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.

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: