Author Archives: Ron Lipsman

An Agonizing Decision

In the 1920s, an Austrian madman announced that he would take control of Germany and use that position to murder millions of Jews. Scarcely anyone believed him. But he made good on his promise. He could have been stopped. However, the nations in a position to do so failed at the task. Either they couldn’t imagine that he was serious or they weren’t particularly concerned about the implications of his intentions.

Today we observe an Iranian madman announce that he intends to repeat the process. He starts ahead of his illustrious Austrian predecessor because he, in cahoots with a mysterious group of clerical fanatics, already controls the government. It remains to him only to finish his preparations of the atomic tools with which he expects to carry out his mad plan.

Once again, there are those in a position to prevent it. But as in the past, events have demonstrated that the powers capable of forechecking the mad Iranian are unlikely to do so. Most dismiss his threats as political bluster. Most of the rest believe he is not serious because, they calculate, a genocidal thrust by Iran toward Israel would surely be suicidal. And then of course there are the not inconsiderable numbers who, if not gleeful at the prospect of Jewish annihilation, at least don’t see it as such a terrible outcome. I wonder into which of these three groups our benighted President falls.

There is however one major difference between the situations then and now—namely, the existence of a powerful Jewish State capable of defending the Jewish people and/or avenging the Jewish people. And thereby arises the agonizing decision faced by Israel’s leaders.

I have no doubt that the people of Israel do not dismiss the madman’s threat as bluster or bluff. They understand that the centuries long enmity of Islam toward Judaism, the hysterical obsession of the Muslim world to rid the Middle East of the ‘Zionist entity’ and the Muslim embrace of suicide bombers make it eminently possible that Ahmadinejad is deadly serious. While they retain the ability to annihilate Teheran, much of Iran and perhaps significant parts of the Muslim world—even if only in a retaliatory strike to avenge an Iranian nuclear attack on their tiny country—Israelis surely reason that a better course of action is to obliterate the enemy’s nuclear facilities first—using conventional weapons of course.

Thus the agony:

  • Israel cannot be absolutely certain, short of an actual Iranian nuclear attack, that Ahmadinejad is truly serious, so a preemptive Israeli strike could conceivably be unnecessary.
  • Such a preemptive strike might not succeed.
  • It almost certainly will cause inadvertent civilian casualties.
  • Even if it succeeds, the Iranian government is capable of causing Israel great pain via their long range missiles, and their proxies in Lebanon and Gaza.
  • The Iranians are also capable of delivering immense pain to the rest of the world (e.g., by closing the Strait of Hormuz).
  • And finally, successful or not, an Israeli preemptive strike will bring the wrath of the entire world down on them.
What will Israel decide to do? The agony that Netanyahu is experiencing—as the window in which he must decide shrinks—must be monumental. We shall know his decision relatively soon.
 
This piece also appeared in The American Thinker blog on February 22, 2010 under the title, ‘Netanyahu’s Agony.’ See:

Global Warming Fanatics are Like Islamic Fundamentalists: What the Rest of Us Should Do About It

‘Allah is God, Mohammed is His prophet and the Koran is the message.’ That commonly-used apothegm encapsulates the core belief of the Muslim religion. Well how about: ‘The Earth is God, Al Gore is its prophet and Global Warming is the message.’ I would say that this adage sums up the core belief of the climate change crowd.

The analogy goes further. The adherents of the two aphorisms are animated by a religious fervor that is highlighted by an absolute faith in the truth of their saying’s content. The followers in both instances are bent on world domination and conversion of all non-believers to their point of view. Their ultimate goal, in each case, is a totalitarian system in which those at the head of the system will determine all aspects of the lives of their followers. And finally, both systems deem their opponents—infidels in the former, skeptics in the latter—as unworthy, misguided, evil and deserving of no succor, mercy or salvation.

The main difference in the two movements is that the former has shown a deep propensity for violence whereas, thus far, the latter has not. But to those of us who doubt the truth of either, both movements treat us with disdain, condescension and disrespect.

