Risk-Averse Generation?

Yes, I am a baby-boomer. In my young and middle adult years, all I heard was how mobile Americans had become. We gain our identity as we leave home and explore. This is a large country, and we take advantage of it. We move away from home. “Go West, young man,” was the mantra. That was true for the history of the Plasterer family, as we moved from Lancaster County, PA, to Huntington, IN, to northern IA, to southern MN, and eventually some moved to CA. In my immediate family, the five of us children, born in MN, now live in MO, WI, IN, SD, and VA.
 

However, now I learn that Americans are not as mobile as in generations past. According to one study in 2012, "the likelihood of 20-somethings moving to another state has dropped over 40 percent since the 1980s, and the proportion of young adults living at home doubled between 1980 and 2008."

Given the economic stresses that many young adults must face, one can understand this. I have known people for whom the Great Depression was formative in their teen years, and they tended to be risk-averse. My interest in this article is quite narrow, however. My interest is not so much about a new generation coming into adulthood. For me, it raises the general question of risk. Have we as a people become risk averse?

From Tolkien's Fellowship of the Ring comes this commentary on following the road:

Frodo was silent. He too was gazing eastward along the road, as if he had never seen it before. Suddenly he spoke, aloud but as if to himself, saying slowly:

The Road goes ever on and on

Down from the door where it began.

Now far ahead the Road has gone,

And I must follow, if I can,

Pursuing it with eager feet,

Until it joins some larger way

Where many paths and errands meet.

And whither then? I cannot say.

"That sounds like a bit of old Bilbo's rhyming," said Pippin. "Or is it one of your imitations? It doesn't sound at all encouraging."

"I don't know," said Frodo.

"It came to me then, as if I was making it up, but I may have heard it long ago. Certainly it reminds me very much of Bilbo, in the last years, before he went away. He used often to say there was only one Road; that it was like a great river: its springs were at every doorstep, and every path was its tributary. 'It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door,' he used to say. 'You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no telling where you might be swept off to.'"

"Go West, young man, go West. There is health in the country, and room away from our crowds of idlers and imbeciles." Horace Greeley gave this advice in 1833. It has summarized the idea of westward expansion and the ideal of taking the risk of getting up and moving ever since.

For generations, people did this. However, today, people are staying put.

"Sometime in the past 30 years, someone has hit the brakes," write Todd and Victoria Buchholz in The New York Times (March 11, 2012). "Americans -- particularly young Americans -- have become risk-averse and sedentary." To support their case, the Buchholzes point out that the likelihood of 20-somethings moving to another state has dropped over 40 percent since the 1980s.

"We are a nation of movers and shakers," insist the Buchholzes. They recall that the Pilgrims climbed into boats to cross the Atlantic, the Greatest Generation shipped out to fight in Europe and the Pacific, and the children of the 60s joined the Peace Corps.

"But Generation Y has become Generation Why Bother," they conclude. Why bother to move out of the family home? Why bother to cross the country in search of work? Why bother to journey into an unknown future? I have noticed that some think of this as a new style of parenting, in which parents hover over their children, not wanting them to experience anything negative. Thus, everyone makes the team, you do not keep score at games, and everyone gets a trophy for participating.

I am not sure if this generational shift is true – yet. However, if I go by my family, both of my boys are still close to parents. I know that is anecdotal, but it is consistent with what some think is a trend.

My larger concern is that of risk. Are we as a nation becoming risk-averse? Are we becoming sedentary? Something in me thinks this is not good.

Republican Debate in Boulder, Colorado October 2015

The purpose of this blog is to allow the potential reader to ponder the field of Republican candidates. I have been collecting some thoughtful articles that I hope will prove helpful. I have stayed away from what I thought of as polemical arguments. The order of discussion of the candidates is the in order in which I have my preferences today. I like the diversity represented in this field of candidates. The order reflects that appreciation. This field is diverse, and the "best" person will win, but I hope the best will also be Hispanic, Black, Indian, or female. I hope any potential reader will take a few moments to reflect.

Donald Trump has changed the equation dramatically. His focus on immigration has brought the frustration with this issue to the fore. I see many people in both parties very concerned about the favors granted to illegal immigrants vs. citizens. Many people also do not want their illegal behavior rewarded while those who go through the process legally get pushed to the back of the line. Of course, Trump also gives the impression that he will get things done. I recall a similar attraction to Ross Perot in the 1992 election. However, I also sense an emotional connection with his energy, excitement, grandiose claims, and even his anger. I understand the frustration many conservatives have with the way Washington works. However, divided government is frustrating by nature. The division in Washington reflects the deep divide in the country. "We the people" seem confused as to what we want out of government. As this blog will show again, I am not a Trump fan.

