|
Ivan W.
Parkins |
|
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. |
|
Front Page |
|
Editors Note: Dr.
Parkins’s Grandson, Breton W. Hinkle, passed away unexpectedly on Feb. 14,
2009. He leaves his wife Jen, parents
Ray and Susan Hinkle, sister, Gretchen Hinkle, Richard and Kathy Bourque,
Father and Mother in law, brother in laws Kevin and Brian and sister in law,
Kelly. He was a graduate of Michigan
State University. Bret was a United
States Marine and had faithfully served his country with honor and
distinction. He will be terribly
missed by family and friends. He was loved by all who knew him. He was
buried with military honors in Holland, MI. See Bret’s life story at
http://www.lifestorynet.com/memories/45526/ |
|
OUR ECONOMIC CRISIS MAY
WARRANT SOME HASTE; HOPEFULLY, OUR POLITICAL CRISIS WILL ALLOW US
MORE TIME! By Ivan W. Parkins
Some recent statements of President Obama concerning his legislative
agenda remind me of a chapter in Lincoln Steffens’
autobiography. A
century ago Steffens was one of the foremost political
commentators of his time, a muckraker, specializing in political
corruption. He had become an advocate
of the new strong mayor form of city government. But, in Philadelphia,
where that plan had been installed, he learned that corruption was especially
rampant. He asked the recently elected
mayor how he could expect to be reelected.
The mayor replied that it was all part of a plan. The political amateurs who had won reform
soon tired. The old machine was once
again in control. The mayor would
crowd as much “business” as he could into a single term and not seek
reelection.
Barack Obama’s political background has concerned me from the
start. From his obvious talents and
his statements favoring unity, I thought it possible that he would prove capable
of filling a role vastly larger than any that he had previously held. Evidence supporting that view is fading.
President Obama now leads a Democrat Party heavily dependent upon a
system of public information that has leaned Democrat for several
decades. In the post-WWII era Democrats
have evolved from a party seeking greater national vision and unity into one
of highly organized and politically sophisticated special interests. It now offers only weak support for
international leadership and seeks intensively for greater domestic power and
for privileges and subsidies to those social factions that support it.
Meanwhile, the only real landslide victory for a Democrat in
presidential contests has been that of Lyndon Johnson in 1964—an aftermath of
the Kennedy assassination. By that
time the nation’s information media were heavily Democrat, also moving toward
anti-military views. Johnson was
largely ostracized by his party in 1968, and his “heir” Humphrey, a hero of
the civil rights movement, was narrowly defeated by Richard Nixon. |
|
LETTER TO THE EDITOR, The Detroit News,
11/13/98 By Ivan W. Parkins
Twice on Nov. 8, The News made reference to President George Bush’s
having surrendered his “no new taxes” pledge (“The Gingrich Revolution”; The
Original Sin of the National GOP”).
Such references, unaccompanied by notice of related events, provide
fascinating clues to how our information system and partisan politics
work.
What else was happening in the Bush Administration in late 1990? Congress, controlled by the Democrats, was
refusing to enact a budget without substantial increases in social spending
and taxes. Also, Iraq had annexed
Kuwait and was threatening the Arabian Gulf oil flow that fueled much of the
world’s economy.
Why is it that we don’t note the conditions under which Bush’s
retraction occurred? His performance
in late 1990 was impressive, especially compared to that of congressional Democrats. - - - - - - - - - - - Note: The advantage of Democrats at that time was 85
votes in the House and 10 in the Senate. |
|
MORE LACK OF BALANCE By Ivan W. Parkins
Few things ideological in America are as lacking in balance as the
environmental movement.
While there is little reason to doubt that the sub-prime mortgages and
inflated prices of housing are primary roots of our current economic crisis,
the huge outlays in recent years for foreign oil and gas have certainly hurt
our economy too. We have the resources
and the means to produce and distribute most of the oil and gas that we need,
while seeking better alternatives. But
legal and political hurdles, raised by environmentalists, deny us the
royalties and jobs that go with domestic production. Oil may be even harder to replace as a
chemical feedstock than it is as a transport fuel.
