Saturday, August 13, 2016

Donald Trump's road to redemption?



Beginning early in the Republican primaries I began writing critically about Donald Trump, a man driven by too many neuroses for laymen like me to understand or even count. (Hillary Clinton is in the same league.)

Putting aside the important question of what Trump has done (and will do) to the Republican Party and what a Trump or Hillary election victory would mean to our country and other free nations—no small question, but one for another day—I write now about the prognosis for the election itself, and what could be done to avoid what is being seen just over the horizon as political Armageddon

For now, my “could” rests on two premises, both of which are legitimately uncertain. One is that as of today, Trump is going to lose the election (and perhaps lose the House and Senate, too). The other, that somewhere within him he knows it.

What then to do, as he faces this Hobson’s Choice?

He can keep going, and become someone he hates: A loser! No matter how Trump would rationalize his loss—e.g., "the election is rigged, "the establishment was out to get me," "the stupid voters (blacks, Mexicans, Muslims, gays, etc.) didn’t care about Hillary’s lies"—his loss would be a loss would be a loss, forever. And losers are losers are losers.

Or he can quit, and become another type he hates: A quitter! He could rationalize that, too: "People who promised support faded away," "my campaign managers had their own agendas," "the corrupt media didn’t play fair," the Election Commission rigged the debates," "the fix was in for Hillary." But his quitting would be quitting would be quitting, forever. And quitters are quitters are quitters.

Horns of a dilemma? No way out?

Maybe not.

Back to my “could” and the two premises. (1) As of today, Trump is going to lose the election, and Hillary Clinton is our next president and will appoint a Supreme Court that will last for too many years, and (2) in moments of lucidity, Trump (or at least his children) knows that. Now I add a third legitimately uncertain premise: He is just rational enough not to want that to happen.

What to do?

Rule 9 of the Republican National Committee rules provides as follows:


Filling Vacancies in Nominations
(a) The Republican National Committee is hereby authorized and empowered to fill any and all vacancies which may occur by reason of death, declination, or otherwise of the Republican candidate for President of the United States or the Republican
candidate for Vice President of the United States, as nominated by the national convention, or the Republican National Committee may reconvene the national convention for the purpose of filling any such vacancies.(My italics.)

If Trump took the high ground and withdrew from the race in the name of saving the Republican Party, the Presidency and Congress, the Supreme Court, and perhaps even the free world, he would more than redeem himself for what he’s done wrong, and he could build on that beau geste (“a graceful or magnanimous gesture”) to begin rehabilitation of his reputation.

I acknowledge that my three premises are shaky, and without them, well, que cera, cera.

So we’re left with the question: Is Donald Trump made of stronger stuff than what we’ve seen—strong enough at the core of his being to fall on his sword to save his country?


Wednesday, August 10, 2016

Bill Clinton as Hillary's Edith Wilson



Arch progressive Woodrow Wilson’s second wife, Edith Bolling Galt (!), became substitute President of the United States when on October 2, 1919, the elected President was hit with a blockage of the flow of blood to his heart caused by a coronary artery clot, accompanied by a stroke that severely paralyzed him. The historical record is virtually unanimous that in a palace coup Edith Wilson closed off nearly all outside access to the President, hid and lied about his condition, and assumed the responsibilities of the presidency of the United States herself.

In the last few days, I’ve been reminded of Edith Wilson’s substitute presidency as suspicious reports about Hillary Clinton’s medical conditions have increased from a mere dribble to an increasing flood.

Imagine: Hillary wins the election, the pressure of the presidency – a crashing economy, unstoppable terrorism and perhaps war – triggers whatever seems to be happening in her brain even today.

Elbowing aside Tim Kaine, the hapless Vice President, Bill Clinton – whose own physical and mental conditions are already suspect -- becomes substitute President, aided and abetted by the likes of John Podesta and Sidney Blumenthal. 

For Americans to knowledgeably assess the likelihood of this happening, there must today begin a nationwide roar from Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, and Independents demanding that Hillary Clinton disclose all of her medical records for the last decade.

If they are not forthcoming, the United States of America may find itself led by not one infirm Clinton, but two.

(PS: This is not an endorsement of Mr. Trump.)

Monday, August 8, 2016

Holzer essay about Greenspan, from the ashes

Earlier today I received the following email:

Dear Mr. Holzer,

I came across your posting on your weblog in which you say that your essay on Mr. Greenspan had disappeared.  I am interested in reading it, having been a student of Objectivism since the late '60s.  (My husband and I waited avidly for each copy of The Objectivist Newsletter, and then of The Objectivist.)

I am unable to control my urge to Detect, so I repaired to the Wayback Machine.  I imagine that by now you've retrieved the essay yourself, but just in case, the part "Objectivist to Statist" exists on archive.org, at


Intrigued, I followed the link and realized that the essay is worth resurrecting from the ashes. 

Sunday, March 1, 2009


The Alan Greenspan Story: From Objectivist to Statist

By Professor Henry Mark Holzer 

In the mid-1960s my wife, Erika Holzer, and I were members of a small circle the hub of which was Ayn Rand, whose magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged, had been published in 1957.

Another member—who by then had been associated with Rand for several years—was Alan Greenspan.

In addition to our social relationship with Rand we were also her lawyers, so frequently we made “house calls” to her apartment to conduct legal business. On more than one occasion when Erika and I arrived, Ayn and her husband would be finishing a private dinner with Alan Greenspan. It was apparent to us that Ayn had a special relationship with him, an impression buttressed by comments Ayn made occasionally to the effect that Alan was a brilliant man.

In those days, Rand and her erstwhile “intellectual heir,” Nathaniel Branden, edited and published The Objectivist, a journal devoted to expounding and disseminating her ideas.

One was allowed to write for The Objectivist only if the content was in accordance with Rand’s philosophy, and could withstand the laser-like editorial scrutiny she unmercifully delivered (but to the great advantage of the essay’s author). Erika and I were victims/beneficiaries of Rand’s almost supernatural abilities as a non-fiction editor.

In the July 1966 issue of The Objectivist there appears an essay entitled “Gold and Economic Freedom.” Its opening paragraph is as follows: “An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue that unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense—perhaps more clearly and subtly than many consistent defenders of laissez-faire—that gold and economic freedom are inseparable, that the gold standard is an instrument of laissez-faire and that each implies and requires the other.” (My emphasis.)

The essay goes on to explain the role of gold in a free society, the meaning of money (see my Blog of February 12, 2009), and the history of the Federal Reserve System. Then, the author notes critically that “[w]hen business in the United States underwent a mild contraction in 1927, the Federal Reserve created more paper reserves in the hope of forestalling any possible bank reserve shortage. * * * The Fed succeeded: it stopped the [British] gold loss, but it nearly destroyed the economies of the world, in the process. The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market—triggering a fantastic speculative boom. Belatedly, Federal Reserve officials attempted to sop up the excess reserves and finally succeeded in braking the boom. But it was too late: by 1929 the speculative imbalances had become so overwhelming that the attempt precipitated a sharp retrenching and a consequent demoralizing of business confidence. As a result the American economy collapsed.” (My emphasis.)

The balance of “Gold and Economic Freedom” emphatically endorses the gold standard, disdains government interference in the economy, and condemns the statists who repudiated the former while fostering the latter.

The essay’s penultimate and concluding paragraphs eloquently reiterate this point: “In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold [see my Blog of January 25, 2009]. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all their bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the ‘hidden’ confiscation of wealth. * * * (My emphasis.)

The author of “Gold and Economic Freedom” is, of course, Alan Greenspan.

The “statists” whom Dr. Greenspan rightly condemned are adherents to, and promoters of, “Statism”: “concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry.” (Merriam- Webster Dictionary, On Line).

Or, as Greenspan’s editor, Ayn Rand, once explained it: “The political expression of altruism is collectivism or statism, which holds that man’s life and work belong to the state—to society, to the group, the gang, the race, the nation—and that the state may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good”: (“Introducing Objectivism,” The Objectivist Newsletter, August 1962, p.35).

Since it was Ayn Rand herself speaking through Alan Greenspan in “Gold and Economic Freedom” in the author’s lauding of laissez-faire and condemnation of statism, it was incredible that he accepted Gerald Ford’s appointment as Chairman of the President’s Council of [three] Economic Advisers.

Putting aside four of the Council’s main duties and functions, the fifth is “[t]o develop and recommend to the President national economic policies, to foster and promote free competitive enterprise, to avoid economic fluctuations or to diminish the effects thereof, and to maintain employment.”

What?

An acolyte of the political philosopher who, among other achievements, built a moral foundation for capitalism, signing on with a statist President to “develop national economic policies” (like the bureaucrats in Atlas Shrugged?), “to foster and promote free competitive enterprise” (through stricter anti-business anti-trust laws?), “to avoid economic fluctuations” (by wage and price controls?), and “to maintain employment” (with FDR-like public works projects?)?

Not only did Greenspan sign on with Ford, but Rand signed on with the both of them—sanctioning the new Greenspan-Ford economic partnership by her glowing presence at the new Chairman’s White House swearing-in ceremony.

Soon after Rand died, President Reagan put Greenspan in charge of a boondoggle called the National Commission on Social Security Reform. One of its recommendations was an anti-laissez-faire, pro-statist, large tax increase.

Then came the Fed job, making Greenspan the world’s economic/financial puppet master.

According to a 2007 speech by a Federal Reserve Board member Frederic S. Mishkin, “In a democratic society like our own, the ultimate purpose of the central bank [the Fed] is to promote the public good by pursuing a course of monetary policy that fosters economic prosperity and social welfare. In the United States, as in virtually every other country, the central bank has a more specific set of objectives that have been established by the government. This mandate was originally specified by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and was most recently clarified by an amendment to the Federal Reserve Act in 1977. According to this legislation, the Federal Reserve's mandate is “to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.” (My emphasis.)

So for year after year, the fallen pro-laissez-faire, anti-statist, Objectivist, Chairman of the Fed, went about pulling on the Fed’s strings, doing the government’s business of “promoting the public good” and “fostering social welfare.”

Repudiating everything he had written, and Rand had sanctioned, in “Gold and Economic Freedom,” Greenspan manipulated the “creation” of “money,” opened and closed the credit valve, and virtually if not actually controlled the economic/financial system of the United States and thus of the world.

And then, finally, at the end of 2008 when the system imploded, Rand’s brilliant acolyte finally confessed . . . and his confession continues: Yes, he was wrong about self-regulating capitalism. Yes, this time laissez-faire didn’t work. Yes, the bailouts were/are necessary. Yes—and that noise you hear is Ayn Rand spinning in her grave—the government must now nationalize banks (in the “public interest, and only “temporarily,” of course).

And with these unrepentant anti-capitalism confessions, Alan Greenspan is nakedly exposed for what he became when first he drank from the inebriating waters of the Washington trough, abandoning not only “Gold and Economic Freedom,” but the moral principles which it implies, and about which he wrote with Rand’s approval those many years ago.

Alan Greenspan is a person whom he, and Ayn Rand, deplored: just another statist.