Chris Christie won a resounding victory this week in deep blue New Jersey. Ken Cuccinelli lost a perhaps surprisingly close race for the governorship in fading red Virginia. The pundits are taking two messages from these outcomes:

1. In order for Republicans to have any chance of re-taking control of the federal government, their candidates must be more of the moderate variety rather than a Tea Party right winger.
2. Obamacare remains hugely unpopular with the electorate and it may well provide the lynchpin for a successful GOP election strategy in 2014, and perhaps even 2016.

I have no qualms with the second message. Speaking of lynchpins, Obamacare plays exactly that role in the Progressive playbook for fundamentally transforming America – the goal enunciated by our quasi-socialist president upon assuming office. And while the good people of America have been hoodwinked and brainwashed by the century-long progressive onslaught that has afflicted the United States, they have apparently not totally succumbed to the siren call of socialism to which Obama beckons them. Less than 50% of the population has any understanding of the radical changes (away from freedom and toward statism) that have been imposed on the American people. But more than 50% does understand that Obamacare will not only drastically undercut the quality of their health care – about which they are largely satisfied, but it represents a blatant and unwarranted intrusion on their freedom and individual rights.

On the other hand, I am highly skeptical about the first message. I wish that I knew more about the fundamental philosophical principles that animate the rotund fellow who just pulled off the miraculous feat in the Garden State. From what I can see, he is tough, blunt, talented and enormously self-confident. In certain matters – for example, individual rights vs. the power of government and spending/fiscal affairs – he appears to be quite conservative. But I have no strong feel for his stance on foreign affairs, the struggle against radical Islam, environmental and energy matters, the role of religion in American life, American Exceptionalism, Dodd-Frank or the Federal Reserve, popular culture, affirmative action and a score of other matters that would provide a clue as to whether he might be the second coming of Reagan or just another Bush.

However, the pundosphere has already decided the issue. He is a moderate! That is, he is cut from the same cloth as Romney, McCain, both Bushes (it was a myth that Bush Jr was really conservative), Dole and a slew of other GOP stars over the least half century whom I would characterize as follows. You’re thinking I am going to recite the epithet RINO. Well more precisely, I would say that the GOP has been, and may still be, dominated by those who have made their peace with the radical changes the Progressives have perpetrated on American society: massive entitlement programs that enhance government power at the expense of the individual; centrally controlled government schools that teach a distorted view of American society and history; a coarse culture that denigrates religion, emphasizes multiculturalism and loosens morals; and that the warts in American history (slavery, maltreatment of American Indians, internment of Japanese-Americans) cancel out any benefits that the unique American experiment has bestowed upon its people, and makes problematic America’s professed outreach to the world as a beacon of freedom.

Moderates in the GOP, while accepting these changes to American society as irreversible, differentiate themselves from liberal Democrats by asserting their ability to: (i) ameliorate some of the more egregious features of the liberal agenda and (ii) do a much better job of administering the welfare state. There is little of a true conservative vision based on the founding ideals of our nation, and little allegiance to the thoughts of the geniuses who originated and developed that vision: Burke, Jefferson, Madison, de Tocqueville, Hayek, Buckley, Friedman, for example.

Since William McKinley was dispatched, we have had two conservative Administrations – Harding/Coolidge and Reagan. In that 113 year span, we have had eight Democratic Administrations – ranging from casually left to extremely hard left in flavor and five mushy Republican Administrations of the moderate variety. However, since Reagan left office, we have seen Republican presidential candidates of the moderate variety handed their lunches. (One can argue that both Bushes escaped that fate because they were mistakenly assayed as conservative.) So in light of the resounding defeats of Dole, McCain and Romney, how does it make sense to nominate yet another of that variety?

My final point is that it may not matter. The Dems have perfected their election strategy. Whoever the GOP nominates in 2016 will be portrayed as a cruel, unfair, reactionary, Tea Party bigot. It worked against Romney and it worked against Cuccinelli in Virginia. They didn’t really unleash it against Christie because there was no point – his popularity insulated him. But make no mistake; in 2016, should Christie get the nod, the Dems will paint him as a crazed, business-biased, right-wing fanatical nut job who will confiscate Sandra Fluke’s contraceptives, crush the poor, discriminate against women and minorities, and start World War III. They tried to do likewise to Reagan. They failed because he was such a manifestly decent person. Romney was equally decent (maybe more so), but it wasn’t good enough. We need a true conservative who – like Reagan – is so genuinely likeable that he is immune from the liberal attempt to portray him as a heartless villain. Is Christie that person?

This essay also appeared in The Intellectual Conservative

Barack Obama is certainly an accomplished liar. This essay will spotlight a few from among a lengthy list of his outrageous lies, consider whether it is possible that, in his mind, he is not lying and then explain why the incessant prevarications might actually reflect something hopeful about the American people.

Obama’s lies are legion. They include:

“If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan – period. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor – period.” Arguably, the President’s biggest whopper and the one that is causing him the most trouble recently.

The attack on the consulate and the CIA annex in Benghazi grew out of a spontaneous demonstration in protest against a disgusting, anti-Muslim video created in the US. Obama’s most dastardly lie, arrogantly and insensitively tarnishing the bravery of the four Americans who lost their lives in an instantaneously recognizable terrorist attack.

The idea of purposefully derailing the award of tax-exempt status to Tea Party-affiliated and other conservative groups originated with a few rogue agents in the Cincinnati office of the IRS – oh and by the way, liberal groups were also targeted. This absurd and deceitful assertion was intended to hide the fact that the orders to conduct the operation emanated from some point high up in the Obama administration.

I believe in the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman. At least I did until I needed to more assiduously court the pro-gay vote.

Fast and furious – what’s that? Never heard of it. Ask Eric Holder; he can refresh your memory.

My trillion dollar stimulus bill will fund shovel ready projects that will immediately create worthwhile jobs and jump start the economy. Not exactly – most of the money went to labor union allies, state and municipal governments so that they could avoid bankruptcy and to crony capitalists. Moreover, much of it was spent several years down the road, and the only thing it jump started was your reelection campaign.

Dodd-Franks will identify banks and financial institutions that are “too big to fail,” and guarantee that excessive wealth is not concentrated in too few corporate entities. In fact, the big banks have coalesced into a smaller number that control as much if not more than their predecessors did before the 07-08 crunch. Moreover, the additional onerous regulations in the law are crippling American business.

The Earth is severely threatened by the certain prospect of global warming and the only way to deal with it is to shut down our fossil fuel industries and divert copious resources to the pursuit of green energy like wind, solar, hydro-electric and biofuels. Bullsh-t!

[Note: a direct quote is only supplied for the first lie. For the rest, I paraphrased. In every such instance, as is his style, Obama bloviates at length when he formulates an assessment or policy, and there is no specific, terse quote as pertinent as in the first case. But I warrant that the gist of the paraphrase accurately captures the purposefully deceitful nature of the prevarication.]

There are other examples, but the above recapitulation certainly serves to identify the President as a serial liar. The amazing thing is that he does it so effortlessly, convincingly, sincerely and repeatedly. He looks the camera straight in the eye, and in that soothing, melodic voice that reassures, he unburdens himself of facts and assessments that are manifestly false and/or misleading. At least half of the country – abetted by a compliant media – takes his word as gospel, and the rest of us – frustratingly aware of the lies – know that we will be labeled right-wing lunatics for doubting his word.

It seems to me that there are only two possible explanations for Obama’s track record of overt lies:

1. At the moment that he utters the words, he believes them. It is possible that Obama’s commitment to left-wing ideology is so intense that he sees all of life as reinforcing the need to implement the statist, welfare policies, which he believes will transform American society to suit his vision. This would also explain why so many people accept his tainted tweets as truth – they share his vision and little things like hard facts or palpable truths cannot interfere with progress toward that society. The higher goal is so compelling that facts and truth become malleable.
2. The other explanation is that Obama is totally lacking any moral compass and the act of lying causes him no discomfort whatsoever. The goal remains the statist, welfare state of his revolutionary dreams, and although he recognizes that he is dissembling in pursuit of the goal, it bothers him not at all that he is bending the truth. It is a price he pays without      batting an eyelash in furtherance of his quest.

So whichever the reason, what is the cause for optimism? Well, why does Obama feel the need to lie? Why not admit the truth about Obamacare, that it is a huge step toward fully socialized medicine? Why not admit the truth about Benghazi, that it was a coordinated terrorist attack? Why not admit the truth about the stimulus, that it was a classic Keynesian attempt to pump up the economy via drastically increased government spending?

The answers are clear. Obama fears that, respectively: more Americans prefer a private sector health care market than a single-payer, government-controlled system; Americans will see that his drastic shrinkage of US military and intelligence capabilities has dramatically increased the danger of world chaos, and the attendant threats to the US homeland; and Americans are worried about the draconian growth of the federal government and its unsustainable debt.

In short, he fails to tell the truth because he fears that the majority of Americans are not in favor of his radical transformation of society. Is he right? Sometimes I doubt it. America re-elected him after all. But apparently he is not convinced – since he keeps on lying. I hope he is right. And so I take some solace from his calculation that America has not (yet) tipped from the constitutional republic it still is (partly) to the Euro-style social welfare state that he is trying to create. He seems to feel that he needs to trick us, rather than lead us to where he wants to take us. If he is wrong and the society does indeed long for the socialist nirvana that is his goal, then he is lying for nothing. If he is right, then it’s time to stop countenancing the lies and for the American people to hold him accountable.

This essay also appeared in The American Thinker

The point of this essay is to reconcile – if possible – two inherently contradictory characteristics that conservatives attribute to the American people.

Not surprisingly, these are difficult days for American conservatives. The most radical leftist president in the history of the United states was re-elected last fall. Through a combination of steadfast duplicity and political chicanery, he has steered public opinion toward fundamental distrust of conservative principles and policy. The Republican Party has abetted his efforts by means of pubic disunity, amazingly poorly executed tactics and a deep demoralization about its future prospects. The odds of a Democrat Party capture of the House in 2014 have improved – which event would likely result in: legalization of 10-20 million illegal aliens; a cap and trade regime; card check and the re-unionization of the private sector; accelerated US disarmament; and of course an avalanche of deficits, debt, taxation, borrowing and regulations. If the US hasn’t already passed the tipping point between constitutional republic and collectivist social welfare state, then it certainly will under the second coming of Obama-Pelosi-Reid.

When conservatives write and speak about this deplorable state of affairs, they tend to make contradictory assertions about the current and future response of the American people to their increasingly dangerous situation. On the one hand, conservatives will trace the history of the grand American experiment in government of, by and for the people. They will point out several key characteristics of the people that rendered us unique among the Earth’s inhabitants spread among the nations. These usually include:

• a nation of immigrants, most of whom sought freedom and opportunity, who were willing to work hard to achieve these, and thereby giving rise to a stock of people more devoted to liberty and free enterprise than any other people;
• a nation steeped in religious morals that gave rise to a moral code, which favored the rule of law, a deep sense of individual responsibility, commitment to charity and a toleration for the other;
• a hardy people, proud of its heritage, confident of its future, and willing to defend to the death its beliefs and way of life;
• a striving by its citizens to attain the highest levels of education, including an exposure to the various political and cultural systems deployed (present and past) in the world – thus enabling them to fully participate in the governance of the nation;
• and finally, the unabashed acknowledgment of the superiority of the American way and a commitment to spread the notions underlying the American experiment to its neighbors worldwide (American Exceptionalism).

Conservatives often argue that the people still adhere to these values – it is in their blood. Although the people may be temporarily blinded by the century-long progressive assault that has undermined the structures of classical American culture/politics/economics, their innate nature will soon re-emerge and propel the nation to recapture its natural, historical traits and re-install its classic style of government.

At the same time, conservatives can be heard and read to lament in the most dire terms the deterioration of the character of the American people. In their blogs and tweets, in the pages of the National Review and other right-leaning periodicals and newspapers, and of course on Fox News, one constantly encounters ideas such as:

• The American electorate is now dominated by “low information voters,” that is, those who know virtually nothing about the radical restructuring that has been perpetrated on American society, and who unthinkingly vote for leftists that promise to keep their welfare goodies flowing.
• The brainwashing of the American public by the liberal-dominated public schools, media and federal bureaucracy has been extremely effective. There is little hope of overcoming the “transformation” that the brainwashing has produced – most people don’t even realize what has been done to them.
• We are a nation of takers; no longer one of makers.
• Fealty to the Constitution as the binding document that governs our lives has been supplanted by a belief that it is an old document, an out-of-date recipe for life in the eighteenth century, and not really applicable to American life in the twenty-first century.
• Americans now accept that it is the responsibility of the federal government to address any and all problems that afflict any segment of American society.

We see here two assessments of the character of the American people: (1) On the one hand the people’s commitment to the classic American ideals of limited government, free enterprise, individual liberty, ‘don’t tread on me’, and American Exceptionalism are alive and well – if perhaps somewhat dormant. But it will erupt anew and reclaim the country from the pseudo-socialist statists who are destroying it. (2) On the other hand, the century-long progressive putsch has rendered most of the populace into robotic, unthinking sheep – putty in the hands of the statists – who are for the most part unaware of what they have lost. Among those who might be aware, most are too fearful or too co-opted to raise a voice or hand in their own defense.

Well, which is it? You can’t have it both ways! Is America a sleeping giant poised to regain its classic nature? Or is it so far down the road to Euro-socialism that a U-turn is no longer possible? Are the people of America truly fed up with Obamacare, the EPA, a federal debt approaching $20 trillion, Obama’s ill-concealed unilateral disarmament, and his administration’s blatant flouting of the Constitution? Or are they perfectly content with 50 million food stamp customers, unsustainable debt, out-of-control entitlement obligations, multiculturalism and multilateralism, and forced equality? Do most Americans fit the first description? Or the second? It has to be one or the other. The two postures are irreconcilable. Conservatives cannot bolster their faith in a renewal and rue the declining of America by simultaneously citing both characteristics.

If it is the former, that is, America is rife with silent patriots yearning to break the chains, then it is time to jettison the pessimism and excuses and charge down the paths that will hasten the emergence of that patriotic sprit. But if it is the latter and the republic is lost, then it is time to think drastic thoughts like splitting the country so that the still sizeable minority of us who have not lost the faith can get to work on USA.2.

There is one additional possibility – namely, we’re split almost evenly down the middle. Ah, but as in baseball where a tie goes to the runner; in this case, a tie goes to the statists. If the constitutional republic is to be restored, it can only happen if a substantial majority of Americans want it to happen.

This essay also appeared in The American Thinker

What accounts for the Washington gridlock?
What separates Republicans and Democrats?

Recently, in a conversation with a very good friend – whom I consider to be a thoughtful and moderate liberal, we engaged in the following verbal, political exercise. We imagined the US political spectrum as a line running from extreme left to extreme right. I asked my friend to locate the New York Times and Fox News on the line. He said without hesitation that he placed the Times slightly to the left of center and Fox News far off to the right. This came as more of a disappointment than a surprise to me. But when I replied that I would locate the Times far to the left and Fox News slightly right of center, my friend was aghast. He seemed to believe that not only was I misguided, but my choices clearly reflected a fanatical, biased, even warped and dangerous misreading of political reality. Furthermore, I suspect that his reaction is fairly typical of the country’s liberals who see themselves as totally mainstream politically, while viewing the nation’s conservatives as hopelessly retrograde, reactionary and subversive.

How has the US come to this wretched state of affairs? Alas, it’s a rather sad, but hardly mysterious story that explains it. Over the last century, the progressive movement has captured the heart and soul of America. Progressives have successfully imposed their political, cultural and economic philosophy onto the institutions, not to mention the people of the United States of America. That massive transformation – in the three afore-mentioned areas – can be summarized relatively briefly as follows:

Politically. The US is no longer a limited government, constitutional republic in which the highest ideals are liberty, rule of law, personal responsibility and achievement, and sovereignty of the people. Instead we have morphed into a Euro-style social welfare state in which a federal government behemoth: intrudes on every aspect of our lives; is contemptuous of the restraints imposed on it by the Constitution; has elevated enforced equality over individual liberty; and regularly tramples on the people’s rights while claiming that it is protecting those rights, all the while dreaming up bogus new ones that it does enforce.

Culturally. American society was historically undergirded by a culture that prized: religion-based morality; strong traditional families and vibrant local communities; its English-speaking heritage; time-tested personal traits like humility, modesty and self-reliance; and above all, a belief in American exceptionalism – the idea that the US is a unique society in world history that has a special responsibility to be a beacon of freedom to the world. Today our culture is saturated with pornography; has perverted the notion of family; eviscerates local authority; celebrates the disunity of multiculturalism; and disavows any special nature of or role for America in the world.

Economically. America’s devotion to capitalism, free markets individual initiative and entrepreneurship has been eroded and our economic system is more accurately described as one manifesting crony capitalism, collectivist practices, central planning and vast government over-regulation.

This remarkable transformation has been achieved by the Left via a century-long cultural assault that has resulted in a nearly universal takeover of virtually all the opinion-molding organs of American society. The media, public schools, libraries, colleges, legal profession, seminaries, major foundations and federal bureaucracy are all in the firm grasp of the Left. Almost all of the political/cultural input the public receives – from cradle to grave – is thoroughly permeated with left-leaning content. The people are literally brainwashed. And so, as the US has progressed from Wilson to FDR to LBJ to Obama, there has been relatively little meaningful dissent or deviation from the collectivist/statist path. The center of gravity of the US political spectrum shifted – not uniformly, to be sure — but certainly steadily to the left. And most of the passengers on the train didn’t detect the motion. The result: the views held by “centrists” today would, even by the standards of fifty years ago, be considered hard left.

Thus my friend is astounded that I am so far removed from what he sees as the center of gravity of American politics.

Now there have always been dissenters on the Right who perceived what was happening and attempted to point it out. The names William Buckley, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan come to mind. But the Left was able to characterize them as misguided, if not loony. Of these, only Reagan had any substantial effect on numerous people. But he was surrounded by those who saw him as out-of-step (recall the amiable dunce remark) and his long-lasting influence was limited.

However, I think things have changed in the last ten years. The Left branded George W Bush as a right-wing conservative. But anyone with half a brain could see that it was not so. The explosive growth of government (in spending and scope, e.g., Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind) proceeded apace on his watch. And then when the most left-wing president in American history was elected, and rammed through government control of health care, an increasing number of people awoke to realize how far leeward our country had drifted. The resistance to the leftist putsch is much more intense and widespread now than it has been in decades (perhaps ever) – notably against those in the Republican Party who differ little in thought and practice from their liberal cousins across the aisle.

And so the two competing visions for America – liberal and conservative – have come into sharper focus. (In this regard, the reader might consult a previous piece of mine outlining those diametrically opposed visions in greater depth.) The space that separates these visions is huge. The ability for those espousing the distinct visions to reconcile or compromise grows exceedingly weak. The re-election of Barack Obama has further deepened that chasm. Thus it is not surprising that Washington is rent by a never-ending series of political crises that elude compromise. The distance from either flank even to the center is too great. To what end will this standoff lead?

Well, I can foresee three possible outcomes from this unhappy state of affairs:

1. Conservative exhaustion, resulting in the liberals completing the transformation of America that President Obama so fervently desires.
2. The country splits apart – hopefully peacefully. The irreconcilable differences lead to   divorce.
3. A century long battle in which the conservatives replicate the strategy of the liberals and thereby take back the culture and the country. (The reader may again consult the previously cited essay for a fuller discussion of this strategy.)

Sadly, Scenario #1 is quite likely. Scenario #2 is rather far-fetched, although one hears it discussed seriously these days. Actually, I believe that either of the first two scenarios could happen within a relatively short time frame. But personally, I am hoping it is Scenario #3 that is the winner. I think we shall know within a decade or so as it is hard to imagine matters continuing as they currently are without one of the first two alternatives coming to pass.

This essay also appeared in The Intellectual Conservative