|
Ivan W.
Parkins |
|
To order Dr. Parkins book, Perspectives For
American Society Contact
info@americanpoliticalcommentary.com |
|
©Ivan W. Parkins 2009, 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 |
|
About
Ivan W. Parkins: Dr.
Parkins is a retired professor of Political Science from Central Michigan
University. He received his PhD from
the University of Chicago and is a graduate of the United States Naval
Academy. Dr. Parkins served as a naval
officer during WWII aboard the battleship Alabama. He is a recent widower with three
daughters, 3 grand children and 2 great grand children. Dr. Parkins has written extensively, having
authored 3 books and a newspaper opinion column for many years. |
|
Front Page |
|
Editors Note: Dr.
Parkins’s Grandson, Breton W. Hinkle, passed away unexpectedly on Feb. 14,
2009. He leaves his wife Jen, parents
Ray and Susan Hinkle, sister, Gretchen Hinkle, Richard and Kathy Bourque,
Father and Mother in law, brother in laws Kevin and Brian and sister in law,
Kelly. He was a graduate of Michigan
State University. Bret was a United
States Marine and had faithfully served his country with honor and
distinction. He will be terribly
missed by family and friends. He was loved by all who knew him. He was
buried with military honors in Holland, MI. See Bret’s life story at
http://www.lifestorynet.com/memories/45526/ |
|
Letters To the Editor: U.S.NEWS,
2/21/94 Good News on Race: Thanks for John Leo’s excellent column “A
Sunny Side on Race” (January 24).
Unfortunately, the charge of racism has become one of the instruments
by which a new elite asserts its intellectual and moral superiority over
traditional America. Burgeoning numbers of “liberally educated” persons, plus
advances in communication, have provided opportunities for the new elite to
contend for power with old elites and popular majorities. Until that contest is resolved, the common
decency of most Americans is unlikely to prevail. “Ordinary politics,” in racial and other
important matters, is not an option. THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, 7/21/2000 Mr.
Owen’s piece contrasts with a less publicized story that
is well supported by statistics.
Suicide and homicide rates among young American civilians rose sharply
in the 1960s and ’70s.
That increase alone cost more lives than did combat in Vietnam. The total of youthful homicides and
suicides in those two decades was about three times our fatalities in military
combat. |
|
LIBERTY AND TYRANNY A Review of Mark Levin’s
New Book By Ivan W. Parkins
Mark Levin’s book, by the title above, page 2 says: “Conservatism is a
way of understanding life, society, and governance.” I agree—sort of. He may not like my addition. I would add that: Liberalism, also, is a
way of understanding life, society, and governance.
After reading the rest of his book, I believe that we agree about much
more, particularly the facts concerning current political issues. But I dislike most issues being referred to
as conservative or liberal; we need closer attention to real effects upon
this nation’s interests and identity.
It goes back about fifty years, to when I had a fresh doctorate and
taught at Jacksonville University. I,
myself, was becoming an issue in local politics, as a liberal. Having received an honor from my
colleagues, I was to address a convocation of the University.
The title that I chose was “An Intellectual Basis for
Conservatism.” I prepared carefully,
and that changed my outlook. Among
authorities, then popular, there was little agreement about the meaning
of conservatism. My conclusion was
that both conservatism and liberalism should be defined by their functions in
relation to experience, i.e. by their emphasis upon preserving the best of
the past or extending experience where needed. From that, it follows that they may
supplement one another more than they conflict.
Levin’s primary dichotomy is liberty and tyranny. Unfortunately, too much of our public
discussion of issues has drifted from thoughtful examination of empirical
facts to quite abstract ideological arguments, arguments that, as Justice
Oliver Wendell Holmes once noted, do not decide concrete cases.
Levin does give generous attention to some concrete matters, including
the Ban on DDT. I am aware of nothing
more pertinent or more challenging to the quality of our political system
than that. Surely, this President, some of whose ancestral ties to Africa are
more recent than those of most of us, can appreciate this one especially
urgent human need. We should end as
rapidly as possible what is probably the most deadly and bizarre plague ever
imposed by one human group upon others.
We should end the Ban on DDT, with its horrific consequences for those
who live in areas prone to infestation by insects bearing malaria.
Much of Levin’s book is devoted to summaries of such empirical
challenges. I found little of that
with which I would disagree. I especially
appreciate and recommend pages 68-73 dealing with how our financial crisis
developed. His Conservative Manifesto
at the end is a bit too ideological for me.
I am more concerned with how our partisan politics and constitutional
power structure could be reshaped to serve the nation better. |
|
TERRESTRIAL ENERGY A Review of William Tucker’s Book By Ivan W. Parkins TERRESTRIAL ENERGY by
William Tucker is the best thing that I have read on the energy topic. Tucker first got my attention a couple of
decades ago with an article attacking, as excessive, the national scare over
AIDES, especially the idea that it was an imminent threat to nearly
everybody. The government, at that
time, was contributing to the scare; a couple of years later most official
statements on the subject resembled Tucker’s.
I strongly suspect, and hope, that within a few years something
similar will occur regarding this nation’s “energy crisis.”
Tucker distinguishes three types of energy: solar, fossil, and
terrestrial. Solar includes stored
water, dams, an ancient technology.
The sun is also the source of wind as well as electricity from solar
generating panels. And it produces the
organisms that we harvest to burn directly or convert into other fuel. The renewable energy sources
are not highly concentrated, and making them more so can be expensive in both
money and energy. Wind and sun panels fluctuate
severely in their outputs. A
more concentrated form of energy is available from fossil sources, sun energy
of long ago transformed by time and geological forces. Coal, oil, and natural gas are limited, and
coal, the least limited in supply, is the most dirty. They are up to fifty times as concentrated
as the solar energies. Coal is this
country’s largest source of energy for generating electricity. Electricity is a means of transporting and
applying energy, not a source of energy.
Terrestrial energy comes from the earth itself, not from the sun. A small portion of it is available already
from hot springs and other seepage.
Some may be added by drilling.
But radioactivity from minerals is by far the most promising. It can be over a million times as concentrated
as fossil energy. Tucker’s
illustration is an account of his visit to both coal and nuclear generating
plants not far from Cincinnati. The
coal plant was refueled by 110 railcar trains arriving
one each day. The nuclear plant
required one truckload of fuel rods every eighteen months. One plant was filthy, the other very clean. Of course the fuel rods were dangerous to
handle, the workers were required to wear gloves.
Tucker makes a strong case that we have no practical choice other than
nuclear generation of electricity if we wish to maintain our economy and
reduce air pollution. Wind and solar
panels can help with a few special needs, especially solar with peak load
problems on hot summer days. They have
very little base load capability. He
notes that France generates 80% of its electricity from nuclear facilities,
and stores its waste from several decades in one room. France recycles waste, and even some of the
remains from that are valuable as a source of medical and other industrial
radiation technologies. We once had a
recycling facility, we shut it down.
We get our nuclear medicines from Canada.
Tucker is not that blunt, but I will be: Damn America’s panicky, unscientific, and economically
destructive energy politics! |
|
Conservatism
and Liberalism By Ivan W. Parkins From my
conclusion of a debate with Fulton
Lewis III, 2/14/62, Jacksonville, FL: The American political tradition has been
interpreted by many historians as essentially a liberal tradition. Our forefathers were largely responsible
for introducing to the world such revolutionary political practices as the
written constitution and universal manhood suffrage. In the field of foreign relations, the
rights of neutrals and the form of international organizations such as the
U.N. are largely American products.
But such American leaders as John Adams and James Madison were very
well read in political history. While
they helped to introduce great innovations, they also clung to much of past
experience. The political careers of
Adams and Madison illustrate, I believe, that liberalism and conservatism
need not be hostile attitudes, but may complement one another even within a
single personality. - - - - - Liberalism and conservatism may be given many
meanings in different time and circumstances.
I contend that the definitions which make the most sense over a long
period of time and in a variety of circumstances are these functional
definitions, upon which I have based my case and which I wish now to
repeat. The function of conservatism
is to identify and preserve the best of past experiences; the function of the
liberalism is to extend experience.
Without in any way denouncing or renouncing true conservatism, I claim
to be a liberal. - - - -
- As between a genuine conservatism, seeking to
preserve valuable experience, and a genuine liberalism, concerned with
extending experience in instances where experience had proven to be
inadequate, there may exist large areas of agreement. Also, careful study of history and honest
reporting of contemporary experiences provide bases for extending agreement. |
|
Masters
of Verbal Communication From a column in The Daily
Times-News, 5/29/70: By Ivan W. Parkins What
we see about us is the rise of those people whose life-work and human
energies are expressed not in material products but in words. Professors, journalists, clergymen, and
others of the articulate professions are joining to assert their common
interests, not as men, but as the masters of verbal communication. In claiming primacy for their own special
interests, they attempt to subordinate those men whose interests lie in the
mastery of property, arms, ballots, etc. The
attack upon mere property as inferior to human values has as its counterpart
the claim that words are an extension of the person himself. We must not permit the establishment of
doctrines which make one particular kind of work, uniquely, the prop of our
humanity. It is from just such
doctrines that gross injustices develop.
Actually, human beings express themselves in works of many kinds. Civilization is largely an accumulation of
those works through time. And each
civilized society preserves bits of the life-work of innumerable men, its
citizens. In and through civilized
society men find a larger and a longer life.
Their patriotism is, ultimately, a kind of self-defense. The enemies of society are threats to the
life-work of its citizens.
Human societies have many facets, and most of them
contribute to the well-being of the whole.
Their gravest problem is not that they give dignity to men of varied
talents, but that they sometimes recognize too few. Those who would shape a society into a
pedestal for one product of human endeavor—be it property, arms, ballots,
words, or something else—they are the real barbarians. No
kind of work, or means of expression, is sufficient unto itself to sustain
the human character of man, and all works are valuable in proportion as they
contribute to the enlargement and preservation of the total human endeavor. - - - -
- - - - - Today, after almost forty
years, I would add that words are
probably man’s most valuable tool.
But, little value is in the word itself; most is in the meaning that
it conveys. And, too many words that
relate poorly with the more tangible aspects of experience are a sign of
trouble. I.W.Parkins 40609 |