Death of a Giant; Start of a Quagmire

Saturday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia unexpectedly died.  With his death, the Court lost what one observer said was the most important jurist of the second half of the 20th-century.  His death should be an occasion for great tribute and reflection on an amazing career.  The focus should be on the career of an unparalleled judge that was an intellectual giant with with a colorful personality.  However, the political world has pivoted with breakneck speed towards the reality in which it dwells - who will be the replacement for Justice Scalia and who should do the nominating.

Antonin Scalia was born to Sicilian immigrants and grew up in Queens.  The devout Catholic received a Jesuit education at Georgetown before entering Harvard Law School.  He worked as a lawyer in Cleveland before entering academia in Virginia.  He was nominated to the Court in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan and unanimously confirmed by the Senate.  Prior to, he had worked within the Nixon and Ford administrations.  His impact was felt immediately.  Less than a decade on the bench, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware said that of all of his 15,000 votes he had cast, his biggest regret was in confirming Justice Scalia because "he was so effective."  

Justice Scalia declared himself an originalist, a textualist when deciding cases.  He considered it his goal in life to reinforce the Constitution as it was originally designed and written.  A judge should do no more or less.  He was bombastic, sarcastic, biting and had the ability to reduce the arguments of lawyers before the bench into a jumbled mess.  His rapier wit was seen most often in his interactions with the aforementioned lawyers as well as in his decisions - particular when he wrote for the dissent.  His writings on the Affordable Care Act in dissent should be required reading for those who feel the law is dull or not relevant.

Some people loved him, others feared and hated him - mainly because they could not out think or out maneuver his points.  He was seen by many who did not know him as only a conservative judge who saw things through that prism.  However, he called himself neither a conservative or liberal - simply constitutional.  He was also not afraid of others who held differing opinions.  His long-lasting friendship with colleague Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a noted activist judge, was testimony to his love of debate.  One law clerk, who Justice Scalia often referred to as his token liberal, said the judge insisted that he needed minds like the clerk to debate his positions - he needed the intellectual challenge to make sure his points were on target.

Now that this historical figure has passed, the political reality does not allow for proper mourning or honoring.  The Senate Republicans have said that nothing will be done in the way of confirming or hearing a new appointee until the next president is in place.  The Democrats, led by Harry Reid of Nevada, have insisted that President Obama should nominate a replacement for Justice Scalia and that the Senate has a Constitutional duty to honestly and in full-faith consider such a candidate. While I would never side with Harry Reid on purpose, it does seem a bit childish for the Republicans to refuse to hear a candidate from the president.

However, the Democrats are being disingenuous.  Their shameful behavior when President Reagan appointed Robert Bork is a great example.  So, I'm more than a little cynical and suspicious by the "outrage" of the Democrats.  The Republicans, on the other hand, are at a precipice.  Several senators, led by Marco Rubio of Florida, have stated that there is no way that the upper house will consider a nomination.  What happens if the president proposes a moderate?  The Republicans stand to lose - not just in the precipitous fall in public opinion of the Senate but also in the general election in November.  The party needs to tread carefully.

Justice Scalia was a giant of a man - intellectually, influentially, judicially.  Justice Ginsberg said that his critiques made her a better judge.  The two, diametrically opposed to one another, were nevertheless close colleagues and friends.  They typified what is possible even though political differences are sharp.  The last thing the Republicans need is to act petulant.  Mimicking the poor behavior of politicians past is not a recipe for any kind of success.  They should do their jobs, do it with honor and the public will follow.

Effectual Man, Ineffectual President

The Presidential Series – Jimmy Carter, the 39^th President of the United States
                                         Democrat, 1977-81

Let us learn together and laugh together and work together and pray together, confident that in the end we will triumph together in the right.

            President Jimmy Carter, Inaugural Address, 20 January 1977

In committing to do a series on various U.S. presidents, it might seem odd and ideologically backwards (considering my blog’s orientation) to begin with the 39^th president.  However, Jimmy Carter as president from 1977 until 1981 is one of our more interesting chief executives.  He was a one-term governor of a small southern state who promised to bring a more decent and morally guided focus to the job of the presidency.  His administration is equally considered one of unprecedented diplomatic success and an abject failure.  Love him or hate him, I’ve met few who are indifferent regarding President Jimmy Carter. 

