So you can see that the bold, fresh guy has some problems with both sides of the ideological spectrum. But unlike Judy Collins, who sang about not knowing life at all, I am more confident in my views. Independent thought based upon greater good, realism, and, yes, compassion drives my agenda and dictates my analysis.
More on taxes in today’s political climate …
Politicians take your tax dollars and give them to their friends and patrons. How corrupt is that? Well, they get away with it because politicians know that you won’t notice that you’re being stiffed as long as the malls stay open late and your cable system provides twenty-four-hour sports coverage.
In other words, the political climate in the USA has changed in favor of the crooks and incompetents. How can you guarantee yourself a future in public service? Be willing to sell out for campaign money. And if you’re an especially talented liar, you can go very far. Both major parties would be happy to have you join the hustle. (But get in line quick. It’s only the first few who will be allowed on board. Any more than that, and the bandits get nervous.)
Am I being too harsh?
Simple answer to that: no.
(photo credit 1.3)
But there are, and have been, exceptions.
The politician I most admire is Abraham Lincoln. The reason is simple: He was kind. He showed his concern for everyday Americans while trying to lead this country through its greatest crisis so far. Failure to act wisely and courageously at the height of the Civil War would have destroyed the nation, which was founded at such risk barely a hundred years before.
Even so, Lincoln devoted one day a week to reading mail from the people and answering with notes on the reverse side of the page. Not surprisingly, many letters were written to seek jobs or other favors. The president often tried to help these ordinary people, even though they were strangers to the corridors of power and influence.…
I have seen a number of these letters from mothers who wanted to visit their wounded sons, from older men who needed work to support their families after all the young relatives had gone to war, and from children worried about their fathers in uniform. Lincoln’s replies are amazingly compassionate. He reveals himself as a great man who used determination and humility to save the Union. Neither vain nor vengeful, he had no spin guys or bagmen and took no money. Because he loved his country, he suffered greatly at the loss of life on both sides of the conflict. Despite the tremendous personal stress and the nationwide chaos, Lincoln still helped individuals while working to keep the country whole.
Where are today’s Honest Abes?
Dunno, but we should keep an eye out. Might happen again.
The above sketch was written years before I wrote my recent bestseller, Killing Lincoln. Good in the world is too often matched by evil, as in the person of the assassin John Wilkes Booth.
Am I serious about that observation?
Yes.
Evil is a constant presence throughout the world. I’ve seen soldiers gun down unarmed civilians in Latin America, Irish terrorists kill and maim their fellow citizens in Belfast with bombs, and heroin addicts with AIDS knowingly share needles with other addicts without telling them about the infection. Evil.
Once, I stood in the cellar of an abandoned Italian church that had been used by Satanists in rituals that included murder. The feeling of evil permeated this room. I had never felt anything like it.
But then I felt it again in Africa at Victoria Falls in Zambia. I stood where human sacrifice was practiced years before by tribes native to the area. Victims were tossed off the cliff into the thundering falls. I got out of there quick.
So I know that true, unrepentant evil exists. And I firmly believe it will be punished, just as good will be rewarded. That is part of the order of the universe, if we only take the time to recognize it.
TWO
I’VE QUESTIONED EUROPEAN SOCIALISM FROM THE BEGINNING
Hello France, Next Stop—God Forbid—Greece!
Europe is on such an economic roller coaster that no one, certainly not your humble servant, could reliably predict what will be going on when this book comes off the presses.
(photo credit 2.1)
Chaos? Collapse?
Don’t point your finger at any one or two countries alone. The whole European way of thinking about social and economic matters has been a shared lunacy and a dangerous misreading of human reality.
You only have to travel to Europe to see the difference that an entitlement culture makes. While the United States is a vibrant, creative, and exciting place, Europe today is largely stagnant. Workers there have little incentive to move ahead, because the rate of taxation is punishing and the governments guarantee a certain standard of living. In France, young people demonstrated for weeks because the government wanted a new law that would allow employers to actually fire them during the first two years of employment if they screwed up on a regular basis. But nooooo, we can’t have that! The French sense of entitlement basically says, “You owe me prosperity, government. You owe me.”
Yes, this was written before 2008.
All the more reason why Europe is in such deep trouble even as President Obama seems to be taking us exactly in its direction.
Is it inevitable that America must head down this road? Not by a long shot. Keep in mind this discussion I had with the good Dr. Charles Krauthammer on The Factor after some college students at UC Davis went wild over a tuition increase:
O’REILLY: The irony here is that some of those students want America to be an entitlement society, but when the money runs out as [it has] in California, they run amok.… Charles, how bad do you think the entitlement society in America is right now, and is gonna get?
