Category Archives: Government & Politics

King Kennedy

Ruminations on Justice Anthony Kennedy, who virtually holds the fate of the US in his hands

The well-respected columnist Charles Krauthammer recently referred to Justice Anthony Kennedy as “essentially the reigning monarch of the United States.” This reference to Justice Kennedy’s presumed exalted stature derives from his long-held position as the unique swing man on the Supreme Court. The Court is – as it has been for a while – comprised of four reliably conservative justices (currently Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas) and four equally reliable liberal justices (currently Bader-Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan). In the last two decades, Kennedy has joined one or the other group to decide some of the weightiest issues confronting the nation by a slim 5-4 majority. Examples wherein Kennedy has sided with the conservatives include: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010, campaign finance) and District of Columbia v. Heller (2009, gun control). On the other hand, Kennedy joined the liberal coterie in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992, abortion).

This ongoing history wherein Kennedy provides the deciding vote on issues of paramount importance before the Court is expected to continue with the forthcoming decision on Obamacare. Following the almost unprecedented three-day long oral arguments before the Court on the merits of President Obama’s signature legislation, expert opinion was nearly unanimous that the Court’s ideological pattern will hold, and that the deciding vote will be cast by “King Anthony.” It will be virtually his decision alone as to whether the individual mandate is constitutional, and if not, then whether the entire statute is to be thrown out.

Now, while the previously cited 5-4 decisions were all vitally important, it is widely believed that the upcoming decision on Obamacare eclipses them by far. Indeed, many conservatives consider the matter existential for the nation – the failure to overturn Obamacare will spell the doom of America as a constitutional Republic based on individual liberty and limited government.

So, with the awesome power and responsibility that thereby accrues to him, is it correct – as Krauthammer implies, and numerous others have asserted more pointedly – that the fate of the United States of America rests in the hands of Justice Anthony Kennedy?

Before the answer to that question is revealed, consider whether such a situation has ever existed in the past. Has the fate of our country truly ever rested in the hands of a single individual? And if so, who and how many times?

The answer is: America’s fate has indeed been entrusted unto the hands of a single person – more than once. It would be foolhardy to argue that George Washington was not such a person. The outcome of the Revolutionary War – and consequently, whether the USA would be stillborn or not – was completely dependent on the skill, courage, wisdom and leadership of General Washington. Without him at the helm of the Continental Army, there would have been no United States of America. The same is true of Abraham Lincoln. Had he not been president and dealt successfully (albeit perhaps a little too slowly) with the southern revolt, the nation would have been cleaved in two.

The preceding cases are self-evident. For other presidents, the issue is much less clear. For example, one could argue that had it not been for FDR’s leadership, the Axis powers might have triumphed and our nation could have succumbed to totalitarian evil. (But see below.) Some consider that JFK’s combination of steely nerves and cool composure kept the nuclear genie in the bottle in 1962. Perhaps.

One can make equally, if not more compelling cases for Generals Grant, Lee and Eisenhower. If Lincoln had not elevated Grant and had the latter not been so skilled a warrior, the Civil War might have ended in a stalemate and the USA would have fractured. The same might have occurred had Lee been a more skilled and/or ruthless commander than he proved to be. And perhaps it wasn’t FDR who saved Western Civilization nearly 70 years ago, but rather Ike’s extraordinary leadership and command capabilities.

Some would argue for FDR, not because of his role in WWII, but rather because his economic programs during the Depression saved the United States. However, with the passage of time, we have learned that, on the contrary, FDR’s New Deal prolonged the Depression rather than ended it. But one can argue that certain financial giants did indeed hold the fate of the nation in their hands: Haym Solomon during the Revolutionary War; J.P. Morgan during the Panic of 1907; or Andrew Mellon during the early 1920s following the Depression of 1920-21.

Presidents, generals and mega-financiers – but no judges. John Marshall did much to determine the role that the Constitution and the Court would play in the young nation’s life. And we have had other influential jurists (e.g., Story, Holmes, Warren), but no one ever asserted that they held the fate of the nation in their hands. Is Anthony Kennedy the first judge to do so?

No liberal would subscribe to that notion. Should Kennedy decide to ditch Obamacare, liberals will be sorely disappointed. But they will see it as a temporary setback on the long road to converting America into a collectivist, Euro-style welfare state. Liberals/progressives believe in such a transformation, have worked tirelessly for it for a century, have enjoyed remarkable success and expect to complete the metamorphosis. They anticipate that Obama (if he is reelected) or some successor, together with a compliant Court, will finish the transformation. Such people account for perhaps 20-25% of the country.

