Category Archives: History

A Prominent Syndicated Columnist Goes Gloomy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

How Smart is Obama and is that the Right Question?

I should have realized that it was going to be a recurring theme when a liberal friend of mine said to me in January 2009 that ‘it will be a welcome change to have an intelligent occupant of the White House.’ From his arrival on the scene until today, we are repeatedly told that Obama is very smart and that this will enable him to be a very good President. There are two assertions of fact in that last sentence and I would like to test both.

Regarding his intelligence, it seems clear that Obama is above the mean. But his supporters suggest much more—implicitly and often explicitly—namely, that he is one of the smartest men ever to be President. The evidence for that is hardly conclusive. Pro: he ran a masterful campaign, both in the primaries and in the general election; he demonstrates a commanding knowledge of facts and figures about areas in which he has little background or experience; he handles himself with great poise in public arenas; and he can be quite eloquent in prepared speeches. Con: he has resisted making his academic record public; there is no evidence at all that he is an avid reader; he is apparently oblivious to the arrogance he displays toward those who disagree with him; his misreading of the American public over the last year is breathtaking; his eloquence dips precipitously when making extemporaneous remarks; and he has placed his trust (recently and in the past) in characters of dubious integrity.

Well, I’m sure he is smart, maybe even very smart. But the point is: whether he is or not is not terribly important. History has shown conclusively that the raw intelligence of our Presidents correlates not at all with their success. It is often asserted that Woodrow Wilson was the smartest President of the 20th century. Now it has taken history a while to catch up with his reputation; in fact, we know today that Wilson’s ideas and ‘achievements’ helped to ensure the onset of WWII and the modern welfare state. Spare me more brilliant chief executives like him. Others who have been anointed as highly intelligent include Kennedy, Nixon and Stevenson. Kennedy was an insignificant President, Nixon was a disaster and Stevenson’s wit and intelligence were insufficient to get him elected. No one ever claimed that FDR, LBJ or Reagan were paragons of intellect. Yet they were the most transformative Presidents of the century.

Continuing in this vein, Adams was smarter than Washington and maybe than Jefferson too; but he was a far less effective President than either. Madison was brilliant, but his Presidency was much less successful than that of his successor, who did not have a reputation for brilliance. Lincoln was bright and effective. Andrew Johnson was a dolt and a calamity. Truman was no scholar, but his reputation is holding up. Hoover was clever, but an unmitigated horror.

What matters in a President is not his IQ, but his ideas together with his leadership, management and motivational skills. Obama might or might not be very smart. Who cares! More to the point, his ideas are terrifying. Moreover, the leadership, management and motivational skills he has displayed thus far are pathetic. I don’t know about you, but I am grateful for that.
_______
This posting also appeared in The Intellectual Conservative blog at
 

The Democrats are not democrats: And Obama is not a Socialist—He is a Sheafist

Last month we celebrated the 99th anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s birth. Barack Obama claims to admire the Gipper, citing him as a transformative president—an appellation that Obama aspires to. Woe is us if he succeeds! Whereas Reagan inspired the American people and pointed us toward prosperity and national strength, Obama scares the hell out of us and is leading us to penury and mediocrity. But these two presidents differ in a fundamental way that transcends just their leadership capabilities. They represent vastly different points on the political spectrum. Yet Obama’s ability to cast himself as somehow analogous to Reagan is symptomatic of our confusion about the actual components of the political spectrum. It is my purpose to clear up that confusion here.

 

One should think of the political spectrum like we do the optical spectrum, that is, as a line, but instead of running from Red to Violet, the political spectrum runs linearly from Left to Right. The confusion comes about in deciding what the entries are and where to place them on the line. Terms like liberal, conservative, progressive, reactionary, communist, fascist, monarchist, democrat, theocrat, republican, anarchist and others are candidates for inclusion. That’s complicated enough. But where they are in relation to one another is the real source of the confusion.

 

For example, it is nearly universally accepted that Soviet Communism was on the extreme left of the political spectrum while German Nazism was situated on the extreme right. But the latter categorization is wrong. How so? This is simple to explain if we think of the political spectrum as measuring the role of government in society. The left end of the spectrum represents total government control of society. How the control is exercised is far less important than the extent of the control. When the politics, economic system, social contracts and virtually every other aspect of a society is controlled by the government, it doesn’t matter much whether the government is a Soviet-style dictatorship, a monarchy, an oligarchy, a theocracy—or a fascist dictatorship. Any such government lies on the extreme left. The correct label for it is totalitarian.

 

But if fascism is on the left, what is on the right? That too is simple—anarchy! The complete absence of government control is clearly the logical opposite of total government control. Most of the anarchical examples today are found in Africa, but Yemen is coming closer and Haiti is a legitimate candidate. Now there are all means of gradations between the two extremes, but let’s keep it simple and limit ourselves to five: totalitarian societies on the far left, anarchical societies on the far right and three in between. What are they?

 

To the right of totalitarian but to the left of center are authoritarian regimes—those that control many aspects of society, but do not aspire to total control. The most obvious examples are various military dictatorships that sprout up all over the world. Other authoritarian regimes are found among the monarchies that dot the third world. I might mention that the distinction between totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, and the consequences for their subjects, as well as the differing possibilities for change in both, was explored in depth by Jeane Kirkpatrick in the 1970s.

 

What is the analog on the right; that is, right of center but left of anarchy? Clearly such a society must be characterized by very loose government control; the people themselves control the society. Power to the people! Sounds like democracy to me. Usually we characterize democracy as a society in which leaders are chosen by fair elections with the outcome reflecting majority rule. I think that confuses process with philosophy. For me, democracy is a society in which the people determine their fate far more than any remote government. The ancient Greek city-states are the classic model. But pre-revolutionary New England villages with their town meetings are another good example. In a democracy in this sense, how the people rule (via elections, town meetings, mobs, gangs or warlords) is not nearly as important as the fact that the central government is weak and the people are strong. France after the Revolution comes to mind. Current examples are again found in some African countries; and Afghanistan is another candidate.

 

What’s in the middle? We are! Ours is a Constitutional Republic where power resides with the people, but—following guidelines specified in the Constitution—the people empower a limited government to rule with their consent. The people of such a society enjoy the freedoms of those in a democracy, but avoid the chaos and disorderliness that is inevitable in a pure democracy. Orderliness is also found in authoritarian regimes, but the people of a Constitutional Republic don’t have to put up with the ruthlessness and constraints on freedom characteristic of authoritarian regimes. Unfortunately, the term Constitutional Republic does not uniquely specify all the societies in the center of the spectrum. Constitutional Monarchies, like those of many of the countries in Europe, have forms of government very reminiscent of ours wherein the rights and freedom of the people are preserved by limiting the powers of a representative parliament and a (constitutionally) restrained monarch.

 

What we recognize as the West is made up largely of Constitutional Republics and Constitutional Monarchies firmly in the center of the political spectrum. But what has been happening in the West in the last 125 years? Virtually all its societies have been marching steadily to the left. Europe has been in the lead, but Obama and the Democrats are pressing hard for us to catch up. Every one of Obama’s policy objectives involves greater government control over the people. Obama and the Democratic Party are moving America inexorably to the left—toward authoritarianism and away from democracy. Thus, the Democrats are not democrats.

