A Heartbeat Away

A scary thought: Biden a heartbeat from the presidency. Of course, the current heart beating in that role is already pretty scary!

 

The emphasis in the Vice-presidential debate – by the participants, the moderator, the pundits and the viewers – was on the policies advocated by the two men (or more precisely, by their bosses), the record of the present administration and what the future would portend depending on whether the incumbent or the challenger prevails next month. But this ignores the single most important facet of the job these two men are vying to secure. While the Vice Presidency has grown into a position somewhat more important than the ‘bucket of warm pi—’ that it was characterized as by John Nance Garner, FDR’s first VP, it remains true that, by far, its occupant’s most critical responsibility is to be ready and able to unexpectedly ascend to the presidency should circumstances require – an occasion experienced by 9 out of the 43 (Cleveland only counts once) men who have become president in the nation’s history.

In this regard, what did we see at the debate?

Joe Biden. What we saw was rudeness, arrogance, anger, condescension, narrow-mindedness and an absolute unwillingness to acknowledge mistakes, flaws in policy or their execution. We saw a doctrinaire liberal who is blindingly certain that conservatives are wrong, bigoted and dangerous. While the Vice President committed none of the gaffes for which he is so justifiably famous, he did stumble through the current progressive litany of standard positions: demonization of Wall Street, castigation of the successful, denial about the bleak outcome of Obama’s misguided foreign policy, refusal to acknowledge or deal with the fiscal calamities that out of control entitlements are dragging us toward and an obsession with egalitarianism at the expense of individual liberty. Moreover, he presented his case in a self-absorbed, unthinking and vicious way – especially mischaracterizing Mitt Romney as a liar, tax cheat and general miscreant. Despite the vigor of his words and robustness of his gestures, the gnome-like and weary quality of his scripted attacks occasionally revealed the old man that he is. The thought of him as President is nauseating.

Paul Ryan. What we saw was calm and rational discussion, thoughtful arguments, deference (perhaps too much so) to his opponent, and a willingness to address the country’s fundamental fiscal problems – not only the cliff that we are fast approaching, but also the national calamity that 75 years of profligate spending, irresponsible borrowing, overregulation and excessive taxation are bringing upon us. We saw a man who has thought deeply and long about critical issues, who has a record of working across the aisle and who has developed workable solutions. We saw youth, vigor, compassion (not the phony variety) and a man – unlike his opponent – whose political opinions are faithful to the religious convictions that infuse his life. Were he to unexpectedly ascend to the presidency, the country would be well served.

Joe Biden has no record of successful leadership in a long and undistinguished political career. Paul Ryan has been a leader and innovator from his first moments in Congress. On the issue of suitability to become president, the debate served up a clear winner.

_____

This blog post also appeared in The Intellectual Conservative at:

A Campaign Mystery

Obama presents a mortal threat to the continued existence of our country as a constitutionally ordained, federal republic that is committed to individual liberty, free markets, natural rights and American exceptionalism.

As obvious as it was in 1980 that Jimmy Carter needed to be ejected from the White House, it is even more plain today that the redistributionist, blame America, crony capitalist-loving statist who is currently in the Oval Office must be expelled. He presents a mortal threat to the continued existence of our country as a constitutionally ordained, federal republic that is committed to individual liberty, free markets, natural rights and American exceptionalism. We have been chipping away at these principles for decades. Obama has accelerated the process toward the tipping point – if we haven’t passed it already. And if we haven’t, we surely shall during a catastrophic second term.

Paraphrasing the Declaration of Independence: The history of the present President of the United States is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

·        Obama has exploded the federal deficit and the national debt far beyond reasonable limits. The latter poses an existential fiscal threat to the Republic.

·        He has drastically expanded the scope of the federal government and shamelessly increased the number of citizens who are dependent upon it.

·        His administration is contemptuous of the law. The extra-legal activities of his Justice Department, the EPA and various ‘czars’ are complemented by his own illegal actions such as making recess appointments when Congress is not in recess and subverting the legislative intent of the bipartisan Welfare Reform Act of 1996.

