"Things I Think About"

It should be remembered in this time of dissonance about Confederate memorials that Memorial Day was first commemorated to honor the dead of our Civil War. Unique among all wars, it honored both the victors and the vanquished. Thus, Memorial Day served to not only remember those who gave their lives for the Union side, but to honor their enemies and help bind the wounds created by four years of fighting. Today, Memorial Day causes us to reflect on our history, on those who gave their lives that we may live in this glorious, though imperfect, land – imperfect in an absolute, not a relative, sense; for there never was a country as good, generous and equitable as the one we are lucky to live in. 

In this essay, I consider some of my opinions – functions of my genes and my experiences – and how they came to be. I refer to an essay I wrote a year ago last March, so have attached a pdf version, should you have an interest.

Next Monday, the Month That Was – May 2017 will be out. In the interim, there will be another “Burrowing into Books,” this time on Anthony Trollope’s Framley Parsonage. 

Happy Memorial Day!

Sydney M. Williams

Thought of the Day

“Things I Think About”

May 29, 2017

“I didn’t like having to explain to them,

 so I just shut up, smoked a cigarette, and looked at the sea.”

                                                                                                            Albert Camus (1913-1960)

                                                                                                            The Stranger, 1942

Agatha Christie wrote, in The Seven Dials Mystery, that “…to rush into explanations is always a sign of weakness.” However, I believe opinion writers should, periodically, explain why they think and write as they do. Flannery O’Connor said: “I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” I disagree. We know what we want to say, but do our words express what we mean?

Last year, I wrote a TOTD, “I Believe…,” a compendium of things important to me: education, the necessity of family, dignity of work, respect and tolerance for others, rule of law, the importance of democracy and free-market capitalism, and an understanding of the fragility and evanescence of liberty.

Opinion writers are not reporters. We are individuals expressing our perceptions and prejudices; we hope our essays reflect judgement and wisdom, but know we are fallible. We rely on reporters to uncover and present facts, which we use to thresh out opinions. However, media bias has made the job difficult. More time is spent chasing down allegations. But that bias has made what we do more critical. Proliferation of “fake” news must be offset with wisdom and judgment. Time will determine if we are right.

Opinions are formed over many years, and are a consequence of heritage and environment. I grew up in a large family in a small town in New Hampshire, I was raised in a family of protestant Republicans and, apart from a few years in my 20’s, have retained a conservative outlook – an outlook I claim to reflect common sense, rather than ideology. Nevertheless, my political philosophy was influenced by my family and friends, my job, traveling, and a lifetime of reading, fiction as well as history and biographies.

My childhood more closely resembled the rural idyll that Thomas Jefferson admired, than the sophisticated life he lived. My parents were artists, so by definition, non-conformists. We lived simply, but with grandparents and other family members who lived urbanized lives, we had feet in both groups. In some sense, we never felt comfortable in either. My parents were educated, had traveled and were well-read, so we were always aware of the world around us. Our home was filled with books, and British magazines like “Punch” and “Country Life,” not typically found in small New England farm homes.

I grew up, went to college and then, after two years at Eastman Kodak, spent forty-eight years on Wall Street, all but four of them in New York City. One could argue that my essays reflect capitalism and banks – Wall Street, as opposed to Main Street – and no doubt there is some truth to that assertion. But Wall Street never had a single identity. What attracted me in the mid 1960s, besides the money, were the minds of those who worked there, their entrepreneurial spirit, and that merit was rewarded over connections. I liked the idiosyncratic nature of individual firms, and how the industry differed from large corporations.

