It's been 72 years since George Orwell published his book, "1984," in which he sounded warnings about the dangers of government monitoring the activities of citizens.
Put another way, that's six cycles in the 12-year system of history and human nature.
Yet another coincidence? Perhaps.
But there were three cycles between the publication of the book in 1948 and the subject year of its title. And now we see another three cycles between the book's subject year and America's next election year, 2020.
And considering current events in America, one cannot help but wonder whether Orwell was right again. At the time, he wrote, "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears."
These days, we hear the president damning as "fake news" anything that disagrees with or disputes in any way what he says.
Last April, this column noted that "Literature is filled with warnings about government takeovers by demagogues who claim they support equal treatment for all but really want full control for themselves."
Earlier, in January of that year, the blog pointed to the advance of technology to monitor where people are, whom they talk to and what they buy. That's a short step to government control, another aspect of Orwell's novel.
In December of 2015, we pointed out that "Republican candidate Carly Fiorina defended government surveillance of Internet traffic by pointing out that companies do it now, and parents do it now, tracking the activities of employees and children.
"She also proposed that the FBI ask technology firms to help them monitor Internet traffic, and added that the private sector would cooperate.
"Other candidates endorsed the practice of bulk data collection by government, as its agents monitor all Internet activity and check all email messages and telephone records as part of efforts to snare potential terrorists."
And the leading candidate at the time, Donald Trump, referred to "our Internet," implying that it was a government operation dedicated to monitoring citizens.
Several times in recent months, this blog has covered aspects of the Power of Twelve and its almost mystical significance in life, as shown in a Twelve-Year Cycle of events in history.
Now we see another, as the year 2020 begins a new cycle and the behavior of the current president coincides with the dangers outlined by George Orwell in the first year of one cycle and its manifestations in a future cyclical year.
The years 1948, 1984 and 2020 are all key years in the Cycle of Twelve. The danger signs are clear. Can crisis be averted? That's up to voters and politicians.
Saturday, February 16, 2019
Friday, February 15, 2019
Trickle Down Emergencies
"Nyah, nyah. I'm gonna build a wall anyway. So there."
Whether America's southern border constitutes a crisis state is just one part of the current political issue swirling through the country.
A bigger, more important question is whether a president can use the power of the Oval Office to declare a national emergency as a way to quell what the president perceives as partisan opposition and a way to milk money from other budgeted programs to pay for his beloved wall.
No sooner did the president finish talking than news media reported the likelihood of court challenges, to be filed by the several states and groups that would lose funding that is being diverted for the wall.
Never mind that numerous federal agencies all agree that the problem of narcotics trucked into America is that they come through standard border crossings, not carried by hand across rural and mountainous areas on private property.
And, of course, building a wall on private property owned by citizens would require using the legal process of eminent domain, depriving land owners of the use of their property.
So taking money previously designated for other purposes will mean that loss will trickle down through all those programs that benefit American citizens just to satisfy the power binge of a president intent on getting his own way in all things regardless of any negative effects on others.
As for the claim of a "national emergency," at no time during his long and rambling speech proclaiming his declaration did he specify just what the alleged "emergency" is.
Other than repeating allegations about a flood of vicious criminals, rapists and other disreputable people "invading" the country, all of which are disproven by data gathered and published by the government's own law enforcement agencies.
Or is the entire dissertation a reflection of one person's racist opinions about America's law-abiding neighbors?
Whether America's southern border constitutes a crisis state is just one part of the current political issue swirling through the country.
A bigger, more important question is whether a president can use the power of the Oval Office to declare a national emergency as a way to quell what the president perceives as partisan opposition and a way to milk money from other budgeted programs to pay for his beloved wall.
No sooner did the president finish talking than news media reported the likelihood of court challenges, to be filed by the several states and groups that would lose funding that is being diverted for the wall.
Never mind that numerous federal agencies all agree that the problem of narcotics trucked into America is that they come through standard border crossings, not carried by hand across rural and mountainous areas on private property.
And, of course, building a wall on private property owned by citizens would require using the legal process of eminent domain, depriving land owners of the use of their property.
So taking money previously designated for other purposes will mean that loss will trickle down through all those programs that benefit American citizens just to satisfy the power binge of a president intent on getting his own way in all things regardless of any negative effects on others.
As for the claim of a "national emergency," at no time during his long and rambling speech proclaiming his declaration did he specify just what the alleged "emergency" is.
Other than repeating allegations about a flood of vicious criminals, rapists and other disreputable people "invading" the country, all of which are disproven by data gathered and published by the government's own law enforcement agencies.
Or is the entire dissertation a reflection of one person's racist opinions about America's law-abiding neighbors?
Thursday, February 14, 2019
Economics, Journalism and Politics
At first glance, the three areas of economics, politics and journalism don't mix. Yet they do, although not always amicably, and it would seem that the academic discipline of economics has no place in the mix of politics and journalism.
But it does, whether politicians and journalists are aware of it or not. Unfortunately, many are not.
At its core, economics deals with what people do with what's available to them. The study began in ancient Greece, and focused initially on household management, then expanded to cover the doings of a city, or polis. By the 20th Century, schools were teaching home economics in high schools and political economics at the college level, with one focusing on the home and the other on the larger population in cities, states and nations.
Eventually, practitioners forgot about the practical aspects of what they were studying, and academic economics became arcane and mysterious as scholars resorted to mathematical expressions of trends.
Yet reality has a way of sticking its nose into the most arcane of studies, reminding scholars that they are, indeed, dealing with the real world and what people do in it.
So it is with economics, both household and political, which is, after all, an extension of the first.
Politicians, by definition, deal with the activities of the polis -- the government. It's related to the similar Greek term poly -- the many. A city, then, is no more than a group of many households.
Journalism, by definition, is a daily report (from the French jour, or day) on the activities of an individual or group.
In modern practice, journalists are neutral reporters of what the people in a polis say and what they do with what's available to them, whether on an individual, a household or a city (political) level.
So whether they know it or not, journalists write about economics as they cover what's happening in political units.
The odd thing is that many journalists don't know that, they are not aware of that or they believe economics to be boring. This even as they go about multi-tasking in all three fields -- economics, politics and journalism.
But it does, whether politicians and journalists are aware of it or not. Unfortunately, many are not.
At its core, economics deals with what people do with what's available to them. The study began in ancient Greece, and focused initially on household management, then expanded to cover the doings of a city, or polis. By the 20th Century, schools were teaching home economics in high schools and political economics at the college level, with one focusing on the home and the other on the larger population in cities, states and nations.
Eventually, practitioners forgot about the practical aspects of what they were studying, and academic economics became arcane and mysterious as scholars resorted to mathematical expressions of trends.
Yet reality has a way of sticking its nose into the most arcane of studies, reminding scholars that they are, indeed, dealing with the real world and what people do in it.
So it is with economics, both household and political, which is, after all, an extension of the first.
Politicians, by definition, deal with the activities of the polis -- the government. It's related to the similar Greek term poly -- the many. A city, then, is no more than a group of many households.
Journalism, by definition, is a daily report (from the French jour, or day) on the activities of an individual or group.
In modern practice, journalists are neutral reporters of what the people in a polis say and what they do with what's available to them, whether on an individual, a household or a city (political) level.
So whether they know it or not, journalists write about economics as they cover what's happening in political units.
The odd thing is that many journalists don't know that, they are not aware of that or they believe economics to be boring. This even as they go about multi-tasking in all three fields -- economics, politics and journalism.
Saturday, February 9, 2019
Border Security
"Why did you come to America, Dad?"
"Where I was, there was no work."
Border security is not a new worry in the United States, even as the current president makes it a major talking point every day.
The reality is that the issue has been a major concern of government and private sector officials for many years, and even brought about a college level textbook on the scope of the problem and how to deal with it.
It's possible that the president actually did read the book, titled "Border Security," by James R. Phelps, Jeffrey Dailey and Monica Koenigsberg of Angelo State University in Texas (Carolina Academic Press, Durham, NC, 2014), but since he's not known to be a reader, voracious or otherwise, it seem unlikely.
Historically, physical walls have been built to keep out foreigners for more than 2,000 years. The Chinese were one of the first. The Romans built two walls in Britain (the Antonine Wall and Hadrian's Wall) to keep out the Scots. More recently, the Soviets built a wall in Germany to prevent Berliners from escaping to Western areas.
All those walls were solid structures, built of brick and stone. None worked.
So why should a physical wall on America's southern border work? In effect, that's the most recent version of a journalist's favorite question: Why?
Currently, the question is, Why build a wall? The easiest answer is, to keep out others. But a related and more important question is this: Why do the "others" want to come to America? Why abandon their homes and families and face bias and intimidation, as well as possible violence?
Answer: Because things are worse at home, usually manifest in poor economic conditions and often because of the certainty of violence.
In short, those seeking opportunity and/or asylum in America are not criminals, but are only seeking a better life for themselves and for their families.
'Twas ever thus.
There are, of course, some who do resort to criminal activity, but they are the exception, not the rule.
In fact, government data show that almost all newcomers are law-abiding residents, and represent a lower crime rate than native-born citizens.
Moreover, as a practical matter, the last thing those in America illegally want to deal with is an encounter with police, so they are even more law-abiding than their neighbors.
Additionally, they are subject to abusive treatment by unscrupulous employers who pay them less and work them harder because they know these "illegal" workers have no recourse to legal protection.
Americans have long been fond of calling the country a "land of opportunity." But bigotry has once again reared its un-American head and is screaming hatred and fear toward those seeking to escape violence and find refuge and opportunity in a new nation.
And as long as America needs workers to take certain jobs that native-born citizens don't want, the influx of newcomers will continue, regardless of economic conditions.
Reality check: The American economy is strong and growing, with a low unemployment rate and a need for workers, so immigration will continue.
But even as the Great Depression got under way in the 1920s and early 1930s, newcomers still kept coming to America, because this is where the jobs are, and things were even worse at home.
"Where I was, there was no work."
Border security is not a new worry in the United States, even as the current president makes it a major talking point every day.
The reality is that the issue has been a major concern of government and private sector officials for many years, and even brought about a college level textbook on the scope of the problem and how to deal with it.
It's possible that the president actually did read the book, titled "Border Security," by James R. Phelps, Jeffrey Dailey and Monica Koenigsberg of Angelo State University in Texas (Carolina Academic Press, Durham, NC, 2014), but since he's not known to be a reader, voracious or otherwise, it seem unlikely.
Historically, physical walls have been built to keep out foreigners for more than 2,000 years. The Chinese were one of the first. The Romans built two walls in Britain (the Antonine Wall and Hadrian's Wall) to keep out the Scots. More recently, the Soviets built a wall in Germany to prevent Berliners from escaping to Western areas.
All those walls were solid structures, built of brick and stone. None worked.
So why should a physical wall on America's southern border work? In effect, that's the most recent version of a journalist's favorite question: Why?
Currently, the question is, Why build a wall? The easiest answer is, to keep out others. But a related and more important question is this: Why do the "others" want to come to America? Why abandon their homes and families and face bias and intimidation, as well as possible violence?
Answer: Because things are worse at home, usually manifest in poor economic conditions and often because of the certainty of violence.
In short, those seeking opportunity and/or asylum in America are not criminals, but are only seeking a better life for themselves and for their families.
'Twas ever thus.
There are, of course, some who do resort to criminal activity, but they are the exception, not the rule.
In fact, government data show that almost all newcomers are law-abiding residents, and represent a lower crime rate than native-born citizens.
Moreover, as a practical matter, the last thing those in America illegally want to deal with is an encounter with police, so they are even more law-abiding than their neighbors.
Additionally, they are subject to abusive treatment by unscrupulous employers who pay them less and work them harder because they know these "illegal" workers have no recourse to legal protection.
Americans have long been fond of calling the country a "land of opportunity." But bigotry has once again reared its un-American head and is screaming hatred and fear toward those seeking to escape violence and find refuge and opportunity in a new nation.
And as long as America needs workers to take certain jobs that native-born citizens don't want, the influx of newcomers will continue, regardless of economic conditions.
Reality check: The American economy is strong and growing, with a low unemployment rate and a need for workers, so immigration will continue.
But even as the Great Depression got under way in the 1920s and early 1930s, newcomers still kept coming to America, because this is where the jobs are, and things were even worse at home.
The Secret of Good Writing
Writing is hard work.
In olden days, teachers would stress to students these five elements of an essay:
-- Introduction
-- Outline
-- Detail
-- Explanation
-- Summary and conclusion.
Or, in hallway dialect:
-- Listen up, I've something to tell you.
-- Here's what I'm going to tell you.
-- Now I'm telling you.
-- Here's what it means.
-- That's what I told you. Got it?
Along the way, teachers insisted that every student essay follow that pattern, guidelines and rules. This can be a useful guideline for some, but stifling to those with writing talent and creativity.
Once aspiring writers got into journalism, however, they learned to ignore or dispense with several of those rules, especially the first two, and get right to the point of the story, putting a brief outline in the lead paragraph as they touch on the Five W's of good reporting: Who, what, where, when and why, plus how.
The rest of the news story combines and expands on the detail and explanation. The summary is in the first paragraph, leaving it to readers to decide what the story means.
And that's the way it should be.
The secret of any art is not only in knowing the rules, but also in knowing when and how to break them. Put another way, the secret of good writing is not in knowing what to put in, but in knowing what to leave out.
Teachers too often insist that students follow the rules and never deviate from them, forgetting -- if they ever knew -- that good stories write themselves, and the person holding the pencil (or hitting the keyboard) is an intermediary.
Journalists often follow the inverted pyramid style of news writing, where the most important element of the story comes first, and other parts follow, in decreasing level of importance. This too, however, is only a guideline, and the secret lies in letting the story indicate which is the most important element.
Or as the editor might say, forget about the preliminary yadda-yadda, get to the story right away.
This is a useful technique in straight news reporting. Feature stories, with a stronger human interest aspect, take on a life of their own, as writers let the story lead them to the page.
Put another way, good writers know that the good stories write themselves. Sometimes they do this reluctantly, which means that writing can be hard work.
And that is the secret of good writing.
In olden days, teachers would stress to students these five elements of an essay:
-- Introduction
-- Outline
-- Detail
-- Explanation
-- Summary and conclusion.
Or, in hallway dialect:
-- Listen up, I've something to tell you.
-- Here's what I'm going to tell you.
-- Now I'm telling you.
-- Here's what it means.
-- That's what I told you. Got it?
Along the way, teachers insisted that every student essay follow that pattern, guidelines and rules. This can be a useful guideline for some, but stifling to those with writing talent and creativity.
Once aspiring writers got into journalism, however, they learned to ignore or dispense with several of those rules, especially the first two, and get right to the point of the story, putting a brief outline in the lead paragraph as they touch on the Five W's of good reporting: Who, what, where, when and why, plus how.
The rest of the news story combines and expands on the detail and explanation. The summary is in the first paragraph, leaving it to readers to decide what the story means.
And that's the way it should be.
The secret of any art is not only in knowing the rules, but also in knowing when and how to break them. Put another way, the secret of good writing is not in knowing what to put in, but in knowing what to leave out.
Teachers too often insist that students follow the rules and never deviate from them, forgetting -- if they ever knew -- that good stories write themselves, and the person holding the pencil (or hitting the keyboard) is an intermediary.
Journalists often follow the inverted pyramid style of news writing, where the most important element of the story comes first, and other parts follow, in decreasing level of importance. This too, however, is only a guideline, and the secret lies in letting the story indicate which is the most important element.
Or as the editor might say, forget about the preliminary yadda-yadda, get to the story right away.
This is a useful technique in straight news reporting. Feature stories, with a stronger human interest aspect, take on a life of their own, as writers let the story lead them to the page.
Put another way, good writers know that the good stories write themselves. Sometimes they do this reluctantly, which means that writing can be hard work.
And that is the secret of good writing.
Thursday, February 7, 2019
Socialism
"America will never be a socialist country," said the president during his State of the Union speech.
Reality check: It already is, and has been on the road to social welfare for all its people for several hundred years, beginning with the practice of free public education for all, regardless of ability to pay.
Then came the right of workers to organize unions, followed by minimum wage laws, unemployment benefit programs, and government regulation of pharmaceutical companies along with laws requiring food to be prepared in clean facilities.
There are also police and fire protection provided by governments.
And by its very name, the government program to assist the elderly, retirees, the sick and the indigent is a form of socialism. It's called Social Security.
More recently, the Medicare program expanded the social welfare program of benefits, along with Medicaid for low-income families.
And there are many other government laws and programs designed to ensure the social welfare of all the people, not just the wealthy few who have the resources to pay for medical care, retirement and other needs.
In the early days of America, people settled in communes to provide for the social welfare of all who lived there. At its root, socialism and communism carried forward the concept to a national level. Unfortunately, in some countries this concept was perverted by a few leaders who formed a dictatorship. Consequently, the terms socialism and communism have become equated with dictatorial governments. As a result, "socialism" and "communism" became dirty words.
In America, however, the working class rebellion against dictatorial capitalists and their attempts to suppress labor unions resulted in a compromise, as the federal government enacted fair labor laws and the general public stood by workers' right to organize and fight for fair wages and working conditions.
In effect, this prevented America from becoming a "dictatorship of the proletariat," as happened in Eastern Europe.
This sense of compromise saved America from becoming such a dictatorship, even as it overturned the dictatorship of capitalists. In addition, widespread economic prosperity helped.
Now we are faced with a problem, as the gap between the wage-earning workers and high-salaried corporate types widens, and ultra-conservative politicians and their allies try to take advantage of that gap to increase their power and influence over American life.
In the early 20th Century, that gap had become so wide that only a revolution could resolve the problem. At the time, America escaped the worst of that as corporations and labor unions, pressured by government, forced a compromise.
The question for today is whether government will side with corporations or whether it will fulfill its obligation to be a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
Otherwise, it will surely perish from the earth.
Reality check: It already is, and has been on the road to social welfare for all its people for several hundred years, beginning with the practice of free public education for all, regardless of ability to pay.
Then came the right of workers to organize unions, followed by minimum wage laws, unemployment benefit programs, and government regulation of pharmaceutical companies along with laws requiring food to be prepared in clean facilities.
There are also police and fire protection provided by governments.
And by its very name, the government program to assist the elderly, retirees, the sick and the indigent is a form of socialism. It's called Social Security.
More recently, the Medicare program expanded the social welfare program of benefits, along with Medicaid for low-income families.
And there are many other government laws and programs designed to ensure the social welfare of all the people, not just the wealthy few who have the resources to pay for medical care, retirement and other needs.
In the early days of America, people settled in communes to provide for the social welfare of all who lived there. At its root, socialism and communism carried forward the concept to a national level. Unfortunately, in some countries this concept was perverted by a few leaders who formed a dictatorship. Consequently, the terms socialism and communism have become equated with dictatorial governments. As a result, "socialism" and "communism" became dirty words.
In America, however, the working class rebellion against dictatorial capitalists and their attempts to suppress labor unions resulted in a compromise, as the federal government enacted fair labor laws and the general public stood by workers' right to organize and fight for fair wages and working conditions.
In effect, this prevented America from becoming a "dictatorship of the proletariat," as happened in Eastern Europe.
This sense of compromise saved America from becoming such a dictatorship, even as it overturned the dictatorship of capitalists. In addition, widespread economic prosperity helped.
Now we are faced with a problem, as the gap between the wage-earning workers and high-salaried corporate types widens, and ultra-conservative politicians and their allies try to take advantage of that gap to increase their power and influence over American life.
In the early 20th Century, that gap had become so wide that only a revolution could resolve the problem. At the time, America escaped the worst of that as corporations and labor unions, pressured by government, forced a compromise.
The question for today is whether government will side with corporations or whether it will fulfill its obligation to be a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
Otherwise, it will surely perish from the earth.
Tuesday, February 5, 2019
State of the Union
What goes up must come down.
The union is in danger of crumbling, say the cynics. If not politically, then economically. Too often, moreover, the two go together -- one can drag down the other.
The Federal Reserve Board last week raised a caution flag, noting that the U.S. economy continues to grow "at a solid pace," but there are signs of weakness that give the Fed "reason for caution." And at a dinner meeting with the president on Monday, Chairman Jerome Powell said the agency will continue to do its job, hinting that political pressure from the Oval Office won't work.
Experts in academia have also joined the chorus of warnings, suggesting that a full-blown recession is only a year way, if not sooner.
The standard definition of economic recession is two consecutive fiscal quarters of negative growth in output -- Gross Domestic Product, or the total value of all goods and services produced in the nation in any given period.
So far, the U.S. economy has enjoyed its longest stretch of growth in its history. How long this can continue, however, is the question. Along with that is the issue of what, if anything, the Fed can do to ease the pain of what many see as inevitable and what others see as preventable -- or at least an easing of the stress of an economic slowdown.
So what does the president have to say about all this?
The union is in danger of crumbling, say the cynics. If not politically, then economically. Too often, moreover, the two go together -- one can drag down the other.
The Federal Reserve Board last week raised a caution flag, noting that the U.S. economy continues to grow "at a solid pace," but there are signs of weakness that give the Fed "reason for caution." And at a dinner meeting with the president on Monday, Chairman Jerome Powell said the agency will continue to do its job, hinting that political pressure from the Oval Office won't work.
Experts in academia have also joined the chorus of warnings, suggesting that a full-blown recession is only a year way, if not sooner.
The standard definition of economic recession is two consecutive fiscal quarters of negative growth in output -- Gross Domestic Product, or the total value of all goods and services produced in the nation in any given period.
So far, the U.S. economy has enjoyed its longest stretch of growth in its history. How long this can continue, however, is the question. Along with that is the issue of what, if anything, the Fed can do to ease the pain of what many see as inevitable and what others see as preventable -- or at least an easing of the stress of an economic slowdown.
So what does the president have to say about all this?
Saturday, February 2, 2019
The Curse of Twelve
Since 1860, every president elected at the beginning of a 12-year cycle in American politics has been cursed by calamity, ranging from losing the popular vote, scandal, corruption and economic crises to death in office, either from natural causes or from assassination.
Oddly, all but three of the thirteen men elected during these cycle years were Republicans, but even the three Democrats were plagued by the Curse of Twelve.
An exception to all this was Dwight D. Eisenhower. However, he too suffered from an economic downturn, McCarthyism and a nationwide fear of Communism. Moreover, he had Richard Nixon as a vice president.
Here's a list of the 12-year cycle and its victims:
1860 -- Abraham Lincoln, Republican, assassinated.
1872 -- Ulysses S. Grant, Republican, scandal and corruption
1884 -- Grover Cleveland, Democrat, monetary scandal, economic depression, lost re-election.
1896 -- William McKinley, Republican, assassinated.
1908 -- William Howard Taft, Republican, lost re-election when challenged by Theodore Roosevelt, his own vice president.
1920 -- Warren G. Harding, Republican, corruption, the Teapot Dome scandal, onset of the Great Depression.
1932 -- Franklin D. Roosevelt, Democrat, plagued by the Great Depression and the start of World War 2.
1944 -- Franklin D. Roosevelt, Democrat, died in office 12 years after first election.
1956 -- Dwight D. Eisenhower, Republican, plagued by an economic slide and a nationwide, often irrational fear of a Communist menace.
1968 -- Richard Nixon, Republican, scandal, resigned under threat of impeachment.
1992 -- Bill Clinton, Democrat, impeached, but not convicted.
2004 -- George W. Bush, Republican, lost the popular vote, saw the start of the Great Recession.
2016 -- Donald J. Trump, Republican, lost the popular vote, presided over the longest government shutdown in U.S. history.
As noted in this space previously, all these examples may be just coincidences.
Then again, maybe not.
Or as Pug Mahoney's grandmother might say, "They're like leprechauns. I don't believe in them at all. But they're there, all the same."
Oddly, all but three of the thirteen men elected during these cycle years were Republicans, but even the three Democrats were plagued by the Curse of Twelve.
An exception to all this was Dwight D. Eisenhower. However, he too suffered from an economic downturn, McCarthyism and a nationwide fear of Communism. Moreover, he had Richard Nixon as a vice president.
Here's a list of the 12-year cycle and its victims:
1860 -- Abraham Lincoln, Republican, assassinated.
1872 -- Ulysses S. Grant, Republican, scandal and corruption
1884 -- Grover Cleveland, Democrat, monetary scandal, economic depression, lost re-election.
1896 -- William McKinley, Republican, assassinated.
1908 -- William Howard Taft, Republican, lost re-election when challenged by Theodore Roosevelt, his own vice president.
1920 -- Warren G. Harding, Republican, corruption, the Teapot Dome scandal, onset of the Great Depression.
1932 -- Franklin D. Roosevelt, Democrat, plagued by the Great Depression and the start of World War 2.
1944 -- Franklin D. Roosevelt, Democrat, died in office 12 years after first election.
1956 -- Dwight D. Eisenhower, Republican, plagued by an economic slide and a nationwide, often irrational fear of a Communist menace.
1968 -- Richard Nixon, Republican, scandal, resigned under threat of impeachment.
1992 -- Bill Clinton, Democrat, impeached, but not convicted.
2004 -- George W. Bush, Republican, lost the popular vote, saw the start of the Great Recession.
2016 -- Donald J. Trump, Republican, lost the popular vote, presided over the longest government shutdown in U.S. history.
As noted in this space previously, all these examples may be just coincidences.
Then again, maybe not.
Or as Pug Mahoney's grandmother might say, "They're like leprechauns. I don't believe in them at all. But they're there, all the same."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)