Honesty and Tolerance

This, from a blog by Burton Folsom, historian and author of several books including FDR Goes to War:  "Historian Betty Glad, who wrote Charles Evans Hughes and the Illusions of Innocence, began her research 'with an investigation of Hughes’s public statements, which were then checked against his private papers for possible discrepancy between his public and private views. None was discovered. . . .' Imagine that—what Hughes said and believed in private is what he said and believed in public."

"Imagine that," indeed!  What's the old line?  "When can you tell if a politician is lying?  When he moves his lips." 

Folsom goes on to note that, with some notable exceptions, US History was filled with leaders who were honest, men of integrity--until the 1930s.  It was FDR, that darling of US History textbooks, who broke that mold, as well as broke the "No Third Term" tradition.  Roosevelt openly campaigned, promising again and again, on a 25% reduction in federal spending--that is, to cut taxes to increase spending and alleviate the Depression.  But what he said publicly and in private were two different things.  And, when he was elected, as we all know, he dramatically increased government spending, much to the detriment of any recovery of the Depression.  What he did publicly was what he said privately, not publicly.

That started the litany of politicians, from both parties, of making promises of "giving things" to potential voters.  You know, Romney wasn't far off the mark in his assessment of his loss and Obama's win.  And, to their shame (although I know there is no shame any longer), other Republicans criticized Romney for his post-election comments.  It was yet another sign of Republican wimpiness, wimpiness that has been evident for the past couple of decades.  And, remember, I am not a Republican.  But this, more than the oft-quoted excuses by the so-called political experts (boy, isn't that an oxymoron!), is why the Republicans fail more often than they should.

Is there any less tolerant institution in the US than education?  Of course, we all know how it is in public schools, where criticism or contrary ideas are met with scorn.  Even questioning the often idiotic programs and policies will bring labels that are close to black-balling.  But even consider what are supposed to be the bastions of free speech, the marketplace of ideas and free expression--the colleges and universities.  At the University of Michigan, many times conservative professors have indicated how their ideas are treated with scorn, not tolerated.  And the U of M is not the only place where unwelcome speakers--mostly conservatives--are prevented from speaking, either by shout-downs or even no invitations in the first place.  This is the place that has a professor who claims that any sexual relations between men and women, even married couples, is "rape."  According to George Will, an Indian university "convicted" one of its students for reading a book that had a cover some other students found offensive.  The cover portray Klansmen in full regalia, although the book tells the story of the Klan's defeat at the hands of Notre Dame students back in the '20s.  Apparently someone's sensibilities were offended and the university administration came down on this reading student for "openly reading a book related to a historically and racially abhorrent subject."  (Yes, folks, these are the types of people running our schools and they have been for decades.)  A few years ago, a local community college professor was disciplined for using the word "niggardly" in class.  Despite the fact that the word has no derivation or reference to race, some students found the term "offensive."  They obviously didn't know the meaning of the word, which again has nothing to do with race.  So, instead of castigating the students for their ignorance, the professor was punished.  Whatever happened to the concept of "free exhange of ideas?"  It has disappeared, overwhelmed by the new principle that no students are ever to have their sensibilities offended (even if those sensibilites are flawed or based on ignorance) or challenged.  This disappearance, I think, goes a long way to explaining where American society is today.  More on that in a near-future blog....