It can't be said that we weren't warned. For those hoping for an objective presentation of the lives of the 3 Roosevelt's emphasized in this documentary (Teddy, Franklin, and Eleanor), they will come away sorely disappointed. "An Intimate History" is just that--a history from the intimate perspective of an admirer with a great reverence for their subject, cognizant that opposing viewpoints may exist, but willing to ignore them altogether or merely acknowledge them briefly rather than discuss them with any meaning.
While the production itself is immaculate--from the wealth of photographs and early video clips rarely seen, to the location shots and voice acting--the presentation as an educational piece leaves one heavily biased towards a particular interpretation of the Roosevelt's contribution to American history. That narrow interpretation is reinforced by the historians invited to participate. A study of those interviewed reveals that historians who have studied Teddy were more balanced in their approach, while the historians who discussed Franklin produced hagiography not historiography. Theodore Roosevelt's overall treatment struggles to stand on its own as it is continuously emphasized how his turn on the stage was a mere warm-up, albeit with heavy influence, on the eventual emergence of the true giant of the Roosevelt clan, Franklin.
Nowhere is the bias more evident than in the treatment of the two men's deaths. While Theodore's death encompassed 4 minutes of screen time, a minute of that time was spent on FDR and where he was when Theodore died. Additionally, the emotional tone of the brief segment is somewhat subdued, as if one is searching for but can't quite find the emotion they know they should feel at his passing, but simply can't. Contrarily, Franklin's death received a full 16 minute treatment, complete with quotations to emphasize his divine stature as an American God in a segment that could lead one to believe that the passing of the "American Savior," Franklin Roosevelt, was the most tragic death since the Son of Man nearly 2,000 years earlier. If you feel this is hyperbole, simply watch the segment--listen to the swelling music, the fawning quotations, and the utter lack of any criticism. In discussing the final months of FDR's life, no mention is made of the criticism that existed even then that FDR failed miserably to prepare his vice-president, Truman, for the presidency, even when FDR had known for over a year he was near death.
Aspects of each man's presidency were addressed, though again, if you keep track of the negative treatments for each, those geared towards Teddy Roosevelt outnumber the negatives leveled to FDR nearly 3 to 1. There are many legitimate questions which academics and historians are beginning to acknowledge are critical of FDR's presidency--namely, the prolonging of the Great Depression by his policies, and it is generally accepted that FDR did not end the Depression, although he did help Americans emotionally cope with it. He may have given Americans hope, but his actionable results far from produced a measurable end to the Depression. Many historians and academics have produced impeccable research to this end, but none were invited to participate in this documentary.
Ken Burns is an excellent documentary filmmaker. He gave us "The Civil War," and even though it's been nearly 20 years since that was produced, it still stands as the finest documentary to address the Civil War and one of the most effective documentaries of all time. His subsequent documentaries, such as "War" and "The National Parks," have both been commendable efforts, but "The Roosevelts" is anything but. While effort was put forth, and resulted in a visually beautiful documentary, there was no beauty in the lack of academic honesty and intellectual objectivity, both of which were cast aside in the face of the popularly accepted notion that FDR is simply one of the greatest men to ever live in American history. Ken Burns loves FDR, and so will the naive viewer at the conclusion of this hagiography.
Monday, May 2, 2016
Friday, May 23, 2014
Herbert Who-ver?
Self confessions should be offered right up front--I am not a Herbert Hoover expert, nor am I a Herbert Hoover apologist. I am, however, an honest seeker of truth, and strive to understand historical figures within the context of their own times, viewed through contemporary rather than modern lenses, and to understand them by getting as close to their life and times as I can while avoiding strictly modern interpretations and analysis telling me what I should think about them. And Herbert Hoover is a man whose history is dominated by the latter perspective and very rarely presented in the former.
One who truly studies the life of Herbert Hoover cannot help but come away from that study feeling like they had known a ghost all along, and have now been introduced to a new man. This callous man who supposedly sat in the White House without a thought for the starving poor and destitute Americans during the Great Depression actually spearheaded the largest humanitarian efforts the world had ever seen to feed tens of millions of starting citizens in countries throughout the world after the ravages of both World Wars tore families and nations apart. This man who left the White House in 1933 as a villified and defeated man had entered that residence 4 years earlier as one of the most popular men of the past 20 years, winning his presidency with an amazing landslide victory, securing 440 electoral votes but, even more tellingly, won the popular vote by nearly 20% (the same margin by which he would lose in 1932). Here was a man that many wished forgotten after his presidency, yet he lived on for more than 30 years and became the most respected Elder Statesman of the 20th century, whose counsel was sought by even Democratic presidents following the end of FDR's presidency (who openly and publicly mocked Hoover and viciously derided and attacked him in private). Often considered a progressive Republican (he claimed himself to be progressive), he relentlessly fought for conservative ideals in the face of growing government bureaucracy during the New Deal, and was credited for the massive resurgence of conservative sentiment that helped the Republicans resoundingly defeat the Roosevelt agenda in the 1938 mid-term elections.
To say that Herbert Hoover is a man of seeming contradictions is an understatement. So who was he? The answer to that question is one I will try to concisely address in coming days.
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Wealth & Politics, Part I: Presidents & Net Worth
During the 2012 Presidential campaign, wealth was made a major issue. You could publish a novel longer than "Les Miserables" by simply compiling all the articles addressing Mitt Romney's wealth, and could use all the articles addressing it in a positive light for a single chapter. Unfortunately, very few questions were asked, and instead most people denigrated their intellectual honesty by simply shotgunning wild claims and hoping some of them would stick. Through it all, it was implied that Mitt Romney's wealth was bad and should be a major consideration when evaluating his ability to be President. But why? Does wealth prevent one from effectively leading people from all walks of life? Does wealth insulate a man from the privations and struggles of the average American? Does wealth prevent a man from connecting to and understanding those around him?
If the answer to those questions is yes, then you'd be surprised who some of the absolute worst presidents are in our history--ones who supposedly didn't have a clue about the average American and apparently couldn't have cared less. Beginning with our first president, George Washington, our nation was led by out of touch, arrogant men who couldn't have cared less about the plight of the average citizen until James Buchanan reached the White House, and ironically he is considered the worst president in history more than any other. Prior to Buchanan, all 14 President's were millionaires with vast wealth. George Washington, the father of our country and often considered one of the 3 greatest presidents, must not have been so great--he was our second wealthiest president worth well over $500 million. Thomas Jefferson, the author of our nation's founding document was worth nearly $250 million. Were those men out of touch? Did they fail to connect to those in the poorer ranks of Americans? Of course, the first few Presidents were known to be wealthy aristocrats, at least until that all changed with the arrival of Old Hickory, the first President believed to represent the common man and not come from the wealthy aristocratic class, Andrew Jackson. But wait--worth $120 million, more than his 3 predecessors? Indeed, and with over 300 slaves to boot.
As one moves to the 20th century, we find another slew of ineffective, greedy leaders who couldn't care less about the plight of us poor Americans. Leading the charge is the wealthiest of all Presidents, born into a family worth twice as much as George Washington, and that was John F. Kennedy, whose family's estate was worth well over $1 billion (his daughter and only surviving immediate family member was recently revealed to be worth $500 million after keeping her wealth a secret her whole life, her wealth primarily coming from trust accounts from her father and grandfather). Considering other out of touch Presidents, one would certainly have to add both Roosevelt's to the list, both Teddy and Franklin, who were worth $125 million and $65 million, respectively. Looking to the same era, one can't help but remember Warren G. Harding, often portrayed as an elite, wealthy businessman who was out of touch with the American people--of course, his meager worth didn't even top a single million, nor did Calvin Coolidge, whose supposed antipathy towards wealth prevented him from reigning in the rising stock market during the '20s because of his comfort with wealth, which he ironically never had himself, as his worth was also less than a million and contained primarily in his single home.
So who was our last president that wasn't a millionaire? You have to go back 60 years--to Harry S. Truman. Yes, even the down to earth peanut farmer Jimmy Carter was worth a pretty penny, or more precisely, $7 million worth. All told, only nine presidents have not had enough net worth to be considered millionaires, including Lincoln, Johnson, Grant, and Wilson, amongst the others already listed. Perhaps the more important question then should not be about the wealth of a man, but how he uses his wealth. Too bad the mainstream media wasn't smart enough to ask that question during the election and instead concocted negative stories where none existed. Mitt Romney tax evader? Mitt Romney illegal banking practices? Mitt Romney caring more about his wealth than people? Stories negatively answering those stories were blasted to the American people without any regard for the wealth of evidence to the contrary. So called reporters instead chose to rely on here-say that proved the point they most agreed with rather than use the truth to prove they were wrong. In part 2 of this article, I will talk about the ways in which wealth has affected and been used by some of our former Presidents.
If the answer to those questions is yes, then you'd be surprised who some of the absolute worst presidents are in our history--ones who supposedly didn't have a clue about the average American and apparently couldn't have cared less. Beginning with our first president, George Washington, our nation was led by out of touch, arrogant men who couldn't have cared less about the plight of the average citizen until James Buchanan reached the White House, and ironically he is considered the worst president in history more than any other. Prior to Buchanan, all 14 President's were millionaires with vast wealth. George Washington, the father of our country and often considered one of the 3 greatest presidents, must not have been so great--he was our second wealthiest president worth well over $500 million. Thomas Jefferson, the author of our nation's founding document was worth nearly $250 million. Were those men out of touch? Did they fail to connect to those in the poorer ranks of Americans? Of course, the first few Presidents were known to be wealthy aristocrats, at least until that all changed with the arrival of Old Hickory, the first President believed to represent the common man and not come from the wealthy aristocratic class, Andrew Jackson. But wait--worth $120 million, more than his 3 predecessors? Indeed, and with over 300 slaves to boot.
As one moves to the 20th century, we find another slew of ineffective, greedy leaders who couldn't care less about the plight of us poor Americans. Leading the charge is the wealthiest of all Presidents, born into a family worth twice as much as George Washington, and that was John F. Kennedy, whose family's estate was worth well over $1 billion (his daughter and only surviving immediate family member was recently revealed to be worth $500 million after keeping her wealth a secret her whole life, her wealth primarily coming from trust accounts from her father and grandfather). Considering other out of touch Presidents, one would certainly have to add both Roosevelt's to the list, both Teddy and Franklin, who were worth $125 million and $65 million, respectively. Looking to the same era, one can't help but remember Warren G. Harding, often portrayed as an elite, wealthy businessman who was out of touch with the American people--of course, his meager worth didn't even top a single million, nor did Calvin Coolidge, whose supposed antipathy towards wealth prevented him from reigning in the rising stock market during the '20s because of his comfort with wealth, which he ironically never had himself, as his worth was also less than a million and contained primarily in his single home.
So who was our last president that wasn't a millionaire? You have to go back 60 years--to Harry S. Truman. Yes, even the down to earth peanut farmer Jimmy Carter was worth a pretty penny, or more precisely, $7 million worth. All told, only nine presidents have not had enough net worth to be considered millionaires, including Lincoln, Johnson, Grant, and Wilson, amongst the others already listed. Perhaps the more important question then should not be about the wealth of a man, but how he uses his wealth. Too bad the mainstream media wasn't smart enough to ask that question during the election and instead concocted negative stories where none existed. Mitt Romney tax evader? Mitt Romney illegal banking practices? Mitt Romney caring more about his wealth than people? Stories negatively answering those stories were blasted to the American people without any regard for the wealth of evidence to the contrary. So called reporters instead chose to rely on here-say that proved the point they most agreed with rather than use the truth to prove they were wrong. In part 2 of this article, I will talk about the ways in which wealth has affected and been used by some of our former Presidents.
Monday, November 18, 2013
Did Ronald Reagan End the Cold War?
This question has been asked countless times since the collapse of the Soviet Union a mere 2 years after Reagan's presidency, which was built on the crusade of peacefully destroying the evil empire, a purpose that Reagan had already devoted decades of his life to. Historians and commentators of all persuasions have weighed in on this question for over 25 years. With an increasingly amount of previously classified material coming to light, more evidence is available to weigh as one seeks the answer, and the documents are indeed quite pertinent to consider. Most of them are minutes of top secret national security meetings where the weapons in Reagan's arsenal to undermine the Soviet system were articulated and put on record as top secret official administration policy. Perhaps most telling, however, is that all of these documents, only available during the last several years, reinforce one of the best works about this topic, which was one of the first. Written over 20 years ago, "Victory" by Peter Schweizer is an in-depth analysis of the Reagan administration's crusade to wipe Soviet communism from the earth, and in so doing free the tens of millions of people living in bondage behind the Iron Curtain. Schweizer's book is based primarily on personal interviews with the individuals involved in this strategy. While these individuals didn't directly release classified information, they released enough information to validate the thesis of Schweizer's book, and their information--offered in broad generalizations--have been validated and strengthened with the wealth of material becoming available confirming what they have said.
As I have sought to answer the original question regarding Reagan's role in ending the Cold War, I have analyzed dozens of published works regarding this topic, many of them unedited primary sources, and have come to the inescapable conclusion that Ronald Reagan did facilitate the end of the Cold War. While arguments can be made that the Soviet Union would have collapsed eventually, the same argument could be made that they could have survived their economic setbacks without the pressure from Reagan and emerged even stronger (indeed, many of Reagan's opponents and leading academics were making these arguments in the late 1980s, claiming the Soviet Union was too large to collapse despite its economic setbacks and its size was a strength that would insulate and preserve it). Whether it would have ended only 5 or 25 years later is beside the point--to me, the simple fact is that if Ronald Reagan had not been President, and aggressively pursued a crusade against communism, the Soviet Union would not have ended when it did. My analysis of the various works have led me to that conclusion, and it was frankly an easy one to reach based on the vast amount of evidence. In sum, Ronald Reagan's economic war (and it was all out war behind the scenes in the eyes of the administration) undercut the very foundation of the Soviet Union's ability to sustain itself. Often leading alone, against the advice of advisers and world leaders, Reagan sought to economically devastate the Soviet economy and force the hand of its leaders. Even Gorbachev, the last leader of the Soviet Union, was only elevated to his position as a response to the aggressive new policies which had already been affecting the Soviet Union for years before his appointment that were pursued by Reagan during his first term in office before Gorbachev's appointment.
For those that argue Ronald Reagan was merely in the right place at the right time, or was simply lucky, they often claim that Gorbachev, not Reagan, deserves credit for the end of the Cold War. Indeed, TIME magazine named Gorbachev--not Reagan--their Man of the Decade for bringing about such sweeping change to the Soviet Union. What they fail to consider is the degree to which Reagan influenced the appointment of Gorbachev as the General Secretary of the Soviet Union, as well as the fact that Gorbachev's major reforms of Glasnost and Perestroika nothing more than economic programs aimed to counter the massively debilitating affects that Reagan's policies were having on the economic health of the Soviet Union. Put bluntly, without Reagan there very likely would have been no Perestroika and no Glasnost, at least in the form that we know them. It is even quite plausible that Gorbachev himself would have not been appointed General Secretary, and this much is admitted by the Soviets themselves who were part of the process of Gorbachev's appointment. This is all fitting, of course, considering that a plaque sat on Reagan's Oval Office desk that read "There is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." Reagan's satisfaction at the collapse of the Soviet Union came from knowing that the opportunity now was the reward of the oppressed, that freedom could now be enjoyed by those who had been silenced, and people of all faiths could now freely worship. He did not need to argue for the credit, and didn't. Indeed, he would be the first to deflect that credit towards those around him, including Gorbachev, and their all having been blessed by a higher power that simply enabled them to be the instruments in carrying out a more divine purpose to which Reagan felt he had been called to fulfill years before his rise to the Presidency.
As I have sought to answer the original question regarding Reagan's role in ending the Cold War, I have analyzed dozens of published works regarding this topic, many of them unedited primary sources, and have come to the inescapable conclusion that Ronald Reagan did facilitate the end of the Cold War. While arguments can be made that the Soviet Union would have collapsed eventually, the same argument could be made that they could have survived their economic setbacks without the pressure from Reagan and emerged even stronger (indeed, many of Reagan's opponents and leading academics were making these arguments in the late 1980s, claiming the Soviet Union was too large to collapse despite its economic setbacks and its size was a strength that would insulate and preserve it). Whether it would have ended only 5 or 25 years later is beside the point--to me, the simple fact is that if Ronald Reagan had not been President, and aggressively pursued a crusade against communism, the Soviet Union would not have ended when it did. My analysis of the various works have led me to that conclusion, and it was frankly an easy one to reach based on the vast amount of evidence. In sum, Ronald Reagan's economic war (and it was all out war behind the scenes in the eyes of the administration) undercut the very foundation of the Soviet Union's ability to sustain itself. Often leading alone, against the advice of advisers and world leaders, Reagan sought to economically devastate the Soviet economy and force the hand of its leaders. Even Gorbachev, the last leader of the Soviet Union, was only elevated to his position as a response to the aggressive new policies which had already been affecting the Soviet Union for years before his appointment that were pursued by Reagan during his first term in office before Gorbachev's appointment.
For those that argue Ronald Reagan was merely in the right place at the right time, or was simply lucky, they often claim that Gorbachev, not Reagan, deserves credit for the end of the Cold War. Indeed, TIME magazine named Gorbachev--not Reagan--their Man of the Decade for bringing about such sweeping change to the Soviet Union. What they fail to consider is the degree to which Reagan influenced the appointment of Gorbachev as the General Secretary of the Soviet Union, as well as the fact that Gorbachev's major reforms of Glasnost and Perestroika nothing more than economic programs aimed to counter the massively debilitating affects that Reagan's policies were having on the economic health of the Soviet Union. Put bluntly, without Reagan there very likely would have been no Perestroika and no Glasnost, at least in the form that we know them. It is even quite plausible that Gorbachev himself would have not been appointed General Secretary, and this much is admitted by the Soviets themselves who were part of the process of Gorbachev's appointment. This is all fitting, of course, considering that a plaque sat on Reagan's Oval Office desk that read "There is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." Reagan's satisfaction at the collapse of the Soviet Union came from knowing that the opportunity now was the reward of the oppressed, that freedom could now be enjoyed by those who had been silenced, and people of all faiths could now freely worship. He did not need to argue for the credit, and didn't. Indeed, he would be the first to deflect that credit towards those around him, including Gorbachev, and their all having been blessed by a higher power that simply enabled them to be the instruments in carrying out a more divine purpose to which Reagan felt he had been called to fulfill years before his rise to the Presidency.
