©Ivan W. Parkins 2012,  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

Text Box: Vol.5, Issue 24
Text Box: November 5, 2012

I. W. Parkins

Front Page

 Links to Articles and Items of Interest

· Michael Barone-Washington Examiner on “Going Out on a Limb”

· Ed Meese on “The Next President and the Supreme Court”

· Breitbart’s Joel Black on Failure of Major News Media”

· Ann Coulter on “Romney is What the Country Needs Now”

· Bret Baier on “What the President Really Said in that “60 Minutes” Interview”

· Jennifer Griffin of Fox News: “EXCLUSIVE ON BENGHAZI”

· Daniel Halper of Weekly Standard- ”Father of Slain Seal...Benghazi…”

· Peggy Noonan of WSJ on “When Americans Saw the Real Obama”

· Thomas Sowell on “The Fallacy of Redistribution”

· Rasmussen’s  “Presidential Daily Tracking Poll” 

· Breitbart.com– stories which are not seen in “the media”

· The Drudge Report— Current events website by Matt Drudge

· The Heritage Foundation Blog

Text Box:  IN THIS ISSUE– ELECTION DAY 2012
Voting is Revenge?
Bits of History As I Lived It
Progressive Constitutionalism
Symbols of An Informative Change
Substantive Decision by an Academic

American Political Commentary

 

Veritas Veneratio Virtus

ELECTION DAY

2012

   BITS OF HISTORY AS I LIVED IT

By Ivan W. Parkins

           In 1944, as a combat-experienced naval officer, I voted for FDR.  And I was a party loyalist until after the election of 1968.  By that time I was an Associate Professor of Government, and becoming very critical of how new mainstream media were covering both war in Vietnam and politics in America.  In 1972 I voted, as one Republican in the largest Presidential plurality ever, for Richard Nixon. From then on I would be at odds with most of my colleagues and students. I am long since retired.  I continue to believe that the hounding of President Nixon from office and the subsequent withdrawal from an important war, that we had helped nearly to win, will eventually register as one of the most partisan and disloyal episodes in America’s history.

           Fortunately, we had Presidents Reagan and G.H.W. Bush not long after, to restore much of America’s traditional prosperity and world standing. But, thanks to interventions of  Democrat Congresses, such things as unnecessarily limited intelligence, weakening defense and poorly qualified mortgage-holders as much of the support for the financial instruments facilitating our economy, more serious problems were not far ahead.

 PROGRESSIVE CONSTITUTIONALISM

By Ivan W. Parkins

 

           For America, “progressive constitutionalism” makes no sense.  The purpose of a constitution such as ours is to establish the lasting rules guaranteeing that popular governments can be instituted, operate within known limits, and allow private individuals or organizations to plan and conduct their lives without undue interference.  Our Constitution can be changed, but that requires processes that extend beyond one popular election or the rule of one majority.

           There is a vast difference between the 1930s and our present situation.  Franklin Roosevelt’s initial election was by a substantially larger margin than Obama’s, and his first Congress was also more heavily Democrat, than President Obama’s has been.  Furthermore, FDR’s Administration improved its margins in both the off-year election of 1934 and his reelection in 1936.  Even so, the Supreme Court initially held against much of FDR’s New Deal.  Gradually, the Court “followed the election returns” and yielded to popular sovereignty.

           The real issue with President Obama’s Health Care Law is that it resembles more an attempt at a coup than orderly legislation.  I refer not to any military coup.  Our military today is highly professional and officers are sworn to protect and defend the Constitution, while enlisted persons swear to obey lawful orders.

           Much of the support for a coup has come from the “old mainstream media,” but that power center has now been seriously eroded.  Talk radio, cable television, and fifteen years of Fox News have restored some semblance of balance to our information system.

           None of this disputes that we need improvements in our system of medical services.  But, the Obama plan is one of much greater centralization.  Far more practical in dealing with the differences among individuals and how they react to medical threats and treatments, would be a system in which the chief administrative authority corresponded to the specific natures of the numerous and diverse problems.  Too much of a central government’s interventions, even by states, makes little sense.

