It is rare indeed when a politician from a small state such as Idaho gets a bit of recognition in a high-powered publication circulated worldwide. It might be more fun, however, if before I name the politician we first outline a little background on said worldwide publication itself. Stay tuned because it is an interesting story all by itself. Here's why:

Newsletters are a dime a dozen, so to speak, and run the gamut of interest all the way from pro-communism to anti-utopianism; from anti-nuclear power to pro-free power for all at government expense; pro-life to pro-choice; pro-Christian to pro-atheist; pro-Arab to pro-Jew; pro-Democrat to pro-Republican and so on and on ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Financial newsletters are something else entirely. They predict prosperity and warn against disaster all the while with an eye, most of the time anyway, to suggesting to their readers how to make a buck. Sometimes a fast buck, sometimes a slow one, i.e., long term investing is an important field in itself, but the spectrum is a huge and exciting one. They're also a great underground press.

Many things go to make up the differences in newsletters, but the single feature that so distinguishes financial letters is that you can measure just how right and just how wrong they are, or if you prefer, were. Measurement is dynamite, especially when you are dealing with a person's--you guessed it--money.

Harry Schultz of Lausanne, Switzerland is publisher, editor, owner and otherwise commander-in-chief of what is reputed to be "The world's most honored newsletter." And its my inclination to believe it. Why? Many reasons, but foremost among them (right after his ability to make money for his many clients) is the fact that Schultz calls his "A financial and liberty-loving newsletter."

Few indeed are the newsletters, especially money-letters, all over the world who pant and pain for the idea of freedom--other people's freedom. In my view, unless a man cares as much for another's freedom as he does for his own there is little reason to follow his advice for either money or freedom.

Schultz simply has to be one of the most flamboyant spokesmen for liberty and sound money in the world, regularly writing his newsletter from cities all over the globe. He praises the world leaders that he likes while jabbing, poking, and sometimes "knifing" with brutal frankness those he doesn't like. These run the full worldwide spectrum (many are personal friends) from ex-Prime Minister of Great Britain Margaret Thatcher, one of his best, all the way round, believe it or not, to U.S. Sen. Steve Symms, our own "take a bite out of government" ex-apple grower from right here in our own home town of Caldwell, Idaho.

One other small item before I tell you what he said about Symms. Schultz gets $275 per year for his letter, but he gets $2,400 per hour as a consulting fee. That has to be one of the highest in the world, for whatever price may have to do with quality.

I've seen Schultz briefly mention Symms as a friend of freedom before, but his current letter HSL (Harry Schultz Letter) #540 June 1992 says more--better:

"Sen. Steve Symms, perhaps the best thinker in the Senate, a true freedom fighter, a conservative, is stepping down, won't run for re-election, a great loss to the Senate. He (Symms) writes: "Dear Harry, As I've expressed to you before, I've long enjoyed being a subscriber to HSL. You are a leader among hundreds of publishers . . . forecasting with amazing accuracy (Symms could have mentioned Schultz's "intelligence, candor and guts." These are three ingredients in extreme shortage today in Congress) I look forward to being a subscriber for many years to come. Best regards, Steve."

Symms signed off with the statement so familiar to Idahoans that he made famous in his unorthodox campaign for Congress back in 1972:

"PS on gun control: Freedom and justice always come from the ballot box, the jury box, and when those fail, the cartridge box."

Schultz closed his rather long (for a big shot's financial newsletter) paragraph with: "Thank you, Senator, I'm delighted for your separate note revealing you will "continue the fight on the outside."

Once in a while--a pat on the back. Worldwide recognition for an anti-communist, liberty-loving conservative whose first campaign, back in 1972, began on this writer's dining room table at 1617 Idaho Ave.

Right here in this little farm city.



So, What's All the Fuss about Perot?

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
June 7, 1992


What's all this fuss about H. Ross Perot? And so what if he does have two or three or four billion dollars, a big chunk of which he's willing to spend to get elected as president of the USA?

By the way, does anybody know how much a billion is? (A billion seconds ago Jesus Christ walked on this earth. How does that grab you?).

Well, it grabs the Texas billionaire business tycoon who says that unless America's government stops spending so many of those billions of taxpayers' dollars, or, if you'd rather, taxpayers' deficit dollars, then America's people will stop living in a free society. Or he used words sharply similar to those.

Let's take a look at this guy, then. He's running on an independent ticket, i.e., not Democrat not Republican, or so he says. But he is one of former Democrat Speaker of the House of Representatives' biggest financial supporters. That's Jim Wright of Texas who was forced into early retirement for questionable conduct in that House. Hmmmmm? Perot is also a big financier and pal of U.S. Sen. Lloyd Benson (D-Texas) whose influence and tenured terms in that body are huge indeed.

Still, he is also said to be one of Sen. Phil Gramm's (R-Texas) biggest financial supporters. Ah ha! The plot gets stickier.

But Perot's companies employ about 70,000 people and in today's scheme of government vs. business perhaps it is no more than prudent to "buy" a few influential preacher-type politicians. Otherwise, in such a time as thee thinketh not Big Brother killeth thee--and thine employees, too.

Perot sold many of his assets to General Motors for a huge amount of money and a position as a member of the board of directors. But he was such a maverick and a pain in the butt to the big auto maker that they paid him several hundred million dollars just to get him off the board. He had been saying GM had become intellectually constipated and was acting like an old dinosaur. GM had been furnishing each of their huge number of board members a brand new automobile every few months ostensibly to gain first-hand experience in how their products performed. Perot said that was foolish or worse. He thought they should drive the cars only after they were two or three years old--to see how they stood up.

Perot had two of his own top men who were captured and held hostage in Iran, so he hired some retired WWII crack Special Military Forces officers to sneak into that country and rescue them. It worked! Perot was a hero. President Jimmy Carter, also a Democrat, tried the same caper, though on a bigger scale, to rescue America's hostages. It failed--miserably.

Perot thought America's prisoners of war should be rescued--or ransomed--out of Southeast Asia, so he tried to "buy" them out with two big super-bomber loads of medical supplies to the enemy forces. At his own expense, by the way. That didn't work, but many think it was the huge U.S. State Department's fault. It was like another bureaucratic dinosaur--as many see it even today. It is thus incapable of even rescuing a school marm from a reform school.

H. Ross Perot says if he gets on the ballot in all 50 states he will not only run for president but he will spend $100 million of his own money to help finance the campaign. This moved the liberal media (of whom he has damn little admiration, by the way) to exclaim: "Why should Perot be allowed to 'buy' the presidency?" This writer suggests that most of the other candidates "buy" that office anyway, but by using other people's money paid for, sad to say, by promises, many of which they have no intentions of keeping. Even more sad, perhaps, are the promises they do indeed keep, but don't tell us about.

Gallup, the pollster, found, believe it or not, that most of the people who say they're for Perot also say they are opposed to lending aid to Russia, they're against gun control and supported the war in the Persian Gulf. Perot believes the exact opposites. Insight, May 28, pg. 17).

A Wall Street Journal writer noted: "Washington's 'gridlock' is caused in part by timidity, but it is also based in deep public divisions over what government should and can do . . Mr. Perot scores about as well among Reaganite 'enterprisers' as he does among Democrat 'New Dealers.'" They can't both be right.

Many say they are scared of civilian Perot because he doesn't understand the political system. Smeed is scared of career politicians Bush and Clinton--because they do!

Of course it's too early to say whether the billionaire Texan will even make it to November. Methinks he won't and perhaps shouldn't. But anyone who hates lawyers and the media-mongers can't be all bad.



Humor, the 'Drug' of Choice

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
May 31, 1992


Thank Heaven the election campaigns are past. Have we survived? Too early to say, perhaps. But of two things we can be sure: (1) it has happened before.

Remember the great Thomas Jefferson's outrage at the newspapers of his time? True enough, his kind of righteous indignation has almost disappeared among most of today's so-called leaders, but we will survive if (repeat, if) we keep our perspective and remember: (2) it will happen again--next election. And it'll help if we keep our sense of humor.

Why? Because politics is absolutely a kind of "mind altering" drug. Political power virtually alters the DNA structure of one's genes.

When a person gets in office and gathers the power to tax and spend other people's money and "adjust" people's otherwise legitimate and personal pursuits--they are soon hooked on the "drug." As sure as God made little green apples and also gave us, forgive me, free agency (some call it free will), we race to mold others into our own image.
And oft-times it's a drug-like, lousy, collective and gloomy image at that.

Comes now, however, a breath of fresh air for the conservative/libertarian school of thought. Deserved or not, the usually humorless, stodgy, tending toward self-righteous, preachy and negative right-wingers have floundered for lack of a nationally known non-liberal media voice in public affairs--until now.

Rush Limbaugh, 41-year-old talk-show host is without doubt the best thing that has happened, at least for conservatives, since zippered pants. He is a long overdue phenomenon whose three-hour radio talk show from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. daily brings hope and humor to conservatives via almost 500 radio stations across the nation. Believe it or not, Limbaugh's outrageous humor, sometimes even a bit irreverent, drives the liberals up the wall with such as: "Here I am, ladies and gentlemen, with talent on loan from God . . . bringing truth and wisdom . . . to America and the world . . ."

The pleasingly plump but superenergetic talk-show whiz is especially bright, if a little bit arrogant, and trades on the fringe of conservatives' usually limited range of humor. But he drives the welfare state liberals to distraction with some keen, perspective and graphic insight such as:

"I think America's national symbol, the traditional bald eagle, should be done away with. And in the eagle's place should be installed a fine, fat mother sow lying on her side with her two rows of breasts in full view, each with its own little sucking piglet pushing, pulling, jamming, crowding, grabbing and biting at their brothers' and sisters' nipple trying to get even more than their share of milk from the mother's limited number of teats."

Get the message? How can one miss? Limbaugh admits not everyone sees his style of humor the first half-dozen times they hear him. "I like to ridicule the outrageous with the absurdity it deserves," he said recently on the knee-jerk liberal Phil Donahue TV talk show. "It takes a while to get used to my particular conservative style."

The brash, bold and bright radio genius' pig story reminds us of the farmer who wrote a letter to the secretary of agriculture, Washington, D.C.:

"Dear Sir, My friends over at Wichita Falls, Texas, received a check the other day for $1,000 from the government for not raising hogs. So I want to go into the "not raising hogs" business next year.

"What I want to know is, in your opinion, what is the best type of farm not to raise hogs on, and what is the best breed of hogs not to raise? I want to be sure that I approach this job in keeping with all government policies. I would prefer not to raise Razor Hogs, but if that is not a good breed not to raise, then I can just as easily not raise Yorkshires or Durocs.

"As I see it, the hardest part of this program will be in keeping an accurate inventory of how many hogs I haven't raised."

Well, there's more to the human-like pig story. It gets even better as those of you know who have heard it before. So, I'm hoping Limbaugh will broadcast the entire "not-raising hog story" for those who haven't heard it.

But I just hope his humor won't obscure the genuine benefits that could accrue to the accounting profession--auditing those "accurate inventories."

Auditors, you know, are those professional accountants who come onto the scene after the damage is all done and shoot the survivors.

Note how important humor could be to us conservatives' survival--if we made it "our" mind-altering drug.



GOP Won't 'Tell It Like It Is'

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
May 24, 1992


"A fine is a tax you pay for doing something wrong."

"A tax is a fine you pay for doing something right."

That quotation brought some entertaining applause during an informal meeting I attended in New York last week. I was showing some photos of a giant readerboard built at one of Caldwell's major entrances just off the freeway. It is said
by many to be the liveliest and most entertaining "thing" in town, but it is also said to be a good deal less enjoyed by those who tend to love lots and lots of government.