Most presidents are products of events beyond their control – Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War; Grover Cleveland and the Panic of 1893; Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression; Jimmy Carter and…well…pick one.  Upon entering office, he swore to bring honesty and integrity back to the White House after the tumultuous and frequently illegal administrations of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.  He said that if he were ever caught in a lie, he wanted to be escorted out of the White House immediately.  He was true to his roots as seen during the 1976 campaign when he would return to Georgia every weekend to teach Sunday School class at his home church.  He was different from any other president who took that mantle of responsibility.    

As president, he struggled with domestic issues.  The energy crisis that first perplexed Richard Nixon caused increased grumbling and discontent with a population waiting in line for gas.  He further aggravated the masses with a speech that lectured the Americans on their role in the crisis.  It did not go over well.  His “malaise speech” is one of the defining moments of his presidency.  Later, his presidency was challenged with a nuclear power plant meltdown on Three Mile Island in the middle of the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania.  Much was made of his navy training as a nuclear engineer but his hands were largely tied as various experts desperately tried to determine what was wrong.  Bravely or foolhardily, he went to the nuclear power plant to speak with experts, giving the impression that things were under control.  A core meltdown was avoided but nuclear energy would suffer a setback it is only now crawling out from under.

Yet, it would be President Carter’s actions in foreign policy that would cement his legacy.  While he was instrumental in the historical Camp David Accords, bringing together Egypt and Israel, a point that cannot be dismissed lightly, and pushing through a divided Congress the Panama Canal treaty, he is remembered by historians as being weak when Iranian revolutionaries took 56 American hostages in Tehran and the Soviet Union invaded and occupied Afghanistan.  He attempted to negotiate with the Iranians but giving asylum to the former shah of Iran poisoned the negotiations.  It seemed Mr. Carter could not muster a response other than strongly-worded missives.  His one attempt at rescue was an overthought, overcomplicated plan that fell apart in the Iranian desert.  Threats and boycotts of Soviet action in Afghanistan had little impact.  The Russians were simply not listening. 

President Carter’s trouble was on display this past week during an interview with Charlie Rose.  Commenting on the situation in the Ukraine and responding to the question of whether President Putin would make a grab for eastern Ukraine, the soon 90-year-old President Carter said it would not happen.  “Mr. Putin said he would not move on eastern Ukraine.  Why would he lie?”  Nothing could better illustrate the president’s naïveté – an attitude that hampered his efforts as president.  His moral compass failed to see the duplicity in others.  Why would they lie?  Why wouldn’t they?  

Reading a list of his achievements prior to and after his presidency, it is easy to see what a decent individual Mr. Carter is. Indeed, if that alone were enough, he could have been one of our greatest presidents.  Yet like Woodrow Wilson, he thought his moral paradigm would influence others – it did as less scrupulous men took advantage of what they perceived as weakness.  Jimmy Carter was trounced in the 1980 campaign by Ronald Reagan and he soon left the lime light.  However, he did not stop working.  President Carter is a good man.  He was just an ineffectual president.

The Original Evil Empire

Watching the Olympics as I have over the last week, one could be forgiven for not knowing the nature of the Soviet Union.  As Jonah Goldberg recently wrote for the National Review, the sins of the Russian past are casually dismissed by the network and writers covering the Games.  Yet, Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union the evil empire for a reason.  One does not acquire a moniker of “evil” unless it is truly earned.  From the oppression of the masses to the persecution of the dissidents to the slaughter of the innocents, the Russia that exists today has distanced from the past but the Soviet Union of old can still be seen in the rear view mirror. 

From a czar to a premier, Russian history has been a story of one dictatorial ruler after another.  Vladimir Lenin was the first leader in the aftermath of the revolution and the defeat of the anti-Communist White Russians.  As leader of the Soviet Union, he spent most of his early years crushing any dissent within his party while taking measures to ensure the longevity of his new government.  So horrible were his policies against those he originally led, he faced an assassination attempt and wide spread discontent from all over the country.  However, as ruthlessly pragmatic as Lenin was, he could not compare to the man who would follow after his in 1924 – Josef Stalin. 

A man of humble beginnings, Josef Stalin proved his cruelty by eliminating those who sought to lead the country after Lenin’s death, including most famously Leon Trotsky.  He wiped out the peasant farming class, who hoped to make profits from their efforts.  Afterwards, he introduced the shockingly destructive economic policy of the Five Year Plan which collectivized Russian farms, forced millions into horrible factory conditions and destroyed any semblance of religious authority or devotion.  Stalin was fearful of the Russian Orthodox Church’s hold on the population.  Simultaneously, he established a secret police force to spy on the populace and purposefully created wide-spread starvation.  His special gulags for political prisoners were infamous for its brutality and conditions.  It is widely estimated by historians that Stalin represents one of the greatest mass murderers of his century – though that might be too limiting a characterization.  Numbers of those who died by his policies range from the millions to the tens of millions.  

Throughout the history of the Soviet Union, its leadership created a society that dwarfed the worst imaginations of George Orwell.  Soviet society was one based on fear and suspicion.  Depravation and drudgery defined lives spent in factories and in lines for disappearing supplies.  So complete was the hold the government had, when Mikhail Gorbachev sought to loosen the binds that tied the Russians into intellectual paralysis, many did not trust it.  So paranoid of the government’s intention were the Russians, they simply could not believe the change.  Literature and art, music and style were regimented and society was browbeaten into conformity.  Soviet society was so damaged, it was constant fodder for Hollywood films and historical studies.   

All of this said, the Russians have something for which they can be justly proud – themselves.  Seldom in human history has a people endured and ultimately thrived after such oppression.  The fact that Russian culture remains at all is a minor miracle.  While it has traditionally been characterized as backward and primitive, it has nevertheless achieved great things in spite of the barriers and limitations placed before them.  And as for those obstacles, they represent one of the worst, most dangerous, deadliest governments ever conceived.  Despite the attempts at whitewashing Russian history, its crimes are incontrovertible.  Facts do have a nasty way of getting in the way of revisionism.   

Ave Atque Vale

I am not a consensus politician.  I am a conviction politician.
            Margaret Thatcher

This past week, the former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher died at the age of 87.  From an international perspective, she is most known as Ronald Reagan’s conservative doppelganger but the shopkeeper’s daughter was much more.  Over the course of her career, she defied traditions, conventions and perceptions about politics, women and the role of the latter within the former.  Her time in office, like Ronald Reagan, coincided with economic difficulties and international skirmishes.  She is, therefore, despised in some corners of the kingdom and the world and beloved in others.  However, despite the differences in how people view her achievements, one cannot question her guts and conviction, nor should one question her impact on the 20^th century.   

In parts of Great Britain this past week, there were cheers and chants, parties and pontifications on the death of Mrs. Thatcher but very little understanding of where the country was in the 1970s.  The British government owned a great deal of the industries that employed Britons, from transportation to manufacturing and it faced economic ruin.  Coming from the same class that would later deplore her and celebrate her death, the prime minister challenged the role of government in the economy.  She sought, in her short time in office, to reverse decades of socialist maneuverings and nationalization, understanding that people had the ability to control their own fate and run their own shops.  Private ownership of industry and businesses were needed to reverse Britain’s economic fortune and she withstood the attacks, the vile insults and self-interested posturing.   She said, “I can’t bear Britain in decline.  I just can’t.”  She remembered a different Britain and she battled first the Heath government in opposition and then both Labour and the Tories to drag the island nation from the precipice.  

Internationally, she was just as fierce and her actions based on a pride of what England was and could be again.  Her most controversial move, one that many observers at the time felt would never happen, was her defense of the Falkland Islands.  While she is often criticized for the defense of British sovereignty and its citizens, it was the action of a military Argentinian junta that made this an issue and she, in classic form, finished it.  Her government was a constant target by the Irish Republican Army and though it managed to kill many close friends and colleagues during the Brighton bombing in 1984, she refused to back down.  She reminded her fellow citizens that the Russians were people to observe and combat.  So strident were her attacks on the Soviet government, as part of a larger Cold War democratic sortie, it was an article in a Russian paper that first gave her the sobriquet most associated with her – “the iron lady.”  During Europe’s discussions on the budget for the European Economic Community’s financial affairs, Mrs. Thatcher’s obdurate and fierce nature led French President Francois Mitterrand to declare her has having the lips of Marilyn Monroe and the eyes of Caligula. 

Economically, she challenged her people to see the long view and tried to teach them the importance of their participation in the economy rather than allowing for government control.  She turned around rampant inflation and labor unrest.  She was an unabashed champion of Victorian values like hard work, self-reliance, patriotism and frugality.  She was a fierce international figure that world leaders ignored or dismissed at their own peril.  However, the most shocking thing about Mrs. Thatcher’s legacy is the fact that American conservatives have not chosen to follow her lead. 

Conservative thinker Bill Kristol mentioned that her greatest achievement was her role in opposition prior to ascending to 10 Downing Street.  She gave a rudderless Tory party direction and cleared a path towards stability and prosperity by first shining a light on the depravity and ultimate failure of statism.  The departure from such governance by former communist eastern European countries validates Mrs. Thatcher’s actions.  Only the United States moves toward it with our new nationalized health care system.  As we distance from the vitriolic and ad hominem attacks of modern European liberals, old unionists and Argentinians, perhaps we can learn the true greatness of Margaret Thatcher.       

Who Doth Protest Too Much?

The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of authorities must be moderated and controlled...if a nation doesn't want to go bankrupt.

               Cicero, 55 BCE

Over the last couple of weeks, the news coverage in the United States has been extraordinarily obsessed with talks about the budget cuts, sequestration and the blame game noted by the near apocalyptic visions of a post-sequestered world that seemed to keep the president up at night.  I dare say that little can compare to the degree in which the world will fall apart and off its axis if the howling of the congressional Democrats and the president are to be believed.  Only in the last few days has President Obama returned the land of the sane and reasonable with his declaration that the majority of Americans will likely not notice the budget cuts.  What would have happened if this approach had been the norm over the last couple of months?

Beginning with the Christmas holiday hand wringing that set up this due date, people have discussed this in the most extreme terms.  As congressional Republicans began pushing their leadership to let the cuts happen in hopes of getting some spending reduction, the Democrats responded with lamentations worthy of Jeremiah.  The $85b of spending cuts from a $3.6t budget represents not even 3% of the federal budget.  I dare say that most Americans do not understand such objections over 3% when they have had to cut much worse on a family level.  Meanwhile, in a world where one country after another is suffering the horrible effects of a debt-ridden economy, it is surprising to see the Democrats holding to the last vestiges of a big-government philosophy.  Greece, Italy, Spain and Ireland and many others are stepping from the brink by cutting back the role and expense of their governments.  Meanwhile, the United States is doubling down. 

Throughout American history, the government has been forced into major cuts in spending much more severe than the one being phased in now.  After World War II and during President Reagan’s term, the government cut its spending and the economy prospered as a result.  Economically, it is considered an axiom that as government spending decreases, private sector spending increases as they fill the void.  The more government spends, the more it occupies the limited factors of production.  This bromide philosophy that has been championed since the days of the Great Depression is a malum in se. 

In the final analysis, one has to consider how this plays out politically.  Journalist Bob Woodward, who helped bring down Richard Nixon, has pointedly explained that it was the Obama administration that introduced the idea of sequestration but as the Republicans have adopted it as their own policy, the president has ratcheted up the rhetoric and the calamitous prognostications.  If the president’s late reversal is correct and few Americans see or feel the spending cuts, the previous months of predictions by Democrats will seem like a red herring and they could lose horribly in the mid-term elections in 2014.  The American people will grow increasingly suspicious of the predictions of doom associated by Democrats of Republican policy.  Meanwhile, the Republicans could stand to gain a great deal both in the eyes of the people and in strengthening its hold on the Congress.  Conservatives, over the last months, have experienced the worst of character assassination.  They have been accused as wanting to hurt small children, pregnant women, disabled veterans and nearly anyone else the Democrats could imagine.  Is it any wonder that some Republicans questioned the wisdom of talking to the president at all? 

