Category Archives: Government & Politics

Does John Roberts’ Capitulation Spell Doom for the US?

Anyone who engages in a competitive sport has experienced the moment when, even though the outcome of the match or game is theoretically still in doubt, the participants know absolutely who shall prevail. To look in your opponent’s eye and to see that he believes he cannot win brings an exhilarating satisfaction. By the same token, to see in your opponent’s visage the certainty that he will triumph is deflating beyond measure. Perhaps the most famous incident of such a moment in sport occurred in 1964 when, at the end of the sixth round, Sonny Liston peered across the ring at Cassius Clay and knew that his goose was cooked; so he dreamt up a phantom shoulder injury and conceded defeat.

Something similar often happens in the lifetime of a nation or a regime. The nation, or its present government, might appear to be sailing along smoothly, even successfully. But anyone paying attention realizes – generally because of one or more signature events that have happened recently, and because of the peoples’ and the government’s reaction to said events – that the regime (or nation) will not survive. The exact nature of the death scene might not be apparent, nor its timing; but its inevitability is assured and even those who recognize its imminence are powerless to prevent it.

A classic example is the Suez crisis of 1956, following which it was absolutely obvious that Great Britain’s three and a half century role as one of the paramount powers on the globe had come to an end. The nation did not disappear, but England had sunk to the level of a second rate power whose influence in the world was a mere shadow of its former scope. The monarchy continued, the Commonwealth limped along, England retained its permanent seat on the Security Council; but the entire world recognized that Britannia no longer ruled the waves, nor would it ever again.

At the opposite end of England’s reign one finds a moment when its predecessor surrendered the throne – i.e., the defeat of the Spanish Armada by Queen Elizabeth I’s forces in 1588, which marked the end of Spain’s century-long stretch as the world’s pre-eminent power. The Spanish ‘Empire’ lasted until the Treaties of Utrecht in 1713, or perhaps until Napoleon beat them up badly in the early 1800s, or maybe even until the US provided the final coup de grâce 90 years later. But three hundred years before San Juan Hill, Spain’s status as the major world power came to an end, and all knew it.

On the other hand, sometimes when the epiphanous moment occurs, it is not acknowledged, or if it is, its consequences are denied – making for an even more calamitous collapse in the long run. Two examples of the former are Nazi Germany immediately after the assault on Stalingrad stalled and Imperial Japan after the battle of Midway. Regarding the former, certainly many on Hitler’s staff – especially after America entered the fray – foresaw that the tide of the war would change. Some might have favored seeking a negotiated settlement with the Allied powers. But Hitler was blind to the tea leaves, and his was the only opinion that mattered. Had he entered negotiations for an armistice at that point, he might have salvaged some sort of regime – and millions of lives would have been spared. But he failed to recognize the inevitable.

Regarding Japan, in spite of having all the tactical advantages, the Japanese Navy was defeated at Midway, a mere six months after Pearl Harbor. Admiral Yamamoto – who is reputed to have seen the future accurately even as he planned the attack on Pearl Harbor – was in a distinct minority. Overall, Imperial Japanese militants failed to recognize that their war effort was doomed.

Two examples of the latter – i.e., where recognition occurs, but is ignored – are Lee after Gettysburg and Gorbachev after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Both saw the handwriting on the wall — one of them literally. But Lee was unable or unwilling to try to convince his superiors to sue for peace. And although Gorbachev clearly saw that he was playing a losing hand, he fooled himself about the coming total collapse of communism and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Unlike the German military staff or Yamamoto, neither of whom was in a position to change the history that they saw unfolding, both Lee and Gorbachev might have been in such a position.

A common thread in virtually all these scenarios is the presence of war. Indeed, the decisive moment in the death of a nation or a regime is often marked by a military event. But not always. The Brits were actually victorious in the brief 1956 Suez skirmish – admittedly against a vastly inferior foe. It was in the aftermath, in which Eisenhower unceremoniously and unconditionally ordered the English to withdraw, that it became clear that Great Britain – despite its former military élan – was now a zephyr compared to the US and no longer controlled its own fate.

