It is my belief that, at this time, John McCain is the single, most suitable candidate for the executive office of the federal government. Simply put, either Democratic candidate will undoubtedly strain our sovereignty and poison our economy. Now is not the time to attempt to balance a federal budget by punishing the purveyors of prosperity, as Democratic philosophies on taxation certainly will (remember the Revenue Act of 1932? Hoover tried this with miserable results). So, to celebrate my endorsement of Senator McCain, I have composed a short bit of prose...
Mc is for My Candidate, even though you may not have been my first choice and it is very likely that nobody actually thought you'd make it this far. But the times are desperate, indeed, and the stakes are too high to cross over the aisle at this juncture.
C (the other "C") is for that Can Do belief which has kept you going. Being repeatedly cast aside by the Republican base has not deterred you; you have bounced back and tried, again and again, to attain the party's nomination. At last you succeeded, and I trust that you will bring that philosophy to the executive office.
A is for attitude. Well, frankly, I think the "C" pretty much has this covered, and I trust, again, that your attitude toward your mission will keep the nation moving forward in all its endeavors.
I is for the initiative that the Republican party must take in order to ensure you your destiny. Some may have considered you as riding the black horse, but make no mistake: either of the "others" are riding the pale donkey...and hell follows with them.
N is for Now or Never. This is a critical time for the Republicans, and, with good guidance and sound leadership, we must make the word REPUBLICAN a proud word once again. Okay, I kinda borrowed part of that from Ronald Reagan, but...I really miss Reagan.
Perhaps not my most laudable effort, but a gift nonetheless.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
RG-J Reader Opinion, 03/26/2008
The title: Don't Need Another Bush in White House
The alarms sound, but we continue.
A little food for thought before you go to the polls:
Is it easier today buying daily necessities: food, gas, medications?
Is America respected more throughout the world today?
Is our security as safe?
Do we want continued war or peace?
Do we want to pursue the same path?
The government isn't the solution to our problems, the government is our problem.
Putting everything into perspective, it appears to me our present administration has failed miserably.
Think before you choose to elect another Bush in office.
Well, the author got one thing right, that government is the problem, not the solution. In my opinion this is a sentiment not reserved exclusively for 2001 to present, but a general truth.
Yet there is one crucial sentiment that this letter expresses: people really have no idea what is going on out there.
George W. Bush is done; his eight years have expired and by this time next year he will be retired. He is not running again; Jeb is not running; Jenna is not running. In short, there is NO Bush running for federal office; we are, repeat after me, NOT GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER BUSH IN THE WHITE HOUSE.
Or did the author mean this as a metaphor? If this is so, then even a sidelong glance at the three, major-party candidates will show that none of them is particularly eager to continue along this current avenue, at least not in the same buggy.
Again, we are, repeat after me, NOT GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER BUSH IN THE WHITE HOUSE!
Whew.
This is a major problem with many on the left at this point in time; they focus their hatred of G. W. Bush into a what they hope will become a lethal laser beam when, in fact, the argument is almost moot. The times are changing, for better or for worse, and people who push sentiments such as these are obviously not putting forth the best parts of their efforts on real, tangible issues, only their own self-contained hatred and obvious ignorance. In my estimation this not only a dangerous process but is even worse than apathy as the only thing it accomplishes is focusing on the worst aspects of our society rather than actually attempting to fix those difficulties or, at least, doing a modicum of research in order to vote for someone who best represents your philosophies of change or status quo.
Perhaps they can't deal with someone new coming along upon whom to focus their hate when Bush is such an easy target. Face it, he's gone, and there's nothing you can do to bring him back.
Right now the best we can do is let these little toddlers have their little tantrums and do our best to ignore their outbursts. By next January they will be forced to exercise their hatred elsewhere.
The alarms sound, but we continue.
A little food for thought before you go to the polls:
Is it easier today buying daily necessities: food, gas, medications?
Is America respected more throughout the world today?
Is our security as safe?
Do we want continued war or peace?
Do we want to pursue the same path?
The government isn't the solution to our problems, the government is our problem.
Putting everything into perspective, it appears to me our present administration has failed miserably.
Think before you choose to elect another Bush in office.
Well, the author got one thing right, that government is the problem, not the solution. In my opinion this is a sentiment not reserved exclusively for 2001 to present, but a general truth.
Yet there is one crucial sentiment that this letter expresses: people really have no idea what is going on out there.
George W. Bush is done; his eight years have expired and by this time next year he will be retired. He is not running again; Jeb is not running; Jenna is not running. In short, there is NO Bush running for federal office; we are, repeat after me, NOT GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER BUSH IN THE WHITE HOUSE.
Or did the author mean this as a metaphor? If this is so, then even a sidelong glance at the three, major-party candidates will show that none of them is particularly eager to continue along this current avenue, at least not in the same buggy.
Again, we are, repeat after me, NOT GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER BUSH IN THE WHITE HOUSE!
Whew.
This is a major problem with many on the left at this point in time; they focus their hatred of G. W. Bush into a what they hope will become a lethal laser beam when, in fact, the argument is almost moot. The times are changing, for better or for worse, and people who push sentiments such as these are obviously not putting forth the best parts of their efforts on real, tangible issues, only their own self-contained hatred and obvious ignorance. In my estimation this not only a dangerous process but is even worse than apathy as the only thing it accomplishes is focusing on the worst aspects of our society rather than actually attempting to fix those difficulties or, at least, doing a modicum of research in order to vote for someone who best represents your philosophies of change or status quo.
Perhaps they can't deal with someone new coming along upon whom to focus their hate when Bush is such an easy target. Face it, he's gone, and there's nothing you can do to bring him back.
Right now the best we can do is let these little toddlers have their little tantrums and do our best to ignore their outbursts. By next January they will be forced to exercise their hatred elsewhere.
Is the Snow Off of Peavine Yet?
Ah, there is nothing quite like listening to Shostakovitch to bring out my inner proletarian. For me, this means gardening.
The old Renoite adage is to never plant a garden until the snows have melted off of Peavine Mountain. Generally this is a fair guideline, but there are the odd years. Well, who am I kidding, they're all odd years. Last year there wasn't enough snow, and it had cleared off the mountain quite early leaving me sunk when a late frost came 'round in May. In heavy years such as this it may linger well past the greater planting good.
As it stands now my kitchen counter is cluttered with little seedlings just itching to be put in the ground, and, frankly, I'm tired of having them in the house.
Springtime is always a crazy critter 'round hereabouts.
So now I have a post to offset my rants about nearly obscure historical references.
Next Up: Cardozaisms Related to a Letter to the RG-J Opinion Editor for March 26, 2008.
On Deck: Gimme a Mc C*A*I*N
The old Renoite adage is to never plant a garden until the snows have melted off of Peavine Mountain. Generally this is a fair guideline, but there are the odd years. Well, who am I kidding, they're all odd years. Last year there wasn't enough snow, and it had cleared off the mountain quite early leaving me sunk when a late frost came 'round in May. In heavy years such as this it may linger well past the greater planting good.
As it stands now my kitchen counter is cluttered with little seedlings just itching to be put in the ground, and, frankly, I'm tired of having them in the house.
Springtime is always a crazy critter 'round hereabouts.
So now I have a post to offset my rants about nearly obscure historical references.
Next Up: Cardozaisms Related to a Letter to the RG-J Opinion Editor for March 26, 2008.
On Deck: Gimme a Mc C*A*I*N
Historical Musing #2 (in "D" Minor)
With the 2008 Democratic primaries in a state of chaotic flux, I introduce another note from the past.
After the election of 1908, the majority of the nation showed that it desired to continue in the ways of Theodore Roosevelt, and with Roosevelt himself persuading the Republican Party to nominate William Howard Taft, now President Taft was elected 1,269,411 popular votes (but 321 to 162 Electoral) versus perennial challenger William Jennings Bryan. By 1912 the sentiment had changed somewhat, as Roosevelt had become greatly displeased at Taft's handling of the office, in particular the downfall of so many programs over which Roosevelt himself had labored so diligently. Wilson managed 41.8% of the popular vote, but with the opposition split between 27.4% for the Roosevelt Progressives and 23.2% for Taft and the Republicans. In the Electoral College the victory for Wilson was much more sweeping, as he had taken 435 of the necessary 531 to win. Taft was left with eight total electoral votes, winning only Vermont and Utah. With that reference in mind, let us move on to our blog.