It has been said before by people much smarter than me that attitude reflects leadership.  Indeed, the president has created a vitriolic environment.  Opposing opinions are not granted much respect but rather tend to be characterized in the worst possible terms.  A man who was swept into office on the loftiest of oratory skills has descended into the deepest depths of vindictiveness.  The Republicans, in response, have grown more entrenched and less flexible.  Ergo, problems have prolonged much longer than necessary.  After the paltry percentile of cuts is fully realized, I hope lessons are learned but I’m not betting on it.     

Why I’m a Conservative

Government can’t do anything for you except in proportion as it can do something to you.
            William F. Buckley, Jr.

As a teacher and one who comes from a predominantly Democratically-controlled state, the descendent of Jewish immigrants and union workers, it might seem odd that I call myself a conservative.  Some might go so far as to say it is down-right miraculous.  However, as I grew up, perhaps as a condition of my contrarianism, I saw the things around me and grew suspect of their validity and effectiveness.  I heard the rhetoric but did not see the results.  I heard the passion but missed the certainty and self-assuredness.  It was once said that religious faith does not come from wisdom but from personal experience.  For me, political awareness and conviction materialized in much the same way. 

For me, conservatism is a belief that does not belittle others but believes in the inherent worth and ability of the individual.  For example, fiscal conservatism suggests that every person has the chance to rise as high, economically, as they want and the U.S. created a system that allows people to do just that.  For nearly 300 years, people have flocked to what was to be and what is the United States in search for a better life.  It does not matter a man’s race, country of origin or previous experiences, in the U.S. a man has the chance to stand on his own merit.  Liberals, in order to maintain their own power structure, assumes a perpetual disadvantage of racial, economic or religious proportions.  The policies with which liberals do not agree are framed as a slight or as particularly injurious to minorities (the recent voter identification requirements an example).   

The belief in the individual also discounts the notion of the conservative as a racist, as often suggested by liberals – usually mentioned in arguments over entitlements.  A true conservative feels that it is better to teach a person to take of themselves than to use the government as a means of filling that role.  Many liberals see the extent of their concern as directly proportional to how much they are willing to take care of others.  Within their arguments, they use terms like “the disadvantaged” or “the unfortunate” and in the process, they adopt a paternalistic attitude that, to a conservative, is demeaning and strips them of their humanity.  Over the last eighty years, liberals have suggested that their policies and attitudes are designed to help but poverty has not receded.  In fact, in the last forty or fifty years, it seems to have worsened.  However, there is no reflection upon these policies and liberal calls for endless government spending that has nothing to show for the expense.  If one assumes that a person is in need of government help because of a minority status, is that not the real racist?   

Therefore, my belief in the individual also negates the need for an overpowering and all-encompassing government.  Our Founding Fathers had an inherent distrust of government and the ability of someone to rule from afar.  President Ronald Reagan said, “The ten most dangerous words in the English language are “Hi, I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”  As a conservative (and a historian), I realize that the government has never managed or operated anything that private hands could not do better and more efficiently.  When the government makes the assumption of its own legitimacy and superiority over its own people, where does that leave the average American?  The overwhelming trust that some have in the government has an inverse relationship with the lack of trust they have in people.   

In “cool” circles, there are no advantages to being a conservative.  Conservatives are roundly described as racists, hayseeds, uneducated and cruel.  Democrats declare that our policies are out to kill grandmothers and that we hate or cannot stand minorities, little children, down-on-their-luck single mothers and we probably kick puppies too.  Yet, in the condemnation, they show the madness of their declarations of tolerance and caring.  William F. Buckley, noted conservative thinker, once said, “Though liberals do a great deal of talking about hearing other points of view, it sometimes shocks them to learn that there are other points of view.”  As a conservative, I see the individual capable of more and I have greater belief in the individual.  At its core, that is why I’m a conservative.