20 Years From the “Russian Spring”

     I doubt I will ever experience anything as central to my observation of  man’s struggle for personal liberty close to the wonder I felt watching the events of 1989 to 1991.  The heroes that wrestled totalitarianism to the ground were so brave and numerous, so intelligent and strategic as to create awe.  Walesa in Poland, Havel in Czechoslovakia, Pope John Paul II, and so many others had  worked tirelessly to create the inescapable pressures and circumstances that made the move of all Eastern Europe to freedom, and even more miraculously, in predominantly non-violent fashion.  Every month seemed to bring an amazing story of triumph to bear, as sclerotic, bully like authoritarian governments were forced to admit their systemic failure and accede to the wishes of the people to be free of their oppression.  The irrepressible wave eventually caught up to collosus of totalitarianism, the Soviet Union, and its collapse in 1991, and unsteady evolution into a new world, is still being felt today.

     This weekend is the twentieth anniversary of the highpoint of the August Revolution, in which the people of Russia fought off an attempt of the old guard to put the liberty genie back into the bottle.  Occurring in late summer, it was nevertheless the Russian version of the current Arab Spring, with bravery shown by countless common citizens, ruthlessness by entrenched autocrats, savvy leadership from unexpected bureaucrats, and uncertainty in the clarity of the outcome.  The Russian people twenty years later are still finding their way through the historical strains of the death of one version of history and the birth of another alternate universe.

     By 1991, the strains created by Mikhail Gorbachev’s attempted ‘reform’ of communism were reaching intolerable levels.  Gorbachev’s two 1980’s reform processes, Glasnost (Opening) and Perestroika (Restructuring), designed to improve the transparency of government action and provide some market style reforms, had  inadvertantly exposed the structural rot that had permeated the top down communist system and led to open revolt by the oppressed population for not reform, but renewal.  Unwilling to fully deconstruct the only system he knew and the one that had brought him to power, but recognizing the inherent failure of the system to evolve, Gorbachev, still supreme leader of the government and party, found himself nearly paralyzed between the progressive will of the country to join the freedom process birthed in eastern Europe and the conservative Soviet hierarchy that saw the seventy year empire of Soviet communist dominance at perilous risk.  The pressure keg finally blew open on August 1991 when the Soviet Vice President, Defense Minister, and KGB chief attempted a coup d’etat, house arresting President Gorbachev and threatening his life. The tipping point was the expected signing of a New Union Treaty on August 20 that would effectively turn the Soviet Union into a federation of independent states with a common president, foreign policy, and military.  This breaching of Soviet sovereignty was too much for the old guard and after confining Gorbachev they moved to secure the base of the presumed largest state of the new federation, that of Russia itself.  Their focus was the Russian parliament, which had become an unwanted counter balance to the Kremlin, and the recently elected bureaucrat of the Russian federation, Boris Yeltsin.  Yeltsin, a long standing communist apparatchik had been lately mouthing ominous sounds of independence, and the threat to the Supreme Soviet institutional dominance was clear.  The coup leaders rapidly closed newspapers and silenced political activity, moving troops and tanks to the White House, the parliament building that housed Russian Federation leaders and Yeltsin himself, surrounding it and threatening its destruction if Yeltsin did not accede to arrest.

     This was a different Russia then the coup leaders had expected to find.  Rather than cowed by the intimidation of tanks, tens of thousands of Russians took to the streets around the White House and surrounded the tanks, daring them to attempt violent action.  As if undergoing an evangelic conversion, Yeltsin the bureaucrat suddenly became Yeltsin the freedom revolutionary, and in a pivotal moment, took to the steps of the White House with a bullhorn,  rallying the massed people to defend their parliament and their new found freedoms.  Yeltsin proved to be much more the modern politician than anyone had any right to expect, sagely predicting both the public’s response to his call, and the effect of his call for Russian patriotism to the troops.  The reaction was truly revolutionary.  The troops refused orders to take over the building and the people swept up in the furor rallied them to their side.  The seventy year history of ruthless, ironfisted Soviet dominance of the Russian people crumpled overnight, and by August 21, 1991, the three day coup collapsed.  Gorbachev was released and assumed a Soviet presidency that had no residual power base, as neither soviet nor russian governments wanted any residual connection to him.  Yeltsin through grasping his historical moment became the true leader of a Russian Federation, and with the official dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 25, 1991 and Gorbachev’s resignation, the leader of Russia itself.

     The fairy tale story of common people manning the Ramparts of freedom and achieving victory for liberty and human rights was the daily drama of those years of 1989 through 1991, stretching from eastern Europe through Russia and even China in a spectacular storyline.  Its earthquake tremors are felt today through the Arab Spring cataclysms that began in Tunisia and are still broiling in Libya and Syria today.  Like all unfolding great historical sagas, the Russian chapter is yet to be fully told.  Yeltsin attempted a crash course in capitalism and democratization in Russia leaving only a few winners and untold losers that resulted in a partial authoritarian retrenchment in the form of Vladimir Putin and the loss of many of the hard fought individual freedoms of the revolution.  The Russian experiment has additionally been saddled with a contracting native Russian population and a devastatingly violent imbroglio with Chechen separatists that took the period of self determination too literally for the residual Russian federation to tolerate. The loss of briefly held freedoms such as opposition parties and newspapers, equal economic opportunity, and tolerance for dissent has left a stain on the accomplishments of that fateful few days in Moscow twenty years ago.

