"Diplomacy, Or Telling it Like it is?"

 It is October 1^st, and the government has shut down. It makes one yearn for term limits, with an elected government that really has the people’s interests.

 

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

 

Not apropos of today’s topic, this article by Roger Lowenstein, financial journalist and author, which appeared in Monday’s WSJ, “How – and Why – U.S. Capitalism is Unlike Any Other,” should be read by everyone interested in why the United States is unique in the annals of nations.

 

https://www.wsj.com/economy/us-capitalism-differences-eaecd208?mod=Searchresults&pos=1&page=1

 

 

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

 

 

As for today’s subject, America’s politics over their 250 years have given us a long list of unique personages. While obviously liked by their Parties, all had political opponents. But collectively they served our nation well. No one Party has had a lock on national politics. Domination of the Executive branch has changed almost equally since the end of World War II. Leadership in Congress has also changed, and because the Executive and legislative branch have changed, so has the Judicial branch. Mr. Trump, to put it politely, has been controversial. But who among us would say that controversy cannot be for the good? Western Europe was shocked by Mr. Trump’s recent speech. You may well disagree with his language, tone and even his message, but I felt, regardless of the language, it was the medicine needed. 

 

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

 

As for the two attached photos –  one I took with my iPhone at the end of August of the moon rising over Mud Swamp in Essex. The other is of a painting, inspired by my photo, done by a good friend and fellow resident here at Essex Meadows,

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

Thought of the Day

“Diplomacy, Or Telling it Like it is?”

October 1, 2025

 

“Diplomacy and virtue do not make easy companions.”

                                                                                                                Iain Pears (1955-)

                                                                                                                British art historian and novelist

                                                                                                                The Dream of Scipio, 2002

 

“Your countries are going to hell,” said President Donald Trump to the UN on September 23. “...you want to be politically correct and you are destroying your heritage.” While he was speaking to the General Assembly, his words were aimed at long-time allies in Western Europe. Post-war Presidents have prided themselves on their diplomacy. Even President Reagan, while demanding that Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev “tear down this wall,” did so without a hint of acrimony in his voice. While I suspect Mr. Trump has never read H.L. Mencken’s Prejudices: First Series, he, nevertheless, followed his admonition: “Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”

 

Diplomacy is the art of having people understand and accept your position. In the halls of government power, words are usually best understood when backed by strength. President Theodore Roosvelt advised American Presidents to “...speak softly and carry a big stick.” Will Rogers, American humorist and social commentator, put it differently: “Diplomacy is the art of saying ‘nice doggie’ until you can find a rock.” The American journalist and author Isaac Goldberg wrote in 1927 that diplomacy is the art “to do and say the nastiest things in the nicest way.” At times it is more diplomatic to leave certain things unsaid. Nixon’s Secretary of State Henry Kissinger once said: diplomacy, “is the art of restraining power.” In the end it is the ability to get people to see and do things your way.  

 

Donald Trump, for all his qualities, is not a diplomat.[1] To his acolytes that makes him a hero. On the other hand his bluntness and coarseness can be off-putting. He went beyond just Europe when he asked what the more delicate would have hesitated to ask: “What is the purpose of the United Nations?” According to its Mission Statement, its core mission is to “Maintain Peace and Security – to prevent and remove threats to peace and to suppress acts of aggression through peaceful and just means.” Forty years ago Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Reagan’s Ambassador to the UN, condemned the UN for the “bizarre reversal” of its founding intent to resolve conflicts. Has there been an improvement in the last four decades? In March 2014, Russia annexed Crimea, In February 2022, Putin’s armies invaded Ukraine. On October 7, 2023, Hamas militants slew 1,200 Israelis. Sudan’s civil war (April 2023-present) has killed 150,000 and displaced an estimated 14 million, in a country of under 50 million. Today, what in different circumstances would seem black humor, the military junta that governs Sudan is a member of the UN’s Human Rights Council. Amazing! Why are critics of Israel, including the UN, silent on Sudan?

