President Obama repeatedly emphasized as a candidate that his three top priorities as President would be health care, energy and education. He has continued to stress those themes since his inauguration, both in proposed legislation and on the bully pulpit. To his way of thinking — and to that of the liberal elite who believe they are running the nation, which in fact they seem to be — these three issues are the most critical facing our nation at the close of the first decade of the twenty-first century. This would seem to relegate to secondary importance such "minor" issues as: Islamic fundamentalism and its assault on Western Civilization; runaway entitlement programs that threaten to bankrupt the nation; a bloated federal government, massive deficits, a rapidly expanding money supply that portends severe inflation and a crippled economy, all of which threaten to do likewise; out of control illegal immigration, augmented by tens of millions of poorly assimilated minorities that weaken the cultural fabric of our society; and a profound ignorance among our citizens of the founding principles upon which our country was established.

Now while I think that the President's priorities might be misaligned, I do not mean to suggest that Barack's big three are not vitally important. They are. But what strikes me is that the three top problems that he has identified are perhaps the three that most clearly illustrate a principle that characterizes the behavior of our federal government. Namely, it is intent on solving problems that it created in the first place. Moreover, its preferred method of solution bears amazing resemblance to the methods it deployed that created the original problem. That assertion is true of some of the other issues I specified above. But it is particularly true of Obama's big three. My purpose here is to elaborate on that observation.

I will take them in reverse chronological order. That means energy is first as the original sins of the government occurred less than a half-century ago. America's need for and use of vast quantities of energy originate in the Industrial Revolution of the 19^th century. Prior to that we got by with energy gleaned from "natural" sources like water, solar, wind and of course human and animal strength. But the new engines of economic growth in the 19^th century required more robust sources of energy — initially coal, and then later oil. These sustained us for more than a century, although they had certain disadvantages — primarily environmental and the fact that, at least in the case of oil, the sources were to be found increasingly in foreign lands.

Then, at almost exactly the same point in time, three critical events occurred: (i) the environmental impact of our heavy reliance on coal and oil worked its way into the consciousness of the American public's mind; (ii) it became clear that the "finite nature" of those resources would cause them, if not to disappear altogether, then at least to become dramatically more expensive and harder to obtain; and (iii) an amazing new resource became practical. At that point, the federal government initiated policies that recognized (i) but totally ignored (ii) and (iii). In short, beginning approximately 45 years ago and continuing to this day, the government implemented steps that: (a) restricted the use of coal and limited the deployment of more environmentally friendly coal technologies; (b) severely limited drilling and exploration for new domestic sources of oil, shale and other "dirty" sources of energy; (c) began to emphasize and favor inefficient and expensive biofuels that has had the unanticipated consequence of distorting food prices (because of the diversion of certain grains from food production to biofuel production); (d) made the construction of new oil refineries virtually impossible; (e) pursued the chimera of reviving the use of "natural" sources (water, solar, wind) in a major way, expecting beyond common sense that they would provide a substantial portion of our total energy needs; and (f) most importantly, essentially suspended the development and deployment of nuclear technologies that would in fact have supplied huge proportions of our energy needs. Not surprisingly, these steps have caused scarcity in energy supplies, driven energy costs sky high and placed our industry and our lifestyle at grave risk. Stated in this fashion, and I believe it is an accurate summary of the idiotic government-driven energy policies our country has pursued over the last 45 years, it is natural to wonder how our government, with our concurrence, could institute these incredibly moronic policies. Why would any government do such things?

The answer: For exactly the same reasons that motivate the Obama administration, whose members seem to be convinced that to fix our energy problems we have to pursue precisely the policies that put us in this predicament — although they don't see it that way. The Obamaniacs are motivated by the beliefs that:

• The US is no more entitled to access to energy supplies than any other nation, that therefore our consumption of more energy per capita than anyone else is unfair, indeed morally wrong, and that it must cease;
• Mankind is a threat to the Earth and living with less, cleaner energy is an appropriate check on our human tendency to "rape the Earth";
• It is the job of the federal government to control our energy appetite and referee the equitable distribution of energy, not only among the peoples of the nation, but also among the peoples of the world; and
• Unregulated exploitation of the world's energy sources is a reflection of the corporate greed that is so characteristic of an unfettered capitalistic system, a system that must be reigned in.

It is a radical, anti-free market, redistributionist philosophy that too many of our people have bought into because of the brainwashing they have succumbed to in our schools and at the hands of a biased media. It is a program that will lead us to economic ruin.

Having caused the problem, the government announces that we are in crisis and then sets out to resolve it by rededicating itself to the efforts that created it in the first pace. And the people buy it. But when there will be insufficient energy to heat their homes, power their vehicles and drive the engines of their businesses, then perhaps the good people of America will realize, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, that Barack Obama and the liberals calling the shots are the problem, not the solution.

Proceeding backward in time, the next issue is health care. The basic problem is the explosive nature of the cost of health care. It is universally acknowledged that American health care is the finest in the world — why else would foreigners flock here to access it? Unfortunately, its cost is exceedingly high and seemingly out of control. Why is that? I maintain the root cause is that the vast majority of American health care is paid for by so-called "third party" insurers. That is, party one (the individual or family) seeks medical assistance from party two (doctors and hospitals), but the bill is paid by party three (either an insurance company or the government).

This abnormal situation came about because of two fundamental blunders by the federal government. The first was the wage and price controls it imposed during World War II. This caused business, when it sought to attract employees, to offer subsidized health care benefits to potential employees; the subsidies were not subject to federal income tax or wage controls. With the federal government's acquiescence in this dodge around wage controls, thus was born employer-based health insurance that inaugurated the era of the third party payer system. It looked like a win-win for everyone, but the impression created in the public's mind was that, while health care was not totally free, its costs were capped (by the premiums they paid through their employer) and so they felt no compulsion not to enjoy as much of it as they pleased. A simple case of supply and demand. The insatiable demand by third party-insured health care consumers drives the price for health care higher and higher.

The problem was compounded by the introduction of Medicare in the mid-60s. The target was America's elderly instead of its workers and young families, and the third party insurer became the government instead of private insurance companies — a horrible eventuality for other reasons. But the third party payer principle was the same and so costs were driven even higher. Americans buy their car, life, home and disability insurance in the open market. Costs for these escalate in line with standard cost of living indicators as people pay directly for what they receive. But the federally-inspired, third party payer health care insurance industry interferes with the natural laws of supply and demand and drives prices to the stratosphere.

So how is the government going to fix this? Why of course by instituting universal health care — controlled, managed and financed by the government, which, whether purposefully or inadvertently, will drive private health insurers out of business. Nationalized health care! Oh swell, the government completely controlling the supply and demand for health care. Of course the demand will not decrease, so the only way to control costs will be by restricting supply. Yup, rationing of health care! Precisely what has happened in other countries that have nationalized health care (see, e.g., Great Britain and Canada)!

Having seen the disaster that nationalized health care has been in other countries, why would the US government implement it here and why would we the people vote for it and support it? Obama made no secret of his intentions. How could we have given him the power to do it? The answer to the second question lies in the brainwashing we have endured in the last few generations; the answer to the first looks suspiciously like the reasons for our misbegotten energy policies:

• Access to health care is a basic human right (actually, where in the Constitution or Federalist Papers that might be found is a mystery to me — but Barack sees it clearly); all should have the same access — even if at a lower level for everyone.
• The federal government has the obligation to guarantee that right.
• Private insurers are motivated purely by the profit motive (damned corporate greed again), not by the desire to fulfill this human right — only the government can provide uniform and fair coverage.

Once again, a radical, redistributionist ideology at work that our brainwashed populace might conceivably not endorse, but certainly acquiesces in. And again, having caused the problem, the government proposes to fix it by redoubling its misguided efforts. When, like in Britain, it takes months (if ever) to see a specialist, we might have second thoughts on the wisdom of this fix.

This brings me to the third priority — education. In this case the original sin lies long in the past — namely, more than a century ago when radicals like John Dewey (and Horace Mann even earlier) convinced the American people that the education of their children was a task best left to the government. It need not have developed that way. True, the governments involved were local, or occasionally county or State, not federal. That would come later. But at the end of the nineteenth century the people of the United States relied on local, State and the national government for precious few services outside of those prescribed in the Constitution. Mail, transportation, some communications come to mind. All in the realm of interstate commerce. Today every activity falls under the rubric of interstate commerce — even education. But exactly where is it ordained that government-run schools are the preferred — and if some had their way, only — method of delivering an elementary school education to the youth of America? It is a choice made by the American people that has led to:

• Inefficiency, waste and corruption in the administration of America's school systems;
• A level of performance by the average student that borders on the abominable;
• A curriculum that is often at odds with the desires of the students' parents;
• A dangerous physical environment rife with drugs, promiscuity and violence;
• A failure to transmit to America's youth the fundamentals of our Constitutional Republic and the essentials of our American culture;
• A total failure to teach our youth about free market capitalism, the fundamental economic system that is responsible for our unprecedented prosperity;
• A cadre of teachers beholden to the most radical and powerful union in America — the National Educational Association; and
• A homogeneity of thought on the part of the teachers and staff who run the system that has resulted in the brainwashing of America's youth who are inculcated with a "progressive agenda," which is nothing more than the statist philosophy of the liberal elite.

Here Barack would disagree. He likely would think me daft and would instead cite the following as the fundamental problems with our school systems:

• Inadequate resources available to minorities compared to those for white males;
• Too much emphasis on American history and culture and not nearly enough attention paid to the people of the world;
• Insufficient study of the effect of mankind on the environment and not enough indoctrination — er, that is, information about being green;
• Inadequate teacher salaries; and
• Too much local control as it is clear that education is far too important to the future of America to be left to anyone but the federal government.

Well, how will he fix these problems? By nationalizing the schools of course and reinforcing the regimen implemented over the last century, which as I have pointed out, is responsible for the failures I have cited — as opposed to his phony problems. The schools will only get worse. But they will produce little Obama clones.

