Author Archives: Ron Lipsman

On the Two-Term Presidency

One of the greatest gifts that America has given to the world is the idea that the leader of a nation should be chosen freely by its people. Well, perhaps the notion did not originate in America, but the Yanks certainly showed the world how to do it. More spectacularly and more originally, the United States pioneered the following novel concept: when the favor of the people transfers from one faction (as Madison called them) or party to another, then the defeated incumbent gracefully steps aside as his victorious opponent peacefully and lawfully takes his place as the new leader. Indeed the peaceful transfer of power from the Federalists (Adams) to the Democratic-Republicans (Jefferson) in 1801 must be regarded as one of the most momentous advances in the history of human freedom.

Thus having taught the world how to peacefully install a legitimate leader, as well as how to gracefully escort him to the exit, it was incumbent upon the American people to decide how long they wished the time span between entrance and exit to last. George Washington solved the problem. He refused to serve more than two terms – thus setting a powerful precedent that lasted nearly a century and a half. This feature of America government became ingrained in our political DNA: presidents serve no more than two terms. And when finally this virtual commandment was violated by FDR, the nation ensured that there would be no repeat offense by writing it into the Constitution.

It is my thesis, however, that Washington set not only an upper bound, but a lower bound as well. Namely, he established the precedent that, unless there are compelling reasons not to do so, a sitting president shall be re-elected to a concluding second term. In fact, with the exception of two relatively brief periods (of 20-25 years each), it has been the habit of the American people to re-elect their presidents – unless one of two readily identifiable conditions (to be explained below) obtains.

In particular, not only Washington, but five of the first seven presidents were elected to two terms – the only exceptions being the Adams boys, father and son. Then followed a period (1837-1861) in which the American people gave the hook to every president. This fickle electoral behavior coincided with the extremely volatile antebellum period during which America was wrestling with the highly divisive slavery issue, as well as the rapid westward expansion of the nation.

The country reverted to form during 1861-1877 when it elected and re-elected Lincoln and Grant. But then came another 20-year period (1877-1897) when no president was re-elected. This includes Cleveland who served two non-consecutive terms. The explanation for non-stop presidential turnover in this period is not as clear cut as it is for the antebellum period. Certainly the late 1800s was a time of great upheaval in the country – but without any calamitous issue like slavery. It was the period of America’s industrialization: large migrations from farms to cities, growth of manufacturing, accumulation of wealth, massive immigration and the emergence of the USA as a world power. America was impatiently fulfilling its destiny as the world’s greatest bastion of individual liberty and free market prosperity. Perhaps its impatience extended to its assessments of its leaders.

Whatever the cause, following this period, the country reverted to form again in terms of its treatment of sitting presidents – and it remained there. From 1897 until 2009, only four US presidents were defeated for re-election: Taft, Hoover, Carter and Bush the father. (I do not count LBJ as he stepped aside voluntarily.) In the specified 112-year period, most sitting presidents, of both parties, were re-elected. The American people even re-elected FDR three times. So, how to explain the four exceptions? They fall into two categories. First Taft and Bush the elder. Both fell victim to an unusually strong third party candidate – Taft to Teddy Roosevelt and Bush to Ross Perot. Sans the extra competitor, it is almost certain that both Taft and Bush would have been re-elected. (I note, parenthetically, that the existence of such a candidate does not guarantee an upset – witness the 1924 election where the strong third party candidacy of LaFollette did not derail Coolidge’s re-election.)

More interesting are Hoover and Carter, who were trounced by their challengers without the help of a strong third party accomplice. Simply put, the people judged these two men to be incompetent, misguided and dangerous to the Republic. The public held them directly responsible for the sorry economic state of the country at the time of their race for re-election and sought remedy by decisively expelling them from office. Since the Spanish-American War, these two men hold the unique distinction of being the only sitting presidents to be summarily fired. This is quite an achievement on their part because many of our re-elected presidents were not held in universally high esteem. Yes, some were extremely popular and were re-elected in a cake walk (e.g., Reagan, Eisenhower, FDR); but others had to battle mightily to retain their positions, sometimes by slim margins (e.g., Bush the younger, Truman, Wilson). The American people might have been ambivalent about the latter presidents’ performances, but as was their natural inclination, the people stuck with their president. Not so for Hoover and Carter who are now universally ranked among our worst presidents.

Which brings me at last to Obama? What is to be done with him? Despite various entreaties, it appears that Hillary will not challenge him, nor will The Donald or Bloomberg – so no serious non-Republican contender is about to emerge. Therefore, the Republican challenger – whoever he or she might be – can oust the president only if the people judge Obama an utter failure. In fact, contrary to his promises, Obama has not brought forth hope, or any change for the better. He has not fostered a post racial society, but rather he is the author of economic despair, class warfare, a vision of America in decline, and the remaking of the US according to the European welfare state model. All this has led to dissatisfaction and a sense of betrayal about his presidency. The issue is: what is the magnitude of the dissatisfaction? Either the people will swallow their disappointment and follow their natural instinct to grant him a second turn at the wheel; or if the dissatisfaction is truly deep and broad, he will be dismissed with gusto. Given the well-known features of the red-blue electoral map, there are therefore only two possibilities. Either Obama will squeak by in an extremely close contest (à la Bush junior in 2004), or he will be blown out of the water like Carter in 1980. Personally, I believe that Obama is an incompetent, overly self confident, narcissistic, hardcore leftist ideologue who is dragging America toward a cliff similar to the one off of which most of the countries of Western Europe are plunging. I hope, but am not confident, that most of America recognizes this. If so, he is toast. If not, he might squeak by and retain the presidency. We will know in less than a year.
___
This article also apeared in The American Thinker at:

Israel as the West’s Isaac

David Mamet makes an amazing accusation in an article in the September 13 issue of the Wall Street Journal. He speculates as to why the West seems to be so willing, even anxious, to throw Israel under the Muslim bus. He is aghast that, faced with Iran’s blatant assertion that it intends to destroy Israel and its equally transparent quest to obtain the nuclear arsenal to do so, the US and Europe have made painfully clear that they have no intention of preventing the planned genocide. Mamet identifies the cause of this craven and cowardly behavior.

The Liberal West has, for decades, indulged itself in an orgy of self-flagellation. We have enjoyed comfort and security, but these, in the absence of gratitude and patriotism, cause insecurity, This attempted cure for insecurity can be seen in protestations of our worthlessness, and the indictment of private property…How may they still the resulting anxiety? The Left’s answer is the oldest in the world: by appeal to the Gods. But how may the Gods be appeased? The immemorial answer is: By human sacrifice…The essence of the Torah is the Akedah, the Binding of Isaac. The God of Hosts spoke to Abraham, as the various desert gods had spoken to the nomads for thousands of years: “If you wish to relieve your anxiety, give me the most precious thing you have.”…In abandonment of the state of Israel, the West reverts to pagan sacrifice, once again, making a burnt offering not of that which one possesses, but of that which is another’s. As Realpolitik, the liberal West’s anti-Semitism can be understood like Chamberlain’s offering of Czechoslovakia to Hitler, a sop thrown to terrorism.

It is an astounding and horrific accusation. That is, by eagerly abandoning Israel, and thereby placing it in mortal peril, the West seeks to ease its guilty conscience over its supposed transgressions against the Muslim world and over its disproportionate share of the Earth’s wealth. Craven and cowardly do not do justice as descriptors of this heinous behavior. Treacherous, morally bankrupt – indeed, evil seem more appropriate labels.

God stilled Abraham’s hand before he could complete the abominable deed of sacrificing his son Isaac. But the Europeans no longer pray to the God of Abraham. Many Americans still do, although apparently in smaller percentages than at the time of Israel’s birth. Of course, Muslims pray to the same God. All of us, Muslims, Christians and Jews hear different responses. According to Mamet, the Jews should understand that we are now cast as Isaac in a new modern Akedah drama. Our liberal American and European “protectors” are cast as Abraham – albeit, an Abraham who is under the coaching of Ishmael rather than God. And therefore the story is intended to have a different ending. The people of Israel do not intend to follow the script. Too many American Jews do not understand the script. I pray that enough Americans do – and are so appalled by it that they will join with the Israelis in thwarting it.
______
This post also appeared in The American Thinker at:

Moral Equivalence in Brussels

The name Howard Gutman has been in the news recently. He is the Jewish lawyer whose work for Obama in the 2008 presidential campaign was rewarded with an appointment as Ambassador to Belgium. He made a speech on November 30 at a conference in Brussels entitled “Fighting Anti-Semitism in Europe: What is Next?” If you haven’t read it, here is a link.

Ambassador Gutman has been roundly criticized in the American Jewish community for the content of his speech. In it, he claims that the widespread animosity – which has increasingly spilled over into violence – of the European Muslim community toward Jews is not an instance of historic anti-Semitism. Rather it is purely a consequence of the unsettled dispute between Israel and the Arab/Muslim world. That is, according to the esteemed Ambassador, the hate-filled, bigoted and vicious slurs – accompanied too often by physical attacks – directed by Europe’s Muslim community toward their Jewish brethren is due solely to the discomfort the former experience because the latter’s cousins in Israel refuse to play nice with their Arab neighbors.

It boggles the mind. Is Ambassador Gutman stupid? Perhaps naïve? Brainwashed by his less than Hebrewphile European hosts? Suffering from some sort of Stockholm syndrome?

I shan’t dwell on the many unsurprising accusations that have been hurled at Ambassador Gutman. He has been accused of being a self-hating Jew, a Jewish anti-Semite, a water-carrier for the President’s blatantly anti-Israel policies and a naïve dupe. I suspect that he is merely a very confused person who cannot believe that, only two generations removed from the virulent anti-Semitism that killed his father’s family, such unpleasantness could rear its ugly head in Europe once again.

Instead I wish to focus on one sentence in his dastardly speech and point out an awful aspect of his twisted reasoning that has escaped attention. Commenting in his myopic confusion about how events in Israel arouse the anti-Jewishness of European Muslims, Gutman asserts:

… every new settlement announced in Israel, every rocket shot over a border or suicide bomber on a bus, and every retaliatory military strike exacerbates the problem and provides a setback here in Europe for those fighting hatred and bigotry here in Europe.

So in addition to myopia, apparent self-hatred and Stockholm syndrome, Guttman is suffering from the affliction of moral equivalence. He cites four specific incitements: suicide bombings, rocket attacks on Israeli soil from Arab territory, Israeli military retaliation, but first of all – new settlements. Thus the premeditated assault on and murder of innocent Israeli civilians is as much a cause for concern as any Israeli attempt to defend its citizens or – heaven forbid – set up a kitchen on holy Arab land. Aggression is morally equivalent to self-defense. Murder is morally equivalent to building housing projects. Jihad is morally equivalent to the pursuit of Zionism.

Disgusting! And morally reprehensible.
_____
This post also appeared in The American Thinker at:

Afloat in the Ether on my Smartphone

 

The impact of revolutionary technology advances on politics, culture, education, finance and other areas of modern life.

 

In order to bolster his argument that Western Civilization is dying, Mark Steyn in After America: Get Ready for Armageddon, makes the following comparison between 60-year intervals. He posits that a time traveler from 1890 who alighted from his machine in 1950 would find a world that he could barely believe or comprehend. The automobile and airplane have been invented and are in widespread use. Indoor plumbing is ubiquitous. Radio, TV and movies provide spectacular entertainment. Washing machines, dishwashers and refrigerators transform the meaning of what it means to be a housewife. Miracle drugs like penicillin and insulin have been discovered and previously fatal diseases like diabetes, diphtheria and tuberculosis have been tamed. And the atom has been split.

The nature of human life was altered radically by these developments, and mostly for the better. By contrast, asserts Steyn, the time traveler from 1950 would be far less impressed. Oh the gadgets have been glitzed up a bit, but the American home, neighborhood and country did not look all that much different in 2010 than they appeared in 1950.

Steyn acknowledges two great exceptions to his assertion of an overall desultory advance in the last 60 years: space travel and information technology (IT). But he doubts that either has had a beneficially revolutionary effect – the first because we have lost interest (due to cost, boredom and a lack of vision and boldness); the second because much of the information technology revolution has resulted in vapidity (mind-numbing computer games, frivolous communication, pornography, cyber crime and too often, great wastes of time, energy and resources). I would like to take strong exception with him in the case of IT.

I believe the IT revolution has changed the way that we live as much as did any of the labor-saving, distance-shrinking machines invented in the first half of the twentieth century. The compute power that I hold in my hand (inside my smartphone) is truly astounding. It dwarfs what was available to me in gigantic machines that I programmed 45 years ago. And “dwarf” doesn’t do justice to a comparison between my smartphone and the guidance computer on the Apollo 11 spacecraft. Moreover, the depth and variety of the tasks that I can perform with my smartphone boggles the imagination. Here is a tiny sample:

  • I can produce in seconds an answer to virtually any question on any topic that is posed to me.
  • I can locate and obtain directions to literally any spot on Earth.
  • I can instantly access news stories about almost any event that occurred in the last decade with the flick of a finger.
  • I can obtain current financial information about any public company, stock or government agency in a flash.
  • I can pay my bills, complete my shopping, find out where my kids are, see the weather forecast for the out-of-town locale at which I’ll be next week, read a pending Congressional bill, peruse the menu of the restaurant in which I’ll be dining tonight, get the ball scores, consult my social club or place of worship’s newsletter, set the temperature in my bedroom (from my office), warm up my car, and oh so much more. The power at my fingertips would be just as inconceivable to 1950s man as were the mid-century gadgets to 1890s man.

These and numerous other capabilities have altered human life in myriad ways – among which are the following:

  1. Information. I have virtually instantaneous and almost unlimited access to all the knowledge in the world. There is barely a question, on any subject, to which I cannot get one or more answers with a few taps and swipes of my finger. Of course, it is incumbent on me to judge the reliability of the source of the information. But – perhaps unbeknownst to us – that was always the case. In the past we trusted unquestioningly the encyclopedia and Walter Cronkite. We should have known that the former made mistakes and the latter allowed his political biases to color the content of his reportage.

This item alone represents a revolutionary feature of human life that was beyond the imagination of any human that lived up until say 30-40 years ago. But the technology in my smartphone has also revolutionized many other aspects of human life.

  • Communication.Email, texting, video-conference and online chat all provide communication capabilities that would have been way beyond the ken of our grandparents. Moreover, we access them at a fraction of the cost of their clunky ancestors.
  • Business & Finance. From online and instantaneous stock trades to QuickBooks to internet banking to ATM machines to smartphone credit transactions, the world of the businessman, investor and consumer has been changed immeasurably.
  • Education. The educational tools available to today’s students and teachers are as many light years removed from yesterday’s slide rules, calculators and chalk boards as was the Ford Mustang from an 1890s nag. My 5-year old grandson’s classroom amazes me, as does the knowledge that is already accumulated in that boy’s head.
  • Entertainment. When I visit the park, I can take with me the music of the world’s greatest composers, the words of its greatest authors and the movies of the finest film directors.
  • Politics. In principle, the activities of our national and local governments are more transparent to the citizenry, as any of us can easily access government legislation, regulations and budgets. It doesn’t always work out as it should, but new IT capabilities have had profound effects on political fundraising, organization and campaigning.
  • Culture. Again, in principle, advanced IT makes the varied aspects of our multicultural society readily knowable to all citizens, which should have a homogenizing and salutary effect on society. Once again, it doesn’t always pan out as expected. But there is no denying that the USA is the most successful polyglot nation on Earth, and the technological improvements that have abetted matters in the previous six items have helped to make it so.

 

Now one may legitimately ask: are all these dramatic changes good or bad for the human condition? In fact, there is no shortage of arguments on both sides of the issue. On the plus side, the tech aficionado asserts: how can the availability of vast amounts of information, which was previously inaccessible to the individual, not be a good thing? Furthermore, the ability to communicate easily across vast distances helps to keep families close. Investors have more information about investment opportunities; consumers are more knowledgeable about the products they seek; children are exposed to more ideas and opinions in their education; and all of us learn more about other cultures, which leads to a more tolerant and peaceful world.

But not so fast: the unbridled freedom of the internet has led to licentiousness and a coarsening of the culture; the ubiquitous nature of political discourse has led to political polarization and government gridlock; computer trading allows insiders to control the market and enhance the gap between rich and poor; the brevity and unsupervised mode of information technology communication has eroded verbal and literary skills, and contributed to the dumbing down of American youth; the hypnotic nature of IT has turned citizens into automatons and rendered society more fragmented, disunited and incohesive. All the electrons flying around are frying our brains.

These are legitimate, if somewhat overdramatized complaints about the consequences of the IT revolution. But it is instructive to note that the same kind of of diametrically opposed evaluations of societal evolution could be – and were – made in 1950. The arguments for the positive effects of the labor-saving, distance-shrinking devices of the early twentieth century are evident and have already been made. Contrarians would counter: cars polluted cities, created lifeless suburbs and damaged the environment; all the labor-saving devices freed up women to be more like men with horrible consequences for marriage, the family and children; the advent of popular and cheap visual media crippled reading and literary capabilities, and contributed to the dumbing down of America; and splitting the atom led to the most barbarous act ever perpetrated by mankind (Hiroshima) and the constant threat of nuclear annihilation.

Nevertheless, on balance, I think most would agree that the positive consequences of the advances of the first half of the twentieth century outweighed the negatives. Although…acknowledging two world wars, one can argue that it was the bloodiest half-century in world history. But the root causes for those tragic conflicts lie at the feet of human beings – whose behavioral instincts have not advanced an iota in millennia. That doesn’t change the fact that the nature of human life improved dramatically over the course of the trip taken by our first time traveler.

With regard to the enormous advances in IT that occurred during the journey of the second time traveler, they must be judged to be generally of benefit to mankind. Human stupidity, greed, cruelty and jealousy may still plunge us into regular turmoil. That doesn’t alter the fact that because of pioneers like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Sergei Brin, our physical and social lives have undergone marked improvement.

So, happily afloat in the ether, I will continue to enjoy the marvels of my smartphone. Just like my grandfather when he clicked on that air conditioner for the first time, I am pleased to be living at the present moment and not 100 years ago.
___
This article also appeared in The Intellectual Conservative at
as well as in The Land of the Free at

Newt: Last Idol Standing or Sole-Surviving Mole?

An examination of the somewhat bizarre process by which the next Republican nominee for president is being selected — and the current standing of Newt Gingrich in that process. 

 

The process of selecting a Republican presidential candidate to oppose Obama resembles a combination of American Idol and Whack-a-Mole. The contestants compete in preliminary popularity rounds and the people vote via opinion polls. The last idol standing will be the nominee. But during the process, different candidates pop their heads out of their holes, only to be whacked back down by the media – who discover that the candidate: allegedly, sexually harassed women or was inexperienced (unlike Obama, of course) or couldn’t utter a coherent sentence or, worst of all, consulted for Freddie Mac. It’s enough to make one pine for smoke-filled rooms.

The latest “mole” to poke his head out of his hole is Newt Gingrich. Thus far, the whacks administered have not been sufficient to drive him back into the ground. Perhaps that is because an insufficient amount of time has elapsed since the whacking began. But should the bashing of Newt achieve the same effect as it did with Bachmann, Perry and Cain (in that order), there will be no more moles left to whack. Indeed, the other bobble head idols are actually rigid, not movable. Romney has been stuck at 20-25% forever – reflecting the rough percentage of Republican voters who desire a pragmatic, “moderate,” establishment-friendly candidate who will – at best – ameliorate to some extent the harsh consequences of the super-liberal Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda. Paul is stuck at 10% — reflecting the rough percentage of Republican voters who are more libertarian than conservative. And both Santorum and Huntsman are stuck at essentially zero. Neither is going to get his head above ground.

So if Newt gets whacked, then with all the moles buried, Romney wins by default. But the conservative voters of America are truly alarmed at the havoc wreaked by the Obama-Pelosi-Reid wrecking ball. Many see the forthcoming election as an opportunity to historically reverse America’s liberal slide over the last century into a collectivist, social welfare state. Some of them see 2012 as the last opportunity to do so. Mitt Romney is not going to lead the conservative resurgence those voters seek. So perhaps, sensing this, the Idol voters will decide that they might as well choose the last mole standing.

