This Little Opinion Plus $1.50 Will Buy You a Coke: A Collection of Essays

By Douglas Young

In these sixty-five essays, political science professor emeritus Dr. Douglas Young examines a tremendous variety of American and global political issues and leaders. Whether making his case for or against particular public policies or scrutinizing major politicians, Dr. Young offers an independent perspective colored by Judeo-Christian conservatarian (conservative and libertarian) principles. Many major American political issues are explored in this collection, including abortion, Afghanistan, AIDS, alcohol, China, Confederate monuments, feminism, gun control, healthcare, marijuana, mass shootings, political polarization, presidential politics, press (mis)conduct, religion, secularism, and US foreign policies. Also studied in this volume is a diverse cast of public figures, including Abraham Lincoln, James Longstreet, John Kennedy, Ernesto "Che" Guevara, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Jesse Helms, Clarence Thomas, George Bush I, Earvin "Magic" Johnson, Bill Clinton, Pat Robertson, Jesse Jackson, Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, Tucker Carlson, Prince Harry, and Meghan Markle. Informed by a lifetime of intensive political study, wit, and a penchant for being eloquently blunt, Professor Young finally answers the question he so often got from students but declined to address while teaching for over a third of a century: "But what do you think, Dr. Young?" Now you will know.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Newman Springs Publishing, Inc.
• Release date: Feb 2, 2024
• ISBN: 9798890613196

Book preview

Table of Contents

Title

Copyright

Acknowledgments

Introduction

American Politics, History, and Culture

Introduction

Press Hype Helping the Reverend Pat Robertson's Likely Presidential Candidacy

The Gary Hart Sex Scandal Reeks of Hypocrisy

Religion Should Not Be a Political Issue

Pat Buchanan Could Be a Big Thorn for President Bush's Reelection

The Clarence Thomas Hearings Were a Circus

Democrats May Have a Presidential Contender in Bill Clinton

Some Lessons to Be Learned from the Disturbing David Duke

AIDS Now Infects Our Body Politic: Despite Media Blitz, Magic Johnson Is No Hero

Sen. Bob Kerrey Exudes a Bit More Style than Substance

We Haven't Seen the Last of Bill Clinton's Skeletons

How Relevant Is a Presidential Candidate's Past Illegal Drug Use?

Lessons from the Los Angeles Riot

Jesse Jackson's Failed Attempts at Leadership

Biased Media Won't Cover Sordid Truths about Jesse Jackson

Time to Crack Down on Alcohol

President Bush's Record Makes Him a Disappointing Candidate

Clinton's Character and Lack of Consistency Make Him a Worse Alternative to President Bush

Similarities in the Presidential Candidacies of John Kennedy and Bill Clinton

Solving Our Own Problems

No Combat Role for Women

Impressed with Congressman Mac Collins

We Deserve What We Get

President Clinton's Skirt Chasing Reveals His True Flaw

A Historical Perspective When Looking at Sexuality

President Richard Nixon Deserves to Be Honored with a US Postage Stamp

Clinton Proves Himself to Be Another Hypocritical Limousine Liberal

Divided We Stand

Would-Be JFK Manages to Be Only J. F. Willie

America Needs a Freedom Party

Controlling Health-Care Costs

President Clinton's Reelection Is Not a Disaster

Sen. Paul Tsongas: A Political Hero

Sen. Tom Harkin: A Principled Liberal

We Must Save Traditional Families

A President's Sex Life Is Usually Irrelevant

Americans Swap Liberty for Security

Sharing More in Common than Scandal: Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton

Politicians Should Avoid the Pulpit

In Praise of Cynicism

Here's the Dope on Why Marijuana Should Be Legal

Sen. Jesse Helms: A True Straight Arrow

President John Kennedy Is Ranked Way Too High

A Salute to Confederate Joe

Refusing to Abandon Our Noble Confederate Heritage

Protecting Our History from America's Red Guards

An Inspiring Role Model from Our Heroic Heritage: The Honorable Gen. James Longstreet

The Ugliness of the COVID-19 Lockdowns

The Roots of Our Deep Political Divide

Twelve Questions to Consider about Mass Shootings: Guns Are Not the Real Problem

So Who Is Really Pro-Choice?