I became a political conservative in my mid-20s, after reading people like George Will, William F. Buckley, and Milton Friedman. Arthur Brooks wrote a book that explores the moral case for conservatism, and Gabriella Hoffman summarizes the ideas. Among the major issues in the Republican Party is the difference between people who might call themselves "movement" conservatives, like the TEA Party, Hannity, and Limbaugh, and the "Establishment" Republicans, such as George Will and Charles Krauthammer. Matt Lewis has offered an excellent analysis, using the quick change in the views that movement conservatives have of Paul Ryan and Donald Trump as examples. The issue he raises is that the division is "us vs. them" and not "liberal vs conservative." I was struck in a recent radio broadcast that Rush Limbaugh claimed not to know how Jeb differs from Obama. I think he is way off on this. In fact, both Rush and Hannity have gone the direction of claiming that establishment Republicans are liberals. The reason is the immigration issue. However, to focus on one issue in a matter like this is unreasonable. Some Republicans would like a more assertive (aggressive) stance in relation to the Democrat Party, to the point of closing down the government. Others think that would be a disaster. This is a matter of strategy. It is also a matter of frustration that grass roots conservatives, who have had some successes, but who also see little results in Washington. My point is that while conservatives may differ over strategy, conservatives ought not to right each other out of the conservative approach to the government over such matters.

Before I begin, a few authors have explored some general issues in the campaign. For example, Helen Raleigh explains why the Asian vote typically goes Democrat and how Republicans might change this. For another example, we can take the matter of Iraq and its continuing influence on the campaign. Steve Chapman explores the hesitancy of Republican candidates to deal with Iraq. If you look at the comments section, you should see one from me. Charles Krauthammer has his reaction to the question of a hypothetical here.

Of course, we have some analysis of the horse race. Charles Krauthammer offers a betting approach to both Republicans and Democrats, giving Marco and Hillary 3-1 odds, and Republicans a 55-45 advantage to win. Thomas Sowell considers the candidates as of August 2015.

Of course, the debate scheme is difficult. My puzzlement has been the focus upon national polls rather than the polls in IA and NH, where the candidates have naturally been spending their time.

The CNBC debate in October 2015 raised another issue. I suppose I think of moderators of the debate as in the background, the candidates in the foreground. The point is to ask questions that bring out what candidates believe and how they respond to the issues of the day. It was clear CNBC had a different view. The CNN debate had a different view as well. The agenda seemed in both cases to ridicule the candidates and bring them down. In general, to have any of the non-FOX news outlets moderate a debate is like putting the fate of the discussion into the hands of the biggest superpack the Democrat Party has. What is interesting is that the Democrat Party is getting by with not having a debate on FOX News. So, Republicans are put to the fate of their debates into the hands of the opposition, while the Democrats get by with not one debate in a venue they view as the opposition. In reality, the liberal commentators on FOX News challenge their party to do so as well. All of this makes one wonder if the Republican Party should not simply run the debate, choose the moderators, and allow news outlets to broadcast if they choose. Make it a newsworthy event for the 24 hour news cycle. My point is that these debates, while of interest to many, are actually for those who will vote in the Republican primaries. I should also say that the candidates need to stop talking about how bad the moderators were. They responded well. They responded together. It was good moment for the candidates. Time to move on.

I should add that at this stage, in addition to the articles to which I refer, much of what I have are impressions. I do not have the time, at this stage, to study the positions.

Marco Rubio
He presents his position on the issues on his web site. I like the idea of a Cuban-American becoming President, but my primary concern is the issues. After the Simi, California debate, which focused on foreign policy, I must say that he communicates the vision well. Even where I might disagree, I have respect. I remain convinced after the CNBC debate.

Whenever I hear him speak, I am impressed. He has what some of us might call a conservative vision of what American can be. For me, this is primary. He seems willing to engage the battle. Nicholas Riccardi of the AP has provided a relatively balanced review of the Rubio tax plan. Star Parker shares her early sense that Rubio may have that Reagan touch. She also writes about how his understanding of "black lives matter" is on target.

The New York Times provided some levity. They must think he is dangerous from the perspective of their liberal bias. They ran stories that he had two driving violations in 20 years and that he had a "luxury speed boat." My understanding is that for many who live in Miami, the driving violation should earn him an award for best driver. You can find a picture of the boat. Ramesh Ponnuru digs into the supposed bad decisions regarding personal finances and thinks that he is like most Americans. Michelle Ye Hee Lee says the accusations concerning use of the Republican Party charge card in Florida that it is much ado about nothing.

Albert Hunt has written an interesting article on the possibility of Republicans needing to make a choice between Marco and Cruz. I think that would be very interesting. I agree with him that both Trump and Carson will fade, although for quite different reasons. Trump will fade when people get tired of his bluster (I will do the best, it will be the greatest, etc.) Carson will fade because his lack of political experience will undermine this fine, exemplary man. Jonathan Bernstein thinks that Marco is now in November 2015 the most likely nominee. However, to read this article is also to read of his failure to predict well. In some ways, the article is humorous. Was he smiling ironically as he wrote it?

Ted Cruz
He has a news portion on his web site. Of course, his Hispanic background is attractive. He has said many things I like. He is an intelligent man. He can make a sound argument. I do not like the fact that when he has staked out a position in the Senate, only one or two others join him. He sounds too much like a preacher for me. Byron York, after Steve Deace of Iowa endorsed him, examines the increase in support for Cruz since the debate. George Will describes his election strategy of energizing conservatives to come to the polls, a strategy Obama perfected. My assessment is that such a strategy obviously can work of the messenger is right. Reagan had a similar strategy. I do not think Cruz is the right messenger.