·        He rammed through Congress, by legally dubious means, a radical health care ‘reform’ bill that was opposed by two-thirds of the public, supported by no member of the opposition and rendered legitimate only by the contorted reasoning of a cowardly Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Obamacare will raise taxes, severely diminish the quality of America health care, put numerous doctors and hospitals out of business and – unless the death panels really work as some fear – cause federal and State spending on health care to balloon.

·        He has multiplied exponentially the number and complexity of federal regulations, all of which are strangling business, crippling the economy and converting ordinary citizens into law-breakers.

·        He has birthed Dodd-Frank, an even worse business-killer than Sarbanes-Oxley.

·        He bows to foreign leaders, defers to enemies, backstabs allies and engages in unreciprocated, unilateral military disarmament.

·        His obsessive promotion of ‘clean energy’ moves us further away from energy independence, exactly at the time when newly discovered domestic energy resources could provide that independence.

·        He denigrates our country by disavowing its exceptionalism.

·        He surrounds himself with radical leftists like Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod (who are actually less egregious than his pre-election companions) and accepts no advice from any other sources.

·        He appoints radicals to the Supreme Court.

·        He divides the body politic with irresponsible class warfare rhetoric.

·        He seeks amnesty for illegal aliens, refuses to secure the border and sues those States that try to enforce US immigration law.

·        He boosts the fortunes of public sector unions despite the now undisputed proof that they are chiefly responsible for the looming bankruptcy of countless localities and many States in the Union.

His main claim for reelection is based on three assertions: Osama is dead, GM is alive and Mitt Romney is a heartless wretch who will reinstate the policies of George W Bush that are responsible for the fiscal calamity that Obama inherited. The last claim, even if it were true, ignores his own pitiful record. Furthermore, all three claims are of dubious truth or merit. Yes, he gave the order to take out Osama – although much evidence points to the fact that he did so reluctantly – but the events of the last few months prove that the war that Osama ignited against the US remains alive and well. Yes, GM is alive –although it’s not so clear how well – but if it had been allowed to file for bankruptcy in the normal fashion, the process might have yielded a much stronger entity than the current Government Motors. And, while it is true that George W Bush’s profligate spending and pseudo-conservatism bear some blame for the country’s fiscal mess, Romney’s policies are more Reaganesque than they are Bush-like. Besides, Obama has actually doubled down on exactly on those aspects of Bush’s policies that were most damaging.

With such a record of unmitigated failure, it seems self evident that the American people will rid themselves of this disaster come November. Romney may not be overly charismatic, or have the wonderful smile that Obama has, but he is clearly competent, experienced, understands the nature of the fallacious policies that Obama has pursued and has clear ideas on how to reorient the nation in the correct direction. So how can the race be tied? With Obama edging into the lead according to many polls? Why isn’t Romney ahead by 20 points? Why indeed?

I believe the reasons are fourfold:

1.      Romney. There is a compelling analogy between the 1980 campaign and the current one. Carter’s record was abysmal and the public’s dissatisfaction with him was tremendous.  Yet Carter remained ahead in the polls until fairly late in the campaign. People are normally inclined to stay with the beast they know – even if he is a disaster; unless and until the projected replacement reassures them that he is up to the job. In fact, there was a moment when huge numbers of people reached the conclusion that Reagan could indeed be trusted with the presidency. It seems to have happened during the debates. So far, Romney has not had that magic moment at which large numbers of undecided voters and disappointed Obama supporters come to the conclusion that Romney should be entrusted with the office.

Furthermore, Romney has not run a particularly inspired campaign. Although his unexpected pick of Paul Ryan suggests that he is more conservative than many thought, he has not been able to establish to the public’s satisfaction whether he is a Reagan conservative or a Bush-McCain-Dole moderate. It’s not clear whether he knows himself. Clearly the GOP worries that the only undecided voters left out there lie in the center and so regardless of where Romney really stands, the conventional wisdom is that he must tone down the Tea Party-like rhetoric and tack to the middle. Yes, Obama was able to fool many voters that he was a centrist and not the hard-core leftist ideologue that he in fact is. But Obama is a much better liar than Romney. Romney would be better served to establish unquestionably what his political philosophy is and then promote and defend it fiercely.

 

2.      Obama. He is arguably the worst president we have ever had. But as a politician and campaigner there is no gainsaying his talents. He is charming, has a great smile, gives glib speeches and exudes cool, and of course he represents a huge step forward for the nation in exorcising its racial demons from its past. He is playing on all that. He may be destroying the nation, but much of the country seems to be hypnotized by his charm. While it is true that Obama’s near total lack of any relevant experience rendered him the least qualified candidate ever to assume the presidency, and while it is – and was – obviously clear that his basic philosophy is hard left, the public seems more impressed by his toothy grin than by his shallow and mysterious résumé. Finally, he and his henchmen in the Democratic Party are without moral principles. They can spin any mistake, demagogue any issue, demonize any opponent. He/they can get away with it because…

 

3.      It’s not a fair fight. By this I refer to the fact that the mainstream media is in the pocket of the Democratic Party. This indisputable fact has been true for a while. But the mainstream media is so transparently and overwhelmingly biased in favor of Obama over Romney that they don’t even pretend it isn’t so any longer. This gives Obama a huge advantage in the struggle. Reagan found a way to go around his enemies in the media and make his case directly to the people. Romney has not discovered that magic path.

 

4.      The progressive assault. The main reason that the failure, Barack Obama, might be reelected lies, I believe, in the altered character of the American people. For a century, and especially in the last 40 years, the people have been subjected to a one-sided presentation – sometimes overt, but more often subtle – that borders on brainwashing. The people are programmed to believe that the Founders’ principles were bigoted, racist, anti-women, homophobic, slanted to the benefit of the wealthy, xenophobic in their view of America’s place in the world, prejudiced in favor of Christianity, and certainly outdated now more than two centuries after their conception. Those principles must be replaced by more egalitarian, multicultural, ecumenical principles focused more on collective security than individual liberty, environmental concerns rather than entrepreneurial excesses, and world order rather than American exceptionalism.

Well, the progressive program has finally had a transformative effect on x% percent of the people. The key question is what is the value of x? I think that is what Romney was attempting to clarify in the ill-fated video in which the number 47 was bandied about. There is no question that the phenomenon described in #4 above has occurred and there is a value x that pertains. The critical questions are: is the value of x less than 50 and if so, is there any hope that its inexorable growth over the last few generations can be reversed. If the answers to those two questions are not ‘yes’ and ‘yes’, respectively, then either we have passed the tipping point or it is imminent and unavoidable. If so, then the constitutional republic that has proven such a boon to its people – indeed to all of mankind – will be irreversibly lost. Mitt Romney does not seem to be the superhero the country needs to forestall that disaster. But he is the only hope we have at this moment. If we re-elect Obama, it’s Katie bar the door; game over. We must elect Romney and hope that he turns out to be the saving agent that the US so desperately needs. Even if he isn’t, his election will buy us some time to find the true superhero.
______
This article also appeared in The Land of the Free at:

Thinking About the Unthinkable – Disunion

Then one must contemplate that perhaps Disunion is preferable to Civil War. An amicable divorce might be preferable to the inevitable civil strife. Is it feasible? Can American liberals and American conservatives imitate Czechs and Slovaks?

It is commonly accepted wisdom that the United States fought a Civil War to end slavery. While true, the need to remove that stain from the fabric of American society was not Lincoln’s primary motivation for prosecuting the war. It was instead his unshakable belief in the absolute necessity of preserving the Union, for by ‘giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free…We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.’ Lincoln surely believed that the dissolution of the Union would sentence the people of the United States, indeed most of humanity, to a future of poverty, enslavement and degradation.

There were several notable separatist efforts early in US history. But since the defeat of the Confederacy, no serious movement to sunder the Union has arisen. The country has been blessed with a century and a half of unity, prosperity and freedom – during which time it came to lead mankind toward those goals, by its example and by force of arms when freedom was threatened by tyrants and totalitarian regimes.

However, in that same period – especially in the latter two thirds of it – the US has undergone a fundamental transformation (if I might channel the phrase used by the latest engine of that change). Until roughly the dawn of the twentieth century, virtually all of the (free) American people were content that the principles upon which the nation was founded were sound, essential to the character of the society and worthy of continuation as the governing ideals of the country. But at that dawn, the nascent progressive movement began a century-long effort to radically alter the country’s political and cultural axioms.

The nature of the transformation has been described countless times by numerous authors. Suffice it to say that: the ultimate ideal of individual liberty has been superseded by the quest for equality and fairness; the reliance on free markets, democratic capitalism and entrepreneurial endeavors has been supplanted by an entitlement mentality and government control of business; American exceptionalism – the idea that the US has a special role to play in spreading the blessings of liberty around the world – has been jettisoned in favor of a multilateral approach to foreign affairs; and the notions of limited government, consent of the governed and constitutional federalism have given way to a mighty behemoth, i.e., the federal government, which dominates the lives of its citizens. This transformation, which took a century to bring about, was accomplished primarily via the progressive movement taking nearly complete control of the opinion-molding organs of American society: the media, universities, legal profession, libraries, seminaries, foundations, educational establishment, etc.

The miracle is that any resistance to the progressive putsch manages to survive. Truth be told, much of traditional America has been asleep at the switch for nearly a century. On the one hand, conservatives thought that perhaps some of the progressives’ explicitly stated objectives might conceivably smooth out a few of the rough edges that were natural consequences of America’s traditional rugged individualism – so conservatives acquiesced in their implementation. On the other hand, conservatives completely failed to appreciate how deeply and broadly the progressive initiatives were undermining traditional American mores, economics and politics. But there are signs that a substantial proportion of (what remains of) traditional America has finally awakened to the realities of the progressive onslaught. Moreover, that group of discontented conservatives is determined to stop the onslaught and restore the country that has been yanked away from them.

And so the nation finds itself sharply divided. With the advent of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid assault, the goals and methods of the progressive camp came into sharp focus. Many American conservatives are saying: no more compromise, no more blindness. It’s time to return America to its traditional moorings. But perhaps an equal number are satisfied with the progressive trajectory and have no desire to reverse course. Thus in the last few years, the nature of the sharp differences between the two sides has come into clear focus. As a consequence, the signs of disunity abound:

  • Washington is thoroughly dysfunctional as the two sides can find no common ground upon which to govern.
  • The current presidential campaign is marked by vitriol, hatred and a total lack of empathy as each side attributes lethal motivation to the other.
  • Thus our government – and thereby, our people – cannot come to grips with our problems – or even agree on what they are.
  • Supreme Court judgments are viewed as illegitimate.
  • There is a near universal dissatisfaction with standard politics, giving rise to non-standard movements, like the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street.
  • Each side blames the other for perceived signs of the decline of America.
  • The nation is on a crash course toward disaster as entitlements, the debt and deficits spiral out of control.
  • The culture is marked by moral squalor more than by wholesome morality.

What’s to be done? The current situation is unsustainable. One of two things must happen: Either one side or the other will win the argument – the losing side will accept defeat and agree to live peacefully in a nation governed according to the precepts of its rival. Or not! That is, the stalemate will persist, grow more intense and result in a calamity for the nation – the exact nature of which is almost impossible to predict.

How might one side win? One can envision two scenarios – of totally different natures. First, the Left might triumph through demographics. The organs described earlier have been doing an effective job of brainwashing the body politic. That might continue and accelerate. Furthermore, the Left’s favorite constituents – e.g., women, minorities, immigrants and, alas, the poor are growing faster than those groups who gravitate to the Right. (It’s true that the Leftists are having fewer babies and killing more in utero than the Rightists are – but that effect is overshadowed by the rapid growth of the Leftist constituencies.) Thus the current 50-50 split in the nation might become 2-1, or even 3-1 for the Left, and the Right will be silenced.

How might the Right win? I can only envision one way. A very serious spiritual/moral/religious revival sweeps the country, blowing away the secular, dependency-driven milieu that nurtures Leftist ideology. It’s a big stretch to imagine, but not totally beyond the realm of possibility.

