"Marriage"

All marriages are spirited but not as dynamic as the world in which we live. Thank God. It is necessary from time to time to retreat from the day’s news and to reflect on what has brought happiness, and to let humor and lightness have their play. In my case, what has brought happiness (and smiles) has been the family Caroline and I raised, and the families being raised by our three children. 

 

The photo was taken after our wedding ceremony and on the way to the reception.

 

...and, by the way, don’t forget that Daylight Savings starts tomorrow. Get to bed early!

 

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

More Essays from Essex

“Marriage”

March 7, 2026

 

“A woman’s life is not perfect or whole till she has added herself to a husband.

Nor is a man’s life perfect or whole till he has added to himself a wife.”

                                                                                                                                Anthony Trollope (1815-1882)

                                                                                                                                Miss MacKenzie, 1865

 

On April 11 Caroline and I will celebrate our 62^nd wedding anniversary. We have been married longer than either of our parents or grandparents. 

 

The concept of marriage dates back four or five thousand years, but for most of that time it was a contract for managing property. Marriage for love only gained traction in the late 18^th and early 19^th Centuries. Over time, attitudes changed. The courtships described by Jane Austen show partners standing in opposing lines. In 1828 Noah Webster wrote that marriage “was instituted by God himself.” In 1906 in The Devil’s Dictionary the satirist Ambrose Bierce defined the word marriage: “The state or condition of a community consisting of a master, a mistress and two slaves, making in all, two.” Our 1964 wedding vows were to last until death do us part. Marriage has always been considered the most stable environment in which to raise children. 

 

However, marriage is not a case of “one size fits all.” First, it is not for everyone, and second, not all marriages work. “Marriage,” the humorist Will Rogers once wrote, “is a habit. Divorce is a necessity.” It is impossible that two people can know all about one another after a few months or even after a couple of years. So luck plays a role. Nevertheless, when a marriage works angels sing.

 

Tens of thousands of books have been written, offering advice for a successful marriage – prioritizing your spouse, practicing forgiveness, maintaining a sense of humor, and committing to navigating both good and bad times together. While those words sound substantive, they sport an institutional tone; they could have been spit out by a ‘bot.’ When asked of lessons learned from our marriage, I demur. But love comes first.

 

“Vive La Différence,” sang Maurice Chevalier. And certainly Caroline and I are different. I am sensitive; she is empathetic. I am short-tempered, especially when interrupted while writing; Caroline is patient. However, like magnets we were attracted. P. G. Wodehouse had a sixty-one-year marriage to Ethyl Wayman. In 1932, eighteen years after he was married, he wrote Doctor Sally. The book includes humorous marital advice: “Chumps make the best husbands. When you marry, Sally, grab a chump. Tap his head first and if it rings solid, don’t hesitate. All unhappy marriages come from husbands having brains.”

 

While I don’t think I am a chump – there, my sensitivity is showing! – Caroline and I have had a good marriage. Besides being lovers, we are good friends. There is no one with whom I would rather take a trip or share a meal. But the glue has been the children we produced, and the children they, with their chosen spouses, have produced. There is something magical in knowing that the genes we inherited from our forefathers and foremothers will live on in generations yet to come. While the future is unknowable, we pray that their lives will be happy ones. And all this because of a young woman my sister introduced me to at a small ski area in New Hampshire more than sixty-four years ago. Fortune has smiled upon us.

"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.”

"The Author's Guide to Murder," A Review

As many of you know, Beatriz Williams is my daughter-in-law. Most of what she writes – and her good friends and co-authors – falls into the category of historical romance. This is different. It is clever, witty with a plot that would be the envy of Dorothy Sayers, Ngaio Marsh or Agatha Christie. If you like mysteries and wit, this is your book.

 

Happy Thanksgiving. After a hearty meal, find an armchair next to a roaring fire, with a single malt near-by, and let your mind wander to the island of Kinloch off the Scottish coast.

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

Burrowing into Books

“The Author’s Guide to Murder,” Beatriz Williams, Lauren Willig, & Karen White

November 23, 2024

 

“Americans. Why did they always have to be Americans?”

