"Polarization - Political Theater?"

 

 

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Polarization – Political Theater?”

June 14, 2026

 

“Let me now take a more comprehensive view and warn you in the

most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party,

generally...of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge.”

                                                                             George Washington (1732-1799)

                                                                             Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

 

In his 1983 book Modern Times, Paul Johnson wrote that Otto von Bismarck, who led the unification of Germany in the 1870s, was, like George Washington, concerned about the negative influences of political parties – that they would prove divisive, that it would mean that political parties would never produce “...a leader who appealed beyond the narrow limits of his own following.”

 

But has that been the case in the United States? Republican President Ronald Reagan worked closely with Democrat Speaker of the House Thomas “Tip” O’Neill, and Democrat President Bill Clinton was able to find common ground with Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Despite the partisanship that has spread so widely and dug so deeply into our politics today, would having a dozen political parties better serve our 174 million registered voters? And would a consensus be found to govern Congress with multiple parties represented? Politics is not about finding perfection, but about getting the most of what one wants. As President Reagan once said: “Politics is the art of the possible.” 

 

It is not uncommon to believe we live through the worst of times. Yet we get up every day, go to work or school, and life goes on. When one looks back at our history and compares our lives today with that of those who lived earlier, the vast majority live well. While we complain, most of us are happily resigned to the government we have. Of course, whether it is the mercurial President Trump, the cognitively-challenged President Biden, or the ethically-challenged Ken Paxton in Texas or Graham Platner in Maine, we don’t always elevate the most desirable candidates. But we never have. Thieves, scoundrels, racists, misogynists and homophobes have sat in Congress, representing both parties. Yet, despite these challenges the United States has progressed, demonstrating that the wisdom of the Founders was far greater than the inanities offered by TV commentators, or “influencers,” especially as it is possible for any nut to use the bullhorn of social media to promote any cause no matter how extreme. A government “of the people” is superior to a government of “elites.”

 

Nevertheless, polarization is real. Egged on by social media, we see our neighbors as either “Woke” or “MAGA” – we believe the center as gone. Yet, a Washington Post survey in January found that 86% of the population does not fall into the category of “extreme right” or “extreme left.” Politicians in Washington and in many state capitals and large cities put party interests above what is good or right for the country. And the media feeds the partisan divide. For example, TV news is either anti-Trump or adoring of him. 

 

But, while these blowhards appeal to a small – albeit noisy – percentage of the population, the typical voter appears more settled. According to Gallup, over the past fifty years, Independents have been increasing their share of registered voters, from 28% in 1977 to 45% today, reflecting dissatisfaction with the two parties. That number, in my opinion, would be higher if states like Connecticut and fifteen others, allowed registered Independents to participate in either Congressional or Presidential primaries.

 

In 2016 Paul Taylor and Pew Research Center published a book, The Next America. In it, Mr. Taylor wrote: “There’s no evidence from decades of Pew Research surveys that public opinion, in the aggregate, is more extreme than in the past.” Certainly, sectional partisanship was far more extreme in 1860, and even in the late 19^th Century when “free silver” advocates battled monied easterners, and during the Civil Rights and Vietnam War era. Partisanship certainly exists today, but among the bulk of American voters it seems limited to extremists. Nevertheless, in the interest of party unity – of maintaining or taking control of Congress, many “mainstream” politicians ignore the frailties of their party’s candidates – to win at any cost. 

 

Like many Americans, over the past sixty-four years, I have been a Democrat, a Republican and an Independent. While I like to think I have always been guided by a north star of conservative principles, favoring limited government, free markets, rule of law and individual freedom, in my youth – heavy on idealism and light on common sense – I was a Democrat. I felt that government should play a bigger hand in promoting equality of outcomes and dispensing social justice. While I am now registered as a Republican, I would prefer to be Unaffiliated, but registering as such would deny me participating in primaries.

 

Simply put, the most significant difference between the two parties is that Republicans favor smaller government and Democrats prefer larger government. But there are gradations, both in the beliefs of voters and in the policies preferred by politicians, which is why the willingness to compromise is important. 

