"2024 GOP Platform - Some Thoughts"

 Biden has decided to drop out of the Presidential race. The Washington Post called it a “stunning decision,” but for most observers it was expected. Now, with the attempted assassination last week of former President Trump, the race, as Alice would say, “gets curiouser and curiouser.”

………………………………………..

 

This essay comes at the suggestion of a friend. At almost 1500 words, it is 20% longer than most of my TOTDs. Perhaps, as Mark Twain would have suggested, it just required more time on my part. At any rate, I found it a good exercise – to read the Platform, some of the convention speeches, peruse comments from columnists, and just to reflect on all that has transpired over the past couple of weeks. Attached you will find the 15-page GOP Platform.

 

You may find mistakes or disagreements in my analysis. Please accept that my opinions overlay my analysis.

 

Best regards, Sydney

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“2024 GOP Platform – Some Thoughts”

July 22, 2024

 

“The American people have proven time and again that we

can overcome any obstacle and any force pitted against us.”

                                                                                                                2024 GOP Platform

                                                                                                                Adopted by RNC July 15, 2024

 

The Platform, predictably bland and clichéd but positive in tone, carries the title “Make America Great Again.” It is an expression of both traditional conservativism and conservative populism. It is dedicated “To the Forgotten Men and Women of America,” those made famous by Hillary Clinton’s term “deplorables.” The dedication reflects the new base of the Republican Party, not the coastal elites who in places like Connecticut a couple of generations ago dominated the Party. Today’s Republican Party is more representative of America’s middle class – working men and women, of every race, nationality, and religion. The Platform’s preamble is titled “America First: Return to Common Sense,” an expression of nationalism and a reference to judgement based on practical observations and universally accepted facts.

 

A political party’s platform must be generic, as it must appeal a large swath of voters. There are, approximately, 162 million registered voters in The United States. According to an April 2024 study by Pew Research Center, registration is about equally divided between Democrats and those who lean Democratic (49%) and Republicans and those who lean Republican (48%). Keep in mind, America is noted for its individualism, citizens who, historically, have not marched to assigned drummers. Republicans, especially, tend to be free-thinkers, more difficult to lasso and corral.

 

The over-arching tone of the Republican Platform is “America first,” as regards trade and the border, and a return to common sense, as regards manufacturing, the border, energy independence, military strength, and equal treatment of all under the law. This analysis does not pretend to be complete, but among its subjects, the document addresses the economy, defense/national security, education, culture and size of government.

 

• The Platform recommends energy independence, reducing regulation, and making the 2017 tax cuts permanent, while imposing tariffs on some imported goods. Without providing solutions, the document reflects inherent contradictions between free markets of traditional conservatives – Jospeh Schumpeter’s theory of creative destruction – and economic populism, the protection of jobs, industries and communities affected by globalization and changes in technology. Finding the balance between these competing forces will be the job of Congress, through debate and discussion. In his speech following acceptance of the GOP nomination, Donald Trump spoke of the need for improvements in education to help people become more competitive in today’s dynamic economy, i.e. a focus on community colleges. The document encourages innovation in emerging industries, such as Crypto, Artificial Intelligence and Space. It argues for the reduction of interest rates, without explaining whether that will be a function of government or markets. And it promises to do away with taxes on tips.

 

• It calls for ‘Peace through Strength,’ re-building the military to counter China, and to ensure that our military remains “the most modern, lethal and powerful force in the world.” It calls for building an Iron Dome Missile Defense Shield to cover the United States, but at what cost it leaves unsaid. It advocates securing our border against illegal immigration, strengthening alliances (including NATO), and championing “strong, sovereign, and independent nations in the Indo-Pacific…” Echoing President Obama in November 2011, the Platform calls for a pivot to Asia. But little was said of current, explicit threats from China, Russia and Iran.

 

• In terms of education, the Platform call for an environment “free from political meddling” and the restoration of parental rights. It supports school choice, and encourages merit pay for teachers in place of tenure. It advocates overhauling standards on school discipline, including the suspension of violent students. It ensures students are taught fundamentals like reading, math, science, history, civics, and the “restoration of a classical liberal arts education.” The Platform notes that the U.S. spends more per pupil than any other country in the world, yet results have been mediocre. It suggests the Department of Education in Washington be shut down, and return responsibility for education to the states. 