Here are three more such existential moments that did not involve war at the defining instant:

  • When de Klerk freed Nelson Mandela, it was completely clear that the days of the apartheid regime in South Africa were numbered.
  • A hundred years ago, Argentina was poised to rival the US as an emerging entrepreneurial society. But then they fell off the track by experimenting with collectivist policies. The US left them in the dust. Then when they elected Juan Peron, the Argentineans sealed their fate as a statist and corrupt society.
  • It is hard to pinpoint a single event in the last 70 years that heralded the fall of Europe. But after 40 years of self-flagellation for the horrors that they inflicted upon themselves in two world wars, at some point in the last 30 years it became clear that Europe had totally lost faith in its culture, its heritage and its religion. (After all, another word for Europe for centuries was ‘Christendom.’) As the institutionalization of the European Union progressed, it became evident that the Europeans were basically committing political and cultural suicide.

Has the US just witnessed a defining moment? Does the betrayal of the conservative cause by Chief Justice John Roberts – a distinctly non-military event – qualify as such a moment for the US? Certainly some of the conservative pundits think so. And yet the right wing ether is full of hopeful articles about the ‘clever, ulterior’ motives of the Chief Justice and how in the end his ruling will redound to the advantage of the conservative cause. But anyone with his head screwed on straight recognizes that Roberts was intimidated by Obama and the mainstream media, and that he represents yet another in a long line of supposedly conservative Supreme Court justices who have defected to the liberal enemy. Moreover, this monumental surrender is indicative of a loss of faith – both by the people and by so-called conservative leaders – in the nation’s ability to reverse a century long slide into Euro-socialism.

Have we indeed passed the tipping point? It is not unreasonable to survey the wreckage inflicted on the nation since Reagan by progressives (Clinton, Obama) and faux conservatives (both Bushes), and thereby conclude that the Constitutional Republic known as America is doomed, and perhaps has already expired. Our economy is at best in a state of permanent semi-stagnation; our military capabilities are in sharp decline; the progressives control virtually all of the opinion-molding organs of society, which they use to brainwash the people; the federal debt is a major calamity that will wreak havoc very soon; our culture is saturated with pornography, drugs and violence, multiculturalism and secularism; we sit on the world’s greatest energy resources and we refuse to tap it; the federal behemoth consumes a fatal proportion of our GDP and regulates the minutiae of our lives; and worst of all, more than half the population is either oblivious to or favors these developments as evidenced by the, at least, 50-50 chance that it will compound the astounding error of 2008 and re-elect the only anti-American president in the nation’s 236-year history.

One could, on the other hand, claim that the preceding argument is excessively pessimistic. After all, our nation has experienced times of greater stress and weakness than the present: the Civil War, the Depression, the 60s and 70s when society seemed to be unraveling before our eyes. Moreover, as a stock broker said to me in 2010: ‘The market factored in Social Security; the market factored in Medicare; the market will factor in Obamacare.’ And perhaps he is right as clearly the market’s reaction to Roberts’ treachery has been mainly a yawn.

But perhaps the market’s yawn is not one of a large, successful and complex society simply digesting an alien body; but rather that of an organism meekly accepting the inevitability of its transformation under the influence of that foreign body.

I was extremely depressed by Roberts’ betrayal. But I tend to be a ‘glass is half empty’ kind of guy. For once, I am hoping that the glass is still half full.
______
This article also appeared in The Land of the Free at:

Inauspicious Beginning to the Most Important Election in Decades

The presidential nominees for the election this fall are set. The battle lines are drawn and the legions of supporters for each side are increasingly engaged. It is shaping up to be a monumental struggle, reflective of the fact – as we are told often by the pundits – that this is the most important election in decades. But if that is so, then why are the media and the campaigns largely focused on some of the most trivial, irrelevant and inconsequential issues?

The public is yearning to hear serious discussion of such weighty matters as: the federal deficit and debt; the role and size of government; the level and nature of taxes; the size and posture of the military; how to restore and grow the economy; the ongoing relevance of American exceptionalism and the reality of the American Dream for the future; whether the inspiration for our nation should continue to come from the Founding Fathers or instead from late 19th/early 20th century European progressives; and which ideals America should pursue – liberty, opportunity and responsibility or equality, fairness and entitlement.

Instead we are treated to a diet of pathetic platitudes on peripheral problems of little import, which shed no light on the fundamental issues that do indeed make this the most consequential election since 1980, or perhaps since 1936, or maybe 1912, or 1860, could it be 1800, or conceivably ever.

