Category Archives: Culture

Is the President a Closet Muslim?

Late at night, in the Lincoln bedroom, does the President of the United States whip out a prayer rug, drop to his knees and profess his obedience to Allah? According to recent polls, somewhere between 20 and 25 percent of the American people believe that he does. What an astounding development! Nearly seventy five million Americans think that our President is a follower of a faith that demeans Christianity and Judaism, that is the inspiration for world-wide Jihad against Western Civilization, that has contributed virtually nothing to the history, culture and politics of our nation and whose adherents around the globe consider themselves at war with our country.

How amazing! The American people have installed in the White House a man about whom it knows remarkably little – and more astonishingly, a man who little understands the nature of the people he governs. Surely the election of this enigmatic man to the Presidency must be one of, if not the most colossal blunder(s) that the American people have ever collectively made. The people entrusted the Presidency to an individual who expresses scorn for the nation’s history, who purposefully weakens the fabric of society and who steers its economic course directly toward bankruptcy. This expression of trust seems almost like an act of madness and self-flagellation by the American people.

Perhaps enough of us have woken up to the horrendous mistake we made so that the intention to terminate the madness will bear fruit in 2012. That will not change the fact that Barack Hussein Obama will always be listed as the 44th President of the United States. The blow to our self-confidence as a people – given the monumental blunder that we have made, the fact of which we will never be able to erase – will be felt for decades.

_________
This post also appeared in The Intellectual Conservative blog at

Tipping Points: The Decline of the USA

Many conservative commentators have spoken of a forthcoming ‘tipping point.’ By that is meant a point, usually signified by some major event, beyond which it will be impossible for the United States to recover its founding principles and restore its fundamental structure as a Constitutional republic. I believe the idea of a tipping point originates with Thomas Sowell. It presupposes that the United States is on a century-long march from a Constitutional republic in which individual liberty is the highest ideal toward a Euro-style social welfare state in which equality of outcome is the main goal.

Sowell postulates that there will be – if it has not already occurred – a point beyond which the institutionalization of the mechanisms of the social welfare state will be so deeply ingrained that it will be literally impossible to reverse course. The fate of the country will be sealed; no conceivable course of action could then stop the nation’s slide into the basically tyrannical, unexceptional, collectivist, vacillating and increasingly poor nation that it will inevitably become. Some think that the passage of Obamacare was indeed the tipping point.

I will argue here that in fact there are three distinct tipping points – one political, one economic and one cultural. I will explain how we might identify these points and then assess which, if any, has actually occurred. In this way I will raise the possibility that the American people could lose some of the parts of ourselves that make us unique and special, but perhaps not lose the whole ball of wax. I will not claim that the political, economic and cultural features of American society are completely distinct and unrelated – that is certainly not the case. But I will hypothesize that it might be possible to change the fundamental nature of one aspect of American society without losing the heart and soul of another.

Political Tipping Point. A political tipping point would be the place beyond which it is impossible to restore America as the Constitutional republic envisioned and established by our Founding Fathers. That republic was based on these fundamental political principles: Constitutional rule of law; limited government with powers confined only to those enumerated by the Constitution; a federal system in which power is shared by the national government and the States; the people are sovereign and all branches of government derive their legitimacy from the consent of the people; the people’s rights are derived either from Nature and Nature’s God or from the Constitution (as amended); political leaders are ‘on loan from the people,’ not professional politicians and their most sacred duty is to ‘preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States’; and finally, the main functions of government are to defend the nation from foreign and domestic enemies, maintain a sound currency, ensure that the States deal with each other fairly and consistently and to enforce legal contracts – it is expected to do little else.

It pains me to say so, but there is not a single clause in the above list that represents an accurate description of the political rules by which the United States is currently governed. Our political leaders, in all branches of government, routinely and flagrantly ignore the bounds impose upon them by the Constitution. Perhaps the most telling justification of that assertion may be found in the book, ‘Lies the Government Told You’ by Andrew Napolitano. He details the subversions perpetrated by our national leaders throughout US history going all the way back to John Adams’ signature on the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. He highlights how the transgressions have escalated – slowly in the 19th century, much more rapidly in the 20th. Moreover, it is clear that the American public is so accustomed to the misbehavior of its leaders that it has completely lost sight of how far we have strayed from our Founders’ ideals. The people are unaware that the current political system under which we live is far more accurately described as a social welfare state than as a Constitutional republic. Furthermore, there is almost no movement by the people or their leaders to recapture our founding principles. Even if they did, it might be impossible to succeed.

Therefore, from a political point of view, it would appear that we have passed the tipping point. When was it? In fact one can legitimately consider a score of candidates – moments and/or events at which the principle political nature of the American republic was irretrievably lost. Here are a few candidates:

·       Adams’ signature on the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798

·       Marbury vs Madison in 1803

·       Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus in 1863

·       The introduction of the Federal Income Tax and/or the direct election of senators – both in the time of Woodrow Wilson

·       FDR’s New Deal

·       LBJ’s Great Society

·       Obamacare.

It is impossible to say which of the above (or any other event) marked the actual point at which the US ceased to be a Constitutional republic, much less to prove that having passed that point it is impossible to recover what was lost. However, I believe it is beyond any doubt that our current system would be recognized by our Founding Fathers to be as tyrannical as the one they revolted against.

Economic Tipping Point. In the realm of economics, again we see a huge change if we compare the current US economic system to what existed generations ago. The economic life of our country used to be characterized by: free markets; laissez-fair capitalism; the sanctity of private property; low taxation; the lion’s share of GDP accounted for by private enterprise; a climate in which businesses – large and small – succeeded or failed according to their ability to satisfy their customers; a strong dollar as the world’s leading currency and an ever increasing level of prosperity among the people. Now, while some hint of these characteristics remains, it is more true that: government intervention in the market has drastically increased and continues to increase exponentially; we have a mixed economy with government regulation often stymieing free enterprise; high taxation – especially on the ‘wealthy’; eminent domain has expanded beyond the vision of our Founders; government entitlement programs are choking the economy; businesses that are ‘too big to fail’ are ‘bailed out’ by the government; and we are plagued by a weak dollar, high unemployment and feeble economic growth.

Have we passed the tipping point? Has our formerly free market economy been so thoroughly corrupted by government control that our future is inevitably socialistic, and are we doomed to a diminished standard of living? I don’t know, but perhaps not. Matters were equivalently desperate in the 1970s, but Reagan’s economic program revitalized the economy and sparked a generation of sustained economic growth. Perhaps if we could rid ourselves of big government Republicans like George W Bush and even bigger government Democrats like Barack Obama, we could right the ship again. We certainly won’t find out whether it is possible until the Obama-Pelosi-Reid gang is chased from power and replaced by a limited-government, conservative leadership committed to free markets and economic growth – and I don’t mean more big government Republicans like McCain or Romney.

There is another point to be made. Sad to say, as with politics, a large percentage of the American public is not cognizant of the fundamental changes wrought in the American economy over the last 50-100 years. They take it as perfectly normal – and correct – that the federal government should play such an enormous role in the economy. They don’t know otherwise; and if they think about it at all, they don’t think it should be otherwise. As that percentage grows, the economic tipping point grows closer.

Cultural Tipping Point. Regarding American culture, yet again we see massive changes. Until approximately 1900, American culture was marked by: a WASP superstructure that valued morals grounded in religious faith – especially Christianity; a British legal system and classical British cultural traits like modesty, humility, perseverance and personal responsibility; veneration of the family; bourgeois values; patriotism; reliance on civic and religious societies; rugged individualism; and pride in our American heritage and appreciation for the achievements of Western Civilization. Today we see on the ascendancy a different culture, one that emphasizes: multiculturalism and the denigration of Western civilization; secular humanism; personal fulfillment over personal responsibility; sexual promiscuity; homosexuality and other abnormal arrangements in addition to (or even in lieu of) traditional family structure; denial of American exceptionalism; government as the ultimate resource for all societal problems and ‘social justice’ as the highest goal.

Nevertheless, I believe that we have not yet passed any cultural tipping point. I have two reasons for saying that. First, in the cultural sphere – unlike the political or economic, many are aware of the radical changes that have occurred and people have a sense of what is being lost. Politics and economics are very complicated, also impersonal, distant, at times unapproachable. But culture is personal, close, daily. It’s hard to conceal any changes. Grandparents tell their grandchildren about cultural differences much more readily than they discuss political or economic changes. Therefore, resistance is greater to adopting cultural changes than it is to accommodating political or economic change.

The second reason lies in the driver of the changes. Political and economic changes are driven primarily by government whereas cultural changes are driven by the media, the educational establishment and through the organizations of civil society (religious, civic, professional, etc.). Although the historic nature of the American experience encompasses a healthy distrust of government, I think that the people have been trained to instinctively rely on government more than on the opinion molding organs of society that have warped our culture. And so, there is less resistance to the advent of a political or economic tipping point than there is to a cultural one.

There is an anomaly hidden in this analysis. I have argued previously in this blog (see http://new.ronlipsman.com/2009/05/17/what-culture-is-it-that-the-politics-have-caught-up-with/

and

that the strategy progressives adopted in order to radically alter the country was to first capture the culture, whereupon the politics would follow. And that is exactly what happened. Therefore, how can we have a political tipping point precede a cultural one? I believe the answer is as follows: The progressives captured enough of the culture to enable them to successfully assault the classic political and economic structures of the US. With regard to the latter, the people are either unaware of the changes, or can live with them, or actually favor them. But a substantial part of the populace is uncomfortable with the new culture and resists the cultural onslaught – even if they do not resist its political and economic consequences.

Actually, if this interpretation is accurate, then there is cause for hope that conservatives can mount a counter-revolution and take back the culture. Then perhaps we could even overcome the political and/or economic calamities that we have endured. But it will be extremely difficult. History is replete with fallen civilizations that were not able to recover their former exalted status: Persia, Greece, Rome, and more recently Spain, France, Great Britain and the Soviet Union. (It’s an interesting exercise to try to identify the fatal tipping point for these. My favorite is Britain, for which I think the Suez crisis of 1956 was the tipping point. The cavalier way that Eisenhower brushed aside the Brits marked the latter’s downfall as a world power.)

A legitimate question arises: Is the current situation sustainable? That is, having hopelessly corrupted our political system, teetering economically, but retaining our cultural identity to a large extent, can we survive in this hybrid fashion for a long period? Perhaps. The analogy is imprecise, but in some sense that is what the situation is for the Asian Tigers, and to some extent also China. Those countries do not enjoy the political freedoms that America did. Their economies are not as free as ours once was. But their cultural identities are strong and seem to be enough to keep the people unified and motivated. Can America endure as a big Singapore? I find it hard to believe so, but we shall see.

Let me conclude by reinforcing my hypothesis – namely, that we have passed a political tipping point, are very close to an economic tipping point, but are stoutly resisting a cultural tipping point. I will do so by briefly highlighting what I see as the signature consequence or output of each of these three components of American society – politics, economics and culture. They are, respectively, freedom, prosperity and patriotism/morals. Well America might still be the home of the brave, but we’re no longer unquestionably the land of the free. This year the Heritage Foundation downgraded our status from ‘free’ to ‘mostly free.’ For me, that is an unmistakable indication that a political tipping point has passed. As for economics, we are still a very rich society, with great opportunities for individuals to prosper. But if one consults Per Capita Income Data on the web site of the U.S. Census Bureau (see e.g., http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/p01AR.html), one sees (in constant 2007 dollars) a curve that is steadily rising over the years until the turn of this century. During the first decade of the 21st century, the curve is flat. It hasn’t turned down yet, signifying that we are on the cusp of a tipping point. Finally, I think that most Americans still believe in American exceptionalism, that America has been and should continue to be a force for good in the world, that our society – which represents a unique experiment in individual liberty – is blessed by Divine Providence and should remain a beacon of freedom to the world. Moreover, they are bitterly disappointed to learn that their President does not share that belief. If we the people loose that faith and tip culturally, then we are truly lost. I don’t think that is going to happen.
This piece also appeared in The Intellectual Conservative at:

Heroes — Then and Now

America has experienced the painful downfall of one of its favorite heroes of the last decade — Tiger Woods. I have nothing new to add on l’affaire Tiger; rather I would like to focus on the general nature of the American hero — past and present. I will argue that the nature of the beast has indeed changed over the last half century. Then I will describe the key feature of the change, identify the main culprit responsible for the change and conclude with a speculation on what the change says about American society.

More than 40 years separate the eras in which two catchy slogans captured the American public’s attention: ‘I Like Ike’ (early 1950’s) and ‘Be Like Mike’ (mid 1990’s). The difference in the slogans’ objects represents more than just a time lapse; it highlights a change in our culture in terms of our reference to heroes — who they are, why we admire them and what we expect of them. In previous generations our heroes usually were politicians and soldiers, scientists and philosophers, statesmen and authors. For example, if we hark back to the mid twentieth century, the most common heroes would certainly have included — in addition to Eisenhower — Churchill, Einstein, FDR, MacArthur, Salk, and maybe a writer like Steinbeck or Hemingway. A half century earlier, businessmen and philanthropists like Rockefeller, Vanderbilt and Astor would have supplemented a list that surely included T. Roosevelt, Wilson and Mellon. Today, the most admired lists tend to be dominated by athletes, entertainers, and celebrities — people like Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Oprah Winfrey and of course, Elvis. Leaders have been replaced by personalities. Why is that? Perhaps we can discover the answer if, having decided who, we consider why and what.

One of my Websters defines a hero as ‘one who is admired for his achievements and qualities; one that shows great courage.’ In the past we admired those who led heroic lives or accomplished heroic deeds; those whose great achievements were wrought at substantial personal risk and entailed courageous action. Today, we look primarily to those who are absolutely brilliant at what they do — on the court, on the screen, in the public eye, but without any attendant requirement of personal risk or courage. The difference is somewhat subtle. To perform heroic deeds requires courage, selflessness, willingness to take great risk. To be the best at one thing requires dedication, perseverance, raw talent. These are all admirable qualities. But I venture that yesterday’s heroes manifested the latter qualities as well as the former, whereas today’s heroes, while usually exemplary in the latter, are often lacking the former.

Why this subtle change? I think there are numerous reasons, many bound up with the massive culture shift that we experienced over the last fifty years in the country. Here I would like to focus on one specific culprit — the media. I believe the media has played an enormous role in bringing about this change in the perception of heroism — for four reasons.

1. The muckraking, iconoclastic role of the media has escalated beyond bounds. No one is perfect of course, and while years ago the media was often complicit in hiding character flaws of our heroes, today they leave no stone unturned in their attempt to expose every possible wart that a potential hero might have. This applies particularly to politicians, soldiers and statesmen, making it nearly impossible for them to earn the unmitigated admiration of the public. John Kennedy was a womanizer, but the media did not report it. Conversely, every zip of Bill Clinton’s trousers made the evening news. 

2. Politics is a contact sport, but today it is bloodier than ever. The media has helped to drive a wedge through the body politic. The fault lines are clearly drawn and the media inflames the debate. In many ways the citizenry is divided down the middle and the opinions are so sharp that it is inconceivable that a man of the left could be admired by the people of the right — and vice versa. Thus it is hard to be a hero to the people if you start off with 50% of them detesting you. Because of this, political and religious figures don’t have a prayer of garnering widespread public admiration. Reagan was loved by those on the right, despised by the left, and exactly the reverse pertains to Obama.

3. Celebrities sell ink and electrons. The public has a seemingly insatiable appetite for news about pop culture. Celebrities sell magazines, newspapers, books, films, TV shows, DVDs and all other forms of electronic media. Fewer and fewer people pay much attention to hard news, but the popularity of celebrity magazines and web sites, ‘reality’ TV shows and music videos shows no sign of abating. The media encourages this and profits from it. Compared to Michael Phelps or Miley Cyrus, Hillary Clinton is a crashing bore.

4. The media has played a critical role in the vulgarization of the culture. The amount of violence, degeneracy and moral squalor that the media propagates is disgusting. The reputation of a classic hero cannot survive in that swamp; but it is not toxic to a modern celebrity. Moral degeneracy is just another ‘thing’ that a celebrity can excel at.

So, what do we expect of our heroes? In times past, we exacted a high moral standard. Heroes often failed to live up to those standards, but that does not change the fact that that is what we expected of them. They were role models par excellence, people who could inspire our dreams and elevate our spirits. Today’s heroes are merely expected to be the best at what they do. Roger Federer and LeBron James are phenomenal athletes; it is a joy and a pleasure to watch them. But they do not change the course of history; they do not inspire men and women to challenge their ideas about life and society; they do not discover new products or technologies to improve our lives; they do not take great physical or personal risks to achieve their goals. The old heroes did these things, and their and our lives were richer for it. We had inspiration instead of titillation, admiration instead of perspiration.

Finally, what does the change in the nature of our heroes say about American society? I believe it is yet another reflection of our mutation from a society that prized rugged individualism into the nanny state. We are increasingly risk averse. Instead of demanding a level playing field upon which all individuals can compete and rise to heights that their talents and determination might take them, we look to the government and to ‘experts’ to salve our wounds and smooth our path to a safe, but uninspiring destination.

___
This article also appeared in The Intellectual Conservative at

The Progressive Assault on America

A Review of ‘We Still Hold These Truths,’ by Matthew Spalding
A small but growing portion of the US population has come to believe that America is at a tipping point. The people with this insight, a group that I shall refer to as the community of believers, see America in 2010 as radically changed from the America they believe existed in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. The changes that disturb this community are of course not in the material or technological details of daily life, but in the political, economic and cultural principles that determine how America is governed, how the people achieve and sustain prosperity and the spiritual and philosophical axioms that control their beliefs and behavior.

The community of believers sees a century-long atrophying of individual liberty, property rights, Constitutional rule of law, limited government, free market capitalism, American exceptionalism, moral character and conservative traditions. They also see its gradual; replacement by a progressive, collectivist, egalitarian, secular, anti-family, apologetic nation, which is dominated by an exceedingly powerful, repressive and paternalistic federal government. They believe that the current radical administration has brought the United States of America to a tipping point in that its socialist policies (Obamacare, cap and trade, amnesty for illegals and more) will push the society beyond the point that it could ever recover from the progressive calamity that has befallen us.

An avalanche of books, videos and manifestos has appeared that express the frustrations of those who hold this view. Many are structured to answer one or more of the following three questions:

1.     What exactly is it that we had prior to 1900 that is on the precipice of extinction?

2.     How was it lost and to whom was it lost?

3.     How do we get it back?

Matthew Spalding of the Heritage Foundation is among those who hold this view. His book, ‘We Still Hold These Truths: Rediscovering Our Principles, Reclaiming Our Future’ (Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2009) addresses the above three questions, albeit in an uneven fashion. In eleven eloquent and edifying chapters he provides answers to the questions. I say uneven because he devotes nine chapters to the first question and only one chapter each to the latter two.

With that kind of division of labor, one would expect the book to stand or fall on the quality of the first nine chapters. Indeed, Mr. Spalding presents a brilliant, if somewhat academic account of the principles on which our Founding Fathers built the American republic. Not surprisingly, the principles he emphasizes include:

·       Individual liberty is the prime right and main objective of the American people.

·       Government derives its powers only from the consent of the governed, whereas the people derive their rights from the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.

·       A democratic republic can succeed only if the people have moral character grounded in religious faith.

·       Property is sacrosanct; commerce is the foundation of our prosperity.

·       There should be no privileged classes; all stand equal before the law.

·       The rule of law emanates from our Constitution. It is the supreme law of the land and shall remain so forever. It may be altered only by a laborious process that requires the support of an overwhelming majority of the people.

·       Liberty is not the same as license; ours is to be an ordered liberty.

·       Family, community and religious and civic associations form the bedrock of our civil society and it is to them that our citizens look primarily for satisfaction, guidance and succor.

·       The Declaration of Independence put us in command of our fortunes and established that the USA is an exceptional creation in human history. Nations should look to us for guidance, not the other way around.

In fact, I have encapsulated his nine chapters in these nine bullets, which constitute Spalding’s answer to the first question.

I am certain that virtually all in the community of believers would endorse all of these principles. I am just as certain that President Obama believes in none of it. Nor do any of his henchmen who have brought us to the tipping point. But I think that Spalding believes that many Americans – perhaps even most Americans – would subscribe to these principles if they were not so totally blinded by the brainwashing they have endured at the hands of the educational system, the mainstream media, the legal profession, politicians (who are largely lawyers), the professoriate, the librarians and virtually all the opinion-forming organs of American society that have been captured by progressives. Given that, Spalding’s words mean hardly anything at all to the great brainwashed multitude. But I am getting ahead of myself – Question 3 comes later.

As I said, Chapters 1-9 are a nice read. They constitute a wonderful lesson in American history, civics, Constitutionalism and the nature of man. The writing is clear, the research is impeccable and the argumentation is persuasive. It will reinforce the opinions of any in the community of believers. But in fact these nine chapters do not constitute the main worth of the book. That can be found in Chapter 10. In 27 breathtaking pages, Spalding offers up the best explanation I have ever read of the progressive philosophy and methodology designed to destroy our Constitutional republic and replace it with a statist, social welfare state. His chapter title: ‘A New Republic: The Progressive Assault on the Founders’ Principles’ is a perfect description of what he has accomplished in the chapter.

Spalding explains how ‘progressive thinking was profoundly shaped by two revolutionary concepts: relativism and historicism.’ The former is the notion that there are no eternal truths or permanent principles; thus it is wrong to be guided by an ancient document (the Constitution) unless it is reinterpreted continuously in light of modern ideas. The latter concept teaches that not only are ideas relative, but their meaning is determined by their moment in time. ‘The problem with the American Founders, the new thinkers argued, is that they did not understand and account for the lack of permanence and the constant flux and change in all things.’

We know the outcome. A century-long progressive onslaught on our nation has yielded a society that – in direct contradiction of the nine bullets above – increasingly accepts the following alternate principles:

·       Equality of outcome takes precedence over individual liberty.

·       Government discovers new rights all the time and then grants them to the people.

·       Religious faith belongs to the past; it has been superseded by reason and science.

·       Property is ultimately the province of government; business must be subservient to government.

·       The people’s lives are best guided by ‘experts’ – federal bureaucrats whose regulations have the force of law.

·       In addition, law is what the President, Congress and especially the Supreme Court say it is, not what the Founders wrote in the Constitution.

·       Distinguishing liberty from license is not a useful exercise as long as the people get what the government deems is good for them.

·       Government is far more important than family or community. The latter are transient; while a benevolent government is the true bedrock of society.

·       America is one of many nations. Moreover, it has a checkered history. It has no special role to play in the world saga.

Spalding closes the chapter as follows: ‘The result of all this is that America seems to be moving even further away from its original principles and constitutional design. While progressive ideas have not completely won the day…the dominance of these arguments – in our schools, in the public square, and in our politics – has significantly weakened the very foundations of American constitutionalism, making it all the more difficult not only to defend but more importantly to recover the ideas and institutions of America’s Founders. Is it still possible to revitalize our country’s principles and to renew our liberty?’

Unfortunately, the answer he provides in the final chapter is by far the weakest part of the book. The chapter is full of exhortations like: ‘We must return to…’; ‘We must look to the principles of the American Founders…’; ‘We must reverse this course…’; ‘Americans must be familiar with the history of the American Revolution…’; ‘We must continue to teach the principles of liberty…’; ‘We need learned judges who take the Constitution seriously…’ The point is: How? What is the actual recipe for recapturing our Constitutional republic from the hands of the progressives who have decimated the work of our Founders? Of this there is precious little in the chapter.

Perhaps this is an unfair criticism. It is only recently that more than a sliver of the population has come to appreciate the incredible damage done to our nation by progressivism and, amazingly, how far it has succeeded in fundamentally altering the nature of the United States of America. Hopefully, books like Spalding’s will spread the message and increase the size of the community of believers. If the recent Tea Party phenomenon is an indication, that might be happening. But a blueprint for reversing course – if there is even time to do so – is not to be found in Spalding’s book. For that, readers will have to look elsewhere.
This article also appeared in The Intellectual Conservative at

Obama Wants the US to Join Europe’s Suicide Pact

Barack Obama’s background is found in Kenya, Indonesia, Hawaii, Chicago and other parts of the United States. One wonders, therefore, why he is so smitten with Europe as a role model in his aspirations for America. A great deal has been written about how he wishes to complete the conversion of the United States from a Constitutional republic into a European-style social welfare state. All the evidence of his 15-month presidency supports this assessment. Every policy that he advocates, every word that he utters, every argument that he makes underscores his belief that America as constituted by its founders is fundamentally misconceived. The idea of a limited government republic, steeped in religious morals, holding property sacrosanct, considering itself exceptional, pursuing a free market economy, characterized by rugged individualism, and governed according to the rule of law is all repugnant to him. Instead he seeks a different America, one with a massive, all-powerful – yet benign – federal government, multiculturally diverse and unswervingly secular, sharing its wealth equally among its citizens, living peacefully and unexceptionally within a world family of nations, governed by experts who guarantee ‘social justice.’ His heroes are not George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison or Benjamin Franklin, but rather Jean Monnet, John Dewey, Antonio Gramsci and Saul Alinsky.

Yet Obama’s vision of 21st century Europe as a model for the US is belied by his seeming disdain for Europeans. He bows to the Saudi King, the Japanese Emperor and the Chinese chief thug. He curries favor from Chavez, Castro and other non-European goons. But he treats the Queen and Prime Minister of England with contempt, snubs the French and German leaders when it suits him, pulls the rug from under the Poles and Czechs, and cozies up to Medvedev. This apparent contradiction is explained by the second major way in which Obama would like the US to ape Europe. In fact he wants us to be like Europe more than just by copying its current political, economic and cultural systems. He wants us to join it in the suicide pact it has entered.

The pact is explained brilliantly in a new book by Theodore Dalrymple, The New Vichy Syndrome: Why European Intellectuals Surrender to Barbarians. This book follows in the footsteps of Mark Steyn’s America Alone and Walter Laqueur’s The Last Days of Europe. All of these well-written books describe clearly the nature of the suicide pact that the Europeans have entered into: startling low marriage rate; even more startling low birth rates; importation of foreigners – especially Muslims – to provide economic fodder to fuel the massive welfare state that the aging, childless people of Europe have accorded themselves; unwillingness to assimilate these immigrants into European society and culture, thereby creating a demographic time bomb; disarming precipitously; totally abandoning their religious heritage; denigrating their traditional culture and their cultural achievements; and surrendering sovereignty to an authoritarian, pan-European regime in Brussels.

Where Dalrymple differs from Steyn and Laqueur is that he goes into a deeper explanation of the Europeans’ rationale behind their decision to self-destruct. Indeed, why have the Europeans abandoned their historic culture and why are they intent on committing hari-kari? In this regard Dalrymple, who, unlike Steyn and Laqueur, is actually a European, can more readily understand the underlying causes as well as identify the symptoms of European sickness. Dalrymple attributes the desire to self-immolate to two main causes: the carnage that the Europeans inflicted upon themselves in two world wars and the mayhem, destruction and permanent damage they believe they inflicted on Asia and Africa in the pursuit of their colonial empires. It’s not that Steyn, Laqueur and others have not pointed out these scars on the European psyche. But Dalrymple goes deeper. His argument is essentially as follows:

The crimes of the world wars and colonialism were committed by Europeans. They are grievous crimes resulting in massive destruction, wanton death and grinding poverty. Nazism, Communism and imperialism were conceived in European minds, implemented by Europe’s ‘finest’ and – because of the cruelty, stupidity and bigotry of Europeans – these movements brought monstrous tragedy to scores of innocent people. Clearly, any culture responsible for such unparalleled evil does not merit survival. Moreover, the design flaws in European, i.e., Western Civilization that produced these awful outcomes must have been present from the beginning. Nothing that is good in European history and culture – be it soaring cathedrals, Shakespearean literature, Beethoven’s music, Newtonian science, the British legal system or Dutch commerce – none of these achievements can counteract the unspeakable barbarity unleashed by European civilization. The evil far outweighs the good. Therefore, the only way to atone for their sins is for the Europeans to destroy the culture that is responsible for these sins – i.e., to commit cultural and political suicide. And this they are hell bent on doing – with an amazing degree of success, sad to say.

Now we see why Obama likes what Europe is doing, but holds the Europeans in contempt. He too believes that Western Civilization is corrupt, misconceived and a font of evil. He would like to see it destroyed. The Europeans are doing that. But America is resisting. Obama wants us to get with the program. Why?

He has no reverence for the Constitution or for our founding principles. To the progressive mind, these principles are responsible for a country in which:

·       black people were enslaved, and even after emancipation were subjected to horrendous discrimination;

·       genocide was perpetrated upon the indigenous peoples;

·       self-appointed, property-owning WASPs controlled the country, its land, culture and commerce to the exclusion of Catholics, Jews and other minorities;

·       lands were stolen from Hispanic people in the southwest, and other lands were stolen from native Hawaiians, native Alaskans, the French, the Spanish (Florida) and even the English (Maine);

·       women were suppressed and denied their basic rights;

·       poor people, laborers and immigrants were exploited by rich business interests;

·       Japanese-American citizens were incarcerated without cause or justification;

·       aggressive and unwarranted wars were waged against Mexico, Spain and the Philippines;

·       the inequities caused by the capitalist system are gross and inexcusable; and

·       an aggressive and belligerent foreign policy is a more accurate description of our posture in the world than is ‘a beacon of freedom.’

As with Europe, the evil in America outweighs the good. Our defeat of Nazism and Communism, our prosperity, our individual freedoms, our scientific advances, our accomplishments in space exploration, our humanitarian efforts in response to natural disasters in the world – all of these are easily outweighed by our past and current sins. We deserve the same fate as the Europeans do. And if Obama can arrange it, we will suffer it. I believe that in his heart, Obama sees America – like Europe – as rotten from its inception and so it deserves to perish in its current form. Converting the United States from a Constitutional republic into a Euro-style social welfare state accomplishes two of our traitorous President’s purposes: first, it changes the fundamental nature of the nation into something much more to his tastes; and second, it is a huge step toward atonement for the sins America committed in its original incarnation.
This post also appeared as an article in The Land of the Free.Net at