I mention the little event held in New York (1) because those in attendance at the gathering are some of the nation's sharpest minds and boosters of the free market, private ownership and limited government ideal, sometimes called capitalism or free enterprise, in the world. And (2) because these people are just about as non-political as one can get, and yet they have an intense and enlightened interest in public policy affairs. The latter, of course, is very much affected by politics and education which in turn, affect and influence each other. Sad, of course, but true.

So it was that this fine, non-partisan group of idea-people (I hate the term "intellectuals" because so many of them belong to America's leftwing) were entertained by a homespun sort of cliche that virtually summed up the gist of what so many of today's non-liberal authors have taken page after page, even whole chapters of their books, to say. All this, of course, is usually done in a non-partisan way, i.e., their (our) formal discussions seldom include any reference whatsoever to Democrat or Republican, as they simply do not think America's problems stem from the political "party" standpoint. Said problems are exacerbated by both parties, of course, but the ideas seldom originate therein.

Having said all this, however, I want to hasten to admit that once in a while someone comes along who can point out some "tendencies" of one of the parties so well that that person's observations bear repeating.

Comes now a U of I professor friend of mine sending me a story about a research technician at Washington State University who aptly and succinctly writes a partisan-type of switch:

"A Democrat hawking tax cuts is about as credible as Roseanne Barr giving singing lessons."

"Democrats could no more change their ways and cut taxes than (House of Representatives Speaker Tom Foley D-Washington) could leap off a tree branch and fly."

"This is because, to Democrats, taxes are a means of exercising political power, not generating revenues." A great observation!

Michael Costello is the author of this sharply insightful political view and he illustrates it in part with a typical, if hypothetical, essay: "The Democrats . . . would point out that workers' salaries increased only 60 percent while the owner's income increased 900 percent. 'This is unfair,' they would whine, and would propose raising (the owner's) taxes as punishment."

Costello's gift for succinct and pungent observation of today's political reality is almost spectacular. The fact he is not the Republican's top national spokesman virtually gives rise to the old "insider" conspiracy theory--if not a simpleminded GOP deathwish:

". . . Democrat . . . pollsters have learned that class resentment, if adequately fertilized, can be exploited politically. The Democrats, therefore, are perfectly willing to paralyze the economy and encourage (people's) most reprehensible motivations, envy and jealousy, to help them win the White House . . .

"The Democrats prefer to let the economy slide with their politically popular 'punish the rich' wealth redistribution program."

This ever so articulate Washington researcher winds up his brilliant essay possibly giving the GOP more credit than they deserve. But in large measure his point is well taken--and graphic:

"With the Republicans' plan, we get beef. With the Democrats' we get manure, Take you pick."

If my readers sometimes wonder why I'm often critical of the pachyderm party it is their (GOP's) unwillingness to "tell it like it is," in a simple and straightforward way.

Costello has made my point--again.



One Person's Rose, Another's Razzberries

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
May 17, 1992


Is America's "cup" half empty or half full? Good question, particularly in these days of the doggoned liberal media's bashing the good old U.S.A. at every turn.

Thus it is with our roses and razzberries which are so appropriate just before the primary election May 26, i.e., a "rose" to some is a "razzberry" to others. As one sage so aptly put it: "Where you stand depends on where you sit." It is a growing problem in America's public affairs as pragmatism leaps to replace principle. For example:

Roses for the wife of U.S. Sen. Steve Symms' Chief of Staff Phil Reberger of Boise. At a big party bash in Boise recently, Nancy had the courage (call it Chutzpah, or guts if you like) to march up and scold this writer with virtually a stiff index finger threatening that I'd better not criticize her husband--publicly. Well, at least she cared with courage of her convictions and that's more than most of the Boise snob-set Republicans will do--publicly.

How's that? Well, Reberger is virtually running Boise Mayor Dirk Kempthorne's campaign for the GOP nomination to run against the liberal Rep. Richard Stallings (D-Idaho) for Symms' seat to be vacated next year in the U.S. Senate. Good for Reberger. So far.

Now then, Stallings is a well-known Mormon and the word is that Reberger is using his own considerable "inside" influence to push Idaho State Sen. and candidate for U.S. House of Representatives Mike Crapo, also a big Mormon because he (Crapo) would help non-Mormon Kempthorne neutralize the Mormon block vote. Fairly clever, too, most Boise pragmatic insider politicos would agree.

It's clever--but for one very real item. Crapo, a lawyer, is also a Rockefeller-type Republican moderate, if not a liberal. He's running against a conservative Goldwater-type Republican Gary Glenn, an Ada County commissioner of Boise, for the GOP nomination to run for the U.S. House of Representatives.

All of which is a dilemma for the usually gutsy, outspoken and otherwise ideologically consistent conservative Symms. He must reflect: should he follow the lead of his $110,000 per year salaried "insider" Reberger and play the "Mormon card" for a so-called moderate? Or should he follow the controversial Glenn, the hottest politico the Idaho GOP has whose philosophy is almost certainly just like his (Symms') own? And whose leadership in 1986 clearly, certainly was the single most important positive force in Idaho for defeating the big labor unions who were out to kill the right-to-work law against compulsory unionism.

Roses for Idaho's Chief of Commerce and Industry Jim Hawkins who said Idaho's prosperity is much the healthier (than it otherwise would be) because of our right-to-work law. Hawkins, you will remember, was appointed by Idaho's liberal and big labor enthusiast Gov. Cecil Andrus who flinched when his Commerce chief made the statement. So:

Razzberries for Andrus, who, when asked some time ago what the right-to-work law's effect has been on the state's economy said, (as he no doubt bit his political lip): "It has only been neutral." Ho ho ho.

Roses again for Hawkins whose success at promoting new businesses into Idaho is said to be next to awfully, awfully good.

The spunky and wealthy retired businessman's was the only supportive vote that then University of Idaho Alumni Association president Steve Symms got way back in 1969 when the latter was "fired" for his advocating a chair of capitalism for the U of I.

Razzberries for that alumni association who down through the ensuing years has steadfastly, if not adamantly, refused to publicly apologize for the ignominious and anti-capitalist foolishness they perpetrated on perhaps the most popular alumni prexy the U of I ever had.) We're lucky he wasn't pro-communist. Maybe they'd have given him an honorary Ph.D. instead).

Razzberries for GOPer and ex-State Sen. Rod Beck, a genuine and articulate conservative. And ditto for preacher, stockbroker and GOP moderate Milton Erhart, both of Boise. These men compete with Boise moderate Mayor Dirk Kempthorne for the GOP nomination to run against Stallings.

Both these men complain loud and long against Symms' man Reberger for managing Kempthorne's campaign while on Symms' payroll. Did they claim that Reberger's $110,000 annual salary, obscene in the minds of many, was too high? No. Then it's mostly sour grapes, I'd guess, for there's nothing else wrong with it. Translation:

Maybe they look forward to the day when they, too, can ride on the federal debt skyrocket.



Student's Graffiti Shows Liberal Slant

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
May 10, 1992


So many things to write about. Some good, some asinine, some even inter-related. So, for a few of them here's a bouquet of . . .

Roses for the liberal students at Albertson College of Idaho who last week wrote a large amount of graffiti all over the sidewalks outside the Student Union Building on campus.

I said "liberal" students because the conservative students, if indeed there are some at that school, displayed no messages at all. The subject as you might guess, was race, e.g., "NO RACISM!" was drawn on the sidewalk in letters two feet high in front of the front door of AC of I's beautiful Terteling Library.

Presumably the burst of sidewalk graffiti on campus was to decry the recent jury/court decision acquitting the four Los Angeles police officers who beat up Rodney King. For whatever one's race and reputation might bear upon the case, King is both black and a convicted criminal felon (i.e., for violent crime, not white-collar crime).

Now then, nobody, but nobody condones either police brutality or racism. (Certainly this writer does not). Oh it's true that it exists, alright, especially in Los Angeles' little "Korea City" which we understand was brutally attacked, sacked and burned during the riots. Some Orientals, by the way, boarded up their own stores and defended them with their own firearms. But racism cuts both ways. Unfortunately, the media seems loathe to point this out. Their agenda won't allow it, of course. Such is their fanaticism for statism or liberalism.

Back to the AC of I students' protest graffiti which attracted at least one Boise TV station, Channel 7. There were other messages, but the best one was in six-inch high letters in a bright yellow color and six feet long on two lines. It read: "To be conservative is to be ignorant and greedy." (Well, students know everything. Don't they?)

A few yards away the second-best message was more directly race-related if not slightly more revealing in the major thrust of that liberal arts college's very liberal tendencies. In the same size six-inch letters it depicted a sample election ballot listing three candidates' names, each on a separate line and each with its own box wherein the voter's "X" could be placed to vote their choice for a candidate. It was headed, "For President":

The first name underneath was "Bush" with its box empty at the left as a no vote for the Republican.

The next name on a line directly below the first one was the name "Clinton", again with its box empty at the left as a no vote for the Democrat.

Directly below that on line three was--you guessed it--the name "Rodney King" and within its box was a great big "X" as a vote for Rodney King for the office of president.

Symbolic (?) you ask. Probably so. Kids will be kids. Again, sure! But in the old days, college kids swallowed goldfish. Nowadays they'll swallow anything. Most of it making even less sense than goldfish. (At least raw fish has some food value).

Now then, let's not team up to advocate that President Bob Hendren or Academic Dean Nancy Hazelwood censor the left-liberal students. After all, they're merely reacting to "information" fed to them by their professors and a left-liberal media whose sole intent throughout was to ideologically inflame, not to inform. And it worked--in spades. Never mind a conservative press and/or professors, had there been some, would no doubt have been "ignorant and greedy" anyway. Ho ho ho.

And, more importantly, had there been an equal number of conservative and/or libertarian professors there on the AC of I campus (what a laugh) would their graffiti have made the liberal Boise TV's Channel 7 anyway? Not a chance. So:

Razzberries for KTVB Channel 7's knee-jerk liberal news director Rod Gramer who was for years political reporter for the forever statist Idaho Statesman. The likelihood of his sending a TV camera to report, especially favorably, some conservatives or libertarians on campus is, well, about the same chance as the proverbial snowball in hell.

Roses for the tenured (who else would dare?) professor at the University of Idaho who FAXed the following hilarious quote to me last week. Said he:

"Liberals have invented whole college majors--psychology, sociology, women's studies--to prove that nothing is anybody's fault."

And now, after the Rodney King affair, should the good professor have added--black studies?



'Mormon Card' Real or Imagined?

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
May 3, 1992


As I was being interviewed on a Boise radio talk show last week, the subject of the Mormon block-vote came up. It is said to be the biggest political "plum" in Idaho.

That is to say, of course, if it's on your side. If it is not on your side, or if it is against you, then you are usually in big trouble--politically. Maybe even businesswise.

Now then, said Mormon "card" is like the so-called "China card" in American foreign policy which was said to be the U.S. State Department's "ace-in-the-hole" or "trump card" which they could play against the U.S.S.R. if worse came to worst. Fortunately the Berlin Wall came tumbling down along with a large percentage of communism all over Europe behind the "Iron Curtain."

As an interesting and relevant aside, we are beginning to find out that a great many of the old communist politicians and bureaucrats have simply moved into what our news media calls the "new" glasnost and perestroika government in Russia. In other words it is not unlike government in the U.S.A., i.e., the more things change the more they remain the same.

Meantime the election campaign in Idaho heats up. Especially it is heating up in the primary campaign between Boise Goldwater Republican Gary Glenn, Ada County commissioner, and lawyer Mike Crapo of Idaho Falls. The latter is a Rockefeller Republican and also president pro-tem of the Idaho State Senate. Crapo is also a red-hot member of the LDS Church and holds high office therein in the capacity of bishop and/or stake president.

What does a candidate's church membership have to do with his ability or his qualifications for public office? Everything! Especially in Idaho's 2nd Congressional District wherein Crapo and Glenn vie for the Republican nomination to compete probably against J.D. Williams, who also is a Mormon.