The media coverage of the campaigns is saturated with ridiculous stories about: what the candidates did as adolescents; events in their parents’ or grandparents’ lives; whether their wives are admirable or not; how many bucks they’ve accumulated in their lives, and how; whom they hung around with in their past; how assiduously they pursue their religion; and various other personal minutiae, which, while interesting, is not at all what makes the selection between them of such great moment.

Of course, the answers to these questions tell us something about the character of the candidates, and that is important – but not absolutely critical. We’ve had scoundrels who were presidents of great consequence (Jefferson, FDR) as well as megalomaniacs who were flops (Nixon, LBJ) and others in between (Clinton). We’ve had paragons of virtue who succeeded spectacularly (Washington, Lincoln, Coolidge), failed miserably (Carter, Hoover) or landed somewhere in between (Ford, Truman). Let us grant that Obama and Romney are men of good character. Much more importantly, the people are desperate to understand where they truly stand on the grave issues that confront the nation, which policies they plan to implement to address those issues, and what qualities of leadership they possess that will enable them to do so successfully.

In fact, when the media does finally move from character matters to the issues, we are treated to:

  • the “war on women”
  • amnesty for the children of illegal immigrants
  • gay marriage
  • the availability of contraception
  • fast and furious
  • the Arab spring
  • White House security leaks.

Again, these are interesting, but they do not strike at the essence of the existential choice that awaits us. The first four (of these seven) are imaginary issues, promoted by the left; the last three, while quite serious, are advanced by the right as a means to embarrass the Obama administration. The absolutely critical issues outlined in the opening paragraph receive scant attention, while the above seven of lesser – or no – importance get most of the ink. How does this come to pass?

The answer for the first group is simple. Obama has been revealed as the incompetent, inexperienced, hardcore leftist that he is. Rather than unite the country behind a post-partisan, pragmatic, problem solver as he advertised himself – and as far too many Americans naively assumed him to be; he has plunged the country into a statist, debt-ridden, economically stagnant, environmentally hysterical, energy-starved, militarily ambivalent funk that has endangered the nation, and especially its children. It is a record that must be ignored if he is to secure a second term. And his treacherous allies in the media are most happy to accommodate him. Thus they attempt to keep the focus of the campaign on peripheral issues that can be twisted to Obama’s advantage.

The accidental complicity of the right in this dreadful game is more surprising. The media strategy outlined above keeps them off balance. Instead of concentrating on the main issues that would galvanize the voters’ attention, they waste time and resources addressing the trivia that the media tosses at them. Perhaps more out of pique than planning, the right doesn’t counter with a bold treatment of the crucial issues, but instead it lobs bombs of its own (like the above three) designed to make Obama look bad. Even if these gain some traction with the voters, it distracts them from the critical issues that should decide the election.

Obama and his cronies in the media will not cease to raise absurd issues, divorced from his atrocious record of the last three and a half years, and designed to pander to various special groups that he believes can ensure his re-election. Romney and his cohort need to avoid the trap of meeting Obama on the stage he has invented for the battle. Romney and supporters like Paul Ryan clearly have some good ideas for reversing the downward spiral instigated by Obama and his leftist minions. It is those ideas that Romney should be pressing on the American electorate. The voters are smart enough to separate bold solutions to critical problems from the silly smoke puffed out by the Obama men to divert attention away from his dismal record.
_________
This article also appeared in The Intellectual Conservative at:
 as well as in The Land of the Free at:

Which is More Dangerous: Obama’s Head or Obama’s Heart?

Two of the more fascinating reads published recently are Mark Levin’s Ameritopia and Dennis Prager’s Still the Best Hope. Both provide penetrating analysis on why a century of progressivism has propelled the USA to the brink of a national catastrophe. And both offer a compelling vision of a return to bedrock conservatism as the only and obvious solution to the economic and cultural calamities that barely checked liberalism has bestowed upon the nation. Each author writes with great passion, as exemplified in the following typical excerpts:

Levin. America today is not strictly a constitutional republic because the Constitution has been and continues to be easily altered by a judicial oligarchy that mostly enforces, if not expands, federal power. It is not strictly a representative republic, because so many edicts are produced by a maze of administrative departments that are unknown to the public and detached from its sentiment. It is not strictly a federal republic, because the states that gave the central government life now live at its behest. America is becoming, and in significant ways has become, a post-constitutional, democratic utopia of sorts. It exists behind a Potemkin-like image of constitutional republicanism. Its essential elements and unique features are being ingurgitated by an insatiable federal government that seeks to usurp and displace the civil society.

The Founders would be appalled at the nature of the federal government’s transmutation and the squandering of the American legacy. The federal government has become the nation’s largest creditor, debtor, lender, employer, consumer, contractor, grantor, property owner, tenant, insurer, health-care provider, and pension guarantor. Its size and reach are vast. Its interventions are illimitable.

Prager. This book delineates with scores of examples the toxic impact Left-wing thought and actions have had on civilization. From the far Left – with its virtually unparalleled mass murders and totalitarianism – to the democratic Left, nearly every area of life that the Left has influenced has been adversely affected. The culture has been debased, from the fine arts with their scatological exhibits and contempt for beauty and excellence, to the popular culture’s nearly omnipresent vulgarity. Education has been corrupted, with students learning less and propagandized more. Economies have been wrecked by the irresponsible accumulation of debt, almost entirely a result of government expansion and entitlement programs. Masculinity and femininity have been rendered archaic concepts. The will to fight evil has been almost eradicated in the Western world outside the United States. The moral character of great numbers of people has been negatively affected … [by] the effects of the welfare state on the character of citizens. And in the United States the Left has marshaled its influence in schools and universities, labor unions, news media, entertainment media, and the arts to undermine the bases of Americanism – liberty, small government, God-based ethics, and E Pluribus Unum.

The authors’ passionate arguments lead them to very similar conclusions. However, there is a major difference in the approaches of the two works. Levin emphasizes the flawed political and economic theories that animate the progressive agenda. He explains how four fundamentally utopian fantasies (Plato’s Republic, Thomas More’s Utopia, Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan and Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto) have provided the political playbook from which liberals over the last century have drawn their inspiration and hatched their strategies. Prager, on the other hand, attributes much of the motivation for liberal initiatives to a reaction to the innate feelings that progressives have about the issues that confront the nation. Rather than follow a specific blueprint for ‘hope and change,’ progressives are inclined, according to Prager, to follow their feelings about how things should be, why they are not and how to bring them about.

Of course, whether they heed their head or their heart, liberals advance their progressive agenda in the face of overwhelming evidence that their statism results in: high unemployment, decreased productivity, diminished freedom, cultural decay, inadequate defense capabilities, entrenched poverty, and the erosion of family, community and the pillars of civil society. Now the most important progressive operating in the US today is President Obama. Any self-respecting conservative – and one would hope, any objective American who is not hypnotized by leftist propaganda – is appalled at the economic and cultural carnage thrust upon the country by the Obama administration. His removal from office is mandatory if the country is to be rescued from the pit toward which he is driving us with reckless abandon. Therefore, to maximize the chances of that eventuality, it would be helpful to know exactly what motivates the President – his head or his heart?

Levin and Prager are in apparent agreement that the progressive portion of America comes in two flavors – intellectuals and, for lack of a better term, ordinary foot soldiers. The former consists of professors, lawyers, school administrators, Hollywood glitterati, liberal think tank leaders, librarians, journalists, most media types, certain philanthropists, many clergy and even some corporate moguls. These are people who are true believers in Levin’s four utopian (actually dystopian) fantasies; people who are convinced that America’s founding was based on flawed principles, and that the country must be remodeled according to a more progressive image. The insidious nature of their venture is that they pursue their revolutionary goals using the language and tools of the Founding (the Constitution, the invocation of freedom, appeals to rights), but at every turn, they subvert founding principles to serve their revolutionary purpose. The danger they pose to the Republic springs from the transformational plans in their heads.

Progressives who lead with their heart, on the other hand, tend to be “ordinary” Americans – government employees, union laborers, school teachers and secretaries, cops and cab drivers, farmers, firemen and factory workers – who feel  that rich people have too much and more of their wealth should be spread around. They’ve never read Levin’s four utopian fantasies and rarely, if ever, think about the philosophical characteristics of progressivism or conservatism. Throughout their entire life, they have been subjected to a progressive programming (really a brainwashing) carried out by their teachers, public officials, union leaders, media sources, liberal clergy and even their parents. They are clueless as to the radical alteration that American society has already undergone. What they do know is: they are uncomfortable with perceived inequities in American society; the government has had success in the past at alleviating the discrepancies; but much more needs to be done in that vein. They have been told, and they believe that America’s economic system, i.e., free market capitalism, while it offers the opportunity for a few to amass great wealth, keeps most citizens – like themselves – in a perpetual state of stress trying to meet monthly bills, perform satisfactorily on the job, provide adequate sustenance for one’s family and find some time to enjoy life.

Moreover, such thinking infects the substantial portion of the population that does not consider itself progressive. As Prager relates, the pervasive liberal brainwashing to which all of America is subject explains how, despite the fact that only 20% of the people self-identify as liberal – whereas 40% self-identify as conservative, and another 40% as moderate – a hardcore, unabashed liberal like Barack Obama could be elected President.

Obama is clearly from the intellectual class, not a foot soldier. So the answer to the question posed in the title is presumably that his head is more dangerous than his heart. Ah, but here is a point that is mentioned, but not emphasized in both books. Namely, the heart of an intellectual progressive is every bit as devoted to the progressive cause as is his head. Progressives are absolutely convinced of the correctness of their philosophy and the justice of their cause. Therefore, the legitimacy and necessity of the remake of society that they seek to engineer – and at which they have been remarkably successful – is so deeply ingrained in the fiber of their being that it is inevitable that their feelings about the cause are as strong, if not stronger, than they are among the foot soldiers. In principle, one can argue with and try to persuade a progressive of the error of his philosophy if his motivation is solely intellectual. But if the impetus is internalized and abetted by powerful feelings, then – as anyone who has tried knows – arguing with a progressive is a futile exercise.

So a final word to conservatives. When criticizing Obama, it is pointless to attack his feelings, preferences or motivations. The feelings are ingrained and will not change. Moreover, attacks on his personality or character are likely to be a turn off for “moderate” or undecided voters. Instead, it is Obama’s progressive philosophy that should be squarely in the cross hairs. At this point, at least half the voting public recognizes progressive policies for the disaster they represent. Conservatives only need to convince a few more undecided voters of the danger posed by Obama’s head – and his heart – should he gain a second term. By attacking progressive principles, and by providing beneficial conservative alternatives, Mitt and the GOP should be able to chase Obama from the White House without breaking a sweat.
____
This article — without the quotes from Levin and Prager — appeared in The American Thinker at:
 and in The Land of the Free at:

Another Home Run by Mark Levin

A Review of Mark Levin’s Ameritopia

Mark Levin has knocked it out of the park again. Following his 2009 blockbuster best seller, Liberty and Tyranny, Levin’s latest book, Ameritopia, is another brilliant depiction of the stark differences confronting America as it chooses between liberty and tyranny. Levin’s 2009 book adopted a political/cultural perspective. Through an examination of signature issues – such as the Constitution, federalism, the free market, the welfare state, environmentalism, immigration and faith – Levin explained the disjoint points of view of those who favor liberty as opposed to those who prefer equality, security and “fairness.” He described how the latter inevitably leads to tyranny (following on the ideas of several potent thinkers, most notably, Friedrich Hayek). Not surprisingly, Levin identified those in the former camp as devotees of conservatism, while those in the latter represent liberalism or progressivism or – the more charged term that Levin has helped to popularize – statism.

In his new book, Levin adopts a more philosophical, even spiritual tone. He seeks to identify the underlying philosophy that explains the gravitation of an individual toward either of these epic movements. What fundamental beliefs or inclinations, he asks, impel one to the statist point of view, or alternatively to the viewpoint in which liberty is to be cherished above all else in the political realm? For the former, Levin asserts that the fundamental philosophy that underlies the progressive/statist mindset is utopianism. The statist believes that mankind’s nature is not immutable, but rather perfectible and that society can continuously progress to higher states of equality, fairness and social justice – culminating in a utopian vision of human and societal perfection. This trek must be led by wise experts, embodied in a benevolent, enlightened and extremely powerful government that guides – even if at times, forcefully – the society and its people toward a state of perfection.

Levin identifies four primary sources from which statists derive their utopian inspiration: Plato’s Republic, Thomas More’s Utopia, Thomas Hobbe’s Leviathan and Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto. In an amazing tour de force of historical and philosophical analysis, Levin relates the ideas expressed in these four utopian visions to the current thinking of statists such as those that populate the Obama administration.

Those who prize liberty over social progress are not grounded in the ideas of equality, fairness and social justice. Rather they see humans as flawed creatures who over millennia of experimentation have learned through vast experience the best methods to help them achieve a life of freedom, opportunity and prosperity. In particular, they emphasize faith, family, community, impartial rule of law, free enterprise and above all a strictly limited government that rules purely at the consent of the governed and whose primary (and, in some sense, sole) responsibility is to protect the people’s natural rights – which are inalienable and granted by Nature and Nature’s God, not by government.

Levin cites many philosophers who are the source of these ideas – e.g., Edmund Burke, Frédéric Bastiat, William Blackstone, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison; but he reserves a special place for Montesquieu, Locke and Tocqueville. Once again, through a brilliant historical analysis, Levin traces how these seminal thinkers and espousers of liberty influenced America’s founding and its history, and how they continue to inspire modern conservatives.

Levin writes with great force, clarity and conviction. Here is just a small sample of some of his most profound comments:

…the individual’s right to live freely and safely and pursue happiness includes the right to benefit from the fruits of his own labor. As the individual’s time on earth is finite, so too is his labor. The illegitimate denial or diminution of his labor – that is, the involuntary deprivation of the private property he accumulates from his intellectual and/or physical efforts – is a form of servitude and, hence, immoral.

…America today is not strictly a constitutional republic, because the Constitution has been and continues to be easily altered by a judicial oligarchy that mostly enforces, if not expands, federal power. It is not strictly a representative republic, because so many edicts are produced by a maze of administrative departments that are unknown to the public and detached from its sentiment. It is not strictly a federal republic, because the states that gave the central government life now live at its behest. America is becoming, and in significant ways has become, a post-constitutional, democratic utopia of sorts. It exists behind a Potemkin-like image of constitutional republicanism. Its essential elements and unique features are being ingurgitated by an insatiable federal government that seeks to usurp and displace the civil society.

The Founders would be appalled at the nature of the federal government’s transmutation and the squandering of the American legacy. The federal government has become the nation’s largest creditor, debtor, lender, employer, consumer, grantor, property owner, tenant, insurer, health-care provider, and pension guarantor. Its size and reach are vast. Its interventions are illimitable.

[This] is to endorse the magnificence of the American founding. The American founding was an exceptional exercise in collective human virtue and wisdom – a culmination of thousands of years of experience, knowledge, reason and faith. The Declaration of Independence is a remarkable societal proclamation of human rights, brilliant in its insight, clarity and conciseness. The Constitution of the United States is an extraordinary matrix of governmental limits, checks, balances, and divisions, intended to secure for posterity the individual’s sovereignty as proclaimed in the Declaration.

This is the grand heritage to which every American is born. It has been characterized as “the America Dream,” “the American experiment,” and “American exceptionalism.” The country has been called “the Land of Opportunity,” “the Land of Milk and Honey,” and “a Shining City on a Hill.” It seems unimaginable that a people so endowed by Providence, and the beneficiaries of such unparalleled human excellence, would choose or tolerate a course that ensures their own decline and enslavement, for a government unleashed on the civil society is a government that destroys the nature of man.

Levin writes beautifully, but also somewhat pessimistically. He ended the first book with what he called a Conservative Manifesto. This was an ambitious program through which conservatives could recapture the national conversation from the progressive/statist domination under which the USA has suffered for 50-100 years. In fact, Levin outlines scores of concrete steps that he felt needed to be taken not just to control the conversation, but indeed to restore the nation to its founding principles of liberty and thereby prevent the seemingly inexorable slide into a statist tyranny toward which he saw it plunging. He ended with a quote from Reagan and a plea:

President Reagan said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States when men were free.” We conservatives need to get busy.

The unmistakable tone though was that he expected the people to actually take up the task; furthermore, he was fairly optimistic that conservatives would triumph.

