Examining the remarkable change in attitude of the American public toward military personnel over the last few decades ========== Those of us old enough to remember the Vietnam War recall very vividly the contempt and calumny that was heaped upon our military personnel both during and after the conflict. America lived through a shameful period in which those who wore the uniform were treated horribly by the American public, for whom those slandered soldiers had fought and sometimes died. While it was true that the behavior of a small segment of America’s military – e.g., those that perpetrated the My Lai massacre – warranted public opprobrium, the vast majority of American soldiers (almost all of whom were conscripts) deported themselves honorably, and often courageously, in Vietnam. Nevertheless, when public opinion turned against the war, it too frequently manifested itself in scorn and derision directed against our men (and women) in uniform. This persisted even after the conflict ended. Although the worst treatment meted out to soldiers and veterans was probably limited to the hands of extreme left-wing activists, politicians and media-types, much of the country seemed to acquiesce in an attitude summarized in these points: • The American military is a corrupt, morally repugnant and dangerous entity that brings shame and dishonor to the country. • It is a contemptible institution unworthy of the public’s respect. • Its leaders are venal, self-serving, violence-prone and unrepresentative of American values. • Its soldiers are at best innocent and unwitting pawns in their leaders’ brutal designs and at worst savage, drug-crazed warriors engaged in illegal warfare. It was disgusting; especially given how widespread it was and how long it went unchallenged. The attitude was also completely misguided and contrary to the historical pattern of respect and admiration that heretofore had been accorded our nation’s military forces. It symbolized a period of collective madness exhibited by the people of the nation. Thankfully, this attitude softened considerably with the conversion of the military from conscription to volunteer, and then further with the advent of the Reagan administration. Certainly, in the 80s and 90s, the reputation of active military personnel improved perceptibly in the public’s eye. But Vietnam vets were still viewed with suspicion. And in truth, an overall healthy respect for the military was still far from the norm. America’s remaining coolness to the military in this period is best highlighted by the famous incident in the White House wherein a relatively low level staffer informed a senior military officer that “I don’t greet military people.” An interesting corollary of this attitude was the spillover to police/fire/rescue personnel – or “first responders” as we now call them. The public’s respect for and admiration of first responders, albeit not as low as for military personnel still fell far below its traditional level. But things changed dramatically after 9/11. A decade later, the public’s respect for, appreciation of and gratitude toward military personnel and first responders is arguably higher than it's ever been in our nation’s history. I’ll outline the manifestations of this monumental change momentarily, but first let us consider: how did this miraculous transformation come about? Here are three possible reasons: i. The monumental heroism displayed by uniformed personnel in NY and DC on that day, and in the next few months in Afghanistan, was so stupendously eye-opening that it caused tens of millions of Americans to reassess their attitude toward military personnel and first responders. ii. America finally tired of its abnormal distrust of the military and returned to its historical gratitude for the job uniformed people do under life-threatening conditions. iii. The moderate Left ultimately recognized the damage that they were doing to the cause of freedom in the US and around the world, and so modified its opinion. Having done so, this broke a logjam and the rest of the country was pleased to accept the change of heart and follow suit. I suppose that the true reason is some combination of the above. Whatever the reason, today, Americans routinely witness enthusiastic and emotional public displays of affection, respect, even love toward military personnel. Whether it be a spontaneous burst of applause for uniformed personnel in public venues; laudatory media stories focusing on the heroism and selflessness of our troops; testimonials to the bravery and indispensability of our armed forces; or just neighborhood alliances with first responders; examples of adulation of military personnel occur frequently all over the land. During the last decade, this change in attitude has survived the bloody civil war in Iraq following our successful invasion but botched occupation; the gut-wrenching disputes over the role of women and gays in the military; and the Obama administration’s devaluing the importance of military preparedness and its draconian cuts to military budgets. Despite these, America’s affection for and gratitude toward the American military remains strong – even on the Left. It is a wonder to observe – as one easily could do on Memorial Day just passed – liberal politicians, media types and activists gushing with praise for our military personnel, and acknowledging the debt that we owe them. I suspect that for some – e.g., Mr. Obama – it's just a matter of reading the political tea leaves and bending with the current trends. Should America’s support of its military personnel wane again, the hard Left will be off that horse real fast. But I also suspect that among the moderate Left, the affection is genuine. Those folks seem finally to have come to their senses – namely even if they support big government, fear free markets and prefer multiculturalism to traditional American values, they still love America, treasure its freedoms and want the US to be the harbinger of same around the world. They realize, perhaps belatedly, that a strong military is a necessary and vital component of the effort. It gives a conservative hope. Maybe, if we can help the moderate Left to shove Obama – and the hard lefties that surround him – aside, America can resume its normal role as a beacon of liberty and prosperity to the world. _____ This article also appeared in The Intellectual Conservative at: http://intellectualconservative.com/index.php/wow-the-left-celebrated-memorial-1#more684

