is not the only disease killing us. Keep in mind, between 7,000 and 8,000 Americans die every day from multiple causes. Over 1,700 die every day from heart disease, 1600 from cancer and 690 from medical errors. An estimated 463 die every day from accidents and 100 every day from falls. A reader in Louisiana sent me questions raised by the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama: “How many Americans suffering from other illnesses cannot see a doctor now? How many Americans will lose their jobs, their life savings, their retirement prospects, and their incalculable feeling of self-worth? How many will succumb to depression, drug or alcohol abuse, and suicide? How many will lose their homes, divorce their spouses, or suffer abuse? How many will never recover their careers? How many small businesses, including the vital ones of doctors, dentists, and veterinarians, will vanish from the community? How many young people will ‘fail to launch?’” All good questions, without good answers.

With some notable exceptions, politics retains its ugly veneer. Feuding persists between New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo and New York City’s Mayor Bill de Blasio. President Trump takes daily hits, but he has been, unusually so for him, generous in praise of others. Nancy Pelosi offered a non sequitur that Congress should roll back the limits on the deductibility of state and local taxes embedded in the 2017 tax bill. That limit negatively affects the wealthy in high-tax states, like California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey and Connecticut. It has no impact on the neediest. Her proposal is designed to help the wealthy.

Did the virus originate in the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) Biological Weaponry Laboratory in Wuhan? In that case we have cause to be worried. Or, will this prove another case of unjustified fear where the cure is worse than the disease, where we, like lemmings, follow one another over a metaphorical cliff? My brain says the reaction has been too extreme. But like everyone else, and perhaps because of where I live – in a retirement community, with some who are vulnerable because of age and other ailments – I do as instructed: socially distance (except with my wife), practice commonsensical hygiene and have remained on campus for two weeks. Nevertheless, count me among the skeptics. I can hear members of both political parties whispering those immortal words – never let a crisis go to waste.

"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.