Now back to the interview on the Boise radio talk show. We made the point, or really tried to anyway (I was joined by me colleague and former Idaho GOP legislator, the singularly intelligent Maurice Clements who ran as a Libertarian against liberal Republican Janet Hay of Nampa in 1986) that the Mormon block-vote was "real politik" in Idaho. And whether or not the allegation is true, all (repeat, all) the professional political advisors, whatever that term means, are quick to tell you that it is virtually impossible for a non-Mormon to get elected to important political office in eastern Idaho. If there is one cardinal rule in Idaho politics, that is it.

Let me hasten to add that I've never met a Mormon politico who will say publicly that Mormons do tend to vote as a block. Likewise, I have never met a non-Mormon politico who did not claim Mormons do indeed vote that way. Still, as we tried to say on the above-mentioned interview, the "Mormon card" is played in Idaho politics every year, especially in eastern Idaho where they constitute the overwhelming majority of the population. In other words, whether or not Mormons tend to vote only for their own church members that is easily overwhelming perception. For this reason, if no others, the professional politicians design their campaigns that way. In a word, one could say it is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Mormons seem to have the political power in that way whether they ask for it or not. At least that's sure the way to bet.

Now then, methinks the Mormon Church, per se, does not tell their flock for whom to vote. Instead, those big-members in whom I have confidence tell me, "the church only tells us (1) to vote! And (2) to vote for a nice, upright and moral gentleman (or, one supposes, lady) candidate. They never say for whom."

Fair enough? I'd say yes. But let us be fair another way, too, and quickly admit that in Idaho there exists a large number of Mormon political candidates and when a person drives by a residence whereupon there are a large number of Mormon candidates' yard signs one can almost certainly make a good bet that inside that house resides a member in good standing of--you guessed it--the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Are there exceptions? You bet. You can read about some of them, too, as we explore right here in this column in the next few weeks why and how said "Mormon card," real or perceived, tends unnecessarily to promote so much hatred and misunderstanding.



Kids Become Good Neighbors

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
April 26, 1992


How about some local roses and razzberries--for a change? Change, you'll remember, is what the liberals claim they are for (without limit) and what those self-same liberals claim (with some truth) that conservatives are against. So:

Roses for Bob Sower, local insurance man now semiretired and long, longtime resident of Caldwell, whose current every morning vigil in front of the government post office is a rare treat.

Right out there in front of God and everybody here is a well-known businessman wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with "PEROT 4 President." With clipboard and petition in hand each morning, Sower is gathering signatures to get billionaire Texas businessman H. Ross Perot on the ballot in Idaho. As you may know, the Texan says he will spend $100 of his own money to run for president if the "pee-pull" will get him on the ballot.

Now then, I don't agree with Perot on a host of issues (he's big on statism), but he certainly has won a place in the hearts of many Americans, so I think both he and Sower deserve a decent hearing, plus some applause. But:

Razzberries for most Caldwell businessmen who don't have near the guts--publicly--as both Sower and Perot. They care.

Roses for Sacajawea Elementary School newly atop Canyon Hill in Caldwell. The student council's project headed up by 5th grader President Scot Conley fanned out virtually all over Canyon Hill last month to pick up litter from the streets and parkings of the city's well-trafficked roadways.

All 471 students, grades K through 5 with a few even younger, took part in the school's clean-up, pick-up day effort to be a good neighbor even though hardly any of the brimful and overflowing dumpster's trash came from the students.

Dennis Keogh, talented principal of the brand, spanking (no pun) new school says that even though his pre-schoolers were not allowed off the 10-are "campus" they, too, took pride in the student body's good neighbor gesture clean-up in their own back yard.

Keogh whose dedication to "education" in the broadest sense of the term actually seems to consume him body and soul, morning, noon and, methinks, probably nighttime, too, says he hopes their clean-up-the-hill campaign will get to be an annual event looked forward to by all the students. And the teachers as well. Hooray for the neighbors!

The super-liberal principal of Sacajawea, one of the few liberal educators this writer can stand, (and, by the way, one of the few who sometimes can stand me) says the "new-kids-on-the-block, good neighbor" idea is largely the students' doing. But I'd guess he lies a bit. The whole student project, though of course laudable as can be, has the mark, even the smell (as in a full garbage dumpster?) of Dennis Keogh and his band of 45 teachers and teacher's aides all over it--as I know this fellow only too well. Yet:

Razzberries for Keogh, however, because it's unfortunate that good guys, such as he is, tend to give government schools a good name. And with which, by the way, non-government schools must compete--somewhat unfairly.

Roses for the Centennial Band of Caldwell whose big band of 30 members played a fine potpourri of familiar band music tunes last Tuesday night in Albertson College of Idaho's Jewett Auditorium to a wildly enthusiastic audience of townspeople. (The program named 37 band members). Entitled "Honoring the Memory of Joseph J John (J.J.) Smith 1875-1936," the program also honored F.F. Beale and the lasting legacy of excellence in music these two men left to the then College of Idaho, this community and surrounding area schools.

But what made the evening's fine presentation of even more special, if nostalgic, significance was the huge array of local band members that night, many of whom were so old they were students of both Smith and Beale. Ho ho ho.

Caldwell, just as any city or town, large or small, could be said to "owe" a lot to some special and talented members of the community. But these special people seldom do these things as being "owed" out of a sense of duty. Rather more often they have great fun at it, even a little bit of ego satisfaction perhaps, or so we certainly would hope, anyway.

It could also be said to be a bit like the great Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" or his classic book the Theory of Moral Sentiments. How? These, along with our great local "good-guy" assets are, unfortunately, too often taken for granted. So, hooray for Caldwell again--for a change--for the liberals.

And for the conservatives--some true and great traditions.



Why Should Politics Be Secret?

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
April 19, 1992


A soft political meeting was held last Tuesday evening in the Canyon County Courthouse by the County GOP Central Committee. Why? Well, they have a dilemma.

The official invitation to the meeting said to the effect that each candidate would have "two minutes" to tell his/her story and the group of precinct committeemen would then vote or endorse the one they liked best--maybe! That idea, fortunately and/or unfortunately, was itself voted down because of said dilemma. Or at least what some see as a dilemma. Professor Percival Wesche, the extreme liberal Republican ex-member of the Idaho House of Representatives, urged the Central Committee not to endorse. His reason? "What if we choose to endorse candidate A and then the voters choose candidate B? B would then be the GOP standard bearer. We might end up with egg on our face."

Now then, I seldom agreed with Wesche, a Northwest Nazarene College professor, back when he was in the House but I must admit he has a point. In other words, Wesche seems to be saying: "Let's not make political judgments, publicly, because we might not be seen publicly as capable of making political judgments." Egad!

State Sen. George Vance (R-Wilder) on the other hand made what many at that meeting thought was a fine and impassioned speech inveighing upon his fellow Republicans to take sides--politically.

"That's what we're here for. Isn't it? That's what politics is all about. If we don't know what we are for, then how can we ask folks to vote for our side? No wonder people say there's not a dime's worth of difference between the parties. If we don't understand and stand up for our principles then all we have to offer is a personality-cult." (Vance is clearly a thoughtful and solid conservative).

Again the dilemma: Liberal Republicans from as far back as former House of Representatives member and Caldwellite George Crookham, former Congressman Orval Hansen, former state House of Representatives member Helen McKinney, former Canyon County Chairman Dr. Wil Watkins and many others all urged their comrades to not take sides--publicly. Then after the primary election let's endorse all (repeat all) our Republican comrades to "just be good Republicans." No definitions, mind you. No definitions at all.

The conservative Republicans on the other hand have almost always urged the party to take sides publicly, thus making it more difficult for very liberal Republicans to succeed. They want to run as GOPers because it is very hard to get elected, especially in Canyon County, as a Democrat--where their ideology would ordinarily fit better.

It has little to do with "good guys" and "bad guys" mind you. These are almost all sincere enough people who feel strongly about politics. It is only that they don't like public definitions and thus the battle "rages" on. Mostly under the table--unfortunately. Misunderstandings, too, tend to "rage" on this way, perhaps even more unfortunately. Many well-meaning partisans on both sides of these questions exist everywhere, but their openness is seldom solicited, thus inviting in its place merely a sort of Orwellian chant.

Joseph Sobran, brainy columnist, follower and protege of William F. Buckley writes of a remarkably similar conservative vs. liberal problem in academia:

"The age of the great amateur scholars, writing for open-minded readers rather than for peers already committed to an orthodoxy, seems to be long past.

"I think, for instance, of Henry Hazlitt, a brilliant economic thinker who wrote with unfailing purity of style, only to be snubbed by professional economists for whom (John Maynard) Keynes was the oracle of Official Truth. Keynes is now passe; Hazlitt will remain a joy to read for as long as English is spoken.

"Yet even now, economics professors are apt to shoo their students away from Hazlitt as a vulgar popularizer. The professoriate regards popularizers the way union bosses regard scab labor. They (scabs) undermine the authority of the ("political") profession.

"Official Truth in every field has a way of shrinking the obvious. The underlying principle seems to be that the authority of the professoriate (politicians) depends heavily on the tacit exclusion of the public. Official Truth is the special possession of (those in power). This is (hostile) of course, to free debate."

That is, of course, exactly what so many Republican liberals tend not to want--publicly.



Conservatives Don't Read and Heed

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
April 12, 1992


Former President Jimmy Carter's term in office revealed the futility of something called new Age Liberalism. Mr. Carter adopted New Age foreign policy and many of its domestic bugaboos. It left its effect on Idaho conservatives, too. It still may be doing so even today.

"The foreign policy of George McGovern and the domestic (political) aspirations of Ralph Nader and Ms. Magazine set his agenda. Consequently, Mr. Carter who admittedly was a very bright fellow, probably will go down as the worst president of this century. At least this was the considered opinion of R. Emmett Tyrell Jr., editor-in-chief of American Spectator magazine, way back in 1987.

That conservative publication is a kind of a "yuppie" version of Wm. F. Buckley's famous National Review. Tyrrell is bright, articulate and also conservative in an unusually candid way which accounts for a reader friend of mine passing along to me his article which appeared in the Wall Street Journal.

Lest you think those 1987 observations seem a bit out of date let me say, "No they ain't!" There are several reasons I say that, not the least of which is, I cite the Spectator's criticisms of conservatives because most of them (us?) won't, or at least don't, read very much. Many don't even know who Buckley, America's #1 conservative, is. Or for that matter, few even have read, let alone subscribed, to the old tried and true conservative tabloid Human Events.

Some 40 odd years ago the latter publication was started as a newsletter to expose the extreme left-liberal bias in the media. Today's Human Events shines a welcome and frequent light of exposure on the so-called free press from Insane City, D.C., the headquarters for socialistic "news." Then why do so few conservatives read and heed their own political leader's stories? Good question, since today's media bias is even worse than 40 years ago.

Tyrell, also a syndicated columnist, went on to analyze his constituency in a manner remarkably parallel to my own recap: ". . . Republicans may lose (he meant the Bush/Dukakis election in 1988 in which then candidate Bush "beat-to-death" his opponent with the word "liberal") if their candidate is devoid of conservative ideas . . ." Sad to relate that after his election Bush has been moving ever so slowly, if at all, to implement what Reagan conservatives had hoped for.

Tyrell goes on to explain (remember, this was five years ago) some bad tendencies and characteristics of right-wingers: "The conservatives' weakness is not radicalism or extremism but parochialism (very limited in scope or outlook).

"The ordinary conservative looks within himself and purrs. The ordinary New Age Liberal lets out a roar, organizes ad hoc committees (and) marshals protests! He is political, outgoing and, by my lights, a public nuisance. The conservative rarely reaches out. He is only sporadically political. Often he is hardly social. Conservatives, alas, are narrow. (He could have added they can't seem to handle criticism, either).

"I have been among them for years. Each has one or two solutions to (all) the republic's problems: Supply-side economic education! Beyond their one or two wonder-cures they lose interest . . . only one or two ways (to sell) these to their fellow Americans: Seminars! Position Papers! Political Action!

"Owing to their parochialism they have never quite succeeded in creating a political community comparable to the liberals' community, and they (we?) have no idea of cultural community.

"Conservatives simply do not take much interest in the world around them." Now then, here's where Tyrrell and Smeed may have been "stealing" each other's stuff: "They (conservatives) do not even take an interest in one another's work: and so they rarely have acknowledged leaders in politics, journalism, the academy, or even business . . . and they are supposed to reflect the ideology of business."

Wow! Tyrrell really screwed up royally on that one. Business has no ideology at all. Most of them simply do not know the difference between being pro-business or pro-market. Of those who do, the big ones, hire political goons (lobbyists) whose job it is to "buy" influence. Thus they give money to the left whose socialist ideas prevail, thanks in part to the colleges they've been supporting. Then they resist the free-market right whose advocacy for private property and crusades for less government (e.g., 1 Percent tax limit) turns them off.

You must know what I mean. In other words, both businessmen and conservatives can, at times, be a real pain in the butt. And, believe it or not, their own worst enemy.



Shedding Light on Hidden Forces

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
April 18, 1993


One may wonder today why it is that government grows and grows, yet it seems so many people want it to get smaller. Contradiction? Yes. Justified? Of course not. OK then, what's going on?

Well, there are major forces at work in public affairs that seldom see the light of day. So let us take a look at some of these "forces" and see if we can shed a little light on them. Heaven knows the so-called "heat" we ofttimes try to put on the politicians doesn't work very well. And there's a big variety of weird things that happen complicating things no end. About those complications a few observations:

For example, two Republicans are running for their party's nomination for governor, Chuck Winder of Boise and Phil Batt of Wilder. Both are well known GOPers (the latter has by far the most name recognition) and both are reported in the press as bragging on the current Democrat and governor-forever, Cecil Andrus. Interestingly enough, Andrus has been in office so long he has personally appointed the entire membership of the Idaho State Supreme Court. All liberals, or, if you like, all statists. This may not complicate things for the liberals, but it most certainly does for the non-liberals. So:

Back to Batt and Winder. I jumped right astraddle the latter's back during a visit with him recently as to why he bragged publicly on Andrus. Winder said, "He's a friend of mine, and I like the guy."

So, he's a friend of mine, too, Chuck, but I'm not running against much of what he stands for. You are. And you're sending weird signals. Certainly Andrus has expanded state government via both tax and regulation and the number of government employees far more than any governor in Idaho history.

In the respect he is not only liberal, but more particularly severe statist of the first water. I admit he has a keen sense of humor and can be a lot of fun. But he also plays political hardball--unnecessarily. He is also politically astute. But the suspicion lingers: how astute would he be were it not for the excessively liberal media who often leap, yes leap, to endorse his liberal policies or cover up for him?

Winder reminded me, much to my chagrin, that Batt had also bragged publicly on Andrus. (Remember, both these GOPers are asking their party for the political right to oppose the Andrus-Democrat-socialist legacy). True enough, I remembered, but two wrongs do not a right maketh.

Still, his point lingered, so I asked Batt last week: "Why? Et tu Brutus?" Forgive me if I paraphrase the great Shakespeare. But it fits. Batt plays golf with Andrus and has said publicly, before, that he was friendly with the state's No. 1 popular populist politician. Nothing wrong with that, by the way, but stay tuned.

So it was with some disgust and some dismay Batt gave me the usual, (cir) "I was misquoted." This writer, like most of you, has heard that line before. I also know it is socially fashionable, if slightly phony, to attach one's self to popular public pacesetters. Still, Batt went to some lengths to give details in his defense, thus leading me toward his credibility. He told me verbally, then followed it up in a letter.

"The best I remember the Press-Tribune interview went like this (not verbatim) (Batt's own caveat):

"Reporter: How do you appraise the Andrus reign?

"Batt: I'm not particularly critical of Andrus. He's been a strong leader and not afraid to take a stand. Idaho is in good shape compared with most other states fiscally.

"However, this was due to the conservative Legislature holding down his spending and regulatory plans. They served as an anchor on him." (End of interview) (Batt's letter continues):

"The latter part was left out or soft-pedaled. I called, I believe, (editor) Wayne Cornell and told him so. He said he would check the reporter and straighten it out. I never saw any more about it. (Signed) Phil."

His letter was postmarked April 13, 1993, and I quote it in exact detail not only to clear up one of what I call "weird things" complicating public personalities and events, but also because it is not uncommon for this column to be critical of Batt. Indeed, it is still this writer's opinion that he is, generally speaking, more of an interventionist liberal than need be.

But his letter indicates to me he deserves better than he got.



Andrus, Smeed Trade Humor

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
April 11, 1993


"Humor," said the sage, "is God's hand on the shoulder of a quaking world."

It is, of course, a quaking world where politicians are concerned and one dare not tell a joke any more because jokes have a way of becoming law. But two jokes took place in my presence concerning two liberal politicians which make fine examples of political humor in the best sense of the term. One was recent, one quite some time ago, but heaven knows we need some mirth nowadays, so I'll share both with you. They are absolutely true, but then truth is always funnier than fiction.

The most recent episode took place in Caldwell at Albertson College's benefit auction to raise money for student scholarships. It's an annual affair of considerable social import and one of the area's biggest social events. It was held on the beautiful huge gymnasium floor of AC of I's brand new athletic center last Saturday nite.

We arrived prior to the main event during the time allotted for the patrons to mosey around and make bids in the silent auction portion of the affair. Lots of good quality items were donated and displayed for which we could put down a written bid. If your name was last (thus the highest) on the list when the gavel sounded you bought the item.

The highlight advertised for the evening was Gov. Cecil Andrus, also a trustee of the college, who was to auction off the privilege of naming a wild bucking Brahma bull in Caldwell's big night rodeo next August. That rodeo will be broadcast on nationwide TV, by the way, thus providing someone with big-time notoriety to name said bull, e.g., after their mother-in-law.

I spotted by friend Andrus standing alone reading the program for the evening's events, so I approached him with a color photo of my huge highway reader-board at the entrance of the city. It advertised the evening's bash saying, "Attend 'Evening in Paris' (the night's theme) Sat. Nite April 2/Albertson College's Benefit Auction/Will Capitalism Benefit, too?/Don't Bet On It/Come Bid Anyway."

Now then, like the popular governor-trustee, the college's political philosophy is liberal as all get-out, thus for many decades they have taken little pride in extolling the virtues of capitalism. Andrus has learned to expect such caterwauling about the subject from me, albeit in good enough humor, so a big laugh was enjoyed by us both, at his expense--sort of.

I said, "Keep the photo, Cece, and show it to that other socialist who manages your office." He knew I meant my extreme liberal friend and nemesis Mark Johnson, the governor's chief aide. Incidentally, Mark was formerly public affairs head for the excessively left-liberal government TV (PBS) station Ch. 4 in Boise, about which more later.

After out mutual mirth, Andrus resumed reading, even pondering over his program of events for the evening. Thus he puzzled: "I'm supposed to auction off a bull tonight. Gee whiz, a bull isn't something I know very much about."

I laughed, as you might imagine, but quick as a wink and with great gusto and aplomb as though the famous Cecil B. DeMille himself had staged it, I retorted:

"Cecil, there's a lot of things you don't know very much about but bull ain't one of them." A roar of good humored and mutual hollering ensued and we parted, each with a knowing grin.

Well, again, as you might wonder, did Andrus get even? Yep. Well, sort of. During a lull in his "auctioneering" off the naming of the rodeo bull, Andrus said, "Come on now, you folks, bid some more on this. I think a great name for the bull would be Ralph Smeed!"

It's unfortunate for those of us who burn for less government that the governor has, in addition to keen political (if left-wing) insight, such a keen sense of humor. In any event the evening was very much a success.

About the governor's chief aide Johnson: Both of us were attending a GOP Convention at Sun Valley some years ago while he was still at Government TV (Ch. 4). I invited him to view a brilliant video tape on a pragmatic political philosophy. He explained he could not do so for at least a month or two because he and David Leroy were leaving in two days on a study tour of the then Soviet Russia. So, I inquired: "Now Mark, just what in the world could the Communists possibly teach you that you don't already know?" We both laughed uproariously.

Did he get even? Yep. He got out of the left liberal media and into the left-liberal government.



Road to Winning Strewn with Hurdles

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
April 5, 1992


Why is it conservatives lose even though in many states, including Idaho, "we" outnumber the liberals?

Great question? Yes. Then why did three good-quality conservatives last week give me fits when I insisted they were wrong with their responses? Almost in complete unison each insisted the reasons we lose (true enough, we do win a few, but only a few) are the old hackneyed phrases and excuses:

(1) We are forced to sell our ideas and people through a hostile news media and (2) our traditional ideas and concepts are continually put down and pooh-poohed by almost every college professor on America's 3,500 campuses and (3) the thousands of bureaucrats, state and federal, are almost all liberals or at least vote their pocketbooks and the ones who do have the courage to dissent publicly, like the infinitesimal number of non-statist professors, are held up to ridicule by their peers. And on and on into the evening's lively discussion, much of which was beating me on the head with their rubber hoses.

Of course, organized labor unions were also cited by my friendly critics as a terrible problem to conservatives as are the powerful teacher's union, Idaho Education Association (IEA) and the 800-pound gorilla of political influence, the National Education Association (NEA). The latter's astronomical sums of money are well used to perpetuate their virtual death-hold on American schooling. They fought the voucher system for decades, since they hate competition except under their direct, dictatorial and left-wing control.

Our argument, although pleasant, was lively and spirited as my critics lit into me for suggesting that conservatives themselves (ourselves?) were largely at fault for the demise of traditional values--things we hold dear in public affairs.

Well, they said, what about the huge and seminal influence of the Establishment's liberal foundations that serve as think tanks and advocate every kind of left-of-center idea one can imagine? They refer, of course, to the Rockefeller, Carnegie and Ford foundations about which we've all heard so much and about whose influence and tax-exempt status our side has done almost nothing. (True enough the John Birch Society has hollered to the high heavens about left-wing foundations for decades, but our gosh-almighty social status keeps us from giving them moral support).

Well, it took me the better part of an hour to get their attention, but then it came as a sort of quiet "revelation" that conservatives could be both sincere and intelligent on the one hand while at the same time ineffective and wrong on the other. How so?

There are numerous other hurdles that keep conservatives from winning political and philosophical battles many of which are unfair, unreasonable, unintelligent and downright unreal. (One of those in my little discussion group was an important member of the Idaho Legislature). "So," I said, "all those reasons you cite as to why we cannot seem to prevail, even when we know we are in the right--are true. But, 'my good legislative friend,' just how many press releases have you yourself issued in this session?" A puzzled look on his face, he admitted "None! But the damn media probably wouldn't use them if I had." To which I retorted that if you don't shoot you dang sure miss. The lawmaker said, "Well, I guess you're right."

I went further, asking how many newsmen have you bought a drink for, a cup of coffee or lunch during this session in order to explain a concept you liked or an idea he (the media person) did not like? Or, one he or she perhaps misunderstood or even screwed up a couple of times. We seldom make an opportunity to break bread with them.

And how often do conservatives (remember this includes libertarians, too) give enthusiastic moral support to others with whom we agree on matters with which we are not particularly responsible--directly? Such followership is what energizes leadership and its absence accounts to a large degree for our lack of leadership in many arenas. It's true that some self-appointed "leaders" attempt to demand a sort of blind-faith rubber stamp followership based mostly on what they see as your (our?) sense of duty to the "office" of leader. But it amounts to a kind of personality-cult that wants to demand allegiance to a person rather than to clearly defined principles.