What puzzles me is that no one outside the orb of these vicious, globally-oriented and mind-controlling movements has hit on the following seemingly obvious idea. We need to spark a confrontation between them, a situation in which each of the movements sees the other as their main opponent. If each could be convinced to devote their abundant energy toward attacking the other, perhaps both might deliver a fatal blow. How delicious that would be for the rest of us!
 
This piece also appeared in The American Thinker Blog on February 14, 2010 under the title, ‘Comparative Religion 101: Climate Change and Islam.’ See: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/02/comparative_religion_101_clima.html
 

A Flight of Fantasy II: A Manifesto for Conservatives When They Regain Power

Prospects for Republicans to regain political power—in both the Congress and the Presidency—continue to improve. But as we learned sadly under the administration of George W Bush, Republican power does not necessarily result in conservative governance. In a recent post in this blog, I speculated about what conservatives might do if they do indeed receive a mandate from the American people. Moreover, I pointed out that such a mandate would come in one of two forms: either clear but limited (as it was for Reagan in the 80’s and Gingrich in the 90’s) or overwhelming and comprehensive (as it has not been since Coolidge, and perhaps longer ago).

In the last post I outlined three priorities that should determine the agenda in the case of a limited mandate. Those priorities were:

  1. Role of Government. Shrink the New Deal/Great Society/Obamania-inspired gargantuan government that is choking freedom out of American life.
  2. Defeat Islamic Fundamentalism. Reduce, and hopefully remove the scourge of Islamic fundamentalism as a threat to the US, to the West, indeed to the World.
  3. Recapture the culture. Initiate a multi-faceted approach toward rescuing the culture of the US. The basic goal is to restore (a reasonable facsimile) of the traditional culture that permeated American life from the 18th to the 20th century. Start on the long path toward delegitimizing the pornographic, anti-family, anti-religious, egalitarian, multicultural, environmentally wacky, anti-achievement, socialistic cesspool that passes for culture in America today.

Ideas and suggestions for action on each priority were presented in that post. In addition, I also promised that in a forthcoming post, I would outline a program to govern the actions of conservatives if and when the American people come to their senses and install a truly conservative government—with a strong and sustained mandate. Perhaps surprisingly, the same three principles serve as a linchpin for that agenda. Except that, with a strong and sustained mandate, the agenda could be pursued in a much more vigorous manner. It is my purpose to describe, as succinctly as possible, that ‘grand program’ here.

Before I launch into the precise program, let us briefly recall the fundamental idea that fuels progressivism—an idea whose pursuit has led to disastrous changes in our country. I will also explain why, after a century of experimentation, the idea is bankrupt and we must return to the conservative principles that made our country a bastion of freedom and a model for the world.

The fundamental idea that drives progressivism is that the traditional American culture, highlighted by individual liberty, free markets, rugged individualism, limited government, sanctity of private property and a ‘don’t tread on me’ mentality, inevitably leads to inequity, unfairness, injustice and oppression. These horrible consequences of the traditional culture are a blatant violation of how human beings should live on our planet. They can only be corrected by replacing the traditional culture with one that emphasizes redistribution of wealth, multiculturalism, a powerful central government acting as the ultimate arbiter of social and economic disparities, group rights and a hypocritical reliance solely on negotiation rather than force to reconcile differences. I say hypocritical because the principle only applies to international affairs, but not to domestic policies.

I believe history has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that striving for equality of outcome—aside from whether it is a proper goal for mankind—inevitably leads to tyranny. For proof, see the Soviet Union, East Germany, Cuba, China, Vietnam, Zimbabwe and even the European Union. The forcible taking from one to give to another—however justified it might appear in the abstract—deprives the former of liberty, property and, occasionally, of life. The coercive redistribution of wealth surely is one of the worst ideas that mankind has ever concocted—even if motivated by good intentions. Instead, the fundamental animating principle that should govern human behavior is equality of opportunity—that is, the same rules apply to everyone. After the games begin, some will outperform and out achieve others. If the society is just and the people morally sound, then those who excel will establish structures to aid those who do not. If, on the other hand, society (in the form of government) compels compulsory generosity, compulsory kindness or compulsory charity, then what it gets is not generosity, kindness or charity, but bitterness on the part of those deprived and resentment and irresponsibility from the benefiters. Charity and kindness can only result from an act performed with free will. Therefore, it is imperative that we reorient our country’s underlying philosophy from redistribution to equality of opportunity.