I began writing essays almost twenty years ago. I had no formal training, but my favorite writer was E.B. White, who still serves as my exemplar. In early 2000, I found the stock market no longer fathomable. People bought stocks with no earnings and no sales. I wrote what I called a Market Note, as a means of helping decipher what was happening. A few years later, the credit crisis of 2007 and 2008 opened floodgates of incomprehension. House prices had been rising faster than speculators could flip them. Banks, with the encouragement of government, granted “no-doc” mortgages to people with no incomes. Investment banks were leveraged at thirty or forty to one. When the credit crisis hit with gale-force winds in September of 2008, it was as though a small boat inadvertently found itself in the Bermuda Triangle during a storm. Then, a couple of months later, when credit market fears began to ebb, alarm bells were re-rung: “You never let a serious crisis go to waste,” declared Rahm Emanuel, speaking for a new Administration. Investing is a deliberative exercise that involves analysis and the anticipation of events, yet investors were only reacting. Perspective was needed. That was the opportunity, and it is what I tried to provide.

Politics call for the same dispassion – a stepping back and viewing the world from 30,000 feet. Partisanship permeates our culture. Trump is accused of volatility, but most politicians and the media have become even more inflammatory. If you are a middleclass, high school-educated, white, working American who believes in God and traditional families – you hate the elites who govern Washington, and who live better than you on dollars you pay them in taxes. If you are of the Left, or an establishment Republican, you hate Trump. If you are a conservative who believes in limited government, who worries that today’s debts will threaten your grandchildren’s well-being, you hate what selfish politicians have done to their future.

Hyperbole is a legitimate tool used by opinion writers, but emotions distort analysis. My opinions are clearly conservative, but I try to view events through a lens of common sense. Opposing arguments, which use reason, are welcome. I try – not always successfully – to be civil. (A few reactions to my essays have been decidedly uncivil.) As one would expect from one living in Connecticut, I have liberal friends and would rather not lose their friendship, but not at the expense of compromising my principles.

I have read enough of history to understand how rare is our democracy, how precarious it is and how ephemeral it can be. We are lucky to live in this country. I worry, however,  about those things that threaten our culture: hypocritical and supercilious politicians; a press that puts partisanship above impartial reporting; multi-culturalism and moral relativism; political correctness; the failure to see dignity in work; intolerance; “safe spaces;” the misuse of science for political gain; the segregating of voters for political expediency; the increase in dependency and concomitant fall in personal responsibility; the failure to celebrate traditional families; the decline in community organizations. I do not understand why the West will not acknowledge we are at war with Radical Islam.  I grieve that the young do not know our history, or understand the role played by capitalism in eradicating poverty. I am concerned with the growth of the administrative state, and the bureaucracies created. I wonder, why feminists condemn Trump for his crude language, yet condoned Bill Clinton when he sexually abused women? I know the path we are on, from a fiscal and monetary perspective, is not sustainable. Consider how far away we are from when President John Kennedy implored people to “ask not what the country can do for them, but what they could do for the country.”

Everyone should periodically undergo self-analysis. We don’t have to be omphaloskeptics, but we should question ourselves: Why do we believe as we do? Are our opinions grounded in history and in an understanding of human behavior? De we reflect compassion and common sense? Or, do we live in a world as we would want it to be? Have we become Walter Mitty’s? Does prejudice not sense, dictate actions? If Congress passes a health care bill, why would they exempt themselves from its provisions? Should those who live in a cocoon of privilege – private schools and armed body guards – be adamant in limiting school choice or opening borders? These are things I think about and which cause me to express the opinions I do.

"Trump's Opportunities and Priorities"

Sydney M. Williams

Thought of the Day

“Trump’s Opportunities and Priorities”

January 15, 2017

“It matters enormously to a successful democratic society like ours that we have three branches of government,

 each with some independence and some control over the other two. That’s set out in the Constitution.”

                                                                                                 Sandra Day O’Connor

                                                                                                 Former Associate Justice, Supreme Court

“The modern administrative state…blurs the separation of powers and the system

 of checks and balances, and has become an unaccountable fourth branch of government.”

                                                                                                 Elizabeth Slattery

                                                                                                 Legal Fellow, Heritage Foundation 

As President, Donald Trump will have many chances to help the nation. His ego and his mercurial disposition may interfere, but opportunities abound. He can help the economy get back on track and, in doing so, help lessen income and wealth inequality that have risen the past eight years. He can help re-build the Middle East and, with a show of strength, help repair relations with Russia and China, which are necessary for long-term global growth. He can help reverse the polarization that has divided our nation, so that we will be able to judge people “… for the content of their character” (as Martin Luther King once said), not for their race, sex or religion. Such tasks should be doable, assuming Mr. Trump’s temperament doesn’t intervene, or the Left does not erect roadblocks. 

His most important priority, however, should be to restore democracy – the inherent freedom a liberal, democratic-capitalist republic requires. It is the fount from which all opportunities rise. For eight decades, an expanding administrative state has eroded principles of government laid out by our Founders. In times of war, national security interests allowed Presidents to assume powers alien to our precepts of liberty: Lincoln and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus; Wilson and the Espionage Act of 1917: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the internment of 80,000 Japanese-Americans. But war-time powers lapse when hostilities end. More insidious has been the trend, since the Progressive movement of the late 19^th Century, toward increasing the power and reach of the federal government at the expense of Congress, individuals and states; and, within the federal government, the expansion of the Executive over the Congress. 

Can Mr. Trump reverse this trend, or at least slow it? I don’t know, but I hope so. Expectations are low. He will enter office despised by those who oppose him – a group that includes opinion makers: mainstream media, educators, Hollywood harlequins and political and business establishment-types from both Parties. Their candidate, Mrs. Clinton, was defeated by a man they scorned. Mr. Trump has none of the goodwill extended President-elect Obama in early 2009. Today, Mr. Obama scores high on personal approval ratings, but, keep in mind, his policies helped defeat Democrats. Even the generally sober David Brooks depicts Mr. Trump as a man who is “inattentive, unpredictable and basically uninterested in anything but his own status at the moment.” But, if Mr. Brooks and his ilk are right, how do they explain his business success? How did he win a Presidential primary that took out 16 other Republican candidates and beat a woman who has been around politics her entire life? And how did he do so while spending less than half the amount of money she spent? Mr. Trump will not get the “honeymoon” usually accorded new Presidents. But conservatives understand that Mr. Trump has provided them the best opportunities for change in a century.

Examples of government overreach abound. There are over 300 administrative agencies that control myriad aspects of our lives, from the environment, retirement accounts and healthcare to daycare, public radio and the internet. They range from regulating the toilet seats we sit on to the size of soft drinks we consume. Laws, which were once grounded in principle, have become laws based on policies. As well, agencies have become substantial sources of government revenues. According to a Wall Street Journal report last March, big banks, since the 2008 mortgage crisis, have paid out $110 billion in fines to the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Ironically, these fines were paid by roughly 100 million innocent shareholders, which include owners of mutual funds and retirement accounts. In 2015, the DOJ collected $24 billion and the EPA collected $205 million in fines. 

As the branch of government designated to write laws and levy taxes, Congress has abrogated its Constitutional responsibilities to agencies like the SEC, CFTC, EPA and CFBP (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) – agencies run by unaccountable political appointees, but with limited autonomy. For example, the head of the VA cannot fire its employees. The attraction of such agencies to Congress is that they allow them to take credit when it serves their purpose and to avoid blame when it does not.

(Restoration of the filibuster, as well, should be on the agenda. The Senate was designed to be a deliberative body, to slow things down. In an illuminative exchange, George Washington allegedly once asked Thomas Jefferson why he poured his tea into a saucer. “To cool it,” was the response. Washington then explained: “We pour legislation into the Senatorial saucer to cool it.” A filibuster encourages bi-partisanship; avoiding a filibuster requires cooperation. If opposing Parties do not work together, nothing gets done. Senator Mitch McConnell would be wise to restore the filibuster.)

It would be impossible, as well as a mistake, to shut down all agencies that have been created over the past century and more. But it would be wrong to do nothing. Repealing the most outlandish, reducing the regulatory burden and slowing the expansion of government should be a priority of the Trump Administration. Doing so will help drive economic growth. In his farewell speech, President Obama spoke of the threats to our Constitution. He was right, but I wish he had taken his own advice. I wish he had lessened, not tightened, regulations. I wish he had sought bi-partisan compromise, not arrogantly shunned the opposition, like when he shut off Eric Cantor: “I won.” When government enfolds us in cocoons, such as Julia’s World or The Pajama Boy, the trade-off is a loss of personal responsibility and, ergo, freedom. We ask government to protect us from evil perpetrated by others, but when government protects us from our own mistakes we don’t learn. It is not that government is bad. It is that a free society must recognize the difference between government that is necessary and government that is abusive in its pervasiveness. It is as though President Kennedy asked: “What would you want your country to do for you?” The road we are on is fraught with risk – we could turn into a nation of Eloi, with government bureaucrats playing the role of Morlocks. It is a path toward authoritarianism, which could emerge from either the Right or the Left.

Nevertheless, politics can surprise. Most were surprised in November. Mr. Trump may be different than the cartoon character portrayed. It took the strongly anti-Communist Richard Nixon to open the door to China in 1972. Will the the pre-judged “authoritarian” Donald Trump be the President who reduces the reach of the Executive and who returns power to the people and the states? I don’t know, but it’s possible. Legions of establishment-types are determined to see him fail. But, anybody with an understanding of history knows that a political system is at risk when power accedes, as it has over several decades in the U.S., to an ever-increasing number of unaccountable administrative agencies and to an ever-stronger Executive. Trump’s opportunity is to reverse this trend. I hope he does.

"Change - It's Blowing in the Wind"

Sydney M. Williams

Thought of the Day

“Change – It’s Blowing In The Wind”

October 24, 2016

“Yes, how many times can a man turn his head

Pretending he just doesn’t see?

The answer my friend is blowin’ in the wind;

The answer is blowin’ in the wind.”

                                                                                                Bob Dylan (1941-)

                                                                                                “Blowin’ in the Wind” 1962

                                                                                                2016 Nobel Prize winner for literature

Whether Donald Trump wins or loses in November, one thing seems certain – change is in the air. There are many reasons for this: Wars in the Middle East have forced millions to flee their homelands. Globalization, technology, and the creative destruction they have brought has caused tens of thousands to lose their jobs. Change can be both good and bad, but change is inevitable. It was the Greek philosopher Heraclitus who allegedly said that “change is the only constant in life.” There is no time when change is not present, but there are distinct times when it is pivotal. At the risk of sounding like the boy who cried wolf, I believe this is one of those times.

Other factors are also at work. Government has become larger, less accountable and less representative. (In 1800, 32 Senators and 105 Representatives represented 5.3 million people. Today, 535 Congressional members of Congress represent 320 million people.) Have we become too large for representative government? I hope not and I don’t believe we have. The Executive branch – via multiple agencies run by unaccountable bureaucrats – has increased its power over the purse. Corruption has become rampant, suggesting term limits for Congress may be one answer. The Supreme Court has become politicized, as ideologies have replaced adherence to the Constitution, at least from the perspective of those making appointments. The absence of a military draft has rendered less meaningful universal concepts of public service, self-sacrifice and patriotism. Universities have become sanctuaries where students are provided “safe places” to protect them from “uncomfortable” words and phrases. School choice is denied to all but the wealthy. Political correctness has become the God before whom we genuflect. We apologize for past sins rather than celebrate the benefits democracy and free-markets have wrought.

Globally, liberalism and capitalism are under attack, as are institutions that have defined Western civilization for years – family; values; religious organizations; community groups; the free flow of ideas in colleges and universities. Our public schools no longer teach discipline, mutual respect and the virtues of citizenship. White Americans are told to acknowledge their “privilege” and are condemned for deeds done by previous generations, in very different times. We are pompously instructed by “our betters” to allow into the country, without proper vetting, those who would destroy the culture that permitted our society to blossom. Political elites live segregated lives, in gated communities, with children in exclusive schools. They live lives unaffected from the consequences of their policies. As Admiral Boom warns Bert in “Mary Poppins,” “heavy weather brewing there!”

Amidst this turbulence, we should be careful for what we wish. We should recognize how Western thought has served as ballast to our nation states, and we should understand the unchanging nature of moral values. In his 1993 book The Moral Sense, James Q. Wilson noted that it was in the West, and only in the West, that freedom for all men became a fundamental moral principle. It didn’t happen all at once, and it didn’t spread evenly. But the West is where it began. He wrote: “The kind of culture that can maintain reasonable human commitments takes centuries to create, but only a few generations to destroy.” We now see freedom slipping away bit-by-bit, as the state strengthens its hand, using the tax code to benefit special interests and federal agencies to promote favored businesses. We see odd bedfellows working together – academia, mainstream media, Hollywood, elitist politicians, union and business leaders, and bankers who freely migrate between Wall Street and K Street – to maintain power and generate personal wealth.

The possibility that their comfortable place could be disrupted by the election of Donald Trump, terrifies these elites.  Mainstream media has decided that impartiality in reporting news is less important than denying Trump the election. Universities claim to be bastions for the free exchange of ideas, yet are overwhelmingly liberal, with registered Democrats outnumbering Republicans twelve to one. We see civil rights leaders whose self-interest supersedes any concern for those they purport to represent.

But things are changing, and with it a backlash, in which the cure may be worse than the disease. In 1995, Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam published Bowling Alone, in which he made the case that Americans were no longer the energetic joiners they had been in the 1950s – that they had become detached from civic life and deprived of person-to-person social networks. In Coming Apart (2012), Charles Murray described the economic divide and moral decline of white Americans, contrasting the poor, white neighborhood of Fishtown in Philadelphia to the fictional upscale town of Belmont. In Hillbilly Elegy (2016), J.D. Vance tells his story of growing up in the small, rust-belt town of Middletown, Ohio in the late 1990s and early 2000s. He writes of poor, white people who have developed mistrust of government institutions, those who now form the base of Donald Trump’s supporters. These are Hillary’s “deplorables” and “unredeemables.” Politicians have segregated the electorate into easily identifiable groups, but have left out white middleclass and poor, men and women who once held private sector union jobs – jobs that have been shipped offshore. They see liberal politicians cater to blacks, Hispanics, gays and transgenders, yet ignore what was once the backbone of the American workforce. They see Washington require the Catholic Church provide contraception to female employees, yet the same government discourage Catholic schools from offering school choice to middle class and low-income families. They see a President unwilling to call Islamic terrorists by name. They live in a country they no longer understand.

Across the globe, men and women have begun to stand up against elites who control government, unions, banks and large businesses. People have grown weary of the lies, the corruption and the self-dealing. A few years ago we saw the spontaneous rise of the Tea Party, which reflected a simmering discontent with the establishment. We see African-American moms clamor to get their children into union-free Charter schools, knowing that a good education is fundamental to future success; and then watch NAACP leaders endorse teachers’ unions that have done so much to suppress school choice. Demographics play a role. High birthrates in wealthy countries reflect optimism. Yet, birthrates are declining in the West, indicating pessimism and magnifying future entitlements, with too few workers paying for too many retirees. In Europe and the U.S., people see higher Muslim birthrates and rebel against liberal, unthinking immigration policies, which portend a cultural shift in the decades and generations ahead – a change that will cause societies to be less liberal, less equitable than the Christian-Judeo ones we have known.

Brexit in England was manifestation of this unrest, as was the Republican nomination of Donald Trump in the United States. (In contrast, the coronation of Hillary Clinton by Democrats, despite her lies and corruption, evidenced a desire to maintain the status quo.) No matter who wins or loses in November, these events suggest an irreversible force moving across the West – a blowing in the wind – that is questioning the assumed wisdom of elites who have led us to this angry and dissonant place.