Secular Political Fanatics

If Your Side Lost the Elections, Do Not Despair

Ron DeSantis Is the Best Choice for Republicans in 2024

The Perils of Modern Feminism

Portrait of a Major Media Rebel: A Review of Chadwick Moore's Tucker

Remembering President Carter on His 99th Birthday

International Matters

Introduction

How Soon We Forget: The Sobering History of American Interventionism

America Should Stay Out of Yugoslavia

Do Not Invade Haiti

The Real Ernesto Che Guevara Was a Genuine Monster

Celebrating the Chinese People

Enchanting Land of Contradictions: An American's Adventures in China

Fight Yet Another War for Middle East Democracy? No Thanks

Lessons from the Afghan Debacle

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Are the King and Queen of Narcissism

Closing Thoughts

About the Author

cover.jpg

This Little Opinion Plus $1.50 Will Buy You a Coke

A Collection of Essays

Douglas Young

Copyright © 2024 Douglas Young

All rights reserved

First Edition

NEWMAN SPRINGS PUBLISHING

320 Broad Street

Red Bank, NJ 07701

First originally published by Newman Springs Publishing 2024

ISBN 979-8-89061-318-9 (Paperback)

ISBN 979-8-89061-319-6 (Digital)

Printed in the United States of America

The following novels are also by the same author:

Deep in the Forest

Due South

This book is dedicated to Dr. Parker Young for introducing me to the world of politics, sharing his love of newspaper editorials, and mostly for being such a role model of Christian decency, strength, and wisdom.

Acknowledgments

Big thanks and best regards to Dr. Parker Young, Joy Young, Cory Young, Stephen Cox, Perry de Havilland, Denise Donaldson, Jimmy Espy, Nosleivys Falcon, Autumn Grimsby, Norman Horn, Paul Leslie, Michael Morrison, Christos and Sally Nicolaou, William Oberholtzer, Lisa Traylor Scott, Juanita Tipton, Don Webb, Terry Wright, Carole Young, Chungeng Zhu, and the very dear one who stayed but still prefers to remain backstage.

Introduction

Since age six during the 1968 presidential election campaign, I have followed American politics closely. National issues, political parties, politicians, and public policies have always fascinated me. Growing up, a big quadrennial summer treat was getting to stay up long after bedtime to watch both major parties' presidential nominating conventions with my father, and I meticulously read and watched TV news about presidential campaigns. From early childhood, I would go vote with my parents and enviously watch them fill out their paper ballots.

In elementary school, I debated the Vietnam War with my very sweet art teacher, the ever-patient Michael Pitts. In 1975, my dear friends Phil Branyon, David Ivy, and Page Kaufman and I had a formal debate in front of our seventh-grade civics class on whether the Vietnam War draft dodgers deserved a presidential pardon. Phil and I argued no.

Growing up in Athens, I followed Georgia politics as well, especially concerning the governor. Indeed, in 1974, I was a twelve-year-old volunteer for George Busbee's gubernatorial campaign, largely because an uncle of mine delivered the Busbee children and was friends with him. When Busbee won, I got to attend his inauguration at Atlanta's Civic Center with my aunt Ciele and then meet Georgia's new governor and First Lady at the governor's mansion.

On a field trip to the state capitol later that year, my seventh-grade class ate at the Atlanta restaurant of former Gov. Lester Maddox, whom Busbee defeated the year before. To my shock, upon seeing Mr. Maddox, a teacher exclaimed, Oh, Governor, this child loves you!

Governor Maddox exclaimed, Come here, boy! and enveloped me in a bear hug.

In high school, I thoroughly enjoyed reading newspaper opinion-editorial columns. My favorite columnists were Dr. George Will, Jack Kilpatrick, William F. Buckley Jr., and the Athens Banner-Herald's Larry Young. Though I dreamed of being a columnist one day, I was far too shy to submit any such essays to my high school's student newspaper.

But I was blessed in the twelfth grade to have Carole Young (no relation) as my English teacher. She required us to turn in a weekly journal in which we could write whatever we wanted. Way too insecure to write anything personal, I used my journal as an excuse to write op-ed essays on contemporary political matters. Since Mrs. Young was not only a terrific teacher but also the wife of Athens' top local columnist, I was thrilled when she repeatedly singled out my journal for praise in front of the class. Despite being so nervous about any public recognition at the time, I am so grateful to her for boosting my confidence that I could one day write essays for publication.

Though my opinions have evolved, I have always tended to hold somewhat fervent views. In college a tolerant graduate student buddy told me I was strident. Hopefully wider reading and experience have softened many of my convictions. But there remains always a unique thrill to marshaling one's thoughts in an essay, whether to prove a political case, examine an important public figure, explore a cultural concern, or study a historic issue. It is so fun to research intriguing topics and then try to convey ideas about them in as compelling a manner as possible. Indeed, to express thoughts on screen and fine-tune them is exhilarating since creating a completed work from scratch offers a special satisfaction like no other.

Doing justice to a subject in eight hundred or so words forces one to excise all the early drafts' fat, so the finished essay is hopefully all meat and no gristle. It has been quite a joy, an honor, and a deeply humbling blessing to have many essays published in a variety of publications over the last four decades. I am extremely thankful to every editor and publisher who published my work, as well as to all the readers, especially those who provided feedback, including criticisms.

Each essay in this collection has been introduced to provide historical and/or biographical context. The essays on American politics are followed by those concerning geopolitics, and almost all are presented chronologically to show the evolution of our recent history as well as my interests and views.

This book's title comes from a phrase I used in class many times when students wanted to know my opinion on an issue. In lectures, I tried to be as objective as possible: presenting the facts, offering a variety of interpretations, and then playing devil's advocate to argue the opposite of whatever students said in class discussion. The goal was to inform students and encourage them to think reasonably, analytically, critically, and always independently. So when students asked my view of an issue, the standard reply was Any little opinion of mine plus $1.50 will buy you a coke. I wanted them to think for themselves and use any view from any source as just one piece of evidence they should critique to reach their own conclusions. Hopefully these essays can further that purpose.

American Politics, History, and Culture

Introduction

If I read, think, and talk about a topic, it is not a big jump to write about it as well. But to put in the time and effort required to compose something that hopefully adds to the public discussion, I need to be particularly captivated by the subject, convinced the topic is important, and believe I have something original to contribute to the public dialogue. Especially with political matters I really care about, it can be cathartic and even exhilarating to express, organize, and argue my views in a hopefully persuasive manner.

Perhaps reflecting my political science background with an emphasis on American studies, the bulk of my essays have concerned domestic politics, and a disproportionate share of those focus on the presidency, the institution that first spawned my interest in politics and that would be one of my favorite class topics to teach. But in recent years my attention has shifted considerably to broader political and cultural concerns which I believe create the environment within which presidential politics inevitably play out.

As these chronologically arranged essays attest, my skepticism of government has only grown—and quite significantly—as I have seen ever more evidence of its incompetence, corruption, and innate authoritarianism. Especially with the rise of a credentialed class of arrogant, secular urban elites taking charge of not just government at every level but our most powerful private institutions as well, we have witnessed a rapidly growing assault on our most basic constitutional rights that would appall our Founding Fathers and which has infused my more recent writings with a heightened sense of urgency. Indeed, the allegiance of today's ruling professional class is to the state and other elite institutions of self-proclaimed experts who hold the rest of us in barely disguised contempt. They are frankly rank authoritarians who far prefer the Chinese government of dictatorial technocrats to anything the US Constitution prescribes. But as British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan declared, We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.

As Washington, Jefferson, and the rest of our extraordinarily principled, wise, and courageous Founding Fathers understood, we will enjoy exactly as much freedom as we are willing to fight for—and not one whit more.

Press Hype Helping the Reverend Pat Robertson's Likely Presidential Candidacy

This essay ran in the September 26, 1986 Red and Black , the University of Georgia's student newspaper in Athens. Though good enough and accurate about many points, I cringe at the arrogant elitism of this column. It is far too dismissive of the legitimate concerns of not just the supporters of the Reverend Pat Robertson (with whom I now agree a lot more) and the Reverend Jesse Jackson, but those of any voters not loyal to the views and interests of the major party establishments. I want to blame my youthful naive bias on being a political science graduate student at the time since so many political science professors have contempt for any voters not supporting the status quo mainstream candidates blessed by the ruling class.

While there are many problems with the presidential primaries, now I am relieved that primaries afford the American voters the option of rejecting the Caspar Milquetoast candidates pushing the selfish interests of the governing class. Indeed, I am so grateful Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election in an enormous repudiation of the utterly failed policies of the ruling elites of both major parties.

The Reverend Pat Robertson's likely bid as a significant contender for the 1988 Republican presidential nomination is symptomatic of the deplorable process by which we now elect our presidents. After 1968, for a presidential candidate to secure enough convention delegates to win a major party's nomination, he has had to win the bulk of the states' presidential primary elections.

This has terribly weakened major party leaders' ability to select pragmatic, mainstream candidates with broad enough appeal among the moderate, silent majority of American voters to get elected, command their party's support, and unite the country with effective presidential leadership.

Instead, the ascendancy of the primary system has resulted in the nomination of candidates who either cannot be elected (Sen. Barry Goldwater in 1964, Sen. George McGovern in 1972, and Sen. Walter Mondale in 1984) or cannot command sufficient party support to govern effectively (Gov. Jimmy Carter in 1976).

The decline of the parties' role has precipitated many personality-oriented candidacies with comparatively little loyalty to party. Alabama Gov. George Wallace (1964, 1968, 1972, and 1976), the Reverend Jesse Jackson (1984), and now Rev. Robertson are prime examples of charismatic, often demagogic, self-styled crusaders who can no longer be shunted aside by the party establishment because of the flood of primaries in recent national elections.

A major consequence is that personality and style have too often replaced party loyalty and substance in our presidential campaigns. Alas, the process of choosing the president and leader of the free world has largely devolved into a tragicomic horse race cum media spectacle starting ever earlier with ever less substantive policy proposals seriously debated, much less presented. In short, we now have the ideal presidential election system to ensure the emergence of candidates who specialize in pandering to base emotions.

Hand in hand with the rise of the primaries has come the pervasive influence of the television news media on our presidential elections. Accordingly, actors, evangelists, and other public performers have taken advantage of the ideal medium for them. Both the TV press and the public at large share the blame.

If the voters did not put up with this charade so enthusiastically every election, the media would not fan the flames of extremist candidates. Whatever excitement a Robertson-type candidacy brings to a presidential race is a high price for the world's premiere democracy to pay in light of the dignity and sober political dialogue sacrificed in the bargain.

I do not wish to be unfairly critical of Robertson's, Jackson's, or similar candidacies. Wading through all the demagoguery and emotional tripe, you occasionally uncover some thoughtful, workable policy designs. But these candidates did not get where they are with such substance, and the TV news media do not get high enough ratings and ad sales by focusing on the noncontroversial.

Although it really would be a miracle if he won the Grand Old Party (GOP) nomination, Robertson's impact may prove greater than Jackson's candidacy did with the Democrats in 1984. First, Robertson is very likely to receive millions of fundamentalist Christian votes in the primaries, especially those in the Southern states—most of which have scheduled their primaries on the same Tuesday early in the campaign.

Second, Robertson has learned from Jackson's tactical errors in 1984. Instead of the loud, fire-in-the-belly, bombastic public speaking style too often employed by Jackson, Robertson carefully comes across as perhaps even more genial than President Reagan. He strains to paint his views in watered-down, moderate tones. Indeed, his smoothly refined, sugarcoated, happy-talk presentation so well-oiled on his 700 Club TV show is custom-made for the middle class since Robertson knows he already has the fervent support of many fans of the Reverend Jimmy Swaggart and the Reverend Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker. Why just preach to the faithful?

The Virginia pastor also has a better knowledge of the confusing delegate selection process than did Jackson, and in another departure, Robertson is willing to bargain with his opponents at the Republican convention which may be his practical goal.

In fact, realistically, the ultimate dilemma posed by the Robertson candidacy (or by Jackson with the Democrats) is the possibility that he will have won enough delegates in the primaries to be a serious broker at the GOP convention. Thus, he could potentially exercise a major say in who the Republican nominee and/or his running mate will be.

The greater likelihood is that the televangelist may possess sufficient delegate strength to dictate his far right-wing orthodoxy into the party platform which, as history illustrates conclusively, presidents do attempt to transform into public policy.

And a Robertsonian platform would guarantee tremendous controversy and strife regarding social policies and individual rights, needlessly dividing and further polarizing Americans to make the art of governing that much more difficult for whoever wins in 1988.

The Gary Hart Sex Scandal Reeks of Hypocrisy

This essay ran in the May 13, 1987 Red and Black in the immediate wake of the Gary Hart sex scandal. Without warning, the press changed its rules about exposing the sex lives of presidents and presidential candidates. For most of the twentieth century, at least the nontabloid press scrupulously refused to reveal such information. But this chapter's curtain collapsed amidst an intense media circus early in the 1988 presidential election campaign.

While this essay's arguments and historical references remain valid, subsequent revelations about Senator Hart's widespread promiscuity, the shocking extent of President John Kennedy's White House womanizing, President Bill Clinton's prolonged presidential sex scandal, and President Donald Trump's repeated adultery all have somewhat altered my perspective here. While I do not think a candidate's adultery should be disqualifying, it does pose the risk of becoming fodder for blackmail and tawdry national distractions which raise legitimate questions about a candidate's judgment, maturity, and yes, character.

My praise for the Reverend Jesse Jackson being Hart's only rival candidate to exhibit any sympathy for him shows how naive I was about the oh-so self-righteous reverend. With the end of press deference to politicians' private lives ushered in by the Hart scandal, we have learned about the very up close and personal extramarital relationships the good reverend has forged with a great many female admirers, at least one of which produced a child. So how hilarious that Rev. Jackson would provide pastoral counseling to President Clinton amidst his White House sex scandal. We really should just laugh at a lot of this.

The press flap over presidential candidate Gary Hart's alleged sexual indiscretions culminating in the political ruin of the Democrats' 1988 front-runner has major implications for the news media, politicians, and the electorate.

The tactics by which Miami Herald reporters broke this story prompt serious questions about responsible journalism. Acting on a tip, reporters staged an around-the-clock stakeout of Sen. Hart's Washington, DC, townhouse to uncover circumstantial evidence of sexual infidelity. They saw Hart and an attractive Miami actress and model, Donna Rice, enter the apartment one night and leave the next evening. Never mind that she may have left and returned via a back door which reporters admit they did not observe. Instead, the Herald painted Hart as a womanizer whose campaign faced imminent collapse because of a character issue.

Accordingly, Hart was plagued last week by incessant questioning of an extremely personal nature (Have you ever committed adultery?). Accusations, rumors, and innuendo were given front-page legitimacy. The news media's obsessive coverage of the sex scandal to the exclusion of Hart's efforts to address important campaign issues rendered the truth or falsehood of the charges inconsequential and guaranteed Hart's political demise. He was tried, convicted, and politically executed by the press before a jury of the American electorate could cast one vote—and all based on evidence that would not be admitted in any US court.

Meanwhile, Miss Rice, the latest fix for the media's other woman habit, was harassed mercilessly by reporters and camera crews keeping a voyeuristic vigil at her apartment. When her tearful statements denying any romantic involvement with Hart aired on TV, the visual backdrop consisted of seminude photos of the actress in modeling ads. So much for a fair, nonsexist press. Little imagination is needed to speculate on the emotional damage inflicted upon Rice, Hart, his wife, and his and Rice's families due to the appearance of foul play.

Much of the news media declared that, even if Hart was innocent, he deserved the rap he's endured since he was not smart enough to avoid even the appearance of a tryst. Perhaps now every candidate for elective office must avoid ever being alone with someone of the opposite sex besides his wife. And what about the candidate's spouse and children? Should they also avoid friends of the opposite sex for fear their lives (and Pop's political career) could become