 

I don’t pretend to have an answer to this pressing problem of polarization. Sadly, it is more than simply political theater. Identity politics has worsened the situation. But a good education would help – familiarity with the history of our country, in contrast to that of other nations; knowledge of different political systems, from monarchies and fascism to socialism and communism; and a basic understanding of economics, including comparisons of Karl Marx and Adam Smith. In the absence of a better educated electorate, I fear that political partisanship – pervasive among the political and media classes – will spread, leading to worsening times. 

 

......................................................................................................

 

What is a problem, but one ignored by politicians on both ends of the political spectrum (and a subject for another day), is the looming debt crisis.

"Who Else Besides Trump?"

  

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Who Else Besides Trump?”

November 19, 2024

 

“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community,

they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.”

                                                                                               Senator Charles Schumer

                                                                                               The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC

                                                                                               January 3, 2017

 

“Too much power has been delegated to unaccountable bureaucrats.

Undoing this is necessary to restore American greatness – but

fraught with risk. The unelected elite are powerful and fight dirty.”

                                                                                                Liz Truss

                                                                                                Prime Minister, Great Britain, 2022

                                                                                                The Wall Street Journal, November 13, 2024

 

The paradox in Senator Schumer’s statement – a statement unchallenged by Ms. Maddow – is that he admitted to (and would have agreed with) Ms. Truss’s words written five years later – that unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats exert unacceptable power over our nation’s most powerful people, let alone the rest of us. Neither he nor Ms. Maddow acknowledged the irony embedded in their exchange.  

 

……………………………………………………………….

 

As I wrote on November 6, I felt relief, not joy, with the election’s verdict. But as my wife and I spent six days driving around Pennsylvania and Virginia visiting grandchildren, I thought of the election and its consequences. And I concluded that the growing power of the state and its threat to individual freedom has become so powerful that a traditional Republican candidate might not be willing to confront such an oppressive force – that it would take an individual unafraid to incur the wrath of the administrative state. 

 

There is no question that a government that looks after 335 million people needs a professional bureaucracy. The President and the Executive Branch appoint roughly 4,000 individuals, a tiny fraction of the two million federal civilian employees. The Hatch Act, passed in 1939, prohibits partisan political activity among civilian employees in the executive branch of the Federal and District of Columbia Governments, even as it excludes those Presidential appointees whose jobs depend on Senate confirmation. Nevertheless, violations of the Hatch Act have become rampant in recent years, especially in intelligence agencies and within the Justice Department, as “lawfare” was waged against Mr. Trump and some of his backers.

 

It is, though, the natural instinct of people to defend their jobs, to expand their bureaucracies; it is how they personally advance. It is why slaying the dragon of government bureaucracies is so difficult. But unchecked government growth leads to inflation, bloat, bias, waste, and ultimately to either a government that collapses, or one that assumes dictatorial controls. That being an unpleasant prospect, some restrictions on that growth must be imposed, no matter how unpopular.

 

Is Mr. Trump the right man for the job? Obviously, the question is unanswerable. It is not that I am without concerns. Some of Mr. Trump’s nominations, especially former Florida Representative Matt Gaetz, I find troubling, as I do the possibility that he might use “recess appointments” to bring on board those who may not receive Senate confirmation. Adhering not only to the words of the Constitution, but also to its intent, is paramount to the survival of our Republic. However, when I weigh what Mr. Trump proposes versus what has happened overseas, at our border, to inflation, to crime in our cities, and to our culture, schools, and universities over the past few years, I side with those calling out, “Halt!”

 

…………………………………………………………………….

 

Mr. Trump does not satisfy the traits I seek in a friend. He is crude. His bluntness in public is rude. He is incapable of humility. He seems barren of humor, especially the ability to laugh at himself. He is not introspective, nor does he seem to have an interest in history, or even in political philosophy. I don’t understand his love affair with the three trillion-dollar cryptocurrency market, and I believe markets that size should be regulated. I wish he had nominated Nikki Haley and Mike Pompeo to be in his cabinet rather than the abrasive Matt Gaetz or the untested Pete Hegseth. But none of us get everything we wish.

