I catch myself wondering what kind of President Hillary
would be in a foreign policy crisis? Are
there any precedents in history?
Apparently the Benghazi incident occurred the day Obama announced he was
going to bed because he had a fundraiser to speak at and needed rest. He also has little stomach for war decisions,
so he left the Libya situation in the hands of Hill and Leon the Congressman
Forever. As they watched the 7 hour
horror unfold, Indecisive Hill and Leon the Peon couldn’t decide to wake the
Emperor from his beauty rest. (only a Prez can order troop actions.) Either they thought it would end or, more
likely, Hill who had been the strong advocate of getting rid of Qaddafi,
thought the “rebel” attackers would surely be our friends. Hence she clutched.
Charles IX
was king of France during a time of extreme partisanship. Catholics conspired
to murder Protestants and vice versa. Chuck’s mother, Catherine de Medici, had
been regent in his youth and was still chief advisor when he was 23 in 1572.
France was 90% Catholic and 10% Huguenot Calvinist Protestant who were on the
rise in government. In particular,
Coligny, admiral of the French Navy had the ear of her son. Catherine was jealous. She and the widow of the Duke of Anjou blamed
Coligny for the good Duke’s murder and conspired to have Coligny assassinated in
revenge. In August 1572, rumors of a
Huguenot revolt ran through Paris and in the middle of the night, the young
king was awakened by his panicked mother, fearing that a Huguenot takeover
would mean doom for herself. She and a
gang of staunch Catholics told the king that he must execute 6 noted Huguenots or
risk his mother’s life. But Chas
protested that they should be tried. Too
late for that, he was told. They must
act fast. Still Chas argued until
finally at his wit’s end, he blurted out blasphemies and said, “By the death of
God, since you choose to kill the Admiral, I consent! But then you will have to
kill all the Huguenots in France!” Slammed the door and went to his room. And so the highly partisan Catholics gave
orders to literally massacre most Protestants in France. The following day, August 24, 1572 is known
as St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre when 30,000+ Protestants were unsuspectingly drug
from their homes and killed execution style. Charles IX tried to stop the
holocaust twice but was told it was too far along. Having lost the better part
of his government, he grew despondent and was tortured by his conscience. As
for the partisan Catholics, they rationalized the massacre as an explosion of
resentment and revenge against the heretics. Charles grew recluse and thin and
the next year contracted tuberculosis.
By 1574 he was spitting blood and called for Henry of Navarre, a
Huguenot duke and cousin. He named him
heir on his dying bed. Henry, assessing
the situation and realizing he was not too personally religious, agreed to convert to
Catholicism as an expedient to ruling the kingdom, and as a first act as Henry
IV, amnestied Protestants. But the Massacre haunted France. Playwrights and philosophers began to
question Divine Right of the King, as a precursor to the French Revolution two
centuries early. The loss of the
Huguenot bourgeois plagued France for a hundred years. Morality declined and
ultimately led to ruin.
Here’s the
deal with a weak decision-maker in the presence of strong partisanship. The worst atrocities are committed when the
ruler doesn’t stand up for right and wrong and common sense, then gives in to one of two
sides. Often the consequences are worse
than the atrocity. France, with its weak
morals, in 1789 guillotined ¼ of the clergy, ¼ declared atheism, and the other half
left the country. Since Napoleon, France
has been a weak state in war, a creative and innovative land but with poor
economic performance. Is this called
missing the discipline of morals?
If Hillary is checked by a Republican Congress,they will fight for 4 years.
But what if
Hillary gets a Democrat Congress? “Then
we are Italy,” a friend of mine said.
Well, actually, Phillip II of Spain comes to mind. Spain was a proud country that defeated the
last Moorish kingdom, Grenada, in 1492 and discovered the new world that same
year. In the years after this, the gold
and silver from Mexico and Peru enriched Spain phenomenally. The Hapsburgs married-in. Finally Phillip II rose
to the throne in 1555 and then inherited the throne of Portugal when it went
heirless. Fanatic and conscientious
about his Christianity, the people loved Phillip and still do to this day. They
denied him nothing. With their blessing,
he began the purges. He exiled all Jews and then most Muslim Moriscos. The Jews were the bankers and merchants. The Muslims worked the farms for the Spanish. The Spanish who remained didn’t want to work
farms or trade. They wanted to strum
flamenco guitars, fight bulls and other proud occupations worthy of conquerors. Phillip lost his internal economy and never
understood why. He hated war and belatedly agreed to invade England. When Spain lost the Netherlands to revolt and
the Armada in 1586, the country went into steep decline. His son Phillip III completed the banishment
of Moriscos. The people loved it and
scooped up property at steep discount.
But Spain lost 400,000 of its most productive people out of a population
of 7 million.
The worst decisions with long repercusions are made when one side wins everything. "If only one idea is allowed, even if it is the correct idea, that is tyranny." --James Madison, Federalist Papers.
So what
happens if the Democrats inherit the kingdom and our economy, already immune to
stimulus from too much government regulation and taxation, is regulated/taxed
even more? That’s an economy which has
experienced one of the worst recoveries (1.8% growth) in US history, has for
the first time in 400 years of America, produced fewer new business start-ups
than closures, has produced 10.5M new jobs when 21.5M were needed to keep up
with population growth. But would
Hillary do damage or rectify things?
Well, she wants a massive new Islamic refugee program, wants to move
Obamacare closer to single payer, desires more protectionism than Trump, and wants the
coal industry dead. Taxes? I listened to
the debate between her and Bernie where she was advocating 45% max income tax
and he trumped her at 54%. She said she
would do 54% if only Congress would pass it.
Think that will create new jobs???
Trouble is,
once you create a large, permanent dependent class, like Juan Peron did in
Argentina, they are always there to out-vote and demand the taxpayers and
producers spend an increasing share on free stuff from the government.
No comments:
Post a Comment