It has been observed that Obama is willing to negotiate with Putin of Russia, Xi of China, Rouhani of Iran, even (indirectly) Assad of Syria – not to mention any number of lesser tin pot dictators around the globe. But he is totally unwilling to negotiate now with Boehner of the US House of Representatives. Aside from the intrinsically perverted nature of Obama’s proclivities, why might that be so? Especially as Obama has negotiated with Boehner in the past – for example, on the Bush tax cuts, the payroll tax expiration and previous debt ceiling crises.

The answer is simple. Obama has something to give to Putin and company – and there is something he wants from them in return. On the other hand, he has nothing to offer Speaker Boehner; nor is there anything particularly important that he wants from the Speaker – other than perhaps he falls on his sword.

Obama believes that he has a great deal to offer Russia, China, Iran, etc. Specifically, he wishes to offer up: the US abnegation of its historic role as leader of the free world; drastically reduced US conventional and nuclear military capabilities; a society bereft of the entrepreneurial spirit that has driven its economic engine for generations; and perhaps, most importantly, the cessation of its belief in itself as the uniquely indispensable free society on the planet, that is, a renunciation of American exceptionalism. From the aforementioned nations, he wishes to receive: their forgiveness for their ill treatment at American hands (as Obama sees it); protestations that they like and respect us for our reformed behavior; and a promise to treat us kindly when we are just one among the many prominent nations of the world.

For Boehner, Obama bears no presents. The President is hell bent on turning the House in 2014 so that he can complete his transformation of America into a statist, social welfare society. He believes that refusing to compromise with Boehner in any way on the budget or debt crises furthers the fulfillment of his goal. He believes furthermore that the public will blame a government shutdown on the Republicans. So, not only does he have nothing to offer to forestall it, Obama actively wants it to happen. On the other side, there is nothing that Boehner can offer – except a total surrender – that Obama wants. A complete rout of Boehner on the budget issue suits Obama’s purposes almost as well. The Republicans will be seen as cowards – for completely caving; reckless – for needlessly pushing the crisis to the brink of a catastrophe; and untrustworthy as stewards of the House of Representatives. Either way, Obama gets what he wants – a markedly improved chance of regaining total control of the government next year. The fact that one outcome might cause grave injury to American citizens is of no concern to him.

The preceding was written on the afternoon of Monday, September 30. Today (October 1) we see that the issue is resolved – a government shutdown! Obama got what he wanted. Now we’ll see whether his calculus is correct. We won’t know for sure until a year from November. But there is no mystery to the answer to the question posed near the end of the first paragraph.

This essay also appeared in The American Thinker.

Mark Levin has written two brilliant books, Liberty and Tyranny and Ameritopia, in which he describes, in painfully clear detail, the century-long decay of America from a constitutional republic populated by free people into a quasi-statist, soft tyranny inhabited by an entitlement-entranced, morally dubious, security-obsessed population that is increasingly subjugated by a seemingly benevolent but, in truth, oppressive federal government. For example, in the first book, Levin wrote:

So distant is America today from its founding principles that it is difficult to precisely describe the nature of American government. It is not strictly a constitutional republic, because the Constitution has been and continues to be easily altered by a judicial oligarchy that mostly enforces, if not expands, the Statist’s agenda. It is not strictly a representative republic, because so many edicts are produced by a maze of administrative departments that are unknown to the public and detached from its sentiment. It’s not strictly a federal republic, because the states that gave the federal government life now live at its behest. What, then is it? It is a society steadily transforming to statism…

Levin has just published a third book, The Liberty Amendments, in which he outlines a scheme for turning the tide and returning America to its classic moorings in liberty, free enterprise and traditional values. His approach is purely political. He sees the unmaking of America as having been achieved by the willful and nefarious subversion of the basic playbook that has governed how our society is supposed to work – the US Constitution. By ignoring it when convenient, reinterpreting it where necessary, dreaming up imaginary intentions of its authors and actually amending it in a few crucial places, the Progressive movement has hijacked the document and converted America from a constitutional republic whose ideal is liberty into some form of statist, Euro-style, welfare society whose noblest purpose is forced equality. To quote Levin again, this time from the new book:

The Statists have constructed an all-powerful centralized federal government, unleashing endless social experiments in pursuit of utopian designs. The federal branches have used judicial review, congressional delegation, broad abuses of the Commerce and Takings clauses, and the power of the purse (taxing, spending, and borrowing), among other things, to commandeer the sovereignty of the states and the citizenry. Indeed, the states and the citizenry are now consumed by an elephantine array of federal laws, regulations, and rulings, which torment, coerce, obstruct, and sabotage the individual’s autonomy. The states that gave the federal government life now live mostly at its behest.

Levin proposes to recapture the nation by using a heretofore unused feature of the Constitution for amending the sacred document – namely, having the states call a constitutional convention to consider amendments that would restore the federal government to its originally assigned, limited role in the people’s affairs. Levin goes further and actually stipulates eleven concrete amendments that would, if enacted, instantly restore the federal government to its proper role and thereby return America to its former status as a constitutional republic of free people. Levin’s amendments are targeted, brilliantly crafted and comprehensive. They address: term limits for Congress and the Supreme Court, repeal of the 17^th amendment, a States override of Congress and the Supreme Court, federal spending and taxation, reigning in the federal bureaucracy, the Commerce clause, eminent domain and voting rights.

Clearly, enormous thought and, I wager, serious constitutional legal expertise went into the preparation of Levin’s amendments. I encourage the reader to consult them and to think about the effect their enactment would have. Surely if you do, you will quickly arrive at two questions: Is there any chance of even a small subset of Levin’s constitutional amendments being enacted? And if they were, would they – as the title of this piece asks – save America? The answer to the second question is easy: absolutely, for two reasons. First, the constraints on the federal government thereby imposed would certainly return it to the proportions envisioned by our Founders and consequently spark a rebirth of freedom in our nation. But more importantly, the only way that Levin’s amendments could be enacted is if there was a great awakening among the American people as to the horrible transformation of US society that has been perpetrated over the decades, accompanied by a fervor to reverse course. That change of spirit alone would result, if not in Levin’s amendments, then certainly in some equivalent transformation of American society back – or maybe the correct word is forward – to the constitutional republic envisioned and established by our Founders.

But alas, the latter analysis brings us to the consideration of the first question: What chance do Levin’s amendments have of becoming law? More generally, what chance is there that the American people will awake from the century-long nightmare, which they have concocted for themselves, and in which they have transformed themselves from a liberty-loving, opportunity driven, independent, adventurous, morally upright, exceptional nation into the equality-obsessed, politically correct, dependent, fearful, morally obtuse, multicultural mess that we have become? I have no doubt that, were the transformation to occur, the United States of America would recapture its former national glory, individual freedom, economic riches and high standing as a moral leader of the world – for centuries to come. But I have grave doubt that said transformation is in the cards.

Where is the precedent in world history? What previous society lost its freedom and economic prosperity – not to a foreign conqueror, but to an internal disease – and later recaptured it via an internal revival? Perhaps some of the former Soviet satellites (like Poland or the Czech Republic) serve as examples? Sorry, their decay was imposed by a foreign occupier. It was only upon release from bondage that they recaptured past freedoms. What about Germany and Japan? They don’t qualify either. Neither had much of a history of liberty before they fell under the sway of totalitarian regimes. After their defeat, the US literally imposed a liberal, Western-oriented political style upon their societies. Besides, neither is doing much better than the US these days as they sink under the yoke of quasi-statist regimes. Perhaps we should gaze further back in history. Say, Britain at the time of the Glorious Revolution? No, the Brits were in the process of creating a free society, not restoring one. Neither Rome, nor Greece, or China or any other Renaissance society ever recaptured freedom via an internal revolution that deposed an order which had usurped a prior free society. There is just no example of a free, prosperous nation slipping into the bonds of egalitarian tyranny from which it emerged, via internal forces, as a copy of its former self. Do we have the wherewithal to be the first?

Maybe we should examine instead our own past for a template. US history reveals three critical periods when the Republic was threatened in an existential way: the Revolutionary period, the Civil War and the Great Depression. Is there a model in any of these three? Well, the first doesn’t count for two reasons. Yes, the colonies enjoyed great political freedom and prosperity in the 17^th and 18^th centuries. But the usurpation of their freedom was perpetrated by the colonial power, Great Britain. We threw off the yoke in a revolution against a foreign power, not an internal regime. The Civil War, on the other hand, was certainly internal. And slavery was undoubtedly an abrogation of freedom. But the outcome of the Civil War was less a resolution of that issue – after all, segregation lasted another century – than a preservation of the union and the establishment once and for all that secession was impossible. Those who were free before the Civil war remained so and those who weren’t achieved at best limited freedom. It’s just not a model for a 21^st century transformation. Finally, the Great Depression. Unfortunately, the US dealt with that calamity by taking the first huge steps on the road to serfdom. There was no rebirth of liberty during the event and precious little afterward. The economy improved but our slide into political and cultural suicide began in earnest under FDR, and was not at all reversed in the successive Truman or Eisenhower administrations.

In conclusion, would Levin’s amendments save us? Probably! Is there a prayer of their coming to fruition? Hardly! I have argued elsewhere that the way to recapture America is to mimic what the Progressives did over the last century to subvert it – namely, capture the culture. Politics run downwind of culture. We have a better chance of reconquering the opinion-molding organs of American society that the Progressives currently control than we do of passing Levin’s amendments. The latter might be a decade long effort while the former likely would take (as it did for the Progressives) a century. Whichever strategy we employ, we better get on it fast. Time is running out.

This essay also appeared in The Intellectual Conservative

Nine months after the election of Barack Obama, the countryerupted in angry defiance to the radical left agenda that the new president waspursuing. The Tea Party movement was born. Spontaneous gatherings, raucous townmeetings and unexpected political candidacies emerged. The signature success ofthe movement was the recapture of the House of Representatives by Republicansin the fall of 2010. It is true that Obama managed to move the needle substantiallyto port in his first two years (e.g., Obamacare and Dodd-Frank). But one canonly imagine the ultra-hard left agenda that he would have enacted had theemergence of the Tea Party not thwarted his goals of cultural Marxism andeconomic socialism that he had in mind for the country, which he feels is so deeplyflawed.

Well, to the surprise of many, he was re-elected last fall.Today, Obama is an unrepentant leftist radical whose sole motivation is to turnthe House again – thereby enabling him to complete the radical transformation,which he envisioned in 2008, in his last two years. Will the Tea Partyre-emerge to again thwart those designs?

There are certainly signs of a re-emergence. Many people aremore incredulous – than they were last time – that the nation would install,and then re-install, an unprecedented radical leftist in the White House. TeaParty types did, and still do, see him as an existential threat to thecontinuation of the American Republic as a federal, representative, limitedgovernment, free nation. And once again, they are organizing, gathering and plottingcountermeasures to check Obama’s radical designs for the country. Will they succeed?

First, success might be too generous a word to describe the resultsof the 2009-2010 Tea Party movement. Yes it led to the capture of the House.But it didn’t stop Obamacare. It didn’t stop the ongoing retrenchment of the USmilitary and of US foreign policy. It didn’t stop the administration’sjuggernaut of regulatory strangulation of the US economy. And it didn’t stopObama’s attempted destruction of ‘dirty’ energy industries in the US.

Next, political lightning never strikes twice in the sameway. The current movement does not come close to matching the enormous outburstof spontaneous energy and righteous indignation that occurred last time. Theproblem of ‘the beast you know’ has reared its ugly head. And thepercentage of liberty-loving Americans who believe that the US has passed thetipping point – in its slide into a big government, Euro-style social welfarestate – has increased substantially. Those people are demoralized anddisinclined to join the Party.

So I hope that I am wrong. But I expect that the Tea Party renaissance that many are predicting for this fall will be a pale imitation of the original. We are stuck with our statist commander-in-chief for another three and a half years. The best that we can hope for is that the House remains in Republican hands and what limited thwarting of the Obama agenda that occurred in the last three years will continue. Even so, the more interesting question is whether it matters. Have we indeed passed the tipping point or is there yet hope for America to recover its heritage of liberty and opportunity, and to reassert its role as a beacon of freedom to the world?

This article also appeared in The American Thinker at: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/08/tea_party_redux_comments.html#disqus_thread

How goes it for the American experiment? Not so well if one measures by three feature stories from today’s Wall Street Journal: “Tepid Growth Restrains Fed,” then “Branches of Military Battle Over Shrinking War Chest” and “In Newtown, Gun Permits Surge After Shooting.” In matters relating to the economy, national defense and civil society – arguably the three most important aspects of American life – the trends are not at all favorable.

The first article describes how the recovery from the now four-year old recession continues to be the weakest in modern history. It illustrates how the Keynesian methods adopted by the Obama administration have ensured the ongoing stagnation. One wonders if Obama’s minions understand this –i.e., are they doing it on purpose or are they just benignly misinformed?

The second article highlights the dramatically reduced state of our military and how continuing reductions – under the sequester as well as due to other intended policies of the Obama administration – have reduced our armed forces to dangerously low levels unseen since post WWI years. One wonders if Obama’s troops understand this – i.e., are they doing it on purpose or are their hands tied by events beyond their control?

The last article points out that, despite one of the most horrific acts of gun violence in American history and the resulting outcry in favor of gun control, applications for gun permits have soared in Newtown, Connecticut. Americans are arming themselves at unprecedented rates. Does this reflect a sense of safety and confidence in civil society by the American people? Surely not. Could it be that the Obama administration’s clumsy efforts to advance gun control, demonize gun owners and, not coincidentally, fan the flames of racial and “class” divisions  within American society have something to do with that lack of confidence? One wonders if Obama’s henchmen understand this or is his misguided notion of “social justice” blinding him to the true and historical nature of American society.

In so many ways, this American President is out of step with the people he leads and the society he represents. One wonders if Obama understands this! If the answer is no, then how could the country have been so blind as to re-elect him? OK, he was an attractive blank slate in 2008; but in 2012, his understanding of the nature of the American experiment had been on clear display for four years. If the American people still don’t understand Obama, then I have another article for them in today’s Wall Street Journal: “Obama’s Creeping Authoritarianism” by Daniel Henninger. Thereader will see therein that Obama understands these issues perfectly well and that he is using authoritarian, unconstitutional, aggressive methods to radically transform American society.

_____

This piece also appeared in The American Thinker

Several amazing statistics are given in a recent Wall Street Journal article that details the extent to which the activities of the nation’s NGOs are now essentially controlled by Washington. It is one of the most remarkable features of the American experiment – more so than in any other nation – that our people spontaneously form robust civic, religious, charitable and educational organizations, which successfully address the people’s problems. This aspect of American life was already highlighted nearly 200 years ago by de Tocqueville. It has remained so throughout the generations and plays a key role in the United States’ ongoing quest to ensure liberty and prosperity for its people.

But, alas, the nation’s civic associations have been coopted by the federal government. This is an assertion that we sense is true by simply observing the landscape. The nation’s institutions of higher learning are increasingly dependent on Washington for funds and priorities. The public schools look to Washington for not only resources, but also for standards. Unfortunately, similar statements can be made about so many of our NGOs: arts societies, philanthropic entities, community organizations, aids societies, relief organizations, civic associations, business roundtables and on and on.

Now, James Piereson, in a remarkable piece entitled, HowBig Government Co-opted Charities, in the WSJ last week demonstrated the extent of the government takeover of America’s civic associations with some eye-popping statistics. Here are Pierson’s observations:

For much of U.S. history, nonprofits have operated as a check on government by providing private avenues to serve the public interest. Unfortunately, American charities—and more broadly, the entire nonprofit sector—have become a creature of big government. For decades, the U.S. government has administered research, welfare, housing and educational programs through a system of grants to state and local governments, colleges and universities, hospitals, research organizations, consulting firms and not-for-profit advocacy groups. In the past 50 years, federal spending has exploded 36-fold, to about $3.6 trillion in 2012 from $100 billion in 1962. Meantime, the number of federal civilian employees has expanded modestly in comparison—to 2.8 million in 2011 from 2.5 million in 1962. The reason the federal government can increase its spending without adding many employees is because it subcontracts so many of its functions to ostensibly private institutions. This system has gradually turned much of the not-for-profit sector into a junior partner in administering the welfare state.

In Europe, the Far East, indeed everywhere, the people – whether in democracies or dictatorships – look to the government to solve their problems and manage their affairs. It was the genius of the American people, from even before the Revolution, to look to themselves, not the government, to deal with their problems. Such an attitude is consistent with and fosters the spirit of limited government that is the hallmark of our revolutionary nation. If we abandon that spirit and our attitude reverts to that of our less free brethren in democracies around the world, then our system of limited government will fail. We will fall further into the abyss of “benevolent tyranny” that besets the nations of the European Union.

______

This piece also appeared in The American Thinker at:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/07/big_government_is_swallowing_the_ngos_comments.html#disqus_thread