ShareThis Page

Ralph R. Reiland: Bungling politicians & lethal economics

| Sunday, Oct. 29, 2017, 9:00 p.m.
Performers wave Vietnamese national flags during a parade celebrating the 40th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War, which is also remembered as the 'Fall of Saigon', in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, Thursday, April 30, 2015. (AP Photo/Dita Alangkara)
Performers wave Vietnamese national flags during a parade celebrating the 40th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War, which is also remembered as the 'Fall of Saigon', in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, Thursday, April 30, 2015. (AP Photo/Dita Alangkara)

“Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself,” said Mark Twain.

Fittingly, our politicians keep stumbling and falling, some quitting and others being voted out for being even more idiotic than their colleagues and challengers, others ousted for being too sloppy in the way they grabbed cash or pocketed kickbacks, still others cast aside when their hypocrisy leaked into the public arena.

“The politician is an acrobat,” said Maurice Barres, French novelist and politician. “He keeps his balance by saying the opposite of what he does.”

Will Rogers had it right: “I love a dog. He does nothing for political reasons.”

On the larger issue of war, the practice of the old sending the young to die while the profiteers cheer — “War is young men dying and old men talking,” stated Franklin D. Roosevelt — I asked an acquaintance of mine, a shopkeeper here from the former South Vietnam, if he watched the PBS series “The Vietnam War.”

“I didn't,” he said. “American television doesn't show the good that American soldiers did in Vietnam or the bad that communists did.”

He explained that Vietnamese communists jailed his father and damaged his health: “I'm not good today because my father cannot walk right because of what they did to him.”

Subservience was mandatory, he explained: “If you did not stay quiet and do what was expected of you, the communists put you in jail, tortured you and let you die, or they killed you.”

Many were massacred not for what they did but for who they were. Intellectuals were punished for their independence. Literary reviews were replaced by re-education camps. Landowners and mandarins were liquidated because of their achievements or family backgrounds.

An article in the official organ of the Indochinese Communist Party, Nhan da (“The people”), declared that “the landowning classes will never be quiet until they have been eliminated.” In short, the collectivists called for the achievement of silence via mass murder, the realization of land reform and classlessness by way of property theft, redistribution and savagery.

An official communist censor and writer, To Huu, penned this: “Kill, kill again, let your hands never stop, let fields and paddyfields produce rice in abundance, so that taxes can be paid at once. Let us march together with the same heart, so that the Party may last forever, let us adore Chairman Mao and build an eternal cult to Stalin.”

Huu didn't write any poetry about the 100 million deaths that occurred to install and maintain communist regimes — 65 million in China, 24 million in the USSR — crimes against humanity committed via torture, massacres, forced-labor camps, hangings, mass deportations, firing squads, poisoning, incarceration, man-made famines and targeted starvation.

To put this in perspective, 100 million deaths to impose and sustain a catastrophic political and economic system amounted to about 200,000 human lives lost for each word in this column.

Ralph R. Reiland is associate professor of economics emeritus at Robert Morris University and a local restaurateur (rrreiland@aol.com).

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.