Monday, May 30, 2016

A Memorial Day Note

No holiday is likely to be more important, on a personal basis, than this day for those who have served in war.

Each of us recognizes the random nature of combat.  Some die; some don’t.  Soldiering skills usually have little to do with fate’s choice.

So those of us who serve – or have served – are grateful, indeed, to be alive and deeply mourn our fellow combatants who will never come home.  

Sunday, May 22, 2016

The Presidential Stakes – Supreme Court Hope versus Foreign Policy Strength

It is a virtual certainty that the next president – if serving two terms – will select up to four new members of the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Obviously, the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat will be the first to be filled.  But others are nearing the end of the line. Justice Ginsburg is 82, Kennedy is 79 and Breyer is 77.

A President Hillary Clinton would certainly pick all leftists.  (Justice Sanders, anyone?  Actually, his age of 74 is the only disqualifier.)

Who knows about President Trump?  But his choices are not a given.  Maybe conservative would be considered and selected.

Given the clear leftward direction of Hillary Clinton on essentially all domestic issues and the lack of clarity of what Donald Trump believes (and his performance thus far shows he doesn’t know his own mind), a vote for the Democrat on home front concerns is beyond comprehension for a conservative.

But what about foreign policy matters?

This is the former Secretary of State’s strong suit.  A recent Atlantic Magazine piece of Barack Obama made clear that Hillary Clinton’s four year stint in his Administration was marked by frequent alliances with former Secretaries of Defense urging assertion of authority to protect U.S. interests.  The President usually demurred.  In fact, it seems that she was a hawk to the Obama dove.

Trump?  Again, who knows?  Sure, he wants to build “The Fence”.  But he also envisions being pals with Russian strongman Vladimir Putin.  His comments on foreign affairs establish that, as of now, he has little idea what he is talking about.
 
Can anyone who loves America feel comfortable with Donald Trump as Commander in Chief, the commander of our ship of state?

What is a conservative to do?  Is it not obvious that national security must be our top priority?  Yet, is it not also plain that if Hillary Clinton follows through on her ever leftward campaign promises to expand Obamacare,  greatly expand the national debt and attack traditional American values in the name of political correctness (think transgender bathrooms) that her administration will do grievous long term damage to our country?

Of course, one can hope that an America under Trump will be lucky and will face no significant foreign challenges… and what do you think the odds are on that?  For sure, they will come and Trump will be tested.

For whom does the patriotic conservative American vote?  A quandary indeed.

Sunday, May 15, 2016

What’s The World Coming To?

Sure, Trump vs. Clinton warrants the consternation.  But I was also inclined to be aghast at primary election day polls showing that millennials are opposed to both capitalism and socialism.  What do they want?  A return to mercantilism?

[Actually, since the lack of attention most school systems give to teaching economics, it’s doubtful that the typical young voter could explain the difference between the two.]

But back to the candidates for President.  I have some new nickname suggestions.  Daffy Donald.  (He makes little sense.)  Hellish Hillary.  (That’s what America will have to pay if she wins.)

Sunday, May 8, 2016

The Republican Conundrum

The ascendancy of Donald Trump in GOP ranks has caused considerable consternation.  What is a conservative to do?

Of course, Donald Trump is not one.  Besides having a history of financial and verbal support for liberals and their policies, he’s been a Republican convert for only a few years and still takes stands to the left of Hilary Clinton.

So, although a President Trump’s support for a rightward agenda – and conservative court nominees – is more to be hoped than expected, he will head the GOP ticket.

To disown him, as the writers of National Review and The Weekly Standard are inclined to do, may be emotionally and intellectually satisfying.  However, it will probably not be helpful in promoting conservative principles.

Of course, Donald Trump doesn’t “deserve” our allegiance.  But turning our backs won’t help secure the support of voters for other GOP candidates on the ballot.  We need them to be elected to thwart Mrs. Clinton or, as improbable as this prospect now appears, be a check on President Trump.

GOP candidates need Trump’s voters.

If they choose to endorse Trump, so be it.  Such are the demands of politics and their survival is desirable.  If the political decision is justified by hope that Trump will have a conservative epiphany.  I, too, wish (unrealistically, I know) it comes to pass. 


Sunday, May 1, 2016

Is Free Trade Good?

The question isn’t meant to ask whether trade between nations without tariffs has moral qualities.  No, the query is:  does trade without barriers produce economic positives for the inhabitants of countries that practice as distinct from lands that don’t?

Free trade proponents argue from the perspective of economic efficiency.  If clothing is cheaper to manufacture in, for instance, Mexico than North Carolina, so be it.  The cheaper foreign-made shirt will be sold in the U.S. and – quality being the same for our illustration – will eventually drive the more expensive American-made product from the market.

The consequences are not pleasant for the North Carolina manufacturers who go out of business and their employees who lose their jobs.

But there is a positive side, too.  Clothing for the American consumer costs less than before (or below what it would otherwise be).  That means that the purchaser has more money to spend or invest on other things. 

And what about the Mexican companies and their workers?  Because of their ability to sell shirts in the U.S., they have increased ability to purchase here what we can make more efficiently (like sophisticated electronic devices).  That increased business aids the fortunes of those home industries and their employees.

From an emotional perspective, the loss of a business or a job is wrenching – the fact that consumers benefit from the economic circumstances that brought about the losses, however, are not obvious (although no less real).

Consequently, political pressures usually align behind “protectionist” measures.  To cite the clothing example again, if the cost to produce shirts in Mexico is twenty-five percent less than in North Carolina, impose a tariff (duty) upon their importation.

But the reality is that the effort to save jobs in such a manner imposes a tax on shirt buyers (they must now pay twenty-five percent more).

Although history proves that free trade – economic efficiency – is good for economies, it is a lesson easily forgotten, if ever understood. 

Thus, in today’s political environment, polls show that a majority of Republicans believe that free trade costs American jobs.  (Democrats are even more opposed.)

This is noteworthy since the GOP, traditionally more favorable to business, had long been a stalwart of free trade.

It is a lament shared by The Sensible Conservative that, from civility to free trade, many Americans no longer believe in what is good for us.