I happen to be a member of two communities, inside each of which a majority of the members is in the process of abandoning the fundamental agreement that established the community. I am speaking about the Jewish people and the United States of America. In the first case, the deal was struck more than three thousand years ago; in the latter, a mere two and one quarter centuries have passed since the bargain was made. My purpose here is: to briefly describe the deals, who made them and how they were ratified; then to present some evidence to establish that indeed they are being broken; and finally, to compare the two processes of revocation in order to uncover both the similarities and differences between them. The latter comparison will lead me to some speculative thoughts on the consequences these broken deals might have in the future.

The deal that set the Jewish people off on their at times majestic, at times horrific journey through history was struck in the Sinai after the Exodus from Egypt. The deal was between a ragtag bunch of homeless tribes unified in their belief in a single God and that God. The people promised that they would lead a holy life, chiefly by complying with a set of complicated, onerous and in some ways incomprehensible laws that He ordained for them. In return, He would make them a mighty nation whose example would lead all the peoples of the world to accept God's reign under which humanity would know peace and harmony. It is not unreasonable to view the Jewish people's willingness to endure 40 years in the desert without losing their faith and the resulting successful conquest of Canaan as the ratification of the deal by both parties. But God's promise has not been fulfilled. Many Jews would argue that that is because the Jews have not kept their part of the bargain.

The deal that established the USA is more recent and more concrete. It is laid out clearly in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The parties to the deal were the American people, that is, the Yanks of the late eighteenth century made the deal with themselves. Of course, like the Jewish deal, it obligated the descendants of the original deal-makers to adhere to the terms. And like the deal the Jews made with God, the terms of the deal the American patriots made with themselves are not hard to state. Briefly, in exchange for establishing a system of government characterized by: clearly delineated limited powers, entrusted to distinct branches of government, subject to checks and balances between the branches and between the federal and state governments, and capable of modification only by an elaborate process that required the support of the great majority of the people; in return, the people would enjoy individual liberty, clearly enunciated rights and freedoms, equal opportunity to achieve prosperity and a civil society upon which the government and its members would not tread. The deal was ratified by the thirteen colonies and the American people largely lived up to the bargain for more than a century. But in the last hundred years, the deal has been slowly unraveling.

That both deals are in a poor state of repair is self-evident. First, the percentage of world Jewry that adheres to the laws God set down for them is very low—certainly no more than 10%. Moreover, one probably has to go back to the nineteenth century to discover a time when that percentage was significantly higher. God hasn’t been doing such a great job holding up his end either. It is only two thirds of a century since he allowed one third of his partners to be ruthlessly butchered. Yes, the State of Israel was born and American Jewry enjoys great freedom to pursue its Jewish culture and traditions. But "a mighty nation leading the world to peace and harmony." I think not. The world-wide animosity toward Israel and the Jewish people is as deep and wide as at any time in recent centuries.

Sad to say, the American deal is not in great shape either. Let me review: limited government—hardly; checks and balances—Congress has relinquished its power to declare war, the executive violates the Bill of Rights with impunity, and the Courts usurp the powers of both the executive and legislative branches with abandon; a federal system with sovereignty shared by the national and state governments—that would be news to the States; and finally, both the government and the people ignore the Constitution as if it were a dusty old family document in the attic that invokes fond memories but has little relevance to life today. As a consequence, our freedoms are eroding, our prosperity is at risk, group rights are eclipsing individual liberty and society is not so civil any longer.

Well, you might say, this is very interesting, but what do the two phenomena have to do with one another? The answer will emerge from a close examination of where the two processes resemble each other, and where they differ.

First, the processes of severing their seminal agreements—which is being perpetrated by Jews and Yanks—are alike in at least four main ways:

1. Double deals. The Jews concluded their deal with God, but certainly the deal was also with themselves and with their posterity. The 12 tribes might have been unified in their monotheistic belief, but they also had separate identities and they saw the deal as a mutual obligation. Furthermore, it goes without saying that they expected their progeny to maintain the agreement.

Similarly, although the Yanks of 1775-1787 were binding themselves to a specific form of government and organization of society, they saw themselves as fulfilling a holy vision, and in particular they believed that their success in the Revolutionary War could not have been achieved without the benevolent hand of Divine Providence. The writings of the Founding Fathers are well-stocked with references to America as the new Jerusalem and the American people as the new Israelites. They definitely saw God as a party to the deal. And like the ancient Israelites, they expected that their descendants would live up to the agreement.

So in both cases, the deal breakers are betraying themselves, their God and their children.

2. Not a recent phenomenon. The cracks in both deals have been evident for a very long time. The Jews were fashioning golden calves almost from the beginning. The spies Moses sent to scout the land of Canaan doubted God's ability to keep His promise. Indeed, Jewish history is overflowing with examples of both parties violating their obligations under the Sinai agreement. It's a wonder that the parties still pay any homage to the agreement at all. (More on that later.)

As for the Yanks, I and others have repeatedly written about how the origins of the unraveling of the American experiment in self-government trace to the socialist ideas imported from Europe in the late nineteenth century. I won’t repeat the litany here, but let me just mention again that from John Dewey's idea of "free" public education intended to capture the minds of American youth, to Wilson and the 16^th and 17^th Amendments, to Roosevelt's New Deal (note the choice of noun), to Johnson's Great Society, to our current Messiah, we have seen a more or less steady drift of American society away from the ideals bequeathed to us by the Founders.

3. Remaining remnant. Neither revocation is complete. There exist ardent adherents in both communities who remain faithful to the terms of the deal as fervently as their forefathers were at the inception. Their percentage might be small, but they are deeply committed.

4. Failure to recognize. In both revocations, the descendants of the original deal-makers, who are throwing the agreement out, are either blind or naïve. Either they are unaware of what they are doing, i.e., they are truly ignorant of their obligations under their ancestors' agreement. Or they believe that the course they are pursuing—which is in direct violation of their obligation—will actually improve on the deal, and that the radical changes they intend are consistent with the spirit, if not the letter, of the  agreement. Thus, one has Jews who see the pursuit of "social justice" superseding religious obligation; moreover, they pronounce that such a pursuit is in fact a fulfillment of the deal at Sinai. Similarly, there are Americans who do not accept that their statist philosophy is a perversion of the founding agreement, but instead see it as consistent with the Founders' Constitution—and even if not, it will yield a more just society than living under the Constitution has.

Next, let's consider the key differences. I will highlight three.

1. Size. This is obvious. There are three hundred million Americans and perhaps as many as 14-15 million Jews in the world. The proportion is no better if instead one considers the size of only the remaining remnants. It’s hard to say in either case exactly what the size of the remnant is. But I venture that no more than 2-3 million Jews see themselves as bound by the deal at Sinai, while there might be as many as 60-75 million Americans who believe that the US should continue to be governed according to the principles of our founding documents. This would suggest that the latter (i.e., the remnant Americans) have a better chance of reinstating their deal than do the former (remnant Jews). But let's see.

2. Dispensation. What I am after here is an understanding of "what comes after" should the deal be totally forsaken. In fact, as with the matter of size, this issue appears to be transparent. Should the end of the Constitutional Republic that is the USA come about, there will be no great Gotterdammerung. Our country will simply morph into a clone of a Euro-socialist state, as Canada has. Gradually, the memory of American exceptionalism will fade away and the people of the USA, or should I say the servants of the US Government, will live their lives unaware of what they have surrendered. Still, there are many unknowns. Will China come to dominate the world? What about India? Or will the Islamic fundamentalists succeed in creating a world-wide Caliphate? Whatever happens, the best we could hope for America is a continued existence as a second-rate power with scarcely a trace of the creative drive and prosperity that was fueled by the unparalleled freedoms we enjoyed in the past.

The fate of the Jewish people, should they totally renege on their deal, is easier to describe—oblivion. From the end of the Second World War until now (roughly two thirds of a century) the Jewish population of the world has increased by at most 25%, and probably less. Most of that increase can be attributed to the remaining remnant. If there will be no remnant, there will eventually be no Jewish people. If the maniacs in Iran and/or the Arab world manage to defeat Israel, the end might come very swiftly.

So while neither fate is particularly appetizing, one is much harsher than the other—extinction versus a radical change in the nature of the organism, but not its destruction.

3. Survival. Now I am thinking about what might happen should there continue to be a strong remnant, but its percentage does not rise significantly from its current state. Here my projection might surprise the reader. In fact, unlike #2, the advantage is to the Jews over the Americans. The Jewish people have proven, over a history whose length exceeds ten times that of the Americans, that their ability to survive—even the most horrendous circumstances (Shoahs, expulsions, pogroms and the like)—is unequaled by any group in history. I have absolutely no doubt that even a small group of Jews, if committed to the ideals of their forefathers, could survive—perhaps for another few millennia.

