|
Letter to the editor; Morning Sun, 11/20/2004 Parker had correct assessment of what's wrong with
Democrats Kathleen Parker was "right on" with her
column in the Sunday, Nov. 14, edition, "Voters want sincerity, not fake
values." In 1968, a year that I voted for the Democrat
presidential candidate (my seventh and last instance of doing that), the
party split badly over the war in Vietnam. After losing that election,
party leaders chose Senator McGovern to head a reformation of their
"unfair" nominating process. Shortly before the next
nominating convention, THE U.S. NEWS on 6/12/72 reported a Gallup poll
disclosing some results of the changes. Of 13 categories (by region,
race, job, education and age), Senator McGovern was the choice of Democrat
voters in only one, those with more than four years of college.
Humphrey won 11 and tied with Wallace for the 13th. But the reformed
nominating process chose McGovern, who was an ex-professor and a Ph.D.
Nixon won that election by the largest popular plurality and one of the
largest majorities in our history. Since 1972, Democrat presidential successes have been
Carter, with 50.1 percent of the vote, and Clinton, the third man in our
history to win twice without a majority either time. (The other two
were also Democrats, Cleveland and Wilson.) Shouldn't that history offer to America's
self-anointed intellectual elite an alternative to blaming
"mindless" followers of traditional values for election failures? A foot note: Hubert Humphrey, whose nomination for
President in 1968, some people thought was so “unfair,” had led most opinion polls of Democrats in that
year . Most showed him getting about
two-thirds of those who identified with the party, about the same as his
initial delegate count in the Chicago Convention. I.W. Parkins 5/08 |
|
Dividing America By Ivan W. Parkins (The following article was originally
published in the Daily Times-News, 10/06/1971). You will notice some language
usages at the time which were acceptable, but currently are not used due to
cultural sensitivities.-Ed.) The
Kerner Commission on civil disorders in its final report stated that, “Our
nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white – separate and
unequal.” That evaluation has been
quoted again and again. Both the
Johnson and the Nixon Administrations have been castigated for a lack of
enthusiasm in accepting and implementing the report. The
implication of the report and the charge bluntly levied by a militant
minority of Americans, is that racial bigotry prevailing in the American
public and intransigence existing in American institutions makes reductions
of our racial tensions unlikely. I am
reminded that when I moved to Michigan, just after the Detroit riots of 1967,
the more specific prediction , then popular in the press, was that more and
bigger riots would soon follow. I
required one of my classes to write a brief paper discussing the capacity of
the American political system to cope with the problem over the next five
years. To my chagrin, I discovered
that very few of my own suggestions had been accepted by my students. Almost unanimously, they echoed predictions
of a holocaust borrowed from the news media. Arguing
against “liberals” that a few riots did not foreshadow a race war was a new
role for me. I had moved from the
South, where my arguments were chiefly with segregationists, many of whom
cited sporadic violence and threats of violence as a reason why the civil
rights movements should be halted.
Neither group seemed to be aware that race relations during much of
American history, especially in the late nineteenth century, were more
violent than during the recent civil rights movement. Apparently, few people considered race
relations in the perspective of violence which accompanied other great
changes, such as the rise of labor unions. The
violence of the civil rights movement thus far has been moderate, when taken
in the perspective of history and considering the magnitude of the
change. Furthermore, there is growing evidence of progress. Economic gains, especially for the younger
and more educated Negroes, are substantial.
Negro voting, and successes in winning political offices, have
multiplied. It is largely in the more
subtle area of white-black attitudes toward one another that some people
still claim to find bases for pessimism. Several
major opinions polls in recent years have produced results suggesting that
white attitudes are less bigoted and intransigent, and black expectations
more moderate, than some journalists and intellectuals would have us believe. Recently, the University of Michigan’s
Institute for Social Research, probably the foremost center in attitudinal
survey in the world has published confirmation that white and black attitudes
are converging. The
quiet progress of school busing for integration purposes in most of
the South is a visible refutation of the pessimistic evaluations of our
people and our institutions. The
failure of most pessimists to support their arguments with solid evidence
does not mean that there is no racial problem in America. Samuel Lubell’s Hidden Crisis in
American Politics provides both
reasons for concern and some grounds for hope . Lubell has been interviewing representative
Americans in their homes while too many other journalists and academics were
populating the country with Archie Bunkers, fictitious characters whose
principal virtue is making intellectuals feel smugly superior. Lubell found, not attitudinal bigotry, but
specific problems of competition for housing and job opportunities, and fears
for personal safety to be the roots of tension. He attributed much of this to population
mobility (southern farms to northern cities, cities to suburbs). Such material problems pose difficult
problems to American society; they do not imply degeneracy in the American
character. Senator
Fred Harris, himself a member of the Kerner Commission, referred in LOOK
magazine (3/18/1969) to racism as “the number one mental health problem in
America.” Considering the failure of
attitudinal surveys to support such evaluations, it is fair to inquire
whether views such as those of Harris may not be both and impediment to
racial understanding and an additional major cause of division in America. |
|
Democrats and Racial Disunity The “1960’s” were a turbulent time for American political
parties. Increased black participation
was changing both the northern cities to which blacks were migrating and the
old solid Democratic South. Meanwhile,
the Supreme Court held that America’s often very unequal
legislative districting was unconstitutional.
How could Democrats survive the changes? More
educated and “sophisticated” Democrats in the larger cities of the Northeast
and Midwest would have additional congressional seats to work with. The Old South would lose most of its near
monopoly of congressional committee chairmanships. Rural Republicans of the Midwest would lose
numerous congressional seats, but many of them could be regained in the new
suburbs that were emerging. A
major question was how would be increasing black vote go? Black voters had traditionally leaned
Republican, until Franklin Roosevelt won many of them over. More of the black vote, now would be
strategically located in large cities and our most populous states. Given the practice of allocating all of the
electoral votes in most states to the presidential candidate who had
plurality in that state, a bloc-vote by blacks in major cities became a major
key to Democrat success. Meanwhile,
however, most of the new civil rights legislation had been enacted with
largely, Republican support. Democrats
needed to assure that a new and more militant leadership dominated black
communities. In that, the media,
academic and artistic as well as journalistic, would be a great help. The new racial and civil rights picture
that emerged in the 1960’s might have led to greater national unity than ever
before. But that might also have
undermined a Democrat Party that had long depended upon the Solid South for
its margins of victory. Rather than
face such a consequence, the more educated and “liberal” Democrats turned to
memorializing past racial injustices and cultivating more militant black
leaders. Peace and racial unity would
have to await another day. I.W. Parkins, 5/08 |
|
Institutional Bias Some decades ago, I
pointed out to my American Government classes that the text we were using
(the one most widely used in American colleges) gave very different
treatments to two ex-governors who had recently been nationally prominent. Otto Kerner, Democrat of Illinois, headed a
commission that investigated urban violence and became famous for the
statement that: “American is dividing into two nations, one black and one
white, separate and unequal. Kerner
was appointed Judge of a U.S. Court of Appeals. Our text treated Kerner and his work quite
favorably. Vice
President Agnew, Republican, and former Governor of Maryland, had made
several public statements very critical of mass media new treatments and of
campus demonstrations. The text
treated him much more severely. Soon
after, both men were charged with corruption felonies committed during the
times that they had been governors.
Agnew was forced to resign the Vice Presidency, accepted a plea
bargain, and went to prison. Kerner
pled “not guilty” to more than a dozen charges, was convicted of them all,
and also went to prison. Kerner’s was
a first for Judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals. On
matters of race relations there was some room for debate. Regarding equal treatment for high ranking
white officials, the publicity at least, was not equal. How
much of recent confusion vis-à-vis racial matters is actually, a product of
the same disinformation system that evaluated Kerner and Agnew so
differently? Also, the late Senator
Daniel Moynihan noted at the Kerner Commission had delayed publication of its
own racial attitudes survey; it did not fit with the Commission’s conclusion.
I.W. Parkins, 5/08 |
|
Ahead of the Curve, My
History in Institutional Bias by Ivan W. Parkins From
1948 to 1955, I was an instructor in the political science department of the
University of Akron. Our department
head was also Director of a, two-semester required “Introduction to Social
Science”. It was not popular with
students and Professor Sherman, who had done most of the work including the
lecturing himself, was tired of it. He
allowed me to take over nearly everything, including selecting text
material, lecturing and examining. One
element that I inserted was a week of study on American race relations, it’s
history, trends and continuing problems.
That, and some other issues, produced criticism by the Dean. I responded by citing my sources for the
racial portions, but was interrupted.
He was not questioning the material, he said, but such a topic was
“too mature’ for young college students.
The course and I were both replaced by the University. In
the early 1960’s at Jacksonville University, where I had become a tenured
professor. I engaged, with the President’s approval, in public discussions
and debates of several controversial subjects. Race was probably the most heated one. My continuance and pay there, along with
those of other faculty, were approved for 1962-3 by a mere majority of the
board of trustees. And, that was after
my three administrative superiors bet their jobs on it; also, after I had
twice been interviewed by lawyers representing members of the board. When I learned that all three of the
administrators were leaving, I left too. For
me, being a little “ahead of the curve” on matters of race was not a key to
success. |
|
Dividing America, Progressive
Taxation By Ivan W. Parkins
Another of the greatest sources of social division in America, both
historically and now, is differences between rich and poor. Actually, American society is unusual for
the now well-documented evidence of large and rapid changes as individuals
move from one economic level to another- mainly upward, but also some
down. And most opinion polls do not
show massive dissatisfaction with that system.
Meanwhile, recent national economic studies, both here and abroad,
demonstrate that cuts in taxes, especially those on gains from investments
made in the economy, usually produce additions to both the total economy and
to government revenue. It is
revealing therefore, that so many of our politicians, especially
leading Democrats favor tax increases.
Senator Obama has even commented that, regardless of economic merit,
higher taxation of wealth is needed for reasons of justice. I was once a supporter of
such taxation, but for reasons that I believed to be, mainly, economic. In today’s America, I can only view such a
policy as crudely judgmental and divisive.
Coming from a candidate for the Presidency, especially from one
claiming to be a unifier, I regard it
as blatantly naïve and/or deceptive. |
|
Establishment Clause Ideological Applications I agree with Theodore Roosevelt that when
businesses or laborers combine into vast organizations it becomes the duty of
government to see that they do not overpower small organizations and
individuals. By a somewhat similar
line of reasoning, I approve of the First Amendment’s ban on establishment of
a religion. But, I also note that
today, many educational, journalistic, and political action organizations are
both huge and aggressive. Furthermore,
some of them foster ideological indoctrination that is not much different in
its general nature from that of traditional churches. Shouldn’t the Establishment Clause, as well
as those words that guarantee free speech, press, etc, be applied to
ideological organizations that claim not to be religious? |
|
(The following “Letter to the Editor” appeared in the St.
Petersburg Times, Jan. 1997, and is a part of an ongoing illustration of the
“Dividing of America” series of articles published over the last 40 years-Ed.) Fearing the Future By Ivan Parkins To John Tierney’s excellent discussion, “Futurephobia”, the
Times, Dec. 29, I would add two points of interpretation and one possible
conclusion.
First, intellectuals, especially the more literary types, have
experienced in the 20th Century a technological displacement similar to that
which the advent of photography visited upon painters a few decades earlier. Until quite recently, most of humanity had
little contact with the world beyond those communities in which they
lived. With few exceptions, literacy
and a literate minority held the keys to knowledge of the larger world. But, in this century, public education,
easy travel and population mobility, plus television and other burgeoning
communication technologies, are depriving the literary
intelligentsia of much of their once exclusive status-even as they gain wider
audiences for their ideas. Second, the revolution
in communication has encouraged in many people what I call a sophomoric
illusion. When first made aware of a
world in which there are numerous unfamiliar hazards, we are all prone to
believe that the world is becoming more dangerous. Further study will usually help us to
recognize that it is our vision and not the larger world that has changed
most precipitously. But many of our
literary and opinion leaders encourage more passionate reactions rather than
more careful inquiries. Why is phobia
regarding the future so widespread?
Does not a literary-intellectual minority have a selfish interest in
promoting fear of the real world, a world in which knowledge is increasingly
available, and from a widening variety of sources? |
|
Dividing America (The following articles are part of an ongoing series
addressing the divisive nature of Democrat policies over the last few
decades) |
|
Page 8 |
|
©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 |