James M. Redwine

Trump

Peace In Our Time

by Leave a Comment

In his Inaugural Address President Trump told us his two main goals were to be a unifier and a peace maker. Most of us can applaud those aims. Also, most people, whether MAGA or Trump Haters realize such laudable and difficult objectives will take some time. Even skeptics must allow for a country as divided as America to be incrementally and slowly to coalesce behind anyone who announces such commendable, if unlikely, achievements. After all, even Jesus has had over two thousand years to reign as the Prince of Peace and the whole world seems still bent on committing either genocide or suicide. Perhaps we should, at least, allow President Trump more than a couple of weeks. While not convinced by his first term nor his actions thereafter, I for one can reserve final judgment. On the other hand, President Trump, in my opinion, has not made an auspicious start.

You may recall, Gentle Reader, that during his first term President Trump sought to restrict all Muslims from immigrating to America. Several of the countries we seek to have peaceful relations with are majority adherents of Islam. The U.S. has about four million Muslim citizens. The earth has a population of about two billion Muslims; that is one Muslim out of every four humans. To have a peaceful world America must have a leader who does not hate Muslims.

At his inauguration President Trump had a Catholic bishop, a Protestant cleric and a Jewish rabbi, but no Islamic imam. There were, also, numerous secular figures involved. While some citizens of the United States might believe that there should be no emphasis on any religious faith in our government based on the First Amendment, it has been an American tradition to involve religion in our inaugurations. This probably does no harm as long as all faiths are welcome. However, the exclusion of Islam from President Trump’s ceremony was obviously by his preference. Such exclusion did not help either national unity or the cause of peace.

What President Trump could do is to begin referring to America’s religious tradition as a Judeo-Christian-Islamic one; after all, each of the three faiths worship the same god and have many of the same rituals. Such a gesture by our new President would encourage the populace and especially the news media to include one-fourth of our world family in our aspirations for unity and peace. I doubt if such a magnanimous gesture by our new leader would escape notice and, I predict it would receive heartfelt gratitude.

A Turn From The Right To The Right

by Leave a Comment

According to CNN this morning, 13 November 2024, President-Elect Trump will nominate former Arkansas governor and Baptist minister, Mike Huckabee, to be United States Ambassador to Israel. Mr. Huckabee was quoted this morning as denying the existence of a Palestinian people, referring to Palestine as Canaan and Palestinians as Canaanites. As the Republican Party will almost certainly have the majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives in 2025, Mr. Huckabee will likely be confirmed.

United States foreign policy in the Middle East will likely continue to be one of aggressive support for Israel, as it has been since Israel was created out of Palestine in 1948. But, it may turn from a philosophical position to a dynamic one. From a war more of words and increasing military materiel backing to one that shifts from old people making threats and spending our national treasure to our young people bleeding and dying. We have recently traveled this one-way road in Viet Nam, the Gulf War, Afghanistan and the Iraq War. Now is the time to change both our direction and our moral position.

No Blood, No Ratings

by Leave a Comment

Tuesday, October 02, 2024 on CBS was a disaster for the TV networks but a breath of clean air to American voters. Unlike the mud wrestling between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump on ABC on September 10, 2024, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Ohio Senator J.D. Vance engaged in a civil and substantive debate on important issues: Immigration, the Economy, Reproductive Rights and the Middle East. The post-debate analyses by the national media of the presidential debate was like hearing post-game comments from a home-town fan.

If Harris and Trump explained their positions on any issue, I did not hear them. But I did hear the media chortle over the competing charges of lying, criminal intent and incompetence. The commentators were simply giddy with the prospect of selling advertising by regurgitating gossip. In contrast, Walz and Vance never called one another a crook or a liar and several times agreed that the other candidate had a good position on important national problems. The media hated it. The talking heads wrote the entire vice-presidential debate off with the disdainful description that it was “Mid-Western Nice”.

Harris is from California; Trump is from New York. In between is America. My wife, Peg, once had a tee shirt that depicted the United States as New York (along with the rest of the east coast states) on the east edge, California (and Oregon and Washington) on the west edge and everything in between just a black hole. The caption read: “A Bostonian’s view of America.” Apparently, many in the national media see the United States that way. And the inhabitants between the east and west coasts are seen as unassuming simpletons who do not have the sense to come in out of the rain or to cast aspersions on all with whom they disagree.

Midwest Nice, or as your mother might admonish, “Say something nice or say nothing”, just does not “bleed to lead”. On the other hand, filling an hour and half debate with invective, whether based on fact or based on nothing, can ramp up interest in the populace. Turn on, tune in and enjoy the scrum; we should not concern ourselves with policy or solutions. That is so boring.

In about a month, two of the four candidates for the presidency and vice-presidency will be chosen to lead our national government for the next four years. It might be refreshing if between now and November 05, we in the “Fly Over” part of America could be called upon to do more than just finance the choices those on the coasts make for us. A little Mid-West Nice from everyone might ease the national angst.

Believe It Or Not

by Leave a Comment

How does a new religion get started? Islam fourteen hundred years ago? Christianity two thousand years ago? Judaism twenty-four hundred years ago? The Romans and Jupiter twenty-five hundred years ago? The Greeks and Zeus three thousand years ago? The Egyptians and thousands of gods four thousand years ago? Gentle Reader, these are just my guesses; you are, of course, free to make your own estimates or consult Google as you see fit.

However, my actual concern is the religion of presidential politics as practiced currently on cable TV in America. And I know when these new beliefs began. With FOX News, the new Defender of the Conservative Faith arrived when Donald Trump came down that golden escalator in 2015. As for CNN and MSNBC, their faith in a Liberal Deliverance was restored only a couple of months ago when Kamala Harris arose like the mythical Phoenix from the ashes of Old Joe.

As best I can tell, the liturgy of these conflicted beliefs relies heavily on denigrating whichever candidate a particular TV network does not like. Portentous warnings from talking heads claim that the election of the “wrong” candidate will cause crops to fail and Taylor Swift to become the new Pied Piper of American youth.

These dire warnings from CNN, FOX News, MSNBC and even occasionally, PBS, have become as ubiquitous as commercials and as vociferous as a Pentecostal sermon. CNN convenes numerous panels of “Never Trumpers” who have heard directly from on high that a Trump election will immediately boot America from our Promised Land. And FOX asserts that a Harris win will reign fire and brimstone all over our democratic Garden of Eden, or at least, everywhere but New York and California.

But, just as one religion after another from the dawn of recorded history has appeared and disappeared, we can all pray that this election will end before Armageddon begins. I foresee hope for salvation from this endless cacophony of vapidity, FOOTBALL! As we Americans have done since the first football game was aired on TV, we clutch at the hope our team will rise above the fray. We can seize onto the faith in our champions on the gridiron and set aside the ennui brought on by the gaggle of gloom bearers on TV. Unfortunately, football season only lasts through the Super Bowl in February of 2025. Of course, the networks are doing their best to force us to buy every game and the new Transfer Portal and Name, Image and Likeness rules are sorely testing our faith.

And, of course, whoever wins the election will be subject to four years of damnation from some of the disappointed anchors. Those sore losers will likely begin endless recriminations for venal sins they assert just over half of the electorate will have committed by worshipping a false idol. As for us in the captive viewership, maybe the INSP network will have enough Gunsmoke reruns to sustain us until the next two graven images are nominated four years from now.

It’s Just A Number

by Leave a Comment

An ABC News/Washington Post Poll taken Sunday, May 07, 2023 of likely voters in the 2024 Presidential election had 68% of Americans saying Joe Biden is too old to be president next term. The same poll says only 44% think Donald Trump could be too old to serve. Biden is now 80 and Trump is now 76.

Joe Biden is claimed to have a fetish about sniffing the hair of women who are not his wife. Trump is alleged to have sexually assaulted several women to whom he was not married. If the American public’s fascination with sexual activity by characters on TV, in movies and books is considered in the choosing of our political leaders, we can postulate there may be a virility factor in play in choosing between our current and former president.

Apparently, the four-year difference in what will be two octogenarian relics by the end of the next term is of material importance to most voters. Neither old guy is the John F. Kennedy sex symbol he may see himself to be but the public appears to prefer its senility a little more virile, at least by reputation. Of course, it is possible neither Biden nor Trump will be on the ballot in 2024 as some dark horse may yet rush in to take all the perks of the presidency.

Of course, sexuality is only one element of a candidate’s character. We should examine the policies and performance of both Biden and Trump. In that regard, some like Trump’s stance on immigration and some like Biden’s. The same is true on the economy, cultural issues and international relations among many other issues. That is why we have elections and campaigns. But just as the coronation of King Charles III seemed to find the media concentrating on which crowns and robes Charles and Camilla donned as well as which handbag Kate carried as opposed to the substance of Charles’ vision for Great Britain’s future, it will not surprise any of us if the national media miss all the policy differences any of the candidates may have as the media focuses on the titillation of each person’s peccadilloes. Of course, the reason the media will do this is because that is what most of us are interested in. Policy is just so common.

Superannuated lotharios may be past their prime but they are more interesting than policy differences. As for me, Gentle Reader, for personal reasons, I choose to believe either Joey or Donnie or some other codger or even a 35-year-old could serve okay if the only consideration is age. Now whether we happen upon anyone who should lead this great country for the years 2025-2028, well, I must leave that lucky guess to each of you and the fickle folly of fate.

 

Peace Be Upon Us

by Leave a Comment

Photo by Peg Redwine

The United States and Russia have been jockeying for position in Ukraine since, at least, 2014. Three American presidents, Obama, Trump and Biden, and one Russian president, Putin have been in power during this period.

According to a publication of the Congressional Research Service updated on October 21, 2022 the United States has, up to October 14, 2022, provided $20.3 billion in “security assistance” to Ukraine. As one can observe on CNN, Russia has destroyed large swaths of Ukrainian territory and Google projects if the war ended now it would cost between $100 billion – $200 billion dollars to reconstruct the damaged areas. The human cost was not considered but it is immense.

Ukraine’s Crimea area was taken over by Russia by force in 2014. The world took note and America began arming Ukraine in anticipation of just what happened on February 24, 2022. If that invasion had not happened the United States could have saved over $20 billion dollars, Ukraine could have been spared up to $200 billion dollars in reconstruction costs and Russia could have preserved untold billions in economic and humanitarian costs. The spin off cost to the rest of humanity is incalculable with the loss of tens of thousands of lives, untold wounds and injuries and millions of people displaced from their homes.

We humans have known since cave man days that there may be times when peace is bought at too dear a price, but there never is a time when war is good in either human or economic terms. What we have not yet perfected is a method of maintaining a just peace in the face of an aggressor who is bent on an unjust war.

But we all know peace is best and war is worst. Muslims greet people with “Peace be upon you” and Christians cite the peace-keeping propensities of Jesus as his greatest virtue. Jews say “Shalom” (peace) when coming or going and virtually every culture claims peace as one of its paramount goals. We humans have repeatedly codified peace as one of our greatest treasures.

The Charter of the United Nations, ratified on October 24, 1945, at Chapter VI, Article 33, demands that disputing countries:

“[S]hall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation,
conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional
agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.”

“The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary,
call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.”

Just such a solution was found to the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 by United States President John F. Kennedy and Soviet Union President Nikita Khrushchev. America had installed nuclear missiles in Turkey, then on the border of the USSR, and in Italy that was not far from Russia. Khrushchev responded by seeking to install nuclear missiles in Cuba. Instead of nuclear war, America withdrew its armaments from Turkey and Italy and the USSR turned its missile loaded ships around and took them home.

There are similarities to the current confrontation among Russia, Ukraine and America. The United States has armed Ukraine that borders Russia. Russia rattled its sabres for some time and has brought disaster on itself, Ukraine and, potentially, its other neighbors, such as Georgia that was invaded by Russia in 2008 and 2014. Poland, Finland, Moldova, etcetera, etcetera remain within Russia’s radar. Perhaps reliance on the wisdom of the United Nations Charter might be in order.

As Abraham Lincoln advised:

“Discourage litigation (and war is the ultimate litigation);
Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can.”

In their book, Law and Economics, at p. 356, Robert Cooter and Thomas Ulen state:

“For any trial [war], a settlement usually exists that makes both parties better off, so trials [wars] are usually inefficient.”

 And legal philosopher Richard Posner states:

“The primary (though not the exclusive) function of law is
to aid parties by altering incentives.”

                                                Economic Analysis of Law, p 256

The American Bar Association explains that disputes should be approached by emphasizing a problem solving attitude (integrative bargaining) in which both sides seek a solution that meets their interests. And other countries should encourage such an approach, not exacerbate the problem.

Now one might think we are a little late in the Russia/Ukraine War to pour oil on troubled waters, but what is the alternative, perpetual and expanding war? Besides, Ukraine is only one of Russia’s neighbors. Peace in the whole world should be the goal. For as suggested by the Charter of UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization):

“Since wars begin in the minds of men”,
peace must supplant conflict in their hearts.