Ivan W. Parkins


To order Dr. Parkins book,

 Perspectives For American Society  




©Ivan W. Parkins 2008,  All articles, text, web pages property of Ivan W. Parkins.  Use of any material requires permission of the

author and can be obtained by contacting, info@americanpoliticalcommentary.com

About Ivan W. Parkins:

Dr. Parkins is a retired professor of Political Science from Central Michigan University.  He received his PhD from the University of Chicago and is a graduate of the United States Naval Academy.  Dr. Parkins served as a naval officer during WWII aboard the battleship Alabama.  He is a recent widower with three daughters, 3 grand children and 2 great grand children.  Dr. Parkins has written extensively, having authored 3 books and a newspaper opinion column for many years. 

Front Page

Inside This Issue

Front Page Archive 2008 Archive 2009

Disassemble the House

The Political Long View

Media Bias

Book Reviews

War and Their Costs

Broken Congress

Dividing America

Dividing America, Part two

Disinformation, Liberal Ideology

The Supreme Court and Judiciary


The Presidency, Part One

The Presidency, Part Two

Failure of the People’s House

The Republic in Danger

Send a comment





     Only a few years late, a New Century, promised by the 1960s and ‘70s, is blossoming in America.  Thanks to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now and its former officer Obama, its many congressional funders, and the generous oversight, or overlook, provided by traditional mass media, this nation will be free again!

     The millennia of human struggle against moldering ethical and legal concepts is nearing victory.  Someday is here, and we have overcome!

     No mere “City on a Hill,” America, the truly humane, will usher in a lasting and world-wide era of peace.  Equality and justice will prevail.  A new miracle of chemistry will lift the toll of death from malaria for millions of black babies.

(We’ve already saved millions of birds.)  Dirty and degrading technologies will fade away—succeeded by tall and attractive windmills. (The cost may be a moderate number splattered of birds.)

     Everyone will have a home, and live in the sunshine.

     A new Age of Enlightenment is dawning!

     The requisite voting of the 2008 elections has already begun in the United States of America. I.W. Parkins 10/08


The following series of articles concern voter fraud, deception and disinformation.  Trademarks of the Democrat Party?

Part two

Letter to:



September 6, 2008 (not published)


     Professor Alan Brinkley’s THE PARTY’S OVER, featured in WEEKEND JOURNAL, September 6-7, deserves a high grade for the facts and trends summarized and a poor mark for the related facts and trends neglected.


     Among the neglected are:


     In 1956 President Eisenhower, reelected in a landslide, became the first President in American history to have won office with a popular majority and to face a new Congress controlled by the other party.


     The traditional partisan unity of the three elected branches continued after that for Democrat Presidents who won popular majorities, but for none of the several Republicans (including landslide winners Nixon ‘72 and Reagan’ 84) – until George W. Bush in 2004.


     Democrat Carter, winner by 50.1% in ’76, got larger congressional majorities, both houses, than any Republican President has ever had.  Clinton, winner in ’92 with 43% of the popular vote, got larger congressional majorities (’93-94) than any Republican President has had since the 1920s.  Clinton was also distinguished by becoming the third President, since popular election of Electors became common, to win two terms without a popular majority either time.


     Since Franklin Roosevelt entered the Presidency, Congress has shared the party of Republican Presidents in only six years, and all of those were by narrow margins.


      My conclusions: without great and somewhat balanced attention to both sides, as in most presidential races, the party favored by the media of information, academic as well as journalistic, dominates.  Thus, the House is now practically a Democrat precinct; the Senate leans Democrat; Presidents, especially popular ones, are soon greatly diminished in office.

I.W. Parkins, 90608



This is a rerun from Feb. of  2008

By Ivan Parkins

Democracy rests upon an assumption that the people are well-informed.  Or as Thomas Jefferson put it, “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.  Whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they can be relied upon to set them right.”


A long life of studying, teaching, observing, and writing about American government has left me with two main conclusions.  First: that the public has generally been right, and is so now in its belief that “the system” needs changing.  Second: that the public is greatly confused regarding what changes are needed.


Authoritarians may deny their people some information, but mostly they brainwash them with disinformation.  Old sayings about the pen being mightier than the sword can be misleading.  Often the sword has been used first, to control most of the pens.  The pens are then used to “disinform”  the people in ways that permit most swords to remain sheathed.  Once firmly established, authoritarians control virtually all schools, publishing, news facilities, and other sources of information.


Today, that is becoming more difficult.  But, what if most of the pens, i.e. professional communicators, were to unite in cooperation with one another and with one political party?  That is the transformation that I have witnessed in American society since World War II.  Mass communication, especially television, has invaded households to an unprecedented degree.  Schools and teachers have been nationalized by union and governmental actions.  Possible competitors such as families and churches have been harassed and legally restricted.


The one place in our national system where information has been most extensive and public choice most informed has been presidential elections.  There, three recent Presidents, (Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan ) won reelections by the largest popular pluralities and by three of the largest majorities in our history.  Johnson was then discouraged from seeking the additional term for which he was legally qualified.  Nixon was promptly forced to resign.  Reagan survived and in many respects triumphed, but only by facing long and severe harassment.


Since then, President Clinton survived two terms in office, in spite of having been impeached by the House of Representatives and losing in the courts on the several challenges that he brought there.  He and his defenders claimed that it was all over a “private sexual matter”.  Congress, unwilling to face media friendly to Clinton with another election pending, left most other issues to Clinton’s own subordinates.  Even so, the House indicted, and a secure room filled with hundreds of documents showing evidence and testimony of witnesses was provided for the Senate.  No Democrat Senator signed into that room before voting to acquit.  Coincidentally, Clinton was the only President since Wilson, many years earlier to win the office twice without winning a popular majority either time.

Our current President, Bush, did win a popular majority in 2004, only a slim one, but better than any Democrat since Johnson.  He has faced what have probably been the most voluminous and intense media attacks upon his Presidency and his person endured by any President.


Now, talk radio, cable television, some of the new publications, and a few websites offer promise that the people may become better informed.  But several decades of public brainwashing by the media have left scars that threaten democracy in America.  How can people choose a better course when they know so little about the one that we have traveled recently? I.W. Parkins-February 2008



By Ivan W. Parkins


     Hitler was a very dangerous person.  He was an outspoken racist and militarist; he was clearly responsible for death camps and military operations that killed several tens of millions.  And, he is not credited with any sign of regretting those outcomes.  So, how would he feel if he could know that others, mostly anti-racist and anti-militarist, have rivaled, perhaps exceeded, his genocides?  And, their “accomplishment” is not even widely noticed.


     That’s history.  Our problem is do we now want people who appear to be similar to those who secured the ban on DDT to control the World’s largest economy and most powerful government?  Certainly they will not emulate Hitler.  But, as the horrendous toll from the DDT ban should warn us, the “good deeds” born of amateurish enthusiasms are not guaranteed to have beautiful consequences.


     I fear Obama and his enthusiastic following, for much the same reason that I insist we should remember to compare Rachel Carson and her following with Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot as Very Dangerous.  Hitler promised and produced change, much of it what he intended.  Carson’s most significant result was no doubt unintended.


     One reason for favoring leaders with substantial records of service is that they are seldom Very Dangerous.  They try to base changes upon the best of what we have already. I spent the 1960s-“70s on college campuses in Florida, North Carolina, and Michigan.  I began as a “liberal” Democrat and ended as a Republican, mostly because I began to see many of my colleagues and students as dangerous people.


     In that period, there was an obvious shift of political opinions from an historical basis to great emphasis upon “relevance.”  The latter being mostly a matter of matching with the mass media, especially television.  And, when that sort of emphasis is combined with events by which white people, who pride themselves on their hatred of racism, can then fail to acknowledge clearly, acts that contributed heavily to the malaria deaths of millions of black babies, there is reason to fear for our republic.


     It is too late for my life to be greatly affected by the coming elections, but I will leave progeny. And I deeply desire that they and their America will serve one another at least as well as I and my America have.


     I will vote for John McCain and Republicans.

                 WHO’S WORD? ---


By Ivan W. Parkins


     How do Democrats imply that Republicans are mainly responsible for both government deficits and the state of our economy? Answer: A pro-Democrat information system does not make clear the facts, available in any public library, that, for the past forty years, Democrats have dominated most Congresses, even under Republican Presidents.


     How do you tag American conservatives with the “racist” label? Answer: They keep secret (almost) the fact that liberal environmentalists, with their ban of DDT, contributed to the malaria deaths of millions of black babies—perhaps the greatest racial genocide in history.


     How do you maintain that the Youth Rebellion of the ‘60s and ‘70s was humane and progressive? Answer: They don’t do the math; population of the youth group times the increase in violent deaths among them, domestically, exceeded our combat deaths overseas in those decades.


     How do you win the next election—maybe?  Answer: Democrats campaign against America’s recent history, as it has been represented (falsely) in our Democrat leaning information media.




     Given an Internal Revenue Code that already defies the intellectual grasp of almost everyone, why not add to it one huge delusional graft?  Most people recognize that growing money on trees takes a good deal of skill and a lot of hard work, but how many know that it is not easy to do it with the Internal Revenue Code?  Indeed, it does seem to be possible for at least a few to do just that.


     THE WALL STREET JOURNAL this morning, October 13, 2008, provides what may be THE legendary October surprise, an editorial “Obama’s 95% Illusion.”  The illusory part, according to the Journal’s account, is that much of what Obama calls “tax cuts” is actually just welfare or transfer payments made via changes in the tax code. 


     The “money tree” part of this is my translation.  It is the unlikely prospect that, even disguised as a mere change in our tax code, a grand move toward socialism will produce a major improvement in the economic well-being of most Americans.

I.W. Parkins 10/08