Category Archives: Government & Politics

Is Herman Cain the Answer?

Whenever I see the inane bumper sticker War Is Not the Answer, I always think: That depends on what the question is. If Roosevelt had answered the real question posed to him by the Japanese 70 years ago according to the bumper sticker, then the idiot who pasted the sticker on his bumper would likely not have had the freedom to do so. If the Israelis had answered the actual question posed to them by Nasser in May 1967 according to the bumper sticker, there would be no Israel today. Similarly, the answer to the query in the title depends on the exact question.

The short form of the question is obviously: Who should the Republicans nominate to oppose Obama in 2012? For me – a staunch conservative – the long and much more important and meaningful form of the question is formulated as follows:

The US has been listing left for a hundred years, drifting away from a constitutional Republic devoted to individual liberty, free markets and limited government by the consent of the governed toward a statist society of forced equality, shared economic misery and unlimited, unresponsive government. Following a brief (and temporary) course correction under Reagan, we have continued our inexorable slide toward socialistic oblivion under the two Bushes, Clinton and especially under Obama. There have been signs in the last two years that a significant percentage of the electorate has finally awakened to the existence of the cliff toward which we are speeding. The next election provides a chance – perhaps the final chance – to irrevocably halt the mad dash to the edge and then to restore America back to its original political/cultural roots and traditions. Is Herman Cain the Moses we so desperately seek to lead us back to the promised land?

The odds may be slim, but I believe that the United States has the opportunity to effect a fundamental course correction next year. It is possible that the people might elect a truly conservative President and supply him with a sufficiently conservative Congress so that together they could halt the leftward drift and set the country on a more traditional course. It may be that enough of the electorate is actually ready to bring this about. Reagan would have done it a generation ago, but he lacked the requisite companion Congress and the people had not sufficiently awakened to the gravity of the progressive threat. Today the conditions are more ripe.

One thing is clear: Mitt Romney is not Moses. Of course he would be immeasurably better than Obama. But it is absolutely certain that he desires to be president not in order to answer the question in the form that I posed it. While his instincts might be more conservative than liberal, Romney is a “big government Republican,” another Bush or McCain, who:  

  • has no appreciation for the perilous course that our nation has traveled in the 20th century;
  • thinks that Obama pushed the wrong levers rather than sought to radically transform the nature of the country;
  • and who will do no more than briefly arrest the country’s mad dash to the left, while leaving intact the socialist infrastructure to be further ratcheted up by the next Social Democrat that succeeds him.

Make no mistake – there are people out there who understand the perilous state in which we find ourselves and who might formulate and implement a program to rescue the nation. People like Jim DeMint or Mike Pence come to mind. Paul Ryan perhaps. But they are not running. Who among those actually running might be our Moses? As I said, Romney definitely is not. And the people know it. That’s why, despite his advantage in experience, organization, money and recognition, he can’t break away from the pack. Who then is the answer? Certainly not Huntsman – another faux conservative. Not Paul – an extreme libertarian whose opinions on national security and social morality are frightening.

That leaves five: Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Perry and Santorum. In fact, I believe that each of those five understands the horrible drift of the country over the last century and would be determined to reverse it. So which of them should be Moses? Well, none of them is a perfect redeemer. And our American Idol style of selecting a nominee has exposed the warts in each of them. Santorum is severely damaged goods. His overwhelming loss in his Senate re-election run in 2008 makes him a sure loser. No one is taking him seriously; his poll numbers are anemic; he would do us a favor by joining Pawlenty on the sidelines. When the Idol process began, Bachmann raced to the front. But then, apparently due to her relative inexperience and her permanent “deer in the headlights” facial expression, the ardor for her cooled. Next to streak to the front was Rick Perry. But his feeble performance in several Idol rounds knocked him off the pedestal. Gingrich’s numbers have not oscillated up and down like the previous two. In fact, he is clearly the sharpest tack in the bunch, but his track record of quixotic behavior and moral ambiguity gives pause. And so that leaves the Hermanator (a term that Cain uses for himself in his 2005 book). People like him and for the moment at least, he has leapt to the front of the Idol polls.

So what about Herman? Can he play the role of Moses? He has no money, no organization and no political experience. And there is something about him that suggests political naïveté. But his heart and, more importantly, his head seem to be in the right place. I just finished reading the 2005 book, which he wrote following his unsuccessful run for the Senate from Georgia in 2004. I believe that he understands what has happened to the country and would work assiduously to bring about a course correction that conservatives so fervently desire. Does he have the gravitas to pull it off? The last non-politician that the country elected president was Eisenhower – who only commanded the most formidable army in the history of the world. Somehow CEO of Godfather’s Pizza doesn’t quite match up. But let us not forget that Reagan was president of the Screen Actors Guild and Lincoln’s resume wasn’t all that impressive either.

The dispatching of Obama and his replacement by a committed conservative is a paramount task for our nation. The choice we have for the leader who is to accomplish that task is limited to Romney and one of Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich or Perry. Romney might defeat Obama, but it will not herald the transformation that we seek. I believe that there is a reasonable chance that any of the latter four, if given the spear of leadership, might be up to the task. If Cain turns out to be the Idol selection, then I will support him enthusiastically and pray that he can deliver. Personally, I prefer Perry for reasons that I outlined in another article in this journal. But if the Hermanator gets the nod, then on the basis of what I have seen and read thus far, I can live with that and I will vote for him optimistically.
______
This article also appeared in The American Thinker at:

Two Visions, but Blindness Everywhere

A common lament these days is that Washington is so polarized that it cannot get anything done. It is observed that the Democratic Party is completely dominated by its ultra-liberal wing – with the further recognition that this has been true at least since the nomination of George McGovern. The leftward bias is reflected in the Dems’ insatiable appetite for large government and increased federal spending, and their obsession with multiculturalism, gay rights, affirmative action, global warming and “Wall Street greed.” Simultaneously, the sense is that the Republican Party is controlled by its right-wing constituents – although that dominance can only be traced back to Reagan, or perhaps only to Gingrich and maybe only since the advent of the TEA Party. Whenever its inception, the members of the GOP are now, theoretically, intractably committed to lower taxes, reduced federal spending, deregulation, anti-abortion policies and the repeal of Obamacare. This extreme divergence of fundamental views explains why compromise is increasingly impossible, resulting in a paralytic government gridlock that prevents the nation from addressing its most pressing problems.

Superficially, this analysis is correct. But it glosses over an important historical fact implicit in the dates supplied above for the origins of each Party’s coalescence into a single mindset. It also misses the fact that the national political/cultural conversation has been totally skewed for a very long time because of the vast discrepancy in those dates of origin. Indeed, the Left’s capture of the Democratic Party began during the Progressive Era – especially under Woodrow Wilson – and was arguably complete by the time of FDR – i.e., long before LBJ, McGovern or Obama appeared on the scene. On the other hand, the Republican Party has been adrift from its conservative moorings since the administration of Teddy Roosevelt, continuing right up to that of George W Bush – with some countervailing trends evident only during the Coolidge and Reagan eras.

The point is that while it is indeed true that today there are two very distinct visions for America competing for the allegiance of the American people, that dynamic has not been in play for most of the last century. As I described in an article published several years ago, Different Visions, the Leftist playbook was written by the Progressive Era Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci, who asserted: One need only capture the culture. The politics will follow. And that is exactly what the leftists did over the last century. Through an unremitting assault on many fronts, the Left took control of all the opinion-forming organs of American society: the media, educational establishment (lower and higher), the legal profession, foundations and libraries, the government bureaucracy and the unions, the marketing industry and (to a certain extent) the upper echelons of big business. Once the people’s mindset was converted from individual liberty to collective equality, security and order, it was easy to convince them to implement the political changes that enabled the conversion of America from a free society into a statist society.

The Left’s cultural assault was broad, sustained, relentless and purposeful. The Right – naively assuming that things would naturally stay the way they always had been – wasn’t even paying attention. A few noticed (e.g., William Buckley), but for the most part, traditionalists and conservatives did not appreciate that the fundamental organs of society that supported and maintained the traditional American culture were being subverted and diverted to something radically different. It is only in recent times that a substantial portion of traditional America has awakened to the radical leftist revolution that has swept the country and which threatens to kill the historic society that America embodied. Previously – and perhaps still – the framework for the national political/cultural conversation was set entirely by the Left and it was little noted – by any on either side – that the axioms assumed by all who engaged in the conversation were biased strongly towed the left end of the spectrum.

Now, how has the one-sidedness of our national political/cultural conversation been accorded recognition across the land? Simple; it hasn’t! With few exceptions, the American people have been largely blind to the vast transformation that occurred in our society over the course of the twentieth century. Does anyone ever question the legitimacy of Social Security? How many doubt that the FDA is critical to keeping America’s prescription drug supply bountiful and safe? Walter Cronkite was the most trusted man in America, but the mainstream media dubs Rush Limbaugh a fascist. Does anyone recognize that American pop culture is best described as a cesspool? And why exactly are they putting those condoms on cucumbers in the classroom? In presidential debates, candidates argue over how to run the government more efficiently, or who will start or streamline which program that that will most “benefit” the public. But the question of the nature of our Republic, how or even whether we should remain true to our founding principles, or which is more important – liberty or equality; these questions never come up. It does not occur to the moderator to ask them, nor does the failure to do so disturb the candidates.

It may be that there is some clarity regarding political vision today; but in the recent past, America’s perception of where it stood politically and culturally in relation to its historical practices has been that of a blind man. Moreover, the blindness manifests in somewhat different ways according to one’s place in the political spectrum.

  • On the Left: Anyone who has sat in on a university committee meeting, or glanced at the front page of the NY Times, or attended a back-to-school night, or listened to Nancy Peolosi pontificate, knows that the Left takes absolutely for granted that a progressive agenda is the only agenda that is suitable for America. Moreover, those on the Left take it as axiomatic that any intelligent person recognizes and accepts the appropriateness of that agenda. In that committee room, it never occurs to the lefties in attendance (i.e., virtually everyone) that anyone in the room might think differently from them. Having achieved a dominance of the American political/cultural scene that they could only have dreamed of in 1911, the Left considers it normal and permanent, and an abomination (not to mention a surprise) whenever it is challenged in any way by someone on the Right. The horrific idea of returning to the conventions of 125 years ago is tantamount to the restoration of slavery and oppression of women – sins that have irrevocably stained America and which we have finally overcome only by implementing an unchallengeable, progressive agenda.
  • In the middle: This is likely the largest category of people. Those who don’t see themselves as ideological leftists or rightists – but rather practical, sensible, compromise-friendly independents – are blithely unaware that the conversation has tilted tremendously. Such people often have a weak sense of history, little appreciation for the social and economic consequences of a century of collectivist programs, and are easily swayed by the bromides of a slick politician. They do not see how the fulcrum on the political spectrum has been shifted precipitously to the Left. They consider themselves centrists, but do not understand that the positions they take and programs they support are collectivist. A lifetime of exposure to the leftist-dominated opinion-molding organs of society has shifted their fulcrum as well.
  • On the Right. This might be the smallest contingent. In the past, the practitioners were marginalized and ostracized. A few like Buckley were accorded respect. But in truth they were viewed as quacks to be tolerated for amusement’s sake – but they were not to be taken seriously. What is worse, but sadly true, is that many in these ranks were imposters, faux conservatives. For example, George W Bush, who was viewed by nearly all of society as a conservative, serves as a perfect metaphor. Bush expanded the government and exploded the debt as badly as any card carrying leftist (well until his profligate successor appeared). Incidentally, exactly as Bush begat Obama, so did Hoover beget FDR and Nixon beget Carter. Heaven save us from conservatives like Bush, who, in terms of the visions we have been describing, was blind as a bat.
The hope is that the Obama-Pelosi-Reid axis of evil has behaved so egregiously and so transparently that a substantial portion of America can now at last see. A new cadre of true conservatives has been created. Their task is to somehow reach the vast muddled middle. If that contingent can be awakened to what has happened and their complicity in it, perhaps there is a chance to right the ship. Perhaps then people will realize that the competing visions for America held by the Left and Right are irreconcilable. It makes no sense to be “in the middle”; it does not reflect a coherent worldview, but rather a non-Solomonic willingness to split the baby. It is the job of those with the “Right” vision to bring sight to those in the middle who are willing to see.
____
A somewhat abridged version of this article appeared in The American Thinker at:

Which is the Real Rick Perry?

I just read Rick Perry’s 2010 book, Fed Up. Actually, I’ve been reading the books of all the Republican presidential contenders – at least those who’ve published one recently. That includes Cain, Gingrich, Paul, Pawlenty and Romney; Huntsman and Santorum have books that are several years old and Bachmann’s book is coming out in November. The impression offered by a book is very different from what we glean from a televised debate – as we shall see momentarily.

In fact, Perry’s book surprised me very much. In short, it is terrific. He makes an articulate, impassioned, well-reasoned and well-documented argument for a staunchly conservative America. He is particularly strong when discussing the tenth amendment and states’ rights. He skewers the unlimited spending, over-regulating, unconstitutional mode of (national) government that has gripped the nation. Perry’s writing is forceful, coherent and convincing – and even humorous on occasion. One senses a person who is in command of his facts, who marshals his arguments in a cogent fashion, who speaks from a great deal of relevant experience and who is supremely confident of his analysis and recommendations.

So who the h— is that guy impersonating Rick Perry in those televised debates and what have they done with the real Rick Perry? The person I have seen on the boob tube several times now is inarticulate, unsteady in his elocution, seemingly unsure of himself, and generally rather less than impressive. It makes me wonder how he has been repeatedly re-elected Governor of Texas.

How can this be? The disparity between Perry’s performance as an author and his TV debate persona is glaring and mystifying. I can think of a few reasons:

·        He didn’t really write the book. He wouldn’t be the first national politician to employ a ghost writer; our current president is reputed to have done so.

·        He has been woefully unprepared for the debates. There is a school of thought that either he expected to run away with the nomination and didn’t think the debates could trip him up or he just doesn’t do well in an unscripted, spontaneous environment.

·        Both performances are genuine – i.e., he is a deep thinker and writer, but a poor public performer.

I have no idea which of these (or something else) is the accurate explanation. But I find it incomprehensible that the man who wrote the startling clear words below is unable to articulate them on stage. From the point of view of philosophy and what the country needs in the next president, I find Perry’s positions (as expressed in his book) superior to those of his competitors. But if he can’t improve his stage act, he won’t get the nomination – or if he somehow does, Obama will clean his clock.

“The statists believe in a powerful, activist central government that advances a radical secular agenda in the name of compassion. They hide behind misguided notions of empathy and push token talking points about fighting for “the little guy,” all the while empowering the federal government to coercively and blatantly undermine state-, local-, and self-governance.

Why empower states instead of a single, powerful national government? The simplest answer is this: Americans want to live free. They want to gather together with people of common beliefs and goals to establish communities in which they can prosper. They do not want to be told how to live their lives. They certainly don’t want some far away bureaucrat, judge, or representative of a different community to tell them how to live. That liberty has been the essence of America ever since the colonists came here.

Our fight is to save America from Washington. The idea of America – enshrined in the greatest founding document of all time – is worth fighting for. We just need a few good patriots who are fed up with the status quo, armed with the Constitution, and fueled with courage to stand in the gap for future generations and to preserve for them the greatest beacon of hope, freedom, and prosperity the world has ever known.”
_______________
This post also appeared in The American Thinker at:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/10/which_is_the_real_rick_perry.html

Getting America Back on the Tracks

In a recent article in this journal, I argued that the United States has increasingly abandoned the basic principles upon which our nation was founded. I pointed out three strains around which those principles were organized: political, moral and idealistic. Then I described the components of each. A simple comparison of those components (see below) with the salient trends of modern American society makes it painfully evident that the wheels are coming off – America is morphing into a political/cultural entity radically at odds with the vision laid down by our Founders.

The previous article noted that prior attempts to restore America to its constitutional moorings – under Coolidge and Reagan – met with temporary success, but ultimately were swamped under the tidal wave of leftist malarkey that dominates our national conversation. I attributed those failures to the fact that the counter attacks did not address all three strains, or tracks. I postulated that for any counter attack to succeed, all three tracks must be in the crosshairs, and I promised more details in a forthcoming article. Here they are.
There are two parts to a counter attack: (i) what changes do conservative restorationists want to bring about; and (ii) how to do so. The program for item (i) is simple to state. Basically, conservatives wish to restore the constitutional principles that provided the foundation for our society until the leftists of the Progressive Era and succeeding generations began to undercut them. Here are the fundamental goals – specified in the three tracks:
(a) Political. The Founders established an unprecedented political system that has retained its uniqueness to this day. The Constitution provides for a federal Republic, whose government derives its powers purely from the consent of the people; it is made up of distinct branches with carefully delineated, complementary powers, replete with checks and balances – between the branches and between the national and State governments. The system was designed to establish a national government of VERY limited powers that would maximize individual liberty, establish the rule of law and dispense equal and unbiased justice. Moreover, it was intended to do so in perpetuity. The goal is to abolish the current practice of behemoth government that we have pursued over the last century and return to the vision of government bequeathed us by the Founders.
(b) Moral. By placing the onus for the continued success of the American experiment on the people’s shoulders, not the government’s, the Founders understood that the desired success would depend upon the maintenance of a high moral fabric among the people. The system would only work if the people were generally “good” – meaning that they had a clear understanding of and could distinguish between good and evil, just and unjust, honesty and dishonesty, responsibility and irresponsibility. If the people made the right choices when confronted with moral opposites, the system would work well and the nation would thrive; if not, then corruption, vice and malfeasance would surely follow, with tyranny the ultimate outcome. The people would learn to make the right choices because they were embedded in a society that prized strong families and communities, charity and good works, universal education, a powerful work ethic and the fear of God. The goal is to abandon the moral relativism, multiculturalism and secular humanism that dominate our culture and to restore the moral values and traditional culture that characterized our society in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
(c) Idealistic. The Founders also understood that they were creating something unique and revolutionary. They expected that their descendants would guard it zealously and hold it up as a beacon for the peoples of the world to emulate. In short the Founders were the first believers in American exceptionalism. They saw the American people as the “new Hebrews,” a people chosen by God to provide, by their example, a light unto the nations in regard to how a just and free society should be organized and governed. Without that type of faith and pride to complement their upstanding morals, the Founders feared that it might prove difficult to sustain the experiment in limited government. The goal is to turn away from the shame and apologetics that mark the Obama view of American society and return to the shining city on a hill vision of our Founders, so well articulated by President Reagan.

In fact, the program for the second part – how to actually restore these principles – is also fairly easy to state – albeit, not easy to implement. In order to do so, I shall combine (b) and (c) into one bracket that I will designate as culture. The components that determine a people’s morality and ideals are precisely the contents of their culture. The key point is then to acknowledge the insight of the Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci from the Progressive Era: One need only capture the culture. The politics will follow. And that is exactly what the leftists did over the last century. Through an unremitting assault on many fronts, the Left took control of all the opinion-forming organs of American society: the media, educational establishment (lower and higher), the legal profession, foundations and libraries, the government bureaucracy and the unions, the marketing industry and (to a certain extent) the upper echelons of big business. Once the people’s mindset was converted from individual liberty to collective equality, security and order, it was easy to convince them to implement the political changes that enabled the conversion of America from a free society into a statist society.

The cultural assault was broad, sustained, relentless and purposeful. The Right – naively assuming that things would naturally stay the way they always had been – wasn’t even paying attention. A few noticed (e.g., William Buckley), but for the most part, traditionalists and conservatives did not appreciate that the fundamental organs of society that supported and maintained the traditional American culture were being subverted and diverted to something radically different. It is only in recent times that a substantial portion of traditional America has awakened to the radical leftist revolution that has swept the country and which threatens to kill the historic society that America embodied. The issue is how to resuscitate the latter.
Note that I am not proposing a new revolution, but rather a restoration of America’s past political/cultural system. I maintain that conservatives can do so by recapturing the culture. Of course, I am not suggesting that we return to 1811; clearly society cannot ignore two centuries of history and advances in technology. But we can restore the fundamental principles that determined the nature of our society those many years ago. As I said, we do it exactly as we lost it, i.e., by retaking control of the culture, reestablishing the moral/idealistic themes that animated the American soul for more than two centuries. Here are some concrete suggestions:
• Fox News has proven a valuable counterweight to the mainstream news media. We need many more such venues.
• Similarly, conservative newspapers like the Washington Times have provided some balance in the print news media. We need more such conservative newspapers, magazines, periodicals and online journals.
• The Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute have arisen to challenge the Ford, Rockefeller and other left-wing foundations and think tanks (which ironically were established by conservative businessmen). The former must be multiplied many-fold.
• In the same vein, Regnery has provided a conservative counter punch in the book publishing industry. More such outlets are required.
• We need to have law schools that champion strict constitutional interpretation of the law; public libraries that display conservative books more prominently than liberal ones; movie producers that explore patriotic themes and other genres that extol the virtues of traditional culture; and highly successful businessmen (unlike Bill Gates, e.g.) who promote conservative ideas and resist the lure of crony capitalism.
• This suggestion is more political than cultural, but the American people must return to the idea (most clearly articulated by the arch leftist, FDR, ironically) that unionization of public sector employees poses a grave threat to the nation. Unions like SEIU must be decommissioned. When that happens we might be able to address our explosive and crippling entitlement programs in a rational way.
• And finally – and most importantly – we must take back our schools. The damage that the Left is doing in our public schools is amply documented in Marybeth Hicks’ recent book, Don’t Let the Kids Drink the Kool-Aid. Whatever the medium – charter schools, vouchers, or something else – we must break the back of the monopoly that the NEA has on the education of American children and enable schools to reinstill traditional American values into our children, and so into our future.

Polls continue to identify America as a “Center-Right” nation. One sees percentages like: 40% Conservative, 20% Liberal, 40% Centrist or Independent. And the polls have reported such figures for a long time. How can that be? How can such a supposedly conservative country have so readily glommed onto the liberal/statist program that has dominated our politics and culture for decades? I think that there are two components to the answer. First, many who identify themselves as conservatives are not really so. For example, consider those who see themselves as patriotic, law-abiding and proud of their country’s history; but who at the same time, also approve of wealth redistribution, same-sex marriage, the United Nations and affirmative action. It does not occur to them that such views constitute proof that they are indeed not really conservative. Second, what exactly does it mean to be Independent? The competing visions for America held by the Left and Right are irreconcilable. It makes no sense to be “in the middle”; it does not reflect a coherent worldview, but rather a non-Solomonic willingness to split the baby. Alas, many in the middle are equally comfortable with the ideas that I attributed above to faux conservatives. Thus many are confused about where they stand in the political spectrum and it is dubious that we truly continue to be a Center-Right nation. But we can be again – if we find a way to implement the steps that I outlined above.
__
This essay also appeared in The Land of the Free

Jimmy and Barack: Why Do We Torment Ourselves?

In a recent article, I placed Presidents Carter and Obama in the pantheon of our worst presidents; and then in a follow-up piece, I considered which of the two was worse. Because it has taken less time than usual for the opinion of history to congeal, Jimmy Carter is already widely acknowledged by historians and pundits to have been one of the most awful chief executives that our country has ever endured. I have absolutely no doubt that history will be equally unkind to the present occupant of the White House. Furthermore, Mr. Obama might break Carter’s speed record for the shortest time between inauguration of his successor and the widespread acknowledgment of his ignominy. Tangentially, Carter has gone on to be the absolute worst former president in our nation’s history. One wonders whether Obama will eclipse him there as well.

One would hope that the US will not similarly afflict itself again for a very long while – especially not in 2012. But if we are to spare ourselves the grief and damage of another wretched President, it behooves us to understand the reasons that the populace was foolish enough to freely select these two disasters.

Carter. A simplistic explanation is encapsulated in two words: Watergate and Vietnam. The American people were disgusted by the former and demoralized by the latter. Nixon’s resignation ameliorated the disgust to some extent, but Ford’s pardon reignited it. Augmenting the people’s dismay was the calamity of Vietnam. Yes, the Paris accords had allowed American troops to be evacuated – in less than glorious fashion. But the people seemed not to blame the subsequent North Vietnamese takeover of the South on the Democrats who cut off aid to the latter. And they forgot that the war was started originally by the Democrats. Their wrath was concentrated upon the Republicans. So, between Watergate and Vietnam, the people were thoroughly fed up with the Republicans and might have elected Mickey Mouse if he had garnered the Democratic nomination.

This explains the Dems’ victory in 1976, but not how the obscure, untested, small-minded and – as we eventually learned – thoroughly inept Jimmy Carter wrested the nomination from a large group of (seemingly) far more qualified candidates. The single word that explains this phenomenon is Washington. The American people were as disgusted with Washington in general as they were with the Republicans in particular. And Carter’s competitors were all Washington insiders. Carter was the fresh face, untainted by Washington politics, a new broom ready and eager to sweep clean the corruption, duplicity and improperly gained and deployed power that people saw as the hallmark of Washington politics. They envisioned Carter bringing forth a new tone of morality, equality and attention paid to the little guy trying to make a buck. How fortuitous for him – but not for the rest of us!

However, as I said, this is the simplistic explanation. There was something far deeper going on here, which I will explain after I supply a simplistic explanation for our latest presidential calamity.

Obama. There are three magic words in this case also. The first two are Iraq and spending. The casualty list in Iraq was a fraction of that in Vietnam, but the Left (and many others) despised Bush for the Iraq war as deeply as their parents had despised Nixon and Johnson for Vietnam. At the same time, there was profound disillusionment on the Right at the profligate spending by Bush and the Republican Congress. These factors combined to energize liberals and demoralize conservatives, and therefore set the stage for a victory by the Dems in 2008 – again, virtually independent of whom they nominated.

So why did an obscure, untested, small-minded and inept candidate get the nod? (That would be Barack Obama, folks – note the use of the same adjectives as in the case of the hapless Jimmy Carter.) Okay, here is the third magic word: Hillary. The Dems had been positioning themselves to nominate Hillary ever since Bill left the Oval Office. There was no one who was going to defeat her in 2008. Thus in some sense, Obama had only one competitor – the rest of the Democratic candidates for the nomination were irrelevant. Through a combination of brilliant strategy by his handlers, a surprisingly incompetent performance by Hillary’s handlers, and the key fact that her negatives (outside liberal bastions like NY) always exceeded her positives, BHO did the unimaginable and took down the Clinton machine.

Obama had something else going for him. This is delicate to discuss, but it seems clear in retrospect that his status as a black man helped – rather than hurt, as many initially expected – him among the electorate. There is no question that a large number of Americans saw the possibility of electing a black man to the presidency as an act of atonement and expiation – one that would settle the debt the country owed to black Americans whom it had oppressed for generations, and one that would finally turn the page on our nation’s sordid history of racial segregation and discrimination. Aided by a complicit media, the people willfully ignored the obvious inadequacies in the man: the nearly total lack of experience, the overwhelmingly left-wing record, his associations with radicals and racists, and his negative attitude toward the country that he sought to lead. He was charming, eloquent, charismatic and talked a great game of post-partisanship, not to mention “hope and change.” And to top it off, the Republicans nominated an old, confused, weak and unappealing opponent. It’s a wonder that the election was as close as it was.

Now to the deeper issue. It is that the fulcrum of the political spectrum in America has shifted so incredibly far to the left over the last 85 years that it has totally skewed the meanings of Left and Right, of Liberal and Conservative. As has been related by myself (see articles (1), (2) or (3), for example) and numerous other authors, the Left has conducted a long march through all branches of the media, the educational establishment (both higher and K-12), the legal profession, unions, libraries, foundations, the government bureaucracy and even the upper echelons of the corporate world. The march has been remarkably successful and the Left has taken control of virtually all the opinion-molding organs of American society. In so doing, it has completely changed the political/cultural/economic frame of reference in the United States. One crucial result is that what is patently leftist/statist/socialist thinking is viewed as mainstream, while traditional/conservative opinions are considered extreme and reactionary, and often racist, sexist, homophobic or xenophobic. To cite another manifestation of this massive change in our political center of gravity, since the election of 1924 – when both candidates were conservative (this is discussed in another article) – the political profile of every Democratic nominee for President has ranged somewhere from hard left to extreme left (except perhaps for JFK) and the profile of every Republican Presidential nominee (with the clear exception of Ronald Reagan) has ranged from squishy centrist to moderately liberal. It is not just in our presidential contests, but in essentially all aspects of American political/cultural life, the battle of ideas is contested between the lines demarcated by extreme left and moderate left – the Right, and certainly the hard Right, is implicitly ruled out of bounds of the American gestalt.

Now consider the selection of a President in this environment. Normal odds guarantee that in either party, a truly unsatisfactory and/or unqualified nominee will emerge on occasion. The Republicans have coughed up a few. To my mind none of Nixon, Dole or McCain should have been seriously considered and the latter two would have been as dreadful as the first had they been elected. But with their inherent advantage – because of the skewed political climate – when the Dems put up a clunker, that candidate is much more likely than a correspondingly woeful Republican to win the election. Thus Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama.

Clearly the solution is to shift the aforementioned fulcrum back to geopolitical center. An enormous and existential challenge, to be sure! The country made a halting start in 2010. We shall see whether it can sustain and build on that momentum next fall.
____
This post also appeared in The Intellectual Conservative at: