Government Coercion

The arrogance of the Obama administration knows no bounds. First, it simply announces that under the mandate of Obamacare, religious-based organizations will have to provide health insurance benefits that violate the moral precepts of their religion. Then, when surprised by the blowback that Obama’s audacity of dopiness engenders, the President magnanimously allows that said organizations will not have to include the offensive features in their health care package; but said features will have to be offered FREE OF CHARGE by the health insurance provider.

One wonders if he is obtuse enough not to realize that the insurance company will simply raise its other fees to cover the “free benefit” – thereby spreading the cost to others who may have no dog in the fight. Or if he understands this and is simply arrogant enough to think that if he can unconstitutionally mandate that individuals must buy a product (health insurance), then he can also mandate that a business must give away one of its products for free.

What’s next?

  • Every employer that provides life insurance coverage to employees must include suicide benefits in its coverage. If that offends the sensibilities of the employer, then the life insurance company will provide the benefit free of charge.
  • Every employer that provides disability insurance to employees must include benefits for disabilities incurred from dangerous activities such as skydiving. If the employer objects, then the disability insurance company will provide the benefit free of charge.
  • All banks that pay interest on savings accounts must guarantee a rate of return that Ben Bernanke says is fair. If they don’t, depositors get the Bernanke rate and the Federal Reserve will fund it.
  • All workers must join a union, except that if the employer has no collective bargaining agreement with any union, then workers will automatically receive annual cost of living wage increases that Bernanke decrees appropriate, and it will be funded from the federal treasury.
  • President Obama will receive at least 51% of the votes cast in November 2012 in every state. Any state that fails to comply will be expelled from the Union.
  • World peace will be declared on December 31, 2012. Any violation will be dealt with by a committee consisting of Joe Biden, Eric Holder and Kathleen Sibelius.
_____
This post also appeared in The American Thinker at:

Nation Building: From Success to Failure

An examination of the differences between past and recent US nation building efforts; why the former succeeded and the latter failed.

The United States has been involved in serious nation building over the last decade in two Middle Eastern nations – Iraq and Afghanistan. These ventures recall two other major efforts of this type dating back to the middle of last century – Germany and Japan. By any measure, the earlier two (Germany and Japan) were rip-snorting successes. On the other hand, with regard to the most recent two (Iraq and Afghanistan) – although the final word is not in yet – it appears highly unlikely that either will prove to be anything other than a disaster. To evaluate why success has been followed by failure, we shall first need a concrete definition of the concept of nation building.

Wikipedia entries must always be treated with caution, but in this case, the definition provided there will serve adequately for the purposes of this piece. To wit: [The] deliberate effort by a foreign power to construct or install the institutions of a national government, according to a model that may be more familiar to the foreign power…[and]…typically characterized by massive investment, military occupation, transitional government, and the use of propaganda to communicate governmental policy. Furthermore, in all cases in which the US has been the foreign power, the process has always been …succinctly described by its proponents as the use of force [and coercion] in the aftermath of a conflict to underpin an enduring transition to democracy.

The US occupations of (West) Germany and Japan following their defeat in World War II were absolute and unqualified successes. Both nations were converted from brutal, totalitarian dictatorships into peaceful, democratic, free nations whose societies adopted social/political/cultural mores much more reminiscent of the Western, liberal tradition than of an Eastern, authoritarian model. Moreover, those changes have endured over three successive generations.

No one expects that the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, which are now winding down, will achieve even a fraction of the success enjoyed by the preceding two. A fragile democracy has indeed been installed in Iraq. But it appears unlikely to survive the fractured ethnic structure of the population, the intrusive enmity of its neighbors, the lack of any historical basis of free institutions, the sponsor’s loss of interest, and a position in the crosshairs of radical Islamic forces seeking to remake that portion of the world. We have also installed a fragile government in Afghanistan, but it is certainly not a democracy. Moreover, each of the five conditions stated above calling into question the survivability of the US sponsored regime in Iraq applies to Afghanistan – with even more emphasis, if possible.

One might argue that the US engaged in two other great efforts at nation building between the first two and last two named above – namely, Korea and Vietnam. The second of these will immediately and legitimately be labeled as an abject failure. On the other hand, given the situation today in (South) Korea, one could argue that that effort was a success. But strictly speaking, neither of these efforts qualifies as nation building according to the afore-stated definition. In Vietnam, we never got to that phase, because we never achieved the requisite military success to initiate the process of changing the political/cultural structure of the nation. In Korea, at least in the South, we did reach that point, but after the armistice, we made no serious effort to alter the politics or culture of the nation. Nevertheless, I will apply to both Korea and Vietnam the criteria that I develop below as I attempt to identify why our retooling of the Axis nations succeeded, while our remaking of the two Muslim Middle Eastern nations failed.

The criteria I will examine are:

  1. Size of the occupying force.
  2. Duration of the effort.
  3. Extent of US control of developments in the occupied country. This includes whether there is any local resistance, but also the isolation of the target, i.e., the US’ ability to control the regional environment surrounding the occupied country.
  4. US understanding of the culture and history of the occupied country and its people.
  5. Level of support in the US for the venture.
  6. Stature of the US in the world at the time and its willingness to project power.

The meaning of each of these half-dozen criteria should be evident. Moreover, it should be clear that all have a bearing on the success or failure of a nation building effort. While other criteria could be envisioned, I believe these six represent the crucial factors that will determine success or failure in a nation building enterprise.

Let’s consider the cases in chronological order:

  • Germany. Five of six of the factors were in our favor. The occupying force was large; it stayed for a long while (remnants are still there); we had an excellent understanding of Germany and its people (at the time, Germans comprised one of the largest ethnic groups in the US); the American people were totally behind the recreation of Germany as a democratic state; and the US was the preeminent power in the world with no shame or hesitation about projecting that power. The only failing criterion was #3: Germany was half-surrounded by Soviet clients and mischief across its borders was theoretically possible. But Germany was thoroughly defeated, America had ample forces on the ground and the Soviets were so preoccupied consolidating their own gains in Eastern Europe as to forestall any meaningful attempt at subversive destabilization of W. Germany (at the time).
  • Japan. Again, we enjoyed five of six. The missing ingredient here was #4: a deep understanding of the Japanese people and culture. But we had total control of the country, which contained a people willing to try something different, and we deployed some extraordinary personnel (from MacArthur down) who did a fantastic job. In some ways, our success in Japanese nation building was more amazing than in the German effort. The Japanese nation, indeed the world is a far better place for our nation building project there. It was a phenomenal American achievement.
  • Korea. Although we were in a position to engage in nation building in South Korea in 1953, we did not do so. Actually, of the six criteria, only #4 and #5 were not satisfied. We had sufficient troops, and as time has shown, the capability of keeping them in place for a very long time. We were in complete control of the southern portion of the peninsula and we were still the most powerful nation on Earth. Of course we had little understanding of Korean culture and the folks at home were weary of the venture. Whether this would have been sufficient to succeed cannot be known since we didn’t really try.
  • Vietnam. Like Korea, our effort here does not count because we never got to the nation building phase. As for the criteria: only #1 and #2 applied. We committed a half-million troops for nearly a decade. But we failed at the remaining four criteria. We never really established control of South Vietnam or its neighbors; we understood the Vietnamese even less well than we understood the Koreans or Japanese; the domestic opposition to our Vietnam adventure was fierce; and from the mid 60s to the end of the 70s, US global stature was declining as the Soviets were on the march.
  • Iraq. Again only #1 and #2 were satisfied. That we failed at 3-5 is self-evident. And certainly with the arrival of the Obama administration, #6 eluded us too. In fact, one could claim, as many did, that we did not have enough boots on the ground. As for #2, eight years should be long enough. It didn’t take much longer than that in Germany and Japan. But now we can’t get out of Iraq quickly enough.
  • Afghanistan. Once again, virtually everything said about Iraq is true here in spades. The only caveat is domestic opposition to this venture is somewhat tempered by 9-11 and our elimination of Osama bin Laden.