 

In his attack on Western governments, President Trump, in his immutable way, focused on what he called a double-tailed monster: “Immigration and the high cost of so-called green energy is destroying a large part of the free world and a large part of our planet. Countries that cherish freedom are fading fast because of their policies on these two subjects. Both immigration and their suicidal energy ideas will be the death of Western Europe.” 

 

Selective immigration and satisfying rising energy demands without depleting resources are critical to the survival of any nation that wants to be prosperous and remain free. But Europe has hewed far to the Left: open borders and demanding that all energy consumption comes from renewables within an unrealistic timeframe. They have gone beyond those two factors. Growth and the freedom that comes with a dynamic economy, have been hampered by an aging population, an unaffordable welfare system, and an emphasis on social justice and identity politics, where equal outcomes score higher than equal opportunities. One consequence is that individual creativity is curbed. They have impeded free speech by calling oppositional speech hateful. All of the above have limited GDP output and increased national debt.

 

In its February 2024 report, Freedom House noted that, while Europe remains the most-free region in the world, 14 European countries received score declines, while 6 saw score improvements. Globally, freedom declined for the 19^th year in a row. Where has the UN been? Economic growth in Europe has been hampered by expanding entitlement benefits, an aging population, and shrinking population growth. Since 1960, the TFR (total fertility rate) in Europe has been halved, while the average age has increased by eleven years to 42.8, despite a growing influx of younger Muslims. According to the World Bank, GDP growth, from 2008 to 2023, in the European Union expanded 13.%, from $16.37 trillion to $18.59 trillion. During those same fifteen years, GDP growth in the U.S. rose 87 percent, from $14.77 trillion to $27.72 trillion. A course correction in Europe is needed.

 

So, was President Trump correct in telling Europe that their countries are “going to hell?” Europe was home to the expansion of Christianity and to the Judeo-Christian heritage that produced some of the world’s greatest art, music and literature; it was the origin of the Enlightenment, of basic human rights like free speech; it was where free-market capitalism was first defined and first practiced; Europe was where many of the democratic institutions we enjoy today were founded. To forgo that heritage and history, those achievements and values, to which all Europeans are fortunate to be heirs, would be shameful.

 

President Trump is often coarse in speech and arrogant and churlish in behavior. In his search for the “art of the deal,” hyperbole has always been a well-used instrument in his elocution toolbox, with tact often absent. But he is not alone in pointing the finger at Europe. Writing in the September 26, 2025 edition of The European Conservative, Sven Larson wrote: “Europe is drifting into disintegration and demise.” In his speech, Mr. Trump also spoke of his love for Europe and its people: “I love Europe. I love the people of Europe.” Europe, especially European leaders, needed to hear his tough words. While Mr. Trump might have employed a more diplomatic tone, it is hard to disagree with his diagnosis.  

 

The irony is that Donald Trump might understand better than his elitist, and often hypocritical, critics what was meant by Iain Pears in the quote that heads this essay.

 

 

 

---

---

[1] Having written that, I could be proven wrong. If Mr. Trump is able to convince Europe to up its game against Russia in Ukraine, and is able to gain a peace between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, as now look possible, he will have given diplomacy a new lease on life. In fact, Walter Russell Mead wrote on Tuesday in The Wall Street Journal, that if Mr. Trump is successful with these two endeavors: “If diplomacy were ballet, Mr. Trump would be a Nijinsky.”

"Doubt and Skepticism"

 Friday’s disastrous meeting in the White House is a reminder of how doubt and skepticism can help us observers, and our political leaders. Certainly, there was enough blame for each of the three participants – President Trump, Volodymyr Zelensky, and Vice President J.D. Vance – to take a share. Besides watching a re-run of the events on YouTube, I read twenty interpretations of the afternoon’s events, from all perspectives. Yet, I am still unsure how best to allocate blame. It is common knowledge that Mr. Trump is thin-skinned and likes to be praised. Mr. Zelensky is stubborn and theatrical – look at how he dresses. Mr. Vance is smart but immature, at least in matters of diplomacy.

 

All three made mistakes in that Oval Office meeting, but especially, in my opinion, Mr. Vance. He should have kept quiet. In debate or argument, Mr. Trump, right or wrong, does not need defending. He often digs himself into a hole, but just as often extracts himself. Mr. Zelensky would have been better served to have kept quiet, not argue with Mr. Vance, and let the offered deal play out. Mr. Trump, as everyone knows, shoots from the hip, but he is also quick to walk back what he has said. I feel confident he knows that Putin is a dictator and that Zelensky is not. Was he wrong to imply otherwise? Of course. But did Mr. Zelensky believe he could win over Mr. Trump by publicly disagreeing with him and his Vice President? It would seem so. Contrast Mr. Zelensky’s behavior with that of Emanuel Macron and Keir Starmer when they met with Mr. Trump.

 

Nevertheless, there is doubt in my mind as to who bears most responsibility.

 

I hope you find this essay of interest.

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Doubt and Skepticism”
March 3, 2025

 

“The greater the artist, the greater the doubt. Perfect

confidence is granted to the less talented as a consolation prize.”

                                                                                                                                Robert Hughes (1938-2012)

                                                                                                                                Australian author & art critic

                                                                                                                                “Modernism’s Patriarch”

                                                                                                                                Time Magazine, June 10, 1996

 

“Our doubts are traitors and cause us to miss

the good we oft might win by fearing to attempt.” 

                                                                                                                                Lucio speaking to Isabella

                                                                                                                                Measure for Measure, 1604

                                                                                                                                William Shakespeare (1564-1616)

 

As the two epigraphs infer, doubt is personal. In her Unabridged Journals of Sylvia Plath, the American poet wrote “The worst enemy to creativity is self-doubt.” On the other hand, in The Selected Letters of Tennessee Wiliams, the playwright is quoted: “I don’t believe anyone ever suspects how completely unsure I am of my work…”

 

………………………………………………………….

 

Doubt, including self-doubt, and skepticism are not synonymous but are related. Doubt can be defined as uncertainty regarding one’s abilities (as Lucio infers). It also serves as questioning one’s judgement (as Robert Hughes suggests). It is intuitive, reflecting a lack of knowledge, as Thomas wanted proof of Jesus’ resurrection. On the other hand, a skeptic is one with an open mind who questions the truth of something stated or alleged, or at least who defers judgement until more facts are available.

 

This is not to argue that belief in one’s self is uncommon. When a youth, I was not skeptical about much and had few self-doubts. Many of us were raised on the American folktale, The Little Engine that Could. Theodore Roosevelt, allegedly, expressed a similar sentiment: “Believe you can and you’re halfway there.” All good advice, so long as it does not morph into cockiness, arrogance, or conceit. As I grew older, I read and thought more, I became more skeptical. I recall, when a teenager, the president of a brokerage firm who told me that the longer he worked in the business the less he felt he knew about finance.

 

Self-doubt is often a positive. Fyodor Dostoevsky struggled with doubt. In an 1855 letter to his friend Natalya Fonvizina, he wrote: “…the mind which does not labor will wither.”[1]Recently, I had a conversation with an old school friend, now living in Denver, and told him of my struggle with this essay. He reminded me of “Pascal’s Wager”[2] – that even if one cannot definitively prove the existence of God, it is better to believe in Him, as the potential benefits outweigh the risks of being wrong. Believe you can do it, he said.

 

But it is for our political environment I am most concerned, where skepticism has been overwhelmed by a tidal wave of hubris. In a 1901 letter to the Swiss professor of Greek and history Jost Winteler, the 22-year-old Albert Einstein wrote: “Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” In our hyper politically-polarized world, neither doubt nor skepticism is widely extant. Instead there is an attitude of “either you’re with me or you’re against me.” This fractionalization has set brother against brother and friend against friend. Conservative students are hesitant about speaking out. In schools and universities, speech that is deemed “harmful” is disallowed. The dogmatism of progressives on the left and ardent Trump supporters on the right are notably void of skepticism.

 

At the risk of widening even further the gulf between conservatives and progressives, I place most (but not all) of the blame on progressives. Certainly, there are some on the right who don MAGA hats, pump fists in the air and, incoherently, raise their voices for Mr. Trump. However, most on the left do not just disagree with Donald Trump, they hate him, and they let hatred drive their responses; reason falls victim to emotion. In part, their aversion to Mr. Trump lies in his muddled syntax. Like Lewis Carroll’s Mad Hatter, Mr. Trump speaks in unintelligible riddles. Whether he is negotiating a deal, reflecting whomever he most recently spoke to, or speaking from ignorance, I don’t pretend to know. But I suspect he is neither as stupid nor as uncompassionate as he sometimes sounds. His opponents would be wise to let skepticism replace their instinct for immediate condemnation. 

 

We witness this arrogant audacity from media disciples of both parties, especially on televised cable evening news programs, podcasts and video-sharing sites like YouTube, Vimeo, Dailymotion and Twitch. Social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter) make it easier for viewers to limit their news to only that with which they agree. Do Rachel Maddow or Jesse Waters ever have moments of doubt, of questioning their loudly proclaimed ideologies? 

 

There are, of course, situations when conviction should be paramount – love for family, belief in freedom, and faith in God. “You are braver than you believe, stronger than you seem, and smarter than you think,” said Christopher Robin to Pooh. But generally, skepticism is healthy and doubt drives creativity.

 

True conservatives tend to be skeptics. In 1967, the prescient Daniel Patrick Moynihan was invited to speak to the Harvard chapter of Phi Beta Kappa: “Somehow liberals have been unable to acquire from life what conservatives seem to be endowed with at birth: namely, a healthy skepticism of the powers of government agencies to do good.” Conservatives are concerned of the power that accrues to political leaders and for the tendency of the state to expand inexorably. This concern is not only because of the difficulty of paying for ever more programs, but because such growth threatens individualism, the bed-rock of conservative thought. Doubt and skepticism are generally associated with reflection, not spontaneity.

 

“Skepticism: the mark and even the pose of the educated mind” are words attributed to educator John Dewey. Like chastity, as the philosopher George Santayana is alleged to have once said, it [skepticism] should not be relinquished too readily. Truth (the holy grail of the skeptic) is illusive, perhaps never to be discovered; it is the search that is important.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

---

---

[1] As quoted by Gary Saul Morson, professor of Slavic languages at Northwestern University, in the February 28 issue of The Wall Street Journal.

[2] Blaise Pascal, 17^th Century French philosopher.

"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. 

 

"Time for a Third Party?"

                                                                     Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Time for a Third Party?”

February 16, 2024

 

“Third parties are like bees: once they have stung, they die.”

                                                                                                                                Richard Hofstadter (1916-1970)

                                                                                                                                The Age of Reform, 1955

 

As Professor Hofstadter wrote almost seventy years ago, third parties do not have an encouraging history in American politics. In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt’s Progressive “Bull Moose” Party handed the election to Woodrow Wilson. In 1924, Robert LaFollette’s Progressive Party garnered 16.6% of the popular vote, but probably did not affect the election’s outcome. As well, Strom Thurmond in 1948 and George Wallace in 1968 ran effective campaigns but did not affect elections in those years. However, Ross Perot’s Independent Party in 1992 probably cost George H.W. Bush his re-election.

 

John Templeton once said that the four most dangerous words in investing are “this time it’s different.” Those words are ordinarily applicable to third party candidacies. However, this year does seem different. Assuming that the two lead candidates stay the course – not a sure bet – November’s election will be between two of the widely unliked (and least qualified) candidates in American history[1].

 

With Robert Kennedy, Jr. already in the race and with No Labels standing in the wings, perhaps the most comparable election would be that of 1860, which fielded four candidates: Lincoln was the Republican candidate, Stephen Douglas the Democrat, John Breckinridge ran as a Lecompton Democratic candidate, and John Bell from the Constitutional Union Party. When the smoke cleared on November 6, 1860, Lincoln had won just under 40% of the popular vote, Douglas 29.5%, Breckinridge 18.2% and Bell 12.6%. However, in terms of Electoral College votes, Lincoln was the clear winner, with 180 votes out of 303 cast.

 

Voters are often told that a vote for a third party means a vote for the opposition. In other words, Democrat leaders today tell voters that a vote for Robert Kennedy, Jr. is in fact a vote for Donald Trump. History suggests their warnings are justified, as no third party candidate has ever won the White House. In Shakespeare’s The Tempest Antonio speaks to Sebastian: “What’s past is prologue.” 

 

But the past is not always prologue? Humans have advanced, driven by those who dared to experiment, to try something new. Consider the telegraph, railroads, telephones, cars, airplanes, space travel, computers, the integrated circuit, and artificial intelligence. Our Founders, in 1789, chose a new form of government. They looked to the past but created something new – a representative, republican democracy, in which the individual was paramount and government limited. Three equal and independent branches were devised to help prevent any one person or branch from taking control. The government born in Philadelphia was, as Lincoln proclaimed at Gettysburg eighty-seven years later, a new concept in human history, a “government of the people, by the people, for the people.”

 

Today’s two political parties did not exist in 1789. It was not until 1828 that the Democratic Party was formed, as a vehicle to help elect Andrew Jackson. The Republican Party was formed in 1854 by forces opposed to the expansion of slavery. Today, neither party is what it was a generation or two ago. The country club crowd of the northeast, once solidly Republican, has become decidedly Democratic. Internationalists of the 1950s, once solidly Republican, have become, under Mr. Trump, anti-globalists. 

 

Today, two aging men (though younger than me) – one with obvious declining cognitive powers and the other a tactless, uncouth individual who threatens to dismantle NATO – head both parties. Is it not time to seek a third way? Or, if not a third way, is it not time for leaders of both parties to recognize their flawed choices and nominate someone who can move the country forward in a manner acceptable to the majority of voters? I recall once having lunch in the Senate dining room in the early 1970s. I remember the sense of camaraderie that permeated the room – Republicans and Democrats dining together. Famously, President Reagan and House Speaker Thomas (“Tip”) O’Neil, while poles apart politically, enjoyed a mutually respectful and affectionate relationship. And similarly, Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich had a mutually beneficial meeting of the minds. But I cannot imagine President Biden enjoying a drink with Speaker Mike Johnson any more than I could have imagined former President Trump sitting down to exchange stories with former Speaker Nancy Pelosi. That loss of political camaraderie has become the people’s loss.

 

No Labels was launched ten years ago, initially among House members, as fault lines between the parties widened and deepened. Today, fifty House members, split evenly between Democrats and Republicans, meet regularly. The House effort is led by Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA). Five years ago, No Labels began an effort to organize a similar group in the Senate. Today, their leaders include Joe Manchin (D-WV), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Krysten Sinema (I-AZ). Their goal is to find common ground, at a time when extremists from both sides dominate their parties, along with news and social media platforms. 

 

Will a Third Party, like the mythical Phoenix arise from the ashes of today’s political conflagration? I am unsure. My hope is that both parties recognize that their current preferences for President will lead to more division at home and to a more dangerous world abroad. Ironically, Democrats hope Trump is Republicans’ choice, just as Republicans hope Biden heads the Democratic slate. 

 

As I have written before, the Democratic Party, being more disciplined, is more likely to drop the Biden-Harris ticket than Republicans to dump Trump. However, as a conservative, it is my hope that Republicans recognize the futility of sticking with the flawed and (nationally) unelectable Donald Trump. They have an opportunity with Nikki Haley who polls well against Mr. Biden. But will she gain the necessary votes in the upcoming primaries? She does not generate the fanaticism of Trump followers, but she appeals to a broader array of voters. If both parties stick with today’s leaders, a Third Party candidate seems, to this observer, a likely alternative.  

 

 

 

 

---

---

[1] To be clear, in my opinion, it is not age that is the problem; it is the mental condition of one and the character of the other. Both, in varying degrees, are corrupt and neither seems to appreciate history. As to who is most corrupt, I leave that for you to decide. There is no doubt that Mr. Biden is cognitively impaired and we, the public, have no idea who is the puppeteer pulling the strings in his administration.  There is no debate about Mr. Trump being a boorish, loose cannon in a complex and multi-cultural world when tolerance and grasp are needed. Worse, he has become an isolationist just as the world is turning more dangerous. However, Trump’s appeal, we should not forget, is to those millions of forgotten men and women ignored by identity politics, elitism, and political correctness.

"Thoughts on Israel and the Palestinians"

                                                                    Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Thoughts on Israel and the Palestinians”

December 16, 2023

 

“War must be, while we defend ourselves against a destroyer who would devour all;

but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its

swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.”

                                                                                                                                J.R.R. Tolkien (1892-1973)

                                                                                                                                “The Two Towers,” Part 2

                                                                                                                                The Lord of the Rings, 1954

 

War has been around as long as has man. President Obama said as much in his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize on December 10, 2009: “War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man.” Efforts to outlaw war, or even to impose rules as to its conduct, have failed. The Kellogg-Briand Pact, an effort to outlaw war, signed on August 27, 1928 did not prevent Japan (a signatory) from invading Manchuria three years later. Nor did it stop Germany (also a signatory) from invading Poland eleven years later. The best means to prevent war is to prepare for it. When I was at the University of New Hampshire, I often drove past Pease Airforce Base with its seemingly oxymoronic, but in fact accurate, sign, “Peace is Our Profession.” The projection of strength is necessary to curtail war. Unfortunately, that air base, and the entire Strategic Air Command was “disestablished” in 1992 after the fall of the Soviet Union.

 

The conduct of modern war is supposed to follow rules of international humanitarian law established under the Geneva Convention of 1949, as they pertain to non-combatants, the wounded and treatment of prisoners of war. But such good intentions are never followed, as we have seen throughout all subsequent wars, and as Senator John McCain, along with thousands of other servicemen, learned during their years as prisoners of war in North Vietnam. As Carl von Clausewitz noted in On War, “The object of fighting is the destruction or defeat of the enemy.” The Swedish war historian Peter Englund, in his new book November 1942, wrote of a British tail gunner flying over Germany: “The aircrews are not guided by moralistic motives or complex explanations; they are given orders to carry out their missions…”

 

Hamas and the Palestinian Authority (PA) are not asking for a two-state solution. Their call for Palestine to be free “from the river to the sea,” is a call to eradicate Israel. When terrorists hide among civilians it is they who are causing civilian deaths. “Wars are just to those to whom they are necessary,” wrote Edmund Burke, in Reflections on the Revolutions in France, but “just” is in the eyes of the beholder. “Unjust war is to be abhorred,” spoke President Theodore Roosevelt at the University of Berlin on May 12, 1910 (only four years before Europe embarked on a four-year war of devastation), “but,” he added, “woe to the nation that does not make ready to hold its own in time of need against all who would harm it.” And woe to the state of Israel now if they do not confront and destroy Hamas.

 

War is never pretty. “War is cruelty and you cannot refine it” wrote Major General William Tecumseh Sherman to Mayor James Calhoun and the Atlanta City Council on September 12, 1864; “and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out.” Hamas brought war into Israel on October 7^th. For Israel, there is no such thing as a disproportionate response. 

 

The land Palestinians claim as their own was part of the Ottoman Empire for 400 years, until the end of World War I. Does that give Turkey a “right” to that land today? Of course not. Before that, followers of Muhammed, and earlier Byzantines, Jews, Romans, and Christians occupied that land. What we know now as the Middle East was a “cradle of civilization,” whose existence goes back almost 5,000 years. It extends from Egypt in the east to Iran in the west, and from Yemen and Oman in the south to Syria and Iraq in the north. The Middle East gave birth to three of the world’s monotheistic religions. From Judaism emerged Christianity 2,000 years ago, and Islam arrived 600 years later. Members of all three religions are descendants of Abraham, Jews and Christians through his son Isaac, with Muslims descending through his son Ishmael. Despite this common heritage, Middle East Jews, Christians, and Muslims have been at war almost continuously.

 

The Balfour Declaration of 1917, issued by the British government, supported a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, then a region of the Ottoman Empire. In 1948, following the end of World War II during which close to 50% of the world’s Jewish people were exterminated, a Jewish state was created on land that had been their historic home. To consider them oppressors and colonialists because they built a prosperous and democratic society in the desert is absurd. Even after the end of the War, Jews continued to be persecuted in the Middle East. According to the Washington Institute, 150,000 Jews lived in Iraq at the start of the 20^th Century. When the United States invaded the country in 2003 only 35 Jews remained in Baghdad. The problem for diplomats and world leaders is that Palestinians can also trace their ancestry back as far as Jews. But no Arab country, with the exception of Jordan (home to two million Palestinians) has been willing to accommodate them. Qatar, Iran, and Turkey, however, house Hamas terrorist leaders.

 

Bent on annihilating the state of Israel, Palestinians leaders have ignored the welfare of their people. Citizens of Israel, living in a democracy with rule of law and property rights, have greater freedom and higher living standards than those living under the control of the PA or Hamas. Consider the differences in annual GDP per capita between those living under Palestinian rule ($3,500 in the West Bank and Gaza in 2021) versus $53,200 for Israelis. Keep in mind, the PA has controlled about half of the West Bank for almost thirty years, while Hamas, also elected by the people, has controlled the Gaza Strip for fifteen years. 

 

While there is complexity in the religious and cultural heritage of those living in the Middle East, there is nothing complex about the different moral and ethical values between Hamas and the Israelis. This is not a war between oppressor and oppressed. It is a fight about universal values, between good and evil, between right and wrong, between the classically liberal West and those who follow an illiberal, authoritarian path. While the West, of which Israel is an integral part, has never been perfect, in comparison to those states aligned against it – China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and their allies – the West is a paragon of righteousness. Its citizens have more freedom and higher standards of living. Israel, like Ukraine and Taiwan, is fighting to defend self-government, rule of law, property rights, and individual freedom, while Hamas, which takes its orders from an authoritarian Iran, represents a people devoid of human rights. Fully supporting Israel, as well as Ukraine and Taiwan, should not be a difficult decision for any Western power.

 

The United States and other Western nations have an obligation to their citizens to preserve the liberal order, whether in Ukraine, Taiwan, or in Israel. That requires, as Tolkien wrote in the rubric above, standing firm on principles of democracy and personal freedoms, while upping defense spending. It is the weak, not the strong, who are attacked and vanquished. To ignore that lesson is to let authoritarianism thrive.

"Corruption in a Woke World"

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Corruption in a Woke World”

April 14, 2022

 

“Politics. n: The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.”

                                                                                                                                          The Devil’s Dictionary, 1906

                                                                                                                                          Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914)

 

Power and money are at the heart of politics, so it is unsurprising that politics is rife with corruption. Corrupt politicians rank among the world’s oldest professions. In his 1894 novel Pudd’nhead Wilson, Mark Twain wrote: “There is no distinctly American criminal class, except Congress.” Theodore Roosevelt is alleged to have once said, “When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer ‘present’ or ‘not guilty.’ Humor aside, has corruption become more common? Certainly, we have moved beyond the late 19^th and early 20^th Centuries’ big city political machines like Tammany Hall in New York and the Pendergast organization in Kansas City. But we live in a time and a place that venerates wealth and power.

 

President Truman famously refused a corporate board seat in 1953 – “You don’t want me. You want the office of the president, and that does not belong to me. It belongs to the American people and its not for sale.” His decision can be contrasted to the wealth accumulated by ex-presidents Bill Clinton ($80 million) and Barack Obama ($70 million). George W. Bush has an estimated net worth of $40 million. Unlike Messrs. Clinton and Obama, Mr. Bush entered the Presidency with an estimated $20 million. And then we have the greatly resisted Donald Trump who became the first individual to lose a billion dollars while President. Yet he is the one cited by an honor-challenged media as being the most corrupt.

 

Since Clinton’s and Obama’s wealth was made after they left the White House, they may not meet a common definition of corrupt: “to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.” However, both diverged from the moral standards enunciated by Mr. Truman when he left the Presidency. Clinton and Obama had no qualms in leveraging their fame (or infamy) into book contracts and speaking engagements. Mainstream media’s lack of interest in their extraordinary (and quick) wealth accumulation may be explained by the fact we live in a material age, as Madonna sang almost forty years ago: “You know we are living in a material world/And I am a material girl.” The hypocritical woke elite publicly lament income and wealth inequality, while privately celebrating their own riches behind gated compounds.

 

The word “corrupt” derives from the Latin cor (altogether) and rumpere (break). Its meaning is broader than simply selling access for dollars, which President Biden’s son Hunter has done in China, Russia and Ukraine, activities “which,” wrote Kimberly Strassel in the April 8, 2022 edition of the Wall Street Journal, “raises questions about counterintelligence and extortion, even as it puts a spotlight on how honest President Biden has been in claiming no knowledge of his son’s doings.”

 

Corruption can refer to any action that results in dishonest and immoral behavior. It can refer to an organization that has debased its raison d’être – the United Nation’s Human Rights Council comes to mind. Corruption escalates in our woke world. In his recent memoir One Damn Thing After Another, William Barr wrote about the blitzkrieg of progressive ideological thinking: “The essential factor, in my view, was the corruption of the mainstream news media beginning around the turn of the century.” False stories of Russia-collusion during the 2016 Presidential election was manifest of media corruption, and it was corruption within Congress and intelligence agencies that led to Robert Mueller’s $40 million fruitless search for corroborating evidence of Russian interference. It was the corruption of ethics that allowed the New York Times and the Washington Post to sit on a story of Hunter Biden’s laptop computer for over a year, a story written up by the New York Post on October 19, 2020 and then banned on social media. It was fifteen months before mainstream news outlets acknowledged the laptop and its contents. The intelligence services have yet to admit their role in withholding information. Woke corruption is pervasive. It raises fear in corporate boardrooms; it dominates Hollywood; it proliferates in colleges and universities, which shut down debate and cancel harmful (read conservative) speech, while claiming their mission is to seek truth. 

 

This is not a blanket condemnation of all politicians, government bureaucrats and members of the woke community. Not all are corrupt and not all news sources are propagandists. But many are. Not all universities are hotbeds of progressive nihilists and not all boardrooms bow to woke ideologies. Serving the public as an elected representative is an honorable task and most who go to Washington do so to improve the lives of their constituents, but there are those who fit Ambrose Bierce’s description and who will, with the help of a compliant press, use all means to personally benefit. The decision by the jury in Grand Rapids last week to acquit Daniel Harris and Brandon Caserta of conspiring to kidnap Michigan’s Governor Gretchen Whitmer was an example of corruption embedded in the FBI’s “Praetorian Guard” mentality of entrapping opponents of favored politicians. 

 

The world will never be rid of corrupt politicians, moralizing news reporters, social media suppressors, sanctimonious bureaucrats, obsequious business leaders and progressive professors. While cynicism may be unhealthy, skepticism about what we read, hear and watch is not. We should read extensively, retain our moral standards and form our own conclusions, while remembering we are part of a larger community. We should be wary of politicians bearing false promises. We should remember President Reagan’s warning of the nine most terrifying words in the English language: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”