Always Right

Philip Johnson and "youthful indiscretions"

Others have noted and written incisively on the passing of architect Philip Johnson - (See Roger Kimball @ Armavirumque, Prof DeBow @ Southern Appeal, and Johnson's NYT obit) - so there is no need for me to add to what has already been said about his life and works... except for one thing. I noted in response to Prof. DeBow's post that I found it amazing that the Left seemed to have ignored the fact that Johnson was a committed fascist for a number of years in the 1930s. Mark Stevens points out in an op/ed in today's NYT that "[w]ith a few exceptions, critics typically had little interest in the details [of Johnson's infatuation with fascism - SLS], granting Mr. Johnson a pass for youthful indiscretion."

A pass for youthful indiscretion? Sen. Byrd generally gets a pass for his "youthful indiscretion" of being a member of the Ku Klux Klan, Johnson a pass for fascism, Ted Kennedy a pass for the "youthful indiscretion" of murder, but were any of these gentlemen to be right-of-center in their politics and one can rest assured that the Left would scream bloody murder (no pun intended).

Before Strom Thurmond's passing you hardly ever saw his name without also seeing reference to segregation. What gives? Why the double standard? 

Tom Wolfe strikes again...

I think Tom Wolfe is a genius. A Man in Full - great. Hooking Up - awesome. Bonfire of the Vanities - ditto. I Am Charlotte Simmons - superb. Add to this list his op/ed in today's NYT. You may read it here.

I can hear the groans now: "Not another journalist giving us a history lesson." It is important to remember that Wolfe has a Ph.D. from Yale in American studies. He's a smart dude - and proves it in today's op/ed...

New section

I just wanted to point out a new section I've added to the site - the On My Nightstand section. These are some of the books that I'm currently reading and their Amazon.com links. I'll update this section as I finish the books and add new ones.

Also, at some point in the future I need to review the books I read over the Christmas break. A few people have asked me to continue my book reviews and I hope to oblige them in the near future.

"Can Angelina Jolie Really Save the World?"

So asks the NY Times in today's Sunday Business section. The article takes a look at this year's annual conference of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland where the likes of the Bill's (Gates and Clinton), PM Blair, Bono, Michael Dell, Sharon Stone, and yes, Angelina Jolie gathered this week for "stimulating, high-minded discourse" (according to the Times).

Personally, I love reading about what's going every year in Davos. The Times article and Jay Nordlinger's posts at NRO (here and here) are kind of like Us Weekly and Star for dorks, i.e., me. C-SPAN has provided limited coverage of this year's forum as well.

Where else can one find Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Bono, PM Blair, Thabo Mbeki (President of South Africa), and Olesegun Obasanjo (President of Nigeria) on the same stage discussing the G-8 and Africa?

Are they really going to solve anything in one one week meeting in the Alps? No, but it sure would be a kick-butt place to network...

UPDATE: Check out Nordlinger's Davos updates numbers III & IV.
 

Armavirumque

If you haven't checked out The New Criterion's blog, Armavirumque, you should do so. Roger Kimball and company do excellent work...

Good article on foxhunting

The current issue of The New Yorker has a wonderful article by Jane Kramer on foxhunting in Britain and the divisive debate surrounding attempts to ban the sport.  Check it out. (Unfortunately, the article isn't available on The New Yorker website, so you'll just have to pick up a copy at the newsstand.)

The demise of unions...

I found two articles in today's NYT particularly insightful. The first shows that "the percentage of Americans belonging to labor unions fell last year to the lowest level in more than six decades." It goes on to say that "the percentage of private-sector workers in unions fell to 7.9 percent from 8.2 percent, making it the lowest level since the early 1900s." The second article concerns four unions suing to keep the government from implementing DHS's new personnel system that I mentioned yesterday.

It is fascinating to watch the unions struggle to keep their heads above water. As the U.S. economy as  evolved from a manufacturing economy to a service oriented economy the dinosaurs that compromise the unions' leadership have watched their once considerable power shrivel into nothingness. I love it!

Civil Service reform on the way...

An article in today's WaPo outlines the Department of Homeland Security's new personnel system which may be the model for changing the way federal workers are "paid, promoted, deployed, and disciplined." The current system, the General Schedule, is outdated and terribly inefficient. Like OPM Director Kay Cole James says: the new system will reward performance rather than longevity.

Currently, it is incredibly difficult to fire, demote, or really even punish a lousy federal employee. A poor-performing federal employee can expect the same across the board raise given to an outstanding employee. Federal Employee union leaders, naturally, are crying foul. They argue that the new DHS system "will give rise to managers rewarding favored employees at the expense of others doing a good job." Anyone that has ever dealt with the federal government knows that there are a large number of federal employees who are not doing a good job. They shouldn't be rewarded for their indolence and apathy.

Two summers ago I worked for the U.S. House Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization and the DHS plan was being batted around even back then. It is a testament to the Subcommittee staff that this new personnel system will even see the light of day. The unions have fought this every step of the way, but they, along with Subcommittee Chairwoman Jo Ann Davis (R-VA), have held firm. Hopefully, the DHS plan will be implemented government-wide. A more efficient, productive federal workforce is possible - this is the way to get there.

Iraqi elections

You can't keep score without a scorecard folks. So check out the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies' summary of coalitions and leading tickets for Sunday's Iraqi elections.

Also, check Anthony Cordesman's paper "Meaning of Iraqi Elections." Cordesman notes that "the creation of a government that most Iraqis perceive as legitimate is critical to winning the counterinsurgency campaign and putting Iraq on the path to stability and growth."

As Cordesman points out, Sunday's elections will not end Iraq's problems. In some ways the election will actually create other major problems. However, "it has to begin somewhere, and failing to hold elections can only increase tensions even further, risk alienating Iraq's Shi'ite majority, and cast further doubt on the legitimacy of the Iraqi Interim Government."

To critics that say Iraq's problems may lead to civil war, I simply point out that our experiment in democracy has lasted over 225 years, but we had to have a civil war to get to this point. To argue that giving Iraqis the chance to experience democracy is not worth the outside chance of a future civil war is ludicrous. The Founding Fathers knew the issue of slavery would come to a head at some point - they hoped it would die of its own accord, and it most likely would have were it not for Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin. Should they have given up on the idea of the United States on the off chance that its citizens might fight a civil war? I think not. Nor do I think we were wrong to liberate the Iraqis and give them a chance to do for themselves what our founding father did for us.

Pacificus-Helvidius debate

I've been reading about the Pacificus-Helvidius debate of 1793 for my Foreign Relations Law class and have found myself taking sides with Hamilton again and again. For those unfamiliar with the Pacificus-Helvidius debate - Hamilton and Madison took up their respective quill pens to debate "the nature and scope of presidential power, the separation of powers in foreign relations, and the proper methods of constitutional interpretation" in light of President Washington's controversial Neutrality Proclamation in 1793.

Revolutionary France had declared war on Great Britain, Spain, Holland, Austria, and Prussia and wanted U.S. help in protecting the French West Indies and allowing French warships to bring prizes into U.S. ports while simultaneously barring France's enemies use of U.S. ports. Washington correctly decided that the U.S. should have no part in the war and issued a statement to that effect. The Neutrality Proclamation was controversial for two main reasons: (1) "it was not authorized by Congress"; and (2) it was "construed as a repudiation of U.S. treaty obligations to France."

Hamilton, writing as Pacificus, argued that the Executive branch was the only branch of government competent to make a declaration of neutrality because the issuance of such a proclamation was "merely an executive act" and since all "general executive power of the Union is vested in the President, the conclusion is, that the step, which has been taken by him, is liable to no just exception on the score of authority." Hamilton also argued that "the text and structure of the Constitution make the President the sole organ of intercourse between the United States and foreign nations." Congress alone may be able to declare war, but the Executive branch must have the power to keep the peace.

This broad interpretation of executive power was roundly criticized by, among others, Jefferson and Madison. The latter of whom later replied to Hamilton's argument writing as Helvidius. Madison rebukes Hamilton by slandering him as a monarchist and claiming that Hamilton's view of executive power invades the rights of both the legislative and the judicial branches of the government.

I agree with Hamilton's more expansive view of presidential powers in relation to foreign relations.  The United States must speak with one voice to foreign nations that voice can only be the President's. The Senate can hardly speak with one voice on anything - we don't want to leave them in charge of foreign relations. The House has too many members to effectively conduct U.S. foreign relations. The judiciary has no Constitutional role in foreign relations - so it can't conduct foreign relations anyway. That leaves one branch - the Executive, and its head - the President.

The President alone has daily access to secret and sensitive information from around the world; the State Department is part of the Executive Branch. He alone has the power to meet with foreign ambassadors and other diplomats.

The President is uniquely situated constitutionally so as to truly be "the sole organ of intercourse between the United States and foreign nations."