 

Character is important, but that and my personal preferences are not necessarily the qualities we need in a political leader when we are drowning in debt, living with a collapsed border, and enduring an education system – the most expensive in the world – that has failed our youth, all at a time when cultural issues are more important to elements of the Democratic Party than defending the country’s citizens. The problems we face are not unique to the United States. Classical western liberalism is under threat, as western democracies seem to have forgotten that individual freedom needs defending against those who seek power, as exemplified by dictators in countries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. Evil, as the Bible teaches us, is ever-present. The United States is not perfect as we all know, but its form of government, and the liberty it provides the individual, is unique in the annals of human history. It is a country that has benefitted from capitalism, that understands the critical nature of Adam Smith’s “invisible hand,” encourages entrepreneurship, a country that offers, not equality of outcomes but equal opportunities to those who have ability and aspiration. Trump is a fighter for those things he believes in, for working-class people – regardless of race, nationality, or gender – and for all those who love this country, warts and all.

 

Despite being harried by a media that hates him and hounded by political opponents who used the power of the state to try to destroy him, and opposed by bureaucrats who do whatever it takes to defend their turf, he never quits. He is tenacious. The media and his political enemies claim he wants to become a dictator, but they don’t listen to all that he says – if they understood his proposal for a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) – they would realize he wants to limit the power of the state, to remove onerous regulations and to reduce the taxes that fund the leviathan that has become our federal government. Writing about DOGE in Saturday’s New York Sun, Newt Gingrich stated: “Unearthing what is wrong and discovering what could be right is the ultimate contribution of this project.” A smaller government, with power returned to the people, is the goal. Nevertheless, there are risks. Can Musk and Ramaswamy work their magic with DOGE, without disrupting the economy and/or financial markets?

 

Mr. Trump is not my ideal of a President, but I understand why history called him at this moment: Respect for the opinions of others, accountability and personal responsibility are traits needed but in short supply in the media and in our governing classes, as the world moves further into the 21^st Century – a world that will never be free from enemies to democracy. Will Mr. Trump be up to the task of navigating these shoals? I don’t know, but I suspect it will take someone outside the slipstream of politics as usual. We need a course-correction – a secure border, increased defense spending, mutual respect, an assurance that the concept of personal responsibility is alive and well, and accounta

"Something is Rotten in the State of Denmark"

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Something is Rotten in the State of Denmark^[1]”

September 5, 2024

 

“American politics is undergoing a profound change in its core pattern.”

                                                                                                                                Newt Gingrich (1943-)

                                                                                                                                New York Sun

                                                                                                                                August 29, 2024

 

When Marcellus utters Shakespeare’s immortal line, he speaks of the corruption that led to Hamlet’s father, King Hamlet, being murdered. When Mr. Gingrich wrote the words in the rubric, it reflected his opinion that corruption, incompetence and dishonesty have come to characterize American politics. One does not have to be in accord with all that Mr. Gingrich believes to agree that politics in the United States has become polarized and that people, in general, have become disenchanted with those who labor in the vineyards along the Potomac.  

 

Complaints about politics and political leaders are as old as civilization, but they have reached new heights in the U.S., and, in fact, in much of the West. A PEW Research study, conducted a year ago, concluded: “Just 4% of U.S. adults say the political system is working extremely or very well; another 23% say it is working somewhat well.” Things have worsened since. On August 21 of this year Statista Research put the approval rating for the U.S. Congress at 16 percent. Keep in mind, this is despite the 118^th Congress “being the most diverse Congress in American history.” Their report concluded that “nearly 60% of Americans have no confidence the parties can govern in a bipartisan way.”

 

When asked how they feel when they think of politics in the PEW study, 65% said they were “always/often exhausted”. Asked as to what words best described the current state of American politics, “divisive” and “corrupt” were the top choices. Members of Congress, especially those on the left, are famous for extolling wealth and income disparities. Yet, the median net worth of an individual member of Congress is more than five times the median net worth of American households. Wikipedia, in a list of presidents ranked by net worth, adjusted for inflation to 2022 U.S. dollars, shows that three of the last five U.S. Presidents head the list: Donald Trump, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. (George W. Bush is twelfth and Joe Biden is tied with Eisenhower for twenty-second.) Last on the list is Harry Truman, who famously replied when offered a corporate board seat: “You don’t want me; you want the U.S. Presidency, and it’s not for sale.” Today, everything in politics is for sale, including access.

 

“Antiestablishment populism is on the rise in Europe, fueled not just by migration and economic and security fears, but also by a deeper trend: eroding confidence in governments’ ability to overcome these challenges;” so began an article in last Tuesdays The Wall Street Journal by Bertrand Benoit. This lack of confidence in government can be seen in recent elections in Italy, the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, and France. As for problems of inflation, migration and the war in Ukraine, there is, as Mr. Benoit wrote, “confidence is crumbling that elected governments can solve them.”

 

In the U.S., our history has become a cesspool of political correctness. Schools and colleges depict our forefathers as racists and colonizers who despoiled an idyllic Eden. Certainly, we should not revere the Founders of our nation as God-like figures, but we should acknowledge that slave holders like Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe bequeathed us a government that gave us, over time, Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation, and then, a hundred years further on, Civil Rights. Is all perfect today? No. We should always strive to improve, but we should never lose sight of the fact that it has been our history of free speech, free enterprise and limited government that have been foundational to our culture and economic growth, the latter which has provided us with living standards unimaginable to our grandparents, even to our parents.

 

Without a common enemy to hate, such as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, we have lost our moral compass. The substitution of climate change as an “existential threat,” while popular among Western elitists, does not work. It is an excuse to justify more government control. The Earth’s climate has changed continuously over its billions of years of existence, long before man made his appearance. It will continue to change. Like all living things, man must adapt. It is true that man has used many of the Earth’s resources to improve his living standards, which certainly has had some effect on climate. But, as aspiration, ability, diligence, and free markets made him wealthier and gave him more leisure time, he became more conscious of his environment. When an individual is battling for subsistence he cares not what happens to his waste. The best way to improve the environment in the undeveloped world is to promote economic growth. 

 

The absence of morality is deadly. It can be seen in the attitude of Western politicians who apply a moral equivalence toward the democratic nation of Israel and the terrorist organization Hamas, which governs (or did govern) Gaza. When six hostages were recently shot execution-style by Hamas terrorists, the reaction by the White House (and most leaders in Europe) was to blame Israel along with Hamas, but specifically Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for failing to achieve a cease fire. Why have we lost our sense of right and wrong? The West is challenged in many places. Leaders of China want hegemony in the Pacific, Russia’s Putin wants to restore his country’s Soviet empire, and Iran would like to dominate the Middle East. America’s role should be that “shining city on the hill,” a phrase first used by Jesus in his Sermon on the Mount, then by John Winthrop in 1630, and 259 years later by Ronald Reagan – an example of what man is capable.  

 

I am not so cynical as to believe that someone, or some group, is deliberately trying to undermine our nation and its values – family, work, accountability and responsibility, courage, respect for others, individualism and unity, fairness, merit, care for those less fortunate – though it sometimes seems that way. What I do know is that something is wrong in our country, and in the West – it is the fissures that divide us; it is the sense of entitlement that permeates our bureaucracy and some of our people; it is the claim that exceptional achievements of thousands of individual Americans over hundreds of years was only possible because of a benevolent state. Newt Gingrich is right. Our politics is undergoing a profound (and disheartening) change. We should never be blind to our faults. We should always strive to improve our lot and that of those around us. But we should celebrate our successes, and we should learn from our failures. 

 

At its essence, the United States has been a virtuous country, as has been the West. Both provided individuals the freedom to succeed based on merit, which, in turn, has raised living standards for their citizens, and both have given promise of opportunities to millions who live elsewhere, those whose lives have been reduced by dictators and barbarians. Both have defended freedom. But when nations ignore the moral compass that allowed them to succeed, when they denigrate their history and disregard their Judeo-Christian heritage, they offer an opening to authoritarians, whether from the right or the left. That is what is rotten, and that is the risk the U.S. and the West face.

 

 

 

---

[1] William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act I, Scene IV

"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.

"Freedom is not Easy"

 Today, Democrats will be out in force reminding us of the disgraceful events of a year ago. Ironically, Trump has become Democrats’ biggest asset, just as he has become Republicans’ biggest liability, as we head toward November’s mid-term elections. Democrats will claim he represents the Republican Party. It will be a message their allies in mainstream media will deliver with persistence and glee. It will be the main item in their playbook, to help retain the House and the Senate. But, as can be seen by Senator Schumer’s attempt to do away with the filibuster, it will have nothing to do with democracy.

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

Thought of the Day

“Freedom is Not Easy”

January 6, 2022

 

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little

temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

                                                                                                              Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)

                                                                                                              Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, 1791

 

Many believe democracy is threatened. Those on the left cite the narcissistic and dreaded Donald Trump as the instigator of the January 6 protest that devolved into a disgraceful, though unarmed, attack on the Capitol. Those on the right, like me, bring up cancelled conservative speakers on college campuses, property-destroying riots and rising murder rates in cities across the nation, lockdowns and mandates relative to COVID, and a “wokeness,” which redacts speech, expurgates books, and removes art that is not grounded in race-and-gender consciousness. But perhaps both sides are mistaken? Perhaps democracy is stronger than we believe? Perhaps it can withstand these assaults? But both sides owe the public apologies.

 

The one-year anniversary of the January 6 riot has filled the media with reports on the “insurrection” that failed. Of course, it did. The protesters were unorganized and unarmed. They had no acknowledged leader on their march to the Capitol. In fact, members of ANTIFA accompanied the Trump supporters. The Capitol police, oddly, were unprepared, even though the march was widely publicized. The protesters did not have the military behind them, nor did they have media support. One person was shot, and that was a female, a veteran, who was shot by an unnamed member of the Capitol police. In fact, the cynic in me whispers that the episode has been welcomed by progressives, as it manifested proof (in their minds) of their claimed autocracy of Donald Trump and his supporters.

 

This is not to support the rioters, but criticism should always be placed in perspective. Nevertheless, the cause of the riot was the refusal by Mr. Trump to accept the results of the 2020 election. The fact that Democrats, led by Hillary Clinton, refused to accept the results of the 2016 election – and, in fact, initiated a four-year investigation of an alleged (and false) collusion between Mr. Trump and Russia – did not justify the January 6 protest. Democracy is fragile and rests on a foundation of custom, continuity and good will. Country before party should always be the message, and compromise should always be the method. It was what allowed President Reagan and Speaker Tip O’Neill to pass legislation in the 1980s, and it is what allowed Bill Clinton and Speaker Newt Gingrich to do the same in the 1990s. 

 

Republicans, to be successful, must rise above the mendacity of current day politics, (as should Democrats, but for that I will let someone else speak). I believe Republicans can succeed, and Mr. Trump could play a role, if he chooses. He must, however, endorse conservative beliefs: support for the Constitution, individual liberty, separation of powers, limited government, rule of law, fiscal responsibility, free markets, strong defense, legal immigration through secure borders, an enduring moral code, human dignity, and constraint, both in government and in individual behavior. If Mr. Trump cannot envision playing within those confines, he should pass the baton to a new generation, which, given both his age and his character, I hope he does. He should rest on his accomplishments as President: an economy that brought minority employment to levels never before seen, energy independence, vaccines developed at “warp speed” and the Abraham Accords, which have given the Middle East its best chance for peace in generations.

 

Freedom is not easy; it requires responsibility and accountability. It means some succeed and others fail. It requires a recognition that while we are all equal in our rights as citizens and before the law, we are not all equal in ability or perseverance; so, while opportunities for success should be equal, outcomes will never be. Political success in a free society requires the spirit of compromise – that the tug-of-war between permanence and change must be reconciled through debate and cooperation.

 

Yet, in this winter of our discontent, we have reason for hope – the possibility for a spring of more optimistic days. People are exhausted by political extremism and by unending mandates regarding a disease that is becoming endemic. They are worn out by sanctimonious politicians pontificating to small but noisy segments of their constituencies. They are tired of the negativism expressed by those who condemn our history, tear down our statues and insult our character. They are fed up with academic deans who refuse to allow contrary opinions to be expressed on their campuses, and by teachers’ unions who put students last. They are drained by those who predict dire consequences for our planet if we don’t buy electric vehicles. They are annoyed by those who tell us that gender is a choice, not a biological determinant. And they are wearied by not being able to speak freely, to laugh, to enjoy life, away from the wokeness of today’s illiberal, bullying progressives.

 

The spirit of independence, which takes commitment and builds character, runs freely through the American people. We see it every day, in Americans across this land. But there will always be those who want to wrest it from us. When people in other places lose their freedom, it is to America they turn. Should we lose our liberty, whether from the right or the left, to whom would we turn? Where would we go? Freedom is hard work; it is worth preserving.

"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.