In the previous post I outlined for each of the above three priorities, concrete steps that conservatives could take, which the American people would support—even if they had granted conservatives only a limited mandate. If the mandate is broader, much more could be done. The two prime goals would be: first, a complete undermining of the liberal hegemony that has increasingly ruled the US over the last century; and second, a rekindling of the Constitutional republic that characterized US society in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Of course I am not proposing that we toss out the internet, abandon CAT scans and shun nuclear energy. Progress in technological matters and improvements in the quality of life should be embraced. But the underlying principles of our political and economic systems and, most importantly, of our culture, should be restored to the tried and true conservative paradigms that we benefitted from so greatly and for so long.

With that in mind, I will list, for each of the three priorities, some bold steps that I believe a strongly empowered conservative government should pursue. Each step merits a full essay. I and others will write those essays when the day of reckoning draws nearer. For now, let’s just settle on the broad strokes of the program—more of a conservative manifesto than a conservative playbook.

1. Shrink the government. Reagan failed to do it. So did Gingrich. This must be Job One of a new, powerful conservative government. Here’s how to do it:

·       A renewed emphasis on the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution must be implemented. These amendments make clear that the people are sovereign and that, aside from the limited and defined powers granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution, all remaining powers are reserved to the States and to the people. The willful ignoring of these Amendments by the Federal Government—and the people’s acquiescence in that usurpation—are at the root of the unchecked growth in the power of the Federal Government.

·       The Federal Government’s budget must be restricted to a percentage of GDP more in line with historic figures. Before WWI, it was less than 10%; since WWII, it has ranged between 25 and 35%; and in the age of Obama it is over 40%.We should reduce it to no more than 20%.

·       Federal entitlement programs are out of control and by themselves threaten to bankrupt the country. They all should be severely curtailed and ultimately privatized. This is a huge challenge and unfortunately has to be done somewhat gradually as an overnight implementation would wreak chaos.

·       Every federal agency’s budget should be cut by at least 25%, and at least 25% of the agencies should be phased out. Several cabinet level departments should be axed. More draconian cuts would be a worthy goal.

·       All federal taxes (income, payroll, capital gains, estate, etc.) should be cut by at least 25% and preferably more.

·       The number of federal regulations should be cut by at least 50%.

·       The deficit and national debt must be addressed. If all the previous steps were taken, they would go a long way toward substantially reducing the deficit. In addition, there should be statutory or constitutional limits set on the permissible size of the deficit as a percentage of GDP—never more than 5% as it has been historically (except during the two world wars); now it exceeds 10% and is increasing. But even better would be a Constitutional mandate for a balanced budget (as is the case in virtually all the States), which could only be violated in times of national emergency and only upon a three quarters vote of Congress. These steps and a growing economy will enable us to start paying off the debt.

·       The Federal Government should sell off large portions of its tangible assets including buildings, land and equipment. The proceeds should go toward reducing the national debt.

·       Judicial power must be reined in. Appointments for life should be terminated. Justices should serve fixed terms (e.g., 10, perhaps 15 years), renewable by the consent of the Senate at most once.

·       The Federal Reserve should be reexamined. Its power and related controversial issues—such as whether a return to the gold standard is wise—should be open for serious discussion.

2. Defeat Islamic Fundamentalism. Above all, we must recognize and appropriately name the danger we face: A resurgent, worldwide and radical Muslim movement that intends to destroy the United States, Israel and Western Civilization. Like the previous totalitarian movements we defeated, Nazism and Communism, radical Islam is bent on world domination. Unlike the previous two, radical Islam is not led from a single nation state. But that does not make the threat to us any less dangerous. Thus far, we have been reluctant to name our enemy and we have refused to acknowledge that we are in an existential battle. The sooner we do so, the better able we will be to deal with and win that battle. Here, in brief, are some of the steps we must take:

·       Although there is not a single source, there are identifiable sites of greatest strength—for example, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. We must impose severe sanctions on the first and punitive measures on the latter two to induce modified behavior. Military action must never be ruled out.

·       We must make clear that, should circumstances warrant, Teheran is a potential military target—but so are Medina and Mecca. That will focus their attention on the price they might pay for pursuing their mad quest.

·       The US must beef up its military. That means a larger force and the most advanced weapons—conventional, nuclear and those designed for asymmetric warfare. We must restore the capabilities of our intelligence services.

·       We should recognize that Israel is our most reliable ally in this struggle and cease our fixation on the so-called ‘Palestinian problem.’ Were Israel to disappear and Fatah/Hamas/Hizbollah to rule the Holy Land, it would not change by one iota the fundamental goal of the Islamic radicals to obliterate the West.

·       We must find a way to reenergize our NATO allies: they should cease their appeasement of our common Muslim enemies (which are increasingly found inside their borders); beef up their military capabilities; and seriously engage in this global struggle that threatens their existence even more than ours.

·       We should stop apologizing for ‘past American sins,’ reaffirm our role as the world’s chief bastion and model of freedom and go on the offensive against the enemy that endangers us. We need to engage the Jihadists in the court of world opinion as well as on the batttlefield.

3. Culture. As I have argued forcefully in the previous post and elsewhere, this is the greatest challenge facing conservatives—that is, recapturing the culture from the left that has almost completely usurped it over the last century. Here are the key philosophical principles that should guide us. (Some concrete action steps were described in the last post.)

·       A reverence for, allegiance to and study of the US Constitution must be a characteristic of all Americans, both young and old.

·       Similarly, the study of and pride in US history must be ubiquitous among the people.

·       Individual liberty must be restored as our highest goal. This does not mean an entitlement mentality that sees all of us with equal outcomes at the end of the day, but rather equal opportunity for all of us to achieve at the highest levels we can attain.

·       A belief in free markets, entrepreneurship, democratic capitalism and a rejection of the idea that the government can run our economy more effectively than the entrepreneurs, investors, shopkeepers and laborers who create and populate our job market.

·       Clean up the filth and degeneracy, propagated by the media, academia and the legal profession, which poses for culture in liberal America. This will not be an easy task. It requires higher moral standards among the people. Religion needs to play a role.

·       Restore pride in myriad aspects of the traditional culture that have been marginalized: Calvinist work ethic, humility, restraint, thrift, nuclear family.

·       Cease and desist all multicultural crap like: bilingual education, diversity programs, group rights, gay marriage and coddling of illegal immigrants.

·       Look to religious, civic, neighborhood and private philanthropic organizations to provide charity to the less fortunate—NOT the government.

Here’s the icing on the cake—two bold steps that would truly herald a refounding of America as a Constitutional republic. First, some of the above-mentioned steps might require a modification of the Constitution. The standard Amendment process is long and difficult. How about a Constitutional Convention? The Constitution provides for it. Just because we have not done it since 1787 does not mean that it is not a good idea. Second, it is not only Supreme Court justices who pledge to protect and defend the Constitution. Members of Congress and the President do the same. Perhaps it is time for them, like the members of the Court, to deem themselves responsible for deciding constitutionality of laws. I acknowledge this is a tricky matter, but I believe the founders foresaw that all the members of the government at the highest level would be equally responsible for safeguarding the Constitution.

Is America ready to embark on such a journey? I wish I could say that I was optimistic about the possibility. But the US has exhibited remarkable rejuvenative powers in response to numerous existential crises in the past. This one poses a greater problem in that the crisis has been festering for a century and its true nature is hidden from much of the population. Yet, unlike our President, I believe in American exceptionalism. It might ride to the rescue after all.

The American Culture that President Obama Despises

President Obama has spent the first year of his presidency running around the world apologizing for America and its culture. He sides with those who preach that America‘s Eurocentric, white, Christian heritage is responsible for colonialism, imperialism, racism and sexism. He apparently takes no pride in a culture that: fostered liberty and prosperity for the American people; offered hope and freedom to mankind around the globe; welcomed and integrated multitudes of immigrants into a dynamic civil society; saved the world twice from totalitarian evil; promoted philanthropy, both domestically and internationally; and encouraged self-correction of flaws in its own structure. He would rather replace it with a multicultural strain that: regards no culture as superior to any other; denigrates religion in favor of a statist, humanist mentality; appeases thugs who bear ill will toward America; favors equality of outcome over equality of opportunity; and renders the US Constitution subservient to ‘international law.’ Should we do so, it would be a tragic mistake for our country and for the world. In order to understand why, let us conduct a quick review of the history, achievements and components of the traditional American culture that Obama so despises.

For approximately 250 years, roughly from 150 years before the birth of the USA until a century after, the culture of the American people was fairly constant. It was dominated by British political philosophy, liberal Protestantism, a Calvinist work tradition, and a taste and admiration for, albeit mixed with more than a little suspicion of, European arts and science. Beginning about 120 years ago, this culture was challenged and weakened by two great waves of immigration and a concomitant loss of self-confidence on the part of the defenders of the traditional culture. The first great wave brought southern and eastern Europeans, Catholics and Jews, and a small horde who admired socialist, utopian political/economic/cultural theory more than they valued Adam Smith, John Locke, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, or Alexander Hamilton. Although the vast majority of those immigrants adopted the traditional culture as their own, they and their offspring sowed the seeds of subtle change, which in many ways deeply enriched the culture, but also loosened its roots.

The second great wave of immigration began slowly in the middle of the twentieth century, accelerated in the ensuing decades, and continues to this day. Raining down on our shores are huge numbers of non-European, non-Christian, peoples of color. Many profess allegiance to what they understand as the traditional culture: political freedom, individual liberty, economic advancement, pop culture (sports, music, movies, etc.). But I wager that tremendous percentages of these new Americans have no comprehension of a stiff British upper lip, a Protestant work ethic, the English concept of justice, the Federalist Papers, or the suffragette movement. Nor have they heard of manifest destiny, the Magna Carta, Nathan Hale, Dolly Madison, Francis Scott Key, fifty-four forty or fight, robber barons, or Jesse Owens.

Well, perhaps this is a good thing. Certainly organisms that remain stagnant often wither and die, or are swept away by new dynamic competitors that embrace and adapt to change. The multicultural onslaught has enriched American culture in many interesting and exciting ways. But I believe that an organism, which has no memory or appreciation for the underlying roots that spawned it, will not long survive and prosper. The central cultural dilemma that faces America today is to find a way to integrate what is vibrant and vital from the new cultures invading our shores without shedding the authentic and time-worn fundamental culture that has sustained us for so long. To purposefully not study, indeed to disparage Western Civilization is not a wise strategy for coping with that dilemma. Nor is the castigation of DWEMs (Dead White European Males), a pejorative that usually includes the likes of Washington, Jefferson and Franklin along with Beethoven and Newton. Deluding ourselves and our children that American history is replete with undiluted evil (to wit our poor historical record vis-à-vis blacks and Indians—oops, African-Americans and Native Americans), while ignoring or ridiculing our monumental achievements, which include ridding the world of fascism and communism, creating the most prosperous country in history, acting as a beacon of freedom and liberty to the world, and establishing the most successful true multicultural society on the planet, not to mention correcting our faulty behavior toward the two afore-mentioned groups, is not a recipe for cultural success. It infuriates me to see a black man—who rose from obscurity and who, despite his obvious lack of credentials, was entrusted by the American people with the nation’s highest office—belittle the culture that enabled his meteoric rise. Furthermore, it saddens me to watch white Protestant men, direct descendants of the pioneers who created our great nation, denigrate the culture that is their heritage. Cultural Appeasement! Political appeasement never works; cultural appeasement is just as short-sighted and doomed to failure.