I am less sanguine about the survivability of the American Republic. We are perilously close to changing the fundamental nature of the nation. In a majority rule country like ours, should a sufficient percentage of the citizenry decide that it wants to make a completely new deal, there will be little the surviving remnant will be able to do save leave.

So let me conclude with a speculative glimpse into the future of both communities. As I said, time has proven that the power of the ideas put forth at Sinai is sufficient to guarantee the continued existence of a critical remnant of Jewry, committed to upholding the deal. Even if—God forbid—Israel and America should fold, that remnant will continue, likely in South America or Australia, perhaps even in corners of North America or Europe. Even if the light from the star that the Jewish people represent in the firmament of the world might dim, it's not going out. Nevertheless, that does not excuse the Jewish people—all of them, not just the remnant—from its responsibility to do everything it can to ensure that the star continues to shine brightly. Unfortunately, as I have shown in two recent articles (http://www.freeman.org/MOL/pages/july2009/are-american-jews-the-most-foolish-voters-in-the-united-states.php and http://www.freeman.org/MOL/pages/sept2009/are-american-jews-the-most-foolish-voters-in-the-united-states--ii.php), the American Jewish community has not been doing such a good job discharging that responsibility. If the star dims, the percentage of the Jewish people that the remnant constitutes could grow—and then the "foolishness" might cease.

As for the American deal, I fear that the vectors are pointing in the wrong direction. If I may quote from a previous article in the Intellectual Conservative (http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/11/06/preaching-to-the-choir/):

"The Left has been advancing on many fronts in our country for more than a hundred years. They have captured the media, the educational establishment, most foundations, the legal profession and more. Their progress has been steady, highlighted by periods of huge leaps to port (under Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and perhaps now Obama). The only successful counterattacks in the 20^th century came under Coolidge and Reagan. And while Reagan had some success, his good work has largely been undone by the Bushes and other fake conservative Republicans who aped and appeased the liberals over the last twenty years—which has resulted in the unmitigated disaster that the Obama-Pelosi-Reid regime represents.

It is easy for a conservative to survey the scene and be dejected. The behemoth that the Federal Government has become constrains our individual freedoms on a daily basis—and the Obama team is working feverishly to turn the screws tighter. The respect for Western Civilization and our Constitutional, republican system among the people is at an all-time low—and declining. Our economy is crippled by massive debt, a crumbling dollar and runaway entitlements; the latter summons the image of a train speeding on a one-way track toward a brick wall—and Obama is stepping on the accelerator. Who or what shall rescue us? Oh despair…"

Still, as the catchy line goes, "Predictions are difficult, especially of the future." At the time of Johnson's Great Society, who could have predicted Reagan? And in the days of Reagan's morning in America, who could have predicted Obama's dark night? But I don't foresee many more seesaw movements like this. It seems to me that one of two eventualities is in store for us. I believe that within a generation, two at most, either there will be a true, powerful and long-term conservative renaissance in the USA or we will slip irreversibly into a permanent leftist nightmare. By the former I mean a complete reversal of the statist path we have been traveling. I'm talking huge majorities in Congress, several presidents at least as conservative as Reagan, and the marginalization (but preferably the dismantling) of the liberal hegemony that the leftist-dominated media, educational system, legal profession and foundations have imposed on the nation. I know, it's hard to imagine that happening, but I believe it is possible. If it doesn't occur, then I think the slow (and sometimes not so slow) inexorable drift of American society to the left will pass what Thomas Sowell has called the "tipping point," on the other side of which is an egalitarian tyranny that spells the death knell for the Republic that our Founders envisioned. If that happens, given the horrendous mistake the American people made in the last election, I doubt that we will even recognize the moment that our collective heads slip under the water.

Recently I posted a piece in this blog entitled, "On the Existential Threat to Israel." In it, I discussed the manifold, deadly threats confronting the Jewish State and how many of them eventually, and perhaps imminently, could prove lethal. I also located the threats in the context of three portentous developments in the world:

1. A worldwide resurgence of Islam, much of it in a radical and deadly mode;
2. A worldwide resurgence of virulent Anti-Semitism, much of it cloaked as anti-Zionism, but in reality nothing more than old-fashioned Jew hatred;
3. The steep decline within Western Civilization of self-esteem.

Finally, I pointed out how each of these developments also posed a mortal danger to the nations of the West (specifically in Europe and North America). It was easy to justify the latter claim for numbers 1 and 3; the justification for number 2 was somewhat subtle and restricted to Europe.

In this article I will look more closely at these "existential threats" as they apply to the United States. While alarmingly present in Europe, number 2 above is, thankfully, not really pertinent in the US — but its place in the list is taken ably by another malignant threat to our nation, our gargantuan federal government. Thus, with some revision to the first and third to make them more applicable to the US as opposed to the entire West, the threat list now reads:

1. The rise of Islamist fundamentalism, or Islamism or Islamo-fascism as some prefer to call it — is it as much of a threat to the US as it obviously is to Europe?
2. An increasingly powerful, coercive, unresponsive, irresponsible and repressive federal government.
3. The sharp decline among the American public of faith in American exceptionalism, esteem for the historic culture of America and Western Civilization, respect for and adherence to the Constitution, and public displays of virtue as this would have been understood by the Founding Fathers.

Now the majority of the threats to Israel's existence are physical — should they be fulfilled, it would likely result in the actual destruction of the State: the slaughter or expulsion of its people, the annihilation of its cities and towns, the total loss of sovereignty — that is, the physical extinction of the State in any corporal sense. (It makes my blood curl just to write that sentence.)

The threat to the US is more political, cultural and economic than it is physical. Even though one could imagine an attack or attacks on US soil by Islamists with WMD, it is not possible to foresee the Iranian Revolutionary Guard occupying the US, declaring an Islamist totalitarian state, and killing or forcibly converting those Americans who resist. Rather, the envisioned consequence, especially of the latter two threats to the US, should either reach a cataclysmic stage, is that our beloved republic would cease to exist in any sense in which our Founders understood it. Our people, our towns, our industry, our farms, our infrastructure, even our armed forces might remain intact. But: liberty would no longer be our most sacred value; our freedoms would vanish; our Constitutional rights would be replaced by the "bounty" we receive from the State; a phony tolerance for all cultures would supersede our Judeo-Christian heritage; our morals would be defined by the government and its lackey media, not by religious principles; our economy would be directed by the government and entrepreneurs would not exist; our standard of living would sink precipitously; our military would atrophy and we would cease to be a great power; and the concept of American exceptionalism would be relegated to the dustbin of history as we take our place as just another cowardly, Euro-socialist, crippled nation watching as the might of China, India, Islam or whomever grows and supplants us as the most powerful force on Earth. America has been a beacon of freedom and a force for good in the world for nearly a quarter millennium. Will that be true of our successor if we fall?

How real are these threats and, if they are, what can we do to forestall them? They are very real. First, the end of the Cold War has seen the emergence of a virulent, fanatical and apocalyptic brand of Islam. It has always been there, just in decline and/or slumbering for the last few hundred years. But now "Islamic Civilization" is displaying some traits that seem to be disappearing in the West — namely, self-confidence, religious fervor, ample foot soldiers willing to die for the cause and a bold vision of the future. The ascendant forces in the Islamic world would seem intent on restoring the caliphate and extending Muslim hegemony over vast stretches of the planet, commensurate with their reach a millennium or more ago. They see Europe, and increasingly the United States, as soft, retreating, lacking faith and morale, and ripe for the plucking. It would be the height of folly for the US to ignore the goals of the Islamists, and thus fall prey to the malevolent harm they intend to inflict (and to some extent have already inflicted) on our society.

With the prior assessment of the first threat, I suspect a significant portion, perhaps a majority, of my fellow citizens might agree. But I doubt any such agreement is forthcoming on the second threat.

The ranks of conservative, republican (small 'r') patriots have been thinning rapidly since Ronald Reagan passed from the scene. I venture that no more than 20-25% of the US citizenry is aware of the century-long degradation of our Constitutional republic that has occurred. From Teddy Roosevelt, through Wilson, then FDR, Johnson, Carter and now Obama we have seen a near constant retreat from the original liberty-focused, market-oriented, limited form of republican government that our Founders established, and a concurrent march toward the egalitarian, government-controlled, Constitution-ignoring, business-bashing, soft tyranny that our system has become. If Obama wins on either cap and trade or nationalized health insurance, we might pass the point of no return and the Republic will be lost forever.

Am I overstating the danger posed by our overgrown government? Recently, a financial adviser speaking to me about the economy and the stock market, acknowledged the grave dangers that Obama's and the radical leftists in Congress' programs portend for the economy. But then he asserted that historically, the market has factored in the constraints caused by the introduction of the income tax, Social Security, Medicare, Sarbanes-Oxley and myriad other government laws and regulations that have hampered American business; and then continued its inexorable, if uneven, march forward. Well then, he continued, the market will just factor in Obama's monstrosities as well and continue as in the past. I would sum up that stance in the words: we've been alright in the past despite stupid and self-destructive moves, so we shall be alright in the future, despite stupid and self-destructive moves. I'm not so sure! As Thomas Sowell has said, there is a tipping point and I fear we are getting mighty close to it.

Yet, I doubt there is widespread agreement with my fear of an existential danger posed by the federal government. Some folks believe, like my colleague, that we'll withstand the government's latest assaults and continue our march forward. I suspect an even greater proportion of the populace doesn't acknowledge the threat at all. They cherish all the "security" and goodies that big government provides for them and ignore the wisdom of Reagan, who said that "Government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us."

Finally, the third threat — loss of self esteem — poses, in my mind, the gravest threat of the three. History reveals that great civilizations more often die by suicide than by conquest. The nations of Western Europe, having lost their faith in the cultural, political and economic principles that sustained them for centuries, are playing the death scene right now. The US is manifesting the same symptoms, albeit at an earlier stage. And yet again, I think there is even less support for my belief in this threat than there is for the previous, I sense that the vast majority of my fellow citizens do not recognize that the egalitarian, anti-religious, anti-patriotic, anti-free market, anti-family, big government, unconstitutional and basically anti-American program that is being thrust on them — and to which they appear increasingly receptive — is a recipe for the death of the United States as a free republic. People say reflexively that America is still the greatest country in the world. But because of the brainwashing to which they have been subjected for many decades at the hands of the media, government schools, the higher education establishment and all the other liberal-dominated, opinion-forming organs of American society, those naively optimistic folks have little understanding of how much the US has changed in the last century and where it is headed sans a conservative course correction.

So what is to be done? As I outlined in a previous article, "Different Visions," while there is definitely a political and economic component to the struggle, the effort to recapture the nation and preserve the structure bequeathed to us by the Founders must be primarily cultural. Repeating part of the argument there, "We need to have conservative philosophers and cultural icons that state the case for and epitomize the worth of traditional Western culture. More mundanely, we need to nurture conservative film makers, fund conservative law schools, build conservative foundations (like Heritage, but more of them), defend and expand talk radio, establish conservative newspapers (like the Washington Times, but more of them), concoct an organization to counter the NEA in the minds of the country's teachers, abandon the mainline churches and support religious institutions that champion traditional values, etc. It might take a hundred years to achieve success; after all it took the Left a century to reach the dominance it currently enjoys. If we don't do this, then the America that we have loved and which has proven to be such a boon to the peoples of the world will surely – perhaps slowly, but maybe not so slowly – wither into one more Euro-socialist State. Then the light from mankind's last best hope will have gone out."

To summarize, I believe the US will cope with the first threat. We took care of the Nazis and the Communists; we'll defeat the Islamists as well — provided we don't succumb to one of the latter two threats first. As for the second threat, I don't believe we can meet it without successfully overcoming the third. If we continue to lose self-esteem, that is lose faith in our heritage, pride in our achievements, trust in free markets and respect for the system established by the Founders, then surely the government will continue to grow into a republic-destroying monster that will make our current soft tyranny seem tame in relation to the much harder tyranny we shall experience.

On the other hand, if there is a resurgence of patriotic spirit, cultural pride, renewed faith in American exceptionalism and respect for our historic, republican, Constitutional heritage, then the people will be ready to tame the government beast. America has faced grave crises previously: the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Depression, Fascism, and Communism. In every instance, we managed to prevail. But with diminishing self-esteem prevalent, it is easy to be pessimistic about our prevailing again. And yet we have ammunition in this battle that Europe lacks — such as, God-fearing people, a formidable military, guns in the closet, talk radio and of course our Constitution. What we lack is another Reagan, or — recognizing that the battle is cultural more than political — a Martin Luther King who will inspire the people to reconnect with their liberty, rediscover their heritage and overcome the forces of tyranny that are dragging us down.

In a previous posting on this blog (Different Visions, http://thewritestuff.blogtownhall.com/2009/04/10/different_visions.thtml, April 10, 2009), I have explained, as have many others, how a dispassionate evaluation of the performance of governments that operated according to liberal principles — whether of the extreme varieties like Communism, Nazism, Peronism or Italian fascism; or of the more moderate types practiced in the welfare states of Western Europe — must result in the conclusion that they were abject failures. Of course, by liberal I mean in the modern sense, not classic liberalism as it was understood in the eighteenth century. To wit, and in brief: a collectivist philosophy that emphasizes the central government as the controlling force in society; an elevation of equity, fairness and security above liberty, freedom and private property as fundamental goals of the populace; government control, if not outright ownership, of the means of production; a multicultural, non-religious, "global family" cultural outlook that debases the value of Western Civilization, American history and free markets; and a "living Constitutional" system in which "change," "progress" and the pursuit of "social justice" count for far more than "tradition," "stability" and the "rule of law." (A more thorough explanation of the basic tenets of modern liberalism, as opposed to conservative principles, can be found in my book, Liberal Hearts and Conservative Brains, http://home.comcast.net/~ronlipsman/)

The human carnage, decline in prosperity, loss of freedom and dependent mentality that have resulted in nations in which liberalism has reigned unchecked are so pervasive and obvious that I wondered in the aforementioned article how liberals could "ignore these results and continue to have faith in their leftist ideas." I offered three possible explanations there. It is my purpose in this article to ascribe one (or more) of these rationales to the underlying motives of our dear President. To be more precise in that article, I said:

Either the liberal is blind to the damage; or he sees it but believes the principles have not been applied correctly and that America is a special case in which liberalism can co-exist with classic American ideals in order to improve our country; or he flagrantly does not care. In the first instance, much of the populace simply does not recognize or does not understand the wreckage of liberalism's failures. They are so brainwashed by the media, the schools, the librarians, the ad agencies, the lawyers, the foundations and all the other opinion molding organs of society that have been thoroughly captured by the Left, that they believe — among other fairy tales — that Roosevelt's New Deal pulled the US out of the Great Depression; that Great Society programs have produced a more just society — not one characterized by welfare dependency, out of wedlock births, rampant pornography, a permanent underclass and wanton crime; and that the Income Tax and the alphabet soup of federal regulatory agencies allow the Federal Government to assume its rightful place as the most important component of US society, providing vital support for education, energy, transportation, housing and virtually every other facet of American life.

In the second instance, we encounter the "well-intentioned liberal." The Democratic Party is well-stocked with them. They are confident that they can fine-tune and spruce up American society according to more humane egalitarian principles in order to smooth the rough edges caused by rugged individualism. They do not believe that the fundamental character of the American experiment in freedom will be altered by their policies, rather it will be perfected. We will acknowledge our past flaws like slavery, maltreatment of American Indians and suppression of women's rights, and by correcting them and other deficiencies in our society, we will create a more enlightened country that remains true to its fundamental creed as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

Finally, in the third case, doctrinaire liberals/socialists do not care about the carnage because they would have you believe that America is an unjust, unfair, bigoted and corrupt nation that must be completely remade. They do not see prosperity and success as the nation's primary goals; rather equality and fairness should reign supreme. Liberty and freedom are not nearly as important as social justice, multiculturalism and environmental justice — whatever that is. In which of these three categories Obama fits is a topic for a future article.

Well, here is that article.

Now of course I do not know Barack Obama personally and so any motives I ascribe to him will represent conclusions based on my observations of his public persona. But the President of the United States is the most closely scrutinized person in the world. Over the course of his campaign for the Presidency and especially in his actions during the first half year of that Presidency, there is more than ample evidence to formulate what I see as highly probable motivations.

So let us start with the first rationale. This would explain Obama's extreme left-wing policies as follows. Namely, he believes in his heart that he is doing what is best for America, that his actions and their consequences are fully consistent with American history and Constitutional Law and that they will result in a better country economically, socially and especially morally. I have no doubt that many of his followers, thoroughly brainwashed by the media, the educational establishment and the other opinion molding organs of American society that are firmly in the grip of the Left, fit this description perfectly. They are not cognizant or will not accept that socialism/fascism/liberalism or whatever you want to call Obama's political orientation has been a colossal failure wherever it has been tried. They do not know or will not recognize that: cap and trade will impoverish the United States, nationalized health insurance will result in the rationing of health care, coddling of the mullahs will endanger our security, pumping up the money supply and out of control government spending will result in stagflation, and increasing taxes on the "wealthy" will hurt the middle class. Their disbelief or ignorance is breathtaking because these consequences are exactly what has happened when loony liberalism has prevailed — see, e.g., England, prior to the arrival of Margaret Thatcher on the scene.

But I seriously doubt that Obama is that ignorant. Yes, he is brainwashed — after all, his political associations in his young adult life were almost exclusively with those on the hard Left. His entire worldview, from law school student to Community-Organizer-in-Chief, has been fashioned out of the clay molded by extreme left sculptors of American society — Alinsky, Wright, Ayers and the like. Moreover, the disdain that is evident in his manner when he pays lip service to conservative alternatives to his beliefs suggests that he gives absolutely no credence to the possibility that his collectivist views are misguided and potentially lethal to the country. If this is not brainwashed, it is certainly closed-minded.

But my liberal friends keep assuring me that he is a very smart man. I choose to believe them. It is impossible, if he is so smart, that he does not know exactly what he is doing and what the consequences will be. So I am ruling out ignorance. That leaves only naivete or malevolence. If it is the former, then, in spite of its track record, he believes that liberalism is still the best course for America. Yes, it has failed in other venues, but only because it wasn't conceptualized well or its implementation was flawed. He doesn't accept that Nazism or Communism is in any way related to liberalism. And he doesn't see Western Europe as a failure. Yes, their economic growth and productivity doesn't match ours, but they have fairer, more equitable societies. Besides, with our Yankee ingenuity and initiative, we'll do it better than they have. And yes, their militaries are weaker than ours, but if we play our cards carefully in foreign policy, we won't need such a strong military. Okay, the country will be overall a little poorer, but only because there won't be so many billionaires. On the other hand, our wealth will be more evenly distributed, resulting in a more just society. Yes, we ignore or circumvent the original meaning of the Constitution on occasion; but Obama would have only been 3/5 of a person under its aegis — thus it is a flawed document. Besides, it is not a biblical tract that demands absolute obedience. It's only meant as a guide. And I believe, says Mr. Obama, that the path I am taking America down is not inconsistent with that Guide Book.

To me this is naivete par excellence. It is a design for the future based on a faulty reading of the past. Is it a faithful representation of Obama's core philosophy? Maybe! What about the third possibility?

In fact it is painful to write the following words. To entertain the thought that the freely elected President of the United States is not a patriot, that he despises what our country has stood for and seeks a radical recasting of the fundamental character of the nation, to think thus is to contemplate the possibility that the last election was a suicidal act by the people of the United States. And yet it is possible, many would say plausible, and a not insignificant number would claim that it is self-evident.

The evidence is strong. He promised and he is delivering, together with the left-wing radicals he has appointed, an ultra-liberal government. Of course in this he is greatly aided by the mob of Leftists who now control the Congress. But it is his advocacy of: cap and trade; nationalized, uniform, mandatory and government controlled health insurance; higher taxes (on everyone, not just the "rich"); card check; nationalization of critical segments of private industry; massive government spending and debt; a multilateral and WEAK foreign policy that coddles our adversaries and pressures only Israel; evisceration of the armed forces, curtailment of missile defense and abolition of don't-ask-don't tell; a marginal place for religion in American life (which church has he joined? Oh, Rev. Wright is not preaching in DC); federal command of public (and private) education; a weakening of the public's right to bear arms, and on and on . . .. It is his advocacy of all of this (and more) that is the embodiment of an extreme left-wing program that will radically alter the fundamental and historic nature of American society. Moreover, he never speaks of liberty and freedom, or the rights of Americans to their businesses or property. He goes abroad and paints a wretched portrait of an America that has betrayed the ideals of the American Revolution. (Actually I think he has our revolution and that of the French confused.) He seems oblivious to America's lead role in the fight to eliminate Nazism, Communism and even colonialism from the world. Perhaps these are not worthy accomplishments in his eyes.

So is he a naive waif seeking to rescue an imperfect America in whose fundamental principles he believes, or is he a malevolent soul intent on remaking a corrupt, bigoted and violent America that he reviles? I wish I knew! But it has to be one of these two. Although, perhaps it does not matter. What difference does it make if he is purposefully leading us to hell or if he is accidentally diverting us there? We shall be lost either way.

Obama certainly seems to admire the welfare states of Western Europe and seeks to have the US emulate them. He would appear to be blissfully unaware of the political and social cancers that afflict those societies. Cancers that are largely self-inflicted. For not unlike in the Soviet Union as it decayed into non-existence, the leaders and people of Europe have lost faith in their own guiding principles and legends. How else to explain a continent in which:

• you cannot speak of Christ, Christianity or Christmas on the soil that used to be known as Christendom;
• the people that produced the art, science and literature of the Renaissance now produce . . . little, because no one is working very hard;
• the countries that invented and perfected the idea of the nation-state are falling all over themselves to surrender their sovereignty to a supra-national European Union;
• some of the strongest armies in world history were created, yet today has virtually no military capability;
• the defeat of an invading Islamic army was repeated several times, but today lies prostrate before a horde of invading Muslim civilians that are subverting the culture from within;
• few are getting married, fewer are having babies, and the resulting, quickly aging population is oblivious to the mortal dangers these pose.

My final thought: are we there yet? Does Obama's election signal the end of the great American experiment in individual liberty, limited government and unbounded opportunity? Will he lead us down the path that Europe has already trod? Americans still describe themselves overwhelmingly as more conservative than liberal. How can that be squared with their political choices in 2008? Are so many of us so thoroughly brainwashed that we don't realize that we are not really conservative? Or were we just so disappointed in Bush and the fake conservative Republicans that we decided to give the real liberals a chance? Will we regret it as we did with Jimmy Carter and come to our senses? I DON'T KNOW. The stakes are very high. Obama's liberalism, whatever its true nature, is a lethal dart aimed at the heart of America. Will we duck or will we not even notice that it has struck its mark?

This is not a happy season for American conservatives. The executive, legislative and, to a large extent, the judicial branches of the federal government are almost completely under the control of liberal Democrats. Moreover, as conservatives feared, our liberal masters are pursuing a far left agenda that will catapult the United States much further down the road toward Euro-socialism. We are not doing any better in the culture wars. The media, academia, legal profession, foundations, public schools, libraries and virtually all other opinion molding organs of American society remain firmly in the grip of the Left and, thanks to their influence, perversion (e.g., pornography, infanticide, same sex marriage) is flourishing while traditional culture (e.g., religion, the family, patriotism) is under attack. When we pass from politics and culture to economics, matters do not improve. The tandem of Bush-Obama, like its predecessors Hoover-Roosevelt and Nixon-Carter, has eaten away at the classic conservative notions of limited government intervention in the economy, laissez-faire capitalism, low taxation and a strict control of the money supply. The only unresolved issue remains: shall we have, as a consequence of their profligate and irresponsible economic policies, a reprise of the Depression of Hoover-Roosevelt or the Stagflation of Nixon-Carter? What a wonderful choice!

No, these are not happy days for conservatives. Unfortunately, in many ways. In fact, in this piece, by fleshing out the themes implicit in the paragraph above, I would like to outline five tracks along which we have been getting our fannies handed to us lately—and by lately, as you will see, I mean over the last one hundred years. This might be cause for despair, but I will argue at the end that if we can mount an effective counteroffensive in a specific one of these tracks, the battle might fall to us in the others as a natural consequence.

The tracks are: politics, culture, economics, sources of power and the nature of man and Nature (the play on words in the last is intentional). What I mean by the first three should be clear and they are already touched upon in the lead paragraph. The last two are more opaque and remain to be explained. But before that, allow me a few more observations on the first three.

Politics. The political positions of conservatives and liberals are well-worn terrain in the US today. There are few surprises and it is not difficult to distinguish between the species based on stated policies and concrete actions—although occasionally, professed conservatives espouse liberal policies, and even more occasionally, the reverse occurs. With no attempt to be comprehensive, let me just say that the political philosophy of conservatives embraces: limited government; low taxation; cuts in government spending; a robust national defense; strict Constitutionalism; a belief in the superiority of the form of government established by the Founding Fathers over any others tried or pending; checks and balances between the branches of government and between the federal government and the States; a trust in the people to express their political will clearly and in their ability to govern themselves; a belief that courts should adjudicate and interpret the law, not legislate it from the bench; the view that crime should be punished, not "understood"; and also that "international law" and international organizations have no legal standing in America, particularly when in conflict with US law.

On the contrary, liberal philosophy encompasses: a very powerful and intrusive central government; high taxation, especially on the wealthy; extensive government spending, especially in a weak economy (Keynes); a national defense rooted in multilateralism with force seen as a seldom used, absolute last resort; a "living" Constitution; an emphasis on America's historical mistakes (slavery, maltreatment of American Indians, limitations on women, internment of Japanese-Americans) and a lack of confidence in America's special role in the world; getting the branches of the federal government, together with those of the States, onto the same page; judicial activism; trust in "experts" rather than the people to make wise decisions in formulating national policy; the rehabilitation of criminals and understanding of their actions in the hope of alleviating societal conditions that engendered the criminal behavior; and America's reliance on the UN and other international entities for help and guidance in formulating foreign policy.

The facts that with the exception of Ronald Reagan, every Republican President elected since Calvin Coolidge has largely failed to uphold the conservative principles expressed above and that every Democratic President since Grover Cleveland—without exception—has ardently tried, (with varying degrees of success) to promote the liberal agenda above, those facts should be of grave concern to conservatives. They help to explain the ascendancy of liberalism in the fabric of American life over the last century. Of course, the current Democratic President might be the most Left wing resident of the White House in our nation's history.

Culture. Once again, the differences are stark and well known. Conservatives believe that our culture should continue to be characterized by its original nature, established nearly 400 hundred years ago in Jamestown and Plymouth—namely: a British legal system; English as the mother tongue; a reverence for and adherence to Western Civilization; freedom of worship, but morals derived from our Judeo-Christian heritage; the British traits of humility, modesty, grittiness and the Protestant work ethic; life centered around the traditional family; and above all else a devotion to individual liberty. Liberals, on the other hand, are more interested in a culture that: is multicultural, ecumenical and global rather than parochial; treats religion as purely a private matter, totally divorced from state affairs; values fairness and equity before liberty and freedom; in fact, thinks of individual liberty more in terms of freedom of the individual to do anything he pleases—so long as it does not injure another—rather than as liberty from the coercive powers of the State; and finally, a reverence for "change" over tradition. You only need to spend a few hours in front of the TV or at the movies to see who is winning this battle.

Economics. The picture is not any prettier here. While conservatives advocate free markets, democratic capitalism, respect for the profit motive, control of the money supply, low taxation, limits on government spending, encouragement of the entrepreneurial spirit and the fostering of small  business, the power of the pricing mechanism to choose winners and losers in the market and finally a firm control of the national debt; liberals, on the other hand, believe in Keynesian principles, strict government regulation—and (more than) occasional control—of the means of production, redistribution of wealth to address the inevitable inequities that result from unfettered capitalism, a soft money policy, virtually no limit on government debt, industrial planning—i.e., allowing the government to pick winners and losers in the economy by subsidizing segments it favors and penalizing those it opposes, taxation at whatever level is necessary to support a highly activist and interventionist government and wage and price controls. Yet again, if you cast your eyes across the current scene—i.e., what Bush just did and what Obama has started to do, it is not hard to discern the wining side.

The previous paragraphs addressed the three principle topics according to which the differences between liberals and conservatives are usually identified. Now I wish to add two more.

Power Source. Here I take my cue from the basic idea in an article, "Scientific Pretense vs. Democracy" by Angelo Cordevilla in the April 2009 issue of the American Spectator. He argues that the fundamental philosophy of our Founding Fathers was that the ultimate authority, the basic source of power, the true ruler of the realm in the American experiment in self government was not a monarch, not an oligarchy of nobles, not an established church—but the people themselves. Perhaps the most revolutionary idea in the Declaration of Independence was that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Prior to that groundbreaking concept, no ruler ever thought of his authority as any different from that of a parent toward a child—namely, an innate right (derived from his divine status or class status or ecclesiastical status) to do to or for his subjects as he saw fit. Not in America! Its government can only exercise powers that its "subjects" see fit to grant to it.

Well, Codevilla explains, the Left has a new and different idea. Namely, the control of society shall be ceded to "experts." The nature of modern society is so complex, so multifaceted, so intricate that it is beyond the ken of the normal individual. The economy, foreign relations, the welfare of the heartland, not to mention general issues such as education, health, energy, transportation, housing and agriculture as well as special issues like climate change, Islamic radicalism and the future of entitlements are far too complicated to be understood and intelligently addressed by John Q. Public, whether acting individually or as a member of a vast electorate. Only those who are wise, well trained and accredited, i.e., experts, are competent to direct our affairs. Only those politicians who appreciate this need and who can tap into that expertise are fit to govern us.

And so for a fourth time, take a look at what prevails today in the body politic and decide who is winning this argument. It would appear not to be us.

Nature of Man and Nature. I will develop this theme more fully elsewhere; here I only give a capsule summary, indicate the diametrically opposed views of conservatives and liberals, and once again point out that liberals seem to be carrying the day. (Some of the ideas are developed in my book, Liberal Hearts and Conservative Brains—see http://home.comcast.net/~ronlipsman). In short, the view of man normally adopted by conservatives is that he is a limited creature, prone to make mistakes, given to violence and greed and that what is exceptional about him is when he overcomes these tendencies to behave with charity, goodness, consideration and graciousness. Society might progress technologically and so man lives better and longer, but his inherent nature as a flawed creature is immutable. In a parallel way, the conservative view is that despite our great technological progress and evolving political structures (from despotism to democracy), there really is nothing new under the sun. The world has been, is and will continue to be threatened by natural calamities (earthquakes, cyclones and the like) and man-made atrocities (genocide and terrorism). The best we can do is to try to avoid or prevent these disasters and when we fail, to cope with them as best we can. We can improve ourselves and the world, but fundamentally it's an almost impossible task that flies in the face of who we are and where we live.

Not so, says the liberal. Humanity and the world it inhabits are susceptible to serious improvement, indeed both are perfectible. We just have to be smart about it, recognize the limitations of nature and negative impulses of man and through our ingenuity and observation of what has failed in the past, we can devise methods to conquer the failings of man and the vicissitudes of nature.

I am sorry to say that, as liberalism prospers and conservatism pales, the latter view seems to prevail.

So, we conservatives are getting our teeth kicked on all five fronts. Where do we look for succor? What shall we do to preserve our viewpoint, convince more Americans of its value and rescue American society? I believe I gave the answer in a recent article in the Intellectual Conservative (http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/04/09/different-visions). I encourage the reader to consult that source, but let me recall it briefly here. The liberals achieved their supremacy over the last hundred years by following (accidentally or on purpose) the advice of the Italian socialist and philosopher, Antonio Gramsci. He argued that if liberals could capture the culture, then the politics would follow. That is exactly what has happened. I suggested in the article that the redress was to take back the culture. Then once again the politics would follow. My point here is that the other three pegs on which I have hung the differences between liberals and conservatives would also follow. That is as clear for economics as it is for politics. But it is also clear regarding the sources of power and the nature of man and the world. If one's view on the culture of American society conforms to the conservative model I presented earlier, it is unquestionably the case that one's opinions in the two latter categories will also gravitate to the conservative side. That is, we the American people will come to understand how foolhardy it is to allow the country to be ruled by experts, and we will attain a better perspective on humanity and nature, and thereby throw off any false confidence in the perfectibility of either. Of course, as it was for the liberals, it might very well be a hundred years project. So get busy conservatives. As I said in the above cited article:

Since I unburdened myself of my sentiments on Obama and the Presidency a month prior to his inauguration, I thought it appropriate to do likewise a month following the inauguration. The original article may be found at

http://thewritestuff.blogtownhall.com/default.aspx

(Scroll down if you are reading this on my blog.)

Now what can be said two months later?

First of all, it is almost impossible not to like President Obama. He is charming, poised, intelligent, extremely well-spoken, has a fabulous smile and a photogenic family, and just oozes self confidence. I believe that, despite what some wrote during the campaign, he does love America and wants what he believes would be best for all its citizens. Next, as I wrote in my previous article, his election is a great step forward for our country—shining proof that we have laid to rest the terrible legacy of slavery that has haunted us for hundreds of years. He has handled his leading role in that transformation with grace and aplomb, and America owes him a great debt for the skill with which he has managed this accomplishment. Third, he has seemingly recognized that some of the partisan rhetoric that he spewed during the campaign was exactly that, and he has attempted to position himself more centrally in the actual governance of the country. I speak of the few Republicans in his cabinet, his backtracking on several of the unwise promises he made in the campaign—such as precipitously withdrawing from Iraq or immediately imposing punitive taxes on the citizenry—and finally his invitation of a few conservative pundits and journalists to dinner. Last, one has to feel for the man who, as he enters the White House, has been dealt one of the cruelest hands any incoming President has ever encountered. That unfortunate fate does not appear to have shaken his confidence, his enthusiasm or his conviction.

All that being said, I still maintain that his administration will be a calamitous occurrence for the United States of America.  I say that because when you strip away the charming veneer, bypass the racial issue, and ignore the feints to the Right, Barack Obama continues to epitomize the liberal mindset that has taken control of at least half the population of America and exerts almost total sway over certain key segments of our society and which, if it continues to cement its dominance over American culture and politics—as Obama's election certainly suggests it shall—will lead our country to the kind of ruin that is pervasive today in Western Europe. Indeed, I think the signs are already there that the "moderate" or "centrist" image that he has attempted to cultivate since the election is a sham. Deep in his heart he is a card carrying Leftist who not only believes deeply in the secularist state religion that is modern liberalism, but actually has scarcely any meaningful knowledge of the fundamental tenets of conservative thought or opinion that animates unregenerate right wingers like myself. I believe that either consciously, or perhaps even subconsciously—for that is the mode wherein the vast majority of Leftists formulate their opinions of conservative thought—he has been imbued with the conviction that conservative principles are fundamentally, irrevocably and demonstrably false and dangerous. No intelligent person should subscribe to such an outmoded way of thinking, which bears little in the way of examination. People like Teddy Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Eric Holder and Hillary Clinton just "know" that conservatives are on the wrong side of history. To them, conservatives are at best a bunch of misguided obstructionists who are holding back our country from the nirvana it shall surely become if only true liberal policies are enacted; and at worst a traitorous cabal of reactionaries, no better than monarchists, who want to keep us anchored in an unfair, decrepit and discredited culture, politics and economic system.

What are the early signs of Obama’s doctrinaire liberalism? Well first and foremost is his ironclad belief that the pork-laden, ill-conceived stimulus bill is indispensable to reversing the current economic downturn, and that anyone who opposes it is essentially unpatriotic. He has drunk from the Kool-Aid. He believes as gospel that similar measures employed by Roosevelt 75 years ago cured the Great Depression whereas it is totally evident in hindsight—and was equally evident then if only people would have looked with objective eyes—that all of Roosevelt’s wild spending and government intervention did nothing but prolong the Depression. Obama’s pseudo nationalization of the US economy will have the exact same deleterious effect, but he finds that thought abhorrent.

Next, while it is true that he has chosen some relative moderates for his administration, they are outnumbered by hard core liberals and radicals like Eric Holder, Elena Kagan, Hilda Solis and of course Hillary herself. The situation is akin to the Clinton administration where moderates like Rubin and Perry were substantially outnumbered by Janet Reno, Warren Christopher, Ron Brown and the like.

Continuing, while Obama’s first month in office has been absorbed with the economic crisis, he and his henchmen have made perfectly clear that pet projects of the Left will arrive on the nation’s docket rather soon: ‘card check,’ i.e., the abolition of free elections in the unionization process; universal amnesty for illegal aliens; ratification of Kyoto, cap and trade, and the pursuit of an energy policy and global climate change agenda that will cripple the economy—all in the misbegotten belief that mankind is destroying the Earth’s environment; socialized medicine; the resurrection of the “fairness doctrine” and the attendant destruction of talk radio; curtailment, if not outright abandonment, of any attempt at a missile defense capability; a kindler, gentler foreign policy to endear us to our enemies around the world that will only invite their contempt and abuse; unilateral defense and intelligence disarmament; elevation of “international law” above our own constitutional law; the abrogation of welfare reform (already achieved in the stimulus bill); and the raising of taxes, not only on the rich, by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire.

In his speech to Congress this week, Obama stressed the three main themes of his agenda: health care, education and energy. In each, his vision is that of a centrally directed, government-controlled effort that replaces individual will and free market inputs by the government as the driving force. Our health system will be universal, single-payer, accountable to government bureaucrats and health czars; our education will be financed by government and have its agenda set by the government; and our energy will be “green and clean.” The result will be that our health care will sink to the abominable level it manifests in all countries that have deployed socialized medicine; our propaganda system—er, that is, our school system will program its students—as it already does to a large extent—in favor of Leftist culture and politics; and our energy will be enormously costly, inadequate, scarce and government-rationed. Thank you very much.

In these and other ways, the average American will be reduced to little more than a ward of the State. Indeed, it is well known that already the top 1% of income earners pay 40% of the total income tax take to the IRS, that the top 5% pay 60% and the top 50% pay 97%; whereas more than a third of income tax filers pay absolutely nothing. Obama’s punitive taxes on the rich will skew those percentages even further and it might well be that nearly 50% will pay nothing. Not a recipe for social success when half the population lives off the sweat of the rest.

The fate in store for us is laid out starkly in two recent books, The End of Prosperity by Laffer, Moore and Tanous and The Great Depression Ahead by Dent. As much of the world (think India, Ireland, former Soviet vassal states in Eastern Europe, some in “old” Western Europe and even China) adopts pro-growth, low tax, free trade, deregulatory policies, the exact policies that propelled the US to great wealth in the 1980s and 1990s, we revert to the failed policies of the 1930s and 1970s. I have wondered how the people of Venezuela could freely vote themselves a dictatorship. What stupidity! But we might be no smarter. We have freely and enthusiastically elected a government that will punish us with proven failed policies, and Obama and crew, during the campaign, made no secret about their intentions to do so. What we have sown so shall we reap.

Obama has been compared by various pundits (on both the Left and Right) to Carter, Clinton and Roosevelt. To my way of thinking, the first was totally incompetent, the second largely irrelevant and the latter one of the most consequential Presidents in US  history—although, at least domestically, I believe those consequences have been disastrous for America. Which of these three shall Obama ultimately resemble? Conservatives are desperately hoping the first and that like Carter, Obama will be succeeded by a Reaganesque hero who will rescue us. If it is Clinton, then we are in for two years of helter-skelter Leftist thrusts, followed by a checkmated President who will inadvertently pursue policies beneficial to the country. But alas, I predicted that Obama’s administration would be a calamity for the country because I fear he is liable to be another Roosevelt: immensely popular, shielded from criticism by an adoring and complicit media, uncaring about or oblivious to the harm he is causing and the instigator of programs that further tighten the grip that the Left has on the culture, politics and economic system of these United States. For, as I said in the first article, I subscribe to Thomas Sowell’s assertion—since endorsed by many conservative pundits—that Obama’s election will be a tipping point propelling America irreversibly past the point of no return down the path to socialism.

A final thought: The age of Obama represents not so much the political defeat of conservative Republicans by liberal Democrats as much as it solidifies the triumph of the multicultural, multi-lateral, strongly secular, pacifistic anti-Western civilization radicals over those who champion traditional American culture. In fact that cultural triumph actually happened some time ago. The main thing that Obama’s election signifies is that the nation’s politics have caught up with its culture.

One o

 
One overarching theme and three difficult questions occupy my thoughts as Obama prepares to assume the mantle of the Presidency.

1.      This is indeed a moment of great pride for America.

2.      What does it now mean to assert that America is a center-right country—an assertion bolstered by the exit polls in November which revealed that, as has been the case for decades, far more voters characterize themselves as moderate or conservative than liberal—given that we have enthusiastically turned the executive and legislative branches of the Federal Government over to hard-core liberals?

3.      What were the long term effects of the Reagan and Gingrich revolutions of 1980 and 1994? Have the consequences of those epic electoral landslides been completely swept aside by an Obama/Pelosi/Reid tidal wave?

4.      What's a conservative true-believer to do now?

1. Aside from the politics, the divisiveness, the potential for sweeping changes in the American political, economic and cultural spheres, there is no question that January 20, 2009 will represent a momentous and historic achievement for the United States of America. Barack Obama is not the descendant of American slaves. In fact he is of mixed racial parentage and his black father had no trace of American blood. But Obama considers himself, and he is considered by the electorate to be an American black man, and it is as such that he has attained the Presidency.

The past treatment of the black race in these United States is a shameful blot on the history of our country—a part of our history that has tormented our society for generations. That torment has been greatly alleviated by Obama's election. The non-black portion of the electorate (white, Hispanic, Asian) has proclaimed that the mal-treatment of, and bias and discrimination against black people are a thing of the past, and that America shall judge a black politician—and by implication, any black person—by that person's credentials and character, not by his racial heritage. It is a goal achieved by precious few societies in the history of the world. That we can lay claim to the achievement should be a source of enormous pride to all Americans. It bears testimony to the uniqueness and greatness of our beloved nation. There is no longer any reason why any child in America cannot reasonably aspire to become President.

Of course, I wish that Obama's political leanings were not so left wing. I would have been happier if Thomas Sowell or Clarence Thomas or Walter Williams or Ken Blackwell, or even Colin Powell or Michael Steele had achieved the heretofore unthinkable. Nevertheless, it does not change the fact that America has demonstrated its enlightenment and tolerance to the world, and I hope that the world appreciates it for the fantastic accomplishment it represents.

2. Conservative pundits have been consoling themselves and their loyal readers with the assertion that, despite the liberal electoral successes of 2006 and 2008, the electorate is still "center-right," and they point to the exit polls to back them up. I am not convinced that they should be so sanguine. Yes, your average voter thinks of himself as a moderate, maybe even slightly conservative. But I have come to believe that we have a truth-in-labeling problem here. Indeed, the notions of conservative and liberal have shifted drastically over the last century.

As I argued in my book, Liberal Hearts and Conservative Brains (iUniverse, 2007), the United States of America was basically a conservative country throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. But beginning with the Progressive Era (encompassing the very liberal administrations of T. Roosevelt and Wilson), continuing through F. Roosevelt's New Deal and reaching its previous apogee in LBJ's Great Society, the USA has undergone a massive shift to the Left. Moreover, during the interim periods when conservatives or moderates led the country, little or nothing was done to reverse the trend. Thus the political center of gravity has shifted dramatically to the Left. What we consider moderate or even conservative today would have been pegged as flagrantly leftist 125 years ago.

Space prevents a full development of the previous claim. Let me simply say that if conservatism means: limited government; free market capitalism; respect for and adherence to traditional American/English culture; low taxes; a robust national defense; and individual rights, then it is anomalous that your average "moderate/conservative" voter is perfectly comfortable with: a gargantuan government; extensive government regulation of business; gay rights, abortion and a porno-saturated media, one of the highest corporate tax rates in the Western world; a multi-lateral foreign policy; and group rights. Only flaming liberals are advocating: nationalized health care; industrial planning; gay marriage, gun control and the banning of religion from the public square; appeasement of Islamic radicals; soak the rich taxes; and world citizenship. But the latter causes are considered merely liberal, whereas the former are thought of as mainstream. On the other hand, basic conservative ideas such as: federalism and States rights; national politics infused by religious morality; free markets and free trade; restraint in public spending; a strong military; and an emphasis on individual liberty, ideas which were once considered mainstream are now viewed as ultra right wing. In other words, what was once denounced as left-wing socialism is considered mainstream liberalism; and what was left of center liberalism is now considered centrist or even center-right; and of course tame right of center notions are deemed to be retrograde fascism.

In short, I do not believe that we are a center-right country in any meaningful sense any longer. We might not have traveled Left as far and as fast as our cousins in Western Europe, but we are certainly headed in that direction. By any objective measure, Obama is further left than McGovern or Dukakis, both of whom were trounced by the electorate. Today, Obama is poised to assume the Presidency and the pundits are claiming—and the far Left is worrying—that he is really a closet moderate. Puleez! If Obama is moderate and our fake conservative president George W. Bush is a right-wing fanatic, then what in heaven's name were Reagan and Gingrich? I suppose somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun.

3. Whatever they were, it would seem that Reagan and Gingrich were blips in the straight line to the Left that America has been trodding lo these 100 years. In fact Reagan was one of only two (perhaps three) genuinely conservative presidents we have elected in the last century. Calvin Coolidge was the other, and William Howard Taft was perhaps the third. Yes, our so-called center-right country has elected conservative presidents for perhaps 10% of the time over the last century, and only one in the last 80 years. Doesn't seem like much of a center-right track record to me.

In that context, let me address then the question of whether Reagan and Gingrich had any lasting effect in arresting the liberal tide that has been sweeping the country for so many years. Reagan entered office with three major goals: (i) bring down the Soviet Union and end the Cold War in victory for the West; (ii) restore the American economy through lower taxes, less government spending and deregulation; and (iii) reduce the size and scope of the federal government. He succeeded brilliantly in (i), had a great deal of success in (ii) and failed completely in (iii). We enjoy today a huge reward because of his success in (i) as we have been freed from the nuclear terror of the Cold War. Of course a new evil threatens us in the form of Islamic radicalism, but so far it does not pose the existential threat that the Soviets did. As for (ii), we had a quarter century of barely interrupted economic prosperity due primarily to Reagan's economic policies, but the streak might have run its course. The combination of foolish liberal  policies—like making the privilege to own a home into an entitlement right—together with putative conservatives whose greed and stupidity converted liberal policies into flawed economic instruments, aided and abetted by spineless RINOs (i.e., Republican In Name Only), has caused the greatest real estate and stock market collapses since the Depression. And regarding (iii), well during and since the Reagan and Gingrich revolutions, the government has continued to grow at a phenomenal pace. Bill Clinton's pronouncement notwithstanding, the era of big government is definitely far from over.

Only history will judge, and my pessimistic nature might be getting the better of me, but I am hard pressed not to conclude that today, 20 years after Reagan left office, the liberal mentality that governs the United States is stronger, more accepted as the norm, and poised to steer the ship of state as sharply to the left as it did during the Wilson, Roosevelt and Johnson administrations. The New York Times assures us that Obama, Pelosi and Reid are mainstream and that Dick Cheney, Clarence Thomas and Tom Coburn are dangerous right-wing fanatics. And a majority of Americans buy it. Sorry Gipper, but your influence appears to have been fleeting.

4. Finally, how does a conservative weather the onslaught? Is there any hope of reversing the 100 year trend, especially as it seems to be entering an accelerated phase? Many conservatives expect that Obama will prove as incompetent as Jimmy Carter and that a new Reagan will emerge to rescue us. Maybe. It's nice to hope so. But Barack seems to me much cleverer than the anti-Semitic oaf from Georgia. Although both gained the presidency because the country was so fed up with what it had that it was willing to take a reckless chance on a complete unknown, I am not so sure that history will repeat itself. Eight years from now the liberal hegemony that we "enjoy" might be even stronger. So by now you have guessed that I am not terribly optimistic about a conservative resurgence in America. In fact I agree with Thomas Sowell, the eminent black economist and journalist, who asserts that Obama's election is historic for more than just the obvious reason--namely, "an Obama-Pelosi supermajority will mark 'a point of no return.' It will not be, as some naysayers scoff, 'Jimmy Carter's second term,' but something far more transformative." Alas, I fear he is right and it is just a matter of time before we become like Europe. Not a consoling thought when you contemplate where Europe is today and where it will be very shortly.

And yet! And yet! I am trying to imitate the Gipper and be cheerful and optimistic. America has faced grave crises before, from which it emerged stronger and more vibrant. We barely survived the Revolutionary War, but we did and over the ensuing 50 years we created the greatest experiment in human freedom the world has ever known. We barely survived the Civil War, although it took far too long to lay the ghosts of that conflict to rest. Nevertheless we emerged from that dreadful conflict and embarked on an industrial revolution that resulted in the most prosperous nation on earth, again in less than 50 years. Also over roughly a nearly 50-year period, America successfully absorbed and assimilated tens of millions of immigrants who, together with their descendants, not only enhanced our prosperity, but helped to create a world superpower. (Although, as I also argued in my book, it is those descendants who implemented the liberal ideas that their parents brought from Europe.) And finally, we saved the world twice in the twentieth century—from the scourges of Nazism and communism—and emerged as the sole superpower.

You will now charge that I seem to believe that the ascending dominance of liberal thought in America is equivalent to calamities like the Depression and world and civil wars, or has the potential for existential change like industrial revolutions or seismic cultural shifts due to mass immigration. And like the calamities or upheavals, America must rise up and either overcome the calamites or reverse the cultural upheavals, that is the liberal hegemony must be broken if America is to survive. Well yes, I believe exactly that. Let me explain why.

I believe and have believed for 25 years that European civilization is dying. The people of Western Europe are barely getting married, having hardly any babies, are surrendering their independence and freedom to a totalitarian entity known as the European Union, have virtually no military capability and are unable to defend themselves, have forsaken Christianity and converted their churches into museums, created an unsustainable welfare state that promotes laziness and moral sloth, and, worst of all, have imported millions of radical Muslims (to pay for their welfare state) who are not assimilating, but who will destroy what is left of European civilization from within. It is not a pretty picture. And that is what the liberal hegemony in America is pointing us toward. If we don't wake up and recreate the conservative country that we lost over the last century, our fate will be the same as Europe's. Europe has survived these last 60 years because we had their back. Who is going to have our back?

So having gotten that off my chest, what then is a conservative to do? Wait for doomsday, or try to take back the country? Do we even have a chance of taking it back? If one believes as the Gipper said, that "God had a divine purpose in placing this land between the two great oceans to be found by those who had a special love of freedom," that America has realized John Winthrop's vision of it as a "shining city on a hill," and that indeed "America is the last best hope of man on earth," then one must have faith that we will come to our senses, a savior or saviors will emerge and we will recapture our commitment to individual rights, to liberty and freedom, to a government that serves the people and not the other way around.

So what is a conservative to do? Well I can only tell you what this conservative is increasingly doing. Some years ago I bought two CDs of Reagan's most famous speeches. They sit with my collection of classical and jazz CDs that I listen to on my car stereo on my way to and from work. Periodically, I pop in one of the Reagan CDs instead of the music. They are inspiring and uplifting. The clarity of his thought is breathtaking. Lately, I have also started reading Reagan's other speeches on various web sites devoted to his memory. A particularly good one is http://reagan2020.us/. To find others try googling "Reagan speeches." If we could get more people to read and listen to a few of his speeches on a regular basis, I believe it could enlighten people again and we might have a resurgence of faith in the classic, time-tested and successful ideas of conservatism. So, to those reading this, mention this idea to your friends, your kids, your coworkers. You have nothing to lose but your country.

The final paragraph of Andrew Roberts' 2007 book, A History of the English-Speaking Peoples since 1900, reads as follows: “It is in the nature of human affairs that, in the words of the hymn, ‘Earth’s proud empires pass away’, and so too one day will the long hegemony of the English-speaking peoples. When they finally come to render up the report of their global stewardship to History, there will be much of which to boast. Only when another power—such as China—holds global sway, will the human race come to mourn the passing of this most decent, honest, generous, fair-minded and self sacrificing imperium.”

In fact, Roberts' book is intended to convey the idea that the ascendancy and influence of the English–speaking peoples (primarily Great Britain and the USA) over the last quarter millennium has brought a great boon to the world in the form of liberal democracy, free market capitalism, the rule of law, individual liberty, the defeat of totalitarianism (OK, Nazism and Communism are buried, but the last manifestation in the form of Islamic radicalism has yet to be tamed), life-saving scientific and medical discoveries, and a sort of pax englishana that has brought more peace and prosperity to more corners of the Earth than could have been imagined.

The book is an unabashed recitation of the achievements of the Brits and Yanks during the twentieth century. In line with the title of his book, Roberts also points out that, with the exception of Ireland, all the other English-speaking nations of the world—namely, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and even the tiny nations of the British West Indies—have made salutary contributions to the epic ventures pursued by England and America. Naturally, he asks what is it about the English-speaking peoples of the world that has allowed them to defeat their mortal enemies, create enormous wealth, advance the arts, science and engineering to great heights, and to manage growth (both in size and diversity) of their populations in such a way as to create multi-cultural, yet harmonious and dynamic societies? Roberts' answers are not totally transparent or definitive, but he does offer several thought-provoking possibilities:

• A single-minded pursuit of mastery of the sea and air;
• Laissez-faire capitalism—invented by the Dutch, but adopted and perfected to a high degree by the sea-faring English-speaking peoples;
• The cultivation of spirituality among the people and the promotion of virtue and morality according to commonly accepted spiritual guidelines;
• Trust in people and their entrepreneurial skills with a concomitant program to limit the size and power of government;
• Military prowess and innovation, and a patent ruthlessness in deploying same;
• Understanding the role of prestige in world affairs, and protecting that of the English-speaking peoples.

With those as backdrop, Roberts presents an episodic description of the main ideas, movements, catastrophes and triumphs, and heroes and villains that strode the world stage during the twentieth century—always with a focus on the role played by the English-speaking peoples. He is careful not to ignore their warts and failures. In particular, he highlights: the too long fight to end segregation in America; the plunge into a centrally managed economy, following the 1929 Stock Market crash, which only intensified and prolonged the Depression; the mismanaged peace following World War I; military calamities such as Gallipoli, Pearl Harbor, and of course 9/11; the tendency to rely on appeasement (of Nazis in the 1930s, of Communists in the 1970s and of Islamists in the 1990s); the occasional failure to live up to our own ideals (e.g., the incarceration of innocent Japanese-American citizens during World War II); and the also occasional failure to maintain the unity of the English-speaking peoples (e.g., in the Suez crisis in 1956).

Despite these failures, the power, global influence and supremacy of Great Britain, and then the USA only grew during the twentieth century. Roberts postulates that at the inception of the century, this was not foreordained. Other powers, such as Germany, France and Russia could have grabbed the mantle of leadership. Well, despite the fact that two of the three tried to do so, they fell short and in the end, the century belonged to the English-speaking peoples. Moreover, according to Roberts, that this occurred was a blessing for mankind—the English-speaking peoples have been in the main, a force for good around the globe.

Since its publication, the book has come under scathing attack from the Left. Here is a representative example from amazon.com: "The [sic] is, unfortunately, a long history of some of these talented writers getting wrapped up into the politics of others and for the most part getting it wrong. There is a surplus of such writers who became expatriate parts of the neo-con revolution that catapulted conservatives into power—and brought such shame and disgrace to the United States with torture, incompetence and block-headed stupidity. Mr. Roberts may be stupid or flip or just careless. This book is unworthy to be associated with a title connected to Winston Churchill, who knew how to write and how to use facts, even if he did on occasion spin them to his advantage."

Nevertheless, to me—and I believe to most Americans—the fact that America has been a force for good (far more often than the reverse) is totally self-evident. Alas, it appears that a substantial number of American people disagree. I think this is unprecedented in our nation's history. From its beginnings, most Americans shared President Reagan's vision of America as a "shining city on a hill," that we had reinvented the world with our concepts of a federal republic, individual liberty, limited government, freedom and justice for the people and that our exportation of our political and economic ideas and practices has brought great progress and joy to those portions of the globe that saw the value of our ways. Not any longer—at least not for the segment of the population I hinted at above. The last assertion would definitely have been false a hundred years ago, and probably similarly false fifty years ago. Not any more. What happened during this period to cause a large number of American citizens to lose faith in the role, even in the "mission" of the United States of America? Such discontent with our society's role in the world, even in the nature of the society itself is a calamity for our country. How did it come about?

I believe the answer is found in two monumental transformations that occurred in the US—the first during the first half of the twentieth century, the second in the latter half. In my recent book, "Liberal Hearts and Conservative Brains," I argue that America, from its founding through the end of the nineteenth century, was a fundamentally conservative society. There was a broad consensus about the limited role of government in the lives of the people, a deep reverence for the traditional culture, and an acceptance that the rules laid down by our founding fathers were to govern us for the indefinite future. (For more on this argument, see Chapter 5 in the aforementioned book, which can be found online at http://home.comcast.net/~ronlipsman/excerpts.html). The first major cracks in the consensus occurred early in the twentieth century under the leadership of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, aided and abetted by various muckrakers and "social reformers" like John Dewey. In short, for the first time, the country questioned its fundamentals: the federal system of government, the WASP culture, but especially laissez-faire capitalism. Many of the new ideas and attitudes on these subjects were imported from Europe with the massive waves of immigration that swept our shores on both sides of the turn of the twentieth century. Some of the manifestations of the revolutionary work of these reformers included: anti-trust legislation and two Constitutional amendments that legalized a federal income tax and converted the election of Senators from the State legislatures to popular vote. The concurrent movement toward a collectivist government and a centrally directed (if not planned) economy accelerated greatly under Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and, arguably even more rapidly, under Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. Though the changes wrought in American society were profound, the "reformers" are not yet satisfied. They seek to take America further down the road toward a European-style socialist society, but they have been held in check to a tremendous extent by a conservative counter-revolution over the last quarter century.

The second transformation is, I believe, in some sense a consequence of the first. If one accepts that American society is not a beacon or model for the rest of the world, then what right do we have to hold ourselves up as an example to be admired and copied? Indeed, at mid century, the Left seized on the USA's shortcomings—some legitimate, some merely perceived—and broadcast them forcefully to the nation and the world. They harped on: slavery and segregation, maltreatment of American Indians, discrimination against women and minorities, colonialism in the Philippines and Latin America, internment of Japanese-American citizens, the fire bombing of Dresden and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the great disparity in wealth between the country's richest and poorest citizens, industrial pollution, corporate greed, mindless patriotism, urban crime, uptight religiously-dictated morals, and maybe ring-around-the-tub too. Their alienation came to a fever pitch in their opposition to what they viewed as an immoral war in Vietnam. In fact, the Left's stance on the Vietnam War was a major harbinger of the attitude, which still stands today, that in fact the United States of America is definitely not a force for good in the world. So small wonder that copious calumny has been heaped upon poor Mr. Roberts for his ill-conceived and manifestly wrong thesis.

When those who have lost faith in America look at the bulleted list of reasons (third paragraph above) for why the USA and the English-speaking peoples have led the world, they are appalled by and dismissive of all (except perhaps the first). Next January, when Obama is President and a huge left-wing majority has captured control of Congress, they will set out to remake America according to their vision for the country: socialist, highly secular, demilitarized and pacifist, guided by a malleable Constitution, no better or worse than any other of the world's nations, a realization of some sort of utopian "brotherhood of man." Roberts's book is a celebration of America's achievements as he sees them during the twentieth century. I wonder what his great-grandchild will write a hundred years hence about America's role in the twenty first century. I fear it will be a dirge instead of a song of celebration.