Afloat in the Ether on my Smartphone

 

The impact of revolutionary technology advances on politics, culture, education, finance and other areas of modern life.

 

In order to bolster his argument that Western Civilization is dying, Mark Steyn in After America: Get Ready for Armageddon, makes the following comparison between 60-year intervals. He posits that a time traveler from 1890 who alighted from his machine in 1950 would find a world that he could barely believe or comprehend. The automobile and airplane have been invented and are in widespread use. Indoor plumbing is ubiquitous. Radio, TV and movies provide spectacular entertainment. Washing machines, dishwashers and refrigerators transform the meaning of what it means to be a housewife. Miracle drugs like penicillin and insulin have been discovered and previously fatal diseases like diabetes, diphtheria and tuberculosis have been tamed. And the atom has been split.

The nature of human life was altered radically by these developments, and mostly for the better. By contrast, asserts Steyn, the time traveler from 1950 would be far less impressed. Oh the gadgets have been glitzed up a bit, but the American home, neighborhood and country did not look all that much different in 2010 than they appeared in 1950.

Steyn acknowledges two great exceptions to his assertion of an overall desultory advance in the last 60 years: space travel and information technology (IT). But he doubts that either has had a beneficially revolutionary effect – the first because we have lost interest (due to cost, boredom and a lack of vision and boldness); the second because much of the information technology revolution has resulted in vapidity (mind-numbing computer games, frivolous communication, pornography, cyber crime and too often, great wastes of time, energy and resources). I would like to take strong exception with him in the case of IT.

I believe the IT revolution has changed the way that we live as much as did any of the labor-saving, distance-shrinking machines invented in the first half of the twentieth century. The compute power that I hold in my hand (inside my smartphone) is truly astounding. It dwarfs what was available to me in gigantic machines that I programmed 45 years ago. And “dwarf” doesn’t do justice to a comparison between my smartphone and the guidance computer on the Apollo 11 spacecraft. Moreover, the depth and variety of the tasks that I can perform with my smartphone boggles the imagination. Here is a tiny sample:

  • I can produce in seconds an answer to virtually any question on any topic that is posed to me.
  • I can locate and obtain directions to literally any spot on Earth.
  • I can instantly access news stories about almost any event that occurred in the last decade with the flick of a finger.
  • I can obtain current financial information about any public company, stock or government agency in a flash.
  • I can pay my bills, complete my shopping, find out where my kids are, see the weather forecast for the out-of-town locale at which I’ll be next week, read a pending Congressional bill, peruse the menu of the restaurant in which I’ll be dining tonight, get the ball scores, consult my social club or place of worship’s newsletter, set the temperature in my bedroom (from my office), warm up my car, and oh so much more. The power at my fingertips would be just as inconceivable to 1950s man as were the mid-century gadgets to 1890s man.

These and numerous other capabilities have altered human life in myriad ways – among which are the following:

  1. Information. I have virtually instantaneous and almost unlimited access to all the knowledge in the world. There is barely a question, on any subject, to which I cannot get one or more answers with a few taps and swipes of my finger. Of course, it is incumbent on me to judge the reliability of the source of the information. But – perhaps unbeknownst to us – that was always the case. In the past we trusted unquestioningly the encyclopedia and Walter Cronkite. We should have known that the former made mistakes and the latter allowed his political biases to color the content of his reportage.

This item alone represents a revolutionary feature of human life that was beyond the imagination of any human that lived up until say 30-40 years ago. But the technology in my smartphone has also revolutionized many other aspects of human life.

  • Communication.Email, texting, video-conference and online chat all provide communication capabilities that would have been way beyond the ken of our grandparents. Moreover, we access them at a fraction of the cost of their clunky ancestors.
  • Business & Finance. From online and instantaneous stock trades to QuickBooks to internet banking to ATM machines to smartphone credit transactions, the world of the businessman, investor and consumer has been changed immeasurably.
  • Education. The educational tools available to today’s students and teachers are as many light years removed from yesterday’s slide rules, calculators and chalk boards as was the Ford Mustang from an 1890s nag. My 5-year old grandson’s classroom amazes me, as does the knowledge that is already accumulated in that boy’s head.
  • Entertainment. When I visit the park, I can take with me the music of the world’s greatest composers, the words of its greatest authors and the movies of the finest film directors.
  • Politics. In principle, the activities of our national and local governments are more transparent to the citizenry, as any of us can easily access government legislation, regulations and budgets. It doesn’t always work out as it should, but new IT capabilities have had profound effects on political fundraising, organization and campaigning.
  • Culture. Again, in principle, advanced IT makes the varied aspects of our multicultural society readily knowable to all citizens, which should have a homogenizing and salutary effect on society. Once again, it doesn’t always pan out as expected. But there is no denying that the USA is the most successful polyglot nation on Earth, and the technological improvements that have abetted matters in the previous six items have helped to make it so.

 

Now one may legitimately ask: are all these dramatic changes good or bad for the human condition? In fact, there is no shortage of arguments on both sides of the issue. On the plus side, the tech aficionado asserts: how can the availability of vast amounts of information, which was previously inaccessible to the individual, not be a good thing? Furthermore, the ability to communicate easily across vast distances helps to keep families close. Investors have more information about investment opportunities; consumers are more knowledgeable about the products they seek; children are exposed to more ideas and opinions in their education; and all of us learn more about other cultures, which leads to a more tolerant and peaceful world.

But not so fast: the unbridled freedom of the internet has led to licentiousness and a coarsening of the culture; the ubiquitous nature of political discourse has led to political polarization and government gridlock; computer trading allows insiders to control the market and enhance the gap between rich and poor; the brevity and unsupervised mode of information technology communication has eroded verbal and literary skills, and contributed to the dumbing down of American youth; the hypnotic nature of IT has turned citizens into automatons and rendered society more fragmented, disunited and incohesive. All the electrons flying around are frying our brains.

These are legitimate, if somewhat overdramatized complaints about the consequences of the IT revolution. But it is instructive to note that the same kind of of diametrically opposed evaluations of societal evolution could be – and were – made in 1950. The arguments for the positive effects of the labor-saving, distance-shrinking devices of the early twentieth century are evident and have already been made. Contrarians would counter: cars polluted cities, created lifeless suburbs and damaged the environment; all the labor-saving devices freed up women to be more like men with horrible consequences for marriage, the family and children; the advent of popular and cheap visual media crippled reading and literary capabilities, and contributed to the dumbing down of America; and splitting the atom led to the most barbarous act ever perpetrated by mankind (Hiroshima) and the constant threat of nuclear annihilation.

Nevertheless, on balance, I think most would agree that the positive consequences of the advances of the first half of the twentieth century outweighed the negatives. Although…acknowledging two world wars, one can argue that it was the bloodiest half-century in world history. But the root causes for those tragic conflicts lie at the feet of human beings – whose behavioral instincts have not advanced an iota in millennia. That doesn’t change the fact that the nature of human life improved dramatically over the course of the trip taken by our first time traveler.

With regard to the enormous advances in IT that occurred during the journey of the second time traveler, they must be judged to be generally of benefit to mankind. Human stupidity, greed, cruelty and jealousy may still plunge us into regular turmoil. That doesn’t alter the fact that because of pioneers like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Sergei Brin, our physical and social lives have undergone marked improvement.

So, happily afloat in the ether, I will continue to enjoy the marvels of my smartphone. Just like my grandfather when he clicked on that air conditioner for the first time, I am pleased to be living at the present moment and not 100 years ago.
___
This article also appeared in The Intellectual Conservative at
as well as in The Land of the Free at

Newt: Last Idol Standing or Sole-Surviving Mole?

An examination of the somewhat bizarre process by which the next Republican nominee for president is being selected — and the current standing of Newt Gingrich in that process. 

 

The process of selecting a Republican presidential candidate to oppose Obama resembles a combination of American Idol and Whack-a-Mole. The contestants compete in preliminary popularity rounds and the people vote via opinion polls. The last idol standing will be the nominee. But during the process, different candidates pop their heads out of their holes, only to be whacked back down by the media – who discover that the candidate: allegedly, sexually harassed women or was inexperienced (unlike Obama, of course) or couldn’t utter a coherent sentence or, worst of all, consulted for Freddie Mac. It’s enough to make one pine for smoke-filled rooms.

The latest “mole” to poke his head out of his hole is Newt Gingrich. Thus far, the whacks administered have not been sufficient to drive him back into the ground. Perhaps that is because an insufficient amount of time has elapsed since the whacking began. But should the bashing of Newt achieve the same effect as it did with Bachmann, Perry and Cain (in that order), there will be no more moles left to whack. Indeed, the other bobble head idols are actually rigid, not movable. Romney has been stuck at 20-25% forever – reflecting the rough percentage of Republican voters who desire a pragmatic, “moderate,” establishment-friendly candidate who will – at best – ameliorate to some extent the harsh consequences of the super-liberal Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda. Paul is stuck at 10% — reflecting the rough percentage of Republican voters who are more libertarian than conservative. And both Santorum and Huntsman are stuck at essentially zero. Neither is going to get his head above ground.

So if Newt gets whacked, then with all the moles buried, Romney wins by default. But the conservative voters of America are truly alarmed at the havoc wreaked by the Obama-Pelosi-Reid wrecking ball. Many see the forthcoming election as an opportunity to historically reverse America’s liberal slide over the last century into a collectivist, social welfare state. Some of them see 2012 as the last opportunity to do so. Mitt Romney is not going to lead the conservative resurgence those voters seek. So perhaps, sensing this, the Idol voters will decide that they might as well choose the last mole standing.

Each of the four moles (i.e., Bachmann, Perry, Cain and Gingrich) has expressed the intention of leading such a conservative resurgence. But three of them have been whacked – and their candidacies appear hopelessly damaged. That leaves Newt.

I was a big Newt fan in the mid 90s. He conceived of the idea of ending the Democratic stranglehold on Congress and, amazingly, he brought it about. The Contract with America was brilliant. It articulated a relatively simple, but forceful program for conservative governance. His accomplishments included balancing the budget and welfare reform. The latter is particularly important. Why? Well, it is widely recognized that the conservative movement rests on a three-legged stool: (i) fiscal prudence and commitment to free markets; (ii) strong national defense; and (iii) traditional values. The latter has a cultural as well as a political component – so, not only a reverence for individual liberty and limited government according to the consent of the governed, but also strong families and communities, a reliance on faith, and a commitment to high morals. Reagan succeeded brilliantly in addressing (ii); he was somewhat successful in (i); but he never touched (iii). Newt did – and if his writing is a guide, he will again. The importance of doing so is addressed by the author in another article.

But alas, Newt had some serious flaws. He could be nasty and haughty and abrupt with people; he was sometimes quixotic in both personal and public behavior; his self-confidence occasionally tipped over into arrogance; and he had lapses in judgment (his global warming commercial with Pelosi, e.g.). He lost his grip on power and faded from the scene. But I continued to read his books and follow his ideas through the 00s. On the printed page, in videos and in personal appearances, he continued to formulate and articulate, in clear and convincing fashion, strongly conservative ideas and policies. He seemed to understand well the damage that the increasingly liberal hegemony was inflicting on the country and he had concrete and workable ideas for reversing the trend.

I recall, as my disappointment with George W Bush mounted, thinking that maybe Newt would be the one we needed. (Actually, from the moment I heard the phrase “compassionate conservative,” I knew that W was not the one.) Sensing that the tea leaves were unfavorable, Newt bypassed 2008. But then, to the surprise of many, he threw his hat in the ring for 2012. My initial reaction was: they’ll crucify him. They didn’t have to; they ignored him. And he didn’t help his cause with early missteps like alienating his staff and criticizing Paul Ryan. Yet, here he is: the last idol – or is it mole – standing. Perhaps it is an accident. Newt was hanging out down in the cellar with Santorum and Huntsman (and Johnson during his brief appearance). Was it pure chance that the Bachmann, Perry and Cain moles popped before Newt?

In fact, I believe something more profound is going on. During the summer, Newt was no better off than Santorum, who is another credible conservative. Why didn’t Santorum pop? The answer is in the Idol process – that is, the debates. It is clear to any dispassionate observer – and even more so to the forlorn conservatives who are paying close attention – that Newt is the sharpest tack in the bunch. He is quick, articulate, clear and commanding. He disarms the moderators, never criticizes his opponents and answers questions confidently, intelligently and crisply. More importantly, he explains the conservative philosophy in memorable terms, and he highlights brilliantly the vast difference between his political/cultural beliefs and those of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid team. He can be a little rough – e.g., when he characterizes the Super Committee process as a “stupid” idea (although events are proving him to be correct). But I believe the Republican electorate is responding positively to him for two main reasons: (i) they believe he easily is the best choice among the idol candidates to defeat Obama in a debate setting; and (ii) he is a reliable conservative spokesman – not a flip-flopper like Romney and far more able than Bachmann, Perry or Cain to explain the conservative agenda. Whether the general electorate will resonate to him remains to be seen.

It will be evident from his record – both personal and public – that Newt is a flawed character: the multiple marriages, the abrasive personality, the eye-popping consulting fees, the quixotic behavior. But Winston Churchill and Abraham Lincoln, the greatest men of the 20th and 19th centuries, respectively, also were flawed. Ronald Reagan was not perfect either. OK, perhaps George Washington had barely a character flaw. The point is that we are not electing a saint. We seek a great political leader who can help to reverse America’s century-long slide into socialism and restore our country to its historic roots of limited government, individual liberty, American exceptionalism and free market prosperity. Of the limited choices left to us, at this point, Newt – the last idol/mole standing – looks to be the best bet.
_____
This article also appeared in The American Thinker at:

Is the Police Department a Typical Government Agency?

 

The author, who works many hours per week as a volunteer in his local Police Department, argues that, unlike virtually every other government agency (except the military), the Police are actually discharging appropriate constitutional duties — and doing so in a responsible manner.

 

Thanks to the never-ending series of Republican presidential candidate debates, the American people are being exposed to a hearty dose of skepticism about the role of government in society. Nevertheless, I believe all would agree that a proper and fundamental governmental role is the protection of the people and the homeland. At the national level, this of course involves the military and at the local level, the Police. It is the latter that I will address here. I will suggest, based on personal anecdotal evidence, that the answer to the question posed in the title is no.

When I retired a little over two years ago (from a university faculty position), I began volunteering in my county’s Police Department. I have spent up to four half-days per week working in three different units in the Department. Having had (fortunately) almost nothing to do with law enforcement throughout my life – other than some cursory interactions with the Campus Police during my time as an academic administrator – I bring an objective and dispassionate eye to an assessment of the Police Department.

I live in Montgomery County (in Maryland, just outside Washington, DC), which has a population of roughly one million people. The county Police Department – or MCPD, as it is universally known and referred to – has approximately 1150 sworn officers and 400 non-sworn employees. While not comparable to New York or Chicago in numbers, MCPD still represents a major police force in size, scope and operation. Incidentally, the ratio of officers to residents is rather low compared to most jurisdictions. This reflects both the socio-economic nature of the county as well as the fine job that MCPD is doing. In fact, I believe that MCPD is indeed doing an excellent job. But before I try to justify that assessment – as well as to highlight a few areas in which improvements could be implemented – let me describe a terrific feature of MCPD as well as offer a comment on the nature of its senior personnel and their attitude toward their role.

I have been fortunate to have received assignments in three high profile units within MCPD: Media Services, Major Crimes and Special Investigations. Oh don’t mistake me, the cops have not entrusted this sexagenarian volunteer with any dangerous responsibilities. Rather I have been involved mainly in document preparation and database maintenance. But in principle, my efforts free up the time of police officers – and that is the point of the program under whose rubric I serve: using the talents of volunteers and interns to enable sworn officers to devote more time to the most crucial aspects of their job.

My association with MCPD began with an 18-week course in its Citizen Academy (one night per week for three hours). The course is open not only to volunteers and interns, but in fact to any citizen of the county who wishes to familiarize himself with the workings of the Police Department. The course was phenomenal. Each week we had an in-depth introduction to one of the units of MCPD. The presentations – by sworn officers, some at very high rank – were thoroughly prepared, professionally delivered and mesmerizingly interesting. They were also very hands-on. In particular, I: spent a Saturday evening in a police cruiser while the officer patrolled the county streets (I wound up directing traffic as she dealt with an accident); sat in at a 911 call center; went behind bars at the County Detention Center; participated in a mock trial at the County Courthouse; witnessed a mock suspect apprehension; fired a Glock at the county range; engaged in an electronically simulated shoot-don’t shoot exercise; and observed a canine unit training session. I have since learned that the thoroughness, imagination and professionalism that characterized the Citizen Academy are representative of the operation of MCPD as a whole.

I have been fortunate to get to know quite a few of MCPD’s senior officers (Captains and Lieutenants). And most interestingly, because of a geographical accident and a special visitor, I have made the acquaintance of the Chief. The Chief is an amazing fellow – a local boy who rose through the ranks (of neighboring jurisdictions) to assume the top spot. Like many who rise to the leadership of a big organization, the Chief is intelligent, self-confident and incredibly charming. But I also sense a deep commitment to MCPD, to the public he serves and most of all to the men and women under his command who risk their lives to keep our streets safe. This attitude permeates down and is reflected in the senior personnel who lead the various Departmental units.

Here are a few more concrete features that illustrate the excellent job MCPD does:

  • Whether they are responding to a citizen’s plea for help, a criminal incident on the streets, a reporter’s request for information or a sister agency’s query about a suspect, the response is prompt, courteous and appropriate. I am always amazed, when working in Media Services, by the ability of the personnel there to formulate public information in the most useful way without divulging sensitive information on suspects or victims.
  • The above represents only one aspect of the interaction with the public. From traffic stops to victim assistance to criminal pursuit, our officers never lose sight of who it is that they are sworn to protect – and they do so diligently, professionally and in the glare of the public spotlight.
  • MCPD appreciates that the events which draw its attention are often played out over an extended period. I am impressed by the persistence and doggedness that is evident in MCPD’s approach to complicated crimes that are not quickly adjudicated.
  • Police officers are engaged in dangerous work. One of the quivers in their arsenal is superior training. From the incredibly rigorous requirements of the Police Academy to the ongoing insistence on weapons and personal training, our officers must meet a high standard. Obviously, this serves them and the public well as they pursue their hazardous tasks.
  • Finally, the methods and gadgets that our Department deploys are among the finest. Budget constraints are a problem, but it is reassuring to see state of the art crime labs, computer systems and police vehicles.

Admittedly, all of the above is anecdotal – determined by personal impressions. In fact, there is ample data on crime rates on MCPD’s web site to corroborate the impressions. Next, a few observations on personnel:

  • I find the detectives the most interesting group of people among police personnel. They bear some resemblance to the characters who portray them on TV. Not only are they dogged and fearless, but their sense of humor is fantastic. Perhaps it’s a requisite of the job because of the slime they encounter on a regular basis – murder and mayhem require a high level of emotional detachment in order to survive. The cavalier way that they refer to perps and cadavers takes some getting used to, but they are a fun bunch to hang around with.
  • There is an esprit de corps among the non-sworn personnel that is palpable. Actually in some ways, these folks remind me of the non-academic staff at the University. Most are dedicated to the mission of MCPD, take pride in having a job at a critical public institution and provide excellent support for the sworn personnel.
  • Finally, there is the cop in the cruiser. Keeping her eye on the street, manipulating that complicated computer at her fingertips, staying in close contact with home base, never knowing whether the next public interaction will be mundane or murderous, boring or brutal, routine or riotous. It’s exciting, challenging and dangerous, and it requires a level of expertise that gives new meaning to the phrase “people skills.” From what I’ve seen of it, our guys and gals do a great job.

There are a few warts of course. Let me just mention three – and I would say that all of them arise as a consequence of the fact that the Police Department is a government agency and that police personnel are unionized government employees.

  1. As in any government agency, there are employees who behave badly: shave work hours; manifest laziness and inattention to detail; worry more about their breaks, lunch hours and quitting time than about doing their job conscientiously; become disgruntled when their step pay increases don’t match their expectations and consequently adopt poor work habits that inhibit their chances of promotion; lose sight of the fact that theirs is a service position; complain incessantly, cast aspersions on the work ethic of their more diligent colleagues and count the years until early retirement. Fortunately, this is not the typical employee.
  2. Again, as in every government agency whose priorities and policies are set by politicians, there is a painfully evident problem of PC – political correctness, that is. There is too much pandering to minorities, coddling of illegal immigrants, genuflecting to “environmental concerns” and searching for ‘hate crimes.” Actually, it was much worse at the University.
  3. I won’t belabor this, but there is too much waste. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, as with any government agency, those responsible for budgets are not spending their own money. Waste is inevitable.

Well, despite the aforementioned three, overall I would give my Police Department high grades for the honor and faithfulness with which it discharges its duties. To get a sense of what an achievement that actually is, allow me to quote from my speech as the class representative at the Citizen Academy graduation:

If you, as a member of the general public, are interacting with a police officer, you are probably not having a good day. You are a suspect, a victim or a witness and in any of these roles, dealing with a police officer was not high on your priority list when you arose that morning. Moreover, when the police officer looks at you, he or she likely sees someone who is injured, indignant, potentially or actually violent, frightened, confused or suspicious, and perhaps some or all of these simultaneously. In the face of such overwhelmingly negative a priori conditions, it is the police officer’s job to be professional, polite, thorough, forceful when appropriate and mindful of the myriad laws and regulations that govern his or her interaction with you. It seems to me an incredibly challenging job and one of my main motivations in taking the course was to try to get a sense of how our police officers meet and surmount that challenge. I am pleased to say that 18 weeks in the Academy have reassured me that the vast majority of our police officers are doing an excellent job in meeting that challenge.

More generally, it is my assessment that my Police Department, MCPD, is doing a first-rate job of meeting its Constitutional responsibility to protect the public. National and local polls reveal that the public rarely reaches a similar conclusion about almost any other government agency, save the military.

America’s Future

A Presentation to the Nov 10, 2011 meeting of the MD Center-Right Coalition
Good morning and thank you for inviting me. This is my second presentation at this forum; the first was exactly two years ago, and I shall reference that event momentarily. But first perhaps a few words about me.

I retired recently after a 40-year career in the Mathematics Department of the University of Maryland – the last eleven of which were spent as a senior campus administrator. My prior presentation here dealt with an article that I published in the American Thinker, which was read by Rush Limbaugh over the air, and in which I described my difficulties in surviving as a conservative faculty member in an overwhelmingly liberal campus environment. The short story is that, to my shame, I did it by staying in the political closet for many years. But as I approached retirement, I did three things: First, I wrote a book entitled Liberal Hearts and Conservative Brains, which is referenced on the handout. Second, I came out of the closet on campus. The campus response is described in the American Thinker article, which you can find on their website, at the link above, and also by following the links on the handout. And finally, I began to write for and publish regularly in conservative online magazines. Richard has asked me to speak today about two recent articles that I published. They appeared in The Intellectual Conservative and The Land of the Free – and, to continue the shameless commercial, you can also find them by following the links on the flyer.

The articles are entitled respectively: The American Train has Jumped the Tracks and Getting America Back on the Tracks. Let me begin by quoting the opening of the first article:

Unlike virtually all other countries, the United States of America was founded upon a set of ideas. Its people did not coalesce around a religion, race, ethnic heritage, language or geographical area in order to form itself into a coherent, recognizable nation. Rather the US was constituted by an amazingly astute and prescient group of Founders who created an entity that would maximize individual liberty and endow the people with the greatest chance to have a life of freedom, justice and prosperity. The ideals that undergird this nation, unique in the annals of world history, are enshrined in its founding documents – the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. To be an American is to subscribe to and strive to embody these ideals.

The founding documents laid out the track that Americans were to follow in order to preserve our freedoms, our just society and our unparalleled prosperity. Alas, America has jumped the tracks. It is my purpose here to explain the derailment more concretely and to pose an overarching strategy for returning to the rails.

Now I assert in the piece that the tracks that our beloved country has jumped are laid out along three rails: political, moral and idealistic. In the first of these (the political), I refer to the ideas of a republican government with limited, enumerated powers, individual liberty, rule of law and equal justice, consent of the governed, and the other founding political principles bequeathed to us by our Founders, and from which we have been fleeing at an alarming rate. The moral rail refers to the idea, completely understood and enunciated by our Founders, that the experiment in limited government could only succeed if the people were generally “good” – meaning that they had a clear understanding of and could distinguish between good and evil, just and unjust, honesty and dishonesty, responsibility and irresponsibility. If the people made the right choices when confronted with moral opposites, the system would work well and the nation would thrive; if not, then corruption, vice and malfeasance would surely follow, with tyranny the ultimate outcome. The people would learn to make the right choices because they were embedded in a society that prized strong families and communities, charity and good works, universal education, a powerful work ethic and the fear of God.  I hardly need remind you that such ideas would be found laughable by far too many of America’s current leaders. And finally, the third rail, the idealistic, is summarized, perhaps a bit glibly, by asserting that the Founders were the first believers in American exceptionalism. They saw the American people as the “new Hebrews,” a people chosen by God to provide, by their example, a light unto the nations in regard to how a just and free society should be organized and governed. The Founders understood that they were creating something unique and revolutionary. They expected that their descendants would guard it zealously and hold it up as a beacon for the peoples of the world to emulate. The “descendant” who currently resides in the White House is not waving any beacons.

Americans rode these rails for more than a century. But beginning in the so-called Progressive Era a century ago, continuing through the New Deal and the Great Society, and culminating today under the Prophet Obama, the American people have been abandoning these tracks. In all three strains, the train has been diverted onto a route that bears less and less resemblance to the path laid out by the Founders. We might ask: How and why did this happen? And if we can formulate an accurate answer, can we make use of it to get back on the rails?

The answer is found in my articles. At the risk of oversimplification, it goes as follows. First I subsumed the second and third tracks under the single heading culture. After all, the components that determine a people’s morality and ideals are precisely the contents of their culture. The key point is then to acknowledge the insight of the Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci from the Progressive Era, who asserted: One need only capture the culture. The politics will follow. And that is exactly what the leftists did over the last century. Through an unremitting assault on many fronts, the Left took control of all the opinion-forming organs of American society: the media, educational establishment (lower and higher), the legal profession, foundations and libraries, the government bureaucracy and the unions, the seminaries, the marketing industry and (to a certain extent) the upper echelons of big business. Once the people’s mindset was converted from individual liberty to collective equality, security and order, it was easy to convince them to implement the political changes that enabled the conversion of America from a free society into a statist society.

The cultural assault by the Left was broad, sustained, relentless and purposeful. The Right – naively assuming that things would naturally stay the way they always had been – wasn’t even paying attention. A few noticed (e.g., William Buckley), but for the most part, traditionalists and conservatives did not appreciate that the fundamental organs of society that supported and maintained the traditional American culture were being subverted and diverted to something radically different. It is only in recent times that a substantial portion of traditional America has awakened to the radical leftist revolution that has swept the country and which threatens to kill the historic society that America embodied. The issue is how to resuscitate the latter.

The answer is in principle simple: we do it exactly as we lost it, i.e., by retaking control of the culture, reestablishing the moral and idealistic themes that animated the American soul for more than two centuries. Here are some concrete suggestions:

·       Fox News has proven a valuable counterweight to the mainstream news media. We need many more such venues.

·       Similarly, conservative newspapers like the Washington Times have provided some balance in the print news media. We need more such conservative newspapers, magazines, periodicals and online journals.

·       The Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute have arisen to challenge the Ford, Rockefeller and other left-wing foundations and think tanks (which ironically were established by conservative businessmen). The former must be multiplied many-fold.

·       In the same vein, Regnery has provided a conservative counter punch in the book publishing industry. More such outlets are required.

·       We need to have law schools that champion strict constitutional interpretation of the law; public libraries that display conservative books more prominently than liberal ones; movie producers that explore patriotic themes and other genres that extol the virtues of traditional culture; and highly successful businessmen (unlike Bill Gates or Warren Buffett, e.g.) who promote conservative ideas and resist the lure of crony capitalism.

·       The next suggestion is more political than cultural, but the American people must return to the idea (most clearly articulated, ironically, by the arch leftist, FDR) that unionization of public sector employees poses a grave threat to the nation. Unions like SEIU must be decommissioned. When that happens we might be able to address our explosive and crippling entitlement programs in a rational way.

·       And finally – and most importantly – we must take back our schools. The damage that the Left is doing in our public schools is amply documented in Marybeth Hicks’ recent book, Don’t Let the Kids Drink the Kool-Aid. Whatever the medium – charter schools, vouchers, or something else – we must break the back of the monopoly that the NEA has on the education of American children and enable schools to re-instill traditional American values into our children, and so into our future.

Two points to close: First, polls continue to identify America as a “Center-Right” nation. One sees percentages like: 40% Conservative, 20% Liberal, 40% Centrist or Independent. And the polls have reported such figures for a long time. How can that be? How can such a supposedly conservative country have so readily glommed onto the liberal/statist program that has dominated our politics and culture for decades? I think that there are two components to the answer. First, many who identify themselves as conservatives are not really so. For example, consider those who see themselves as patriotic, law-abiding and proud of their country’s history; but who at the same time, also approve of wealth redistribution, same-sex marriage, the United Nations and affirmative action. It does not occur to them that such views constitute proof that they are indeed not really conservative. Second, what exactly does it mean to be Independent? The competing visions for America held by the Left and Right are irreconcilable. It makes no sense to be “in the middle”; it does not reflect a coherent worldview, but rather a non-Solomonic willingness to split the baby. Alas, many in the middle are equally comfortable with the ideas that I attributed above to faux conservatives. Thus many are confused about where they stand in the political spectrum and it is dubious that we truly continue to be a Center-Right nation. But we can be again – if we find a way to implement the steps that I outlined above.

Finally, conservatives are understandably focused on the upcoming 2012 presidential election; many asserting that this might be our final chance to rescue America from a bleak socialist future. Perhaps. But if I am correct, the key battle lies elsewhere and will not be won in a single election. The rise of the TEA Party gives some hope that the battle might already be enjoined. Is that movement broad enough and powerful enough to bring about a conservative restoration? I wish I knew. All I can say is that on the day when I see signs that conservative philosophy has recaptured or produced a replacement for: The New York Times, Harvard Law School, the National Education Association or the Disney Corporation, then I will be more confident that America is on the path to self-restoration.
___
This is the text of a lecture delivered on November 10, 2011 to the Maryland Center-Right Coalition in Sykesville, MD.

Is Herman Cain the Answer?

Whenever I see the inane bumper sticker War Is Not the Answer, I always think: That depends on what the question is. If Roosevelt had answered the real question posed to him by the Japanese 70 years ago according to the bumper sticker, then the idiot who pasted the sticker on his bumper would likely not have had the freedom to do so. If the Israelis had answered the actual question posed to them by Nasser in May 1967 according to the bumper sticker, there would be no Israel today. Similarly, the answer to the query in the title depends on the exact question.

The short form of the question is obviously: Who should the Republicans nominate to oppose Obama in 2012? For me – a staunch conservative – the long and much more important and meaningful form of the question is formulated as follows:

The US has been listing left for a hundred years, drifting away from a constitutional Republic devoted to individual liberty, free markets and limited government by the consent of the governed toward a statist society of forced equality, shared economic misery and unlimited, unresponsive government. Following a brief (and temporary) course correction under Reagan, we have continued our inexorable slide toward socialistic oblivion under the two Bushes, Clinton and especially under Obama. There have been signs in the last two years that a significant percentage of the electorate has finally awakened to the existence of the cliff toward which we are speeding. The next election provides a chance – perhaps the final chance – to irrevocably halt the mad dash to the edge and then to restore America back to its original political/cultural roots and traditions. Is Herman Cain the Moses we so desperately seek to lead us back to the promised land?

The odds may be slim, but I believe that the United States has the opportunity to effect a fundamental course correction next year. It is possible that the people might elect a truly conservative President and supply him with a sufficiently conservative Congress so that together they could halt the leftward drift and set the country on a more traditional course. It may be that enough of the electorate is actually ready to bring this about. Reagan would have done it a generation ago, but he lacked the requisite companion Congress and the people had not sufficiently awakened to the gravity of the progressive threat. Today the conditions are more ripe.

One thing is clear: Mitt Romney is not Moses. Of course he would be immeasurably better than Obama. But it is absolutely certain that he desires to be president not in order to answer the question in the form that I posed it. While his instincts might be more conservative than liberal, Romney is a “big government Republican,” another Bush or McCain, who:  

  • has no appreciation for the perilous course that our nation has traveled in the 20th century;
  • thinks that Obama pushed the wrong levers rather than sought to radically transform the nature of the country;
  • and who will do no more than briefly arrest the country’s mad dash to the left, while leaving intact the socialist infrastructure to be further ratcheted up by the next Social Democrat that succeeds him.

Make no mistake – there are people out there who understand the perilous state in which we find ourselves and who might formulate and implement a program to rescue the nation. People like Jim DeMint or Mike Pence come to mind. Paul Ryan perhaps. But they are not running. Who among those actually running might be our Moses? As I said, Romney definitely is not. And the people know it. That’s why, despite his advantage in experience, organization, money and recognition, he can’t break away from the pack. Who then is the answer? Certainly not Huntsman – another faux conservative. Not Paul – an extreme libertarian whose opinions on national security and social morality are frightening.

That leaves five: Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Perry and Santorum. In fact, I believe that each of those five understands the horrible drift of the country over the last century and would be determined to reverse it. So which of them should be Moses? Well, none of them is a perfect redeemer. And our American Idol style of selecting a nominee has exposed the warts in each of them. Santorum is severely damaged goods. His overwhelming loss in his Senate re-election run in 2008 makes him a sure loser. No one is taking him seriously; his poll numbers are anemic; he would do us a favor by joining Pawlenty on the sidelines. When the Idol process began, Bachmann raced to the front. But then, apparently due to her relative inexperience and her permanent “deer in the headlights” facial expression, the ardor for her cooled. Next to streak to the front was Rick Perry. But his feeble performance in several Idol rounds knocked him off the pedestal. Gingrich’s numbers have not oscillated up and down like the previous two. In fact, he is clearly the sharpest tack in the bunch, but his track record of quixotic behavior and moral ambiguity gives pause. And so that leaves the Hermanator (a term that Cain uses for himself in his 2005 book). People like him and for the moment at least, he has leapt to the front of the Idol polls.

So what about Herman? Can he play the role of Moses? He has no money, no organization and no political experience. And there is something about him that suggests political naïveté. But his heart and, more importantly, his head seem to be in the right place. I just finished reading the 2005 book, which he wrote following his unsuccessful run for the Senate from Georgia in 2004. I believe that he understands what has happened to the country and would work assiduously to bring about a course correction that conservatives so fervently desire. Does he have the gravitas to pull it off? The last non-politician that the country elected president was Eisenhower – who only commanded the most formidable army in the history of the world. Somehow CEO of Godfather’s Pizza doesn’t quite match up. But let us not forget that Reagan was president of the Screen Actors Guild and Lincoln’s resume wasn’t all that impressive either.

The dispatching of Obama and his replacement by a committed conservative is a paramount task for our nation. The choice we have for the leader who is to accomplish that task is limited to Romney and one of Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich or Perry. Romney might defeat Obama, but it will not herald the transformation that we seek. I believe that there is a reasonable chance that any of the latter four, if given the spear of leadership, might be up to the task. If Cain turns out to be the Idol selection, then I will support him enthusiastically and pray that he can deliver. Personally, I prefer Perry for reasons that I outlined in another article in this journal. But if the Hermanator gets the nod, then on the basis of what I have seen and read thus far, I can live with that and I will vote for him optimistically.
______
This article also appeared in The American Thinker at: