|
Ivan W.
Parkins |
|
To order Dr. Parkins book, Perspectives For
American Society Contact |
|
©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 |
|
WHAT ABOUT HEALTH CARE? Tort reform and Simple Tax Credit for Insurance, Best Options By Ivan W. Parkins If
health care is to be a constitutional “entitlement” it, and other social
entitlements, should be limited, as the “safety net” simile implies. The circus performers’ safety nets are
simple devices to preserve bodies and lives.
They make it possible for individuals to continue. Comfort, dignity, and more advanced
achievements will vary with the individual’s own efforts; it is unrealistic to
guarantee them. One
simple and modest tax credit or grant, available to all Americans, and
adequate to purchase insurance covering most common emergencies and
illnesses, is needed. Several
practical administrative hurdles stand in it’s way. One is the lack of a single reliable
identification device for all individuals.
Another is a plethora of state laws specifying what health insurance
must include. Congress has adequate
authority to resolve both of those impediments.
Regarding rarer health problems and those resulting from the
individual’s own indulgences, any single centralized authority is at a
disadvantage where cases vary widely from one to another. The nation may provide for health and
medical research, and for controls of poisons and epidemics. It may also aid lesser governments and
private agencies that are dealing with unique problems. It should avoid most
varied services.
Most urgently, and relating to health care costs, the distortion of
tort proceedings into “jackpot justice” should be
crushed, and made costly for those who participate in it. Real injuries should be compensated on an
actual loss basis, if specific negligence is demonstrated. The legal process should not be a game of
chance for predatory and dishonest individuals. |
|
THE REAL CHALLENGE Or are
you ready to protect the Constitution? By Ivan W. Parkins In
the past half century Americans have experienced growing conflict between the
“mainstream” mass media and popular chief executives. Both are key elements in our political
system, and both claim to speak for most of us. The
clearest evidence of our problem is the fact that the three Presidents (one
Democrat and two Republicans) who won the greatest popular pluralities plus
record majorities of the votes cast were either driven from the office that
they had recently won or sorely harassed in their conduct of it. That would be less startling if it were not
for the additional fact that all three were especially well known to the
public before their elections. All had
been on America’s political stage for decades, and their landslide victories
were all returns to this nation’s top office.
Meanwhile, the branch of our government that is supposed to be closest
to the people has been, during the same half century, almost totally a
one-party stronghold. Republicans have
had only brief and very narrow partisan advantages there. In the House of Representatives two major
impeachment proceedings were launched against Presidents. The first forced out President Nixon soon
after his record-setting popular plurality; the second left in office
President Clinton, the third President (all Democrats) in our history of
popular elections to gain that office twice without a popular majority either
time. And, both impeachment procedures
were soon after denounced as improper by the Chief Investigating Counsels
(Democrats both) who the House Committee on the Judiciary had chosen to
pursue them. We
now have in the House of Representatives (again) a large Democrat majority,
led this time by a Speaker who is clearly intent upon ramming through
measures of dubious popularity, likely high cost, and very uncertain
practical benefit. President Obama, a
solid popular, but not a landslide, winner was virtually unknown to Americans
until a couple of years before the election.
No other President in recent times has had so little public exposure
or political experience prior to his election. Meanwhile, old
"mainstream" media have dominated our political scene for the past
half century. And, they are substantially responsible for shaping it.
Now, they are clearly losing ground to newer elements with much less of
a Democrat fixation. For some doctrinaire and extreme parts of our
polity, a key part of the Democrat Party, and one to which President Obama
owes much of his limited experience, this is a "do now or never"
moment. If they can force
through enough "entitlements" and other legal measures that suggest
constitutional rights of the types that favor their supporters, they may be
able to elect Presidents, and to dominate American politics for generations. If
more moderate and traditional elements among Americans do not want to fare
far worse than they have in the past half century, now is time for them to
unite in support of a few moderate and traditional goals. Special and sectarian interests of the
Right have already been out maneuvered by those of the Left; for the
short-term at least, they should be willing to compromise. This is the time for Americans who want to
enhance America’s record of progress as a constitutional democracy to unite
against those who seek radical “corrections” of the shortcomings that they
choose to identify and to exaggerate. |
|
FREEDOM’S CHOICES Liberty
(freedom) is a responsibility of it’s Citizens. Are you ready to defend it? If not, it will disappear. By Ivan W. Parkins We,
and all of mankind, face an especially complex, but potentially fruitful,
problem. It is how much freedom? And
it is especially, what freedoms for whom?
Individuals are not, never were, and can be only briefly (as they die
off), totally free. Especially as
numbers of humans have grown, we have compromised individual freedoms
socially to enhance freedoms from natural hazards, and to make our lives more
fruitful.
That, for the most part, has been a gain. Our more remote ancestors were much less
free than we are. But it was not due
primarily to social rules or to other humans.
The first hominids faced natural hazards, as does every sparse and, in
some respects, weak species. By joint
efforts and particularly by the cultivating and sharing of our unique mental
and communications capacities, we have extended our
freedom from many of nature's hazards and become dominant among Earth's
creatures. The
price of that is, and will continue to be, some restrictions of individual
freedoms in the interest of communal security against hazards that can easily
crush individuals or small communities. The
principle is a simple one. Its
specific applications are increasingly numerous and complex. The survival and advance of mankind has
been, and can be, long lasting and grand.
The survival of most individuals can be made more likely and more
self-satisfying, but only as individuals participate within a larger context. To
this point in history, the most effective large unit of human cooperation has
been the nation state, and organized as a constitutional democracy. As Americans, we enjoy membership in a
particularly successful one. If we
fail to support it thoughtfully and with our lives, we are likely to see that
much of what we have valued as our freedom will disappear. |
|
My Tea Party And Russell Kirk Ruminations
from my past., By Ivan
W. Parkins - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Shortly before I retired from college teaching, about thirty years
ago, a nationally known political scientist who had retired to a community
near here was invited to give a series of lectures at our institution.
Our department had not extended that invitation, but the subject of a
tea in recognition of Russell Kirk came up in a regular departmental
meeting. Favorable sentiment was
obviously minimal, but after a brief discussion our chairman said that
apparently most thought that “it was the thing to do.” (Professor Kirk, though better known than
any of us, was “a conservative.”) One professor replied “can’t we have a
vote?” The tea was held. My
own retirement, after fifteen years in the department, was acknowledged more
warmly than I had anticipated. I was
given a pair of fine fishing rods, built by a colleague who had also been a
fishing companion. My almost total
separation (I live about a mile away.) has been largely my choice. At one of the few events that I did attend
I was greeted by the person who had called for the vote, that person had
become a dean. |
|
In This Issue: Our Constitutional Democracy -Healthcare,
a constitution right? -The
Constitutional Challenge -Freedom,
it’s responsibilities |
|
Other Notes: Richard
Beeman, in his PLAIN,
HONEST, MEN, page 29, says “In Madison’s conception,
governments were designed not to embody virtue and the public good, but,
rather to mediate among the various interests in society, and in the process,
to allow public good to be served.” It
appears to me that Beeman is correct in his interpretation of Madison, and
that Madison was correct in that interpretation of government’s role. |