But maybe neither of these eventualities occurs. Then one must contemplate that perhaps Disunion is preferable to Civil War. It’s a horrible thought, terrifying to contemplate. But if the country remains roughly evenly divided between two fundamentally different and irreconcilable visions for its future, then it is hard to believe that the unity and cohesion, civil calm and common sense of purpose, and faith in a shared destiny that has characterized American society for so long will endure. An amicable divorce might be preferable to the inevitable civil strife. Is it feasible? Can American liberals and American conservatives imitate Czechs and Slovaks?

Probably not! The reasons are legion and could fill a book. They range from legal to geographical to financial to the allocation of resources. In short, no matter how desirable it might become, it is impossible to imagine a peaceful division of these United States according to the dual philosophies that divide its citizens.

So, either the Left wins; or the Right wins; or an endless, fraternal, yet internecine, struggle saps the vitality of the US and leaves it adrift, with diminished stature, unexceptional, no longer dynamic, prosperous, patriotic or free. Ronald Reagan said that: ‘Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on to them for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States when men were free.’ God forbid that this is the generation whose advent Reagan feared.

____
This article also appeared in The Intellectual Conserative at:

Why Isn’t Romney Slaughtering Obama?

By any objective standard, Barack Obama’s presidency must be judged a failure. It is undeniable that the hope for positive change that he inspired – however nebulous the meaning – has not been fulfilled. Obama promised the American people that he would deliver: (i) a more prosperous future, (ii) a more transparent government, (iii) a country that would be respected worldwide, (iv) a more equitable society and (v) a more united body politic. Not only has he failed to deliver on any of those five promises, but the case is easily made that he has moved the needle in the opposite direction in every one of those areas.

No rightist, and nary a centrist would disagree with the previous assessment. Even the leftists are unhappy with their savior. Numerous critical articles have appeared in leftist journals such as the New York Times and the Huffington Post – although, most of these chastise the President for not governing sufficiently far to the left. (A good example is an article by Jonathan Chait in the September 2, 2011 NYT entitled ‘What the Left Doesn’t Understand About Obama.’) Given the universally negative opinion of Obama’s achievements, why isn’t Romney clobbering him in the polls? One would expect that virtually any minimally respectable Republican candidate could cruise to victory in November.

Before providing the answer, here is a litany – arranged in parallel to the five points above – of Obama’s primary failures, which are not open to dispute:

(i)      Obama’s Keynesian economic policies have forestalled the robust economic recovery that normally follows a steep recession. Instead, his profligate tax, spend and borrow policies have led to massive deficits, crushing debt, bloated and inefficient government, sustained high unemployment, financial uncertainty and a diminished standard of living.

(ii)    Obama’s ‘Chicago-style’ of governing is characterized by the ramming through of major legislative measures (Obamacare and Dodd-Franks) without widespread citizen assent, a bigoted Justice Department, recess appointments when Congress is not in recess, executive orders that violate legislative intent and the bottling up of America’s energy resources under insurmountable red tape.

(iii)   Obama pursues a warped and cowardly foreign policy that subverts US allies (like Israel, Poland and England) while rewarding its enemies (too numerous to list). It encompasses a dangerous drawdown of the country’s military assets. The result has not been increased respect or affection for the US around the globe, but rather contempt and disregard. Why should any country respect the US when its president bows to dictators and denies that his country plays or has played an exceptional role in world history?

(iv)   Obama’s attempt to redistribute wealth has been partially ‘successful.’ His demonization of the wealthy and entrepreneurial has terrified business, restricted investment and stunted economic growth; but it has succeeded in increasing the number of Americans on food stamps.

(v)    Perhaps his greatest failure is his inability or unwillingness to function as the post-partisan, post-racial unifier that he promised to be. The country took justifiable pride in electing a black president, viewing his election as an atonement for the racial injustices in its past. Rather than embracing the role, Obama has squandered the opportunity by pitting rich against poor, business against consumers, citizens against illegal immigrants, religious against secular, and even whites against minorities on occasion. His disgusting campaign against Romney-Ryan is more indicative of a gangland thug than an inspirational national leader.

The harsh assessment above is certainly shared by a great many Americans. Why, then, is Mitt Romney not running away with the election? The answer can be provided in a rather broad stroke, which is sharpened by two very specific components of that stroke. First, Obama is, unfortunately, deeply representative of the political/cultural trajectory of the country over the last hundred years. The century-long onslaught by progressives on American society has been recounted by numerous authors. In a nutshell, progressives believe that the founding principles of the United States – as enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution – were wrong and that America could be converted, according to them, into a more just, humane, equitable and fairer society if it adjusted its principles to more closely match those of John Dewey, Herbert Croly, Woodrow Wilson and even Karl Marx. Over the course of a hundred years, the people of the United States – either consciously or subconsciously – have come to accept to a shocking degree the legitimacy of that view.

Well, Obama is the fulfillment of that vision. Romney, and especially Ryan represent a return to the ideals of the Founders. In fact, given the apparent success of the progressive revolution, it is perhaps remarkable that Romney is even competitive with Obama. The fact that he is competitive illustrates that the progressive victory is not yet complete. Actually, only 20% of the country openly professes allegiance to the progressive program. The remaining 80% are split roughly evenly between those who would prefer to cling to the Founders’ ideals and those who are either apathetic or confused. Unfortunately, the latter group tends to overwhelmingly support the leftist cause. This is so because of two special features of today’s progressive milieu that have rendered the flaming incompetent Obama as at least an even bet to retain his crown. They are Media bias and Public School brainwashing.

It is well-known that virtually all of the opinion-molding organs of American society are firmly in the hands of the leftists. These include: the media, public schools, academia, legal profession, foundations, seminaries, libraries and, sadly, many major corporations. Therefore, unless an individual is an exceptionally original thinker or is exposed to a countervailing inoculation (e.g., by reading the Wall Street Journal or The Washington Times, watching Fox News, subscribing to the Heritage Foundation or attending Hillsdale or Grove City College), his mindset is inevitably shaped to be part of the liberal consensus. And the two venues that are most influential in this regard are the media and the government-controlled public schools. If these two components were magically removed from the progressive control board, then what remains – if it even could survive without these fundamental components – would likely not be enough to control the national conversation as it currently does. But today – and for the last 30-50 years – the children of America are subject to a relentless barrage of left-wing propaganda that is strongly reinforced by what their parents see and read on TV, in the movies and in the newspaper.

The pernicious efforts of the mainstream media and the education establishment have rendered at least a quarter of the population into mindless robots who serve the progressive cause. Nothing is going on in their heads. Therefore, the robots will favor Obama – despite his manifest failures and despite the fact that their support runs counter to their own self interest. Added to the 20% hardcore liberal population, one obtains Obama’s 45% approval rating.
Thus the election is neck and neck. But here’s a thought. Maybe it’s not. All the polls seem stuck on a roughly 45-45 split. That leaves 10% undecided. Now, historically, undecideds break nearly unanimously against the incumbent. Hopefully, Obama’s vile campaign against Romney will ensure that the historical precedent is maintained. Thus, it really is 55-45 for Romney, which would match the 10 point spread between Reagan and Carter in 1980. So maybe a slaughter is in the offing after all. One can only hope.
______
This article also appeared in The Intellectual Conseervative at:

Liberal Train Wreck Begets Conservative Passion – Or Does It?

It’s summer reading season. Bookstore shelves and electronic book catalogs are full of samples lamenting the sorry state of affairs in the age of Obama. Four that I have read are: The Tyranny of Clichés by Jonah Goldberg, The Road to Freedom by Arthur Brooks, No, They Can’t by John Stossel and    The Amateur by Edward Klein. For those who, like the writer, rue the day that the American electorate took leave of its senses and installed into the Oval Office the least qualified, most inexperienced and furthest left candidate in the history of the nation, these books are preaching to the converted. One hopes that at least some of those who perpetrated the dastardly electoral deed are drinking from the ‘I told you so’ wisdom in those pages.

All four books are severely critical of Barack Obama and the ultra-liberal philosophy that motivates his thoughts and actions. Four years ago, when he ran on a nebulous ‘hope and change’ platform, shielded by an adoring media, and unburdened by any meaningful record that could conclusively tag him for the ultra-leftist that he is, it was easy for the electorate to ignore the few – but, in retrospect, completely clear – signs of his statist political persuasion. That is no longer the case. Three and a half years of damning evidence cannot be ignored. Although he obfuscates regularly, anyone with half a brain recognizes Obama’s:

  • solution to every national problem involves expanded government, less individual freedom and an imaginary, egalitarian nirvana;
  • preference for collectivist, Euro-style socialism over bedrock American founding principles;
  • un-American, class-conscious demonization of entrepreneurial success accompanied by redistribution of wealth and the promotion of an entitlement mentality;
  • Keynesian economics, despite the fact that everywhere it has been tried, it has failed – every time.
  • shameful castigation of America as the cause of certain of the planet’s geopolitical and environmental ills; non recognition of the salutary role that America played in the defeat of totalitarianism; failure to acknowledge anything special about America’s role in world history; and his purposeful diminution of America’s capability to influence world events;
  • lack of respect for forces and institutions that are responsible for America’s astounding success in the last quarter millennium – e.g., Christianity, entrepreneurial businessmen, military preparedness, rule of law, civil society, traditional family values, the Constitution and Western Civilization. Instead he wishes to replace them with: a powerful central government, secular humanism, crony capitalism, multiculturalism, globalism and environmentalism.

Indictments such as the above are rife in the pages of the four cited books. Here are a few examples:

Klein: [Describing Obama’s assessment early in his presidency of what he expected to achieve] It was, by any measure, a breathtaking display of narcissistic grandiosity from a man whose entire political curriculum vitae consisted of seven undistinguished years in the Illinois Senate, two mostly absent years in the United States Senate, and five months and ten days in the White House. Unintentionally, Obama revealed the characteristics that made him totally unsuited for the presidency and that would doom him to failure: his extreme haughtiness and excessive pride; his ideological bent as a far-left corporatist; and his astounding amateurism.

Goldberg: [Commenting on social justice, another term for the far-left statism/collectivism/corporatism practiced by our benighted president] Meanwhile, what does social justice bring with it? On virtually every front where social justice claims the high ground, it does so by appealing to the authority of a mirage and grounding its arguments in nothing firmer than an ill-defined sentiment. Intellectually, it has no more weight than a gesture, no more substance than a wish. Yet those who fight for it do not care; indeed, they like it that way, because it prepares the battlefield for them. They promise to deliver a better world, but haven’t the foggiest idea how to provide it. The Romans knew how to build roads and toilets; all the centurions of social justice know how to provide is someone else’s money. It’s imperialism fueled by guilt and sustained by smugness. But it is successful. These centurions and citizens of social justice run our schools, our charities, our newspapers, and, if they have their way, our world.

Stossel: It is unfortunate that the United States, a nation founded on more libertarian principles than most other countries, now seems incapable of admitting that government has gotten too big. One ‘problem’ is that we’ve had things so good for so long that most of us simply don’t believe, in our guts, that government control can strangle the golden goose…I can go to a foreign country, stick a piece of plastic in the wall, and cash will come out. I can give that same piece of plastic to a stranger who doesn’t even speak my language – and he’ll rent me a car for a week. When I get home, Visa or MasterCard will send me the accounting – correct to the penny. That’s capitalism! I just take it for granted. Government, by contrast, can’t even count votes accurately.

Brooks: Politicians who pretend that we do not have to choose between these two ideas of America are mistaken or less than honest. They want us to think that statism and free enterprise are ultimately compatible; that bureaucracy is not antagonistic to self-government; that we can remain exceptional when our system is indistinguishable from collectivist systems around the world. But this is deceit. Not choosing is effectively just the choice for big government. Unless we actively choose free enterprise and make the tough choices to limit the government, we will slip down the road toward European-style social democracy. We know this to be true because it has been happening for nearly a century. To be honest, big government is an easier choice than free enterprise. In the short run, it allows us to avoid sacrifice. Politicians who ask for sacrifice face a tough battle with voters, so they tend not to. But this laziness – on our part and on the part of the governing class – endangers all of us in the long run. It will mean the end of our Founders’ vision for our country. It will end any hope of limited government. And it will saddle our children and grandchildren with crushing debt.

Klein: Obama’s supporters claim that he has been falsely charged with being a leftwing ideologue. But based on my reporting, I concluded that Obama is actually in revolt against the values of the society he was elected to lead. Which is why he has refused to embrace American exceptionalism – the idea that Americans are a special people with a special destiny – and why he has railed at the capitalist system, demonized the wealthy, and embraced the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Despite the similarities, there are some significant differences among the four books. Brooks’ and Goldberg’s works are quite scholarly in nature. Brooks’ main emphasis is on what he sees as the moral case for free market capitalism as the best economic structure for the United States. He explains why, to his thinking, this choice not only maximizes the chances of the most people prospering, but in terms of right and wrong, good and evil, it is the proper choice over collectivism. Goldberg’s book is built around various sayings, slogans and ‘truisms’ that we have come to accept as legitimate or even factual; but which in fact merely represent liberal dogma that upon close examination is exposed as wrong, immoral, incoherent and often utterly vapid.

Goldberg writes with great wit, Brooks with great clarity. The other two books, while well-written, are less serious – more aimed at being a best seller than having a profound impact on the country’s great philosophical debate. Stossel’s reads like the script of one of his TV programs. And Klein has the breathless, gotcha, yet undocumented flavor of an exposé – which is exactly what it purports to be.

But there is a missing ingredient in all four – a sense of extreme urgency, unchecked passion or great fervor. If these authors – like so many of the other Obama-bashers – are correct, America is in mortal danger and if we don’t reverse course quickly, we are headed for disaster. If that is the case, where is their call to the barricades?

To be fair, some of this summer’s reading material exhibits that passion. Three that come to mind are: Ameritopia by Mark Levin, Still the Best Hope by Dennis Prager and America-Lite by David Gelertner. I have dwelt on the first two here and here, and I hope to address Gelertner on another occasion. Let me just say here that the following malady is aloft in the land. Tremendous numbers of people – mostly, but not exclusively, on the right – believe that the country is at – and conceivably past – the tipping point. The century-long progressive remake of American society has proceeded so successfully that there is little, if any, time left in which to change course. Moreover, it would take drastic, likely revolutionary action to accomplish this. But the trumpet has not sounded. Few authors are channeling Tom Paine: ‘Give me liberty or give me death.’ Why is that?

Conservative critics often say that the US looks increasingly like France or the Netherlands, or Greece or Spain: once glorious nations that are mired hopelessly in statism, secularism, socialism and stagnation. In fact, I think that the country whose trajectory we most clearly mirror is our progenitor – Great Britain. England was the most powerful nation on Earth for three centuries. When the progressive virus was born (in the late 1800s), it took hold in England as well as in the US. Both countries elected multiple progressive heads of state in the early twentieth century (David Lloyd George and Ramsay MacDonald in England, Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow and Wilson in the US). But while America has resisted the virus to some extent (Coolidge, Reagan), England succumbed. Churchill provided the last few moments of glory, but the English people showed their true feelings in the election of 1945. By the time Thatcher arrived, it was already game over. There was no longer any will to resist. Alas, the lack of a clear clarion call in the US to combat the alien, progressive disease might signal that we too no longer have the ability to resist.

The US today bears great resemblance to England just after World War II. As I have written elsewhere, the Suez affair of 1956 marked, with unmistakable clarity, England’s permanently diminished status. What particular event shall herald the final closing down of the American experiment? The fact that even the most severe critics of the progressive project cannot summon the will to call for the revolutionary steps required to restore America is likely a harbinger of our British-like fate. But to avoid closing on such a deeply pessimistic note, let’s acknowledge that England had no analog of the Tea Party. Its emergence is a hopeful sign that perhaps the ardor that is missing in the four references will yet be marshaled to save the republic.
______
This article also appeared in The Land of the Free at: