|
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. |
|
Inside This Issue
Front Page
Archive 2008
Archive 2009 Page
2, Disassemble the House Page
3, Media Bias Page
4, Book Reviews Page
5, War and Their Costs Page
6, Broken Congress Page
7, Dividing America |
|
Front Page |
|
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 question 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. Partisan ship 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 wee 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 new, 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) |