The K.F. Stone Weekly

Weyrich and Warren and Gays . . . Oh My!

    This past week brought news that the conservative icon Paul Weyrich had passed away.  The 66-year old Weyrich, who spent the last several years of his life suffering the torments of Job, was a seminal figure on the political right: co-founder of the conservative Heritage Foundation and driving force behind the Free Congress Foundation. The man who coined the phrase "Moral Majority," Weyrich was a leading proponent of "Dominionism," the tendency among  some conservative, politically-active Christians, to seek influence or control over secular civil government through political action.  He was also a highly effective political strategist and organizer. It was in this latter guise that Weyrich was able to convince evangelical Christian leaders like Jerry Falwell and James D. Kennedy that they should get off the bench and into the game; that there were serious social ills which necessitated their involvement in the political process.  Among these ills were abortion, school prayer, and the rise of feminism.  Thus, it was Weyrich, perhaps more than any other, who could legitimately lay claim to being the matchmaker between evangelical Christianity and the Republican Party.

In passing, it should also be noted that the late Mr. Weyrich had some pretty unpalatable beliefs: 

• Back in the late 1970s, he claimed that were the "Feminazi ERA" to pass, good Christian schoolgirls would be forced to use unisex restrooms. 
• He found no problem using $250,000 of beer baron [and John Birch Society underwriter] Joseph Coor's money to start the Heritage Foundation.
• In an April 2001 article entitled "Indeed He is Risen!", Weyrich wrote, ". . . Christ was crucified by the Jews who had wanted a temporal ruler to rescue them from the oppressive Roman authorities . . . . Jesus Christ, the son of God, performed incredible miracles, even raised people from the dead.  He was not what the Jews had expected, so they considered Him a threat. Thus he was put to death."

   For more than 30 years, the marriage between Weyrich's "Moral Majority" and the G.O.P. possessed a fair amount political fecundity. At one time, they could honestly claim credit for handing back congress to the Republicans; of elevating Newt Gingrich to Speaker of the House; of making the GOP inhospitable to any and all but the most hard-right. They were certainly pivotal in electing presidents from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, and then keeping their social agenda in line. And while that marriage never did repeal Roe v. Wade or make homosexuality a crime against the state, it was not for any lack of trying. And yet, there was always a tension between Weyrich's hard right philosophy and those of a slightly more pragmatic stripe; an inviolate line between the "true believers" and the "true politicians."  Indeed, at one time, Weyrich stated that "The problem with Gingrich is that he does not have any immutable principles that he would die for." 

   In the past year or two, some members of Weyrich's coalition have begun wondering whether it is inconsistent for committed Christians to turn their collective backs on the poor, the hungry, the worker, or indeed, the earth itself.  In many quarters there has been an emergent hope that some would find comfort -- if indeed, not a new home -- within the Democratic fold.  Despite that old saw "hope springs eternal," John McCain captured a very respectable 75% of the Christian Right vote in the recent election.     

   As noted above, Weyrich's death was announced this past week. 

   This week, comes word that California über-Pastor Rick Warren will be delivering the invocation at Barack Obama's inauguration. Like the Weyrich story, this announcement has brought about an avalanche of coverage; unlike the Weyrich story however, this one has also caused a storm of controversy.  For Warren -- spiritual leader of the 20,000+ member, multi-campus Saddleback Church, best-selling author of  The Purpose Driven Life, and motivational speaker par excellent -- has  likened homosexuality to pedophilia and incest, claimed that gay marriage endangers freedom of speech, and said that homosexuality is not a natural way of life, and thus not a human right.  Moreover, until just three days ago, Warren's church website stated:

   Because membership in a church is an outgrowth of accepting the Lordship and leadership of Jesus in one's life, someone unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted at a member at Saddleback Church [sic].  That does not mean they cannot attend church -- we hope they do!  God's word has the power to change our lives. 