The progressive assault on American society is nearing total victory. The assault was in fact a revolution as it sought to overthrow the governing structures of the United States by undermining and abrogating the fundamental principles that gave birth to those structures. The assault, which began at the turn of the twentieth century, met with almost immediate success. In particular, the ratification of the 16th and 17th amendments to the Constitution and the establishment of the Federal Reserve bear testimony to that success. Although many pundits argue that it was not until the advent of Barack Obama that the progressive victory was assured, one can make a very strong case that the cataclysmic upheavals in American society that occurred in the 1960s guaranteed the ultimate success of the progressive revolution. There have been a few partially successful conservative counterattacks: Coolidge in the 1920s, Reagan in the 1980s, Gingrich in the 1990s and the Tea Party a few years ago. But all of these have a “Battle of the Bulge” character – delaying the inevitable, not preventing it. I have argued on numerous occasions that the fundamental strategy of the progressive assault is encapsulated in the aphorism usually attributed to the early twentieth century Italian philosopher, Antonio Gramsci: capture the culture, the politics will follow. And that is exactly what the progressives did. Through an unremitting assault on the basic cultural institutions of American society, the progressive movement captured virtually all of the society’s opinion-forming organs. Today the media, universities, legal profession, seminaries, federal bureaucracy, journalism schools, educational system, etc. are overwhelmingly dominated by leftists, collectivists and statists. Not surprisingly, the politics have followed – to the extent that a radical statist with absolutely no experience in any qualifying aspect of American life (e.g., business, military, executive) has been elected – and re-elected – president of the US. Surely, when surveying the scene in 1895, the young progressive must have viewed the revolutionary task ahead of him as gargantuan – perhaps even impossible. But he and his cohort set to work and scarcely more than a century later, his progeny sits atop the mountain. With perseverance, single-minded dedication and adherence to the game plan, they overcame the enormous obstacles in their path and converted American society into the multicultural, government-dependent, environmentally-obsessed, racially divisive, militarily-weakened, redistributionist, self-denigrating, secular, morally decadent, class conscious society that we comprise today. Thus in 2013, a young conservative, when contemplating a counterrevolution that would return America to its founding principles, faces a daunting landscape as inhospitable as his progressive forbearer confronted 118 years earlier. He will need the same perseverance, tenacity and dedication if he is to repeat the success. And he needs to follow the same game plan – that is, he needs to recapture the culture. In other venues, I have proposed some strategies to do so, but here I would like to suggest the need for a tool. All revolutions require a guidebook – a manifesto that outlines the fundamental rationale of the revolutionaries and points the way toward the game plan that will drive the revolution. Historical examples are manifold. Perhaps the most famous is the US Declaration of Independence. Others include: the Declaration of the Rights of Man (issued during the French Revolution), the Cartagena Manifesto of Simon Bolivar, the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf. Two more recent examples are the Port Huron Statement and the Contract with America. The latter, which inspired Gingrich and to some extent the Tea Party, has had rather limited success. On the other hand, the former (usually attributed to Tom Hayden) has played a significant role in motivating and guiding progressive efforts over the last half century. One could argue that the manifesto for the conservative counterrevolution has already been written by Mark Levin. His 2009 book Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto is a serious candidate to fill the bill. But I fear that its longevity and influence may be limited. Time will tell. However, it is likely that something shorter and more focused, but equally eloquently and passionately argued, might be necessary. I don’t propose to write that document here. Rather I will describe what I see as the five fundamental components that the document must encompass and address if it is to galvanize and motivate the public and also to serve as the inspiration for the decades-long effort that it must guide. Those five are: 1. Freedom. The primary thrust of a conservative manifesto must be freedom. The basic tenets of the Declaration of Independence must be re-emphasized. The most fundamental ideal of the American Revolution is that all human beings are born free, that each individual is inherently equal to any other before the law, that we all enjoy certain inalienable rights endowed by God, or Nature’s God – specifically, the rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights, and that governments are instituted almost exclusively to protect those rights. The present system, in which the Federal Government acts as the initiator and enforcer of “new rights” in a manner that is far beyond the scope of the powers enumerated to it in our Constitution, is contrary to the spirit of freedom and constitutes a grave danger to our individual liberty. 2. Economic Opportunity. Building on and consistent with political freedom is our right to economic freedom. The people have the right to choose their mode and place of work, to enter into monetary or labor contracts freely, to enjoy the fruits of their labor and to buy and sell property as they see fit -- all, of course, within the rule of law. The government’s sole role in the economic foundation of our lives is to enforce the rule of law – dispassionately, objectively and without prejudice. In addition, our economic system will embrace free market capitalism – because it is the only system consistent with economic and political freedom, and because it yields far greater overall prosperity than does socialism, Keynesianism or any other economic system. 3. American Exceptionalism. We must re-endorse the following ideas: the American experiment in political and economic freedom makes us unique among the nations of the Earth; America should remain a shining example to the world of freedom and hope; America has been and continues to be a force for good in the world; we welcome immigrants to our shores who share our ideals; and we will maintain the strength and will to move the world towards a more humane, free and prosperous future. 4. Morality. We must re-endorse the notion of our Founders that our system of government and rules for organizing society (i.e., as a democratic, Constitutional Republic) can work only if the people – who enjoy widespread liberty –are moral, decent and virtuous. We live in a time when one man’s morality is another man’s chains. But hopefully, we all can agree that a moral America is one grounded in: faith, charity, humility and strong families and communities. 5. Rule of Law. We must re-emphasize that ours is a society in which the law, not men, reign supreme. In addition to – indeed as a companion to freedom, we seek justice. The laws are made by the people and our leaders execute them according to the consent of all who are governed by them. Thus we reject political corruption, crony capitalism, the cult of a leader or leaders, and discrimination – reverse or otherwise. Who will write the manifesto? The conservative cause needs someone with Levin’s depth of understanding, Krauthammer’s perspicacity, Buckley’s eloquence, Limbaugh’s passion, Churchill’s guts, Reagan’s optimism and the wisdom of a Solomon. Will that person please report to the front desk asap! ______ This essay also appeared in The Intellectual Conservative at: http://intellectualconservative.com/index.php/who-will-compose-a-manifesto

• The explosive and seemingly inexorable growth of the Federal Government, accompanied by unsustainable deficits and debt, is robbing the American people of their liberty, independence and prosperity.
• The throttling of the country’s economic engine by progressive policies and programs, which have converted economic growth into economic stagnation, signals the end of the American economic miracle and a steady decline into Euro levels of unemployment, lack of opportunity and generational decay.
• The hollowing out of the military has resulted in an America less able to defend its and its allies’ interests and increasingly
  aggressive projection of power by its adversaries (China, Russia, Iran and other Islamic radicals, North Korea).
• While substantial immigration has traditionally replenished the nation’s energy and enterprise, the country is increasingly
  flooded with people whose origins – unlike in the past – lie in countries that know little of Western Civilization, British Rule of Law, Dutch free enterprise and the freedoms enshrined in our Bill of Rights. In the resulting environment, it is difficult to sustain adherence to the founding principles of our nation.    
• In particular, the rapidly growing minority communities in the US align themselves overwhelmingly with statist, collectivist and redistributionist policies that are alien to traditional American values. These communities vote overwhelmingly left rather than right – a trend that appears likely to strengthen as the size of these communities grows.       
• Finally, the takers now outnumber the makers, with greater imbalances on the horizon. Nearly half of Americans pay no income tax and (a somewhat different) half receive some sort of welfare payment from the federal government. Entrepreneurs are reviled while the “needy” are deemed the soul of the nation.

Two recent, significant events in Israel highlight a major change in the Israeli people’s attitude toward their nation’s role in Middle Eastern affairs. These events were the January elections for a new Knesset (Parliament) and the just-concluded state visit of President Obama. The outcome of the elections befuddled virtually all of the international political prognosticators. Moreover, the impact of Obama’s visit – with the possible exception of a tentative rapprochement with Turkey – will be essentially nil. These surprising developments reflect a sea change in the Israeli public’s perception of the major issues confronting their nation and, more importantly, how their tiny country should deal with these issues – both those that were formerly anointed as the most pressing as well as those now recognized by the people as truly the most urgent.

From the moment of its birth, Israel has been under attack. The assault has been broad (emanating from its Arab neighbors, the Muslim world, the Communist nations, the UN and even from Europe), sustained (65 years with no respite), vicious (the attackers employ terrorism, bigotry-motivated  boycotts, bloodthirsty calumny and of course conventional war) and existential. Regarding the latter, while Israel’s foes have sought its destruction from the beginning, their former discretion about expressing their true intentions has given way to blatant and transparent statements of their desire to obliterate the Jewish nation and its people.

Not surprisingly, in response to the ongoing dire threat, Israel’s main objective for the last two-thirds of a century has been to confront and repel the threat; but equally importantly, to pursue policies that – they mistakenly believed – might at least ameliorate, but more hopefully terminate the constant assault. Israel’s governments have considered their primary responsibility to be: the protection of the homeland through a perpetual vigilance against and preparation for the never-ending belligerence of her enemies – which, as indicated, comprised Arabs, and more generally, Muslims, aided and abetted by hostile forces throughout the world. The primary focus, therefore of the government, and of the people in general, was on foreign affairs, military preparedness and homeland security. It is true that during her existence, Israel has also managed to create a robust democracy, a vibrant economy, a fair amount of social cohesion and arguably the most successful ethnic nation-state on Earth. But the efforts of the people to create these successful societal components  always had to take second place to the more urgent need to defend the nation. The latter was on the mind of almost every Israeli almost all of the time.

Well, the threat has not vanished. One could even argue that, in light of: the “Arab spring” – in particular, its manifestations in Egypt and Syria; the ominous machinations of the Iranian regime; the resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe; and the perceived diminution of American power and will, the threat is actually greater than ever. Nevertheless, signs abound that the Israeli people are turning their attention inward. Those signs include:

·         The recent election in which the results made clear that the people are far more interested in: internal economic disparities; the role of the Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) community; the role of Israel’s internal Arab population; the nature of the government’s structure; and the social composition of society than they are in Arab “democrats,” Iranian fanatics, European BDSers or J-Street morons in America.