There has been a change of government. It began two years ago, when the House of Representatives became Democratic by a decisive majority. It has now been completed. The Senate, about to assemble will also be Democratic. The offices of President and Vice-President have been put into the hands of Democrats. What dies the change mean? That is the question that is uppermost in our minds to-day. That is the question I am going to try to answer, in order, if I may, to interpret the occasion.
It means much more than the mere success of a party. The success of a party means little except when the Nation is using that party for a large and definite purpose. No one can mistake the purpose for which the Nation now seeks to use the Democratic Party. it seeks to use it to interpret a change in its own plans and point of view. Some old things with which we had grown familiar, and which had begun to creep into the very habit of our thought and of our lives, have altered their aspect as we have latterly looked critically upon them, with fresh, awakened eyes; have dropped their disguises and shown themselves alien and sinister. Some new things, as we look frankly upon them, willing to comprehend their real character, have come to assume the aspect of things long believed in and familiar, stuff of our own convictions. We have been refreshed by a new insight into our own life.
This sentiment is all the more true today than it was when it was spoken in March of 1913. The Republicans have had the ball for some time now, but for the past five to six years have fumbled their way around the field. It is now the Democrat's game to lose.
Yet as they stand poised to make a titanic comeback, can they "punch it in" for the final score, the Presidency? They are on the verge, but with two stars remaining on their team, fighting amongst themselves for the individual glory, they have turned even their fans back upon themselves, and with a cheering section such as that behind you the outcome becomes much more foggy.
The longer they can maintain the charade the greater the possibility that the rift they are creating between the continents of the two candidates will become irreconcilable.
There is a catch, however. This bickering and prolonging and dividing within the Democratic Party provides a constant torrent of free publicity, inescapable to nearly all Americans. This can work one of two ways:
After the election of 1908, the majority of the nation showed that it desired to continue in the ways of Theodore Roosevelt, and with Roosevelt himself persuading the Republican Party to nominate William Howard Taft, now President Taft was elected 1,269,411 popular votes (but 321 to 162 Electoral) versus perennial challenger William Jennings Bryan. By 1912 the sentiment had changed somewhat, as Roosevelt had become greatly displeased at Taft's handling of the office, in particular the downfall of so many programs over which Roosevelt himself had labored so diligently. Wilson managed 41.8% of the popular vote, but with the opposition split between 27.4% for the Roosevelt Progressives and 23.2% for Taft and the Republicans. In the Electoral College the victory for Wilson was much more sweeping, as he had taken 435 of the necessary 531 to win. Taft was left with eight total electoral votes, winning only Vermont and Utah. With that reference in mind, let us move on to our blog.
There has been a change of government. It began two years ago, when the House of Representatives became Democratic by a decisive majority. It has now been completed. The Senate, about to assemble will also be Democratic. The offices of President and Vice-President have been put into the hands of Democrats. What dies the change mean? That is the question that is uppermost in our minds to-day. That is the question I am going to try to answer, in order, if I may, to interpret the occasion.
It means much more than the mere success of a party. The success of a party means little except when the Nation is using that party for a large and definite purpose. No one can mistake the purpose for which the Nation now seeks to use the Democratic Party. it seeks to use it to interpret a change in its own plans and point of view. Some old things with which we had grown familiar, and which had begun to creep into the very habit of our thought and of our lives, have altered their aspect as we have latterly looked critically upon them, with fresh, awakened eyes; have dropped their disguises and shown themselves alien and sinister. Some new things, as we look frankly upon them, willing to comprehend their real character, have come to assume the aspect of things long believed in and familiar, stuff of our own convictions. We have been refreshed by a new insight into our own life.
This sentiment is all the more true today than it was when it was spoken in March of 1913. The Republicans have had the ball for some time now, but for the past five to six years have fumbled their way around the field. It is now the Democrat's game to lose.
Yet as they stand poised to make a titanic comeback, can they "punch it in" for the final score, the Presidency? They are on the verge, but with two stars remaining on their team, fighting amongst themselves for the individual glory, they have turned even their fans back upon themselves, and with a cheering section such as that behind you the outcome becomes much more foggy.
The longer they can maintain the charade the greater the possibility that the rift they are creating between the continents of the two candidates will become irreconcilable.
There is a catch, however. This bickering and prolonging and dividing within the Democratic Party provides a constant torrent of free publicity, inescapable to nearly all Americans. This can work one of two ways:
- A significant enough portion of the voters tire of hearing the names of either of the remaining candidates, leaving whoever emerges from this "thing" doomed.
- We may be reminded of Rudy Giuliani's campaign, the theory being that by holding back he would increase his popularity by refraining from rubbing the public's proverbial noses in his campaign ad nauseam. To this end he refrained from many of the early primaries, deciding to focus instead on "Super Tuesday" states. This worked out poorly for him. Along those lines, the unceasing barage of "Democrat, Democrat, Democrat" may leave voters speaking softly to themselves: "Yes, Democrat, Democrat; I'm going to vote Democrat."
One thing to consider about that latter, though, is that the primaries are inherently geared not to the middle ground, but to the more extremes of party politics, people who very likely wanted, even needed, to have their proverbial noses rubbed into his campaign ad nauseam.
Likewise, McCain is seen by many as a moderate, and while there are many out there who simply will not vote for the candidate with the capital "R" after his name (again, this is the Democrat's election to lose), this is a sentiment largest in younger groups whose voting turnouts are schizophrenic at best; whereas there are a number of older, more dependable voters who have been split by this rift in the Democratic Party and freely admit to their willingness to vote for McCain should their candidate not survive the convention process.
There are many factors which complicate this thing beyond measure, but I remind the reader that this truly is the Democrat's election to lose: Wilson's sentiment in 1913 resounds today, but the Democrats are trying their best to throw that ball into the hands of the defense, and while McCain may not be a first-team All-American, he's the best we've got right now.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Historical Musing No. 1 (in "F" Minor); Part Two
With the chicken on the stove and the cat finally settled down for a long, five-minute rest, it is time to complete the first "Historical Musing."
In part one I touched upon statements by FDR regarding his presumptive belief that the nation desired government action. It is worth noting that he was correct in this presumption as the results of the 1932 election prove. Hoover himself was not a proponent of laissez-faire policies (find a copy of Hoover's 1922 American Individualism), his actions and reactions following Black Tuesday show the ends to which he was willing to allow government to take part in widespread economic recovery (one devistating mistake he had made was the Revenue Act of 1932, in which taxes on the highest levels of income were levied from 25 to 63%, the estate tax was doubled, and, possibly most importantly, corporate taxes were raised 15%, attacking those who most directly affect prosperity and recovery). However the message was clear in 1932: help us; don't help me help myself, fix our little problems so that we can forget about all of this (and fix the drought, too). This is understandable, since many in the working classes of Europe had become mesmerized by the ideals of communism, and those ideals trickling out across the industrialized world, strongly influencing many Americans and even leading to a "revolutionary" institution of a government (Russia, nee USSR, nee Russia) based upon those ideals. For many working Americans this philosophy was the proverbial greatest thing since sliced bread, assuming that they had lost their job to an automated bread slicing machine, and in a governmental sense it relied heavily upon "redistribution" to move nearer to some sort of economic equality. With that, on to Part Two.
Hand in hand with this we must frankly recognize the overbalance of population in our industrial centers and, by engaging on a national scale in a redistribution, endeavor to provide a better use of the land for those best fitted for the land.
If what we have visited here-to-fore in this speech could be considered a bit "progressive," this sentiment is downright socialistic. I personally find the sentiment frightening that "we" would be willing to put "our" faith in a man who believes in the relocation of the people over whom he was elected to preside in order to facilitate some form of reorganization of land usage or other. Since he deemed it important enough to set as a part of his administration's agenda in his first publicly-spoken monologue as President we may take for granted that this is not merely a prelude to the occasional exercise of eminent domain for a TVA project.
One last bit before I retire...
Finally, in our progress toward a resumption of work we require two safeguards against a return of the evils of the old order; there must be a strict supervision of all banking and credits and investments; there must be an end to speculation with other people's money, and there must be provision for an adequate but sound currency.
Would we be better served by a government who keeps their metaphorical noses out of the financial dealings of the people, or one which legislates for the mutual good and common security and strives to bring down the hammer upon transgressors? That is to the taste of the the individual, in my opinion. Yet consider these old-order "evils" to which Mr. Roosevelt speaks. Nearly every generation develops new economic theories and, really, about the only good thing what most of them have brought is the ability to prove them wrong; economic theorists believed that a stagnating economy could not be coupled with inflation, yet a period to which I casually refer as the '70s proved that to be a gross miscalculation. However, throughout capitalist history economies have their ups and their downs; very often the downs seem to attack suddenly, at least to the eyes of the majority of affected people, whereas the ups are often achieved with a relatively more shallow gradient. New Deal implementations may have helped restore some faith in some peoples' selves, but to resolve the economic woes of the nation it was a failure.
Consider the unemployment rates once more; 1926 saw the lowest unemployment percentage in eight years at 1.9%; the average for 1929 was 3.2%, rising to 8.9% for 1930; 1933 saw the worst unemployment rates at 24.9%, although the preceding and following years were not much better. In fact 1937 saw the lowest unemployment rate, at 14.3%, prior to World War Two, and rates failed to dip below 5% (really, they failed to drop out of borderline double digits) until 1943 finally saw a 1.9% rate. According to one article, the Great Depression can be described as containing two periods of recession: August, 1929 through March, 1933 (Hoover); and May, 1937 through June, 1938 (second Roosevelt). For reference, compare this with the unemployment rate for February, 2008 at 4.8%.
For whatever my humble opinion may be worth, if the New Deal, as preluded with the First Inaugural Address, restored the faith of an individual in the individual, thereby winning the admiration and respect of seemingly millions of Americans, then it may be understandable the long-term effects that this had on the economy; the policy failed, and inspired decades of economic theory and political action based upon those failures.
Next on the agenda: Woodrow Wilson, the Change in Government, and Cardoza's Modern Speculation.
On Deck: Is the Snow Off Peavine Yet?
In part one I touched upon statements by FDR regarding his presumptive belief that the nation desired government action. It is worth noting that he was correct in this presumption as the results of the 1932 election prove. Hoover himself was not a proponent of laissez-faire policies (find a copy of Hoover's 1922 American Individualism), his actions and reactions following Black Tuesday show the ends to which he was willing to allow government to take part in widespread economic recovery (one devistating mistake he had made was the Revenue Act of 1932, in which taxes on the highest levels of income were levied from 25 to 63%, the estate tax was doubled, and, possibly most importantly, corporate taxes were raised 15%, attacking those who most directly affect prosperity and recovery). However the message was clear in 1932: help us; don't help me help myself, fix our little problems so that we can forget about all of this (and fix the drought, too). This is understandable, since many in the working classes of Europe had become mesmerized by the ideals of communism, and those ideals trickling out across the industrialized world, strongly influencing many Americans and even leading to a "revolutionary" institution of a government (Russia, nee USSR, nee Russia) based upon those ideals. For many working Americans this philosophy was the proverbial greatest thing since sliced bread, assuming that they had lost their job to an automated bread slicing machine, and in a governmental sense it relied heavily upon "redistribution" to move nearer to some sort of economic equality. With that, on to Part Two.
Hand in hand with this we must frankly recognize the overbalance of population in our industrial centers and, by engaging on a national scale in a redistribution, endeavor to provide a better use of the land for those best fitted for the land.
If what we have visited here-to-fore in this speech could be considered a bit "progressive," this sentiment is downright socialistic. I personally find the sentiment frightening that "we" would be willing to put "our" faith in a man who believes in the relocation of the people over whom he was elected to preside in order to facilitate some form of reorganization of land usage or other. Since he deemed it important enough to set as a part of his administration's agenda in his first publicly-spoken monologue as President we may take for granted that this is not merely a prelude to the occasional exercise of eminent domain for a TVA project.
One last bit before I retire...
Finally, in our progress toward a resumption of work we require two safeguards against a return of the evils of the old order; there must be a strict supervision of all banking and credits and investments; there must be an end to speculation with other people's money, and there must be provision for an adequate but sound currency.
Would we be better served by a government who keeps their metaphorical noses out of the financial dealings of the people, or one which legislates for the mutual good and common security and strives to bring down the hammer upon transgressors? That is to the taste of the the individual, in my opinion. Yet consider these old-order "evils" to which Mr. Roosevelt speaks. Nearly every generation develops new economic theories and, really, about the only good thing what most of them have brought is the ability to prove them wrong; economic theorists believed that a stagnating economy could not be coupled with inflation, yet a period to which I casually refer as the '70s proved that to be a gross miscalculation. However, throughout capitalist history economies have their ups and their downs; very often the downs seem to attack suddenly, at least to the eyes of the majority of affected people, whereas the ups are often achieved with a relatively more shallow gradient. New Deal implementations may have helped restore some faith in some peoples' selves, but to resolve the economic woes of the nation it was a failure.
Consider the unemployment rates once more; 1926 saw the lowest unemployment percentage in eight years at 1.9%; the average for 1929 was 3.2%, rising to 8.9% for 1930; 1933 saw the worst unemployment rates at 24.9%, although the preceding and following years were not much better. In fact 1937 saw the lowest unemployment rate, at 14.3%, prior to World War Two, and rates failed to dip below 5% (really, they failed to drop out of borderline double digits) until 1943 finally saw a 1.9% rate. According to one article, the Great Depression can be described as containing two periods of recession: August, 1929 through March, 1933 (Hoover); and May, 1937 through June, 1938 (second Roosevelt). For reference, compare this with the unemployment rate for February, 2008 at 4.8%.
For whatever my humble opinion may be worth, if the New Deal, as preluded with the First Inaugural Address, restored the faith of an individual in the individual, thereby winning the admiration and respect of seemingly millions of Americans, then it may be understandable the long-term effects that this had on the economy; the policy failed, and inspired decades of economic theory and political action based upon those failures.
Next on the agenda: Woodrow Wilson, the Change in Government, and Cardoza's Modern Speculation.
On Deck: Is the Snow Off Peavine Yet?
Friday, March 28, 2008
Historical Musing No. 1 ( in "F" Minor); Part One
In the spirit of divining from history and exploiting it for my own election year musings, I will draw from, as my first source of inspiration, the First Inaugural Address of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. This is the famous "...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself," speech.
This is not a strict, line-by-line analysis, mind you; merely my own personal reflections upon a few quotes which stand out specifically among the others.
In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.
In such a spirit on my part and on yours we face our common difficulties. They concern, thank God, only material things. Values have shrunken to fantastic levels; taxes have risen; our ability to pay has fallen; government of all kinds is faced by serious curtailment of income; the means of exchange are frozen in the currents of trade; the withered leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side; farmers find no markets for their produce; the savings of many years in thousands of families are gone.
This is followed a few paragraphs later with the following.
Our greatest primary task is to put people to work. This is no unsolvable problem if we face it wisely and courageously. It can be accomplished in part by direct recruiting by the Government itself, treating the task as we would treat the emergency of a war, but at the same time, through this employment, accomplishing greatly needed projects to stimulate and reorganize the use of our natural resources.
In a moment of what the reader may refer to as candor, Roosevelt admits that taxes had risen while the ability of the citizenry to pay those taxes had diminished. In those early years of the Great Depression this was most obvious. At this late hour of the evening I will not address economic concerns, only specific feelings about the text. In this vein, the phrase which I find to be the most distressing is: "direct recruiting by the Government itself," followed closely by: "to stimulate and reorganize the use of our natural resources."
It serves to say that disparaging thoughts regarding FDR may greatly upset a number of seniors, as I have learned through viewpoint exchanges with some elder members of my own family. The general consensus is that Roosevelt's greatest success was in the restoration of an impression of the self worth of an individual, a sentiment which is difficult to refute despite contemporary unemployment rates. Yet the concept of the government stepping in not to solve the difficulties, but to absorb and control them by having a direct hand in any portion of the force of national labor, beyond that which concerns the direct functioning of the government, is in itself problematic, and the dealings with "our natural resources" underscore this problem.
Why do I mention such trivial historical footnotes? Two reasons: first, to provide a very general foundation of my own musings; and second, history is ripe with the fruits of experience, and beyond the usual cliches of its unending repetition we can view specimens of that fruit and use them, as in reference, to better display the table of issues in the present.
Next on the agenda: Part Two, the Overbalance of Population & National Redistribution, and Government Supervision of Financial Dealings.
On Deck: Woodrow Wilson, the Change in Government, and Cardoza's Modern Speculation.
This is not a strict, line-by-line analysis, mind you; merely my own personal reflections upon a few quotes which stand out specifically among the others.
In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.
In such a spirit on my part and on yours we face our common difficulties. They concern, thank God, only material things. Values have shrunken to fantastic levels; taxes have risen; our ability to pay has fallen; government of all kinds is faced by serious curtailment of income; the means of exchange are frozen in the currents of trade; the withered leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side; farmers find no markets for their produce; the savings of many years in thousands of families are gone.
This is followed a few paragraphs later with the following.
Our greatest primary task is to put people to work. This is no unsolvable problem if we face it wisely and courageously. It can be accomplished in part by direct recruiting by the Government itself, treating the task as we would treat the emergency of a war, but at the same time, through this employment, accomplishing greatly needed projects to stimulate and reorganize the use of our natural resources.
In a moment of what the reader may refer to as candor, Roosevelt admits that taxes had risen while the ability of the citizenry to pay those taxes had diminished. In those early years of the Great Depression this was most obvious. At this late hour of the evening I will not address economic concerns, only specific feelings about the text. In this vein, the phrase which I find to be the most distressing is: "direct recruiting by the Government itself," followed closely by: "to stimulate and reorganize the use of our natural resources."
It serves to say that disparaging thoughts regarding FDR may greatly upset a number of seniors, as I have learned through viewpoint exchanges with some elder members of my own family. The general consensus is that Roosevelt's greatest success was in the restoration of an impression of the self worth of an individual, a sentiment which is difficult to refute despite contemporary unemployment rates. Yet the concept of the government stepping in not to solve the difficulties, but to absorb and control them by having a direct hand in any portion of the force of national labor, beyond that which concerns the direct functioning of the government, is in itself problematic, and the dealings with "our natural resources" underscore this problem.
Why do I mention such trivial historical footnotes? Two reasons: first, to provide a very general foundation of my own musings; and second, history is ripe with the fruits of experience, and beyond the usual cliches of its unending repetition we can view specimens of that fruit and use them, as in reference, to better display the table of issues in the present.
Next on the agenda: Part Two, the Overbalance of Population & National Redistribution, and Government Supervision of Financial Dealings.
On Deck: Woodrow Wilson, the Change in Government, and Cardoza's Modern Speculation.
Great for 2008
About mid December of even-numbered years I make a concerted effort to distance myself from viewpoint exchanges (as I choose to refer to spirited political encounters) and other political musings, preferring to take a live and let live approach to the opinions of those who surround me, figuring that it is far better for my overall health and well being. Yet the attraction proves too great in the ensuing even numbered years to allow for such musings to fly by my wings without paying it at least some mind if not contributing in some fashion or another. Thanks to the wondrous world of technology (and finally casting off the burdensome shackles of rotary telephony), this has become significantly easier for me, and so the time has finally come for the world to share in what to which my friends affectionately (or so they tell me) refer as Cardozaisms.
Since I am a "regular, blue-collar" working man I am simply unable at this juncture to throw myself off into the proverbial "deep end" of this sometimes crazy world, but I would like to think that, at the end of the day, I have contributed something to someone somewhere.
I will call attention now to the fact that I have something of a penchant for history, a "quirk" which will rear its head frequently. With that duly given as a fair warning, I will let the elections year "isms" begin.
Since I am a "regular, blue-collar" working man I am simply unable at this juncture to throw myself off into the proverbial "deep end" of this sometimes crazy world, but I would like to think that, at the end of the day, I have contributed something to someone somewhere.
I will call attention now to the fact that I have something of a penchant for history, a "quirk" which will rear its head frequently. With that duly given as a fair warning, I will let the elections year "isms" begin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