   As of December 22, this message no longer appeared on the site.  Interestingly, Warren now claims that those who disagree with him on the issue of homosexuality are what he refers to as "Christophobes."

   For many of course, the Warren selection is a controversial one.  It has caused many to question whether in selecting Warren to give the inaugural invocation, Barack Obama has somehow shown his "true colors;" those of just another politician who goes back on his word once he's elected.  Additionally, some are signaling a concern that the Christian Right, far from being defeated, is still a political force with a lot of gas left in the tank.

   For its part, the press has reported the disappointment, disagreement and disapprobation of people ranging from Kathryn Kolbert, President of People for the American Way and Brad Luna of the Human Rights Campaign to many of the leading lights in the Hollywood firmament.  To listen to -- or read -- them, one would presume that President-elect Obama has pulled the wool over a lot of star-blinded eyes.  While I can understand their disappointment and appreciate the passion with which they state their case, they are engaging in what T.S. Elliot once termed the "objective correlative": too much emotion for too little cause.

    We might as well face some facts:

1. That whenever and wherever religion and politics intersect, sparks are undoubtedly going to fly.
2. That in addition to being both highly gifted and incredibly articulate, Barack Obama is one hell of a deft politician. 
3. That being a great politician does not always require one to leave their core beliefs or ideals by the side of the road.
4. That as far back as his Harvard Law Review days Barack Obama, unlike most leaders of the past 65 years, has made it a cardinal principle of including those with whom he disagrees. 
5. That lost in the news shuffle is the fact that the President Elect has also chosen the Rev. Joseph Lowery to deliver the inaugural benediction.  [For those who are unaware, Rev. Lowery, a giant of the Civil Rights Movement, stands foursquarely with the gay, lesbian and transgender community.] 

  Many progressives see the Warren invitation as a betrayal of the left.  Then too, many conservatives see it as nothing more than a sop to the right; a means of currying a fistful of favor with those who are instinctively closer to Weyrich and Warren than to Obama and Lowery. They see the Warren invitation as proof that the Christian Right still wields power in this country; that no president can hope to govern without it. 

   To my way of thinking, both sides just don't get it.  Throughout his campaign, Barack Obama told anyone willing to listen that unlike most, he was not the sort of leader who shuts out or ignores those with whom he disagrees.  A majority voted for him after hearing that message.  He told us that while he may not be leading the parade in favor of gay marriage, he was certainly was in step with their aspirations and dreams of equality.  Unlike the Bushes, Cheneys and Weyrichs of this world, Barack Obama has shown he possesses the grace, dignity and self-confidence to work with those whom others would consider dire enemies.

    We ignore this fact at both our psychic and our political peril.

©2008 Kurt F. Stone

  

     

That's "Madoff" as in "Made-Off"

  

Question: When is an allegation not an allegation?
Answer: When the one against whom the allegation has been lodged, has already  confessed.
Example: Wall Street titan Bernard Madoff's confession to a mind-boggling Ponzi  scheme in which he made-off with approximately $50 billion of his client's money.

   Madoff's victims' list is a scandal-monger's wet dream; an eerie amalgam of the Wall Street Journal, Daily Forwards, Financial Times, Palm Beach Shiny Sheet, Chronicle of Philanthropy, and Congressional Record with more than a touch of People and The Hollywood Reporter thrown in. The roster of victims includes many of the best-heeled and most-accomplished stars in the financial firmament.  Most sadly, one notes amongst the file of the fleeced a preponderance of Jewish individuals and organizations: Spielberg, Katzenberg, Roth, and Zuckerman; Yeshiva University, the Shapiro Family , Hadassah, and the Los Angeles Jewish Federation, to name but a few.  And that's not even taking into account all his foreign investors.

   The issue of his having so many Jewish victims is perhaps THE classic example of what most every Yiddische kinder's bubbe or zayde called a shanda fur die goyim, namely, "An incredible embarrassment for the Jewish people that is available for all the Gentiles of the world to see . . ." (Yes, it IS simply amazing that it takes 19 English words to translate a measly five words in Yiddish!) 

    When Senator Larry Craig messes around in some airport men's room, that's hypocrisy; when Governor Eliot Spitzer messes around with prostitutes, that's a shanda fur die goyim.  When California Representative Randy "Duke" Cunningham gets convicted of selling votes, that's a scandal; when Jack Abramoff goes to prison for bribing the Dukester, that's a shanda fur die goyim. 

   Are we all clear on this? 

   Of course, questions about the Madoff shanda abound:

• How could Madoff's scheme go undetected for so many, many years?

• How could such a who's who of supposedly savvy, accomplished people be so blind?
• Where was the Securities Exchange Commission?  
• Should the scammed shoulder any of the blame?
• What became of all the money?
• Is there any hope of restitution for the victims?
• Are there further surprises looming just over the horizon?

   As to the last question, I understand there is the possibility that those who made-off with their Madoff profits -- even if it were years before the scandal came to light -- may have to forfeit a sizeable portion of said profits according to a legal principle called "Fraudulent Conveyance."  Imagine that!  Say in 1998, a Madoff investor called Bernie and told him to cash him out, and then put the proceeds into a dozen apartment buildings.  The buildings all appreciated in value and said investor then sold them for an enormous profit. Under terms of the "Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act," he (or she) could easily be liable to give up a hefty percentage of the final profits in order to help pay off other Madoff investors who were not so lucky!

   Will this in fact happen?  I don't know; my crystal ball is still at the cleaners.  What I do know is that were such a legal principle to be enforced, it could be, as financial writer Lee Stewart notes, "Key to reforming financial markets and a return to regulation based on social conscience . . .[and] due diligence."  Over the years, there were quite a few hints that not all was kosher at Bernard Madoff Investment Securities LLC.  And yet despite a haunting feeling that there was more than a hint of trayf mixed in with the kreplach, the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) -- which did do a bit of investigating -- declared that all was kosher at BMIS. 

   For nearly 50 years, BMIS portrayed itself as the epitome of financial rectitude; investing with Bernie was as safe as investing with your favorite uncle.  According to the BMIS website, "In an era of faceless organizations owned by equally faceless organizations, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC harks back to an earlier era in the financial world: The owner's name on the door.  Clients know that Bernard Madoff has a personal interest in maintaining the unblemished record of value, fair-dealing, and high ethical standards that has always been the firm's hallmark."

   The SEC's failure to find anything amiss at BMIS has already begun the process of accusatory finger-pointing.  One can only hope that the SEC's failure will also lead to the blessed end of the era of unfettered, unregulated markets. It is also to be hoped that once he takes the oath of office, President Barack Obama will appoint someone with far more investigative chops than Christopher Cox to head the SEC. 

   There are no doubt plenty of people already secretly gloating over the incredible losses suffered by billionaires like Spielberg, Katzenberg, Zuckerman and Shapiro. What these gloaters would do well to understand is that in most of the high-profile cases, the ones who will suffer the most from the Madoff debacle aren't Spielberg the filmmaker or Shapiro the clothing magnate to cite but two examples, but rather all those who might benefit from their charitable foundations.  What Bernard Madoff has made-off with is not just the dreams of a secure retirement or an estate to pass on to one's children and grandchildren; he has also made-off with all those millions upon millions of dollars that fund Tay-Sachs testing programs, study trips to Israel, meals-on-wheels for the elderly and thousands of other selfless acts of humanity.  Bernard Madoff has not only made-off with $50 billion in wealth; he has plunged a dagger into the very heart of hope.

   One fascinating question deals with the potential culpability of the defrauded; of what we might refer to as the obsido caveo ("Investor Beware") factor.  Most of us have heard at one time or another that "If something sounds too good to be true, it likely isn't."  Well, didn't Bernard Madoff's investors have some inkling that not all was sweet-smelling in Denmark?  Did not one ask him or herself how it was that BMIS continued reaping such wonderful returns-on-investment when others were not?  Did they all believe that Bernie Madoff was the smartest man in the world, or did they just simply not want to challenge the assumption? 

   In the Jewish world, we have a concept quite the opposite of obsido caveo; something known as "chezkat l'adahm kashayr," meaning roughly, "We make the presumption that a person is kosher -- honest."  Now, this does not mean that we simply take someone at their word; to do so would be foolish.  Let us say that we enter a store that has a sign on the door proclaiming "We Sell Kosher Meat."  Something about the store's layout makes us wonder if indeed, the meat is kosher.  Let's say we then put our concerns aside and make a purchase because this merchant sells meat for a lot less than any other kosher butcher in town.  If it then turns out that the meat is trayf (not kosher), we can certainly blame the butcher and say, "I presumed that he wouldn't have put up that sign unless his meat truly was kosher.  Shame on him for leading me astray!"  Then too, according to Jewish law, part of the culpability is ours for not exercising due diligence.  This is where obsido caveo meets chezkat l'adahm kashayr.  

   The same could possibly be said for some of Madoff's investors -- that they did not exercise due diligence.  Some were undoubtedly convinced of Madoff's honesty, integrity and financial acumen by the fact that someone they respected or trusted gave him their "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval."  Others likely just did not want to question how he could be providing such a wonderful return on investment where others could not.  In either case, the results were the same: deep losses and even deeper depression.

   The strategy by which Bernie Madoff bilked his clients is generally called a "Ponzi Scheme."  It is named for Charles Ponzi, an Italian immigrant who cheated tens of thousands in the early 1900s.  In this sort of scam, the con pays off his early investors with money gleaned by later marks.  Most know the term even if they never knew of its eponymous ancestor.  One wonders if perhaps "Madoff" won't soon replace "Ponzi" as the ultimate financial scam.

   For indeed, Bernard Madoff has "Made-Off" with a fortune.

   Let us just hope and pray that something good comes out of it . . .

 

©2008 Kurt F. Stone

Knowledge Isn't Always Power

  

   For what to some are fairly obvious reasons, there is more than a bit of irony in a practicing Jew quoting a fellow named Bacon. It neither passes the smell test nor feels quite kosher.  Then again, what's life without a whiff of illogic or a morsel of imaginary trayf?  I mean, it's not like the mere quoting of Sir Francis will lead to a deathless yearning for a BLT, or visions of fatted swine rotating on a greasy spit . . .

   Oh what the heck; let's throw caution to the wind and quote the old boy:                               

                            Knowledge is power.

   There, I've gone and done it!  But you know something?  It wasn't nearly as satisfying as I thought it would be.  Moreover, with all that's been going on for the past God knows how long, it's probably no longer even true.

   Simply stated, in this day and age knowledge isn't always power.

   Currently, there are people running all over Capitol Hill -- and up and down Pennsylvania Avenue as well -- all loudly proclaiming that they never suspected:

• The economy was in such bad shape, or
• That major banks were on the verge of collapse, or
  
• That all those no-money-down, interest-only mortgages would eventually spell doom and disaster, or
  
• That the Big Three Automakers ["BTA"] were sinking in quicksand, or
• That America's been in a recession for more than a year.
  

   From all available evidence, it is obvious that the facts, the figures, the forecast -- i.e., the knowledge -- have been available to legislators and regulators, executives and lobbyists for quite some time.