An equal number, perhaps somewhat more – that is, those of the conservative persuasion – are mortified at the prospect. They see a federal government that is out of control; racking up unsustainable debt; engaging in unchecked regulatory oppression; dismantling the country’s defenses and denying the exceptional character of its nature. They see Obamacare as the tipping point, beyond which it will be impossible to reverse America’s century-long slide into Euro-socialism. They foresee an inevitable loss of American exceptionalism, individual liberty and free market capitalism. For these people, there is no doubt that America’s fate is at the mercy of King Kennedy’s whim.

But what of the rest – the independents, moderates, centrists? In fact, given the starkly different and irreconcilable visions for America espoused by the left and right, the centrists are arguably either confused, apathetic or inattentive. It appears not to occur to them that their children’s fate will be determined by what the King decides. But the King will decide soon. Should he decide in favor of the progressives, it will not take long to see whether the dire consequences predicted by conservatives come to fruition. But should he go the other way, then one can hope that it will signal the end of the progressive slide and the beginning of a return to a more traditional America. With those diametrically opposed possible outcomes, it is clear that, indeed, Anthony Kennedy holds the fate of the nation in his hands.

______
This article also appeared in The American Thinker at:
and also in The Land of the Free at:

 

How Did Santorum Become the Last Mole Standing?,

An examination of how, unexpectedly, Rick Santorum became the last threat to Mitt Romney’s acquisition of the Republican presidential nomination

 

In a previous post in this blog in November, 2011, the process of selecting a Republican presidential candidate to oppose Barack Obama was described as a combination of American Idol and Whack-a-Mole. The contestants compete in preliminary popularity rounds and the people vote via opinion polls. The last idol standing will be the nominee. But during the process, different candidates pop their heads out of their holes, only to be whacked back down by the media. It’s enough to make one pine for smoke-filled rooms.

The “mole” who poked his head out of his hole in November was Newt Gingrich. In fact, at the time, Newt looked to be the last non-Romney mole. But Newt was not only whacked back into his hole by the media; he was literally bludgeoned down into it by a surprisingly vicious and remarkably effective attack by Romney and his Super PAC.

According to the narrative in the article, that should have been the end of the nomination story. Previously whacked moles (Pawlenty, Cain, Bachmann, Perry) had been erased from the chase and the other moles (Paul, Santorum, Huntsman, Johnson) were deemed to be of such minor importance that they could be safely ignored. The latter assessment turned out to be accurate for Huntsman and Johnson, and in the end for Paul also – but somehow, in a development that was unforeseen, and as yet unexplained, Rick Santorum morphed into a viable mole and now represents the only meaningful challenger to Romney. How did this come about? Can Santorum really defeat Romney? And if so, what does it portend for a Santorum-Obama contest?

Most pundits did not foresee the emergence of Santorum as a major candidate for the GOP nomination. The fact that he was slaughtered in a swing state (Pennsylvania) in his last Senate run seemed enough to disqualify him from serious consideration. But on top of that there were: his whiny personality; his betrayal of the bona fide conservative Toomey in favor of the turncoat Specter; his undistinguished record in the Senate; his lack of executive experience; and his views on social issues – which, while perhaps more mainstream than portrayed by the media, were often stated in an extreme fashion that made him anathema to moderate voters. His placement at the end of the line in candidate debates seemed appropriate and it was expected that he would disappear from the scene in short order.

But he didn’t. Why? Here are five reasons:

  1. Santorum had the accidental good fortune to be hidden from – and therefore immune to – the mudslinging by his fellow candidates. While Romney was bashing Gingrich, and Perry was trashing Romney and everyone was marginalizing Paul, no one was paying any attention to poor Rick. So while he was not gaining any traction, he was also not driven from the race. Huntsman and Johnson were similarly ignored. But Johnson was never a serious candidate. And his views were already covered by the better known Paul. Huntsman might have considered himself a serious candidate, but virtually no one else did. His social views were far too liberal, his financial acumen was eclipsed by Romney’s and the taint of working for Obama rendered him totally unacceptable.
  2. Santorum was ignored not only by his fellow candidates, but also by the media. The mainstream media concentrated on diminishing anyone that it feared might pose a threat to Obama (including Romney, Gingrich, Perry and, to a lesser extent, Cain and Bachmann). But the media didn’t see Santorum as a cause for worry (because he clearly could not get the nomination), so they ignored him. Again, this did nothing to promote Rick’s candidacy, but it also did nothing to scuttle it.
  3. Santorum benefitted from the fact that the overall field was weak. Individuals that many thought might make the most formidable candidates (Paul Ryan, Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Haley Barbour, and even Donald Trump or Sarah Palin or General Petraeus) chose not to run. What remained was considered a not terribly distinguished field. Thus Santorum did not suffer by comparison.
  4. The leading candidate could not close the deal. This notion has been well covered – Mitt Romney did not generate much enthusiasm among hardcore conservatives. Therefore, despite his money and organization, he was not able to run away with the nomination. This left the door open for others, like Santorum, to hang around.
  5. Two new features of the nomination process helped Santorum: (i) proportional selection of delegates – which guaranteed a protracted contest; and (ii) the existence of Super PACs, which enabled a small number of wealthy donors to keep a candidacy afloat.

Even though the overall field was weak, there were three – perhaps four – candidates with the requisite credentials that should have banished Santorum to the sidelines long ago: Romney, Perry, Pawlenty and perhaps Gingrich. The first three had robust executive experience, a successful record as such, adequate backing and a reasonable personality. Gingrich is less well-endowed with these qualities, but as the debates revealed, he exhibits exceptional intelligence and creativity. However, Gingrich is also undisciplined and quixotic. Furthermore, Perry’s performance at the debates was so horrible that he completely disqualified himself; and Pawlenty didn’t do much better as he came across as small-minded and mean-spirited. It’s not surprising that Cain and Bachmann are gone – they were not serious candidates, and although each had a brief moment in the sun, neither had a path to the nomination. Paul, who represents the roughly 10% (perhaps less) of the electorate that is libertarian, is trolling for delegates in the hope of having some influence on the nominee and/or platform at the convention. His marginalization is appropriate. And as for Romney, just about everything has been said about his inability to quickly seal the deal – for reasons that are well known.

So the GOP is left with the last non-Romney – whiny, unaccomplished Rick Santorum. He has no executive experience, a less than endearing personality, no sterling political accomplishments in his résumé and is easily painted as an extreme social conservative. Romney will probably eventually prevail – his Illinois victory this week is more of a harbinger than Santorum’s two southern victories last week. But if Rick somehow does manage to secure the nomination, it will be a calamity – for the GOP and for the nation. Not only will he lose to Obama, he could jeopardize GOP control of the House and enable a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate. A second administration with the same parameters as in Obama’s first two years could have dire consequences for America: skyrocketing taxes and spending, Greece-like deficits and debt, Obamacare fully implemented, Cap & Trade, and so much more – gigantic steps toward converting America from a freedom-loving republic into a collectivist, Euro welfare state, impotent in foreign affairs and slavishly dependent on an increasingly tyrannical federal government at home.

Romney is no Reagan. But he is conservative America’s best chance to defeat Obama. And even if he doesn‘t, the ticket he will lead should retain enough handles on the government to forestall the nightmares outlined above and give traditional America some reason to hang on for a while longer until a Reagan-like savior finally appears.
______
This post also appeared in The Intellectual Conservative at:

Government Coercion

The arrogance of the Obama administration knows no bounds. First, it simply announces that under the mandate of Obamacare, religious-based organizations will have to provide health insurance benefits that violate the moral precepts of their religion. Then, when surprised by the blowback that Obama’s audacity of dopiness engenders, the President magnanimously allows that said organizations will not have to include the offensive features in their health care package; but said features will have to be offered FREE OF CHARGE by the health insurance provider.

One wonders if he is obtuse enough not to realize that the insurance company will simply raise its other fees to cover the “free benefit” – thereby spreading the cost to others who may have no dog in the fight. Or if he understands this and is simply arrogant enough to think that if he can unconstitutionally mandate that individuals must buy a product (health insurance), then he can also mandate that a business must give away one of its products for free.

What’s next?

  • Every employer that provides life insurance coverage to employees must include suicide benefits in its coverage. If that offends the sensibilities of the employer, then the life insurance company will provide the benefit free of charge.
  • Every employer that provides disability insurance to employees must include benefits for disabilities incurred from dangerous activities such as skydiving. If the employer objects, then the disability insurance company will provide the benefit free of charge.
  • All banks that pay interest on savings accounts must guarantee a rate of return that Ben Bernanke says is fair. If they don’t, depositors get the Bernanke rate and the Federal Reserve will fund it.
  • All workers must join a union, except that if the employer has no collective bargaining agreement with any union, then workers will automatically receive annual cost of living wage increases that Bernanke decrees appropriate, and it will be funded from the federal treasury.
  • President Obama will receive at least 51% of the votes cast in November 2012 in every state. Any state that fails to comply will be expelled from the Union.
  • World peace will be declared on December 31, 2012. Any violation will be dealt with by a committee consisting of Joe Biden, Eric Holder and Kathleen Sibelius.
_____
This post also appeared in The American Thinker at:

Hesitatingly, Disappointedly and Agonizingly…for Mitt

Conservatives were greatly encouraged by the results of the 2010 national elections. Furthermore, they were excited about the Republicans completing the sweep in 2012 by taking the Senate and the White House. The chance to not only defeat the current crop of ultra-liberal Democrats leading those two institutions, but to finally reverse a century-long slide into statism, socialism and amoral secularism; that worthy goal seemed within reach.

Therefore, intense interest arose among conservatives in the Republican presidential nomination process that began last summer. It was disappointing when those most qualified to lead the envisioned counter-revolution chose not to participate. Jim DeMint, Mike Pence, John Bolton and Paul Ryan were among them. But there still appeared to be highly qualified individuals who might be capable of leading a restoration of America back to its founding principles of individual liberty, free markets, limited government and American exceptionalism. Alas, today, conservatives are not so sanguine about the prospect.

Among the declared candidates, there were two that conservatives eyed with suspicion – Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. While the fiscal aspects of Paul’s libertarian philosophy are appealing, his isolationist tendencies and laissez-faire moral stances put him outside the pale. Besides, he is 75 years old with an annoying hint of anti-Israel bias in his background. As for the other non-starter, Mitt Romney, he is guiltily of serial flip-flopping on critical issues; and his promotion of Romneycare disqualified him as it would fatally compromise his ability to challenge Obamacare. While there is much to admire in his book, No Apology, it is hard to know which parts were written with conviction and which in order to kowtow to the conservative base whose votes he would need for the nomination.

Thus began a depressing winnowing of the remaining pretenders in the field. The first contender out of the gate was Tim Pawlenty. The convictions outlined in his book, Courage to Stand, seem to be genuine. But he behaved as if his primary method of convincing voters of his qualifications was to eviscerate Michelle Bachmann. He came across as petty and mean-spirited. Adios Tim.

Then it was natural to look more closely at Ms. Bachmann. But she didn’t look so good: no executive experience (we already have that with Obama), reputation as a nasty person, that strange ‘wild deer in the headlights’ glare in her eyes, singing “Barack Obama will be a one-term president” as if it was a sorority pledge chant or the mantra of a hypnotized cult member. So long Michelle.

Then Herman Cain hurtled to the head of the class. But not for long. His reply to every question was “9-9-9,” another mindless chant that represented giving the feds a new taxing authority. Bad idea! Anyway, his fiery destruction at the hands of numerous women he supposedly groped occurred before conservatives could meaningfully assess his candidacy. Ciao Herman.

Ah but here comes Rick Perry to the rescue. Now, his book, Fed Up, is fantastic – an extremely well articulated presentation of conservative values and philosophy of government, expressed with fervor and definitely conviction. But oops… Rick can’t seem to remember anything beside his name and that he is from Texas. In one breathtakingly bad performance after another, he conveys that he is not serious, is unprepared and probably didn’t write his own book. Hit the road, Rick.

Next to surge forward is Newt Gingrich. He does it solely on the basis of his debate performances. They are sterling. He excoriates the liberal moderators, runs rings around his competitors, never says “uh,” has an outstanding command of the issues and strikes a resoundingly conservative tone. Is Newt the man? His history, unfortunately, says no. Indeed he has flip-flopped as much as Romney – e.g., the commercial with Nancy Pelosi highlights his prior incorrect stance on global warming. Actually, there are a host of issues on which Newt has been all over the map: illegal immigration, the individual health mandate, government lobbying. However, the most damning feature of Newt’s persona is illustrated by his spontaneous outburst eviscerating Paul Ryan’s eminently reasonable and conservative approach to fixing the federal entitlement programs as “right-wing social engineering.” Absolutely unforgiveable! Newt is a brilliant idea man. But he is severely undisciplined, tempestuous, unpredictable, quick to anger, and perhaps borderline unstable. In the end, the thought of his finger on the nuclear trigger is more than a little unsettling. Sayonara Newt.

Of course there were the also rans like Gary Johnson and Jon Huntsman. They don’t even merit a wave goodbye.

So where does that leave us? Aside from the afore-mentioned Paul and Romney, only Rick Santorum remains. Puleez! A nice family man, good looking, basically conservative. But where is the stature: no executive experience, dramatically inferior in gravitas to a host of potential candidates who did not enter the race, and what exactly has he been doing in the five plus years since he got creamed running for reelection to his Pennsylvania Senate seat? Oh and there are also some serious black marks against his conservative credentials earned during his Senate stint. Arrivederci Rick.

And then there were none! Thus one comes hesitatingly, disappointedly and agonizingly to the conclusion that Romney is the survivor to support for the nomination. Actually, lately he has shown a toughness that we had had not seen previously and which he will need to defeat Obama. Of course most of it has been expressed in scurrilous attacks on Newt – who then quickly abrogated his own pledge to run a positive campaign and struck back. In fact, the battle between the remaining four contestants for the nomination has turned nasty, vindictive and exasperating. Many conservatives have lost interest in the debates as each of the surviving flawed candidates simply provides ammunition for Obama’s attack machine that will be aimed at the eventual nominee.

The point is: whoever is the ultimate nominee among the remaining four, even if he wins in the fall, that person will NOT lead the counter-revolution conservatives so desperately seek. But the potential damage to our country from a second Obama term is incalculable. Thus the prime goal must be to defeat Obama. Given the choices, Romney seems to have the best chance to do so. Perhaps we can tread water with Romney while a true Reagan successor emerges further down the pike. So, in furtherance of that goal, with hesitation, disappointment and agony at how the process has unfolded, this conservative will reluctantly and unenthusiastically go with Romney.
_____
This article also appeared in The American Thinker at:

Two Views of America’s Predicament

Those who harbor misgivings about the nation’s predicament, which is the result of leftist policies, do so from two completely different philosophical perspectives, with two radically different understandings of the fundamental causes of the predicament and two mutually exclusive recipes for redressing them. No, I am not talking about the left-right divide in America, but instead a less well understood schism found in the center-right.

National polls reveal that a substantial majority of Americans believe the country is “headed in the wrong direction.” Consumer confidence measurements persist at low levels. The electorate oscillates wildly back and forth between left and right and the public holds our national leaders in astonishingly low esteem. Movements like the TEA Party on the right and Occupy Wall Street on the left suggest that the discontent is broad as well as deep. Furthermore, it is common to hear the opinion that this current trough in American self-confidence is unlike previous instances of national disquiet in that Americans have always believed that we could overcome our problems and maintain our status as the strongest, freest and most prosperous nation on Earth – whereas this time many Americans fear that if we don’t right the ship very soon, the nation is doomed to permanently lose its strength, freedom and prosperity.

While this feeling is widespread, I will argue here that those who harbor it do so from two completely different philosophical perspectives, with two radically different understandings of the fundamental causes of our predicament and two mutually exclusive recipes for redressing them. No, I am not talking about the left-right divide in America, but instead a less well understood schism found in the center-right.

Most studies of political/cultural/social philosophy in the United States divide the population into three broad categories: (i) those on the left, aka liberals or progressives; (ii) the cohort on the right, aka conservatives (usually including libertarians, although that inclusion is somewhat problematic); and (iii) the center consisting of moderates or independents. I have argued recently (in this blog) that, since the respective visions for America in the 21st century promulgated by the left and right are so radically at odds with each other, those in the middle are straddling an untenable fence. The two visions are so irreconcilable that there is no viable middle ground between them and any attempt to maintain such a position is tantamount to a “non-Solomonic splitting of the baby.” Nevertheless, the middle exists and, if anything, seems to be growing as more and more voters identify themselves as Independents, while fewer and fewer subscribe to one of the labels Republican or Democrat.

I have also argued (in the previously referenced post, and in another, longer piece in this journal) that, for decades, the leftist vision has been conquering the nation while support for rightist ideas atrophies. Witness:

  • The federal government has grown to gargantuan proportions; the federal budget now consumes a quarter of GDP (historically, it’s rarely exceeded 18-19%); the federal deficit has ballooned to $15 trillion – roughly equal to GDP, and continues to grow at an alarming rate that foreshadows a cataclysmic debt crisis; and federal regulations, which have exploded in number, complexity and scale, are choking the life out of businesses, large and small.
  • The military is shrinking and our standing in the world is in decline. In a misguided effort to replace hard power by soft power, we coddle dictators and abuse our allies.
  • Our culture is saturated with pornography, banality and immorality; the marriage rate is down; the out-of-wedlock birthrate is skyrocketing; drug use is mushrooming; and traditional values are threatened.
  • Our leaders are obsessed with peripheral and specious issues like climate change, diversity and gay rights, but they ignore critical problems like illegal immigration, a failed educational system and anti-Christian bias.
  • Our economy is beset by permanent slow growth and chronic high unemployment.

Now amazingly, the massive discontent that we see on the left – typified by the Occupy Wall Street movement – expresses itself by asserting that we have not pursued strongly enough the leftist policies that are already subverting America. In particular, they say: we have not closed Guantanamo; same sex marriage is not universal; unions are not sufficiently powerful or ubiquitous; Roe v. Wade is under assault; the internet is not yet regulated; fossil fuels have not been banned; the pledge of allegiance still contains the phrase “under God”; 10-15 million illegal aliens have not been legalized; corporate executives make too much money; and, horror of horrors, Israel still exists. To me, these are the rants of a deranged bus driver who is guiding his vehicle straight toward the edge of a precipice over which he will plunge if he doesn’t stop, but his only concern is that the speed of his vehicle is not sufficiently high. I discount the leftist view of America’s predicament – the success of the left is precisely America’s predicament.

It is the folks in the center and on the right who have a better appreciation for how the developments of the last 80 years have placed our nation in mortal danger. But within that broad group – although there is wide agreement that the country has slipped off the tracks and is in danger of an existential calamity – those who recognize the danger manifest two fundamentally different ways of understanding the predicament.

One group, with representatives largely from the center, but many also from the right, sees the matter in purely a technical way. They believe: the government spends too much – it must spend less; there is enormous waste, fraud and mismanagement in the government – it must be run more efficiently and transparently; climate change is a diversion, if not a hoax – the government must focus on more serious problems that we face like energy shortages; peripheral issues and groups (gays, illegal aliens, Muslim minorities) receive too much attention – we must do a better job of addressing mainstream concerns; we don’t save enough, don’t drive carefully enough, take too many drugs and eat too much – we need to have our schools focus on teaching our children better habits; we shouldn’t coddle our enemies abroad – we must engage our allies more effectively in an effort to isolate our enemies more cleverly; our system of federal taxation/regulation is too onerous – we have to streamline it.

In short, this group does not see that the fundamental character of America has been altered. Instead they see too many extreme and ineffective policies – the answer to which is not to go to opposite extremes, but instead to find pragmatic solutions by careful assessment, more prudent management, and more skillful political actions by the government. With the exception of Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party – since Coolidge – has been nominating people with such an outlook as its candidate for President of the United States. Some have won, some haven’t. But which of those who won has made the slightest progress in reversing America’s slide toward socialism? And now that we are on the verge of being destroyed by our problems, the GOP is poised to nominate yet another one.

The other group, comprising mainly those on the right, but also some centrists, sees the issue not as one of poor management, but rather rooted in the political/philosophical changes that have occurred in the country. They believe that the US has strayed in a major way from the principles of its founding documents, that we are barely a constitutional republic under the rule of law, and scarcely dedicated to maximizing individual liberty, adhering to free market capitalism, pursuing the moral values that animated our forefathers. Instead we have morphed into a Euro welfare state, a soft tyranny in which a bloated government usurps our God-given rights, subverts our free market system, and imposes a secular humanist agenda on us – and especially on our children in government-run schools. The solution is not better management of the government, but a return of the country to the founding principles that accounted for our strength, freedom and prosperity. In order to do so, we need not only a president who understands our predicament in this way, but also legislators and jurists, religious leaders and media moguls, educators and generals. Only then will we restore America to its constitutional moorings and resolve our current predicament.
________
This article also appeared in The Intellectual Conservative at: