Tolerating Intolerance

According to my dictionary, the word “tolerance” means “sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own.”    The same dictionary defines the word “intolerant” to mean “unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters or other social, political, or professional rights.”   In my lifetime, it seems to me that our society has become much more tolerant in some areas and much less tolerant in others.   

As a general rule, most people in our society are much more tolerant than they ever have been of people who have a different skin color than their own.    The best proof of our increased racial tolerance is the election of Barak Obama as the first black President of the United States.   With the exception of the controversial debate over whether the historical definition of marriage should be changed, I believe most people in today’s society are much more tolerant of gays and lesbians than they were even ten years ago.    Gays no longer feel the need to hide in the closet.   In addition, rightly or wrongly, our society today is much more tolerant of conduct that was once considered shameful if not immoral. 

Many universities and businesses pride themselves in their diversity programs.    To them, diversity means a group of people consisting of both men and women who do not share the same race, nationality or sexual orientation.   Diversity programs are designed to be symbols of tolerance and inclusiveness.  

Along with the increased tolerance in our society, there also has been an increase in intolerance.    From my perspective, most intolerance today does not relate to race, nationality, or gender.   Instead, it reflects an increasing inability on the part of many people to tolerate those with whom they disagree.    We love diversity as long as it does not encompass diversity of thought.   

There were many examples of intolerance during the recent presidential election.  The best example occurred when a 14-year-old school girl in Oak Park, Illinois decided to conduct an experiment on Diversity of Thought.  The results of the experiment were reported last week in The Chicago Tribune.   According to the report, Catherine Vogt, with the knowledge of her history teacher, wore a shirt bearing John McCain’s name to school one day and secretly recorded the comments of teachers and students in her journal.  She later wore an Obama shirt and also recorded the comments.   

The Chicago Tribune reported that Catherine quickly learned she was stupid for wearing a McCain shirt.  “People were upset.  But they started saying things, calling me very stupid, telling me my shirt was stupid and I shouldn’t be wearing it,” Catherine said.   “One person told me to go die.  A lot of comments about how I should be killed.”    One student suggested Catherine should be crucified for her political beliefs.   Even one of Catherine’s teachers insulted her.   One of Catherine’s classmates said she should be “burned with her shirt on.”   When Catherine later wore the shirt containing Obama’s name, she was praised for recognizing the error of her ways.   Her classmates told her she was smart after all.    

Unfortunately, Catherine’s experience is not unique.   There are many other examples of people who have trouble tolerating those with whom they disagree.  Here are just a few:    

 (1)    Studies have shown that many colleges and universities are dominated by administrators and faculty members who share a liberal political philosophy.   Many of these faculty members use their classrooms as a platform to promote their own political views rather than to encourage freedom of thought.    Conservative faculty members must hide their beliefs for fear of being denied tenure.   Conservative students hide their beliefs for fear of receiving a lower grade from a liberal faculty member. 

(2)    Many pastors in churches, both liberal and conservative, use their pulpits to promote their political beliefs and in doing so show disrespect and even intolerance for members of their congregations who do not share their political philosophy.  

(3)    Many liberal Christians take pride in their tolerance for Jews and Muslims but have little, if any, tolerance for other Christians who do not share their views.   Take a look at the internal fighting within many Christian denominations. 

(4)    It is not uncommon for politicians to want to silence those with whom they disagree.    Some liberals, for example, want to shut down “talk radio” because they disagree with most of the content.   Of course, they have no problem with the portions of the media that share their political views.  

(5)    As a society, we have no tolerance for statements that are deemed to be “politically incorrect.”   As I see it, the primary purpose of political correctness is to silence or punish those who have beliefs or an ideology that is inconsistent with the beliefs or ideology of those who have appointed themselves to establish the rules for acceptable speech.  In today’s society, a politically incorrect statement can ruin a previously well-respected career much faster than an act of incompetence.   For example, take a look at Lawrence H. Summers, the former President of Harvard University, who was forced out of his job after suggesting that women may not have the same innate abilities in math and science as men.   Those who were offended by the comment refused to accept Mr. Summers’ apology and still wanted his head on a silver platter.    Or consider former Senator Trent Lott, who lost his position as Senate Majority Leader and ultimately resigned from the Senate after making a politically incorrect comment while attempting to praise Senator Strom Thurmond at a party celebrating Senator Thurmond’s 100^th birthday.   Again, Senator Lott’s apologies were not enough to save him.  There are many other examples of long-term and honorable careers that have been destroyed by a politically incorrect comment made in a moment of weakness.   

I hope my observations are wrong, but it seems to me that most people do not value diversity of thought as much as they value diversity based on race, nationality, or gender. 

Unfortunately, many people who pride themselves in being progressive and open-minded show little tolerance or respect for those who have opposing views.   In discussing the Catherine Vogt Experiment on Diversity of Thought, John Kass, the columnist for The Chicago Tribune who broke the story, wrote:   “I dared to illustrate, through the actions of a brave 8^th-grade girl, that even high-minded liberal communities can be intolerant, no matter how many times parents gush on about ‘diversity’ at their cocktail parties.   So much for the audacity of hope.  But it’s also true that if Catherine lived in a beet-red community and wore an Obama shirt, she’d get a similar negative, intolerant and ugly reaction.”        

The Future of Race Relations

What does the election of Barak Obama as our first black President mean for the future of race relations in this country?   Does it mean the government will sponsor more programs and spend more money to help black citizens who have faced years of discrimination?    Or does the election of a black American to the highest office in the land demonstrate there is no longer a need for special programs to help black citizens?  

Within hours after the results of the election had been announced, I was reading about and hearing from people who were saying blacks have no more excuses for failing to make economic progress and for failing to close the income gap between whites and blacks.    Many think Obama’s election proves that black men and women who are willing to get a good education and work hard now have the same opportunities as their white counterparts.   In fact, some argue that blacks actually have an advantage over whites because of affirmative action and diversity programs that have the effect of favoring black students or black candidates for a job over white students or white candidates with equal or better qualifications. 

Juan Williams, a black political analyst for National Public Radio and Fox News, wrote a column after the election that stated in part:   “The emphasis on racial threats and extortion-like demands—all aimed at maximizing white guilt as leverage for getting government and corporate money—has lost its moment.  How does anyone waste time on racial fantasies like reparations for slavery when there is a black man who earned his way into the White House.” 

Then there is the issue of designing Congressional and state legislative districts to ensure that blacks can be elected to public office.   The Wall Street Journal contained a guest column on November 11, 2008 bearing the headline “Racial Gerrymandering is Unnecessary.”     The column was co-authored by Abigail Thernstrom, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and Stephan Thernstrom, a professor of history at Harvard University.    The column began with the following sentences:   “The conventional wisdom among voting-rights advocates and political scientists has been that whites will not vote for black candidates in significant numbers.   Hence the need for federal protection in the form of race-based districts that create safe black constituents where black candidates are sure to win.   But the myth of racist voters was destroyed by this year’s presidential election.”   The concluding paragraph of the column said:  “American voters have turned a racial corner.  The law should follow in their footsteps.” 

It is clear that Obama’s election as our first black President will forever change the debate over race relations.   On the one hand, those who want to continue or possibly even increase government programs designed to help black people now have a strong friend in the White House.    On the other hand, the election of our first black President demonstrates there are no more artificial barriers to black upward mobility. 

I am not an expert in the area of race relations, and I have no idea how all of this will shake out in the end.   I am optimistic, however, that Obama’s election will represent a major turning point for black Americans.   Most Americans seem to agree.    In a poll conducted the day after the election, the Gallop organization found that more than two-thirds of Americans say Obama’s election as President is either the most important advance for blacks in the past 100 years, or among the two or three most important such advances.   The poll also concluded that Americans are strongly optimistic about the state of race relations in the United States.    After Obama's victory, 67% of Americans think a solution to relations between blacks and whites will eventually be worked out, the highest value Gallup has measured on this question.   Further, seven out of ten Americans believe that race relations in this country will get at least a little better as a result of Obama's election, including 28% who say they will get a lot better. 

What can Obama do as President to improve race relations?     Here my observations for whatever they are worth: 

(1)    In my opinion, Obama already has done the most important thing he can do to help young black men and women.    He has demonstrated there are no barriers to what they can achieve.    Racism did not die with Obama’s election, and there is no doubt that blacks will still face discrimination.    Obama has shown, however, that these obstacles can be overcome with a good education, hard work, and determination.   

(2)    Obama can continuously encourage young black men and women to  assume personal responsibility for their lives and to rely on their own resourcefulness rather than the government for their future happiness and financial security.   It appears to me that many black leaders in the past have hurt rather than helped young black men and women by convincing them they are victims of discrimination and have little chance of success in a racist society.   The victim mentality has resulted in a lack of motivation and in too much dependence on government.   By his example and his statements, Obama can change the culture of victimhood and encourage young men and women to establish high goals for themselves. 

(3)    Although politicians love to talk about equal opportunity for all, there is nothing Obama or the government can do to guarantee that all citizens will have equal opportunities.  The government’s role should be to enact laws, which we already have, to prevent discrimination on the basis of race.    Unless the government decides to undertake the responsibility of raising every child from birth, there will always be examples of children who have far fewer opportunities and advantages than other children of the same age and race.  Obama’s two daughters, for example, will always have a huge advantage over black children born to an unwed single mother who does not have an education, who is unemployed or has a minimum-income job, and who does not share the same culture and values as the Obama’s.    Life is not fair.   It never will be. 

(4)    Neither Obama nor the government can guarantee economic equality even for those who are born with the same opportunities.    Some people are born with more intelligence or are willing to work harder and take more risks than others.  There are many examples of two children, either black or white, who are born in the same family and raised by the same parents but who do not share the same intelligence, work ethic, ambition, or determination.   One child may become a successful businessman or professional who makes a good income, and the other may become a low-income employee who barely makes enough to get by.   There is nothing the government can do to change the facts of life.   Our country will be doomed if we eliminate the rewards for hard work and risk taking in effort to achieve economic equality, which is an unattainable goal.   

(5)    The key to continued advancement for black people is education.    As I have previously written on this blog, I believe there are two simple ways to improve the quality of our public education system—more parental involvement and more competition.    The first solution requires action by parents.   More parents, especially minority and low income parents, need to take an active role in insisting that their children place a high priority on getting a good education.  Unfortunately, many inner city schools have little or no parental involvement.    The problem lies with the culture in some segments of our society.   Obama can play an important role in changing a culture that does not value education.    The second solution to improving the quality of public education requires action by the government.  The government needs to permit more competition in the public education system.   In the past, Obama has opposed voucher programs designed to give parents a choice over where their children can attend school.   I hope Obama will reconsider his position on school choice.   I believe school choice programs would increase the educational opportunities for young black men and women whose parents cannot afford private schools.           

Progress in Race Relations

Like most Americans, I am extremely proud of our country for electing its first black President.    Although I disagree with Barak Obama on many issues, I am proud of him for breaking through a major barrier, and I am proud of the country for taking its biggest step so far toward achieving the goal of true racial equality. 

During my lifetime, I have witnessed unbelievable change and progress in the relations between white and black Americans.    I was born in 1945 exactly 13 days before the death of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.   (I cried for days following Roosevelt’s death.)  

I grew up in a small town in Kentucky and attended segregated schools until the late 1950s.    The black citizens in my hometown lived on the other side of the railroad tracks in a section that both blacks and whites referred to as “colored town.”     There were at least four restrooms in the city hall, the county courthouse, and other public places—one for white men, one for “colored men,” one for white women, and one for “colored women.”     There were separate water fountains for white people and “colored” people.   The only movie theatre in town required whites to sit downstairs and blacks to sit in the balcony.   Whites and blacks seemed to get along well, but there was no social interaction between the races.   Although there were no outward signs of conflict, I am sure blacks must have felt extreme resentment and humiliation as a result of the discrimination they faced on a daily basis. 

Things begin to change in the late 1950s and early 1960s.   The schools were integrated, and whites and blacks played together on the same sports teams for the first time.    The town’s neighborhoods, however, remained segregated, and there was still little, if any, social interaction between the races. 

My parents had some racial prejudices, which was fairly common among white people in their generation.   But the “n” word was never used in my home, and I was taught never to make derogatory comments about black people.    My father was a small-town lawyer. He spent a considerable amount of time providing free legal services to poor people, both black and white.   He thought it was his personal and professional responsibility to help people who needed help, regardless of their race, and without the need to be paid for doing so.  

My paternal grandfather was a doctor in my hometown.  He treated everyone who walked through the door of his office without regard to his or her ability to pay.    My grandfather was frequently called to the country or to “colored town” in the middle of the night to deliver a baby.   He always answered the call even when he knew he would not be paid for doing so, except maybe receiving a chicken or some vegetables in appreciation.  When I was growing up, a black person would frequently approach me on the street and say, “your granddaddy delivered my baby” or “your granddaddy brought me into this world.”   I was always very proud to hear these comments. 

It was a different time.   My father provided free legal services to the poor, both black and white, long before Congress started spending taxpayer dollars to pay lawyers to provide legal services to the poor.   My grandfather provided health care to the poor, both black and white, long before the government started paying doctors under the Medicaid and Medicare programs as it does today.   My parents and grandparents lived modestly and did not seem to be obsessed with accumulating wealth or material possessions.  They had lived through the Great Depression, and their idea of a good life was having food to eat and a roof over their heads. 

My years in high school and college coincided with the peak period of the Civil Rights Movement.    I never marched in the streets or participated in protests, but I supported the goals of the Civil Rights Movement.   During my junior and senior years in college, I was Editor-in-Chief of The Kentucky Kernel, the daily student newspaper at the University of Kentucky.  I wrote numerous editorials supporting civil rights legislation and calling for an end to discrimination against black people.   When I graduated from the University of Kentucky in 1967, there were black players on the football team, but the basketball team still consisted solely of white players.         

I had been married for approximately nine months and was working in Washington, D.C. when Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated on April 4, 1968.   I was still at work in my downtown office when I heard the news of the assassination.   My wife called me and told me to leave for home because riots were breaking out in Washington and other cities.   I had to drive through the streets of Washington to get to our apartment in suburban Maryland.    I drove down streets where buildings were burning on both sides of the street and where black people were throwing bricks through store windows and at passing cars.    I don’t think I have ever been as scared before or since. 

I enrolled in Vanderbilt University’s School of Law in August of 1968.    My entering law school class included one black man and five white women.    The rest of the students were white men.    The black man and three of the women graduated with my class.   The black man was respected by his classmates and went on to become a partner in a well-respected Atlanta law firm.  He has had a very distinguished legal career and, among other things, has served on several corporate boards and as a member of the Board of Trustees of Vanderbilt University. 

After graduating from Vanderbilt Law School, I joined one of the largest law firms in Atlanta as an associate.  There were no women partners and no black partners when I joined the firm.   One of the young lawyers who joined the firm with me, however, was a black man who had graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law School.   He stayed with the firm for only a few years, but during those years he was one of my best friends.   I ate lunch with him several times a week, and he was a frequent guest in my home.  Unlike me, he was not married, but he was a good host when I visited his home.   I even got to know his grandmother and aunt, who were great cooks, and my wife and I enjoyed some great comfort food in their home.   By this time, I believe any racial prejudices that had rubbed off on me during my childhood were gone. 

