Middle East Convulsions: How Apprehensive Should an Israeli Be?

Think of the average beleaguered Israeli as he contemplates his environment during any period in recent times. On the north, south and east he is confronted by blood thirsty enemies (Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran) who make no secret of their intense desire to kill him, his family and his countrymen. Other neighbors (Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Iraq) harbor the same thoughts but are more circumspect about expressing them. And of course there are the two neighbors (Egypt, Jordan) with whom he is “at peace”; but it is a frigid peace, not supported by those country’s citizens whose attitude, he believes, could easily blossom into hostility and belligerence.

When he casts his eye further abroad, he finds a European continent that – a mere 70 years after the Holocaust – has reverted to virulent anti-Semitism, now expressed openly as anti-Israel opinion and policy. He takes some solace that his country has established successful economic and political connections with distant, but important nations like India, Japan, Australia and even China. But these nations are unlikely to provide significant aid in any forthcoming conflagration. Worst of all, he is tortured by the thought that his long-time friend, benefactor and protector, the United States of America, is now led by a man and an administration that is hostile to his country and its interests. He senses that the people of the US are still with him, but it is the treacherous, Moslem-praising leader who will make the critical decision on any day that the Israeli Prime Minister has to call for help – God forbid!

Most demoralizing of all is the weak nature of his country’s leadership. Barak, Livni, Olmert and all the other left-wingers act as if they are ready to surrender and move to New Jersey. Even Netanyahu continues to disappoint. He talks the talk, but repeatedly fails to walk the walk. How he allowed himself and his nation to be completely humiliated by Obama was disgraceful. And Bibi seems to have bought into the Oslo delusion that has wreaked political havoc on his nation for 18 years. Where is King David? Israel needs him desperately.

Now, on top of all the above, the region has been racked by political convulsions whose origins are unclear, whose leadership is mysterious, whose meaning is uncertain and whose outcome for relations between Israel and its neighbors is unpredictable. Given the history of the Middle East, what little we know of what is transpiring and who is driving, it and with the proclivities of the Arab street as measured in recent polls, it is virtually impossible to be optimistic that any of these upheavals will prove beneficial to Israeli-Arab relations.

Furthermore, the situation is so confusing that it is difficult for Israel to prepare contingency plans. Will Egypt revert to a frontline state of military confrontation? Will Abdullah survive? If Assad falls, could what replaces him be even worse? How shall Israel deal with simultaneous attacks from Hamas, Hezbollah and perhaps Syria or Iran? Might Egypt or Jordan or even Saudi Arabia join the fray? What to do about nascent Iranian nuclear weapons? Can Israel hang on until the back-stabbing Obama administration is dismissed; and will a new US administration restore formerly friendly relations?

In light of all this, it would not be surprising if the state of apprehension of our beleaguered Israeli were indeed very high. And yet, Israel and its citizens appear to go about their affairs seemingly almost oblivious to the sea of troubles that engulfs them. Business is humming – especially in the technology sector. The arts are flourishing. Social life is vibrant. The IDF exudes confidence. Immigration continues at a modest, but steady pace. Morale has not plunged. Are their heads up their derrieres? Or is there some reasonable explanation?

I believe that there is, and I will attempt to provide it – although in the end, the reader may wonder about its reasonableness. Yes, there are grave causes for concern. The threats are real, exigent and existential. The ability to meet them demands wisdom and courage – qualities that have not always been present in sufficient quantities among Israel’s leaders. The consequences of a failure to deal with any of the threats that might materialize could be cataclysmic.

So what! What’s new! Our average Israeli responds: “We’ll deal with it. Ain Breira!” In short, the more things change, the more they stay the same. From before its birth, Israel has constantly faced overwhelmingly negative odds and insurmountable obstacles:

  • In the 30s and 40s, while millions of its potential citizens were slaughtered in Europe, a rag-tag bunch of settlers had to cope with murderous Arab raids and pogroms, a hostile British administration, a fragile economy, severe internal political schisms and a lack of international support. Yet the State was created.
  • In the 50s, the young nation faced marauding fedayeen, the absorbtion of more than a million extremely poor and unsophisticated immigrants, a socialist economy and the extreme enmity of its neighbors. Yet the foundation of the State was laid, the Army was formed and the desert began to bloom.
  • In the 60s, the crises were Pan-Arab nationalism, betrayal by their French benefactor, an indifferent world grown Holocaust weary, Nasser and another betrayal – this time by Lyndon Johnson. Yet Israel triumphed in the Six Day War and emerged a regional power.
  • The 70s brought the devastating Yom Kippur War, a UN resolution declaring Israel to be a racist entity, an even more socialist economy and hyperinflation. Yet Israel underwent its first peaceful transition of power to a political party other than Labor and the Sephardic community was nearly completely integrated into society.
  • In the 80s and 90s, Israel had the misfortune of the first intifada, the first Lebanon debacle and the Oslo calamity. Yet Netanyahu (as Prime Minister and later as Finance Minister) broke the socialist yoke and opened Israel to free markets and entrepreneurial activity befitting its populace, and the results have been spectacular.

Now the 00s and 10s bring all that was mentioned earlier. But in fact throughout the entire 80-year scenario: the enmity of the Arab/Moslem world has been constant; the support of the rest of the world has been tepid at best and totally absent at worst; and existential threats have been ever present. Yet Israel and its people have survived – even prospered. As if to highlight that assessment, after a century of Jews bemoaning the fact that Moses selected the one parcel of land in the Middle East devoid of oil, Israel has recently discovered abundant quantities of natural gas in its offshore environs.

The re-creation of the nation of Israel after nearly two millennia of statelessness is one of the greatest historical events of the last 500 years. Whether this happened through the grace of God, the power of faith by an ancient people or the fickle whim of chance, the people of Israel are keenly aware of their special place in history. Neither they, nor their God are about to let the advent of such a miracle be washed away in less than a century.
_______
This article appeared both in The American Thinker at

Is Death an Unintended Consequence of Liberalism?

A Review of J.R. Dunn’s “Death by Liberalism”

It has taken a long time for the American people to catch on, but it is now widely recognized that when well-intentioned liberal policies are implemented, the consequences – both intended and unintended – are hardly beneficial. Representative examples include: the aggressive promotion of ethanol, which has resulted in higher corn prices and the removal of arable land from food production; boosts in minimum wage rates, which have repeatedly caused higher unemployment among teens and lower income workers; and an obsessive emphasis on removing religion from the public square, which has contributed to increased teen pregnancy, drug use and other forms of moral decay. And these are some of the more benign consequences of liberal governance run amok.

It’s not like these deleterious outcomes of core liberal principles had not been predicted; but neither the predictions nor the outcomes have diminished liberal enthusiasm for these harmful policies. In fact, this is a well-known story that has been told many times. But in his book, Death by Liberalism: The Fatal Outcome of Well-Meaning Liberal Policies, J.R. Dunn raises the level on the nature of the accusation to a height that is far above the usual critiques. In his study of the effects of liberal social and fiscal policy, Dunn seeks to establish that the ultimate product of most core liberal policies easily eclipses negative agricultural, monetary or social consequences; he claims that the ultimate result of supposedly benignly intentioned, but misguided liberal programs is in fact death. In a passionate and scathing description of how liberalism leads directly and indirectly to the death of scores of its beneficiaries, i.e., US citizens, Dunn charges that the actualization of numerous liberal policies amounts to democide – the murder of a nation’s citizens by its own government.

While the underlying thesis of Dunn’s book is rather unappetizing, the presentation is quite compelling. His research is thorough, his grasp of detail is encyclopedic and his command of economics, sociology and political theory is impressive. He is at ease discussing a wide variety of topics: from nuclear power to illegal immigration, from crime prevention to lustration, from social security to DDT. He marshals a far-reaching roster of “crimes” for which he indicts liberalism as the primary culprit. Many of these are well-known and a few reflect new insights on his part. Together, they comprise a damning indictment of twentieth century liberalism for crimes against humanity.

To give a flavor of the indictment, I supply here a few of the grenades that Dunn lobs at liberals, their beliefs, policies and “achievements.”

  • Totalitarian Mass Murder. Dunn first reminds us that in the past century, democide in the form of mass murder was committed by Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Mao’s China and by Pol Pot in Cambodia. In the first three, the deaths numbered in the tens of millions. Of course, the victims were not US citizens, but Dunn emphasizes that the brutal statist policies imposed by those regimes were extreme versions of domestic liberal inclinations.
  • Silent Spring. The only other modern mass murderer with tens of millions of victims notched on her belt is Rachel Carson – although again the slaughter occurred overseas. The ban on DDT that resulted almost exclusively from Carson’s work allowed the resurgence of malaria, which had been nearly eradicated worldwide. The governments that acceded to the demands of various, leftist-oriented international health organizations are responsible for the deaths of millions of their citizens – but the source for the tragedy is Rachel Carson.

With these as preamble, Dunn goes on to describe numerous domestic liberal programs that resulted in American deaths.

·        Crime. Liberal policies intended to alter how our society deals with crime gained preeminence in the 1960s. By emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment; by ascribing criminal behavior to a reaction against social injustice in lieu of evil impulses; by enhancing criminal rights over police responsibilities; liberal policies spawned a 30-year crime spree that resulted in needless death and injury. Says Dunn: “The great crime wave of the late twentieth century is a disaster that did not have to happen. For three decades, this nation’s criminal element…held the country hostage. Crime rates skyrocketed, increasing several hundred percent across the board. Criminals ran law-abiding citizens off their own streets, gained effective control of many neighborhoods, and violated the peace of many cities. The number of victims is incalculable, the amount of damage – financial, social, and personal – beyond reckoning…As a frontier culture, Americans knew how to handle crime. Justice was swift, punishment was certain, and if formal law enforcement faltered, the citizenry was prepared to act. Each of those elements failed during the great crime explosion. The criminal justice system broke down completely. The police were constantly undermined. The citizenry were actively restrained and threatened with legal sanctions if they made the most basic effort to defend themselves or their property… the crime explosion didn’t just happen. Like urban renewal and welfare, it was the result of policy, a deliberate attempt to remake the criminal justice system in the image of an ideal.”

·        Abortion. Once again, I let Dunn speak for himself: “Liberals have long claimed a monopoly over compassion in the public sphere. Self-styled empathy is basic to liberal identity. Liberals are the Good Samaritans of American political life. No opportunity to display humanity is too small, no effort too great. They nest in trees for months to checkmate the logger. They travel to northern Labrador to defend baby seals. They walk the meanest streets to hand out clean needles. Threatened species, ethnic minorities, the homeless, refugees, migrants, professional criminals…virtually no outcast group finds itself beyond liberal protection. With one exception: the millions of unborn children aborted over the past four decades. They alone fail to qualify. They alone found themselves outside the circle of liberal compassion. How can this be explained? …A major flaw of liberal thinking…lies in what G.K. Chesterton termed ‘chronological snobbery,’ the contention that the more ancient the concept, the more it is based on irrationality and ignorance, and the easier it can be set aside. Nothing could be further from the truth. A precept with millennia of practice behind it is one based on the firmest foundation imaginable. You meddle with it at your peril, and with due regard for the consequences. Roe v. Wade challenged exactly such a precept, and the consequences were dramatic. There is not a single aspect of American life that does not bear its mark. Roe distorted the relationships between men and women, husbands and wives, parents and children, politician and voter, clergy and worshippers, government and people… Roe set a blaze that to this day still ravages our culture.”

·        Gun Control. The communities in America that have the least restrictive carry laws enjoy significantly lower crime rates than those with the most severe restrictions. As John Lott has demonstrated in numerous studies, gun control laws – a favorite of liberal politicians – needlessly get people killed or maimed.

·        Homelessness. The 1970-1980s combination of the emptying of the nation’s mental hospitals together with irresponsible urban renewal projects that destroyed lower income neighborhoods has rendered the mentally challenged of America prey to disease, crime and weather.

·        Environmentalism. From CAFE standards that force Americans into tiny, unsafe cars to the banning of fluorocarbons that has condemned asthma patients to needless suffering, the pursuit of mindless environmentalism has resulted in unintended harm and death.

·        Child Welfare. Child Protective Services are unresponsive and unaccountable bureaucracies that lose children when they are not placing them in environments that prove dangerous – and often lethal.

·        Illegal Immigration. The refusal to enforce immigration laws has resulted in crimes – often murder – that would not have occurred if liberal attitudes on “undocumented workers” had not prevailed.

·        FDA. Dunn recounts a familiar story in which FDA incompetence and delay led to the tragic death of an afflicted individual. It is impossible to estimate the number of patient deaths caused by FDA ineptitude and adherence to bureaucratic rules.

·        Euthanasia. Liberal pursuit of a “right to death” and “death with dignity” has fostered the occurrence of predictable deaths – e.g., in the back of Kevorkian’s van.

·        Health Care. Not surprisingly, Dunn believes that Obamacare will lead to rationing of health care and the premature death of seniors who are short changed.

Here’s how Dunn wraps it up: “In the final half of the twentieth century, up to 262,000 Americans died of crimes that would not have been committed but for liberal interference with the criminal justice system. Up to 121,000 died in automobile accidents directly attributable to the CAFE standards. Unknown thousands have perished due to the failure of other forms of government activity. (It would be a surprise if the numbers weren’t somewhat murky – it’s not as if we can find this information on a USA.gov website.) A large number of children have died under the ’protection’ of DYS and similar agencies. Many of the ‘homeless’ – the chronic mentally ill thrust out into the streets – have died in miserable circumstances. Individuals from all social levels have died due to various forms of environmental legislation. Others have been killed by rogue illegal immigrants. Many sick individuals have suffered premature death from being denied necessary medical drugs thanks to the FDA’s convoluted certification process…We scarcely know how to even estimate the total [number of deaths]. The best we can say is that between 400,000 and 500,000 Americans have in the past century died prematurely thanks to government policies, victims of the American democide. That number is a match for all our fatalities in the past century’s wars. It is greater than all American deaths from epidemic disease. [But] the total doesn’t amount to much in the blood-soaked history of the Age of Massacre. It scarcely compares to the numbers achieved by Nazi Germany, the USSR, Red China, or any of the other champions of extermination. It has required half a century for the US to achieve that figure. The Hutu mobs of Rwanda, using only machetes, surpassed it within weeks. It scarcely rates an asterisk in the past century’s long record of atrocity. But it happened in our country. It happened in America [emphasis added].”

Wow! Now readers of this journal will know that I am as fervent as Dunn in my assessment of the harm that the liberal hegemony has inflicted on our country over the last century. But murder? Normally, the dastardly deed manifests in two varieties – premeditated or spontaneous (i.e., 1st or 2nd degree). In both cases, an element of malice must be present. Failing that, the taking of a human life is usually classified as manslaughter. That too comes in two flavors – voluntary and involuntary. The distinction is whether the deed followed a purposeful act by the perpetrator or whether it occurred incidental to an act by the killer.

It seems to me that it is incorrect to call any of FDR, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton or Barack Obama a murderer. That would imply that they pursued their mad dash to liberal nirvana completely cognizant of the fact that their policies would inevitably result in the death of US citizens – i.e., of those whom they were sworn to protect. I doubt for an instant that any of the fab five that I identified would accept any of Dunn’s list of horrors as being caused by any of their programs – and even if by some miracle they did, they would surely plead surprise rather than malignant intent.

Manslaughter is a more makeable case – especially of the involuntary kind. Even voluntary manslaughter is a bit of a stretch. It implies a purposefulness that is difficult to discern. In their utopian myopia, it is inconceivable to hard core liberals that their well-intentioned policies could cause harm to unintended beneficiaries – much less their death.

The arguments in Dunn’s book are persuasive; they trace a plausible trajectory from liberal programs to the death of innocents. But labeling these deaths as democide – the murder of people by their government – is exceedingly inflammatory and not justified. If I must coin a term, I’ll say incidentalcide – the death of citizens from unintended consequences of their government’s actions. Of course, that does not mean that it shouldn’t stop. However, the effort to bring about its cessation is not aided by overly flagrant accusations that cannot be substantiated.
______
This review also appeared in The Intellecrual Conservative at

Danger in the Census Numbers

The Census Bureau just issued population data compiled from last year’s national decadal census. The data reveals that the Hispanic population has grown much faster than anticipated. The reasons attributed are birthrate and immigration – both legal and illegal.

I can already see some readers frothing at the mouth: the word ‘danger’ appears in the title of an article citing a drastically increased percentage of Hispanic residents in the US – ergo, the author is a racist. I hope that a careful reading of what follows will allay that fear.

In one decade, the Hispanic population of the US has surged by 43% and now numbers over 50 million. Projections are that by midcentury the white population will decrease to less than 50% and the Hispanic population might top one-third. So what! As long as the new and recent Hispanic immigrants buy into the American philosophy of freedom, rule of law and limited government, they will melt into American society and the grand American experiment in individual liberty can continue. After all, that is exactly what happened with previous waves of immigrants over the last 125 years.

Not exactly! In the late 1800s and early 1900s, the large Protestant white majority of US citizens worried that the incoming flood of southern and eastern Europeans – Italians, Greeks and Slavs; Catholics and Jews – would alter the character of the United States. Then, as now, the argument embodied in the italicized words above was made. And to many, it appears that that argument has been borne out. I would argue not. Those immigrants and their children and grandchildren have been in the vanguard of the progressive movement that has drastically altered the classical character of American society. It may be that progressive/socialist ideas originated in central and western Europe, but the virus was caught and brought by the eastern and southern European immigrants to our land; and it has infected a large percentage of the population.

Much of the progressive program is subscribed to by the Latinos who are cascading down upon our shores. Moreover, while it is also true that the more virulent strains of leftism such as multiculturalism, one world government, denial of American exceptionalism, denigration of Western Civilization and rabid environmentalism did not originate in Latin America; like their eastern and southern European precursors, the Latinos are infected by these philosophies, and by the sheer weight of their numbers, they will help to steer America further away from the historical path established by our Founders.

Most of my grandparents and their friends and relatives who came to America a century ago were good people seeking to escape European Jew hatred and to build a better life in America. But they and most of their descendants were susceptible to the progressive/socialist ideas of Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, John Dewey, FDR and LBJ. Unwittingly, they have helped to loosen the moorings of our great American heritage. The current Hispanic immigrant population is also filled with good people looking to escape poverty and, by dint of hard work and dedication, build a better life for themselves and their children. But they are steeped in the ways of Western Civilization and the American creed even less then were my grandparents. It does not augur well for the continued success of the American experiment.
_____
This post also appeared in The American Thinker at
 

Obama’s Top Ten

The use of a “top ten list” has become a popular method for expressing disapproval of the actions or beliefs of a famous individual. In this article I present such a list comprised of the top ten ways that Barack Obama is attempting to destroy the United States of America. By that I mean of course not that the President desires the physical destruction of the American homeland or the annihilation of its people, but rather I speak of his intention to replace the Constitutional Republic devised by our Founders – which, it is completely evident, Mr. Obama holds in contempt – by a statist, collectivist, egalitarian and universalistic nation as envisioned by Alinsky, Cloward-Piven or Soros. I have no doubt that this President, to whom the American public so foolishly entrusted the ship of state, believes that Madison’s Republic – based on limited government, individual freedom, free market capitalism, the morals of Western Civilization, national sovereignty and the rule of law – is deeply flawed and should be replaced by a more enlightened model according to his radical concept of liberty, equality and universal brotherhood. Based on his actions during the last two years, I present here Barack’s top ten ways of achieving his goal:

#10. Replace classic American policies – both foreign and domestic – that are focused on what’s best for America and its allies in the world by policies designed to promote a homogenized world of “one” people, global government and open borders. Obama’s pursuit of Cap and Trade, support for amnesty for illegal aliens, slavish belief in the perils of global warming and his courting of Islamic countries all bear witness to his devotion to this cause.

#9. Convert (what’s left of) America’s laissez-faire, capitalistic economy into a centrally managed, pseudo-socialistic, crony capitalist system. From his demonization of American business and its corporate executives to his ‘redistribute the wealth’ comment to Joe the Plumber, the evidence of Obama’s socialist world view abounds.

#8. Delegitimize the concept of American exceptionalism. Obama began his Presidency with a world apology tour and he has continued to never miss an opportunity to denigrate US history, emphasize our historical faults and current flaws, bow to foreign leaders (even despots) and to deny that the country he leads has any special role to play in defending freedom at home or around the world.

#7. Nationalize. Obama has nationalized banks and financial institutions, educational establishments, car companies, parts of the housing and insurance industries and of course the health care system. Barack has gone as far as he can go, in his limited time in office, to bring the US economy under the control of the Federal Government.

#6. Defang the military. He has cut defense spending, reduced the size of the navy and air force, gutted missile defense, signed a harmful agreement (the new START treaty) with belligerent Russians and in the most diabolical action of all, attempted to demoralize the armed services by deploying its forces against an enemy that he refuses to name, without adequate resources and intelligence and with one foot constantly out the door. In addition he does nothing to keep pace with the aggressive military build-up by the Chinese.

#5. Subvert the rule of law. Obama blithely ignores the Constitution when it suits him – or, he invokes it to justify clearly unconstitutional activities (e.g., Obamacare). He ignores court orders (e.g., Judge Vinson in Florida) and refuses to enforce the law of the land (DOMA) when it conflicts with his views. He appoints czars without subjecting them to Congressional approval, interprets thought (i.e., hate) crimes as only applicable to crimes committed by whites against minorities, encourages his allies in Congress to violate Congressional rules and he runs arguably the least transparent administration in US history.

#4. Renounce American leadership. The list is long and includes: celebrating thugs like Chavez, Ahmadinejad and Putin; betraying loyal friends (Israel, Britain, Taiwan, the Czech Republic and Poland); curtseying to Islamic princes; refusing to commit the US to action unless part of a broad coalition of “equals”; abrogating agreements negotiated by previous administrations and apologizing for America’s role as the unique world superpower. He wishes to reduce the stature of our country to at best one among a series of world leaders.

#3. Trash American culture. Obama and his minions have worked tirelessly to: disparage historical American culture – especially its Christian components; promote multiculturalism; rescind DADT; and encourage abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia and all manner of perversions to undercut the American family. They sweeten their multicultural stew with race baiting (the Cambridge cop incident), a failure to recognize the poison that is seeping into American society from Islamic radicals and an unwillingness to advance the assimilation of new immigrants (legal or otherwise) into American culture.

#2. Expand the government. The left seeks to increase the role of the Federal Government in every conceivable aspect of American society. Obamacare and Dodd-Frank are of course the most egregious examples; but Obama is pushing hard to have the Feds take command of American education, energy, transportation and finance. When legislation is out of reach, expanded regulation plays an equally important role in the effort (the EPA declaring carbon dioxide a harmful pollutant being a prime example). Then there is card check, the revocation of the spectacularly successful 1990s welfare reform and unholy alliances with subversive organizations like ACORN. Eventually no American will be able to make any move that escapes the watchful eye of Uncle Sam.

And (drum roll), number one is…

#1. Spend, borrow and tax until the dollar is worthless, the economy is in shambles and the economic future of our children and grandchildren is totally compromised. Barack has run up the deficit and exploded the national debt. He is debasing the currency, courting severe inflation, causing high unemployment, and willfully ignoring the oncoming economic chaos that his policies are guaranteed to produce. He apparently expects that eventually the people will have no choice but to surrender their freedom to an all encompassing Federal Government that will “rescue the nation.”

Barack has been diligently working his way up and down the list. In a few places, he has succeeded quite well; in many others, his success has been much less pronounced; and here and there, he has experienced serious blowback from the American people. In fact, given the resentment his agenda has aroused in much of the electorate – as expressed in last fall’s Congressional and State elections – it is likely that he is already past the high point of what he might hope to accomplish in a first term. Presidents are typically far less successful in moving their agendas in a second term than in a first; so even if he wins reelection, the high point of his radical remake of America might already be in the past.

Alas, that might bring scant comfort to freedom-loving Americans. Our country has been morphing slowly over the last century from the Constitutional Republic bequeathed to us by Washington, Jefferson and Madison into the neo-Marxian nirvana envisioned by Obama. During that gruesome slide, the US has experienced periodic, severe jumps to the left – under Wilson, FDR, LBJ and perhaps now BHO. Thus, I fear that we are perilously close to Sowell’s “tipping point”; the place at which the transformation of our society will have progressed so far, that it will be impossible to return it to its Constitutional moorings. If so, even the relatively few successes that Obama has enjoyed could be enough to spell our doom. I hope not. But, either way, I suspect that we shall know rather soon.
_____
This article also appeared in The Land of the Free at
 

After a Second Look, Romney Still Gets Thumbs Down

In a previous post (Dec 10, 2010) in this blog (and in The Intellectual Conservative, Will I Have to Hold My Nose Yet Again?), I confessed that the not unlikely prospect of Mitt Romney securing the Republican presidential nomination filled me with dismay. I pointed out that every Republican presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan was a faux conservative and that I voted for all of them – with my fingers firmly clamped on my nose. In contemplating a vote for Romney, I rued the fact that my fingers would be similarly deployed.

Nothing has happened in the last few months to change the probabilities. Romney continues to build his organization and position himself for a successful run; none of his so-called major competitors (Gingrich, Huckabee, Palin – each of whom, I pointed out in the article, is damaged goods) has done anything to elevate his or her stature; and none of the minor contenders has been able to break out of that forlorn status of “little dwarf.”

So I decided that a closer look at Romney was in order. I read his book No Apology. Here’s the good news. Romney makes a convincing effort toward burnishing his conservative credentials. He hits all the conservative touchstone issues in the book and professes his allegiance to virtually all the principles that identify one as a true conservative: limited government, low taxes, deregulation, strong national defense, family values, free market capitalism and traditional culture. He comes across as sincerely patriotic, reverent of the men who founded our country and the ideals they espoused, inspired by and loyal to the Constitution. He apparently understands that prosperity is created by individuals who develop products and services, and form the businesses that deliver them – not by government programs, spending or regulation. He has a track record of successful executive and managerial experience. And best of all, he clearly loves the United States of America and would strive mightily to protect it – unlike the current occupant of the White House.

On the other hand, there are some disquieting revelations in the book – the most prominent of which include: an enthusiastic reaffirmation of Massachusetts Health Care; the fact that he has drunk from the environmental Kool-Aid and is on the global warming bandwagon; an admission that he basically endorses TARP and the resulting bailouts; and his advocacy of a major role for the Federal Government in education.

These positions are disturbing indeed and worthy of concern. They suggest strongly that at the core Romney is a big government Republican in the mold of Nixon, Ford, Dole, McCain and the Bushes. The pejorative RINO does not seem to be inappropriate.

The matter is of course not yet settled. Is it foolhardy to hold out any hope that the eventual nominee could be a true conservative like Pence, DeMint or Santorum? The history of the Republican presidential nomination process is not encouraging. Thus there might be some solace in the observation that Romney could be the best of the rest of the sorry lot that are chasing the GOP 2012 nomination. Perhaps he’ll take his own book to heart and govern like Reagan if he does achieve the presidency. One can only hope.

Such was my thinking after finishing Romney’s book. And then the March issue of the American Spectator arrived with an article by W. James Atlee entitled “Front-runner Failure.” In it, Atlee points out that Romney would be the latest installment in a long line of candidates to whom the Republicans awarded their nomination as a reward “for long years of service, finishing second the last time around, and politely waiting their turn.” That description most aptly describes Dole and McCain, but it also applies to Nixon, Ford, both Bushes and even Reagan. With the exception of Reagan, these nominations resulted in either an ignominious defeat or a victory by men that “left the Republican Party weaker than they found it.” Atlee’s assessment also accounts for the decades of nose-holding on my part. For heaven’s sake, why would the Republican Party do it yet again?

A Romney presidency would not signal the end of the century-long slide toward progressivism, socialism and the loss of freedom that our country has endured. A Romney presidency is unlikely to exploit the fact that a substantial part (perhaps even a majority) of the American people has awakened to the horror that we have inflicted upon ourselves. America’s star is dimming today; and in order to rekindle it, we must: reverse the cancerous growth of government by reigning in spending, taxation and regulation; reaffirm our commitment to free market capitalism by deemphasizing unionism, statism and crony capitalism, and re-empowering individual entrepreneurs who create prosperity; call a halt to multiculturalism and reassert the primacy of American exceptionalism; and rededicate ourselves to the ideals expressed by our Founders in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Mitt Romney is not the general we need to lead that crusade. Whom it might be and how he or she is to be catapulted to the head of the Republican Party can only be read in the Tea leaves.
_____________
This article also appeared in The Intellectual Conservative at