 

Finally, what is the proper label for Obama? I think he aspires to be an authoritarian, but the usual pejorative bestowed on him by conservatives is ‘socialist.’ However, according to the specifications of Jonah Goldberg, author of Liberal Fascism, Obama should be classified as a fascist, not a socialist. What is the difference? Both believe in robust government control of society—sometimes authoritarian, sometimes totalitarian. In order to achieve that, a socialist advocates government ownership of the means of production and all property. A fascist is willing to permit—even prefers—private ownership of property and business, but structures society, through crony capitalism and other means, to ensure government control of at least the country’s political and economic systems. According to Obama’s professed disdain for government ownership of the means of production, he is not a socialist but a fascist. However, the word fascist is so incredibly loaded that it is unusable. For the vast majority of people, it conjures up jack-booted thugs arriving in the middle of the night. To call someone a fascist is to label him a maniacal, genocidal, Hitler wannabe—which Obama manifestly is not. So let us hearken back to the origin of the term, the Italian word fasci—which means bundle or sheaf. Bundlist doesn’t work so well, therefore I think the best term to describe the political philosophy of our president is Sheafist. Let’s see whether it sticks.

 
This piece also appeared in the Intellectual Conservative at
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/03/03/the-democrats-are-not-democrats-and-obama-is-not-a-socialist%e2%80%94he-is-a-sheafist/

An Agonizing Decision

In the 1920s, an Austrian madman announced that he would take control of Germany and use that position to murder millions of Jews. Scarcely anyone believed him. But he made good on his promise. He could have been stopped. However, the nations in a position to do so failed at the task. Either they couldn’t imagine that he was serious or they weren’t particularly concerned about the implications of his intentions.

Today we observe an Iranian madman announce that he intends to repeat the process. He starts ahead of his illustrious Austrian predecessor because he, in cahoots with a mysterious group of clerical fanatics, already controls the government. It remains to him only to finish his preparations of the atomic tools with which he expects to carry out his mad plan.

Once again, there are those in a position to prevent it. But as in the past, events have demonstrated that the powers capable of forechecking the mad Iranian are unlikely to do so. Most dismiss his threats as political bluster. Most of the rest believe he is not serious because, they calculate, a genocidal thrust by Iran toward Israel would surely be suicidal. And then of course there are the not inconsiderable numbers who, if not gleeful at the prospect of Jewish annihilation, at least don’t see it as such a terrible outcome. I wonder into which of these three groups our benighted President falls.

There is however one major difference between the situations then and now—namely, the existence of a powerful Jewish State capable of defending the Jewish people and/or avenging the Jewish people. And thereby arises the agonizing decision faced by Israel’s leaders.

I have no doubt that the people of Israel do not dismiss the madman’s threat as bluster or bluff. They understand that the centuries long enmity of Islam toward Judaism, the hysterical obsession of the Muslim world to rid the Middle East of the ‘Zionist entity’ and the Muslim embrace of suicide bombers make it eminently possible that Ahmadinejad is deadly serious. While they retain the ability to annihilate Teheran, much of Iran and perhaps significant parts of the Muslim world—even if only in a retaliatory strike to avenge an Iranian nuclear attack on their tiny country—Israelis surely reason that a better course of action is to obliterate the enemy’s nuclear facilities first—using conventional weapons of course.

Thus the agony:

  • Israel cannot be absolutely certain, short of an actual Iranian nuclear attack, that Ahmadinejad is truly serious, so a preemptive Israeli strike could conceivably be unnecessary.
  • Such a preemptive strike might not succeed.
  • It almost certainly will cause inadvertent civilian casualties.
  • Even if it succeeds, the Iranian government is capable of causing Israel great pain via their long range missiles, and their proxies in Lebanon and Gaza.
  • The Iranians are also capable of delivering immense pain to the rest of the world (e.g., by closing the Strait of Hormuz).
  • And finally, successful or not, an Israeli preemptive strike will bring the wrath of the entire world down on them.
What will Israel decide to do? The agony that Netanyahu is experiencing—as the window in which he must decide shrinks—must be monumental. We shall know his decision relatively soon.
 
This piece also appeared in The American Thinker blog on February 22, 2010 under the title, ‘Netanyahu’s Agony.’ See:

The American Culture that President Obama Despises

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

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

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

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

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

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

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