John Kasich
I have long liked him and followed his work in Congress as well as Governor. He would find ways to get things done and work across the aisle. However, right now, many Republicans do not seem interested in that. I like the way he has integrated his faith journey into his presentation of himself. His performance in the Simi, California debate was disappointing. He has not done well in the debates. In October, he said things that have not helped him. He is someone who does not seem to campaign well at the national level. His off the cuff statements about his competitors do not wear well.

A Newsweek interview in the Jewish World Review offers some background. Margaret Carlson promotes this candidate on the basis of his record, but also points out that he is not pure enough for some conservatives. David Shribman says this is his moment. Albert Hunt likes John Kaisch, contrasting his Ohio popularity with the other unpopular governors on this list.

Jeb Bush
He offers news and positions on issues on his web site. I like much about him. I have not been a Bush fan, although I think they are wonderful people and desire to serve the nation they love. George H. W. gave us Bill Clinton, and George W. gave us Iraq and Barak Obama. It also simply looks like he does not really want the job. I saw this recently when Jeb, following Hillary as a speaker, listened to Hillary attack him, and he simply got up and gave his prepared speech. Byron York addresses this incident. In October 2015, he had a reaction to Donald Trump that makes Debra J. Saunders think he is not suitable for President. In October, he has made some silly statements against Rubio and Trump. My own suggestion is that Jeb just keep at it, be himself, and let the chips fall. My concern is that the Republican Party does not need to go the Bush route again. George H. W. gave us Clinton and George W. gave us Iraq and Obama. Republicans need to go another direction.

Guy Benson writes about the relationship between Jeb and George W. William Kristol says that George W. was right on several matters.  Jonah Goldberg is surprised that a family with so much institutional knowledge of how to run for President seems to have so many mistakes at the beginning of this campaign. Erick Erickson discusses some of the problems he has. Debra Saunders has a positive reflection on the energy of Jeb Bush. Kathleen Parker discusses Alzheimer costs to the government and the plan of Jeb to deal with it.

Larry Kudlow thinks that he is right that the economy can grow at 4%. One author suggests that Jeb is more conservative than others think.

Jeb seemed to have a misstep in his response to a question from Megyn Kelly about whether what he knew now would he have done the same thing that George W. did in Iraq. David Harsanyi connects this interest with the vote by Hillary Clinton for the war.

Carly Fiorino
I have appreciated her every time I see her. However, she is not catching on with the people in the early primary states. I must listen to that.

She does not have an issues page, but you can "meet" her. She was a powerful force in the Simi, California debate. She was part of a private sector CIA team after 9/11/2001, and it showed.

When I hear her, I like what she says. She has persistence about her. I would be happy for her to be the first female President. She has integrated her faith journey into her presentation of herself in a powerful way.

She offered a speech on the rise of China in August 2015.

Debra J. Sanders discusses some of the things excite her about this candidate. However, the layoffs at Hewlitt-Packard and the failure to pay off campaign debt promptly are problems with her. Alex Smith discusses the contrast between this candidate and Hillary Clinton.

Jackie Gingrich Cushman explains why she crushed the debate - optimistic, knowledgeable, and articulating the difference between progressive and conservative. She compares her to - Margaret Thatcher!

Mona Charen offers her reasons for thinking that a Rubio/Fiorino or the reverse would be a winning ticket for Republicans, but wonders if America is willing to give a serious examination, given the fascination with Trump. In contrast, John Hawkins makes it clear that her experience at Hewlitt-Packard, her failure in her Senate campaign, and her past positions, do not commend her. Steve Chapman analyzes her time at H-P and her debate performance and draws a negative conclusion. Rich Lowry argues that feminists should fear Carly.

Ben Carson
He offers his position on issues on his web site. I like the way he weaves his faith story into his presentation of himself. Having a black president who is actually successful would be wonderful. However, I share the concern about his readiness. I wish he would have run for Senator, for example. He did nothing to help himself in the Simi, California debate. He needs to demonstrate knowledge on the enemies that confront the USA today. He did not have a breakthrough moment, and he needs one every debate. The CNBC debate did not help him either. As much as I like him, he is not finding a way to demonstrate his knowledge of the issues. Politicians learn to do that.

Star Parker writes about the power of the personal story of this candidate. Joy Overbeck offers the same through the eyes of his mother. A blogger wanted to like him, but points to a blunder in Iowa to say that he is not ready for prime time. Justin Haskins also has a concern for his readiness for the presidency, but thinks the vice-presidency would be a possibility. Arthur Schaper has a similar concern, noting public utterances he has had to retract or for which he made apology. Rich Lowry writes positively of his non-political alternative to Trump. Michelle Malkin writes of his wife. Debra J. Saunders thinks he stills needs to show he has the executive experience necessary, but she has other positive things about him. It makes sense that as he rose in the polls his opponents would attack his personal story. Politico in November released questions regarding connections with West Point. David French briefly offers that the Politico lied. Rush Limbaugh has offered a strong defense of Carson. One transcript refers to the Politico article as a lie. Another transcript broadens his attack to say that the mainstream media, which has become the communication arm of the Hillary campaign, has a coordinated attack upon Carson. The fact is, I think, Progressives cannot let stand a conservative Black candidate, witness the hit job on Herman Cain in 2012, which were also fabrications.