KRAUTHAMMER: Well, judging from those young people, who appear rather agitated that they are not having their college education subsidized enough, I say it’s getting out of control. Because remember, who pays the taxes that support their college education? Three quarters of Americans have no college degree. I think the answer to your question is a little bit complex. I think the majority of Americans don’t want to give up the entitlements they already have, but I think the majority of Americans don’t want to add onto it, and to become like a European social democratic society.
O’REILLY: Now why is that? Because the taxes then rise so high that individual achievement is robbed and that the American dream shrinks because you just don’t have the cash to do it because you’re giving the government the cash. Is that the reason?
KRAUTHAMMER: That is the reason, and what we had was a spontaneous uprising, if you like. A peaceful one, of course, in the United States. The Tea Parties, the town hall meetings … all said very loud and clear, “Yes, we like our Social Security but we are not going to add onto it with a new healthcare entitlement. We know we’re going over a cliff with taxes and debt, and as a result we want to stay where we are, stay Americans with some protections. We’re not going to get rid of the New Deal, or even the Great Society or Medicare, but no new stuff.” And that’s what the fight over healthcare is all about.
O’REILLY: It is. It is about that and about smaller versus larger government. However, the younger people that we saw out in California, they have a different view when you look at the polling about healthcare. The younger the American is, the more likely they are to support it. So that tells me that the new generation wants the government to be a nanny state.
KRAUTHAMMER: Except that the new generation is going to get older. And they’re going to have a family, and they’re going to have kids, they’re going to have payments, they’re going to have a mortgage and they’re going to pay taxes. And they won’t like the taxes. Those kids out there aren’t paying a lot of taxes. And as they become adults, they are not going to have the same political attitudes as they had at eighteen, when you’re wild, you’re free, and subsidized.
O’REILLY: Why do you think people in Scandinavia, who are just about the same as Americans—Scandinavians come here, there’s no diffe
rence basically—why do you think they want the nanny state in places like Sweden? Not Norway so much, but Denmark, Sweden, France—France isn’t in Scandinavia—what is the mentality that Western Europeans have that they want to be taken care of?
KRAUTHAMMER: Well, remember they’re not the same as us because it was the more independent ones, the ones who didn’t like the strictures of government, the regulations, the religious oppression, who came here. This spirit of being independent and not wanting to be controlled by the government is something that is intrinsic in America, it’s the essence of America, it’s what distinguishes Americans who are essentially refugees of the old society in Europe. That’s why it’s always been harder to make Americans break to the yoke of government as happened in Europe. Once you get accustomed to the kinds of entitlements that you have in Sweden, England, France, elsewhere, it doesn’t get undone. And America is different—it’s resisting the imposition of new yokes. And that’s what’s happening today.
That’s what we have to remain vigilant about—remembering that America was forged in independence, and not for government to impose its will like in so many European countries. This is such an important fight for our future.
THREE
MINORITY REPORT
The Obstacles, the Search for Answers, and the Case of the Sharpening Divide
Old white men may be becoming fewer and fewer at the ballot box. That’s arguably a numerical minority down the road, and we’ll see what that means for traditional America soon enough.
But the historical meaning of “minority” in this country is a shameful, often brutal story. We have to admit that.
The sad truth is that for more than two hundred years most black Americans were systematically deprived of the right to pursue happiness, and Native Americans were brutalized as America was being settled. Thus, the government today does owe African and Native Americans, and the poor in general, more attention and specific entitlement programs to help level the playing field. On that most traditionalists and S-Ps can agree.
Surprised?
You shouldn’t be.
Key words: “to help level the playing field.”
And the playing field is as tough today, in many cities, as it was when I began working as a TV news reporter long, long ago.
Cops and prosecutors know that it’s impossible to enforce the law in any neighborhood if there is not cooperation between the people who live there and the authorities. In rich neighborhoods, most people love the police. They wave at them and smile and give them Christmas presents.
All is fine between the police and the citizenry.
Not so in the ghettos. Suspicion and animosity exist between the police and many poor people, and each side has valid reasons for the distrust. The cops know they are disliked, and they know the streets are dangerous. The folks know the police are sometimes resentful of the danger and hostility they face—and that resentment sometimes spills over into unpleasant confrontations, even with law-abiding citizens. Fear is present on both sides. And fear will always cause hostility.
Violent crime and drug dealing in the nation’s minority precincts are often completely out of control. The police who patrol these areas are sometimes frightened and always on the defensive. They are tense, and this often leads to aggression and poor judgment. We are talking about human nature here, not institutional racism. Members of the left in America are often well intentioned, but they are just as often clueless. There will always be corrupt and racist cops because there will always be corrupt and racist people. But police officers on the street get up every day knowing that they might not come home at night. And for this they should be given the benefit of any doubt.
I know this much to be true: It is not easy being a minority in the United States. Not only are you outnumbered, but the crushing weight of irrational ignorance is, generally speaking, directed toward you far more than it is at the majority. Sometimes whites in the USA overlook racial bias entirely because it does not affect them.
I never got the antiblack thing. New York Giants center fielder Willie Mays was my guy even after the team moved to San Francisco. Cleveland Browns running back Jim Brown was actually from Long Island. I idolized these men. So when some adults threw the N-word around and mocked blacks, I had a hard time processing it. If all races were cheering blacks on the field—and they were—why would anyone deride that race after the game? The antiblack crew in the neighborhood could never answer that simple question.
(photo credit 3.1)
(photo credit 3.2)
I’m sometimes asked why I do so much reporting and analysis of minority issues, and my reply is brief: because few others do and all Americans deserve equal justice and a fair chance at the pursuit of happiness. The elite media are literally scared speechless of offending minorities in America and thus shy away from most confrontational reporting on situations that injure those who do not have the resources to fight effectively for themselves. For all of the politically correct rhetoric you hear or read in the press, little is actually being done to right wrongs on the tough side of town.
There is, of course, hope. Many local leaders in besieged neighborhoods are trying to improve things. But for real change to happen in chaotic neighborhoods, there must be rules, strict rules. There must be a code of conduct that is widely accepted in the inner cities, just as there is in the affluent suburbs. Here is a creed that might be a place to start:
Having a child out of wedlock would be considered a harmful thing, something to discourage.
Drug selling would be considered a violent crime, and those involved in this most harmful of enterprises would be shunned and reported to the authorities through the churches.
Drug addiction and alcoholism would be considered contagious diseases. Those afflicted would be encouraged to get help but not looked upon as victims.
All kinds of child abuse and neglect would be confronted by the community immediately and reported to the proper authorities. There would be zero tolerance for adults who hurt or endanger kids.
Police would be assigned to provide protection at all public schools and would be stationed on campus to deal with disruptive and destructive students, as well as disruptive and destructive outsiders. [As in Newtown, Connecticut.]
Curfews on teenagers would be enacted and enforced by local communities.
Zoning laws would be toughened and standards of care imposed on properties both public and private. Run-down buildings would be more easily condemned and then sold at auction to responsible builders.
Public nuisance laws would be passed so that individuals who disrespect neighborhoods and properties by actions such as graffiti, public lewdness and intoxication, incivility in words or deeds, littering, or the general creation of mayhem could be arrested and prosecuted by local authorities.
If that kind of creed was encouraged in all poor neighborhoods, and a cooperative discipline imposed by responsible citizens (who are the majority in every neighborhood), you would see the ghettos of the country gradually transformed into solid working-class enclaves.
The class system as related to race plays a role: Single-income white households have a median income of $39,000, while single-income black households have a median income of $25,000. And the earnings gap between rich and poor is widening.
And ever widening still.
This is not a minority problem. This is a national problem.
All people who work deserve a fair chance and the respect of the community.
That is the American ideal, and I don’t want us to forget it.
The suggestions listed above might make even more sense in light of the following observations from my Culture Warrior:
Although 89 percent of blacks voted Democratic in 2004 [it rose to 95 percent in 2012], when it comes to social issues African Americans are largely in the traditional camp. A Pew Research Center poll taken in July 2005 found that 75 percent of black Americans believe secular-progressives push too far in keeping religion o
ut of schools and government. Only 17 percent of African American voters want to legalize gay marriage—an overwhelming statement of traditionalist conviction.…
Because the African American political establishment is largely locked into one issue—advancement of blacks through government largesse—African Americans remain largely on the sidelines in the culture war. Generally speaking, taking up the battle is simply not relevant to them, because traditionalists have not defined the culture war to coincide with their interests. I believe that is a huge mistake.
In many black communities, Christian churches are prominent centerpieces. Faith is an important tradition in black America. That’s why the gay marriage issue is overwhelmingly rejected by blacks. Their religion says homosexuality is not acceptable, and many African Americans bitterly resent the argument that marriage for homosexuals is a civil right. If you want a lively discussion, walk into a black church and put that on the table.…
Take another issue: drugs. Many African Americans have seen firsthand what narcotics can do; they don’t want hard drugs legalized. Lawlessness and the breakdown of the traditional family in poor black neighborhoods (the out-of-wedlock birthrate for blacks is 70 percent) have deepened the cycle of poverty and deprivation. Any sane person can see that.
(photo credit 3.3)
And older African Americans generally deplore the rise of gangsta rap and the disintegration of civility among some young black people. This is a big [Bill] Cosby theme, and he pounds it home in his lectures again and again, despite attacks on him by the S-P community, which often views the hate-filled rap lyrics as “genuine expression.” …