Category: Orhan Tarhan

This article discusses how one decides for whom to vote. Every voter oat to have some basic principles on how the government should be run. I believe that a government should be run rationally, secularly, problems should be solved privately, using a minimum of government, but defensive organs of the government (Military, Police, strict control of what we eat and import) should be strong.One must vote only for one representative (or Senator, or President) or for his opponent in this country. If our representative does not share all our principles, and his opponent shares some, we have to decide which one shares the most important principles. This is voting for issues. Some people vote straight for one party without regard to issues. Maybe their fathers voted for that party, or maybe everyone in that district votes that way. A good citizen must study the issues debated in the election and should have his opinion. He should also be knowledgeable on the people running for office.

I want to tell here my voting record. I grew up in Turkey and could first vote there at the age of 32, because I had first to go to Germany for six years of Engineering studies, and two more years to the obligatory military service. Elections were every 5 years (I think). I was working for the Turkish Iron & Steel Co. at Karabuk. Turkey had just become a multi-party country. The incumbent People’s Republican Party, had been started by Ataturk and most engineers belonged to it. I was not active in any party. The new “Democrat Party” promised a slightly different future. My wife knew personally the head of that party and was convinced to vote Democrat But a bunch of irresponsible candidate representative Democrats had came to Karabuk and promised to the workers, that if they will bring them ten signatures of complaining workers, they will get their supervisor fired. They soon had fired two of the best supervisors, who were not immediately replaceable I had to go to Ankara, to explain the real situation to some higher Democrat Party people and tell them how they were destroying the steel industry. The two supervisors were rehired but the moral in the company hit bottom. Although The Democrat Party was promising a brighter future, in view of their actions, I voted for the Incumbent People’s Republican Party. That was my first and last vote in Turkey. At that election in 1950 the Democrats won a landslide of a victory, but they thought they could do anything with such a majority and in 1960 the Democrat party was closed. The Peoples’ Republican Party was eventually hijacked by socialists, so there is no more party in Turkey that represents Ataturk’s legacy.

When I arrived in the U.S. and got naturalized, I registered as Republican, because I liked their platform of small government and private solution of public problems. From January 1960 on, I voted continuously as Republican. George W. Bush changed everything. Bethlehem Steel Corporation, where I had worked as a research engineer for almost a quarter of a century, was going bankrupt from poor management, but could not find a buyer, because of its obligations towards its retirees. President Bush, in stead of protecting the earned and promised pensions, life insurance, and health insurance of these retirees, allowed the Bethlehem Steel management to break their promise to the retirees, so that the corporation could be sold. Thanks to the ERISSA law passed by the Democrats a few years ago, my pension was taken over by the government, but I lost $26,000 of life insurance, and now It cost me $430.26 a month to replace the Bethlehem Steel health insurance that was robbed from me.

AARP wanted to import prescription drugs cheaper from Canada for its retired members. President Bush, in stead of helping AARP, vetoed it, It put the interest of drug companies ahead of that of the citizens who elected him.

President Bush allowed the evangelical religious groups to hijack his party. He gave funds to religious groups in spite of the separation of Church and State in our constitution. Even Tom Brokaw remarked that the U.S. was going towards a theocracy.

After 9/11 and the brief Afghanistan war, in stead of following those actions by stronger American forces, fully destroying the Taliban, and catching Osame bin Laden, the Iraq War was started under the influence of petroleum interests. Iraq was a secular country and had no relation with the Taliban or the Al Qaeda. The reasons advanced for this war were proven false.. It cost us almost $1 trillion, 4200 dead, 25000 wounded and 15 % of non-wounded soldiers having mental problems. In the coming election, ending the Iraq war soon and staying there until victory has become an important issue.

President Bush broke United States promises and signatures in the Geneva Convention, and in the Treaty of Westphalia which was the standard since the 17th Century. He put the United States in the position of an international Pariah. He gave Russia an alibi to attack his old USSR members.

The list is much longer, but this much is enough to characterize him and the party he changed. Of course George W. Bush is not running for re-election, but the one who is running from the Republican Party, John McCain, is almost a carbon-copy of President Bush. He boasts having voted 90 % with President Bush. He is clearly preferring corporations’ interest over citizen’s interest. Finally his choice of Vice President is too weak. Using an old Turkish expression, Governor Sarah Palin “need to eat 40 bakeries’ full of bread before she qualifies” as President of the United States.

I did not tell you how I am going to vote on November 4, 2008, did I ?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

To Readers’ Attention: Any one who wishes to receive THE ORHAN TARHAN LETTER should sent an e-mail to orhant@verizon.net with his/her full name, e-mail address , and PLEASE phone number, in case there is an interruption caused by the server, or in case of e-mail address change. It is free. Comments are welcome. These LETTERs are also published in AmericanChronicle.com

Problems and crises must be solved all the way to their roots, not superficially. Otherwise, they will recur with a vengeance. I do not see this being done in the present crisis. The two presidential candidates do not convince me that they really understand what is going on. The people who are telling us that they will solve the crisis are the representatives of the philosophy of government that is responsible for the occurrence of this crisis. They lack leadership qualities, because they watched the crisis brewing without seeing where it was going, and now that the crisis is in full bloom, their remedy is $700 Billion from the tax payers’ pocket. I think we have asked the fox to guard the chicken coop.It appears that the roots of the present economic crisis go all the way to the first years of our Republic, to the fights between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. They were fighting over the purpose of government, especially over economic policy. That fight has continued after them up to our day. [See:article by Thomas J. DiLorenzo titled “What Hamilton Has Wrought”] [His book “Hamilton’s Curse” will be published on Oct.21] Hamilton was an enthusiastic proponent of the corrupt British Mercantilist system, the very system the American Revolution was fought to avoid. He fought for his program of corporate welfare, protectionist tariffs, public debt, high taxation, and a central bank run by politicians and their appointees. He was the proponent of “Crony Capitalism” or a government run for the benefit of wealthy classes. Don’t we have the feeling that some one is talking about present day conditions?

Jefferson opposed him as strongly as he could, because Hamilton’s agenda would destroy liberty and because, he, Jefferson, was taking Adam Smith’s warning against economic interventionism very seriously.

Wile during the last two centuries, Americans talked and praised Adam Smith, in time the corrupt mercantilist system was spread in America in most aspects of our lives.

In our elections, we the citizens vote, but the election expenses of our representatives, senators and presidents are met mostly by corporations, who then command the loyalty of these representatives , senators, and presidents to these corporations. The result of this system is that the country is run not according to the wishes of the voters, but according to the needs of the corporations. This certainly is no democracy. During the Independence War (1919-1922) a Turkish parliament opened up in Ankara and one of the first articles of a new constitution that passed was “Sovereignty belongs unconditionally to the people” . Using this way of expressing, we should say that in the United States of America “Sovereignty belongs unconditionally to the corporations”. This system can be democratized by adopting pubic funded elections, and forbidding receiving any other monies, but our Congress wouldn’t vote for it. Corporations’ money is apparently too sweet. Public-funded elections would completely change the government. The representatives, the senators, and the presidents will start acting according to the wishes of the voters.

Hamilton wanted a big government to borrow money, to take higher taxes, and to spend freely, solely to sell government bonds to the affluent people (business people). Those who would hold these bonds would vote for him. Jefferson, to the contrary, advocated minimal government .

Wall Street financiers liked Hamilton’s idea and became the supporters of the Federalist Party, and eventually, of the Whigs and Republicans. The bonds between Wall Street and the Federal Government were strengthened, when Wall Street got to market government bonds. Hamilton wanted to unite the propertied interests of the Eastern Seaboard into an administration party. He also transformed the financial transactions of the Treasury Department into an orgy of graft in which selected politicians participated. The political descendent of these 18th Century “propertied interests” is the $700 Billion Bailout Bill of 2008.

Hamilton is also known as the Founding Father of Central Banking. According to William Graham Sumner, “a national bank was not essential to the work of the Federal Government.” Sumner believed that “The real purpose of Hamilton’s bank was the interweaving of the interests of wealthy men with those of the government.” The bank provided cheap credit to business supporters of the Federal Party, “attempting to engineer boom-and-bust cycles to influence elections” . It was a disaster for the general public. Once it created 72 % inflation. So the Central Bank was closed several times, but it survived. In 1913 the FED was created. “The Wall Street elite’s response to all this central-bank induced monetary instability was even more centralized banking with the creation of the Federal Reserve Board. It may have meant instability to ordinary citizens, but was the source of great riches to the banking industry and other members of the politically well-connected class. Sound familiar?”

I said at the beginning that “Problems and crises must be solved all the way to their roots. I have defined and described the roots: it is the government itself with its Central Bank. It seems to me that the government is not going to get rid of its central bank to solve the present crisis. Thus, the crisis will last many years., while the $700 billion will enrich many people who are the makers of the crisis. The only possibility of solution will start with the adoption of public funded elections and taking the hands of corporations from the steering wheel of the government. To make sure that such a crisis does not recur, we must erase all influence of mercantilism from our economy. That would make us also freer.

I have been in this country for 55 years and so far never heard that the Central Banks create on purpose economic cycles to influence elections, not until a few days ago, when I read the Article of Thomas J. DiLorenzo. If it is true, it would be a scandal of Gargantuan proportions. In 1958 when I was caught in one of these cycles and suffered for nine months, I was told that these cycles belong to the nature of the capitalist system. No one knew that it was created by the Central Bank, or what ever it was called at that time. Millions of Middle-class people suffered with me, and they too did not know the cause of their suffering. Why didn’t the media enlightened us? It is not possible that they did not know. How about the people we elected? Could they not know too?

Now that the DiLorenzo article put the story in the public arena, what will the Government do? I am very curious.

Turkey and Greece were invited at the same time to join the Common Market, which later became the European Union (EU).  Greece accepted the invitation and is now one of the states of the EU. Bulent Ecevit, a Social Democrat, was the Turkish Prime minister at that time. He declined, saying that “Turkey is not yet ready”. In more recent times other Turkish governments thought that they were ready and applied for membership. This time EU set unbelievable stumbling blocks before Turkey, conditions that were not asked from the other applicants. It was obvious that Europe had changed its mind about inviting Turkey.  But for some inexplicable reason, Turkish governments did not want to see that.

 

E u r o p e’ s    V i e w s:

 

Most  of the EU states leaders have been officially supportive of Turkey’s membership application. Only Germany’s conservative Chancellor Angela Merkel wants that a partial membership be offered to Turkey. France’s Nicolas Sarkozy  is also against granting  full membership.  But the European populations are generally opposed to full membership.  Unofficially, Europe is dead set against Turkish membership but could not say so openly, diplomatically.  In stead of saying “no” they put such conditions, so that Turkey says “no”.

 

Here are statements of top EU leaders, after they retired:

Tom Spencer, Head of EU Foreign Affairs Committee, said in 1999: “I think that we did not behave correctly by promising to the Turks for 30  years that some day they will become a part of the EU. Because the truth is, that  EU has no intention to accept Turkey as a member.  Turkey is squeezed between the words that the Fundamentalists and we will not keep.  It would have been a more correct attitude for us to explain our true intentions.”

 

Valery Giscard d’Estaing, former Republic President of France, said in 2000: “Turkey will have no place in the European Union. Today no leader in Europe wants Turkey inside Europe.  They do not have any such intention for tomorrow, either. One is doing injustice to Turkey. Because Turkey is being deceived by the EU. To make it a candidate at Helsinki was to give it an empty hope ”

 

Helmut Schmidt, former Chancellor of Germany said in 2000:  “What ever may happen, Turkey has no place in Europe. We cannot allow to let 70 million Turkish citizens  to walk freely inside Europe. We cannot accept that Europe becomes neighbors with countries like  Iran, Syria, and Iraq across European borders. We should continue our economic relations with Turkey.  We should benefit from the purchasing power of the young and

fast-growing population. However, we should see that this country does not have the fundamental principles of Globalization, and  does not accept the international brotherhood.”

 

[The above statements have been translated from Turkish, that were in turn translated from English, French , or German.]

 

Although the EU is very much pro-secularism, in the case of Turkey they criticized the attempt of the courts to close the religious party for breaking almost every secularism rule. That was unbelievable.

 

T u r k e y’ s    D e s i r e    t o   be c o m e   a   E U   m e m b e r

 

Secularist Turkish governments before 2002 were insistently asking to become a EU member, and the EU systematically  asked that they fulfill undesirable conditions. Some Turkish representatives claimed that it was Turkey’s right to become a member. That was obviously not true.  Many Turks felt terribly insulted that they had defended the West during the Cold War, that former Soviet puppet countries were now easily accepted as EU-members, while their country was not.  While the three statements reported above happened in 2000 and before, Turkish governments did not take them seriously, because they did not like to hear that the EU does not want them.

 

On November 2002 there was an important election in Turkey. The Turkish people had enough of the incompetent and corrupt secular coalition of parties and voted them out of office.  A religious party, the AKP, promised during the election campaign that they are not a religious party, they are just a conservative party of Muslims, that   they will respect the secularism (Laicism) clause  of the constitution and would manage better. They also promised to carry Turkey in to the European Union.  That was odd, but the Turkish voters wanted to give them a chance. The AKP won a majority of seats in the Parliament.. 

 

Of course by 2002 the real intentions of the EU were known, and AKP’s promise to carry Turkey to  the EU was just a ruse. They knew that Europe will eventually say ”no” but mean while they would curb the capabilities of the military  to prevent their planned Islamization.  While it is downright immoral in Western culture to lie and cheat, it is just called “Takkiye” in Islam and is alright as long as it helps Islam. Thus, by Western standards EU’s  behavior is immoral.

 

AKP kept one promise: they managed the government much better than the socialist secularists. They brought the inflation rate from 50 – 75 %  down to single digit.  The per capita income of Turks increased., but they implemented  an extensive program of Islamization.  Since 1950’s they had started to re-educate the people  in religious schools by brain-washing them as fundamentalist Muslims.  Those graduates kept on increasing and were the important part of Islamization. The people were changed.  Those people were now all voting for the AKP.

 

Since 2002 AKP has put everywhere its own people, except in the military and the courts. During the last months the courts processed a request of the AKP to lift the ban of head scarves at Universities.  The EU had the same problem, mainly in France and the EU did not try to influence the court procedure.  The ban was not lifted and AKP lost.   Encouraged by this result , the Chief Prosecutor  accused the AKP  party and its main people to be breaking the laicism (Secularism) clause of the Constitution and wanted to close the AKP. His accusations were clear and many.  But meanwhile some people were retired and replaced in the Constitutional Court and the suit was rejected 7 to 6.  During this suite, EU heavily interfered by claiming that this suit was “destroying  democracy.”  If we accept their logic, if a party is once democratically elected, it has a license to break the constitution at will.  Europe has become horribly absurd. Now the last hope to get rid of the religious party was lost, even the courts are no more independent.

 

T h e    T u r k i s h    M i l i t a r y.

 

The Turkish Military is a unique institution.  It is not only a defender of Turkey, but it is also a defender of the Constitution.  I observed, that each time they interfered, they always returned to democracy in very few years. Western critics say that it is not the job of the military to interfere in the political process.  That is true for the West, because civilian governments in the West generally do their job right, they do not commit gross violations of their constitutions, so there never is need for military interference.  When Ataturk founded the Republic of Turkey, Turks’ literacy rate was 7 % and the Turkish Parliament’s occupants were not too much higher educated.  The Turkish Armed Forces were always very highly educated.  Ataturk left the military as a sort of guardian angels in case the civilians would go off the track. The military had the job of putting things back on the track and returning it to civilians. They always did that. The September 12, 1980 coup was the last full-fledged coup. After that, it was seen that a coup becomes counter-productive.  No one expects today  a military coup, but some how the people want that they play their role of guardian angel and help straightening things up. Even that is getting increasingly more difficult in a nation with an increasing percentage of fundamentalists.

 

W h a t    c a n   t h e   S e c u l a r i s t   P e o p l e   d o ? 

 

Many Secularist people still hope and wish that the military gets the chestnuts out of the fire for them, so,  they don’t have to do any thing. But that is now an unrealistic wish. Why don’t they think of doing something themselves?  After all, isn’t it their country too, where they would want to raise their children and grand-children?

 

The politically and legally healthy move should come from the secularist half of the population. They are disorganized, they should avoid the influence of socialists, form a Secular, Nationalist, Free-Market Economics party and engage in true opposition. They should tell the country that the European Membership is a hoax, Europe will never accept Turkey, Turkey should remain friends with Europe, continue its Economic relationship, but remain an independent country. They should convince the Parliament to tell Europe that they are retracting the membership application.  Thus, Europe should stop interfering in Turkey’s internal affairs. Ataturk said: “If a nation does not rely on its own effort, only on its own effort, it can became any body’s toy”.  The secularist half of the population should definitely avoid fragmenting and should elect themselves a good leader, who will commit himself to oppose the AKP. That can be now the only hope for Turkey.

Source : T H E   O R HAN   T A R H A N   L E T T E R