Author Archives: Ron Lipsman

On the Existential Threat to Israel

I recently read two compelling pieces of work describing what their authors characterize as existential threats to the State of Israel. The first was an article inthe May 2009 issue of Commentary magazine by Michael Oren entitled ‘Seven Existential Threats.’ The second was the book by Aaron Klein published this year with the shocking title The Late Great State of Israel. Michael Oren is a well-known historian who was recently appointed Israeli ambassador to the United States; Aaron Klein is an intrepid journalist who has broken many major stories on the Middle East in the last decade. Two serious men in a position to know. Thus when both, in dead earnest, lay out highly plausible, even probable, scenarios fort he purposeful and imminent destruction of the 61-year-old Jewish State, it is impossible not to be startled.

But before I go any further, dear reader, please stop and contemplate the enormity and barbarity of the deed these authors have forecast — the purposeful and imminent destruction of the State of Israel. There is no other nation on Earth whose existence is so threatened. Not moral monstrosities like North Korea, Burma or Zimbabwe; not intensely dysfunctional countries like Somalia; not the recently invaded Georgia, nor the hopelessly poverty-stricken(Democratic Republic of the) Congo; not even the criminal banana republic that lies 90 miles off our southern shore. Only Israel!

Genocidal maniacs in nearby countries promise that not only will the Jewish State perish at their hands, but its five-plus million Jews will be slaughtered, scattered and/or reduced to vassal status. Moreover, the peoples of the world barely utter a peep in opposition tot his deranged intention. And even worse, there is evidence that a not insignificant portion of the people of Israel do not take the threat all that seriously . . . and too many of their leaders pursue policies that actually aid and abet the madmen who chase their ghoulish goal.

Tiny Israel, comprising a land mass in size no more than 0.0625% of that of the Arab world and 0.005% of the Muslim world, and totaling in population roughly 0.03% of the Arab world and again 0.005% of the world’s Muslims, this tiny Israel represents a cancerous growth to the Arabs and Muslims that must be excised. Israel, whose people have made the desert bloom, revived an ancient language, established world class educational institutions, pioneered breakthroughs in science and engineering, created art, music, theatre and literature that rival per capita the output of any nation in the world, developed agricultural techniques that have inspired mankind, and who have established and maintained a representative democracy under the rule of law unequaled by any Arab or Muslim neighbor — all while under a constant threat of annihilation from its birth; this country and its people, under an obscene death sentence, are not important enough for Western Civilization to come to their defense.

The cowards in Europe are more interested in oil and playing nice with the Muslim world. Israel’s presence in the Middle East interferes with those objectives. And while the Europeans acknowledge that they perpetrated some nasty business on the Jewish people some 65-70 years ago, well, Europe also considers the debt incurred by that business to be paid off and now it is time to move on. Even the new administration in the United States shows signs of ‘having had it with Israeli intransigence’ and is tilting toward policies that play into the hands of those bent on Israel’s destruction.

In this article I will review the evidence presented by Mssrs. Oren and Klein and then I will offer a broader theory that incorporates the thinking of both gentlemen.

Oren’s seven existential threats are, in the order he presents them: The Loss of Jerusalem, The Arab Demographic Threat, Deligitimization, Terrorism, A Nuclear-Armed Iran, The Hemorrhaging of Sovereignty and Corruption. Anyone who is paying even the slightest attention to Israeli affairs in recent years will know immediately what Oren means by the second, third, fourth and fifth threats. So I shan’t elaborate on them. But let us be clear on his meaning for the other three.

In ‘the Loss of Jerusalem,’ Oren identifies the usurper as the city’s non-Zionist population. He points out that the combination ofArab residents plus Haredim, that is, the so-called ultra-Orthodox, who reside in Jerusalem but arguably are opposed to the existence of a Jewish State in pre-messianic times, now constitutes a majority of the city’s population. The dwindling number of secular Jews in the city has translated into a diminishing tax base, declining industry, fewer professionals and a hollowing out of the city’s cultural life that strips it of any ability to attract the country’s youth to visit, much less live there. Oren asserts that ‘the preservation of Jerusalem as the political and spiritual capital of the Jewish state is vital to Israel’s existence . . . The city represents the raison d’etre of the Jewish state, and without it Israel would be merely another miniature Mediterranean enclave not worth living in, much less defending.’

With the term ‘Hemorrhaging of Sovereignty,’ Oren highlights the fact that Israel is losing effective control over large portions of its land mass and population. Once again, he identifies the growing Arab and Haredi communities, more specifically, the regions in whicht hey live as increasingly outside the normal legal jurisdictions of the Jewish Sate. In a parallel vein, where else in the world would you find a country with a legislature that contains a significant percentage of members devoted to the dissolution of the State?

Finally, there is the matter of corruption. Certainly in recent times, Israel has been afflicted by an unusually large outbreak of corruption among its leaders — a former President, a former Prime Minister and too many others. Oren claims that this is the most severe threat that Israel faces. Here I do not agree with him. Sadly, pervasive corruption at high levels is endemic around the world. Unlike its other threats, there is nothing singular to Israel about this one.

Klein does not compile in his book a list of threats like Oren does. Rather he presents a sweeping portrait, in much greater depth than Oren’s magazine piece, of a country that is losing (or has already lost) its soul. Building around a description of approximately a dozen calamities that have befallen Israel (almost all self-inflicted), he paints a picture of a weak and vacillating leadership, a naive and borderline subversive media, a population too fixated on its own material well-being to focus clearly on the external and internal threats to the State, friends (US and Europe) who do more harm thangood and a host of hostile neighbors who are determined to bring an end to the Jewish State — soon!

The calamities are well-known to any follower of the Israeli scene; they include: the ill-advised unilateral retreat from south Lebanon, which has only led to rocket attacks on Israeli territory and an ineffective Israeli incursion that failed to achieve any meaningful objective; the equally ill-advised retreat from Gaza, with the same consequences; the unnecessary abandonment of the Temple Mount to Arab authority; the surrender and ultimate destruction of Joseph’s Tomb; foolish attempts to engage the Syrians in negotiations, including offers to abandon the Golan Heights — a military mistake of such enormous import that only suicide can be the conscious motive; allowing the illegal construction of tens of thousands of Arab domiciles while severely restricting the development of Jewish neighborhoods on the so-called West Bank; a reluctance to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat, which could haunt Israel not just by giving Iran a capability to strike Israel with nuclear-armed missiles, but could also put WMD inthe hands of Iranian proxies in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza; not dismantling the UN-administered ‘refugee camps’ in areas under Israel’s control; toying with the idea of retreat from (areas of) the West Bank, ignoring the fact that Hamas will take over those areas exactly as they did in Gaza and whence rockets will rain down on Tel Aviv and Jerusalem; and finally, dancing with the duplicitous Palestinian Authority, which is just as determined to bring about Israel’s destruction as is Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran.

One striking feature that is common to both works: while the fact that many threats to Israel originate externally is not minimized, both authors raise the notion that much of the danger is due to cowardice and stupidity on the part of Israel’s political and cultural leaders. Klein drives the point home forcefully, Oren more obliquely.

I concur with these distinguished gentlemen that the threats to Israel are multiple, real, profoundly serious and if not confronted and dealt with, they could signal the death knell of the Jewish State. But I also believe that most if not all of the threats can be subsumed under three mega-trends that encompass them, and which pose a mortal danger to more than just tiny, beleaguered Israel. Those trends are:

1. A worldwide resurgence of Islam, much of it in a radical and deadly mode;

2. A worldwide resurgence of virulent Anti-Semitism, much of it cloaked as anti-Zionism, but in reality nothing more thanold-fashioned Jew hatred;

3. The steep decline within Western Civilization of self-esteem.

It is easy to fit many of the threats to Israel outlined by Oren and Klein under the umbrella provided by the first two trends. It is perhaps less clear in the case of the third. By that trend I of course mean the declining belief by the peoples of Europe and North America that the fundamental political, cultural, religious and social principles, which undergird the advanced civilization they constructed and maintained during the last half millennium, have any validity any longer. No civilization, lacking faith in its own bedrock principles, legends, stories, religions and history can long endure. Witness the demise of the late, unlamented Soviet Union, occasioned by precisely such a loss of self-esteem. The West appears headed down the same road with Europe in the lead — but with Obama in the saddle, the US is rushing to catch up. And Israel, which is surely an outpost of Western Civilization, has moved to the head of the pack.

Much of the cowardice and stupidity identified by Oren and Klein are merely manifestations of said loss of self-esteem. Of course Israel is in the cross-hairs of all three trends, but the West is not far behind. That is, the forces that are poised at Israel’s throat today will be at the throats of the nations in the West very soon — in some instances, they already are.

The malignant form of Islam that infects significant parts of the Muslim world is intent on conquering and subjugating not only Israel, but also the West, indeed the entire world. That goal might sound preposterous to Americans, who are far removed from the call of the muezzin. But that does not mean that it is not a professed goal —one that is vocalized and acted upon every day by its adherents. We ignore it at our peril.

As for the loss of self-esteem by Western Civilization, that is an increasingly explored topic in America today, especially in the conservative literature. I too have addressed it in previous installments in this blog. The election of Barack Obama and his cohort of ultra-liberal Congressional allies bear vivid testimony to the advancing state of decay in the United States. My point here is that the growing leftist, multicultural, pacifistic, egalitarian, anti-patriotic, anti-religious, corruption-riddled mentality that inhabits the Israeli body politic is, I believe, a manifestation of exactly the same kind of loss of self-esteem that is crippling Europe and increasingly the United States.

Finally, why is resurgent anti-Semitism a problem for the West as it is of course for Israel? Simple. History has shown that the words of the Hebrew Bible (Genesis 12:3, ‘Now the Lord said unto Abra[ha]m: .. . And I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse; and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.’) are indeed true. Those nations that have welcomed and nurtured the Jews, like the US, have prospered and succeeded; those that have persecuted the Jews, like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, have been consigned to the ash heap of history. Once upon a time, not that long ago, the disease of anti-Semitism nearly destroyed Europe. The Europeans are apparently foolish enough to give it a second try. Pray that the US is not so foolish.

The Nature of Obama’s Liberalism

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

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

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

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

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

Well, here is that article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our New President’s Three Top Priorities: Government Cures for Problems Caused by Government

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^thcentury. 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^thcentury 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 deploymentof 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 ofcontrol. 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 schoolsystems:

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.

What Culture is it that the Politics have caught up with

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 citethe 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^thcentury 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 agendasof 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.

Conservatives in Retreat—On Many Tracks

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 WhiteHouse 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 ofthe 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 andNature. 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 ConservativeBrains—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 post. 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.’