Some in the Press have taken things Carson has said and twisted them to mean something Carson would never say. As Carson has said, this is why many Americans do not trust the "mainstream" media represented by CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, NYT, and Washington Post. This represents strong opposition, but when one adds much of Academia and much of Hollywood, it becomes imposing. Among the easiest things to do is twist words. Here are a few examples. Star Parker defends what Dr. Carson said about not promoting a Muslim for President and expecting any Muslim running for office needing to renounce Sharia Law. Wesley Pruden defends his statement as well. David Limbaugh defends what he said about the Oregon school shooting. Ron Fournier, an example of the lack of trustworthiness in listening to Carson, makes his objection to what Carson says about government and guns. Brent Bozell has written a book on the lies contained in the autobiographies that Obama wrote. The link is to an excerpt from the book. The positive is that it shows the little interest media had in Obama lying, contrasting to the misunderstanding 14-year old Carson may have had about West Point. Of course, the deeper issue here is that when you read the Politico story, it fabricates its own data to suggest things that were simply not true in order to destroy a black candidate. In contrast, it showed no interest in actual lies of the liberal. This is not anything new, but it is frustrating.

Chris Christie
I like his combative style. I like his willingness to tackle entitlements.

Rand Paul
Not surprisingly, you can quickly access his stance on issues. His libertarian leaning is well-known, and I like it. His stance on the military is a little too far for me. I wish other Republican candidates shared some of his hesitancy to use military force.

Brian Darling explores the challenge he brings to the Republican Party, apparently thinking other Republicans favor a "shoot first, ask questions later" foreign policy and are they do not tell the truth about the Bush/Obama NSA spying program. Of course, the way I have worded this, I disagree, but the article is worth reading. Stephen Moore helped put together his tax plan and offers an explanation that it is "flat and fair."

Bobby Jindal
He has a newsroom that discusses issues as they arise.

I have long liked this candidate. His parents were from India. He provides a fresh look for the Party. He also presents conservative ideas in a fresh and interesting way. My problem with him is that at critical moments, he seems to under-perform. His promise does not coincide with reality.

Stuart Rothenberg offers an initial assessment of why no one should underestimate him. Stephanie Grace discusses the low approval he has in Louisiana and the budget deficit. Arthur Schaper has an interesting article on why one should not count him out yet. Jeff Jacoby says that Jindal is particularly good at emphasizing the importance of being American, rather than a hyphenated American.

Jeff Crouere, after Jindal made personal comments against Trump, analyzed the eight years of Jindal as governor. It does not look good.



The rest are people that I hope and trust do not get the nomination. Here is my "Please No" list.

Mike Huckabee
Do not ask why. I think he seems like a fine person and good TV host, but President? No.

Steve Chapman thinks that since 2008 this candidate has done things to narrow his appeal rather than broaden it. George Will has concerns related to the way he understands God in politics. David French argues that a loss by this candidate will be a victory for cultural conservatives. Jonah Goldberg offers his analysis of the progressive nature of the Huckabee campaign. Todd Starnes thinks he is a man of conviction as he stands for traditional marriage and has concerns over what the Supreme Court will do regarding legalizing gay marriage. Jonah Goldberg does want to defend this candidate, but he did not compare Obama to Hitler.

Lindsay Graham
Daniel Doherty considers him a longshot candidate. Paul Greenberg does not think he has a chance, but he likes him, especially on national defense and on reform of entitlements.

Rick Santorum
George Will makes it clear that he thinks this candidate is silly for even considering a run for the presidency again. Agreed.

Jim Gilmore

George Pataki

Donald Trump
He will not be the nominee. Jeff Jacoby shares why, beginning with the idea that it says many good things about the Republican Party that most Republicans have a negative view of him. William Kristol is also against Trump, but pauses to listen to what attracts people to him. Joseph Curl thinks that he is actually a Democrat plant, given his donations to the Democrat Party. Jonah Goldberg says he is a bad deal for the Party. In raising the issue of illegal immigration. He just did OK in the Simi, California debate.

Of course, he has raised the matter of illegal immigration. Terry Jeffrey says that 41.7% of the federal criminal cases are in the five districts across from Mexico. Linda Chavez takes a strong stance against what Trump says about illegal immigrants, but I have a few comments for her. S. E. Cupp discusses what Trump is doing right in July 2015, as he speaks in a fresh way. Eric Erickson discusses the nervousness that the political field has with the way Trump is getting so much attention in July 2015. Mona Charen shares some statistics regarding crime and illegal immigration, encouraging a calm conversation that Trump has precluded. Family Security Matters offers further statistics that would contradict Mona Charen and support Trump. I confess that the statistics I have seen are confusing. Thomas Sowell discusses his problems with Trump while discussing immigration.  The Corner in the National Review offers a brief description of the immigration plan he offered in August 2015, which is largely the plan of Jeff Sessions. Ann Coulter explains why Trump is right concerning the interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Linda Chavez focuses on birthright citizenship and defends it. Michael Barone offers a discussion of the 14th amendment and supports the idea of birthright citizenship. Mona Charen joins the ranks of this view of the 14th amendment. Charles Krauthammer takes on the immigration matter and supports the idea of birthright citizenship. Michael Reagan thinks it time to take on Trump. George Will thinks the immigration plan could spell doom for the Republican Party. He also thinks that Trump will damage the Republican Party amidst minority voters and offers statistics to show why this is so dangerous. Helen Raleigh points to the Know-Nothing Party as a parallel, focusing on immigration.

Larry Kudlow discusses whether Donald Trump is a supply-side person on taxes and spending. He thinks Trump is. Larry Kudlow and Stephen Moore point out that the last protectionist president America had was Republican Herbert Hoover, and that did not go well. The trade policy of Trump seems headed down that path.

People puzzle over the attraction of Trump to so many likely Republican primary voters. I confess my puzzlement. Rush Limbaugh says that Trump has tapped into the mistrust that many in the Republican base feel toward the inside the beltway Republicans. In my reading of conservative literature, I would agree that many feel frustrated. Yet, as Republicans attempt to follow the constitution, where the President does not, there are limits to what they can do, even with majorities in both Houses. My further concern, that Rush does not share, is that Trump will damage conservative ideas by his attacks on on conservative and liberal ideas. He is charting his own course, and it is not the conservative ideas that Rush, Bill Buckley, George Will, and Ronald Reagan fought for. Here are some analyses.  Michael Reagan says that Trump is a fake conservative and a danger to the Republican Party. Alicia Colon, who apparently knows The Donald, thinks he would have been wonderful mayor of NYC, but not a President. Kathleen Parker says one should not dismiss Trump, and offers her reasons. David Limbaugh wonders if Trump will awaken the "sleeping giant." Angelo Codevilla has some very good comments about the rise of Trump.  After the Cleveland debate, George Will, whose wife works for the Scott Walker campaign, wrote that Trump is a counterfeit conservative. Will continues his probing in a September 2015 article.  S. E. Cupp describes the Trump voter as not part of the base conservative (who thinks of Jeb Bush as establishment, purist) but rather disaffected moderates and even some on the Left. She points to some voters who say that if Bernie Sanders does not make it through the primaries, they are going for Trump. Dana Milbank writes of South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley talking back to Trump. Nate Silver says we should not compare Trump and Sanders, and offers his reasons.  Paul Greenberg refers to Trump as in the tradition of the ugly American, Pat Buchannan and the populist know-nothing party. Jeff Jacoby shows how Trump is in favor of expanding "eminent domain," something most conservatives would normally be against.

Democrat Party Debate Las Vegas 2015

My intent is to offer information about the anticipated election of 2016. The focus here is Hillary Clinton and the issues raised by her candidacy. I will stay away from fiercely partisan writers and focus upon analyses that will be as objective as possible. I do so as one who changed from Democrat to political conservative in my mid-20s (1970s), due to the influence of William Buckley, George Will, and Milton Friedman.

The removal of Joe Biden from consideration closes the door on any drama in the nomination process. Hillary will be the nominee.

The first debate has happened. Cal Thomas offers his reflections.Laura Hollis takes the approach of sharing questions "they" refuse to ask of Democrats. I would offer that the debate reflects precisely what moved me away from the Democrat Party. The fact that a socialist touting northern European style socialism, which the Scandanavians are pulling back from, is enough for me. On the national security front, the fact that a Bernie can identify climate change rather an the rise of Islamic fundamentialism, Russia, or China is amazing. The attacks on the "one percent," who are the true "forgotten person" in the economy, seems like an appeal to envy. Most of all, the appeal to give Americans free stuff is very dangerous. Nothing is free. If something is free to you, it has come at the expense of someone else. If that is OK with you, we have a moral and character problem. In any case, using the government to make our neighbors provide us free stuff is a form of governance with which I want nothing to do.

Michael Barone offers an interesting analysis of the death of the center-left dimension of the Democrat Party. He uses an analogy with England. Jeff Greenfield offers an analysis of the effect of Obama on the Democrat Party nationally. It is not good. Dana Bilbank refers to the death of the blue dog Democrat as revealed in the House in November 2015. David Shribman describes surprises in the campaign as of June 2015.

Charles Krauthammer offers a betting analysis of the election, giving Hillary and Marco 3-1 odds to win respective nominations and 55-45 for the Republicans in the general. Thomas Sowell offers analysis of the election, as of August 2015.

Thomas Sowell offers his account of how the Left is fact free, using some recent issues. In another article with the same theme, he focuses on the help the Left wants to give to those who need it, and the harm they end up doing. Larry Elder also provides statistics that suggest that African-Americans are worse off since Obama became president.

One of the issues will be President Obama and his economic policies. Stephen Moore thinks he has dived the nation along class lines. In this article, he writes about the myths about poverty with which Obama seems to live.

Iraq remains an issue. Robert Gates explained how Iraq went from strength to dangerous weakness. Catherine Herridge explains that the prediction of the rise of ISIS and its apparent ignoring by the administration. The rise of ISIS has and the approach to Syria has led to a refugee crisis in Europe as of September 2015. Jonah Goldberg discusses some of the dynamics of this.

Iran is an issue. Rachel Marsden reflects upon the importance of a pathway to economic security. Ben Shapiro compares the deal with Iran to Neville Chamberlin, but adds that one could argue that Chamberlin loved his country. While this idea is challenging, the point here is that Obama wants an enemy to become a regional power. Ken Blackwell argues that the proposed Iran deal is worse than what Chamberlin did and he refers to the speech by Winston Churchill in opposition. David Horovitz offers 16 reasons the Iran deal is a victory for Iran and a catastrophe for the West. Peter Morici discusses the economic advantages Iran will receive with the negotiated deal, making it an economic powerhouse in the region. Charles Krauthammer discusses the nuclear deal and is not favorable.

With the decision of the Supreme Court in June 2015, Obamacare will be an issue. Elizabeth Slattery thinks the judges acted like lawmakers rather than judges. S. E. Cupp says this was a gift to the Republican Party. David Harsanyi thinks the Court turned its back on the rule of law. George Will discusses what he thinks is the real problem with the decision.

Hillary Clinton
One of the serious issues raised by the long public history of Hillary is her character.

First, should the Bill Clinton scandals regarding women influence the Hillary campaign? In my view, the answer is affirmative. She personally destroyed women who were on the receiving end of sexual advances from Bill Clinton. These women were not her political enemies. They were victims of the sexual predator she had as a husband. She acted to protect his political career. This was important to her because she valued her political career. She willingly destroyed the lives of several women for these reasons. Camille Paglia discusses how the Bill Cosby rape allegations could negatively affect the campaign of Hillary. Her point is that young women will not take kindly to the way Hillary attacked other women who experienced the sexual advances of her husband. Suzanne Fields explores this matter as well, under the theme that young millennial women will not like what they hear about Hillary and her role in covering for Bill. Victor Davis Hanson says that when she condemns other people, she condemns herself.

Second, the matter of Benghazi has a strong character element. The context here is that she did not reinforce the embassy because of the Obama campaign meme that al qada is on the run. However, the character issue is that after the attack and the killings, she told the grieving families it was the result of a video when she knew, according to released emails, that it was the result of a planned attack. For me, someone who can lie to grieving persons like that has a profound character issue. Again, she did this to support the false campaign theme of Obama. I invite you to reflect upon the issues involved here. Stephen Hayes described a day that showed private emails and Benghazi revelations, making it a bad day for her. Yet, will it matter? The email scandal was prominent. Guy Benson explains some of the elements of this complicated story. Ron Fournier explains why he does not believe Hillary. He is a liberal. John Podhoretz outlines issues related to Benghazi, email controversy, and steady release of State Department emails. Byron York explores the matter, wondering whether Hillary or the State Department is lying. Byron York is on the case again, analyzing another document released by her campaign regarding this matter. Eugene Robinson says Hillary is self-destructive, has no respect for "us," and has no respect for truth. He wishes she would apologize and get out of the race. Judge Andrew Napolitano analyzes the legal trouble in which he thinks Hillary finds herself. He also offers some questions that the committee could could ask. John R. Schindler, a national security expert, reviews why this controversy is so important. Jonah Goldberg writes simply of the email scandal. John Solomon offers a factual account of the issues involved in Benghazi. Debra J. Saunders offers her analysis of the Benghazi hearing. Thomas Sowell discusses the media covering for Hillary. He also writes of the attempt to re-make Hillary.

Third, the corruption surrounding the Clinton foundation is an issue. In early 2015, one of the stories about Hillary Clinton involved the Clinton foundation. The basic story involved the Clintons becoming wealthy after their departure from the White House, from which they famously emerged as "in debt" and "broke." They quickly became wealthy through the speeches they made. Their foundation gained much in wealth, while giving 15% of its income to charities and the rest to "other." Jo Becker and Mike McIntire wrote the New York Times article. Rosalind S. Helderman wrote the Washington Post article. Linda Chavez explained the issues involved in a brief piece. John Stossel suggests that Hillary has a natural protection against suffering any consequences from her questionable actions. Jonah Goldberg notes that Hillary lies, even when it came to an interview she finally had, claiming she has not received a subpoena.

I realize that many people are devoted progressives, liberals, and Democrats. However, I invite you to consider the character of this woman. Read M. Scott Peck, "People of the Lie."

Now, as much as I believe Hillary has a strong moral and character issue that disqualifies her from the presidency, I also have a strong disagreement with policy. In fact, my suspicion is the persuadable people in this election are persuadable only on the basis of policy. Charles Krauthammer includes some of these matters in a broader discussion of the investigations conducted by the House. In essence, they do not work. My contention is that they cannot work, due to the bond that exists between the Press, the progressive agenda, the Democrat Party, and the Clintons. Further, for these groups, conservatives are more of an enemy than is radical Islam. I am not convinced, in other words, that one could discover anything in the area of corruption and morality that would shake the bond, because the over-riding issue or the Left is their agenda. As long as someone advances the political agenda, their character does not matter.

One campaign theme will be the war on women. The theme of the "war on women" has taken an interesting turn. In August 2015, she compared Republican opposition to Planned Parenthood to terrorists. Carly Fiorina responded. So did Mark Halperin. She does not pay women on her own staff as much as men. The Clinton Foundation has received millions of dollars from Islamic states that oppress women. Further, terrorists are beheading people for their ideas, while Planned Parenthood is crushing the heads of babies in order to sell baby parts. Stephen Moore re-directs this issue to the Obama years and how difficult it has been for working women.

Jonah Goldberg wonders if actual accomplishments will be downfall of Hillary.


David Harsanyi wonders when Hillary will be held accountable for her vote on Iraq.

Hillary was Secretary of State. Herb London offers a relatively reasoned assessment of her years there. Jennifer Rubin discusses the failure of the policy regarding Libya.

Hillary has flip-flopped or evolved on her view of illegal immigration, according to Matt Vespa.

Hillary offered a major economic speech. Although I did not listen, even sympathetic listeners said it was tired and uninspiring. Donald Lambro analyzes her economic recommendations and finds them lacking. Cal Thomas also looks at the speech and considered it boring, as well as tired and expected rhetoric. Michael Barone, who thinks she is likely to be the next President, examines this speech as a throwback to the year of her birth, 1948, when government was the solution to every problem. Robert J. Samuelson analyzes her proposal for encouraging profit-sharing. Fred Barnes considers her economic plan as a way to shrink the economy further.

Hillary seemed to get in demagoguery when she accused Republicans of wanting to keep people from voting. In supporting a lawsuit against Ohio, for example, she failed to note that New York has only one day to vote, while Ohio has a month to vote. Bill Murchison discusses this matter. Mona Charen calls it the "They hate you" strategy.

Planned Parenthood is selling the body parts of the fetuses they abort. S. A. Miller describes the vigorous defense of the organization against attacks, putting to rest the hope that some people had that those on the opposite side of the abortion question could unite in opposition to this practice. Joy Overbeck ponders the founder of the organization, Margaret Sanger, and the praise Hillary placed upon her.

To conclude, one of the issues is that Hillary is the only realistic candidate. She may have a bad day, or even a bad week. However, given this context, what would that mean? She will not be denied the nomination. When it comes to the election, she will have a set number of Democrat votes, no matter what. For me personally, I confess to boredom with the Clintons. In July 2015, a poll showed a weakened position for Hillary in some key states. In another poll in August 2015, people were asked what word comes to their minds when they think of Hillary. The top three were liar, dishonest, and untrustworthy. My personal view is that the only way such evidence "matters" is if they matter to the major news outlets and they take out after Hillary (they will not) or if members of the Democrat Party turn their backs on her (they will not). This confirms an early observation that a "bad" day for Hillary is relative. It will not detract from her inevitable march toward the nomination. The only possible derailment of this train is Obama and the Justice Department. If they bring actual criminal charges against her, all bets are off.

Jack Shaffer explains that the way Hillary is running her campaign suggests that she thinks of herself as running as the President, rather than running for President. Michael Barone wonders if Hillary will be able to reverse a six-year decline in turnout for Democrats. Rich Galen thinks Hillary is losing ground to herself. Fred Barnes points to the already closing gap between top Republicans and Hillary and her inability to raise big money as signs that many Democrats are in a panic. Carl Rove compares the message of President Clinton and the message of Hillary, and finds the latter wanting. Thomas Sowell examines her record, and finds its failures not balanced by successes. George Will has some serious questions that he thinks Hillary ought to answer. Jonah Goldberg examines her flip-flop on the Trans-Pacific Trade deal and a few other such alterations of policy positions, suggesting that one cannot trust any position she has.

The Democrat Party could save itself a lot of money by cancelling further debates and primaries and have a coronation of Hillary.

Martin O'Malley
Cal Thomas thinks this candidate is positioning himself to be the go to candidate if Hillary falters. Olivia Niuzzi of The Daily Beast seems to go a similar direction, but describing the kickoff of the campaign as embarrassing.

Bernie Sanders
Bernie Sanders is an opponent of Hillary from the Left. Donald Lambro discusses his notion of redistribution and socialism in Sanders. Emmett Tyrrell argues that he will have the historical role of one who is a spoiler, something like Eugene McCarthy. He also offers Jerry Brown and Michael Bloomberg as alternatives to Hillary. Katie Pavlich writes of the essay Bernie Sanders wrote in the 1970s about the sexual fantasies of men and women, the latter fantasizing about gang rape. David Harsanyi says that Bernie Sanders, as a socialist, represents the direction the Democrat Party has been moving. Mark Halpern has an insightful way of reflecting on how Bernie could win. Larry Elders discusses the inability of the head of the Democrat Party to distinguish between a Democrat and a socialist. He things that there is no difference. In August 2015, Jonah Goldberg describes the problems this life-long socialist presents to the Democrat Party. In September 2015, Nate Silver says we should not compare Sanders and Trump.

Lincoln Chafee
Arthur Schaper discusses the deeply flawed beginning of this campaign.

Jim Webb
Bill Schneider thinks that he represents the fatal flaw in the Hillary campaign.

Joe Biden
Bill Schneider ponders this possibility and thinks that Hillary would be in the stronger position to win the election, but that Joe could win the nomination. Bob Tyrrell encourages him to run for office, and lays out solid reasons for doing so.

Elizabeth Warren has been discussed consistently. David Harsanyi argues that her opposition to free trade and her success in opposing President Obama in the Senate means she now runs the Senate democrats.

Humorous on Self-Importance

Early in life I had to choose between honest arrogance and hypocritical humility. I chose the former and have seen no reason to change. --Frank Lloyd Wright.

What is it about airport waiting areas that bring out the worst in people? On one particular day, bad weather had caused delays and cancellations throughout the system. Hundreds of anxious travelers were on standby. One of these passengers, a senior business executive, was desperate to get on a plane so he would not be late for a meeting. He kept crowding the counter, trying to get the airline staff to do something to move his name higher up the standby list.

The agent had just put down the microphone, having said to the crowd for the third or fourth time: "Those of you who are on standby, please sit down and we will call your name when we have a seat for you."

Nevertheless, this man would not take "maybe" for an answer. He kept pestering the agent, explaining how important it was that he get on the next flight. Finally, in exasperation, he asked her, "Do you know who I am?"

The agent had had enough. Picking up the microphone, she announced: "Ladies and gentlemen, we have a man here who does not know who he is. Would someone please claim him, offer him a seat in the waiting area, and tell him I'll talk to him when it's his turn?"

On a serious note:

Talent is God-given. Be humble. 

Fame is man-given. Be grateful. 

Conceit is self-given. Be careful.
--Legendary UCLA basketball coach, John Wooden.

Modest Reflection on Greatness

Two quotations:

"I want everyone to bear witness, I am the greatest! I'm the greatest thing that ever lived. I don't have a mark on my face, and I upset Sonny Liston, and I just turned twenty-two years old. I must be the greatest. I showed the world. I talk to God everyday. I know the real God. I shook up the world; I'm the king of the world. You must listen to me. I am the greatest! I can't be beat!"

"Wouldn't it be a beautiful world if just 10 percent of the people who believe in the power of love would compete with one another to see who could do the most good for the most people?"

The two statements could hardly be more different. Yet, ironically, the same person who spoke them both: the legendary boxer, Muhammad Ali.

The first is Ali's boyish bluster from 1964, just after he defeated Sonny Liston for the first time. The second is something he wrote in his autobiography, The Soul of a Butterfly, in 2004.

Forty years separate the two quotations. Forty years of living. A lot can change in half a lifetime.

Another quotation by Ali explains it: "The man who views the world at 50 the same as he did at 20 has just wasted the last 30 years of his life." Afflicted by Parkinson's disease since 1984 -- a condition likely brought on by the pummeling his body received in the ring -- Ali has been busy, until this year, as a global good-will ambassador, peace activist and advocate for the developing world. By one estimate, he has provided over 232 million meals to feed the hungry. He remains one of the most easily-recognized celebrities on the planet.

When I saw him early in his career, I must confess that I liked him. I do not know why. The bragging and cockiness that made him hated I found a way to excuse. Of course, I was in my early teens at the time. His career in boxing was the only time in my life I had any interest in boxing. He seemed unbeatable. Of course, when he was beat, I kept thinking during the boxing match that he would pull it out in the end. I guess I bought into the illusion he had created.

To his credit, Ali's idea of greatness appears to have changed over time.

Maybe we can expand the conversation on greatness.

History is full of men and women who are described as "the Great," although they all had their weaknesses and blind spots. Alexander the Great was the Macedonian king and general who took control of the vast Persian Empire in the 4th century B.C. Tutored by Aristotle, he went on to achieve an undefeated record in military battles. Yet, Alexander was not invincible -- he was probably brought down by a lowly mosquito. Evidence suggests that he died of malaria at age 32.

How about Catherine the Great? She was the empress who ruled Russia from 1762 to 1796. Her greatness arose from her desire to modernize and expand Russia's holdings, as well as her creation of the country's first school for girls. Nevertheless, Catherine was not as powerful as she thought. Her rise to domination came only after her lover led a coup to depose her husband.

Another mighty ruler was Ramses the Great, Egyptian pharaoh from 1279 to 1213 B.C., who built cities, temples and monuments. The Bible does not portray him as so righteous, however. He was likely the pharaoh who enslaved the Israelites and caused Moses to lead the exodus out of Egypt.

History teaches that greatness is often linked to a life of illusion, one that causes people to believe that they are more invincible, powerful and righteous than they really are. Alexander was vulnerable to a mosquito, Catherine owed her power to a coup, and Ramses was unrighteous. All were "the Great," but not the greatest.

Back in 2012, Homiletics Magazine humorously stated that the only one who avoids this trap is The Great Gazoo, Fred Flintstone's floating green alien buddy. Remember him? He created a doomsday device and made items appear out of thin air. He may not have lived a life of illusion, but he was an illusion -- a cartoon character voiced by the great comic actor Harvey Korman.

Whom would you add to the list of people in our culture who might consider themselves “great?” The problem with looking at yourself as “great” is that you live with an illusion. One illusion is concerns your view of you! You are vulnerable and weak in ways you might not want to admit. You may also not realize what true greatness is.