Category Archives: Reviews

The Road to Communism: The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Union

Posted on by

This book by Ted Gottfried is in first of a series covering the history of the Soviet (meaning council of workers, peasants and/or soldiers) Union. The illustrations by Melanie Reim are in the style of Soviet propaganda posters. The book is easy to read, and the key players and events are presented in sufficient detail to give someone new to the subject a good introduction to the remarkable series of events that led the Communists to take over Russia and begin the experiment called the Soviet Union that wouldn’t end for nine decades. Other books take many more pages to present the information in greater detail, which is a validation of the value of this book for someone who wants to read the basic facts.

The peasants who produced the food and wealth for the Romanov Empire lived in primitive and deprived conditions. The tsar and aristocrats seldom if ever considered what was in the best interest of the peasants. Tsar Alexander II issued an emancipation proclamation to free the serfs, but the mortgages and interest on the land sales kept them enslaved. Undeveloped infrastructure often resulted in failure to transport what was produced on the farms to markets and population centers, and there were frequent famines while food rotted near where it was produced.

The eventual success of the Communist revolution was possible because no one other than the Communists promised to do anything to ease the suffering of the peasants. The seeds of the revolution began in the early 1800s when Georg Hegel began campaigning to improve the lives of the poor and downtrodden. Karl Marx was one of Hegel’s disciples, and would write The Communist Manifesto in 1848. Marx also wrote Das Kapital, which predicted that revolution had to occur in an industrialized country and would not occur in pre-industrialized Russia. The teachings of Marx became the basis of the views taken by Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, and Zinoviev. Marx suffered from many medical problems and went through many periods of poverty. Only one of his children lived to see the successful Communist revolution. Marx received financial support from Friedrich Engels, whose money came from an inherited mill.

The landowners and aristocrats often lived beyond their means, and by the 1880s many were deeply in debt to the tsars. They were baffled that their university-educated children became radicals dedicated to bringing down the monarchy. Alexander Ulianov was in that category, and was hanged for being part of a plot by the ultraviolent group called “People’s Will” to assassinate Tsar Alexander III. Ulianov’s brother was Vladimir Ilich Ulianov, who would change his name to Vladimir Lenin. Lenin had a checkered history as a Communist leader, since he often ran away from conflict. He fled to Finland soon after shooting broke out in the rebellion that began in 1905 and didn’t return to Russia until the revolution was a reality in 1917.

Tsar Nicholas II and his family were protected from assassins in the early 1900s by a well-funded secret police that carried out “a hideous reign of terror” that “spread all over Russia.”

A bizarre part of the Romanov story involved the frantic efforts of the tsarina to save her son Alexis from hemophilia. She found a holy man in Siberia named Rasputin, or the “Mad Monk,” who seemed to be the only person who could control the bleeding. Rasputin gained immense influence over the tsarina. He was soon courted by everyone who wanted some appointment or favor from the tsar and tsarina. He was described as a filthy man who had hypnotic power, and he often demanded sexual favors for his assistance. There was a plot to murder him, and he did not die easily. Food spiked with cyanide seemed to have no effect. A gunshot to the head momentarily stunned him, but he wandered off and didn’t die until he was hit with more bullets.

The book describes the frequent and violent oppression of Jews in Russia based on rumors that Jews were using the blood of Christian children to prepare for the Passover feast. Jews were savagely murdered in pogroms fostered by the reports. Tsar Nicholas used the anger at the Jews to defuse unrest against his regime among the oppressed peasants. By 1917 more than a third of the surviving Jews had left Russia and immigrated to the United States.

The Second Party Communist Congress was held in Brussels in 1903, and Lenin dominated the meeting. He insisted party membership be restricted to professional revolutionaries, and they called themselves Bolsheviks (those of the majority). Those who didn’t agree with the restrictions were called the Mensheviks (those of the minority). The Communists held several congresses, and effectively made little progress. World War I gave them their chance. Millions of poorly supplied Russian soldiers died, and the tsar decided he had to take direct control of the military at the front. That of course took him out of the royal court and gave more power to Rasputin. Crops rotted in the fields because most of the young men who would normally have done the harvesting were dead or still with the army. Protests and troop rebellions were common. Nicholas was forced to abdicate, his brother refused the crown, and three hundred years of Romanov rule ended. The charismatic Kerensky established a provisional government.

The Germans paid Lenin with millions of dollars in gold to destabilize the Russian regime and transported him and thirty-one other radical Russians in a sealed rail car to St. Petersburg. Lenin’s collaboration with the Germans was eventually revealed, and he was forced to escape to Finland. However, Bolshevism was on a steady rise as more and more thousands joined. The Provisional Government faded away and the Bolsheviks took over in an almost bloodless revolution. The tsar and his family would eventually be executed and buried in secret.

The Communists began to be attacked from all sides. Approximately 60,000 Czechs who had volunteered to fight Germany began attacking via the Trans-Siberian Railway. White Russian forces attacked from several fronts. Western countries including the United States landed troops in Russia to oppose the Communists. The Japanese seized Vladivostok. Trotsky organized the Red Army under former tsarist military officers, and they prevailed. Stalin would never forgive Trotsky for enlisting the tsarists, and probably also never forgave him for being credited with winning. Lenin wanted to expand the revolution and ordered Stalin to invade Poland against Trotsky’s advice. The Poles counterattacked and defeated the Reds. Stalin was recalled to Moscow and censured by Lenin. (George Orwell’s fairy story “Animal Farm” is  about how Stalin eventually vilified Trotsky to gain complete control.)

World War I and the civil wars that followed left Russia in a devastated state. The peasants balked at planting crops when they were told they didn’t own the land. Lenin violated Communist principles by granting peasants ownership of their farms. However, famine had already begun. Lenin appealed to the Capitalist nations for food, and it began to arrive. Herbert Hoover organized a massive international relief effort that saved millions of Russians.

Stalin had taken complete control by the time Lenin died in 1924, and millions would die in purges and as slaves in the Gulags during his thirty-year reign.

Common Sense in 2012: Prosperity and Charity for America

Posted on by

This book was written by Art Robinson, and in his words, “…for the voters of Congressional District 4 in Oregon. It explains, to the best of my ability, the issues facing us all in the 2012 elections.” A copy of the book was mailed to all subscribers of Dr. Robinson’s newsletter “Access to Energy” along with a request for donation. I donated despite the fact that I am a resident of Colorado. I believe it is important to support someone offering to serve as a citizen volunteer in Congress who promises to use common sense. His son Matthew is running against the incumbent Peter DeFazio in the Democratic primary. Dr. Robinson judges that Oregon’s District 4 will have a significantly better representative regardless of the general election outcome should Matthew win the primary.

I’ve followed developments in Oregon District 4 since Dr. Robinson and his family began his campaign for the 2010 election. I donated to that campaign in hopes of helping an honorable and ethical scientist who was willing to take the slings and arrows of a long time politician. The back cover of the book provides endorsements of Dr. Robinson from several renowned scientists. However, to illustrate my point about what he faces, the back cover ends with a quote from opponent Peter DeFazio, “Robinson is a ‘pathological nut job’.” I suggest readers consider donating to the campaign to replace DeFazio and request a copy of Dr. Robinson’s book.

The book is provides details of the Constitutional. Countless quotes by the Founders and other great thinkers explain Dr. Robinson’s positions. The erosion of liberty created by growth in government is documented with several examples. There is a graph that shows the percentage of U.S. population with jobs. Jobs began to be lost by the year 2000 “…in an economy that was gradually being strangled by Big Government.” Government has expanded relentlessly since taxing of income began in 1913. Manufacturing jobs have been hit especially hard. Reference is given to the astonishing mass of regulations that have been created that has made the U.S. increasingly unfriendly to all businesses. The federal debt “…has grown so large that service of this debt is draining away huge amounts of resources that are needed for the production of goods and services by American industry and workers.”

Chapter 1 is titled “Who is Art Robinson,” and introduces him as “…a successful scientist, businessman, and father. He lives with his family on their family farm…and works at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.” He introduces his wife Laurelee and their six children. The children were all home schooled and developed a home schooling curriculum that has been used by 60,000 American children for grades 1 through 12. The family business, which also publishes children’s books, has allowed the children to put each other through college and graduate school.

Laurelee tragically died after a 24 hour illness in 1988, but the strength of the family’s belief in each other and God led to “A silent, almost eerie calm…” I challenge anyone to read about the family and their successes and not be both touched and impressed.

It also is not difficult to be the opposite of impressed with the Congressional opponent. There was a billboard prominently displayed that showed Art Robinson and the words “Energy company CEO’s shouldn’t pay taxes.” The only very thin thread that connects this statement to the truth is that Dr. Robinson had suggested solving a national energy crisis by “…forgoing taxes on the industries and workers required to solve this problem…” It is true that CEOs are energy company employees. DeFazio, in the same vein as saying “Robinson is a ‘pathological nut job’,” also said that he lived in a “survivalist compound” and his campaign was supported by “money launderers.” In fact 99.3% of Robinson’s campaign contributions came from individuals. DeFazio also said that Robinson wanted to allow drinking water to be contaminated with nuclear waste.

There are some personal stories in the book that are quite interesting. Some are sad stories. One of those is about the Robinson’s research on “metabolic profiling,” which could have had significant impact on diagnosis of disease. They learned years later that a competing scientist entered the laboratory and scrambled the labels on the samples, which of course destroyed the experiment. You can almost feel the pain as Dr. Robinson wrote that the research “…could have saved Laurelee’s life in 1988, by getting her to surgery in time, and the lives of countless other people.”

There are also some fun stories. I particularly enjoyed one about Dr. Robinson being stopped by an officer who asked to see the permit for the wide load he was hauling. The officer inquired why the map for the route wasn’t attached to the permit. He was told it had been taken apart to allow the map to be unfolded and read. When asked where the staple was that had been removed to separate the map, he was told that the staple hadn’t been saved. Dr. Robinson was allowed to proceed if he promised he would get a staple at the next station. He was stopped again, and informed, “We know all about you. We heard about you on the radio. You’re the guy without the staple.”

Another quite sad story is the targeting of the Robinson children at Oregon State University. The remarkable academic achievements are listed for each of the Robinson children. Three of the children are in graduate studies at Oregon State University, and after Dr. Robinson began his campaign against DeFazio, “…DeFazio supporters at OSU seriously interfered with their graduate work. The actions against them were, in my experience, unprecedented in American academia.”  It was difficult to misrepresent Dr. Robinson’s academic achievements when “Everywhere DeFazio looked there were Robinson young adults with doctorates…or earning doctorates at Oregon State University.” An OSU professor stepped in to assist the three students, and was blackballed. “An outpouring of public support for the students and Professor Higginbotham made the rescue of the students possible.” Dr. Robinson writes that he did not want to make this public, but was forced to do so when he learned that one of his children and the professor were in immediate danger of permanent dismissal without cause from OSU.

There are always two sides in a dispute, and I’ll be open to considering the other side when Mr. DeFazio publishes his book. In the interim, I suggest you donate to Art Robinson’s campaign and request a copy of his book.

Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower

Posted on by

This book presents Zbigniew Brzezinski’s analysis of the three presidential administrations preceding Barrack Obama. Those administrations represents the period after the United States had emerged as the victor of the Cold War and the “…three American presidents were not mere heads of state but the de facto leaders of the world.” Brzezinski was President Carter’s National Security Advisor. One reviewer of the book on Amazon refers to him as “…the finest foreign policy thinker of the past 100 years.” The review selected to present the less than complimentary side say the book presents “…few insights, but two extremely well-written chapters.” The assessments of the three presidents should not be a surprise to someone who has followed Brzezinski. He has been said to have been a prime source of President Obama’s anti-Iraqi war policy.

The author states that the “…emergence as the world’s most powerful state has saddled Washington’s leadership with three central missions…” A truncated version of those missions is: management of central power relationships, containment and termination of conflicts, and addressing inequalities in the human condition. “One superpower, fifteen years, three presidents: that in a nutshell is the focus of this book.”

George H. W. Bush came into office with an extensive background in foreign affairs, and was by far the most diplomatically skillful of the three presidents. He proved to be a superb crisis manager, but the author judges he ultimately failed as a strategic visionary. His greatest failure was not continuing the first Iraq War to remove Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard. That allowed a Shiite rebellion to be crushed and Hussein to remain in power. He was said to have brilliantly and successfully dismantled the Soviet empire and cut down Hussein’s excessive ambitions, but exploited neither. (I have researched the UN resolutions that resulted in ending the Iraq War and dispute Mr. Brzezinski’s assessment as will be detailed in a blog posting.)

Bill Clinton had no experience and was focused almost exclusively on domestic affairs. He is described as “…the brightest and most futuristic, be he lacked strategic consistency…” His focus was globalization, although his critics called it “globaloney.” The foreign policy meetings held during his time in office were described as having little structure. It was said an observer would not have been able to guess that Clinton was the president and not just another person participating in the discussions. His effectiveness in all areas “…suffered from the president’s declining capacity to inspire and lead because of his personal difficulties…”

Clinton is especially criticized for his poor record of dealing with North Korea, India, and Pakistan in their development of nuclear weapons. Sanctions against Iran made it virtually impossible to have open relations with that country. Expansion of NATO and admission of China into the World Trade Organization are listed as Clinton successes. The Senate dealt Clinton and Gore a defeat when it voted 95 to 0 to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. The Protocol is described as being the “whipping boy” for White House skeptics about the soundness of science in the global warming predictions.

The precipitous withdrawal of forces after the “Black Hawk Down” event encouraged those who believed the United States to be weak. However, the intense bombing campaign by NATO against Serbians sent a different message, as did the mistaken bombing of a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory. Clinton also approved bombing Taliban strongholds in Afghanistan. His Middle East policy drifted from fair to lopsided in favor of Israel which resulted in worse Israeli-Palestinian relations than when he took office. He “…did not leave a historically grand imprint on the world.” His autobiography of over a thousand pages devotes only a few pages to foreign policy.

George W. Bush began with restrained foreign policy. He is described as having “…strong gut instincts but no knowledge of global complexities and a temperament prone to dogmatic formulations.” He dramatically changed from almost completely delegating foreign policy immediately after the 9/11 attacks. His advisors convinced him he was the “…commander in chief of ‘a nation at war’.” He was characterized as arrogant in his approach to foreign policy. The invasion of Iraq is described as his “original sin” that resulted in damage to the nation’s reputation throughout the Middle East and helped encourage the formation of al Qaeda. The author writes that “…the war has caused calamitous damage to America’s global standing…(and) has been a geopolitical disaster.” The actions have divided allies and united  enemies. The fact that no weapons of mass destruction were found caused worldwide distrust. The author can’t help but contain his glee in one regard. “Perhaps the war’s only saving grace is that it made Iraq the cemetery of neocon dreams.”

The book provides a summary of world events leading up and during the fifteen years that is the focus. There are also thumbnail sketches of the key advisors to each of the three presidents. The author can’t resist making light of Ronald Reagan and the “fairy tale” of “an Evil Empire seeking global dominion.” He also disagrees strenuously that Reagan was the architect of the collapse of the Soviet Union, and mentions numerous other people who had, in his opinion, a larger role. The Solidarity movement in Poland led to upheavals in Czechoslovakia and Hungary and the collapse of the Berlin Wall. Gorbachev was seen as a key player because he allowed political dissent.

The thinking of the author and assessment of the three presidents is mostly focused on the differences between the globalization approach followed by Clinton and the neoconservative doctrine adopted by George W. Bush after the 9/11 attacks. I’m confident that many so-called “neoconservatives,” including Charles Krauthammer, would disagree with the author’s declaration that “It was essentially an updated version of imperialism and was not primarily concerned with new global realities or novel social trends.” My recollection of the aftermath of 9/11 is radically different than that of the author. He writes that the fear of terrorism that was created “…began to verge on social intolerance, especially toward those whose ethnic origins or appearance could be viewed as giving grounds for suspicion.”

There is interesting information about the well-funded foreign policy lobbies.“The most active of these have been the Israeli-American and Cuban-American lobbies, both of which have the resources to make a difference in congressional fund-raising and command large electoral support in two major states, New York and Florida.”

The final chapter leads by describing “…Bush I was the policeman…Clinton was the social welfare advocate…(and) Bush II was the vigilante…” The “report card” gives Bush I a solid B, Clinton and uneven C, and Bush II a failed F. The author then predicts there will be a second chance if “…the next president (is) aware that the strength of a great power is diminished if it ceases to serve an idea…to the aspirations of politically awakened humanity.”

Atomic Obsession: Nuclear Alarmism from Hiroshima to Al-Qaeda

Posted on by

The front flap of John Mueller’s book begins with, “Ever since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the prospect of nuclear annihilation has haunted the modern world. And since September 11, 2001 the view that nuclear terrorism is the most serious threat to security of the United State or, for that matter, of the world has been virtually universal.” The author then goes to great lengths to say the risks have been exaggerated… Chapter 5 begins with “Although nuclear weapons seem to have had at most a quite limited substantive impact on actual historical evens…they had a tremendous influence on our agonies and obsessions.” The antinuclear movement is mentioned as an example of the agonies and obsessions.

The author says in the Preface he wanted the book to be a remedy for insomnia and that the purpose is to put to rest “…excessive anxiety about nuclear weapons.”  Many others have created anxiety with warnings about al Qaeda acquiring nuclear bombs and the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran. There were similar warnings about China, India, and Pakistan, but no calamity has yet resulted by those nations joining the “nuclear club.”

Part 1 is about the effects of nuclear weapons. “Beyond doubt, nuclear weapons are the most effective devices ever fabricated for killing vast numbers of people…” However, Part 2 discusses why nuclear weapons have had an exaggerated role in international politics. The author repeatedly mentions the enormous financial and resource costs in development of massive arsenals in the United States, the former Soviet Union, and other countries that would have been better spent on other ventures.

Risks from radiation that would be released by a “dirty bomb” are exaggerated because “…ghoulish copy sells.”  The greatest risk would be caused by the panic by people who have been inculcated that even traces of radioactive materials are deadly. About 20 percent of the general population will develop cancer, and people in the area where a “dirty bomb” is exploded will have a barely measurable increase in risk. Chernobyl raised the risk of thyroid cancer, but the risk of other cancers was increased by less than one percentage point with no increase in birth defects. (I expect some readers will object to this statement and many others from the book.)

There is interesting information postulating that the Soviets never wanted to see World War III; the memories of the horrors and massive losses of World War II told them another world war was to be avoided. “Indeed, three central rules for Soviet leaders were ‘avoid adventures, do not yield to provocation, and know when to stop’.” They did know when to stop during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Khrushchev said there was not a single person among the Communist leaders who believed that the Soviets “…could defeat the United States, or that we were seriously preparing for a nuclear war with the United States. No one, as far as I know, had this absurd notion.” The United States demonstrated its manufacturing might to the Soviets during World War II by supplying them with hundreds of thousands of military vehicles, millions of boots, and “…over one-half pound of food for every Soviet soldier for every day of the war (much of it Spam).”

Some countries that had nuclear weapons decided to not keep them. South Africa dismantled theirs after deciding they were more trouble than they were worth. Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan sent the weapons in their countries back to Russia after the Soviet Union collapsed. The Ukraine in particular wanted no part of nuclear weapons with the memories of Chernobyl. Libya terminated its nuclear weapons development program when it noticed the ease with which Iraqi military was defeated.  

I bogged down because of the redundancies in the book, but became reenergized by Chapter 10 titled “Costs of the Proliferation Fixation,” and Iraq takes center stage. Economic sanctions imposed against Iraq over many years did little to weaken Saddam Hussein. However they did result in “…hundreds of thousands of deaths in the country, most of them children under the age of five…” Madeleine Albright, the Ambassador to the United Nations, was asked on a 60 Minute show whether it was worth it to have a million children die as the result of sanctions. Albright did not dispute the number and answered, “We think the price is worth it.” She later said she regretted her answer. The comments “…went completely unremarked upon by the country’s media. Osama bin Laden did use the sanctions as a centerpiece of his diatribes against Americans. Several hundred thousand Iraqis would then die in the war that began in 2003 with the premise that an invasion was justified because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. (See the blog posting titled “Which President Lied About Weapons of Mass Destruction?” for more information.)

The policy of punishing countries wanting to build nuclear weapons continues. Sanctions are in place against North Korea where millions of people are now underfed or starving. North Korea was called “the world’s first nuclear-armed, missile-wielding beggar.”  They have been able to “…hit the Pacific Ocean several times…” with their missiles. Their policy seems to be more extortion than aggression. Sanctions are increasing against Iran where citizens are also suffering.

Part III titled “The Atomic Terrorist” analyzes whether it is likely al Qaeda or some other terrorist group will be able to acquire and use nuclear weapons. The short answer is that it is quite unlikely. Terrorist wouldn’t be able to arm and use a stolen weapon because of all the safeguards all countries build into their weapons. It is also unlikely that a country would sell weapons to terrorists, since forensics after a blast would easily trace the weapon back to its source. No country would be willing to face the certain response to such an act.

The author gave me pause to be skeptical about the views presented in the book by writing that 85 foreign policy experts were polled on whether there would be a nuclear explosion in the world in the next ten years. They “…concluded on average that there was a 29 percent likelihood…” That doesn’t sound sufficiently unlikely to make me comfortable. The author disagrees. Referring back to his goal of curing insomnia by putting fears to rest, he closes the book by saying most states do not want nuclear weapons and they are out of reach of terrorists. “Sleep well.

There are positions taken by the author which disagree with other sources. He trivializes the effect of Soviet espionage against the U.S. during World War II. I’m guessing he never read about the results of the Venona project, which identified hundreds of Soviet agents in the U.S. government and military. Soviet agents were able to steal information and material that allowed the successful recreation of the Trinity nuclear device. He also writes that North Korea had to convince Stalin about their plans to invade the south. Other books report Stalin demanded the invasion as the North Koreans insisted their forces weren’t ready. All of this reinforces the thoughts of the brilliant person who said “History is interpretive.”

After America: Get Ready for Armageddon

Posted on by

This book by Mark Steyn is not for politically correct Liberals. There is humor mixed in with the dire predictions, but a friend said he didn’t finish the book because he tired of the “cutesy humor.”

On the dark side, the author writes, “America has caught up with Europe in the great rush to self destruction.” Financial collapse is predicted to be facilitated by “…hapless, indulgent people who think government has the answer for every problem…” An example of wit amidst the doomsday prophesies is that “Nobody writes a doomsday tome because they want it to come true. From an author’s point of view, the apocalypse is not helpful because the bookstores get looted and the collapse of the banking system makes it harder to cash the royalty check.”

To emphasize the insanity of our government and election process there is an insightful reference to Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado, my home state. Bennett voted for all the “…trillion dollar binges…” He then said “We have managed to acquire $13 billion of debt on our balance sheet. In my view, we have nothing to show for it.” Colorado voters then reelected Bennet. The source of the debt is at least as troubling as the magnitude. “If the People’s Republic (of China) carries on buying American debt at the rate it has in recent times, then within a few years U.S. interest payments on that debt will be covering the entire cost of the Chinese armed forces.”

What did stimulus accomplish? Quite a bit if you were a government employee. At the start of the economic crisis there was one Department of Transportation employee earning more than $170,000 per year. Eighteen months later there were 1,690. “In the year after “stimulus” was passed the private sector had lost 2.5 million jobs and the federal bureaucracy had gained 416,000. In 2009 the average U.S. government employee was earning about $123,000 in salary and benefits while the average American in the private sector was earning a total of about $61,000.

The Chinese might be building a military to challenge America, but they have problems too. The one-child policy means that“…unless it’s planning on becoming the first gay superpower since Sparta, the millions of surplus young men…deprived of female companionship is a recipe either for wrenching social convulsions at home—or for war abroad, the traditional surplus inventory clearance method of great powers.”

I found one nugget of hope for America early in the book. Reports about protests of people who want the government to do more for them have dominated the European news. By comparison, millions of Americans have taken to the streets to tell the government they can do just fine if the government will “…just stay the hell out of my life and my pocket.” (Of course much of the media and some politicians have at a minimum made fun of those protestors, and in some circumstances called them racists.)

The book is filled with disturbing examples of how bureaucracy trumps common sense. It now takes so long for the FDA to approve new drugs that people are dying while they wait for the approval to take the drugs. Cynics are calling the new approval process “…the valley of death.”  FEMA sent volunteer firefighters who wanted to help out in the Katrina disaster to Atlanta for diversity training. An inspector prevented a Catholic church from selling homemade pies for a fund raiser unless the volunteer bakers paid $35 dollars apiece to be cleared by a health inspection. On the other side was a woman attending a “federal aid” gathering said she was there to get some money. When asked where the money would come from, she said “Obama money.” When asked the source of the money, she said, “I don’t know. His stash.”

Other disturbing signs of bureaucracy are the examples of emergency workers refusing to rescue people. Police wouldn’t rescue a drowning woman because that was the responsibility of the Fire and Rescue service. Three college students did save her. Police stood watching while a 5 year old girl was trapped in a submerged car, because they were prevented from diving in by safety regulations. A fireman did rescue a drowning girl and was sent to disciplinary investigation. A rescue crew stood by after a person fell into a mine shaft because a recent memo had banned the use of rope equipment. There has also been a loss of chivalry. The rule “women and children first” was mostly followed on the Titanic. When a German ferry sank recently only five percent of the women passengers lived. Forty-three percent of the young men 20 to 24 made it. (Apparently women objecting to doors being held for them has had a negative effect.)

Part of our problem is that high schools are graduating young people who aren’t equipped to do a job. We then send them to years of college to that is costly and ineffective. Testing shows that many college students do not improve their critical thinking skills after two years or even by the time they graduate. The students do accumulate tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt.

The author is quite critical of the manner in which the world has dealt with the issue of Muslim extremism. He points out that there was a time when the Muslim world seemed to be becoming “Westernized,” but the radical Muslims have put an end to that. There was a photo of the Cairo University class of 1978 with every woman bare-headed. The 2004 class photo shows “…every woman hijabed to the hilt.”

The author makes his point about the comparison of private enterprise to the government with a story about a bridge in New Hampshire. The government studied the project for six years and estimated the total cost at $655,000. They estimated the bridge could be completed in another several years and admitted the cost would probably more than double. The town contracted with a private firm to build a bridge that complied with safety requirements for $30,000.

The book often refers to the H.G. Wells book “The Time Machine.” There are references to the elegant and oblivious Eloi who are living happy lives while the Morlocks also happily prey on the Eloi. Time travel is used to emphasize how much changed in the world from 1890 to 1950, and how relatively little technology has been developed since. However, the U.S. government has had massive growth.

The book ends with the observation that people still have a chance to change the path of the country if they would only stop voting for politicians who want more money to increase the size and reach of government. “This is the battle for the “American idea…to reprise the lamest of lame-o-lines—you can do anything you want to do. So do it.”

Common Ground, How to Stop the Partisan War That Is Destroying America

Posted on by

I was attracted to this book because I liked the concept of staunch Conservative Cal Thomas coauthoring a book with staunch Liberal Bob Beckel. However, the book misses the mark. There book predicts a less partisan election campaign in 2008 because Barrack Obama was a likely Democratic candidate, and he was viewed by the authors as a moderate. One passage is that “Senator Barrack Obama has already embraced the call for common ground (and an end to polarization) in his campaign for president…”.

I found it difficult to believe that two such astute political observers could misinterpret by such a wide margin. Mr. Obama was the most liberal Senator when he began his campaign. He followed the standard game plan of campaigning to gain votes from the hard left liberals in the primaries and then portrayed himself as moving to the middle in the Presidential campaign. I believe it is safe to say President Obama has not been the moderate unifier predicted by the authors

I believe the book has value for the analysis of recent political history that has led to radical polarization of the two political parties. The far right and left have both been encouraged by the news media’s thirst for stories of conflict. The book criticizes recent leaders of both parties for contributing to the polarization.

It is also pointed out that JFK was given a free ride on his sexual escapades while other politicians have been forced out for less. There is no holding back on what the book calls “bottom feeders,” and Ann Coulter and Michael Moore are named in that category. They are described as “…polarizers who make money by keeping politics inflamed …” MoveOn.org and Focus on the Family are named as organizations that thrive on polarization. “Polarizers could care less about unity. Indeed, finding common ground and consensus is their worst nightmare, especially for the bottom feeders.”

The authors lay a large portion of blame for the evolution of polarization on voters. Middle American stays home for the primaries while political activists select the candidates for the general election. Politicians are clever enough to try to appeal to their base to gain the nomination. It also doesn’t help that moderate voters are showing up in declining numbers in general elections. For some reason not well explained, the authors predict that polarization is coming to an end. That prediction is, for the present, widely off the mark.

The quotes that lead off the individual chapters are the part of the book I enjoyed the most, and the quote leading off Chapter 3 about the impact of voters is a good example. “Bad officials are elected by good citizens, who do not vote.”

Mr. Beckel and Mr. Thomas give arguments for their Liberal/Conservative positions in the preface to the book. One would think that my Libertarian leanings would make me more sympathetic to the Conservative argument. Not so. I agreed with many of Mr. Thomas’s statements, but give Mr. Beckel credit for what I thought was a better presentation.

One of my favorite descriptions of how partisan polarization is destructive is the McCain/Kennedy immigration bill that attempted to “thread the needle” and begin to solve a very difficult problem. The bill was gathering strong support from both parties, and the Bush White House announced support, “…but Harry Reid was not about to let it pass.” Reid could not allow Bush to get credit for a legislative victory. He used a parliamentary maneuver to delay the bill and talk radio eventually destroyed any hope of the legislation being passed.

The book declares that the designation of Red and Blue states is a myth, because Middle America is in basic agreement on most issues regardless of the section of the country. “To characterize an entire state as Republican or Democrat base on the popular vote to one candidate is absurd.” Ohio was given a red state designation because 50.5 percent voted for George Bush over John Kerry. The red state label has stuck despite the fact Ohio has several Democrats in their congressional delegation. In the quest to “color” states, Ohio should be called a blue state.

The book does give at least a partial answer to the puzzling question as to why blacks are dominantly Democrats despite years of “Jim Crow” laws advocated by that party in the past. “The dramatic shift occurred in 1960 when an overwhelming number of black voters—many loyal to the Republicans since Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation a century earlier—moved their allegiance to the Democrats…President Lyndon Johnson sealed that allegiance by signing the Voting Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, and the 1965 Civil Rights Act.” (Legislation opposed by many Southern Democrats.)

Another interesting cultural observation is that blue-collar workers who voted dominantly Democrat saw their sons go to Vietnam while sons of white-collar workers went to college under draft deferments. Growing opposition to that war has led to the Democrats being the party considered to be soft on commitment to national defense.

President Carter advocated reorganizing and streamlining the government, but the large Democratic margins in the House and Senate resisted along with increased lobbying by Liberal special interest groups. All Carter accomplished was flooding Washington D.C. with lobbyists, and the flood hasn’t diminished. Challenges to Carter and then to Ford by their own parties resulted in the political extremists becoming more dominant and moderates becoming more irrelevant. Winston Churchill said, “Some men change their parties for the sake of principles; others their principles for the sake of their party.” An unknown author offered the opinion, “Why pay money to have your family tree traced; go into politics and your opponents will do it for you.”

There is an interesting reminder of the Clinton’s taking up health care as their first priority. The famous “Harry and Louise” commercials showing a couple talking about how the proposed bill would hurt them was instrumental in killing it.

The book was worth reading to find the passage about George McGovern opening an inn after he lost the 1980 election. He said in a Wall Street Journal interview, “…if he had known how difficult it was to run a business, he might have voted differently while in Congress.”

However, the book reminds me in the closing pages how wrong the authors viewed Obama. “Senator Barrack Obama’s message in his presidential campaign is closer, so far, to a common ground message than that of any other candidate in either party.” Cal Thomas does give a warning. “I like Obama’s language, but I want to make sure it isn’t a cover for liberal policies…”