Consider the Democratic Governor of Illinois being arrested for trying to sell the senate seat of the President Elect as just one article of many.  Then we have Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid browbeating the accused governor Blagojevich to make an appointment quickly, so that the seat won’t be lost to a Republican in a special election.  Nice work, Mr. Reid!  Why don’t you just admit that the Democratic Party thinks democracy is a mis-nomer.  Maybe Governor Blagojevich can make the appointment from jail, if the legislature doesn’t act first and either remove him form power or impeach him.  Or Harry Reid again, rumored to have been encouraged to intervene to save Al Franken’s failed effort to be elected to a Senate seat in Minnesota. Nice work, Senator Reid - have you considered sending your resume to someone like Robert Mugabe? A place like Zimbabwe, where goon tactics and ballot box stuffing are considered good government is someplace where you would be very much at home.

Or the Kennedy Clan.  Caroline Kennedy is now being promoted as the supposedly logical replacement for Seantor Clinton.  Froma Harrop has a nice response, noting that not only is it a case of establishing a hereditary political seat, but it also shafts a hard-working Democratic female candidate who has years of actual government experience, but not the Kennedy name.

The hubris of the Democratic Party is impressive to watch.  They haven’t even taken office, and they are making some of my liberal colleagues begin to think fondly of a time when we had clean government, and a reasonably effective President.  George H. W. Bush was actually the president one of them said she was thinking kindly of.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

Ayers would like us all to know that he’s just a nice tweedy academic who was a bit intemperate in his youth.  In the 1960’s he was on the side of angels protesting for free speech and the end of unjust wars being fought by the imperialists in government.  He just HAD to protest that awful war in Vietnam, so he had to bomb government buildings because polite protests didn’t get the government’s attention.  He just can’t understand why some of the crazy folks on the right can’t just let bygones be bygones. It was an interesting, not to mention stomach-turning piece of verbiage.  Ayers wants to reassure us what a decent, moral and concerned citizen of the world he is.

By comparison, I found myself reflecting on Scott Simon’s piece on National Public Radio’s Week End Edition last week.  Simon was commenting about the terrorism in India, and remarking that many self-styled progressives, especially his colleagues in the media, were uncomfortable with words like ‘evil’ and ‘terrorism’ because they seem so morally loaded.  Yet he came to recognize that he could see no way to justify the targeting of people on their way to work, on vacation in a hotel, or just walking down the street.  Simson stated that he could finally see why the concept of evil actually might have validity.  The idea that someone would target civilians engaged in shopping, in a place of worship, commuting to work, or on holiday because they were defenseless people who could not or likely would not resist seemed, in Simon’s view, to cross the threshold and become ‘evil.’

Perhaps someday soon Scott Simon will be willing to accept the idea that terrorism is evil.  Targeting the unarmed and non-violent because they are easy to kill is what terrorism entails.  Terrorism is successful because it is shocking.  Bill Ayers wanted to shock by killing.  But he had another motivation.  Ayers wanted to overthrow the government of the US.  He hoped by killing enough people in and around the government, he could help foment a communist revolution in the USA.  He saw public employees, police, and elected officials as legitimate targets in his revolutionary zeal.  His group, the Weathermen / Weather Underground actually succeeded in killing some people in addition to the three Weather Underground members who failed their final course in creative bomb-making.  Ayers was, in fact guilty, and he admits it in his autobiography.  Ayers wasn’t trying to bring a peaceful end to an unjust war.  He was trying to bring down the US government.

So who should we believe?  The Bill Ayers who wrote the books about the Days of Rage and his autobiography, or the William Ayers who penned this self serving drivel in the latest New York Times?  Well,  I believe the Ayers of his autobiography and the numerous police reports.  The guy writing for the New York Times is either lying or non compos mentis.  Either way, that suggests that the author of the NYT Op-Ed piece isn’t someone who should be teaching at a university, but someone who should be making license plates in prison, or folding origami in a mental ward.  My belief is that he should have gone to prison thirty years ago, and then gone the way of another unrepentant domestic terrorist, Timothy McVeigh.  Ayers, however, doesn’t have the spine to admit killing people and then make a defiant speech at the death chamber door.  As terrorists go, McVeigh was a much classier act.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

During the campaign, both parties cheerfully demonized each other - the Obamas were, according to Republicans, a bunch of leftists - socialists at best, if not outright commies; the Democrats told us that McCain and Palin were old and/or ignorant hillbilly religious nuts.  But in fact, while each party played hard to its base, it looks as if it is safe to say that the conventional wisdom of one of my coffee drinking cronies was correct.  She argued that both candidates were essentially centrists, and that world events would drive whoever won even farther toward the center.  It looks as if she may well be correct.

For all the talk of ‘global warming’ (intentionally in postmodernist scare quotes) being the major threat to the world, there is a lot of disagreement among the scientific community about the nature of climate change, whether it is man-made, and what, if anything we can or should do about it.  Meanwhile, the events in India and in the Gulf of Aden remind us that the world is a dangerous place.  There are people who live by violence, who do not believe in the rule of law or liberal Western style democracy.  Those people will be causing actions the new administration will need to address.  Much as it may dismay the far left of the Democratic Party, I think President Elect Obama’s decision to keep Gates as Secretary of Defense for the time being is a wise move.  Much as this same core part of the Democratic party base must be offended by it, I think Obama’s apparent willingness to look at a longer period of gradual withdrawal from Iraq instead of a rapid pull out is a very positive sign.  The events in India and on the seas suggest that what President Bush characterized as a ‘global war on terror’ was not really accurate, but it was not entirely wrong.  Militant Islam is not the sole problem facing Western liberal democracy, but one of several, all of which seem to involve elements of violence.  It seems as if the hope expressed by so many on the left that if the West would leave the rest of the world alone terrorism would cease has been disproved.  India is now experiencing what the US and Britain, the Netherlands and Spain and France have encountered - an upwelling of violent extremists of various sorts.

Some of this is associated with economic disparity, but some of it is cultural.  As President, Mr. Obama will have to try to help promote effective changes to stabilize and repair the economy - not just of the USA, but in a real sense, of the world.  At the same time, he will have to confront the reality that there are some dangerous people who cannot be reasoned with through civilized means, and we will need a military who can reason with them in a means they understand (violence), repulsive as it may be to those of us who like to think of ourselves as civilized.  Climate change is not the big issue facing the new president.  The big issue is can we address the economic chaos before the world’s economy gets worse and further depresses the economy of the USA, and can we work with other liberal Western democracies to stamp out the violent extremists preying on the majority of peacefuyl peoples in the world.  That’s a lot of work to have to handle soon.  Good luck, Mr. President, you are in my thoughts and prayers.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

One of the things the Democratic party keeps telling us is that it champions good education.  Harvard certainly is a good education, but it is not where most of us go.  Palin’s experience is one that many of the under 40 age group can relate to.  And, while it was under reported, it is worth noting that she participated in school sports and maintained a good GPA.  Then there was the question of the Chicago schools.  No one seems to have asked William Ayers any pointed questions about educational policy.  But one more set of questions might be worth examining, if there ar actually nay investigative journalists left.  Have any in the media heard of Marva Collins?

Marva Collins began making a name for her self in the 1970s.  She found the Chicago public schools to be failed institutions, which were not educating black and poor children, and claimed that they were not educable.  Miss Collins started inner city schooling that provided a good solid education based on classics and excellence.  The pupils in her classes excelled, often reading well above grade level.  Her classes stressed standard English, math, logic, literature - a good solid curriculum.

A question for the so-called journalists - Why is it that academics in Chicago are seeking out an educational failure like William Ayers, instead of an educational success like Marva Collins?  Another question:  Is is true that Miss Collins was able to get good results at a cost per pupil of approximately half the per pupil cost of the failing Chicago public schools?  Why?  Why is no one interested?  Do you suppose the underlying lack of interest has something to do with the fact that both Marva Collins and Sarah Palin placed performance ahead of everything else in their educations?

Something to ponder.  Yes, Harvard is good.  But it isn’t the only way to get a good education.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

To hear NPR’s Peter Overby tell it, Ayers is just a mild mannered, much revered professor of education from Chicago who is bemused that the old fogies keep remembering his wild college days.  The piece cast Ayers as a successful career educator, who was, he implies, wrongly vilified by the McCain-Palin campaign.  In fact, according to NPR, Ayers is a very popular educator who has successfully helped change education by focusing on children’s creative energy.  So popular that the bookstore where Professor Ayers’ book signing and talk was scheduled to be held was too small, so a local church offered space (sanctuary?) for the event.  The book store was well stocked with all of Ayers’ books on education, but had, they confessed to NPR, neglected to carry Ayers’ radical autobiography.

So did the thorough-going NPR investigative reporter ask any pointed questions about Ayers’ past?  Not really.  Just noted that the Republicans seem unhappy that Ayers wont’ apologize for his bad behavior.  And to hear NPR tell it, it’s all here say anyhow, and Ayers says he’s sorry they don’t like him.  See, he’s just a great guy, an educator, promoting the creative process.

Which sounds great.  A good investigative reporter might have chosen to ignore the oft-repeated mad bomber angle, and look at Professor Ayers’ career and its results.  Except NPR really doesn’t seem to understand what investigative reporting involves.  Asking questions.  Checking up on how Ayers’ educational policy has been received.  How well it has succeeded in improving public school graduation rates.  Perhaps how well Ayers’ policies worked in Chicago, where he’s been particularly active.  Which might be of interest to listeners since both Ayers and the President Elect were active in the Chicago Annenberg Project.  How the Washington DC schools think Ayers’ policies would work in their classrooms, if they aren’t using them already.  Simple questions like those could probably have been researched in 45 minutes of work on a telephone if Mr. Overby can’t get around to see everyone in person.

You see, if someone at NPR had bothered to make a few phone calls, let alone visit Washington DC public schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee, they might have had some more interesting questions to ask Professor Ayers.  For instance, why can’t Ayers show any improvements in graduation rates for the Chicago schools involved in the Chicago Annenberg program, or those using his educational methods?  Or why does Chancellor Rhee believe that the No Child Left Behind program offers the best approach to reforming public schools in her community?  Why do private and parochial school seem to have better graduation rats than the public schools. even when working with children in poor neighborhoods?  These are all legitimate questions to ask an educator, but no one at NPR seemed interested in asking questions.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

President Obama will have a very difficult road ahead of him.  Perhaps it is especially important for his supporters to remember that the man he is replacing ran on a platform promising to be ‘a uniter, not a divider.’  Senator Obama is going to have to live up to President Bush’s slogan.  That is going to require him to renounce some of the projects and agenda items that some of his most dedicated supporters hold dear.  But, if he is going to succeed, he will have to disappoint some of the Democratic party base, and produce a genuinely bi-partisan and, to use his term, post-partisan administration.  President Obama might think about Franklin D. Roosevelt’s approach to the major challenges of his administration - and appoint some major cabinet members from the Republican camp.  World War II was managed by FDR, with a Republican Secretary of War (before we had a unified Department of Defense) - Henry Stimson.  President Obama needs to find his Henry Stimson and bring that person on board as a fully participating member of the core cabinet.   That may not be what the Democratic base wants to hear.  But I think it would strike a good, gracious note that could help him to unite the country behind him.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

McCain has promised to reduce the deficit by adjusting the tax cuts created by previous administrations.  Possibly this might have worked if the world economy were running smoothly, but it seems a dubious proposition at the present.  However, it is the message the Republican party base wants to hear.  Obama, having muted his criticism of the Iraqi war briefly, is once again talking up getting out of Iraq quickly, a message that suits the Democratic party base.  Such a move may or may not help stabilize the situation in Iraq, but that is the least of Obama’s interests at the moment - despite his claims to have more foreign policy experience than Governor Palin, Obama wants to appeal to his base to close the campaign.

Then there is campaign finance reform.  McCain has lived up to his long standing belief that money is corrupting the national political system, and has worked to keep his campaign in the bounds of the campaign finance law bearing his name, and to accept public funding.  This choice severely limits the McCain campaign by limiting the amount of advertising it can purchase.  A principled decision, but perhaps politically unwise.  Senator Obama’s initial decision was to accept the spending limits imposed by taking federal funding.  This would have given the public an opportunity to test the validity of public campaign financing, as both major candidates would have been similarly restricted. The Obama campaign recognized the error of their ways, when it became clear that this year, the Democrats might be able to raise more money than the Republicans.  So, despite promising to change the way politics was done, the Obama campaign returned to the old method of campaigning by fund raising.

This should surprise no one.  Both parties are telling the voters that they each represent true change, but neither is changing anything substantive in the way they campaign.  Promise the base what it wants to hear, offer hope of change to the undecided voters, and spend, spend, spend on advertising.  Ironically, the Republicans have shown themselves to be slightly more willing to risk real change than the Democrats, by accepting public financing.  If McCain wins, the practice may get more attention.  If Obama wins, public campaign financing is probably going to be quietly dropped from the discussion of either party, and go the way of the Edsel, one of those designs that failed to win public approval.

So here we are - another year of promised change by the political parties proves to be undermined by both parties and the media.  The media?  Yes, the media.  Who profits most from limitless campaign advertising?  The media.  Don’t look for any real change soon.  Both parties like the results they get with big spending, and the media moguls like the profits they get from the advertising buys. Change?  No, this year’s promised change looks like the same old same old.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

The next president will have his hands full, as the global economic picture shows no sign of brightening in a hurry.  Yet to hear the Obama campaign calling for change, it would seem as if they intend to solve the current economic problems with a return to the good times of FDR.  Yes, to hear Barney Frank tell it, ‘Happy Days Are Here Again.”  All that the country - and the world - needs is a good dose of the economic policies of John Maynard Keynes.  Never mind that pure Keynesian economics has been shown to be ultimately unsuccessful.  Frank has promised the Republicans that if they won’t agree to his massive deficit spending package right now, they will simply be ignored and cut out of the process in the future.

This should concern thoughtful voters.  Because if Senator Obama becomes President Obama, the financial and legislative agenda of Mr. Frank will get a green light, and there won’t be anyone working to moderate the policies.  The failings of unbridled free market economics have become clear over the past eight years, and the American people are unhappy with the Republican congress and Republican President who have increased the national debt while engaging in an unpopular war overseas.  But before trading in the Republican big spenders for the Democratic team, perhaps a moment of reflection is in order.  If the national debt is huge now, what will Mr. Frank’s policies do to improve matters?  The Democratic Congress has not shown much leadership for the past two years.  The Democratic leadership have squandered that time trying to heap opprobrium on the lame duck Republican President, rather than trying to work with him to reduce the debt, end the foreign military campaign on successful terms, and deal with the financial problems facing the nation and the world.  In short, they have failed to exercise leadership and to govern responsibly.

The next administration is going to have a very serious challenge to address.  Optimism may spring eternal, but I do not think an Obama administration would be able to bring about a change in the world economic picture any faster or more effectively than a McCain administration.  Democrats should reflect on the Hoover and FDR years again - the depression did not bottom out in 1929, it was actually after FDR had been in office for nearly a term.  Recovery was a long, slow process, and really only moved rapidly with the coming of World War II.  It is probable that this economic recession will take five or six years to bottom out as well.  The idea of handing the national check-book to Mr. Frank and his associates for the next four years does not inspire confidence in me.  Not when you add the dubious leadership of Congresswoman Pelosi and Senator Reid into the equation.

If the last two years were bad, imagine how an Obama administration with all three branches of government in the hands of the Democratic party may turn out.  Given the lack of accomplishments of either Pelosi or Reid, and the lack of administrative experience of Senator Obama, I am not confident that they would present a sound economic plan.  Much as I resent the Republican party’s stubborn refusal to work more closely with the Democratic minority during the first six years of the Bush administration, the past two years of congressional fumbling convinced me that a complete Democratic majority would be an economic and managerial mistake.

Orson Buggeigh

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.