|
Same Old Stuff, Repackaged as
Change (I am not apologizing for offering so much
“Old Stuff” on “new” problems. I am
presenting my “old articles” as a way to illustrate a failed liberal
philosophy perpetrated over many decades and then being remarketed as “new”, again. I.W.Parkins) LETTER TO THE EDITOR, The Morning Sun, 6/9/92, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan On
the night of June 4, some Americans witnessed, on CNN an example of why our
political system no longer works. The
President of the United States held a news conference and the three largest
TV networks chose not to carry it.
American politics is increasingly media-dominated. Our official, popularly chosen , leaders
are usually frustrated, and the issues are mostly determined, by the media. The
problem Thursday night was not simply a matter of whether President Bush
could reach the American people live or directly. The questions asked of him by
reporters reflected little or no interest in his agenda, much of which is
legislative proposals now pending in Congress. Most questions were demands that the
President respond or react to a political agenda identified and promoted by
the media.
Since early 1968, every American president, Johnson and Carter, as
well as Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush, has struggled to maintain priority for
his agenda. They, especially the
Republicans, have had to deal with congresses which were attuned more closely
to selfish interests and the media than to the American public. Clearly, America needs effective political
leadership. But, the need is more
specific. American needs changes which
will, again, enable its elected leaders to actually lead. |
|
New Americans and
Multiculturalism By Ivan W. Parkins One
of the greatest of liberal, mainly Democrat, changes to America in recent
decades has been multiculturalism.
Regarding this and related matters, I recommend Michael Barone’s book,
THE NEW AMERICANS: HOW THE MELTING POT CAN WORK AGAIN.
Barone compares Irish immigrants during the mid-nineteenth century
with the great migration of Black Americans north from the Old South,
especially that since 1940. He also
compares Italian and later Latino immigrants, and Jews with recent
Asians. All are interesting, but the
Irish/Black comparison is especially sharp in the political lessons that it
offers.
Barone concludes that “race, as liberals have wisely insisted for
years, is an arbitrary category.” But,
“the descendents of past immigrants have now become deeply interwoven into
the fabric of American life.” It can
happen again. “There is less overt
bigotry and discrimination,” now. “The
greatest obstacle…is the American elite”; it, since the 1960s, does not
promote assimilation. He
points out that in one major respect the Irish fared much better than recent
Blacks. Both came from crude and
repressive environments, poorly educated, inclined to violence and
uncivil. Both also relied heavily on
their own churches. The Irish soon
learned the advantages of discipline and civility in Catholic schools; the
Blacks encountered public schools that would change to accommodate their
shortcomings.
Partisanship is not emphasized by Barone; with the 2008 election
pending, it will be by me.
Multiculturalism, and its implied divisions of America, is mainly an
innovation of liberal Democrats, and mainly since the Vietnam era. It has been imposed, or “sold,” as an
example of acceptance of other cultures as equal to, and as appropriate as,
our own. Actually, from my own
experiences, it seems to be more a rejection of traditional America and of
the chief types of leadership that America has produced. Do
liberal Democrats really want to improve upon the America that we have known,
or do they plan instead to replace that with a quasi-Marxist nirvana, their
own ”creation”? |
|
Political Change: Recent and
Future By Ivan W. Parkins
American politics have undergone some recent and disillusioning
changes. Partisan unity of popular
Presidents and their Congresses, a pattern that predominated throughout
American history until 1956, ended with President Eisenhower’s reelection.
Eisenhower won not only in the Electoral College, but also by a huge popular
majority (57.4%). No previous
presidential winner of even small majorities had faced a new Congress
controlled by the other party. The
four Democrats elected since 1956, have all entered office with Democrat
majorities in both Houses of Congress, even though only one of them won a
substantial popular majority.
Meanwhile, the four Republican winners of the Presidency have all had
at least one popular win, but none except the present George Bush has had
even a tiny partisan advantage in Congress.
Are we going to change, now, and to even greater legislative advantage
for Democrat Presidents? One
major factor contributing to the post-1954 partisan split between popular
Presidents and their Congresses has been the huge growth in size and
centralization, plus the increased partisan (Democrat) unity of, the mass
media. Research in voter behavior
shows that voters are most active and discriminating in their choices for
major offices, especially for chief executives. For lesser offices, including most
legislative bodies, voters are apt to cast no vote, choose the familiar name
(usually an incumbent), or be guided by mass media in their choices. Of the three elective federal branches
(Presidency, Senate, and House of Representatives) Democrat’s have dominated
the House, controlled the Senate most of the time and by larger margins than
any of the Republicans have had, and done poorly in most presidential
contests. Where media counted most,
Democrats won most.
Presidents generally, but especially Republicans, have lost popularity
in and after being in office. Have
their fates reflected accurately their performances, or have their performances
and reputations suffered, chiefly, from poor congressional support and
hostile media coverage? |
|
Childish and Trivial Politics Brief
quotations, removed from original time, place, and other context, are more
often misleading than informative.
About seventy years ago, as a teenager in a tiny Indiana town, I read
in a then popular book " If rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy
it." Then, about the same time as "the rape of Nanking",
I interpreted it as a profound insight into the character of the Chinese
people. |
|
Earmarks, Congress’ Power of Appropriation By Ivan W. Parkins One
great division in American opinion has to do with the powers of Congress and
President vis-à-vis one another.
President Washington’s first budget contained five lump-sum items: to
pay civilian employees, interest on the debt, etc. Also, at first, Secretary
of the Treasury, Hamilton, refused to account
to Congress for how the money was spent. Now
the system is radically different.
Certainly, more specific budget purposes and accounting for
expenditures were needed, but how much more specific?
Keep in mind that, as late as World War II, President Roosevelt was
able to hide billions and to take about 10% of the nation’s electric power,
to make the atom bomb. One
of the greatest shifts in power between our federal branches has been the
extreme specificity that Congress expects in budgets. It is almost impossible for government to
move without money. And, Congress has
interpreted its power to appropriate the money in ways that greatly reduce the discretion of the Executive
Branch. That, I suggest, may be the
most extreme distortion of the original Constitution’s distribution of powers
that is common today. Two
examples from recent history:
First, during the Ford Administration expert medical advice to the
President warned that an emergency appropriation and some legal immunity for
vaccine makers were needed to assure against a likely severe flu
epidemic. Congress did act, but it
attached to the flu bill a larger appropriation for jobs training. President Ford had recently vetoed the jobs
training expenditure. Now, he could
either risk thousands of lives or accept an expenditure that he believed to
be unwise. That is just one example of
how Congress combines unrelated measures in one piece of legislation, thus
reducing the veto power of the President.
Second, is a congressional abuse very much in the news,
Congress’ permissiveness in allowing individual members to alter
appropriations for the benefit of special, local and even their personal
interests. Such “earmarks”, many of
which are never seen by all of Congress, might appropriately be regarded as
thefts from the public treasury. Few
things about our government are less constitutional, less democratic, or less
honest than how Congress uses its power of appropriation. |
|
Fool the Jury By Ivan W. Parkins One
of the problems with a divided America is excessive suspicions of
government. And one problem of such
suspicions is that it encumbers, greatly, the processes of justice.
About thirty years ago, I sat on a felony jury in a case that was
conducted by the rules, but was an utter farce in terms other than the
formalities. The
accused admitted to possessing a sawed off shotgun, a felony under Michigan
law. So, why was there a trial? Except that legal rules of procedure
probably made it necessary, I am still unable to think of a reason.
Seven of us on the jury saw no facts to be determined. But, the defendant contended that the gun’s
barrel was accidentally blown away after being clogged with mud (a myth since
declared “busted” on TV). He hoped to
repair it, an operation declared to be impossible by an expert gunsmith. The
five opponents of conviction, all of whom admitted to ignorance of mechanics
and firearms, said that the improbability of successful repair was
irrelevant. They based their stand on
the apparent lack of any criminal intent, as pled by the defendant. The aggressive government, they insisted,
was simply applying the letter of the law where leniency should prevail.
After several hours of unchanging division, the foreman of the jury
had us readmitted to the courtroom.
There, we asked to examine the physical evidence, something that none
of us had thought necessary before.
The gun had obviously been trimmed and smoothed in ways that
facilitated its concealment and use- not its repair. The “tube” to be welded to the barrel was a
piece of ordinary water pipe and not in prime condition. The minority agreed to convict. The
judge thanked us, but expressed regret that he could not dismiss us. The second part of this “habitual criminal”
trial would be the next day. The
defendant’s previous record included at least one firearms conviction, making
his claim of innocence regarding knowledge of the offense especially
ridiculous. The final part was plea
bargained.
Ill-founded suspicions of government contribute to unwarranted legal
rules, and to the likelihood that juries will be fooled. |
|
Dividing America, Part Two (The following series of articles are a continuation of
the Dividing America series illustrating the blatant effort by the Democrat
party to divide our country) |
|
Page 9 |
|
©Ivan W. Parkins 2010, 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 |