Critiquing Obamacare
The following article highlights how Obamacare should be critiqued--using direct links to the law itself. It's one thing to say what's in the law, but actually showing us what's in the law to back it up goes a long way.
The Affordable Care Act is Not Incomprehensible
The Affordable Care Act is Not Incomprehensible
Friday, November 15, 2013
JFK the Conservative?
With Ira Stoll's new book, "JFK Conservative," a new argument is being made that JFK isn't the true liberal icon that modern liberals herald him to be. While I have yet to read Stoll's book, I think it is futile to argue that JFK had no conservative tendencies, though equally futile to claim he was completely conservative and a Republican in all but name. The truth is that he was a moderate, and espoused tendencies that both sides could claim were in agreement with them.
Clouding our ability to objectively assess the veracity of the JFK conservative argument, and objectively consider the evidence, is our own political world that is not necessarily more charged than at times in the past, but is certainly filled with more venom, vitriol, polarization, and hate than is common. More importantly, the Cold War is over--an event that defined the world in which JFK lived, and drove one of the primary platforms of his entire political career with his fervent and vocal anti-communism. Indeed, he ran his presidential campaign on the idea that his predecessor, the Republican Dwight Eisenhower, had actually been too soft on the Soviet Union, and that a more aggressive, anti-communist foreign policy was needed, something that was just as alien an idea to liberals then as it is today. Even former first lady and liberal icon Eleanor Roosevelt spoke out against JFK, recognizing he was not "one of them."
Prior to his presidency, JFK served in the Senate as a democrat after miraculously defeating the popular incumbent, and Republican from Massachusetts, Henry Cabot Lodge. During his time in the Senate, the liberal Democratic establishment never considered JFK a member of their caucus. Lyndon Johnson, the Senate Majority leader during this time and JFK's eventual vice-president, was the face of the liberal establishment and he scoffed at the "upstart" Kennedy and paid him little attention. When liberal democrats joined together in the controversial censure vote of Republican Senator Joe McCarthy, Kennedy ducked the vote by being absent. It was well known that the Kennedy family were supporters of the Republican Senator, with RFK having served as an aide to McCarthy and even naming McCarthy as the godfather of his child. While JFK was never as close to McCarthy as RFK, he was an ardent anti-communist, as was McCarthy, though he likely would not have condoned the radical methods pursued by McCarthy.
As the 1960 presidential election neared, many liberal democrats considered JFK an "outsider" with only a long shot, at best, of capturing the nomination. While Lyndon Johnson was the favorite, many also considered Hubert Humphrey the more likely choice for his more obvious liberal positions. JFK had also distanced himself from the previous two time nominee, Adlai Stevenson, who was known for his more liberal policies. JFK ran his campaign not on domestic issues, as liberals commonly do, but emphasized foreign policy, a typically conservative cause, and even did so on a platform of greater aggressiveness at rolling back communism, not merely containing it, a typically conservative approach to foreign policy.
Once elected, JFK began his presidency with a very powerful inaugural conveying American might and strength in the face of the Cold War. Domestically, JFK spoke to Americans and issued perhaps his most famous challenge which cuts right to the heart of liberal domestic policy by urging Americans to "ask not what your country can do for you," but urged them to look inward and "ask what you can do for your country." This led to the establishment of the bipartisan Peace Corps. He further distanced himself from the liberal establishment by appointing a number of Republicans to his cabinet and other prominent positions, such as conservative businessman and Republican Douglas Dillon as Secretary of the Treasury and Republican Robert McMamara to Secretary of Defense (Kennedy initially offered McNamara the treasury post. McNamara became one of Kennedy's most trusted cabinet members, whom Kennedy regarded as "one of the stars of his team" who became close to RFK as well, and even served as a pallbearer at his funeral in 1968). Indeed, JFK's fiscal policies are nearly as conservative as was his foreign policy. He supported across the board tax cuts and lowered the top income bracket by nearly 30%. Of course he lowered the rate to 65%, still higher than the rates in our modern world, and as such open to the argument by modern liberals that JFK would support raising current rates, not lowering them. It is on record, however, that JFK did believe that economic growth could be fueled by lowering taxes, and his policies proved correct. He also, however, supported Keynesian economic policies favored by liberals. As such, he considered deficit spending to foster economic growth but was extremely reluctant to pursue these policies, much to the displeasure of his more liberal advisers. In the end, Kennedy believed that deficit spending should only be used to serve his ultimate foreign policy objectives in relation to the Cold War and ensuring our military capability in defending from a possible Russian attack. Indeed, viewing Kennedy's decisions through the prism of the Cold War illuminate them with an understanding difficult for many in our modern world to grasp, again due to the end of the Cold War. Kennedy believed the U.S. economy needed to grow faster than the Russians, and viewed economic policy through this lens. Spending on highways and schools was approved on the premise that improved our defense capability.
Regarding his foreign policy initiatives, Kennedy believed fervently in the very conservative policy of pushing back on communist expansion and established, with McNamara, that the primary mission of U.S. overseas forces, in cooperation with allies, would be "to prevent the steady erosion of the Free World through limited wars." While we can never know how Vietnam would have unfolded with Kennedy at the helm, he did increase the number of U.S. advisers located in Vietnam from 900 to 16,000 during his short presidency. When the Cuban Missile crisis occurred, Kennedy sought a moderate approach that ultimately preserved peace and defused the situation in perhaps the crowning diplomatic achievement of his presidency.
While assessing Kennedy's conservatism, it is appropriate and beneficial to compare him to what modern conservatives herald as their equivalent to Kennedy, their own principled hero, Ronald Reagan. Both men were more pragmatic and principle oriented, who believed in compromise. Both men were looked down upon by the entrenched politicians of their parties and were rejected by the establishment. Both men focused their campaigns and presidencies on the people, not politicians, and they spoke directly to the people to drum up support for their policies. Both men navigated a political middle ground.
In a 1962 commencement address at Yale, Kennedy spoke of his pragmatic commitment to principle over party when he declared "The central issues of our time are more subtle and less simple, they relate not to basic philosophy or ideology but to ways and means of reaching common goals...political labels and ideological approaches are irrelevant to the solution." Kennedy admitted to reluctantly bearing the label "liberal" because of his awareness that he needed liberal support to win the nomination, stating he would call himself whatever was needed.
In another address, in 1960, JFK spoke most pointedly about this very matter when defining what he believed liberalism to be and proclaiming himself a proud liberal, and setting forth the terms by which he claimed to be a liberal. He stated, "If, by 'liberal,' [our opponents] mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrates that we are not that kind of 'liberal.' But if, by a 'liberal,' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people….if that is what they mean by a 'liberal,' then I’m proud to say that I’m a 'liberal.'" (To read the entire address, see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/jfk-nyliberal/)
In the end, I do not believe JFK was by any means a conservative icon, but I do believe he is not a liberal icon, at least in today's understanding of the word in political usage. JFK did have many very conservative tendencies which cannot be overlooked as easily as many liberals try to do, but he also had liberal policies by today's definition that conservatives must remember. Regarding his policies that could be considered liberal by today's standards, during his presidency "Social Security benefits and food distribution to poor Americans was increased; including free school lunches. In 1961, Kennedy signed Executive Order 10925, which required affirmative action by government contractors as to both applicants and employees. It also established the "President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity". Kennedy also established the "Presidential Commission on the Status of Women" which was an advisory commission to investigate: education, income and workplace issues of women. Thereafter, in June 1963, Kennedy signed the "Equal Pay Act" which was to close the so-called wage gap based on sex."
Could it be possible that the tendency from all citizens on different political sides of the aisle engage in a futile effort to reach for the legacy of JFK and stake a larger claim to his legacy than the other? Could it be possible that the reason for JFK's enduring legacy is exactly the opposite of what we try to do--label him? Could it be possible that JFK's legacy endures because he avoided labels and believed one shouldn't be beholden to them? Could it be possible that JFK's presidency was driven more by his own ideological principles than those forced upon him by any political party establishment? And could it be possible that his own ideological principles were not only born of his own unique life experiences and views, but that they were more pragmatic and wide ranging than many ideologues care to admit? I think so.
Clouding our ability to objectively assess the veracity of the JFK conservative argument, and objectively consider the evidence, is our own political world that is not necessarily more charged than at times in the past, but is certainly filled with more venom, vitriol, polarization, and hate than is common. More importantly, the Cold War is over--an event that defined the world in which JFK lived, and drove one of the primary platforms of his entire political career with his fervent and vocal anti-communism. Indeed, he ran his presidential campaign on the idea that his predecessor, the Republican Dwight Eisenhower, had actually been too soft on the Soviet Union, and that a more aggressive, anti-communist foreign policy was needed, something that was just as alien an idea to liberals then as it is today. Even former first lady and liberal icon Eleanor Roosevelt spoke out against JFK, recognizing he was not "one of them."
Prior to his presidency, JFK served in the Senate as a democrat after miraculously defeating the popular incumbent, and Republican from Massachusetts, Henry Cabot Lodge. During his time in the Senate, the liberal Democratic establishment never considered JFK a member of their caucus. Lyndon Johnson, the Senate Majority leader during this time and JFK's eventual vice-president, was the face of the liberal establishment and he scoffed at the "upstart" Kennedy and paid him little attention. When liberal democrats joined together in the controversial censure vote of Republican Senator Joe McCarthy, Kennedy ducked the vote by being absent. It was well known that the Kennedy family were supporters of the Republican Senator, with RFK having served as an aide to McCarthy and even naming McCarthy as the godfather of his child. While JFK was never as close to McCarthy as RFK, he was an ardent anti-communist, as was McCarthy, though he likely would not have condoned the radical methods pursued by McCarthy.
As the 1960 presidential election neared, many liberal democrats considered JFK an "outsider" with only a long shot, at best, of capturing the nomination. While Lyndon Johnson was the favorite, many also considered Hubert Humphrey the more likely choice for his more obvious liberal positions. JFK had also distanced himself from the previous two time nominee, Adlai Stevenson, who was known for his more liberal policies. JFK ran his campaign not on domestic issues, as liberals commonly do, but emphasized foreign policy, a typically conservative cause, and even did so on a platform of greater aggressiveness at rolling back communism, not merely containing it, a typically conservative approach to foreign policy.
Once elected, JFK began his presidency with a very powerful inaugural conveying American might and strength in the face of the Cold War. Domestically, JFK spoke to Americans and issued perhaps his most famous challenge which cuts right to the heart of liberal domestic policy by urging Americans to "ask not what your country can do for you," but urged them to look inward and "ask what you can do for your country." This led to the establishment of the bipartisan Peace Corps. He further distanced himself from the liberal establishment by appointing a number of Republicans to his cabinet and other prominent positions, such as conservative businessman and Republican Douglas Dillon as Secretary of the Treasury and Republican Robert McMamara to Secretary of Defense (Kennedy initially offered McNamara the treasury post. McNamara became one of Kennedy's most trusted cabinet members, whom Kennedy regarded as "one of the stars of his team" who became close to RFK as well, and even served as a pallbearer at his funeral in 1968). Indeed, JFK's fiscal policies are nearly as conservative as was his foreign policy. He supported across the board tax cuts and lowered the top income bracket by nearly 30%. Of course he lowered the rate to 65%, still higher than the rates in our modern world, and as such open to the argument by modern liberals that JFK would support raising current rates, not lowering them. It is on record, however, that JFK did believe that economic growth could be fueled by lowering taxes, and his policies proved correct. He also, however, supported Keynesian economic policies favored by liberals. As such, he considered deficit spending to foster economic growth but was extremely reluctant to pursue these policies, much to the displeasure of his more liberal advisers. In the end, Kennedy believed that deficit spending should only be used to serve his ultimate foreign policy objectives in relation to the Cold War and ensuring our military capability in defending from a possible Russian attack. Indeed, viewing Kennedy's decisions through the prism of the Cold War illuminate them with an understanding difficult for many in our modern world to grasp, again due to the end of the Cold War. Kennedy believed the U.S. economy needed to grow faster than the Russians, and viewed economic policy through this lens. Spending on highways and schools was approved on the premise that improved our defense capability.
Regarding his foreign policy initiatives, Kennedy believed fervently in the very conservative policy of pushing back on communist expansion and established, with McNamara, that the primary mission of U.S. overseas forces, in cooperation with allies, would be "to prevent the steady erosion of the Free World through limited wars." While we can never know how Vietnam would have unfolded with Kennedy at the helm, he did increase the number of U.S. advisers located in Vietnam from 900 to 16,000 during his short presidency. When the Cuban Missile crisis occurred, Kennedy sought a moderate approach that ultimately preserved peace and defused the situation in perhaps the crowning diplomatic achievement of his presidency.
While assessing Kennedy's conservatism, it is appropriate and beneficial to compare him to what modern conservatives herald as their equivalent to Kennedy, their own principled hero, Ronald Reagan. Both men were more pragmatic and principle oriented, who believed in compromise. Both men were looked down upon by the entrenched politicians of their parties and were rejected by the establishment. Both men focused their campaigns and presidencies on the people, not politicians, and they spoke directly to the people to drum up support for their policies. Both men navigated a political middle ground.
In a 1962 commencement address at Yale, Kennedy spoke of his pragmatic commitment to principle over party when he declared "The central issues of our time are more subtle and less simple, they relate not to basic philosophy or ideology but to ways and means of reaching common goals...political labels and ideological approaches are irrelevant to the solution." Kennedy admitted to reluctantly bearing the label "liberal" because of his awareness that he needed liberal support to win the nomination, stating he would call himself whatever was needed.
In another address, in 1960, JFK spoke most pointedly about this very matter when defining what he believed liberalism to be and proclaiming himself a proud liberal, and setting forth the terms by which he claimed to be a liberal. He stated, "If, by 'liberal,' [our opponents] mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrates that we are not that kind of 'liberal.' But if, by a 'liberal,' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people….if that is what they mean by a 'liberal,' then I’m proud to say that I’m a 'liberal.'" (To read the entire address, see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/jfk-nyliberal/)
In the end, I do not believe JFK was by any means a conservative icon, but I do believe he is not a liberal icon, at least in today's understanding of the word in political usage. JFK did have many very conservative tendencies which cannot be overlooked as easily as many liberals try to do, but he also had liberal policies by today's definition that conservatives must remember. Regarding his policies that could be considered liberal by today's standards, during his presidency "Social Security benefits and food distribution to poor Americans was increased; including free school lunches. In 1961, Kennedy signed Executive Order 10925, which required affirmative action by government contractors as to both applicants and employees. It also established the "President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity". Kennedy also established the "Presidential Commission on the Status of Women" which was an advisory commission to investigate: education, income and workplace issues of women. Thereafter, in June 1963, Kennedy signed the "Equal Pay Act" which was to close the so-called wage gap based on sex."
Could it be possible that the tendency from all citizens on different political sides of the aisle engage in a futile effort to reach for the legacy of JFK and stake a larger claim to his legacy than the other? Could it be possible that the reason for JFK's enduring legacy is exactly the opposite of what we try to do--label him? Could it be possible that JFK's legacy endures because he avoided labels and believed one shouldn't be beholden to them? Could it be possible that JFK's presidency was driven more by his own ideological principles than those forced upon him by any political party establishment? And could it be possible that his own ideological principles were not only born of his own unique life experiences and views, but that they were more pragmatic and wide ranging than many ideologues care to admit? I think so.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Why I'm Conservative...
I am conservative because I believe freedom is meant to be given uniquely to each individually, not collectively to groups. For that matter, I don't believe in "the masses," but I do believe in the uniqueness of each individual that makes up what others call "the masses." I believe there is more unique than the same about the so-called "common man," and that the uniqueness of each individual is anything but common.
I am conservative because I believe people can take better care of each other than entities can. While I recognize entities are a necessary evil, I believe that the farther from the people they are meant to serve they become (through regulations, bureaucracy, sheer size, and so forth) they become worse and worse at their job. They become insulated from their own failures and fail to see them, and simply begin to perpetuate themselves rather than the cause for which they were begun.
I am conservative because I believe principle trumps party.
I am conservative because I believe in the goodness of mankind.
I am conservative because I believe in the innate potential of individuals.
I am conservative because I believe we should be given the chance to fail in order to learn how to grow.
I am conservative because I am not afraid of failure.
I am conservative because I believe the human spirit is more powerful than anything else.
I am conservative because I recognize that there is evil in this world that cannot be controlled through regulation or legislation.
I am conservative because I believe governments first role is to protect, not provide.
I am conservative because I believe the government is a servant of the people, not their master.
I am conservative because I believe everything that makes man good is not granted us by government, but by God.
I am conservative because I believe in the America that the founders gave us.
I am conservative because I believe that the weaknesses of the founders doesn't undercut their arguments regarding liberty--I believe it is wrong to believe only perfect people can be right.
I am conservative because I believe our country is a republic, as the Founding Fathers clarified it was, not a democracy, as they clarified it was not.
I am conservative because I believe it is the responsibility of each individual to work to make the most with their life, not the government's.
I am conservative because I believe that without inequality in all things, those at the bottom wouldn't know for which they could strive, of what they are capable, and how to help others once they get there, and that those at the top can feel the pride of having born the fruit of their own labors and not others, can better assist others in joining them, and that their aspirations cannot be fueled by regulations but can be dampened by them. I believe we ARE all equal in our potential, for we all contain the same spark of divinity and goodness within us, but I do NOT believe we are all equal in our success and effort, and to require us to be, or even force us to be, is an affront on the beauty of the uniqueness of the individual and a fulfillment of biblical prophecy of calling evil good, and good evil.
I am conservative because I believe that we can never all be made to be equal, but that our ability to become uniquely who we need to be IS equal in that we all possess the ability.
I am conservative because I believe that principle comes before party and politician.
I am not conservative merely because I like leaders who claim to be conservative.
I am not conservative because I have been offended by the behavior or attitudes of someone who is not. I believe in distinction between principles, which can be shared, and individual behavior, which cannot.
I am not conservative because I have been told to be, but because I can think for myself.
I am not a conservative because it's hip, popular, or what others around me choose to believe in as well.
I am a conservative because for me, it is right.
I am conservative because I recognize that for you, it may not be right.
I am conservative because I believe that to disagree with me does not mean you are wrong.
I am conservative because I believe our differences in principle are not a weapon in a war that must be won, but tools to be used to foster understanding and appreciation without requiring conversion or agreement.
I am a conservative because the principles of conservatism are the principles most dear to my heart and at the core of who I am.
I am not a conservative because of policies, programs, or politicians.
I am a conservative because of individuality, not commonality.
I am conservative because I believe we have more that unites us than divides us.
I am conservative because I believe what does unite us is more important than what divides us.
I am conservative because I believe the divide that society tells us divides us is a lot smaller than they say.
I am conservative because I believe people can take better care of each other than entities can. While I recognize entities are a necessary evil, I believe that the farther from the people they are meant to serve they become (through regulations, bureaucracy, sheer size, and so forth) they become worse and worse at their job. They become insulated from their own failures and fail to see them, and simply begin to perpetuate themselves rather than the cause for which they were begun.
I am conservative because I believe principle trumps party.
I am conservative because I believe in the goodness of mankind.
I am conservative because I believe in the innate potential of individuals.
I am conservative because I believe we should be given the chance to fail in order to learn how to grow.
I am conservative because I am not afraid of failure.
I am conservative because I believe the human spirit is more powerful than anything else.
I am conservative because I recognize that there is evil in this world that cannot be controlled through regulation or legislation.
I am conservative because I believe governments first role is to protect, not provide.
I am conservative because I believe the government is a servant of the people, not their master.
I am conservative because I believe everything that makes man good is not granted us by government, but by God.
I am conservative because I believe in the America that the founders gave us.
I am conservative because I believe that the weaknesses of the founders doesn't undercut their arguments regarding liberty--I believe it is wrong to believe only perfect people can be right.
I am conservative because I believe our country is a republic, as the Founding Fathers clarified it was, not a democracy, as they clarified it was not.
I am conservative because I believe it is the responsibility of each individual to work to make the most with their life, not the government's.
I am conservative because I believe that without inequality in all things, those at the bottom wouldn't know for which they could strive, of what they are capable, and how to help others once they get there, and that those at the top can feel the pride of having born the fruit of their own labors and not others, can better assist others in joining them, and that their aspirations cannot be fueled by regulations but can be dampened by them. I believe we ARE all equal in our potential, for we all contain the same spark of divinity and goodness within us, but I do NOT believe we are all equal in our success and effort, and to require us to be, or even force us to be, is an affront on the beauty of the uniqueness of the individual and a fulfillment of biblical prophecy of calling evil good, and good evil.
I am conservative because I believe that we can never all be made to be equal, but that our ability to become uniquely who we need to be IS equal in that we all possess the ability.
I am conservative because I believe that principle comes before party and politician.
I am not conservative merely because I like leaders who claim to be conservative.
I am not conservative because I have been offended by the behavior or attitudes of someone who is not. I believe in distinction between principles, which can be shared, and individual behavior, which cannot.
I am not conservative because I have been told to be, but because I can think for myself.
I am not a conservative because it's hip, popular, or what others around me choose to believe in as well.
I am a conservative because for me, it is right.
I am conservative because I recognize that for you, it may not be right.
I am conservative because I believe that to disagree with me does not mean you are wrong.
I am conservative because I believe our differences in principle are not a weapon in a war that must be won, but tools to be used to foster understanding and appreciation without requiring conversion or agreement.
I am a conservative because the principles of conservatism are the principles most dear to my heart and at the core of who I am.
I am not a conservative because of policies, programs, or politicians.
I am a conservative because of individuality, not commonality.
I am conservative because I believe we have more that unites us than divides us.
I am conservative because I believe what does unite us is more important than what divides us.
I am conservative because I believe the divide that society tells us divides us is a lot smaller than they say.
Obamacare and Vindication
While my animosity towards the monstrosity that is the deceitfully named "Affordable Care Act" has been constant since it was being crafted in secret and without bipartisan collaboration before its eventual passage in March 2010, it is nice to see vindication. Over the past several weeks, the "extremists" who have been warning about the ticking time bomb hidden within the most convoluted, regulation creating, and abstract bill ever created, are finally being proven right. The law that needed to be passed in rapid desperation with the promise of being accepted once it is understood, is becoming understood and increasingly rejected rather than accepted. Passed behind closed doors, in a more hyper partisan manner than any major legislation in modern history, it was sold to the American people on promises being proven false. Stated more succinctly--it was sold on lies. The lies were unequivocal, on record, and repeated by not only numerous senators, but worse, on at least 36 occasions by the man holding the office once deserving of the highest degree of trust in the land. The American people haven't been lied to so bluntly since Clinton's perjury regarding his adultery or Nixon's denial of his involvement in Watergate. While some lies are only so in degrees of variance, or interpretation, the lies in Obamacare couldn't be farther apart from one another in degrees. The President's remarks were unusually clear as far as Washing political talk goes, leaving zero room for misinterpretation and down the road equivocating. And yet we are now down that road, and awakening to a realization that the President was 100% wrong. Promises of keeping things now being stripped away, affordability for services now increasing in price, and efficiency of service now marred by failure on a massive scale, were thrown at the American people with the confidence of an artist in the immortality of his work carved in granite, yet they now sit in more pieces than a Picasso puzzle. Of course, the suffering of a people lied to by the leader they elected to support them is no laughing matter, but what is laughable though also utterly disturbing is the various media outlets rushing to defend the isolated President. From the New York Times calling his lies "incorrect promises" to journalists on CNN, msnbc, and other networks simply throwing their arms in the air and blaming Republicans, apparently taking a page right from the Obama administration's playbook for the first 4 years of their Presidency during which time Bush was culpable for everything wrong with our country. Unfortunately, they can no longer blame Bush, and blaming Republicans for a bill they literally had zero input on and were forcibly kept from contributing to is certifiably insane.
UPDATE: A couple of days after writing this, President Obama himself gave in to blaming Republicans for the failure of Obamacare's rollout even though, again, they had nothing to do with it. He says that because they have been rooting for the law's failure, they are responsible, because they are "invested in defeat." You can't make this stuff up. WashPost Reports Obama Blames a GOP 'Invested in Failure' for Obamacare; Skips Any Republican Rebuttal
UPDATE: A couple of days after writing this, President Obama himself gave in to blaming Republicans for the failure of Obamacare's rollout even though, again, they had nothing to do with it. He says that because they have been rooting for the law's failure, they are responsible, because they are "invested in defeat." You can't make this stuff up. WashPost Reports Obama Blames a GOP 'Invested in Failure' for Obamacare; Skips Any Republican Rebuttal
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Why Only on the Front Porch?
It has often been said that there are three things you shouldn't talk about in polite company--religion, politics, and money (some lists include sex instead of money). Who exactly wrote this rule has remained anonymous to the annals of history, though this saying is nearly elevated to equal prominence with the Ten Commandments. One could easily wager it was someone who shunned disagreement, had a hard time explaining themselves or feeling understood, or maybe was just downright unsure themselves of where they stood on these issues. This is all fine and dandy, but as I hope to argue in this article, not only are we all entitled to our opinions, but we shouldn't be afraid to share them openly, honestly, and respectfully with anyone we meet.
What happened over the course of time that relegated the most interesting things to talk about to the list of things not to talk about? I'll tell you what happened (of course, I may be wrong)--rather than engage in a stimulating conversation with an open mind, people started preaching their views with a closed mind. What's wrong if someone you are talking with disagrees with you? A view different than your own isn't going to make your head explode; trust me, I disagree with my wife on things every day and she hasn't donated my headless body to science quite yet.
For the sake of this argument, I'm only referring to conversation you may have with a neighbor, friend, or someone you meet during the normal course of a day. Obviously, certain business or professional environments adhere to a completely different set of social guidelines not applicable in average social situations. But when it comes to a casual encounter with a neighbor, family member, or even stranger, why must we dogmatically refuse to discuss anything of importance? How does refusing to discuss anything of meaning with someone convey to them we value the meaning inherent in their uniqueness as an individual? Does avoiding these matters of importance and replacing them with trite, trivial, and frankly boring and pointless small talk somehow convey to that individual that you care about them....just not enough to actually talk with them about anything that matters?
Ultimately, self deception and doubt are one of the culprits of promoting the banal small talk that many are forced to engage in every day. If only people could be more confident in their self identity, and more aware of their convictions, they would not only be able to more confidently, clearly, and respectfully discuss them with others, but they would not be so reticent to do so based on the fear that they may realize they don't know themselves and be thrown into a tail spin of self discovery forcing them to navigate the waters of self awareness in which they may not comfortably function.
As for me, I am ready and willing to discuss religion and politics any time, any day, so long as it is a conversation and not a debate. Small talk and chit chat aren't my strong suit, and I hope they never are.
What happened over the course of time that relegated the most interesting things to talk about to the list of things not to talk about? I'll tell you what happened (of course, I may be wrong)--rather than engage in a stimulating conversation with an open mind, people started preaching their views with a closed mind. What's wrong if someone you are talking with disagrees with you? A view different than your own isn't going to make your head explode; trust me, I disagree with my wife on things every day and she hasn't donated my headless body to science quite yet.
For the sake of this argument, I'm only referring to conversation you may have with a neighbor, friend, or someone you meet during the normal course of a day. Obviously, certain business or professional environments adhere to a completely different set of social guidelines not applicable in average social situations. But when it comes to a casual encounter with a neighbor, family member, or even stranger, why must we dogmatically refuse to discuss anything of importance? How does refusing to discuss anything of meaning with someone convey to them we value the meaning inherent in their uniqueness as an individual? Does avoiding these matters of importance and replacing them with trite, trivial, and frankly boring and pointless small talk somehow convey to that individual that you care about them....just not enough to actually talk with them about anything that matters?
Ultimately, self deception and doubt are one of the culprits of promoting the banal small talk that many are forced to engage in every day. If only people could be more confident in their self identity, and more aware of their convictions, they would not only be able to more confidently, clearly, and respectfully discuss them with others, but they would not be so reticent to do so based on the fear that they may realize they don't know themselves and be thrown into a tail spin of self discovery forcing them to navigate the waters of self awareness in which they may not comfortably function.
As for me, I am ready and willing to discuss religion and politics any time, any day, so long as it is a conversation and not a debate. Small talk and chit chat aren't my strong suit, and I hope they never are.
An Analytical Paradox...Or the Absurdity of Labels?
Are liberals who are worried about maintaining their ideology without allowing it to evolve or change really conservative? Are conservatives who wish others would be more open and liberal towards their ideas really, well, liberal? Could it be possible that ALL of us (gasp), are both conservative and liberal at the same time? Or could it be possible that labels serve more to distract than to delineate? Do letters after names really illuminate the vastness of the complex and unique character of the individual whose name precedes that R or D? Republicans, democrats...liberals, conservatives.... A classical liberal is really, in today's political world, a conservative. In other countries, the liberal named or classified parties mirror the American Republican platform. So isn't it more productive and worthwhile when judging an individual to approach our understanding to them as we would a complete stranger recently moved into the neighborhood? Assessing the qualities and character of an individual should be based on their own actions and words, not those of others we would naively and ignorantly lump into the same category as them simply because the label we give them happens to be shared by someone else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)