2016 August 28^th

We have a letter to the editor of the local paper today, and we had essentially the same letter published yesterday. The difference, according to the editor, was an error in the inclusion, or lack of inclusion of one word. In any event, the letter now has the advantage of the massively increased Sunday circulation.

The letter’s writer, whose name is really unimportant, begins by maintaining that Hilary Clinton’s policies have much in common with Josef Stalin’s and the old Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. He doesn’t elaborate on this charge; there is no comparison of Clinton’s plans with Stalin’s. There is no suggestion that Clinton wants massive executions of small farmers, or of show trials for military leaders suspected of disloyalty. No, it seems more like a “I hate Hillary Clinton all to pieces, so let’s see what nonsense I can pin on her in a letter to the newspaper.” This lack of specificity is endemic in the current leadership of the Republican party so it isn’t surprising that it would show up in one of the lesser rank and file.

The writer continues by suggesting that Clinton’s policies will turn this country into another Venezuela. Hyperbole can quickly degenerate into silliness and it has done so here. Venezuela is sitting atop enormous reserves of crude oil. Gasoline once sold there for less than ten cents a gallon. The country could export oil and use the income from those sales to fund its imports. The price of oil fell and with that fall, Venezuela’s good times vanished. The country’s leaders did nothing to move its economy away from a dependence on oil when it could and now the economy is a mess.

Venezuela is usually sited as the poster country for the failure of socialism. A socialist government probably didn’t help, but an inept government, socialist or capitalist, can have the same result. The Record-Eagle’s letter writer, in attempting to disparage liberal government policies, nicely avoids mentioning the very left leaning governments of Iceland, Sweden, Finland and Denmark among others. Why do you suppose that is?

Finally, the writer prays to God that this country will never have a woman as its Commander-in-Chief. Britain hasn’t done too badly with the Queen as titular Commander–in-Chief. All members of all British armed forces pledge allegiance to the Queen. Practically, of course it is the Prime Minister who exercises the power. A few years ago, Argentina tried to take over a British possession not far off its coast, the Falkland Islands. At the time a female, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, was in charge. Britain still controls the Falklands. I’m confident that an American woman, if called upon, could do just as well as Margaret Thatcher.