In summary, our esteemed President has identified three critical areas of concern for our nation, but failed to notice that they are areas of concern precisely because of past policies practiced by the government. He proposes to fix them by implementing "new" policies that constitute nothing more than the ratcheting up of the methods that caused the concerns originally. Can you say "Prescription for disaster!" Hopefully the American people will wake up before it is too late.

In recent articles I have argued that the method by which the Left has captured nearly complete control of the country over the last century was to radically alter the culture of the nation, after which "the politics caught up with the culture." One of the goals of this article is to elaborate on that thought.

Most of us have a clear understanding of the different stances of the political Left and Right and what it means to assert that the policies of the Left are in ascendance, while those of the Right are in decline — which certainly seems to be the case in 2009. Just to cite the most conspicuous evidence for that assertion, we observe that: government is expanding, not contracting; taxes and spending are increasing, not declining; government regulation and control of our lives is growing, not shrinking; our defense posture ebbs and negotiations are favored over even the threat of force; secular humanism is on the rise and the observance of traditional religion is weakening; industrial planning and crony capitalism are in vogue while free markets are under a cloud; the Constitution is malleable, its original intent irrelevant; the belief in American exceptionalism withers while the view of America as just another country, moreover one that has made serious mistakes historically, gains popularity; social justice is more important than individual liberty; and multiculturalism is in favor while "traditional culture" wanes.

It is the last mentioned manifestation of the Left's trampling of the Right that I wish to focus on here. In order to do so, we need to have a clear picture of the massive cultural changes that have engulfed the country during the last century, especially in the last 40 years. In order to identity and understand them, let us try to be specific about what we mean by "culture" or the culture of a society. Consulting my trusty Merriam-Webster, I find that the noun, culture, has the following definition:

the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations; the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life) shared by people in a place or time; the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organization; the set of values, conventions, or social practices associated with a particular field, activity, or societal characteristic.

Distilling that robust definition, I think we can agree that the key point is that the culture of a society or nation comprises the beliefs, social forms, traits, features, attitudes, values, goals and practices that are shared by a majority of the members of the society. A culture is strong if that majority is overwhelming. A culture is weak if the majority is a bare one, and a culture is fractured if the majority does not exist — that is, there are few beliefs, behaviors, etc. that are common to large proportions of the society; or said alternatively, there are competing values, goals, etc., none of which is held commonly by nearly all members of the nation.

The United States had a very strong culture throughout the 18^th and 19^th centuries. During the 20^th century a powerful new culture emerged to challenge the established one. My goal in this article is not only to outline the contents of these two competing cultures, but also to venture an assessment as to the extent of the success of the new culture; that is, does the US have a strong new culture, a weak new culture or is the culture of the United States badly fractured?

The culture of a society has many components, some parts of which are more firmly entrenched than others, and different observers might identify varying pieces as among the strongest or weakest. But I believe that there would be a broad consensus that any description of traditional American culture, from the nation's birth through 1900, would include at least the following (in no particular order):

• The English language as the mother tongue of the vast majority of citizens, in which virtually all business, politics, literature, entertainment, law, education and discourse of the nation is transacted.
• A Constitutional legal system derived from British common law, epitomized by the rule of law as opposed to the rule of man.
• A reverence for and loyalty to Western Civilization, meaning that guidance for how society is to be organized is sought from the historic tenets established in ancient Greece and Rome as well as during the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods in Western Europe.
• Freedom of worship, but morals grounded in the Christian religions of Western Europe, rebranded later with the designation "Judeo-Christian heritage."
• The United States conceived of as a federal republic — more precisely, a representative democracy in which there is a balance of power between the central government and that of the States, and that the power of the federal government would be kept in "check and balance" by division between three separate branches.
• The traditional family as the center of life and to which the individual owes his primary allegiance.
• A belief in American exceptionalism, meaning that the new experiment in freedom and liberty conceived in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights rendered the United States different from any nation before or since and that America has a special role to play as an example to the rest of the world for how man should be governed and society organized.
• Faith that the people of the nation could govern themselves, and a commitment to the principle that the government derives all of its powers only from the consent of the governed, and therefore that the powers of the government should be limited to those granted it in the Constitution.
• An economy grounded in free markets, laissez-faire capitalism, respect and appreciation for the profit motive and the sacredness of private property.
• An understanding that human beings are flawed creatures, given to greed and other deadly vices, and that the best method of keeping their transgressions under control is through a robust and fair legal system as well as through the moral checks of a common religious faith.
• Similarly, an understanding that nature could be violent, fate could be fickle, and that the method of dealing with life's vicissitudes was the same two remedies as in the last bullet.
• Admiration for the classic British traits of modesty, humility, thrift, grittiness and the Protestant work ethic, and the elevation of those traits to aspirational ideals that should be taught to one's children.
• Promotion of science and technology and adoption of the fruits of the creativity of those who practice them, but a healthy skepticism that scientists or engineers have solutions to problems that are primarily spiritual, moral or ethical.
• Three more — harmony of interests, rugged individualism and civil society, all of which I will describe by quoting from Mark Levin's book Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto:

Like the Founders, the Conservative also recognizes in society a harmony of interests, as Adam Smith put it, and rules of cooperation that have developed through generations of human experience and collective reasoning that promote betterment of the individual and society. This is characterized as ordered liberty, the social contract, or the civil society.

* * *

In the civil society, the individual is recognized and accepted as more than an abstract statistic or faceless member of some group; rather he is a unique, spiritual being with a soul and conscience. He is free to discover his own potential and pursue his own legitimate interests, tempered, however, by a moral order that has its foundation in faith and guides his life and all human life through the prudent exercise of judgment. As such, the individual in the civil society strives, albeit imperfectly, to be virtuous — that is, restrained, ethical, and honorable. He rejects the relativism that blurs the lines between good and bad, right and wrong, just and unjust, and means and ends.

In the civil society, the individual has a duty to respect the unalienable rights of others and the values, customs, and traditions, tried and tested over time and passed from one generation to the next, that establish society's cultural identity. He is responsible for attending to his own well-being and that of his family. And he has a duty as a citizen to contribute voluntarily to the welfare of his community through good works.

Are these the components of a good culture? Well they certainly were good for the people of the United States, and secondarily of the world. Operating under these cultural axioms, the United States grew to fill a continent, underwent an industrial and technological revolution that made it the wealthiest, most dynamic and powerful country on Earth, saved the world from the scourges of Nazism and Communism, welcomed and assimilated vast numbers of oppressed peoples from around the world, and proved that the concepts of individual liberty and freedom enshrined in our founding documents were viable and a workable model for all mankind.

But it is not a one-sided picture. Certainly there were some warts. Under the traditional culture I've described, there also occurred the maltreatment of the indigenous people that we supplanted, the horror of slavery, limitations on the roles that women were allowed to play in society, the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, and the blemish that, in retrospect, caused the most consternation: the fact that the culture, with its individualistic and competitive nature, inevitably leads to winners and losers, success and failure, wealth and poverty, and thus to inequities, which are perceived as unfair and unacceptable.

And so the country harbored many persons and, as the twentieth century progressed, clearly an increasing number of such, who felt that the culture was wrongly conceived and needed to be altered. Beyond the inequities, these malcontents believed that American culture was: too religious and therefore too restrictive, male-dominated and so unfair to women, too unpredictable and chaotic, too materialistic and too dour in its assessment of the perfectibility of humans or nature. They set out to change the culture. And they succeeded. Now, as with the traditional culture, it is a challenge to encapsulate briefly the principles of what I shall call the counterculture that was invented and deployed by the revolutionaries. But here we go; once again I believe the following roster is a good summary of the ingredients of the counterculture that has been battling the traditional culture:

• Recognizing that the inequities resulting from unfettered capitalism impose unfair hardships on too many worthy members of society, the nation tempers those abridgments of people's rights to a proper education, a suitable home, adequate health care and gainful employment at a living wage by empowering a strong central government to equalize standards of living and to provide affordable access to education, employment and health care.
• The justification for doing so is inherent in the nation's founding documents, which, properly interpreted by the judiciary, grant the executive and legislative branches the authority to implement laws to guarantee these rights.
• Acknowledges legitimacy in the pursuit of spiritual beliefs by individuals, but decrees that religion has no place in the public square and so no government or government-supported activity can have any religious component.
• Accepts that Western Civilization has made contributions to the welfare of mankind, but is deeply troubled by its egregious failures — namely colonialism, religious oppression, aggressive war, suppression of women's rights, slavery, segregation and exploitation of labor and capital. Therefore, it encourages the introduction of other civilizations and cultures into American society and believes the resulting diversity thereby created will build a more enlightened and just society.
• In particular, the mass immigration of Latin peoples to the US enriches our culture. Moreover, there is nothing holy about the English language and the emergence of a multinational, multicultural, multilingual populace will improve our society and guard against our perpetrating some of the excesses of Western Civilization enumerated above.
• Claims that the classic principles of Christianity have placed too great a restriction on the nature of human association — in particular, on family formation, and so places maltreatment of homosexuals on par with racial discrimination; therefore, all manner of familial formations can be as constructive and helpful to society as the traditional family.
• While the government has the obligation to do more than level the playing field in society in general, it has no right to proscribe an individual's behavior in the privacy of his house or with regard to his person — in particular, it cannot restrict abortion, drugs, adult entertainment, etc.
• While it acknowledges the legitimacy of private property, it believes the government has an obligation to control the means of production in its quest to guarantee equalization and the rights enumerated above.
• The nature of modern society is so complex, so multifaceted and so intricate that it is beyond the ken of the normal individual. It is 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.
• Government has a major role to play in correcting man's ill behavior toward his fellow man and toward nature. Crime, pollution, obesity, to name only a few of man's failings, can be arrested by proper government policies and laws. When this is done, man will live in harmony with his fellow man and with nature.
• While liberty and freedom are important, they are not nearly as important as equality and fairness. The pursuit of equality is the noblest endeavor. By doing so we create a society that emblemizes social justice — our highest goal.

