The eternal meaning of Independence Day

On July 9, 1858, Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas gave a campaign speech to a raucous throng from the balcony of the Tremont Hotel in Chicago. Abraham Lincoln was in the audience when Douglas prepared to speak. Douglas invited Lincoln to come join him on the balcony to watch the speech. In his speech Douglas rang the themes of the momentous campaign that Lincoln and Douglas waged that summer and fall for Douglas's Senate seat.

Douglas paid tribute to Lincoln as a "kind, amiable, and intelligent gentleman, a good citizen and an honorable opponent," but expressed his disagreement with Lincoln's June 16 speech to the Illinois Republican convention that had named him its candidate for Douglas's seat. In that speech Lincoln had famously asserted that the nation could not exist "half slave and half free." According to Douglas, Lincoln's assertion was inconsistent with the "diversity" in domestic institutions that was "the great safeguard of our liberties." Then as now, "diversity" was a shibboleth hiding an evil institution that could not be defended on its own terms.

Douglas responded to Lincoln's condemnation of the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision -- a condemnation that was the centerpiece of Lincoln's convention speech. "I am free to say to you," Douglas said, "that in my opinion this government of ours is founded on the white basis. It was made by the white man, for the benefit of the white man, to be administered by white men, in such manner as they should determine."

Lincoln invited Douglas's audience to return the next evening for his reply to Douglas's speech. Lincoln's speech of July 10, 1858, is one of his many great speeches, but in one respect it is uniquely great. It concludes with an explanation of the meaning of this day to Americans with matchless eloquence and insight in words that remain as relevant now as then.

Now, it happens that we meet together once every year, sometime about the 4th of July, for some reason or other. These 4th of July gatherings I suppose have their uses. If you will indulge me, I will state what I suppose to be some of them.

We are now a mighty nation, we are thirty---or about thirty millions of people, and we own and inhabit about one-fifteenth part of the dry land of the whole earth. We run our memory back over the pages of history for about eighty-two years and we discover that we were then a very small people in point of numbers, vastly inferior to what we are now, with a vastly less extent of country,---with vastly less of everything we deem desirable among men,---we look upon the change as exceedingly advantageous to us and to our posterity, and we fix upon something that happened away back, as in some way or other being connected with this rise of prosperity. We find a race of men living in that day whom we claim as our fathers and grandfathers; they were iron men, they fought for the principle that they were contending for; and we understood that by what they then did it has followed that the degree of prosperity that we now enjoy has come to us. We hold this annual celebration to remind ourselves of all the good done in this process of time of how it was done and who did it, and how we are historically connected with it; and we go from these meetings in better humor with ourselves---we feel more attached the one to the other, and more firmly bound to the country we inhabit. In every way we are better men in the age, and race, and country in which we live for these celebrations. But after we have done all this we have not yet reached the whole. There is something else connected with it. We have besides these men---descended by blood from our ancestors---among us perhaps half our people who are not descendants at all of these men, they are men who have come from Europe---German, Irish, French and Scandinavian---men that have come from Europe themselves, or whose ancestors have come hither and settled here, finding themselves our equals in all things. If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us, but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration [loud and long continued applause], and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world. [Applause.]

Now, sirs, for the purpose of squaring things with this idea of "don't care if slavery is voted up or voted down" [Douglas's "popular sovereignty" position on the extension of slavery to the territories], for sustaining the Dred Scott decision [A voice---"Hit him again"], for holding that the Declaration of Independence did not mean anything at all, we have Judge Douglas giving his exposition of what the Declaration of Independence means, and we have him saying that the people of America are equal to the people of England. According to his construction, you Germans are not connected with it. Now I ask you in all soberness, if all these things, if indulged in, if ratified, if confirmed and endorsed, if taught to our children, and repeated to them, do not tend to rub out the sentiment of liberty in the country, and to transform this Government into a government of some other form. Those arguments that are made, that the inferior race are to be treated with as much allowance as they are capable of enjoying; that as much is to be done for them as their condition will allow. What are these arguments? They are the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of king-craft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden. That is their argument, and this argument of the Judge is the same old serpent that says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it. Turn in whatever way you will---whether it come from the mouth of a King, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent, and I hold if that course of argumentation that is made for the purpose of convincing the public mind that we should not care about this, should be granted, it does not stop with the negro. I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle and making exceptions to it where will it stop. If one man says it does not mean a negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man? If that declaration is not the truth, let us get the Statute book, in which we find it and tear it out! Who is so bold as to do it! [Voices---"me" "no one," &c.] If it is not true let us tear it out! [cries of "no, no,"] let us stick to it then [cheers], let us stand firmly by it then. [Applause.]

(Posted annually since 2004.)

They Won't Have Sarah Palin to Kick Around Any Longer

Not as Governor of Alaska, anyway: Governor Palin announced today that she will not seek re-election and, indeed, will resign her office in the near future. Her statement is here. She isn't retiring, but says she will continue "to make a positive difference and fight for ALL our children's future from OUTSIDE the Governor's office."

Most observers assume that means she will devote full time to running for President. I guess so. Frankly, it seems bizarre to me, unless Palin calculates that in order to run she will have to spend most of her time in the lower 48, and the logistics of doing that while continuing as Governor are impossible.

That's all I have to say. I'm curious to know what our readers think. Weigh in via comments, but remember that your comment will only appear if you include your first and last name. We'll quote salient observations from our readers in updates to this post.

UPDATE: The comments are pouring in. Rather than try to select a few to quote from, I'd suggest you take a look if you're interested or want to participate. To a remarkable degree, readers who have commented so far are supportive of Palin's decision. This includes some who think she is (and should be) running for President and others who think she is just tired of constant abuse from the left. Several expect her to make a third-party run in 2012; I think that's farfetched. Surprisingly few--surprising to me, anyway--think that by resigning she has pretty much taken herself out of the running for 2012. Some expect her to resurface soon as a television commentator. That could well be true. Anyway, as I say, the comments are interesting and I recommend checking them out. Maybe I'll try to select a few representative ones to quote later in the day.

I understand the Democratic National Committee has put out a statement on Palin's resignation, but I haven't been able to find it. Does anyone have a link?

FURTHER UPDATE: At The Corner, Kathryn Lopez says that on MSNBC, they're speculating that Palin's resignation must be due to some impending scandal. Good grief.

MORE: Mark Steyn thinks Governor Palin's decision was reasonable, but not--unlike many of our readers--as part of a plan to advance in national politics:

Then suddenly you get the call from Washington. You know it'll mean Secret Service, and speechwriters, and minders vetting your wardrobe. But nobody said it would mean a mainstream network comedy host doing statutory rape gags about your 14-year old daughter. You've got a special-needs kid and a son in Iraq and a daughter who's given you your first grandchild in less than ideal circumstances. That would be enough for most of us. But the special-needs kid and the daughter and most everyone else you love are a national joke, and the PC enforcers are entirely cool with it.

Most of those who sneer at Sarah Palin have no desire to live her life. But why not try to - what's the word? - "empathize"? If you like Wasilla and hunting and snowmachining and moose stew and politics, is the last worth giving up everything else in the hopes that one day David Letterman and Maureen Dowd might decide Trig and Bristol and the rest are sufficiently non-risible to enable you to prosper in their world? And, putting aside the odds, would you really like to be the person you'd have to turn into under that scenario?

National office will dwindle down to the unhealthily singleminded (Clinton, Obama), the timeserving emirs of Incumbistan (Biden, McCain) and dynastic heirs (Bush). Our loss.

NOW FOR SOME READERS: Our readers have made way too many interesting observations to say that these are the "best" of the comments, but I tried to excerpt some that are representative of the conflicting sentiments expressed.

Jerry Magliano: I don't believe this is about a run for President in 2012. My bet is she will work to become the glue that pulls the Tea Party movement together into a cohesive national force prior to the 2010 and 2012 elections. This is the kind of grass roots environment in which she thrives. Whether that evolves into a true third party movement remains to be seen. Being relieved of her duties as Governor, she can focus full time on this endeavor.

Lewis Kapell: Her statement makes sense to me - she seems to be saying that she can't serve Alaska effectively as governor any longer because she has become such a lighting rod for attacks from the Left.

She wrote: "my staff and I spend most of our day dealing with THIS instead of progressing our state now."

I think this is a really sad thing for America.

Steven Gerig: Please, Sarah, Just stay home and raise you kids! Give your family a break. The media has already rehearsed the destruction of your campaign, and they've become pretty good at it. A run for President will not only be a torment for you and your family, it will be a torment for all of us watching.

Christopher Edele: I think Palin is making the right decision here. As long as she stays put she will continually be on her back foot evading attacks from her political opposition in the State and across the country, no matter how petty, unwarranted, or incoherent they may be. There is no denying her support on the right is strong and I don't see any reason why her support would dwindle by stepping down.

Linda Lindsey: I think this can be a very shrewd move on Sarah's part, and the act of a citizen-politician. The Washington politiican will run for office in November, and then begin their Presidential campaign in January, (Hillary?) all the while having no intention of fulfilling their office. They don't want to be without a political office, so they let the taxpayer fund their 'day job' while they travel the country not doing their job. ... The Average Joe can see Sarah's point of view and respect her - don't let the public continue to pay for you to not do your job while you run.

Paul Gable: The liberal destruction machine has turned a quiet, productive state government into a circus of manufactured ethics complaints and other ridiculous distractions (in other words, Anchorage has started to resemble DC).

Suicide of the West

Today's sign of the apocalypse, from Great Britain: "Prisoners on run cannot be named 'due to privacy rights.'"

Civil servants have refused to name inmates who have fled prison even though individual police forces will often identify them if they pose a risk to the public.

They say releasing their names would breach obligations under the Data Protection Act.

It echoes a row in 2007 when Derbyshire Police refused to release pictures of two escaped murderers.

This reminds me of an incident when I was growing up in South Dakota. A murderer escaped from the state penitentiary and was reported to be heading back to his (and my) home town. The judge who sentenced him, the lawyer who prosecuted him and the lawyer who served as his court-appointed defense attorney--one of my father's partners--all had armed police officers posted at their homes until the escaped murderer was apprehended. I'm trying to imagine the authorities, at that time and place, even comprehending the idea that rather than notifying citizens who might be in danger and putting out an APB for the escaped criminal, they had some sort of duty to keep secret the identity of the escapee. I can't do it. As Suffolk Coastal MP John Gummer said:

We have gone mad if this is what we are doing.

We seem to be going mad on a number of fronts these days.

Car of the Future

This IowaHawk video spoofs Washington's takeover of Detroit. It's pretty funny; we might as well laugh as the bows of the ship sink beneath the waves:

Via InstaPundit.

Meet Lieutenant Vargas

Hats off to the New York Times for an inspiring profile of Lt. Ben Vargas, a New Haven firefighter who was one of the plaintiffs--the only Hispanic plaintiff--in the Ricci case. The Hispanic Firefighters' Association sided against him and he was hospitalized after being beaten up in the men's room of a bar in an attack that he believes was orchestrated by pro-race discrimination forces. But the Hispanic firefighters' group eventually came around, and Vargas and his co-plaintiffs were finally vindicated by the Supreme Court.

Vargas, who posted the sixth-highest score on the New Haven exam but joined the lawsuit before he knew for sure that score was his, says:

I consider myself an American -- I was born and raised here. I love my people. I love my culture. I love our rice and beans, our salsa music, our language -- everything my parents raised us with. But I am so grateful for the opportunity only the United States can give.

The article, by A.G. Sulzburger, who I take it is of the dynasty's younger generation and possibly not a chip off the old block, concludes with this:

Gesturing toward his three young sons, Lieutenant Vargas explained why he had no regrets. "I want them to have a fair shake, to get a job on their merits and not because they're Hispanic or they fill a quota," he said. "What a lousy way to live."

Barack Milhous Obama

What prior administration does the Obama administration most resemble? In its early days, there is a surprising contender: that of Richard Nixon.

Helen Thomas sounded the theme in an interview with CNS News that followed a Robert Gibbs press conference:

The Following a testy exchange during Wednesday's briefing with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas told CNSNews.com that not even Richard Nixon tried to control the press the way President Obama is trying to control the press.

"Nixon didn't try to do that," Thomas said. "They couldn't control (the media). They didn't try.

"What the hell do they think we are, puppets?" Thomas said.

I think the answer to that question is Yes, actually.

The Nixonian note was sounded again in the Obama administration's response to Republicans who are pressing for information on the firing of AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin. It appears that Obama's firing of Walpin was both illegal and politically motivated, and his aides are circling the wagons, hoping the issue will go away without their having to provide information to Congress. Once again, Byron York has the story:

All in all, the "extensive review" appeared more of a sham review -- an exercise designed to support a decision that had already been made. Nor has the White House been open about it. "Information provided to my staff by Mr. Eisen has been incomplete and misleading," Republican Rep. Darrell Issa wrote in a July 1 letter to White House counsel Gregory Craig.

For its part, the White House is hinting broadly that it might invoke executive privilege to keep documents from Congress. "Your questions seek information about the White House's internal decision-making process," Craig wrote to Sen. Charles Grassley on June 30. "These questions implicate core executive branch confidentiality interests." At another point, Craig pledged to cooperate "to the fullest extent possible consistent with constitutional and statutory obligations."

The message, apparently, is for GOP investigators to back off.

Ah, executive privilege! The very words are redolent of the 1970s. (Although, of course, all administrations invoke executive privilege on occasion, sometimes properly, sometimes not.) Barack Obama is often compared to Jimmy Carter; the resemblances are obvious. But there may be a streak of Nixon in Obama, as well.

Ballad of a thin man

Omar Jamal of of the Somali Justice Advocacy Center played a walk-on role when prosecutors indicted Somali pirate Abdiwali Abdiqadir Muse in New York. He made contact with family members of the pirates during the hostage standoff and spoke up on their behalf.

Jamal announced that Muse's family members "don't have any money. The father has some camels and cows and goats outside the city. ... The father goes outside with the livestock and comes home at night. Father said they don't have any money, they are broke." Jamal sought to to get a lawyer for Muse and to ascertain whether he had medical or mental problems.

Jamal had a sympathetic assessment of Muse's plight: "What we have is a confused teenager, overnight thrown into the highest level of the criminal justice system in the United States out of a country where there's no law at all."

Jamal works out of our own backyard in St. Paul, but one has to go to the Financial Times to find a report on his latest exploits. The Financial Times reports that Jamal worked for months as the middleman in another Somali pirate drama. At the behest of the owner of a ship seized and held by Somali pirates for 10 months, Jamal somehow negotiated its release.

The FT describes the result as "a striking cut-price deal to free a largely forgotten group of men whose abandonment contrasted with the diplomatic pressure, military intervention and millions of dollars in ransoms and negotiating fees expended to liberate other kidnapped ships."

Something is happening here but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones?

Via Tom Steward.

While America sleeps

Peter Berkowitz has been spending time in Israel this summer. In "Bibi's choice," he reports on the perception of Israelis regarding the choices they confront on Iran's nuclear program. Berkowitz writes:

Conversations over the last few weeks with more than a dozen members of Israel's larger national security community--right and left, scholars and military men and women, some coming out of the army and others the air force, some with decades of experience in military intelligence and others in clandestine operations, some former Knesset members and others former, current, and soon-to-be advisers to prime ministers--suggest it is fair to conclude that the professionals agree with the public that Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons is a game changer. Among them, there is a consensus that Israel has the technological capacity to undertake a military strike that would inflict heavy damage on Iran's nuclear program. Such a strike, they also believe, would involve unprecedented challenges and risks, including the likelihood of a significant military response by Iran and its allies. Accordingly, an urgent internal debate is well underway in Israel concerning the circumstances in which the country should strike, alternative options, and, in the event that Iran does acquire nuclear weapons, the structure of an effective containment regime....

[T]he experts with whom I spoke were willing to discuss in broad outline Israel's capacity to destroy or substantially degrade Iran's nuclear facilities. All would be delighted to see engagement, diplomacy, or sanctions succeed. All emphasized that a military strike must be the last resort, chosen only after every other option has been fully exploited. All believe that a green light from the United States, or at least a yellow light, would be indispensable. And they seem convinced that Israel has good intelligence about vital Iranian targets and could, if necessary, with a combination of aircraft and ballistic missiles, bring enough firepower to bear to set the Iranian program back far enough to justify the substantial risks.

Berkowitz cites the study by Anthony Cordesman and Abdullah Toukan on a possible Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear program. The study is accessible here. Berkowtiz adds that even if an attack went according to plan, Israel would face considerable costs, both military and political, and outlines six possible responses to an Israeli attack that his Israeli interlocutors envisages.

Buried in the middle of his analysis is the predicate that Israel receive a green or yellow light for a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. If I read the Obama administration right, the chances of that are somewhere between slim to none. Commenting on Obama's Cairo speech, Berkowitz states: "[I]t would have been hard to project to a rapt world greater equivocation concerning Iran's quest for nuclear weapons if the president had deliberately concentrated his vaunted rhetorical gifts on the task."

Although Berkowitz does not explore the Obama administration's thinking beyond this comment, Berkowitz's article provides interesting insight into the thinking of knowledgeable Israelis the choices confronting Israel.

A Miserable Failure

That's the Obama administration's "stimulus" plan, which mainly stimulated Democratic constituencies with great gobs of pork. The web site Innocent Bystanders has done a service by plotting the actual unemployment rate against the Obama administration's prediction of what would happen with and without the "stimulus." Here is the latest, updated through June; click to enlarge:

The administration's forecast provides a benchmark against which we can judge the success or failure of the $700 billion porkapalooza. The result is obvious: it was a failure. The best thing Congress could do is to cancel the rest of the program--the large majority that remains unspent--and let the economy recover without being hampered by government-imposed inefficiencies.

Coup are you? part 2

Octavio Sánchez is a lawyer, former presidential adviser (2002-05) and minister of culture (2005-06) of the Republic of Honduras. His Christian Science Monitor column on the events in Honduras is "A 'coup' in Honduras? Nonsense." Sánchez writes:

Sometimes, the whole world prefers a lie to the truth. The White House, the United Nations, the Organization of American States, and much of the media have condemned the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya this past weekend as a coup d'état.

That is nonsense.

In fact, what happened here is nothing short of the triumph of the rule of law.

Please read the whole thing, and if you know anyone in the State Department, please pass it on.

Via CSM opinion editor Josh Burek.

Administration, Lobbyist, Journalist: Who Can Tell the Difference?

The news cycle these days is like time-lapse photography. Stories are born, flower and pass out of sight again in a matter of hours. For that matter, the Washington Post's "Salon" program didn't last much longer than that. Blink, or take a day off from the computer, and you've missed it.

Here, via The Examiner, is the invitation that the Washington Post sent to lobbyists for companies in the health care industries; click to enlarge:

The mind boggles: the Post wants lobbyists to bring "your organization's CEO or executive director" to a "salon" at the home of Post publisher Katharine Weymouth. If you pay $25,000, your CEO can actually participate in the discussion; or you can sponsor all 11 salons for a discounted price of $250,000. What's the purpose? "Interact with key Obama administration officials and Congressional leaders," thereby "participat[ing] in the health-care reform debate among the select few who will actually get it done."

So the Washington Post is selling lobbyists access to "key Obama administration officials" for a mere $25,000 per evening. Obviously they could not have done this without arranging in advance for those "key officials" to participate. Where does the Obama administration end and the Washington Post begin? That is becoming an increasingly metaphysical question.

There is this, too: participants can "build crucial relationships with Washington Post news executives." Ask yourself: why would it be "crucial" for health sector companies to have relationships with the Washington Post's news executives? Is that a threat or a promise?

Ask yourself this: is it conceivable that the Washington Post would have imagined inviting lobbyists and CEOs to similar "salons" with "key Bush administration officials?" I don't think so.

The Post, embarrassed by disclosure of its cozy, profitable relationships with lobbyists and the Obama administration, has repudiated the "salon" program. Given that their publisher was the program's host and the paper's "news executives" were set to participate, the paper's suddenly discovering its ethical standards rings rather hollow. It's worth mentioning that the story came to light because a lobbyist who received the Post's flyer was offended by the ethics of the event and blew the whistle. It's a sign of the times, I guess.

Judge not. . .

I was in the car with my parents 40 years ago this month when we heard the news that Ted Kennedy had driven his car off of a bridge, after a night of partying, killing a young woman. My father said nothing. I thought "this means Kennedy will never be president." My mother said, "where was [his wife] Joan."

When a public figure gets caught in a sex scandal, women naturally seem to focus on the aggrieved wife. These days, the main issue is how she will react.

It varies. Some stand next to their husband at the press conference, some don't. Some say they aren't "standing by their man," but end up doing just that. Some implore the public to respect the privacy of her family, then end up writing a book about the matter.

Jenny Sanford, wife of the disgraced governor of South Carolina, did not appear at the press conference and, as I understand it, has taken her four children and moved away from her her husband. For this she is earning high praise. But as we see moreof (and learn more about) Gov. Sanford, her response can also be viewed as a no-brainer.

I consider it misguided to pass judgment over the way aggrieved wives handle these situations, or to compare the ways in which they do so. The better response is just to feel sympathy. All marriages are different and so are all women. There is no fixed correct or (within the limits of the criminal law) incorrect response.

The urge to judge is strong, nonetheless. It stems in part from human nature and in part, I suspect, from modern feminism, pursuant to which women feel liberated relentlessly to judge the choices made by other women.

Malta was worth a conversion

President Obama has nominated Douglas Kmiec to be the U.S. ambassador to Malta. If the past is any guide, there's a good chance that Malta will soon be described on someone's website bio as a terribly important place attended to by a long and distinguished line of foreign diplomats.

UPDATE: A reader reminds me that the Knights of Malta is a prominent Catholic group that dates back to the crusades. So the nomination stikes me as a great move by Obama -- he pleases Kmiec for services rendered without giving him anything of substance.

Gray skies are going to clear up?

As John shows below, the unemployment numbers released by the Labor Department today provide strong evidence that the Democrats' stimulus package has not succeeded thus far in curbing unemployment. Indeed, notwithstanding the Democratic over-promising, it was always difficult to see how the package could curb unemployment in the short term. Whatever potential such a package might have positively to affect the unemployment rate, any such positive impact was never going to kick in for many months. That's one of the reasons why a cut in the payroll tax would have been preferable.

However, Bob Stein, a senior economist at First Trust Advisors contends that there is evidence the economy is healing, with the labor market serving as a lagging indicator that will enhance corporate profits, thus inducing more hiring down the road. And even the labor market shows a few small promising signs, Stein says. New claims for unemployment benefits are down and there is some evidence that fewer layoffs are being contemplated now than at this time last year.

In addition, labor force participation (the number of those with jobs or actively looking for jobs) has increased by 1.2 million in the past five months, though it dipped in June. Whether this reflects, in part, increased public confidence in the ability to find work or increased desperation, I don't know. However, Stein points out that without the increase in labor force participation, the unemployment rate would be 8.8 percent, not 9.5 percent. (Of course, it was never likely that there would be no increase in labor force partcipation).