The Progressive Assault on America

A Review of ‘We Still Hold These Truths,’ by Matthew Spalding
A small but growing portion of the US population has come to believe that America is at a tipping point. The people with this insight, a group that I shall refer to as the community of believers, see America in 2010 as radically changed from the America they believe existed in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. The changes that disturb this community are of course not in the material or technological details of daily life, but in the political, economic and cultural principles that determine how America is governed, how the people achieve and sustain prosperity and the spiritual and philosophical axioms that control their beliefs and behavior.

The community of believers sees a century-long atrophying of individual liberty, property rights, Constitutional rule of law, limited government, free market capitalism, American exceptionalism, moral character and conservative traditions. They also see its gradual; replacement by a progressive, collectivist, egalitarian, secular, anti-family, apologetic nation, which is dominated by an exceedingly powerful, repressive and paternalistic federal government. They believe that the current radical administration has brought the United States of America to a tipping point in that its socialist policies (Obamacare, cap and trade, amnesty for illegals and more) will push the society beyond the point that it could ever recover from the progressive calamity that has befallen us.

An avalanche of books, videos and manifestos has appeared that express the frustrations of those who hold this view. Many are structured to answer one or more of the following three questions:

1.     What exactly is it that we had prior to 1900 that is on the precipice of extinction?

2.     How was it lost and to whom was it lost?

3.     How do we get it back?

Matthew Spalding of the Heritage Foundation is among those who hold this view. His book, ‘We Still Hold These Truths: Rediscovering Our Principles, Reclaiming Our Future’ (Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2009) addresses the above three questions, albeit in an uneven fashion. In eleven eloquent and edifying chapters he provides answers to the questions. I say uneven because he devotes nine chapters to the first question and only one chapter each to the latter two.

With that kind of division of labor, one would expect the book to stand or fall on the quality of the first nine chapters. Indeed, Mr. Spalding presents a brilliant, if somewhat academic account of the principles on which our Founding Fathers built the American republic. Not surprisingly, the principles he emphasizes include:

·       Individual liberty is the prime right and main objective of the American people.

·       Government derives its powers only from the consent of the governed, whereas the people derive their rights from the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.

·       A democratic republic can succeed only if the people have moral character grounded in religious faith.

·       Property is sacrosanct; commerce is the foundation of our prosperity.

·       There should be no privileged classes; all stand equal before the law.

·       The rule of law emanates from our Constitution. It is the supreme law of the land and shall remain so forever. It may be altered only by a laborious process that requires the support of an overwhelming majority of the people.

·       Liberty is not the same as license; ours is to be an ordered liberty.

·       Family, community and religious and civic associations form the bedrock of our civil society and it is to them that our citizens look primarily for satisfaction, guidance and succor.

·       The Declaration of Independence put us in command of our fortunes and established that the USA is an exceptional creation in human history. Nations should look to us for guidance, not the other way around.

In fact, I have encapsulated his nine chapters in these nine bullets, which constitute Spalding’s answer to the first question.

I am certain that virtually all in the community of believers would endorse all of these principles. I am just as certain that President Obama believes in none of it. Nor do any of his henchmen who have brought us to the tipping point. But I think that Spalding believes that many Americans – perhaps even most Americans – would subscribe to these principles if they were not so totally blinded by the brainwashing they have endured at the hands of the educational system, the mainstream media, the legal profession, politicians (who are largely lawyers), the professoriate, the librarians and virtually all the opinion-forming organs of American society that have been captured by progressives. Given that, Spalding’s words mean hardly anything at all to the great brainwashed multitude. But I am getting ahead of myself – Question 3 comes later.

As I said, Chapters 1-9 are a nice read. They constitute a wonderful lesson in American history, civics, Constitutionalism and the nature of man. The writing is clear, the research is impeccable and the argumentation is persuasive. It will reinforce the opinions of any in the community of believers. But in fact these nine chapters do not constitute the main worth of the book. That can be found in Chapter 10. In 27 breathtaking pages, Spalding offers up the best explanation I have ever read of the progressive philosophy and methodology designed to destroy our Constitutional republic and replace it with a statist, social welfare state. His chapter title: ‘A New Republic: The Progressive Assault on the Founders’ Principles’ is a perfect description of what he has accomplished in the chapter.

