|
Ivan W.
Parkins |
|
To order Dr. Parkins book, Perspectives For
American Society Contact |
|
©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 |
|
THE
HONDURAS AFFAIR DOES
THE ADMINISTRATION REALLY UNDERSTAND
CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY? By Ivan W. Parkins
Rarely, if ever, has an Administration of the United States
demonstrated so little appreciation of what constitutional democracy means as
both the President and the Secretary of State did recently regarding events
in Honduras. It only deepens the
question of their wisdom when we note that both have extensive legal back
grounds. Yes, President Zelaya had been duly elected, but he was seeking,
illegally, to force a plebiscite that would likely extend his rule.
Even allowing for the embarrassment of President Zelaya’s undignified
deportation in the hands of the military, the legislative and judicial heads
of Honduran government acted, in a constitutional sense, far more
appropriately than either Zelaya or our own top executives did. No
doubt the incident is a major thorn in the side of our own Administration,
considering that we are trying to oversee pending elections in two nascent
constitutional democracies. Still,
such a display of low regard for “constitutionalism” as opposed to
“democracy” is not helpful.
For more than two millennia political thought has featured mob rule as
the demise of democracy. The
Constitution of the United States has become an international symbol of how democracy can be tamed from its
wilder past excesses.
Now, and here at home, the Obama Administration’s haste in seeking
vast new “entitlements” without clear public information and acceptance of
how they are likely to weigh upon the future of America’s constitutional
democracy projects questions about legality.
Those questions can only be hardened by the Administration’s reaction
to the Zelaya affair.
All of the above would be much less compelling if it did not follow
more than forty years of political turmoil and confusion regarding the
Constitution of the United States.
Since at least 1968, the difference between a “people’s government”
and constitutional democracy has been confused, especially by the “liberal”
Democrats and the “mainstream media” of Estados Unides del Norte.
Real constitutionalism defines the offices of government and their
powers, plus rights of the people, and requires previously devised and
specific measures, usually some special election(s), in order to make changes.
Zelaya of Honduras was attempting a coup d etat by means of illegal
elections; the other branches opposed and thwarted him. Our President and Secretary of State
displayed their ignorance of constitutional democracy by coming to the aid of
Zelaya.
Actually, all of this, in both the United States and Honduras, is a
major illustration of how much very rapid communication and mass media are
altering the dynamics of our traditional constitutional democratic
government. I.W.Parkins 072709 |
|
THE ADMINISTRATION By Ivan W. Parkins This is a reprint from
march of this year under a different title, “We Have a New Administration”
President Obama has survived his first 100 days in the Presidency for
which his experience had prepared him so meagerly. Even the “empty suit” that Democrats
nominated four years earlier had had more “real world” experience. As a community organizer and advocate Obama
had served effectively in one significant, but quite limited, sector of
America’s public life. His broader
public service was exceptionally brief and undistinguished for a presidential
candidate. For
a national leader faced with economic panic, charisma, action, and hope are
especially important. Obama has
excelled handsomely in all of those.
But now, as panic subsides, where do we go from here? The Obama Administration’s approach is
“Don’t waste the panic (or chaos).” To me, that appears to be nearly the
opposite of what is needed. For
instance, the idea that we can enhance America’s international reputation by
curbing our military is likely to become one of the great jokes of future
world history. It will almost
certainly be juxtaposed at some point to the widely known, but largely
unpublicized, facts that “benevolent” America had been mainly responsible for
denying a life protecting chemical to millions of the world’s poorest people,
mostly blacks. That America’s First
Black President would permit the resulting genocide to continue will astound
even our critics. That carnage may
already have exceeded the total fatalities that can be attributed to our
military throughout American history. Of
course, restraining President Obama is the fact that some of the political
elements to which he is most indebted, quasi-religious people and
organizations, are the prime originators and supporters of the genocide. Is it to obscure the lethality of
ill-considered “liberalism” that so many of our self designated paladins
concentrate their demands for more disclosures upon our intelligence and
military operations?