So what conclusions can we draw? All the criteria are important to the success of a nation building mission; in principle, one would like them all to be satisfied. But is it possible that the lack of any one or specific group of them must prove fatal? In Germany we lacked #3 and in Japan #4, yet we succeeded. On the other hand, I believe that the other four are indispensable. However, I also believe that, regarding #1 and #2, this is so basic as to be obvious and uninteresting. They are a set of minimum necessary criteria. What is more surprising is the absolute necessity of #5 and #6. These are not as self-evidently necessary as are #1 and #2. But as history has shown, without them, there is no chance of success. Without the support of the homeland, there cannot be a sustained will to carry through with the incredibly difficult task of fundamentally altering the course of a nation. And without the requisite power and willingness to use it, even with the political will to nation build, there will not be the capability.

With these lessons in mind, we might ponder any future nation building enterprise under consideration. There are those who advocate such an exercise in Syria or Iran. But it should be completely clear that none of conditions 3-6 will be fulfilled for either of those nations. Our examination has revealed that this might not prove fatal in case of #3 or #4, but the missing pieces in #5 and #6 would surely spell doom. Of course, we have a compelling interest in preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. We will just have to do so without attempting to alter the character of that tortured nation.
____
This article also appeared in The Intellectual Conservative at:
and also in The Land of the Free at:

Hesitatingly, Disappointedly and Agonizingly…for Mitt

Conservatives were greatly encouraged by the results of the 2010 national elections. Furthermore, they were excited about the Republicans completing the sweep in 2012 by taking the Senate and the White House. The chance to not only defeat the current crop of ultra-liberal Democrats leading those two institutions, but to finally reverse a century-long slide into statism, socialism and amoral secularism; that worthy goal seemed within reach.

Therefore, intense interest arose among conservatives in the Republican presidential nomination process that began last summer. It was disappointing when those most qualified to lead the envisioned counter-revolution chose not to participate. Jim DeMint, Mike Pence, John Bolton and Paul Ryan were among them. But there still appeared to be highly qualified individuals who might be capable of leading a restoration of America back to its founding principles of individual liberty, free markets, limited government and American exceptionalism. Alas, today, conservatives are not so sanguine about the prospect.

Among the declared candidates, there were two that conservatives eyed with suspicion – Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. While the fiscal aspects of Paul’s libertarian philosophy are appealing, his isolationist tendencies and laissez-faire moral stances put him outside the pale. Besides, he is 75 years old with an annoying hint of anti-Israel bias in his background. As for the other non-starter, Mitt Romney, he is guiltily of serial flip-flopping on critical issues; and his promotion of Romneycare disqualified him as it would fatally compromise his ability to challenge Obamacare. While there is much to admire in his book, No Apology, it is hard to know which parts were written with conviction and which in order to kowtow to the conservative base whose votes he would need for the nomination.

Thus began a depressing winnowing of the remaining pretenders in the field. The first contender out of the gate was Tim Pawlenty. The convictions outlined in his book, Courage to Stand, seem to be genuine. But he behaved as if his primary method of convincing voters of his qualifications was to eviscerate Michelle Bachmann. He came across as petty and mean-spirited. Adios Tim.

Then it was natural to look more closely at Ms. Bachmann. But she didn’t look so good: no executive experience (we already have that with Obama), reputation as a nasty person, that strange ‘wild deer in the headlights’ glare in her eyes, singing “Barack Obama will be a one-term president” as if it was a sorority pledge chant or the mantra of a hypnotized cult member. So long Michelle.

Then Herman Cain hurtled to the head of the class. But not for long. His reply to every question was “9-9-9,” another mindless chant that represented giving the feds a new taxing authority. Bad idea! Anyway, his fiery destruction at the hands of numerous women he supposedly groped occurred before conservatives could meaningfully assess his candidacy. Ciao Herman.

Ah but here comes Rick Perry to the rescue. Now, his book, Fed Up, is fantastic – an extremely well articulated presentation of conservative values and philosophy of government, expressed with fervor and definitely conviction. But oops… Rick can’t seem to remember anything beside his name and that he is from Texas. In one breathtakingly bad performance after another, he conveys that he is not serious, is unprepared and probably didn’t write his own book. Hit the road, Rick.

Next to surge forward is Newt Gingrich. He does it solely on the basis of his debate performances. They are sterling. He excoriates the liberal moderators, runs rings around his competitors, never says “uh,” has an outstanding command of the issues and strikes a resoundingly conservative tone. Is Newt the man? His history, unfortunately, says no. Indeed he has flip-flopped as much as Romney – e.g., the commercial with Nancy Pelosi highlights his prior incorrect stance on global warming. Actually, there are a host of issues on which Newt has been all over the map: illegal immigration, the individual health mandate, government lobbying. However, the most damning feature of Newt’s persona is illustrated by his spontaneous outburst eviscerating Paul Ryan’s eminently reasonable and conservative approach to fixing the federal entitlement programs as “right-wing social engineering.” Absolutely unforgiveable! Newt is a brilliant idea man. But he is severely undisciplined, tempestuous, unpredictable, quick to anger, and perhaps borderline unstable. In the end, the thought of his finger on the nuclear trigger is more than a little unsettling. Sayonara Newt.

Of course there were the also rans like Gary Johnson and Jon Huntsman. They don’t even merit a wave goodbye.

So where does that leave us? Aside from the afore-mentioned Paul and Romney, only Rick Santorum remains. Puleez! A nice family man, good looking, basically conservative. But where is the stature: no executive experience, dramatically inferior in gravitas to a host of potential candidates who did not enter the race, and what exactly has he been doing in the five plus years since he got creamed running for reelection to his Pennsylvania Senate seat? Oh and there are also some serious black marks against his conservative credentials earned during his Senate stint. Arrivederci Rick.

And then there were none! Thus one comes hesitatingly, disappointedly and agonizingly to the conclusion that Romney is the survivor to support for the nomination. Actually, lately he has shown a toughness that we had had not seen previously and which he will need to defeat Obama. Of course most of it has been expressed in scurrilous attacks on Newt – who then quickly abrogated his own pledge to run a positive campaign and struck back. In fact, the battle between the remaining four contestants for the nomination has turned nasty, vindictive and exasperating. Many conservatives have lost interest in the debates as each of the surviving flawed candidates simply provides ammunition for Obama’s attack machine that will be aimed at the eventual nominee.

The point is: whoever is the ultimate nominee among the remaining four, even if he wins in the fall, that person will NOT lead the counter-revolution conservatives so desperately seek. But the potential damage to our country from a second Obama term is incalculable. Thus the prime goal must be to defeat Obama. Given the choices, Romney seems to have the best chance to do so. Perhaps we can tread water with Romney while a true Reagan successor emerges further down the pike. So, in furtherance of that goal, with hesitation, disappointment and agony at how the process has unfolded, this conservative will reluctantly and unenthusiastically go with Romney.
_____
This article also appeared in The American Thinker at:

Two Views of America’s Predicament

Those who harbor misgivings about the nation’s predicament, which is the result of leftist policies, do so from two completely different philosophical perspectives, with two radically different understandings of the fundamental causes of the predicament and two mutually exclusive recipes for redressing them. No, I am not talking about the left-right divide in America, but instead a less well understood schism found in the center-right.

National polls reveal that a substantial majority of Americans believe the country is “headed in the wrong direction.” Consumer confidence measurements persist at low levels. The electorate oscillates wildly back and forth between left and right and the public holds our national leaders in astonishingly low esteem. Movements like the TEA Party on the right and Occupy Wall Street on the left suggest that the discontent is broad as well as deep. Furthermore, it is common to hear the opinion that this current trough in American self-confidence is unlike previous instances of national disquiet in that Americans have always believed that we could overcome our problems and maintain our status as the strongest, freest and most prosperous nation on Earth – whereas this time many Americans fear that if we don’t right the ship very soon, the nation is doomed to permanently lose its strength, freedom and prosperity.

While this feeling is widespread, I will argue here that those who harbor it do so from two completely different philosophical perspectives, with two radically different understandings of the fundamental causes of our predicament and two mutually exclusive recipes for redressing them. No, I am not talking about the left-right divide in America, but instead a less well understood schism found in the center-right.

Most studies of political/cultural/social philosophy in the United States divide the population into three broad categories: (i) those on the left, aka liberals or progressives; (ii) the cohort on the right, aka conservatives (usually including libertarians, although that inclusion is somewhat problematic); and (iii) the center consisting of moderates or independents. I have argued recently (in this blog) that, since the respective visions for America in the 21st century promulgated by the left and right are so radically at odds with each other, those in the middle are straddling an untenable fence. The two visions are so irreconcilable that there is no viable middle ground between them and any attempt to maintain such a position is tantamount to a “non-Solomonic splitting of the baby.” Nevertheless, the middle exists and, if anything, seems to be growing as more and more voters identify themselves as Independents, while fewer and fewer subscribe to one of the labels Republican or Democrat.

I have also argued (in the previously referenced post, and in another, longer piece in this journal) that, for decades, the leftist vision has been conquering the nation while support for rightist ideas atrophies. Witness:

  • The federal government has grown to gargantuan proportions; the federal budget now consumes a quarter of GDP (historically, it’s rarely exceeded 18-19%); the federal deficit has ballooned to $15 trillion – roughly equal to GDP, and continues to grow at an alarming rate that foreshadows a cataclysmic debt crisis; and federal regulations, which have exploded in number, complexity and scale, are choking the life out of businesses, large and small.
  • The military is shrinking and our standing in the world is in decline. In a misguided effort to replace hard power by soft power, we coddle dictators and abuse our allies.
  • Our culture is saturated with pornography, banality and immorality; the marriage rate is down; the out-of-wedlock birthrate is skyrocketing; drug use is mushrooming; and traditional values are threatened.
  • Our leaders are obsessed with peripheral and specious issues like climate change, diversity and gay rights, but they ignore critical problems like illegal immigration, a failed educational system and anti-Christian bias.
  • Our economy is beset by permanent slow growth and chronic high unemployment.

Now amazingly, the massive discontent that we see on the left – typified by the Occupy Wall Street movement – expresses itself by asserting that we have not pursued strongly enough the leftist policies that are already subverting America. In particular, they say: we have not closed Guantanamo; same sex marriage is not universal; unions are not sufficiently powerful or ubiquitous; Roe v. Wade is under assault; the internet is not yet regulated; fossil fuels have not been banned; the pledge of allegiance still contains the phrase “under God”; 10-15 million illegal aliens have not been legalized; corporate executives make too much money; and, horror of horrors, Israel still exists. To me, these are the rants of a deranged bus driver who is guiding his vehicle straight toward the edge of a precipice over which he will plunge if he doesn’t stop, but his only concern is that the speed of his vehicle is not sufficiently high. I discount the leftist view of America’s predicament – the success of the left is precisely America’s predicament.

It is the folks in the center and on the right who have a better appreciation for how the developments of the last 80 years have placed our nation in mortal danger. But within that broad group – although there is wide agreement that the country has slipped off the tracks and is in danger of an existential calamity – those who recognize the danger manifest two fundamentally different ways of understanding the predicament.

One group, with representatives largely from the center, but many also from the right, sees the matter in purely a technical way. They believe: the government spends too much – it must spend less; there is enormous waste, fraud and mismanagement in the government – it must be run more efficiently and transparently; climate change is a diversion, if not a hoax – the government must focus on more serious problems that we face like energy shortages; peripheral issues and groups (gays, illegal aliens, Muslim minorities) receive too much attention – we must do a better job of addressing mainstream concerns; we don’t save enough, don’t drive carefully enough, take too many drugs and eat too much – we need to have our schools focus on teaching our children better habits; we shouldn’t coddle our enemies abroad – we must engage our allies more effectively in an effort to isolate our enemies more cleverly; our system of federal taxation/regulation is too onerous – we have to streamline it.

In short, this group does not see that the fundamental character of America has been altered. Instead they see too many extreme and ineffective policies – the answer to which is not to go to opposite extremes, but instead to find pragmatic solutions by careful assessment, more prudent management, and more skillful political actions by the government. With the exception of Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party – since Coolidge – has been nominating people with such an outlook as its candidate for President of the United States. Some have won, some haven’t. But which of those who won has made the slightest progress in reversing America’s slide toward socialism? And now that we are on the verge of being destroyed by our problems, the GOP is poised to nominate yet another one.

The other group, comprising mainly those on the right, but also some centrists, sees the issue not as one of poor management, but rather rooted in the political/philosophical changes that have occurred in the country. They believe that the US has strayed in a major way from the principles of its founding documents, that we are barely a constitutional republic under the rule of law, and scarcely dedicated to maximizing individual liberty, adhering to free market capitalism, pursuing the moral values that animated our forefathers. Instead we have morphed into a Euro welfare state, a soft tyranny in which a bloated government usurps our God-given rights, subverts our free market system, and imposes a secular humanist agenda on us – and especially on our children in government-run schools. The solution is not better management of the government, but a return of the country to the founding principles that accounted for our strength, freedom and prosperity. In order to do so, we need not only a president who understands our predicament in this way, but also legislators and jurists, religious leaders and media moguls, educators and generals. Only then will we restore America to its constitutional moorings and resolve our current predicament.
________
This article also appeared in The Intellectual Conservative at:

Obama’s Greenness Connotes Envy, not Environmentalism

Now we know that Mitt Romney earns more than $20 million per year, out of which he “contributes” roughly equal amounts to Uncle Sam and to charity. Different folks react to that news in different ways, but I believe it is accurate to say that the percentage of the population that wouldn‘t trade their AGI for Mitt’s is mighty small.

Of course, it doesn’t go unnoticed that the word “earns” in the opening sentence is misleading. Mitt doesn’t have a job. He no longer runs a company or a State as he once did and as he is so fond of reminding us. He gets no paycheck for any services or labor rendered. No, virtually all of his income derives from capital gains – that is, from selling stocks that he acquired at an original cost that was a tiny fraction of their current worth. He acquired those equities early in his career as a private equity manager, or said otherwise, a “venture capitalist” according to his admirers, or a “vulture capitalist” according to his detractors. Either way, no one is asserting that he did anything illegal. But what our dear President does assert is that it is not “fair.”

Of course “fair” is never defined. It cannot be defined in an objective fashion. What is fair to me might not be to you, and vice versa. But that gives no pause to our leftist-minded President. In his patented arrogant style, even though he never articulates a precise concept of fairness – because it is impossible to do so, he, like Justice Stewart understands pornography, knows it when he sees it. In his mind, it does not matter that Romney amassed his fortune by playing within the legal boundaries of American free enterprise. It does not matter that the Koch brothers or the Waltons or the Mars family did likewise – the fact that they have so much money and that the average bloke in America has only a mere pittance by comparison is manifestly, blatantly, irrefutably UNFAIR. In fact, Obama is a total hypocrite as he is not bothered by the great wealth of Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, George Soros or Jeffrey Immelt – because they have the right attitude about what to do with their fortunes.

Obama believes it is the duty of the government to confiscate what he sees as excess wealth accumulated by those who have been successful – and then to deliver it to those less fortunate, but supposedly just as deserving. He is jealous and disparaging of those who succeed, especially as entrepreneurs. It offends his sense of fairness that some succeed, some fail, and too often spectacularly so. The green goo that courses through his veins has far less to do with his pathetically perverse devotion to environmentally-favored industries than it does to the envy and fury he feels toward those who succeed in our capitalistic system.

Our Founders set up a system that was designed to protect individual liberty by establishing a transparent rule of law, which gave everyone the equal opportunity to succeed and prosper. Their intention was that the government would establish and enforce the rules that allowed all to compete legally, equally and in a predictable environment. They understood that some would do better than others. But it was clear to them, if not to Obama, that the resulting inequitable outcomes were a small price to pay for ensuring that all enjoy the freedom to pursue their own destiny.

Obama and his leftist minions absolutely disagree. He sees unequal outcomes as “unfair,” and he is determined to revise the system so that government will have the power to equalize inequities. He is not the first world leader to feel this way. An entire nation, called the Soviet Union, was devoted to the concept for 70 years. We all know the outcome of that experiment. Obama has not learned the proper lesson. We are all suffering because he is such a poor student of history.
____
This post also appeared in The American Thinker at:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/01/obamas_greenness_connotes_envy_not_environmentalism.html