   In 2005, federal bank regulators, correctly assessing the crisis looming just over the horizon, proposed a series of guidelines for institutions writing risky loans.  In light of what has transpired in the mortgage industry of late, their warnings and proposals seem to have been written by some Delphic oracle:

• They correctly warned bankers that "exotic mortgages" were often being granted to buyers who had bad -- even no -- credit.
• They urged banks to make sure that buyers "actually had jobs and could afford houses."
• They proposed "a cap on risky mortgages" so that a "string of defaults wouldn't be crippling."
• They strongly urged banks to "help buyers make responsible decisions" by clearly advising them that "interest rates might skyrocket and huge payments might be due sooner than expected."

   All of these proposals remained precisely that: proposals.

   In January 2006, Paris Welch, a prominent California mortgage lender tried to blow the whistle on all these no money-down, low-interest mortgages as well, warning anyone in authority who would listen to "Expect fallout, expect foreclosures, expect horror stories."  She -- among others -- correctly predicted that without stringent regulation, the mortgage industry in particular -- and the American economy in general -- were heading for a major implosion.  And yet, despite having this knowledge -- which, according to Sir Francis Bacon, should have been empowering -- both Congress and the Bush Administration chose to listen to other voices that spoke very different words. 

   Bankers proclaimed that all the so-called "troubled mortgages" were in reality, no trouble at all.  As a result of their proclamations (and an intense campaign put on by their paid lobbyists), regulators delayed taking action until it was too late -- at which time these very bankers either went under or came back to Congress asking for buckets and buckets of bailout money.  

   As an example, David Schneider, the former home loan president of Washington Mutual ("WaMU"), told federal regulators in early 2006 that "These mortgages have been considered more safe for portfolio lenders than many fixed rate mortgages."  Schneider backed up his testimony with lots of paid lobbying in an effort to convince Congress, regulators and a sympathetic White House that he knew the situation better than any or all of the prophets of doom and gloom. 

   Guess again: Within two years of uttering these words, both Schneider and WaMU were out of business.  Indeed, the WaMU collapse was the largest bank failure in U.S. history.  

   Here we have a clear-cut example of knowledge not leading to power, because knowledge and power were, in essence, occupying different universes

  Now this is not to say that had Congress, the White House and all their buddies indeed gotten off their collective arses and started using the knowledge at hand sooner, that none of our current problems or challenges would exist.  The sad truth is that we will never know, because much of Congress and virtually all of the Bush Administration, chose to pay attention not to those with the facts and figures, but rather to lobbyists representing the very interests they should have been regulating in the first place. 

   Generally speaking, knowledge without will, vision, integrity or courage, has a most difficult time of translating into power. In the political arena, it is close to impossible; a process that lacks will, vision, integrity and courage will more often than not become an exercise in futility, a danse macabre where hidden agendas abound, and what started being potentially empowering, becomes either an impediment or an irrelevancy.

   Yesterday, the 10th of December 2008, the House of Representatives passed a $14 billion loan-guarantee package for the "BTA."  In addition to the money, the measure mandates that the BTA submit a reorganization plan (or suffer the consequence of having to immediately repay the loan) by March 31, 2009.  It further creates the executive post of "Car Czar," who will have what appears to be unfettered authority to get the Big Three back on tract. (Honestly, why we persist in using the term "Czar" is beyond me; I'm sure Congressman Frank must be aware of just how profligate and imperious most of the Russian despots were.  After all, much of his family escaped from Czarist Russia!) 

     In order for the bill to become law, it will of course have to pass the Senate.  And here is where the going gets rough.  For despite having the knowledge of what will likely happen if the BTA go under, many Senate Republicans are against the plan.  Indeed, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R.KY), whose state has more than 50,000 jobs related to the industry, has already said he will cast a "no" vote.  Instead, he supports an amendment by Tennessee Republican Bob Corker that would force severe cuts on union workers and auto industry bondholders as part of the bailout. 