 SYMBOLS OF AN

INFORMATIVE CHANGE

By Ivan W. Parkins

           I welcome the Tea Partiers, but as symbols that some too long neglected truths are now gaining more public notice, not as great purveyors of new information. New major players in the realm of public information, i.e. cable television, talk radio, etc. have over taken the older “mainstream media.”  But, most explanations of the present, when they rely on older popular accounts of the still very relevant past remain badly flawed.

           The election of 1968 was critical.  The then dominant Democrat Party split.  New, largely younger and more leftist elements became dominate there.  Some older and more conservative elements went to a third-party.  Republican Richard Nixon became President, and he promised a less expensive and more successful war in Vietnam.

           In his first term Nixon delivered on his Vietnam promise, and that helped him to win reelection by what is still the largest popular plurality in American history.  That victory came in spite of Watergate charges hanging over the Nixon Administration.

           Democrats, especially the newer more leftist and anti-war crowd, could not survive public recognition of what looked like a coming victory in Vietnam, plus a boost to Nixon and Republicans.  Most of our major media were aligned with the new Democrats.  The relatively petty Watergate matter was placed front and center in the news.  Nixon, in spite of his recent and record setting reelection, was driven from office.  And our recent S.E. Asian allies were abandoned to the Communists.

           That American retreat will, I believe, eventually be ranked by historians as one of the most disastrous, and most unnecessary, political moves in American history.  We still live in its shadow—even though we have now killed both Saddam and Ben Laden, both of whom, cited Vietnam as a reason that they believed they could defeat us.

SUBSTANTIVE DECISION, BY AN ACADEMIC

By Ivan W. Parkins

 

Other than declarations of war, a matter explicitly provided for in the Constitution, it is difficult to find any real parallel, in extent and weight, to the Health Care Act upon the nation’s finances, the authority of the several states, and the lives of individual American citizens.  The issue here is whether of not a peacetime enactment so comprehensive and financially burdening upon the nation, the several states of this union, and the many millions of citizens, is within the powers of a single Congress and Administration.  Is any such comprehensive power to be exercised in time of peace legitimate, or is the Health Care Act a sly form of coup?

 

The act in question is the work of only one legislature and one political party.  It was drawn up in largely secret meetings and considerable haste. Very little time was allowed for legislators not directly involved in its drafting even to read, much less to consider, it. It was enacted by substantial, but not particularly large or bipartisan majorities, after relatively brief floor discussions and debate.  For anything so comprehensive, and impinging so heavily upon nearly all citizens and lesser units of government, such a procedure is inadequate.  The Court has no other reasonable option but to delay the further application of the Health Care Act until it is either confirmed or rejected by additions of a further election, and legislative approval.

   VOTING IS REVENGE?

By Ivan W. Parkins

 

           As the holder of a MA in Social and Political Philosophy and a PhD in Political Theory I find the recent partisan noise over topics pretending to draw upon such subjects mostly to make little sense.  But President Obama’s recent suggestion that people vote as “revenge” is too raw and malicious even for what is, much of it, groundless garble. We do face several and very dangerous threats to our lives and freedoms.

           Except for a few tiny principalities, no nation has managed an economic system as rich, as productive, and offering as much economic freedom as ours.  In the past half-century newly rich and powerful political elements, i.e. television, universities, and incorporated organizations of the arts have gained greatly in numbers and influence.  They have become major competitors for, if not the political superiors of, older producers of foods and other necessities such as shelter and the means of its defense.  Unfortunately, that political and economic competition has, at times, been allowed to become destructive to the welfare of this Nation and most of its inhabitants.  President Obama chooses to be a major player in, not a soother of, that conflict.

           Governor Romney has been, in at least two of his major public roles (Olympics and Governor of a heavily Democrat state) as successful manager of various kinds of business.  He is almost too lacking in belligerence for a top politician.  I believe that he is just the kind of man that we need, and Now!