Bill Buckley, A Lonely Nation Turns It's Eyes to You

Where have you gone, Bill Buckley? A day after the death of the man who made it possible to use the words “conservative” and “intellectual” in the same sentence without provoking howls of laughter, we find local Cincinnati talk show host Bill Cunningham feigning shock at reaction to his use of Barack Obama’s middle name, Hussein, at a John McCain rally. I can imagine Buckley uttering one of his many memorable quotes.

“I would like to take you seriously, but to do so would affront your intelligence.”

Cunningham is disingenuous when he says he doesn’t understand the uproar over his remarks. To believe him – to take him seriously – one must accept him as rather dim. To assume he knows better is to expose him for what he really is – a self-promoting huckster more concerned about publicity than principle, conservative or otherwise.

Before Bill Buckley came along, few questioned essayist Lionel Trilling’s 1949 assertion that conservatives do not express ideas so much as they share “irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas.” Nearly sixty years later, Bill Cunningham has returned conservatism to the realm of those irritable mental gestures.

Which is a shame, because it means Bill Buckley’s legacy – transforming conservatism, and in turn the Republican party, from a reactionary backwater into a movement of ideas and intellectual rigor – outlived him by less than twenty-four hours. Whereas conservatism was once powered by concepts of limited government and self-reliance, thanks to talk radio it now risks becoming the domain of limited thought and self-aggrandizing.

Meanwhile, it’s Barack Obama, the man in Cunningham’s crosshairs, who has noted the power of ideas inherent in Ronald Reagan’s ascendancy. For Bill Buckley, a man with a keen sense of irony, such a turnabout would have been rich fodder for his acerbic wit.

Too bad the wits are getting dim.

My Son the Gun

Time out for a little fun. I coach a 3rd grade youth basketball team and this past Saturday my son provided the highlight of the week.

Why the War Over "The War"?

Fifteen hours of Ken Burns’ WWII documentary on PBS, yet not a single mention of the contributions my ancestors made to the war effort. You can’t tell me that Poles made no contribution. In my family alone, I had uncles serving in the Army, Navy and Marines, a grandmother who helped build military vehicles and a great-uncle who assembled tanks.

That from just one of hundreds of thousands of Polish families who called America home during the war. Still, not a single specific mention of Polish-Americans. Nor was there much mention, come to think of it, of Irish-Americans, Chinese-Americans, German-Americans, Slavs, or any other ethnic group, save for those of Jewish, Japanese or African descent who suffered distinct injustices during the war.

Why no outcry from these groups like we’ve heard from the Hispanic community, who argue they’ve been slighted by Ken Burns? Could it be that Poles served and fought and died like all other ethnic groups in America at the time? In other words, is it possible that Ken Burns saw no real distinction between immigrants called to fight?

Perhaps a better question is why an outcry from Latinos and Hispanics at all? Is it due to some special circumstance they experienced during the war, or is it due to some special circumstance that exists today? Could it be that the sheer number of current Hispanic immigrants has instilled a sort of group-think that has long since faded for most of the other immigrant groups that served at home and abroad during WWII?

No, Ken Burns didn’t slight Hispanics. He honored them by treating them for what they were – Americans. Just like every other American who came from somewhere else and willingly sacrificed to defend the one ideal that should unite, not divide us - liberty

Our Proud Flag Needs No Protection

It’s been seventeen years since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that flag burning is protected speech under the First Amendment and the push to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing flag desecration began.  And yet, despite our inability to enact such an amendment, I have not personally witnessed a single flag-burning in that entire seventeen year period.  That’s probably true of most of us.

That alone should be enough to convince us that we need no such amendment.  In fact, that our flag can fly safely without the need of legal protection speaks volumes about our respect for the flag, and more tellingly, of our love and respect for the values and system that flag represents.

