Jay Lillie

Overheard at the members bar in mid-country Greenwich, CT on Saturday afternoon:

Why don’t you understand?

What is it you don’t think I understand?

That Congress’ refusal to approve the Columbian trade deal helps Hugo Chavez and the Castros.

What?

See . . . you don’t get it.

Wait a minute. How are those things connected?

Is Columbia a “friend” of the United States?

I guess so.

And is Chavez, the ruler of Venezuela, a supporter of the Castros, and a self-proclaimed enemy of ours?

That’s true.

And is Chavez coupled with Columbia’s anti-USA neighbor, Ecuador, ready to wage war on Columbia on some trumped up charge?

It appears that way.

So, if the Senate doesn’t approve the trade deal with Columbia who are they hurting?

Do you think the Senators really care so long as they get reelected?

I apologize; you’re smarter than you look.

A good friend gave me the following report over the weekend:

“I was on a flight from London to New York last week when I overheard a rather loud comment down the isle from behind me. The voice sounded familiar. Not to be too obvious I waited ten micro-seconds before turning around to see what the person looked like. It was my father’s sister’s daughter . . . the loud mouth New Yorker in the family.

“What’s on your mind,” I asked her a few minutes later when they turned off the seatbelt sign, and I sat down in the open seat next to her. The guy on her other side seemed relieved to have me share her attention.

“We had two womanizers in the Governor’s chair,” she said. “One left in disgrace because he got caught doing the same thing he prosecuted others for, and our replacement Governor even seems proud of his adultery.”

“I think the second guy is a stalking horse for Obama,” the man on her left said, but my cousin was not distracted.

“And the two Senators from New York, what did we do to deserve them?”

“One of them wants to be President,” the neighbor said.

Cous gave him the look she used to save for our fifth grade math teacher when he put a quiz on the blackboard. “Hey, anything to get her out of New York,” she said.

I asked her if New York politicians were really any worse than those in other states.

“Where can you find another like Schumer?”

“He seems quite reasonable,” I said.

“Is it reasonable to be an announced pro Israeli Senator who fights every attempt by his opposition in Congress to help out the Jewish State?”

“Maybe he works behind the scenes,” I said.

“So he’s a hypocrite.”

“You’ve got a point there,” the neighbor said, and it got him a nod from my cousin.

“You don’t even live in New York,” I said.

“So what; Hillary never lived there either. She’s a real carper bagger that one. I’m just poor. I can’t afford to live where I work.”

“How about Giuliani? Did you like him?”

“He’s my man,” the guy on her left said.

“He was a small man. Like a general without a war, he could not rise to greatness,” she said.

“So who do you like?” I asked.

“I like Obama. He was on the Harvard Law Review, you know. That means he’s really smart, and he’s not from New York.”

“Smarter than Schumer?” the neighbor asked.

“Why are you two men ganging up on me?”

“You’re smart too,” I said. “You can’t blame us for trying to learn from you.”

“Oh my God,” she said. “I forgot. You’re a New York politician too aren’t you.”

Fear is a great motivator. It can work for the betterment of individuals who respond with a clear head, or incite panic and confusion among crowds who don’t. It can work its force to move masses of human beings to do things that later make them blush. Fear was used by dictators like Hitler and Stalin to maintain order and keep their people in line. And fear is used by politicians and media to influence the vote in American elections.

Listen to what our politicians say when they’re trying to convince us what they want is right for the nation. Fear is strong medicine and neither Democrats nor Republicans are afraid to use it.

The approach can be

Somewhat subtle: Think about who you want in the White House to answer the phone at 3:00 AM in the morning, or by turning the race card face down;

More direct: McCain will remind you we face a determined enemy that’s out to destroy us; or

Even subliminal: a vote for X is a vote against Christ and toward your damnation; and

In its worst form fear is highly irrational: like when we incarcerated all the Japanese/American families in California after Pearl Harbor.

The closer an election the more likely that fear will be used to affect the result.

One of the problems of being elected by scaring people is that you need to keep it up in order to stay in power. The best example of this in American politics was the reign of Senator Eugene McCarthy who mobilized support over two terms in the Senate by frightening Americans over communist infiltration into the U.S. government at all levels. Very few were willing to take him on, less they too be condemned. It was a carefully staged campaign of fear that worked long enough to hurt a lot of people, not many of whom actually posed a national security risk.

There are times when public figures in positions of great power use fear to abuse their trust and hurt innocent people. Eugene McCarthy and Eliot Spitzer, as prosecutor, are good examples of evil parading as good; and they were both able to use the free media and press to strike fear into the hearts of those they wished to dominate and control. Fortunately, these are rare instances involving obscene arrogance and the purveyors usually end up getting what they deserve.

The use of fear to get people to act is by its nature negative and destabilizing. “The Sky is Falling,” says Chicken Little. (I guess that’s where we started using “chicken” as the moniker for being afraid.)This doomsday or Sky is Falling technique is used daily without shame by some television and print news media. If the story is worth repeating it’s certainly worth scaring people about, and some can really do the job . . . without in many cases knowing more than how to get your attention. If you don’t usually think of this as politically driven . . . think again.

The fear of choosing the wrong person or persons to lead our Country is prevalent and is used and played to affect our vote. It helps in this regard to remember the United States is a Republic, not a pluralist society subject to great swings in government. The best counter to the fear of choosing the wrong leaders is our Constitution and the rule of law and liberty that it gives us all. When you think about it, the power of the Presidentcy is not all that great, and, while it might take a while, bad laws are usually struck down.

Our system of checks and balances may top off the highs some nations obtain from power imposed achievement, like that going on in China, Russia and Venezuela right now, but our Constitution also provides a solid foundation for collective freedom of action allowing 350 Million Americans to act as one when they need to.

Better leadership always brings better results, and being afraid from time to time might even spur action in the right direction; but knowing this brilliant and many times proven Constitutional system is on our side no matter who’s in the White House or who are making our laws, gives us the strength to overcome our fear.

So think positive, and try not to let anyone frighten you into voting for them or their candidates.

The world is asking what changes Raul Castro will bring to the people of Cuba now that he’s replaced Fidel as President. Raul has been running the secret police in Cuba for over 45 years, why should we expect he’ll bring any change?

Raul was seconded in the 1960’s to learn his trade with the East German secret police, known to all who feared their intrusions into every aspect of German life as the infamous STASI. Google that term and you’ll pick up the core of terror and secrecy that Raul brought home to Havana, and has practiced and improved upon ever since.

STASI methods were more subtle than the Nazi Gestapo or the KGB, but even more terrifying. They infiltrated families, schools and all aspects of East German society with informants; they made it your patriotic duty to inform on your parents, your children, your spouse, your teachers and anyone else who seemed a remote threat to the East German communist high command. You never knew with whom you were really speaking or in whom you could place your trust and confidence.

The strength of this brand of secret terror is that it provides an easy, cheap way to nip ideas of dissent, revolt or sedition in the bud. This is what Fidel was most concerned with . . . stopping a counter revolution before it could gain any traction with the masses; and the job was given to brother Raul to implement the STASI brand of tyranny in Cuba.

What broke the back of this form of secrecy and terror in East Germany will do the same in Cuba if we give it an equal opportunity. It’s not possible to operate a successful modern economy without the freedom and liberty to make business and social decisions. All of Eastern Europe threw off the yoke of Soviet tyranny when it became clear the people of those countries were missing out on a quality of life that the Western world took for granted. Athletes returning from Olympic competition, access to information from Western sources, and the proven failure of communism to compete with freedom in the marketplace, all bore the same message and down came the Berlin Wall.

Only in Cuba, North Korea and Iran does this code of secret police terror run the show today. Only in those places are American business people kept out (by our own government in the case of Cuba I’m ashamed to say).

So don’t expect any change in Cuba so long as Raul is in charge and the American Embargo is still in place. Removing the Embargo might topple Cuba’s Berlin Wall within a year or two, but what American politician has a sufficient sense of history to see that?

A good friend sent me the following email from Berkeley, CA.

“I asked a class of political science majors at one of the local universities where I monitor classes:

Is there any way to keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House?

The overwhelming consensus of this group of students and faculty was that the only way to be absolutely sure Hillary Clinton never gets back into the White House is to make Barack Obama the Democratic candidate.

If that’s what it takes I’m for it. Is it too late? What do you think?

I haven’t replied to my friend yet. I’ve been too busy raising money for the Obama campaign.

My friend Ben is a great putter, but his swing looks like he has one foot in quicksand, and he drives the ball erratically. His ability to chip the ball close to the pin is average at best, but he always gets down in two . . . from bunkers, heavy rough and downhill lies, because he always putts the ball straight into the hole. The men and women he plays with all have nice swings, drive the ball straight, and often are on the green in regulation. Ben beats them.

Golf is supposed to be a microcosm of life, so I’ve been looking for an application to life of my friend’s putting prowess. Last night I found it. Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee have the gift of blarney, and they’re funny and charming when they want to be. John McCain’s ability to drive home points and charm his audience is not in their class. McCain like my friend Ben on the golf course lands in all the places clever politicians manage to avoid; he plays the shot where he finds it; and yet manages to rescue his position by truly believing what he says. He comes across as a straight shooter who counts all his strokes.

The only time my golfer friend gets beaten is when he tries to hit the ball off the tee as far as the men he plays against. Even a great putter can’t make up for too many out-of-bounds penalties. Last night Mc Cain made the same error. He tried to be as clever as Romney and as funny as Huckabee. It was obvious at times he was playing cards that his coaches gave him and it made him look just like my buddy Ben when he’s trying to hit a long drive. Both should stick to what they do best if they want to win.

If the only choice the American people are given by our two-party system is a choice between the far right and the exteme left, then Mayor Bloomberg may believe he can offer more to enough of those moderates in each party, and to voters independent of party affiliation, to win the Presidency.

The real question is whether we need a third party to represent the majority of Americans who are neither far right nor far left. President Harry Truman observed half a century ago:

“I think we would lose something important to our political life if the conservatives were all in one party and the liberals in the other. This would make us a nation divided . . . into two opposing and irreconcilable camps . . . . . *”

Is this the way it is today? Are all the liberals Democrats and all the conservatives Republicans? Of course not, but you might think so listening to the political hustlers in both parties during the primary nomination process. If you’re an independent you don’t get to vote in most of these primaries, so the candidates lose little by appealing to their party’s extreme’s.

Harry Truman also said,

“There is no need for a third party, since our two-party system has made our country strong and politically responsive. All segments of our economy and society have adequate representation and expression within either or both parties.*

Maybe that’s the way it was then; but how about now? Do liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats and the interests of independents, have adequate representation and expression within the respective parties? It does not always appear so if we take the current list of candidates from each party at their word. Will they change their position later, once they have their party’s nomination, in an attempt to attract the independent and more moderate voters? If they do, then why should we trust what they’ll do if elected . . . maybe they’ll change again?

Given two otherwise acceptable candidates it’s possible to make an honest choice, instead of voting for the lesser of two evils or not voting at all. If the choices given us by the two major parties are at the extremes we have no positive choice to make and a third major party might appear to fill the gap. But every vote cast in the general election for a third party candidate who’s not truly competitive does nothing more than take away a vote from either the Republican or Democratic candidate. That can lead to the lesser of two evils being defeated. I don’t think Harry Truman would think that’s the way it should be. Still, I guess it’s better than not voting at all.

* Marks selections from the Wit & Wisdom of Harry Truman by Ralph Keyes, Random House, 1995

Over the past several days the British Prime Minister and the President of France have made a point of telling the world what good friends they are with the United States. Action will speak louder than words in the case of France, but still this seemed an extraordinary thing to me. Why now? Indeed, why at all did it seem necessary for Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy, within days of each other, to confirm their allegiance to the United States?

You’ve heard the old Irish challenge: Put your money where your mouth is? They’ve done it one better; they’re putting their mouth where their money is.

European companies and individuals hold large investments in the United States, which of course are denominated in Dollars. European governments hold significant amounts of Dollar securities. The value of these assets has been dropping almost daily as the Pound has risen to over $2.11 and the Euro at $1.43 is up from 89 cents a couple of years ago.

To the extent the falling Dollar reflects a lack of confidence in America’s ability to continue on its own to save the western world, the leaders of France and Great Britain may be trying to boost the Dollar’s morale and steady its value by telling the world how much they love and admire us.

I hope it works.

Cuba’s back on the front page and the Miami Herald has a host of good articles on the subject. Not the least of these is a survey of the Cuban people showing what they think of Fidel’s policies and their resulting lifestyles. What impresses me about this survey is not its obvious results, but rather that Cubans were emboldened to give their opinions. This more than anything reveals how Fidel Castro’s hold over their hearts and minds has weakened.

Taking a page from Alan Greenspan’s great new book, it occurred to me there’s a good reason for this. The market of ideas is subject to the same rules as economics. Case in point:

Fifty years of politicians in Washington and Miami, by dogmatic assertions that would make even the Kremlin’s economists at the height of the Soviet Empire blush, trying to make Fidel Castro appear as the terrible villain he really is; while all that time Fidel gets stronger and more popular; BUT now

as the people of Cuba get glimpses of Fidel hobbling around and looking as poorly as he most certainly does, his ideas and godly presence are seen for what they are . . . a tin horn dictator holding his people down while the rest of the world passes them by.

Fidel would have served his revolution better by dying last year when he had the chance to go out on top.

This is not to say that Washington’s policies over the past 50 years have done anything but assist Fidel to stay in power. The embargo that’s been in place over that period, by keeping U.S. business out of Cuba after the Russians left, also kept out the market forces that would have exposed Fidel’s revolution for what it’s always been.

There is one thing the United States Congress could do immediately to move along faster that which now seems inevitable: Repeal or at least amend the Helms/Burton law: which prohibits all parts of our government and populace from lending any assistance to any new government in Cuba until the registered claims of the Cubans in Miami against the nation of Cuba are recognized in Havana.

Are you kidding me? Which Cubans are we trying help?

Google this: “Confessions of a Cuban Counterrevolutionary” for a satirical walk through Havana and Washington.

I can think of two Presidents of the United States over the last 60 years who were not the selection of their own political party to run for that job, one Democrat, Harry Truman and one Republican, Gerald Ford.

They both got there by accident, yet each of these men when tested, and time after time, put country first and their own and their party’s political interests second. How can we get more men like these?

Do we need a third party to represent the majority of Americans who are neither far right nor far left? President Harry Truman observed half a century ago:

I think we would lose something important to our political life if the conservatives were all in one party and the liberals in the other. This would make us a nation divided . . . into two opposing and irreconcilable camps . . . . . *

Is this the way it is today? Are all the liberals Democrats and all the conservatives Republicans?

Of course not, but you might think so listening to the political leaders of both parties.

Harry Truman also said,

There is no need for a third party, since our two-party system has made our country strong and politically responsive. All segments of our economy and society have adequate representation and expression within either or both parties.*

Maybe that’s the way it was then; but how about now? For example, do liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats have adequate representation and expression within their respective parties?

It does not always appear so. The outspoken and aggressive extremes within each or our two political parties make divisiveness and contention a requirement to carry their party’s banner in the media, and their constituents never miss an opportunity to do so. This is why some Americans are asking that we have a third major political party to represent the rest of us.

Something else Harry Truman said might have relevance:

Everyone has the right to express what he thinks. That, of course, let’s the crackpots in. But if you cannot tell a crackpot when you see one, you ought to be taken in.*

But money buys favorable coverage on television and other media for the worst of them; and the people who provide that money expect to get a return on their investment. A Third Party might fix things for a while; then we’d be right back where we are now, listening to those who are only looking after themselves and the “special interests” who support them.

This is probably why so few Americans exercise their right to vote and many that do declare themselves independent of party affiliation. We can’t tell who the good guys really are or whose interests they truly represent. At the same time it’s this failure to vote that let’s Harry’s crackpots win every time.

Doesn’t the solution lie within each of our major political parties? What if both parties were to devise a better means for candidate selection that brings men and women forward who will know and act in the best interests of all Americans, totally ignoring when necessary the very interests that make up their party? Partisan politics are normal and healthy, but letting special interests and extreme views dominate the stage in both parties is unnecessarily dividing us as a nation, and this division makes our nation weaker as Harry Truman knew it would.

* Marks selections from the Wit & Wisdom of Harry Truman by Ralph Keyes, Random House, 1995