 

• As for culture, the document promotes the “sanctity of marriage, the blessings of childhood and the foundational role of families…” While the document says abortion rights belong with the states, it opposes late term abortions but supports mothers and policies that advance prenatal care, access to birth control and IVF. The Platform would keep biological men from participating in women’s sports, and it would stop taxpayer-funded schools from promoting gender transition and taxpayer funding for sex change surgeries. Parents’ rights include knowledge of their children’s attitudes toward a possible sex change. It calls for the cutting of federal funding for sanctuary jurisdictions that release criminals onto the streets, and it would require that local authorities cooperate with ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). It promises to deport illegal aliens who have violated our laws. 

 

• The Platform quotes Mr. Trump in his promise not to “cut one penny” from Medicare or Social Security: “Republicans will restore economic stability to ensure long-term sustainability of Social Security.” “Republicans will protect Medicare’s finances from being financially crushed by the Democrats plan to add tens of millions of new illegal immigrants to the roles of Medicare.” Nothing was said about the enormous deficits both plans generate. However, there is a promise to slash “wasteful” government spending, and to reinstate President Trump’s deregulation policies from his first term, “which,” the Platform claimswithout providing proof, “saved Americans $11,000 per household.” 

 

The Platform reflects a changed Republican Party, something that has been underway for a long time. It has become what Peggy Noonan recently described in The Wall Street Journal: “a populist, working-class, nationalist party.” It is a Party that puts less emphasis on living within our means and on free-market economics and reflects more of what George W. Bush in 2000 called “compassionate conservativism.” Columbia professor of economics Glenn Hubbard described the differences in last Friday’s The Wall Street Journal: “Conservative economic policy traditionally has emphasized the openness of markets and growth. By contrast, the populist conservative ideas under discussion at the Republican National Convention focus on people and places hard hit by the disruption that accompanies openness and growth.” Finding the balance is what democracy is about.

 

The concern of free-market capitalism is understandable, as the United States has out-sourced much of its manufacturing to places where labor costs are less. While that has harmed labor in the U.S. with the disappearance of manufacturing jobs, consumers have benefitted from lower prices. An imposition of tariffs, to limit imports, will cause affected countries to retaliate with their own tariffs, which will limit exports and possibly cause a global recession. But the Platform recognizes innovation, which reflects an understanding that economies are dynamic, that change is constant, that old industries die and new ones are formed. As mentioned above, Mr. Trump, in his speech to delegates, did talk of the need to improve education, saying that individuals should “raise their expectations.” Nevertheless, there is no perfect way to protect all people from changing economic conditions. An open border is distinctly not in our interest, and closing the border is not xenophobic when accompanied by increasing the number of legal immigrants. Unfortunately, while immigration reform was mentioned, increasing legal immigration was not mentioned. 

 

As for the Platform and the Republican nominee, Nikki Haley spoke for many of us in her Convention speech: “We should acknowledge that there are some Americans who don’t agree with Donald Trump 100% of the time. I happen to know some of them. My message to them is simple: You don’t have to agree with Trump 100% of the time to vote for him. We agree on keeping America strong. We agree on keeping America safe. And we agree that Democrats have moved so far to the left that they’re putting our freedoms in danger. I’m here tonight because we have a country to save and a unified Republican Party is essential for saving her.” I want to close with words Mr. Trump expressed in his acceptance speech, because they echo my beliefs, and they suggest a more sober and reflective man: “None of us know God’s plan, or where life’s adventure will take us. But if the events of last Saturday make anything clear, it is that every single moment we have on earth is a gift from God. We have to make the most of every day for the people and the country we love.”

 

This essay reflects my understanding of the Republican Platform, which may be fallible. I don’t agree with all parts of it, but that is understandable. We are a large and diverse country with millions of individual opinions funneled into two political parties. We never vote for the perfect candidate but for the one that most closely mirrors our beliefs and ideals.

"Autumn Days (and Nights) with Tolstoy"

 I recognize my production of essays has abated of late, due to the holidays that consume so much of our attention – and I am happy they do. For the Hannukah and Christmas seasons are reminders of the good in life: the blessing that is ours to live where and when we do; the joy that comes in hearing from and being with family and friends; and the pleasure we get from greeting those who merrily serve us in stores and restaurants. 

 

Reading War and Peace was a gift, which will stay with me. It is not escapist, for it causes one to think in broader and deeper terms about our lives, and the story puts the silliness and sordidness of today’s politics in perspective. But, if 1500 pages seems a hill too high, try Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina, in my opinion the finest novel ever written.

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

More Essays from Essex

“Autumn Days (and Nights) with Tolstoy”

December 10, 2023

 

“An historian and an artist describing our historic epoch have two quite different tasks before them. As an 

historian would be wrong if he tried to present an historical person in his entirety, in all his relations with all sides of life, so the artist would fail to perform his task were he to represent the person always in his historical significance.”

                                                                                                                                Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910)

                                                                                                                                War and Peace, Appendix, 1868

 

In the Introduction to my copy of War and Peace, the late Tolstoy scholar Reginald Frank Christian of St. Andrews University wrote: “Many years later he [Tolstoy] told Gorky [Maxim Gorky] that ‘without false modesty, War and Peace is like the Iliad…” Professor Christian added that he had “deliberately refrained from calling War and Peace a novel,” and noted that Tolstoy claimed Anna Karenina, published ten years later, to be his first novel. Tolstoy wrote about what he knew. Born into the aristocracy fifteen years after Napoleon had been pushed out of Russia, he had first-hand war experience in Crimea, where he arrived in the fall of 1854 in time for the siege of Sevastopol. What Tolstoy created in War and Peace is epic – a combination of fiction, history and philosophy – and deserves its classical status.

 

In early September, I read Peggy Noonan’s column in The Wall Street Journal, “My Summer with Leo Tolstoy.” The first thing I did, after deciding to read the book, was ditch the one-volume paperback I had purchased a few years earlier and bought a more-easily-handled three-volume set translated by Louise and Aylmer Maude. At story’s end, I empathized with Ms. Noonan’s quote of George Will, who on completing Moby Dick wrote: “To think I might have died without reading it!”

.

Tolstoy wrote of war: “On the 12^th of June 1812, the forces of Western Europe crossed the Russian frontier and war began…” “One step beyond that boundary line which resembles the line dividing the living from the dead, lies uncertainty…You fear and yet long to cross that line, and know that sooner or later it must be crossed…” He wrote of people, of four families, but especially of two individuals: Countess Natásha Rostóva, a “…strikingly poetic, charming girl, overflowing with life!” and Count Pierre Bezúkhov, a large, young, unhappily married man who searches for life’s purpose: “To that question What for? a simple answer was now always ready in his soul: ‘Because there is a God, that God without whose will not one hair falls from a man’s head.’” As well, Tolstoy pondered social, ethical, and religious concerns of the time, and he philosophized about the difficulty to understand the why of events like Napoleon’s invasion of Russia: “The higher the human intellect rises in the discovery of these purposes, the more obvious it becomes that the ultimate purpose is beyond our comprehension.”

 

At over 1,500 pages, War and Peace is daunting, but it is captivating in all aspects. Like Dostoevsky and Chekhov, Tolstoy’s characters have names difficult for American ears. But they are descriptive and credible. Readers will not soon forget Andrew’s death, Sónya’s unrequited love, nor Mary’s loyalty. To those interested in the Napoleonic Wars, Tolstoy provided a window on that era from Russia’s perspective. And for us, living in traumatic times, his questions, thoughts, and timeless wisdom on life deserve our reflection. I spent many hours with Tolstoy, and I am glad I did.

"Our Political State"

 Given the Hamas-led attack on Israel yesterday, it seems unseemly to write of anything else, especially when many in the morally challenged West have abandoned the Middle East’s sole democracy, but the below was largely written earlier.

 

It is hard not to become cynical when one looks at the U.S. today, to feel we have fallen so far that recovery is nigh impossible. But I am reminded of that song from Annie, “The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow.” I am reminded of Warren Buffett’s telling us to never bet against America. And I am reminded of newly elected Ronald Reagan’s confidence, sunny disposition, and humor in 1981 when the Country was in the midst of inflation and despair…And I feel better.

 

Sydney M. Williams

30 Bokum Road – Apartment 314

Essex, CT 06426

 

Thought of the Day

“Our Political State”

October 8, 2023

 

“The Rule of Law is the principle that all persons will be treated equally and justly in a

civilized society. No one is above the law. The highest aspirations of the rule of law are

established in the Constitution of the United States and the Constitutions of the various states.”

                                                                                                                             Paul G. Summers

                                                                                                                             Former Attorney General, Tennessee

                                                                                                                             The Tennessean

                                                                                                                              November 2, 2022

 

Yes, Virginia, some people are above the law. They are known as politicians, asses and pachyderms; they can be found in barns, zoos, but also in the circus that is Washington. Exhibit ‘A’ includes both the current President and his immediate predecessor. Unlike spider monkeys or black-footed ferrets, politicians are not endangered. In fact, they rank with nematode worms as one of the more prolific animal species on earth.

 

And, yes Virginia, if one had to classify into one word our two main political parties it would be that Republicans are dysfunctional and Democrats mean-spirited. Two episodes this past week provide examples: Matt Gaetz (R-FL) and his group of eight self-serving, dissident Republicans colluded with Democrats to remove Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House. A day or so earlier, as Congress was trying to pass legislation to extend government funding for forty-five days, Congressman Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) pulled a fire alarm, so as to delay the vote. Incredulously, he had the temerity to claim he mistook the bright red alarm for an automatic door opener, a mistake impossible to believe of anyone, least of all of a former middle school principal.  

 

In the wake of the French Revolution (1789-1794), the philosopher and monarchist Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821) is alleged to have written, “Every nation has the government it deserves.” Has that become our fate? Is it our fault that we have a cognitively-challenged President, an ego-centric ex-President as his main challenger, a Democratic U.S. Senator who dresses like a slob, and eight Republican Congressmen willing to sacrifice their Party for purposes of self-aggrandizement. Our Founders included Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison, giants by today’s standards. Like all humans, they were imperfect, but their positive qualities outweighed their negative ones. After 250 years, can we say our politics have evolved in Darwinian fashion? Or is our current state of political affairs an example of dysgenics – a decrease in the prevalence of traits deemed to be socially desirable?

 

Consider: We have a border that is not a border. We have mobs rampaging through urban stores. We have a Justice on the Supreme Court unable to define a woman. We have political, media, educational, and business leaders telling us that our four-billion-year-old planet will become uninhabitable in a few dozen years if we continue to use fossil fuels. We have schools that focus on gender identity and our racial past, while standards in math, science, and English have languished. We have universities that cancel conservative speakers. We have politicians unable to distinguish between debt and deficits, and who are unconcerned that borrowed money must one day be re-paid. We have a collapse of the nuclear family, and an aging population with birth rates falling below replacement rates. We have social justice warriors who claim that inequality in outcomes is a deliberate decision and has nothing to do with differences in aspiration or physical and mental abilities. Political extremism, on both sides, has divided families and friends. The title of R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr’s new memoir comes to mind: How Do We Get Out of here?

 

In an interview this weekend in The Wall Street Journal, Jason Riley quoted the 93-year-old Thomas Sowell: “The fatal danger of our times today is a growing intolerance and suppression of opinions and evidence that differ from prevailing ideologies that dominate institutions, ranging from the academic world to the corporate world, the media and government institutions.” One would hope that political evolution would have seen rising civility in the debating of ideas. That is not the case. Amidst this chaos, in a recent interview with Kelly Hanlon of the Witherspoon Institute, George Nash, historical scholar and author of Reappraising the Right: The Past and Future of American Conservativism, rhetorically asked: “What do conservatives want?...most would say: We want to be free. We want to be able to live lives, and have our families’ live lives, that are decent and well-ordered and virtuous. And we want to be safe from external and internal threats.” Wise words in a disordered time.

 

But sadly, that is not where we are. We live in a time of dysfunctional and mean-spirited politics, when many politicians, isolated from those they represent, consider themselves above the law. There is a reason Oliver Anthony’s song “Rich Men North of Richmond” has been a hit. Money flows freely, corruption is rampant, and the self-interest of many Representatives supersedes that of the nation. Think of George Santos (R-NY) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ), among others. In the same issue of the Journal quoted above, Peggy Noonan wrote of the idiocy of the Gaetz episode. She ended her column, though, on a hopeful note: “Something has to come along and break through this stasis. Something will, but I don’t know what.” From her pen to God’s eyes.

"Trust - In Government Bureaucrats or in the People?"

 Mark Twain, who for several years lived in Hartford, Connecticut, is alleged to have said: “If you don’t like the weather in New England now, just wait a few minutes.” That was true this past weekend here in Connecticut. On Saturday, a beautiful sunny day with temperatures in the mid 50s, my wife and I saw two bluebirds in a field near where we live. On Sunday I brushed four inches of snow off my forlorn Lexus.

 

We will be away visiting grandchildren over the next six nights, while their parents fly off, as our bluebirds apparently did not.

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.b;ogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Trust – In Government Bureaucrats or in the People?”

February 16, 2022

 

“I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers

of the society but the people themselves…”

                                                                                                                Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

                                                                                                                Letter to William Charles Jarvis

                                                                                                                20 September 1820

 

In 1863, on a cool, sunny November day in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, four months after the Battle of Gettysburg, President Abraham Lincoln gave a four-minute address. In it he reminded the audience: “Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people.” The freedom we experience in this 233-year-old experiment, which is the United States, is based upon the individual citizen being the ultimate source of power, expressed through their representatives in municipalities, states and Washington, D.C. Granted, in times of emergency, presidents and governors have assumed exceptional powers, as did Lincoln when he signed the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act of 1863. Nevertheless, fundamental to our democracy is a belief that the people have a greater understanding of their self-interests than do the politicians, bureaucrats and experts who operate the machinery of government. It is, collectively, the wisdom of the people that combine to produce the political strength of our communities, states and nation.

 

All elections are important and as usual we are being told that the current one is critical, because the two sides are so far apart in how they define individual freedom and in their visions for the future. Democrats, too often, believe that government bureaucrats and “experts” can better decide what people should do than individuals themselves: lockdowns, mask and vaccine mandates, what courses should be taught children in public schools, what forms of energy we should consume, and what opinions should be allowed on social media. Republicans, in general, believe that people make wise choices when offered alternatives: to mask or not; to take a vaccine or not; to have their children learn Critical Race Theory or not; to buy a hybrid, a gas-guzzler or an electric vehicle. They want options in school choice and be able to weigh alternatives.

 

While personally I believe in vaccines and feel certain that masks can, at a minimum, reduce the spread of germs, I have a stronger conviction in common sense – stay home if one has a temperature; when in the grocery store, be alert for (and avoid) those who appear to have a cold; don’t get too close to people, (though I make an exception with my wife, children and grandchildren). Democracy is threatened by those who want to control our daily lives and shut down debate. Democracy needs the freedom that diversity of thought brings. Born on campuses, wokeism has fledged onto Wall Street, into businesses, courts, entertainment, sports and politics. Woke censorship threatens liberty. Former Vice President Hubert Humphrey, in a 1970 speech, said: “Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, debate and dissent.”

 

Politicians act most responsibly when they are closest to the voters who elected them. Democracy works best in local elections, where power is “held,” as Peggy Noonan wrote in last Saturday’s The Wall Street Journal, “closest to the individual and the family…” It is least effective in gerrymandered districts where one party has control and political minorities have no or minimal voice. Government has grown far bigger than the Founders envisioned. Perhaps that was inevitable, as populations soared and societal needs, such as defense, retirement, healthcare, education and social programs, increased. But each generation of politicians should be conscious of bureaucratic dysfunction and the potential for corruption as the size of government increases. Bureaucrats, whose careers depend on ever-expanding government, have little incentive to support those who want to limit spending and, thus, their career opportunities. The insidiousness of invasive government could be seen in last Friday’s release of details from the Durham Investigation, which showed that Mr. Trump was spied upon – something he has long claimed – not only during the 2016 campaign, but while he was in the White House. And mainstream media censored this news by ignoring it. 

 

Individually, we have all made poor decisions, but, in aggregate and over the years, a belief in the wisdom of the people is what distinguishes a democracy from an autocracy. Political correctness and identity politics are taking us in new and dangerous directions, which has led many to believe that a professional class of bureaucratic experts can be trusted to make better decisions than pesky voters. Two years after COVID-19, the governors of twenty-six states still exercise emergency powers. Is this warranted?

 

Granted, there is a fine line between personal, individual liberty and anarchy. But it is a line we have navigated for over 200 years. The word anarchy is derived from the Greek word meaning “having no ruler,” a belief system that rejects governmental authority. That is not the case of those of us who argue for greater individual freedom. We believe in government, but one that is limited and non-intrusive. Our differences lie in opposing opinions as to who to trust more with power – unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats or the people? We are commanded to follow the science, but what does that mean when we have experts who offer contradictory opinions? Which should we follow? Individuals should have choices. Science, by definition, is never settled. Like democracy, it is always a work in progress. In a perfect world, the media would help us reach independent conclusions by offering more than one side of a story, but, sadly, that is not the case, as they have become propaganda arms for their preferred political philosophies.

 

I, for one, trust the people, whether it is truckers in Canada or parents in Virginia.

"Biden - A Marionette?"

Writing this essay was not easy and took longer than most I have written. The subject is a sensitive one, but nonetheless important, and I have tried to be fair. But if my speculation is correct, it reflects a cynicism unique to our politics.

 

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Biden – A Marionette?”

May 5, 2021

 

“It is possible to be a puppet on a string without fully realizing it.”

                                                                                                                                Life is a Cocktail, 2017

Steven Redhead

                                                                                                                                Founder Life Coaching Systems

 

In February 2017, less than a month after he had taken office, Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), in a floor speech, questioned Mr. Trump’s mental health. He was joined by Senator Al Franken (D-MN) and Representative Ted Lieu (D-CA). According to an article in The Hill on February 17, 2017, thirty-five psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers signed a letter to the New York Times that stated, “the grave emotional instability indicated by Mr. Trump’s speech and actions make him incapable of serving safely as president.” The American Psychiatric Association has long held that to render a professional opinion on a public figure one has not examined is unethical. However, that didn’t stop the thirty-five, none of whom had met with Mr. Trump. We now have a new President. While no gaggle of psychiatrists has weighed in on Mr. Biden, one wonders: Are the President’s cognitive abilities declining, as some have suggested? The truth is, we don’t know; but some, including me, are suspicious that age has taken its toll on the man.   

 

President Biden has been a stutterer since childhood. According to the National Stuttering Association, stuttering is a “neurological disorder that interferes with the production of speech.” It does not indicate a psychological disorder or mental deficiency. It does not suggest dementia, but neither does it preclude it. Dementia is a catch-all word to describe various symptoms of cognitive decline. Early manifestations would include forgetfulness and limits to social skills and reasoning. In 1988, Mr. Biden suffered two brain aneurysms, but there is no reason to believe they would lead to any form of dementia.

Like those eminent psychiatrists and psychologists who passed judgement on President Trump, my opinion regarding President Biden is empirical, not analytical, so accept my words with caution – a warning the Times did not offer. Yet, to publicly question Mr. Biden’s fitness for office is apparently off limits. In 2017, Republicans like Mike Simpson (R-ID) agreed that Mr. Trump exaggerated and made false statements, and that it is always fair to question any President’s judgements. Yet, there is a deafening silence from both sides of the aisle when it comes to questioning the mental well-being of President Biden. Why?

 

Why do I feel as I do? Mr. Biden spent thirty-six years in the nation’s most deliberative body – the U.S. Senate. He could be mean-spirited, as Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas came to learn, but he could also be a consensus builder. He campaigned as a moderate and unifier, yet he has governed by Executive Order, signing over sixty EOs in his first hundred days as President, more than double what Mr. Trump did and more than triple what Mr. Obama signed in his first hundred days.

 

During the campaign, Mr. Biden’s handlers kept a tight rein on him. Like 19^th Century Presidential candidates who campaigned from their front porches, Mr. Biden communicated to the electorate from the basement of his home outside Wilmington, Delaware. In contrast with Mr. Trump who enjoys dueling with a Press that despises him, Mr. Biden, as President, has shunned the media that adores him, as they ask about his favorite ice cream or photograph him picking dandelions for his wife. In his first message to Congress, Mr. Biden spoke for an hour with no hint of senescence. Of course, he was speaking from a place he has called home for forty-four years, and he read from a teleprompter, as have all Presidents since President Eisenhower first used one sixty-seven years ago. While he stumbled rarely, his stance was wooden, without the relaxed appearance of a man who knows what he is saying. He lacked graciousness toward his political opponents, inconsistent with a message of unity.  There seems, to this observer, a disconnect between the words he now utters and those of a man who has been in Washington since 1973.

 

President Biden has been accused of many indiscretions: from plagiarizing to lying about his college record, from financial relations in Ukraine and China to behaving inappropriately with women. He can be impulsive. When a popular black radio host, Charlemagne the God, asked him how to respond to someone struggling to decide whether to support him or President Trump, Mr. Biden shot back: “If you have a problem figuring out whether to support me or Trump, then you ain’t black.” In 2018, when asked to comment on one of President Trump’s crude comments, he said he wished they were in high school, so he could take him out behind the gym and “beat the hell out of him.” But Mr. Biden was not a left-wing radical. The New York Times, on October 18, 2020, called him “a seventy-seven-year-old moderate.” Yet, as President, he has proposed a radical, left-wing agenda. On April 29, 2021, the New York Times, changing their tune, described Biden as seeking “a fundamental reorientation of the role of government not seen since the days of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and Roosevelt’s New Deal.” But is his radical agenda rational when the most states are in Republican control, when the Senate is split 50-50, and when Democrats’ majority in the House is the smallest since World War II? Has Mr. Biden undergone a transformation, or is something more insidious at work?

 

It makes one wonder: Who is in charge? The voters in November chose a candidate whom they thought was a moderate and who was not Donald Trump. They wanted the normality his campaign promised. So, I ask: Is he being manipulated to implement policies the voters did not choose? Has Mr. Biden become a marionette, acting on behalf of unknown handlers? I don’t propose to have an answer, but I believe it is a possibility we cannot overlook, and an issue that should concern us all. Adam Smith wrote that there is a “great deal of ruin in a nation,” by which he meant it takes a lot of bungling by political leaders to bring down a powerful and prosperous nation, but all free countries are vulnerable, as democracy is fragile and not all men and women are angels.

 

Peggy Noonan, in a column in last weekend’s Wall Street Journal, wrote that President Biden, unlike his three predecessors, is not “hated.” That seems true; but has the radical left taken advantage of a cognitively impaired President to advance an agenda rejected in last year’s Primaries? If this speculation has any merit, then we have experienced one of the most undemocratic, dastardly tricks ever played on our democracy, with mainstream media fully complicit.

"Back to Basics - A Christmas Wish"

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

 

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

 

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

.

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

 

Sydney

 

Sydney M. Williams

30 Bokum Road – Apartment 314

Essex, CT 06426

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Back to Basics – A Christmas Wish”

December 22, 2020

 

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

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

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

                                                                                                                                        Definition of “Idiot”

                                                                                                                                        The Devil’s Dictionary, 1906

                                                                                                                                       Ambrose Bierce (1842-c.1914)

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

"The COVID-19 Pandemic - Some Random Thoughts"

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“The COVID-19 Pandemic – Random Thoughts”

March 18, 2020

“Fear cannot be banished, but it can be calm and without panic;

it can be mitigated by reason and evaluation.”

                                                                                                Vannevar Bush (1890-1975)

                                                                                                Scientist, Educator, Inventor

Sensible advice has been offered by many: Scrub your hands, socially distant yourself; isolate yourself if sick. Nevertheless, manifestations of fear and panic are all around us. Restaurants, bars and casinos have closed in the part of the Country where I live. Colleges have sent students home. Schools have been closed, while grocery stores cannot keep up with demand for toilet paper, hand-wipes, latex gloves, disinfectants and many other household and food products. ‘Social distancing’ is nowhere to be seen when it comes to filling one’s larder or closet. Yet, with the exception of products directly related to coronavirus, like hand-wipes and latex gloves, final demand for items like toilet paper and frozen foods will grow in terms of population expansion, or about 0.5 percent. (In Connecticut, population growth will probably decline about 0.2 percent, as it did in 2019.) Understocked shelves will become overstocked.

“Any man’s death diminishes me,” John Donne wrote, and all deaths are, indeed, to be regretted. But perspective should be maintained. The question we all struggle with: Is the fear we exhibit rational? We don’t know, but containment and mitigation seem to be working, at least in China and South Korea. According to their numbers, since last November China has had 190,000 individuals infected with COVID-19 (out of a population of 1.39 billion). Just under 7,500 have died, implying a mortality rate of 3.9 percent. Keep in mind, numbers from China are suspect and between 30,000 and 40,000 people die every day in their Country. South Korea’s statistics are likely more accurate. Their first case was noted on January 20. As of March 16, two hundred and twenty thousand people had been tested in South Korea, out of a population of 51.4 million, 8,320 cases had been confirmed and 81 had died, or just under one percent. Health officials in Seoul claimed on March 9 that their Country had passed the peak of the contagion. They credit their “trace, test and treat” system, where an individual can drive to a testing site and have samples taken from the back of one’s throat and nose. A few hours later, the individual will get a call if the test is positive or a text if it is negative.

The world was slow to take note of the seriousness of the crisis. China, a Communist dictatorship, delayed informing the outside world for a month and a half. More than three weeks after China did, and with the contagion already having infected half a dozen countries, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared, on January 23, that the coronavirus did not constitute a public emergency of international concern. (It would be March 11 before they declared it a pandemic.) Early on, the President was ahead of the curve. He formed a White House task force for coronavirus on January 29, led by Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alexander Azar, and he shut down flights from China on January 31. On February 27, he placed Vice President Mike Pence in charge of the Task Force. Contrary to some reports, the White House did not “gut” the National Security Council’s counter pandemic effort. But he was slow in promoting tests for the virus and urging the search for a vaccine. He was not alone. The press was more interested in impeachment than in informing their readers and viewers of the virus China had exported, which was beginning to contaminate the world.

Throughout most of February and early March, the U.S., President Trump appeared to minimize the health impact of COVID-19, while he emphasized the need for calm. It was not surprising, and he was not alone. As a businessman, he knew what fear and panic do to an economy – creating artificial shortages, while negatively impacting economic growth. Keep in mind, every day the U.S. economy generates roughly $60 billion in national income. Shutting down commerce will have serious consequences for individuals, many of whom will be laid off, even if temporarily. Government will step in to help – the House passed an $850 billion stimulus bill yesterday – but we should not forget that we are already carrying the largest amount of debt, relative to GDP, since World War II. Adding another trillion is important now, but even low-cost debt must be repaid. When (not if) interest rates move back up, the pain is going to be severe – for governments, corporations and consumers. Neither should we forget that an economic system that preserves uneconomic businesses for “humanitarian” purposes is neither compassionate nor financially viable.

The closing of restaurants, gyms, casinos, schools, colleges and churches is critical and will limit the spread of the virus. While there is much that is unknown about COVID-19, it is known to have a high R0 (R naught), a mathematical determination of its contagion properties. Questions remain: Will healthcare be rationed? Will further restrictions be imposed? However, we cannot ignore its effect on the economy, the education of our youth and the social and spiritual well-being of us all. While we cannot return to normal, we must be alert to unintended consequences.

As well, we should be wary of hyperbole, of those who see a crisis as something for personal advantage. Last Sunday, Goldman Sachs, according to Zero Hedge journalist Tyler Durden, spoke to 1500 clients and told them 50% of Americans will contract the virus and that mortality rates could reach two percent. Perhaps they will be right, but that would contrast with less than one tenth of one percent of South Koreans and Chinese who have contracted the disease. In Italy, the 30,000 cases thus far represent about 0.05% of their population. In the U.S., the disease will become more widespread before it abates, but one wonders if Goldman was pandering to hedge funds that were short the market. If they were, they had happy clients on Monday, when the market dropped thirteen percent. It is only to be expected that Democrat Presidential candidates will use the virus against Mr. Trump. (Republicans would do the same were roles reversed.) We should also note the pandemic has brought a cease-fire – probably temporary – in the partisanship that has marked our politics. Both Governor Gavin Newsom of California and Andrew Cuomo of New York have praised the President for his response to the crisis. (A cynic might say they were looking for federal funds). However, Governor Cuomo complained on Monday that “the federal government has been behind on this crisis from day one.” Still, praise is praise.

In a recent column, Peggy Noonan wrote that telling people not to panic is bad advice. I disagree. People should be told to be wary, especially around the elderly and the vulnerable: to wash their hands regularly and vigorously, to avoid unnecessary personal contact, to sneeze or cough into a Kleenex or handkerchief, to use handwipes and surgical gloves when in stores, and to stay home, especially when a fever or cold persists. But we should not panic. “Panic,” as Stephen King once wrote, “is highly contagious, especially when nothing is known, and everything is in flux,” as it is now. Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, “…panic is the terror of ignorance, surrendered to the imagination.” “Fear,” as Vannevar Bush is quoted in the rubric above, “cannot be banished,” but it can be rationalized. During the depths of the Depression, Franklin Roosevelt said, in a fireside chat, when so many were fearful: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Our hospitals and healthcare are second to none. Containment and mitigation will conquer COVID-19, so long as we comply with basic rules of hygiene and common sense. We cannot and should not, let fear and panic catapult us into a recession or worse – a situation where Constitutional rights are abrogated.