But the push to amend our Constitution – and in the process desecrate the very values that make the flag worthy of such respect – is underway once again.  It is an understandable emotional response, but sadly misguided.  For if there is any right that empowers us as private citizens in shaping our federal government, it is our right to speak our minds freely in criticizing that government, should it go too far.

Some argue that flag desecration is not speech, and in a strict, literal sense they are correct.  But we have to ask why someone would deliberately burn a flag if not to make a political statement?  And is it not protecting political speech, however distasteful it may be, that is whole point of our First Amendment guarantee?  If we are to be the democratic role model for the entire world, when such questions of rights arise we should always err on the side of liberty.

To be sure, many veterans are adamant about the need to protect our flag.  For those who have fought on foreign battlefields our flag represents everything they fought for.  It can be difficult to separate the symbol from the substance, but separate it we must.  For if we are willing to sacrifice the rights and freedoms that have made the flag such a powerful symbol, those who have fought and died will have died in vain.  I can think of no greater insult to those who have given their lives for freedom.  Conversely, there is no greater statement we can make to those who would desecrate the flag than to ignore them and allow the American flag to fly defiantly in all its unprotected glory.

Worst President Since Hoover?

Might the man from Texas be the worst president our nation has seen since Herbert Hoover?

To be fair, he came into office with the odds stacked against him. His predecessor was a youthful, charismatic leader whose following seemed more like that of a rock star than a politician. And the nation was coming off years of peace and prosperity. In many respects, he had nowhere to go but down. Nonetheless, consider the following:

He took office under circumstances that some consider suspicious, even treacherous.

Many argue that he cynically used goodwill the nation bestowed upon him in the wake of national tragedy to lead us into an unpopular and unwinnable war.

He expanded the scope of the federal government in ways no one could have foreseen, adding new roles for everything from education to Medicare, even as the cost of the war spiraled out of control. Many feel his final legacy will be one of bloated government and fiscal bankruptcy.

Furthermore, his determination to do things his way, combined with disdain for detractors, has earned him a reputation for being petulant and insular. Not exactly traits we might hope for in a president.

So how does all this make you feel? Some are probably outraged, while others are shouting a big, old, “Amen, brother.” But what if I said that I’m talking about Lyndon Johnson, not George W. Bush?

Interesting, huh? Many of the things people despise about George Bush are the same things many didn’t like about LBJ. Yet, I’d be willing to make a sizable wager that there is very little overlap among the two groups of detractors. Why is that? Is it because we agree more with one man’s policies than the other’s? Or is it because we identify more with one man’s party?

To be sure, plenty of liberals turned against LBJ as his term wore on, just as many conservatives have come to question George W. Bush. Still, the sad truth is that too many people fall in line behind one politician or another for no reason other than he or she is a Democrat or a Republican. But we do ourselves a disservice when we ascribe more importance to party than to policy, because we ignore what works and what doesn’t.

For example, many believe the U.S. prospered under Bill Clinton because he raised taxes, a liberal approach. Yet he also signed off on free trade, welfare reform and cuts in capital gains taxes, all considered conservative ideas. So was it liberal or conservative policies that spurred the economy and eliminated deficits? To too many Americans, it doesn’t matter. But it should, because it’s policy, not party that counts.

We all – left and right (myself included) – should spend a bit more time critiquing our own beliefs and biases and less time blindly defending them. Conversely, we should consider the merits of opposing viewpoints rather than dismissing them out-of-hand. Such critical thinking is necessary if we hope to meet the challenges we face in the years ahead. But we won’t be able to do that until we put less emphasis on Right and Left and more on right and wrong.

Beware Easy Healthcare Fixes

It is generally accepted that we have a problem with healthcare in this country, but we had better make sure we fully understand the nature of that problem before we start enacting solutions that may exacerbate it. Otherwise we could find ourselves with a patchwork of well-meaning but ill-conceived legislation similar to the so-called Walmart healthcare bill enacted in Maryland last week. For those unfamiliar with the new law, Maryland now requires any employer with more than 10,000 employees within the state to contribute at least eight percent of its payroll cost to health benefits. If they do not, the difference between what they pay and the eight percent cutoff must be paid into a state fund. Not coincidentally, Walmart is the only company affected by this legislation. This legislation is dangerous on several levels. For one, though only Walmart is currently affected, it opens the door for expansion of the concept to include smaller employers and encourages similar measures in other states. While that may sound good to some, we must keep in mind that this unfunded mandate is essentially a tax on payroll. And one thing we know to be true is that we get less of what we tax. Thus, we’ll get less payroll – either through lower wages or fewer jobs. (If you disagree, consider that the arguments for higher cigarette or gasoline taxes include discouraging their consumption). The irony is that we could actually end up with more unemployed people who have no insurance and wind up on state Medicaid rolls – precisely the opposite of what the legislation is designed to do. But another flaw in the legislation is that it treats all large employers as identical. But that is not true. For example, Walmart and Microsoft are both big companies. But whereas Microsoft earns a profit of approximately $210,000 per employee, Walmart earns only $8,300. Even fellow discount retailer Costco earns more than twice as much per employee as Walmart. Why does this matter? Because it means that not all employers are equally capable of paying for increased benefits. We look at Walmart’s size and assume it has bottomless pockets, but their profit per employee leaves relatively little margin for additional expenses per employee. Legislation like that passed by Maryland further reduces that margin, making Walmart less competitive in the marketplace vis-a-vis competitors with greater margins. But Walmart is not the only company with thin profits per employee. It is also true of far smaller companies, which brings us back to the concern that this may be just the opening salvo in the attempt to get employers to shoulder more of the healthcare burden. This legislation passed largely because only one employer was affected. That limited the lobbying effort against it. Next time, the state can go for a lower employee threshold without worrying that Walmart will oppose it since they would now benefit from having their competitors face the same requirements. It’s a divide-and-conquer approach that could be devastating for businesses on less sound financial footings. Ironically, it could be the Walmarts of the world who end up the real winners, as small businesses struggle under the burden of increased state spending mandates. Healthcare is among the greatest challenges we face in the years ahead, but that challenge is not faced solely by the uninsured among us. Our employers also face a crisis in paying for the insurance they already provide. Legislating coverage is not a solution, but a mere band-aid that could do more harm than good. We need a serious discussion about costs, technology, insurance and expectations if we hope to avoid a real crisis. It’s a discussion I plan to pursue in the weeks ahead, but I fear there are no easy answers. Legislation like that passed in Maryland mistakenly leads us to believe there are.

The Holiday Greetings Battle

It’s the holiday season. Time for traditions of tacky decorations, crowded stores and arguing over the proper way to greet each other during this time of goodwill. We are told we must be sensitive to others who may not share our customs or culture, and so, should rely upon generic terms like “Happy Holidays” or “Seasons Greeting.”

But now it’s going a step further. The chorus is growing louder, as evidenced by an editorial in the Cincinnati Enquirer, that we end the holiday greetings war by taking the time to inquire about the cultural preferences of those to whom we plan to offer seasonal wishes. Impracticality aside - do we really want every convenience store clerk, postal worker and passerby to ask about our cultural background before offering a greeting? - don’t such suggestions made in the name of tolerance actually pander to perhaps the most harmful form of verbal intolerance?

For isn’t it intolerant to refuse the good wishes of others simply because they weren’t worded precisely the way we would have preferred? And doesn’t that lead us all down a path where we parse our words so carefully for fear of offending that we no longer say what we really mean? And once our words no longer match our thoughts, how can there be any trust?

This issue goes far beyond how we greet each other between Thanksgiving and December 25th. We need candor and honesty if we hope to address the real and perceived issues that exist among the different segments of our society. If we enter that dialogue with our tongues tied, we’ll succeed in nothing but sweeping those differences under the rug, where they’ll remain to bite us another day.

The old adage about sticks and stones was predicated upon the belief that words meant to harm could really do no damage. Today, even words meant with the best of intentions are seen as offensive and harmful. It’s time that we return to that childhood lesson and realize that words can only hurt us if we let them.

So let us simply accept a "Merry Christmas", "Happy Hanukkah" or "Happy Kwanzaa" as the kind blessing of another, whether we celebrate that holiday or not. And perhaps, if we can stop taking offense when someone harmlessly says the wrong thing, we can start to discuss the real issues that separate us. In the end, that seems to be the real path to tolerance, and ultimately, peace on earth, goodwill toward men.

Tookie Wilson Should Live

Tookie Wilson should live. Not because he’s a “good person.” Not because he's written children's books. Not because he might be innocent (there's no evidence to support that claim, whatsoever). And certainly not because Snoop Dog or Ed Asner say he should.

In fact, all the effort to make him seem like a good person, or somehow more deserving of commutation than other death row inmates, is counterproductive as far as I'm concerned because it detracts from the real reason he and all his death row comrades should be allowed to live. Namely, that the death penalty confers far too much power to the state. Once that power is conferred, then the justification is simply a matter of degree (one prosecutor tried to get the death penalty for a DUI conviction a few years ago).

As a limited-government advocate, I do not believe anyone, especially an entity as unaccountable as the "state", should have the power to determine who lives and who dies. That decision should be God’s and God’s alone.

Homeowner Associations Make for Bad Neighbors

Whoever said it was a free country?

A multi-cultural nativity scene is under attack in one Novi, Michigan subdivision, but the owner said she isn't removing the display from her front yard. The nativity sits among other statuettes like Minnie Mouse and Santa Claus, but the fuss is over the nativity scene and one family's personal tradition is turning into a public debate. Nativity Scene Causes Stir In Novi Neighborhood

At first glance this appears to be just another example of what's quickly becoming a holiday tradition - the fight to keep church and state separate by prohibiting religious holiday displays. But it's not.

That's because this isn't about a public display, but a private one. And because it's not the city or county enforcing the rule. Instead this order came from the local homeowners association.

This is just one more example of homeowners associations (HOA) gone bad. These quasi-governmental groups are becoming the neo-fascists of suburbia. And it's gone way beyond telling us the colors we can paint our house. For example:

- An Ocala, Florida HOA warned residents that taking in families displaced by hurricanes would violate association rules.

- A Congers, NY condo association is fighting to restrict a blind woman and her seeing eye dog to her apartment and a single parking space (apparently the right to a doggie-do free complex supercedes the right of a disabled person to move about freely).

- A Naples, FL condo association fought to preserve rules that limited grandchildren visits.

These are the work of control freaks. Which should come as no surprise - homeowner associations are magnets for nitpickers, busybodies and do-gooders. Those of us with real things to do have neither the time nor inclination to get involved in telling our neighbors how to live. So HOA's too often end up dominated by people whose mission in life appears to be trying to get others to live as they see fit.

These boards are worse than local government because they are largely unbound by minor inconveniences such as our constitutionally guaranteed rights. We agree to their rules when we buy our homes, so if they want to limit free speech or religious expression, they are largely free to do so.

Then why are they so popular? Well, we believe they are protectors of our personal sensibilities and, by proxy, our property values. They give us a way of complaining about our neighbor without having to complain to our neighbor. They create a buffer between ourselves and the targets of our pet peeves. It's an extension of our contentious and litigious society that seeks formal validation and enforcement of our every whim.

It wasn't always like this. There was a time when disputes were worked out one-to-one. And if you didn't like what your neighbor was doing, a few well-placed trees and shrubs could provide all the buffer necessary. But not anymore. In fact, you probably can't plant those trees without prior HOA approval.

We've come a long way since Patrick Henry said give me liberty or give me death. Today it's give me liberty unless it hurts my property value. It seems we may have come a bit too far.