      It is up to the people of Russia themselves to determine if it all was worth it, and to desire a future that celebrates the individual over the state.  A great people locked in history’s embrace will perhaps some day realize the ultimate triumph.

Dissecting the Arab Spring

     Powerline is an excellent blog of broad scope and terrific writing that serves an additional fundamental service to the readers and thinkers of the blogosphere.  It is the home of the unedited versions of Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson of the Hoover Institution who provides truly uncommon in-depth interviews with real experts and thinkers.  Of particular note is the discussion Peter has with Fouad Ajami, Johns Hopkins Professor of Middle East Studies and a senior Fellow of the Hoover Institute, and Charles Hill, Diplomat in Residence and lecture in Leadership studies at Yale University.  This fascinating discussion looks at Iraq, Afghanistan, philosophic tenets of Islamism, and the Arab Spring through the perspective of both intellectual study and the Arab street. It is an essential discussion as we as supporters of the ideal of personal liberty, self determination, and quantitative freedom review the forces at work over the last ten years and what the future may bring in terms of challenge and opportunity. Courtesy of Powerline, a must listen from end to end.



A Great Idea From 1935 Has Met Its Match

    

      A person born in 1935 would proudly be celebrating his or her 76th birthday this year and would be the first to admit a lot has changed since 1935. As much as it is fun to reminisce and have fondness for the earlier, simpler times, the distant year holds memories for very few alive today.  Most of the world of 1935 would be recognizable today but no one would want to rely on the best ideas of that year.  An icebox required – ice – to keep things cool. You could fly in an airplane, but no one except that crazy Lindbergh would really consider taking one across the Atlantic. A boat like the S.S. Normandie, France’s beautiful ship of passage was so much safer, and could cover the distance at an average 30 knots and in a mere 4.5 days.  Then there was the gorgeous 1935 Buick pictured above.  This magnificent car had a spectacular 8 cylinder engine that could produce 93 horsepower and navigate from 10  to 60 miles per hour in only 21 seconds. Yours for the absolute fortune of 935 dollars.  The number 1 Hollywood star was a little girl, Shirley Temple.   The world was at peace, though it did not know in one year, the turmoil in Spain would premise a dark age indeed. 

     Not everything was rosy.  Infectious disease was devastating without antibiotics.  Most of the United States was rural and wanted for essentials like available water or electricity, much less easy food or work.  The Crash of 1929 had deepened into a world wide depression, and a quarter of the population of the United States was chronically unemployed.  The average family income if you had work in 1935 was 474 dollars a year.  The average lifespan for a female 64 years, the male 59, in the high 40’s if you were African American.

     It was time for a great idea to protect the aged and infirm, the poor and the dispossessed. 1935 brought the culmination of the New Deal, the Social Security Act.

     Like the beautiful Buick of 1935, it was built for an earlier time, initiating a pay as you go fund to protect against old age poverty, once you reached the rare heights of 65 years of age.  The pittance of healthy aged that could make it to that olympus of birthdays did not worry where the money came from as there were many workers investing in the system for every retiree that would draw from it.  The economics of the Act were positioned for the 1950s , when the vast assembly of workers fashioned surpluses into the fund that seemed to go as far as the eye could see.  And so the act was expanded to take on groups that weren’t retirees, and eventually in 1965, health care considerations in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. 

     Then the economics of the Act began to get murky.  By 1980, the average lifespan had arisen to 74, and the number of workers to the number of retirees plummeted.  The adjustments were made to the cash flow by demanding higher tax contributions from both worker and employee, and still the economics staggered.  By 2007 the average female lived to 81, the male to 76.  The amounts paid out for this lifespan could not hope to be funded from the individual’s contributions, and the term unfunded liability became an  ominous new catchphrase.  Added to the inevitable mathematics of long life, the number of workers for the number of retirees plummeted, and the gross domestic product of the United States, so long in upward path, began to flatten. 

      Now we are told that the inevitable day when the funds coming in to Social Security will be exceeded by those going out, may come as soon as 2024, and Medicare Medicaid even sooner. Added to the stress is the average house hold income of 2007 -38,600 dollars, overwhelming any expected return from Social Security maximized in the mid twenties, placing substantial life quality contractures on the retiree who relied on Social Security alone.

     We have faced for sometime the inevitable collapse of a system designed for a 1935 life and a 1935 world.  Despite the spectacular changes in the past 76 years, we refuse to admit the law passed to provide security to a small minority for a long ago environment should continue without adjustment or modernization for the role we demand of it today.  We have changed the laws of the country to reflect our maturity in civil rights and equality for all.  We have changed our laws to prevent a President from serving over two terms and establishing a hegemony.  We have changed our laws to reflect the ability to travel cross country or trans ocean in the time it used to take in 1935 to cross town.  But we are stuck with the myth that the Social Security Act of 1935 put forth an eternal truth and a singular means of providing personal security. 

      Nice as it is to reminisce, we really can’t afford to live in 1935 much longer.  Today’s elected official fears the very thought of exposing the myth, but is progressively fearful of being responsible for the coming collapse.  The smart ones like Paul Ryan who are searching for a way out of the trap deserve our support. Hopefully a country where 1935 is a distant memory now for the very, very few,  can stop pretending that we were all there at the conception.

Travelling the Past

     Its been over thirty years since I performed the daily grind of of getting up very early and taking the forty minute drive to my high school, but it was a drive I knew like the back of my hand, and could perform in my sleep. Every vista, every building, and every curve in the road from the hundreds of times I took the trip was thoroughly etched in my mind, or so I thought. When I took a little ride into my past a few years ago and tried the drive for old time’s sake, I found myself more than a little confused. In the thirty years that had passed, points of the road had in places not so subtly changed, buildings that were landmarks of the drive were replaced by other buildings, and my mind struggled to agree I was taking the same drive. When I reached my destination of the high school, it looked the same but did not feel the same, because the trip there did not feel as familiar, and the memory seemed somewhat out of place. Thirty years in the stretch of time is an eyeblink, but change affects memory and warps interpretation. When travel extends over hundreds even thousands of years, seeing the memory through the mists of time and the confusing layers of change is a daunting challenge.
     I have found a travel writer that understands this problem and has some wonderful insights to help with both the joy of travel to ancient places and maximizing the experience. In her wonderful travel book, The Road from the Past – Traveling Through History in Franceauthor Ina Caro, wife of Pulitzer prize winning author historian Robert Caro has reworked effectively the problem of recognizing the significance of what you see on a trip. Acknowledging the logistics of most trips revolve around seeing everything there is to see due to the limited time available and the desire not to “miss” anything, Caro suggests a philosophical travel technique to improve your experience and memories of great venues. Ms.Caro looks at history as a wave, and recommends absorbing monuments, views, and venues in a chronologically appropriate historical perspective. Attempting to view the roman ruin, the medieval castle, and modern plaza in the space of the same trip distorts history and confuses the context of each. This beautiful little book focuses primarily on an arc of southern France to Paris, travelling specifically in a chronologically linear fashion, viewing the roman ruins, then the medieval castles, then the royal monuments and never intertwining them.

     Suddenly the layers of confusion start to diminish as the road to the roman theater in Orange is linked to the aqueduct of Pont du Gard and to the Maison Caree’ temple in Nimes, and suddenly the 400 hundred years of Roman civilization and influence in Provence comes alive.

The wave of history then crests to Languedoc to Narbonne where the vestiges of roman citizenship was subsumed by the barbarian Visigoths and to the abbey of Fontfroide and the fortified city of

Carcassonne,  where civilization clung in the dark ages against the marauding vikings. The wave then continues northwest to the valley of the Dordogne and a trip down the river to visualize the opposing castles of the English and French at Beynac and Castlenaud that epitimized the martial and feudal society of the devastating conflict known as the Hundred Years War. And then further north history pushes to the Loire valley where the preminence of royal lines begin to dominate and exploit their vast wealth with magnificient chateaus less for defense then a projection of prestige and power.
Ancient France comes alive under this treatment, and suddenly the clutter of historical layers is swept aside. The human emotions that attend seeing something in its context as did the occupants and travellers saw in that long ago time brings color and magic to ruins and views. The immense power and civilizing influence of the Roman world becomes a visceral sensation. The dark and foreboding fear of barbarian times is brought to perspective in the islands of security in a surrounding wilderness. The commitment of society to eternal war is projected through the martial architecture of every medieval turret. The vast power and overwhelming wealth of the royal line comes alive to the visitor at Chambord who feels the same awe as the commoner who could only look, never touch.
      Ms. Caro’s little book is not a travelogue of places to stay, but rather a guidebook as to how to experience a place. It’s has already made my current morning drive just a little more interesting, and uncommon.

We Hold These Truths to be Self-Evident…

     The power of words to move the intransigent, the timid, the pessimistic, and the doubting never reached a higher plane than in the second sentence of a declaration of a people to a king put forth on July 4th, 1776.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

      A revolution had already been underway for the better part of a year when  the leaders of thirteen colonies assembled in a Continental Congress in  Philadelphia to try to determine whether a common consensus could be achieved regarding the American colonies’ relations with Great Britain.  There was no natural consensus.  The New England colonies already under attack by British forces were radical in their intentions to sever all ties and declare nationhood. They were led by firebrands from Boston under the astute leadership of John Adams. The middle colonies of Delaware, Maryland, New York, and the all important Pennsylvania were against draconian steps and saw the actions of the British Parliament to be separate from their loyalty to the King.  The southern colonies varied from watchful waiting from South Carolina to aggressive individual declarations by colonies such as Virginia and North Carolina.  The size and scope of the colonies initially created barriers to a natural confederation and a single voice.

     The number of men prepared to step onto the world stage at this congress however was unparalleled in history. Natural leaders such as Washington and Lee, brilliant minds such as Adams and Jefferson, and sage figures such as Franklin, Livingston, Mason and  Morris.  The recognition of the unique historical nature of the questions they were asking themselves, and the need for unambiguous conclusions dominated every debate.  They impressively could see the enormous potential of a republic lead by common men on the unique stage of the American continent, to put in to practice what philosophers from Greece, Rome, and more recently from the Age of Enlightenment had dreamt about.  These were learned, successful, self made men who additionally recognized that taking on the greatest military power on earth was frought with great danger and personal risk.  As Benjamin Franklin so aptly put to the Congress,  ” Gentlemen, we must hang together, or certainly we shall all hang separately.”

     By mid- June 1776, efforts at conciliatory diplomacy with Great Britain were met with stiff rejection and dire threats from the King and Parliament, and it became apparent to all that a declared statement for history as to the rationale for a complete independence be defined.  It was left to a Committee of Five, formed of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sherman to draft a declaration.  The actual writing fell to Jefferson, the editing to the others and a draft was available to the congress to debate on June 28th, 1776. The original draft was dramatically sculpted with 25% of the prose removed, including  anti-slavery text accusing the King of “creating” the calamity of slavery removed.  Jefferson was unhappy with the haphazard attack on his carefully crafted words, but the document’s incredible force was preserved in its first two immortal sentences.  The first declaring the natural law entailed in the reasonable conclusion of the need for a complete independence and severance of ties:

“When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

      An extended list of grievences then set the foundation for the final paragraph that  stated the intention of thirteen disparate colonies to act as one a form a unique entity,  a unified country of free men self ruled:

  We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

     On July 2nd, the individual colonies were called to roll, and each finally declared its intentions – the initial no votes of South Carolina and Pennsylvania were reversed, Delaware converted its vote from abstention to in favor, andNew York abstained.  With 12 votes yeah and one abstention the declaration of independence was passed, and publicly presented on July4th, 1776.

     History was forever changed by the group of men who formulated and signed the Declaration of Independence.  The elements of the declaration became the foundation of freedom movements the world over, from the French revolution to the revolutions of South America, to the modern inflections in the movements in eastern Europe and the Arab Spring.  The strength lies in those words, All Men are Created Equal, and the recognition that the men who expressed it had no way of knowing if they would ever see its fruition.  It mattered enough to them, and ultimately to us, that regardless of trial or tribulation, the words speak an eternal truth.  Happy Birthday, America.

 

Across the Open Field They Came

     It is just after three o’clock in the afternoon on July 3rd, 1863 just outside of the hamlet of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.  You are a member of the the 71st Pennsylvania and note for the first time in over an hour that you can hear yourself think.  You have been burrowed like a badger into the ground just behind a low stone fence at the upper crest of an open field, protecting your eardrums and praying for your life as an onslaught of iron shot and killer shrapnel flew over your head, and exploded with deafening blasts behind you. You raise your head guardedly and stare through the smoke across an open field to a row of trees known as Seminary Ridge, and think you see the glint of a thousand sun splashed diamonds.  It is deadly quiet, and strangely beautiful, in the searing heat. The beauty is ephemeral as the reality sets in and the diamonds coalesce out of the trees into the mid-day light.  You realise the hell you have just lived through holds another painful interlude for you.  Your little corner of the fence is about to be the focal point of a nation’s apocalyptic schism,  in which one image of nationhood will sustain, and one will fail.  You are about to be target of Pickett’s Charge.

     On the other side of the open field just within the cover of the trees of Seminary Ridge, you are a member of the proud army of Virginia.  In woolen garments in a humidity swollen day near 90 degrees you have sweated in the brutal heat in motionless air for over two hours waiting for your time to cross the open field ahead.  You are the forward sword of a direct Virginia line from Lee to Longstreet to Pickett to Armistead to you, the heart of the confederate nation, the home of the great founders like Washington , Madison, and Jefferson, the homeland  stage of the great battles of the civil conflict, Virginia. You look across that open field and in the momentary quiet contemplate how anyone could think one could cross that open field and survive. But you are in the Army of Northern Virginia, and pride and honor come before death.  If they say you go…you go.  You are about to be the living apex of Pickett’s charge.

     The mid afternoon sun blazed across the open field on that day in 1863 as the soldier actors on a horrific stage played a heroic part in the climax of the epic three day struggle known as the battle of Gettysburg.  General Robert E. Lee, commander of the confederate forces had been in continuous attack mode as was his personality, on the Union Army’s right  flank through the town of Gettysburg and against Cemetery Hill, and on its left flank through the Peach Orchard and Little Round Top over the past two days. Now the force of the blow would come to the center,split the Union army, and end the conflict that had already taken so many lives.  General  Lee knew he had to live in a perfect world, as the Union forces had advantages in numbers of forces, armaments, economic power,  and victimhood on its side.  He had against such overwhelming considerations, his brave, loyal ,well trained army of winners.  Beyond the open field lay the stone fence; beyond the stone fence lay Washington DC and the end of the war.  In a perfect world, the flank attack by General Early’s forces on the Union right violently fulminating all morning was to distract and weaken the Union middle.  The stunning artillery barrage of Colonel Alexander’s over one hundred fifty cannon proceeding the charge for two hours of ceaseless explosion was to pummel the Union middle, and coordinated with the Pickett onslaught from the front, General Jeb Stuart’s cavalry was to fragment the backbone of the Union from behind with  a simultaneous attack from the rear.  In a perfect world, the 12000 troops of Longstreet’s army would cross the field, find a shattered and demoralized Union middle and crush now and for all time the Union army capacity and morale, and end the war.  In a perfect world, General Lee could see it all, and believed it could be.

     Out of the trees seen above into the hot mid day sun, 12000 troops paraded out into the open field to decide the destiny of all who believed in the ideal of freedom, as it was conceived by both sides in their own way.

     The perfect world ended with the first step into the sun and reality set in.  The battle will never be described better than in Shelby Foote’s “Stars In Their Courses“.  Like all epics that culminate around a single moment, the somewhat inappropriately named Pickett’s Charge, has the painful romance that belies its horror as always occurs when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object.  The 12000 found instead of an incapacitated  Union artillery and decimated infantry, a largely intact and devastatingly coordinated defensive response.  From the left flank came crushing fire from Hay’s Ohio troops collapsing in Pettigrew’s North Carolina  brigades, making it no farther than the fences lining Emmitsburg Road.  The Virginians wheeling to their left across the open 1000 yards of field toward the stone fence, faced first the exploding artillery shells, then the grape shot of Union cannon like a hail storm blistering 20 men at a time, torturing the survivors as they attempted to re-form their lines. As they crossed the field to first the road and then the stone fence, they came into the full force of infantry rifles and their merciless aim.  In the last one hundred yards the march finally became a charge, and briefly in what is known as the “high mark of the confederacy” Armistead’s men managed to scale the wall at the angle and briefly overwhelm the local union troops.  In a melee of fists, bayonets, screams, shots, and curses exhausted men fought for their version of free will and the world hung in the balance.  But only briefly.  Union reinforcements came crashing down on the confederate breech, there were no living southern reinforcements to take advantage, and the breech quickly closed.  The lifelong friends Union General Hancock and Confederate General Armistead were wounded, Armistead mortally.  The door to Washington so briefly open, closed violently on the survivors, and the southern high mark was no more.  Confederate retreat was total and to the taunting, revengeful Union cries of “Fredericksburg, Fredericksburg!”  General Lee seeing the retreat washing around him, rode up to Pickett to marshal his division and prepare for a Union counter attack.  Pickett was said to reply, ” General Lee, I have no division now.”

     If the words were spoken, they told a harrowing truth.  The confederate army of Pickett’s charge sustained over 50% casualties with an estimated 1200 deaths and over 4000 wounded, to the Union’s 1500 estimated casualties.  Longstreet’s army lost all 15 of his regimental commanders, including two Brigadier Generals and six Colonels. The horrendous butcher’s bill of the three day battle was over 50,000 casualties to the participating armies.   The effect on the south of having lost the battle at Gettysburg, coupled the next day with General Grant’s capture of an entire Confederate Army at Vicksburg ended any hope of the Confederate dream of nationhood.   General Lee, who asked for so much more coordination then the technology of the time was capable of giving, recognized what it meant and apologized to the retreating troops, crying out to all who would listen, ” It is all my fault.”

     Across that open field in that simmering day in July in 1863, men trusted their destiny to a loving God, who they hoped would understand their violence and forgive them. They gave willingly their families, their dreams, their far away homes, and their lives for conflicting versions of what it means to be free, and what is required to retain that free will.  It is not for us so distantly removed to judge their reasoning, but instead to stand back in awe, of the compelling force of a man’s need to determine his own free will, and fulfill his destiny on the altar of a principle.  The open field we cross is full of risk and torment, but takes place under the canopy of a forever open sky.

Duelling in Madison Leaves Something to be Desired

    
     We live in a time of great political passion and emotional people regarding the critical issues of our time. But I mean, really people, is THIS the best we can do? Christian Schneider in National Review Online documents the “duel” between recently re-elected Justice David Proesser and his foil on the Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley as tempers arose regarding the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision last week to reject a district judge’s sloppy opinion to hold up the Wisconsin legislature’s pending law on collective bargaining for government employees.

     Putting aside the merits of asking government employees to share some burden in funding their pensions or health insurance and the constitutional issue as to whether the judiciary somehow has veto power over legislative process, the fundamental issue in the duel appears to have been the two justices inconsolable disdain for each other. Now that’s the kind of thing that in the old days would have led to a good ol’ fashioned duel. In this case, however, as is inferred by reports, Justice Bradley is accusing Justice Proesser of putting her in “a choke hold” as she apparently rushed him to physically force him out of her office. Justice Proesser is suggested by other witnesses to have put his hands on her shoulders to repel her as she charged him. The extent of the behavior appears to have been at the level of, “Oh yeah? …So’s yur old man!” The infantile denouement has perfectly captured the character of debate of this spring in the state of Wisconsin over the ‘outrage’ of a state legislature performing their elected and constitutional responsibility of balancing the state budget. The reaction of a segment of the state populous to duly elected officials performing their duty? – that would be sit-downs, threats of violence, massed demonstrations, death threats, legislator out of state flight, and recall elections. God forbid that the legislature or governor seek to improve the state in any other way. All hell is likely to break loose.

     Thankfully we can count on the dignity of judicial tradition to evaluate issues based on their merits in law and in constitutional precedent, and not be swayed by the unstable passions of emotion and political avarice.  Actually that would be..No.  The disease of political tactics, smear campaigns, and power grabs has invaded the judicial class as intensely as it has the political class, and the result is a generation of ill-considered politically stained judicial decisions and a lowest common denominator judges.  We’ve come to a time where Justice is not only blind, but deaf and dumb as well.

     Well., it could be worse. The paddycake shoving match between the Justices pales in comparison to the charged political emotions of the 19th century, when a threat or an insult, or worse yet a pattern of verbal abuse, could get a politician challenged to a duel.  On July 11th, 1804 the third Vice President of the United States Aaron Burr shot and killed the first Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton in a duel on the New Jersey banks of the Hudson within view of New York City.  The two men hated each other but the real gasoline for the duel was Hamilton’s persistent efforts to suppress Mr. Burr’s overarching political ambitions.  Locked in a verbal death match long before the actual firing of the dueling pistols, the two opponents simply could not envision a world where both their political views could be justified. They sought to enforce their will rather than develop their alternative arguments for this nation’s future. 

     I’m not saying that the push and shove silliness that just occurred between a cranky old conservative and witchy liberal intransigent is at that the level of an event that cost us one of our most brilliant founding fathers, Alexander Hamilton.  But the reality is that the dangerous fanning of emotions that rise above civil discourse and legal prudence  can overwhelm and distort any rational debate, and put the opponents on a course of accepting no less than complete triumph, or experiencing inconsolable defeat.

     Alexander Hamilton on the morning of July 11th, 1804, shot first, and into the air, to preserve his dignity, and prove his point of view.  Aaron Burr shot into Alexander Hamilton’s abdomen to preserve his dignity, and to prove the demise of  Alexander Hamilton’s point of view – forever.

     The state of Wisconsin is but a laboratory for the process that will soon envelop of national debate as we try to arrest our exploding fiscal crisis. The emotions of the paddycake duel in Madison are trivial to what this debate nationally will involve.  We best get our emotional acts together or, 19th century may again seem all too real.

Don’t Know Nothin’ ‘Bout History

     The Wall Street Journal today interviews noted American author and historian David McCullough about Americans’ understanding of history and the pathetic state of our educational process in understanding our culture’s origin and evolution. Mr. McCullough, noted Pulitzer prize winner author of biographies of Harry Truman and John Adams, as well as exceptional books on the Brooklyn Bridge, the fateful year of the American Revolution 1776, young Theodore Roosevelt, and narrator of the epic Ken Burns documentary, the Civil War, laments our atrocious collective ignorance of our past.  He points to several trends in Americans’ educational process that are at the root of our historical knowledge deficits. 

     The first is the trend toward political correctness in our description of history, placing insignificant figures at absurdly equal positions of relative prominence to our giants of history, in order to exaggerate the impact of their views which fit a modern skewed version of events and their consequences.  The second is the domination of educating teachers on educational process rather than subjects, so that the average teacher is frequently teaching subjects they no little or nothing about.   The third is the teaching of “victim” history, where the effect of historical events on an”oppressed” group results in the loss of perspective and particularly chronological reference in understanding the outcomes.  Last, he laments painfully boring, poorly written, and stupefyingly politically correct history textbooks that remove all suspense, mystery, and lessons learned from the study of history.  McCullough acknowledges the knowledge deficit has been foisted upon young people by a generation that lost interest in the common story of the American experience and preferred their own version of events.

     The loss of history as a cornerstone to modern western educational process is having devastating effects on our national discourse, problem solving, and vetting of our leaders.  The election of a leader based on their appearance, smooth delivery, and their social “awareness” rather than their grasp of the elements of this free society that have led it to greatness is a direct outcome of the voter who votes patterns rather than depth of understanding of issues.  This has brought us judges who don’t uphold laws that have been crafted from debate and democratic process, but rather on whether the law “fits” their sense of value. It has created politicians that predicate their survival on pandering, rather than their recognition of principle.  Most importantly, it diminishes the historical struggle of our past fellow citizens to fight for and put things right, at great risk to themselves, when the outcome was not assured.  The old dictum that those who forget history, are condemned to repeat its mistakes, implys the modern generation has learned any history to forget.

     Mr. McCullough is among a cherished group of progressive thinkers who realize our historical deficit threatens our unique culture and prosperity.  Alas, there are none too few of the ilk of David McCulloughs , and far too many who see history as just another example of western civilization’s arrogance toward other cultures.

     The only hope is an old fashioned one. Find a good book on history or civics, and pass it on.  Its possible you might convince another that there is something to this wonderful story of ours after all.

Newt Augers In

     Newt Gingrich is currently a candidate for the Republican nomination to the presidency of the United States, but he has a much chance of gaining the nomination as Ron Paul, a candidate from the fringes of the fringe.  Michael Barone of National Review Online has a sage article lamenting the sad state of affairs Mr. Gingrich’s candidacy currently finds itself, and recalls the times when the Gingrich flame shone much more brightly.  The augering in of Newt’s campaign is not a process of bad luck, but rather enigmatic of Newt’s whole public life – full of grand ideas, potential, and ultimately self inflicted wounds.  Mr. Gingrich may be the only candidate currently soldiering on without a single candidacy staff member, as his entire team mutinied last week and left him for greener pastures. He may be the only person left who believes that the brilliance of his ideas will overwhelm any voter’s hesitancy about  the “Newt package” that promotes them.  But that’s typical of the pilot who augers in his plane, refusing to jump out of a hopelessly out of control aircraft in the innate belief that at the last second, he will regain control.  What appears clear to just about everybody but Newt, the jig is up, and his time as a defining force in American politics has come and gone.

     A trip down memory road to a much younger version of Gingrich revealed all the talents of an intellectual dervish.  He came into American politics in 1978 and flew in the face of the treasured myth of American media that conservatives were stupid and neanderthalish, and therefore not to be taken seriously in matters of governmental philosophy.  Winning a seat prior to the Reagan revolution was no small feat for a conservative, but Gingrich was an unabashed southern conservative Republican when the terms southern, conservative, and democrat were synonymous.  He set about immediately to build the disheveled and dysfunctional republican backbenchers into a force, to the the dismay of party leadership who long felt that the demographics of the country were such that they could never again hope to be a majority party in the House of Representatives and therefore should simply work toward the best possible relationship with the eternally dominant Democrats.  Gingrich would have none of it, and discovered a heretofore unknown weapon, the first television broadcasts from the House floor broadcast on C-SPAN.  Standing alone on the floor at night Gingrich spoke to no one but the camera, initiating a blistering and continuous attack on Democrat leadership and a creative and intellectually diverse lecture on the America’s problems, proposing in-depth solutions.  Both Republican and Democratic leadership hoped and assumed no one was watching, but a steadily growing number of people were, and the rest of the backbenchers began to frame their arguments in similar fashion. 

      To the horror of leadership, Gingrich opened his sights on the House Speaker himself, Jim Wright, regarding Wright’s classic back room shenanigans to use a book deal for a ghost written biography to circumvent campaign finance laws and a secondary assault on the House Post Office and Bank  for similar kickbacks to congressmen.  To the amazement of the Republicans, Gingrich the general proved brilliant and victorious, taking down the reigning Speaker, and exposing the soft underbelly of a  House made moribund over 40 years of consecutive democrat rule.  Young conservatives like Judd Gregg, John Kasich, Connie Mack, and Dick Armey began to work with Newt to present an alternative based on ideas and intellectual honesty, and by 1994, the American population was primed to listen to the alternative to a government  without limit or direction.  Gingrich devised the revolutionary Contract with America, a ten step agreement with the American people to say what they would do, and do what they would say, if elected.  In a stunning electoral outcome, Gingrich led a second Republican revolution and took the House of Representatives for the first time in 42 years. The Outlaw had become amazingly Speaker of the House, and for a time Speaker Gingrich, so different than the shallow political hacks before him,  amazed the country by passing every one of the planks in the Contract, leading eventually to welfare reform, and serious legislation regarding term limits, electoral reform, congressional ethics, and a balanced budget.  For a year or more, Gingrich stood at the zenith of American political royalty, becoming the only speaker in history to have given a nationally televised policy speech, and so outshining the President, that President Clinton had to declare that he was still “relevant” to a Gingrich enraptured press, and declare in a State of the Union address that the “era of Big Government was over”.

     Gingrich’s fall came upon his own outsized ego, and  assuming his political skills and likeability were a match to those of the crafty Arkansan in the White House. Gingrich’s ultimate prize was to achieve a balanced budget, and he cornered the president into accepting a balanced budget through cuts or experience and unheard of  shut down of government.  Sounds eerily familiar to the present circumstances.  Clinton recognized he could achieve the veneer of both a fiscally responsible executive and make Gingrich appear heartless at the same time, and the  shutdown backfired. Clinton got to take credit for the subsequent years of progressively balanced budgets, built on Republican budgetary discipline and a republican inspired Capital Gains Tax cut,  and bask in the progressive attack on Gingrich from all comers for his authoritarian style, ethical vulnerabilities, and frankly loose cannon of a mouth.  The result of the Gingrich years, electoral reform, welfare reform, freezing of governmental growth, capital gains tax cuts, budgetary surpluses, and tough but fair crime laws. For all that, check mate and match to the president with worse personal ethics, but better likeability and much more acutely honed personal political skills.  By 1997, Gingrich was vulnerable, a victim of his own party’s mutiny against him for his authoritarian ways and ethical lapses, led by John Boehner, the current Speaker of the House, and Bill Paxson of New York.  By 1998, the weakened Gingrich had lost his Speaker role, and determined not to run again for Congress.  The bright light that had changed American political direction so profoundly was left to teach college courses and plot a comeback someday.

     The someday was this year, with his decision to run for President, but Gingrich proved his pulse on the voter was no longer precise, and his habit of throwing fireballs at windmills just as out of control as ever.  A ridiculous attack on Paul Ryan, the modern day intellectual version of Gingrich in the width and breath of his ideas, was petty and ill considered, and left him back tracking on the very weekend of his announcement.  His additional decision to have his current wife act as his chief of staff left the professionals in his campaign aghast, and soon left Newt without a campaign staff.  His current ideas seem scattered and disorganized, and worse, dated.

     Gingrich is in my mind done as a political figure, but his contribution to the storied period of time when the Congress showed itself to be fiscally responsible in the 1990’s to the great benefit of America, is a shining example of what is possible if you combine intelligence, energy, and vision to the framework  allowed by our founding fathers – for a brief time, the best and most creative governmental function in history.  Newt, sorry you had to find out how we have moved on, but for what you brought to the table before and the table you helped set, is now just waiting for the right chef to feed a country hungry for real, workable leadership.  It just won’t be you, compadre.

Falklands Redux

      The founding Charter of the United Nations in 1945 contained in its first article the right of self determination of a people declaring “all peoples have a right to self determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status, and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” The assumption might be, if you were to absorb the direct interpretation of such lofty language and principle, that a self contained set of lonely islands inhabited by 3000 people, recognizing their inability to provide for the overarching themes of government, such as the capacity for a currency and means of defense, would have such a right of self determination, and the capacity to choose their government of administration. Furthermore, if 99% of the stated inhabitants were absolutely committed to one common future, it would seem rational that the international arbiters of the Charter would make strong efforts to see the people achieve their goals of peaceful co-existence under the flag of their choice.

      No such luck, when it comes to the Falkland Islands.

   The Falkland Islands, a collection of two main and 776 lesser islands 250 miles off the coast of the southern tip of Argentina, have found themselves increasingly isolated in their efforts to retain their British ties and thoroughly British way of life. An uninhabitated cluster of islands first landed by the British explorer Captain John Strong in 1690 by accident, the islands for the next 150 years were under the continual tug of multiple nations and influences until coming under permanent British control as a formal colony in 1841. This included a brief period of several attempts at Argentinian colonization from 1828 to 1833. The restoration of British sovereignty has continued unabated from 1833 until the present and its continuance is the overwhelming desire of the local inhabitants, who want no part of would-be overlords from the surrounding neighborhood.
      The issue of sovereignty suddenly became a hot one in 1982 when Argentina declared it would enforce its rule over the inhabitants, invading the islands, and the inhabitants called to Britain to provide their defense. In the short but bloody conflict known as the Falklands War in Britain and the War of the Malvinas in Argentina, nearly a thousand soldiers lost their lives, and Britain rested control back from the Argentinians. The islanders on multiple occasions have noted their overwhelming support for the outcome, and are as proudly British as the girls from Cornwall and the boys from Bristol.
      The world we live in however has always struggled to do the right thing, particularly in international bodies, where the politics of power and convenience have often raised an ugly flag. The latest is the Organization of American States were Argentina has found common cause with such supporters of individual rights as Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. In a direct challenge to Great Britain and a threat to the people of the Falklands, a Declaration has put forth describing the Falklands under the Argentina label “Malvinas” and demanding that Great Britian and Argentina immediately enter into direct negotiations as to the “Malvinas” future sovereignity. The desires of the actual inhabitants of the islands – not an issue for clarification. The issue has becoming particularly acute lately with the identification of the Falklands as a potential source of vast oil deposits lying outside Argentina’s official 200 mile continental shelf claim. The impoverished government of Argentina would love to get their hands on the Falklander’s bounty, whether the locals wish their help or not.

     Great Britain obviously has absolutely no interest in discussing the future of part of their commonwealth with a government that has a tenuous claim to any postion regarding the islands and one they defeated in a war. For the British at least, they have been always able to count on the backing of their closest ally, the United States of America – until now. The Obama administration, in another of its recent schizophrenic policy efforts to side with tyrants and ignore free will and determination, has signed on to the declaration. Britain, who has backed the United States time and time again as allies and spilled the blood of her sons in defense of United States national interests, is understandably miffed at Obama’s fair weather bonds of friendship. President Obama, in another calculated effort to side with those issues the United States traditionally opposed on the basis of freedom and democracy, has once again thrown its principles under the bus, in hopes of gaining “street cred” with those states that could care less as to common interests with the US. This nieve policy continues unabated despite one calamity and mis-step after another. The British are rapidly learning what others have found out in Poland, the Czech Republic, and on the streets of Tehran and Cairo. This President’s support will be a mile away and an inch deep at most. The Falklands are just one more step in the destruction of a framework of trust built up over many years, that in issues of freedom, rights, and social responsibility, the United States would always be in your corner. That, my friends, is one painful introduction to our modern reality- with this particular President, you are going to be on your own.