Before turning to an assessment of how far America has progressed toward replacing its traditional culture with the counterculture, let me comment on the "politics follows the culture" observation earlier. In previous articles I have spelled out in detail the political agendas of the Left and Right. (See for example, prior articles in this journal, "Different Visions," or "A Conservative's Thoughts as Obama Ascends to the Presidency.")

Let's not rehash those. Readers of this essay will surely be well aware of those agendas. Then the following point should be self-evident. The traditional culture aids and abets a conservative political viewpoint. If you accept all, or even only most of the principles of the traditional culture, it is impossible to imagine that you will want to support a liberal or leftist political agenda. Well, it is just as self-evident that if you subscribe to the countercultural principles as I've outlined them, then you surely will support a leftist agenda.

And that is the point of the "politics caught up with the culture" comment. The counterculture is so deeply ingrained in sufficient numbers of the population that they naturally voted for the Obama-Pelosi-Reid team in the last election. In fact, unless conservatives can engineer a reversal of the current cultural tide, the electoral trends of '06 and '08 are likely not only to persevere, but actually grow stronger.

The last remark suggests that I believe that countercultural adherents do indeed constitute a majority of the electorate. Actually, until recently I would have said, "No, the culture of the country is fractured; neither side has a majority." But I was mistaking politics for culture. We are politically divided. But I have come to believe that culturally, although we are divided, the countercultural forces have indeed gained a majority in the nation. And thus my assertion that in the last two elections, "the politics caught up with the culture." On the other hand, I do not believe the new culture is strongly entrenched yet.

The strength of the counterculture appears to be growing at the expense of the traditional culture. This transformation is aided by the media, the education establishment, the entertainment industry, the legal profession, the foundations and virtually all other opinion-molding organs of society, all of whom are compliant and complicit in the cultural revolution. Thus, we seem to be heading toward a strongly leftist culture which I believe will be a monumental disaster for America and could signal the end of the glorious experiment in human liberty that our country has represented.

But let me not end on a note of despair. Yes, these are grim times for our republic. Levin's book lays bare how America no longer is a Constitutional republic, nor is it a representative republic or a federal republic, but rather a "society steadily transitioning toward statism," or as others have christened it, a soft tyranny. He lays out a program for recapturing the culture and the politics (as have I previously). But can there be any hope of succeeding? Our country has seen dark days before — the Civil War, the Great Depression, World Wars, stagflation in the late 60s/early 70s. We coped. We survived three great leaps to the left under Wilson, Roosevelt and Johnson — although with a greatly weakened culture.

Now we are in the initial stages of the age of Obama and the fourth great leap to the left. Can we survive again? What will survive? Perhaps it's an act of faith over reason, but I believe with Reagan that, "God had a divine purpose in placing this land between two great oceans to be found by those who had a special love of freedom and courage " We may have abandoned Him, but I don't think He is ready to abandon us just yet.

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:

 

"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. … 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."

There is no doubt that the onset of the Obama administration has energized conservative intellectuals. A year ago conservatives were trying to reconcile themselves to the McCain candidacy — an eventuality that filled us with dismay as we contemplated yet another fake conservative presidency and the further dilution of the Reagan brand of conservative republicanism. Then, as the threat of an ultra-liberal Obama presidency loomed larger in the summer and fall of 2008, we exhorted ourselves to a more fervent support of John McCain — realizing that his election, dismal as the prospect might be, was the only hope of preventing the catastrophe that we believed an Obama presidency promised. But our hearts were not in it. When Obama triumphed, we licked our wounds, muttered pathetic excuses like "Bush and the Republican Congress brought this on with their profligate spending and betrayal of bedrock conservative principles," and took some solace from the "moderate" or "centrist" feints that Obama engaged in during the transition period. We were hoping against hope that the newly arrived messiah — a designation not inappropriate to the manner of treatment accorded him by the media — might turn out to be more of a pragmatist, perhaps even a centrist, than his meager record and public utterings predicted that he would be. The dispirited nature of many of our columns, blogs and op/ed pieces during that period reflected the depth of our disappointment, the dejection we were experiencing and the slim reeds of hope at which we were clutching. Alas, not surprisingly, the reeds were ephemeral and the age of Obama has ushered in precisely the far left agenda that we feared.

Therefore, we are no longer able to deceive ourselves that President Obama might govern to some extent like Clinton did — i.e., from the center (sort of). And worse still, the new messiah might not — as many of us hoped — turn out to be as incompetent as the feckless Jimmy Carter. So now that we are truly frightened by the prospect of the great damage Mr. Obama might wreak in the next four or eight years, our juices have started flowing again, our batteries are charged and conservative outlets are overflowing with spirited, passionate and fervent pleas to the American people to recognize Mr. Obama for the dangerous, leftist radical that he surely is and barely attempts to conceal.

The examples are legion, but I would like to cite one specific piece by David Limbaugh in the Washington Times (3/28/09) entitled "Capital Arrogance." There is much in this trenchant column that highlights the threats posed by Obama and his Congressional allies, but I wish to focus on one specific paragraph:

The liberals see they now have a chance to actualize their vision for an America remade in their image and radically at odds with the vision of this nation's Founders. It doesn't matter that there couldn't be a worse time in our history for implementing their reckless policies. They know they may not get another chance in their lifetimes to work such mischief. Even though it will break the federal bank, us, our children and our grandchildren, it's all going to be OK because they will finally have achieved their statist vision for America.

There are four critical points raised here by Limbaugh:

• Obama and his liberal henchmen have a fundamentally different vision for America from that of our Founders.
• They perceive that this period presents them with perhaps a unique opportunity to implement that vision.
• The damage to our country by the actualization of that vision, while calamitous at any time, will be especially bad at this time because of the severe economic distress in which we find ourselves.
• The Obama regime is oblivious to the consequences that the realization of its vision will have on the people of our country; its adherents care only that their utopian dream of a society of equals (their brotherhood of man), guaranteed by an all powerful, "benign" State, is in their view the right way to organize society, and that even if it means a lower standard of living, a diminished status in the world, and an erosion of our individual liberties, the new society will be a far fairer, more just and healthier nation than it was or ever could be under the old system.

Unfortunately, Limbaugh, like many conservative pundits, offers us little or nothing in the way of advice for preventing the calamity that he so acutely predicts. Many fear– and I worry that they might be correct — that there is no forestalling the radical remake of the USA that the age of Obama will usher in. Well, I am not ready to surrender just yet. I would like to make a strategic suggestion for combating Obama's false nirvana. But before I do, let me say a little more about Limbaugh's four points — especially the first and last.

Different Visions. One could go on at great length here; let me just say that the Founder's vision of the USA incorporated: a limited government, empowered primarily to ensure the liberty of the people — thus, to defend the homeland, maintain the worth of the currency, guarantee the validity of contracts, ensure the rule of law, and not too much else; a virtuous populace, whose morals were derived from traditional Western religion and whose primary organization was based on the family (in the classic sense); an economy characterized by free markets and democratic capitalism; checks and balances between the federal government and those of the States, with all unenumerated powers reserved to the States and the people; a set of precious individual rights (life, liberty, freedom of speech, assembly and religion, and the right to bear arms) that could not be circumscribed by the government; and a respect for and adherence to the Constitution as the fundamental law of the land that could only be altered through an elaborate process, which required a broad consensus of the people.

Obama's and modern liberals' vision of America is totally different. In short the fundamental guiding principles are not liberty and freedom, but rather equality and fairness; they take their inspiration from the ideals of the French, not the American Revolution. These include: a benign, but very powerful central government that sets and enforces the rules for virtually all aspects of American life; the elevation of tolerance, a non-judgmental perspective and equity far above all else in determining relationships between people; the belief that inequalities between individuals that result from a free market system are absolutely unacceptable and thus the economy must be strongly regulated — and occasionally controlled — by the government in order to spread the wealth and promote the three principles above; the certainty that American culture is no worthier than any other, therefore merits no celebration and should in fact be infused by cultures from around the world; conflict resolution by negotiation only and a strong aversion to military force — even in defense; the further belief that religion is superstition and inferior to rationalism; all forms of family structure are as valid as the "traditional" family; and finally, the Constitution is a "living" document that guides us but does not bind us.

The two long lists above could be fleshed out further, but you get the idea. Plainly, these are starkly different visions for the future of America.

Unique Opportunity. Due to the egregiously poor performance of the Republican Party (in both the executive and legislative branches) over the last decade, the electorate grew fed up and installed an ultra-liberal regime to govern the country. Something like this has happened three times in the last century — the administrations of Wilson, Roosevelt and Johnson. (The analogy is imprecise.) Liberals look back on these as golden ages; conservatives view them as tragedies that have had permanently devastating consequences for American society. We largely avoided permanent tragedies in the last two Democratic administrations– because Carter was incompetent, and Clinton was not a fanatical true believer; besides, he was checked by Gingrich. But today there is no Gingrich, no Reagan, and the overwhelmingly liberal Democratic Party has a good chance to bring about a fourth great leap to the left in America. They sense — not without justification — that this leap might put America irrevocably over the top. Social justice will reign and individual liberty will be a memory, and there will be no going back. They might be right — we will know soon enough.

Special Circumstances. Here I don't see eye to eye with Limbaugh. Yes, Roosevelt engineered his leap to the left during the Depression and he used it for cover to enact his socialist programs. But both Wilson's and Johnson's surge to port were perpetrated in not particularly perilous times. Yet they both still managed to leave us with a sorry legacy. We are still coping with the tragedy of the 16^th Amendment to the Constitution that enabled the federal income tax. And the social, moral and economic havoc that resulted from Johnson's Great Society continues to poison our nation. Obama will almost certainly, like Roosevelt, use the current economic crisis as an excuse to enact his ultra-left program for America. (After all, his right-hand man, Rahm Emanuel, has already informed us that this crisis is too great an opportunity to waste.) But economic distress or not, whichever of Obama's socialist, collectivist, egalitarian and pacifistic policies he is able to implement will be calamitous for America, even if the Stock Market was not doing a swan dive and the Mullahs were not splitting the atom.

Liberal Motivation. In this fourth point, Limbaugh is spot on. How can anyone survey the history of liberalism/socialism in the world over the last century and not conclude that it has been an abject failure? In its mildest form, Euro-socialism, it has resulted in the decaying societies of Western Europe — plagued by low birth rates, out of control welfare costs, high unemployment and low productivity, inability to project force and defend themselves, and a growing, subversive immigrant population that is needed to fund the entitlement programs. Canada fits that model as well. In its most virulent form, Nazism and Communism, it has resulted in horrors almost beyond human imagination. Well, I believe that liberals can ignore these results and continue to have faith in their leftist ideas for one of three reasons. 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 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.

All that said, what is my strategic suggestion for turning the tide? The inspiration comes from the enemy. How did we reach this point? Why do the consequences of the Reagan and Gingrich Revolutions seem so meager today? Reagan won the Cold War, rebuilt America's economy and restored the military. Gingrich — admittedly with Clinton's help– balanced the budget. How did the Left bear those defeats and rise to the seemingly impregnable heights it occupies today? I believe the seeds were sown roughly a century ago, to a great extent by the socialist, Italian philosopher, Antonio Gramsci, who preached that the way to convert the democratic, capitalistic countries of Western Civilization into socialist utopias was to capture the culture. Take over all the prime cultural institutions of the nation, convert the people to believers in the new culture and the politics would surely follow. Whether on purpose or inadvertently, that is exactly what the Left did. Led by early revolutionaries like John Dewey, Upton Sinclair and Woodrow Wilson, followed over several generations by Roosevelt and the New Dealers and then Johnson and the 60s radicals, the Left took control of all the organs of society that determine the culture: the media, educational system, legal profession, foundations, mainline churches, even big business to some extent. When the average American believes that abortion is a fundamental right, that the wall between church and state should be insurmountable, that Hollywood starlets have something to say about politics that is worth listening to, that it is alright for politicized teachers to have more influence over children than their parents, that soft core porn is acceptable fare for 8PM TV, that business is greedy and the government is competent and fair, that it is OK for athletes to tattoo their bodies, strut like peacocks and be role models for our children, then what chance does conservative politics really have against the liberal onslaught? With that cultural background it is not surprising that people vote for Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi.

So what are we to do? Take back the culture! Simple to say; hard to do. Yes, we have to continue to do battle in the political arena. Reagan's and Newt's victories in the political and economic spheres were fantastic. But these two gentlemen did not seriously contest the cultural battlefield. And without some advance in that arena, we are seeing that the political and economic victories cannot be consolidated. They are swept away by the influence of the filthy cultural tide that blankets America from the Left. We tend to see the battle between the Left and the Right as a political battle between liberals and conservatives. It is. But it appears that it is more fundamentally a social, cultural battle. It is good to know that Edmund Burke's ideas can defeat those of Voltaire, that Adam Smith was wiser than Karl Marx, that Milton Friedman outshines John Maynard Keynes. The problem is that no one on the Right has taken on Gramsci. 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.

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.

On my recent summer vacation, I read three fascinating books: Leave Us Alone: Getting the Government’s Hands Off Our Money, Our Guns, Our Lives, by Grover Norquist, Who Killed the Constitution, by Thomas Woods, Jr & Kevin Gutzman, and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization by Anthony Esolen. Although they differ markedly in style and content, there is a theme that is common to all of them. Namely, each both asserts and attempts to demonstrate that the United States of America has slipped the moorings established over two hundred years ago by our founders—especially in the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, the slippage is broad, deep and seemingly permanent. The liberties we have lost, the limited government that we aspired to, the culture that we have shed, the morals taught by our religiously-inspired forefathers, these are bid good riddance by nearly half our population; and the vast majority of the rest—who might rue these changes if they thought seriously about them—do not even realize what has happened.

Over the last century, the captains of the ship that have plotted this voyage have steered the USA away from the open waterways of: limited government, a strong allegiance to Western Civilization, the preservation of the traditional family, and a clear vision of the USA as Winthrop’s and Reagan’s shining city on a hill; instead, they’ve steered the ship straight down the narrow isthmus of: the nanny state, multiculturalism, multilateralism, a socialist economy and an enfeebled national defense. The final port of call is the besotted, morally degenerate, week-kneed, aging, nearly defenseless, ill-fated continent that Europe has become.

Woods’ and Gutzman’s book examines twelve case studies of US government actions—in every case detailing precisely how and why the action constituted a gross violation of the US Constitution. Naturally, many of them are Supreme Court decisions, but not all. Others involve actions of the executive and legislative branches of the government. Several of them are very well known, like the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision or its 1962 Engel vs. Vitale ruling. The former mandated racial integration of the public schools, the latter banned public prayer in the schools. Woods and Gutzman argue that, whatever one thinks about the merits of these aims, the Constitution provided no authority for the judiciary to issue either ruling. Both matters should have been handled by the people’s local legislative representatives or at worst by the US Congress. Another well known government activity the authors consider is congressional earmarks—which they discuss in the context of federal spending on US roads and highways. They give a long constitutional analysis in which they demonstrate that our founders clearly did not intend to give the federal government such authority. Yet another constitutionally troubling  move—this time by the executive—was President Truman’s seizure of the steel mills in 1952. In a similar vein, they castigate Franklin Roosevelt for confiscating all the gold held legally by private citizens in 1933. In every one of the 12 cases, the authors document how a branch of the federal government embraced, then invoked a power far beyond any intended by the drafters of the US Constitution.

Esolen’s book in the popular PIG (politically incorrect guide) series deals with a much broader issue than American constitutional politics. Basically, he examines in depth the modern assault on the fundamental tenets of Western Civilization. Clearly he has little sympathy for the attackers and in a series of clever arguments he turns virtually the entire American school system’s presentation of Western Civilization on its head. He resurrects much that is worthy in the ancient civilizations of Greece and Rome; argues that the onset of ethical monotheism—under Judaism and Christianity—changed the world immeasurably for the better; points out that the traditions and stability of the Middle Ages (or as they are usually known, the Dark Ages) contributed as many positives to Western Civilization as did either the Renaissance or the Enlightenment; and he argues that the horrors of the twentieth century are the culmination of the latter rather than the former. In short, he believes that the secularism of modern society is the death knell, not the savior of Western Civilization. His discussion of the Constitution is surprising, especially when he asserts that the founders looked more to Athens and Rome than they did to European enlightenment thinkers. He emphasizes the Constitution’s elaborate system of checks and balances and highlights the oft-overlooked fact that the founders were striving to create a robust federalism rather than a pure democracy. He does not dwell on it, but it is clear from the rest of the book that he agrees with Woods and Gutzman on what has happened to the Constitution, and he sees that as a sign of the deterioration of Western Civilization.

Norquist’s book divides the people of the USA into what he calls the “Leave Us Alone Coalition” and the “Takings Coalition.” These might be thought of roughly as conservatives and liberals, but Norquist gives a more precise description of the constituents of these coalitions. The former consists of: “businessmen and –women, entrepreneurs and investors who wish to run their own affairs without being regulated and taxed out of existence; property owners who do not wish to be taxed out of their houses or property; gun owners protective of their Second Amendment rights; home schoolers who are willing to spend the time and energy to educate their own children, asking only that the government leave them alone; all members of the various communities of faith who wish to be left alone to practice their faith and pass it on to their children.” The members of the latter  coalition are primarily: “trial lawyers; labor union leaders; government employees (except for those in the military and police); government employee unions; recipients of government grants; Americans working in the non-profit sector; professors; those on welfare; and those managing the vast welfare system.”

Norquist then examines many trends in American life and assays which will enlarge which coalition. He examines the growth of the investor class, the decline of labor unions, geography, demographics, the influence of the media and the internet and many other facets of American life. Perhaps surprisingly, he concludes that more trends favor the leave us alone crowd than favor the takers; from which he predicts that—despite what recent events might suggest—the former will prevail. Norquist doesn’t say so explicitly, but it is clear that he views the leave us alone coalition as adhering to the basic principles set down in the Constitution whereas the takers are inclined to rip it apart when it suits their needs.

The three books are thoroughly researched and very well written, but two of them are exceedingly depressing. Woods’ and Gutzman’s case studies lay painfully bare how deeply we have violated both the spirit and letter of the Constitution. Our political system has evolved to the point wherein we routinely and cavalierly disregard clear precepts that our founders set for us in the Constitution. These violations are perpetrated by all three branches of government and virtually no one—not journalists, constitutional scholars, nor state government officials—calls them on it. Presidents make war with no constitutional authority; Congress interprets the commerce clause so as to bring under the purvey of the federal government an unchecked bevy of powers that are expressly reserved to the States by the Constitution; the Courts invent “penumbras” and “emanations” in the Constitution and then use those phantoms to give the people “rights” not even hinted at in the document, rights which of course are enforced on us by the federal government. The most depressing feature of the book is that the authors offer no prescription for righting the ship. They only suggest that perhaps their book will open a few eyes so that we’ll at least be less ignorant of our increasing enslavement to the soft tyranny the federal government is imposing upon us. There is barely a ray of hope offered for reversing the trends that they identify and which they clearly believe have effectively destroyed the Constitution.

Esolen’s book is not much more hopeful. As I said, the fundamental treasure whose violation he depicts is Western Civilization, not the Constitution. Thus the sweep of the book is grander and the stage on which developments are investigated is much bigger. But in fact that only highlights the magnitude of our loss. Actually, it occurred to me that the Constitution is more intact than Western Civilization. Those who break its rules at least pay it homage. They pass laws and institute regulations that disrespect the Constitution but they purport to do so in furtherance of the Constitution itself. On the other hand, the destroyers of Western Civilization have identified it as evil and the source of much of the world’s ills. They make no pretension of trying to preserve it; they want it overthrown.