·         The tepid response to Barack Obama. Many worried that Obama’s barely concealed disdain for Israel and its government would spark demonstrations or other manifestations of displeasure during his visit. Not only did that not occur, but much of the Israeli public simply ignored him. (One should not be confused by the enthusiastic response of the hand-picked leftist audience at his Jerusalem “student” speech.)

·         Israel’s perfunctory intervention in Gaza last fall. Rather than a massive ground incursion, Israel satisfied itself with the minimum effort required to stop Hamas’ rockets – temporarily, of course.

·         Israel’s failure to attack the Iranian nuclear facilities. Apparently Israel has calculated that either: it does not possess the requisite firepower and/or the resultant Hezbollah/Hamas retaliation would be too painful and/or maybe the Americans will take care of the problem after all and/or even with nukes the Iranians won’t be suicidal enough to attack Israel and/or Israel just doesn’t have the moxie. Whatever the reason, despite the continued tough rhetoric from Netanyahu, it is increasingly clear that no Israeli attack is forthcoming.

·         The intense focus on the economy, technological development, energy exploration and trade. These pursuits absorb and energize the public and the government far more than does the “peace process.”

·         Indeed, the near total lack of interest in the so-called Israel-Palestinian peace process is striking. It is a topic that garners less attention than at any time since the Six Day War.

A combination of fatigue, boredom and reality has set in. Regarding Israel’s’ relationship with the Arab/Muslim world, there is nothing new to say or do. The Palestinians in particular and the Arab/Muslim world in general are irreconcilably opposed to the existence of a sovereign Jewish nation in the heart of the Umma. It has been so for more than a hundred years and will likely remain so for at least another hundred years. No Israeli attitude, policy or action will change that. So why bother?

Israel is a formidable military power. It has defended itself successfully since the War of Independence and indications are that it will continue to be able to do so for the foreseeable future. Why obsess about it? There are no “peace plans” to be concocted that will add anything to the equation. Just keep the guns oiled, the intelligence flowing and morale high. Bullets may fly again – as they have so often in the past. When they cease to whistle, nothing will have changed.

Look around! Western Civilization is in decline. In addition, the Muslim world remains mired in bigotry, medievalism, tribalism, political barbarity and economic ignorance. China, India and other rising powers are a long way from dominance. In the short term at least, there is no conceivable correlation of forces that is going to alter Israel’s status in the Middle East.

Finally, there are pressing domestic issues that Israel has ignored for far too long because of its laser focus on external affairs. It’s time to turn attention to the home front.

Israel has had relatively brief periods in which it has been similarly inclined – in the early/mid 1960s, in the mid/late 1970s, in the mid 1980s. But events always intervened to draw the focus back to the incessant conflict. Regarding the three periods mentioned, the signal events marking their close were, respectively, the Six Day War, Sadat’s pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the First Intifada – followed of course by Oslo. Time will tell if this new, conceivably more intense, internal focus proves to be more enduring.

____

This essay also appeared in The Intellectual Conservative at: http://intellectualconservative.com/index.php/is-israel-turning-inward

•  the standards by which students – both graduate and undergraduate – will be admitted to campus;
•  the research agenda of the various departments, institutes and colleges into which the faculty organize themselves;
• which academic programs will be emphasized and which left to wither;
• who their administrative leaders shall be – from program directors and research institute heads up to chairs, deans, provosts and presidents;
• the academic and professional criteria according to which promotions are decided, grants are pursued, prizes are awarded,
  appointments are made and support staff are hired;
• the extra-curricular menu of their campus – e.g., who shall receive official campus invitations to speak, what corporate
  collaborations to seek, which donors to cultivate, even what campus clubs shall receive official sanction.

Historically, the faculty actually did enjoy the capability to do all of these things. This was in part because it was viewed as the
natural way to run a university, and in part because there were no countervailing forces to prevent it. The administrative layers that accompanied and facilitated faculty control of campuses were fairly thin. That is, the percentage of professional, full-time campus administrators was small compared to that of the faculty. Furthermore, many of them were drawn from the ranks of
the faculty (to which they returned after relatively brief stints in campus administration) and so although these faculty functioned as administrators, they still thought of themselves as faculty and deported themselves accordingly.

1. Politicization of the campus. There is an almost all-pervasive political bias on campus. Faculty and students who don’t parrot the liberal line – not just on politics, but also in science (e.g., climate and evolution), culture (gay marriage and     abortion) and economics (spending and taxes) – are viewed not only as wrong, but often as crazy. It is intimidating, tyrannical and completely contrary to what the nature of a campus environment should encompass. Education has been replaced by indoctrination.


2. Lowering of academic standards. Because of the spread of meaningless studies programs, abuses of affirmative action, pressure for grade inflation and the silencing of the faculty, the academic standards of the university continue to slip.      Campuses have degenerated into diploma mills producing clones of the liberal people who run the place, not independent thinkers with innovative ideas – which is of course what universities are supposed to produce.


3. Prohibitive cost. The explosive growth of the administrative clan has led to an unchecked growth in the cost of the product. Tuitions have skyrocketed; students graduate (or don't graduate) after incurring enormous debt; increasingly the supposed  payoff in higher income that a university degree is supposed to ensure is disappearing and finally, the worth of the product that the universities are selling is called into question.


4. Bubble. Which leads to the increasingly widespread belief that higher education is our nation's next bubble. The situation outlined in #3 above is unsustainable. And as Stein's Law says: "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop." A major crisis in higher education is waiting around a nearby corner. One wonders if one of the outcomes of the budding crisis will be a return to a more prominent role for academic faculty in university governance.

An attempt to explain the liberal mindset based on a simple, but striking example of liberal thought

I confess that I am scratching my head at Jack's list of issues that plague our community: "gun violence, poverty, homelessness, hunger." I think this list passing strange. In fact Jack is an eminent figure in a vibrant community of relatively prosperous suburbanites of all ages living in one of the most affluent, safe, beautiful and even diverse neighborhoods in the region – indeed, I vouchsafe, in the entire country. It is absolutely without question that aside from what could be no more than a miniscule percentage, no member of our community has encountered gun violence, poverty, homelessness or hunger recently – or indeed at any time in his or her own life.

Now I don't want to give a false picture of an idyllic existence; the local community certainly does face some serious problems. Those that come to mind include the following:

• Like all Americans, we inhabit an increasingly bankrupt nation (as well as a severely fiscally challenged State) – the burden of which we are laying off on our children. If we don’t get our fiscal house in order, then we – and certainly our children – will not enjoy for much longer the "idyllic existence" of which we are so enamored and to which we are accustomed. The violence done to our economic well-being easily exceeds any inflicted by automatic weapons.
• Again, like all Americans, we reside in a country and a neighborhood in which the prospects for the coming generations to live as well as we do is clearly diminished. The American dream is in jeopardy. What are we going to do about it?
• Congestion, overly expensive housing and excessive government taxation and regulation make it difficult to sustain this idyllic corner of the world that we have created. How can we wisely mollify these real threats to our community – any one of which is a far more prevalent and serious problem than "hunger."
• A uniform political outlook in our local schools, libraries, government and media closes the minds of our children to any questioning of the politically correct atmosphere that permeates our local society. The only homelessness that is evident in our community is attached to those who profess an alternate outlook.
• American culture is saturated with pornography, vulgarity, permissiveness media violence and a growing disrespect for religion. Is that the "poverty" (of spirit) that keeps Jack awake at night?

When I converse with my neighbors, I can detect other common problems that might trouble Jack – e.g., neglected children due to parents who work long hours to pay for the trappings of the good life that we enjoy; broken marriages and other familial crises that deprive children of a happy and nurturing home life; a stagnant economy that cripples economic opportunity and advancement; increasing alienation from religious faith as exemplified by dwindling church attendance, moral decay and the proliferation of "alternate lifestyles." But nowhere do I see anyone who has been victimized by gun violence, nor anyone who is hungry, homeless or poverty-stricken. How in heaven's name can Jack identify these as the central issues "facing us?"

Well here is my stab at an answer. Certainly violence, poverty, hunger and homelessness are serious problems in many parts of the world, and in some parts of our nation. When we learn of tragedies associated with these afflictions – be it a Sandy Hook shooting or pictures in the news of a filthy, street-dwelling, vagabond roaming a blighted urban neighborhood – our hearts are rent and we wish that our world could be spared the horror of these calamities. Now compare those poignant tragedies to the more personal dilemmas we face: not enough of a salary raise this year; my wife and I are working so hard that there is barely any time left for each other; my prepubescent son is being bullied in school; or God forbid, my eldest daughter is dating a gangbanger. The liberal mind is haunted far more by the former than the latter. He/she ruminates: if we can fix these "global," horrific problems, then the world would be good and trivial matters like a faltering personal economy will be much easier to deal with.

Since the dawn of civilization, there has been a dichotomy in the human soul between the universal and the particular. Conservatives tend to focus on the particular – particularly when it comes to the world's faults. For liberals, the universal is the way to calm the soul. In a way, I admire Jack that he is so deeply troubled personally by a nameless homeless person whose visage on TV moves him to action. I applaud the emotion; but I believe that Jack would be more successful at healing the world if he kept his attention focused on the more visceral needs of his friends and neighbors in the community.

Obama's selections for his second term senior leadership team reveal quite clearly what his game plan is for the next two years – and for the following two, for that matter. His picks, including Susan Rice (thwarted), John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, John Brennan, Jack Lew and Eric Holder, are all cut from the same cloth. In terms of both domestic and foreign policy, they represent the same hard left viewpoint as their boss. They have virtually no private sector experience, no appreciable record of cooperation or accommodation with Republicans or conservatives and a near total fealty to the redistributionist, statist, multicultural, America-denigrating philosophy that animates and motivates our "transformational" president.

Obama enjoyed control of both the executive and legislative branches of government during his first two years in office. He used it to dramatically advance the transformational philosophy that he espouses. His aim is to refashion America away from its traditional founding as a constitutional republic based on individual liberty, free market capitalism, religiously-grounded morality, limited government and a devotion to the ideal of America as a shining example and promoter of freedom throughout the world. Instead he envisions a collectivist, Euro-style social welfare state marked by an overwhelmingly powerful central government, a government–controlled corporate economy, a secular, multicultural populace that favors equality over liberty, and a nation whose place among the nations of the world is no more exalted than any other.

It is true that America has been moving in the direction Obama favors for a century – including several major surges to the left under Wilson, FDR and LBJ. Now Obama means to complete the transformation and during his first two years, he had great success along those lines (Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, two ultra-liberal Supreme Court appointments, gays in the military, among others). But the American people threw a monkey wrench in the works in the 2010 midterm elections. However, unlike Bill Clinton, who – when faced with a similar setback – tacked to the right and actually implemented several center-right initiatives (a balanced budget and welfare reform, e.g.), Obama conceived a different response.

He spent the last two years picking fights with Republicans, castigating conservatives, refusing to cooperate at all with the House's efforts to reduce the federal debt and deficit, excoriating his electoral opponent and then blaming the Republicans for the ensuing stalemate. It worked – he got re-elected. But, although he retained the Senate, he failed to take the House.

Therefore, the strategy for the next two years is clearly more of the same. The consequences will be dire: the debt explosion will continue; economic stagnation will persist; our foreign enemies will grow stronger and bolder. And Obama believes – likely correctly – that he can lay all the blame on the House Republicans. The goal then is to retake the House in 2014 and then to complete the transformation of America. Should he succeed, in the years 2014-2016, we shall see: cap and trade, a value added tax, card check, amnesty for illegal aliens, a further dramatic military drawdown, and a slew of other collectivist legislation and regulation that will indeed complete the transformation of the country into the United Socialist States of America.

Three final points:

1. The American people freely chose the route traveled thus far. It is folly to assume that, without some major wake-up call, they will not complete the choice in 2014.
2. We have seen the future of Obama's America. It is represented at best by an England that is a zephyr of an international force in comparison to its 300-year history of world power; and at worst by Greece with its declining standard of living, political and cultural paralysis, and civil unrest.
3. If Congressional Republicans will recognize Obama's strategy, they might begin to devise some tactics to counter it. Attempts to compromise with Obama will either bear no fruit or, like recent examples, will yield poison fruit that will be blamed on Republicans. Conservatives must articulate to the American people what lies in store for them if Obama succeeds. Hopefully, what remains of traditional America (presumably 53%) will awaken and thwart Obama's socialist designs for our country.

On October 31, 2008, Barack Obama declared: "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America." Actually, despite his reputation for eloquence, the President has uttered precious few memorable phrases. But the 2008 utterance was indeed memorable. Why? It does not appear that anyone has ever asked him to clarify exactly what transformation he envisioned. From what to what? By what means? And to what effect?

The Left was content that one of their own would occupy the White House and surely, after policies advocated by the new president were implemented, America would look more like the statist, redistributionist, multi-cultural, multi-lateral, Euro-style social welfare state of which they dreamed. The Right understood the remark in exactly the same manner – but in place of joy at the prospect, they were filled with foreboding. However, a huge percentage of Americans – presumably in the middle politically – paid the quote little mind except as it saw Obama's election heralding the advent of a post-racial, post-partisan, cool new administration, about which they were quite pleased. Those people didn't give the political ramifications a second thought. And so, amazingly, Obama was not asked to explicate the altered nature of America that he envisioned and which he was determined to bring about.

The results of this fall's election have raised the alarm that the profile of the American electorate has slid unalterably to the left. The most cited reasons are: shifting demographics, an imbalance in the technical capabilities of the two parties that advantages the Democrats, and the inevitable effects of a century-long march by the Left through the country's cultural institutions. To elaborate on the latter, the assertion is that now that the Left virtually controls all the opinion-molding organs of American society – but especially the media and the educational system, the people increasingly succumb to the progressive brainwashing to which they are subjected.

The corroborating evidence for these theories is strong: the groups who instinctively support the Left (blacks, Hispanics, single women) form an increasing proportion of the population; there is no question that the Democratic ground game, fund-raising and techno operations significantly outperformed those of the Republicans; and even a cursory acquaintance with the thoughts of the nation's youth confirms the leftist brainwashing that permeates our schools – from kindergarten through graduate school.

And yet! The House of Representatives remains under Republican (if not conservative) control, thirty states have Republican governors and if one counts counties, the Republican majority is even more striking. However, much of this strength originates in those counties that are outside the nation's major metropolitan areas. Therefore, the question that I would like to address here is whether those areas – where devotion to the conservative ideals of traditional America remains strong – are also being subjected to the same progressive forces that have turned America's cities and (many of their) suburbs into leftist bastions.

I will base my analysis on personal observation. I live and work (even though I am retired) in the Maryland suburbs of Washington, DC. The county in which I reside (Montgomery) is as left leaning as virtually any county in America. Moreover, Maryland politics are as blue as they come. We have two ultra-left Senators, an ultra-left Governor and a State legislature that has gerrymandered the State's congressional districts so as to convert the delegation from its long-established, roughly evenly split configuration into a nearly uniform Democratic majority. One of the recently gerrymandered districts includes the two mountain counties of Western Maryland, which are rural, traditional in their culture and staunchly conservative in their politics. I own a second home in one of those counties and spend much of my time there. The local joke is that when the fiscal collapse in Annapolis and Washington – toward which the profligate spending in those two capitals is inexorably propelling us – finally occurs, we are going to dynamite the interstate in order to insulate ourselves from the chaos emanating from liberal America. Would that a solution were that simple!

However, in the last decade and a half, during my frequent sojourns in Western Maryland, I have noticed the following ominous developments. These impressions are based on my own observations and from extensive conversations with the locals who reside there more permanently:

• The county's school teachers and administrators, largely imported from the nation's virulently liberal colleges of education, are increasingly left wing and have begun to inculcate the local school children with the same leftist propaganda that envelops students from all over the country.
• Locals routinely sample the national media (movies, TV, and of course the internet) and the messages transmitted therein are very different from those emitted by increasingly scarce local radio stations.
• The foundation of religious worship, while still strong, is not as strong as it used to be.
• There was always some outmigration of youth as they came to adulthood, but it is more prevalent now – and even if the prodigals return, say after college, they infect the area with the more "cosmopolitan" beliefs that they absorbed in their absence.
• The homogeneity of the county – WASP, of course – while still strong, is again not as strong as it used to be. The arrival of several big box chain stores has brought in some workers who don't fit the profile so well. This migration is not as extensive as in some rural areas – in the Midwest and Southeast, where a huge influx of ethnic minorities fleeing high unemployment in places like California has radically altered local demographics. Of course, there is no a priori reason why a change in ethnic population composition needs to entail a loss of the ideals and principles that have defined traditional America – devotion to individual liberty, confidence in free markets, belief in American exceptionalism, and reliance on a morality grounded in religion. But it is undeniable that since America changed its immigration laws fifty years ago to shift the bulk of legal immigration from Europe to third world countries, the folks who come here do not have the background in British tradition and Western Civilization that underlies those fundamental principles. They are much more susceptible to the siren call of collectivist state security rather than rugged individualism – natural fodder for the overwhelmingly leftist Democratic Party.
• Finally, I see some signs of fatigue, demoralization and loss of confidence. There seems to be a sense that the country has moved away from the founding principles that have animated the peoples of Western Maryland. Moreover, they see themselves as somewhat out of touch with "mainstream" America and they worry that the trends indicate a growing divergence.

 

Mass higher education refers to the phenomenon, promoted aggressively by President Obama, whereby a tremendous proportion of the eligible population enrolls in the nation's colleges. It presumes that any American high school graduate who desires a higher education should be able to pursue one. Furthermore, it operates under the assumptions that this is a worthy goal, that such a desire should be inculcated into the youth of America and most importantly, that the vast majority of enrollees are capable – under suitably hospitable conditions – of completing a college degree.

The country has certainly embraced the movement toward mass higher education. When my generation entered college (approximately half a century ago), roughly one third of high school graduates went off to university. And that was more than triple the percentage that did likewise another fifty years earlier. Today, depending upon whether one counts two-year college enrollments, the fraction is somewhere between three-fifths and three-quarters. If the promoters of mass higher education have their way, that fraction will exceed four-fifths and perhaps approach nine-tenths within a generation.

The purpose here is to examine whether this objective is good for America or not. Before defining the phrase "good for America" and then investigating whether mass higher education is indeed good for America, it is worth pointing out that the movement toward mass or universal higher education in the twenty-first century bears some resemblance – albeit with significant differences – to the nineteenth century movement to ensure that all American youth received an elementary education (at least six and often eight years of schooling) and to the twentieth century movement to require all American students to complete high school.

Few would dispute the merit of the nineteenth and twentieth century goals. Therefore, how can the drive for twenty-first century universal higher education not be an equally worthy objective for the United States?

In order to respond, let's be clear about what it means for a major political/cultural/educational phenomenon to be good for American society. There are two aspects: the nature of the process itself and then its outcomes. To be good for America the process must be: legal, moral, accessible to all and consistent with the historically established, political/cultural mores of American society. More importantly, to be good for America, the process's outcomes must be characterized by: increased prosperity, a more cohesive citizenry, improved moral health of the body politic and the strengthening of the fundamental principles which undergird the American experiment. If, on the other hand, the phenomenon yields: more poverty, a less competitive country in the global market, a fractured population, moral decline or other deleterious, unintended consequences, then it is hard to see how it could be deemed good for America.

So is mass higher education good for America or not? Here are some arguments in favor of a positive response:

• Certainly the Founders believed that a well-educated citizenry was essential to the success of the Republic that they created. That's a view that has been shared over time by the nation's leaders and citizens. More education produces a population better able to participate fully in the nation's political processes, better positioned to contribute to its economy and more liable to make important scientific, financial, medical or artistic discoveries that enhance the quality of everyone's lives. Therefore, how could increasing the percentage of the population with a college education not prove a benefit to America?
• Statistical analyses repeatedly confirm the direct correlation between the amount of formal education and total lifetime earnings. In short, more education translates into more riches.
• The nation has passed from an industrial age to a new techno-information age. We need a better educated citizenry to both cope with changes in society the new age has wrought as well as to produce leaders who will take our society down exciting paths to be forged in the new age.
• Education civilizes the human savage. Better educated people are, in general, less violent, more thoughtful and more disciplined than their less educated counterparts. That assertion might be difficult to justify. But, to pick a perhaps extreme example, in a study done by the National Center for Crisis Management, it was found that only 4% of serial killers were college graduates. (Roughly 23% of the population has a college degree.) Yes, college graduates do commit felonies; but it is a common perception – which probably has substantial merit – that an educated person is likely to be more "civilized" than his less credentialed neighbor. He may or may not be smarter or happier, but he is better behaved.
• Finally, it is not uncommon to hear the opinion that a well-educated person is, because of his exposure to myriad ideas and narratives, more likely to be tolerant, understanding of cultural differences among people and able to function more effectively in the polyglot nation that is the USA. Once again, it might be that a college graduate is not any happier or wiser than a high school graduate, but he brings a set of attitudes, gleaned from the college experience, that makes him a more open-minded and ecumenical citizen than his less educated counterpart, which helps him to foster a more cohesive, just and fair-minded society.

It all sounds rather impressive. But, alas, there is another side to the story. Applying the second most powerful law of nature (Einstein is reputed to have claimed that the first is compound interest), i.e., the law of unintended consequences, we encounter the following downsides of mass higher education:

• Dumbing down and flunking out. Once upon a time, in order to earn a college degree, a student needed to have significantly above average intelligence, the willingness and capacity to work hard, healthy doses of patience and perseverance, and the ability to defer gratification. Perhaps a quarter – but likely much less – of the population possesses all those traits. Moreover, it is clear that no more than a third can have the first one – with or without the rest. So if we are going to push 75% (or more) of the youth toward a college degree, then at least one (and probably both) of the following must happen:
• the course content required to earn a college degree will be significantly dumbed down;
• there will be an enormous amount of dropping out, i.e., students failing to graduate.

In fact, both phenomena have been manifest for years and they will occur with increasing frequency. These eventualities will, on the one hand, drastically demean the value of a college education and, on the other, seriously demoralize and stigmatize a sizeable portion of American youth.

• As a consequence, the American college degree is cheapened. But American higher education has been the model of an advanced education for the world . As we degrade its worth, we harm not only our youth, but also our country's reputation. And of course, the youth we hurt the most are the nation's most talented students as we dilute the superior product that they deserve and require.
• We also cheapen the high school degree. We inadvertently signal its worthlessness by implying that its recipients cannot rely on it to make their way in life – it is at best a stepping stone on the path to the gateway that is really important. It is therefore no surprise that the high school dropout rate is the highest it's been in three generations.
• Technical and trade schools, and other vocational alternatives to college have been deemphasized in the US. These schools used to train a significant portion of our blue collar workers and para-professionals. Enrollment at such schools has dropped precipitously in recent decades because students who would have normally gone there are now encouraged to go to college.[1] The resultant constriction in the number of suitable workers has contributed to the decline of manufacturing in America?
• The dumbing down of the American college curriculum has resulted in the proliferation of garbage courses, programs and degrees on campus. (See virtually any program that has the word "Studies" in its title.) The vaunted institutions that were American universities have been turned into something more akin to a reality TV show. Of course, there is still much serious stuff on campus – e.g., in the sciences, but it is tarnished by the garbage that coexists beside it and commands equal respect.
• In order to service the hordes of students crashing the door, the academic support staff at US universities has exploded in size. These people contribute little to the fundamental mission of the university, i.e., teaching and research. What they do is…
• Drive costs astronomically higher. It takes a small fortune to pay and house all these useless employees. Thus, the cost for a four-year college degree is now obscene.
• And because of that cost, students take on crushing debt to pay the freight. It is estimated that the average debt is $20,000-$25,000 per student – whether they graduate or not. One starts life with a car loan to pay off – and no car.
• So Uncle Sam rides to the rescue with generous government loan programs. Taken together with the fact that – because most universities can't balance their budgets with just tuition and endowment funds – academia relies critically on government grants tied to faculty research, it can be legitimately claimed that the feds have in some sense taken over higher education.
• But that goes hand in hand with the overall leftist takeover of the culture of the university – a topic intimately familiar to readers of this journal. The near total domination of leftist thought on the vast majority of American campuses is abetted by the infusion of youthful fodder from the nation's high schools at which liberal brainwashing is far advanced. One of the most pernicious downsides of mass higher education is that the brainwashing that commences at government schools in grades K-12 is now augmented and perfected at the university.
• A side effect of which is the blight of affirmative action – whose need is justified by the huge influx of students, many of whom are from minority communities. The one place in American society that should be devoted to diversity of opinion, an open clash of ideas and the search for knowledge is instead dominated by racial preferences, uniform group think and willful ignorance of inconvenient truths.

In summary: five pros, eleven cons. Maybe mass higher education is not such a great idea after all. In fact, the attempt to convert the nation's universities into diploma mills to service virtually all of the country's youth is an intended goal of the progressives who control the educational establishment. The attempt finds favor among a large percentage of the population that is blind to the unintended consequences. If instead we retained the high level of academic achievement and personal responsibility that should be required for an individual to complete a higher education degree, then there would be more productive ways (for society) to direct many of the nation's youth after high school. These include the military, trade schools, internships, apprenticeships, work in the family business or an entry level job in almost any business, or work for religious, charitable or other voluntary organizations. At the very least, we should recognize that too many of our youth are emotionally and socially unprepared at age 18 to seriously pursue an academic degree. Instead, many of the above alternate choices could supply young people with the maturity to pursue a degree later – when they would have a better chance of succeeding and also when they might not be as pliable in the hands of the progressives who control higher education. But I doubt that President Obama would endorse that idea.

---

To say that a person has the Math Gene[1] is to attribute to him an unusual propensity to handle numbers and the advanced algorithmic processes by which experts manipulate them. Although, among the people who possess these special talents, there is no biological or neurological evidence for any of it. And yet, those of us who exhibit these traits are easily identified among the general population.

My gene became evident at a young age and has remained conspicuous during all of my professional life. Throughout my journey, I have naturally and consciously surrounded myself with others like me. This is not surprising. Human beings always seek companions and colleagues who not only think and behave like they do, but inhabit a world of ideas, attitudes and habits similar to their own.

In fact we mathematicians stand out. We don’t think and behave like the vast majority of our fellow citizens. John Q. Public knows us when he sees us, and – at the risk of overgeneralization – here are some of the more striking of our singular characteristics:

• We’re often socially awkward. We generally don’t pay much attention to clothes, fashion, or what’s in or hot or cool. Our homes, cars and bodies are often unkempt, and we do poorly at small talk. We tend to be introverted, soft-spoken and not terribly athletic.
• We excel at abstract thinking, but are notoriously weak at practical affairs.
• We are amazing problem solvers, especially those of the abstract or theoretical variety; but please don’t ask us to change a tire or balance a checkbook.
• We sometimes find it hard to look you straight in the eye, and we are easily embarrassed when we find ourselves the center of attention.

I cannot tell you how many times in my life when, in casual conversation with someone I’ve just met, after I reveal that I am a mathematician, the reaction is: “Omigod, math was my worse subject in school; it was soooo hard. You must be a genius.” But at the same time, the one who has just uttered the confession/paean gives a furtive look at a fellow conversant which screams: “What a nerd! I wouldn’t have been like this guy for my weight in gold.”

However, in recent years, I detect another partially hidden reaction – both in stolen glances as well as in meekly asked follow up questions, like “So do you have a software or consulting company? I bet that you do OK?”

This is a result of society’s increasing fascination with technology and the seeming nerds who have pioneered its development. The names Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Sergei Brin and Mark Zuckerberg come to mind. Which leads to the question posed in the title: Is the Math Gene a ticket to wealth or nerdiness?

Alas, if there is a definitive answer, it is far closer to the latter than the former. Of the four names cited, only Brin can lay any claim to be a mathematician, and in fact his academic pedigree is more computer science than mathematics. Indeed, I know of only one academic mathematician — a former professor at Stony Brook University – who parlayed his math talent into a fortune. There might be others, but I doubt very many. For the qualities that I have identified, which characterize mathematicians, are not those that equip a person with the skills needed to acquire great wealth.

Although the depiction of Mark Zuckerberg in the opening scene of The Social Network suggests some of the math nerd characteristics that I’ve specified, it would be a mistake to suppose that those traits helped Zuckerberg to attain the phenomenal wealth that he enjoys today. No, the traits that enabled him and the other great modern technological entrepreneurs to do the things that garnered massive wealth for them were otherwise. They certainly include: extraordinary creativity and originality – as opposed to mere problem-solving skills; a willingness, indeed eagerness to take great risks; an aggressive, self-confident and strong-willed personality; persistence and single-mindedness; an ability to read people and gauge their desires; and an inclination to defy convention and a lack of concern about what others think of them.

Not exactly the characteristics of your typical mathematician. But, if I might address a wider audience than just the normal Notices' readership: Not to despair all ye parents and grandparents of a budding mathematician. Your progeny will not be cool, not trendy, probably not a leader of men and almost certainly not rich. But a life of mathematics will yield: the satisfaction of cracking numerous mathematical puzzles; a professional life of honesty, fulfillment, a sense of doing something worthy and occasional serenity; a camaraderie with others who are similarly endowed; and the respect, if not admiration, from the people one serves.

Exploring the reasons offered for Romney's defeat -- while citing relevant words from two recent books by Gelernter and Crowley that essentially predicted it

Conservatives are stunned by the outcome of the just concluded presidential election. They had rationalized Obama's 2008 victory as an understandable aberration by the American people. Weary of the deleterious effects of the Bush presidency (two inconclusive wars, profligate government spending, the confusing message of a supposedly conservative administration advancing big government programs and, of course, a dangerous economic meltdown); smitten by the purportedly optimistic, post-partisan, unifying message of a largely unknown and untested neophyte – aided and abetted by an adoring media; and anxious to allay once and for all its heartfelt guilt over American slavery; the people understandably engaged in a risky, indeed somewhat reckless act of installing the least qualified individual ever to occupy the Oval Office.