Spalding explains how ‘progressive thinking was profoundly shaped by two revolutionary concepts: relativism and historicism.’ The former is the notion that there are no eternal truths or permanent principles; thus it is wrong to be guided by an ancient document (the Constitution) unless it is reinterpreted continuously in light of modern ideas. The latter concept teaches that not only are ideas relative, but their meaning is determined by their moment in time. ‘The problem with the American Founders, the new thinkers argued, is that they did not understand and account for the lack of permanence and the constant flux and change in all things.’

We know the outcome. A century-long progressive onslaught on our nation has yielded a society that – in direct contradiction of the nine bullets above – increasingly accepts the following alternate principles:

·       Equality of outcome takes precedence over individual liberty.

·       Government discovers new rights all the time and then grants them to the people.

·       Religious faith belongs to the past; it has been superseded by reason and science.

·       Property is ultimately the province of government; business must be subservient to government.

·       The people’s lives are best guided by ‘experts’ – federal bureaucrats whose regulations have the force of law.

·       In addition, law is what the President, Congress and especially the Supreme Court say it is, not what the Founders wrote in the Constitution.

·       Distinguishing liberty from license is not a useful exercise as long as the people get what the government deems is good for them.

·       Government is far more important than family or community. The latter are transient; while a benevolent government is the true bedrock of society.

·       America is one of many nations. Moreover, it has a checkered history. It has no special role to play in the world saga.

Spalding closes the chapter as follows: ‘The result of all this is that America seems to be moving even further away from its original principles and constitutional design. While progressive ideas have not completely won the day…the dominance of these arguments – in our schools, in the public square, and in our politics – has significantly weakened the very foundations of American constitutionalism, making it all the more difficult not only to defend but more importantly to recover the ideas and institutions of America’s Founders. Is it still possible to revitalize our country’s principles and to renew our liberty?’

Unfortunately, the answer he provides in the final chapter is by far the weakest part of the book. The chapter is full of exhortations like: ‘We must return to…’; ‘We must look to the principles of the American Founders…’; ‘We must reverse this course…’; ‘Americans must be familiar with the history of the American Revolution…’; ‘We must continue to teach the principles of liberty…’; ‘We need learned judges who take the Constitution seriously…’ The point is: How? What is the actual recipe for recapturing our Constitutional republic from the hands of the progressives who have decimated the work of our Founders? Of this there is precious little in the chapter.

Perhaps this is an unfair criticism. It is only recently that more than a sliver of the population has come to appreciate the incredible damage done to our nation by progressivism and, amazingly, how far it has succeeded in fundamentally altering the nature of the United States of America. Hopefully, books like Spalding’s will spread the message and increase the size of the community of believers. If the recent Tea Party phenomenon is an indication, that might be happening. But a blueprint for reversing course – if there is even time to do so – is not to be found in Spalding’s book. For that, readers will have to look elsewhere.
This article also appeared in The Intellectual Conservative at

Obama Wants the US to Join Europe’s Suicide Pact

Barack Obama’s background is found in Kenya, Indonesia, Hawaii, Chicago and other parts of the United States. One wonders, therefore, why he is so smitten with Europe as a role model in his aspirations for America. A great deal has been written about how he wishes to complete the conversion of the United States from a Constitutional republic into a European-style social welfare state. All the evidence of his 15-month presidency supports this assessment. Every policy that he advocates, every word that he utters, every argument that he makes underscores his belief that America as constituted by its founders is fundamentally misconceived. The idea of a limited government republic, steeped in religious morals, holding property sacrosanct, considering itself exceptional, pursuing a free market economy, characterized by rugged individualism, and governed according to the rule of law is all repugnant to him. Instead he seeks a different America, one with a massive, all-powerful – yet benign – federal government, multiculturally diverse and unswervingly secular, sharing its wealth equally among its citizens, living peacefully and unexceptionally within a world family of nations, governed by experts who guarantee ‘social justice.’ His heroes are not George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison or Benjamin Franklin, but rather Jean Monnet, John Dewey, Antonio Gramsci and Saul Alinsky.

Yet Obama’s vision of 21st century Europe as a model for the US is belied by his seeming disdain for Europeans. He bows to the Saudi King, the Japanese Emperor and the Chinese chief thug. He curries favor from Chavez, Castro and other non-European goons. But he treats the Queen and Prime Minister of England with contempt, snubs the French and German leaders when it suits him, pulls the rug from under the Poles and Czechs, and cozies up to Medvedev. This apparent contradiction is explained by the second major way in which Obama would like the US to ape Europe. In fact he wants us to be like Europe more than just by copying its current political, economic and cultural systems. He wants us to join it in the suicide pact it has entered.