Only Norquist’s book holds out any hope that our constitutional slide might be reversed. Not that he lays out any grand program for achieving that. Rather he believes that the favorable trends that he has uncovered and the inherent wisdom of the American people will turn the trick. Moreover, his presentation and arguments are so upbeat and optimistic, and his logic is so compelling that it is very tempting to have faith in his analysis. Well, in light of my last comment comparing the status of the Constitution to that of Western Civilization, perhaps he is right. But I am not sure. After finishing his book, which ends with a consideration of the possible outcomes of the struggle between the two coalitions—namely, either the leave us alone viewpoint prevails, or the takings folks run the table, or the current stalemate continues, I sent him an email with the following words: “…the situation resembles one that calls forth the classic football coach's lament--namely, when you pass the ball one of three things can happen and two of them are bad. Unfortunately, that is also true of the scenarios you laid out at the end. Either we win, or they win, or the current stalemate continues. But as you point out, the current stalemate essentially is a win for the statists because, if the coming built-in economic/entitlement train wreck is not addressed, then its fulfillment will effectively mean that they win. Thus two of your three possible scenarios are bad.” His simple response: “We will win.” God, I hope he is right.

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.

In his 1987 book, Allan Bloom bemoaned the Closing of the American Mind. In his densely-written, trenchant and devastating depiction of the average American undergraduate's intellectual equipment, Dr. Bloom laid the blame (partly) on how the nature of "general education" in academia had changed for the worse in the preceding generation. Whereas up until mid century, no university student could escape with a degree without a classical education, that assertion was demonstrably false by 1980. In fact I was an undergraduate student in the early 1960s and to my good fortune, I received such an education. Its components included: mathematics and science; an in-depth history of ancient Greece and Rome; the art, literature, music and architecture of Western Europe from the Renaissance through the 19th century; the economic system of laissez faire capitalism pioneered by the Dutch and British and carried forward by the Americans; the notion of political freedom and liberty under the rule of law, exemplified by England and the USA, and highlighted by the stark differences between the American and French Revolutions; philosophy and morals, with an emphasis on the role played by the Church (sometimes good, sometimes bad); all of it subsumed under the rubric of Western Civilization. There was also a large dose of American history and government and, perhaps to the surprise of today's youngsters, most of it was portrayed in a positive light.

In the 1960s and 1970s, these core components of a classical curriculum in higher education were not so much thrown out as shoved aside. The doyens of higher education decided that, while a classical education might have made sense in a classical age, the progressive times of the latter third of the 20th century demanded that more important ideas be imparted to the eager young minds entering the campus. Furthermore, not only were the components of a classical education obsolete, they shielded the youth of America from much that was unpleasant, even evil, about American history and Western Civilization—e.g., slavery, oppression of women, religious fundamentalism, colonialism and the ubiquitous presence of war. Thus a new, improved general curriculum was developed that embraced: deconstructionism, moral relativism, various "studies" (black, women's, gay & lesbian, urban, environmental, ethnic, etc.), cultures of the underdeveloped world, Marxism, and a de-emphasis, if not denigration of American society and Western Civilization.

I might mention that some of these drastic changes had already crept into the curriculum during my college days. For example, the Bible was still in the curriculum, but only as literature, certainly not in the context of history, philosophy or morals; the emphasis in economics was on Keynesianism; government was viewed as the ultimate arbiter of all American problems—based on the accepted wisdom that the New Deal saved America from the ravages of the Depression (whereas in fact, as most economists now acknowledge, it actually prolonged the Depression); and Soviet Communism was portrayed as a competing economic system, not the brutal totalitarian society that it was. Nevertheless, I would say that the basic underlying nature of the classical curriculum was largely intact at the time of my college education (early 60s). But it wouldn't survive the decade.

The new curriculum introduced in American colleges in the 60s and 70s, in the words of Dr. Bloom, "failed democracy and impoverished the souls of the students." Indeed much of it was specious, sophomoric and subversive. A major undercurrent was that Western Civilization and American society were no better than and maybe worse than almost any other social, political or economic system. The new thinking completely ignored or devalued the achievements of Western Civilization such as ethical monotheism, democratic capitalism, European architecture, literature and art, the English/American concept of the rule of law, sanctity of private property and the economic prosperity that resulted. In their stead, the oppression of peoples of color and women, the evils of colonialism, the economic imbalances that result from free market capitalism and the injustices perpetrated by WASP legal systems were seen as the hallmarks of Western society. Of course, these defects would be corrected when enough of the populace was sufficiently inculcated with the ideas of the new curriculum.

Bloom also pointed out that critical and independent thinking was another casualty of the new curriculum. In the history, philosophy and political science courses of a classical education, students were encouraged to not simply blindly accept what was in the curriculum but to question for themselves the opinions and actions of the peoples and cultures they were studying. The scholars who taught the courses didn't pretend they knew less than their students, but they were willing to listen and give credence to alternate views. In the new curriculum, although great lip service was paid to the idea that students should discover their own truths, in actuality it was made perfectly clear to them that there would be no deviation from the wisdom they were receiving. Bloom decried the mind-numbing conformity and ignorance that resulted. Students graduated without knowing the name of the river that Washington was crossing in that boat and why he was crossing it, who Adam Smith was and what the invisible hand is, who said "Out, damned spot!" and its moral implications, what judicial concept Chief Justice Marshall introduced in 1803 and why it is still so important today, or exactly how many theses Martin Luther nailed on that Church door in Wittenberg or what ticked him off so much to do so. As their minds closed up, the students didn't even know why it was so disappointing that they didn't know these things.

Well another generation has passed and the "new" curriculum is not wearing so well. Impetus for changing it has come lately from students and their parents. Of course in its desire to please its "customers," as many higher education officials are wont to call their students these days, revisions are the order of the day. A high level committee at my university has recently completed a draft of a new core educational program to replace the one that has been in force since the 70s. Alas, an examination of the document reveals that the minds of our students are not about to be pried open, but likely to remain firmly shut. Yes, the emphasis on "studies" is gone; there is little about colonialism and oppression of third world cultures or the moral shortcomings of Western Civilization; and the word "deconstruction" does not even appear. But these awful ideas have been replaced by the modern claptrap that has supplanted them in the minds of today's great thinkers. The new document is shot through with buzzwords and cockamamie notions that have gained popularity in the last decade or so: sustainability, diversity, multiculturalism, equity, social justice, globalism (not the economic variety, rather one world political nonsense) and of course CHANGE. I emphasized the last topic since the word has now become holy. Heaven knows who is to change what to benefit whom, but the status quo is clearly totally unacceptable, we must all embrace change.

A new curriculum! But its components are still specious, sophomoric and subversive, just packaged slightly differently. The monumental achievements of Western Civilization remain off the menu. And the place of America in world history and affairs is not an exalted one. There is no hint of a society that saved the world twice from totalitarianism, created the greatest overall economic prosperity in the history of human existence, and is in fact one of the most tolerant multicultural societies on the planet.

One can take consolation from the following thought. Despite the banalities and inanities of the previous general curriculum, my university and others in the United States have continued to produce first class minds, genuinely creative thinkers and talented scientists, businessmen and artists—some of whom even managed to get a degree. (Sergey Brin, co-inventor of Google, is one of ours.) This means that either there is enough solid meat left in the curriculum to generate and succor terrific minds. Or perhaps the precise curriculum is irrelevant; there are a sufficient number of genuine and independent scholars among the faculty to motivate the most fertile minds among their students toward meaningful and objective scientific, political, economic and artistic pursuits. Either way, I am optimistic that the new drivel will also not prevent the cream of America's youth from rising to the top.

By democratic capitalism I mean the socioeconomic system described vividly in Walter Russell Mead's penetrating new book, God and Gold: Britain, America and the Making of the Modern World. It is the system pioneered in some of the Italian City States nearly five hundred years ago, picked up in the Low Countries thereafter, but adopted and developed with the greatest success by Great Britain and the United States over the last three hundred years. It has many attributes, but for the purposes of this article, let us define it as a society in which the economy is characterized by free markets, private ownership of property and means of production, and respect for the profit motive and the pricing mechanism, all operating under the rule of law guaranteed by a government that intervenes very little in the economic and social life of the people. The people are completely free to decide what to produce, what to charge, where to sell it, and to whom. Contracts are freely entered into and their legal sanctity is enforced by the government. Such an economy can exist only in a democratic society, that is, one in which the people are free to choose their political leaders and means of organization. The overarching structure could be a republic (like the US), a constitutional monarchy (like the UK), or a pure parliamentary democracy (like Estonia), but democracy is a sine qua non. 

History has demonstrated beyond any conceivable doubt that democratic capitalism leads to mass prosperity. Without the stultifying hand of government weighing them down, the people are free to develop new products, open new markets, produce copious consumer goods, trade with their neighbors and with partners around the globe, and lift the overall standard of living far beyond any ever achieved in a planned or centrally controlled economy. This assertion is unchallengeable. The sorry history of societies organized under feudalism, mercantilism, socialism, communism, fascism, absolute monarchy, religious fundamentalism, oligarchy or any system other than democratic capitalism makes the assertion self-evident.

But there is a catch. Because democratic capitalism is characterized by free and open competition, it results in winners and losers. In a general sense, people prosper. Some individuals and groups prosper immensely. Others falter, usually due to their own poor performance, but sometimes just because of bad luck. A classic example of the latter is the individual who invests heavily in a product or technology immediately prior to it being superseded by a newer and better technology or product invented by a competitor. This process of creative destruction that typifies capitalism can convert winners into losers in a brutal and sudden fashion. Well, that kind of phenomenon is often offensive to our sensibilities: "It's not fair. It's inequitable. Why should some prosper at the expense of others? Shouldn't we shield the weak from the predatory practices of the strong?"

Such sentiments are not without merit. People should take no joy in seeing their fellow man fail—at least compassionate people should not. And aren't we all striving to be compassionate these days? Compassionate or not, people often experience guilt feelings when they succeed, but friends and relations do not. Egalitarianism is not a philosophy that is easily compatible with democratic capitalism, but history shows that it runs deep in us.

It seems to me that there are two approaches for dealing with this "flaw" in democratic capitalism. The first approach accepts the superiority of the system, but seeks ways to ameliorate its potential ill effects without disrupting the fundamentals of the system and thereby curtailing the great benefits it yields.

The second approach, while paying lip service to the benefits of democratic capitalism, postulates that either: (a) it is in fact not the ideal system and that a substantial modification of it would be better and fairer; or (b) regardless of whether an improvement is possible, the price that capitalism exacts is just too high and should not be paid. In this approach, in either case, a just-minded and powerful referee must supervise the game, intervening where necessary to ensure more equitable outcomes than would result under unregulated laissez-faire rules.

To implement the first approach, the people develop civic associations, religious associations and other non-governmental organizations designed to aid the less fortunate in society for whom the competition has not gone well. Their focus is on those who played by the rules; but didn't play very well, or on whom the ball took a funny bounce. Because of the overall prosperity of the nation, the percentage of the population in need of assistance is small. Therefore, the goal of designing and implementing palliatives to help the deserving without compromising the overall system becomes attainable. Such an approach characterized the US for more than two hundred years—until the onset of the Progressive Era in the early twentieth century.

At which point we slipped into the second approach—starting a long slide down a slippery slope ever since, arriving finally at a new destination, the "Modern Welfare State." In which we pay homage to the superiority of democratic capitalism but in practice we countenance the activities of an increasingly interventionist government on the playing field in an aggressive fashion.

The nature of our federal government; it's enormous influence in the everyday lives of the people; the fact that the vast majority of the people approve of this role for the government—all of this would have been unfathomable to and anathema for the American people, certainly at the time of the founders, but even up to the end of the nineteenth century.

That the federal government would have some role in the people's commerce and transportation is stipulated in the Constitution. But that it would have a primary role in the people's health care, education, retirement, housing, and religious, social and business affairs would be astounding to our forbearers. There is absolutely no such role ascribed to the federal government in the Constitution or other founding documents. However, once we assigned it a paramount role in the machinery that drives our capitalistic economy, it is not surprising that we also accorded it a major role in many other aspects of our lives. We have been rewarded with: judicial rulings like Kelo v. New London, Univ. of Cal. Regents v. Bakke and Roe v. Wade that have no legal basis in Constitutional law; congressional actions like Sarbanes-Oxley or McCain-Feingold, which are incompatible with the role assigned to Congress by the Constitution; and an Executive with the ability to initiate warfare, which is in direct violation of the Constitution. All of these transgressions are tamely accepted by the American people. In its desire to ameliorate the sometimes harsh side of democratic capitalism, the people have ceded to the government—in the economic realm and elsewhere—a role never intended for it. We are so far down the road of the second approach that hardly anyone notices the vast distance we have traveled.

The last sentence summarizes one of my two fundamental assertions in this article. Namely, I do not believe that the American people are even pondering the question of which approach to take any longer. A century is a long time. Three (or more) generations have already lived under the rubric of the Modern Welfare State. Few are thinking about the drastic change it represents. Very few are contemplating the philosophical issue it poses. If we are, as our founders intended us to be, a nation whose socioeconomic system is grounded in democratic capitalism, how can that be reconciled with the fact that we have installed the Modern Welfare State, which violates the basic precepts of democratic capitalism?

Now for the second point: What about our political leaders? It is inconceivable to me that someone who stands for the highest political office in the land could be blithely ignorant of the fundamental changes in the nature of American society that I have described. It would be inexcusable for a presidential candidate not to have a deep understanding of the nearly 400 year history of American society, not to have thought philosophically about our Constitution and its role in our society, not to have pondered the nature of our current socioeconomic system and related it to the deep historical thread woven by the American people over its history. My second point is that based on the evidence I see, I have strong suspicion that the leaders of the Democratic Party, and in particular the three current major candidates for that Party's Presidential nomination, fail these tests.

Ms. Clinton insists "it takes a village to raise a child," thereby paying ultimate homage to collectivism, violating the millennia old notion that the family is the basic unit of society, and clearly setting a role for a parental government far beyond what we have experienced to date. Mr. Edwards speaks nonsensically of two Americas, urging us toward class warfare and completely missing the well known point that in our capitalistic system the mobility between the poor and the rich is, and has always been, very robust. Either he is a demagogue or he is totally misguided. And finally, Mr. Obama, with his mindless mantra of "change" without any indication of who will be changing what for whose benefit has no more gravitas than a toothpaste commercial. If one examines what little record he has, it would appear that the change he has in mind would take us much further down the slippery slope.

To conclude, what I see among the leadership of the Democratic Party is at best ignorance of the socioeconomic axioms that have guided our nation and at worst a rejection of them, accompanied by the political intention to further entrench the Modern Welfare State as the paradigm for the American socioeconomic system. It has been thus for a long time. If I asked you to identify the last Democratic Presidential candidate who really believed in democratic capitalism, you might make a case for Kennedy, perhaps Truman. I'm not so sure. The correct answer might be Grover Cleveland.

At this juncture, before the first caucus or primary votes are cast, the pundits tell us that Hillary is almost a lock for the Democratic Presidential nomination. And all the generic polls tell us, furthermore, that the Democrats have an excellent chance to recapture the White House in 2008. Ergo, the probability that Hillary Rodham Clinton will be the 44th President of these United States appears to be rather high.

This thought has women all over America very excited. Many women, regardless of their political proclivities, are moved by the possibility of a female President and it seems likely that a not inconsiderable number of female voters, who would normally vote Republican, will pull the lever for Hillary and then lie to the exit poll takers and to their husbands.

At the same time, there are probably plenty of men, including some that lean left and normally back Democratic candidates, who are so incensed by the prospect of a female Commander-in-chief, that their vote is going to whichever male the Republicans nominate.

Are there more female or male voters whose vote will be altered purely by the sex of the Democratic nominee? Who knows? I suggest that, whatever happens, the 'authoritative' polling numbers on this question that the pollsters and pundits will throw at us afterward will be completely without substance.

In fact I believe our country would be far better served if we all discounted Hillary's gender and cast our ballots based on her (and all the candidates') political beliefs, announced intentions and record of accomplishment. Among those who can get past Hillary's sex, I see two schools of thought:

*Like her husband did, Hillary has placed herself toward the center of the political spectrum and is likely to adopt—again like her husband is reputed to have done—a center-left political agenda.

*Hillary is a life-long socialist, radicalized in her youth, camouflaged as a centrist by her handlers, but once in power will pursue a leftist agenda worthy of FDR or LBJ, and perhaps more radical than either.

We will be exceedingly fortunate if in the ensuing campaign we are exposed to enough evidence for the voters to decide which of these descriptions of Hillary's political inclinations is more accurate. I doubt that will happen. For if the second is the more accurate description of Hillary's political philosophy, then she and her advisors—knowing that its revelation would guarantee electoral defeat—will construct the camouflage so effectively as to mask the truth. Whether it is true or not—that is, Hillary is really a flaming leftist—her election is completely contingent on enough voters deciding that it is not true. Well, either it is not true and Hillary will be comfortable in her campaign shoes; or it is true, in which case we will witness one of the most duplicitous political campaigns in the history of our nation. Perhaps we are already witnessing it.

There is ample precedent for a President to govern to the left of his campaign position. Richard Nixon comes to mind, as does George W Bush. Incidentally, would someone please give me an example of the reverse phenomenon? I'm not sure it exists.

Anyway, my advice to the voters of America—especially to those men and women who are motivated by the fact that Hillary wears a brassiere—is the following: Please set that fact aside. Instead, ponder this question. Are your prepared to entrust the presidency to conceivably one of the most radical leftists ever to seek the office? That possibility cannot be ruled out; indeed I think it is at least 50-50 that it is true. If Hillary is the radical leftist that many assert, and more suspect, then when she occupies the Oval Office, you can expect: a weak and meager defense of Western Civilization before the onslaught of Islamofascism; gargantuan government highlighted by socialized medicine, nationalized education and punitive taxation; loss of US sovereignty to the UN, the International Court of Justice and other multilateral organizations; business bashing, labor coddling, high tariffs and an overregulated economy; toadying to environmentalists, race baiters and media buffoons; amnesty for illegal aliens; Supreme Court justices as radical as Bader-Ginsburg; gun control, partial birth abortion and abolishment of capital punishment; and the conversion of our free market system into a European style welfare state susceptible to the same suicidal forces that are ravaging the continent. Are you willing to take that chance?

My 65th birthday approaches. Unbelievable! It doesn't seem so long ago that I looked in the mirror and for the first time realized that I was not a kid any more. Actually, that moment was about thirty five years ago. It was very disturbing then to not look young since I still felt young. Well, now not only do I not look young, I don't feel so young either.

Father Time and Mother Nature have taken their toll. Knee problems have forced me to abandon tennis and they are threatening my cycling "career" as well. My wife—who has her own physical issues—and I rarely go dancing any longer, and when we do, it is pretty tame. I won't speak of other physical activities at which we formerly jointly excelled. Incredibly, although of course we are not biologically related, we both suffer from similar forms of IBS and our diet has become so bland that eating is no longer the unmitigated joy that it once was. We still remember each other's names, but where the keys are, whether today's medication has been ingested yet or not, and exactly why I got out of that chair and where I intended to go—well, those are too much to ask.

When I allow my gaze to lift from my progressively decrepit physique to the state of the world, the view does not improve. I see a European continent whose people are intent on committing cultural, religious and demographic suicide. I see a vicious and evil new adversary whose depraved visions embrace suicide bombing, public executions, oppression of women, religious bigotry and a feudal society devoid of the rule of law. I see a beleaguered and increasingly exhausted State of Israel whose continued existence is in grave doubt. Domestically, I see political acrimony of extreme proportions between two increasingly divergent philosophies for governing our fair land. I see out of control entitlement programs; a behemoth known as the federal government that does more harm than good; an educational system that does not inculcate American youth with pride and love of country; a media that poisons the cultural atmosphere with unspeakable violence and filth; and a nation that seems to grow weary of our lonely and unappreciated role as the protector of the free world. Finally, the Redskins stink, and since they are saddled with a young, stubborn and arrogant owner, they might be consigned to mediocrity for decades.

