|
To order Dr. Parkins book, Perspectives For
American Society Contact
info@americanpoliticalcommentary.com |
|
©Ivan W. Parkins 2009, 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. |
|
Page 22 |
|
A NEW ADMINISTRATION? By Ivan W. Parkins How
should I greet the start of a new Administration, one for which I did not
vote? I hope that it serves America well.
Here, I am dealing with some general questions regarding presidential
leadership and conformity to preconceived rules. I was prompted in this partly by a WALL STREET JOURNAL lead editorial 1/11/09(
President Gulliver's Lawyer
- WSJ.com ) pointing to narrowly legalistic views previously expressed by
President-elect Obama’s choice for the Justice Department's Office of Legal
Counsel. The JOURNAL'S editors are
right; Dawn Johnsen’s writings do suggest that she is best qualified to be
President Gulliver's Lawyer. |
|
ECONOMIC DOWNTURNS, PAST AND PRESENT By Ivan W. Parkins Probably, the
greatest difference in economic downturns is that, until quite recently, most
people lived almost literally “hand to mouth.” The cost of basic food and shelter
exhausted most of the income of many employed families. The public’s propensity to spend was not
the crux of the problem; how to fill needs was. Increasingly, now, for those who are
employed, much of income goes for discretionary spending. Common purchases are meals out, larger
homes, entertainment, and newer autos or appliances. One major effect of this is that consumer
demand can fluctuate quite suddenly and severely depending upon consumer
confidence. Furthermore consumer
confidence is much influenced by the media. The panic of the
1930s was based substantially upon unemployment and income losses that
threatened the very existence of numerous families. Now, even a relatively small decline in
employment threatens life-styles and industrial/commercial activity levels,
but not nearly so large a portion of lives. In the 1930s a large
portion of Americans were still employed in agriculture or in relatively
small and local businesses serving agriculture. Most farms were small and neither
incorporated nor highly mechanized.
The urban-industrial depression followed a decade of declining
agricultural prices. Measured in
bushels of wheat or pounds of meat, agricultural implements and chemicals
often cost in 1930 two or three times as much as they had a few years
earlier. In too many instances, just
the cost of shipping produce to market exceeded radio reports of market prices. The American South
had a disproportionate share of tenant farmers. There, especially, depression and
desperation tended to be linked. In
fertile portions of the Mid-West (where I grew up) there was more proprietary
farming. In most farm communities, including the small towns, people had
vegetable gardens, and sometimes chickens or larger livestock. The local food supply was less severely
threatened. Even so, I recall stopping
to speak with a friend one evening and finding the family, three generations,
gathered at supper. Supper for all
came from one large bowl of tapioca pudding. From the early 1930s,
I also remember my father saying that “Mr.C.” was highly regarded locally,
because he held many of the local mortgages and he had never been known to
foreclose. Some other personal
arrangement could always be made.
Recently, while aiding a family member in a foreclosure problem, I
found myself on the phone with a gentleman from India, the ultimate
destination of that obligation. Although our
increasingly huge, organized, diversified, internationally extended, and
productive economy is more extensively regulated than ever before it is also
less comprehensible, even to well educated citizens. That, too, increases the likelihood of
panic. And, it implies that any large
disruption may prove to be more difficult to remedy than those previously. So far, post-WWII
economies, American and world-wide, have provided material benefits for
larger portions of humanity than ever before.
How to maintain and improve upon that will not soon become a simple
problem. I.W.Parkins 109 |
|
PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP IN OUR DEMOCRACY By Ivan W. Parkins Our best Presidents
from Washington and Lincoln through FDR, Reagan, and not excluding G.W.Bush
have led, not simply followed, the people, especially in pursuing difficult
policies to the best available conclusion.
In many instances, particularly war, the people respond to events
first with demands for action, but then tire before an appropriate conclusion
can be attained. Even President
Thomas Jefferson, a narrow constructionist of his own constitutional powers,
committed what was probably the greatest assumption of power in our nation’s
history. With little consultation of
others he approximately doubled the geographical extent of the United
States—through the Louisiana Purchase.
Extra-constitutional, audacious, and extremely expansionist, it was probably
the greatest coup any American Chief Executive has ever deserved to count. Actually, the
opportunity almost tumbled into Jefferson’s hands, and in circumstances that
made delay unwise. Let’s hope that
future Presidents will, like Jefferson, not fail to value service to the
nation above constitutional ambiguities, personal ideological consistency, or
the other proprieties that help to guide our political system in most
circumstances. How could I include
President Bush as one of our best Presidents?
I am contemptuous of many media/public evaluations of sitting
Presidents. Bush succeeded in office a
very different personality. Most of
the American public has been aware of
the very messy and minority popular nature of his success. How many know that Clinton was the last of
only three men, all Democrats, who won twice with less than half of the
popular votes? Beginning with Harry
Truman, the best Presidents of my lifetime have been unmercifully harassed by
the media, and most have left office in low esteem. It might be a joke, if less tragic for the
country. Few, if any, ranked lower
than Truman in leaving office. Truman
soon after emerged as the unpretentious man who had acted openly and
decisively in difficult situations. The Roosevelt's,
Theodore and Franklin, became especially popular and powerful because of
their capacity to “be” news, and to charm much of the news gathering
corps. In T. R’s time, the daily newspaper was still a young
and expanding medium. FDR faced greater opposition from printed
media, but he had the advantage of radio,
a medium just appearing in most households. Television has now
eclipsed its predecessors, and shows some sign of losses to new media. Not
only did the Roosevelt's exploit new media to expand executive
leadership, they almost define the temporal extent of that phenomenon. Now, the effect of television has become so
great that not only Presidents but a growing variety of their critics become
familiar to the public. And, the job
of critic often involves both much
higher pay and less responsibility than that of chief executive. IWParkins109 |
|
THE MATTER OF RULES By Ivan W. Parkins The institution of
law, i.e. specific and codified rules applying to varied persons and tribes
within a particular jurisdiction, arose with the collection of such unrelated
persons in cities. Today, both the
laws of the United States and those of each individual state fill several
volumes. They are few and simple
compared to the legally enforceable rules handed down by various regulatory
agencies. One result is
frequent conflicts of rules. Another
is that nearly every person who is really active in public affairs is to some
extent a rule breaker. Political
enemies, watching closely, can discover and use such violations. How that plays out is often the result of
who can manage the best media campaign for appealing to public opinion and
enforcement authorities. Two Presidents in
recent years have faced major impeachment proceedings. The one whose prior election was by huge
popular margins was forced to resign.
The one who joined two other Democrats as the only persons to win
twice without a popular majority either time beat an indictment (on reduced
charges) by the House of Representatives, by obtaining for his conviction the
vote of a majority, but a smaller one than the constitutionally required
two-thirds. In both of those
cases the Chief Investigative Counsel chosen by the House Judiciary Committee
was a Democrat, and both Jerry Zeiffman and David Schippers subsequently
published books denouncing as unfair and legally flawed the impeachment
proceedings for which they had just investigated. What does that do for the claim that
Congress is the primary defender of American democracy? Too many rules, and
selective enforcement of them, can negate one of the most fundamental
provisions of our Constitution. Bills of attainder, designating individuals
for punishment rather than acts to be punished, are forbidden to both the
United States and the individual states by Article I, sections 8 and 9. But, where violations are numerous and only
rare individuals are selected for punishment, that principal of justice
becomes virtually meaningless. Such
infringement of the principal is especially likely when punishment is
inflicted by the public in reaction to media denunciations that can not be
reviewed in courts of appeal. |
|
WHEN IS A RULE REALLY A RULE? More than two
millenniums ago the Greek philosopher Plato said that a law is a good rule
for an average case. I do not agree
with Plato’s solution, but I do approve of executive powers to pardon—even if
they, like other enforcement/non-enforcement decisions, are sometimes
abused. I would suggest that those who
think differently acquaint themselves with the huge discretion whether or not
to enforce that this country grants many prosecutors A rule is a rule; is
a rule; is a rule. But, any such rule It apt to become The tool of a fool! During service in
both the Navy and several universities I sometimes observed rules made by
superiors that seemed to be aimed primarily at isolating the superiors from
any mishap rather than at improving performance in their domains. As a first classman
at the Naval Academy I observed (and admired) a protest organized by some of
my classmates. Tradition was that, as
first classmen neared graduation, they were allowed some “slack” where the
voluminous Academy rules were concerned.
As my class neared graduation, and wartime service, several of its
members bought or were given bits of officers uniforms. Discovered by commissioned officers, those
became the basis for disciplinary charges.
The response of several of my classmates was to enforce without
exception every rule violation that they could discover among the under
classes, something that was listed among our responsibilities, but usually
done with considerable leniency. As I looked on
during a joint lecture session, a classmate seated behind me whispered to the
second-year Midshipman beside me, who was doodling, “Mr., you are on report
for inattention at drill.” A grimace from the offender produced a demand that
he display his garters, an item of regulation uniform that was seldom
actually required of anyone except plebs (freshmen). The second charge was
followed by another slight protest and produced a third charge, “disrespect
to person in authority.” It took two or three
days of such enforcement to so clog and disrupt the disciplinary system that
the Commandant of Midshipmen, a very proper Regular Navy Full Captain, called
us into Memorial Hall and made concessions. Let’s have fewer
rules and enforce them more systematically.
But, let’s also remember that even the best of rules were devised
without perfect foresight of the circumstances to which they might be
applied. I.W. Parkins 109 |