After I became a partner in my law firm, a black woman who was a newly hired associate in the firm was assigned to work with me on several projects.  The same woman, Leah Sears, is now the Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court and has been mentioned as one of Barak Obama’s possible nominees to the United States Supreme Court.   Needless to say, I am very proud of Chief Justice Sears and my brief working relationship with her. 

During the last several decades, black people who obtained a good education and were willing to work hard have enjoyed opportunities that their parents could not even have imagined.    Blacks have served at the top levels in almost every profession.    Several of the nation’s largest companies, including Time Warner, American Express, and Merrill Lynch, have been led by Chief Executive Officers who were black.    In government, qualified black people have served in almost every capacity except President of the United States. 

Prior to the election of Barak Obama as our next President, the Office of Secretary of State was the highest and most important office in the federal government to be occupied by a black person.  During the last eight years, a black man, Colin Powell, and a black woman, Condoleezza Rice, have both served as Secretary of State.   In my opinion, the distinguished service of Powell and Rice helped pave the way for the election of our first black President.   When I see Powell or Rice on television, I do not see a black person.   I only see a loyal public servant trying to serve the country in the best way possible, and I feel completely comfortable with both of them.   I hope and think others feel the same way as I do.    Ironically, Powell and Rice were both appointed by President Bush.   

Obama’s election as our first black President is truly historic.   As a 63-year-old white male, I think this country has made remarkable progress in the area of race relations during my lifetime.    When I was growing into adulthood during the 1950s and 1960s, I could never have imagined that we would have a black President.   If I were a typical 63-year-old black person, however, I might recognize the progress but would probably feel with justification that the progress had come too slow and too late for me.  

I am sure some people, both black and white, voted for Obama because he was black, and there is no doubt that some people voted against Obama because he was black.   In light of our history as a country, I can understand a black person or a white person who was suffering from “white guilt” voting for Obama because he was black.  I could be wrong, but I think the large majority of people who voted against Obama did so because of his policies and political philosophy—not because of his race.   I look forward to the day when no one, black or white, will vote for or against a candidate for public office because of the color of his or her skin.   We are getting closer, but we are not there yet.   

Why McCain Lost

Under the circumstances currently facing the country, I don’t believe any Republican candidate could have won the Presidency this year.   George Bush, the current Republican president, has been extremely unpopular for a variety of reasons.    It was inevitable that his unpopularity would rub off on the Republican candidate, whoever he or she happened to be.    Moreover, the economy is facing its worst crisis since the Great Depression, and the sitting President and his party always seem to get the blame for a bad economy or the credit for a good economy, even though there are many other factors (including the decisions of the Federal Reserve Board) that have far more influence on the economy than the President.    In short, it was a bad year to be the Republican candidate for President. 

On the surface, John McCain was probably as strong a candidate as the Republicans could have nominated this year.    He has a reputation as a maverick and an independent thinker.   He has a strong record of acting in a bipartisan manner, unlike many other politicians who like to talk about the need for bipartisanship but who don’t have the record to support their rhetoric.   McCain had disagreed with President Bush and other members of his party on a number of major issues, including campaign finance reform, the original Bush tax cuts, climate change, interrogation methods, spending and earmarks, immigration reform, and the conduct of the war in Iraq prior to the surge, to name just a few.   Because of his independence and his willingness to disagree with his own party, McCain had always been a hero of the news media.   Despite these various advantages, McCain could not overcome the problems encountered by his campaign, some of which were of his own making and some of which were not.   Here are my views about why McCain lost his race for the Presidency: 

(1)    The most important reason McCain lost, of course, was the economy.   McCain was the Republican candidate for President at a time when the country was experiencing a serious economic meltdown and the sitting President was a Republican.    The various causes of the economic meltdown will be debated for years, and there is no doubt that President Bush and his Administration will and should share some of the blame.   But there were many other factors that contributed to the economic crisis, and some of them were well underway before Bush became President and some of them were outside of his control.   As Harry Truman said, however, “the buck stops here,” by which he meant the Oval Office.    

(2)    McCain ran a terrible campaign.   His campaign lacked focus and discipline.   He seemed to bounce around from issue to issue without having a primary theme for his campaign.    Instead of establishing his own agenda, he spent most of his time reacting to Obama or trying to exploit an issue identified for him by someone else, such as Joe the Plumber.  We all know that Barak Obama’s themes were “hope” and “change”.    Can anyone tell me McCain’s themes?     I can’t. 

(3)    The conservative wing of the Republican Party was never happy with McCain because of his independence.    Because of their unhappiness, McCain spent too much time and energy trying to win over the conservatives in his party rather than reaching out to independents and Democrats.    In my view, McCain was wasting his time trying to appeal to conservatives because they were not going to vote for Obama.    I suppose McCain was afraid the hard-core conservatives would stay home and not vote, but I think they would have voted for McCain if for no other reason than to vote against Obama.  McCain should have spent his time and energy trying to broaden the base of the Republican Party rather than trying to appeal to a very narrow base of voters.   President Reagan was successful because he broadened the base of the Republican Party.   Because of his background, McCain should have been able to do the same thing, but he failed to do so.  

(4)     McCain’s background and experience, which should have been an advantage, became a disadvantage at a time when the country was hungry for change and was looking for a new face and a different type of politician.   Likewise, McCain’s age was a disadvantage because his opponent was youthful and charismatic. 

(5)     In my opinion, McCain made a bad decision when he selected Sarah Palin as his running mate.   She appealed primarily to the social conservatives in the Republican Party, but these people, although unhappy with McCain, were probably going to vote for him anyway.   McCain needed a running mate who would appeal to a broader audience, who could attract Hilary Clinton’s supporters, or who could help McCain carry an important state with a lot of electoral votes.    The selection of Palin didn’t accomplish any of these objectives.    Moreover, the selection of Palin, who had no experience in foreign affairs or on the national political scene, made it much more difficult for McCain to use Obama’s lack of experience against him. 

(6)    Despite Obama’s victory and the strong gains in Congress by the Democratic Party, I think the large majority of voters in this country are still moderate to conservative.  I don’t believe most voters want a big and all-powerful government that is involved in every aspect of their lives.   As a result, I believe McCain should have had an advantage over Obama on the issues.  McCain was very ineffective, however, in explaining his positions and in linking them to a broader philosophy of government.   During the debates, McCain missed numerous opportunities to explain and justify his positions and to distinguish his positions from those being proposed by Obama. 

(7)    The news media loved McCain before he won the Republican nomination, but they turned against him during his campaign for the Presidency.  Prior to the election, the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism conducted a study and concluded that “coverage of McCain has been heavily unfavorable—and has become more so over time.  In the six weeks following the conventions through the final debate, unfavorable stories about McCain outweighed favorable ones by a factor of more than three to one—the most unfavorable of all four candidates.”  

(8)     The country’s recent success in the war in Iraq was due in no small measure to McCain, who had been very critical of Bush’s conduct of the war and who urged a change in strategy in order to achieve victory rather than defeat.   McCain supported the troop surge, which was successful.    Ironically, the success of the troop surge took Iraq out of the news.    Numerous polls showed the majority of voters had more confidence in McCain than Obama as Commander-in-Chief.    But the success in Iraq combined with the economic meltdown had the effect of de-emphasizing the most significant issue on which McCain had an advantage over Obama. 

(9)     McCain made a major strategic mistake when he suspended his campaign for a few days and went back to Washington to deal with the financial crisis facing the country.   He did not demonstrate any leadership in dealing with the financial crisis, and it was never clear exactly where he stood.    

(10)    Finally, most people, including conservatives like me, are very disillusioned with the Republican Party.   The Republicans squandered a major opportunity when they controlled the Presidency and both Houses of Congress.  The Republican Party lost its soul, and it is still paying the price for its irresponsibility. 

In summary, it is possible that McCain never had a chance because of the country’s hunger for change and because he represented the Republican Party.   But McCain’s chances were further diminished by bad luck and an ineffective campaign. 

Why Obama Won

How did Barak Obama win the election to become the next President of the United States?    On the surface, he faced insurmountable obstacles, but he still managed to overcome them and win the election.   His achievement is absolutely remarkable, and he deserves tremendous credit for it.  

Obama faced many major obstacles, any one of which could have killed his chances of becoming President.   He is just a few years removed from being a state senator in Illinois, and he had the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate in 2007.   He has virtually no experience in foreign affairs at a time when the country is engaged in two wars and faces numerous threats from terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda and from other countries, including Iraq, Russia, and Venezuela to name a few.   He was a black candidate for President in a country that has never elected a black as President.   He had a history of relationships with some fairly dubious characters, including William Ayers, Rashid Khalidi, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and Tony Rezko.    

How did Obama overcome these obstacles and win the election?   My observations are not unique, but here they are for whatever they are worth. 

(1)    Obama ran a nearly flawless campaign.    He ran to the left of Hilary Clinton when he was seeking the Democratic nomination, and he moved to the center after winning the nomination.    His campaign was well organized at the grass roots level.    He understood how to use the internet to raise money and attract supporters, especially young people.   He was extremely disciplined throughout the campaign.    He never allowed himself to be distracted, to lose control, or to make a major fatal mistake.  

(2)   Obama took perhaps his most important step toward winning the Presidency by breaking a promise.    He pledged to accept public financing if his opponent did.    His opponent, John McCain, agreed, and Obama then broke his promise.   The net effect was that Obama had a huge financial advantage over McCain, which enabled him both to fund his well-run organization and to buy considerably more media exposure than McCain.  The Democrats have been the chief proponents of taking money out of politics, but they excelled in doing just the opposite.   In a twist of irony, McCain also has worked hard to reduce the influence of money in politics, but he was defeated at least in part because his opponent had much more money to spend. 

(3)    The media fell in love with Obama, and their bias toward him was shameless.    I am going to deal with the subject of media bias in a subsequent post, but it is undeniable that the media virtually acted as an arm of the Obama campaign.   In recent days, some of the most liberal members of the media have acknowledged that the media coverage was strongly biased in Obama’s favor.    Now that the election is over, some members of the media are even beginning to show some remorse for their behavior. 

(4)    There is a certain amount of luck in everyone’s success.    Obama’s luck came when the economy went into the tank in September.   McCain was leading in the polls before the economic collapse, and he never recovered from it.   Obama’s message of “change” took on new meaning and importance when the economic crisis facing the country became the number one issue in the minds of voters.    The economic crisis shifted the attention of the voters from the dangers in the world to the economic insecurities that all of us are currently facing.   When luck comes your way, you have to be smart enough to know how to take advantage of it, and Obama was. 

(5)    Obama was successful in making the election a referendum on George Bush, who has been a very unpopular and ineffective President.   He repeatedly talked about the “failed” Bush policies of the last eight years.   He was able to tie McCain to Bush and, with the help of the media, to deflect attention from the role that policies supported by the Democrats played in causing the economic collapse. 

(6)    Obama has tremendous personal appeal.    He is young, charismatic, and articulate, and he has outstanding oratory skills.   His demeanor is comforting and reassuring.    Everything he says sounds good, even when there is little substance behind his comments.    To many voters, Obama’s style was more important than the substance of what he had to say.    Obama was able to attract and create excitement among many new young voters because of his style and personal appeal. 

 (7)    The country is extremely tired of the bitter partisanship that has poisoned the political discourse in this country.   Obama promised to end it and to unite the country.  He successfully convinced voters he would govern in a bipartisan manner.  

(8)    Obama was able to use his race as an advantage rather than a disadvantage.   He ran as a candidate for President who happened to be black rather than as a black candidate who was seeking redress for past grievances.    There is no comparison between Obama’s candidacy for President in 2008 and Jesse Jackson’s candidacy for President in 1984 and 1988.   Obama was able to use his race in a subtle but effective way.    Early in his candidacy, he warned that he would be attacked because of his race, and his surrogates were quick to cry racism when Obama’s opponents objected to some of his liberal policies.   There is no doubt that some people voted against Obama because of his race, but I think there were also many people who voted for him because of his race. 

(9)    Obama stole from the Republicans one of their strongest issues—tax cuts.  He promised that 95% of “working families” would get a tax cut under his tax plan.  His claim, of course, was highly misleading for the reasons previously discussed in this blog.   But it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that a politician will get a lot of votes if he can convince 95% of the voters that they will receive a tax cut or a government check if he is elected and that someone else will pay for it.  

(10)   Finally, Obama benefitted from a weak and ineffective Republican Party and a weak Republican opponent.   I will have more to say about McCain’s campaign in a few days.  

In conclusion, Obama ran a brilliant and virtually flawless campaign.   His two major campaign themes were “hope” and “change.”   Let’s hope he can run the country as well as he ran his campaign, and let’s hope any doesn’t change the things that have made this country great.  

Give Obama A Chance

To my disappointment—but not to my surprise—Barak Obama will be the next President of the United States.     Although I still have many of the same concerns about Obama that I have previously expressed on this blog, the election is over, and it’s time to turn the page and move on.    Like it or not, Obama is going to be the next President.    Let’s support him and give him a chance to be successful. 

I know and respect many people who supported Obama, including some close relatives.     They are intelligent people, and they—like I—want what is best for this country.    They obviously saw something in Obama and his policies that I did not see.   I hope and pray they were right and I was wrong.   It will not benefit my family or the country at large if subsequent events demonstrate that my concerns were justified.   I have no desire to be able to say, “I told you so.”   Instead, I hope and pray those who supported Obama will be able to say to me, “I told you so.”   At this point, there is nothing I would like better than to come to the conclusion that Obama was the right person at the right time to lead this country. 

I have been accused of being stupid and loony for my opposition to Obama.   Today, I hope I am stupid and loony.   I acknowledge I have been wrong before.   I have voted for victorious candidates who later disappointed me and failed to meet my expectations.   I have also voted against victorious candidates who turned out to be outstanding leaders.   Even though I did not support Obama, I am ready to give him a chance to prove I was wrong again, and I hope he does.   Unless history proves that my concerns about Obama were not justified, then our country will have taken a giant step toward socialism, and future generations will not have the same freedoms and opportunities that I have enjoyed.  

Politicians who are members of the minority party, or the party that does not control the White House, frequently seem to want bad things to happen to the country so they can blame the majority party, or the President, or both, as part of their strategy to regain power.   We have all observed politicians who seem to rejoice at bad news because it will help them politically.    Well, I am not a politician, and I will never hope for bad news.  I want only the best for the country.  

During the campaign, Obama pledged to change the environment in Washington, to end the bitter partisanship that has poisoned the political discourse in this country, and to unite the country.    Let’s give him a chance to do so.  The citizens of this country want and expect our elected officials to work together and to solve the problems facing the country in a bipartisan manner.   This can only happen if both sides are willing to meet each other half way.   This cannot happen if those who opposed Obama treat him with contempt, disrespect, and hatred.   In other words, this cannot happen if Republicans treat Obama the way Democrats have treated George Bush during the last eight years.   I hope the Republicans will not stoop to the same level and instead will make an effort to work with Obama rather than against him.    If Obama is unwilling to govern in a bipartisan manner as he pledged to do, let the blame rest on his shoulders.    Don’t give him the opportunity to say his opponents were unwilling to work with him.    

By expressing hope that conservatives will give Obama a chance and will attempt to work with him, I am not suggesting that they roll over and play dead and agree to whatever Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress want to do.   Debate and dissent are essential in a free country.    The debate and dissent, however, need to be respectful, and opposing positions need to be supported by facts and logic rather than by accusations and insults.   

When you don’t have any power, you have to get along with those who do have the power, you have to justify your positions through persuasive arguments, and you have to be willing to compromise.   It should be noted, however, that compromise is a two-way street.   You cannot compromise with someone who is not willing to compromise with you.   Let’s hope that Obama is willing to listen to thoughtful arguments and proposals from the minority party and to compromise with it, even though he may not need to do so as a result of the strong control the Democrats will have over both Houses of Congress.     

The campaign is over, but the hard work is just beginning.   The country faces serious problems that need to be addressed in a bipartisan manner and with all of our leaders working together to find the best solutions.   Today, I hope Obama is the right person to undertake this enormously difficult task.    We will get an early test of Obama’s commitment to bipartisanship and unity when he begins to name his Cabinet members and key advisers. 

In a way, I feel sorry for Obama.   He has been exalted to such a level that he will face unreasonable expectations from his own supporters.  Consider this question that NBC’s Matt Lauer asked to Obama on the Today show on October 20:   "People have called you 'The Savior,' 'The Messiah,' 'The Messenger of Change.'  ….  If you are … lucky enough to be elected the next President, are you going to have to consciously manage expectations during the first several months of your administration?"    The preface to the question, of course, was absurd, but it demonstrates the problem that Obama now faces because of how he was virtually worshipped by his some of his supporters and most of the news media.  

Obama will not be able to please everyone, even his own supporters.    If he tries, his Presidency will be a failure.    But I hope everyone, especially those who supported him, will lower their expectations and give him a chance to succeed. 

My Top Ten Concerns

The election is almost here, and I am ready for it to be over.   At the same time, I am frightened by the prospect, which appears highly likely, that Barak Obama will be the next President of the United States. 

If you have been reading this blog, you know that I strongly disagree with Obama’s political philosophies and with many of the policies that he is proposing.  Obama has based his campaign on the promise of “hope” and “change”.   If Obama wins the election, you can be assured that he will fulfill his promise of change.   The question is what type of change do you want.   Do you think the changes that Obama is promising will be positive or negative for the future of the country?     

I am listing below the top ten things that concern and even frighten me about the prospect of an Obama presidency. 

(1)    After a long campaign, the real Barak Obama is still a mystery to me.    Is he a far left-wing ideologist who thinks like some of his “friends in the neighborhood,” such as   William Ayers and Rashid Khalidi, who shares the hate-America and racist views of his former pastor and spiritual advisor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and who initially refused to wear an American flag label pen or to hold his hand over his heart during the playing of the National Anthem?    Or is he the calm, deliberate, and reasonable centrist who is presenting himself to the voters as someone who shares traditional American values, who now holds rallies and tapes campaign commercials with an American flag in the background, and who promises to work across party lines in a bipartisan fashion to bring the country together?    Has Obama outgrown the fascination with Marxism that he demonstrated during his childhood and early adult life, or has he simply created a new and false image of himself in order to enable him to attract votes and get elected?   Obama has run a brilliant and carefully scripted campaign.   His oratory skills, demeanor, and personal appeal are so reassuring that it is easy to forget about his background and voting record and to ignore his political philosophies.   Who is the real Barak Obama? 

(2)    The country’s previous experiences with “one-party rule” have not been good.   When the Republicans controlled the Presidency and both Houses of Congress during the early part of this decade, they lost their way and disappointed even their most ardent supporters.    If Obama wins the White House, and if the Democrats gain even more control over Congress, which is predicted, we will have no checks and balances on the power of the Democratic Party.     There are predictions that the Democrats could even gain enough seats in the U.S. Senate to have a filibuster-proof majority, which means they could pass anything they wanted with little opposition or debate.   The Democratic Party has moved sharply to the left and is controlled by liberals.    If you want to change America, you will definitely get what you want when you have Barak Obama as President, Harry Reid as the Senate Majority Leader presiding over an even larger Democratic majority in the Senate, and Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House of Representatives with an even larger Democratic majority in the House than she currently enjoys.   How often do you think Obama will take out his veto pen under these circumstances?   The answer is never.    Who will be there to apply the brakes as the country continues its slide toward socialism?     The answer is no one.     

(3)    I believe Obama’s tax and economic policies, if implemented, will be severely detrimental to the country.   The result will be lower growth, fewer jobs, and less incentive for investors.     Daniel Henninger, a columnist for The Wall Street Journal wrote on October 30, 2008 as follows:   “The real ‘change’ being put to a vote for the American people in 2008 is not simply a break from the economic policies of ‘the past eight years’ but with the American economic philosophy of the past 200 years.  This election is about a long-term change in America’s idea of itself.”   Henninger says the country “is at a philosophical tipping point.”    In his opinion, which I share, the goal of Obama and the Democratic Party “is to move the U.S. in the direction of Western Europe, the so-called German model and its ‘social market economy.’   Under this notion, …… business is allowed to create ‘wealth’ so long as its utility is not primarily to create new jobs or economic growth but to support a deep welfare system.”     

(4)    The next President of the United States, in all likelihood, will have the opportunity to appoint at least two and perhaps more Justices to the U.S. Supreme Court.   The next President will also have the opportunity to fill numerous vacancies—probably 200 or more—in the various federal courts below the Supreme Court.   All of these appointments are for life, which means the next President will be able to influence the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts for decades to come.   Obama has made it clear that he does not believe judges should be restricted in their rulings by the language of the Constitution.    He also has pledged to appoint judges who will be sympathetic rather than objective and unbiased.    I believe Obama’s judicial appointments would result in a large number of new federal judges who would feel free to make the law rather than interpret it.   This would do great harm to our country and to our respect for the rule of law. 

(5)    If Obama becomes the next President, I am deeply concerned that the prediction made by Joe Biden, his running mate, will come true.   Remember it was Biden who said: 

"Mark my words.  It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy.  The world is looking.  We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator President of the United States of America.   Remember I said it standing here, if you don't remember anything else I said.  Watch, we're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.   I promise you it will occur.  As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it's going happen.   I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate."

(6)    During the early stages of the current Presidential campaign, the discussion was dominated by the war in Iraq.    Obama initially attracted widespread attention and support because of his opposition to the war and his pledge to end the war.   He opposed the troop surge, which has clearly been successful and has paved the way for a victory in Iraq.   At this point, it is irrelevant to debate whether the war in Iraq was a major mistake, as many claim.   The question now is whether we want to win the war or to lose it.   The recent success in Iraq has not changed Obama’s determination to withdraw our troops in accordance with an artificial time schedule.   I am concerned that Obama, if elected President, will turn a possible victory in Iraq into a defeat, with catastrophic results for the Middle East and the entire world, and with the result that all of the lives lost and dollars spent will have been in vain. 

(7)    Despite our many problems, I believe the United States of America is still the greatest force for good in the world.   I also believe we have many enemies who want to destroy our way of life and take away our freedom.    We all want to avoid war and to live in peace.   In my opinion, the best way to ensure that we will live in peace is for our country to maintain a strong military and a strong commitment to our national defense.   Weakness in these areas would be an invitation for our enemies to attack us.   It is not clear to me that Obama shares this philosophy.  Moreover, I do not believe Obama has the knowledge, experience or judgment that we need in a Commander-in-Chief.   I believe the country will be at greater risk of harm if Obama becomes President because our enemies will view him as a leader who is weak on national defense and who would not have the resolve to defend the country. 

(8)     We are rapidly approaching the point where the majority of the voters in this country will not pay income taxes.   Under Obama’s tax plans, many of these voters will actually receive a check from the government instead of sending a check to the government.   As George Bernard Shaw once said, “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”   We will soon have more “Pauls” than “Peters.”    I do not think our country and our system of government can survive in an environment where the majority of voters can elect government officials on the basis of their pledge to take money away from the minority and redistribute it to the majority.   This is a dangerous path, but it is the path that Obama wants to follow.   You cannot make poor people rich by making rich people poor. 

(9)     Many Democrats have been promoting a nationalized health care system for years.   In my opinion, a nationalized health care system would be a disaster.    Obama’s health care proposals would be a major step in the direction of a nationalized system.   Obama’s proposals rely heavily on more government mandates, regulations, and subsidies and would have the effect of greatly expanding the government’s control over health care.   His proposals also would maintain the inequities in the current federal tax code under which some citizens receive subsidized health insurance coverage and others do not.   If you are willing to turn more responsibility for your health care over to the government, you will like Obama’s health care proposals.   For me, I prefer McCain’s health care plan because I want to retain maximum personal responsibility for my own health care and for my own health insurance coverage.   

 (10)    Many liberals, especially those on the far left, have a tendency to want to silence those who disagree with them and even target them for retribution.   Some far left radicals even view people like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez as heroes for their ability to suppress dissent.   I don’t know how Obama will treat his political opponents, but there are a few early warning signs that cause me concern.   For example, Obama supports the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which is designed to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition.   Note that he does not want to interfere with those elements of the media that support him and share his political views.  A few days ago, Obama kicked off his campaign plane three reporters that worked for newspapers that had endorsed McCain.    Although some defend Obama by saying McCain did the same thing, those who were dismissed by McCain were commentators—not reporters.   There is a big difference, although many of today’s reporters don’t seem to understand the difference.  A week or so ago, a television reporter in Florida asked Joe Biden, Obama’s running mate, some tough questions, which was rare but is what reporters are supposed to do.   The Obama campaign took great offense and blackballed the reporter and her television station from further interviews.   Some Obama supporters even started investigating the reporter and her husband.    Finally, take a look at Joe the Plumber.    Joe the Plumber asked Obama a simple question about his tax policies, and Obama responded that he wanted to “spread the wealth around.”    Democratic officials in Ohio immediately began to investigate Joe the Plumber in an effort to smear his name and reputation.  Obama did nothing to defend Joe the Plumber’s right to ask a question or to stop the smear tactics being used against him.  How does Obama feel about political dissent and how will he treat his political opponents?   I don’t know, but the early warning signs should concern all of us.  

This will be my last post before the election.  In closing, I would like to quote Ron Hart, one of my favorite columnists, who wrote, “My fear is that, if elected, McCain would not make good on his promises or that, if he wins, Barack Obama will.”