Category Archives: Culture

Violating the Law

Politicians violate the law all too frequently. The roster of federal and state legislators and executives who have been exposed as law-breakers is long and shameful. Moreover, the laws they transgress range from local statutes right up to the Constitution. But I venture that the law that is flouted by the greatest number of politicians is actually the Law of Unintended Consequences. The examples are legion and I will point out some of the most famous. However, the main point of this article is to highlight three egregious instances that have received too little attention heretofore.

Let us set the tone by quickly recalling some of the most famous violations of the law of unintended consequences by short-sighted politicians:

  • Minimum Wage Laws. Implemented with the purported purpose of raising the wages of the lowest earning Americans, it has been well documented that a major side effect—which sometimes swamps the intended effect—is increased unemployment among the poor.
  • Gun Control Laws. Enacted to supposedly enhance the safety of our citizens, statistics stubbornly reveal that the localities that pass gun control laws encounter higher rates of crime (including those in which guns are used) than the rates in communities in which concealed weapons statutes are in force.
  • Ethanol Subsidies. Intended to provide relief from our country’s crippling dependence on foreign oil, programs to divert corn to the production of ethanol have had the unintended effect of driving up food prices—both domestically and internationally.
  • The Community Reinvestment Act. Rigging the rules to promote home ownership among the country’s poor, the Act—abetted by those who enforced it vigorously—led directly to the housing bubble and the consequent crash that clobbered the US economy.
  • Aid to Dependent Children. When the government paid women to have babies, discard fathers and not work, then—surprise, surprise—the result was not the intended effect of alleviating poverty; no, the outcome was poor women having many babies, with multiple transitory partners and a culture of helplessness and dependency that destroyed the family structure of all who participated in this pernicious trap.
  • Employer-Based Health Insurance. In order to circumvent FDR’s rigid wage controls, employers conceived the idea of helping to pay for their employees’ health insurance as a recruitment tool. ‘Fine,’ said the IRS. Sixty five years later we have a third party payer system that is helping to bankrupt the country by destroying any user incentive to purchase health care responsibly.
  • Intelligence, or the lack thereof. Due to a misguided sense of moral outrage at the details of covert intelligence operations, the Congress eviscerated the intelligence services of our country over a 30-year period. But rather than elevating the moral fiber of the nation, the result was: Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen, 9/11, the fall of the Shah, a failure to foresee the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union, erroneous assessments of WMD in Saddam’s Iraq and certainly other unknown intelligence failures that have compromised American security. Moreover, the curtailment of our use of humint in covert operations has not garnered us any increased respect around the world—from either allies or enemies.

Now let us turn our attention to three instances of the formidable law of unintended consequences that have been accorded less recognition. The first originates in a brilliant article by Evelyn Gordon in the January 2010 issue of Commentary Magazine (The Deadly Price of Pursuing Peace, pp. 17-23). Ms. Gordon recalls that one of the main promises of the Oslo peace process was that it would improve Israel’s international standing. She then points out that, despite 16 years of Oslo process, Israel’s standing in the world is at a shockingly low ebb: divestment from and boycott of its products and institutions are called for daily; it is routinely accused of being an ‘apartheid state’; it is characterized by the people of Europe as the single ‘greatest threat to world peace’; its officials are indicted in foreign courts; it is castigated for any and all acts of self-defense (see, e.g., the Goldstone Report); its right to exist is seriously questioned; and indeed its violent death is promised by Iran with nary a peep of condemnation from any other country. Israel’s stated willingness to ‘make concessions for peace,’ its repeatedly announced intention to pursue the peace process with gangsters like Arafat and Abbas, and its unilateral withdrawals all have resulted not in improved standing, but in near pariah status.

Ms. Gordon explains cogently why this is so. First, by acquiescing in the concept that any peace agreement should entail Israeli surrender of part or all of Judea and Samaria (the so-called West Bank), Israel has undermined its own legitimate claim to that territory. Second, by withdrawing from areas in which it previously controlled the Arab population, the result has been more dead Palestinians. This is simply because Israel can no longer arrest, and thereby forestall Arab perpetrators from carrying out their atrocities before they occur; instead it more often must resort to killing the perpetrators of terror during and after their despicable acts. Next, it is clear that Israeli concessions, designed to further the peace process, do not placate Islamic radicals. To the contrary, it impresses upon Israel’s enemies that she is weak and susceptible to defeat by ratcheting up demands. As Gordon says, ‘among anti-Israel radicals, Israel’s increasingly frantic pursuit of peace has aroused not admiration but rather the instincts of a predator scenting blood…[It] convince[s] the radicals (and Palestinians as well) that Israel could be pressured into abandoning any red line if the heat was turned high enough.’ Finally, by raising the hope of a settlement among interested ‘third parties,’ Israel only makes them angrier at her when they see their hopes unfulfilled. Israel would be better served by cooling its ardor for an unachievable peace and encouraging third parties to direct their attention elsewhere.

Ms. Gordon makes a powerful case that had Israel continued its pre-Oslo policy of treating the PLO as a terrorist organization—ergo, an unsuitable peace partner—and refusing to deal with it, Israel would be far better off than it is today. Its insane pursuit of a deeply flawed and unrealizable peace process has led to the unintended consequence of its drastically diminished world standing.

The second example, in which unintended consequences have had a devastating effect, but which has received too little attention, lies in the federalization of US education. Indeed, the education of American youth has truly been federalized, from pre-school to graduate school. I can cite the pervasive role of the feds in student loan programs, the federal regulations that govern the physical environment of our schools and the earmarks that support some of the most arcane school projects. But the coup de grace is No Child Left Behind, which has placed the control of the elementary school curriculum largely under federal direction. The unintended effect of the latter is that the overwhelming majority of the nation’s schools tailor their curriculum to meet the perceived requirements of NCLB. The havoc this has wreaked on the school curriculum has come as a nasty surprise to teachers. In addition, the control that parents can exert on local school boards has been severely curtailed. Finally, student performance has not improved.

Higher education is not immune. We have reached the point that for many institutions of higher education, the amount of revenue that they derive from either of their two traditional sources—tuition and either state funds (public institutions) or endowments (private institutions)—is eclipsed by the funds secured from the feds through government grants and research contracts. Many examples of unintended ill side effects of this development have been recorded—e.g., the severe strictures on research imposed by federal export control regulations. But here is one that I am familiar with from my own university that I have never seen discussed. The selection of campus capital projects and facilities maintenance programs is determined to a surprising extent by the university’s perception of their likelihood of attracting federal matching monies. Well, it is primarily only sexy new buildings and research labs that can do so. Therefore, a hugely disproportionate share of these projects is steered toward the realm of new buildings, hi-tech labs and ultra-modern recreational facilities. The basic infrastructure is left to decay. It has been estimated that the deferred maintenance costs at my institution are nearing one billion dollars. While the safety indicators and educational environment in our classrooms and office buildings atrophy, we leverage funds from the feds to build fancy new buildings whose need is questionable. So, as with the country’s crumbling bridges, roads and tunnels, the university’s infrastructure decays while we chase federal dollars for glitzy buildings, climate change projects, diversity programs and other wasteful outlays in order to satisfy Uncle Sam’s dubious priorities. (The federalization of higher education is discussed in greater depth in another posting in this blog – see Obama Needn’t Federalize Higher Education; It’s Already Federalized)

 

My final example is the election of Barack Obama and an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress in 2008. It is difficult for me to speak for the people who perpetrated this naïve and reckless act, but I think it is fair to say that they thought they were installing a President and a government that would: improve America’s reputation abroad; bring intelligence, transparency and fairness to the governance of the country; be a unifying force for America; and help to address some of the country’s ongoing fiscal problems in a bipartisan way. What they got instead was a radical left regime, dominated by doctrinaire ideologues, determined to march the country toward Euro-socialism in a partisan, economically-irresponsible and arrogant way.

The unintended consequence of course is that instead of unifying the country under a mildly liberal form of government, the Obama-Pelosi-Reid (OPR) team has produced a badly polarized populace that has turned ferociously on the President and his allies in Congress. The American people have received the exact opposite of what they opted for: our international reputation has changed, but not for the better—instead of being seen as a bully, we are perceived as weak and vacillating, lacking in leadership; the government we have is willfully ignorant, opaque and beholden to hard left special interests; the country is splintered, not unified; and in almost every way, the OPR team has exacerbated America’s fiscal problems. Thus the people can be as ignorant as the politicians. By installing the OPR team, we have totally ignored the law of unintended consequences.

A Prominent Syndicated Columnist Goes Gloomy

Many of my readers have chastised me for excessive pessimism. One of my previous posts entitled ‘Is America Doomed’ has been cited as especially gloomy. But consider the words of nationally syndicated columnist Jeffrey Kuhner in The Washington Times (3/26/10):

The bitter debate over Obamacare has exposed the country’s profound divisions. We are no longer one nation or one people. Rather, there are now two Americas: one conservative, the other liberal. Increasingly, we no longer just disagree but we despise each other.

Our disagreements encompass everything – politics, morality, culture and history. We no longer share a unifying essence or common values. One half of America believes abortion is an abomination; the other half considers any attempt to repeal it as oppressive and sexist. One half opposes homosexual unions because it elevates immoral and unnatural behavior to the sacred status of marriage; the other half supports it as an extension of civil rights. One half reviles Mr. Obama’s socialist agenda, viewing it as the destruction of capitalism and our constitutional government; the other half embraces it as the culmination of social justice and economic equality. One half reveres America’s heroes – Christopher Columbus, George Washington, James Madison, Davy Crockett – and its glorious history; the other half is ashamed of its past, seeing it as characterized by racism, imperialism and chauvinism.

How’s that for pessimism? But Kuhner goes further:

Ultimately, a country is not simply its geographical borders with the people inside of it. It is something more – and deeper. A nation must share a common heritage, language, culture, faith and myths. Once upon a time, Americans celebrated the same heroes, sang the same patriotic songs, read the same history and literature, and gloried in its exceptional nature: a city upon a hill, with liberty and freedom for all. It was understood that, for all of our different ethnic and religious backgrounds, America is a product of English and Christian civilization. Those days are long gone.

Instead, we are going the way our Founding Fathers warned us against: increasing balkanization and sectionalism. A constitutional republic – unlike an empire – is only as strong as its national cohesion. It is based not on imperial coercion but civic consent. Mr. Obama is recklessly pulling at the strings of unity, further polarizing us.

Alas, I think Mr. Kuhner is correct. Among my conservative acquaintances, I increasingly hear words like: secession, revolution and refounding. More ominously, I hear sentences such as: this government is more oppressive than the one that our forefathers revolted against; the Republic is lost, those of us who care need to start over; our uber-progressive President and his allies are destroying our Constitutional Republic and impoverishing its citizens. As proof of the last assertion, I can say that among my friends and relatives of my age (60s) who have children in their 30s and 40s trying to raise a family, the percentage of the adult children who are living as well as their parents did at a comparable age—much less better—is meager.

This piece also appeared in The American Thinker under the title, ‘Is All the Pesimism Justified?’; see:

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The American Culture that President Obama Despises

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Human Fallibility

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

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

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

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

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