REMEMBERING JIMMY CARTER

America lost a giant on December 29, when our 39th president, Jimmy Carter, passed away at the age of 100. After his wife of 77 years, former First Lady Rosalynn Carter, died a year ago, President Carter decided to stop his treatment for diagnosed metastatic skin cancer. He, instead, chose to enter hospice at his home in Plains, Georgia. They will be rejoined and be buried side by side at the family compound. Jimmy Carter, who has been referred to as the "humblest president in our history" was much more highly regarded for all the humanitarian work he took on after he lost his bid for reelection to Ronald Reagan in 1980 than for his record in office. Carter took office just thirty months after Richard Nixon had left the entire federal government in shambles and became president by narrowly defeating Gerald Ford. He faced multiple epic challenges during his four years in office: the energy crisis, Soviet aggression, Iran, and a deep, post Watergate, mistrust of leadership by his citizens. Critical observers described him as hard working and conscientious, but sometimes out of place. His stubborn independence, a great asset while running for office, became his downfall while climbing to the presidency. Carter's idealism came through in his inaugural address. Some of its salient points are worth repeating. They are still appropriate in the current political climate: - "For myself and for our nation, I want to thank my predecessor for all he has done to heal our land." - "Let us create together a new national spirit of unity and trust." - "We reject the prospect of failure or mediocrity or an inferior quality of life for any person. Our government must at the same time be both competent and compassionate." - "We know that the best way to enhance freedom in other lands is to demonstrate here that our democratic system is worthy of emulation." - "We will be vigilant and never vulnerable, and we will fight our wars against poverty, ignorance, and injustice - for those are the enemies against which our forces can be honorably marshalled." While most ex-presidents pursued financially rewarding activities after leaving office, President Carter pointedly rejected that path, intimating his disinterest in getting rich. Shortly after his presidency, in 1982, the president established the Carter Center, designed to promote and expand human rights, and which earned him a Nobel Peace Prize in 2002. The former president traveled extensively to conduct peace negotiations, monitor elections, and to further the eradication of infectious diseases. Many of us admired him for personally and physically participating in the works of Habitat for Humanity until he was well into his nineties. Few, if any, former presidents have earned the gratitude and admiration President Carter has after leaving the presidency. He really was a giant among many who provided us with a model for what it takes to be a decent human being. He deserves a prominent place in our history. Thank you Mr. President! You set an example to be emulated. Theo Wierdsma

REVIEWING NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTIONS

Many of us, be it overtly, surreptitiously, or perhaps even unwittingly, partake in the annual tradition of developing at least some resolutions for the new year. Some are already struggling to follow through on the promise they made to themselves to start doing something good or stop doing something bad on the first day of the year. Others have begun the process of adjusting their stated objectives to align results with the promise of success. The tradition of setting new goals at the beginning of the year is believed to have originated with the ancient Babylonians some four thousand years ago. Members of this prominent, historically important civilization made promises to their gods during new year's celebrations, which involved a massive, twelve day, religious festival, known as Akitu. They vowed to change their behavior in order to earn favor of the gods and start the new year on the right foot. Pledges reportedly included paying off debts and returning borrowed farm equipment. A similar practice developed in ancient Rome after Julius Caesar established January 1 as the beginning of the new year. January was named after Janus, the god of beginnings, endings and transitions. He was also known as a two-faced god, who was believed to symbolically look backwards into the previous year and ahead into the future. Over the centuries multiple superstitions developed indicating which activities promised good luck or Divine favors in the new year. In Spain people eat a dozen grapes, one for each strike of the clock at midnight. In Denmark revelers smash plates on their neighbors' doorsteps on New Year's Day - the more pieces that break apart, the better the fortune. Citizens of Greece smash a pomegranate on New Year's Day to bring life and luck. Others feature fireworks. We drop a ball in New York's Times Square. And according to Chinese lore - you should not clean your house or wash your hair on New Year's Day, so as not to wash away any good luck. Most of us who subscribe to some of the traditions that have been passed along over time still surrender to the tradition of setting resolutions in one form or another when ringing in the new year. Entire books have been written to help shape our efforts to do just that. Publications like "A Year To Live," by Stephen Levine, or "The Pivot Year," from Brianna Wiest, can help formulating these endeavors. Other works like "It Always Seems Impossible Until It's Done," by Kathryn and Ross Petras, might actually help stimulate our attempts at following through. Their book lists inspirational messages uttered by well-known orators. Random samples include: "Ninety-nine percent of all failures come from people who have a habit of making excuses." - George Washington Carver; "You miss a hundred percent of the shots you don't take." - Wayne Gretzky; "The most effective way to do it, is to do it." -Amelia Earhart; "The best way to make your dreams come true is to wake up." - Muhammad Ali; "To avoid criticism, do nothing, be nothing." - Elbert Hubbard. The sad thing is that an estimated 88% will fail. Many of us already have. However, the calendar provides a silver lining, or a chance to reset. January 29 begins the Lunar New Year, often confused with Chinese New Year, which is celebrated by numerous cultures. The Lunar New Year occurs on the new moon of the first lunar month - a month measured between successive new moons. It features 12 Chinese Zodiac Signs. Each sign is named after an animal and each animal has its own unique characteristics. This upcoming year features the "wood snake," a rare and meaningful combination which only appears once every 60 years. According to legend, this coming year promises to bring wisdom, adaptability and a sense of transformation. We can only hope. Be it as it may, those of us who are in danger of losing the battle to fulfill our New Year's resolutions might grasp this opportunity and accept a life line. You can still fulfill the promises you made to yourself. As Babe Ruth told us years ago: "It's hard to beat a person who never gives up." Theo Wierdsma

EXHALE AND RELAX

Many of us, perhaps close to 50% of those who were invested in the election a month or so ago, have gone into withdrawal, hibernation, or we are simply doing whatever we can to escape difficult political conversations. Personally, I am looking at the decision I made 57 years ago to "legally" immigrate into this country, a decision I never regretted, even though 1968 happened to be the year that changed everything as soon as I arrived, and 2025 could become another such anniversary. But, then again, our world has become a vastly different and dangerous place for many of us. As a 23 year old back in 1968 I was naive. President Reagan had not yet reiterated the words of John Winthrop's 1630 sermon identifying our country as a shining city on a hill during his farewell address to the nation in 1989. However, I was convinced early on that, regardless of our troubled history, this was the place to be. Now that I am getting close to becoming an octogenarian, and after having felt the urge to defend my political viewpoints, being better informed and more sophisticated, although currently just as ineffective, I am resigned to exhale and relax. A friend of mine put it succinctly: "The sun came up this morning, we will be all right." Hence, I am submitting the "Ten commandments for seniors" a friend recently sent me. Enjoy: 1. Talk to yourself. There are times when you need expert advise. 2. "In style" are the clothes that still fit. 3. You don't need anger management. You need people to stop irritating you. 4. Your people skills are just fine. It is your tolerance for idiots that need work. 5. The biggest lie you tell yourself is: "I don't need to write that down. I will remember it." 6. "On time" is when you get there. 7. You have noticed that people your age are much older than you. 8. Aging has slowed you down, but it hasn't shut you up. 9. You still haven't learned to act your age and I hope you never will. 10. "One for the road" means peeing before you leave the house. Happy Holidays! Theo Wierdsma

WITH THE CONTINENT IN DISARRAY, EUROPE'S POPULISTS EMBRACE TRUMP

Following the U.S. election, many celebrated a significant electoral victory. Many simply exhaled. Others are showing signs of frustration and despair. A significant segment of devastated voters is beginning to reflect on what just happened, and many, if not most, anxiously wait for the next shoe to drop. Our European allies exhibit a mixture of many of these same emotions. They have been here before. Most of its leaders experienced Donald Trump's leadership style during his previous presidency. However, few expect that that experience somehow fully prepares them for what is to come. The conditions in Europe have changed and the political balance of power in many countries have shifted and now favors the U.S. President Elect. Europe has been mired in economic stagnation, rattled by war on its eastern doorstep. It has fallen victim to the same political forces that helped Mr. Trump gain popularity among conservatives and swing voters: a backlash against rapid consumer price increases; an anxiety and anger over increased immigration; and a rapid erosion of public trust in political elites. Traditionally, the disarray demanded renewed and forceful leadership from the continent's two largest economies, France and Germany. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz scuttled his governing coalition recently by firing his finance minister Christian Lindler. He will now likely face voters during early elections in March, which is projected to oust him in favor of the far-right "Alternative for Germany" party which has doubled its appeal in recent polling. President Emmanuel Macron of France lost power in the aftermath of a recent, ill-advised, snap election he called. He is clinging to support from a shaky coalition against the far-right and left. He is essentially termed out since he won't be able to run again in 2027. Uncertainty from Paris to Berlin has created a power vacuum on the continent, which could embolden Russia in the war in Ukraine. It further muddles the difficult political task of ratcheting up military spending, which analysts agree will take on new urgency amid anticipated threats by Trump to pull out of NATO, pull back security guarantees, or severely reduce or eliminate support for Ukraine. Analysts agree that the most natural fit to lead a more muscular independent Europe would need to come from Germany and France - the very countries most troubled, their political power curtailed. The longstanding effort to keep extremist forces out of government in Europe is officially over. For decades, political parties of all kinds joined forces to keep the hard-right from the levers of power. Today, this strategy, known in France as a "Cordon Sanitaire" or "firewall," is falling apart as populist and nationalist parties have grown in strength across the continent. Mainstream political parties have lost support. Populists and nationalists, including once fringe parties on the far-right, have surged. Right-wing or far-right nationalist movements now encompass the biggest parties in Switzerland, Italy, Finland, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia, The Czech Republic and The Netherlands. In all these countries the insurgent parties have joined government coalitions. In Austria, the "Freedom Party," founded by Nazis, just gained dominance. Sweden's "Sweden Democrats" play a significant role in support of its government. It is the second largest political force in the country. And Marine Le Pen, perennial far-right opposition leader in France, is currently polling at 30% support, well ahead of President Macron. Most of these political forces express support for Mr. Trump. They tend to see a key ally across the pond, someone who shares their mix of authoritarianism, populism and extreme hostility to immigration. The Trump organization has been diligently building strong ties with its allies among Europe's ultra nationalist and populist forces which now hope to capitalize on his success. Much to analyze and much to worry about. It is difficult to escape the thought that much of Europe is beginning to come full circle since the deterioration of the Weimar Republic during the early days of the 1930s. President Elect Trump's insertion into Europe's disarray is unlikely to become a stabilizing force. Theo Wierdsma

FINGERS CROSSED - THE END IS NEAR

Not since the 1860 election featuring Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, which tore the nation apart and which precipitated the Civil War, have we experienced an as intense and potentially consequential election in our national history. The impassioned personal campaign of the past 90 days focused predominantly on the top of the tickets. However, it would be a mistake to ignore the down-ballot contests that could affect control of the Senate and House during upcoming legislative sessions. In the battle for the Senate, 34 seats are up for election. The outcome will probably be decided by 8 of the most competitive races. Democrats and those who caucus with them currently occupy 7 of the most competitive seats. Republicans could maintain control of the House of Representatives by just winning 12 of the 26 seats currently rates as toss-ups, assuming they also secure the seats rated "likely" or "lean Republican." The party has incumbents in place in 15 of those toss-up seats. Be it as it may, most of us are anxiously laser focused on the presidential component of this election. This is not only true for the domestic audience. Next Tuesday politicians, analysts and general observers among many allies and adversaries alike, are holding their collective breath in anxious anticipation of the end result of our quadrennial contest. Most of Europe, NATO, Ukraine, the Middle East, and yes, even Russia and China claim to have a stake in this process. For us the choice has been binary. We either vote for past President Donald Trump, or we choose to elect Vice President Kamala Harris - presumably on the basis of party affiliation or policy preference. Mr. Trump advocates increasing oil production to lower energy prices, grow the economy, and pay for a myriad of funding shortfalls like Medicare and Social Security. He proposes a highly controversial aggressive tariff structure on imports to improve domestic manufacturing prowess. His team flaunts plans to round up millions of undocumented immigrants, and detain them in camps before deporting them en masse. Among other policy ideas he vows to roll back every "Biden attack on the Second Amendment;" expand the the use of the death penalty; rescind every one of Biden's climate initiatives; and leave the question of reproductive freedom up to the states. Ms. Harris plans to use tax increases on billionaires and corporations to make resources available for Social Security and Medicare. She broadly supports Biden's environmental policies; advocates to restore and protect reproductive freedom in every state; favors universal background checks for gun purchases; opposes the death penalty; and supports the bi-partisan proposal on immigration which was scuttled by Congress on advise of Mr. Trump. The devil is in the details. As Donald Trump and Kamala Harris race toward the finish, pro democracy advocates and elected officials are preparing for a volatile period in the aftermath of Election Day, as legal challenges are filed, bad actors spread misinformation and voters wait for Congress to affirm the result. Wendy Weiser, vice president for democracy at the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice, remarked that "One of the unusual characteristics of this election is that so much of the potential danger and so many of the attacks on the elective system are focused on the post-election period." Reminiscent of the controversies surrounding the outcome of the 2020 election, Vice President Harris has committed to accept the result of the upcoming plebiscite. Former President Trump has refused to accept the outcome unless he wins. He has also not dismissed the possibility of political violence if he loses. Our long held tradition of a peaceful transfer of presidential power is again at stake. We need to keep our fingers crossed a little longer. The end may be near, but there could be more to come before we and the rest of the world can exhale. Theo Wierdsma

IS THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE STILL APPROPRIATE?

We are again just weeks away from another presidential election. An election that won't be decided by a plurality of the popular vote, but by what even our Supreme Court has referred to as the "anachronism of the Electoral College." A perpetual majority of voters continue to believe that we ought to adopt a system whereby the presidential candidate supported by the most citizens on Election Day ought to be declared the winner. However, with the exception of President Biden's victory in the most recent contest, accumulating seven million more popular votes than his opponent, multiple election outcomes produced winners who lacked a popular mandate. In the election of 2000, George W. Bush managed to barely compile the mandatory 271 electoral votes necessary to win the election after being declared the controversial victor in Florida, winning that state by 537 votes. His opponent, Al Gore, won the national vote by 543,000. In the 2016 election, former president Donald Trump won the electoral college by a count of 306 against 232 for Hillary Clinton, even though the latter amassed almost 3 million more votes nationally. These outcomes have persistently regenerated a popular outcry chastising our electoral college system, questioning why we would not use the popular vote tally to choose our president. As recent as a few weeks ago, a PEW research poll indicated that more than six-in-ten Americans (63%) would prefer to see the winner of the presidential election be the person who wins the most votes nationally. Roughly a third (35%) favored retaining the anachronistic system we have employed for the past 200 years. Hence, the questions remain: Why do we have an Electoral College? Why don't we change the system if that appears to be the popular preference? And what are the arguments supporting continuing with our current system? Our Founders feared factions and worried that voters wouldn't make informed decisions. They were in a quandary. They did not want to tell the states how to conduct their elections. Many feared that the states with the largest populations would essentially end up choosing the president. The Electoral College was a compromise. The compromise adopted at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 allowed the popular election of the president, but on a state-by-state basis. Each state's citizen would vote for president. The winner would take all the electoral votes allocated to that state, based on the combined number of seats that particular state had in the House and Senate. The tricky part was how to account for all the slaves when determining a state's total population. Even though white slaveholders generally did not intend to represent their slave populations, their numbers helped determine the state's number of seats in the House of Representatives. The compromise the convention came up with was to count only three out of every five slaves as people, giving the Southern states a third more seats in Congress. The Constitution adopted during the convention included this three-fifths compromise, which was not superseded until the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1968. Section 2 of this Amendment gave former slaves equal protection and voting rights. It specified equality for male slaves. Female slaves and all women were excluded. Today's supporters of the Electoral College argue that we live in a constitutional republic rather than in a democracy. They maintain that the process is integral to our federalist, state focused philosophy, and serves a a firewall against fraud. It prevents systematic fraud by diffusing fraudulent voting across multiple states. Until the trumped up charges of the last four years, the suggestion has been that a small number of fraudulent votes would have no impact on the outcome of a presidential election. They also submit that the College encourages a national campaign, because the power of small states with at least three electoral votes can be decisive in close presidential elections. Some white supremacist leaders also spread the belief that with a popular vote white people would have less influence. California, Texas and Florida would do the electing. A shocking expression resulting from this creed can be found in a 1957 article published in National Review, authored by William F. Buckley, titled: "Why the South must Prevail." It reads: White Americans are "entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally," anywhere they are outnumbered, because they are part of "the advanced race." Popular vote supporters predictably suggest that our votes would count the same wherever they are cast. Whoever gets the most should win. A national popular vote would eliminate the "battleground state," a key feature of post-convention campaigning, leaving most Americans alienated from the decisive phase of presidential campaigns. One of the arguments against a popular vote system is that a candidate could actually win with less than 50% of the vote. If you had more than two challengers, somebody could presumably win with 30% of the vote, which could be a ticket to an extremist candidate. Either way, changing the system requires more than popular desire to do so. It would involve changing our Constitution. An amendment would need a two-thirds majority in the House and the Senate, and support from three-fourth of our 50 states. Given our political climate, agreement in support of significant systemic change will be unlikely for the foreseeable future. Theo Wierdsma

IS FREEDOM MORE THAN AN ILLUSION?

A recent visit to a very moving, emotionally taxing Japanese-American Exclusion Memorial on Bainbridge Island in Washington State's Puget Sound generated some disturbing thoughts about the concept of freedom. The exhibition memorialized one of the darker episodes in our country's history. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, we experienced a surge of anger and fear directed at people of Japanese descent. Emotions were fueled by long-standing racial prejudices and rumors. Expressions of concern about loyalty, fear of sabotage, or even a potential Japanese invasion of California, Oregon, or Washington served as an excuse for President Franklin D. Roosevelt to sign Executive Order 9066, which led to the transportation and incarceration of more than 120,000 Japanese people. Two-thirds of the affected racial minority were American citizens. They were relocated to 26 sites in 7 western states, including remote locations in Washington, Idaho, Utah and Arizona. We, in essence, imprisoned U.S. citizens in what were fundamentally concentration camps, based only on their race. This was not very different from what the British did during the Second Boer War between 1899 and 1902 in South Africa, or what the Nazis did in Europe during the second world war - be it without the systematic murder of inmates. Subsequent to our visit at the memorial, we made a point of stopping off at the Panama Hotel, made famous in Jamie Ford's book "Hotel on the Corner of Bitter and Sweet," which was located at the gateway to Seattle's Japantown. In it, still displayed, we discovered the belongings of Japanese families left there when they were rounded up and sent to the camps. They were only allowed to keep what they could carry. Many of the stored possessions were never reclaimed. One of the conspicuous historic documents posted in a display case on the outside of the hotel was a copy of a speech given by Phil S. Gibson, Chief Justice of California, in 1940. Its content struck a cord, and could well have been spoken today. It deserves to be quoted in its entirety: "There is every reason to believe that we will be called upon again and again to defend our liberties. We must prepare now for their defense against attacks from within as well as against attacks that may come from without. It is not necessary, however, to suppress the liberties of our people in order to prepare for their defense. In periods of national emergency, when we are all under great emotional stress, we are likely to be intolerant of others, whose views are not same as our own. Many good intentioned but, unthinking people, seek to deny constitutional freedoms to people who do not agree with the course our government has determined to pursue. In dealing with such situations we should not allow ourselves to be carried away by hysteria. We should be careful not to violate the rights guaranteed by our constitution. Liberty cannot be divided; it cannot be granted to a majority and denied to a minority. In a democracy, freedom means freedom for all. Denial of freedom anywhere in this country means its eventual disappearance everywhere." Aside from their historic significance, these words remain relevant within our contemporary political climate. Recent promises revealed by candidates contending to assume some of the most powerful political positions our system offers, include the use of internment camps for 15 to 20 million people, "bloody" deportations of Haitians from Springfield, Ohio, and Aurora, Colorado, sending them "back to Venezuela." Aside from this idiotic statement of intent, and the fact that the overwhelming majority of these immigrants have legal Temporary Protected Status, the terminology used is indicative of a racist agenda. They are part of a larger volume of anti-immigrant and dehumanizing rhetoric which actively courts political violence. The Japanese motto displayed at the memorial reads: "Nidoto Nai Yoni," "Let it not happen again. Enough said. Theo Wierdsma