|
Ivan Parkins |
|
Access Dr.
Parkins writings at: |
|
To order
Dr. Parkins book, Perspectives For
American Society Contact
info@americanpoliticalcommentary.com |
|
©Ivan W. Parkins 2008, 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
2, Disassemble the House Page
3, Media Bias Page
4, Book Reviews Page
5, War and Their Costs Page
6, Broken Congress |
|
Letter
to the editor; Morning Sun, 11/20/2004 Parker had correct assessment of what's wrong with
Democrats Kathleen Parker was "right on" with her
column in the Sunday, Nov. 14, edition, "Voters want sincerity, not fake
values." In 1968, a year that I voted for the Democrat
presidential candidate (my seventh and last instance of doing that), the
party split badly over the war in Vietnam. After losing that election,
party leaders chose Senator McGovern to head a reformation of their
"unfair" nominating process. Shortly before the next
nominating convention, THE U.S. NEWS on 6/12/72 reported a Gallup poll
disclosing some results of the changes. Of 13 categories (by region,
race, job, education and age), Senator McGovern was the choice of Democrat
voters in only one, those with more than four years of college.
Humphrey won 11 and tied with Wallace for the 13th. But the reformed
nominating process chose McGovern, who was an ex-professor and a Ph.D.
Nixon won that election by the largest popular plurality and one of the
largest majorities in our history. Since 1972, Democrat presidential successes have been
Carter, with 50.1 percent of the vote, and Clinton, the third man in our
history to win twice without a majority either time. (The other two
were also Democrats, Cleveland and Wilson.) Shouldn't that history offer to America's
self-anointed intellectual elite an alternative to blaming
"mindless" followers of traditional values for election failures? A foot note: Hubert Humphrey, whose nomination for
President in 1968, some people thought was so “unfair,” had led most opinion polls of Democrats in that
year . Most showed him getting about
two-thirds of those who identified with the party, about the same as his
initial delegate count in the Chicago Convention. I.W. Parkins 5/08 |
|
Front Page |
|
Dividing America By Ivan W. Parkins (The following article was originally published in the
Daily Times-News, 10/06/1971). You will notice some language usages at the
time which were acceptable, but currently are not used due to cultural
sensitivities.-Ed.) The Kerner Commission on civil disorders
in its final report stated that, “Our nation is moving toward two societies,
one black, one white – separate and unequal.”
That evaluation has been quoted again and again. Both the Johnson and the Nixon
Administrations have been castigated for a lack of enthusiasm in accepting
and implementing the report. The implication of the report and the
charge bluntly levied by a militant minority of Americans, is that racial
bigotry prevailing in the American public and intransigence existing in
American institutions makes reductions of our racial tensions unlikely. I am reminded that when I moved to
Michigan, just after the Detroit riots of 1967, the more specific prediction
, then popular in the press, was that more and bigger riots would soon
follow. I required one of my classes
to write a brief paper discussing the capacity of the American political
system to cope with the problem over the next five years. To my chagrin, I discovered that very few
of my own suggestions had been accepted by my students. Almost unanimously, they echoed predictions
of a holocaust borrowed from the news media. Arguing against “liberals” that a few
riots did not foreshadow a race war was a new role for me. I had moved from the South, where my
arguments were chiefly with segregationists, many of whom cited sporadic
violence and threats of violence as a reason why the civil rights movements
should be halted. Neither group seemed
to be aware that race relations during much of American history, especially
in the late nineteenth century, were more violent than during the recent
civil rights movement. Apparently, few
people considered race relations in the perspective of violence which
accompanied other great changes, such as the rise of labor unions. The violence of the civil rights
movement thus far has been moderate, when taken in the perspective of history
and considering the magnitude of the change.
Furthermore, there is growing
evidence of progress. Economic
gains, especially for the younger and more educated Negroes, are
substantial. Negro voting, and
successes in winning political offices, have multiplied. It is largely in the more subtle area of
white-black attitudes toward one another that some people still claim to find
bases for pessimism. Several major opinions polls in recent
years have produced results suggesting that white attitudes are less bigoted
and intransigent, and black expectations more moderate, than some journalists
and intellectuals would have us believe.
Recently, the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research,
probably the foremost center in attitudinal survey in the world has published
confirmation that white and black attitudes are converging. The quiet progress of school
busing for integration purposes in most of the South is a visible refutation
of the pessimistic evaluations of our people and our institutions. The failure of most pessimists to support
their arguments with solid evidence does not mean that there is no racial
problem in America. Samuel Lubell’s Hidden Crisis in American Politics provides both reasons
for concern and some grounds for hope .
Lubell has been interviewing representative Americans in their homes
while too many other journalists and academics were populating the country
with Archie Bunkers, fictitious characters whose principal virtue is making
intellectuals feel smugly superior.
Lubell found, not attitudinal bigotry, but specific problems of
competition for housing and job opportunities, and fears for personal safety
to be the roots of tension. He
attributed much of this to population mobility (southern farms to northern
cities, cities to suburbs). Such
material problems pose difficult problems to American society; they do not
imply degeneracy in the American character. Senator Fred Harris, himself a member of
the Kerner Commission, referred in LOOK magazine (3/18/1969) to racism as
“the number one mental health problem in America.” Considering the failure of attitudinal
surveys to support such evaluations, it is fair to inquire whether views such
as those of Harris may not be both and impediment to racial understanding and
an additional major cause of division in America. |
|
Democrats and Racial Disunity The “1960’s” were a turbulent time for American political
parties. Increased black participation
was changing both the northern cities to which blacks were migrating and the
old solid Democratic South. Meanwhile,
the Supreme Court held that America’s often very unequal legislative
districting was unconstitutional. How
could Democrats survive the changes? More educated and “sophisticated”
Democrats in the larger cities of the Northeast and Midwest would have
additional congressional seats to work with.
The Old South would lose most of its near monopoly of congressional
committee chairmanships. Rural
Republicans of the Midwest would lose numerous congressional seats, but many
of them could be regained in the new suburbs that were emerging. A major question was how would be
increasing black vote go? Black voters
had traditionally leaned Republican, until Franklin Roosevelt won many of
them over. More of the black vote, now
would be strategically located in large cities and our most populous
states. Given the practice of
allocating all of the electoral votes in most states to the presidential
candidate who had plurality in that state, a bloc-vote by blacks in major
cities became a major key to Democrat success. Meanwhile, however, most of the new civil
rights legislation had been enacted with largely, Republican support. Democrats needed to assure that a new
and more militant leadership dominated black communities. In that, the media, academic and artistic
as well as journalistic, would be a great help. The new racial and civil rights picture
that emerged in the 1960’s might have led to greater national unity than ever
before. But that might also have
undermined a Democrat Party that had long depended upon the Solid South for
its margins of victory. Rather than
face such a consequence, the more educated and “liberal” Democrats turned to
memorializing past racial injustices and cultivating more militant black
leaders. Peace and racial unity would
have to await another day. I.W.
Parkins, 5/08 |
|
Institutional Bias Some decades ago, I pointed out to my American Government
classes that the text we were using (the one most widely used in American
colleges) gave very different treatments to two ex-governors who had recently
been nationally prominent. Otto
Kerner, Democrat of Illinois, headed a commission that investigated urban
violence and became famous for the statement that: “American is dividing into
two nations, one black and one white, separate and unequal. Kerner was appointed Judge of a U.S. Court
of Appeals. Our text treated Kerner
and his work quite favorably. Vice President Agnew, Republican, and
former Governor of Maryland, had made several public statements very critical
of mass media new treatments and of campus demonstrations. The text treated him much more severely. Soon after, both men were charged with
corruption felonies committed during the times that they had been
governors. Agnew was forced to resign
the Vice Presidency, accepted a plea bargain, and went to prison. Kerner pled “not guilty” to more than a
dozen charges, was convicted of them all, and also went to prison. Kerner’s was a first for Judges of the U.S.
Court of Appeals. On matters of race relations there was
some room for debate. Regarding equal
treatment for high ranking white officials, the publicity at least, was not
equal. How much of recent confusion vis-à-vis
racial matters is actually, a product of the same disinformation system that
evaluated Kerner and Agnew so differently?
Also, the late Senator Daniel Moynihan noted at the Kerner Commission
had delayed publication of its own racial attitudes survey; it did not fit
with the Commission’s conclusion. I.W.
Parkins, 5/08 |
|
Memorial Day, 2007 (slightly revised-2008) In more than seven score of
years, since this nation survived its greatest trial of arms, four of its
Commanders-in-Chief have died by the hostile fire of their own
countrymen. And, others have been gravely hurt or threatened.
Only rarely have other positions of service born greater risks, and none have
carried heavier burdens of responsibility.
Those who would place the most
blame for war upon President Bush need to look more closely at
themselves. Dinesh D'Sousa's book, THE ENEMY AT HOME, is one good place
to start. D'Sousa examines the similarities of Christian and Muslim
traditions, especially as they regard personal morals and
relationships. He notes, rightly I think, that the deepest and most
necessary conflict of the two is the one that has only recently emerged out
of the American, and Western, cultural revolt against any higher order.
And that revolt has been led by much those same individuals and social
elements who now denounce the resulting war, and Bush's leadership, most
vehemently.
America's quasi-anarchist left
plays a perverted role, creating ideological causes of war while muddying
that war's objectives. And, far too many in the "liberal"
mass are little more than naive sycophants of those who champion "heroic"
individuality against loyalty to any order capable of managing a great
society.
Let us remember those who have
served, but not neglect supporting those who serve us still. |