   McConnell, Corker, and many of their Republican colleagues, represent states that have non-union auto plants.  They see this bail-out measure as an opportunity to bust the UAW and stick bondholders with enormous losses -- matters which are purely political and have little to do with saving the American automobile industry.  Additionally, one of the bill's amendments that is under extraordinary fire forbids any company receiving loans from using any of that money for financing their lobbying efforts against new, more stringent carbon emissions standards recently enacted by California and a dozen other states.  Despite the knowledge that the "cleaner the car," the more likely consumers are to purchase them, the BTA's friends and lobbyists are fighting this measure tooth and nail. 

   In other words, for many, it's politics as usual.

   Oh that the knowledge we did possess could have empowered our elected leaders to act before things got to such a pass -- as we were careening into recession.  Unfortunately, whatever knowledge was available was ignored, twisted, obfuscated or just plain buried.

   Why?

   Well, according to Sir Francis -- who's getting easier to quote -- the answer may well be that

   "Nothing is more damaging to a state than that cunning men pass for wise . . ."

  

©2008 Kurt F. Stone

  Note: Within 24 hours of posting this article, Senate Democrats decided to abandon their efforts to bail out the auto industry.  The stated reason for the abandonment was Republican intransigence; GOP senators balked at supporting any bill that would not, in essence, destroy the United Autoworkers Union.  The Democrats knew that under these circumstances, they didn't have the 60 votes needed to for the measure to pass. 

Prejudging the Future, Ignoring the Past

   Whether we realize it or not, Sǿren Kierkegaard, that most abstruse of 19th century Existentialist philosophers, is all the rage these days.  Well, maybe he's not all the rage, but one twelve-word quote generally attributed to him certainly is. 

  To wit:  "You should live your life forward and understand it in the past."

  With the recent release of thousands upon thousands of hours of Nixon tapes, we have what at first blush is a repudiation of Kierkegaard's dictum.  For in listening to those tapes -- and thereby deriving a better understanding of Nixon the man, his motives and his mania -- we are blurring the distinction between past, present and future.  For the tapes were made in what at the time was the present, meant to be stored away for the future, presumably to . . .  

   To do precisely what?  Did Nixon make those surreptitious tapes with an eye toward assisting future generations in their understanding of the past?  Or perhaps in order to justify his actions in what was then the present?  We may never know what his precise motivation was; and perhaps that is just as well.  Eventually of course, the ever "New" Nixon did issue a blanket mea culpa.  As a man who was deeply concerned about what his future place in history would be, this was both essential and understandable.  

  "You should live your life forward and understand it in the past."

  The Nixon example aside, Kierkegaard [or whoever was the real author of these twelve words] was correct.  Obviously, no one who is of flesh and blood can live life in any direction other than forward.  Likewise no one can understand or judge something that has not yet occurred.  Simply and stupidly stated, history does not occupy the future, only the past.  And though asking a question like "what would the world have been like if there never had been a break-in at the Watergate?" may be a great way to spend an evening, it is little more than an academic exercise.

   And while it is undoubtedly true that everyone will, from time to time, have those "if only I knew then what I know now" moments they are, of course, generally wistful, occasionally regretful, but never real.  One obviously cannot derive knowledge in the past from actions or events which have yet to take place.  Conversely, it is both absurd and impossible to write or judge the history of the future -- unless one is into science fiction.

   Or is it?

   Amazingly, we are beginning to see more and more examples of people rewriting the present before it has completely passed, or prejudging the future before it has even arrived. 

   First things first: rewriting the present before it has completely passed.

   Of late, George W. Bush has been submitting to personal, one-on-one interviews with ABC News' Charlie Gibson and presidential sister Doro Bush Koch.  In reviewing interview transcripts, several points come through loud and clear:

• George Bush is hardly what one would term an introspective man. 
• He is not particularly concerned about how history will judge his presidency. ["I guess I don't worry about long-term history, since I'm not going to be around to read it . . ."]  
• He is generally incapable of accepting blame for anything that went wrong during his two terms in office.  ["I regret that the intelligence about WMD's was wrong."]
• He is already in the process of rewriting history. ["I think when the history of this period is written, people will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so before I arrived as President."] 

   What is more, as reported on the December 3rd edition of The Rachael Maddow Show, former senior Bush advisers including Karl Rove and Karen Hughes are already meeting inside the White House as part of the "Bush Legacy Project."  Their job is reshaping the man, the myth and his accomplishments by which future historians will report on "The Decider's" presidency. 

   In other words, from all indications, George W. Bush and his associates are doing everything in their power to rewrite the past right here in the present, in the hopes that future generations will ignore the past.  It will, of course, be up to those future generations to ignore the Bush version of history and determine for themselves precisely why this man left office with the lowest ratings of any president in modern history.  [The reality is so bad, I wouldn't be surprised if the next generation of linguists reduce the Latin alphabet by one letter so that is goes "S,T,U,V . . . X,Y,Z."]

   But for now, let us return to Kierkegaard:

  "You should live your life forward and understand it in the past."

   We have already determined that it is the height of absurdity to write or prejudge the future -- for the painfully obvious reason that it has yet to occur. 

   But that is exactly what an awful lot of conservative writers, bloggers, sore-head losers and racists have been doing.

  On any given day, running along this Blog's right-hand margin, one will find a link leading to an anti-Barack Obama website.  This site claims to have 13,700 designs and slogans for sale, among which are:

• "Obama: Why Stupid People Should Not Vote!"
• "Join the Communist Party!  This Way to Progress! Apply Now at Obama.com!"
• "Vote Barack Obama: Because Everyone Else Deserves What You've Worked Hard For!"
• "I'm Republican Because We All Can't Be On Welfare!"

   And these are among the least offensive

  Then there are those who, sensing -- perhaps fearing -- that the Obama Administration will address the nation's horrifying financial collapse by taking a page out of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal play-book, have actually taken to prejudging the future by both rewriting and ignoring the past.

   As an example, in his November 30 op-ed piece, Washington Post columnist George Will asserted, "The assumption is that the New Deal vanquished the Depression.  Intelligent, informed people differ about why the Depression lasted so long.  But people whose recipe for recovery today is another New Deal should remember that America's biggest industrial collapse occurred in 1937, eight years after the 1929 stock market crash and nearly five years into the New Deal.  In 1939, after a decade of frantic spending -- President Herbert Hoover increased it more than 50 percent between 1929 and the inauguration of Franklin Roosevelt -- unemployment was 17.2 percent."  

   The "facts" and "statistics" Will employs come from Wall Street Journal writer Amity Shlaes' 2007 book The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression.  Well, even Shlaes has admitted that this data ignored "emergency" public employment.  In other words, Roosevelt's New Deal actually did far, far more good than Wills wants people to believe.  In essence, he is ignoring the past in order to prejudge the future.

   Another example would be syndicated columnist Mona Charen who, also citing Shlaes writes, "The New Deal's chief object was never achieved -- it did not solve the nation's unemployment problem."   Will went even further when, appearing on the ABC news show This Week, asked, "Before we go into a new New Deal, can we just acknowledge that the first New Deal didn't work?  That is," he added, "the biggest collapse in industrial production in history occurred in 1937, eight years after the stock market collapse of 1929, five years into the New Deal." 

   Essentially then, what both are saying is, "Hey, this plan of Obama's won't work -- no way, no how!  And how do we know this?  Because we know that Roosevelt's New Deal was both a fraud and a failure!  So there!!"  

   This is revisionist history, plain and simple, used in order to prejudge the future.

   To be certain, no one has a crystal ball that predicts what will occur tomorrow, let along next week, next month or next year.  But those who rewrite today's events in order to make tomorrow's take on history better -- and those who rewrite history in order to "prove" that the future won't work -- suffer from either an anemic approach to academia or a hubristic sense of history.

   In either case, they have a problem with the truth.

   Perhaps they should go back and reread Kierkegaard . . .

©2008 Kurt F. Stone