I fear that in the three years between the two books, Levin’s optimism as to whether his manifesto can or will be implemented has waned. Hs writing skills and keen insight remain intact. But his assessment of America’s future is bleaker. He again concludes with a quote from Reagan, this time followed by a question:

…in his first inaugural address President Reagan told the American people: If we look to the answer as to why for so many years we have achieved so much, prospered as no other people on earth, it was because here in this land we unleashed the energy and individual genius of man to a greater extent than has ever been done before. Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available and assured here than in any other place on earth. The price for this freedom has been at times high, but we have never been unwilling to pay that price. It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government. It is time for us to realize that we are too great a nation to limit ourselves to small dreams. We’re not, as some would have us believe, doomed to an inevitable decline. I do not believe in a fate that will fall on us no matter what we do. I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing.” So my fellow countrymen, which do we choose, Ameritopia or America?

Alas, previous words betray his concern at the answer.

The essential question is whether, in America, the people’s psychology has been so successfully warped, the individual’s spirit so thoroughly trounced, and the civil society’s institutions so effectively overwhelmed that revival is possible. Have too many among us already surrendered or been conquered? Can the people overcome the constant and relentless influences of ideological indoctrination, economic manipulation, and administrative coerciveness, or have they become hopelessly entangled in and dependent on a ubiquitous federal government? Have the Pavlovian appeals to radical egalitarianism, and the fomenting of jealousy and faction through class warfare and collectivism, conditioned the people to accept or even demand compulsory uniformity as just and righteous? Is it accepted and routine that the government has sufficient license to act whenever it claims to do so for the good of the people and against the selfishness of the individual?

No society is guaranteed perpetual existence. But I have to believe that the American people are not ready for servitude, for if this is our destiny, and the destiny of our children, I cannot conceive that any people, now or in the future, will successfully resist it for long. I have to believe that this generation of Americans will not condemn future generations to centuries of misery and darkness.

Perhaps if enough people read Ameritopia and take it to heart, Levin’s implicit pessimism will prove unfounded.
___
This review also appeared in The Intellectual Conservative at:
as well as in The Land of the Free at:

Repairing Our Republic: Is Anyone Serious About the Effort?

The reasons for the dismay of those on the right are easy to state. In short, they see an ongoing, and in some ways, accelerating erosion of the political philosophy and cultural mores that strongly defined the nation from the eighteenth century until the beginning of the twentieth.

When reporting the results of exit polls in Republican presidential primaries, the media often offers up the numbers according to various groupings. Common categories that are meant to identify the different components of the right wing of the Republican Party include: Tea Party supporters, those who consider themselves very conservative and Evangelical Christians. Many in these far from disjoint camps, as well as some libertarians, are of the opinion that the fundamental political/cultural structure of the country is broken. This is a serious accusation – one that is likely to be ridiculed by those on the left and which, in addition, will probably mystify those in the middle.

The purpose here is to explain why those who believe that the Republic is in need of repair feel as they do; then to describe why liberals consider the charge ridiculous, and also what accounts for the puzzlement in the middle. Lastly, the question of whether any conservative political or cultural leaders are really attempting to change the country’s progressive politics and corrupted culture is taken up.

The reasons for the dismay of those on the right are easy to state. In short, they see an ongoing, and in some ways, accelerating erosion of the political philosophy and cultural mores that strongly defined the nation from the eighteenth century until the beginning of the twentieth. The original political philosophy emphasized individual liberty as the raison d’être for the US, to be achieved via: separation and strict enumeration of powers in a representative, but sharply limited government; equality before the law; federalism; and sovereignty of the people, not the government. The cultural mores embraced: free markets; American exceptionalism; strong families and communities; pursuit and promotion of virtues like modesty, honesty, industriousness and tolerance; strong morals grounded in religious faith; and rugged individualism.

This entire program has been under relentless assault by progressives for a century and – sad to say – they have been remarkably successful in undermining it. Those who believe that the original political/cultural structure of the nation has been drastically altered see, in its stead: a gargantuan federal government that is bankrupting the nation via profligate, irresponsible spending and crippling its markets via obtrusive, irrational and counterproductive regulation; liberty sacrificed before the alter of equality and fairness; the vassalization of the States by an exceedingly powerful central government; infidelity to the Constitution; a land of opportunity morphing into an entitlement society; the denigration of American history; the destruction of the family through the encouragement of promiscuity, out of wedlock conception and same-sex marriage; marginalization of religion and its virtual banishment from the national discourse. The list could be extended, but one can sum up with the observation that early twenty first century America looks less and less like the society envisioned by Locke, Montesquieu, Jefferson or Madison – to whose ideals we were faithful for more than a century – and more and more like a Euro-style, social welfare state in which a massive, benignly-intentioned, but tyrannical central government dominates the lives of its citizens. In the process, said government destroys liberty, hobbles the economy, weakens the nation’s defenses and corrupts the people’s morals. That is not the country for which our forefathers pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor.

Any liberal who reads the preceding would deem its author at best sadly mistaken and at worst completely daft. Liberals/progressives are motivated by the conviction that while the society established by our Founders might have been appropriate for a small, agrarian, homogeneous country in the eighteenth century, it is completely inadequate for the governance of a third millennium nation that is vast, diverse and post-industrial. Anyway, the original structure was deeply flawed by its acquiescence to slavery, ill treatment of women, jingoistic patriotism and neglect of the downtrodden. The changes that the Progressive movement has brought to America have made it a fairer, more just and enlightened society. Conservatives indulge their reactionary fantasies when they envision a return to “founding principles.” Au contraire, we must strive to perfect America further by completing the progressive tasks left unfinished thus far.

And then there are those “in the middle” who either rue or are mystified by one or both of the two opposite points of view just enumerated. They consider hardcore conservatives or dyed-in-the-wool liberals to be extreme. They see some value – and much craziness – in both sides and feel that the correct course is to select what is beneficial to the country from each and disregard the rest.

The author considers himself on the right (not to mention in the right). I see the country’s structure as broken and I believe that the continuing progressive onslaught will eventually – if it has not already – destroy the constitutional republic established by the Founders. But in some ways my greatest scorn is reserved for the puzzled folks in the middle. The lefties have a clear vision of where they want to take the country. They are tragically wrong in their goals and it will be our ruination if they succeed. But they are clear-headed about their aims. The moderates, centrists and independents are, on the other hand, either confused, apathetic or inattentive. They try to tread a line in between traditionalists and radicals. But the visions of the left and right are irreconcilable and it is logically incoherent to attempt to blend them or cherry pick from between them. In fact, because the national conversation has been so skewed to the left for so long, the mystified middlemen wind up, in the end, the unwitting accomplices of the left in the implementation of the Progressive agenda. It is clearly, therefore, an urgent task for rightists to help the centrists to see the tea leaves as they truly are – and to convince them of the justice of the cause of restoring America’s original political/cultural structure.

So is that happening? Are there any conservative political or cultural leaders who see the situation clearly and are attempting to do something about it? Among the “final four,” not so much. Gingrich represents those who understand, but who are so undisciplined, quixotic or self-aggrandizing that they are willing to subvert the cause by sitting on the couch with Nancy Pelosi. Santorum represents those who are sincere, but also basically clueless about the opposition. If they gained influence and power, they wouldn’t know what to do with it. (OK, Santorum has dropped out; but “final three” is not so catchy.) Then there is Paul, who understands, but whose solutions only address half the problem. His policies in pursuit of the other half might make matters worse. Finally, Romney, an “establishment Republican,” might actually understand but fears that expressing such an understanding is neither a means to power nor a way to exercise it should he get it.

There are indeed some who are trying valiantly: Paul Ryan, Jim DeMint, Mike Pence among the politicians; various pundits like Rush Limbaugh; business executives such as the Koch brothers; entertainers like Jon Voight; and Foundation heads like Edwin Feulner (Heritage), Edward Crane (Cato) and Arthur Brooks (American Enterprise Institute). But I am not so sure that the people want to be led where these conservative leaders would take them. The Founders were great leaders. But they took the people where the people already wanted to go. If there is to be a conservative restoration, it can only come about if the people wish it. Unfortunately, for several generations, the people have been subjected to a progressive brainwashing by the mainstream media and government-controlled public schools. Perhaps that is where conservative leaders need to focus their efforts.