November, 2019
Washington – Where do Democrats get their counterproductive and sometimes downright foolish ideas about how to win national elections? Unfortunately, some come from respectable sources that should know better.
Take The Atlantic, usually perspicacious but unaccountably off-target in publishing an article by Ronald Brownstein last month. Subtitled "Dirt Doesn't Vote," it confidently asserts Democrats should not worry about maps, favored by Donald Trump, that show a Republican red nation with Democratic blue enclaves limited to the coasts. Excerpt:
Trump’s map offers a misleading portrait because it pictures counties by geographic area, not by population. The map “says to me he has more support from cows than people,” sniffs the longtime Democratic strategist Tad Devine. “It’s not a representation of the population of the United States...."
As any good student of American Government should know, the cows-versus-people apportionment cases Baker v. Carr (1962), Westbury v. Sanders (1964), and Reynolds v. Sims (1964) struck a blow for "one person, one vote" at the state and local level, but not at the national level. U.S. presidents are still chosen by the electoral college, which places a premium on dirt and cows. Nor is the U.S. Senate apportioned by population; that's also by constitutional design, for better or worse.
Democratic strategists who do not recognize this and continue to plan futile campaigns around winning the popular vote should amend their thinking. Tad Devine, it must be noted, has been associated with the losing campaigns of Gore and Clinton, both of whom won the popular vote but not the presidency. Devine has plenty of company, including those who still do not want to hear the word "rural" brought up for discussion, let alone included as part of a 2020 election strategy.
Somewhere, red on the map must be turned blue by Democrats, not written off. Making blue states even bluer will not count. In practical terms, that means states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Ohio, all with plentiful dirt and many cows, must be vigorously contested by Democrats.
These states are winnable with the right strategy, which consists of (1) showing up and (2) offering a positive platform that makes sense to rural constituencies, where swing voters make all the difference. Key to winning in these states: not losing by large margins in the most rural areas, because such losses offset Democratic gains in the suburbs. As Heidi Heitkamp puts it, in one of the few sensible comments in The Atlantic article, "We're not trying to turn those [rural] areas blue, we are trying to turn them pink."
This should not be so difficult. Donald Trump is not personally popular with many rural voters on the margins, who would welcome a credible Democratic alternative. Trump's trade policies are hugely unpopular with farmers, who want "trade not aid." His promises on biofuels are not believable. His Secretary of Agriculture, George (nothing Sonny about him) Perdue, insults farmers as whiners and advises them to "go big or just go." A Democrat who shows up with a platform of scrapping the current Farm Bill and starting over to build local and regional farm markets, fighting rural epidemics of obesity and diabetes with nutritious food, and demonstrating respect for rural America will turn many areas pink, some purple, and a few even blue. Enough to win key swing states.
And the alternative? Ready to move in are those who see rural America as fertile ground for frightening ideologies. If coastal Democrats write off America's heartland, be prepared for a surge of white nationalists and far-right militias, according to those who have their fingers on the pulse of people increasingly in despair. This can happen when people fear their very extinction.
Publishing elsewhere are sensible voices who should be heeded, who offer valuable critiques of Democrats and their strategies, including those of House Democrats who are failing to protect rural America. Writing in The Washington Monthly, Jeff Hauser and Eleanor Eagan offer that "Democrats need to perform meaningful oversight of the Trump administration's assault on American farmers." House Democrats are just not getting it done. Collin Peterson should resign as chairman of the House Agriculture Committee in favor of someone who is up to the job.
But for every sensible voice, there are others who assure themselves that Dirt Doesn't Vote and are leading Democrats yet again into losing strategies. The red map of the country is not misleading. Even editing it so show population rather than area, to make it look bluer, is not going to change how the electoral college works. The Atlantic and its authors should know better.
Censure, Now
November, 2019
Washington – In the matter of the impeachment of the president, too many House options under consideration lead to increasing divisiveness and partisanship.
To some of us, the whole matter of impeachment is not one of partisanship but of national security. National security is not going to be enhanced by House impeachment, Senate trial, and failure to convict, as now seems likely. That is the hope and goal of Russia, which is undermining democracy worldwide and is being remarkably successful at it. Such a scenario plays directly into Russia's hands.
I fully appreciate the House majority's decision to move toward impeachment. The evidence warrants it and it would be irresponsible, arguably even a violation of members' oaths, not to respond to the president's unthinkable transgressions that put America's national security at such risk.
But there is a better way forward: the House majority should censure the president, now. It offers an appropriately strong response. It is more likely to pass with bipartisan support, however modest. Even if a few Republicans support censure as a way to lessen support for impeachment, that is not necessarily a bad outcome, given the likely alternative of total partisan impasse over impeachment, which Russia wants.
Last week's testimony, before the Intelligence Committee, by national security realist Fiona Hill and diplomats William Taylor and George Kent, makes it clear that national security must be put ahead of partisanship, and the issue must be America versus Russia, not Democrats versus Republicans.
What too many fail to realize is that this is not a question of censure versus impeachment, as if the two are mutually exclusive. Impeachment articles can continue to move after censure, but without the burden of being the sole vehicle of presidential reproof. If the effort to impeach and convict fails at some point later, as looks likely, it will be easier, with censure accomplished, for all to turn to other issues of urgent concern. Voters do not want the impeachment process to dominate all else. Polls show a clear majority knows the president did wrong and must be chastened. Censure accomplishes that.
It's football season. Censure should be seen as America putting points on the board with a makable field goal, come what may later, which is quite likely to be a stalemate with no scoring. Censure would constitute a victory over Russia, for America's national security and for defense of the U.S. Constitution.
Washington – In the matter of the impeachment of the president, too many House options under consideration lead to increasing divisiveness and partisanship.
To some of us, the whole matter of impeachment is not one of partisanship but of national security. National security is not going to be enhanced by House impeachment, Senate trial, and failure to convict, as now seems likely. That is the hope and goal of Russia, which is undermining democracy worldwide and is being remarkably successful at it. Such a scenario plays directly into Russia's hands.
I fully appreciate the House majority's decision to move toward impeachment. The evidence warrants it and it would be irresponsible, arguably even a violation of members' oaths, not to respond to the president's unthinkable transgressions that put America's national security at such risk.
But there is a better way forward: the House majority should censure the president, now. It offers an appropriately strong response. It is more likely to pass with bipartisan support, however modest. Even if a few Republicans support censure as a way to lessen support for impeachment, that is not necessarily a bad outcome, given the likely alternative of total partisan impasse over impeachment, which Russia wants.
Last week's testimony, before the Intelligence Committee, by national security realist Fiona Hill and diplomats William Taylor and George Kent, makes it clear that national security must be put ahead of partisanship, and the issue must be America versus Russia, not Democrats versus Republicans.
What too many fail to realize is that this is not a question of censure versus impeachment, as if the two are mutually exclusive. Impeachment articles can continue to move after censure, but without the burden of being the sole vehicle of presidential reproof. If the effort to impeach and convict fails at some point later, as looks likely, it will be easier, with censure accomplished, for all to turn to other issues of urgent concern. Voters do not want the impeachment process to dominate all else. Polls show a clear majority knows the president did wrong and must be chastened. Censure accomplishes that.
It's football season. Censure should be seen as America putting points on the board with a makable field goal, come what may later, which is quite likely to be a stalemate with no scoring. Censure would constitute a victory over Russia, for America's national security and for defense of the U.S. Constitution.
Elder Abuse: "There Oughta Be a Law"
November, 2019
Washington -- Two years ago, on the death of George Garner, the Shepherd of Accokeek, I wrote that one of his regrets was not knowing how his years of legal work to protect the legacy of his rural Maryland neighbor, Howard Vess, actually turned out. George knew Howard had been a victim of financial fraud, perpetrated on the elderly man by an unscrupulous financial advisor.
The litigation is over. George Garner would be pleased that his work was not in vain. There was a successful settlement. The outcome would have been even better had several Maryland judges looked at fewer trees and more forest, figuratively speaking. And the whole case could have been avoided entirely if Maryland law had better guarded against financial advisors becoming their clients' beneficiaries, as do other states, but that's getting ahead of the story.
George's neighbor in Accokeek, Howard Vess, wanted to preserve his rural property after his death so that friends and neighbors could continue to use the trails through his woods for hiking and hunting. The property was also in the Mount Vernon viewshed from across the Potomac, which any elevated development could spoil.
Howard also wanted to leave the balance of his considerable estate to several favorite charities, as he had no survivors in his immediate family. He told this to his extended family, including his niece, Claudia Vess, who kept in touch with him from her home an hour away. All were pleased with the arrangements. Wills and codicils were on file with the county register of wills spelling this out, designating Robert Price, Howard's financial advisor, as personal representative to carry out his instructions. George also knew this from both Howard and Howard's niece.
I knew Howard, the Vess family, and George, and this was my understanding as well.
So it was a shock that preceding Howard's funeral service in 2011, Price described to gathering guests (of which I was one) the ins and outs of dividing up Howard's property for both housing and shopping development. Then, at the beginning of the service, Price announced that a charity of Howard's would be supported by contributions left by guests in envelopes at the funeral home, puzzling those of us who thought Howard's own estate provided well for several charities. After the funeral, Price demurred when discussing next steps with Vess family and friends, explaining that he was taking his own family to Las Vegas, which naturally only raised more suspicions that Price was not carrying out Howard's wishes at all.
A few months later, Howard’s niece discovered that there was a later will, superseding earlier arrangements, which Price had kept in his private office and filed quietly at the courthouse after Howard's death. Instead of rural land preservation and money for charities, the last will made Price, his financial advisor and personal representative, the sole beneficiary.
Washington -- Two years ago, on the death of George Garner, the Shepherd of Accokeek, I wrote that one of his regrets was not knowing how his years of legal work to protect the legacy of his rural Maryland neighbor, Howard Vess, actually turned out. George knew Howard had been a victim of financial fraud, perpetrated on the elderly man by an unscrupulous financial advisor.
The litigation is over. George Garner would be pleased that his work was not in vain. There was a successful settlement. The outcome would have been even better had several Maryland judges looked at fewer trees and more forest, figuratively speaking. And the whole case could have been avoided entirely if Maryland law had better guarded against financial advisors becoming their clients' beneficiaries, as do other states, but that's getting ahead of the story.
George's neighbor in Accokeek, Howard Vess, wanted to preserve his rural property after his death so that friends and neighbors could continue to use the trails through his woods for hiking and hunting. The property was also in the Mount Vernon viewshed from across the Potomac, which any elevated development could spoil.
Howard also wanted to leave the balance of his considerable estate to several favorite charities, as he had no survivors in his immediate family. He told this to his extended family, including his niece, Claudia Vess, who kept in touch with him from her home an hour away. All were pleased with the arrangements. Wills and codicils were on file with the county register of wills spelling this out, designating Robert Price, Howard's financial advisor, as personal representative to carry out his instructions. George also knew this from both Howard and Howard's niece.
I knew Howard, the Vess family, and George, and this was my understanding as well.
So it was a shock that preceding Howard's funeral service in 2011, Price described to gathering guests (of which I was one) the ins and outs of dividing up Howard's property for both housing and shopping development. Then, at the beginning of the service, Price announced that a charity of Howard's would be supported by contributions left by guests in envelopes at the funeral home, puzzling those of us who thought Howard's own estate provided well for several charities. After the funeral, Price demurred when discussing next steps with Vess family and friends, explaining that he was taking his own family to Las Vegas, which naturally only raised more suspicions that Price was not carrying out Howard's wishes at all.
A few months later, Howard’s niece discovered that there was a later will, superseding earlier arrangements, which Price had kept in his private office and filed quietly at the courthouse after Howard's death. Instead of rural land preservation and money for charities, the last will made Price, his financial advisor and personal representative, the sole beneficiary.
George Garner and other neighbors supported Howard's niece in
an effort to challenge the surprise will on grounds that Price had taken advantage of
his elderly client. Claudia Vess knew from last conversations with her uncle
before his death that he had been confused about what Price was doing with the
estate, but she had never guessed Price had audaciously made himself sole
beneficiary.
So she challenged the will, hiring a local attorney to file Vess v. Price. George, Howard's closest neighbor whose off-farm business
had been preparing legal briefs for cases at the U.S. Supreme Court, assisted without
fee.
Price's lawyer spared no effort or expense in defending the surprise will.
The battle went on for years through three different Maryland courts. In
the meantime, Price's administration of the will was obviously deficient on multiple grounds. A judge removed Price from his role as personal representative in favor of a new one, appointed by the
court. Fortunately, the successor sold the Vess real property as two
rural acreages, a victory for Howard's intention to prevent urban development.
Because of dozens of procedural motions in Vess v. Price, no court in six
years ever got to the fundamental question: had Price through undue influence taken fraudulent advantage of a putative friendship and violated his fiduciary responsibility to his elderly client, Howard Vess? The case was a procedural standoff. More
time was spent by Maryland courts looking at time stamps and courthouse drop boxes than on
what the case was about. Although Price lost his appointment as personal
representative, Vess counsel was reproved by an appeals court for not explaining the case well, despite George Garner's
thorough research and legal prep sessions.
After George's untimely death in 2017, and after an appeals court defeat
for Vess counsel, based on procedural rather than substantive issues, the case returned to the original
court of jurisdiction for a jury trial. Claudia Vess then replaced her original
counsel with a lawyer who has a strong litigation practice. The new counsel immediately showed she meant business at
the first depositions and serious settlement talks ensued.
In the final 2019 settlement, niece Claudia succeeded in
obtaining several thousand dollars from the estate for four of six of her uncle's
charities, plus returning to the family her uncle's Arlington Cemetery burial-ceremony flag (he had served in the Marine Corps).
Unfortunately, the amounts for the charities were only about
ten percent of what they would have been had Howard Vess's desires been honored, as filed at the courthouse rather than as represented in a surprise will held privately by his financial advisor. Much of the estate proceeds were spent covering the huge legal
expenses of financial advisor Price, even after his removal as personal
representative.
Maryland law must be changed to guard against financial advisors becoming clients' beneficiaries. Lawyers would be disbarred if they
attempted the same chicanery. Financial advisors are often positioned
even better than lawyers to take advantage of their elderly
clients.
Although in the Vess v. Price case a measure of
justice was reached, it took many years of effort to achieve it. The
State of Maryland needs to decide if elder abuse by financial advisors is going
to be tolerated or stopped. It needs to decide if Maryland justice
continues in the tradition of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, Charles Dickens' tale of an
estate that was entirely depleted by its legal bills.
Neighbors often do a good job of watching out for neighbors,
and the story of George Garner and Howard Vess is illustrative, as it ends, if not entirely happily, at least with a silver lining. But nothing would
be better in Maryland than an overdue statutory crackdown, following the lead
of many other states that have better provisions to protect elders against abuse by financial advisors.
Who's Conservative, Who's Not
November, 2019
Washington – Attorney General William Barr, in a provocative speech to the Federalist Society, said voters put President Trump in office with knowledge of his agenda and those who oppose him are trampling on the Constitution's Article II executive powers:
“While the president has certainly thrown out the traditional Beltway playbook and punctilio, he was up front about what he wanted to do and the people decided they wanted him to serve as president...”
Two observations:
First, that's not the 2016 election I recall. Many Trump votes were a protest in the face of what was widely predicted to be a Hillary Clinton victory, without much regard to his agenda. They simply weren't going to vote for her. Moreover, Clinton won the popular vote decisively; it was the electoral college that delivered the election to Trump.
This was also the election in which some voters, in the famous formulation, took Trump seriously but not literally, and others literally but not seriously. The former prevailed. This was an election that was decided by voters who did not take the Trump agenda literally.
Then there were the Trump voters who thought once he was elected, he would start acting like a president, because his campaign was based on his experience as an entertainer and he would moderate his behavior upon inauguration.
That's why Trump was elected in November, 2016. There is simply not much of a record to support the Barr thesis; of all the reasons people voted for Trump, his literal agenda was not high on the list.
Second, I see that there is conservative push-back against the Barr notion that the concept of unitary executive (that the president leads the executive branch) also extends to executive primacy in the context of separation of powers. Barr goes too far, they say, in eroding the Constitution's checks and balances; he is sounding like an authoritarian, not a conservative.
Charles Fried, solicitor general in the Reagan administration, reacted to Barr this way:
“Conservatism is respect for the rule of law. It is respect for tradition. The people who claim they’re conservatives today are demanding loyalty to this completely lawless, ignorant, foul-mouthed president.”
Stuart Gerson, an official in the George W. Bush administration, was not so blunt, but put it this way:
“It’s important for conservatives to speak up. This administration is anything but conservative.”
I'm glad Attorney General Barr made his attention-getting, illuminating speech to the Federalist Society. He has thrown out history; he has thrown out his party's tradition. It gives us all a glimpse into what lies ahead, and it's not conservatism.
Washington – Attorney General William Barr, in a provocative speech to the Federalist Society, said voters put President Trump in office with knowledge of his agenda and those who oppose him are trampling on the Constitution's Article II executive powers:
“While the president has certainly thrown out the traditional Beltway playbook and punctilio, he was up front about what he wanted to do and the people decided they wanted him to serve as president...”
Two observations:
First, that's not the 2016 election I recall. Many Trump votes were a protest in the face of what was widely predicted to be a Hillary Clinton victory, without much regard to his agenda. They simply weren't going to vote for her. Moreover, Clinton won the popular vote decisively; it was the electoral college that delivered the election to Trump.
This was also the election in which some voters, in the famous formulation, took Trump seriously but not literally, and others literally but not seriously. The former prevailed. This was an election that was decided by voters who did not take the Trump agenda literally.
Then there were the Trump voters who thought once he was elected, he would start acting like a president, because his campaign was based on his experience as an entertainer and he would moderate his behavior upon inauguration.
That's why Trump was elected in November, 2016. There is simply not much of a record to support the Barr thesis; of all the reasons people voted for Trump, his literal agenda was not high on the list.
Second, I see that there is conservative push-back against the Barr notion that the concept of unitary executive (that the president leads the executive branch) also extends to executive primacy in the context of separation of powers. Barr goes too far, they say, in eroding the Constitution's checks and balances; he is sounding like an authoritarian, not a conservative.
Charles Fried, solicitor general in the Reagan administration, reacted to Barr this way:
“Conservatism is respect for the rule of law. It is respect for tradition. The people who claim they’re conservatives today are demanding loyalty to this completely lawless, ignorant, foul-mouthed president.”
Stuart Gerson, an official in the George W. Bush administration, was not so blunt, but put it this way:
I'm glad Attorney General Barr made his attention-getting, illuminating speech to the Federalist Society. He has thrown out history; he has thrown out his party's tradition. It gives us all a glimpse into what lies ahead, and it's not conservatism.
Tall Orders for an Admiral
November, 2019
Lincoln – The NU Regents have selected retired Vice Admiral Walter E. Carter, Jr., to be the next president of the University of Nebraska.
At first glance, the choice seems incongruous. Admiral Carter is a native of Rhode Island; he does not have a doctorate or a record of scholarship; he has no experience at land-grant universities and is untested in the agriculture arena, critical to Nebraska.
He might, however, be a good choice. I confess to a touch of enthusiasm because NU and the U.S. Navy are both institutions dear to my heart and there is more commonality than one might think.
• Admiral Carter has led two academic institutions successfully, the U.S. Naval War College in Rhode Island and the U.S. Naval Academy in Maryland. He knows governments and bureaucracies, federal and state, and faculties. The Naval Academy is located in a state capital, Annapolis, as is NU in Lincoln.
• NU has a Navy unit on the UNL campus. Students can minor in Naval Science and receive commissions in the Navy and Marine Corps. Perhaps Admiral Carter will be given a faculty post in the Naval Science department, from which he can draw on his USNWC connections to explore national security issues for the benefit of NU students and faculty.
• Certain issues transcend state and national borders. Climate-change flooding threatens the Annapolis campus and the nation's harbors, just as climate-change flooding threatens Nebraska agriculture. This should form a quick, common bond with the leadership at NU's Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, which for years has been sounding the alarm, despite the issue's unpopularity in right-wing political circles.
There are three immediate challenges at NU that I hope Admiral Carter will meet with "early and decisive action," a phrase he will know from ship-handling at sea.
One is to re-establish better relations with the Nebraska Legislature, based on mutual respect and the Nebraska Constitution, which places authority over university governance with the Board of Regents. There must be no more occasions where an NU president is summoned to a freshman senator's office and told which instructors to hire or fire. A vice admiral should have the stature and experience to handle such situations. (Perhaps that is one reason for the Regents' hiring decision.)
The second challenge is to bring a broader perspective to matters of agricultural export markets, on which the Nebraska economy is overly dependent. The current agricultural leadership in Nebraska, including many elected officials, is desperate for a trade deal with China. Nebraskans now surely realize that it was a grave mistake for President Trump to scrap the TPP, giving China the upper hand in Pacific trade, and to impose tariffs for which farmers suffer retaliation. Is Nebraska agriculture ready to accept or endorse an even greater blunder to try to restore Nebraska's China exports? There are clear warning signs that President Trump will abandon Hong Kong and the South China Sea (he has already spoken to Chairman Xi about it) for a trade deal that may please farmers in the Midwest before the 2020 election. But is this in the U.S. national security interest?
From the Naval War College Review, "Getting Serious About Strategy in the South China Sea:"
Today, the situation in the South China Sea is reaching a critical stage as Chinese advances accumulate, America’s room for maneuver diminishes, and observers throughout the region wonder whether the United States is up to the challenge. And yet Washington still is searching for a strategy.
Admiral Carter, as former leader of the Naval War College, is positioned as no other candidate for NU president to grapple with these issue of immense importance to Nebraska.
The third challenge also deals with rural Nebraska, where the population, counterproductively, is increasingly giving up on higher education. The results of the 2019 Nebraska Rural Poll "showed a sharp decline in the perceived importance of higher education among respondents." What got into Nebraskans to make insularity and ignorance attractive? This is alarming and deserves immediate priority from Nebraska's higher education leadership.
Admiral Carter, welcome to Nebraska. You have tall orders.
Lincoln – The NU Regents have selected retired Vice Admiral Walter E. Carter, Jr., to be the next president of the University of Nebraska.
At first glance, the choice seems incongruous. Admiral Carter is a native of Rhode Island; he does not have a doctorate or a record of scholarship; he has no experience at land-grant universities and is untested in the agriculture arena, critical to Nebraska.
He might, however, be a good choice. I confess to a touch of enthusiasm because NU and the U.S. Navy are both institutions dear to my heart and there is more commonality than one might think.
• Admiral Carter has led two academic institutions successfully, the U.S. Naval War College in Rhode Island and the U.S. Naval Academy in Maryland. He knows governments and bureaucracies, federal and state, and faculties. The Naval Academy is located in a state capital, Annapolis, as is NU in Lincoln.
• NU has a Navy unit on the UNL campus. Students can minor in Naval Science and receive commissions in the Navy and Marine Corps. Perhaps Admiral Carter will be given a faculty post in the Naval Science department, from which he can draw on his USNWC connections to explore national security issues for the benefit of NU students and faculty.
• Certain issues transcend state and national borders. Climate-change flooding threatens the Annapolis campus and the nation's harbors, just as climate-change flooding threatens Nebraska agriculture. This should form a quick, common bond with the leadership at NU's Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, which for years has been sounding the alarm, despite the issue's unpopularity in right-wing political circles.
There are three immediate challenges at NU that I hope Admiral Carter will meet with "early and decisive action," a phrase he will know from ship-handling at sea.
One is to re-establish better relations with the Nebraska Legislature, based on mutual respect and the Nebraska Constitution, which places authority over university governance with the Board of Regents. There must be no more occasions where an NU president is summoned to a freshman senator's office and told which instructors to hire or fire. A vice admiral should have the stature and experience to handle such situations. (Perhaps that is one reason for the Regents' hiring decision.)
The second challenge is to bring a broader perspective to matters of agricultural export markets, on which the Nebraska economy is overly dependent. The current agricultural leadership in Nebraska, including many elected officials, is desperate for a trade deal with China. Nebraskans now surely realize that it was a grave mistake for President Trump to scrap the TPP, giving China the upper hand in Pacific trade, and to impose tariffs for which farmers suffer retaliation. Is Nebraska agriculture ready to accept or endorse an even greater blunder to try to restore Nebraska's China exports? There are clear warning signs that President Trump will abandon Hong Kong and the South China Sea (he has already spoken to Chairman Xi about it) for a trade deal that may please farmers in the Midwest before the 2020 election. But is this in the U.S. national security interest?
From the Naval War College Review, "Getting Serious About Strategy in the South China Sea:"
Today, the situation in the South China Sea is reaching a critical stage as Chinese advances accumulate, America’s room for maneuver diminishes, and observers throughout the region wonder whether the United States is up to the challenge. And yet Washington still is searching for a strategy.
Admiral Carter, as former leader of the Naval War College, is positioned as no other candidate for NU president to grapple with these issue of immense importance to Nebraska.
The third challenge also deals with rural Nebraska, where the population, counterproductively, is increasingly giving up on higher education. The results of the 2019 Nebraska Rural Poll "showed a sharp decline in the perceived importance of higher education among respondents." What got into Nebraskans to make insularity and ignorance attractive? This is alarming and deserves immediate priority from Nebraska's higher education leadership.
Admiral Carter, welcome to Nebraska. You have tall orders.
Nebraska Hall of Fame: Two Suggestions
November, 2019
Lincoln – One of the most famous members of Nebraska's Hall of Fame, William Jennings Bryan, has suffering yet another slight, albeit without apparent intention or malice. His statue has been moved from the U.S. Capitol to the Nebraska National Guard Museum in Seward.
The movement out of Washington is innocent enough in Bryan's case, as the Nebraska Legislature determined that it was time for Standing Bear and Willa Cather to represent the state in the Capitol's statuary hall rather than Bryan and J. Sterling Morton. However, because Morton's removal was strategic to avoid growing embarrassment over his sympathies with slavery and the Confederate cause, some may wonder – incorrectly – if Bryan also had something untoward in his past and it was time for him to go as well.
In reality, Morton and Bryan were political enemies and their pairing in Washington has always been uneasy. Their paired removal only adds to the irony.
Likewise, the acquisition of Bryan's statue by the Nebraska National Guard Museum is innocent enough and actually quite a coup to help put the museum on the map. It should stimulate interest in Bryan's military career and his views on foreign policy and imperialism, not just provide another reason to visit Seward.
For Nebraska's political reporter nonpareil, Don Walton of the Lincoln Journal Star, the relocation of Bryan's statue to the museum is too much. He would like to see Bryan's statue placed on Lincoln's Centennial Mall. Bryan, he points out, was so much more than a member of Nebraska's National Guard.
That's why the movement of any of his statues elicits notice. Bryan was the founder of the modern Democratic Party. He was instrumental in the passage of four amendments to the U.S. Constitution (16, 17, 18, 19). He was a thorn in the side of bankers. Perhaps that is why, in the 1960s, Nebraska Republican governor Norbert Tiemann, a Wausa banker, removed Bryan's statue from the front of the Nebraska state capitol, at the head of Centennial Mall, in favor of a less-conspicuous place under a tree at Bryan's Lincoln home, Fairview.
Beyond looking at Bryan's career, now is also a good time to reflect on Bryan's family. His brother Charles was twice governor of Nebraska and the Democratic nominee for U.S. vice president in 1924. His wife Mary Baird Bryan was an attorney and a full partner in all her husband's campaigns and offices. She sat in on meetings of President Wilson's cabinet with her husband, the Secretary of State.
Daughter Ruth Bryan Owen was the first Florida congresswoman and the first woman to be a U.S. ambassador. She was a delegate to the San Francisco conference that established the United Nations, and is a member of the Florida Women's Hall of Fame.
Bryan's granddaughter Ruth "Kitty" Leavitt, for whom he once had custody after his daughter Ruth's divorce, paradoxically became the wife of Robert Lehman, longtime head of Lehman Brothers, the investment bankers. Bryan's other daughter, Grace, also married a banker, in California, but is better known for her writing about the Bryan family's world travels.
It is more than appropriate to place a Bryan statue on Lincoln's Centennial Mall. Another good idea would be for the University of Nebraska to establish a Center for Bryan Studies. Far from being demoted, Bryan's star is actually rising among historians worldwide. There is much to discover. I'd like to know how his travels and his family, especially his daughter Ruth, influenced the development of his abhorrence of eugenics and Social Darwinism, of which we know little beyond H.L. Mencken's clever but superficial reportage at the end of Bryan's life.
Statues aside, Bryan will never be removed from Washington, as he and several members of his family are buried in Arlington National Cemetery. And presumably his bust is safe in the Hall of Fame corridors of the Nebraska state capitol.
Another Nebraska Hall of Fame development is this new article about one-time nominees Frederic and Edith Clements, founders of the discipline of plant ecology.* Because the work of one cannot be separated from the other, the Nebraska law allowing for only one person to be chosen during a nomination cycle should be amended to allow their joint consideration. Readers may find it of interest that, through their common university connections, the Clementses were an influence on Willa Cather and on Ruth and Grace Bryan.
___________________________
*Available through UNL Digital Commons as a publication of the University of Nebraska State Museum staff and affiliates. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=unsmaffil
Lincoln – One of the most famous members of Nebraska's Hall of Fame, William Jennings Bryan, has suffering yet another slight, albeit without apparent intention or malice. His statue has been moved from the U.S. Capitol to the Nebraska National Guard Museum in Seward.
The movement out of Washington is innocent enough in Bryan's case, as the Nebraska Legislature determined that it was time for Standing Bear and Willa Cather to represent the state in the Capitol's statuary hall rather than Bryan and J. Sterling Morton. However, because Morton's removal was strategic to avoid growing embarrassment over his sympathies with slavery and the Confederate cause, some may wonder – incorrectly – if Bryan also had something untoward in his past and it was time for him to go as well.
In reality, Morton and Bryan were political enemies and their pairing in Washington has always been uneasy. Their paired removal only adds to the irony.
Likewise, the acquisition of Bryan's statue by the Nebraska National Guard Museum is innocent enough and actually quite a coup to help put the museum on the map. It should stimulate interest in Bryan's military career and his views on foreign policy and imperialism, not just provide another reason to visit Seward.
For Nebraska's political reporter nonpareil, Don Walton of the Lincoln Journal Star, the relocation of Bryan's statue to the museum is too much. He would like to see Bryan's statue placed on Lincoln's Centennial Mall. Bryan, he points out, was so much more than a member of Nebraska's National Guard.
That's why the movement of any of his statues elicits notice. Bryan was the founder of the modern Democratic Party. He was instrumental in the passage of four amendments to the U.S. Constitution (16, 17, 18, 19). He was a thorn in the side of bankers. Perhaps that is why, in the 1960s, Nebraska Republican governor Norbert Tiemann, a Wausa banker, removed Bryan's statue from the front of the Nebraska state capitol, at the head of Centennial Mall, in favor of a less-conspicuous place under a tree at Bryan's Lincoln home, Fairview.
Beyond looking at Bryan's career, now is also a good time to reflect on Bryan's family. His brother Charles was twice governor of Nebraska and the Democratic nominee for U.S. vice president in 1924. His wife Mary Baird Bryan was an attorney and a full partner in all her husband's campaigns and offices. She sat in on meetings of President Wilson's cabinet with her husband, the Secretary of State.
Daughter Ruth Bryan Owen was the first Florida congresswoman and the first woman to be a U.S. ambassador. She was a delegate to the San Francisco conference that established the United Nations, and is a member of the Florida Women's Hall of Fame.
Bryan's granddaughter Ruth "Kitty" Leavitt, for whom he once had custody after his daughter Ruth's divorce, paradoxically became the wife of Robert Lehman, longtime head of Lehman Brothers, the investment bankers. Bryan's other daughter, Grace, also married a banker, in California, but is better known for her writing about the Bryan family's world travels.
It is more than appropriate to place a Bryan statue on Lincoln's Centennial Mall. Another good idea would be for the University of Nebraska to establish a Center for Bryan Studies. Far from being demoted, Bryan's star is actually rising among historians worldwide. There is much to discover. I'd like to know how his travels and his family, especially his daughter Ruth, influenced the development of his abhorrence of eugenics and Social Darwinism, of which we know little beyond H.L. Mencken's clever but superficial reportage at the end of Bryan's life.
Statues aside, Bryan will never be removed from Washington, as he and several members of his family are buried in Arlington National Cemetery. And presumably his bust is safe in the Hall of Fame corridors of the Nebraska state capitol.
Another Nebraska Hall of Fame development is this new article about one-time nominees Frederic and Edith Clements, founders of the discipline of plant ecology.* Because the work of one cannot be separated from the other, the Nebraska law allowing for only one person to be chosen during a nomination cycle should be amended to allow their joint consideration. Readers may find it of interest that, through their common university connections, the Clementses were an influence on Willa Cather and on Ruth and Grace Bryan.
___________________________
*Available through UNL Digital Commons as a publication of the University of Nebraska State Museum staff and affiliates. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=unsmaffil
Collin Peterson: Don't Run
November, 2019
Washington – A Democratic congressman and chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Collin Peterson, is undecided about making another run for re-election from his Minnesota district.
He thinks he could win but does not look forward to leading a legislative effort on another farm bill. He says it is getting harder every time to pass one.
I'm surely not alone in hoping Collin Peterson will retire. The farm bills he has guided to passage have been woefully short of meeting rural America's needs. They have been long on special interest protections and short on conservation, nutrition, crop insurance reforms, and developing agricultural markets.
Step back from the minutia of farm bills and look at the big picture: much of rural America is depopulating; much of it is suffering from obesity and diabetes epidemics; topsoil is eroding at an alarming rate; grocery stores of any kind (let alone those offering healthy food) are ironically disappearing from America's breadbasket regions; trade policy is a tariff-driven shambles.
Note these recent headlines and read their links:
How Washington keeps America sick and fat (Politico)
Farm Country Feeds America. But Just Try Buying Groceries There. (New York Times)
Washington – A Democratic congressman and chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Collin Peterson, is undecided about making another run for re-election from his Minnesota district.
He thinks he could win but does not look forward to leading a legislative effort on another farm bill. He says it is getting harder every time to pass one.
I'm surely not alone in hoping Collin Peterson will retire. The farm bills he has guided to passage have been woefully short of meeting rural America's needs. They have been long on special interest protections and short on conservation, nutrition, crop insurance reforms, and developing agricultural markets.
Step back from the minutia of farm bills and look at the big picture: much of rural America is depopulating; much of it is suffering from obesity and diabetes epidemics; topsoil is eroding at an alarming rate; grocery stores of any kind (let alone those offering healthy food) are ironically disappearing from America's breadbasket regions; trade policy is a tariff-driven shambles.
Note these recent headlines and read their links:
How Washington keeps America sick and fat (Politico)
Farm Country Feeds America. But Just Try Buying Groceries There. (New York Times)
House Democrats Are Failing to Protect Farmers from Trump (Washington Monthly)
It may be unfair to blame Collin Peterson for all of this, but he's been a large part of the problem, as have his fellow Democrats who have written off rural America for their own misguided reasons. Peterson and the Democrats had a huge opportunity after the 2018 elections, when they took power in the House, to address these issues in 2019 rather than pass a 2018 lame-duck farm bill still shaped by the discredited theories of Earl ("Get big or get out") Butz, but they did not.
Please retire, Collin Peterson. Step aside for new leadership that is up to the job.
Veterans Day Remembrances
November, 2019
Lincoln – It's Veterans Day. In past years I've noted family members who served our country. This year, special remembrance is due two friends, Dick Ratzlaff and Rich Brenning.
We were in the same Navy ROTC unit at the University of Nebraska in Lincoln and often travelled together around the Midwest as part of our Navy basketball team. Both were mainstays: Dick was point guard, Rich power forward. One year, 1963, our team was undefeated in about twenty local and regional games and tournaments. It tight spots, Rich could always be counted on to hit a jump shot from the corner, and Dick would come through with one of his many steals.
Dick Ratzaff, of Aberdeen, South Dakota, was shot down over Vietnam in 1966 and became a POW for seven years. He earned a Silver Star for his resistance. He never fully recovered and died in 1981.
Rich Brenning was lost at sea in 1969, flying off USS Ticonderoga. Lincoln was his hometown.
Still miss you both.
Lincoln – It's Veterans Day. In past years I've noted family members who served our country. This year, special remembrance is due two friends, Dick Ratzlaff and Rich Brenning.
We were in the same Navy ROTC unit at the University of Nebraska in Lincoln and often travelled together around the Midwest as part of our Navy basketball team. Both were mainstays: Dick was point guard, Rich power forward. One year, 1963, our team was undefeated in about twenty local and regional games and tournaments. It tight spots, Rich could always be counted on to hit a jump shot from the corner, and Dick would come through with one of his many steals.
Dick Ratzaff, of Aberdeen, South Dakota, was shot down over Vietnam in 1966 and became a POW for seven years. He earned a Silver Star for his resistance. He never fully recovered and died in 1981.
Rich Brenning was lost at sea in 1969, flying off USS Ticonderoga. Lincoln was his hometown.
Still miss you both.
Student Loan Relief as Tax Cut 2.0
November, 2019
Washington – Analysts at Moody's Investor Services are floating the idea that student loan debt relief is, for purposes of fiscal stimulus to boost the economy, an alternative to a 2020 tax cut.
Yes.
A big obstacle, however, is the notion of equity. Why only borrowers with current balances? That gives the perception of unfairness and likely will be a hurdle against enactment.
Sixteen months ago in these pages, and again last May, I suggested a refundable, means-tested tax credit based not on current borrower balances but on a calculation of the tuition premium incurred by the college-going generations of the 21st century.
By no means would such a tax credit be a cure-all for the nation's student loan crisis. Restoration of bankruptcy protections for student loan borrowers and addressing corruption in the U.S. Department of Education are both essential. But the recent flurry of interest in using tax policy to address the crisis makes it worthwhile to repeat arguments from an earlier post:
...a means-tested, refundable federal tax credit would be more equitable for all students who went to college in the high-tuition era of the last two decades. It would avoid such problems as unfairness between those in similar economic circumstances who struggled mightily to pay off their loans and those who did not; between those who chose lower priced community colleges or less selective schools and those who did not; and between those who worked to try to pay for college over many years and those who did not. The tax credit could be called the "Tuition Premium Tax Credit," the benefits of which could be used to pay off student debt, or simply used by recipients to recover economically from the high price of college, however it affected them wherever they attended. Such a tax credit would also help remedy generational inequities. The boomer generation benefitted enormously from the long, low tuition era that made paying for college relatively easy. The 2017 tax cut piled more wealth on the boomer generation; it could be trimmed back with savings applied to generational and income-class equity.
Washington – Analysts at Moody's Investor Services are floating the idea that student loan debt relief is, for purposes of fiscal stimulus to boost the economy, an alternative to a 2020 tax cut.
Yes.
A big obstacle, however, is the notion of equity. Why only borrowers with current balances? That gives the perception of unfairness and likely will be a hurdle against enactment.
Sixteen months ago in these pages, and again last May, I suggested a refundable, means-tested tax credit based not on current borrower balances but on a calculation of the tuition premium incurred by the college-going generations of the 21st century.
By no means would such a tax credit be a cure-all for the nation's student loan crisis. Restoration of bankruptcy protections for student loan borrowers and addressing corruption in the U.S. Department of Education are both essential. But the recent flurry of interest in using tax policy to address the crisis makes it worthwhile to repeat arguments from an earlier post:
...a means-tested, refundable federal tax credit would be more equitable for all students who went to college in the high-tuition era of the last two decades. It would avoid such problems as unfairness between those in similar economic circumstances who struggled mightily to pay off their loans and those who did not; between those who chose lower priced community colleges or less selective schools and those who did not; and between those who worked to try to pay for college over many years and those who did not. The tax credit could be called the "Tuition Premium Tax Credit," the benefits of which could be used to pay off student debt, or simply used by recipients to recover economically from the high price of college, however it affected them wherever they attended. Such a tax credit would also help remedy generational inequities. The boomer generation benefitted enormously from the long, low tuition era that made paying for college relatively easy. The 2017 tax cut piled more wealth on the boomer generation; it could be trimmed back with savings applied to generational and income-class equity.
House Has Been MIA on Student Loans
November, 2019
Washington – When we last visited the subject of federal student loans a few weeks ago, we had little reason to hope for any breakthroughs that would benefit the nation's many aggrieved and defrauded borrowers. It was as if the whole country had become inured to student loan corruption.
But much has changed since:
• Secretary Betsy DeVos has been held in contempt of federal district court for violating court orders in thousands of "borrower defense" cases. Her legal advisor on student loans and consumer protections, Steven Menashi, was nominated to a federal appeals court seat but that nomination is now in trouble in the Senate, as it should be.
• DeVos's first choice to head office of Federal Student Aid in 2017, A. Wayne Johnson, has resigned abruptly from the Department of Education, calling the federal student loan system "fundamentally broken." He has announced his candidacy, as a Republican, for the Senate based on cancelling most borrowers' loans and providing tax credits to others.
• The National Student Loan Defense Network, led by former Department officials committed to justice for defrauded borrowers, is suing DeVos and the "corrupt Department of Education" for sending millions of student loan dollars to two for-profit schools despite knowing they were unaccredited, then covering it up and collecting from borrowers on the illegal loans. NSLDN has already prevailed in other student loan cases.
• The recently appointed COO of Federal Student Aid, Mark Brown, has released a video promising to do better by borrowers, saying that loan servicers have been reprimanded for improperly collecting on student loans and that certain Department officials have likewise been disciplined.
So what is Congress doing about this? For most intents and purposes, the House has been missing-in-action. Although it has held several hearings among its committees and subcommittees, they have fizzled despite excellent panel testimony from student loan experts and victims. Members got sidetracked by student loan industry arguments that the programs are too complicated to administer, that borrowers themselves are to blame, and that fixes must await new legislation.
I have watched all the hearings. Only once did I ever hear, from a member, the word "wrongdoing," and only once the word "corruption." This, despite overwhelming evidence of just that. Corruption has infected the Department for many years. See earlier posts for examples of perjury, obstruction, and false claims.
The chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, Congressman Bobby Scott, has now threatened to subpoena Betsy DeVos if she does not voluntarily appear before the committee to answer questions about the matter for which she was found in contempt of court, and about the distribution of funds to unaccredited colleges.
That is only the tip of the iceberg. The chairman must be ready to confront the Secretary over the corruption that has ruined the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program and determine what kind of meaningful "reprimands" servicers have ever been given for illegal actions in any program. He needs to determine which Department officials have been "disciplined" by Mark Brown, if that is indeed the case as claimed. Are the disciplined officials political appointees or civil servants? Are they being scapegoated?
If the system is so bad, as Wayne Johnson concluded, is it because the Department of Education was long ago captured by the industry it is supposed to regulate? The answer to that is an obvious yes. The Department's key positions for many years have been filled through a revolving door with industry.
Whatever Chairman Scott does, he needs to know that another round of fizzled House hearings will make matters worse. Inconclusive hearings will only encourage more defiant behavior from the DeVos Department, which has proved itself committed to delivering taxpayer funds to voracious appetites in the student loan industry and for-profit colleges, at the expense of taxpayers and borrowers, with disregard for the rule of law.
On the other hand, we can hope that Chairman Scott has now seen what happens when remedies commensurate to the offenses are seriously considered. The mention by a federal judge of possible jail time for DeVos was quickly followed by one high-level resignation and much apologizing from another.
Congress has many remedies at its disposal. It's time to let the DeVos Department know that measures from fines to impeachment may be put into play to see that borrowers and taxpayers get the justice due them.
In other words, Chairman Scott, it's time to rise to the occasion.
Washington – When we last visited the subject of federal student loans a few weeks ago, we had little reason to hope for any breakthroughs that would benefit the nation's many aggrieved and defrauded borrowers. It was as if the whole country had become inured to student loan corruption.
But much has changed since:
• Secretary Betsy DeVos has been held in contempt of federal district court for violating court orders in thousands of "borrower defense" cases. Her legal advisor on student loans and consumer protections, Steven Menashi, was nominated to a federal appeals court seat but that nomination is now in trouble in the Senate, as it should be.
• DeVos's first choice to head office of Federal Student Aid in 2017, A. Wayne Johnson, has resigned abruptly from the Department of Education, calling the federal student loan system "fundamentally broken." He has announced his candidacy, as a Republican, for the Senate based on cancelling most borrowers' loans and providing tax credits to others.
• The National Student Loan Defense Network, led by former Department officials committed to justice for defrauded borrowers, is suing DeVos and the "corrupt Department of Education" for sending millions of student loan dollars to two for-profit schools despite knowing they were unaccredited, then covering it up and collecting from borrowers on the illegal loans. NSLDN has already prevailed in other student loan cases.
• The recently appointed COO of Federal Student Aid, Mark Brown, has released a video promising to do better by borrowers, saying that loan servicers have been reprimanded for improperly collecting on student loans and that certain Department officials have likewise been disciplined.
So what is Congress doing about this? For most intents and purposes, the House has been missing-in-action. Although it has held several hearings among its committees and subcommittees, they have fizzled despite excellent panel testimony from student loan experts and victims. Members got sidetracked by student loan industry arguments that the programs are too complicated to administer, that borrowers themselves are to blame, and that fixes must await new legislation.
I have watched all the hearings. Only once did I ever hear, from a member, the word "wrongdoing," and only once the word "corruption." This, despite overwhelming evidence of just that. Corruption has infected the Department for many years. See earlier posts for examples of perjury, obstruction, and false claims.
The chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, Congressman Bobby Scott, has now threatened to subpoena Betsy DeVos if she does not voluntarily appear before the committee to answer questions about the matter for which she was found in contempt of court, and about the distribution of funds to unaccredited colleges.
That is only the tip of the iceberg. The chairman must be ready to confront the Secretary over the corruption that has ruined the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program and determine what kind of meaningful "reprimands" servicers have ever been given for illegal actions in any program. He needs to determine which Department officials have been "disciplined" by Mark Brown, if that is indeed the case as claimed. Are the disciplined officials political appointees or civil servants? Are they being scapegoated?
If the system is so bad, as Wayne Johnson concluded, is it because the Department of Education was long ago captured by the industry it is supposed to regulate? The answer to that is an obvious yes. The Department's key positions for many years have been filled through a revolving door with industry.
Whatever Chairman Scott does, he needs to know that another round of fizzled House hearings will make matters worse. Inconclusive hearings will only encourage more defiant behavior from the DeVos Department, which has proved itself committed to delivering taxpayer funds to voracious appetites in the student loan industry and for-profit colleges, at the expense of taxpayers and borrowers, with disregard for the rule of law.
On the other hand, we can hope that Chairman Scott has now seen what happens when remedies commensurate to the offenses are seriously considered. The mention by a federal judge of possible jail time for DeVos was quickly followed by one high-level resignation and much apologizing from another.
Congress has many remedies at its disposal. It's time to let the DeVos Department know that measures from fines to impeachment may be put into play to see that borrowers and taxpayers get the justice due them.
In other words, Chairman Scott, it's time to rise to the occasion.
American Resolve in Doubt
November, 2019
Berlin – In 1945, this city was a mess. After the Nazi surrender, Russian troops took revenge on the Berlin population. The main parts of the city were rubble. Power plants and transportation facilities were largely destroyed. Food supplies were running out.
American, British, and French forces were slow to reach Berlin, hampered at every step by the Red Army. U.S. Army occupation forces, led by Colonel Frank Howley for the American sector in Berlin and by General Lucius Clay for the entire U.S. Zone in Germany, did not have solid support from Washington. Many in Congress thought a Soviet takeover of Berlin was inevitable and wanted an American pull-out.
Soviet Russia had designs on all of Europe. Berlin was the focus for maximum pressure. If Berlin fell, it would signal that America could not be counted on as a reliable ally. Berliners knew that, and for a time American resolve was in doubt. The crisis came in 1948, when the Russians walked out of the four-powers Kommandatura building and began a blockade of West Berlin to force it into submission.
President Truman agreed to a massive effort to try to supply West Berlin by air. Against all odds, it worked. At the same time, Secretary of State George Marshall conceived the Marshall Plan for overall European recovery, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was created for mutual defense against Soviet Russia.
The story of the Berlin Airlift is well told today at the Allied Museum* on Clayallee in Berlin, the major thoroughfare named after the American who led the effort. Truman Plaza is nearby. Berlin today is a thriving beacon of freedom from which the rest of the world can learn. Thirty one Americans died in the airlift effort.
In a few days, Berlin and the free world will celebrate the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, when Berlin's Soviet sector finally collapsed, to be followed soon by the rest of the Soviet puppet state of East Germany.
My family and I were there to see the wall opened in 1989. It was not a given. The days leading up to it were tense. The Red Army still had Berlin surrounded. What was a given was the resolve of the U.S. and its NATO partners to stand firm. That made all the difference.
Contrast this with our current international posture of retreat and withdrawal, which now resembles that of early 1948 when American resolve was much in doubt. Our 45th president is without forward vision or historical insight and talks of getting out of "endless wars." Even veterans who have fought in recent wars and sacrificed much are showing misguided agreement.
Perhaps this should not be a surprise. Some of America's wars were ill-advised and tragic: Viet-Nam and the 2003 invasion of Iraq are stains on the presidencies of Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and George W. Bush. Johnson misled the American people badly with his prevarications about the Tonkin Gulf attacks; Nixon sabotaged peace talks to win election in 1968; Bush made up Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as a pretext for war.
Conversely, we should not forget that U.S. leadership wisely reversed Iraq's aggression against Kuwait, initially defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan, and ended Caliphate rule in much of Syria.
That these successes were not properly consolidated in their aftermath does not mean they should be lumped in with our failures. It means that those who did not consolidate them must be held accountable, Democratic and Republican presidents alike. They should have learned from President Truman, who knew that Berlin came at such cost that it could not be abandoned.
Our current president is going one step further than retreating from America's historic role in protecting freedom. He is casting doubt on what America stands for. In 1948, it was understandable that some American public opinion was against remaining in Berlin to defend Germans, who had been our enemy. In 2019, however, an American president is shamefully turning his back on Kurds, our ally in the fight against the Caliphate. That is beyond the pale. America is also abandoning the cause of freedom in China, as China exterminates the Uighur people and threatens democracy in Hong Kong.
It is well to remember 1948 and the Berlin airlift to note that our opponent then was Soviet Russia, bent on expansion. How little changes. Russia, still led by a former Soviet agent, is now our geopolitical opponent in Syria and Ukraine. President Truman knew what he had to do and took courageous action to save the free world from Russian totalitarianism. Our current president seems not to know which side he is on.
I am one veteran who yearns for another Harry Truman and will do everything possible to see that America returns to its proper, hard-won role in world affairs.
_________________________
* I am proud to say that my late wife, a German citizen with great respect for America, helped in the creation of the museum.
Berlin – In 1945, this city was a mess. After the Nazi surrender, Russian troops took revenge on the Berlin population. The main parts of the city were rubble. Power plants and transportation facilities were largely destroyed. Food supplies were running out.
American, British, and French forces were slow to reach Berlin, hampered at every step by the Red Army. U.S. Army occupation forces, led by Colonel Frank Howley for the American sector in Berlin and by General Lucius Clay for the entire U.S. Zone in Germany, did not have solid support from Washington. Many in Congress thought a Soviet takeover of Berlin was inevitable and wanted an American pull-out.
Soviet Russia had designs on all of Europe. Berlin was the focus for maximum pressure. If Berlin fell, it would signal that America could not be counted on as a reliable ally. Berliners knew that, and for a time American resolve was in doubt. The crisis came in 1948, when the Russians walked out of the four-powers Kommandatura building and began a blockade of West Berlin to force it into submission.
President Truman agreed to a massive effort to try to supply West Berlin by air. Against all odds, it worked. At the same time, Secretary of State George Marshall conceived the Marshall Plan for overall European recovery, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was created for mutual defense against Soviet Russia.
The story of the Berlin Airlift is well told today at the Allied Museum* on Clayallee in Berlin, the major thoroughfare named after the American who led the effort. Truman Plaza is nearby. Berlin today is a thriving beacon of freedom from which the rest of the world can learn. Thirty one Americans died in the airlift effort.
In a few days, Berlin and the free world will celebrate the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, when Berlin's Soviet sector finally collapsed, to be followed soon by the rest of the Soviet puppet state of East Germany.
My family and I were there to see the wall opened in 1989. It was not a given. The days leading up to it were tense. The Red Army still had Berlin surrounded. What was a given was the resolve of the U.S. and its NATO partners to stand firm. That made all the difference.
Contrast this with our current international posture of retreat and withdrawal, which now resembles that of early 1948 when American resolve was much in doubt. Our 45th president is without forward vision or historical insight and talks of getting out of "endless wars." Even veterans who have fought in recent wars and sacrificed much are showing misguided agreement.
Perhaps this should not be a surprise. Some of America's wars were ill-advised and tragic: Viet-Nam and the 2003 invasion of Iraq are stains on the presidencies of Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and George W. Bush. Johnson misled the American people badly with his prevarications about the Tonkin Gulf attacks; Nixon sabotaged peace talks to win election in 1968; Bush made up Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as a pretext for war.
Conversely, we should not forget that U.S. leadership wisely reversed Iraq's aggression against Kuwait, initially defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan, and ended Caliphate rule in much of Syria.
That these successes were not properly consolidated in their aftermath does not mean they should be lumped in with our failures. It means that those who did not consolidate them must be held accountable, Democratic and Republican presidents alike. They should have learned from President Truman, who knew that Berlin came at such cost that it could not be abandoned.
Our current president is going one step further than retreating from America's historic role in protecting freedom. He is casting doubt on what America stands for. In 1948, it was understandable that some American public opinion was against remaining in Berlin to defend Germans, who had been our enemy. In 2019, however, an American president is shamefully turning his back on Kurds, our ally in the fight against the Caliphate. That is beyond the pale. America is also abandoning the cause of freedom in China, as China exterminates the Uighur people and threatens democracy in Hong Kong.
It is well to remember 1948 and the Berlin airlift to note that our opponent then was Soviet Russia, bent on expansion. How little changes. Russia, still led by a former Soviet agent, is now our geopolitical opponent in Syria and Ukraine. President Truman knew what he had to do and took courageous action to save the free world from Russian totalitarianism. Our current president seems not to know which side he is on.
I am one veteran who yearns for another Harry Truman and will do everything possible to see that America returns to its proper, hard-won role in world affairs.
_________________________
* I am proud to say that my late wife, a German citizen with great respect for America, helped in the creation of the museum.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)