To merely spout: "Let's be Republicans" is shabby and a shameful response. Sincere maybe, but almost without meaning.

My most vocal critic of the evening said, "You know something? I guess I never thought of it that way." We all agreed that it's about time.



More on Why Conservatives Lose

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
March 29, 1992


Four things happened last week which impel me to forego again the series I've been doing on why the conservatives lose, even though they probably outnumber the liberals.

The passing last Monday of Nobel prize winner Friedrick A. Hayek was the first of now five Libertarians to win the Nobel since he got it for economics in 1974. His was followed by Milton Friedman, George Stigler, both then of University of Chicago, then James Buchanan of George Mason University's School of Public Choice and last year Chicago's Ronald Coase.

Libertarians simply can no longer be called kooks.

If America's left-leaning media were not so ideologically left-leaning the libertarian schools of thought would now be playing a more important role in national affairs, e.g., the Libertarian Party candidate's vote totals received for president of the United States in the 1988 election were boycotted by the media. So much for the "people's right-to-know," so garishly touted by media moguls.

Vis-a-vis my temporarily suspended series on why conservatives (broadly defined to include Libertarians) lose I suppose I should add that most conservatives will not know about the great Hayek's passing. Why? Two reasons: (1) the major media refuse to see it as very newsworthy. Indeed, if his philosophy had been sympathetic to the communistic idea spectrum he'd no doubt have received huge coverage and accolades from all over the world.

And (2), most of the conservatives have never heard of the great Austrian economic philosopher whose distinguished career and decades of teaching in many American universities as well as European, escapes their attention. This is partly due to the sham-liberal media who report on intellectual matters both on and off campus as well as the sham-liberal left-leaning majority of professors all over America.

But I would be less than honest if I did not say what is not only sad and true and worse. It is also one of the major reasons conservatives tend to lose. That is the sad fact they don't seem to care about the theory of anything, anything, anything. I'm sorry, but until this tendency is both noted and admitted we will continue to lose.

There is so much to say about the great Hayek whose Nobel prize came mostly because of his book The Road to Serfdom, but his continuing efforts in behalf of private property, and the free, spontaneous market will be sorely missed by many of us who knew him.

Another big item in last week's Wall Street Journal: "California Gov. Pete Wilson just told the state's manufacturers to quite giving money to Democrats. Business leaders, he said, are "DAMN FOOLS" (my emphasis) to help allies of trial lawyers, the welfare lobby and the tax-and-regulate (bureaucrats and politicians)."

Wow! Bang, Bang and attention please to Idaho's GOP chief Phil Batt, U.S. Sen. Larry Craig and other establishment party "regulars."

Item three from last week's four big news items was the government TV's (PBS-TV Boise Channel 4) General Manager Jerry Garber's open letter (mailed at government expense, by the way) to U.S. Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho). The letter loudly protested the senator's vote against the left-leaning, if popular, Idaho public television (read,
government television) station's request for more federal funds. (The vote could have been on the National government TV's budget (PBS-TV).

As of this writing Craig was unavailable for comment when I called his office, but this is a big deal, folks, about which more later. Still again, "our" Channel 4 is interestingly yet another reason why conservatives lose, i.e., its programming and personnel, both state and national, liberally favors the liberals.

And now item four from last week's big deals: As my friend and public affairs specialist Monte Munn (he's my witness, so take heed) and I returned from a trip to Coeur d'Alene late one night we entered the men's washroom in the Sinclair (formerly Phillips 66) Oil Co. truck stop on the freeway in Caldwell just east of the city. Their restrooms do not furnish paper towels. Instead they use the familiar high-speed, hot-air machines to blow-dry one's hands after washing. The blower, as you know, is activated by a large round metal push-button.

Now the news: On the face of the hot-air machine's big round metal button some wise-guy had placed a nice, neat and plainly printed sticker. It said, "PUSH here to get a message from Congress."

I hope said "wise-guy" was (is) a conservative, though I doubt it. One reason liberals often win is that they are better word-manipulators. But right or left, his on-target political perception was . . . dead center, Right?



Do We Name Names, Apply Labels?

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
March 22, 1992


Last week's column brought the following criticism: "I agree with practically everything you have to say in most of your columns, Ralph, but I think you (we) would be more convincing if you would not name names." In other words he thought we'd get more done if we didn't risk irritating anybody.

Now then, my critic is a politician and not only conservative, but he's thoughtful, considerate, and gives a damn for something besides his own ego. Best of all, perhaps, he's intelligently right of center and usually wants less government--though not always.

But given today's penchant for statism in public policy matters, one is hard pressed to find writers and politicians who press for market-economy ideas made within a private property order. This writer, then, sees it as his mandate not only to press for these non-collective ideas but to oppose the collectivist (socialist) ones. And to articulate the reasoning in both cases. That is to say, I try to be "positive" in terms of how the private sector can almost always perform better and cheaper than government when decent and honest study is given to the matter in question.

Likewise I try to be "negative" and to articulate that side's shortcomings when more government (statism) is proposed to solve every problem from womb to tomb.

I use quotation marks above on both the words, positive and negative, simply because, as the liberal media uses these terms, they have a double-meaning. This is an extremely important facet of the problem when one considers the fact that conservatives are usually forced to articulate their ideas in and through a hostile liberal media.

Now then, if one is to make policy ideas clear and the results likely to follow from those ideas understandable--as in cause and effect--one has a big job. Why? Two reasons: (1) people have ideas and people "cuss" and discuss them. People vote and abstain from voting. (It is often seen by politicians and educators, by the way, as more disgusting when folks don't vote at all than when they vote wrong. That may seem odd, except when one considers that both the establishment press and the establishment politicians feel that they risk their mis-labeled playhouse may collapse if people refuse to play their little "insiders" game). And (2) politicians and intellectuals also have ideas, votes--and names. The former probably have more power, thus should be identified by name.

Politicians tend to suck and blow in the same breath, hence the public, many of whom sense something is rotten in politics anyway, pay too little careful attention to what the politicians promise and what they subsequently deliver.
These politicians, who are also powerful in terms of ideas, tend to try to overstate some ideas and understate others.

Some of this is due to duplicity, some to honest difference of opinion, but a lot is based on the ego of getting and being in office. Stupidity, too, may play a bigger part in the entire confused state of our excessive government than is generally understood. Thus it's small wonder the public is confused about whom to support or oppose.

So what to do? A good question to which there is a good answer, namely, to name names and apply labels as best we can. Remember, it is not labeling, per se, that causes problems. It is rather mis-labeling. Words are merely labels and are absolutely necessary to communication among both people of goodwill and people of ill will. It is appropriately called accountability.

We must be careful then, not to mislabel, but to be clear, accurate and as intelligent as possible in the latter arena where the conservative, libertarian, individualist or what Dr. Murry Rothbard of the University of Nevada calls the "Old Right" suffer most. These are the activists who "press for less." For example, in their (our) opinion Thomas Jefferson, who was a leader of the mostly libertarian founding fathers, said: "That government governs best that governs least." A great bid for less government. But:

Boise Mayor Dirk Kempthorne, who until recently when Boise conservative and ex-Rep. Rod Beck threw his hat into the ring, was the heir apparent to outgoing U.S. Sen. Steve Symms, egregiously bastardized the great Jefferson's quote. Dirk had to know better, but he said: "That government governs best that governs closest to the people," (My emphasis). A damn lie? Hard to say.

But Kempthorne said it. Not Beck. Not Smith. Not Jones. Not Brown. Not even Rep. Richard Stallings (D-Idaho); his competitor.

Hell, neither one likes a lot less government, for example, the 1 Percent Tax Limit Initiative.

Now then, should we name names? Or not?



America's Great Work Ethic Is Lost

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
March 15, 1992


Here's another little "guided missile" in the series to examine where the conservative majority went. And, maybe more importantly, why?

Not wanting to lose the support of those remaining conservatives, be they few or many, let me hasten to add that "the beginning of wisdom is the recognition of one's ignorance." In other words, how in the world, or perhaps why in the world, would you want to improve if you did not think you were at least somewhat ignorant? So, on the premise that our side doesn't know it--all--here goes:

"Why doesn't America work? Why do Americans produce less than ever before? Why do we put out shoddy products that fail in world markets? Why is American business and government riddled with corruption? Why do millions of Americans live year after year--in prison or on welfare checks--not allowed to work?

"And why do American school children graduate from schools that have become war zones, without working for their grades and without the skills to find jobs? "Because America has lost the work ethic that once made her great."

Such is part of the introduction to Chuck Colson's new book Why American Doesn't Work. It is co-authored by Jack Eckerd a drug store chain founder and tycoon, but folks are more apt to remember Colson as special council to then President Richard Nixon from 1969 to 1973.

Colson served a short prison term after the Watergate mess and since then has become famous as a nationally known speaker on prison reform, the work ethic, the dignity of work and restoring our businesses to their former levels of excellence, so that "made in the USA" is a stamp of pride and confidence.

It's a great book and would be more than a good buy at twice the price. But it overlooks some frighteningly crucial concepts. One of those concepts is that most conservatives (not all) have allowed it to happen. What do I mean by "allowed"? Well, consider these generalizations:

The conservatives have bellyached about deficit spending for decades. (Remember the last time the U.S. had a balanced budget was once under President Eisenhower and once under President Johnson. Yet the spending has skyrocketed every year since.

Conservatives have for years criticized too much spending and too little excellence in the government schools. Yet the spending has skyrocketed almost every year since WWII and not only have the SAT test scores plummeted, in most states, the quality has been a disaster. Some of the technology admittedly has been spectacular, but insofar as values are concerned, e.g., the arts and humanities, the word disaster is actually an understatement.

U.S. Education Secretary Terrell Bell (formerly of Idaho) headed up a top flight blue-ribbon committee to investigate education reform back in 1983. It was called The National Commission on Education Excellence and, surprise, surprise, it received huge stories in the national media--believe or not.

Entitled "A Nation at Risk" the report's most famous quote heard around the world was: "If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose in America the educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war." Plain enough?

Yes, it was indeed plain. So plain the fact that the conservatives must have rubbed their (our?) palms, then sat back and waited for Rockefeller liberals who "own" the education establishment to roll over in agony and ask for forgiveness.

But they did just the opposite. The libs became more active and more vehement than ever. And with mostly great success. It is now worse than ever.

Just look at the test scores and to whom the National Endowment for the Arts gives tax money--for pornography yet.

Where were the conservatives all this time? I'll tell you where: In the shadows of public policy formation shouting (or was it grumbling?) Bah humbug."

And Bah humbug it was, or is, but the libs rolled up their socialist sleeves and went to work for even more statism. The conservatives mostly humped up and hunkered down. As it worsens each year the GOP libs plead "me-too."

Too few conservatives, you say? No! Not enough zeal and commitment among us. It's just that simple--conservatives by nature seem to fear zealousness.

Yet consider what a few environmental crazies, militant feminists and committed homosexuals have "accomplished," mostly by running into the streets with the liberal zeal--and lots of moral support for one another.



Conservatives Should Learn to Read

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
March 8, 1992


This is the third in a series of columns wherein I am suggesting that perhaps the conservatives were (are) more a part of today's public policy problems than one might have thought.

All of this, of course, tends to be seen as a sort of political "blasphemy" by most conversatives who in all honesty seem to have much greater difficulty dealing with dissent and likewise dissenters within their own ranks than do the liberals.

One supposes this stems at least partly from the traditionalism which is sort of "glue" that tends to hold together much of the conservatives' political stance.

"If it works--don't fix it," say the conservatives. That is a pretty good cliche, too, especially in these days of foolish and rapid change much of which is mere change just for the sake of change. Indeed, most of today's public policy is dominated, if not absolutely controlled, by the liberals, many of whom are Republicans, but most of whom are Democrats. These folks tend to dislike if not abhor the status-quo (traditional) values even to the extreme of actual removal of college Courses entitled Western Civilization-101. It works, too.

One of the most seminal and influential places one can find examples of such is on America's 3,300 college and university campuses, most of which are bastions of modern anti-capitalism and excessively liberal thought. Small wonder, since the schools treat political activism as a religion.

Charles J. Sykes author of the path-breaking book Prof-Scam: Professors and the Demise of Higher Education outlines the problem in blunt yet readable and forthright terms. But conservatives tend to write and read quite a bit less, unfortunately, than liberals, hence, are much less articulate when explaining their views.

Author Sykes, seeming to understand the conservative's lack in making the case for their values, wrote an insightful sequel to his Prof-Scam. It was republished in 1990 by Regnery Gateway and entitled The Hollow Men: Politics and Corruption in Higher Education. In the latter book Sykes lays out how we conservatives, collectively speaking, have allowed the ideological noxious weeds to take over the academic idea-countryside on 95 percent of the above-mentioned 3,300 campuses. Says Syke's publisher of The Hollow Men:

"When most parents pack their children off to college, they expect that their tuition money will go for lectures on Shakespeare, American constitutional history, Aristotle, Plato, chemistry, physics, foreign languages, mathematics, etc.

"This, however, is precisely what all too many students are being denied by professors and administrators who have devised curriculums to suit themselves rather than their students and who are more interested in political indoctrination than in the great books of the Western tradition. (It's still going on today, by the way).

"At prestigious Stanford, that university's course in Western civilization was gutted to pacify the demands of the Black Student Union--"We don't want to read any more dead white guys." So Homer, Dante, Luther, Darwin and Freud stepped aside (i.e., were thrown out) to make room for the writings of Algerian terrorist Frantz Fanon." Yet so very little public outrage is heard from the right.

My own personal acquaintance with the former director of Stanford's Hoover Institution, the only on-campus conservative/libertarian "light" worthy to the label, convinces me that that university's professors and administrators are either of extreme left-wing persuasion or don't give a damn. I mean about their student's right to hear the Hoover Institution's non-collectivist side of the world's great controversies, both philosophical and ideological.

And the Women's Studies courses from whence cometh the rabid, raunchy and near-fanatic feminist movement is no different. Its hostile, intolerant and anti-conservative values are likewise one-sided, extreme and left-liberal, yet most conservatives, even today, fall all over themselves to send their kids to these idea "farms" to harvest their enemy's ideological and intellectual food-for-thought. Small wonder we lose.

So let's hope the traditional conservatives, who care, read and heed this one--for change. But then, let us not hold our breath, either, waiting for them to learn to enjoy reading--via the government's compulsory school system.



GOP Libs Should Join Demos

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
March 1, 1992


As this little series of "radical" commentary goes now into its third "chapter" I must report some vigorous dismay at my suggestion that the conservatives were possibly, even mostly, to blame for the state of the nation's and Idaho's mess. Let me explain:

In terms of political parties, the Republicans tend to be more conservative than are the Democrats. This is, of course, a generalization. But in discussing public affairs one simply must generalize a good bit, since one cannot possibly state everything about everything. Also, one must make a few assumptions.

Therefore let's assume for the moment that President George Bush is (was then) a conservative when he pledged:
"Read my lips; no new taxes." He pledged also to veto any sort of affirmative action bill that even looked like it could be interpreted as a quota for racial purposes. He also properly vowed to demand a big cut in the capital gains tax. As of today it looks like he has waffled on all three of his biggest and best promises.

So what does all this tell us about conservatives and how are they at fault? Well, allow me to over simplify so it won't be so boring. It is actually quite exciting, partly because these matters affect a lot of big names and partly because our middle-class culture can stand only a limited amount of abuse after which the roof caves in. Remember what happened to pre-World War II Germany after their financial collapse when it took a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread. Remember, too, that Germany had a centuries older, more sophisticated and highly educated civilization than the one we had before World War I, i.e., it can happen here. (Note how our national debt is real and exploding).

Okay, what could conservatives do in the case of Bush's apparent inability to get his way with Congress? First of all, they could have better articulated the fact that Bush was not a conservative except by comparison with the socialist policies advocated by Michael Dukakis in particular, and the Democrats in general. If they had done this, the genuine conservatives would not now be "responsible" for Bush & Co. But, admittedly, they would have had to be candid and enthusiastic.

Yet on a more practical note let's look at his capital gains tax cut proposal. Bush's Democrat pal, House Majority Whip Dan Rostenkowski and other Democrats claim the tax cut plan is merely to give a tax break to the rich. It's simply the old politics of envy.

But the so-called GOP conservatives merely line up, crying "It's not true; it's not true. It is not a tax break for the rich" It is as if to say, "We, too, are against the rich just as the Democrats are. We care, too, for the working class and the poor."

Balderdash! Capital gains tax cuts are indeed for the rich (the producing capitalists). Who else can use a capital gains tax reduction if not someone who has "jobs-creating" money or assets at least? In a non-communist society like ours virtually all assets are owned by individuals or private organizations--not the state; hence the "rich," i.e., those who own assets must of necessity be, if not filthy rich, then rich enough to use a tax cut. These are mostly middle class.

Conservatives often come to seek political office brown nosin', so severely and with such passion that they hear only the left-wing demagogues such as Rostenkowski putting up on them a guilt-trip. Why don't the conservatives tell it like it is? Unless--could it be that the schools and the media won't let us sell the public on the truth?

Communist-type ideas, or, if you'd rather, socialist type ideas are almost all that the Democrats have to offer to the public in order to buy votes--with the "pee-pull's money, of course. But nobody effectively tells this.

You may say that the liberal GOPers are "just as much at fault as the conservatives, but I will not agree. It is the conservative's part of the political process that has been stolen by the GOP liberals who should more properly be in the Democrat party. Thus it's up to the conservatives to do their capitalistic homework and show their left-wing GOP comrades how much like the socialist Democrats they are. That way the liberal Republicans would have no choice but to retreat with a more honest guilt-trip over to the Democrat side where they belong--else they would have to shape up.
After that the idea of capitalism could compete with the idea of socialism.

But the Republican conservative "leaders" actually refuse to advocate capitalism for fear of being labeled radical kooks by the socialist-liberal news media. Egad. No wonder we lose.

The pragmatics of principle seem not to enlist their righteous and enthusiastic zeal any longer as it did once before in the forward-looking libertarian days of Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith.



Half-Truths Are Coin of Politics

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
February 23, 1992


Last week we began a little miniseries (it's a bigger subject than most folks think) in this column on just why conservatives seem to far outnumber liberals, yet the latter's influence gets bigger every year.

You may remember that when GOPer George Bush campaigned against Democrat Michael Dukakis for president of the United States he (Bush) beat Dukakis to death by calling him a liberal at every turn of the road. And it worked. Half-truths are the coin of politics.

Bush did make some loud noises tending to sound like a conservative and indeed, by comparison, there was some truth therein. But it was because Dukakis was such an extreme liberal--not the fact that Bush was so much a conservative. Don't forget that then Sen. Dan Quayle (R-Ind.)--a card-carrying conservative--was chosen by the quite liberal Bush in order to balance the ticket. In fact, balancing the Reagan-Bush GOP ticket in 1980 was the precise reason that the liberal Bush was put up to "balance" the conservative Ronald Reagan's ticket.

Even ex-U.S. Sen. Barry Goldwater, the lion of the "responsible right" (note how the media never refers to the "responsible" left, since they see fit to question no liberals, none, as irresponsible) balanced his 1964 presidential ticket with Bill Miller a more or less obscure running mate for V/P, but one with fairly liberal credentials.

So what's all this have to do with why such a large conservative constituency loses so very often to the liberals--over so many years? Everything! For beginners, let us look at some examples which cause so much confusion:

Much of the muddle, of course, has to do with partisan party politics as in Republicans and Democrats. Or, as Prof. Richard Ebeling of Michigan's Hillsdale College, one of the nation's few non-leftist but first-class liberal arts colleges labels them: "Remocrats and Depublicans." (Sic) Each party is anxious to have it both ways, i.e., never mind there is scarcely a "dime's worth of difference" between the two parties. Each wants the power and the glory without accountability.

It is too bad, too. The Democrats, for the most part, have only more socialism to solve every problem there is--both real and imagined. But they steadfastly refuse that label. Republicans, on the other hand, tend to exploit a similar abuse of statism (read, government) but with one particular difference. They claim to be against socialism which, plainly defined, means government ownership of property. In other words, the private-property Republicans welcome government control so as to limit the competition. Sort of a distinction without a difference.

If all this seems quite complicated or obscure you are beginning to get the message. It is both. Why? Well, the late, great public speaking and psychology genius Dale Carnegie told us exactly why. Said he, "For everything people do they have two reasons, (1) a real reason and (2) another one that sounds good." Same in politics.

Neither political party, of course, wants to admit their real reasons, hence they berate each other's motives and exploit the people's tendency toward envy and jealousy. About the only thing the public can tell from all this monkey-business is which candidate has the "best" personality. This, then, has just one outcome, namely, a personality cult. It succeeds or fails based on who can raise the biggest pile of money to pay for the television and news media crusade.

Other things being equal--money prevails. Thus it is the public's mental laziness and tendency for dull-wittedness that leads most politicians to spend so many millions for "show business" politics instead of the "politics of principle" as it should be.

This situation, wherein the parties stand for everything for everybody with all sides and all ideas equal, i.e., atheists, mugwumps, Christians, religionists, socialists, capitalists, conservatives, liberals, etc., etc., ad infinitum, accounts for just why state GOP Chairman Phil Batt refuses to discriminate between his Democrat-liberal type candidates, and his Republican-conservative candidates.

It is sad, and far too phony. This is why there are so few young idealists in today's GOP. They see through the intellectual dishonesty of it all and stay away in droves.

Now, why do the conservative Republicans in both state and national politics seem to be losing their ideas and ideals at the hands of the left-leaning Democrats?

It is because the left-leaning liberals in the Republican party are more aggressive and more "consistent" and thus more communicative and successful at selling--socialism--to their colleagues.



Liberals Good at Fooling Us

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
February 16, 1992


Today begins a series of columns I have wanted to write for a long, long time, i.e., just why is it that Americans are largely political conservatives yet the liberals seem to own and control more and more of the political establishment each year? Particularly at the federal level.

Barry Goldwater, the chief of America's conservative conscience, told us years ago America was conservative. Yes, my friends, "in your heart you know he was right." At least he was, back in the early 1960s when Barry was the only man in modern times to be literally drafted to run for president of the United States. He didn't want the job.
Remember? But his defeat paved the way for Ronald Reagan.

It is not the federal level alone, however, which is "owned" by the liberals. The Idaho State Senate has become almost a vast wasteland for what was once the political ranch of the conservative cowboys. True enough, the Idaho House of Representatives probably has twice the number of conservatives as the Senate but they all seem hell-bent to be re-elected, hence the gut wagon is virtually driverless and leaderless.

Leadership, however one slices it, is a market phenomenon. That is to say, leaders rise out of the group to "lead" whatever philosophy that dominates the group during the period in question, i.e., if a generally liberal or a generally conservative mentality predominates, then a kind of leader will emerge to "represent" that particular mentality. Sad maybe, but oh so true--with but few exceptions.

House Speaker Tom Boyd (R-Genesee) and Senate Pro-Tem Mike Crapo (R-Idaho Falls) tend to be classic examples of "Smeed's law" i.e., leaders emerge to represent whatever is the dominant thrust of the group--even if it be flabby, dull and ambiguous, which it is--and which Boyd and Crapo are--or tend to be. Likewise, if the group is filled with freedom fighters who want less government and more individual freedom and responsibility then a "leader" of that same persuasion will emerge.

It is true, of course, that "perception is truth," hence what the congressmen and or the legislators perceive to be the case is the direction they will tend to follow. Anything, anything to get re-elected. Much of this is almost totally dictated by the news media, of course, which is itself disgustingly liberal (read, statist).

If you are saying to yourself that this isn't necessarily true you are correct. It isn't--necessarily. There is a time lag between these influences of cause and effect, not unlike when the rudder is turned on a giant battleship at full speed out at sea. It takes time and sometimes there are winds and undercurrents one cannot see or feel until some of the forces subside or are laid bare.

As Franklin Roosevelt used to say: "In politics, nothing happens by accident." So just be patient and perceptive and you, too, will see. That is, of course, if you care, use your head, and keep up a healthy skepticism. Unfortunately, since WWII more government gets damn little skepticism.

So you may well ask, just what happened to turn the Legislature and the Congress, if you like, from really quite conservative organizations into really quite liberal ones?

Well, a great many forces, both seen and unseen, are always at work. Politics and people are full of these various forces. History, by almost any author is always testimony to these forces, but Americans don't read, or at least they don't heed, history. It is rightly said that the only thing Americans learn from history is that they don't learn anything from history.

Maybe it's the school textbooks. Maybe it's the teachers. But the great historian, Will Durant, a pretty liberal fellow, by the way, said: "It may be true that you cannot fool all the people all the time, but you can fool enough of them to rule a large country. So just what is it that accounts for the liberals' success at "fooling" so many more people so successfully in American politics?

I am about to tell you, gentle reader. In the next few weeks you may be told right here in this column that the problem in Idaho, and to a large extent in the national scene, is that we conservatives are the problem. Liberals, too, are bad. But our side has become almost impotent. We must discover why.

Believe it or not, my conservative credentials are almost impeccable and my libertarian ones are pretty good, too. Consequently, since we desperately need a whistle-blower in both camps, I plan to do just that--in the following weeks.

So stay tuned.



All Media Play the 'Word Game'

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
February 9, 1992


If there is anything this country needs it is competition--that is to mean, ideological competition, by, for and through the news media.

Oh, sure, there is indeed competition for the advertising dollar, but even there market share for newspapers seems to be on the decline all over America. It's too bad, too, especially when our government schools seem to have such a hard time teaching students to read and write and form a coherent and well-reasoned paragraph of prose. Reading, including, maybe even especially, newspapers, tends to improve one's depth perceptions about people, things, ideas and concepts. Both when they are right and when they are wrong. We need competitors to think. TV, for example, is so superficial it's not much help for competing idea-people to think, study and reason.

But the competition to which I want to call your attention is competition concerning statist (government-loving) ideas having to do with public policy. On the other hand, non-statist ideas seem to get short shrift, i.e., about the same attention a bastard child tends to get at a family reunion. Let me illustrate:

Sometimes it's in the headlines. A recent huge headline in an excessively statist Idaho newspaper read: "1 Percent Plan could cost Ada (County) $30 million." That is a statist headline. A headline by a competing non-statist paper or written by a non-statist headline writer on a similar matter would have read:

"1 Percent plan could save Ada County taxpayers $30 million." The subject, of course, was the current controversy about the 1 Percent Tax Limit Initiative on private property. This is a plan for less government, something which that particular paper usually hates. Darned few exceptions.

Now then, the "word game" in general is forever played in all forms of media: newspapers, radio, TV, books, magazines and, believe you me, government-school textbooks. The latter, by the way, is no doubt where said media bias gets its inspiration, since a steady stream of it flows consistently off the campuses of America's 3,500 left-leaning colleges and universities.

Another headline in that same super-statist newspaper recently told of President Bush's much heralded State of the Union message. It read: "Bush's tax plan robs the poor; gives to the rich." Egad. Even their liberal reporter's story did not justify that.

To their credit they later published sort of a "CYA" type apology in which they admitted getting 50 or 60 irate phone calls on the headline. Then they even published a guest opinion ever so severely critical of their typically liberal faux pas. Said guest opinion was by Professor Allen Dalton, directory of the now Boise-based Center for Market Alternatives (CSMA) an especially anti-statist, libertarian group.

Non-competitive statism holds sway even in the Associated Press (AP) whose news and opinions permeate most of Idaho's "news" which goes out on the wire services. This goes out all over Idaho, the nation and to some foreign countries as well. A recent opinion column by the liberal statist, Quayne Kenyon, the Boise Chief of AP, slanted a story about the Idaho GOP primary congressional race between Goldwater-type conservative Gary Glenn of Boise and Rockefeller liberal Mike Crapo of Idaho Falls. Kenyon said that Glenn more-or-less connived to get nominated for his job as Ada County Commissioner. I disagree. Of course, Kenyon is entitled to his typical liberal slant on things, but get his sweet rhetoric on the Rockefeller-type liberal GOPer Crap:

"Crapo is a soft-spoken type who prefers . . . minimum of confrontation. Glenn has used confrontation (causing) Gov. Cecil Andrus (to call) him a "hired gun" and wouldn't let him in to (Andrus') office." (Nothing about Glenn's being there in his capacity as representative of Idaho Cattlemen's Association. Nothing, either, of Andrus' claim to being "governor for all the people," (ho ho ho) nor the liberal Andrus' penchant for playing "hardball" politics in a usually "soft-ball" Idaho. Furthermore Kenyon's calling Crapo a "conservative" Republican which he does, may or may not be a damn lie, but it ain't no little white lie either. All this continues unabated, yet the media won't compete with each other--philosophically.

In an insufferably liberal (read, statist or government-loving) Idaho news media Kenyon is the only Idaho newsman using the term "conservative" to label both Crapo and Glenn, yet the other media is silent.

To be honest, one supposes, the words conservative and liberal do leave some room for error in terms of communicating accuracy in media--including honest headlines. But it is passing strange that almost never do headlines, nor the reporters, make an "error" in a direction favorable to candid competitive and non-statist conservatives.



Symms, Agee Speak Same Language

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
February 2, 1992


"These are times that try men's souls," said Thomas Paine, and so are today's times, too. But some "roses and razzberries" just might help give us a few insights into some of those soul's trials. So:

Razzberries to Katherine Shaver of States News Service whose front-page story in the Jan. 26 Press-Tribune was more important for what it did not say than for what it did say.

Sub-headlined "Friends and foes assess Symms' political career," Shaver leaped into the media's typical name-calling technique labeling U.S. Sen. Steve Symms (R-ID) a "staunch conservative." She probably meant no malice toward the outgoing conservative, but "staunch"? Egad. Since when are we ever treated to a staunch liberal, especially when Insane City, D.C., is literally crawling with them?

But Shaver's worst is almost true enough, yet it's as misleading as it can be. Consider this quote of hers on Symms:

"But critics say he will have to take a remarkably different tack in his last year if he wants to be remembered for a (now get this) substantive record of accomplishment rather than series of quotes often laced with inflammatory rhetoric."

If Sen. Ted Kennedy or any of the parade of extreme liberals do likewise, the media folk flock to quote their often inflammatory words as if out of the very mouth of Moses himself.

But Shaver's lousiest blow is her typically over-worked liberal media premise--all the worse because it is unstated. Here it is: (in my words) "Being positive is good and being negative is bad, but we define positive as voting for more laws; the more the merrier. On the other hand, voting against more laws we define as being negative." Stated this way Symms cannot possibly have a record of "accomplishment," i.e., in the media's eyes, of course. Unfortunately many voters tend to follow the journalist's unstated bias (read, stacked deck).

That's it, ladies and gentlemen, if you must sell your ideas through this kind of bias how can yours be a record of "accomplishment"? But Symms went to Washington to "take a bite out of government" not to help make it bigger. This irritates most media folk.

I had a good bit to do with Symms' effort to take that "bite" out, right from his earliest days, and it is true, too, he is a lousy politician. But he is way ahead of whoever is in second place.

Roses for an old friend of Symms and a classmate at the University of Idaho, William Agee. The latter is now president and chief executive officer of Boise-based Morrison-Knudsen Co. Inc. and whose career in big business has been, not altogether unlike Symms' career in big government, something of a maverick's--methinks in the good sense of the term. Comes now one of Agee's "trials."

M-K was the successfully low bidder to the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission on a $122 million rail car contract, but the contract was given to Sumitomo, a Japanese company (at a much higher price by the way). Fortunately, for M-K, the Los Angeles Commission terminated the Japanese firm's contract before it got started. It now looks like M-K is back in the saddle again.

Happy as that turn for the better may be, it is not the reason for today's roses. Here's why:

Applauding the Los Angeles Commission's reversal decision, Agee warned them against (someone's idea) having Los Angeles County build and own a production facility itself:

"You may be wasting the $49 million it would cost to build and start up your own plant," Agee said.

Agee explained it would also put the public sector in competition with private industry. He then further reminded them:

"The Soviet Union just moved away from that kind of public ownership and operation, (read, communism). It doesn't work," he said.

Well, successful or not, (and let's hope they are) we all are indebted to M-K and their chief, Bill Agee, for "telling it like it is"--publicly. That is to say, of course, that the single most important distinction between the U.S. system of capitalism and the old U.S.S.R. system of communism is--you guessed it--private ownership. So:

Razzberries for the Idaho Legislature, now in session, who should please take note. Here are two of your favorite sons saying much the same thing. Too bad so little of it seems to show up in your lawmaking.



Firemen Hear Anti-1% Speech

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
January 26, 1992


Last week at the Senior Citizen's Hall in Melba, Idaho, the annual Firemen's Dinner was held, one supposes in order for those firemen, both volunteer and salaried, to hear a speech against the 1 Percent Tax Limit Initiative. Understandably they wanted to hear only one side. No problem.

Bill Jarocki of Boise, the chief "hired gun" of the Association of Idaho Cities (AIC) was the main speaker. His remarks were, one assumes, pretty much like those he uses almost daily as he travels about the state on his anti-tax-limit mission as a rather highly paid executive of the AIC.

I use the abovementioned term "mission" more or less advisedly because like most crusaders for more government they tend to feel they are doing the Lord's own work much as a religious missionary does his, (or hers).

Furthermore, Jarocki is a likeable, personable fellow as are all the firemen. In fact the Caldwell fire chief, Bruce Alcott, introduced the speaker and afterward adjourned the pleasant evening's proceedings which included no other business or entertainment. The food, by the way, prepared by local Melba folks was first-class.

But the speaker's remarks were perhaps just a bit more polemic than that printed on his anti-tax-limit literature. That made for a more entertaining talk, but it also made some "other-side" overview cry out for expression. About said other side here are some needed observations--in no particular order of importance:

The AIC is financed by money paid by the cities from tax monies which are not voted upon by the public even though the Association never (repeat, never) lobbies for less government. Always more.

Patterned after the federal law, Idaho's Little Hatch Act was enacted to prohibit public employees from running for political office or campaigning openly for politicians who do. (I say "openly" because some is done under the table. The most egregious example of this in recent memory, perhaps, was the Caldwell Fire Department's big involvement in a vigorous and successful effort to defeat then incumbent and popular Mayor Al McCluskey. He had tried valiantly to privatize his city's fire department. The firemen's unions are generally notorious in their fierce opposition to such private-type organizations as the one in Scottsdale, Ariz., which has achieved nationwide acclaim for its success).

I add the latter not so much to criticize the firemen's union because their reaction for whatever it's worth, is quite typical, if not understandable, but rather to focus attention on the AIC. The cities' well-financed lobby has, so far as I can determine, never, ever lobbied to expand the private sector. They work only to expand city governments. So much for a clever end-run around the intended purposes of Idaho's Little Hatch Act, most of the cost of which you taxpayers are forced to pay as AIC "dues." This is so friendly Mr. Jarocki can campaign to increase the government sector.

Part of Jarocki's sales pitch against tax limitation does indeed make sense, of course, and this is precisely what confuses lots of well-meaning folks, i.e., half-truths. These are not lies, remember. They are rather like the politician who was asked to take a solid stand against whiskey drinking. He called it that "devil's brew which causes untold hardships, auto accidents, liver disease, bankruptcy, sin and degradation . . ." and on and on and on. All of this true, of course.

But when the whiskey lobby hauled out their big guns and highly paid and convincing lobbyists that same politician said, "Oh! You must mean that age-old brew that brings untold tax money into the government to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless and school the little children . . . the tonic that puts a spring in the old man's step on a frosty morning, etc., etc., ad infinitum."

Jarocki is not a bad guy, he's a good guy. So are the firemen! In fact I'd probably tell the same self-preservation story firemen tell if I were them, albeit in a slightly different way.

But when Jarocki admitted "there was fat in government," he countered with: "Yes, but there's also fat in business." Well, he forgot that business cannot force you to pay for their fat. The government can. And does.

He forgot, too, that almost without exception all those who are publicly on the stump against the 1 Percent Tax Limit are on a salary, doing so.

Almost all those who publicly campaign for the 1 Percent are volunteers.



Gold Will Always Be Controversial

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
January 19, 1992


An interesting thing happened to me at the Albertson College of Idaho a week or so ago. In search of a combination of chemicals for a small personal project, I was waiting to see Professor Terry Nagle of the chemistry department when I made a rather alarming discovery. Let me explain:

By and by Nagle came in and in a very cooperative, friendly and cheerful manner took care of my small chemistry needs. No problem at all.

But while I was waiting for him I noticed the "Periodic Table of the Elements" hanging on his office wall. It was a huge and colorful chart, measuring about 3 feet high by 4 feet wide. Like the periodic table in most chemistry departments, one supposes, it showed in graphic form a picture of each element plus the atomic weight of each along with a brief descriptive message--all in color.

Each element (all 105 of them) was described in its own 3 inch by 3 inch square with a small message, 40 to 50 words, under the photo and atomic information. The transparent gasses, of course, could not be thusly shown.

I looked up and down said chart as I sat waiting for the professor to arrive and my eyes fell upon the square describing the element--gold. It had a beautiful photo of a huge gold nugget about 1 1/2 inches long. Gorgeous! It caught my eye. Why? Only partly because of its beauty. The other reason is that gold is controversial--in spades. Has been for centuries. Again, why so? (Stay with me. It gets better).

We'll come back to the warning-label-type "message" on the AC of I chart under the gold nugget, but first a little background may explain why it especially piqued my interest there in that institution of higher learning.

Alan Greenspan, current chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, wrote back in 1962, "An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists (those who love government) 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 (means individual freedom in a private property order) and that each implies and requires the other.

"In order to understand the source of their antagonism," said Greenspan, the world's No. 1 money-man, "It is necessary first to understand the specific role of gold in a free society."

That ladies and gentleman, just scratches the surface of the reason I looked more closely at the AC of I periodic table's little vignette to "educate" students about gold. Note well, that it was not in the AC of I's economics or poli-sci department, but in the chemistry section where ideological bias could hardly even get in the door. But in the window? Stay tuned.

Now back to the AC of I's little warning label "message" on gold. Here is what it said in just 52 words: "Au. Gold, from the old English word geolo, or yellow; symbol Au from its Latin name aurum; pre-historic; the (planet's) most malleable metal. Men's lust for gold has been a delusion, for he has pursued little more than a yellow gleam. It cannot be used for much besides money, jewelry and dental work." What a put-down! Delusion? Egad!

I brought the professor and one of his students who happened to be nearby over to read the gold "message" on the wall chart:

"I've seen a lot of foolishness passed off as education in institutions of "higher" learning such as this one," I said, "but really, gentlemen, that statement intended as an aid to help educate your students is a shabby piece of political propaganda.

"Like it or not, gold is controversial because the liberals cannot 'print' it and thus manipulate at will an increase in the money supply. This last is the guts of money-inflation as it has been, more or less, for centuries. It accounts for most all of the controversy."

But the chart's "message" is the sly innuendo of the Time-Life Books (one of the nation's most excessively liberal publishers), International Scientific Communications, Inc. and The Royal Society of Chemistry. They are, of course, responsible. Not AC of I--at least not directly.

But even those who still smoke cigarettes are now having to assume some responsibility and note the little warning label "message" on the pack. I suggest AC of I is responsible to warn their students.



Sometimes 'Nice' Isn't Really Nice

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
January 12, 1992


This is an open letter to the Idaho State Legislature just now beginning to "serve," so hold on to your hat (or should I say, your pocketbook?)

Why do I do this, you ask? It won't do any good, you say. They won't listen. If you said that you are probably correct. At least there is much precedent for such. But if we don't shoot we dang sure miss and heaven knows there's lots to shoot at. Still, a few may listen. And a few with a little courage, insight, intelligence and perseverence is all we need.

Since our news media seems to be so socialistic we seldom see the politician's "feet" held to the fire for more than the most mundane and superficial reasons, thus let's pose some questions and note a few basic thoughts.

The egomaniacs in the Legislature, of which there are a great many, won't pay much attention but there are usually a few who are glad for some intelligent insight. So let us try to help the few who will listen:

Thomas Sowell, the great economist of the Hoover Institution (easily the top "conservative" think tank in America, but one which you will never, never, ever see quoted on the government's left-leaning PBS KAID-TV Channel 4) tells us: "Politics has been called the art of the possible, but it is really the art of the Plausible. Economics deals with what you can actually achieve. Politics deals with what you can get people to believe.

"The reason that politics usually wins out over economics is that economics is limited to what is possible. A good politician can always do better than that--or appear to, in the short run."

And the short run is all most of our power-seekers seem to use. But those who want desperately to be re-elected, voting themselves raises and increasing government, are not the target of this message today. Rather it is the "nice guys" in the Legislature upon whom I want to zero-in.

It was exactly one year ago I wrote a column entitled: "Parry guilty of excessive niceness." State Sen. Atwell Parry (R-Melba) is the consummate nice guy, but whose inclination to rock the political boat is, well, not exactly spectacular. In all of this, of course, my friend "At" has many political comrades, almost all of whom will say privately that we are going down the tube with too much government and too much spending. But publicly? You guessed it, they are awfully nice--almost excessively nice--and quiet. Why?

"Oddly enough," I wrote last year, "the answer may well have appeared in Parry's own church's Brigham Young University magazine BYU Today. In an insightful article entitled "When Nice Ain't So Nice." BYU Professor Eloise Bell wrote in part:

"The problem with Nice isn't that it's sometimes wimpy; the problem is that Nice can be dangerous. More crimes have been committed behind the mask of niceness than behind all the ski masks worn to all the convenience store stickups ever perpetrated."

I don't want to beat up on Parry here, in fact I went on to write (a year ago, remember) that he is still a beautiful human being and although I never got a thank-you note from him (a mutual friend said he was furious) I still think "At" is not only a nice guy, but extremely well-intentioned.

One thing, however, I do find a little hard to overlook with my well-intentioned friend is that he accepted co-chairmanship of a privatization sub-committee two or three years ago of then State Sen. Rachel Gilbert's important major committee on local government and taxation. Gilbert, too, must bear part of the responsibility as she was the other half of "their" co-chairmanship.

That sub-committee on privatization was a good and important idea, but for reasons best known to themselves it died a simple, if ignominious and irrelevant death, i.e., most senators didn't even know the Senate ever considered the subject of privatization much less had a sub-committee on it. (They still avoid the subject).

But Speaker of the House Tom Boyd (R-Genesee) is much, much worse than Parry and Gilbert in non-support of the seminally important subject of privatization. He has so far refused to give a dime's worth of attention to his own House Committee on Privatization organized fully and formally years ago by his conservative and forward-looking predecessor, Speaker Tom Stivers (R-Twin Falls).

Republicans should replace their old, and for generations properly effective, answer for every problem, "bah-humbug" with another more modern two-word answer. That is: "privatize it" nice and noisily.

But if past is prologue, today's GOP leadership are more likely to replace "bag-humbug" with "me-too."



Hitler, History and German Inflation ...

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
January 5, 1992

"Those who refuse to heed the lessons of history are doomed to have them repeated." How many times have we heard those great prophetic words? If you said "not enough" you were right.

For example, the federal financial "bull-shooters" admit the American national debt is about $4 trillion. That's $4,000,000,000,000. Some fine scholars claim the debt is more realistic at from $9 trillion to $11 trillion if proper accounting principles are applied. But who in these days of pragmatic political "praying" cares about principles--of anything.

But some of history is exciting, if a little scary. The Great Inflation after World War I in Germany was one of the most significant events of this century, since it was one of the main factors (possibly "the" principal factor) that led to the rise and eventual popularity of Adolf Hitler.

Now then, if one merely mentions the name Hitler one runs the risk of offending many well-meaning Americans. This is because the mere words tend to sound unpatriotic and unpleasant. And most of us do not want to hear unpleasant and unpatriotic messages, especially when it is our own government's fault. (Some jackasses still say "the government is us"). Yuk!

But it is here, my friends, it is here. Now! Today! it is no longer somewhere down the road in never-never land--someday. Money-inflation has become, indeed, has forced, price-inflation upon us.

So at risk of sounding unpatriotic let me remind you that in 1913 German voters paid 12 marks for a pair of shoes that only 10 years later sold for 32 trillion marks. That's 32,000,000,000,000 marks for one pair of shoes. Does that scare you? Well, it should, especially since that was in a great country, centuries older and more experienced in the arts and humanities than ours. And many say they were smarter and more industrious than we.

Certainly it was a smaller, more disciplined country and easier to manage by their "super-efficient" government bureaucracy. Still it didn't work.

As an interesting aside, it is note-worthy how so many cheerful-Charlie politicians of today, even conservatives, advocate making government "efficient" rather than smaller. Liberals, of course, virtually make no bones about more government, i.e., socialism tending to be the sum total of what they ultimately want--and offer the voters. And all too often it works. Note how it even divides Rockefeller-type Idaho Republicans like Mike Crapo of Idaho Falls and Goldwater-types such as Gary Glenn of Boise. Both of these are current candidates for Congress.

Two groups tend to be the big supporters of "that government governs best that governs most." (Jefferson, of course said the best government is the one that governs least). These two groups are the government education community and the American business community.

Exceptions do abound, but the generalizations are good ones as the prestigious Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research, in Massachusetts of all places, explained: "(In education) command economies don't work and markets do. As David T. Kearns, former chairman of the Xerox Corp. and designate deputy secretary of education, puts it, 'Education is the only industry we have where if you do a good job, nothing good happens to you, and if you do a bad job, nothing bad happens to you.'

'Lewis J . Perleman of the Hudson Institute makes the same point. 'In essence,' he says, 'the public school is America's collective farm. Innovation and productivity are lacking in American education for basically the same reasons they are scarce in Soviet agriculture; absence of competitive market forces.'"

The second group, American business, especially big business, gives 70 percent of their donations to left-of-center organizations. (Capital Research Center's Patterns in Corporate Philanthropy, Dr. Marvin Olasky, editor). No wonder capitalism is a dirty word. I wonder that it even survives.

What's all this have to do with Hitler, history and the German inflation? Polls say Americans favor wage and price controls to control inflation, but it may take another strong man like Hitler to make them work. Egad!

Even then controls won't work, of course, as we've just come to have dramatically demonstrated for us by the biggest, strongest, most arrogant and "efficient" system the world has ever seen, i.e., the whole Soviet block of left-wing countries. Yet, most of our teachers and professors still cannot "buy" the capitalism idea. Nor can most articulate it--even if they tried.

And most of our business organizations don't seem to care.

It may take another strong man like Hitler to make them work.