The pact is explained brilliantly in a new book by Theodore Dalrymple, The New Vichy Syndrome: Why European Intellectuals Surrender to Barbarians. This book follows in the footsteps of Mark Steyn’s America Alone and Walter Laqueur’s The Last Days of Europe. All of these well-written books describe clearly the nature of the suicide pact that the Europeans have entered into: startling low marriage rate; even more startling low birth rates; importation of foreigners – especially Muslims – to provide economic fodder to fuel the massive welfare state that the aging, childless people of Europe have accorded themselves; unwillingness to assimilate these immigrants into European society and culture, thereby creating a demographic time bomb; disarming precipitously; totally abandoning their religious heritage; denigrating their traditional culture and their cultural achievements; and surrendering sovereignty to an authoritarian, pan-European regime in Brussels.

Where Dalrymple differs from Steyn and Laqueur is that he goes into a deeper explanation of the Europeans’ rationale behind their decision to self-destruct. Indeed, why have the Europeans abandoned their historic culture and why are they intent on committing hari-kari? In this regard Dalrymple, who, unlike Steyn and Laqueur, is actually a European, can more readily understand the underlying causes as well as identify the symptoms of European sickness. Dalrymple attributes the desire to self-immolate to two main causes: the carnage that the Europeans inflicted upon themselves in two world wars and the mayhem, destruction and permanent damage they believe they inflicted on Asia and Africa in the pursuit of their colonial empires. It’s not that Steyn, Laqueur and others have not pointed out these scars on the European psyche. But Dalrymple goes deeper. His argument is essentially as follows:

The crimes of the world wars and colonialism were committed by Europeans. They are grievous crimes resulting in massive destruction, wanton death and grinding poverty. Nazism, Communism and imperialism were conceived in European minds, implemented by Europe’s ‘finest’ and – because of the cruelty, stupidity and bigotry of Europeans – these movements brought monstrous tragedy to scores of innocent people. Clearly, any culture responsible for such unparalleled evil does not merit survival. Moreover, the design flaws in European, i.e., Western Civilization that produced these awful outcomes must have been present from the beginning. Nothing that is good in European history and culture – be it soaring cathedrals, Shakespearean literature, Beethoven’s music, Newtonian science, the British legal system or Dutch commerce – none of these achievements can counteract the unspeakable barbarity unleashed by European civilization. The evil far outweighs the good. Therefore, the only way to atone for their sins is for the Europeans to destroy the culture that is responsible for these sins – i.e., to commit cultural and political suicide. And this they are hell bent on doing – with an amazing degree of success, sad to say.

Now we see why Obama likes what Europe is doing, but holds the Europeans in contempt. He too believes that Western Civilization is corrupt, misconceived and a font of evil. He would like to see it destroyed. The Europeans are doing that. But America is resisting. Obama wants us to get with the program. Why?

He has no reverence for the Constitution or for our founding principles. To the progressive mind, these principles are responsible for a country in which:

·       black people were enslaved, and even after emancipation were subjected to horrendous discrimination;

·       genocide was perpetrated upon the indigenous peoples;

·       self-appointed, property-owning WASPs controlled the country, its land, culture and commerce to the exclusion of Catholics, Jews and other minorities;

·       lands were stolen from Hispanic people in the southwest, and other lands were stolen from native Hawaiians, native Alaskans, the French, the Spanish (Florida) and even the English (Maine);

·       women were suppressed and denied their basic rights;

·       poor people, laborers and immigrants were exploited by rich business interests;

·       Japanese-American citizens were incarcerated without cause or justification;

·       aggressive and unwarranted wars were waged against Mexico, Spain and the Philippines;

·       the inequities caused by the capitalist system are gross and inexcusable; and

·       an aggressive and belligerent foreign policy is a more accurate description of our posture in the world than is ‘a beacon of freedom.’

As with Europe, the evil in America outweighs the good. Our defeat of Nazism and Communism, our prosperity, our individual freedoms, our scientific advances, our accomplishments in space exploration, our humanitarian efforts in response to natural disasters in the world – all of these are easily outweighed by our past and current sins. We deserve the same fate as the Europeans do. And if Obama can arrange it, we will suffer it. I believe that in his heart, Obama sees America – like Europe – as rotten from its inception and so it deserves to perish in its current form. Converting the United States from a Constitutional republic into a Euro-style social welfare state accomplishes two of our traitorous President’s purposes: first, it changes the fundamental nature of the nation into something much more to his tastes; and second, it is a huge step toward atonement for the sins America committed in its original incarnation.
This post also appeared as an article in The Land of the Free.Net at

Is the Supreme Court’s Conservative Majority Imperiled?

