"As Good As It Gets?"

 When I think of the phrase “as good as it gets,” I don’t think of Jack Nicholson and Helen Hunt in their wonderful movie of that name, I think of how lucky I am to be married to the woman I have been for sixty-two years, to have the three children we do and their spouses, and the ten grandchildren they have produced. (The photo, taken a couple of years ago, are of Caroline and me and our ten grandchildren.)

Nevertheless, Jamie Dimon’s comment struck a chord. We are living at an incredible time. So much has gone well, with opportunities rising, but so are the risks that we may be getting over our skis. Life is never a smooth road. Among the bumps, there are twists and turns. Be prepared and stay alert. And don’t lose focus on what is most important in your life.   

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot,com

 

Thought of the Day

“As Good As It Gets?”

July 21, 2026

 

“It’s getting close to as good as it gets.

We just don’t know how long it will last.”

                                                                                                    Jamie Dimon, CEO & Chairman JPMorgan Chase

                                                                                                    July 14, 2026

 

Jamie Dimon made those comments after his bank’s record-breaking quarter. But his observation may have wider applicability, for the stock market in particular. However, trying to time the market is, generally, a fool’s exercise. Nevertheless, perspective is important, and Mr. Dimon’s comment resonated with me.

 

And I do worry about other factors. Have we crossed a fiscal, political and diplomatic Rubicon? Our federal debt – $5.7 trillion in 2000 – has soared to $38 trillion in 2025, while unfunded federal obligations now approach $88 trillion according to the Cato Institute. These are burdens placed on future generations. I worry about leveraged ETFs and “prediction markets,” which, according to Pew Research will grow from $51 billion in 2025 to an estimated $240 billion in 2026. They are simply a form of gambling, and I worry about what that says about young participants. I worry about the rise of nationalism, anti-Semitism, retributive politics, populism, protectionism, and the return of “great powers,” with China dominating the Pacific region, the U.S. controlling the Western Hemisphere, and with Europe, Africa and the Middle East being up for grabs. And I worry about today’s polarized politics and the ascending interest in socialism.

 

And being older, with a diminishing runway ahead of me, I do worry about financial markets that have been so generous over the past decade and a half. In the seventeen years since the stock market’s[1] bottom (March 9, 2009) following the 2008 credit crisis, the DJIA have provided a compounded annual return of 13 percent, roughly double the long-term average. Does that mean we are at the end of a long-term bull rally? I don’t know. In August 1982, the averages were lower than they had been in 1967 when I became a stock broker. That August saw the start of a bull run that ran through January 2000, and which saw the DJIA compound annually at over 16 percent[2]. However, ten years later, in January 2010, the Averages were ten percent lower. 

 

Perhaps there is further to run, but I suspect returns over the next ten to fifteen years will be less exuberant. That does not mean one should avoid stocks; it does mean that one should be more selective and, perhaps, lower expectations.

 

I don’t want to sound too pessimistic, because we live in a time of dramatic technology change. Artificial intelligence is revolutionary. While I am somewhat of a Luddite when it comes to technology, it is my belief that many older industries – despite disruptions that will be part of the process – will benefit from AI, in ways we cannot anticipate. Productivity gains will help corporate margins and benefit shareholders. Like the Industrial Revolution in the 19^th Century, the proliferation of consumer products in the 1920s, the invention of the integrated circuit in the early 1960s, and the evolution of the internet in the 1990s, we are living through a time of disruptive technological change, which if the past is guide will add jobs, provide economic growth and improve our lives; but it will also be disruptive, as change always is.

 

There are cycles to investing, and a few people may be good at market timing, but most are not. Markets rise and fall, but over the long term they have done well. One should never become too greedy and assume higher than average returns will persist. On the other hand, one should never become discouraged by bear markets that may last a decade or more. The secret to successful investing is dollar-cost-averaging and the magic of compounded returns, lessons I wish had been learned years earlier. It is the magic of compounded returns that make 530A IRAs (Trump Accounts) so attractive, especially given that parents can contribute up to $5,000.00 annually. The accounts grow tax deferred until the child reaches eighteen. Perhaps a new generation of Americans will come to appreciate capitalism? 

 

As long as our political system allows us to be free to innovate, and if taxes and regulations are not too onerous or restrictive, and debt is manageable, we should be fine. I am reminded of these lines from Rudyard Kipling’s 1895 poem “If:” 

 

“If you can keep your head when all about you

Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,

If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,

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

If you can dream and not make dreams your master,

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

If you can fill the unforgiving minute

With sixty seconds of distance run,

Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it...”

 

So, is this as good as it gets? To be honest, I cannot answer the question. If we speak of bank earnings or the stock market, perhaps. But I am no seer. If we speak of the economy, I suspect fewer tariffs, less regulation, lower taxes and a focus on debt and deficit reduction would help. Politically, I hope this is not as good as it gets. But as regards my family and friends – wife, children, in-laws, grandchildren, and those in my social orbit – I cannot imagine life getting better. 

 

 

---

[1] In writing of the stock market, I use the Dow Jones Industrial Average, as I have the daily closing prices going back to January 4, 1915, thanks to Laszlo Birinyi’s Book of the Dow. Since 2012, I have tracked the DJIA’s closing prices. Other indices, such as the S&P 500 or the NYSE Index, may be more reflective of the overall market, but this is what I have. 

[2] Keep in mind, that period included October 19, 1987, a day which saw the DJIA decline by 22.63%, the largest daily percent decline in its history. Reasons for the speed of the decline are generally attributed to computer-based models providing ‘portfolio insurance.’

"A Good Education Has Never Been More Important"

The photo is one I found on the internet, which I thought pertinent to the subject of this essay.

It is never fun watching markets dissolve, but I still believe that Israel and the U.S., in confronting Iran, have done the right thing, especially as we have been joined by most of the Arab states. With their continued work on an atomic weapon and with missiles capable of hitting Diego Garcia 2500 miles away, that means Iran could as easily hit Vienna or Athens. They do represent a threat to world peace. They need to be stopped.

 

This essay represents something I have been thinking of for some time.

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“A Good Education Has Never Been More Important”

March 28, 2026

 

“The objective of education is to prepare the young to educate themselves throughout their lives.”

                                                                                                                Attributed to Robert Maynard Hutchins (1899-1977)

                                                                                                                Former Chancellor & President, University of Chicago

 

There is an old Chinese proverb that is appropriate in this age of AI, increased dependency on government, wokeism, and at a time when education needs a re-boot: “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” While we all are dependent on others, especially for love and companionship, a free individual is not one dependent on the state except in the case of dire and exceptional need. Reason and soundness must replace foolish ignorance.

 

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

 

It is not simply artificial intelligence that makes our age unique and so badly in need of the ability to reason logically and to think independently, it is also the fact that extremism has kidnapped our politics, and that ignorance and foolishness have laid waste to common sense and made our cultural heritage something to shun rather than to celebrate. 

 

If Mark Ziuckerberg needs a robotic assistant, what about us? Do we need some piece of machinery to remind us to send flowers on Mother’s Day, book lunch on Tuesday, and reply to this morning’s e-mails? That might simplify our lives, but are not personal connection and human empathy important? How much of our personal lives do we want to lay off on a piece of software that might be hackable? Will our AI assistant, to get in our good graces, heap false praise on what we have done or are about to do? Or will it provide the analytic criticism needed to improve our performance? Efficiency without empathy does not necessarily lead to a happy life. Will we lose our ability to sense emotion and to think critically if we rely on artificial intelligence? These are questions best considered when one has read widely.

 

Without a classical liberal arts education that includes biology, we are at risk of accepting as fact that men can be woman (or vice versa) if they so choose – that one’s sex is not a matter of science but of choice. Consider who benefits from such allegations. It is not only certain male athletes, but clinics willing to perform gender-affirming surgeries. Skepticism is a bi-product of a good education. Remember how Paul Ehrlich amassed a fortune, stating as fact that millions would die because of a planet unable to feed its population. In the years since 1968, when The Population Bomb was published (and which sold over two million copies in its first three years), the world population has more than doubled, while the percent of the population suffering from hunger has declined. Millions of people accepted his conclusions without questioning.

 

And think of climate wars. It was in elementary school that we were first taught of how Earth had warmed and cooled over the millennia – from the Tyrannosaurus Rex during the Cretaceous Period to the Wooly Mammoth during the Pleistocene Epoch. That is not to say we can ignore our environment or changes in climate. The Earth does not sit still, and man has a responsibility to all forms of life and to the planet he lives on. Yet we are scolded by supercilious tree-huggers if we drive a gas-powered vehicle, use more than a gallon of water to flush the toilet, or fail to re-cycle the plastic yogurt cover. Personally, I am conscious of the environment and I re-cycle, but I don’t like to be scolded by a bigot who scoots off in his private jet, or on their 200-foot yacht. A good education teaches one to differentiate between a policy based on facts and prescriptions based on ideologies.

