An Old Newness (Thomas Sowell)

Townhall.com ^ | April 29, 2008 | Thomas Sowell

[jazusamo]

Many years ago, a great hitter named Paul Waner was nearing the end of his long career. He entered a ballgame with 2,999 hits -- one hit away from the landmark total of 3,000, which so many hitters want to reach, but which relatively few actually do reach.

Waner hit a ball that the fielder did not handle cleanly but the official scorer called it a hit, making it Waner's 3,000th. Paul Waner then sent word to the official scorer that he did not want that questionable hit to be the one that put him over the top.

The official scorer reversed himself and called it an error. Later Paul Waner got a clean hit for number 3,000.

What reminded me of this is the great fervor that many seem to feel over the prospect of the first black President of the United States.

No doubt it is only a matter of time before there is a black president, just as it was only a matter of time before Paul Waner got his 3,000th hit. The issue is whether we want to reach that landmark so badly that we are willing to overlook how questionably that landmark is reached.

Paul Waner had too much pride to accept a scratch hit. Choosing a President of the United States is a lot more momentous than a baseball record. We the voters need to have far more concern about who we put in that office that holds the destiny of a nation and of generations yet unborn.

There is no reason why someone as arrogant, foolishly clever and ultimately dangerous as Barack Obama should become president -- especially not at a time when the threat of international terrorists with nuclear weapons looms over 300 million Americans.

Many people seem to regard elections as occasions for venting emotions, like cheering for your favorite team or choosing a Homecoming Queen.

The three leading candidates for their party's nomination are being discussed in terms of their demographics -- race, sex and age -- as if that is what the job is about.

One of the painful aspects of studying great catastrophes of the past is discovering how many times people were preoccupied with trivialities when they were teetering on the edge of doom. The demographics of the presidency are far less important than the momentous weight of responsibility that office carries.

Just the power to nominate federal judges to trial courts and appellate courts across the country, including the Supreme Court, can have an enormous impact for decades to come. There is no point feeling outraged by things done by federal judges, if you vote on the basis of emotion for those who appoint them.

Barack Obama has already indicated that he wants judges who make social policy instead of just applying the law. He has already tried to stop young violent criminals from being tried as adults.

Although Senator Obama has presented himself as the candidate of new things -- using the mantra of "change" endlessly -- the cold fact is that virtually everything has says about domestic policy is straight out of the 1960s and virtually everything he says about foreign policy is straight out of the 1930s.

Protecting criminals, attacking business, increasing government spending, promoting a sense of envy and grievance, raising taxes on people who are productive and subsidizing those who are not -- all this is a re-run of the 1960s.

We paid a terrible price for such 1960s notions in the years that followed, in the form of soaring crime rates, double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment. During the 1960s, ghettoes across the countries were ravaged by riots from which many have not fully recovered to this day.

The violence and destruction were concentrated not where there was the greatest poverty or injustice but where there were the most liberal politicians, promoting grievances and hamstringing the police.

Internationally, the approach that Senator Obama proposes -- including the media magic of meetings between heads of state -- was tried during the 1930s. That approach, in the name of peace, is what led to the most catastrophic war in human history.

Everything seems new to those too young to remember the old and too ignorant of history to have heard about it.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.

[scrabblehack]

Paul Waner was known as “Big Poison.” He had a brother Lloyd, nicknamed “Little Poison.”

[BelegStrongbow]

The link worked for me, but it turned out to be a leftist media watchdog site which made sure only to post the part which would outrage liberals and to exclude whatever Dr. Sowell and Sean conversed about. I read what the poster extracted and decided not to take advantage of your kind effort, though I do thank you for making it. It can’t have been fun to go to that site, much less access anything the site provides.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

"Although Senator Obama has presented himself as the candidate of new things -- using the mantra of "change" endlessly -- the cold fact is that virtually everything has says about domestic policy is straight out of the 1960s and virtually everything he says about foreign policy is straight out of the 1930s.

Protecting criminals, attacking business, increasing government spending, promoting a sense of envy and grievance, raising taxes on people who are productive and subsidizing those who are not -- all this is a re-run of the 1960s. "

This is exactly right. Bill and Hillary Clinton also tried to take us back into the 1960s in the 1990s.

The problem with Obama and Wright though is the theology. There was a debate a number of years ago in First Things, I think, about Mark Noll's The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind and that should be part of this debate over Rev. Wright because this is not really about race but bad theology and the liberal politics connected with that. There have been some great discussions on Wright, faith and politics on Hardball with Chris Matthews and Rev. Eugene Rivers, on FOX with Megyn Kelly, Michael Steele, the former Lt. Governor of Maryland, and Angela McGlowan. Quite amazing actually, bringing forward black Christian leaders talking about these issues.

It's too bad Bill Buckley is gone. They could have had a great debate on faith and politics on Firing Line with Michael Steele, J.C. Watts, Alan Keyes, Rev. Eugene Rivers, Cornel West, and Thomas Sowell. The discussions and debates should continue. They just need to take the controversy over theology and focus it back on Christianity. Someone should organize this.

It's not just 1960s politics but 1960s theology in this mess of Obama and Wright.

I think it was Mark Hemingway over at National Review picking up on this with Wright's hermeneutics, trying to make scripture mean what he wants it to say.

They need to get this out of racial politics and debate the theology.

[Travis McGee]

Great essay!

[NTHockey]

Thomas Sowell for President. Undoubtedly, one of the brightest minds (of ANY race) today.

[Binghamton_native]

Are you not curious to know how many blacks believe the things that Jeremiah Wright is saying? I know I am. Perhaps it is not Thomas Sowell's style, but, if not him, then maybe another conservative black. We already know the answer if we believe the liberal black leaders.

PS. I am familiar with Tom Sowell's career. I own and have read several of his books.

[enough_idiocy]

As usual Sowell nails it.

“No doubt it is only a matter of time before there is a black president, just as it was only a matter of time before Paul Waner got his 3,000th hit. The issue is whether we want to reach that landmark so badly that we are willing to overlook how questionably that landmark is reached.”

This line goes beyond this issue. It captures the essence of liberal policy. They wants the ends so bad they’re willing to accept any means. So morons like Gore and others peddle crappy ideas that haven’t a chance of succeeding and the desparate fools lap it up, too impatient to wait for an actual solution, or too close minded to accept solutions from nonliberals.

[A_perfect_lady]

Many people seem to regard elections as occasions for venting emotions, like cheering for your favorite team or choosing a Homecoming Queen.

Oh, man, I have said this so many times. Liberals choose a president based on the flimsiest of ideas! "I just LIKE him/her," (Clintons) "I just feel like he understands/empathizes" (Clinton), "I just think he's a remarkable person," (Obama)...

I always tell them, "That's how you pick a homecoming king, not a president." They give me this stunned look and don't even argue. They just kind of sit there.

[george76]

Barack Obama has already indicated that he wants judges who make social policy instead of just applying the law. He has already tried to stop young violent criminals from being tried as adults.

Although Senator Obama has presented himself as the candidate of new things — using the mantra of “change” endlessly — the cold fact is that virtually everything has says about domestic policy is straight out of the 1960s and virtually everything he says about foreign policy is straight out of the 1930s.

Excellent as expected.

[Still Thinking]

Everything seems new to those too young to remember the old and too ignorant of history to have heard about it.

Wow. I think that surpasses Santayana's version in terms of elegance and impact! Though I think I would have said "contemptuous of history". These people seem to be, not just innocently ignorant of the lessons of history, but hostile to the idea that it has lessons to teach us.

[ArrogantBustard]

Why do some folks care what color is the President's skin?

Hmmmm????

In what way does the color of one's skin govern his philosophy of government, or the policies he believes government should follow, or his personal character or fitness for public service?

Anybody?

Bueller?

[Jeff Head]

Obama is fatally flawed as Presidential material in several ways. Let's focus on one that is big in the news.

Clearly his judgement and own core values are in question due to the entire Wright controversy.

In fact, Wright teaches a theology that was the creation of James Hal Cone, who took the Latin American Liberation Theology that had been created by Marxists to lure poor catholics into their "revolution" (because they knew their totally Godless marxism would not work), and revamped it for blacks in America.

This theology teaches that Christ was an oppressed black man living under whitey rule (the Romans) who was as much or more of a social revolutionary against white oppression as he was about spiritual salvation. In this sense, the theology is much closer to what the Islamics teach about Christ than what true Christians teach about Him.

It is a hate-filled, bigoted, anti-American, race bating, marxist construct.

...and this is the trough from which Barack Hussein Obama himself has willingly fed and the well from which he has willingly drunk deeply for the past 20+ years.

THE AUDACITY OF TRUTH - BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY AND OBAMA'S CHURCH

THE AUDACITY OF TRUTH - OBAMA'S CIRCLE OF FRIENDS AND SUPPORT

THE AUDACITY OF TRUTH - BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

[tennteacher]

Read this on Town Hall.

George Will’s new column is equally interesting.

I loved David Mamet’s characterization of Dr. Sowell as (paraphrased) one of the greatest philosophers of his day.

[oldbrowser]

One of the painful aspects of studying great catastrophes of the past is discovering how many times people were preoccupied with trivialities when they were teetering on the edge of doom.

When I read that sentence and thought about the leaders of the house & senate , the choices we have left for president, and the traitors we have at State & CIA and the hair stood up on the back of my neck.

[MtnClimber]

Thomas Sowell is one of my favorite writers. It is surprising how someone like Obama, who is much more wealthy than the average worker in the USA, can get away playing the envy and grievance game.

[Paridel]

I generally agree with you. Let me play the devil's advocate here though. If we claim that the path to the presidency is based solely on merit, the skin color of our Presidents should be a random sampling of the skin color present in the general population.

In that sense, we shouldn't want a specific individual to be a President because of their skin color, but we should want some Presidents to be black.

Otherwise, we have to ask the same question you posed in reverse: does the color of one's skin (being white) matter more than his aptitude for the job?

-paridel

[ArrogantBustard]

As far as I'm concerned, skin color is irrelevant for almost anything.

So ... I don't care how dark the next President's skin is ... or the one after that ... or ever.

If every president, for the the remainder of the life of this Republic, has very dark skin ... I don't care.

Likewise, If every president, for the the remainder of the life of this Republic, has very light skin ... I don't care.

I'm interested in the content mind and soul, not the wrapper.

[jazusamo]

I just Googled to see if a video was available of his appearance on H & C and that popped up. Where it said it was only the part with Colmes I thought that would be good because his exchange with Colmes was polite but Dr. Sowell was clearly in awe at his lack of facts and looked at him as a teacher would a school kid, it was a hoot.

[MrB]

I’m homeschooling my kids. When they are old enough to retain the concepts, I’m teaching them economic theory straight out of Sowell’s books. Heck, I might even develop a curriculum for sale.

My theme is going to be “Impervious to Nonsense”.

With a good Biblical truth and (Sowell) economics training, they WILL be “impervious to nonsense”.

[jazusamo]

This line goes beyond this issue. It captures the essence of liberal policy.

You're right, the Dems have gone further to the left thinking they can build a bigger base by pandering to more and thinking they'll retain all who have backed them in the past.

They are abandoning our military and our vets and that will come back to bite them, IMO.