Gender Inequities in Education

For thirty-three years - since the adoption of Title IX - we have tried to eliminate alleged gender inequities in education. By now it should be apparent that we've not just closed the gap, but reversed it. The Washington Post just ran a report on the disappearance of men from college campuses. No, it's not about some gender-reverse Ted Bundy-type serial abductor, but the worrisome decline in male college enrollment compared to women, with men making up only 43% of the student population on U.S. college campuses. That continues a trend that began in the late 70's when women first passed men in college enrollment. Washington Post story

First, let's clarify that though the writer implies that fewer men are now attending college, that’s not the case. In reality, the number of men attending college has increased since 1990, both in raw numbers and as a percentage of high school graduates. A 2003 study by Andrew Summ, Neeta Fogg, et al. shows that the percentage of male high school graduates going on to college rose by two percentage points from 1990 to 2001. (Study link)

Still, a woman is far more likely to go on to college than is a man. Not only that, she's also more likely to finish high school since males are more likely to drop out before graduating. (Chart) So, why in this era when knowledge is king, are there such gender discrepancies in both college enrollments and high school dropout rates? I believe there are three basic explanations.

The first is differing perspectives of career prospects among men and women. While more women have come to see a college education as their best hope for a good job, many men still cling to the notion that they'll be able to get high-paying, low-skill jobs in manufacturing and elsewhere.

A second, more insidious reason, is the changing educational approach in our primary and secondary schools arising from attempts to satisfy the requirements of Title IX. When first enacted, women were more likely than men to drop out of high school and less likely to attend college. Four years later, men were dropping out of school at higher rates than women. Just two years after that, men became the minority on college campuses. Despite this reality, nearly all the focus on gender inequities in education remained skewed toward alleged hardships faced by girls. Complaints that our schools favored boys with regard to teacher attention, science, math and computer instruction, athletics and more still drove much of the debate in academic circles.

Yet it was the boys who were dropping out and not going on to college. Gender activists claiming to seek gender equity, instead enforced a new gender inequity. We ignored our struggling boys, while continuing reforms that favored girls. Verbal skills were emphasized, while instruction in areas where boys performed well like math and science, was made more girl friendly. Couple this with misguided attempts to improve students' so-called self-esteem, and it's no wonder our boys feel lost. Boys tend to feel good about themselves through restless, competitive, hands-on achievement. But in our efforts to make sure little Johnny's (or Janey's) feelings weren't hurt, we removed opportunities for competitive comparisons. Schools have eliminated everything from letter grades to dodgeball. Lo and behold, we find that boys don't feel at home in school.

This demographic shift in higher education is a harbinger of bad tidings. Lesser education means lesser career prospects. Mismatched academic achievement means mismatched relationships. Underemployed at work and overmatched at home, too many men risk becoming marginalized members of society. The self-esteem we've worked so hard to instill in girls has been at the expense of the self-esteem of our boys - boys who tend more toward crime, violence, substance abuse and unemployment than do women. Directionless men seeking purpose too easily and too often find it in less than ideal groups, as can be seen from the gangs in our inner cities to the terrorist groups of the Middle East. The risk will only worsen as fewer boys grow up with worthy role models.

And therein lies the third reason for college enrollment gender inequities: we’re now into the second and third generation of poorly educated men. While previous generations may have grown up in homes headed by fathers without degrees or diplomas, it was not because the father failed to value education. Today, it is – if there is a father at all.

Yes, gender inequities remain. But now it's our boys’ turn to suffer. If we do not address the issue quickly and effectively, they won’t suffer alone.

[Footnotes: The NY Times ran this David Brooks column in 2022 that amplifies the issues in this piece. 

The intro to Ezra Klein's March 10, 2023 podcast began with a line quite similar to the opener of this 2005 piece: "In 1972, when Congress passed Title IX to tackle gender equity in education, men were 13 percentage points more likely to hold bachelor’s degrees than women; today women are 15 points more likely to do so than men."

Another story on struggling boys and education (kindergarten) 6/24/24 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/23/upshot/male-kindergarten-teachers.html