Bank Freedom

   Big banks caught a break today as federal regulators moved to loosen the rules on lending. Meanwhile, another report said the economy slowed its growth pace in the first quarter of the year. And the Federal Reserve Board said economic activity "expanded moderately" in late April and early May, meaning that the near term growth outlook is "generally upbeat."
   Taken together. all this could mean that lenders will have more incentive to make loans, even at greater risk, giving firms more incentive to invest in more production, in turn stimulating the economy.
   The economy seems to be doing well, despite a slower growth pace as the year started. During the first three months of 2018, gross domestic product (GDP) in the U.S. expanded by 2.2 percent, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, down from 2.9 percent in the fourth quarter of last year.
   Profits, however, fell by $12.4 billion as the year began, compared to a drop of $1.1 billion in the final three months of 2017.
   Separately, another government agency said jobless rates were lower in April compared to a year ago in most metropolitan areas, with payroll jobs up.
   Perhaps the most important of these reports is the move to revise the so-called "Volcker rule," which prohibits banks from owning or controlling hedge funds or private equity funds, and from so-called propriety trading, in which a financial institution makes stock trades for its own account rather than for depositors.
   The rule, named after former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, was put in place in 2010 as part of the Dodd-Frank law that tightened restrictions on how and whether major banks could engage in potentially risky financial trades.
   If successful, all this could bring stronger growth to a healthy economy. If not, short-term bets on long-term activity might fail, dragging everything down.

Presidential Paranoia

Who is the real "enemy of the people"? -- Pug Mahoney

   Paranoia is the mistaken belief that everyone is against you.
   But this president is not mistaken; many people are indeed against what he says and does, and are quite vocal about it. Therefore, he's not paranoid.
   Looked at another way, however, one can conclude that he is indeed paranoid because he expands disagreement on unrelated issues into a vast, organized conspiracy against him.
   For example, refocusing the image of football players kneeling to protest racial discrimination to allege that kneeling is unpatriotic or even treasonous, and therefore those who do so should be deported.
   Or insisting that an FBI investigation of possible Russian meddling in the presidential campaign was really "spying" on him.
   Or that an FBI director's refusal to pledge personal loyalty to him and drop an investigation into Russian meddling was cause for dismissal.

   The list could go on, but no need. News media have carried reports almost daily of examples of his attempts to abuse and misuse the American system for his personal benefit.
   And his predictable reaction has been to attack such reports as "fake news" and call journalists "the enemy of the people."
   That's another example of trying to redirect criticism and attack those who criticize.
   And that is, by definition, paranoia, and another way of identifying an enemy of democracy.

Refer Madness

   Witch hunt. Spygate. Hoax. Rigged. Fake news.
   These are some of the words Trumpistas often use in their campaign to discredit those who don't agree or are investigating potential violations of law.
   By regularly referring to news reports as fake, false, biased or other terms, Trump and his minions plant the seeds of doubt that soon sprout into weeds of untruth that crowd out the bloom of fact.
   "Truth is variable," insists Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani. "They may have a different version of the truth than we do."
   But that's what courts are for, where a judge and jury decide which "version of truth" is more relevant to the issue being debated. Moreover, such a debate can go all the way to the Supreme Court.
   Some truths, however, are not debatable. For example, denying having said something even as multiple recordings on many occasions show just what the denier said. There was a time, before sound recording devices, when a politician could get away with denying his words, insisting that the dispute was his word against that of a reporter holding a pad and pencil. And as "everyone" knows, the politician can insist, reporters can't be trusted, and the news media are the enemy of the people.
   Which makes one wonder: What's he been smoking?

State Religion

   Religion and politics don't mix. Even so, many candidates try to do just that, to curry favor with religious leaders as they seek the votes of church members.
   Watch for ultra-conservative evangelists to call for a specific set of spiritual beliefs to be made official in America.
   "Religion in America isn't receding. It's just the opposite. Faith is gaining new life across America every day." -- VP Mike Pence, May 12, at Hillsdale College in Michigan.
   America's problem, according to Texas Gov. Greg Abbot,  "is not with guns but with people whose hearts are not with God."
   And while it may be that many or even most Americans will say they follow Christian principles and/or they attend a church regularly or occasionally, it does not follow that this means that there is or should be an official set of beliefs to be held by all citizens.
   Not far removed from this insistence on conformity is President Donald Trump's comment that those who do not stand while the national anthem is played "should leave the country."
    Moreover, some evangelists would like Christianity to be established as the officially recognized religion in America.   
   It's not, and cannot be.

   Why not? Because the Constitution specifically prohibits any attempt to have a state religion, and the document does so in two places.
   Article VI of the Constitution stipulates that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Under States."
   Secondly, the First Amendment begins, "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, or restricting the free exercise thereof."
   Nevertheless, during the presidential campaign, Trump called for "a total and complete shutdown of all Muslims entering the country ..."
   But what of those who are already here, born here, whose families have been here for several generations? Are they to be ousted, like football players who kneel as a protest against discrimination of minority people?
   "In unity there is strength" is a fine motto, but not if it requires that all citizens think alike, look alike, act alike and worship alike. To insist that be so in the cause of national unity is to ignore the natural diversity of the human race.
   That way madness lies.
   When Al Smith was a candidate for president in the 1930s, there was great anxiety that he would impose Roman Catholic teachings on the government and the public.
   When John F. Kennedy was a candidate in 1960, he had to make a formal statement on national television that he would not allow any interference or influence from the Pope on the White House.
   Many protested vehemently of the danger of papal intervention on Americans. They feared that Smith or Kennedy would try to impose Roman Catholicism on all citizens.
  It now seems that this was and is a one-way fear. Conservative evangelists feared the imposition of Catholic beliefs and policies on the general public. Yet they have no problem in trying to impose their WASP-ish beliefs on the rest of America, keeping out all others.
   But why stop there? Why not keep out or deport Hindus, or Buddhists, or Muslims, or agnostics, or atheists or members of any other group whose beliefs conflict with the self-appointed guardians of the public morals?
   Perhaps it's time they remembered that morality and religion are two separate and distinct things: Morality deals with how one relates to other people, and religion deals with how one approaches a deity.
   Unless one is an atheist, and then morality -- established by group consent and law -- is the only one that matters.
   As for a state religion, even if restricted to Christian Protestants, which of the many denominations should be selected as official?
   Oh, wait. Never mind. The Constitution says "none of the above."
   Unless two amendments come to pass. One to cancel the First Amendment, and another to delete Article VI. That way Congress could establish a state religion, and require everyone to pass a religious test.
   As for those who fail the test ...

The Shamanic Presidency

"Truth is Variable." -- Rudy Giuliani

   The dictionary definition of truth is that which conforms to fact or reality. But if there are "alternative facts," as claimed by press secretary Kellyanne Conway, it follows that there are alternative realities. And while shamans believe in alternative realities, the government can only deal with one.
   Moreover, if "truth is variable," according to presidential attorney Rudy Giuliani, it may not necessarily conform to fact or reality.
   Which sets one to wondering, what reality is this administration living in?
   A shaman, like many religious and spiritual practitioners, can travel to and from an alternate reality at will, seeking the help of those in the spirit world to resolve issues or problems in this world. This is different from an illness, wherein a person travels to an alternate reality and is unable to return.
   This raises the question of whether some political leaders are actively seeking help from the spirit world, or are stuck in an alternate reality of their own making.

   Religious leaders would have no problem with the first procedure, even though the U.S. Constitution puts limits on it. Doctors and voters, on the other hand, would see a serious issue with a political leader who tries to impose his personal reality on the rest of the nation.

Above the Law?

"L'etat, c'est moi." (I am the state) -- King Louis XIV of France

"Because I am the president, and you're not." -- Donald Trump

   "You can't indict a sitting president," goes the argument by Rudy Giuliani, attorney for Donald Trump.
   How about a vice president?
   "You can't indict me, you have to impeach me first," was the argument pitched by Spiro Agnew.
   "Nice try," said the judge, "but that argument's no good. You're indicted."
   So Spiro Agnew, vice president under Richard Nixon,
pleaded no contest to a charge of tax evasion related to a kickback scheme, and immediately resigned from his White House position. That was in October, 1973.

   As for the current argument that an indictment of Donald Trump would be too distracting from his official duties as president, that might have a dime's worth of credence if he spent less time on his golf courses. Or less time at rallies with his support base. Or less time watching TV commentators who agree with everything he says and does. Or less time on his Twitter account trashing people and news reports.
   It might. Then again, it might not. How much of his time does he actually spend reading intelligence reports and tending to official business, rather than bad-mouthing his own cabinet members who are not sufficiently loyal to his every whim?

   The Constitution says that a government official can be impeached by the House of Representatives, tried by the Senate and, if convicted, removed from office. The document adds that this does not eliminate the possibility of facing subsequent trial in a court of law. It does not stipulate that impeachment must come first.
   Spiro Agnew tried that argument, and it didn't work. It's not going to work for the new guy, either. No one is above the law.

   Also, in fairness to King Louis XIV of France, it has been argued that his statement was meant to separate the church from the state. The bishops could well be in charge of spiritual matters, but when it came to civil matters, the king was in charge. That's a similar situation faced by King Henry VIII in England, and led to a split from Vatican influence.

It's Happening Here

   The death of Philip Roth reminded many of his novel, "The Plot Against America" (2004), which dealt with a conspiracy to overthrow the government. It was reminiscent of an earlier book by Sinclair Lewis, "It Can't Happen Here" (1935).
   Meanwhile, a new book has hit the best seller lists dealing with the same theme. It's called "Fascism: A Warning," written by Madeleine Albright, former secretary of state and ambassador to the United Nations.
   The difference is that the Albright book is true. It compares the characteristics of fascism as it rose in Europe in the 1930s to the actions, attitudes and strategies of the current occupant of the Oval Office today.

   On Page 4 of her new book, Albright writes, "If we think of fascism as a wound from the past that had almost healed, putting Trump in the White House was like ripping off the bandage and picking at the scab."
   
   Still another book," The Plot to Seize the White House," written by Jules Archer and published in 1973, documented a real conspiracy by isolationist radicals of the 1930s who wanted to close all borders and build a Fortress America.
   Sound familiar? Build a wall. Keep out those somehow deemed undesirable, who don't speak the same language or follow the same religion as those already here.
   Call them "animals," or somehow less than human, which enables a dominant group to exterminate them.
   Sound familiar?

   Neither Benito Mussolini nor Adolf Hitler were directly elected to power by a majority vote of the people. Both manipulated their national systems in order to gain control. Along the way, their speechifying and demagoguery planted the seeds of doubt on the land of truth.
   That's another strategy used by would-be dictators on the fascist trail: Say something long enough, to enough people and loud enough to outshout those who speak and write information that exposes the lies, and eventually a demagogue will persuade enough people that he's right and everyone else is wrong. And with that leverage, the demagogue rises to power and strengthens his control.
   And once in control, the new leader can eliminate by whatever means he can anyone opposed to his own version of "truth."
   Sound familiar?

   In America today, there are still enough people who recognize the tactics and strategies being deployed to erode and eliminate certain of the freedoms that people have long enjoyed, as guaranteed by the Constitution.
   But already, there are undercurrents of movements to cancel the First Amendment by establishing a state religion, and to require that only adherents of a certain religion be admitted to America, thus wiping out Article VI of the Constitution itself.
   Remember what it says? "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
   Citizenship is a public trust. It is also a responsibility.

Guns and Pencils

Students need pencils more than their teachers need guns.

   For all the talk about how to stop gun violence in schools, there is very little talk about prevention.
   The gun lobby's answer to gun violence generally is more guns. But more guns means more violence, as shown by statistical evidence. The same data set shows that there is less gun violence in nations where there are fewer guns.
   How hard is that to figure?
   There are more guns in America than there are people. In other nations, there are fewer guns, and in these nations fewer people are killed by guns.
   Do the math.

   Here's an exercise in Logic 101. More guns means more death, Fewer guns means fewer deaths. Therefore, to reduce the number of deaths from guns, reduce the number of guns.
   So far this year, more Americans have died in school shootings than have been killed in military action, according to one report.
   
   Texas Gov. Greg Abbot was quoted as saying at an NRA convention recently that "The problem is not with guns but with people whose hearts are not with God."
   What, then, shall be done with non-believers? Shoot them?
   Other NRA supporters insist that the problem is not a gun issue but a mental health issue. By that logic, other nations with similar levels of mental health issues should have similar levels of gun violence.
   So why don't we hear of widespread mass shootings in Canada? Could it be that Canadians are more mentally stable than Americans? A more likely reason is that there are fewer guns in Canada.
   Mental health is certainly an important issue, in every country. Therefore, increase the efforts to deal with mental health. Moreover, few people with mental health issues resort to gun violence.  At the same time, decrease the availability of guns, so that those with serious health issues cannot resort to mass shootings.
   Another prevention measure, according to Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, is "the need to harden school safety, by limiting the entrances to school buildings."
   Patrick also invoked the Constitution by insisting on a TV interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos that "Our teachers are part of that well-run militia" mentioned in the Second Amendment.
   There are some 8,000 school campuses in Texas, many with multiple buildings. Limiting each building to a single entrance sounds like an enormously expensive project. Limiting the availability of guns would be far less expensive. And it may come as a surprise to teachers that they will be expected to add  firearms and ammunition to their supply of pencils.
   Another rationale put forth by NRA supporters is the need for self-defense in case of a foreign invasion. By that logic, the U.S. military cannot be trusted to do its job. Besides, any foreign invasion would come at the U.S. from its shores or its borders. So why are some folks in Iowa so afraid of a foreign invasion? Where would the invading troops come from, Canada?
   Or do they feel the need to protect themselves from people with mental health issues? The answer to that is not more guns but better health care.

Can't Cant

Beware of absolutes.

   "You can't indict a sitting president." So says Rudy Giuliani, legal advisor to Donald Trump.
   While it is true that no sitting president has ever been indicted, and the federal Department of Justice has a policy of not trying, it does not follow that it can never happen.
   The Constitution provides that a president can be impeached, tried, convicted and removed from office by Congress. The Constitution also specifies that this does not prevent any federal official from being indicted after removal.
   So can a federal official, up to and including a president, be indicted while in office? To claim that a sitting president cannot be indicted puts the president above the law, at least until he or she leaves office. And if the delay is long enough a statute of limitations kicks in and the president becomes immune from prosecution.
   Unless, perhaps, charges are filed and prosecution is delayed until after a president's term of office expires. Meanwhile, a president's successor can immediately issue a pardon, even before charges are filed.
   That's what happened in the case of Richard Nixon, who faced impeachment but resigned before that happened. His successor, Gerald Ford, then pardoned Nixon for any offenses he may have committed. It's odd that no offenses were publicly disclosed, so technically, Nixon was never charged with anything, nor indicted, much less convicted of anything in any court. Therefore, he must be assumed innocent because he was never charged or convicted of anything.

   Now back to the present. As for indicting a sitting president, there's always a first time for everything. It appears that the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller is turning up a wide variety of things that could be grist for criminal charges in addition to impeachable offenses.
   Moreover, it may even happen that some charges are made at the state level, in which case no presidential pardon is possible.
   By the way, the dictionary definition of "cant" is "hypocritical and sanctimonious talk, typically of a moral, religious or political nature." It can also refer to slang or jargon, or to "talk or beg in a whining or singsong manner."
   Make of that what you will.

What's News

The secret of good writing is not in knowing what to put in, but in knowing what to leave out.

   There are at least five aspects of any story, and many more ways to handle a story.
   Start by listing the Five Ws of basic journalism -- Who, What, Where, When and Why. In addition, there is the How aspect of any news story. Which of the five a writer uses to begin the story is the writer's choice, and helps determine whether it will be written as so-called "hard news" or as a feature.
   It's often difficult, if not impossible, to put all six elements in the opening sentence of the story. For one thing, the sentence would be too long and too complex. For another, it would be so long as to be dull. Either way, you lose the attention of the reader even before you get to the details of the story.
   Moreover, there is the issue of what readers need to know versus what they want to know. The first is newsworthy; the second is gossip. A reporter's job, then, is to tell people what they need to know and to tell them in such a way that they want to know. And that is the secret of good, successful journalism.
   The goal is not to push for agreement -- to persuade readers that one side is right and all other are wrong -- that belongs on the opinion page or with broadcast pundits and commentators.
   A straight news story, especially one that's important enough to go on Page One, explains all aspects of the story, providing enough information so readers can form their own opinions on the value of each side of an issue or controversy.
   This is what makes a free and independent press -- and that includes broadcasting -- essential to a free society, where an informed society knows what a nation's government is up to, whether the public approves, and if not, what to do about it.
   Generally, that means the public gets to vote the rascals out. It also means another segment of the public gets to vote their own rascals in.

Probing Questions

   One of the best compliments this reporter ever received in a long career in journalism came from a public relations advisor who had prepared a list of questions likely to be asked in an upcoming interview with a corporate executive.
   The exec looked over the list and deleted several, saying he did not want to deal with them and doubted this reporter would ask them anyway.
   The advisor responded that while the exec may not want to deal with those issues, he would be willing to bet a week's pay that at least one -- dealing with the exec's future as his division was about to be sold -- would indeed be asked.
   The interview went forward as scheduled, and the following day the PR advisor called to say, "Congratulations. I prepared a list of possible questions for the exec to expect, and you asked every one of them."

   Currently, the news is full of reports about an investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller and whether his team will interview the president. In turn, the president's legal advisors want a list of questions in advance.
   Legal investigators don't work that way, and neither do journalists.
   Some corporate types believe that if they ignore the reporter, the questions go away, and the story won't be published. Doesn't happen. The reporter simply inserts a sentence noting that the executive "was not available for comment," or that the exec "did not return several phone calls requesting comment."
   Prosecutors, on the other hand, have the advantage of subpoena power, and can demand that the subject of the probe show up and answer questions. The subject does not have the option of deciding when, whether or if he or she will respond to the lawyer's questions.

   Meanwhile, the investigation continues on both sides, the journalistic and the legal. Journalists want answers right away, and can fill out the story over time. Prosecutors have the option of waiting until every question is answered completely, and since new questions arise almost every day in a continuing investigation, lawyers can wait until they have enough evidence to take the case to trial.
   Both have the protection of the Constitution, enabling them to do their jobs completely, and each has a duty to the public to keep people informed, to expose wrongdoing no matter how high the political or social level.

Low Points

"He's dying anyway."

   So said a White House staffer on Sen. John McCain's opposition to the administration's nominee to head the CIA.
   As if the approaching death from brain cancer of the senior senator from Arizona, a Navy veteran of the Vietnam War who was shot down, captured, held prisoner for five years and tortured, doesn't matter.
   As if the opinions of a former Republican candidate for president are of little consequence.
   As if the attitudes of a former prisoner of war who turned down an offer to be sent home because there were others who had been held longer should not be considered.
   As if the thinking of someone who survived torture is not relevant to the nomination of a CIA official who supervised the torture of prisoners held by Americans. Oh, right, it wasn't "torture," it was "enhanced interrogation."
   
   There was near universal anger and outrage when news of the comment broke, but many hours have gone by with no reaction from the Oval Office. Perhaps the president is standing by his words during the campaign when he dismissed Sen. McCain's status as a war hero, saying, "He's a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren't captured."
   This from the same person who got several deferments to avoid military service during the Vietnam War era, including two deferments for a bone spur in his foot, but later could not remember which foot.
   As  for the White House staffer who dismissed Sen. McCain's comments as irrelevant to the nomination of the CIA chief, she apparently still has her job.
   And whenever, or if, the president decides to say something about the issue, many have already decided that his lack of response indicates approval of the staffer's comments.
   Sen. McCain is dying anyway, so his opinion doesn't matter. At least, that's the attitude inside this White House.

Random Thoughts

   If you want to sound intelligent and educated, use four-syllable words based on Latin and Greek.
    If you want to send a message that's clear and easy to understand, use plain English.
   If you can't do either, become president.

   Ideas fester, whether you're aware of them or not. When an idea is ripe, it bursts out through the mind-skin that covers it.

   Education is the acquisition of knowledge. Wisdom is knowing what to do with it.
   Many political and government types have acquired lots of knowledge, but their performance shows they don't know what to do with it.

  Sacrificing truth on the altar of hyperbole is the first step on the road to tyranny.
   A free press is the most important defender of a democratic system, and calling a report "fake news" does not make it false.
   "News" in the journalistic sense is information previously unknown to the general public. "Gossip" is very local information in a small neighborhood that people outside the group won't know or won't care about.
   The trick for journalists is to know their audience, and to provide them with information that they need to know or that affects them, whether directly or indirectly.

The Claim Game

When a report is good, politicians claim credit. But when it's not so good, they blame others.