 

Political extremism has become ubiquitous. In both parties, extremists control the message. A few minutes spent listening to a speech by President Trump or a response by Senator Chuck Schumer reminds one of the lament that starts Rudyard Kipling’s Ballad: “Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.” The one exception to this polarization appears to be the Supreme Court – the only adult branch of government. Thus far in the 2025-26 term, which began in October 2025, the Court has released 20 opinions, five of which were 9-0 decisions. If Ketanji Brown Jackson and Clarence Thomas can agree 25% of the time, why can’t Congress?

 

Over the long-term extremism never succeeds – there are simply not enough extremists. But we also know from Iran that extremists in government can persevere for many years. Forty-seven years of rule by fanatic mullahs have caused millions to suffer and tens-of-thousands to die. It is the study of history that provides perspective. In a recent issue of The Spectator – in an article titled “Those Who Believe in Liberalism Must Now Fight For It” – Adrian Wooldridge wrote: “The best resource we have in preventing a return to the 1930s is the memory of the 1930s.” The best way to understand the present is to read of the past.

 

None of us can predict the future. Change is coming, but that has always been true. The best way to deal with the world we face is with a good education – whether its change wrought by AI, dealing with (sometimes well-intentioned but always misplaced) wokeism, or political extremism. Sadly our public schools, especially those in inner cities, are governed by unions more interested in growing membership than in the students they are supposed to educate, and too many of our universities, with costs having risen about three times the rate of inflation over the past fifty years, are more focused on diversity than on excellence. 

 

A good education is a life-long pursuit, and it is the encouragement of that, as Mr. Hutchins is quoted in the epigraph, which should be the job of schools, universities and parents. We should never stop learning. An educated individual understands the risks of open borders, as well as the primacy of legal immigration. She or he realizes and perils of mercantilism and socialism, while recognizing the advantages of capitalism. They know the differences between equality and equity, and between diversity and assimilation. Years ago Sy Syms developed his iconic marketing slogan: “An educated consumer is our best customer.” An educated electorate is the best defense of democracy.

 

My argument in favor of education is not because I believe a university degree will assure a higher paying job. It may or may not. It is because I believe a liberal arts education will make one a more informed citizen, one better able to navigate disruption caused by technology or anything else, to make sense of polarized political views, and to appreciate our history, our form of government, and our cultural heritage.

"Why Read?" and "Under Western Eyes," Joseph Conrad

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

Burrowing into Books

“Why Read?

September 7, 2024

 

"To read is to fly: it is to soar to a point of vantage which gives a view over wide terrains

of history, human variety, ideas, shared experience and the fruits of many inquiries"

A.C. Grayling (1949-)

                                                                                                                                Against All Gods, 2012 

 

Why, you might ask, should an 83-year-old retired stockbroker read Joseph Conrad? It is not as though I do not have a choice. North of 250 thousand new titles are added every year, just in the U.S. Authors operate in what is probably the most competitive business in the world. While in school I read Lord Jim and Heart of Darkness, two of Conrad’s earlier books, then popular choices for summer reading. More recently I read The Secret Agent and Victory. But I had not thought much about Conrad until recently, when a friend mentioned at lunch one day that he had written his senior thesis on him sixty-seven years ago. 

 

Unable to tell you what makes a book a classic, I know they are rare: Shakespeare, Dickens, Austen, Tolstoy, Hugo, and others, including Conrad. Over the past few years I have re-read several, a habit lauded by the late Italian writer and journalist, Italo Calvino, who wrote in his posthumously published Why Read the Classics: “When we re-read the book in our maturity, we then discover these constants which by now form part of our inner mechanisms though we have forgotten where they come from.” Books, especially classics, are a lens through which we view our lives and make sense of the world around us. 

 

……………………………………………………

 

Under Western Eyes, Joseph Conrad”

 

“…they seemed brought out from the confused immensity of the Eastern

borders to be exposed cruelly to the observation of my Western eyes.”

                                                                                                                                Under Western Eyes, 1911

                                                                                                                                Joseph Conrad (1857-1924)

 

In 1889 Rudyard Kipling wrote the lines that open his poem “The Ballad of East and West:”

 

“Oh East is East, and West is West, and

never the twain shall meet.”

 

Kipling wrote of India, Indians and their British colonizers, but his words apply to the difference between 1911 pre-World War I Western Europe and authoritarian Tsarist Russia. Under Western Eyes tells of revolutionaries in St. Petersburg in those dozen years between the failed revolution of 1905 and the successful overthrow of the Tsar in 1917. Victor Haldin, a student, helped assassinate the brutal Minister of State, and then requests help of fellow student Razumov whom he trusts, even though he is not a revolutionary. Razumov is a young man, alone in the world, whose sole goal is a silver medal for academic studies. Haldin’s entry into his life threatened the future he had mapped out. The story is narrated by an unnamed “Teacher of Languages,” a retired English professor (a man of the West), who lives in Geneva. It moves back and forth between St. Petersburg and Geneva. It is a timeless story of trust, self-reflection, subterfuge, betrayal, love, honor, dishonor, guilt, and, ultimately, punishment and redemption.

"Elephant Company," Vicki Constantine Croke - A Review

This non-fiction book was recommended by a cousin, retired to New Hampshire. Later, I found that a sister who lives there as well had also read it. It was published in 2014, was on the New York Times best seller list and a New York Times “Notable Book.” Many of you will have read it. If not, you are in for a treat. 

 

Despite having long been affiliated with the political party that uses an elephant as their symbol, that fact played no role in my reading of the book, nor in my recommendation; and I have no family connection to the hero of the story, James Howard Williams.

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

Burrowing into Books

Elephant Company, Vicki Constantine Croke 

April 27, 2024

 

“In non-monsoon seasons, the manager explained, timber was hauled by elephants to dormant, 

dry creeks, Then, when the rains arrived in the summer, stirring the tributaries to life, the lumber 

would rise with the flowing water and begin its journey to larger rivers, such as the Irrawaddy.”

                                                                                                                                Elephant Company, 2014

                                                                                                                                Vicki Constantine Croke 

 

James Howard (Billy) Williams – also known as “Elephant Bill” – arrived in Burma (Myanmar, since 1989) in November 1920. He was 23-years-old, hired by the Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation, Ltd., a company formed in Scotland in 1863, and today an India-based company headquartered in Mumbai. In 1920, the company was a leading producer of Teak, harvested in Burma and Siam (Thailand, since 1939). Williams was headed to the northwestern section of Burma, a remote region along the border with India, to work in one of their lumber camps. A map is provided and the reader develops a sense for the area.

 

Teak trees were cut during the inter-monsoon months (February to mid-May), when dry riverbeds allowed logs to be placed in them. Because there were few roads and virtually no railroads, elephants were used to build bridges across remote rivers and to carry logs to dried-out riverbeds before monsoon floods allowed the logs to be carried downstream to mills. 

 

Ms. Croke quotes from Rudyard Kipling’s 1890 poem “Mandalay,” written in a Cockney dialect:

 

“We useter watch the steamers an’ the hathis pilin’ teak.

Elephants a-pilin’ teak

In the sludgy, squdgy creek,

Where the silence ‘ung that ‘eavy you was ‘arf afraid to speak!

On the road to Mandalay…”

 

Williams had served in India and Afghanistan during the First World War. And he had always had a way with animals. But the jungle was new to him, as were elephants. However, his curiosity (providing an autopsy on a recently-died elephant) and his talents (from sketching to managing men and communicating with elephants) allowed him to succeed with the company and rise within its ranks. Along with many others, we are introduced to Bandoola, the best-known elephant and to his keeper Po Toke.

 

But that quiet, isolated world in Burma’s jungles and teak forests changed when the Japanese invaded. Rangoon fell as did Mandalay, and Williams is charged with evacuating his men, along with a couple of hundred refugees and about 55 elephants.

 

The last part of the book tells of their escape from the Japanese, out of the jungles and over the five-and-six-thousand-foot peaks that separate what was then Burma into Assam, a state in northeastern India. They were led by Williams and the indomitable Bandoola, providing an exciting climax to this fascinating story.

"Etymological Curiosities"

 

 

Sydney M. Williams 

 

Thought of the Day

“Etymological Curiosities”

December 5, 2022

 

“Words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind.”

                                                                                                                           Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936

                                                                                                                    Speech Royal College of Surgeons, 1923

                                                                                                                    London

                                                                                                                

Each year, lexicographers at Merriam-Webster, Britain-based Collins Dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary, and others, select a “word of the year,” often a neologism, but not always. Gaslighting[1] (a form of psychological abuse) was the choice at M-W, while Collins chose permacrisis. The former was chosen because of the increase in lookups (up 1,740%), while the latter was selected, as it was applicable to a year that saw the first war in Europe in seventy-seven years, China’s increased aggression, and world-wide inflation. The OED selected three words, including my favorite – more a phrase than a word – goblin mode, which was also cited by Ben Zimmer in a recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal. It refers to behavior that is “unapologetically lazy, slovenly, greedy, typically in a way that rejects social norms.” It is often assigned to those who spend inordinate amounts of time on social media, as in my grandchild is in goblin mode.

 

I have been thinking of words and phrases – their origins, meanings, and appropriation by political opportunists, often leaving their opponents with the etymological dregs. Over the past few years, we have created a political alphabet soup: CRT, DEI, ESG, and BLM, reminding one of Roosevelt’s “alphabet soup agencies’ from the 1930s. But, unlike FDR’s agencies which actually put people to work, today’s alphabet soups have more in common with Humpty Dumpty: “When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”

 

Words have assumed new meanings. Yesterday’s environmentalists have become today’s climate warriors. Information to some is misinformation to others. Should it be the state that decides what is accurate and what is not? Is it too much to ask Twitter users to be personally wary of conspiracy theories and to look out for offensive language – offensive to some but not to others? And what, for example, does the European Union means when it tells Twitter that it must apply “content moderation” to the posts it allows?

 

When I read of Larry Fink pontificating as to being socially responsible, I picture a greedy John Bull with a smirk on his face and a halo above his head. And the scam artist Samuel Bankman-Fried, a promoter of progressive fads, bills himself as an effective altruist. Is not an altruist already effective? Certainly, his investors and depositors who lost millions of dollars do not see him as altruistic.

 

The definition of the word liberal has changed. In 1828, Noah Webster defined the word as “of a free heart; free to give or bestow, generous.” The 1995 edition of Webster’s college dictionary defined the word: “favorable to progress or reform…advocating progressive philosophies.” However, the OED defines liberal as an individual “willing to accept or respect behavior or opinions of others…[a} social philosophy that promotes individual rights.” Such broad and varying definitions allow almost anyone to claim to be a liberal. Other words creep into cultural use. Woke comes from African American vernacular English of the 1930s; it became a popular internet meme after the shooting of Michael Brown and is now largely used by whites, signaling, like naughty Little Jack Horner, their virtue. 

 

Consider two of my favorite etymological bêtes noires: progressive and conservative. The former makes us think of the future, the latter of the past. They were the subject of a fascinating op-ed by Professor Hyrum Lewis of Brigham Young University in the November 26 edition of The Wall Street Journal. He wrote: “Republicans have a narrative problem that originates with the idea of ‘conservativism’ itself.” He referred to William Buckley’s observation that a conservative is someone who stands athwart history and yells, stop. Progress, in contrast, is defined as a forward movement toward a better end. Which sounds more appealing?

 

Conservatives want to conserve the good of the past – the Constitution, classical education, etiquette, personal responsibility and accountability, the value of work – but they are as interested in progress as are progressives. The difference is that conservatives emphasize the role played by curious, aspirant, diligent, and talented individuals, while progressives cite the state as the principal impetus for progress. There is truth to both claims. While technological, scientific, and industrial progress has been largely due to the efforts of individuals – Alexander Graham Bell, Wilbur and Orville Wright, Steve Jobs and Elon Musk – the Department of Defense and federally funded programs, like NASA, have also produced consumer products. And while legislated social progress – emancipation, the right of women to vote, the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 – is a consequence of government, individuals played crucial roles in their adoption. 

 

DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion), the phrase has been hijacked by virtue signalers, to distinguish them from what they claim are culturally offensive conservative bigots But, just because the initials are not tattooed on our arms, is that fair? I know of no true conservative who does not support diversity of opinions, equality of all people before the law, and inclusion of all people in public institutions. Social organizations, fraternities, sororities, private clubs select members based on common preferences, which may be based on gender or race, but may also be based on similar social preferences, regardless of race or gender. Is that so terrible? In a decision reminiscent of Nazi Germany, the Brearley School, an exclusive school for girls in New York City, recently required a signed pledge by teachers and parents that they support the school’s commitment to anti-racism and inclusion, and that they agree “to participate in required anti-racist training and ongoing reflection.” As a private institution, they have a right to act as they wish, but both teachers and parents should be conscious of what is being demanded – a request for blind loyalty. 

 

But is it words or beliefs that separate our two political parties? In broad, general terms, the main difference between Democrats and Republicans is not that one favors progress and the other favors regression. It is the emphasis each puts on the role government plays in our lives. Democrats, in general, favor more government and Republicans, less.  Resistance, for example, was legitimate when exercised by Democrats following the election of Donald Trump in 2016 – remember the pink “pussy hats” of solidarity? – but resistance to the 2020 election was deemed undemocratic.[2] In essence, the difference between the two Parties reminds one of the Chinese saying: Is it better to teach a man to fish, or to give him a fish? Americans do not to march to a single drummer, so ideologies are scattered along a broad spectrum of political thought. Republicans, if they want to become the dominant political power, must do a better job of describing their beliefs. Granted, it is easier to argue what you want government to do than what you would like it not to do. So, Republicans should highlight the individual, stress the importance of education, aspiration, diligence, and effort in ascending the economic ladder, a ladder to whom all should have access, a ladder whose first rung is education, where emphasis, above all else, should be on the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic. “Words,” as Kipling told the College of Surgeons ninety-nine years ago, are “the most powerful drug used by mankind."

"Why Can't We Talk?"

                                                                 Sydney M. Williams 

Thought of the Day

“Why Can’t We Talk?”

December 4, 2021

 

“It is better to debate a question without settling it

than to settle a question without debating it.”

                                                                                                                Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)

                                                                                                                French moralist & Essayist

                                                                                                                Recuil des Pensées, 1838

                                                                                                                published posthumously

 

Ambrose Bierce, in his 1906 The Devil’s Dictionary, provided two definition of the transitive verb “Defame:” 1) “To lie about another.” 2) “To tell the truth about another.” People of myriad cultural backgrounds have long had difficulty communicating, as Rudyard Kipling expressed in the first two lines of his 1889 poem “The Ballad of the East and West:”

 

“Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,

Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great judgement Seat;”

 

Most politicians do not communicate honestly. They promise one thing while campaigning and promote another when governing. Speaking before the 2004 Democratic National Committee, Barack Obama embraced unity: “There is not a black America, a white America, a Latino America, an Asian America; there’s the United States of America.” But four years later when he became President, he chose discord over unity. In the words of Jason Riley, writing in last Wednesday’s The Wall Street Journal: “…he started talking about racist policing and black voter suppression, and he embraced divisive racial provocateurs... All the colorblind talk went out the window.” Mr. Obama is not alone. Politicians on both sides have long campaigned on the promise of unity and then ruled with a “divide to conquer” strategy. 

 

We are sorted by identity into “hot issue” buckets, like race, gender, immigration, climate and abortion. For example, if one does not agree with the preferred woke policy prescriptions of President Biden, one is a racist, a homophobe, a xenophobe, a denier or a sexist. Case closed, no room or time for debate. Social media companies, instead of being impartial arbiters permitting the free exchange of ideas have closed Twitter accounts of conservative “deplorables” and declared opinions contrary to what is currently “woke” to be “harmful” or “hurtful.” Given their political leanings, this has meant that conservative speech is shut down. The same thing is true on college campuses where speeches by conservatives are cancelled.

 

I was reminded of Bierce’s definition of “Defame” when reading an op-ed last week by Greg Sargent of The Washington Post. Mr. Sargent sees risk to our democracy coming from the right; I see it coming from the left. The truth is that despotism can come from either the left or the right, as we know from history: Mao’s China, Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mussolini’s Italy, Hitler’s Germany and more recent examples in North Korea, Iran and Venezuela. It is extremism, regardless of whether right or left, that should concern us. And we should never forget that a failure to freely exchange ideas abets extremism. 

 

But perhaps things are not so bad as I fear. Over the 232 years since George Washington was elected our first President, the United States has been tried several times: On August 24^th, 1814, the British burned the White House. During the years 1861-1865, the United States fought a Civil War that left about 700,000 dead, when the country was less than 10% of its size today. We have suffered economic collapses, including a decade of depression in the 1930s. We have lived through periods of violent racial and religious prejudices. American soldiers have gone overseas to fight (and die) for freedom in at least eight wars. We were attacked on our homeland on 9/11 by Islamic terrorists. Yet, the United States has always rallied when down. As Churchill observed, in a backhanded compliment: “Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else.” How long will it take for politicians now – when governing, not campaigning – to admit that we are Americans first, rich or poor, black or white, female or male, believer or non-believer. Will they speak without hyperbole? Will they be tolerant or patronizing? In the third and fourth line of Kipling’s opening stanza in the poem quoted above he offers hope based on mutual respect:

 

“But there is neither East nor West, Border nor Breed, nor Birth,

When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth.”

 

But that is not us today. There is no mutual respect. We are more politically divided than at any time I can recall in my eighty-plus years. And what discourse we have is too often uncivil. Either you are with me, or you are against me, to borrow a phrase from George W. Bush. We cannot agree on problems that should be easy to resolve. For example, no nation can exist without borders, yet we cannot agree on how to handle the thousands of illegal immigrants who daily cross our southern border? The earth’s temperature is changing, yet the subject has become so politicized that reasonable people cannot discuss adaption, or man-made versus natural causes. COVID-19 has been ravishing our country and the world for almost two years, yet debate is not allowed as to its origin or even its science. The Constitution gives the right (and duty) to vote to all American citizens (who are not felons) above the age of 18. Proof of age, address and citizenship should be all that is required. Why should that be so difficult to implement? Inflation has become ubiquitous, but one side says pass the $1.8 to $5 trillion Build Back Better bill and inflation will recede. The other side says inflation is a function of deficit spending paid for by monetary expansion. Is not that something we should be able to discuss? One side claims racism is endemic in our white-supremacist nation. The other says that to treat blacks as needing special attention is condescending. Are we only to listen to one side? Do we only hear what we want to hear? The economy has been recovering for over a year, since 2020’s second quarter debacle; yet pessimism permeates the country, as can be seen in birthrates below replacement. Why? Francis Fukuyama famously declared “the end of history,” with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 and victory for a democratic, liberal West. Now, thirty-two years later, Russia is in ascendancy, China is militarily expanding in the Pacific and interning its Uighur citizens, while the West questions its foundations of individual freedom and free-market capitalism. History is storming back.   

 

Extremism on social media platform gets thousands of “likes.” Extremism sells books, newspapers and cable news. Yet most Americans, I am convinced, are moderate in their politics, leaning slightly left or slightly right. Most are patriots who love their country and who want to live peacefully. Most admire the success the United States has had over its almost 250 years of existence, and most recognize what a marvel the Founders created. They know we are the envy of the world. Our nation is not perfect, but that was something the Founders also knew – they created a “more perfect union.” In Philadelphia, the Founders had different agendas and represented different parts of the country. If they had been unwilling to debate, where would we be today? We will never agree on all issues, nor should we. However, as Joseph Joubert stated in the rubric that heads this essay, we must be willing to debate all issues. Why can’t we talk? 

"Conservative Agonistes"

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

Thought of the Day

“Conservative Agonistes”

June 21, 2021

 

“The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being

overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often and

sometimes frightened. But no price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself.”

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Interview with Arthur Gordon

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Readers Digest, 1935

 

Most of us conservatives who take our politics seriously have struggled with the phenomenon that was (and is) Donald Trump. We were taught that character matters, but we also know that so do issues. When they collide, on which side should we stand?

 

All of us, regardless of political leanings, struggle to fit today’s partisan political environment into the moral universe we inherited. As a conservative, I struggle to keep my moral compass firmly fixed in a world turned increasingly woke, where facts are subordinated to the narrative, where truth is relative and where censorship is applied. As an essayist, it is not my function to convince the reader of the righteousness of my positions, but to explain why I believe as I do. The ethical standards I apply to political thought are based on my parents, lessons from school and college, from travel and conversations, and from reading.

 

I grew up during and just after World War II, when distinctions between good and evil seemed clear. We were raised to respect our elders, especially parents, and taught manners and civil behavior. We were read to from Aesop’s Fables with its universal moral lessons, and we were taught accountability and personal responsibility. In school, we saluted the flag and sang the Star-Spangled Banner. We were patriots, believing in the good of America. We knew she was not perfect, for we had learned our Founders met “to form a more perfect union,” not a perfect one. Memorial Day was a big holiday for us, as was the 4^th of July. We celebrated, as separate holidays, the births of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. While we were taught humility, we were proud (and felt fortunate) to be Americans.

 

Yet, beneath that surface of 1950s calm lay social inequalities of which we were partially aware. Women were not treated as equals in the job market and segregation was a fact of life, and not just in the South. However, from our studies of American history we knew that progress had been made over the decades. And from our studies of world history, we learned of the uniqueness of the United States – not perfect, but better than the countries from which our ancestors had emigrated. That knowledge did not make us complacent; it made us aware of how we could effect change for the common good. In our later teens and early twenties, we witnessed historic changes in Civil and women’s rights, and we embraced those changes.

 

As a member of the “silent generation” (1928-1945), I was fortunate to be born where and when I was. Like many, I was too young for World War II and Korea, and had done my military service before Vietnam. While some were born to wealth and position, we knew success was a function of talent, aspiration, diligence, hard work and luck, and that while we had equal rights, we were not equal in any of the characteristics that lead to success. We had to make good with who and what we were. But we cherished the fact we were equal before the law, and we treasured opportunities to improve our lot through education and our system of free market capitalism, even if we didn’t exactly understand the latter. We never looked upon ourselves as oppressors or victims, but as individuals whose future, we were told, was in our hands. 

 

 

Perhaps change is happening too fast for this old man. But, having witnessed the advances over the past several decades, I do not believe the country is systemically racist. The same is true for women’s rights. The comparison to fifty years ago is dramatic. Surely, more can be done, but perhaps we should stop and applaud the advances we have made. Keeping one’s moral compass is difficult in an age of political correctness and paradoxical wokeism. While we believed Martin Luther King to be correct when he said character, not skin color, should be the arbiter of acceptance and success, wokeism claims that color blindness is racist, that all whites are oppressors, and, in racial condescension, that all people of color are victims. Critical Race Theory claims race is a social construct, not a function of skin pigmentation. Even in professional sports where blacks excel, victim status is claimed. In my youth, women were recognized as anatomically different from men, but they were to be treated as equals, as well as with respect. While I agree that transwomen have rights, I believe that sending biological men into women’s bathrooms is wrong, and it is unfair to have biological men compete against women in sports. Differences between people are manifest. Similarities are often hidden. Identity politics elevate the tribe and obviate the individual, the backbone of the American experiment.

 

Five years ago, Donald Trump, like a bull in a china shop, descended into this politically correct maelstrom. He was a humorless, narcissistic, impolitic businessman, with a tendency to exaggerate or lie about his accomplishments. But he had something politicians did not have. He understood the insidiousness of the federal bureaucracy. He recognized that the working-class electorate, of all races and genders, had been under-represented by an elitist political class. He was willing to use his own money and fight for the rights of these people by taking on the establishment, which had infested agencies like the IRS and the FBI. The establishment hated that he threatened their comfortable lifestyles. As well, Mr. Trump saw citizens divided more by economic class than by race or gender. The key to economic mobility, he knew, is education, so he took on the powerful teachers’ unions. As President, he was constantly harassed by accusations that proved to be without merit, but which were costly to him and to the American taxpayer, the best example being the two-year futile Russian investigation by Robert Mueller. In a politically fragile world, Mr. Trump eschewed diplomacy, which upset career diplomats, including some of our allies, but he put the interests of the United States first. Domestically, his policies made the U.S. energy independent. Deregulation and tax cuts spurred the economy, so that wage gaps narrowed, and black unemployment reached its lowest level ever. His mannerisms were off-putting to cultured elites; nevertheless, lies about him exceeded any he had told. And, without the media behind him, he was never the autocratic threat detractors feared.  

 

Nevertheless, with his coarse language and narcissistic manner, Donald Trump is a challenge to the ethical standards on which many of my generation were raised. While his manner may have been necessary to make a course correction to the route the country is taking, Now, after his loss last November, it is time to turn the page. Republicans need new leaders who Mr. Trump should promote. For a conservative like me, it is the struggle between the good he has done and the spitefulness of his character. But there is, in my opinion, no question that he was (and is) better than the Progressive alternatives.