|
Excerpts from: Perspectives For American Society By
Ivan Parkins The
strength of democracy lies not so much in any special capacity that it may
have for discovering truths or for making truths known as in its ability to
detect and serve the many views and interests of its citizens. …. …..The dominion of Europe spread to the ends
of the earth. The West had risen to a point that, in terms of
geopolitics, could not help but be the zenith of its power. But how significant are the views that
attempt to measure the rise of the West in such materialistic terms? It
has become intellectually fashionable to follow every acknowledgment of
Western superiority in material things with condemnation of materialism and
the West. But the shallowness of mind
and spirit exposed in such evaluations may be more characteristic of those
intellectuals who do the condemning than of the Western civilization that
they pretend to evaluate. |
|
Book Review: AMERICAN CREATION by Joseph Ellis Joseph Ellis’ book, AMERICAN CREATION,
is a fitting sequel to his Pulitzer Prize winners, FOUNDING
BROTHERS and HIS EXCELLENCY. It sets forth more
clearly, than I have ever before seen, just what our
nation’s founders did achieve in the face of
specific difficulties, and what the difficulties were that they failed
to overcome. Essentially, they
exceeded amazingly well at turning colonies into an independent, large, and
free republic that proved to be both durable and expandable. They failed to resolve two huge problems,
native rights and racial freedoms. Ellis is easy to read
and especially reasonable. He is specific about assigning both credits and failures to
individuals, most of whom he obviously admires. He attributes much of their greatness to
their pursuit of lasting fame rather than immediate popularity. They were, along with some fortunate
circumstances and coincidences, creators of the United States.
I.W. Parkins |
|
Who Is Great? I am referring to Christopher
Hitchens' book, God is Not Great; I haven't read it and do not
expect to. I have read the Bible, all of it plus some Apocrypha and some
sacred writings from other religions. Most of that was in the 1930's,
when I was a teenager. I have not been a religious person by the usual
standards. During my
graduate work, philosophy and political science, plus thirty-four years of
teaching, I did acquire some bits of what is usually considered to be
culture. And, the Hitchens book calls to mind one interesting
experience that I had on three separate occasions. Three
colleagues with whom I had more than average personal contact (a fishing
companion, a fellow-member of several committees, and a residential neighbor)
all in different institutions, and states, made nearly identical remarks to
me. Each volunteered that there is one intellectual discipline that is
more profound than any other; it is literary criticism. Need I add that
they all taught modern literature? I may have
encountered more obvious and aggressive proselytizing, but I can't recall
it. And, I married into a family of Methodist ministers, in rural
Georgia - where I soon felt welcome. It is now
clear that this planet, the species that inhabit it, and the universe
surrounding are far more complex than our ancestors had means to
envision. Unfortunately, too many of the special class who study and
earn livings by rationalizing the varieties and interrelationships of things,
living and dead, are more interested in defining their own personal and class
status than in shaping more catholic and mutually satisfying visions of the
whole. |
|
Book Reviews And Misc. |
|
Page 5 |
|
Confession of Michael Straight By Ivan
Parkins World War II was significant in
terms of domestic politics for the unusual degree of unity that accompanied
it. Soon afterward, as the Cold War emerged, the unity eroded.
One aspect was growing charges of Soviet spying in America, and counter
charges that the security measures being imposed or considered were
excessive. Much anti-Nixon and McCarthyism
rhetoric originated then. Much of the real evidence, held secret by the
FBI and other agencies could not be released prior to prosecutions or to
exhaustion of intelligence sources. “Confession of
Michael Straight” Opinion column 05/03/84, The Morning Sun Thirteen pages in the March issue of Harper’s describe
Communist penetration of America more concisely than any other account that I
have seen. Michael Straight’s
confessions are from the forthcoming autobiography, After Long
Silence. Since reading the Straight article, I have
plowed through the 800 pages of Whittaker Chambers’ Witness. And, after that,
I reread Mr. Straight. The two works
reinforce one another far more than they conflict. Apparently, Communists vary widely in the nature of their
party affiliations, and the degree to which they accept party assignments and
controls. That, no doubt, is part of
why they have been difficult to identify precisely. Mr. Straight, for instance, says of his student day’s in Britain, “we carried no little green cards in our pockets; we
took no party assignments with us when we left Cambridge….” Some other students (including “moles”)
were, he says , even less visibly affiliated, while a third group did carry
cards and report to party headquarters. Mr. Chambers describes both open party members and
underground members, connected through layers of bureaucratic organization to
Soviet intelligence on the one hand, and to ideological Communists on the
other. Mr. Chambers belonged at
various times to both the open and the underground party. Mr. Straight was an ideological Communist. Mr. Straight’s account adds much to that of Mr. Chambers
regarding Communist penetration into high literary and government
circles. When Mr. Straight returned to
America to seek a job, he began at the top.
His family connections were such that he was able to approach, in
person, both Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt.
(The christening of Mr. Straight’s mother, Dorothy
Whitney, had been attended by President Cleveland, cabinet members and
Supreme Court Justices.) Dorothy Whitney Straight financed the
establishment of the “New Republic”, and for a while, Michael edited that periodical. Michael’s years of hesitancy about
confessing to his Communist past ended when President Kennedy nominated him
to chair a new Advisory Council on the Arts, a position requiring FBI
clearance. After his confession to the
FBI in 1963, he served for eight years (1969- 1977) as deputy chairman of the
National Endowment for the Arts. The Communist apparatus upon which Mr. Chambers reported
struggled to develop contacts at higher levels of government. Mr. Straight, however, began with such
social and educational advantages that contacts at the highest levels were
immediately available to him. And that
contributes to our dilemma of how to deal with the intellectual Communist,
i.e. with the person who is a Communist in his loyalty and beliefs, but whose
connection to specific violent acts is remote. The liberal majority of American intellectuals and the
U.S. Supreme Court have both drawn a virtually absolute distinction between
belief and action. Legally, the
intellectual Communist is almost untouchable.
Unfortunately, such people are not harmless. A revealing example of how the intellectual communist
approaches situations is to be found in the Straight article. By his own account, the author could not
bring himself to expose promptly a communist friend, Guy
Burgess, who had endangered thousands of American lives in Korea—and that was
10 years after Mr. Straight began separating himself from the party. Also, by his own account, and after the Korean War
episode, Mr. Straight responded immediately to the mistake of an
anti-Communist informer who named him.
He endeavored not merely to clear himself, but also to discredit both
the informer and the investigation—Mr. Straight had not been a Communist in
American at the time charged; he was in Britain. “It was typical of the era that the Communist issue was
handled by unreliable men…”, he said.
Indeed, just how unreliable the Communist hunters of the early 1950’s
were, is a matter difficult to comprehend, until we have considered the
implications of their failure to expose Mr. Straight. Now the lack of public response to illumination of Mr.
Straight’s past may be significant. In spite of the extended HARPER’S
review, Michael Straight’s book did not get wide public attention. THE HAUNTED WOOD, by Weinstein and Vassiliev (a former Soviet
intelligence officer), tells of some of the spying disclosed by the Venona
Files (transcripts of coded Soviet messages made public in 1995). Chapter 4 is devoted to Michael Straight; a
spy controller, Yuri Modin, is quoted on reasons for Straight’s breakaway
from the Communist party in 1942 and confession in 1963. Besides Guy Burgess (mentioned
above), Straight knew Anthony Blunt, Donald MacLean, and Kim Philby. Blunt, Queen Elizabeth’s art advisor, was
“outed” by Straight’s confession to the FBI.
Philby, who had been liaison with American intelligence and chief of
British counter-intelligence, fled to Moscow, where he was decorated and
given the rank of colonel All were top
level Soviet spies. Why are these matters, now, so
little known to the American public?
Could the answer be that most "liberals" of the earlier era
were unwilling to face the new evidence; and more importantly that they have since,
held many of the key communications positions through which such evidence would
normally flow to the public? |
|
Reading History, FOR LIBERTY AND GLORY One joy of reading history is noting
the parallels of past and present politics. In James R. Gaines' FOR
LIBERTY AND GLORY, I've just encountered how Lafayette, 225 years
ago, sought to convince his king that freer trade laws vis-ŕ-vis America
would benefit France. If that reminds you of some things now being said
by President Bush, please keep in mind that the response of Louis XVI's
ministers was about as "progressive" as that of present day
Democrats. |
|
Page 5 |
|
REAL, CONSTITUTIONAL, CHANGE A REVIEW AND COMMENTARY OF NEWT GINGRICH’S NEW
BOOK, REAL CHANGE By Ivan W. Parkins REAL
CHANGE is the title of Newt Gingrich’s new book. I agree with most of the policies that he
proposes; I also agreed with most of what he did as Speaker of the House. But, I have grave doubts about the means by
which he expects to accomplish so much. Mr.
Gingrich himself cites an old axiom of Albert Einstein’s that doing more by
the same methods that have failed repeatedly and expecting a different result
is a sign of insanity. Except for some
other quotes that he cites, I might think Gingrich insane. He also cites Eisenhower and Peter Drucker
to the effect that often the answer to tough problems is to consider them as
mere symptoms and attack the underlying cause. That, I believe, is the way to real change
in the performance of our government.
Electing some other persons as Senators and Representatives and
discarding a few dilatory rules of congressional procedure will only suppress
a few symptoms. The cancer has grown
slowly and from causes that were largely obvious. Huge growth in the population of the United
States, even greater increase in our worldly economic and military power, and
a transformation in the locus and focus of our information system have made
Congress, especially the House of Representatives, dysfunctional. A
growing separation between Representatives and the people whom they are
expected to represent is obvious.
There is no way that a Representative can be “close” to more people
than there are minutes in a year. The
almost year-around sessions allow congress persons fewer and fewer minutes to
spend with constituents. They have
little practical choice but to cater to those who have the most to contribute
to their reelections.
Meanwhile, there is more public notice to be had by defying
presidential leadership and partisan compromises than by cooperation in
service to the nation. That is
especially damaging to national morale and to long-term policy
formation. Also more often than not
destructive are numerous sensational investigations of the past, and often no
longer significant, actions of the Executive and Judicial Branches. The
necessary solution will be difficult, and its personal or partisan rewards
will be remote. Failing to take the
hard course will assure that events will control us more and that we will
control the events less. I.W. Parkins/70808 |
|
Chapter 3, excerpts from Perspectives for American Society The exponential growth of our
accumulation of knowledge has soared to such a point that the total reservoir
is estimated to double every few years.
At the same time our capacity to store, recall, and transmit this exploding
mass of data and ideas adds a whole new dimension to problems of
comprehending what is happening in the world.
Never before have men needed to cope with a body of knowledge so huge
or so lacking in common premises.
Never before have so many needed to share their views with one
another. Language, the ability to communicate
with one another through elaborate symbol systems, is a distinguishing
characteristic of man. It is true that
other animals besides Homo sapiens communicate among themselves. But no other species has been able to
invent socially and to preserve and, moreover, continuously elaborate upon
its system of communication. The
extent of communication among human beings is without parallel in animal
behavior. …..The
ruling class bias in written and recorded history scarcely disappeared before
the twentieth century even in the highly literate nations of the world, and
only now is it beginning to be offset
in less literate countries. Nothing
else illustrates quite so clearly that writing and the inscribed record that
were made of men’s lives were reserved for a privileged few as a case from
approximately two thousand years ago.
There came to the eastern Mediterranean a leader of men whose appeal
has grown ever since. Jesus Christ
made his appeal orally and directed it primarily to the poor and illiterate
of his time; hence he was virtually ignored in the recorded histories of the
period. |
|
©Ivan W. Parkins 2010, All articles, text, web pages property of
Ivan W. Parkins. Use of any material
requires permission of the author
and can be obtained by contacting,
info@americanpoliticalcommentary.com |