But after four years of: shrill partisan posturing; failed Keynesian policies that prolonged the economic crisis; weak-kneed foreign policy that heralded a sharp decline in American prestige and power; a massive expansion in the Federal debt and deficit that threatens our children and grandchildren's prosperity; and a draconian explosion in federal regulations (including Obamacare) that are crippling American business – after all that, surely the American people would recognize the folly of their decision to entrust the presidency to an amateur, pseudo-socialist. Surely they would rectify the mistake.

Wrong! America doubled down on the wretched hand that it dealt itself in 2008.

And so the soul searching has begun. How could this happen? What is the cause? Here are the most commonly offered "after the fact" explanations:

• Demographics. The size of the groups who support the president's leftist policies – namely, blacks, Hispanics, single women and young voters – has reached a point wherein they constitute a natural majority. This tilt will only intensify in the future.
• Schism. The split in the Republican Party between TEA Party conservatives and more moderate establishment types depresses Republican voter turnout and, until it is resolved, it will fatally cripple Republican presidential possibilities.
• Ground Game. The Democrats are doing a much better job of energizing their base and getting it to the polls – both in early voting and on election day.
• Cultural Shift. The character of the American people has fundamentally changed. No longer are we the heirs of the founding generation. We have become more like our European cousins. In short, we no longer subscribe to the Founders' principles, to wit: liberty is paramount, above equality; government should be limited, its influence superseded by that of individuals, families and communities; markets should be free, government only enforces the rules of play, it does not interfere in the game, that is, in the commerce of the people; democracy only works when it is grounded in the moral guidelines of a religious people, not because of any abstract belief in the "goodness of man"; and America is exceptional, a beacon of freedom to all mankind. We have reached the point wherein more than half the population believes in the precise opposite of the above five principles.

In fact, the last explanation – Cultural Shift – is decidedly not "after the fact." Furthermore, while the first three reasons all have substantial merit, I believe it is the last that is the most telling. This is because, difficult as it might be, each of the first three 'excuses' could be overcome. First, the demographics don't lie. But as many have pointed out, the Hispanic and black communities are inherently conservative and with the right approach, Republicans might be able to wean them from their hypnotic obeisance to the siren call of the Left. Next, the Democratic Party has been completely captured by its left wing. What is to say that conservatives can't take an equally firm grip on the Republican Party? Third, improving a ground game is merely a technical/logistical matter.

In the same vein, one might assert that America has had religious revivals before. Why not another that would shift the cultural foundation back to its traditional moorings? Indeed the likelihood of that is minuscule compared to the possibility of a reversal in any of the other three explanations. In fact, many cultural conservatives believe that we have already experienced an actual cultural/social collapse from which it is probably impossible to recover. Furthermore, to return to the thought at the beginning of the previous paragraph, this explanation for Romney's defeat was not really discovered only after the election. Many conservatives had been exploring this idea in various venues – well before the election. Two excellent examples of such Cassandra-like warnings can be found in America Lite by David Gelernter and What the (Bleep) Just Happened by Monica Crowley. Both are extremely well written and well researched books. Gelernter focuses primarily on the state of higher education and the role it has played in the transformation of American society. Crowley, on the other hand, while she connects the dots to past administrations, focuses her attention largely on the Obama years and how it represents the culmination of a century-long process by which the progressive movement has subverted traditional American society.

Here are some relevant quotes from the two works. The reader may ponder, based on these trenchant observations, whether there is any hope for a preservation of America in its traditional incarnation.

Gelernter. The quality and content of the education provided is a clear indication of the quality and tendency of the democracy that provides it,” wrote Lionel Trilling in 1952. A famous report called “A Nation at Risk,” in 1983, put the nation on notice that its schools were failing. In 1987, Alan Bloom’s widely read The Closing of the American Mind told Americans that their elite colleges were grossly politicized. The facts of educational decay were intolerable and all around us, like a mountainous garbage dump across the street on a hot day, with thousands of cawing crows spiraling cynically overhead and the stench of rot invading every last cubic inch. It took a powerful act of will to ignore the state of our schools, but we summoned up the will and we did it. And are still doing it.

Those famous reports of the 1980s, and others like them, described changes that had already happened. The big change in U.S. education happened mainly during the 1970s; it was widely and reliably reported in the 1980s—and has been largely ignored ever since. For roughly thirty years we have been aware of massive, portentous changes in how we educate our youth—and we have shrugged them off. And things have only got worse. American students learn little or no history or literature or civics. “Only a third of Americans can name the three branches of government,” noted the former Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O’Connor. “But 75 percent of kids can tell you American Idol judges.” We wince and move on.

So long as the educators are left-wing, the rest of the country could be 98 percent conservative and it wouldn’t matter. The left-lib blot will spread; nothing can stop it. If the educators are left-wing, the nation must fill up inexorably with graduates who are left-wing, just like their teachers.

During the 1970s, many left-wing teachers taught their political beliefs — the message of America’s own cultural revolution — to their students. Those students were the leading edge of the Airhead Army. Among this leading edge, some graduated to become teachers themselves. They handed the message on to their students. Every year saw a new group of students emerge for whom the message of the revolution seemed less like radical left-wing politics and more like simple truth. In modern America, the left gets its way not by convincing people but by indoctrinating their children.

Crowley. We’ve had all kinds in the presidency, but Obama represents a first. All previous presidents had guiding political philosophies, which they all bent—to some degree or another—when it became too difficult politically to stick to them or when the American people resoundingly rejected what they were doing. Some of them pressed on anyway, but all of them at least acknowledged the American people and registered their discontent. All previous presidents had at least some degree of responsiveness to the people they led. Not Obama. This president is driven by such a devout and fervent ideology that nothing—not big majorities of the American people, not the Constitution—can stop him. We’ve seen other transformative presidents—Lincoln, FDR, Reagan—but none of them attempted to transform the nation into something wholly unrecognizable as America—until this one.

This was the essence of Obama’s Declaration of Dependence. Instead of treating them [government programs] as temporary helping hands to only those in need, the redistributionists saw the programs as gleaming opportunities for the massive expansion of government power as well as leverage to build a permanent Democratic majority. If they could maneuver the programs into ever-growing entities that covered ever-growing numbers of people, those same people would become ever dependent on government and, therefore, ever grateful to the party and ideology that made that assistance available to them.

The redistributionists have always kept their eyes on the prize. They have played the long game. And they have carefully cloaked another truth: since the balance between government power and liberty is zero-sum, the more power the government amasses, the less liberty there is for the individual. Their massive spending is deliberate: it is a coldly calculated move to destroy the fiscal health of the country in order to justify a constantly metastasizing state. It’s like the classic 1958 horror/sci-fi flick The Blob. The Blob starts out as a tiny jellylike substance. But it quickly grows and grows, until its mass is enormous and completely uncontrollable, consuming everything in its path of destruction.”

We blindly and willingly gave the keys to the kingdom to a stranger who then blindfolded us and took us on a socialist joyride. What a long, strange trip it’s been—and not in the good Grateful Dead way. As all of the Obama weirdness and destruction unfolded, most Americans began to feel like the coed at the frat party who drinks too much wine out of a box, goes home with the guy she thinks is Ryan Reynolds, only to wake up instead with the Situation. But unlike our fictional coed, in our drunken political stupor we actually married the guy. And the divorce is going to be really, really expensive.”

The particular horror is that we are allowing the theft of freedom to be done to us by our own government. While we luxuriate in abundance, complacency, and apathy—many of us knowing nothing else—Obama and the kooks are maneuvering us quickly into bondage. Once we are truly bound, the relationship between the individual and the government will be changed irrevocably: the individual will have dwindling and ultimately meaningless “freedoms” and the people will be led toward European-style dependence; we will be an enslaved mob…If people believe they can vote themselves a raise, they will. And once that mentality finds its way into the middle class, then America as the land of the free will be history.

A post-mortem on the presidential election

 

It's been two weeks since the election and I am still shell-shocked. Alas, I bought into the hyperbole that Morris and other right-leaning pundits were spewing – namely, that Romney was going to win, if not convincingly then at least comfortably. In retrospect, that faulty prognosis was predicated on three premises: the massive 2008 turnout by Obama's legions (blacks, Hispanics, single women, young voters) would not be repeated; America was fed up with Obama's Keynesian economic policies that had resulted in the weakest economic recovery in 75 years; and conservatives and independents were so energized that their support would more than compensate for Obama's legions. The first premise was certainly false. The second, even if true, discounted the fact that Obama's legions didn't care. And while there was some truth to the third, the groundswell was confined to a demographic that we now recognize is rapidly being eclipsed by its complement.

Prior to November 6, many – including yours truly – wrote that this was an election for the soul of America. The presumption was that the century-long leftward slide of American society had reached the stage at which another four years of Obama's statist agenda would surely drive the country past the tipping point. By this it was meant that it would become literally impossible to restore America to its moorings as a constitutional republic based on individual liberty, traditional moral principles and free market capitalism. Those who subscribe to this thesis must now decide if it is truly valid.

There is much compelling evidence to support it. One piece is the aforementioned demographic. The groups who support Obama's collectivist philosophy are growing percentagewise, while those who oppose it are shrinking. Another piece of evidence is the almost complete control that the Left exercises on the opinion-molding organs of American society. The media is the most glaring example; but the statists also control US education—both higher and lower, foundations, libraries, seminaries, museums and the like. Next, the length of time that the Left has been in control has enabled a shift in the political center of gravity of the nation so far to the left that radical leftists look mainstream and mainstream conservatives appear radical right.

But these political/philosophical reasons are complemented by sobering economic/social evidence:

• We lack the will to deal with our gargantuan national debt, which is certain to bring about a severe economic crisis.
• Our Ponzi scheme-style entitlement programs are on an unsustainable path to calamity – and again, we lack the will to repair them.
• Our military is in the process of a drastic drawdown – necessitated in part by the fiscal consequences of the last two bullets – and we are slowly (or perhaps not so slowly) losing the ability to project power, defend our allies or protect the homeland.
• Our nation is increasingly secular, which results in a culture of abortion on demand, pornography, same-sex marriage, a skyrocketing rate of illegitimacy and other manifestations of social decay.

I could go on, but you get the idea. And yet. And yet! Surely our beloved country was in even greater danger (although perhaps of different types) during the Revolution, at the time of the Civil War, while enduring the Great Depression, and when confronted by the monstrous 20^th century evils of Nazism and Communism. At the height of these crises, there were those who predicted the demise of America. But it did not happen.

In short, my head tells me that America's goose is cooked; but my heart refuses to accept that gloomy assessment. For sure, Obama will toss more statist bombs in our laps in the next four years: cap and trade again, maybe Card Check, an indeterminate number of ultra-left Supreme Court Justices, full implementation of Obamacare and Dodd-Frank and out of control regulatory agencies. But we survived eight years of Wilson, 20 years of Roosevelt-Truman, five years of Johnson and four years of Carter. Surely we can survive eight years of Obama. In fact, the doomsayers would assert that we did not actually survive all of Obama's leftist predecessors. They set the table that Obama is running to radically alter the US into a Euro-style social welfare state, sans exceptionalism, sans freedom and sans prosperity.

So one must decide; does one follow one's head or one's heart? Based on that decision, what does one do? If the former, then the choices are clear. It seems to me that there are four: (i) enjoy the ride for however much longer it lasts and if it ends before you do, then try to adjust as best you can to the grim reality that awaits us; (ii) continue to fight, as hard as you can, knowing full well that it is a Don Quixote-like doomed struggle, but you would rather "die fighting than surrender"; (iii) emigrate; (iv) retreat to local enclaves (certain towns and rural communities, counties, even a few states) where it may be possible to preserve what is historically great about America, and maintain the enclaves until they are swamped or miraculously conjoined with others to carve out a new nation from the ashes to which the leftists are leading us.

If, on the other hand, the heart wins, then the struggle continues with a belief that victory is still possible. Perhaps Obama will screw it up so badly that substantial members of his contingents will have a change of heart. Perhaps as yet unforeseen trends or developments will reverse the demographic calamity previously identified. Perhaps there will occur a moral revival in America (as has happened in the past) that will sweep the leftists from power and restore the nation. Perhaps true conservatives will take over the Republican Party – exactly as hard core leftists have completely captured the Democratic Party – and with a clear vision lead America to resurgence. Perhaps conservatives will finally realize that culture trumps politics and conduct a successful guerilla campaign to recapture all those opinion-forming organs of society that the lefties now control. Perhaps!

So, dear reader, which organ has triumphed in your body – your head or your heart? As soon as I figure out the answer for myself, I will let you know.

According to all the pundits, the forthcoming presidential election will be one of the closest in US history. The candidates are virtually tied in all the national polls. Moreover, when specialized polls are taken – whether by state, issue or voting demographic – the advantages of either candidate in certain areas are counterbalanced by those of his opponent in the remaining areas. We are led to believe that it is impossible to predict the outcome and that it may well come down to which of the parties has in place the stronger "ground game" (to get their supporters to the voting booths).

Now all of this is great political theater and certainly wonderful for TV viewership and newspaper/magazine readership. And while historically, the polls give a generally good indication of what a presidential election portends, they are far from foolproof in their predictive accuracy. They did not forecast the 1980 Reagan landslide, and they did not foretell the agonizingly close and nebulous outcome of the 2000 Bush-Gore contest. I have a feeling that the election next week will not be as close as the forecasters are predicting. There are in fact a few prognosticators who have predicted a Romney landslide; and although no Obama supporters are predicting a romp for their candidate equivalent to the stomping of McCain, there are some who believe that the President will win comfortably. The uncertainty is in part what makes it all so interesting.

But all of that overlooks the fact that this election represents a contest for the soul of America. It has become common to hear that this is the most important presidential election in a generation, perhaps in several generations. I believe it is much more than that – it is an election which will determine the ultimate fate of our nation. It is so much more than which pundit or poll has the best crystal ball. It will determine whether America restores itself to its historical role in the world or whether it continues down its seemingly inexorable slide from a constitutional republic of limited government, individual liberty and unbounded economic prosperity into just another statist, social welfare state of stagnation, serfdom and secularism.

The country has been leaning strongly to port since the dawn of the twentieth century. There have been brief interruptions (during the 20s under Coolidge, 80s under Reagan, and even more briefly in the 90s under Gingrich), but these right turns have been easily overmatched by sharp lurches to the left under Wilson, FDR, Johnson and now Obama. We have reached the tipping point, beyond which it will be impossible to restore America to its founding principles. If Obama is re-elected, the tipping point will surely be passed in the next four years and the glorious American experiment will draw to a close.

It is possible – even likely – that Romney is not the savior who will reverse this horrible slide. But he might be. Moreover, if he fails to unseat Obama, then we are domed for sure. If on the other hand, Romney can prevail, we have a chance – if not via Romney himself, then at least he buys us some time until the true savior emerges.