Economic making of an old, white male !

[FROM BILL LIFKA - Lightly edited and published based on Bill's prior blanket approval. Bill is about nine years my senior. I too was trained to appreciate real productive labor, helping my dad with woodworking, plumbing and electrical work. I credit my several summers selling ice cream on the beach in Brooklyn, carrying dry ice coolers on my shoulders and shouting, "Hey! Ice Cream Here! Good Humor Ice Cream and Orange Drink!" with helping me develop a strong speaking voice. My final two summers of college were spent gaining incredibly valuable knowledge working as a technical writer.  Ira Glickstein]

TO MY ADULT GRANDCHILDREN

This is another tale of how I became an old, white male and, therefore, became hated by political leftists. In this story, I recall how business experiences, starting at age 9, shaped my adult economic views. It’s likely that other old, white men had similar experiences.  !

Political making of an old, white male !

[FROM BILL LIFKA - Lightly edited and published based on Bill's prior blanket approval. Bill is about nine years my senior. I too was born into a family that voted solid Democrat. FDR's photo hung with honor in my grandparent's kitchen. My Dad (but not my Mom) voted for Eisenhower, probably the first in my childhood family to make the switch. Ira Glickstein]

To my (adult) grandchildren:                                                        

Political making of an old, white male ! I’ll preface my forthcoming letters on the 2020 election with a few tales of how I became an old, white male, an identity hated by Democrats. Ironically, once I was young and a Democrat.

A Conservative View of US Political History

[from Bill Lifka] I’m re-reading the book: A Patriot’s History of the United States by Schweikart and Allen. The authors are professors of history at the University of Dayton and the University of Washington. Unusually for their field, the professors are Conservative in their political view.

According to Schweikart, the reason for their book was that Liberals have written the overwhelming majority of text books on American history. Not only do these tales tell the American story with a strong leftward slant but major events and characters are absent from the pages. Schweikart’s and Allen’s version received praise for accuracy and fairness from objective experts.

The truth is that America’s history of its famous and infamous characters is a mix of altruism and selfishness, honesty and corruption, courage and cowardice, wisdom and stupidity, prudence and rashness, unity and divisiveness. Natural cynicism makes me think the specific gravity leans to selfishness, corruption, cowardice, stupidity, rashness and divisiveness.

WHY HAS AMERICA SURVIVED SO FAR? HOW MUCH LONGER?

It raises questions why America has survived so far and how much longer a nation so confounded can survive. Survival to this point and beyond has nothing to do with American people standing head and shoulders above their counterparts in other countries. Americans are not exceptional as a group of individuals.

In my opinion, the reasons for success are a design of government structure that has withstood efforts of generations of Americans to destroy it and that the nation was placed under protection of an Almighty God from the very beginning, first by early European settlers and again by the Founders as they laid out the design of a governmental plan. Who knows how much further we can stretch the wisdom of the Founders and the patience of God?

HISTORY OF THE MODERN DEMOCRATIC PARTY (AND MARTIN VAN BUREN)

1821 - A good place to begin my argument is in the year 1821 which was when the modern Democratic Party was formed. (It wasn’t the party of Jefferson, as widely proclaimed. Jefferson and Madison had very different principles and goals but they, especially Madison, did start the party system.)

I summarize the story from the history book as follows. Martin Van Buren was the son of a tavern owner in Kinderhook, New York. He resented the autocratic landowning families in this area and found enough like-minded politicians to control the New York State Constitutional Convention in 1821 enacting universal manhood suffrage.

He learned to employ newspapers as no other political figure had, linking journalists’ success to the Party’s fortunes. He perceived the necessity of discipline and organization to control the masses he sought to organize. He sought to create a political party dedicated to no other principle than holding power.

The problem with the political climate developing in the young nation was the disagreement over slavery which was dividing the states between the North and the South. Van Buren (and many others) viewed the logical result of this would be civil war, which he hoped to avoid. The best way to do that, he reasoned, was to remove slavery (and any other issues) as a party consideration.

He joined southern planters with northern non-elites to form a national organization dedicated to attaining and retaining political power. An important factor in attaining success was in taking advantage of the growing size of government which provided an ever-larger pool of government jobs with which to reward supporters: to the victors belong the spoils. Van Buren tied his star to a practice that, at its roots, viewed men as base and without principle. If they could be silenced on the issue of slavery with the promise of a job, what of their integrity? Yet, that was the strategy for the noble purpose of saving the nation from civil war.

1824 - Andrew Jackson was chosen as the standard bearer for Van Buren’s party in 1824. The Electoral College vote was: Jackson 99, (John Quincy) Adams 84 and Clay 41. There being no majority, the decision fell to the US House of Representatives. Clay was Speaker of the House and he detested Jackson so Adams received his votes. The one-term Adams’ administration was plagued with “pay back” acrimony for the “stolen election”.

1828 - In 1828, Jackson and his VP, John Calhoun, coasted into office. When he left office, Jackson had more totally consolidated power in the executive branch than any previous president, ensuring what Van Buren had dreaded: a powerful presidency subject to sectional pressures. His adept use of the spoils system created a large-scale government bureaucracy that further diminished states’ rights. This planted the seeds for the “New Deal” and the “Great Society” and (I would add) Obama’s eight year reign.

1836 - Van Buren followed Jackson into the presidency in 1836 to reap the blame for all that turned out badly from Jackson’s initiatives. After one term he was defeated by Whig candidates, William Henry Harrison (Tippecanoe) and John Tyler.

Harrison died after one month in office and Tyler succeeded him. The interesting thing about the succession is that the US Constitution’s language on presidential succession is not precisely clear that the Vice President automatically becomes the fully empowered president when his predecessor dies in office. Some doubts were raised. Tyler just assumed direct succession was the intention and took control. In this little-noted act he cemented the foundation of the Republic in future times of chaos and instability. This small snippet of history typifies the generally untidy political proceedings that have been part of our nation’s Presidential campaigns and the use of presidential power, once elected.

The formation of the modern Democratic Party isn’t a particularly heart-warming story especially the part about founding principles. However, there have been moments in later history where that party has provided great leadership for the country.

PARTY POLITICS NOW (AND DONALD TRUMP)

At this moment, the Democratic Party is at a low point in its history, despite having one of its members in the White House. At least, that’s my opinion. In many ways, it espouses the principles and methodologies Van Buren invented but has added cultural dogma and governing philosophy that moves the nation far from the direction the Founders intended and defined.

The Democratic Party is not alone in American political history in experiencing recurring shifts in goals, initiatives and methodologies. All have been the same in that regard. But now is a very bad time for one of the two major political parties to be focused on matters of lesser importance.

Of course, Donald Trump is doing his best to coax Republicans into the same mindset. The Democratic Debates have been particularly useless in addressing key national issues. The Republican debates have been notably better except for time spent in personal attacks. The debate this Thursday should provide good reminders of issues which should be the basis of your vote in November. Trump’s likely absence should raise the quality of debate immensely.

Bill Lifka

The Acton Institute and Rev. Robert Sirico

My good friend Bill Lifka, and his wife Alice, invited me and a couple dozen other residents of The Villages, FL, to a nice dinner and a great talk by the Rev. Robert Sirico, pictured above. He is the President of the Acton Institute for the study of religion and liberty, which is located in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

See Wikipedia for more about Rev. Sirico. Here is a pithy selection that I found interesting:

In 1990, in response to what he saw as an insufficient understanding of economics by religious leaders and the religious isolation of business leaders, Sirico founded the Acton Institute in Grand Rapids. With the motto "connecting good intentions with sound economics," the institute provides a vision of free market economics within a Judeo-Christian moral framework.^[3] In Sirico's words:

The essential thing was my frustration when I was in seminary ... to hear homilies preached that inevitably insulted business people. I knew this was a serious error both theologically and pastorally. Theologically, because of the moral bankruptcy of socialism as an ideology. But pastorally because it alienated good people who were working and attempting to participate in the Christian mission

I did not take notes during the talk, but here are a few highlights as I remember them. (I take responsibility for any errors or distortion of Father Sirico's message.)

He began by imagining that all the wealth in the World could be divided equally among all the people in the World, which he estimated would be about $13,000 per man, woman, and child.

OK, but what would happen on the next day? The wealth of the World is not simply money and goods that could be so divided, but is mostly represented by the monetary value of investments in business enterprises, which would cease operation if so distributed. The day after such a distribution, the engines of production of goods and services would grind to a halt, most jobs would vanish, and the standard of living would permanently decline.

That, in essence, is the problem with much of the socialist-oriented big government rhetoric many voters find appealing. Europe is a decade or two ahead of the US along this road to ruin.

Midway through his talk, Sirico asked if anyone knew the famous quote, regarding power, from the namesake of the Acton Institute, Lord Acton. I spoke up, saying I had not looked it up, but I thought it was "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." I was close, but was corrected for having left out two important words. The actual quote is "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." He noted that he had similarly corrected Lady Thatcher's recollection of that famous quote, and I was proud to be in such grand company.

A question and answer session followed the talk and some of the topics included the possibly socialistic tendencies of Pope Francis, the danger of the ascendancy of Donald Trump in the Republican Presidential Primary contest, the power of new technology, including cable-TV and the internet, in breaking the earlier monopoly of the three major TV networks over news, and a number of other controversial areas. I found myself in general agreement with Father Sirico. (Like me, he was born and raised in Brooklyn, NY.)

THANKS to Bill and Alice Lifka for an enjoyable evening in their beautiful, warm, and comfortable home. Bill Lifka is the author of a number of postings on this blog (see here),

Here are my favorite quotes from Lord Acton, selected from the extensive Archive on the Acton Institute website:

“Free trade, to improve the condition of the people and fit them for freedom.”

“Liberty has not only enemies which it conquers, but perfidious friends, who rob the fruits of its victories: Absolute democracy, socialism.”

“The object of civil society is justice, not truth, virtue, wealth, knowledge, glory or power. Justice is followed by equality and liberty.”

“Inequality: the Basis of society. We combined and put things in common to protect the weak against the strong.”

“Liberty consists in the division of power. Absolutism, in concentration of power.”

“Bureaucracy is undoubtedly the weapon and sign of a despotic government, inasmuch as it gives whatever government it serves, despotic power.”

“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.”

“If we dealt with institutions, antiquity would be low. It realized no liberty. But in the domain of ideas it ranks high.”

“The central idea of Machiavelli is that the state power is not bound by the moral law. The law is not above the state, but below it.”

“For it is a most striking thing that the views of pure democracy...were almost entirely unrepresented in [the American] convention.”

“A liberal is only a bundle of prejudices until he has mastered, has understood, experienced the philosophy of Conservatism.”

“The will of the people cannot make just that which is unjust.”

“It is bad to be oppressed by a minority, but it is worse to be oppressed by a majority.”

“The common vice of democracy is disregard for morality.”

“Federalism is the best curb on democracy. [It] assigns limited powers to the central government. Thereby all power is limited. It excludes absolute power of the majority.”

“Socialism easily accepts despotism. It requires the strongest execution of power -- power sufficient to interfere with property.”

“Property, not conscience, is the basis of liberty. For the defence of conscience need not arise. Property is always exposed to interference. It is the constant object of policy.”

“Official truth is not actual truth.”

“Political economy cannot be supreme arbiter in politics. Else you might defend slavery where it is economically sound and reject it where the economic argument applies against it.”

“Every doctrine to become popular, must be made superficial, exaggerated, untrue. We must always distinguish the real essence from the conveyance, especially in political economy.”

“There could never be a revolution less provoked by oppression than America. Thenceforth the right of a nation to judge for itself could not be denied.”

“Americans dreaded democracy and contrived their constitution against it.”

“In England Parliament is above the law. In America the law is above Congress.”

“The great novelty of the American Constitution was that it imposed checks on the representatives of the people.”

“Progress, the religion of those who have none.”

“It is easier to find people fit to govern themselves than people fit to govern others.”

“A public man has no right to let his actions be determined by particular interests. He does the same thing as a judge who accepts a bribe. Like a judge he must consider what is right, not what is advantageous to a party or class.”

“A convinced man differs from a prejudiced man as an honest man from a liar.”

“The true natural check on absolute democracy is the federal system, which limits the central government by the powers reserved, and the state governments by the powers they have ceded.”

“The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern.”

“There is another world for the expiation of guilt; but the wages of folly are payable here below.”

Ira Glickstein

"Smoke-Filled" Rooms - If Political Bosses Picked Presidential Candidates

[From Bill Lifka, graphics by Ira]

It’s 14 months before the 2016 election and a majority of citizens are weary of the campaign or are just ignoring it. I wonder if it would be all bad if we went back to the days of yore when more than a few party slates were chosen by party bosses in “smoke filled rooms” behind popular saloons. Imagine what might emerge from that process in 2016.

The Republican bosses would consider the voting trends, current attitudes in the swing states and likely opponents to be chosen by their Democratic opposites.

Choices for top of the ticket would be John Kasich and Carly Fiorina. Kasich would appeal to voters in his swing state of Ohio and he no longer sounds like he comes from Washington DC having served two terms in State government and a stint in the private sector. Fiorina’s never held political office and, despite Trump’s dumb comment on appearance, is clearly a woman. That she’s very smart isn’t necessary but it’s good she’s not stupid.

In a break from tradition, the bosses would have Kasich announce his choices for cabinet positions early in the campaign to pacify their backers and secure their support for the chosen ticket. Any who’d refuse the honor of a cabinet seat needn’t consider a future run for elective office. Most of the cabinet picks are obvious, at least to me.

• Secretary of State would be Marco Rubio who looks good, thinks good and talks good, the latter in Spanish as well as English. It’s about time we paid more attention to the Latin Americans as long as European and Middle Eastern countries are going down the drain. Let Russia have them and their mounting debt and turmoil.
• Secretary of Treasury would be Jeb Bush. He was a businessman before moving into his family’s business (politics) and has worked on Wall Street after his stint as Florida’s governor. FL is another background element he shares with Rubio along with fluent Spanish. Let’s ice that swing state.
• Secretary of Defense would be James Webb in a bid to lure male Democrats. (Carly would take care of the females.) When it comes to the military, Webb is no typical Democrat having spent an exciting period of his life dodging bullets, a few of which managed to elude his dodge. As soon as ISIS and Iran hear of Webb’s choice it’s likely they’ll seek negotiating talks. 
• Obviously, the Attorney General slot would go to Chris Christie. A big man is required in that position and few are bigger than Chris in mind, body and mouth. That he was a successful States Attorney is another qualification. 
• In a flight of fancy, Scott Walker would get the Secretary of Labor slot. Few have his experience in dealing with unions and he needs a job not requiring a college degree.
• Ben Carson is a nobrainer for Health and Human Services. His limited experience managing large bureaucracies is no problem since he deals regularly with folks having only half a brain. 
• Coming from a State in the southwest, Susana Martinez is a good choice for Interior and being the granddaughter of illegal aliens will help with the Latin vote. 
• Bobby Jindal would add to the ethnic variety as Secretary of Education. He’s well educated and can sell his viewpoints well. 
• Lindsay Graham will do as Secretary of Veteran Affairs. 
• Ron Paul would be a surprise pick for Housing and Urban Development. As a medical doctor he should know how far we can cut back on subsidized housing without killing anyone.
• Ted Cruz will be a popular choice for Ambassador to the United Nations. He’ll insult all fellow delegates, hog the microphone and avoid doing any useful UN work. In other words, he can just keep doing what he does in the Senate, except it’s appropriate in the UN. 
• Rick Perry will become Administrator of the EPA. He looks very intelligent in his new glasses and most Republicans feel that Texas has the right idea of how to protect the environment: conceal and carry. 
• In one more outreach to Democrats, Joe Manchin would be Energy Secretary. Upon the announcement, Joe would say, “Rick at EPA and me at Energy will make a great team. We’re past governors, him from an oil state and me from a coal state.” 
• Reaching into academia, Mitch Daniels would return to one of his former posts: Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Adding some senior talent, 
• Thomas Sowell would become Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors. At 85, Sowell is a bit old for the job but senior citizens are known for their high voter turnout. Besides, 85 is the prime of life, according to me. 
• Mitt Romney will accept the call to return to government service as the Secretary of Commerce folding in the Small Business Administration which, after all, is where all the action is. 
• Rudy Giuliani, another returnee, is in an obvious role as Secretary of Homeland Security. 
• Another surprise would be Adam Putnam as Secretary of Agriculture coming from a similar position for the State of Florida. He’s a young man but young adults also vote and Adam is popular in FL: let’s be sure of that Florida vote. 

The Republican Bosses had some difficulty in placing Donald Trump.

He was an obvious choice for Trade Representative: the U.S. would have China, Mexico, et al eating out of it’s hands.

However, a final choice was to have The Donald do one deal: convince a capable developer to turn the District of Columbia into a Theme Park on Government. The carrot for Mr. Trump was his fee of 10% of all revenue from park operations, tax free. 

[See Bill Lifka's Trump Golf and Tower - Washington, DC ...

... and his original 2010 idea American Government Theme Park on this Blog] 

As Trump said, “This was the job I was angling for all along. Obviously, I won again.”

The Democratic bosses weren’t idle. Their smoke filled room was an upscale boutique in San Francisco and the smoke didn’t come from tobacco. Nonetheless, their choices were equally hard-headed and chosen to please the voters of the Progressive persuasion.

The Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren team is about as Progressive as it gets.

Forced out of the top two slots, Hillary Clinton would return to her old job as Secretary of State. While reluctant, it was about the only way she could continue the flow of foreign donations into the Clinton slush fund, excuse me, the Clinton Foundation.

John Kerry would be happy to switch to Secretary of Defense to use all his experience skippering a swift boat.

Treasury would go to Al Franken on the basis that counting money is about the same as counting votes.

Nancy Pelosi would step up from her minority leader position to take on Health and Human Services. Having now read the entire Affordable Care Act she knows what’s in it.

Richard Trumpka would be Secretary of Labor having assured the bosses he could be fair and even-handed.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz Attorney General. As for her capability, the bosses thought she’d be about as fair as Trumpka.

The remainder of the ticket will be left to your imagination. It would only be more of the same.

Clearly, I was in a whimsical mood when writing this opinion piece. However, a goodly portion of it would be the same if I were dead serious. You might conclude the smoke filled room process yields better results than the long drawn out primary process. If so, you should write to the respective Party Chairs, Reince Priebus and Debbie Wasserman Shultz. Don’t mention I sent you.

Bill Lifka

Trump Golf & Tower - Washington DC

[from Bill Lifka, Graphics by Ira]
Upon reflection, I may have been too hard on Donald Trump. Without question, he’s brought attention to the irritation of many conservatives with the excesses of the Obama regime and the inability of republican legislators to counter their impact. 

Thinking positively, I imagined how The Donald could win my support for the U.S. presidency. If Mr. Trump promised, as his first initiative, to remodel Washington D.C. as a theme park and resort, I’d switch my allegiance to him in a heartbeat and forget that, originally, it was my idea. 

[Read Bill Lifka's original 2010 idea American Government Theme Park on this Blog] 

Graphic by Ira - click it for larger version.

TRUMP TOWER II AND GOLF COURSE

I’d even support his intent to rename the Washington monument Trump Tower II and turning the mall into a golf course. His expertise in real estate development and doing deals is ideal for pulling off this long-needed conversion of what once was swamp land into a solid money maker. 

I’m confident he could complete the transition in his first term. No doubt, he’d want a personal piece of the deal but aligning national interests with Trump’s business interests would ensure the success of the endeavor. This plan could be announced as the centerpiece of his platform late in the campaign when he feels pressure to add some substance to his message. 

CHRIS CHRISTIE'S ENCOUNTER WITH A TRUMP SUPPORTER

Stephen F. Hayes wrote about NJ Governor Chris Christie’s encounter with an 83 year old female Trump backer at a NH town hall meeting. She took on the NJ Governor for thinking he could do better than Trump who has been successful and understands what capitalism is about and has done extremely well. 

“And,” she said, “don’t tell me it’s because you have political experience; I don’t really want to hear that.” 

Christie responded: “I love the fact that you asked the question and tell me what I have to answer.” 

“I’m like that,” she responded, “That’s the way I am.” 

He answered: “Now I understand exactly why you like Donald but it’s not possible to shout, ‘You’re fired!’ at a congressional leader who tells you he doesn’t have the votes. You can do that on a TV show but you cannot fire the Speaker of the House or the Senate Majority Leader because you don’t get what you want.” 

That seems like a perfect summary of objective objections to Trump’s objective if his real goal is to attain the presidency. Is being a successful business person a qualification or an obstacle? Does one need to have demonstrated political skills? The answer to the first question depends on the kind of business and how the business person went about becoming successful. The answer to the second question is that political skills are necessary to win a party’s primary, to win the general election and, like it or not, to succeed in the presidency. 

Donald Trump has spent his life buying and selling real estate and resorts, various entertainment businesses and, mostly, in promoting himself and his name to iconic status. The last of these endeavors may well be his most valuable asset, which he’s now risking. Great risk is routine in big time real estate dealing but not so good for rational national governance. 

Big time real estate dealing invariably

 requires paying off public officials. 

The same thing might be required to make 

political deals but is more likely to backfire. 

More to the point, The Donald runs a one man company which hardly requires him to negotiate with employees or a board. 

Governor Christie has a point. To qualify as a viable candidate, Mr. Trump must explain his governing principles (like Carly Fiorina suggested) and his plan to achieve goals like erecting a border fence paid for by Mexico.

A DEBATE BETWEEN CARLY FIORINA AND HILLARY CLINTON?

Every day my Email delivers several dozens of requests for campaign contributions. If one was to promote a debate between Hillary and Carly, I’d contribute hugely even though I know such a monumental confrontation could never occur unless both were either presidential candidates for their respective Parties or both were vice presidential candidates. 

The first possibility is out of the question because I don’t think Carly has a shot at the top slot. The second possibility is not beyond belief because Clinton’s popularity is sagging from the weight of all her baggage; would she accept second seat to placate women? If she did, Carly would be a fine choice for Republican VP candidate and she would rip Hillary to shreds; in a feminine way, of course. 

CARLY FIORINA

Carly isn’t a politician; she’s spent her entire career in business, ending as CEO of a corporation ranked # 20 on the Fortune 500 listing. A long list of knocks about her performance in that last job were assembled by Democrats in her run for the U.S. Senate seat against long time Senator, Barbara Boxer. Another thing is the belief she was soundly beaten by Boxer based on the 10 percentage point margin of victory. Since CA is overwhelmingly Democratic (mostly of the far left variety) and Boxer had 28 years of granting U.S. government favors for California voters, losing by 10 points is almost a victory for a Conservative. In the prior defense of her Senate seat, Boxer won by 20 points. 

The attacks on Carly’s HP experience include: she was fired, managers hated her, she fired thousands of employees, HP lost tons of money under her leadership and the list goes on. She has good answers in one liner responses and longer, reasoned arguments but a constant drumbeat takes a toll. Here are my short answers. Many good executives have been fired including Steve Jobs and me, Bill Lifka.

Carly argued with her board constantly: a group of prima donnas which demonstrated its incompetence before and after Carly as well as during her CEO stint. Carly had to orchestrate spinning off the original HP businesses and it’s acquisitions into Agilent, a newly formed company and merging HP computer businesses with Compaq and its many acquisitions. At one point, the directors wanted to organize in 34 distinct businesses despite their focus on similar technology, similar products and similar markets; Carly argued for 4. The so-called HP way went with the spin-off. Carly wanted a management culture that matched the realities of the new computer market; old managers resisted. 

Carly’s term of office coincided with a collapse of the entire computer market; HP’s firings were in line with other companies in the industry. In the end, HP emerged bigger, stronger, more profitable and more competent technologically; at least that’s Carly’s argument. She may be right. 

If one wished to check Carly’s credentials, her history at AT&T might be of greater value. There she rose from management trainee to SVP and was, seemingly, the principal executive who orchestrated the spin-off of Bell Labs and Western Electric into Lucent. 

The question is whether she had any successful line experience in hands-on operations. Her record with Lucent and HP suggests relevant experience in moving strategic chess pieces on a huge game board but that’s not the same as experience in the trenches. 

Nevertheless, managing high tech manufacturing companies in truly public corporations is more relevant to governing a democratic nation than managing a real estate business in a dictatorial organizational structure.

Bill Lifka

A Faith Restoring Event (a father, his son and his wife)

[From Bill Lifka (who I believe is a Cubs fan :^)] America is about to celebrate its 239th birthday. Sometimes I doubt it will reach 250 without collapsing for financial/economic reasons or the American Civil War II. When I get to thinking that way, something happens that restores my faith in Americans. It’s American people who will determine America’s future, so the faith restoring event always involves people. It doesn’t take a lot of good people to boost my morale since, as the song goes, “Give me ten stout-hearted men and I’ll soon give you ten thousand more.” 

This time it took three: a father, his son and his wife. Strangely enough, the event occurred in Illinois, the only State most likely to precede California into bankruptcy because a majority of its citizens have refused to admit what’s wrong. Adding to the unlikely setting, the event occurred in Chicago where the murder rate of young Black men exceeds that experienced in the Gulf Wars for the American military because a majority of citizens have refused to admit what’s wrong. 

It happened in Wrigley Field: the site of so many failures by the Chicago Cubs baseball team. Two days after Father’s Day, Keith Hartley took his son to a night game between the Cubs and the Dodgers. That isn’t unusual except the son Isaac is seven months old and wife, Kari, tagged along for boy’s night out. 

So there they are sitting a few rows back in the first base box seats and Isaac (I’m betting his nickname will be Zack.) is eating like the rest of the fans, except his is a bottle of milk capped with a nipple. The Cub’s batter fouls one off in their direction. The fans in the first two rows lean away and try to ward off the incoming ball. 

Not Keith and Zack. 

Keith moves to the wall and neatly snags the ball in his bare right hand as the Dodger first baseman lunges futilely over the rolled infield tarp. Meanwhile, Zack is neatly tucked into his Dad’s left arm, his eyes on the ball, his bottle firmly clutched in his hands and mouth. 

Others may complain about risks but I applaud Keith’s instincts. He’d be one of my choices for the first ten stout-hearted men. Twenty years from now, Zack would make the first ten, properly taught by his father how to act like an American. The first lesson was in taking him to Wrigley Field before he was old enough to know the Cub’s historic record. Sure, they fall short of the mark most of the time, but they hang in there swinging and running and occasionally hitting the ball and often catching it. 

It’s the perseverance that’s deserving of emulation by all Americans, not to mention keeping one’s eyes on the ball, which Zack seems to have mastered at an early age. 

Then there’s Kari. She remarked, “I was a little bit nervous………. he held on tight to both the ball and Isaac, so we were OK.” There’s no reason why Kari couldn’t have been the one to catch the ball but I doubt she harbors any resentments it was Keith who did the job. Kari is one of those All-American wives and mothers who accept and encourage maleness in their men. 

How does this apply to all the nonsense in Executive Branch, Congress, Supreme Court and our international policies? America is going wrong because its leaders are like the guys in the first rows at Wrigley Field. They shy away from the ball for fear they might miss it and people would blame them. It might hit them on the head and knock them out of the game. They might catch it and not know what to do with it. With all the Republican candidates is there one who is a Keith Hartley act-alike? Forget the Democratic Party. Forget those Republicans who are demagogues. 

Bill Lifka

Loving a Different America

[From Billlifka, reproduced by prior permission]

Past NYC Mayor and Presidential Candidate, Rudy Giuliani, has many speaking engagements. I’ve heard him and he’s good.

However, he goofed in a recent oration by expressing his belief that President Obama doesn’t love America. 

A firestorm erupted, especially in the media and in hastily organized interviews of Liberal politicians.

A few Conservative pundits and politicians went beyond a concerned tut-tut when cornered by the media. In saying bad things about Obama any speaker will be called unpatriotic and, in consideration of his skin color, a racist.

I think the Mayor was in error for saying what he said but I think he was half right.

Giuliani’s problem was he failed to define his terms properly, a common custom of politicians. I agree with the many indignant leftists that it’s impossible to know what’s in a person’s heart. On the other hand, I think a person’s words and actions provide compelling clues to cardio-content.

I believe Mr. Obama loves the America he knows. 

I believe he has no liking at all for the America that I know and is doing his best (or worst) to eliminate that America. 

In that intent, he has many powerful forces as his allies, along with many dupes. Many of the allies don’t love my America and many of the dupes haven’t a clue. Mr. Obama’s America was defined by associates who hated my America, from his boyhood through college and his years in Chicago before becoming U.S. Senator. They guaranteed his America would be very different than mine. In the White House, he’s surrounded by sycophants who have experienced an America similar to his and, certainly, would not oppose their idol’s viewpoint on anything. He has been coddled by the intelligentsia, media, entertainment industry, race profiteers, some professional black athletes and leaders of various organizations aiming to get special presidential favors from him. These include the usual activist groups and the heads of large unions and large corporations. Mr. Obama has never had to take responsibility for his lies, deceptions, obfuscations, illegal acts or mistakes, a few of which have been catastrophic in impact. He is protected from punishment by his political team, ideological admirers and the complicit media. ...

Regardless of their feelings toward him and his policies, Generals and Admirals kowtow to him as if their jobs depend on it, which they do.

It appears Mr. Obama leads an exemplary family life. 

This provides deniability for charges that his frequent White House guests are foul-mouthed rappers who denigrate women and other entertainment industry celebrities who achieve fame by presenting immorality as acceptable and commonplace behavior. He socializes with multimillionaires whose patronage will guarantee his own economic well-being after white House years while pushing for higher taxation, knowing he will grant offsetting favors for these rich friends in return for political contributions. He transfers the property of hard-working middle class citizens to make life more pleasant for needy folks, a goodly number of whom could jettison their neediness if they’d work.

All-in-all, Mr. Obama has a pleasant life in his America; it’s no mystery that he loves it. 

The America I know is very different but I love it too. 

As a Cub Scout saluting the America flag, I learned that war clouds were gathering over the rest of the world and our nation was relatively safe from war on its continent. My father’s salary placed us slightly above the poverty level (if there had been such distinctions at that time) but we were happy he had remained employed though the Great Depression years. We suspected the hard times didn’t come from some defect in America (it was worse in other parts of the world). There were crazies who ranted against the banks and corporations but normal people didn’t listen to them; banks were the source of loans and corporations provided the jobs. As kids we understood that, as poor as we were, we had a good shot at personal prosperity if we qualified for a good job and worked hard at it. This chance had nothing to do with our economic or social class. It did depend on a good education and we had an equal shot at that also. We learned to be good people (morally) if we were to advance ourselves and were motivated in that direction by the carrot of heaven and the stick of hell.

I began to understand one price of Americanism as older cousins returned home to recuperate from war wounds. It was our responsibility to go to the aid of friendly countries as two of them had come to America’s aid in its founding war. In the smaller war to follow, I donned a uniform of my country and was proud to serve on active duty. That pride is one element of my love. In all the armed engagements since, I am reminded of that pride and love by the exploits of our troops. Freedom is not free. There will be future wars to test our pride in and our love for America.

I had studied history in school and read many history texts for personal interest and enjoyment. Whether American, European, Modern, Medieval or Ancient, all readings increased my love for a country which was so unique to all locations and all time. I learned more about America, how it came to be and what it is. It’s a place, of course. More than that, it’s a group of people. Since the people are all colors, religions and descended from all parts of the globe, it’s more than people. I concluded that America is a concept expressed in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States and the first ten amendments to that Constitution and put into practice by very ordinary people.

These ordinary people have implemented the concept in an extraordinary manner which is not to say their execution has been without faults. There’ve been many, including the manner in which African/American citizens eventually were granted the equality to which they were entitled.

Underlying the concept and implementation of America were three societal foundations:

• JudeoChristian morality (behavior),
• A market economy and
• Representative democracy. 

These are the major ingredients of the America I love along with the limited central government that is defined in the body of the U.S. Constitution. I’m quite certain that Mr. Obama and his cohorts (including the mostly Progressive bureaucrats in the Executive Branch) have been intentionally attacking each of these in major ways and with dismaying success and turning the America I love into the America that Mr. Obama loves. Extremist Muslims have formed brigades of believers willing to die for their religious/political ideology by repetitive and restrictive teaching of their young. So also, Progressives are in the majority in American professions that influence the young (ages one to thirty). Mr. Obama’s America is at war with my America and I wonder which America you choose to love?

Billlifka

WHAT IS IMPORTANT?

[From billlifka – Posted with his permission. Images added by Ira]

Influx of Latin Children >>>










SEX IN THE TOWN SQUARE GAZEBO
It’s been an exciting week in the Villages. A 68 year old woman was interrupted by the sheriff’s police having sex with a man young enough to be her son. Both were inebriated. Their mistake was to choose a town square gazebo as their trysting spot so they were hauled off to jail. I’m guessing their defense will be similar to the question of whether a tree falling in the middle of a dense forest makes any noise. The event was at 10:30 PM which is 1 ½ hours after the sidewalks are rolled up on the square. As for the police, I doubt if they were traumatized at the sight. The event, itself, wasn’t all that exciting but it was published in our dot-com newsletter (http://www.villages-news.com/) with pictures and details. It’s the opposite of the local paper which only prints the good news. Both are quite professional but the electronic one encourages immediate reader feedback. As you can imagine, there were many reader comments. Amazingly, quite a few were of a serious nature.


TRIAL OF LARGER-SIZED GOLF HOLES
One more dot-com-encouraged subject of intense debate was the decision to have a trial of larger sized golf holes on one of the nine-hole courses. The way that one is going, I think there may be a request for a formal hearing before the International PGA Board.


UNSIGNED LETTERS ABOUT DIRTY CURBS
A little closer to home, some mysterious local person wrote unsigned letters to three households in our Village chastising them for having dirty curbs along their section of road. It has become a subject of intense oral and electronic debate over who might be responsible for such “hate” mail.


PARKING PROBLEMS AND FLORIDA TURNPIKE ACCESS
In fact, there are many current, important happenings here. Examples include: a major hospital expansion which poses a huge parking problem; a major expansion of the Church on the Square and change to a Performing Arts Theatre which poses a huge parking problem; a decision to stop plans for a direct connector to the Florida Turnpike in favor of improving the routing through a small, local city, likely at the behest of favored persons and businesses. I could go on. None are earthshaking issues but all have much greater consequence than the first named matters.


As you may have guessed, this isn’t a news bulletin but another comment on human nature.
 
FRUITS OF PRESIDENT OBAMA’S PULLOUT FROM IRAQ
In the same period those earth-shaking events were occurring in The Villages a few important events were in progress around the world. The fruits of Obama’s pullout from Iraq ripened and are being harvested. Militant Sunni fighters captured important Cities (over which much American blood was spilled) on the way to Baghdad and creation of a Caliphate home to terrorists bound by religious vow to terrorize America.


POSSIBLE MUSLIM EXTREMIST ACCESS TO PAKISTANI NUKES
Taliban successes in Pakistan foretold the day when those Muslim extremists will control the third largest cache of nuclear weapons. (The challenge is in Pakistan, not Afghanistan.)


INFLUX OF 90,000 to 250,000 LATIN CHILDREN [Image top right]
Closer to home, seemingly less daunting, were 90,000 Latin children dumped over the border into America. They have been made our problem and the prediction is that next year’s annual rate of child dumping will be 250,000.


I could go on.


THE PRESIDENT’S RESPONSE
The president’s answer is, “I’ve instructed my people to come up with options to deal with it.” Off he flies to a fund-raiser in California. These were also his words and actions at the time of the Benghazi disaster and nothing has happened except major efforts by the Administration to stonewall and obfuscate. Hillary was a major player in all these major blunders. If America was a professional sports team, Barry and Hillary would’ve been fired long ago. As my own beloved Villagers demonstrate, Americans seem to have lost a capacity to focus on what’s important.

billlifka  

Old Geezers Should Communicate with Young Folks

[from billlifka, posted with his prior permission]

A few days ago, I heard an excellent talk by a local political guru of the Conservative persuasion. He was offering ideas how ordinary folks of his political persuasion might help the Republican Party do better in the coming election. The bottom line was that he recommended the old geezers in the audience should start communicating with young folks between the ages of fifteen and thirty.

His principal argument was that, beyond the age of thirty, people tend not to change much from what they have become and what they believe in at that point in their lives. Also, he argued that people in the target age range were open to considering new ideas, perhaps even eager to try new things. He cautioned that these strange young folks should be approached cautiously, even deviously, because if they knew an exchange of political ideas was the goal, they’d be turned off immediately.

I suspect he was right in all respects, at least for the majority of young adults. I’ve been following his recommended practice for a number of years, at least the basic idea. One of the great joys of my life is being able to learn new things that change my life even as I approach the end of life. I hope it will be the same for you.

As to a devious approach, it’s not like me not to say (or write) just what’s on my mind. Most folks who read what I write would judge it to be political, yet I argue that it may seem so to them but I am really writing about good governance, good goals and good process. If it turns out that the same people in office keep governing poorly, have troublesome objectives and use questionable means to achieve those objectives, it’s to be expected they will come off poorly in my writings.

Long before now you should have recognized that I prefer to focus on national issues I believe to be of greatest importance to the nation’s well-being, the elements of those issues, what history (should have) taught us about optional ways of addressing those issues and, usually, suggesting what I believe to be the best options.

As I do this, some people stand out as bad guys and, of late, these have all belonged to the left wing of the Democratic Party. I’m sorry about that because I really want our leaders to be outstanding leaders no matter which political party they call home. If they are not, then I am going to be against that party until they start running competent men and women for office who focus on the critical issues with honesty, coherence and perseverance.

I’ve never wanted anyone to vote for my preferred candidates just because they were my choice. What I want is for the overwhelming majority of voters to know the truth about main issues and how opposing candidates stand on those issues. I’ll never get what I want because the majority of voters don’t take time to become knowledgeable and the majority of politicians do their best to mislead the voters.

I pointed out precarious national and international conditions and the critical importance of competent leaders being elected. I emphasized that the vote of the young adults would determine the outcome. I was correct. 2014 is another critical election year. By now you should know how much your future has been adversely affected by the outcomes of elections for which you’ve been eligible voters.

For the record, I'm a registered Republican but, under that umbrella, a Conservative with a few Libertarian tendencies. I was a “cradle Democrat” and remained so until the current age of my oldest grandchild. I was an ardent fan of the Chicago Cubs who did manage to capture two pennants before they forgot how to play the game.

These days, rooting for the Republicans seems like rooting for the Cubs. Both teams have talented players, know the principles of the sport, play like gentlemen but seem not to understand the objective is to beat the opponents. It may be the absence of a good manager and an ossified front office. Maybe the players should mutiny.

Currently, 31% of the voting population considers itself to be Democratic, 25% considers itself Republican and 42% considers itself Independent. The Republican % is the lowest it’s been in modern times. It’s no wonder that Democratic political tactics are designed to solidify its base and to infuriate Republicans.

Rather than fighting the “enemy”, prominent Republicans yell at each other while elbowing members of their own team into less desirable vantage points from which to launch a campaign for the big enchilada. Tea partiers are similar to Republicans in many ways except they are mouthier and more fed up, but still mostly nice people. They have no effective central control which is another thing they’ve in common with Republicans.

Independents are growing in number, mostly cutting into the Republican fan base. The not-at-all independent media blames this on Republican ineptitude but a goodly part comes from people being tired of much political talk and little effective political results. While the Democrats are more guilty of that, their fan base expects them to be obnoxious and ineffective at governing; it’s part of their appeal.

It’s bad enough for Republicans to lose those Independents who used to show up for their bigger games but now many Republican fans avoid the big ones and hardly any buy season tickets. As for the younger fans, forget it; they enjoy the raucous Democratic play and can’t understand the headier Republican approach to the game.

Republicans needn’t play Democratic ball to win. It’s not necessary to throw at the batter’s head or slide into second with spikes high. However, barreling over a catcher blocking home plate is admirable; the runner has a right to the baseline. Forget longing for a star hitter with 50 HR’s a season and 500 K’s. They need single hitters with high batting averages, fielders who hit the cut-off man, pitchers who credit the fielding for their low ERA’s and runners who follow the coaching signs. It’s a team game, dummies, not a boxing match to determine a single champion!

This might be amusing if not for the serious matter of America’s heading for a cliff without a capable government. There’s a World Series each year but an America only once in 8,000 years of history Mike Huckabee is a good guy and was a viable candidate in 2008. He made the same main point as this essay, but with less colorful imagery. Unfortunately, he played to the stands allowing partisan “sportwriters” a chance for another “war on women” tirade. His lesser point could have been made by citing the Justice Dept’s war on the Little Sisters of the Poor; he would have been playing a winning game. There are Republicans who can do that.

billlifka

Political Conservatives Give Thanks

The First Thanksgiving at Plymouth
by Jennie A. Brownscombe. (1914) A mythologized painting showing Plymouth settlers feasting with Plains Indians.



[From Billlifka] The Presidential Election is Over. Now What?

As Thanksgiving Day, 2012 approaches, some followers of the political scene will give fervent thanks while others remain mired in the gloom that follows a defeat of their chosen standard bearer. A majority doesn’t give a damn one way or the other. Arguably, the latter group has it most wrong. The election results will make a huge difference in their lives and the younger they are, the more difference will they experience. One hopes they will remain happily in ignorance to celebrate with those whose candidates won, at least for Thanksgiving.

Downcast political Conservatives are the focus of this essay. May it help them reflect on the blessings that still remain, those which could return and the role citizens could play in causing a return. Some are moving from the United States and others are checking the possibilities of their doing so. Many who are less financially well off and more combative are promoting secession proposals. There are worse reactions but, also, better ones that provide more personal satisfaction and a likelihood of success. First, one might recall the blessings that remain.

60% of state governors are Republican. Typically, they’re not at the rightmost limit of the political spectrum but they’re far removed from the other limit, especially on Constitutional issues and fiscal constraint. (Thank you for this blessing.) A majority of the U.S. House of Representatives is Republican with such members sharing the values of the Republican governors. (Thank you for this blessing.) Like the title of their organization, legislators in the lower House are the most representative of high officials with the roots of their constituents closest to them. That these governors and representatives remain seated suggests a very different “mandate” than that brandished by the president and his cohorts. (Thank you for this blessing.)

The U.S. Constitution remains the fundamental law of the country. (Thank you for this blessing.) It’s being weakened and disregarded, but it’s there. When Obama appoints more Supreme Court justices, major damage will be inflicted, no doubt. That won’t happen without loud protests from a minority in the senate that might draw attention to real issues rather than flaky debating points of the campaign. (If so, we will give thanks for that blessing.) The economy remains weak and it may “go south” again if Obama plays political games in “fiscal cliff” bargaining in December or in a resumption of his regulatory and redistribution extremes in his first term. Consequences of these could reach catastrophic proportions and Americans of all economic levels would suffer immensely, especially those at the lowest levels. On the other hand, that might awaken citizens to the dangers of big government moving the nation away from individual freedom and a market economy. (If so, we will give thanks for that blessing.)

If more citizens remember to whom we are giving thanks there may come a time when religion will be on the rise rather than on a decline. People have a way of turning to God when in trouble. (If that happens, we will give thanks for the blessing.) Republicans have two years to get their act together. There’s not much wrong with their platform, if they stick to high impact matters. They must learn how to talk to Hispanics and young women. They must jettison the few really dumb candidates who somehow get on the ballot. They must set aside petty squabbles. It’ll take great effort but it’s possible. (If it happens, we will give thanks for the blessing.)

billlifka

Once I was young and a Democrat

[from billlifka] It was a fine time and a good thing to be. I had many friends and relatives who were Democrats. In fact, most were. Now, most of them are dead but I have new friends and relatives who are Democrats, although not so many.

I was a Democrat longer than I was Independent and that longer than I was Republican. However, I wasn’t registered as a Democrat which may be like Bill Clinton’s having smoked pot but not inhaling. Barack Obama has inhaled with pleasure, which may explain a lot. The point is that my credentials as a past Democrat may be questioned but, I assure you, Democrats of my age would recognize me as a kindred spirit. I was born as a Democrat as I was born as an American and a Catholic, all being quite compatible at the time. I chose to be a paper boy and a Cub Scout at the age of nine. These were the first observable signs I had started to think on my own although there’d been covert outbreaks of latent Libertarianism from the age of three.

I never thought much about why I was a Democrat other than as a blessing of birth. When FDR ran for his second term as president, my mother explained that all should vote for Roosevelt because, “He was for the poor people, like us.” Being six years old, I always accepted what my mother told me so long as it didn’t interfere with my plans for that day. Even then, I thought it was a strange argument since I didn’t feel particularly poor. Starting with my being a paper boy, it seemed even stranger since all I needed to do to have money in my pocket was to do a little work and just doing the work made me feel good about myself, also. Then too, I found it hard to understand why FDR was great if he was for losers. At the time, I was for the Chicago Cubs but in those days the Cubs won two pennants so I didn’t think of them as losers until I got a little older. If my mother had said FDR was going to turn losers into winners I would have understood it was like hiring a new manager for the White Sox.

Despite my confusion at an early age, I did come to understand why people would vote for FDR even if they weren’t born as a Democrat. In fact, I think I would vote for him, if I were over twenty one at the time because he did talk a good story and engaged the federal government in a lot of activity, especially for a guy who needed to operate out of a wheelchair. Now I know that activity shouldn’t be mistaken for progress, but in those days it caused most people to feel better even though the depression just went on and on until the war. When it came to the war, FDR was one of the better presidents because of his ability to convince Americans all would turn out well in the end. It also helped that he picked an outstanding leader for the military forces and was convinced, mostly by his wife, to let businessmen lead industrial mobilization. Like his cousin, an earlier president, FDR was not comfortable with the private sector and distrusted all who were in it; they just wouldn’t kowtow to his economic ideas and lack of experience in their field.

By the time Harry Truman came along, I was learning things that caused doubts about FDR but, still a born Democrat, I would have voted for Harry if I were twenty one because Tom Dewey’s moustache made him look sneaky to my eyes. On the other hand, it seemed clear that Harry was straightforward and outspoken and I liked the sign on his desk, “The buck stops here!” He was a guy who took responsibility for his actions and had made tough decisions without flinching over what people might say about him. Even then, I knew those were important traits for a leader. He made some mistakes but if I were transported back in time with my present knowledge, I’m sure I would vote for him and not because I was born a Democrat.

My family never got anything from the Democratic Party, even though FDR was for poor people. Mostly, the Party functioned in the large cities, like Chicago, and they got people work. This was a good thing that people had to work for their money, like being a garbage man. It was true that higher ups might be building inspectors and depended on bribes for extra money but they had to support their families and come election time they had to work hard for no pay in “getting out the vote” which meant getting people out to vote. This is harder than it might seem, especially when some people lived in cemeteries. On a national level, FDR did find work for many in the CCC where they built forest preserve shelters and other public works. My relatives found work for each other like when my father introduced his brother and two brothers-in-law to his boss. That didn’t stop them from being good Democrats even if they made a living on their own

Even though I was a born Democrat, Ike seemed to be an obvious choice over Adlai Stevenson. Adlai was a very bright guy and witty speaker but had the real world depth of a driveway puddle. With Eisenhower, I drifted away from my Democrat birthright but only to that place in between called Independent. I don’t blame Independents for giving up on both Political Parties. Both have earned that treatment. On the other hand it’s sort of like the idea of Purgatory, a place neither heaven nor hell. I can understand why one might choose hell for all the fun that comes before or heaven for all the fun that comes later. Choosing the in-between is hard to fathom. Nevertheless, I felt comfortable there and then John Kennedy came along.

In retrospect, I should have suspected all wasn’t right about Kennedy. But he looked so good, had such an endearing family and talked so convincingly, it was easy to succumb to his charm. By that time, I had forgotten I was born a Democrat, but not that I was born a Catholic and was offended that the presidency had eluded Catholics and the previous one who had tried had been rejected primarily because of his religion. JFK was assassinated and, therefore, deserves to be an “American Saint.” If he had served a full two terms, he might well be remembered differently.

Ronald Reagan came upon the scene. Admittedly, he was running against a guy who had failed in his first term miserably. Nevertheless, he was dismissed as an actor, forgetting his success as Governor of California and as President of the Actor’s Guild, a working job. As an Independent, I had no problem voting for him and became converted to the Republican Party during his time in office while retaining the right of occasional dissent over peripheral items of dogma. I think I have learned how to judge an effective leader of my country based on his past performance in responsible jobs and his character traits as displayed in those positions. I listen to what he says he will do and strongly discount what others say he will do, especially those who have reason to lie about him. I give no thought whatever to whether we share a political party, religion, ethnicity or the many peripheral social preferences that exist in abundance.

Most importantly, I imagine how this blessed country of ours will fare under his leadership. I’ve been around for the great depression, being totally unprepared for WWII, engaged in five other major military adventures and countless minor ones and many social and economic crises. All has not yet been manifested, but we are in the midst of what I believe will be the greatest testing of America in its history. The foundations of our government, economic system and social structure are under siege without restraining influence of experienced leaders with the prudence and wisdom to chart and navigate safe passage through dangerous reefs for the ship of state.

My purpose in this writing is to convince those who choose the Democratic Party as theirs to vote for the opposition candidates, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and that, in their doing so, they will act to save their Democratic Party as well as their country. I write as one who once shared membership in their party, although in simpler times, and one who has voted for rational reasons and for not-so-rational reasons, for candidates of my party and for candidates of another party.

Like many Republicans, I disagree with some opinions of my fellow Republicans. I believe most Republicans respect members of the Democratic Party and accept that contention between the two major Parties is important to the well-being of America. I believe most Republicans accept that elected officials from the two parties must find a way to conduct the business of the country in a manner that addresses major needs of the country without violating reasonable and critical beliefs of either Party. It goes without explanation that many of the less important desires of both Parties may not be agreed upon but can be subjected to continuing debate. Such debate should be open and with courteous regard for opposing beliefs. I believe that Democrats in my youth displayed many traits that are consistent with my beliefs and exist today in many members of the Democratic Party. These include patriotism, importance of the U.S. Constitution, belief in open debate and legislative process, personal responsibility, the value of work, the opportunity for all to improve their status in life and that it’s wrong to set one group of people against another group of people in open warfare. If you share these beliefs, you should vote for Romney and Ryan and for legislators who have demonstrated the same beliefs, regardless of their party affiliation.

It’s dangerously foolish to assume Barack Obama, in a second term, will change his stubborn march to turn America into a second class nation subject to domination by world organizations. He will continue to violate the Constitution as necessary to further his totalitarian ambitions. His acolytes in Congress will continue to block open debate to provide the excuse for government by executive order and bureaucratic mandate. He will continue to pit one group of Americans against another and seek majority backing through mindless wealth transfers that drive the country ever faster into bankruptcy. It’s dangerously foolish to assume that a very large minority of the public will accept this without resisting in ways that will result in widespread violence. At least worst, the Democratic Party would lose it’s acceptability as a governing body. At the very worst, the country would be torn by violence that would rival that in the American Civil War.

On the other hand, there is Romney and Ryan. Romney has proven he can govern effectively in an overwhelmingly Democratic State and obtain support from egotistical foreign Olympic czars. Ryan has proven he can work across the aisle and prefers reasonable compromise to mindless contention. Both know the solution to America’s critical problems lies in economic actions of the type in which both are highly experienced. They are good people, just like most Democrats.

billlifka