Each of the four moles (i.e., Bachmann, Perry, Cain and Gingrich) has expressed the intention of leading such a conservative resurgence. But three of them have been whacked – and their candidacies appear hopelessly damaged. That leaves Newt.

I was a big Newt fan in the mid 90s. He conceived of the idea of ending the Democratic stranglehold on Congress and, amazingly, he brought it about. The Contract with America was brilliant. It articulated a relatively simple, but forceful program for conservative governance. His accomplishments included balancing the budget and welfare reform. The latter is particularly important. Why? Well, it is widely recognized that the conservative movement rests on a three-legged stool: (i) fiscal prudence and commitment to free markets; (ii) strong national defense; and (iii) traditional values. The latter has a cultural as well as a political component – so, not only a reverence for individual liberty and limited government according to the consent of the governed, but also strong families and communities, a reliance on faith, and a commitment to high morals. Reagan succeeded brilliantly in addressing (ii); he was somewhat successful in (i); but he never touched (iii). Newt did – and if his writing is a guide, he will again. The importance of doing so is addressed by the author in another article.

But alas, Newt had some serious flaws. He could be nasty and haughty and abrupt with people; he was sometimes quixotic in both personal and public behavior; his self-confidence occasionally tipped over into arrogance; and he had lapses in judgment (his global warming commercial with Pelosi, e.g.). He lost his grip on power and faded from the scene. But I continued to read his books and follow his ideas through the 00s. On the printed page, in videos and in personal appearances, he continued to formulate and articulate, in clear and convincing fashion, strongly conservative ideas and policies. He seemed to understand well the damage that the increasingly liberal hegemony was inflicting on the country and he had concrete and workable ideas for reversing the trend.

I recall, as my disappointment with George W Bush mounted, thinking that maybe Newt would be the one we needed. (Actually, from the moment I heard the phrase “compassionate conservative,” I knew that W was not the one.) Sensing that the tea leaves were unfavorable, Newt bypassed 2008. But then, to the surprise of many, he threw his hat in the ring for 2012. My initial reaction was: they’ll crucify him. They didn’t have to; they ignored him. And he didn’t help his cause with early missteps like alienating his staff and criticizing Paul Ryan. Yet, here he is: the last idol – or is it mole – standing. Perhaps it is an accident. Newt was hanging out down in the cellar with Santorum and Huntsman (and Johnson during his brief appearance). Was it pure chance that the Bachmann, Perry and Cain moles popped before Newt?

In fact, I believe something more profound is going on. During the summer, Newt was no better off than Santorum, who is another credible conservative. Why didn’t Santorum pop? The answer is in the Idol process – that is, the debates. It is clear to any dispassionate observer – and even more so to the forlorn conservatives who are paying close attention – that Newt is the sharpest tack in the bunch. He is quick, articulate, clear and commanding. He disarms the moderators, never criticizes his opponents and answers questions confidently, intelligently and crisply. More importantly, he explains the conservative philosophy in memorable terms, and he highlights brilliantly the vast difference between his political/cultural beliefs and those of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid team. He can be a little rough – e.g., when he characterizes the Super Committee process as a “stupid” idea (although events are proving him to be correct). But I believe the Republican electorate is responding positively to him for two main reasons: (i) they believe he easily is the best choice among the idol candidates to defeat Obama in a debate setting; and (ii) he is a reliable conservative spokesman – not a flip-flopper like Romney and far more able than Bachmann, Perry or Cain to explain the conservative agenda. Whether the general electorate will resonate to him remains to be seen.

It will be evident from his record – both personal and public – that Newt is a flawed character: the multiple marriages, the abrasive personality, the eye-popping consulting fees, the quixotic behavior. But Winston Churchill and Abraham Lincoln, the greatest men of the 20th and 19th centuries, respectively, also were flawed. Ronald Reagan was not perfect either. OK, perhaps George Washington had barely a character flaw. The point is that we are not electing a saint. We seek a great political leader who can help to reverse America’s century-long slide into socialism and restore our country to its historic roots of limited government, individual liberty, American exceptionalism and free market prosperity. Of the limited choices left to us, at this point, Newt – the last idol/mole standing – looks to be the best bet.
_____
This article also appeared in The American Thinker at: