Category Archives: Culture

America’s Attitude toward Israel Proves that the US is Still Exceptional

Part of the American gestalt has always been that the US is an exceptional country among the nations of the Earth. The exceptionalism is sometimes interpreted in different ways: some citizens believe that the country was founded under the guidance of divine providence to be the unique fount of liberty and justice for mankind; others that our system of government is to serve as the best model for how societies should organize themselves; and still others that we have a unique responsibility to salve the major wounds – accidental and purposeful – that erupt around the world. However one defines it, there is no question that a vast majority of Americans, both now and in the past, consider the United States to be exceptional in an exceedingly positive way, and they take pride in being part of it.

But not all Americans! Tragically, the President of the United States is not counted among them. He is on record, having publicly stated that his belief in American exceptionalism is no more special than what Brits or Swedes believe about their countries. How representative is he? Does he herald a new trend in American self-identification? How influential has he been in converting Americans to a more vanilla sense of our nation’s worth?

We have witnessed an event recently, which highlights dramatically that the answer to the three preceding questions is a resounding “Not at all!” The event was Prime Minister Netanyahu’s address to a joint meeting of Congress. The rousing, overwhelmingly positive and tremendously supportive reception that he received from both sides of the aisle reflects an important manifestation of continued American exceptionalism. First, this is because Netanyahu’s reception in Congress is completely consistent with overall American attitudes toward Israel. Second, such a reception, channeling the people’s attitude, would be impossible anywhere else in the world. For, sad to say, a mere 66 years since the United States extinguished the Nazi menace, the nations of the world have reverted to a blatant and virulent anti-Semitism, which is reflected in the nearly universal condemnation of and discrimination against the Jewish State of Israel. Except in the United States!

The people of America continue to recognize in Israel a kindred spirit – a nation devoted to freedom, justice, the rule of law, religious tolerance, equal opportunity, economic growth and the finer aspects of Western Civilization. That such recognition brands us in the US as exceptional is a truly sad commentary on the state of the planet. That our dear President is among those who are blind to the kindred relationship is bitterly ironic. But it does not change the fact that the American people inhabit a truly exceptional nation – and our eagerness to stand with Israel is a testament to that fact.
_____
This article appeared in The American Thinker blog at

Is Death an Unintended Consequence of Liberalism?

A Review of J.R. Dunn’s “Death by Liberalism”

It has taken a long time for the American people to catch on, but it is now widely recognized that when well-intentioned liberal policies are implemented, the consequences – both intended and unintended – are hardly beneficial. Representative examples include: the aggressive promotion of ethanol, which has resulted in higher corn prices and the removal of arable land from food production; boosts in minimum wage rates, which have repeatedly caused higher unemployment among teens and lower income workers; and an obsessive emphasis on removing religion from the public square, which has contributed to increased teen pregnancy, drug use and other forms of moral decay. And these are some of the more benign consequences of liberal governance run amok.

It’s not like these deleterious outcomes of core liberal principles had not been predicted; but neither the predictions nor the outcomes have diminished liberal enthusiasm for these harmful policies. In fact, this is a well-known story that has been told many times. But in his book, Death by Liberalism: The Fatal Outcome of Well-Meaning Liberal Policies, J.R. Dunn raises the level on the nature of the accusation to a height that is far above the usual critiques. In his study of the effects of liberal social and fiscal policy, Dunn seeks to establish that the ultimate product of most core liberal policies easily eclipses negative agricultural, monetary or social consequences; he claims that the ultimate result of supposedly benignly intentioned, but misguided liberal programs is in fact death. In a passionate and scathing description of how liberalism leads directly and indirectly to the death of scores of its beneficiaries, i.e., US citizens, Dunn charges that the actualization of numerous liberal policies amounts to democide – the murder of a nation’s citizens by its own government.

While the underlying thesis of Dunn’s book is rather unappetizing, the presentation is quite compelling. His research is thorough, his grasp of detail is encyclopedic and his command of economics, sociology and political theory is impressive. He is at ease discussing a wide variety of topics: from nuclear power to illegal immigration, from crime prevention to lustration, from social security to DDT. He marshals a far-reaching roster of “crimes” for which he indicts liberalism as the primary culprit. Many of these are well-known and a few reflect new insights on his part. Together, they comprise a damning indictment of twentieth century liberalism for crimes against humanity.

To give a flavor of the indictment, I supply here a few of the grenades that Dunn lobs at liberals, their beliefs, policies and “achievements.”

  • Totalitarian Mass Murder. Dunn first reminds us that in the past century, democide in the form of mass murder was committed by Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Mao’s China and by Pol Pot in Cambodia. In the first three, the deaths numbered in the tens of millions. Of course, the victims were not US citizens, but Dunn emphasizes that the brutal statist policies imposed by those regimes were extreme versions of domestic liberal inclinations.
  • Silent Spring. The only other modern mass murderer with tens of millions of victims notched on her belt is Rachel Carson – although again the slaughter occurred overseas. The ban on DDT that resulted almost exclusively from Carson’s work allowed the resurgence of malaria, which had been nearly eradicated worldwide. The governments that acceded to the demands of various, leftist-oriented international health organizations are responsible for the deaths of millions of their citizens – but the source for the tragedy is Rachel Carson.

With these as preamble, Dunn goes on to describe numerous domestic liberal programs that resulted in American deaths.

·        Crime. Liberal policies intended to alter how our society deals with crime gained preeminence in the 1960s. By emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment; by ascribing criminal behavior to a reaction against social injustice in lieu of evil impulses; by enhancing criminal rights over police responsibilities; liberal policies spawned a 30-year crime spree that resulted in needless death and injury. Says Dunn: “The great crime wave of the late twentieth century is a disaster that did not have to happen. For three decades, this nation’s criminal element…held the country hostage. Crime rates skyrocketed, increasing several hundred percent across the board. Criminals ran law-abiding citizens off their own streets, gained effective control of many neighborhoods, and violated the peace of many cities. The number of victims is incalculable, the amount of damage – financial, social, and personal – beyond reckoning…As a frontier culture, Americans knew how to handle crime. Justice was swift, punishment was certain, and if formal law enforcement faltered, the citizenry was prepared to act. Each of those elements failed during the great crime explosion. The criminal justice system broke down completely. The police were constantly undermined. The citizenry were actively restrained and threatened with legal sanctions if they made the most basic effort to defend themselves or their property… the crime explosion didn’t just happen. Like urban renewal and welfare, it was the result of policy, a deliberate attempt to remake the criminal justice system in the image of an ideal.”

·        Abortion. Once again, I let Dunn speak for himself: “Liberals have long claimed a monopoly over compassion in the public sphere. Self-styled empathy is basic to liberal identity. Liberals are the Good Samaritans of American political life. No opportunity to display humanity is too small, no effort too great. They nest in trees for months to checkmate the logger. They travel to northern Labrador to defend baby seals. They walk the meanest streets to hand out clean needles. Threatened species, ethnic minorities, the homeless, refugees, migrants, professional criminals…virtually no outcast group finds itself beyond liberal protection. With one exception: the millions of unborn children aborted over the past four decades. They alone fail to qualify. They alone found themselves outside the circle of liberal compassion. How can this be explained? …A major flaw of liberal thinking…lies in what G.K. Chesterton termed ‘chronological snobbery,’ the contention that the more ancient the concept, the more it is based on irrationality and ignorance, and the easier it can be set aside. Nothing could be further from the truth. A precept with millennia of practice behind it is one based on the firmest foundation imaginable. You meddle with it at your peril, and with due regard for the consequences. Roe v. Wade challenged exactly such a precept, and the consequences were dramatic. There is not a single aspect of American life that does not bear its mark. Roe distorted the relationships between men and women, husbands and wives, parents and children, politician and voter, clergy and worshippers, government and people… Roe set a blaze that to this day still ravages our culture.”

·        Gun Control. The communities in America that have the least restrictive carry laws enjoy significantly lower crime rates than those with the most severe restrictions. As John Lott has demonstrated in numerous studies, gun control laws – a favorite of liberal politicians – needlessly get people killed or maimed.

·        Homelessness. The 1970-1980s combination of the emptying of the nation’s mental hospitals together with irresponsible urban renewal projects that destroyed lower income neighborhoods has rendered the mentally challenged of America prey to disease, crime and weather.

·        Environmentalism. From CAFE standards that force Americans into tiny, unsafe cars to the banning of fluorocarbons that has condemned asthma patients to needless suffering, the pursuit of mindless environmentalism has resulted in unintended harm and death.

·        Child Welfare. Child Protective Services are unresponsive and unaccountable bureaucracies that lose children when they are not placing them in environments that prove dangerous – and often lethal.

·        Illegal Immigration. The refusal to enforce immigration laws has resulted in crimes – often murder – that would not have occurred if liberal attitudes on “undocumented workers” had not prevailed.

·        FDA. Dunn recounts a familiar story in which FDA incompetence and delay led to the tragic death of an afflicted individual. It is impossible to estimate the number of patient deaths caused by FDA ineptitude and adherence to bureaucratic rules.

·        Euthanasia. Liberal pursuit of a “right to death” and “death with dignity” has fostered the occurrence of predictable deaths – e.g., in the back of Kevorkian’s van.

·        Health Care. Not surprisingly, Dunn believes that Obamacare will lead to rationing of health care and the premature death of seniors who are short changed.

Here’s how Dunn wraps it up: “In the final half of the twentieth century, up to 262,000 Americans died of crimes that would not have been committed but for liberal interference with the criminal justice system. Up to 121,000 died in automobile accidents directly attributable to the CAFE standards. Unknown thousands have perished due to the failure of other forms of government activity. (It would be a surprise if the numbers weren’t somewhat murky – it’s not as if we can find this information on a USA.gov website.) A large number of children have died under the ’protection’ of DYS and similar agencies. Many of the ‘homeless’ – the chronic mentally ill thrust out into the streets – have died in miserable circumstances. Individuals from all social levels have died due to various forms of environmental legislation. Others have been killed by rogue illegal immigrants. Many sick individuals have suffered premature death from being denied necessary medical drugs thanks to the FDA’s convoluted certification process…We scarcely know how to even estimate the total [number of deaths]. The best we can say is that between 400,000 and 500,000 Americans have in the past century died prematurely thanks to government policies, victims of the American democide. That number is a match for all our fatalities in the past century’s wars. It is greater than all American deaths from epidemic disease. [But] the total doesn’t amount to much in the blood-soaked history of the Age of Massacre. It scarcely compares to the numbers achieved by Nazi Germany, the USSR, Red China, or any of the other champions of extermination. It has required half a century for the US to achieve that figure. The Hutu mobs of Rwanda, using only machetes, surpassed it within weeks. It scarcely rates an asterisk in the past century’s long record of atrocity. But it happened in our country. It happened in America [emphasis added].”

Wow! Now readers of this journal will know that I am as fervent as Dunn in my assessment of the harm that the liberal hegemony has inflicted on our country over the last century. But murder? Normally, the dastardly deed manifests in two varieties – premeditated or spontaneous (i.e., 1st or 2nd degree). In both cases, an element of malice must be present. Failing that, the taking of a human life is usually classified as manslaughter. That too comes in two flavors – voluntary and involuntary. The distinction is whether the deed followed a purposeful act by the perpetrator or whether it occurred incidental to an act by the killer.

It seems to me that it is incorrect to call any of FDR, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton or Barack Obama a murderer. That would imply that they pursued their mad dash to liberal nirvana completely cognizant of the fact that their policies would inevitably result in the death of US citizens – i.e., of those whom they were sworn to protect. I doubt for an instant that any of the fab five that I identified would accept any of Dunn’s list of horrors as being caused by any of their programs – and even if by some miracle they did, they would surely plead surprise rather than malignant intent.

Manslaughter is a more makeable case – especially of the involuntary kind. Even voluntary manslaughter is a bit of a stretch. It implies a purposefulness that is difficult to discern. In their utopian myopia, it is inconceivable to hard core liberals that their well-intentioned policies could cause harm to unintended beneficiaries – much less their death.

The arguments in Dunn’s book are persuasive; they trace a plausible trajectory from liberal programs to the death of innocents. But labeling these deaths as democide – the murder of people by their government – is exceedingly inflammatory and not justified. If I must coin a term, I’ll say incidentalcide – the death of citizens from unintended consequences of their government’s actions. Of course, that does not mean that it shouldn’t stop. However, the effort to bring about its cessation is not aided by overly flagrant accusations that cannot be substantiated.
______
This review also appeared in The Intellecrual Conservative at

Danger in the Census Numbers

The Census Bureau just issued population data compiled from last year’s national decadal census. The data reveals that the Hispanic population has grown much faster than anticipated. The reasons attributed are birthrate and immigration – both legal and illegal.

I can already see some readers frothing at the mouth: the word ‘danger’ appears in the title of an article citing a drastically increased percentage of Hispanic residents in the US – ergo, the author is a racist. I hope that a careful reading of what follows will allay that fear.

In one decade, the Hispanic population of the US has surged by 43% and now numbers over 50 million. Projections are that by midcentury the white population will decrease to less than 50% and the Hispanic population might top one-third. So what! As long as the new and recent Hispanic immigrants buy into the American philosophy of freedom, rule of law and limited government, they will melt into American society and the grand American experiment in individual liberty can continue. After all, that is exactly what happened with previous waves of immigrants over the last 125 years.

Not exactly! In the late 1800s and early 1900s, the large Protestant white majority of US citizens worried that the incoming flood of southern and eastern Europeans – Italians, Greeks and Slavs; Catholics and Jews – would alter the character of the United States. Then, as now, the argument embodied in the italicized words above was made. And to many, it appears that that argument has been borne out. I would argue not. Those immigrants and their children and grandchildren have been in the vanguard of the progressive movement that has drastically altered the classical character of American society. It may be that progressive/socialist ideas originated in central and western Europe, but the virus was caught and brought by the eastern and southern European immigrants to our land; and it has infected a large percentage of the population.

Much of the progressive program is subscribed to by the Latinos who are cascading down upon our shores. Moreover, while it is also true that the more virulent strains of leftism such as multiculturalism, one world government, denial of American exceptionalism, denigration of Western Civilization and rabid environmentalism did not originate in Latin America; like their eastern and southern European precursors, the Latinos are infected by these philosophies, and by the sheer weight of their numbers, they will help to steer America further away from the historical path established by our Founders.

Most of my grandparents and their friends and relatives who came to America a century ago were good people seeking to escape European Jew hatred and to build a better life in America. But they and most of their descendants were susceptible to the progressive/socialist ideas of Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, John Dewey, FDR and LBJ. Unwittingly, they have helped to loosen the moorings of our great American heritage. The current Hispanic immigrant population is also filled with good people looking to escape poverty and, by dint of hard work and dedication, build a better life for themselves and their children. But they are steeped in the ways of Western Civilization and the American creed even less then were my grandparents. It does not augur well for the continued success of the American experiment.
_____
This post also appeared in The American Thinker at
 

Thoughts on Immigration – Illegal and Otherwise

My four grandparents immigrated to the United States from Poland at different times, but all approximately a century ago. They and most of their siblings – a few stayed behind and were eventually consumed in the Holocaust – were part of a massive 40-year wave of immigration from Eastern Europe to our shores. Over the past century, my immigrant ancestors spawned four generations of American Jews who now reside all over our great country. By absolutely any measure, the immigration tale of my family is an American success story. My cousins and second cousins and their progeny are doctors, lawyers, businessmen, scientists, artists, educators, students, soldiers, athletes, journalists and IT specialists. (However, I have no knowledge of any politicians.) Of course, no family history is perfect – there are a few miscreants and at least one jailbird. But there can be no doubt that the United States of America made an excellent investment when it opened its doors to my ancestors. The deal was outstanding for us as well – after nearly two millennia of persecution and pain, these Jews found a land where they could be free, prosperous, worship without fear, and rise to any heights that their abilities afforded them.

I have friends and colleagues of Italian, Irish, Greek and Chinese ancestry whose family history traces a similar trajectory. Aside from a tiny percentage of the population that is descendants of indigenous people, everyone else in America is an immigrant or the descendant of one. And yet the vast majority of us see ourselves as thoroughly American – whether our ancestors arrived on the Mayflower, in steerage on a turn-of-the-century boat from a Baltic port, or via an unseaworthy vessel off the coast of Vietnam. How can that be?

The answer is simple. Unlike in France or Sweden or Cambodia, the citizens of our nation do not derive their national identity from a specific piece of land or a religion or an ethnic heritage, a race or even a language – although it is possible to argue about the last one. To be an American is instead to subscribe to an idea, which comprises a philosophy of government, a means of organizing society and an economic system. The United States of America did not come into existence slowly over eons through the gradual, natural congealing of a people via one or more of the above categories. No, it was created essentially ex nihilo at the end of the eighteenth century by means of two founding documents – the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution – as well as through the writings and speeches of the men, and their associates, who penned those documents. To be an American is to accept, practice and promote the ideas in those documents. It is to acknowledge the uniqueness of this nation in world history as one in which: individual liberty is the highest ideal; those who govern do so only with the consent of the governed; and our rights to – as Mr. Jefferson so eloquently put it – life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are bestowed upon us by our Creator, not by any government. Those who come to our shores with these beliefs are welcome to join us in the magnificent journey upon which our Founders propelled us. It is our great fortune that most of those who have immigrated to this land came with those ideals or adopted them soon after their arrival.

That being said, our nation’s formal immigration policies have varied over the last two centuries. Immediately after Independence, we were not particularly encouraging of it – feeling as we did that most of the European population did not share our uniquely, freedom-worshipping ideals. But as the nineteenth century unfolded – needing more people to conquer a vast continent and to participate in a great Industrial Revolution – we encouraged it more and more. Then, as those two great adventures came to a close in the early twentieth century, we returned to more restrictive policies. We threw open the gates again after WWII and they have remained so ever since.

Our specific immigration schemes have also varied. Which countries we favored; what criteria we sought (relatives, specific work skills, educational level, age) – these too have not remained constant. Nevertheless, I don’t think that any of those critically affected the end result. Most of the people arriving at our borders were “yearning to breathe free.” It would not be unreasonable to expect that a hundred years hence the descendants of today’s immigrants will recite the same story as I did in the opening paragraph. And yet there is a great unease in the country about immigration today. Too much of it is illegal. But I suspect that that is not the main cause of the unease. It is because we fear that too many of today’s immigrants do not share our ideals, as did our ancestor immigrants. We worry that too many new immigrants are not here because they believe in the principles of 1776 and 1787, but because they heard from a relative living here that there’s some free booty lying around and they’d like to get some. Moreover, unlike in previous generations, we seem to be making no effort to inculcate the Founders’ ideals into our new immigrants.

Indeed, the latter is the key point. It is not that the new immigrant is from Latin America or Asia instead of Europe; it is not that he speaks Spanish instead of German or French; it is not that his work ethic is weaker than those of previous immigrants – it’s not; and it is not that she is not steeped in American history – my grandmothers couldn’t distinguish John Adams from Samuel Adams. It is that we the people – or at least a sizeable segment of us – have lost faith in our own ideals. You cannot inculcate newcomers into your way of life if you no longer subscribe to its tenets. So we make no effort to ensure that new immigrants possess or are given the ideas that quickly grant them access to an American identity.

The success of the progressive movement in America over the last century has eroded the people’s belief in the fundamental principles that formerly defined our national identity. The government has grown beyond acceptable boundaries and no longer seeks the consent of the governed; individual liberty as our highest ideal has given way to the pursuit of an artificial equality; property is no longer sacrosanct; and our nation is no longer viewed by many of its citizens – especially the “elite” – as unique. Those immigrating to a nation founded on ideas, which no longer believes in those ideas, are rightly confused and unassimilated. They serve only to hasten the nation’s downfall. It is therefore not surprising that some blame the nation’s ills on immigrants – illegal or otherwise.

Immigrants once understood that they had embarked on a tough road, but that there was a pot of gold at the end – if not for them, then for their children. Today’s immigrants are taught to demand the gold immediately without earning it. But immigrants – illegal and legal – are not the main source of America’s ills. Like most of our ailments, the immigration problem will be cured if we return the country to the principles upon which it was founded.
______
This post also appeared in The American Thinker on 2/19/11 under the title ‘The American Immigration Problem’; see

The Fickle American Voter: Which is Dead – Liberalism or Conservatism?

There are three articles in the February issue of The American Spectator devoted to the question: Is Liberalism Dead? One article is by R.E. Tyrrell, editor-in-chief of the magazine and another is by Conrad Black, notorious publisher and author of a best-selling biography of Richard Nixon. But the article of greatest interest is by James Piereson, who exactly a year ago in the same magazine, took up the question: Is Conservatism Dead? Piereson’s articles were occasioned first by the landslide enjoyed by liberals in the national elections of 2008, followed by the equally stunning “shellacking” administered by conservatives in the congressional and state elections of 2010. What is going on here? Can’t American voters make up their minds – do they wish to be governed according to a liberal philosophy or a conservative philosophy? As time goes on, the differences between the liberal and conservative visions for our nation grow increasingly wide; how is it possible for the electorate’s preference between them to oscillate so wildly?

In fact, the whiplash between liberal/progressive and conservative/libertarian election outcomes has been going on for a lot longer than a few years. Consider: in 1964, liberals crushed conservatives; but in 1972, the “conservative” Nixon obliterated the uber liberal McGovern; then in the mid-70s, more so in the media than at the ballot box, the liberals roared again; only to be quieted by two Reagan/conservative stomps in the 1980s; whereupon, the liberals easily regained the White House in 1992; only to be rudely ousted from Congress in 1994; and yet, the liberals returned surreptitiously in 2000 – when they wore a Bush as a disguise; and finally, as we have observed, the country experienced liberal romps in 2006 and 2008, followed by the conservative counterpunch in 2010.

This 45-year whipsaw pattern is actually part of a longer 60-year trend, although that trend is neatly hidden behind the behavior of the seemingly fickle American voter. To explain, let us in fact go back 145 years. It took the United States, as Lincoln counted, fourscore and seven years to lay the crippling matters of slavery and secession to rest. The nation then began to live a relatively unimpeded version of the limited government, laissez-faire, individual liberty model envisioned by the Founders. That post-bellum state of affairs lasted roughly 35 years, during which time America became the freest, most prosperous, entrepreneurial, self-confident and powerful country that the world had perhaps ever seen. Every president during that period, Republican and Democratic (although Cleveland was the sole representative of the latter) subscribed to that philosophy. But the progressive movement, whose roots trace to European, Marxian socialism, invaded our shores at the end of the 19th century. For a 20-year period (1900-1920), the American people gave themselves over to its subversive charms. Every president during that period was counted among their numbers. Their legacy was the 16th, 17th and 18th Amendments to the Constitution (but to be fair, also the 19th), Wilson’s futile effort to “make the world safe for democracy,” a resurgent KKK, and the first test run for the collectivist, redistributionist, big government philosophy that has flowered so damagingly in the United States. Conservatives mounted a successful counterattack in the Roaring Twenties, but beginning in 1928 and not ending until at least 1952, liberalism reigned absolutely supreme in the US. Americans seemed to abandon their fealty to the Constitution and the Founders’ philosophy – followed so beneficially in 1865-1900 and 1920-1928 – and set off to remake the US into a social welfare state characterized by: big government, government-bestowed group rights, redistribution of wealth, anti-business policies and diminution of individual freedom.

However, thanks to Bill Buckley (and a few others), conservatives rediscovered their vision and their voice in the 1950s. Since that time the American public has grown slowly – alas, ever so slowly, and in some ways very fitfully – more conservative-minded. As more and more liberal programs came on line – and as each proved invariably a failure, damaging to society – the people slowly, painfully, reluctantly awakened to the danger that liberalism poses to the Republic. Occasionally, the electorate has thrown the liberals out on their derrieres (as in 1980, 1994 and 2010). But more often than is consistent with a conservative ascendancy theory, the liberals have been able to defend their electoral turf, retain Congress and/or the Presidency with regularity and consequently push – and periodically implement – their socialist programs. We have even experienced two extreme lurches to the left (comparable to those under Wilson and FDR) compliments of LBJ and the Barackster. Thus it is legitimate to ask: What is the evidence for the country’s gradual move to the right in the last half century; and why has it not been reflected in gradually improving electoral results for conservatives rather than the spasmodic episodes detailed above?

In answer to the first question, the evidence is two-fold. First there is the obvious change in voter self-identification. All recent polls reveal that twice as many people self-identify as conservative as the number who claim the liberal label. This has persisted, actually intensified in the last thirty years. While I have no hard data from the prior 30-year period, I lived it. I have no doubt that, while our affection for Ike and JFK was strong, our faith in Walter Cronkite was even stronger. We might not have articulated it well and we might have fooled ourselves that our political values were conservative, but in fact the vast majority of Americans were quite comfortable with the sweeping big government programs initiated in the 30s and 40s and institutionalized in the 50s and 60s. The second piece of evidence is more subtle. During their heyday – and culminating in a period (1960s and 1970s) when their peak had already passed – the liberals pulled off what can only be called a cultural coup. They took control not only of the Democratic Party, but also of the media, legal profession, government bureaucracy, educational system, public sector unions and the major foundations; in short, all the opinion-forming organs of American society. Despite their reputational collapse, liberals have been able to maintain that control. It is only in the last decade that the control has slipped a bit as the right finally began to confront the left’s domination of these segments of society. Given that control and for how long it has persevered, the fact that the right has survived – and even prospered on occasion – is dramatic testimony to a vibrant and growing conservative resurgence in America.

Now for the second question, whose answer is more complicated. What accounts for the oscillating voting pattern? If the story is one of steady, albeit exceedingly slow growth in the popularity of conservatism, why the see saw results in elections? This time the reasons are four-fold.

  • During the period 1928-1960 or perhaps even until 1980, the liberals steered the political center of gravity so far to the left, that the people lost sight of exactly where that center was. Voters thought they were dancing around the middle when in fact they were choosing between far left and moderately left alternatives.
  • One can argue that the right has drawn even in the last 30 years. But the advance has only been in the realm of ideas, philosophy and enthusiasm. In more concrete matters such as populating the bureaucracy, Election Day ground game or training the next generation of “soldiers and leaders,” the right is still woefully behind.
  • The RINO thing. The left has completely captured the Democratic Party. Sadly, the Republican Party is not guided exclusively by conservative ideas or individuals. People like McCain, the Bushes, Dole or Nixon are viewed as rock ribbed Republicans, but they are faux conservatives. The Tea Party might bring about a conservative conquest of the Republican Party, but until it does and all faux conservatives gravitate toward their natural home in the other party, the people will continue to be confused by the choices the Republican Party offers.
  • Finally, there is the point made strongly by Piereson. Namely, the liberal weltanschauung has been so deeply ingrained in government – e.g., people absolutely cannot conceive of a country without a government retirement plan (Social Security) or government health care (Medicare) – that to even contemplate a return to a conservative nature of government is unconsciously viewed as dangerous, even apocalyptic by substantial segments of the public.

It is due to the above causes that, despite a steadily growing conservative orientation in America, our elections have resulted in oscillatory outcomes. Unfortunately, a huge number of voters do not cast their ballots based exclusively on political philosophy. Subverted by the media (and the other liberal opinion-molding organs to which they are incessantly exposed), voters cannot escape the brainwashing, nor can they ignore their perceived self-interests and above all their emotions. Their elevation to the Presidency of a “hope and change” artist – one completely bereft of experience who only partially hid his radical background and inclinations – is proof of how people can succumb to such blandishments.

Yet, perhaps the accidental election of an, ultimately, anti-American president has been a blessing in disguise. The reaction to his blatantly socialist policies has certainly accelerated the move to the right in the United States. Whether this heralds a deeper, more permanent move or is just another oscillation will depend on the answer to the question posed in the title. Which brings me back to the three Spectator authors. First, I must dismiss the article by Conrad Black as unworthy of serious consideration. Black seems to believe that liberalism began in earnest under FDR and not with T. Roosevelt and Wilson, that FDR’s New Deal saved the nation from the Great Depression (hasn’t he read Amity Shlaes’ The Forgotten Man?), and that Nixon was a great conservative president. Ridiculous! More serious are the works by Tyrrell and Piereson. Tyrrell believes liberalism is indeed dead. He asserts: “Liberals are going the way of the American Prohibition Party. It is time for someone to tell them: ‘Rigor Mortis has set in comrades.’ ” But the publisher of the magazine, Alfred Regnery, injects a humorous note of caution in his introduction to the articles: “As for Tyrrell, it would be sweet if he were more accurate in his predictions than the New York Times, but I’m not sure I’d bet the ranch on it. (Besides, liberals have been the butt of so many Spectator jokes over the years it would be a shame if they just disappeared.” In fact I think the most trenchant of the contributors is Piereson:

If there is a single lesson liberals have learned through the decades, it is that the power and resources of the state can be used to build winning political coalitions. After nearly a century of this, liberalism and the groups associated with it have intertwined themselves with the day-to-day operations of government, implementing the programs they have managed to pass into law and organizing new voting groups around them. Liberalism is no longer merely a philosophy of government, as it was in the Progressive era, but rather an integral part of modern government itself, which is why it cannot be killed off despite failures in policy, lost arguments, or even by lost elections.

As the “party of government,” liberalism by degrees has attached itself to the state such that in many areas (education, welfare, the arts) and place (Sacramento, Albany, Washington, D.C), it can be difficult to distinguish between them. …Over the course of the 20th century it [Liberalism] succeeded in rewriting the Constitution, building political coalitions around public spending, insinuating itself within the interstices of government, and gaining control of key institutions that manufacture and legitimize political opinion. Today it has retreated into impregnable redoubts encircling the state from which positions it fights a defensive struggle against voter sentiment increasingly skeptical of its program of high taxes and public spending.

It is obvious, however, that liberalism can only prosper if it can continue to build coalitions through public spending, public borrowing, and publicly guaranteed credit. These are the resources that underwrite their institutional advantages. Should these resources dry up, as they are doing as a consequence of the long recession, liberalism will unwind as a political force as public programs are cut, public employees are let go, and retirement arrangements with public sector unions are renegotiated. In some public sector states, such outcomes now appear inevitable. Conservatives are in a position to hasten this process along by refusing to approve the spending, borrowing and federal bailouts that will be required to keep public sector liberalism afloat, though at the price of being blamed for the pain and suffering associated with its collapse. But this is undoubtedly a price worth paying to guide the nation through an adjustment that will otherwise take place later and under circumstances far less to anyone’s liking.

           

The unchallenged hegemony that the left enjoyed for so many years has allowed them to change the frame of reference and make the unholy trio of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid inviolable. They have bankrupted the country with their unsustainable entitlement house of cards, embedded so intricately into the very guts of government, that the death of liberalism – as welcome as it might be—could very well bring great pain to the American people. If it doesn’t die, the ultimate pain might be even greater.

____
This article also appeared in The Intellectual Conservative at