"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.

"End of the West? Not so Fast"

 The accompanying photo has nothing to do with today’s essay, but I loved the contrast of the snow-covered branches silhouetted against the bright blue sky.

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“End of the West? Not so Fast.”

January 7, 2026

 

“In this character of the Americans, a love of freedom is the

predominating feature which marks and distinguishes the whole.”

                                                                                                                Edmund Burke

                                                                                                                Speech on Conciliation with the Colonies

                                                                                                                March 22, 1775

 

“What we once called the normative West no longer exists in this form.”

                                                                                                                Friedrich Merz, German Chancellor

                                                                                                                Speaking to business leaders in Berlin

                                                                                                                December 9, 2025

 

“My single most important responsibility as President is to keep the American people safe,” stated Barack Obama during his Presidency, a sentiment echoed by his successors, Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump. But what about their responsibilities to ensure those freedoms cited in our Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by our Constitution? Safety appears to have superseded freedom. Keeping people safe is an important government responsibility, but ensuring individual freedom is its most important duty.

 

In his first inaugural, Thomas Jefferson wrote of the need for “a wise and frugal Government, which will restrain men from injuring one another, [but] shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement...” In his letter from Birmingham jail (April 16, 1963), Martin Luther king wrote: “We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom.” Ludwig von Mises, in The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science: An Essay on Method, defined what differentiates Western governments: [1] “The essential characteristic of Western civilization that distinguishes it from the arrested and petrified civilizations of the East was and is its concern for freedom from the state.” One has only to look at the plight of citizens in dozens of nations, from China to Venezuela, to recognize that freedom is our most valuable possession.

 

For many politicians, however the dependency of the people on government is an asset. What politician wants to ask their people to work harder or to save more to help ensure a brighter future. Yet, when the state assumes responsibilities better left to individuals, personal freedom lessens as restraints on choice take over. As the power of the state expands, people may feel safer, but it becomes riskier to speak out in opposition. 

 

Those politicians who prefer safety to freedom cite those places where individual freedom leads to personal choices, which, combined with differences in abilities and diligence, leads to vastly different outcomes. People are not equal in abilities. The best gymnast and the best physicist are masters of their respective crafts, but they could not switch places. Those who prefer freedom to safety have history on their side. Individual freedoms, along with the rule of law, the right to own property, tradition and personal virtue, are fundamental to the foundation on which Western civilization was built.   

 

Of course those who carry the greatest influence, teachers and the media, are overwhelmingly of the left, yet voter registration suggests a more nuanced nation – roughly 37% of voters nationally are registered as Democrats, 31% as Republicans, 28% as Independents, according to BallotPedia. In Connecticut, where I live and where all Congressional seats are held by Democrats, unaffiliated voters represent the largest bloc of registered voters at 42%. However, big government is still the preference of most politicians on the right as well as on the left. Benefits once granted are almost impossible to remove. Nevertheless, expanding welfare states have been accompanied with declines in marriages and births. More welfare spending impedes economic growth as investment dollars get diverted. They have, however, increased debt to a level where the easiest decision for a politician is to cheapen the currency. In this, Republicans have been as guilty as Democrats.

 

It is important to understand that individual freedoms, inherent to democracies and fundamental to our concept of the West, are always at risk, as they confound and hinder those who seek political power for personal purposes. “Freedom,” Ronald Reagan said in a 1961 speech in Phoenix, “is never more than one generation away from extinction.” Even so, as long as thought, debate and speech are not cancelled, the West has a weapon unavailable to tyrants – the power of individuals to speak and act.

 

Twice in my lifetime the West was threatened – in the mid 1930s through 1945 from Nazism and Fascism and from 1945 to 1991 by Soviet Communism. In both cases the West was ultimately triumphant, though at enormous costs in human lives. Today, external threats come from Islamic terrorists, a nuclear-armed Russia, and an aggressive Communist China. The latter seeks to extend her military, technological and economic control throughout the world. As well there are internal threats from those who seek to enlarge the role of government, by providing goodies, citing “fairness” and promising to keep us safe. In his January 1^st inaugural address as New York City’s new mayor, Zohran Mamdani spoke for those who see government as the answer to all life’s ills: “We will prove that there is no problem too large for government to solve, and no concern too small for it to care about.” Contrast his words with those of President Reagan (the greatest proponent of individual freedom in my lifetime) at a 1986 press conference where he cited the languages’ nine most terrifying words: “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”  

 

What gives me hope is that there are indications that some in the West are backtracking on the nanny state – an excessively protective state that interferes with personal choice. Some signs: the declining influence of climate tyrants, skepticism regarding men competing against women in sports and “gender-affirming” (sex changes) for minors, expanding acceptance of the University of Chicago’s 1967 Kalven Report, which declared that a university is “the home and sponsor of critics but is not itself the critic,” and an acknowledgement that Black Lives Matter (BLM), always a divisive organization in a nation where all lives matter, has lost support. In 2020, when Nancy Pelosi took a knee, along with other publicity seekers, BLM had the support of 67% of the population. Today that is around 45%. The re-emergence of talk, at least in some quarters, of accountability, responsibility, mutual respect, and the celebration of our nation’s semiquincentennial all suggest the early stages of a return to the virtues that propelled Western civilization. 

 

Western civilization is not Utopia, it is not perfect. But it has provided more innovation, better economic and social outcomes, and more individual freedoms than any other. Can the West survive today’s assault on its bulwarks from without and within? The honest answer is no one knows.  But, despite Hollywood’s despicable reimaging of George Orwell’s Animal Farm to be released this spring, I suspect the answer is ‘yes.’ Threats to the West in the past have arisen and fallen. Current ones may worsen, but the call of freedom has echoed through the ages with a clarion tone. It is heard by people around the world.

 

 

---

[1]What is referred to as the “West” should not be construed as a geographic term, but as those nations who adhere to the concept of individual freedom, so includes countries like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand.  

"Year-End Thoughts on Today's Politics"

 We will be away through Christmas visiting children and grandchildren, so this may be my last essay for 2026; though I am working on two personal essays and a book review. But if this is the last one, I wish you the happiest of holidays and the healthiest of New Years.  The attached photo was taken this past summer of Caroline and me on the beach in Sea Bright, New Jersey – where Caroline spent summers growing up and where we have been going for the past sixty years.

 

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Year-End Thoughts on Today’s Politics”

December 19, 2025

 

“For last year’s words belong to last year’s language.

And next year’s words await another voice.”

                                                                                                                T.S. Eliot (1888-1965)

                                                                                                                The Four Quartets

                                                                                                                “Little Gidding,” 1942

 

Year-end is a good time to take stock of where we are and where we may be headed. This year those questions seem particularly relevant. Polarization defines politics today. Extremists in both parties barely talk to one another, yet they dominate the news. Perhaps it is age, but I rarely watch televised news. Whether it is Fox on the right, or MSNBC, CNN or any of the networks on the left, newscasters and commentators, with rare exceptions, preach to their choirs. While pundits and politicians reflect this division, the rest of us are at risk of a similar hatred infiltrating our beings. We cannot let that happen. While Trump gets blamed – and he has done nothing to abate the loathing that divides us – this divisiveness has been building for two decades, at least since the Iraq-Afghanistan war.

 

While extremists consume most of the oxygen, most people are, I believe, centrists in their beliefs and in their politics. We should always remember that the extreme right (fascism and Nazism) and the extreme left (socialism and Communism) have more in common than differences. Both are authoritarian. Both rely on ignorance and dependency on the state. Both are evil. Hitler was responsible for an estimated 13-17 million deaths; Stalin for between 10 and 20 million, and Mao Tse-Tung for an estimated 38-107 million lives. Both are elitist, in that only a minority are party members. Vladimir Putin, with an estimated net worth of $70 billion, is considered the world’s wealthiest political leader, despite Russia being a failing state. Xi Jinping’s wealth is unknown but estimates put it in the hundreds of millions. Politics, which is profitable for dictators, is not a horizontal line, with a left and a right, but a vertical between authoritarianism and anarchy.

 

And the world is changing, not just in what technology has wrought in terms of social media and in how artificial intelligence will affect jobs and lives, but also geopolitically: In 1990, Japan and the Soviet Union were the second and third largest economies. Today, Japan is fourth and Russia is ninth. In 1990, neither China nor India ranked among the top ten world economies. Today, they are second and fifth, respectively. 

 

Much has been written about the recent National Security Strategy report. To the New York Times, its key point was “hostility to Europe.” The Wall Street Journal headlined: “U.S. flips history by Casting Europe – not Russia – as Villian in New Security Policy.” The Economist wrote of President Trump’s “bleak, incoherent foreign policy.” Those pieces are mostly balderdash. The best piece I read on the report was by George Friedman, the Hungarian-born, 76-year-old political scientist, author and founder of Geopolitical Futures. He wrote that its three main points are: 1) “The United States wants close economic ties with China, as well as an end to military tensions;” 2) “Europe is responsible for its own defense and is now capable of defending itself;” and 3) “The primary strategic interest of the United States is the Western Hemisphere.” The document, Mr. Friedman added, “is simply the summation of the reality the U.S. is now in.”

 

Nevertheless, there is much that concerns me beyond polarization, the effect of AI on jobs, and the role of the U.S. in the world as it is: Rising anti-Semitism across the globe, as the horrific carnage on Australia’s Bondi Beach demonstrated – only the latest example; federal and state debt, fueled by unsustainable welfare programs; demographics, which have us with more people over 65 than under 18 – a problem for every country in the West, except Israel; President Trump’s state capitalism, where the state does not own businesses but uses its power to influence behavior; The effect of newly elected New York City Mayor, Socialist-leaning Zohran Mamdani, who in his victory speech on November 4^th declared: “We will prove there is no problem too large for government to solve and no concern too small for it to care about” – how different from President Reagan in 1986 when he spoke of “...the nine most terrifying words in the English language.”; the seemingly indiscriminate removal of aliens without due process, some of whom have lived and worked in this country for years; capital markets where interest rates were kept excessively low for much of the past decade and a half, which fueled asset appreciation, sending stocks to historically high multiples, and which propelled gold and silver prices and promoted questionable assets like crypto currencies; and an economy, freed from excessive regulation and taxation, that is burdened with tariffs. Overseas, Russia is a wild card, as its population and economic clout are in decline, yet it remains the country with the most confirmed nuclear weapons – 5,500. The image of a cornered rat comes to mind. China’s Belt & Road Initiative, first announced in 2013 as a means of connecting Asia, Europe and Africa, now operates in over 150 countries, including 53 countries in Africa, 29 countries in Europe and 22 countries in Latin America. Propaganda and politics willfollow.

 

On the other hand, all is not bleak. Our borders have been secured; criminal illegals are being tossed out; climate scare mongers appear to be in retreat, as does Wokeism. Universities seem to be moving toward greater freedom to speak, to disagree. The Supreme Court, under John Roberts and with the appointees of Donald Trump in his first term, has witnessed a return to common sense. Europe is beginning to acknowledge that unsustainable welfare programs have hampered living standards and economic growth, and that they must pay a greater share for self-defense. The Abraham Accords give hope for peace in the Middle East. The deployment of several naval vessels from the Fourth Fleet to waters off Venezuela is not just about halting the drug cartels; it is an indication that the U.S. takes seriously the incursion of China, Russia and Iran into the Western Hemisphere. As for AI, keep in mind that creative destruction is a natural condition of economic growth in an innovative society. As Brian Gross wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal, “...when tools change human creativity doesn’t shrink, it expands.”

 

So what is on order for 2026, besides my 85^th birthday next month, February winter Olympics in Italy, the celebration of the 250^th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence on July 4^th, and mid-term elections on November 3rd? I am neither a prophet nor a seer, so haven’t a clue. My concerns stated above are for situations over which I have no control. I am fortunate in my family, my wife, children and grandchildren, and in the large extended family that includes my siblings and their families. I am fortunate in the friends I have, some of whom I see weekly at ROMEO lunches, and others that I see rarely but are often in my thoughts. As for Mr. Trump, I am not a personal fan. I am old enough to believe that civility and manners serve us well. But I do believe that, with his lack of an ideology and for all his faults, he sees the world as it is, not as some would like it to be. And he has provided Americans a cultural self-confidence, something missing when DEI reigned. For that I am thankful.

 

I thank you for your forbearance with my essays over the past year, and I send you best wishes for the Holidays and wish you good health and happiness in the New Year.

"Political Parties are Dynamic"

 

 I wish for you a Holiday to remember and a New Year that is healthy and joyous. 

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Political Parties are Dynamic”

December 20, 2024

 

“Some men change their party for the sake of their principles;

others change their principles for the sake of their party.”

                                                                                                                Attributed to Winston Churchill

 

Democrats are puzzled that their majorities among the working-class, blacks and minorities are shrinking. Why, they wonder, is the Party that long showed concern for working Americans being abandoned by those same people? They have forgotten that political parties are not static entities. Democrats’ current bar-bell approach, with coastal elitists offset by those dependent on government, ignores the vast middle-class. Smugness and complacency have enshrouded their leaders, as they did Republicans half a century earlier. 

 

Political parties change, adapting to demands from their wealthiest backers and noisiest constituents. Prior to the Civil War, abolitionists joined the new Republican Party, while slave-holders were mostly Democrats. But over time, the Party of Lincoln morphed into northeast coastal elitists, while Democrat segregationists of the mid-Twentieth Century south joined with civil rights activists. Now, another change, which has been underway for the past few decades, is reaching a climax. New England, dominated by Republicans in the 1950s and ‘60s, has become – with the exception of New Hampshire – a bastion for Democrats. In the past thirty years, there has been only one New England State that voted for a Republican president, and that was New Hampshire in 2000. In contrast, in the 36 years ending in 1988, Republican presidential candidates won more than twice as many New England states as Democrats.

 

There is a scene in the Bing Crosby and Danny Kaye 1954 movie White Christmas that captures the image: Entertainers Crosby and Kaye follow two girls (Rosemary Clooney and Vera-Ellen) they had met in Florida to the Columbia Inn in Pine Tree, Vermont, an inn now run by their former World War II commander, General Waverly (Dean Jagger). Because of a lack of snow, Waverly is having a tough time. Crosby and Kaye decide they must do something, something unusual: “What do you think would be a novelty up here in Vermont?” asks Bing Crosby. “Who knows?” replies Danny Kaye. “Perhaps we can dig up a Democrat.” Today Democrats outnumber Republicans in Vermont by more than two and a half to one. However, empirical evidence suggests Republicans are, once again, beginning to narrow the gap.

 

Recognizing this dynamic, Ronald Reagan, in his 1966 bid for the California governorship, noted a change in the Democratic Party: “…may I suggest you take the 1932 platform on which Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected. Look again at its promises which were so overwhelmingly approved by Americans of both parties. The promise to reduce the cost of government by twenty-five percent; to restore those rights and powers which even then it was claimed had been unjustly seized from the states and the individual by the federal government; and its promise of restoration of constitutional limits on the power of that government. Ask yourself: ‘Which party would be most at home with those promises today?’”

 

Now, at a time when the U.S. faces existential challenges – massive inflows of illegal immigrants, crime-ridden inner cities, inflation, substandard education results, war in Eastern Europe, a Mideast in flames, and an untethered China pushing its Belt & Road initiatives – Democrats focused their energies on social extremists – politically correct, supercilious virtue signalers: climate extremists who claim man alone is responsible for a warming planet; teachers and administrators who permit schools to offer sex changes without parents knowledge or approval; sports teams that allow transgender women into women’s bathrooms; those who claim science is settled, when scientific discoveries are but a stop on a continuing search for truth; social justice warriors who divide people by race and sex into oppressors and oppressed; those who push DEI, where diversity ignores opinions, equity equates to equal outcomes, and inclusion leads to exclusion of the politically undesirable; university, government and businesses that promote ESG (environment, social and governance) trends, without regard to the financial or human costs; and those who lead divisive organizations like #MeToo and BLM. In satisfying these self-important social extremists, Democrats ignored the working middle class, people who are concerned with mundane matters, like making a living, raising a family, crime in the streets, and providing their children a good education. 

 

The United States has become an economic success beyond the dreams of those who lived only a few generations ago. It has been fortunate in its geographical location, with oceans separating it from Asia and Europe. Unlike the island nation of Britain, it did not have to depend on an empire for raw materials. These factors, along with advantages of democracy and capitalism have given the nation’s people more leisure: more time to read, to study, to travel and to seek entertainment. But it has also given time for a few to pursue selfish interests, without regard to the community’s interest.

 

Nations and empires have risen and fallen over the centuries. Greece, Rome, Turkey and Britain once ruled large portions of the known world. The United States, despite threats from China, remains the world’s hegemon. With its promise of individual freedom and property rights, it is different from past nations and empires. But nothing is certain. There are nations that, in the pursuit of power, will try to unseat us. Almost three thousand years ago, the Greek philosopher Heraclitus wrote of his belief that everything is in flux, that “change is the only constant in life.”

 

Politicians have often switched parties. Hannibal Hamlin, Lincoln’s first Vice President, a Democrat had become a Republican in 1856. Theodore Roosevelt left the Republican Party in 1912 to form a third party. Wendell Wilkie left the Democratic Party in 1939 to run as a Republican in 1940. Ronald Reagan left the Democratic Party in 1952 and became the 40^th President, a Republican. Unlike Europe, the United States has, with few exceptions, maintained a two-party system. Third, fourth and fifth parties can be appealing, but they are more likely to lead to chaos than unity, as we now see in France and Germany. Political parties must not lose sight of the principles that guided their success. No individual will find all that he seeks in one party; when we head to the polls our job is to select the individual, regardless of party, that best reflects our interests. Political parties change; and people do note that change, even when a party’s leaders do not. 

 

"Threats to America"

 

Sydney M. Williams

https://swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Threats to America”

October 21, 2024

 

“The extraordinary thing was the way in which everyone took it for granted that this oozy, bulging

wealth of the English upper and upper-middle classes would last forever, and was part of the order of things.”

                                                                                                George Orwell (1903-1950)

                                                                                                Such, Such Were the Joys,

                                                                                                 Published posthumously, 1952

 

The differences between today and the years preceding World War I are far greater than any similarities. Nevertheless, I worry that the collapse of the Soviet Union 1991, and the concomitant elevation of the United States to global hegemon, has caused complacency toward persistent external threats – a complacency not unlike that which existed in Europe in the first decade and a half of the 20^th Century, before the Great War provided reality in its horrors.

 

………………………………………………………………………

 

The West has enemies, those to whom liberal democracies represent a threat. The autocrats in China, Russia, Iran and North Korea are fearful of what free speech would do to their positions of power. Democracy is an anathema to ideological authoritarians, be they on the Left or the Right, which is why the United States is portrayed as the “Great Satan” by the zealot Ali Khamenei and his followers, and why it is challenged by all four authoritarian states. Nothing is more fearful to a tyrant than freedom.

 

Yet other threats consume the media, particularly so-called “threats to democracy,” by which Progressives mean the re-election of Donald Trump to serve a second term; the flood of undocumented immigrants; abortion; and the threat of climate change. Largely ignored, as well as enemies abroad, is the imminent threat of financial default because of unending federal budget deficits that have grown our debt, as a percent of GDP, from 33% in 2000 to 121% in 2023. It is a trend that was aggravated by the long period of extraordinary low interest rates following the 2008 credit crisis. Nevertheless, all threats should be taken seriously. Democracy is fragile. It can fall to enemies from within or without. Allowing possible terrorists into our country, along with known criminals has consequences for our citizens. Abortion, in my opinion, was best described by President Clinton – it should be “safe, legal, and rare.” As for climate, Earth and the solar system are not eternal. At some point they will cease to exist. Will man be the cause? I don’t know, but I suspect not. The best way to improve the environment is to promote economic growth. And reckless government spending will negatively impact our standards of living.

 

However, it is the threat of another major war, one that sets the U.S., Europe and the West against elements of totalitarianism – Russia, China, Iran and North Korea – that is the subject of this essay. In that regard, understanding some of the causes of the First World War are instructional. Apart from the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s and today’s war in Ukraine, Europe has gone for almost eighty years without a continent-wide conflagration, a situation with some similarities to Europe during the ninety-nine years following the end of the Napoleonic wars, wars in which an estimated five to six million people died. Like today, Europe was not entirely free of war following Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo in 1815 – the Crimean War of 1853-1856 and the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871 together caused less than a million deaths. Nevertheless, one asks: Does absence of war mitigate its horrors, thereby rendering it more likely?

 

Just as Britain and France were not prepared for war in 1914 (this despite Britain, with their Empire encompassing over 20% of the world’s population, being the hegemon of that era), the United States is not prepared today. The idea of war seemed impossible in 1914. “…nothing really mattered: not them, or the world, or even herself” is the way Robert Harris puts it in his new novel, Precipice. Close ties of heads-of -state combined with diplomacy and negotiation made the prospect for war seem unlikely then, just as victory over the Soviet Union brought us Francis Fukuyama’s “end of history” in 1991. In 1985, as Reagan was prosecuting Soviet Communism, U.S. defense spending, as a percent of GDP, was 6.6%. In 2023, at 3.4%, it is just over half that level. The real purpose of a strong defense is to prevent wars by limiting what enemies might do. Ironic as it might sound today, the sign at the entrance to Pease Air Force Base in Portsmouth, New Hampshire (a SAC base at the time) in the early 1960s read: “Peace is Our Profession.”

 

It has been reading Precipice, mentioned above, which has me thinking of this issue. The novel, which begins in early July 1914 and goes through May 1915, is largely based on the author’s access to letters written by Britain’s Prime Minister H. H. (Herbert Henry) Asquith to his paramour, the socialite Beatrice Venetia Stanley, a woman less than half his age. Christopher Clark’s 2011 book The Sleepwalkers is a history of events and alliances leading up to August 1914. That first decade of the 20^th Century was characterized by strong industrial growth in Europe, abetted by trade and raw materials from their Empires. Peace and prosperity were the rule, as displayed in characters from P.G. Wodehouse’s novels. Like today’s tech billionaires, the wealth of European aristocrats in that first decade was expected to last forever. While democracy and individual freedom were not up to today’s standards, and royalty still reigned in most European countries, progress toward liberalism had been made. 

 

Today, two allies of liberal democracy are fighting existential wars of survival. Israel is at war against two of Iran-funded proxies – Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in northern Israel and southern Lebanon. As well, a third Iran-funded proxy, the Houthis in Yemen who have attacked more than 80 merchant ships in the Red Sea. (Last week’s U.S. led B-2 attack on some of their fortifications was a welcome, albeit belated, response.) That Israel fights an existential threat does not appear to be appreciated by those who encourage her retaliations to be “proportional,” whatever that means. If we were attacked as Israel was we would strive to annihilate our enemy. The loss of the one democratic state in the middle East would have a cataclysmic, destabilizing effect on the Middle East and for Western-style liberal democracy in other parts of the world. While we can sympathize with innocent Palestinians in Gaza, the terrorists who represent them must be destroyed, as their goal is the total eradication of the State of Israel. And that is why mullahs who govern Iran must not be allowed to get a nuclear weapon.

 

The February 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is the second instance where the United States must be firm in its support. Does anyone really believe that Mr. Putin would be satisfied with a few eastern provinces when its fertile western plains, or steppes, are considered the world’s “breadbasket?” Yet, the Biden Administration has been slow in giving them the kind of offensive weapons they need to win, and former President Trump seems only interested in reaching an unexplained settlement.

 

Neither political party puts foreign policy near the top of their lists of concern. The Biden-Harris team has made some massive blunders: the withdrawal from Afghanistan and the abandonment of the Bagram Airbase; restarting negotiations with Iran, which has allowed them to come within weeks of a nuclear weapon;  the release of $6 billion in frozen Iranian assets; a failure to deter Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2021 and then, in June 2021, suspending $100 million military aid package to Ukraine after Russia assured Washington it would halt aggressive troop movements near Ukraine’s border; allowing Russia’s Nord Steam 2 to continue to operate, thereby allowing them to fund their fight for Ukraine; failing to fully support Israel, our closest Middle East ally, in their existential fight against Iranian-backed terrorist organizations, Hamas and Hezbollah; side-lining the Abraham Accords agreed to by the Trump Administration; permitting a China spy balloon to transverse the United States.

 

There is no assurance a Trump-Pence team would have done better, except that Mr. Putin, after seizing the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine in 2014 when Barack Obama was President, waited until Mr. Biden became President before attacking eastern and northern Ukraine. And most foreign policy experts agree that the Trump-initiated Abraham Accords showed promise for Middle East peace. 

 

However, both political parties bear responsibility for the state of today’s sorry global situation. While Democrats and Republicans have been spinning tales (fables, really) of their opponents beliefs and behavior, our enemies have been weaving the fabric that has cloaked their desire for world domination. The media, in siding with one political faction or the other, has served to keep the American people ignorant and divided, thereby preventing rational, intelligent debate.

 

On the afternoon of August 3, 1914, with Germany about to invade Belgium, British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey observed: “The lamps are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime.” For twenty million people his words proved prophetic. Their lives were extinguished. Britain and France were not prepared for war in 1914. Today we live in another frightening time, yet we have let our defense budget lag. The United States is not interested in expanding its territory, nor does it wish to impose its way of life on others. It does, though, have a mandate to protect its people. Remember, the first purpose of a strong military is to prevent war, and only second to prosecute war if it comes.

"Mission: Preserve the Republic"

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

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Mission: Preserve the Republic”

September 23, 2024

 

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

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

                                                                                                      Philadelphia, September 17, 1787

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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