It's enough to make me depressed. But fortunately, when I am drawn in that direction, I try to think more positively. That mirror reveals not only an "old guy," but also someone with all his teeth, most of his hair, and a still slim figure. My wife's dance card and dietary choices might be limited, but she still has the same beautiful face and captivating smile that felled me for life 50 years ago. I have two wonderful sons, devoted daughters-in-law and three fantastic grandchildren—all of whom live nearby. I also have siblings, nieces, cousins and many great friends with whom I am close—and a healthy octogenarian parent who is an inspiration to all of us. In addition, my wife and I recently found the wherewithal to purchase a vacation home, about which we have dreamed all our lives. I've traveled the world and I had, and still have, a great job. Finally, the Redskins might stink, but I did personally attend two of their Super Bowl victories. All of these experiences, relationships and memories more than compensate for the aches and pains and misplaced keys.

A similarly revised assessment of the "state of the world" is in order. During my lifetime I have been privileged to witness my country lead the free world to victory over fascism, and then over communism. I saw the conversion of bloodthirsty dictatorships in Germany and Japan into friendly democracies. We almost pulled off the same feat in Russia—not quite, but the situation is still far better than during the Cold War when nuclear destruction threatened the world. More people live in free societies today than one could have imagined several decades ago. The economic prosperity that we enjoy—fueled by a combination of imaginative technological innovations and a magnificent American work ethic—is spreading around the world. Life expectancy is up, the air and rivers are cleaner, and despite the fact that our country's population is more diverse (in terms of race, ethnic identity and religion) than ever before, we live in a peaceful society, governed according to the rule of law. All of America's citizens enjoy unprecedented liberty and the freedoms guaranteed to us by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We are privileged to live in a truly unique society in the history of the world.

So what's the moral of the story? For me there are three:

1. Human beings come in two varieties—the 'glass is half empty' type and the 'glass is half full' type. In which group you sit is largely a function of your intrinsic nature; you don't really have a choice about it. To those of you in the latter category, count your blessings. It's wonderful to be inherently optimistic, cheerful and upbeat—even when the situation doesn't warrant. But for those of us in the former category, we live with the curse of involuntarily seeing the dark side of all situations. We cannot avoid anticipating the potentially doleful consequences of uncertain circumstances, our pessimistic thought processes always crowding out the possibility of cheery outcomes. The point is that even with self-recognition, it is difficult to control the impulses toward unfavorable assessments of event outcomes. But outlining both sides of the coin—personal and general—as I did above helps me to suppress my natural inclination toward accentuating the negative when contemplating my or my country's condition.

2. The following is trite but true. Life's a ride; enjoy the ride! Most people upon reaching senior citizen status can count a multitude of good times, and of bad times, over the course of their life's journey. More of the same is probably in store for the rest of the trip. Well, we ought to appreciate the fact that the scenery has been interesting rather than boring on our journey. Life is a magical gift and the trip through it is an adventure, which, although sometimes painful, is to be savored.

3. Finally, I recall a lesson that the aforementioned octogenarian tried to teach me when I was a kid growing up in the tenements of the Bronx. I'm not sure we qualified as poor, but we lived at a standard of living that was significantly below that of many of America's poor today. When I would complain about things I could not have or about unfortunate life occurrences, said parent would counsel me to be "grateful for what you've got." A simple lesson that is not as easily taught in today's culture, which emphasizes the acquisition of material goods and the alleviation of every societal and financial problem by a "benevolent" government. Invoking that lesson, I assert that reaching 65 is not so terrible. As they say, it sure beats the alternative.

I don’t know why they don’t change the name of the Democratic Party to the Socialist Party. After all, each of its numerous candidates for President in 2008 espouses ideas straight out of the socialist playbook. They make no secret of the fact that they believe that:
* the US should have a big government, empowered to deal with any and all problems in American society. (Of course these include those that are real and those dreamt up by the liberal special interest cohorts.)
* there is absolutely no issue in or aspect of American life, which should not be subject to the purvey of the federal government.
* government bureaucrats and the elite intellectuals that advise them are better equipped to deal with America’s problems than are consumers, businessmen and investors who actually encounter the problems.
* said bureaucrats and intellectual advisors are more trustworthy than local political officials, policemen, clergymen, community leaders and certainly than any businessman.
* issues like global warming, the fairness doctrine, teenagers without health insurance and a prison housing jihadist murderers in Cuba are far more important than the impending collapse of our entitlement programs, the fear of a repeat attack on the mainland by Al Qaeda, the filth that pervades our popular culture and an avalanche of indigestible aliens who pour across our borders.
* those who create the economic opportunities in the US should shoulder a disproportionate share of the burden of caring for those who compete less effectively—in short, the successful should be compelled to share their bounty with the less successful. (This amounts to redistribution of wealth; nothing could be more socialistic.)

It is true that the Democratic candidates are not advocating the nationalization of banks, airlines, utilities and General Motors. And although many of the policies they advocate would severely limit the individuals’ right to do with his property as he wishes, they do claim to respect the sanctity of private property. But that is why I label their philosophy socialism lite instead of flat out socialism. In some sense it is an even more insidious version of government control of the means of production than is the method of pure socialism. Indeed, it is a huge burden on the government to manage all the industry, farms, utilities and finances of a nation. The experience of those countries that have tried to do it reveals how poor a job the government does and, as explained in F.A. Hayek’s classic book, The Road to Serfdom, inevitably must do. So instead of taking over the machinery of society, the viceroys of the Democratic Party have decided to let those better equipped to run things do so, except that the government will put them in a severe straight jacket of rules, policies, laws and regulations—backed up by sharp penalties if they fail to comply. In this way, the feds can effectively control almost everything, and thereby achieve the socialists' collectivist and redistributive goals, without explicitly running much of anything. It might be lite, but as we have come to see in Europe, it is remarkably effective in establishing “the modern welfare state,” or what I have called socialism lite.

Through government legislation, taxation, borrowing, spending, regulation and jawboning the redistributors get to achieve their objectives and, since private property is still permissible, the elites get to keep their dachas in Hollywood and Manhattan.

But here is the kicker that fills conservatives with dismay. The opponents of the socialist-leaning Democratic candidates, that is the slew of Republican candidates for the presidency, does not present a fundamentally different picture. Which of those candidates asserts that the socialist path, which the country has trod over the last century, is flawed and should be abandoned? Which of them points out that the collectivist policies of the New Deal, Great Society and whatever sequel Hillary has in store for us run completely counter to the ideals of our founding fathers and represent a betrayal of core American values? Which of them proclaims as did Ronald Reagan that “Government is not the solution, government is the problem?” Some of them pay lip service to these ideas, but rendered cynical by experience with two faux conservative Bush presidencies, conservatives find it hard to believe that any of them really mean it. In the years since the Gingrich revolution in 1994, but especially during the years in which the Republicans controlled both the White House and the Congress, we have seen an explosion in federal programs, borrowing and spending. We have a massive new government bureaucracy in the Department of Homeland Security, intrusive and interventionist measures like McCain-Feingold “campaign finance reform,” business-bashing processes under Sarbanes-Oxley and the complete failure of the federal government to deal with illegal immigration. It isn’t a total disaster—e.g., taxes have been lowered—but by any reasonable measure, the expansion of the government, the acceptance of the pervasive role of government in the life of the citizenry, the collectivist approach to problems, all of these have advanced under the Republicans. Again, Republican policies have not been as egregious as those of their liberal Democratic colleagues—e.g., they are more respectful of the traditional culture, they appoint judges who do not willfully attack the Constitution, they are willing to pursue a strong national defense, and by in large they are not protectionists. But they are big government Republicans. Some call them big government conservatives, but that is an oxymoron. I believe the name socialism lighter is an apt handle for their governing philosophy. (This issue is explored in greater depth in my book, Liberal Hearts and Conservative Brains, see http://home.comcast.net/~ronlipsman)

Among the potential Republican candidates perhaps only Gingrich fails to earn the epithet (i.e., socialist of the lite, or lighter variety). But he has taken himself out of the race. (He was probably unable to secure the nomination and even if he had, the liberal media would have done such a hatchet job on him—comparable to Goldwater’s thrashing—that it is highly doubtful he could have been elected). So it will come down to Rudy against Hillary or Fred against Obama or maybe even Romney against Edwards (now that guy really scares me). In the end, like conservatives all over the country I will hold my nose and pull the lever next to the elephant. Oh how I rue one of Reagan’s few mistakes—he neglected to groom a successor.  The US is paying dearly.

If you were to ask a pundit to identify the most liberal state in the nation, the answer would likely be Taxachusetts or Vermont. While these are excellent choices, I would like to argue that the People’s Republic of Maryland should receive serious consideration for this dubious honor. Here is the evidence:

 

1. The State legislature is more than 2-1 Democratic (nearly 3-1 in the House) and has been that way for decades.

2. There were no Republican governors for more than 30 years and the one elected in 2002 was very far from conservative. That did not prevent his defeat by an ultra-liberal Democrat in 2006.

3. The State income tax is very high and has none of the investor-friendly features recently incorporated into the federal income tax (e.g., reduced rates on dividend or capital gains income).

4. The State’s other taxes and fees are high also.

5. The State has been on a drunken spending binge (not unlike that of the federal government) during the long reign of liberal Democrats, and there is no evidence that its exorbitant expenditures on various programs dear to the hearts of liberal special interests groups has improved the quality of life for State residents—even those targeted by the profligate spending.

6. The State’s less than business-friendly atmosphere has discouraged business development and economic growth. Two examples of this phenomenon, the punitive HMO tax and the Wal-Mart tax, are discussed at some length in my book, Liberal Hearts and Conservative Brains (see http://home.comcast.net/~ronlipsman).

7. It has been 20 years since Maryland voted Republican in a presidential election.

8. State officials have laid out the welcome mat for illegal aliens, setting up day laborer centers, issuing drivers licenses, providing generous welfare benefits, accommodating language inadequacies and offering in-state tuition.

9. The abortion rates in Maryland rank in the top ten in the nation, and in the top five depending exactly on how they are measured.

10. The new Democratic governor has proposed a sweeping series of tax increases and new spending programs that absolutely reek of “redistribution of wealth.”

 

Well, Maryland might or might not be the most liberal state in the nation, but it is certainly in the top five. Actually, the liberal hegemony that it enjoys is a consequence of a remarkable concentration of power. This is best illustrated by the gubernatorial election of 1994. A very liberal Democrat was pitted against a female Republican, who was actually conservative. Of the State’s 24 counties, she won 21 of them—but narrowly lost the election. There is so much power and population concentrated in Baltimore city and the two suburban DC counties that the three together outweighed the remainder of the State. This urban/suburban vs. suburban/rural dichotomy reflects the situation in the nation as a whole as was clearly represented in the dramatic, color-coded maps of the Bush-Kerry vote on a county-wide basis. In land mass the country is overwhelmingly conservative, whereas in population we are almost evenly divided. But not in Maryland since 1994. The few blue counties have far more people than the more numerous but declining number of red ones. Many are predicting that the country will experience a similar trend—the election of 2006 is cited as proof and 2008 is expected to ratify it. We’ll see.

 

But if it turns out to be true, then as they experienced in the 1930s and 1960s, the people of the United States are about to witness a frantic leap to the left. Our “modern welfare state” will lurch even further toward collectivism—a polite euphemism for socialism—wherein the people are hypnotized to look to the government (federal and state, and local too at times) to solve all their problems, real and imagined. The notions of a laissez faire free market economy, limited government, low taxes, respect for the traditional culture, and need for a strong national defense, all will be shunted aside in a whirlwind expansion of the nanny state. Yes the country does have many serious problems: it is under attack by a virulent form of Islam; it has constructed unsustainable entitlement programs to which it is addicted and refuses to face the fact that they are Ponzi schemes headed along the tracks toward a brick wall; and there is too much moral rot (rampant pornography, encouragement of teen promiscuity, partial birth abortion and assisted suicide, denigration of the traditional family). Should the liberals regain a firm hand on the reigns of power, they will fix these problems by instituting recycled versions of the same policies that caused the problems in the first place. Equally bad, they will set the wheels of government in motion to fix problems that don’t even exist: the uninsured health care crisis, global warming, lack of diversity and corporate greed. As with the original “crises,” their collectivist and heavy handed government schemes will create real problems that they will urge we fix with yet more government intervention.

 

Those of us who believe in individual liberty, limited government and free markets will find the going mighty unpleasant should the collectivist, big government, social justice crowd take control of the farm again. It will be particularly hard on those of us trying to keep our heads above water in the People’s Republic of Maryland.

I just finished reading two excellent books dealing with the two topics in the title: Amity Shlaes new study of the Great Depression, The Forgotten Man (HarperCollins, 2007) and Walter Laqueur's The Last Days of Europe (St. Martin's Press, 2007). The former contains a close examination of several key players in Roosevelt's New Deal, what motivated them, what they wanted to achieve, what they actually did, and a penetrating look at the consequences of their actions. The latter presents an objective description of some of the severe problems that plague European society at the beginning of the twenty first century—problems which have been declared insoluble by some writers and which promise to radically transform the continent, perhaps forever. These include: a startling low birth rate accompanied by the explosive growth of a Muslim immigrant community; the failure to assimilate those immigrants; a crumbling welfare system that is exacerbated by the aforementioned demographic trends; barren churches in comparison to crowded mosques; the inability to project military strength; weak labor productivity, which, together with other ominous business indicators, portends a precarious economic future; and the surrender of sovereignty to an unelected, unresponsive and authoritarian European Union.

 

There are two disparate features that tie the books together in my mind. First, they are both written in a curiously dispassionate style with an extremely limited amount of editorializing, personal opinion and prescriptions for solutions. Both authors state the facts as they see them and largely leave it to the reader draw his own conclusions. The second feature they share is an enormous undercurrent of collectivism, a powerful political and economic force, which, both authors reveal, motivates and animates the main protagonists in both books.

The story of the Great Depression and the consequent New Deal that FDR unleashed to tame it has been etched, indeed burned into the consciousness of any American who was educated in the United States since the 1940s. The story asserts that: the Depression was a phenomenon brought on by the excesses of business, the greed of corporations and the individuals that controlled them, and unsavory practices in the financial industry; the inability of the little or "forgotten man" to deal with the cataclysmic events that overwhelmed him was total; therefore, the need for a counterweight was compelling and that role was naturally assigned to the US Government; in fulfilling that role, the imaginative and heroic programs instituted by the New Deal—which reversed the disastrous policies of Herbert Hoover—conquered the Depression and turned the economy around; and finally, its proven success legitimized the paradigm of the modern welfare state in which the government—through taxation, regulation, borrowing and spending, and jawboning—serves as a powerful check on the excesses of big business and helps to ensure the prosperity of the country, but in a much more fair and equitable fashion than an unrestricted free market could deliver. All of us absorbed these "truths" from our teachers, from the media, and from the politicians—of both parties, until they became self-evident and beyond dispute. There have been some lonely voices crying out over the years that it was all a myth—Milton Friedman comes to mind—but by in large this interpretation of the Great Depression and the New Deal survives virtually unchallenged in the educational and media institutions of the United States.

Ms. Shlaes clearly does not accept this received wisdom. But she undercuts it not via a political polemic, or through the presentation of mountains of contrary data or by citing experts or higher authorities; rather, she offers an in-depth and fascinating portrayal of some of the key players in both the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations. Through a dispassionate presentation of their professed beliefs and, more importantly, their actions, she leads the reader to some unmistakable conclusions: while it was true that Hoover's actions were disastrous (e.g., his support of the horrendous Smoot-Hawley tariffs), he in fact engaged in the same kind of interventionist, aggressive regulatory, business-bashing and collectivist schemes that his successor deployed; Roosevelt did not have a firm game plan in mind, instead he made it up as he went along and many of his schemes were mutually contradictory—but a constant throughout his first two terms was an extreme animus for business and businessmen; contrary to the myth it seems highly probable that not only did Roosevelt's laws, agencies and programs not alleviate the Great Depression—they in fact deepened it and prolonged it; the so-called "depression within the depression" that hit the country in the mid/late 30s was a direct consequence of his policies (e.g., the undistributed profits tax) and is clear proof  that the New Deal prolonged and intensified the economic downturn, rather than rescued our country; and finally, by the end of the thirties, large segments of the public and even members of the administration—inspired by the arguments of people like Wendell Wilkie, who were originally sympathetic but could not ignore the damage the New Deal was doing—turned against the failed policies of the New Deal, leading to a gradual ease up on the regulation, business bashing and collectivist approach. If not for that late 30s "course correction" and if the world had not clearly been descending into a major war, Roosevelt might very well have been defeated in 1940. The point is not made in Ms. Shlaes' book, but others have asserted that the national emergency of World War II in the 1940s, in which the federal government played a dominant role, institutionalized the phenomenon of massive government intervention in society—a phenomenon whose roots were established in the collectivist policies of the New Deal in the 1930s. By the end of the War, the expansive government that we know today was a permanent fixture, and since then it has gone almost unquestioned that the federal government has a vast role to play in the economic and social life of the American nation.

Ms. Schlaes says virtually none of this explicitly. Rather, by letting the movers and shakers of the New Deal, as well as certain private citizens, act and speak for themselves, she makes the conclusions I've indicated painfully evident. It is amazingly understated and very subtle, yet crystal clear; quite a feat to bring off.

Much of the same can be said of the book by Mr. Laqueur.  He examines the history, movements and trends over the last generation that have brought Europe to its current perilous state. He highlights: the carnage that Europe inflicted upon itself in two world wars; the determination not to ever subject themselves to a repeat performance; the intention to achieve that goal by creating economic, social and political structures that would guarantee it; the overwhelming impulse to establish a virtually utopian welfare state—very long on social guarantees, very short on hard work, profit, competition and military capabilities.  Furthermore, their idealism led Europeans to divest themselves of their empires and to the desire to do well by their former subjects, including inviting them into their home and asking little from them in the way of good behavior. Mr. Laqueur engages in no screaming about demographic calamities, racial and religious polarization, indigestible minorities, stagnant economies held back by a poor work ethic, burning jealousy of the United States, or appeasement of the Soviet Union followed by an equally appalling appeasement of Islamofascism. There are only cool presentations of facts, attitudes and trends, descriptions of relevant organizations in European minority communities (factually done without obsessing about the fact that many are seditious and traitorous), and a somewhat laudatory explanation of attempts to build a more enlightened and peaceful European society. Once again the understatement is remarkably effective. The reader is left to draw his own conclusions, but the path Mr. Laqueur leads them down doesn't leave a lot of room for diverse conclusions. The title of the book indicates clearly what Mr. Laqueur sees as Europe's destination.

Thus we have two books dealing with very different subjects, but very much alike in writing style and in underlying theme. And both are important books for Americans to read. How can we understand where we want to go and how to get there if we misunderstand where we have been? School children are ignorant of the names Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, but they learn a great deal about John Dewey, John Maynard Keynes, Sinclair Lewis and even Karl Marx. The views of the latter crew would be anathema to our founders and if we set our sails according to the charts laid out by these collectivists, we will create a society vastly different from what has been the nature of American society from its inception until the twentieth century. The exhortation toward collectivism and aggressive state power embodied in the ideas of the men who concocted the New Deal and the European Union represent a mortal threat to the nature of the American society that our forefathers created. The lack of respect for individual freedom and liberty also constitute a violation of the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Ms. Schlaes book, in its understated way, makes a powerful case for reexamining the Great Depression and the New Deal. Similarly, Mr. Laqueur's book should cause the bureaucrats in Brussels and the citizens of the continent to rethink their course of action over the last generation. Much of Europe's dilemma is due to its collectivist mentality, its utopian philosophies, and its fear of rugged individualism and laissez faire economics. (Its fear and betrayal of its classic Christian religious heritage is playing a role too, but that is not addressed in Mr. Laqueur's book and I shan't say more on that here.). These forces are also present in the United States although we have resisted them more effectively than has Europe. For how much longer? If we pay attention to the cliff off of which Europe is about to plunge, and if we correctly assay the philosophy and legacy of the New Deal, then maybe we can avoid Europe's fate.