We Need to Talk…And Listen

 

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

We need to talk, folks. To each other, that is, about the issues which polarize and divide us. We’ve had contentious political divisions before but not since the Vietnam War and the race riots of the 1960s have they been so polarizing. If Russian meddling in the 2016 election campaign was primarily intended, as I believe, to create division and distrust among us and weaken national resolve and faith in our system of government, then it is succeeding. A recent poll revealed that about a third of Americans actually believe that a civil war could result from such divisions.

 

I meet regularly with a learned friend whose political views are quite often different from mine. We discuss various issues over coffee and listen to each other. That is, we actually listen instead of just focusing on what we are going to say next in reply. Although we often agree to disagree, we usually find merit in other’s point of view and on most issues find some common ground. We invariably enjoy the give and take and, agree or not, never let political preferences get in the way of friendship.

 

There needs to be more of this in American society if we are ever to return to a more civil mode of discourse and achieve a middle ground on issues that divide us. The media and the universities, unfortunately, are not helping in this regard. They have largely chosen a side and are no longer objective. Many university students, usually without any significant adult experience in the outside world, refuse even to listen to arguments that run counter to their own or those instilled in them by their overwhelmingly liberal professors.  The media whip themselves up into a frenzy of excitement over issues like the Trump-Russia collusion theory. Yet, the average ordinary person fails to respond with the same level of outrage and, in fact, the president’s approval ratings actually increase, especially among the party in power. Why, do you suppose? Perhaps, in the words of Bill Clinton’s former advisor, James Carville, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Polls consistently show that voters usually put the economy ahead of foreign relations as a factor influencing their level of approval of political leaders.

 

And the economy is booming. Economic growth in the past quarter exceeded 4% and just about anyone who wants a job can find one. Businesses are expanding and hiring. Most people are too busy working and raising families to care much which foreign leaders are currently the recipients of Trump’s favor or anger. The economy nearly always trumps foreign policy. It did when Roosevelt gave away Eastern Europe to the Soviets at Yalta. It did when Kennedy’s perceived weakness in his first meeting with the Soviets led to the Cuban missile crisis.  Yet both men are still revered today as great presidents. Trump may never be accorded that status, but he certainly won’t be remembered as the worst. Liberals note that the recovery began during Obama’s presidency but it was one of the weakest on record and the economy didn’t really take off until Trump was elected and deregulation and tax cuts followed as promised.

 

While liberals bewail the damage that Trump’s tough trade policies supposedly will do, there is little doubt in my mind that we will win the trade wars, if that’s what we wish to label them, for the simple reason that the American economy is still, by far, the largest in the world. China, Europe and the rest of the world need us more than we need them. To point this out is often viewed as American arrogance, but it is simple economic reality. We shouldn’t gloat about it, but neither should we have to apologize for it or be ashamed of it as many liberal elites and the media often seem to be.

August 28, 208

 

The Left’s Collusion Complex

A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                Here’s my problem. I don’t like Donald Trump. Never did and probably never will. I wrote many times during the nominating campaign that almost any of his opponents would have made a better president; that he was often crude, sometimes vulgar and spoke in some strange language of incomplete sentences, frequently repeated. I twice wrote that he was a buffoon (that was unkind and untrue), that he lacked the communications skills to hold the most powerful office in the world (true) and that the GOP should dump him.

 

But they didn’t and the rest, as they say is history. The GOP, I felt at the time, missed a golden chance to win the presidency over the deeply-flawed Hillary Clinton, by settling for another deeply-flawed one. Wonder of wonders, without any evidence of help from the Russians, but plenty from Hillary Clinton, who ran an awful campaign, and then-FBI Director Jim Comey, who reopened the Clinton email investigation on the eve of the election.

 

I couldn’t bring myself to vote for either, writing in, instead another name. But while I am not fond of Mr. Trump and his manner, I deeply respect the office of the president and the democratic process that elected him. I believe that we all have a duty to hold our noses and do so in spite of differences we may have with him or his policies. But the left did not and became fixated on destroying him and de-legitimizing his election. They seized on the Russian collusion theory and simply won’t let it go in spite of a lack of evidence that Russians influenced the election outcome. The Russians did hack the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee (DNC) computers but failed in hacking the GOP computers. Perhaps the Democrats were using the Hillary Clinton model of computer security.

 

Now the left’s hair is on fire over the president’s tough talk in meeting with our European allies followed by his meek performance in Helsinki. I addressed the former in a recent column but I won’t even try to defend his performance during the Helsinki summit where Don and Vlad acted like old pals. He appeared to side with Putin over his own intelligence sources regarding Russian meddling. Critics asserted that this impugned the integrity of our revered intelligence community. But if questions have arisen regarding the impartiality of that community, here are some people to blame other than Trump: John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.

 

Brennan, a former CIA director, accused the president of treasonous behavior at Helsinki. Treasonous? Are we at war? Did Brennan cross the line and himself engage in treasonous behavior by accusing the commander-in-chief without cause? James Clapper, Obama’s intelligence chief, seems convinced, without presenting any evidence,  that Trump won because of Russian collusion. More likely he won because of then-FBI Director Jim Comey’s interference in an election as noted above.  Then there’s Peter Strzok, the disgraced lead investigator in the Hillary Clinton investigation who later joined Robert Mueller’s investigation until removed after revelations of his email exchanges with FBI attorney Lisa Page, with whom he was “romantically involved”, suggesting that they wouldn’t let Trump win the election. Are there other examples of bias that we don’t know about yet? What happened to the appearance of impropriety standard? While I have great respect for our intelligence professionals, the vast majority of whom are of the highest integrity and honor, can you blame those who are raising questions of bias?

 

No reasonable person doubts that Russia meddled in our election. Here’s news to some on the left. Other nations, including ours, do and have done so also when it is in their country’s interest. This, incidentally, is what spies and foreign agents are sometimes paid to do. It’s a dirty business and you don’t have to like it but it is a fact of life in our imperfect world. I personally believe that Russia’s main intent in meddling was not so much to influence our election as to sow discord, division and doubt about the integrity of our elections. They have succeeded, thanks largely to the hysterical reaction of the left and their collusion complex in trying to de-legitimize Trump’s victory. They should be careful what they seek. Trump’s popularity among GOP voters has risen to 84% according to a recent Reuters/IPSOS poll. All those people out their clinging to their guns and religion and demanding change probably wouldn’t take kindly to having their votes invalidated.

 

Let’s be clear. Putin’s Russia is not our friend or ally. Neither, for that matter is Xi’s China. But that doesn’t mean that they have to forever be our enemies. Sometimes our rivals can be played against each other to our advantage. We should with China aligned against us would be very bad strategy and would not enhance our security.

August 23, 2018

Papal Opposition to the Death Penalty

Another Quandary for Catholics———————————

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                Pope Francis is a wonderfully jovial, humble and popular leader but sometimes I wish he’d be a little more specific in providing spiritual guidance to his flock of 1.2 billion.  It’s true that Jesus also spoke in parables but Pope Francis sometimes seems to send mixed messages. For example, when he asked “Who am I to judge gay people?” did that suggest, as some seem to believe, a forthcoming  change in church doctrine to someday approve of gay marriage or gay sex or will the church just continue to love the sinner but condemn the sin?

 

When he reaches out to divorced Catholics urging greater understanding, does that presage a change in church doctrine to permit them to remarry without having a previous marriage annulled if the former spouse is still living?  The Pope’s views on immigration are classic liberal views. We should embrace and welcome all immigrants regardless of legal status and build bridges rather than walls. But how about respect for a nation’s laws? Didn’t Jesus say “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s”?

 

The Bishop of San Diego recently joined demonstrators at the international border with Mexico protesting President Donald Trump’s zero tolerance policy regarding illegal border crossers resulting in some children who were brought into the country illegally being separated from their parents who were being detained or incarcerated for committing a crime, just as children in our country have always been separated from a parent jailed for committing a crime.  The Bishop lamented that under such a policy Jesus might have been separated from his parents while they were travelling, a rather tortuous comparison since it isn’t clear that Mary and Joseph committed any crime. It’s understandable that churches reach out to aid immigrants and others in need of food and shelter but does religious officials participating in demonstrating against federal laws designed to maintain control of the boarder to enhance security and prevent human and drug smuggling cross a line?

 

The latest lurch to liberalism came with the Vatican’s announcement that the Pope had approved revised language in the Catholic Catechism describing the death penalty as “an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person” and that the church will work “with determination” to abolish it worldwide. Most Christian nations in Europe and Latin America already have. China and predominantly Muslim countries lead the world in capital punishment. In the United States, where capital punishment is still permitted in some states but is on the decline, only 23 death sentences were actually carried out in 2017. Good luck in getting it eliminated in China or those Muslim countries, though.

 

Church doctrine formerly accepted the death penalty if it was deemed to be the only practical way to save lives. It arguably still does by serving as a powerful deterrent to murder in spite of claims by opponents of the death penalty to the contrary. The church’s view now is that no life should be taken away as a punishment for any crime however horrendous.

 

This ruling poses yet another quandary for Catholics, especially Catholic politicians and judges who take an oath to uphold the laws of the land. The ruling may be somewhat inconvenient for Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a Catholic, who is Mr. Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, replacing Justice Anthony Kennedy, also a Catholic. His confirmation would maintain the Catholic majority on the court, the other Catholics being Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor, at a time when liberals fear a repeal of Roe v. Wade. Will the change in church doctrine also spell the end of the death penalty?

 

The late Justice Antonin Scalia, also a Catholic, is said to have told a law school audience in 2011 that if he thought Catholic doctrine held that the death penalty was immoral, he would resign from the court. Will the current Catholic justices feel the same way? What guidance, if any, does the church have for them? Or should they just play it by ear, relying on a “well-formed conscious”, while the Vatican diddles with doctrine? And if the life of some scumbag who, say, kidnaps, rapes and kills a child still has dignity and inviolability and cannot be taken by the state, what’s a soldier to do when he is faced with killing an enemy in combat? Is that life inviolable too? Will that be addressed in the next Catechism revision? Just asking. Straight answers, not ambiguous platitudes, would be welcome.

August 16, 2018

 

The Dealmaker

Trump’s Transactional Traits——————————————

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

Donald Trump will not be remembered as the most beloved of world leaders but I doubt that he cares much. He didn’t run for the title of Mr. Congeniality but rather to make America great again. His method of doing that is to put America’s interests first in immigration, economic policy, trade and foreign relations. He aims for win-win deals when possible but will settle for an American win if that proves too difficult.

 

He certainly will be remembered for an unconventional, tough, and sometimes undiplomatic style in foreign policy dealings. This often ruffles the feathers and hurts the feelings of our more genteel and diplomatic European allies and enrages our own domestic liberal elites who seem to believe that America’s security somehow is dependent upon the support of Europe’s relatively meager military forces. But he is also likely to be remembered for what he is managing to accomplish in spite of constant criticism and obstruction on the part of the party out of power. The U.S. economy is booming and growing robustly again. Unemployment is way down even among minorities and there are more jobs than there are people unemployed. Wages are rising. Obama-era regulations hampering business expansion are being rescinded and business optimism is high again because uncertainty has been reduced.

 

Yet, critics seem focused on his style and manner of communications. Liberals and their mainstream media scribes are unrelenting in their attacks and dismissive of anything he tries or proposes. But he is simply following through, largely successfully, on what he promised during his campaign. That resonated with enough Americans to win an election he wasn’t supposed to win, but did, thanks probably to what amounted to last-minute meddling by, of all people, the then-director of the FBI, James Comey.

 

But putting America first and speaking bluntly does not resonate favorably with the leaders of Europe’s once powerful former colonial empires who are our dear allies but sometimes act like pampered dependents, growing prosperous while relying on America’s military umbrella and skimping on their own defense budgets. .Mr. Trump angered Britons by criticizing Prime Minister Theresa May’s planned post-Brexit trade agreements with the European Union (EU), saying that they could jeopardize US-UK trade deals by making the UK too dependent on EU trade policies. But he’s right. He also angered Germans by criticizing Germany’s heavy imports of energy from Russia and support of the Russian pipeline, both economically important to Russia whom we are supposed to be sanctioning for annexing Crimea and other misdeeds. He’s right there, too. And when he questions the future of NATO because of, among other things, a persistent failure of all but four members to spend at least the agreed 2% of GDP annually on defense, he’s right again.

 

 

In any event, it’s a fair question. Originally created as an alliance of North Atlantic nations, that is, the U.S., Canada and Western Europe, to counter the expansion of the former Soviet Union, it has itself expanded to the very western borders of Russia and includes most of the former Soviet Socialistic Republics of Eastern Europe, each of which we are obligated to defend if attacked. The Soviet Union crumbled, thanks to the policies of Ronald Reagan, and Russia, while an economic lightweight and a second tier economy with an ageing population, is still a military heavyweight with a nuclear arsenal. Yet, there has been talk of expanding NATO which would entail yet more risk, given the obligations it places upon us and the fact that too much of the burden is carried by American taxpayers.

 

On the eve of the Trump meeting with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, the Mueller investigation produced Grand Jury indictments accusing a dozen Russian intelligence officials of hacking the Clinton campaign and the DNC. In other words, the Russians meddled in the election. How about telling us something we didn’t already know. At this writing, liberals are demanding that the meeting be cancelled or at least that Trump hold Putin to account. How, exactly? By demanding that he return Crimea to Ukraine? There is about as much chance of that happening as the Padres winning the World Series.

 

Donald Trump is a realist and a dealmaker. As Tony Abbott, the former Prime Minister of a true ally, Australia, recently said, Trump is a transactional president. His methods and language may be undiplomatic but his instincts are often spot on. Perhaps, now and then at least, we should give him some credit for that.

August 13, 2018

Racial Discrimination in College Admissions

Race Has No Place in College Admissions Policy——————-

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                The Trump Administration followed through on another effort to rescind certain Obama-era executive policies that represent federal overreach. In a “Dear Colleague” letter to university officials, it announced the cancellation of a policy that promoted the use of race in determining college admissions. In brief, it stated that such policies advocating racial preference went “beyond the requirements of the Constitution” and were therefore “inconsistent with governing principles”. The letter stated further that protections from discrimination on the basis of race would remain in place and continue to be vigorously enforced.

 

Presumable, all races are eligible for such protection and vigorous enforcement. If so, one might add, it’s about time. For too long, many institutions of higher education, including elite ones like Harvard, have discriminated against student applicants of Asian ancestry who, on average, consistently outperform students of other races academically and in college entrance exams. They discriminate, not because of any animus toward Asians, but rather in pursuit of diversity, arguing that racial diversity is an essential feature of the university experience. I’m not convinced that any rigorous research supports such a theory, but I am certain that this constitutes discrimination against Asians based on race, something that has no place in America under our constitution. Calling it affirmative action in order to increase the percentage of black students does not make it right or fair.

 

Harvard alumni, including myself, received a letter from the university president urging support of the school’s admissions policy which has the effect of achieving its version of racial diversity by making it more difficult for applicants of Asian extraction to qualify for admission even though their test scores, which are predictive of academic success, may be higher than those of other races. The letter states that the policy is not fully understood or accurately characterized. I think I understand it well enough. It discriminates against those of Asian descent. In other words, it is affirmative action, not equal opportunity.

 

I have no problem with diversity as a goal but not as a mandate. If blacks are underrepresented in the student body, then go out and recruit more with competitive test scores and offer them scholarships if necessary. Harvard, with the richest endowment of any university, can certainly afford it. But don’t insult the entire race by a policy that suggests they can’t compete with those of other races on academic merit, extra-curricular activities and other merit factors alone.

 

I firmly believe that skin color has nothing to do with brain function, intelligence or ambition. Culture, the environment and the way young people are reared, on the other hand, have everything to do with these things. Education, academic achievement and hard work have traditionally been highly valued, praised and demanded in Asian households. In Asian countries, college selection and acceptance are hugely important. In Japan, voluntary, unpaid overtime work is so widespread that overwork has become a problem that the government is now actually trying to ameliorate. Lower academic performance by students of other races is probably less attributable to bad schools, bad teachers and bad neighborhoods and more to bad parenting and a home environment where athletics, TV and video games are more popular than reading and studying. That Asian families tend to encourage more of the latter should not result in discrimination against them in college admissions, hiring or anything else.

 

Affirmative action programs once were needed but they have become a relic of the past. They were always intended to be temporary; a kick-start toward equal opportunity and a level playing field for everyone, not a permanent crutch. Whether or not affirmative action has worked is a matter for debate but it’s time to move on. Race has no place as a factor in college admissions policy or in any other competitive process.

August 2, 2018

,