When the Buffoon Defeated the Brilliant

A bunch of us college guys drove over to Hot Springs, Arkansas, to hear a peanut farmer from Georgia give a speech. I got to shake his hand afterwards. The year was 1976. That self-described born-again Christian would later become President of the United States. His presidency became a dismal failure.

Mr. Carter did not have evil intentions for our country; he really loved our country, but he was simply way in over his head. His incompetency began to reveal itself in deplorable economic conditions. Plus, our foreign policy was not much better. Iran had held Americans as hostages for 444 days. I remember the long gas lines.

Jimmy Carter was a stickler for detail. In fact, he was truly a hands-on president who wanted to know everything about everything. His attention to minutia, though, also contributed to his downfall.

Along came 1980, a new presidential election. Now a Georgia peanut farmer and former governor of that state would be running against a Hollywood actor and former governor of California.

In the first presidential debates, Carter took it to Reagan. Even Reagan's closest aides would later admit that their boss could not keep up with Carter's detailed knowledge of a wide range of subjects. In spite of a bad economy, things were initially looking up for Carter's reelection. But then things became to change. . .because the actor-turned-politician got his bearings and began to beat on the same drum.

Reagan kept things simple. He did not dive into the tiny nuts and bolts of policy matters. That was Carter's expertise. Instead, Reagan pounded repeatedly on two simple key themes--we must revive the economy by lowering tax rates. and we must defeat communism. While Carter got bogged down in the details, Reagan, the great communicator, kept hammering away on his simple, straightforward dual message.

Reagan saw the big picture and was able to communicate that masterfully to the masses. As a result, Reagan won the big prize, and Mr. Carter went back to his farm.

Politicians today make things much more complicated than they really are. Part of it is because their governing liberal philosophy has a way of muddying the constitutional waters. The reason why economics is the second hardest major in college is because anything but undiluted free market capitalism is tough stuff to understand.

Added on top of that is the politicians' inability to speak the language of the people. They speak "politicalese", a language that President Carter mastered. The "buffoon" Reagan (as his critics described him) ran circles around the intelligentsia elite of his day, because he went right to the common language of the people. Even his opponents would later grudgingly admit that Reagan was one smart cookie when it came to his brilliant communication skills, where he often laced his speeches with wit and humor. Of course, good policy is a much easier sell, especially when one has some outstanding results to run on.

In 1980, Reagan was headed for a landslide win over Walter Mondale, the Vice President under Carter. It was no contest from the very beginning. I heard Mr. Mondale say in an interview many years later that he knew exactly the time when he knew he was a goner in that presidential race. It was during one of those debates, that Reagan gave a witty one-liner that left everyone in the audience, including the debate moderator and Mondale himself, grabbing their sides with uncontrollable laughter. I remember that Reagan quip myself to this very day.

To be elected to office, it sure serves a person well to have good CHARACTER with deeply-held CONSERVATIVE principles with burning CONVICTION within and the ability to COMMUNICATE all that in the language of the people. Appropriate humor, even self-deprecating humor like what Reagan had, can disarm even the harshest critics.

How many words are contained in this sentence:  "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."? That had more force behind it than dropping a nuke on the Berlin Wall. There is so much we can learn from the great communicator.

Aloof, stodgy, wordy, detailed-oriented politicians, take note.

Say Goodbye to Christmas

The Best Communicator of all time, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, used sarcasm at appropriate times to convey a resounding, stinging message to his audience. The apostle Paul, on numerous occasions, followed the example of his Lord by using sarcasm in the letters he wrote. With that in mind, and with Christmas Day upon us, I submit to you an editorial that first appeared in Moody Magazine in 1988. It is more true today than it was then. . .

Ok, all you folks at the ACLU, we give up. Your march to the courts to argue against Nativity scenes on public property has become as much a herald of the Christmas season as Macy's parade. Maybe you're right; maybe the risks to our freedom are just too great.

As one federal judge put it last year when he ruled against a creche displayed at Chicago's city hall, we certainly can't be "sending a message to the people o Chicago that the city approved of Christianity."

So next December, you won't have a fight. We're throwing in the towel. But we're taking our holiday with us.

That's right. Because Christmas is just too "religious" for a public forum, we're taking it back. You can keep December 25 (there's considerable doubt that Jesus was born on that date, anyway), but you'll have to find another reason to celebrate.

You'll also have to come up with a new name for the day, for obvious reasons. Someone's suggested Retail Sales Day, which does seem to capture the mood of the season, religious notions aside.

We would caution you, however, that any promotion of such a day must avoid the theme of giving gifts. After all, it was Jesus Christ who said, "It is more blessed to give than to receive." And if you do some research, you'll discover that the wise men coming to worship Jesus initiated the custom of giving Christmas presents.

We're taking Christmas trees with us, too. A clergyman named Luther in the 16th century was the first one to drag an evergreen indoors and decorate it to celebrate the season, thereby saturating it with religious meaning.

Much of the music of the season belongs to us: "Joy to the World," "Silent Night," Handel's "Messiah." Those all go. You can, however, keep the immortal "Jingle Bells."

The fat guy in the red suit can stay on as your spokesman. But he, too, will have to find a new name. The "jolly old elf" was Clement Moore's poetic creation. Santa Claus, on the other hand, is derived in several steps from St. Nicholas, a real-life churchman who gave gifts to the needy.

Wreaths, angels, stars, bells, fruitcake--they're full of Christmas meaning and symbolism. So we're taking all those back, too (except maybe the fruitcake).

Oh, yes, one more thing. That message of "peace on earth, good will toward men" that you're so fond of quoting (without attribution)--you'll have to get along without that.

You can have what's left, and feel free to celebrate all you want.

Have a nice day.

How Capitalism Rescued the Pilgrims

"Socialism. . .that's the way to save the planet; capitalism is the road to hell. . .Let's fight against capitalism and make it obey us."  -- Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela, speaking at a United Nations' conference

Michael Moore, the American movie-maker, who has made millions from capitalism, accuses capitalism of being a system of "legalized greed."  Of course, he may be the speaking from a guilty conscience, if liberals can have a conscience. Even some elements of the clergy have heaped abuse on capitalism as the purveyor of social injustice.  Today it is not unusual for state-run capitalism (an oxymoron) like China to be held up as the model for the future, not the United States' free-market version.

Has capitalism reached the end of the road?  Is it on the endangered economic species list?  Have we turned the corner toward something more enlightening. . .or have we turned the corner toward something that is enslaving?

It was not that long ago we celebrated Thanksgiving.  In the good ol' days when little boys and girls learned the real story of Thanksgiving at school, we knew something about the Pilgrims.  Now they are just part of that angry homophobic white conquering mob who forced their way of life on some peace-loving native settlers, and then butchered them to boot.

In truth, there was more peace between the Pilgrims and the Indians than all the resolutions at the United Nations ever hoped to achieve.  What is more, the Pilgrims learned the hard way that socialism is a killer, and that capitalism is a savior.

The first American settlers arrived in Jamestown in May of 1607.  There was an abundance of seafood, wild game such as deer and turkey, and fruits of all kinds.  Yet, within six months, all but 38 of the original 104 Jamestown settlers were dead, most having succumbed to famine.  Say what?  How could they be dropping like flies in a land of plenty?

Two years later, the Virginia Company sent 500 more recruits to settle in the Virginia Tidewater region.  And within six months, 440 were dead by starvation and disease.  The mystery behind the enigma of the puzzle laid not in the barrenness of the American soil, but in the lack of "industrie", as they stated it. These were not lazy bums who sailed across the ocean to settle in a new world.  The problem was that the settlers had no financial stake in the game.

For seven years, all that they produced was to go into a common pool to be used to support the colony and to generate profits for the Virginia Company.  There was no private property ownership.  It was the socialist communal dream world. . .that turned into a big nightmare.  Why should Jack Pilgrim work hard when there was no incentive for doing so?  "Let Joe Pilgrim pull my weight for me", but Joe all the time is thinking about letting Jerry Pilgrim pull the weight for him.

Take 10 workers who share ownership of a piece of land. They can grow together 100 bushels of corn, so that each get 10 bushels for consumption. Suppose one worker decides to slack off, reducing his output by 5. The indolent's take home bushel pay is 9.5 bushels, thanks to the shared socialist arrangement.  Though his effort has fallen 50%, his consumption falls only 5%.  The shirker is free riding on the labors of others. It will take no time that others begin to figure out the system, and how to take advantage of it just like this original slacker.  End result:  The Pilgrims are pushing up daisies and not corn.

In 1611, the British government sent Sir Thomas Dale to serve as the high marshal of the Virginia Colony.  He quickly discerned the situation--settlers were starving to death at record numbers, while survivors were idling away playing games in the streets.  Communal ownership was the culprit, so Mr. Dale gave each man in the colony three acres of land.  One month's work and produce would be contributed to the treasury of the colony.  (I can live with a tax rate slightly over 8%.)  The rest of the year's produce was for the private owner to have and use at his disposal.

American capitalism was born.

There was no more free riding, for each individual had to bear the consequences of his own actions. The Pilgrim community began to thrive.  Starvation and disease became a thing of the past.  One historian put it this way:  "As soon as the settlers were thrown upon their own resources, and each freeman had acquired the right of owning property, the colonists quickly developed what became the distinguishing characteristic of Americans--an aptitude for all kinds of craftsmanship coupled with an innate genius for experimentation and invention."

The Indians began trading with the Pilgrims, because now the Pilgrims had an economic system worth sharing.  The Indians got corn, and the Pilgrims got furs.  A peaceful market exchange based upon the division of labor--what a neat concept, Mr. Moore and Mr. Chavez.  As Fredric Bastiet stated, "When goods don't cross borders, soldiers will."  It makes little sense to make war on one's neighbor if one can prosper by trading.

Plymouth, Massachusetts, unfortunately did not learn the fatal lessons of Jamestown's beginnings.  They traveled down the road of socialism, collective land ownership. About half of the Mayflower who arrived on Cape Cod in 1620 were dead within a few months. William Bradford, the wise godly governor of Plymouth Colony, set out to solve the problems in the same way Sir Thomas Dale did in Jamestown.  Bradford blamed the policy of socialism on that evil conceit of Plato, who advocated collective ownership of land.

"God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them," Bradford would write.  By 1650 privately owned arms were predominant in New England.  The American colonies enjoyed economic freedom, secure property rights, and minor taxation.  As a result they thrived, so that by Independence Day, the American economy was the strongest in the world.  Americans were also taller than their British counterparts, a measure of their success in overcoming dietary deficiencies.  Capitalism brought about healthier diets.

Does capitalism have its faults?  Not really.  People inside capitalism have faults.  Greed is not confined to one income bracket or one economic system.  Envy and hatred are just as sinful as greed.  Envy, as in class envy.  Hatred, as in class hatred.  Are there the "haves" and the "have nots" in our society?  If one wants to look at the millions and billions on our planet who are the "have nots", I would suggest a person take a trip to all non-capitalist countries.  The "have nots" in our country are the "haves" in other countries.

By all means we should help the poor and less fortunate.  Capitalism provides the best opportunities for people to give more to help the needy.  America is the most generous nation on the face of the planet.  What country always steps to the plate first when a disaster strikes somewhere around the world?

The Pilgrims learned a valuable lesson the hard way.  What is it going to take for us to learn the wisdom behind capitalism?  Winston Churchill said that capitalism is the worst economic system devised by man. . .except for all the other ones that have been tried.  Or, as someone has summed it, "The only thing worse than being exploited by capitalism is not being exploited by capitalism."

SOCIALISM:  You have two cows.  State takes one and gives it to someone else.

COMMUNISM:  You have two cows.  State takes both of them and gives you milk.

FASCISM:  You have two cows.  State takes both of them and sells you milk.

NAZISM:  You have two cows.  State takes both of them and shoots you.

CAPITALISM:  You have two cows.  You sell one and buy a bull.

The Occupiers and the Failure of Modern Education

If we are learning anything from the Occupy Movement, it is this--we are failing miserably when it comes to our young people learning the basics of market capitalism.  Our education system is broken; it is not broken, as in it does not have any money; it is broken because things like indoctrination, political correctness, moral subjectivity, loose standards, and pseudo-science have taken over the classrooms. 

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, all the rage and hysteria in the school system was the subject of overpopulation, which provided a convenient tool for the abortionists to peddle their murderous trade.  We were told in high school then that by the year 2000, planet earth would cease to be, especially since the U.S.A. was guilty of hoarding the world's wealth.  Now the new terror on the block is global warming.  Kids know more about polar bears floating on blocks of ice than they do about personal finance.

Not all fault lies with the school down the street though.  Many great teachers exist and do admirable work in spite of what they are up against in many cases.  I remember fondly the teachers that made a big impact on my life.  I have teachers all over in my family tree, so I do my best to esteem them, especially if I want to get anything around birthday and Christmas time.

It goes much deeper than the local school, and farther back than that.  For one thing, we have parents who have abdicated their responsibilities, and we have allowed nameless, faceless high-paid bureaucrats at the federal and state levels to determine what is best for our children at the local level.  But we do the same thing when we allow hours and hours of indiscriminate TV and movie watching to be the babysitter and surrogate parent for our children; high-paid producers and directors from far away places are determining what is best for our children.

Besides these Occupiers not knowing the first thing about capitalism and how it works (unlike these Occupiers who do not work; how many of us can take off two months from work to live in a tent?), they do not know the first thing it seems about personal hygiene, obedience to the law, and respect for others.  Maybe the liberals are trying their best to corner the rapists' and druggies' vote.  The Occupy crowd wants to compare itself to the Tea Party movement.  I will concede to a small extent by allowing them to draft the name "The TeaPOT Party."

We were told in our own state that a lottery scheme would vastly improve the education in our state. Where's exactly the proof of that?  Liberalism never wants to be judged by its results; it always wants to be evaluated on its good intentions.  My parents told me that there was some road somewhere that was paved with good intentions.

If money can solve all our educational woes, then we should be producing the brightest and best the world has ever known.  But America is nowhere near the top of the educational heap.  We are falling behind with each passing year.  Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.  Our current educational model is insanity at warped speed. 

The good news (sarcastically speaking) is that those at the federal level who have done a dismal job in education are now going to take over our health care system.  Perhaps one rationale behind that move is that we can now fail in mind and body at the same time.

Sincerely yours,
Chris Humphreys