Wes Kelley

I am convinced that the opening section of The Economist magazine provides most of the news that a well-informed person needs to digest. You can get more news from other sources, but I don’t think most of what passes as news is truly newsworthy.

For analysis of the news, I used to be a regular reader of National Review, but it erudite attitude became too much for me to bare. I also subscribed to The Weekly Standard, but I grew intolerant of its neo-con proselytizing. Granted, it has been many years since I read these magazines, and I’m sure they deserve another try, but I am now leery that these conservative journals sold their intellectual soul during the Bush-era Republican take over of Washington. When I have a few precious moments to consider societal political concerns, I expect more from my periodicals than simply repeating the latest Republican Party talking-points.

Don’t even get me started on television news. I used to enjoy CNN and Fox News from time to time, but no more. Even the once dependable Headline News is now parroting the 24-hour news soap opera. I miss the ability to switch on the TV and get a reasonable update on national and world events in an efficient capsule. Now, we must listen to drivel and contrived anger that will fade as quickly as the next news cycle.

The Economist is not the only sound source of news and analysis. The Wall Street Journal continues to provide concise and worthwhile reading. Also, there are number of nice iPhone apps that provide quick and easy access to timely news headlines (CNN’s app being the best in my opinion). Also, for religiously-inspired social analysis, it is hard to beat First Things.

Most modern news outlets, regardless of the medium, are simply venues for political theater and do little to raise the level of discourse and understanding. I respect publications like The Economist and the precious few that strive to truly inform and educate.

Again, I’m posting a brief assignment from my graduate studies. We were asked to comment on the Gettysburg Address. I hadn’t read it in some time. Its beauty really struck me. I thought I would post both the speech and my comments below.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

The Gettysburg Address is oratorical poetry. It is simultaneously a beautiful expression of English prose and a seminal statement of American governance. We are one country, made hallowed and significant by the sacrifices of the men who died to defend its principles.

Obviously, you cannot separate the speech’s content from its context. This speech was given as the tide of the war was turning. It was becoming apparent that the Union would stand. Therefore, Lincoln’s brief statement was an eloquent sigh; one that signified that the war would be won and the sacrifices of its brave soldiers were the reason for the Union’s survival.

It is beautiful because of its brevity and focus. Much like the old prayers written in prayer books used years ago. Each word was chosen carefully. Each word has a job to do. Like a piece of colored glass being placed in a stain-glass window. Each lovely on its own, but forming a composite of glory. Okay, maybe my oratory is getting a little too rich, but we are rarely given an opportunity to wax on about the beauty of language.

What is interesting is that a speech like this could still be delivered today. Its style is not bound to its time. Churchill could have given this speech, maybe even Reagan or Obama. You could not deliver a speech like this on the campaign trail, but standing at the gravesite of fallen soldiers, or at another suitably somber and substantial event, it would still blow our socks off. We need “plain talk” but we also need a little nobility of thought AND language every once in awhile.

The following was written for one of my graduate classes in political management.  I am posting it here for the fun of it. 

Tennessee and the other TVA states are at the top of the list.  No, it is not our educational attainment, economic prosperity or athletic achievement that is setting records.  Unfortunately, it is the amount of electricity powering our homes that sets us apart.  

Consistently, the states receiving power from the Tennessee Valley Authority consume electricity at the highest per capita levels in the country.  As a matter of fact, we use about 50% more than the national average.  Why are we consuming more kilowatts than others?  Perhaps it is because for many decades we benefited from relatively cheap electricity. We assumed that no matter how much we used, TVA would build more power plants to supply our needs.  

With today’s energy costs steadily rising, the days of, “use all you want—we’ll make more” are most certainly behind us.  It is now increasingly expensive and environmentally challenging to build new electric generation, and Tennesseans must embrace energy conservation as never before to control rising energy bills.

As it is, three-fifths of the power generated in Tennessee comes from coal-fired power plants, and the smoke and ash they produce contribute to environmental problems.  Also, when electricity usage is high, TVA and other power companies resort to using expensive gas-fired generation to keep up with the demand.  While less environmentally harmful than coal plants, gas generation produces greenhouse gases, and is even more expensive to operate than coal generation. 

Of course, for decades TVA and its distributors fed our seemingly insatiable appetite for electricity.  Congress chartered TVA in 1933 to sell its power, “at the lowest possible rate and in such a manner as to encourage increased domestic and rural use of electricity.”   

The first head of TVA, David E. Lilenthal, knew before he could expand the residential use of electricity, homes needed appliances to consume it.  He persuaded President Roosevelt to form the Electric Home and Farm Authority (EHFA).  This federal agency provided low-interest loans to stimulate sales of electric appliances throughout the Tennessee Valley.

A brochure from 1934 proudly proclaimed EHFA was, “interested in a constantly greater use of electricity in all American homes. A fully electrified nation is the goal.” For many years thereafter, TVA continued to encourage higher and higher levels of electricity consumption within our homes and businesses.  As a matter of fact, while Tennessee is at the top of the list in residential electricity consumption, it ranks near the bottom for natural gas usage.  

Obviously the push for residential use of electricity worked.  It wasn’t until the energy crisis in the late 1970s that conservation first entered our social vocabulary.  

Today, TVA’s energy right, Green Power Switch and Generation Partners programs demonstrate how far we have come.  These programs are part of the “greener” TVA.  This Federal agency wants to help its customers control their ever-increasing demand for electricity, and create renewable generation options to offset the need for additional power plants.

While Green Power Switch encourages customers to purchase renewable power to support green power, Generation Partners works directly with customers who want to build and operate their own renewable generation.  TVA will now buy renewable power, such as solar, wind, etc., from its customers to encourage local renewable generation.

However, it is energy right that deserves the most attention.  Through energy right, TVA offers home energy audits, financial incentives for purchasing energy efficient heat pumps and water heaters and educational resources for those wanting to make their homes more energy efficient.

We can begin by taking small actions within our homes.  Household projects such as replacing incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescents, installing high-efficiency windows or adding insulation can add up to big reductions in energy usage over time.  We must remember simple steps matter; anytime you turn off unnecessary things that draw electricity you are reducing costs and helping the environment.

The founders of TVA knew the widespread use of low-cost electricity would stimulate economic opportunity within the Tennessee Valley.  Their vision, and the labor of countless Tennesseans, helped produce the bounty we enjoy today; however, we must understand our situation has changed.  The financial incentives that rewarded an ever-increasing use of electricity are gone.  We must focus our efforts on controlling our use of electricity before rising costs do lasting damage to our regional economy.

This week, several leaders within the Democratic party broadcast their opinion that now is the time to go back and hold Bush administration officials accountable for the memos that permitted torture, or if you prefer–enhanced interrogations. Even the person responsible for signing the memos, Mr. Bybee, now regrets the content and the ultimate ramifications of the legal opinions provided by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel. Yet many on the Left still want blood.

It is hard to understand what good can come of this. It will set a dreadful precedent if the policy and legal decisions of one administration can be found criminal and prosecuted under the next. This is not Watergate. No domestic crime was committed against political adversaries. I suppose the closest parallel would be Congress’ campaign to uncover Reagan’s Iran-Contra affair. But aside from making Oliver North a household name, little was accomplished in that ordeal.

If attempts at prosecution were to move forward, the question to be answered is whether the officials involved knew they were breaking the law, or were they interpreting the law? As hard as it may be to stomach, the question is not whether the decision was moral or ethical, but was it illegal.

It could be argued that Republicans opened the door to moral or ethical political prosecution in the impeachment of Bill Clinton. In the minds of many Americans, President Clinton was impeached for having sex with Monica Lewinsky, but of course he was actually charged with lying under oath about his extramarital affair. This legal attempt at political payback did not succeed, and I suspect neither will the prosecution of those involved in the OLC memos.

When is it right to demand penance for sins of the past? Perhaps it is time to wake up Kennedy administration operatives from their nursing home beds and hold them accountable for that administration’s plans to assassinate a head of state, or the bizarrely bungled–and unauthorized–invasion attempt against that same island nation.

Or perhaps, more significantly, it is time to reevaluate the efficacy of President Truman’s decision to wipe out hundreds of thousands of civilians in an atomic flash. Granted, we have tried and found lacking our nineteenth century Presidential directives to systematically mistreat and marginalize the indigenous people of North America. But perhaps we no longer feel the need to allow time to pass before we begin our historical prosecutions.

My concern is over precedents. I was also quite concerned by the Bush administration’s unilateralism and constant attempts to stymie Congressional input and oversight. (A level of Congressional disdain not seen since the Roosevelt administration.) The manipulation of our political system by one party invariably leads to escalating misdeeds when the tables turn–and they always do. When the shoe is on the other foot it can be used to kick the former ruling party vigorously.

Democrats should consider how this backward-looking assault could be re-applied by a President Gingrich or another strong-willed opponent in the future. Our Republic will last as long as it is fair and reasonable for all concerned. Our national political pendulum has been swinging widely, and quickly, from side to side in recent decades, and I worry that such tactics can enable things to swing out of control.

I won’t pretend to understand all the nuisances of the financial sector meltdown, but it is shocking to hear terms like “socialism” and its close cousin “nationalized” returning to polite and intelligent conversation.  Jack Shedd pointed out this post from Willem Buiter of the Financial Times where he suggests that maybe we should stop kidding ourselves and just nationalize our banks (the FDIC, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac being part of the joke).  

If financial behemoths like AIG are too large and/or too interconnected to fail but not too smart to get themselves into situations where they need to be bailed out, then what is the case for letting private firms engage in such kinds of activities in the first place?

There is a long-standing argument that there is no real case for private ownership of deposit-taking banking institutions, because these cannot exist safely without a deposit guarantee and/or lender of last resort facilities, that are ultimately underwritten by the taxpayer.

Alexander Hamilton created the first Bank of the United States to encourage financial stability, shore up our currency and develop a source of credit for our cash-starved country.  Perhaps what was old will be new again.  Sadly, it is hard in this circumstance to know what is the frying pan and what is the fire.

This weekend I was reading First Things magazine and I came across this interesting quote from Joseph Bottum:

Think of the American experiment as a three-legged stool, its stability found in each leg’s relation to the other legs.  Democracy grants some participation in national identity, an outlet for the anxious desire of citizens to take part in history, but it always leans toward vulgarity and short-sightedness.  Capitalism gives us other freedoms and outlets our ambition, but it, too, always threatens to topple over, eroding the virtues it needed for its own flourishing.  Meanwhile, religion provides meaning and narrative, a channel for the hunger of human beings to reach beyond the vanities of the world, but it tilts, in turn, toward hegemony and conformity.

Mr. Bottum points out that for most of American history these three legs have pushed against one another and supported our national identity.  For the last few decades, traditional religious expression has become less and less fashionable.   It is being replaced with an abstract respect for social consciousness, highlighted by today’s fixation on green sensibilities.  However, it remains to be seen if these modern social priorities will provide lasting stability to the “socially sensitive” in the same way traditional religion has strengthened the devout for centuries.

As we enter what I believe is a renewed period of change, I hope we remember our three stabilizing influences.  Each is important and together they have provided the underlying support for our American experiment in self-government, mutual security, economic prosperity and building an ethical and sustainable society.

I’ve been following Jonathon Taplin’s recent blog series exploring today’s complex geo-political and economic landscape. Though Taplin is a proud Progressive from the Left, I’ve found his recent post making the case for “New Federalism” fascinating. This article drew my attention to how dramatically the American political scene is changing.

What has interested me in our present election cycle is how some of the old “party lines” are slipping. I’m of the opinion that this slippage began years earlier. In some ways, the present Bush administration seems to echo the Johnson administration as much as it does Reagan’s. Also, Bill Clinton’s economic programs would not have come from a McGovern or a Mondale administration. It is as though our Baby Boomer presidents are one step removed from the political standard bearers of the late 60s through 80s. It was during those tumultuous days that the Goldwater/Reagan revolution took hold of the Right and the Great Society gave focus to the Left. Now, it seems that the current crop of candidates (with the exception of Hillary) are another step or two removed from yesteryears political battle lines.

This is not to say that we’ve entered some utopian middle ground. Rather, we are beginning a time of shifting political definitions. While the philosophical foundations that define the political positions are standing firm, the campaign-required wrappings are changing shape. This forces us to dig deeper than slogans and sound bites. This is not a new phenomenon. In academic circles, the basis of modern day conservatism is known as classical liberalism (a la libertarianism). The terms are fluid, but the underlying concepts surrounding society and the role of government are permanent.

It would be more helpful for me to understand the candidates’ views on the role, rights and responsibilities of men and women operating within a free republic, than it is to hear about their latest concoction to cure health care or our failing schools. This doesn’t mean that the details aren’t important, but their policy positions will flow from their philosophical foundations. The challenge with our current election rhetoric is the focus on tactical issues allows the candidates to slide by with sound bites to sum up their strategic and philosophical underpinnings. Twenty years ago, there was little need to question the political philosophy of a candidate. It was stuck on them as securely as a campaign sticker. Today, things are different.

Mr. Taplin suggests that we need to return to Jefferson’s belief that “The true theory of our Constitution is that the states are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign nations.” This is strange talk coming from a Progressive Liberal. You won’t find Ted Kennedy or Gary Hart pushing for state’s rights, but Mr. Taplin sees it as the best defense against the take-over of our national government by Big Business and corporate self-interest. Of course, he’s right. The point of Federalism (as professed by small-government conservatives and libertarians) has always been to protect the American people for unstoppable centralized power. The bravado of the Bush administration has awakened the Left to the dangers of a centralized bureaucracy holding all the meaningful reigns of power. Our national elections should be our opportunity to form the team of representative leaders who will collectively govern this nation, and should not degenerate into a crowning of the Philosopher King that will reign for the next four years. As Taplin explains, states (or I’d submit even local communities) are better able to address the issues and interests applicable to their citizens and region without the corrupting influence of “others.”

Now, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that Federalism faded from fashion for a good reason. The Civil Rights conflict of the 60s illustrated vividly the dangers of provincialism run amuck. Indeed, it could be argued that the inspiration for “state’s rights” has always flowed from the division created by the slave-holding, then racially-segregated, South. Certainly, using the power of state government to persecute and defend a deeply-flawed social order was an abdominal use of local control; however, this abuse does not necessitate the end of an entire concept of government. It does, however, clearly demonstrate the need for true checks and balances and a watchful eye.

With some claiming that John Edwards and Mike Huckabee have more in common than do either to their inter-party competition, its becoming clear that seismic changes are underway. With the Republican’s “big tent” falling down around their ears, and “counter-culture” democrats running–and profiting–from today’s culture, I believe the old political standard bearers are becoming largely symbolic.