|
Ivan W.
Parkins |
|
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. |
|
Front Page |
|
Inside This Issue
Front Page
Archive 2008
Archive2009 Disassemble
the House The
Political Long View Media
Bias Book
Reviews War
and Their Costs Broken
Congress Dividing
America Dividing
America, Part two Disinformation,
Liberal Ideology The
Supreme Court and Judiciary Environmentalism
The
Presidency, Part One The
Presidency, Part Two Failure
of the People’s House The
Republic in Danger The
2008 Election, Part One |
|
THE 2008 ELECTION The aftermath |
|
ELECTION 2008 WHY I AM NOT HAPPY WITH THE OUTCOME Intellectuals are keys to the
troubles By Ivan W. Parkins First: I have long thought
that a President who was black could help unite the nation. Second: I cannot be happy
with President-elect Obama, because the political exposure and performance
that he has demonstrated are mostly opposite to what I believe is needed. Our economy is in trouble, and because
it is so large a part of the World’s economy, the World is in economic
trouble. People, I think, who are much like Obama—no, not blacks—dynamic,
well schooled, ambitious, and socially conscious intellectuals are keys to
that trouble. The critical division in America, and
perhaps in the Western World, is more an intellectual division than one of
either race or wealth. That is not to
deny that divisions of the latter types exist. But, the fundamental problem is how we
regard capitalism. And, having once
been mainly a critic of capitalism, I am now mainly a supporter of it. Unfortunately, too many people on both
sides of this division have permitted the issue to become one of quasi-religious orthodoxy. Some favor almost no government regulation,
while others strive to apply regulation of capitalistic markets to accomplish
ill-considered, but emotionally attractive, goals. The clash has become central to our
politics largely because of the huge growth and extension of our education
and information systems. Whereas those
were once largely subordinates to, if not supporters of, capitalism; they
have now become self-consciously independent and aggressive in trying to
displace the industrial/financial sector as the primary political force in
American society. That would be less of a problem if our
system of government had a greater capacity for identifying and serving a
majority of Americans, and were less responsive to the demands of
particularly well-organized and aggressive minorities. In short, I think that the present
economic crisis is equally a political crisis. If I am wrong about President-elect Obama,
and he proves capable of moving us towards solutions to both, he could rank
with Washington and Lincoln as architects of America. |
|
FREEDOM’S
CHOICES By Ivan W. Parkins We, and all of mankind, face an
especially complex, and potentially fruitful, problem. It is how much freedom? And especially, what freedoms for whom? Individuals are not, never were, and can
be only briefly (as they die off), totally free. Especially as our numbers have grown, we
have compromised individual freedoms socially to enhance freedoms from
natural hazards. That, for the most part, has been a gain
rather than a loss. Our remoter
ancestors were far less free than we are.
But, that was not due primarily to social rules or to other
humans. The first hominids faced
natural hazards, as does every sparse and, in some respects weak,
species. By joint efforts, and particularly
by the cultivating and sharing of our unique mental and communication
capacities, we have become dominant among the World’s creatures. The price of that is, and will continue to
be, some restrictions of individual freedoms in the interest of communal
security against outside hazards that can easily crush individuals. The principal is a simple one. Its specific applications are increasingly
numerous and complex. The survival and advance of mankind has been, and can
be, long lasting and grand. The
survival of most individuals can be made more likely and more
self-satisfying, but, only as individuals participate within a larger social
context. We have some choices as to what that
context will be. I.W.Parkins,
11/08 |
|
MARXISM By Ivan W. Parkins One of the ironies of Marxism is that
its greatest successes have not occurred where Marx expected them, i.e. among
the laboring classes of industrially advanced nations. Marxism’s greatest appeal has been to
intellectuals, an elite element of society. A partial clarification of that mystery
is offered by Erich Fromm in BEYOND THE CHAINS OF ILLUSION. Marx denounced the indoctrination of people
living under capitalism with beliefs and customs that uphold capitalism. To free themselves intellectually and
morally, they must renounce capitalism.
Those who cannot do that can not be intellectually or morally
free. It’s an easy formula for
claiming to achieve intellectual and moral superiority among those who choose
to take it. Too bad that no other vast
and complex society has thus far existed with less restrictive indoctrination
and belief system than the major capitalist societies of today. Marxist attempts have been extremely
inclined to indoctrination. But, don’t give me Thomas Jefferson’s
least government idea. Even he related
it to societies of yeoman farmers.
Today, our huge and fertile nation has an average of less than eight
acres for each of its more than 302 million people. And, a lot of those acres would make very
poor homesteads. |
|
THE
NATURE OF MAN By Ivan W. Parkins Column, 08/ 11/71, Mt.