A healthier attitude toward contemporary American culture would encompass the following principles:

  • The traditional American culture is exalted and worthy of preservation.
  • We should adopt the best of the new cultures that are washing our shores, but they should meld with, not displace, the old.
  • The amalgam, however it evolves, must preserve at its irreducible core the classic American Creed. (Now there’s a word that was popular in my youth but has fallen from favor.) That Creed embraces at least:
  1. An absolute allegiance to the U. S. Constitution.
  2. An acknowledgment that faith and religion played a critical role in the motivations of our founders and the fundamental tenets they laid down, that it continues to animate a substantial majority of our citizens, and that it is valuable to maintain and respect its role in the American experience.
  3. A belief that America has a manifest destiny to show the world the road to a better life—politically, economically, socially.
  4. That we conduct ourselves morally and with decency toward each other.
  5. That we conduct our political affairs civilly.
  6. That we have the highest regard for education and knowledge, and that we seek to have the most educated citizenry possible—but that that education is the responsibility of the citizenry, not the government.
  7. That we maintain a healthy respect for the history of our land and that we will teach it to our children forever.
  8. That we will remain committed to immigration and acculturation, welcoming and reveling in the achievements of new citizens¾provided that they adopt the Creed.
This post also appeared as an article in The Common Conservative, Feb 1, 2010; see

(The link is only live through Feb 15, 2009. After that date, please conmtact the author [ronlipsman@comcast.net] for permission to use.)

On Human Fallibility

This past Sunday’s NFC championship game contained a poignant lesson for more than just football fans. The game featured the New Orleans Saints versus the Minnesota Vikings. With my pathetic Redskins having left the ranks of the contenders long ago, I was free to root with my head rather than my heart. And like many in America, I was pulling for the Saints. The people of New Orleans have suffered greatly because of Hurricane Katrina and a Super Bowl victory by their beloved Saints is an incipient feel good story that would help the residents of that city to recover from their nightmare.

But there was a complication. The Vikings were led by a crusty old veteran quarterback, Brett Favre, who at age 40 performed as well during the season as at any point in his storied nineteen year career. It was difficult to root against him. And wouldn’t you know it, his magical performance continued—under difficult circumstances. For it was clear immediately that New Orleans’ defensive strategy was literally to beat Favre up. Which they did! As relentlessly recounted by the TV announcers, Favre was repeatedly hit by New Orleans defensemen, nearly 20 times by my count; yet every time, he would arise wincing, grimacing, limping or otherwise clutching the latest part of his body to which the Saints’ defensemen had administered a shellacking.

Despite the beating, Favre performed fantastically. The game was deadlocked at 28, when Favre had his offense poised for a game winning field goal. There was little time left, but the ball was just at the limit of the Vikings’ place kicker’s range. The Vikings had an extra down and an extra time-out in which to move the ball closer in. The announcers speculated that Favre would hand off and a run of 3-5 yards would substantially increase the likelihood of a successful field goal on the game’s final play. But some idiot in the Vikings’ coaching staff tried to confuse the Saints and wound up sending an extra player into the huddle. The resulting 5-yard penalty meant that Favre, as the announcers astutely indicated, would need to throw in order to gain about 10 yards and thereby make the field goal more attainable.

At which point, human fallibility took over. Favre dropped back, was flushed out of the pocket, rolled right and had room to run for the requisite yardage. But at that moment, who knows what evil demon took possession of his mind? Violating a cardinal rule that is drummed into the heads of every rookie quarterback, and in spite of 19 years of experience, and despite the fact that the last pass he ever attempted as a Green Bay Packer—under remarkably similar circumstances—ended in an interception that deprived him of another Super Bowl appearance, Favre wheeled and threw across his body back toward the center of the field—where the ball was easily intercepted by a Saint defender. The Saints went on to win in an overtime in which Favre never touched the ball. Thus, against all rationality, in defiance of every good football practice, in the face of an excellent chance to win the game by playing it safe, and despite the fact that life had offered him the same choice previously on which he had made the wrong decision, Favre again played gunslinger and brought disaster upon himself and his teammates. It is almost certain that the errant pass will be the last he ever attempts in his life. He will be haunted by his reckless decision for the rest of that life.

The lesson is that human beings are prone to mistakes—even when the correct path is clear before them. Favre’s fatal toss is a graphic illustration that humans are, regrettably, flawed and in need of forgiveness by their fellow man and redemption from a benevolent God. I pray that Brett Favre receives both.
This piece also appeared in the blog site NFLGridironGab.com at