For a variety of reasons, especially our own health, we do need to
continue cleaning up the air, but we have had considerable success. How much priority should be assigned to
greater, and increasingly costly, efforts?
Meanwhile, isn’t it nice to learn that the earth seems now to be
cooling? Yes, it may begin to heat up
again, but what does that suggest about the extent of man’s control over the
temperature?
And, while lamenting America’s role in recent wars, how many of us
have compared the human costs of those
with the inadvertent effects of the ban on DDT? If the resulting increase in malaria cases
and deaths following that fiasco are just half as great as the estimates of
the World Health Organization, they have probably exceeded all the human
morbidity, on both sides, in our military operations since WWII.
Are you counting on our most passionate and aggressive
environmentalists to improve conditions in the world? Good luck! |
|
MORE POLITICAL CRISIS: By Ivan W. Parkins
Less noticed but not less significant, Democrats had already begun (in
1954) their 40 years of almost total dominance in the House of
Representatives. And, although Republican
Presidents would win five of the ten elections in that era, three of them by
landslides (by well over 55%, as compared to Obama’s recent 52.9%), none of
them would be supported by a majority of Republicans in the House.
Indeed, between 1930 and still counting…no Republican President has
had more than a slim Republican majority in Congress, and even those have
been scarce. Millions more of
Americans turn out and vote for President than vote for Representatives, even
when both are being elected at the same time.
At any time, a large portion of potential American voters cannot name
their Representative, but most do know who is President. It is in the more
obscure contests (congressional as opposed to presidential) that special
interests and information media tend most to dominate. And the wars that Democrats now support
most consistently and strenuously are those for their own partisan dominance.
Barack Obama is clearly the greatest Democrat presidential winner
since LBJ. But, does his victory
signal, mainly, a triumph of personality, a desire of Americans for a more
European style of politics, or the bit by bit triumph in America of one-party
politics based upon the political dominance of information media (academic
and artistic as well as journalistic)?
The most threatening part of President Obama’s agenda is the one that
advances the latter. The chief danger from his Presidency is that it will
extend that media dominance by changes in how the census is done, favors to
unions, advancing the opportunities of unscrupulous trial lawyers, and
legally harassing those information media that remain critical of Democrats. |
|
LITTLE BALANCE By Ivan W. Parkins
The TV program No Reservations recently featured a visit to Laos, a
particularly remote and appealing country of SE Asia. The presentation of the Laotian people and
their culture was, so far as I am aware, both accurate and favorable.
However, like much of our entertainment and information, the program
was severely biased in at least one respect.
We had bombed Laos very heavily during the Vietnam War, especially the
Vietnamese supply lines passing through there. Our unexploded bombs are still a serious
problem. That, was repeatedly referred
to, and tape of our massive raids was included. Almost nothing was included however to
suggest another side to the Vietnam War story.
Often now, I wonder how many people among those who prepare our
information and entertainment actually know more than one side to the Vietnam
story. I recall that on one holiday
visit of our three daughters, home from their three different universities we
discussed the American effort in Vietnam.
All three commented that they had never before heard the points that I
raised. Probably those points included
some of these. At the beginning of the
1960s we had a treaty obligation in the area, SEATO. Our newly elected President, Kennedy,
emphasized the growing Communist threat to that area and the need for us to
counter it. Both the Soviet Union and
China had sponsored and supplied proxies in the region. It was becoming a major theater of the
not-so-Cold War.
Now, the holocaust in Cambodia, Laos’ neighbor, which followed soon
after we withdrew from the area is occasionally mentioned. But usually without emphasis of the fact
that it was the work of avowedly communist forces who killed more SE Asians
than died from all our bombs and bullets. |