Pleasant Daily Times-News The mission of Apollo 15 and those which
preceded it ought to be regarded as a major triumph of man, and of our
society. Unfortunately, it will be put
down in some quarters as a mere technological achievement. Literary-intellectuals, those whose primary
interests lie in the humane rather than the scientific-technological aspects
of culture, are inclined to belittle the achievements of science. They claim for themselves the guardianship
of our humanity and charge scientists and technicians with materialism. Actually, it is the literary-intellectuals
who fail to appreciate man. There are two sides to the nature of
man, and both must be held in perspective if human nature is to be
appreciated. As compared to other
animals, man is an individualist. He
is able to do things which no other animal, or man, had done before. His imagination and creative capacity help
to make him unique. But individual
achievements are only one side of humanity.
The other side is a social one.
Individual members of some other species live in close cooperation
with one another, but the modes of their cooperation are relatively few and
the limits fixed. Man, however, has a
proven capacity to cooperate with his fellows in varied and changing ways. Man is superior in his
individuality. He is also superior in
his social capacity. He is unique
because he combines so much of both individual and social potentials. How best to develop the two capabilities is
the problem of culture. Perhaps the greatest significance of the
moon exploration is that it demonstrates the most intricate and successful
combination of individual and cooperative efforts which man has yet achieved. Some years ago one of the astronauts
remarked that, as he was being blasted into space, he realized that his life
was dependent upon a long list of low bidders. That remark was more profound than he may
have intended. Quite apart from
anything discovered about the solar system and the spin-off benefits of our
new technology, the space program has been a grand triumph of our capacity to
unite vast numbers of individuals from different professions and skills into
one coordinated effort. The inclination of the more literary
types of intellectuals to belittle the space program stems largely from their
own failure to appreciate the cooperative aspect of man’s nature. Under the pretext of a deep concern for
humanity, many of them have cultivated an obsession with individualism. They define humanity in terms of individual
creativity, and define creativity as rejection of traditional modes of
co-operation. Many of those who can
see little which is exciting or valuable in exploration of the moon hail the
spread of pornography, protest , and pot.
Their professed belief in individualism reduces to little more than a
rationalization of antisocial attitudes. The triviality and petulance of so many
literary-intellectuals does not imply that humane studies should be
neglected. Man himself, his values,
his emotions, and his aspirations are at least as challenging to study as
biology and the physical environment. Human individuality is no less
important than man’s capacity for co-operative achievement. Efforts to comprehend and develop our humanity
deserve a high priority among the claims upon our brains and our other
resources. The problem—and it may explain much of
our contemporary confusion—is that many of the people whose social function
it is to help us in understanding ourselves refuse to accept our
technological and democratic society.
In such a society literary-intellectuals tend to lose their identity
as an elite. It is a selfish, rather
than a sympathetic, alienation which impels such people to attack technology
(openly and directly) and democracy (covertly and indirectly). Perhaps the greatest service of the
space program to American society has been the repeated demonstrations that
man (our own society) is capable today of achievements which only a
generation ago were mere figments of imagination. It is not our technological and democratic
society, or the men who build and identify with it, which diminish human
nature; it is the literary-intellectuals.
They attempt to excuse their acts of disloyalty to the society by
claiming a more general loyalty to man.
In fact, their most serious offense is their betrayal of man. |
|
FREE MARKETS By Ivan W. Parkins The following are brief adaptations from columns that I
did in the local BUYER’S GUIDE during 1980. A simplified, money, value system and
free market exchange are much of what makes capitalism function. How is it that hundreds of millions of
people can each contribute his own kind of work and each receive numerous
products of his own choosing? The
substitution of more complex, word
based, value systems, i.e. regulations, greatly complicates and almost
invariably delays, exchanges. Authors of THE FEDERALIST, more than two
centuries ago were well aware of the danger: Every new regulation concerning
commerce or revenue, or in any manner affecting the value of the different species of
property, presents a new harvest for those who watch the change, and can trace its
consequences; a harvest, reared not by themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great
body of their fellow-citizens. According to an article in FORTUNE,
8/14/78, Congress tried to prove that point.
In that earlier oil crisis it enacted a subsidy to help small
refiners. The subsidy was so generous
that new small refineries were created, not to refine oil (they were too
inefficient) but to profit from the subsidy.
Does that sound like ethanol to you? If that is not convincing, consider the
effects upon poor Africans and some others of our banning DDT. Malaria, a major plague to humans
throughout history, had been declining rapidly. With the ban, malaria returned in millions
of cases and an estimated million deaths per year. No doubt DDT had been over-used, but that
gross regulation will likely be recorded as one of the largest and most
lethal “crimes” of our age. Regulation should be undertaken only
with great caution. |