It is an interesting coincidence that exactly at the time that Justice John Paul Stevens announces his retirement from the Supreme Court, the current edition of The American Spectator has its cover story devoted to ‘a conservative turnaround in the U.S. Supreme Court’ originally engineered by William Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia (TAS, April 2010, ‘The Good Old Days,’ pp. 14-19). It is a convincing essay, explaining how Rehnquist (appointed by Nixon in 1972, elevated to Chief Justice by Reagan in 1986) and Scalia (appointed by Reagan in 1986) have reversed the liberal, activist, non-originalist policies of the Warren and Burger Courts. The two men laid the foundation for the current conservative majority (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito and Kennedy) and for important conservative opinions of recent years. The article’s author (Alfred Regnery – also publisher of TAS) cites as evidence recent opinions such as: the ruling banning late term abortions, abolition of affirmative action programs in high schools, evisceration of McCain-Feingold and the unconstitutionality of the DC gun ban.

But of course the conservative majority is precarious. In fact, in the years 1950-2008, out of 23 justices appointed, 17 of them were chosen by Republican presidents. Yet during that time – at least until Roberts and Alito cemented the conservative majority – the Court’s decisions were heavily leftist-oriented. Repeatedly, the phenomenon of supposedly conservative jurists drifting slowly, but inexorably to the left occurred over the years: Souter, Stevens, Blackmun and of course Burger and Warren. Even two of Reagan’s were not immune – O’Connor and Kennedy. By the end of her term, O’Connor had slid rather pathetically to the left – and Kennedy was headed in that direction too until Roberts-Alito pulled him back in the last half decade.

By contrast, every appointment by a Democratic president has started and stayed firmly on the left. Clinton’s two appointees (Bader Ginsburg and Breyer) are prime examples. And now we have as President a rigidly leftist ideologue. He has made one ultra-liberal appointment and of course he will make another. But fortunately the justices he is replacing were also in the liberal minority. So unless he appoints a towering intellect who becomes a highly influential liberal justice – things won’t change. If his first appointment is any guide, a towering intellect is very unlikely.

Can the conservative majority survive? Souter was old (although not as old as others who remain) and Stevens was ancient. Both stayed on through the Bush administration just so that the Court would not tip any further to the right. But a death or resignation of any of the five conservative jurists who remain will enable our socialist, community-organizer President to destroy the conservative majority and add another critical building block in his quest to remake America as a European-style social welfare state.

Here are the approximate ages of the justices:
50s – Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor;
60s – Thomas;
70s – Scalia, Kennedy, Bader-Ginsburg, Breyer;
?? – Obama’s new appointment, likely no older than 50s.

The key group is the four in their 70s, with two from each camp. I believe Bader Ginsburg’s health is the most problematic. But in fact, I hope they all hold on through 2012 – and 2016 if need be. My reason for praying for the health of Scalia and Kennedy is obvious. But I hope the two liberals hang on too, for if not, Obama will just replace one or both with younger clones.

How sad that the fate of our country hinges on the relative health of four unelected judges

Romney’s N.O. Victory is Not a Good Sign

Mitt Romney is to 2012 what John McCain was in 2008, what Bob Dole was in 1996 and what George H.W. Bush was in 1988. Namely, it’s his turn. Republicans have a sorry history of nominating for President the person who is perceived to be “next in line.” Little consideration is given to the candidate’s conservative credentials, to his electability, or to whether his rivals are more qualified or would make a better president.

Each instance of this phenomenon has resulted in disaster. Dole’s turn perpetuated the debauched, liberal presidency of Bill Clinton. McCain’s turn resulted in the most radical, left-wing presidency in American history. And although Bush the elder won his race, he proceeded to betray the conservative legacy of Ronald Reagan and set the country anew on the road to a bipartisan ruin that is bearing fruit today.

Romney, if not a RINO, is certainly no heir to Ronald Reagan. All one has to say is: “Massachusetts Health Care.” Why in heaven’s name would the Republican Party want to have him as its standard bearer when there are truly conservative, exciting alternatives available who might be able to reverse the horrendous course our country is on? I am thinking of Mike Pence, Paul Ryan or Rick Perry.

But no, it’s Mitt’s turn. If he gets the nod, either he will crash and burn like Dole or McCain, giving Obama another four years to further encase America in the socialist box he is constructing for us; or Mitt will somehow win and then govern like the Bushes – a big government Republican who will do nothing to reverse America’s slide toward Euro-socialism. On the contrary, I fear that, as he did in Massachusetts, he will foster the slide.

What can I say: I am having a fit about Mitt!

Violating the Law

Politicians violate the law all too frequently. The roster of federal and state legislators and executives who have been exposed as law-breakers is long and shameful. Moreover, the laws they transgress range from local statutes right up to the Constitution. But I venture that the law that is flouted by the greatest number of politicians is actually the Law of Unintended Consequences. The examples are legion and I will point out some of the most famous. However, the main point of this article is to highlight three egregious instances that have received too little attention heretofore.

Let us set the tone by quickly recalling some of the most famous violations of the law of unintended consequences by short-sighted politicians:

  • Minimum Wage Laws. Implemented with the purported purpose of raising the wages of the lowest earning Americans, it has been well documented that a major side effect—which sometimes swamps the intended effect—is increased unemployment among the poor.
  • Gun Control Laws. Enacted to supposedly enhance the safety of our citizens, statistics stubbornly reveal that the localities that pass gun control laws encounter higher rates of crime (including those in which guns are used) than the rates in communities in which concealed weapons statutes are in force.
  • Ethanol Subsidies. Intended to provide relief from our country’s crippling dependence on foreign oil, programs to divert corn to the production of ethanol have had the unintended effect of driving up food prices—both domestically and internationally.
  • The Community Reinvestment Act. Rigging the rules to promote home ownership among the country’s poor, the Act—abetted by those who enforced it vigorously—led directly to the housing bubble and the consequent crash that clobbered the US economy.
  • Aid to Dependent Children. When the government paid women to have babies, discard fathers and not work, then—surprise, surprise—the result was not the intended effect of alleviating poverty; no, the outcome was poor women having many babies, with multiple transitory partners and a culture of helplessness and dependency that destroyed the family structure of all who participated in this pernicious trap.
  • Employer-Based Health Insurance. In order to circumvent FDR’s rigid wage controls, employers conceived the idea of helping to pay for their employees’ health insurance as a recruitment tool. ‘Fine,’ said the IRS. Sixty five years later we have a third party payer system that is helping to bankrupt the country by destroying any user incentive to purchase health care responsibly.
  • Intelligence, or the lack thereof. Due to a misguided sense of moral outrage at the details of covert intelligence operations, the Congress eviscerated the intelligence services of our country over a 30-year period. But rather than elevating the moral fiber of the nation, the result was: Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen, 9/11, the fall of the Shah, a failure to foresee the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union, erroneous assessments of WMD in Saddam’s Iraq and certainly other unknown intelligence failures that have compromised American security. Moreover, the curtailment of our use of humint in covert operations has not garnered us any increased respect around the world—from either allies or enemies.

Now let us turn our attention to three instances of the formidable law of unintended consequences that have been accorded less recognition. The first originates in a brilliant article by Evelyn Gordon in the January 2010 issue of Commentary Magazine (The Deadly Price of Pursuing Peace, pp. 17-23). Ms. Gordon recalls that one of the main promises of the Oslo peace process was that it would improve Israel’s international standing. She then points out that, despite 16 years of Oslo process, Israel’s standing in the world is at a shockingly low ebb: divestment from and boycott of its products and institutions are called for daily; it is routinely accused of being an ‘apartheid state’; it is characterized by the people of Europe as the single ‘greatest threat to world peace’; its officials are indicted in foreign courts; it is castigated for any and all acts of self-defense (see, e.g., the Goldstone Report); its right to exist is seriously questioned; and indeed its violent death is promised by Iran with nary a peep of condemnation from any other country. Israel’s stated willingness to ‘make concessions for peace,’ its repeatedly announced intention to pursue the peace process with gangsters like Arafat and Abbas, and its unilateral withdrawals all have resulted not in improved standing, but in near pariah status.

Ms. Gordon explains cogently why this is so. First, by acquiescing in the concept that any peace agreement should entail Israeli surrender of part or all of Judea and Samaria (the so-called West Bank), Israel has undermined its own legitimate claim to that territory. Second, by withdrawing from areas in which it previously controlled the Arab population, the result has been more dead Palestinians. This is simply because Israel can no longer arrest, and thereby forestall Arab perpetrators from carrying out their atrocities before they occur; instead it more often must resort to killing the perpetrators of terror during and after their despicable acts. Next, it is clear that Israeli concessions, designed to further the peace process, do not placate Islamic radicals. To the contrary, it impresses upon Israel’s enemies that she is weak and susceptible to defeat by ratcheting up demands. As Gordon says, ‘among anti-Israel radicals, Israel’s increasingly frantic pursuit of peace has aroused not admiration but rather the instincts of a predator scenting blood…[It] convince[s] the radicals (and Palestinians as well) that Israel could be pressured into abandoning any red line if the heat was turned high enough.’ Finally, by raising the hope of a settlement among interested ‘third parties,’ Israel only makes them angrier at her when they see their hopes unfulfilled. Israel would be better served by cooling its ardor for an unachievable peace and encouraging third parties to direct their attention elsewhere.

Ms. Gordon makes a powerful case that had Israel continued its pre-Oslo policy of treating the PLO as a terrorist organization—ergo, an unsuitable peace partner—and refusing to deal with it, Israel would be far better off than it is today. Its insane pursuit of a deeply flawed and unrealizable peace process has led to the unintended consequence of its drastically diminished world standing.

The second example, in which unintended consequences have had a devastating effect, but which has received too little attention, lies in the federalization of US education. Indeed, the education of American youth has truly been federalized, from pre-school to graduate school. I can cite the pervasive role of the feds in student loan programs, the federal regulations that govern the physical environment of our schools and the earmarks that support some of the most arcane school projects. But the coup de grace is No Child Left Behind, which has placed the control of the elementary school curriculum largely under federal direction. The unintended effect of the latter is that the overwhelming majority of the nation’s schools tailor their curriculum to meet the perceived requirements of NCLB. The havoc this has wreaked on the school curriculum has come as a nasty surprise to teachers. In addition, the control that parents can exert on local school boards has been severely curtailed. Finally, student performance has not improved.

Higher education is not immune. We have reached the point that for many institutions of higher education, the amount of revenue that they derive from either of their two traditional sources—tuition and either state funds (public institutions) or endowments (private institutions)—is eclipsed by the funds secured from the feds through government grants and research contracts. Many examples of unintended ill side effects of this development have been recorded—e.g., the severe strictures on research imposed by federal export control regulations. But here is one that I am familiar with from my own university that I have never seen discussed. The selection of campus capital projects and facilities maintenance programs is determined to a surprising extent by the university’s perception of their likelihood of attracting federal matching monies. Well, it is primarily only sexy new buildings and research labs that can do so. Therefore, a hugely disproportionate share of these projects is steered toward the realm of new buildings, hi-tech labs and ultra-modern recreational facilities. The basic infrastructure is left to decay. It has been estimated that the deferred maintenance costs at my institution are nearing one billion dollars. While the safety indicators and educational environment in our classrooms and office buildings atrophy, we leverage funds from the feds to build fancy new buildings whose need is questionable. So, as with the country’s crumbling bridges, roads and tunnels, the university’s infrastructure decays while we chase federal dollars for glitzy buildings, climate change projects, diversity programs and other wasteful outlays in order to satisfy Uncle Sam’s dubious priorities. (The federalization of higher education is discussed in greater depth in another posting in this blog – see Obama Needn’t Federalize Higher Education; It’s Already Federalized)

 

My final example is the election of Barack Obama and an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress in 2008. It is difficult for me to speak for the people who perpetrated this naïve and reckless act, but I think it is fair to say that they thought they were installing a President and a government that would: improve America’s reputation abroad; bring intelligence, transparency and fairness to the governance of the country; be a unifying force for America; and help to address some of the country’s ongoing fiscal problems in a bipartisan way. What they got instead was a radical left regime, dominated by doctrinaire ideologues, determined to march the country toward Euro-socialism in a partisan, economically-irresponsible and arrogant way.

The unintended consequence of course is that instead of unifying the country under a mildly liberal form of government, the Obama-Pelosi-Reid (OPR) team has produced a badly polarized populace that has turned ferociously on the President and his allies in Congress. The American people have received the exact opposite of what they opted for: our international reputation has changed, but not for the better—instead of being seen as a bully, we are perceived as weak and vacillating, lacking in leadership; the government we have is willfully ignorant, opaque and beholden to hard left special interests; the country is splintered, not unified; and in almost every way, the OPR team has exacerbated America’s fiscal problems. Thus the people can be as ignorant as the politicians. By installing the OPR team, we have totally ignored the law of unintended consequences.