Extreme domestic experiments, and programs initiated quickly on a
grand scale without much experimental basis, plus the huge costs of new
“entitlements,” are not likely to speed our economic recovery. They may relieve some of the pent up
frustrations of “liberal” political elements. (Note: I place the term liberal in quotes to
suggest that I think it is usually misapplied, as a designation for what are
really reactionary, i.e. left-wing and ideologically based, politics.) |
|
GREAT LEAP! WHAT DIRECTION? Or has the so called “progressivism” pushed by the Democrat’s new elite of the 1970’s
led us down the wrong path? This is
a reprint from March of this year. By Ivan W. Parkins
By the early 1960s major and significant political changes regarding
race and equal representation were already mandated by the U.S. Supreme
Court. The public school decisions of
1954 and 1955 were, as anyone then teaching American Constitutional Law could
see, little more than a gravestone for the already nearly buried “separation
in public facilities can be equal” doctrine. Several earlier, but more limited,
decisions made that outcome virtually certain. Then, in Baker v. Carr, 1962,
the Court extended it’s own jurisdiction in a direction, unequal and
gerrymandered districting, that assured greater equality in voting for
representatives.
The elections of 1960 would, as David Pietrusza notes in his recent
book on that subject, shape the Presidency for nearly two decades. In 1960, however, all of the top contenders
were identified mainly with the old system, in both the sources of their
strength and the major issues. That
alignment would not be seriously threatened until 1968, or changed until the
1970s.
But, the bitter conflict in Chicago in 1968, and Nixon’s record
setting popular plurality in 1972: followed, as they were by that President’s
forced resignation, suggest something closely akin to a coup. The Democrat’s push
floundered in the late 1970s. It was
substantially reversed by the twelve years (1981-92) of Reagan/ Bush
leadership. One thing that persisted
throughout was control of the House of Representatives by substantial to huge
Democrat majorities.
The Democrat majorities in the House, combined with Senate majorities
throughout the late 1970s, enacted several measures of a new “progressivism”
that are of major significance to our politics, even now. They repeatedly cut in half our aide to S.
Vietnam and forced our withdrawal from there; they supported a ban on DDT;
they passed the Communities Reinvestment Act (early source of our present
economic crisis); they restricted our intelligence and our military services;
and they assumed for themselves a greater role in the nation’s budgeting
process.
Meanwhile, prominent academics, previously great admirers of executive
leadership (under Democrat Presidents), became sworn enemies of ‘The
Imperial Presidency’ once that office fell into the hands of
leaders less friendly to academic political aspirations. Harvard Law supplied most of the key players in the
legal case against President Nixon;
Yale Law supplied the Clintons; Harvard |
|
POLITICAL JUSTICE IN WASHINGTON? By Ivan W. Parkins A key to major legal
cases against high political figures is how the official charges are defined. The House Committee on the Judiciary
carefully drafted charges to limit relative evidence in the case against
President Nixon to the 1972 election, thus excluding what previous Presidents
had done. A careful prosecutor ordered
an aide to collect evidence from previous Presidencies. When Hillary Rodham came up with a report
documenting numerous examples of similar irregularities, he ordered her to
get rid of it. For the Clinton
impeachment, the Judiciary Committee excluded possible charges of illegal
campaign donations (Chinese) and of illegal citizenship grants, for both of
which there was documentary evidence.
Clinton was charged only with perjury and obstructing justice derived
from his “private” dalliances. “Scooter” Libby was
convicted of giving false testimony to an investigator in a matter that was
already known to have been misreported, and not actually criminal. Democrat committee
chairmen, in both House and Senate, are promising us more political “justice”
soon. 2/10/09 |
|
OUR CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC DOES THIS
ADMINISTRATION BELIEVE IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL
DEMOCRACY? The following series of articles are related to this
administration’s purposively misguided
policy interpretations of our constitutional democracy. |
|
Letter to the Editor: THE ATANTA JOURNAL AND CONSTITUTION, 1/11/87 By Ivan W. Parkins Concern for the
Presidency deserves priority over concern for Ronald Reagan, as Bill Shipp’s
Dec. 26 column suggests. However, my
concern for the Presidency first became critical when Lyndon Johnson was
being hounded from office in 1968. I was reassured by
the vigorous leadership of Richard Nixon and by his record plurality in
1972. We all know the outcome of that. Ronald Reagan has
been a significant President because of his capacity to win and retain a
large popular following and because of his success in imparting a spirit of
hope and direction to America. Much
more than his personality and reputation is at stake. If, within one
generation, a third President of the United States is driven into oblivion
not long after winning a landslide confirmation of his leadership, I will
regard that as the greatest repudiation of constitutional democracy in
history. |