                                                                                                      The Author’s Guide to Murder, 2024

 

This fun-filled mystery, which takes place on a remote Scottish island, will keep you guessing and have you smiling, as it combines elements of Agatha Christie, Jonathon Swift, and Will Rogers.

 

Like Agatha Christie, who plotted her crime stories starting with the murder, this story begins with the crime scene. Like Jonathon Swift who once wrote, “Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody’s face but their own,”^[1] the story is laden with clever innuendos. For example, the fictional Kinloch Castle, scene of the murder, derives from a real clan’s name whose motto is Non Degener (not degenerate), a deliciously inappropriate motto. Like Will Rogers who infused his books with one-liners, the story is comedic. There is a sheep named “Beatrice,” a Sheep Dog named “Loren,” a writer of romance novels named Karyn Black, and an editor named Rachelle, “brilliant and well-shod,” who, out of fondness, is named for the three women’s real editor, Rachel Kahan.

 

The story centers around a writers retreat at Kinloch Castle, to which three American novelists have been invited: Kat de Noir, Cassie Pringle, and Emma Endicott. They know one another, having met some time earlier at Yaddo, a retreat for artists in Saratoga Springs. And they have a secret in common, but are not really friends, at least not at the novel’s start. Their host, as we learn on the opening page, is the murder victim, Brett Saffron Presley. 

 

A few other characters populate the story, well-drawn and engaging: Detective Chief Inspector (DCI) Euan Macintosh; his sister – the only medical professional on the island – Fiona; the castle’s factotum Calum MacDougal (owner of Beatrice); his mother, the housekeeper Morag; and Archie Kinloch, the financially-strapped Laird (and owner of Loren) who has rented his castle to Mr. Presley.

 

A passage that caught my attention, which will surprise no one, but which is indicative of the three authors’ humor and of how much fun they had writing the book. Emma speaks of the past, how it matters, and how, “sooner or later the past will find you.” Kat responds “dismissively:” “You stole that from Beatriz Williams’s website.”

 

This is my first write-up of a mystery, and mysteries are best kept mysterious, so this is short. As Will Rogers once said: “Lettin’ the cat outta the bag is a whole lot easier’n puttin’ it back.”^[2]

 

So, pick up a copy, put up your feet, a glass of Lagavulin in hand, and enjoy a couple of hours of fun. And you will watch this mystery unfold, as neatly as if Hercule Poirot or Jane Marple were on the case.

"Money and Politics"

Like other problems that defy solutions, such as cleaning up the 54 million gallons of nuclear waste that exist around the world, money and politics are conjoined twins. We must live with it, but we should be aware of what has been going on, even when regarded with a light touch.

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Money and Politics”

October 15, 2023

 

“The way to solve all the money in politics is not to pretend we can get money out of politics.

That will never happen. We have to channel it in ways where we can see it and hold it accountable.”

                                                                                              Attributed to Mark Shields (1937-2022)                                                                                                                            American political columnist

 

If a resurrected Frank Sinatra were to sing “Love and Marriage,” the first line might go “Love and marriage, love and marriage / Go together like pols and cabbage.” Politics and money are inseparable. A February 11, 2021 report from Open Secrets was headlined: “Political spending in the 2020 election totaled $14.4 billion, more than doubling the total cost of the record-breaking 2016 presidential election cycle.” What will the tab be for 2024? On November 8, 2022, CNN reported: “The five most expensive Senate races of 2022 (Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Ohio) have seen nearly $1.3 billion in spending across the primary and general elections…a staggering sum that speaks to the massive amounts of money flooding the political system.” This has long been the case. In Will Rogers’ Daily Telegram for June 28, 1931, he wrote: “Politics has got so expensive that it takes a lot of money even to get beat nowadays.”

 

PEW Research, in a study released on September 19, 2023, found that both Republicans and Democrats say major donors and lobbyists have too much influence on Congress – 83% of Republicans and 80% of Democrats. 71% of Republicans and 76% of Democrats believe there should be limits on the amounts individuals and organizations can spend on elections, but what those limits should be was left unsaid. Nearly six-in-ten Americans (58%) say it is possible to have laws that would effectively reduce the role of money in politics, with 66% of Democrats saying this is possible and 52% of Republicans. However, the study did not explain what laws should be enacted. 59% of respondents suggested donating money to a charity or non-profit would be “extremely, or somewhat, effective” in causing positive change, but which charities or non-profits were left unnamed. Ironically, 50% suggested donating money to a candidate or party. 

 

The Citizens United Supreme Court decision in January 2010 is generally blamed for the increase in political campaign spending, and history suggests some validity to that allegation. According to Open Secrets, the 2008 Presidential campaign was the first to exceed a billion dollars, while four years later the 2012 campaign, according to the same source, cost $6.3 billion. 

 

The ability to vote in America has been an evolutionary process. In the late 1700s, voting was limited to white male landowners, at most a few hundred thousand. In the ensuing decades, the right to vote was gradually expanded to non-landowning white males. The 15^th Amendment, ratified in 1870, ensured the right to vote could not be denied based on race, though many southern states erected barriers, such as poll taxes and literacy tests. The 19^th Amendment, ratified in 1920, gave the right to vote to women. (It still amazes me to think that my paternal grandmother, who I knew well, could not vote until she was forty-five!) The 24^th Amendment, ratified in 1964, prohibited Congress and the states from implementing a poll tax, or other type of tax, as a requirement for eligibility to vote in federal elections. And the 26^th Amendment, ratified in 1971, guaranteed that no citizen aged 18 and older could be denied the right to vote. As the voting franchise expanded – in 2022, there were, according to statista.com, 168.42 million Americans registered to vote – the cost of influencing elections rose. Of course, the proliferation of the internet and social media expanded the number of avenues to reach voters. And, of course, we cannot forget that the media is a primary beneficiary of increased spending on elections.

 

Most voters agree there is too much money in politics, causing one to speculate that P.J. O’Rourke could have written another book: “Don’t give money to politicians, it only encourages the bastards.” There is little agreement as to how to reduce the billions spent on elections. I doubt that even Lucretia Hale’s Lady from Philadelphia could find the answer. Reversing Citizens United is desired by many but would violate the concept of free speech and encourage a greater use of “dark” money. Public financing would benefit incumbents, and, anyway, why should my tax dollars be used to support someone I don’t like? Mark Shields, in the rubric at the top of this essay, offered, in my opinion, the most sensible solution. Sunshine. The name of every individual who contributes to a politician, PAC, or political campaign, regardless of amount, should be in the public domain. No organization that contributes to a politician, his policies, or a political campaign should receive tax-exempt status. Political Action Committees should publish the names of all who contribute to them. Many people respect the secret ballot, so would not want their name associated with a particular candidate. Congressional term limits would have the benefit of diminishing the relative importance of any single member of Congress. 

 

There is no satisfactory answer; for the question of money and politics is largely rhetorical. Like the weather, in those innocent pre climate-catastrophe days, money and politics is something about which everybody talks but no one does anything. As for my response, I do not contribute to any state or national politicians, PACs, or their campaigns – it only encourages the bastards. 

"The Wacky World of Politics"

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“The Wacky World of Politics”

July 20, 2021

 

“All the problems we face today can be traced to an 

unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indians.”

                                                                                                                                Pat Paulsen (1927-1997)

                                                                                                                                American comedian and satirist

 

Napoleon, allegedly, once said: “In politics, absurdity is not a handicap.” What he said about politicians applies equally to reporters, teachers, Hollywood and sports figures, social media influencers and commentators, me included. A good friend, though admittedly a misguided Democrat, recently e-mailed me: “I believe we are at the end of a long pendulum swing to the right [that] started with Goldwater’s loss.” Goldwater lost to Johnson in 1964. At that time, the federal budget deficit was about 5% of the federal budget, and total federal debt was less than 50% of GDP. Today, the federal deficit is approximately 60% of the federal budget and total federal debt is roughly 122% of GDP. With debt piling up, political correctness ubiquitous, open borders, censorship on the rise and people fearful of using the wrong pronoun, God help us, if the pendulum is just now swinging to the left.

 

In 2009, Sega introduced the video game, “Wacky World of Sports,” featuring unconventional sports like tuna tossing, cheese wheel rolling, furniture racing and mud sliding. A creative video game aficionado today might make millions introducing similar games for close followers of the political/cultural scene. She (or he) might offer Woke Warriors, Campus Censors, Climate Cozeners, Facetious Facts, Illiberal Liberals, Reprehensible Representatives, Senile Senators and Plagiarizing Presidents. Rather than a Quest for the Holy Grail, we might have “Pursuit of the Principled Politician.”

 

Politics have become unstrung. We have a Constitution that protects freedom of speech, yet White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki recently said: “We’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation.” We have legislators who send their children to private schools, then, deny school choice to low-income parents. We have politicians that want to “defund” the police in inner-city neighborhoods, but who hire private security guards for their own homes in gated communities. We have legislators who preach “tax the rich,” but who want a multi-page tax code filled with loopholes, including reinstatement of SALT deductions. We have a Secretary of State who invited members of the UN Human Rights Council, which includes such bastions of freedom as Cuba, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Russia and Venezuela, to review our civil rights record.

 

And it is not just politicians who have gone mad. We have a culture that seeks diversity in gender, skin color and religion, yet demands conformity in ideas. We have Progressives who call mothers “birthing people,” while allowing transwomen to compete in high school sports against biological women. We have educators who condemn “cultural appropriation” by “privileged” white males, which means removing Shakespeare and Dickens from high school’s curricula. We have coastal elites who believe that if everyone owns a Tesla and heats their homes with solar panels, climate change can be kept at bay, yet who purchase beach-front mansions and then complain of rising seas. We have Black conservatives who are dubbed “white supremacists,” while wealthy, progressive White suburbanites become honorary members of Black Lives Matter. We have sententious media types who claim that stricter gun legislation will reduce gun-related crime, ignoring the fact that New York, Chicago, Philadelphia and Baltimore – scenes of some of the worst gun violence in the nation – already have the strictest gun laws in the country. We have $60,000-a-year private primary schools that recognize non-binary genders like androgyne, genderfluid and pangender. We have $75,000-a-year universities that do not allow conservatives to speak on campus. And we have a Navy more interested in bathrooms for transgenders than in adding ships of the line.

 

In his 1914 collection of essays, Other People’s Money and How the Bankers Use It, former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote: “Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best disinfectant; electric light the most efficient policeman.” Yet we have a President today who has decided that secrecy is proper when it comes to his son Hunter’s sale of artworks at prices most artists can only dream about. And this despite public knowledge that the son has previously used his father’s connections to make money from foreign individuals and companies.

 

Politics have been wacky for years. Will Rogers (1879-1935), humorist and vaudeville performer once said: “If you ever injected truth into politics, you’d have no politics.” But I look at the past few years, and suspect things have become nuttier: What has any of the craziness we witness today have to do with making our lives freer and richer, making our nation more secure, competitive and prosperous, or improving tolerance and civility? Unlike my friend, I don’t know in which direction politics will trend; though I suspect the average American believes in his God-given rights and the rule of law, and that individual success is predicated on aspiration, talent, hard work and the acceptance of personal responsibility. But this I know and know full well, our politics and culture have become wackier and not in a healthy way.

"Uncommon Common Sense"

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“Uncommon Common Sense”

January 19, 2020

“Common sense in an uncommon degree is what the world calls wisdom.”

                                                                                                Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1834)

                                                                                                Literary Remains, Volume 1

                                                                                                Edited Henry Nelson Coleridge, 1836

At some point in the mid 1950s I attended a party at Dr. Edwin Land’s summer home in Peterborough, New Hampshire. I was fifteen and Dr. Land’s thirteen-year-old daughter was my girlfriend. I found myself listening to three or four learned men trying to define horse sense. There was no unanimity. Having grown up with horses, I knew they were not the most intelligent of animals, but I also knew they had enough sense to seek shelter when it rained and come to the barn when hungry for grain. They had (and have) common sense. Horse sense and common sense are born of the same mother, though I was too intimidated to say anything 65 years ago. Webster’s agrees. Horse sense is defined: “the ability to make good judgements.” W. C. Fields also agreed, when he said that “horse sense is a thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people.” Besides providing a horse laugh, there is a lesson in that adage.

Coleridge was right. Wisdom is the exercise of common sense. Wisdom is rare, especially in politicians who choose political correctness (the world as they would like it to be, not as it is), identity politics (segregation over unity), and victimization (the passing of blame rather than the assuming of responsibility). Common sense bases judgements on empirical evidence, on “self-evident truths,” as Robert Curry wrote in his book Reclaiming Common Sense: Finding Truth in a Post-Truth World. Meanwhile, politicians appeal to emotions, not reason, for example getting attendees pumped at rallies, which common sense says is a reason not to allow early voting.

“Facts,” as John Adams is supposed to have said, “are stubborn things.”  Nobody in Washington seems to worry about deficit spending even in a period of economic growth, yet last year’s deficit of just under a trillion dollars is equal to $3,000 per person. The published national debt is an obligation of $80,000 for every man, woman and child in the nation. When one adds in the unfunded liabilities of Medicare and Social Security, per person debt rises to $380,000. Facts tell us that our population is aging – that the number of workers is shrinking, while the number of retirees is expanding. Yet, the six candidates for President in last week’s debate in Iowa were interested only in programs that would add to the deficit, add to the national debt and add to unfunded liabilities. Even the Republican Party, the party supposedly of thrift seems to care little about running a fiscally responsible administration. To paraphrase Dr. Seuss: “How did we get so stupid so soon?”

Listening to those candidates in Iowa talk about the economy, one would conclude prospects are grim for lower income folks and depression is around the corner. They claimed things have worsened for lower income workers since Mr. Trump took office. Yet facts tell a different story. Unemployment, at 3.5%, is the lowest in fifty years. Employment for Blacks and Hispanics is the highest on record. Last year, income gains for the bottom tenth of workers rose faster than income gains for the top ten percent – something that never happened during the Obama years. Net worth gains for the bottom half of households have risen 47% since the 2016 election, according to the Wall Street Journal. U.S. GDP, in the first three years of the Trump administration, has risen 30% faster than it did during the last seven years of the Obama administration. And, take the Trump Tax Reform Bill: When Democrats shed crocodile tears over the unfairness of the Bill, were (are) they thinking of the 20% reduction in rates for median households, or were (are) they really concerned that deductions for state and local taxes were limited to $10,000? Keep in mind, for plutocrats in California, New York, New Jersey and Connecticut – those making two million dollars – the limit has cost each $100,000 or more. Between Democrats and Republicans debate, whose policies have done more for working people, and which party is appealing to common sense and which to sensibilities, as Jane Austen might have asked?  

Or take the killing of Qassim Soleimani. Here was a man that all facts demonstrated had been implicated in the deaths of thousands of Americans and even more Iraqis, Syrians, Yemenis, Lebanese and even fellow Iranians. Yet, the Left found it more palatable to see him as a martyr, a Martin Luther King, or, at a minimum, an Iranian politician deserving of respect. His death became a rallying point to curb the ability of the American President to respond to imminent, or even not so imminent, threats. And what about the problems of illegal immigration, border walls and sanctuary cities? There are, by some estimates, thirty million illegals in this country. And there are those who do not see this as a problem, financially, socially and culturally? Does it not make sense to control immigration? It is not a question of not wanting immigrants. We need them for the jobs they perform  and for what they offer the Country. We need, in my opinion, more legal immigrants. But should not all of us want to control the process? A wall may not be the only (or even the best) answer, but it won’t increase the flow of illegals. Sanctuary cities break federal law. Would it be okay if a city in Idaho or Texas broke federal laws regarding the carrying of firearms? Or should mayors and governors enforce only those federal laws they like? Should judges be allowed to make laws, or should that be the responsibility of legislatures, or a referendum voted on by the people? Was not our government, a nation of laws, set up on the principle of three independent branches, with clear and distinct responsibilities – a legislature to enact laws, an executive to administer them and a judiciary to interpret them. Each branch serves as a check on the other two. Common sense says that the answers to these questions are not complicated. The problem is, as Will Rogers once said, “Common sense ain’t common.”

But it is in the politicization of our changing climate where common sense is most needed, yet it is where it has been abandoned most ardently. Michael Moore and Al Gore made fortunes predicting catastrophes that never happened. Admittedly, there is a small coterie who do not believe that man has any affect on climate. But man is not the only cause of climate change. Why, for example, did global temperatures decline during the 1940s when the world was engulfed in the spewing of toxic gasses from bombs and vehicles during World War II. (According to a May 2007 edition of NewScientist, global temperatures dropped 0.02 degrees during the decade.) There are millions of people in our ivy-coated universities and colleges who do not seem to understand the power of nature. They appear unaware of the way in which the world has changed over millions of years, of tectonic shifts that have caused continents to shift, mountains to rise and shorelines to move – all long before man began spewing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Consider the energy produced from volcanoes, like the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens in Washington that produced energy equal to 1,600 times the size of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Or think of the fact that one average hurricane crossing the Atlantic produces the energy equivalent to approximately half the electrical generating capacity of the planet. Nature is still more powerful than man. Common sense says we shouldn’t live in the path of hurricanes or within the range of volcanoes, yet populations living in coastal areas continue to expand at a rate 50% above the national average. And, we should not forget, technology has improved conditions in the U.S. Since 2005, carbon emissions have fallen 14% while GDP has increased 50%. Why? It had nothing to do with the 2015 Paris Agreement. The reason had to do with technology– fracking and horizontal drilling that allowed cleaner natural gas to replace oil and the capture of carbon emissions from coal plants. Energy from solar and wind will continue, and we should encourage their expansion, but today they contribute less than ten percent of our energy needs.

My point is not to argue that climate change is not real. It is and always has been. Evidence suggests the Earth is in a warming period and storms, it is claimed, are more frequent. It is the politicization of the issue that has put emotion above reason. We should focus on the elimination of pollutants not because that will affect temperatures, but because a cleaner environment is healthier and more pleasant. To believe that man can halt the increase in temperatures or cause the oceans to stop rising is to believe the sun revolves around the Earth.

If the Earth continues to warm, and to the extent natural causes are in part to blame, are we not better off to focus on adaption than seeking blame? The Country, and ultimately the world, will move away from fossil fuels, but the move should not come at the expense of economic growth, as is happening in Europe where they have not only placed their economy at risk but also their security. Energy independence has empowered the U.S., made it safer and allowed us to face global tensions with more confidence. Consider the difference between the U.S. and Europe. With North Sea wells drying up, Europe imports its energy needs from Russia, the Middle East and Africa. Yet, we read that the amount of shale gas in Europe is thought to exceed that in the U.S. As well, they have given up on nuclear power. Is it not realistic to believe that European energy companies would be more environmentally friendly than those in Russia, the Middle East or Africa? It is a lack of common sense that prevents them from tapping their own resources and building nuclear power plants. A lack of energy independence has made Europe hostage to a hostile Russia and a volatile Middle East and Africa. In the meantime, with an aging and shrinking populations, their economies have been anemic since the 2008 credit crisis.

My father used to tell me to never argue with a dope, because a passerby could not distinguish one from the other. Thomas Paine is alleged to have said something similar: “To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.” Politics is the search for and the exercise of power. As it has descended into a morass of emotionalism and away from reason, it has made our lives increasingly divisive. Our universities should be bastions of search, reason and debate. Instead, they have become advocates for passion and histrionics. The same can be said about our media. The search for truth and sense has been abandoned. “Common sense is not so common,” Voltaire reminded us in his A Pocket Philosophical Dictionary. The responsibility of educators and pundits should be to make common sense more common.