   The nationwide unemployment rate in April was 3.9 percent, according to a report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the lowest since the year 2000.
   So, of course, the president claimed credit for that good news, even though the downward trend in the jobless rate began long before he took office just 15 months ago.
   Meanwhile, the number of payroll jobs increased by 164,000 in April. Wage levels have also been rising, but this simply reflects the basic economic Law of Supply and Demand. As supply (the number of workers available)  diminishes, labor (the price paid to labor, also known as wages) rises.
   The economy in general has, of course, been steadily rising, but what has been true for eight years, since the end of the Great Recession, which coincided with the presidency of Barack Obama.
   Democrats point this out, and Republicans reply, yeah that's OK, but the recovery could have been and will be so much better with us in charge. This way they calmly ignore the historical fact that the slide began under a GOP administration.
   Bur regardless of who's in the Oval Office, an economy is likely to go its own way, influenced not by Wall Street investors and gyrations in the stock market, but by the over-riding basic Law of Supply and Demand.
   Otherwise, the country would be facing an economy fully managed by the government, as attempted in several countries of Eastern Europe 100 years ago and still being attempted in smaller nations today. 
   But that doesn't work, either.
   Somewhere in between a totally controlled economy -- read, dictatorship -- and a system that puts no regulations on how businesses behave and how they treat workers -- read, chaos and victimization -- is therefore a better goal.
   That seems to be where America has been headed, ever since labor unions succeeded in dragging management into an arrangement of fair treatment and a living wage, assisted by a government sympathetic to the needs of ordinary people.
   On the whole, competition within a free enterprise system may well be the best attainable system for all parties concerned, with government and an independent central bank as stabilizing forces.
   However, when one party -- capitalism or labor -- gains too much power and drags the economic system too far to one side, the people in general suffer. Leftist socialism is too disorganized and stifles innovation and the entrepreneurial spirit, leading to a dictatorship. But right-wing conservatism rewards the few at the expense of the many, also leading to a dictatorship.
   Somewhere in the middle, then, is a system that rewards the ambitious few but at the same time disallows unfair treatment of the many.
   So far, America has avoided domination by extremists of either persuasion.
   So far.   
   All this is important to keep in mind as some try to impose their extremist goals that would benefit a few at the expense of the many.

Perjury Trap

   Supporters of The Great Himself have criticized the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller as a "perjury trap" designed to catch the president in responding untruthfully to probers' questions.
   But prosecutors have a long tradition of asking questions to which they already know the answer.
  So is that a "perjury trap"?
   Yes, it is. Absolutely, and you can bet your sweet patootie it is. That's what lawyers do. They're aiming at a conviction based on evidence and truth. If they can prove a person is lying under oath, that in itself is an offense, and helps to buttress the root charge of breaking the law.
   This president has a long history of what he has called "truthful hyperbole" in the cause of selling real estate, and he has carried that practice into his political career. Moreover, he has expanded that hyperbolism beyond the bounds of truth, blithely ignoring obvious facts if they contrast with his own goals and beliefs.
   Example: The list of questions compiled by his own legal team based on information given them by the Mueller probers dealing with possible areas to be covered in an interview. The list was published by the New York Times, and immediately attacked by the president as proof that there was "no collusion" during the election campaign between his team and the Russian government, since none of the questions dealt with that issue.
   In fact, of the 49 published questions, a dozen of them specifically mentioned "collusion." Moreover, the president insisted that since there was "no collusion," there could not have been a crime.
   Wrong. Collusion to cover up or interfere with or block an investigation is itself a crime, whether or not there was an underlying crime.
   Moreover, lying to investigators is also a crime. And if investigators already know the truth and want the person involved to admit to it, if the person says otherwise under oath despite being warned of the consequences, yes, that is perjury, and probers have successfully sprung a trap and proven guilt.

Danger Signs

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -- George Santayana

   In the mid-20th Century, several nations in Europe and parts of South America  were dominated by militaristic advocates of conformity in the name of economic progress.
   Demagogues and dictators rose from the ultra-right wing of political thinking to persuade many that the way to progress and security was to limit citizenship to those of a certain group who followed -- sometimes blindly -- the ideas of a single leader who promised everything for everyone who believed in his policies.
   Those who disagreed were branded with many foul names and punished for disagreeing.

   With this lesson of history in mind, consider this: There is more danger to freedom, equality and world peace from the self-righteous ultra-conservatives on the far right than from the liberal left.
   As the names imply, conservatives want to conserve, or keep, things as they are, since they favor those who insist they have a right to dominate those they consider less important.
   Likewise, the term liberal implies more freedom for individuals to choose their own destiny and to disagree with those who follow a different path, even as they acknowledge the right of others to follow their own beliefs -- as long as it doesn't interfere or stifle the rights of others.
   However, for the radical righteous, the only true way is their way, and those who disagree are at best wrong and at worst traitors.
   The result of this one-way thinking has too often been dictatorship enforced by military violence, leading to international war on a massive scale.

   A moment's reflection on world history in the 20th Century will bring up the names of several countries in Europe and South America that fell victim to military dictatorships, cruelty against minorities, and war,
   Which raises the question of how far to the right American politics can go without bordering on or even entering the realm of demagoguery, dictatorship and violence against those who disagree with self-righteous leaders.