A Prominent Syndicated Columnist Goes Gloomy

Many of my readers have chastised me for excessive pessimism. One of my previous posts entitled ‘Is America Doomed’ has been cited as especially gloomy. But consider the words of nationally syndicated columnist Jeffrey Kuhner in The Washington Times (3/26/10):

The bitter debate over Obamacare has exposed the country’s profound divisions. We are no longer one nation or one people. Rather, there are now two Americas: one conservative, the other liberal. Increasingly, we no longer just disagree but we despise each other.

Our disagreements encompass everything – politics, morality, culture and history. We no longer share a unifying essence or common values. One half of America believes abortion is an abomination; the other half considers any attempt to repeal it as oppressive and sexist. One half opposes homosexual unions because it elevates immoral and unnatural behavior to the sacred status of marriage; the other half supports it as an extension of civil rights. One half reviles Mr. Obama’s socialist agenda, viewing it as the destruction of capitalism and our constitutional government; the other half embraces it as the culmination of social justice and economic equality. One half reveres America’s heroes – Christopher Columbus, George Washington, James Madison, Davy Crockett – and its glorious history; the other half is ashamed of its past, seeing it as characterized by racism, imperialism and chauvinism.

How’s that for pessimism? But Kuhner goes further:

Ultimately, a country is not simply its geographical borders with the people inside of it. It is something more – and deeper. A nation must share a common heritage, language, culture, faith and myths. Once upon a time, Americans celebrated the same heroes, sang the same patriotic songs, read the same history and literature, and gloried in its exceptional nature: a city upon a hill, with liberty and freedom for all. It was understood that, for all of our different ethnic and religious backgrounds, America is a product of English and Christian civilization. Those days are long gone.

Instead, we are going the way our Founding Fathers warned us against: increasing balkanization and sectionalism. A constitutional republic – unlike an empire – is only as strong as its national cohesion. It is based not on imperial coercion but civic consent. Mr. Obama is recklessly pulling at the strings of unity, further polarizing us.

Alas, I think Mr. Kuhner is correct. Among my conservative acquaintances, I increasingly hear words like: secession, revolution and refounding. More ominously, I hear sentences such as: this government is more oppressive than the one that our forefathers revolted against; the Republic is lost, those of us who care need to start over; our uber-progressive President and his allies are destroying our Constitutional Republic and impoverishing its citizens. As proof of the last assertion, I can say that among my friends and relatives of my age (60s) who have children in their 30s and 40s trying to raise a family, the percentage of the adult children who are living as well as their parents did at a comparable age—much less better—is meager.

This piece also appeared in The American Thinker under the title, ‘Is All the Pesimism Justified?’; see:

 

Obama Needn’t Federalize Higher Education; It Already Is Federalized

While we are all focused on health care, and cap and trade waits in the wings, we shouldn’t forget the third leg of Obama’s trio of nasty tricks to ‘change’ America—education reform. One might argue that George W Bush already federalized public school education with his infamous No Child Left Behind legislation. Whether one believes its consequences have been positive or negative, one cannot dispute that NCLB has effectively given the federal government control over critical parts of the public school curriculum. State and local officials understand very well that they must teach and test what the feds want, or they won’t be able to feed at the federal education trough—to whose content they are hopelessly addicted.

But I wish to focus on higher education here, and to argue that by virtually the same means—that is, by dangling dollars—the federal government controls the operation, enrollment, budget, facilities and curriculum of our esteemed institutions of higher education to a greater degree than most would acknowledge. 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 education projects. But the coup de grace is the following startling fact. 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.

Much of this has been accomplished without any special enabling legislation. It takes place within the budgets of various federal departments and agencies—e.g., Defense, Commerce, Interior, NASA, NSF, and others. But with or without specific legislation, like all the massive intrusions by the federal government into areas of our society and economy, it has been carried out lawfully, with the public’s support. Of course in doing so, we the people have ignored the most basic law—the Law of Unintended Consequences. And indeed the examples of unintended ill side effects of the federal usurpation of higher education are legion:

·       The vast majority of federal grant money is directed toward faculty research projects at the nation’s universities. The inevitable result has been a dramatic decline in the percentage of faculty time devoted to teaching. The unintended effect—the quality of education suffers.

·       Federal grants are complicated and time-consuming to administer. Thus, the number of university administrators has skyrocketed. These people contribute little toward the university’s mission.

·       It is no great secret that the lion’s share of federal grant monies is directed toward the sciences (physical, life, social and medical). Humanities lag far behind thereby engendering weaker academic credentials and a commensurate loss of self-respect in those quarters.

·       State support of public higher education continues to decline. No State can compete with the feds. Thus local control of our public universities diminishes.

·       As with any other federally-assisted venture, the huge influx of federal funds drives up costs. Inflation in higher education fees has swamped cost of living increases for years.

·       The one who pays the freight gets to call the tune. Faculty, students and administrators increasingly have to dance to Uncle Sam’s tunes. A simple example is the straightjacket that university researchers feel they are in because of federal export control rules that apply to all faculty activities supported by government research contracts.

·       State universities’ Boards of Trustees and private institutions’ Boards of Overseers have seen their powers curtailed. They are fearful of bucking the feds.

·       It might only be indirectly, but increased federal influence in higher education eventually leads to a say in the most important decision the university makes—namely, faculty tenure. These decisions are increasingly dependent on a faculty member’s ability to secure federal funding—opening the process to influences other than scholarly merit.

·       Naturally, faculty—and the university in general—devote enormous amounts of time, energy and resources to the securing of federal grants. This is time taken from teaching and research—supposedly the university’s primary mission.

·       We are all aware of rampant corruption in Medicare, Social Security and virtually every other huge federal program. Do you think that federal support of higher education is immune? Suffice it to say that universities now routinely employ lobbyists to further their cause on Capitol Hill.

All of the above, while perhaps unexpected, are not controversial allegations. The next two certainly are:

·       The university—like the media, legal profession, foundations and public schools—has become an almost exclusive province of the left. Progressivism, relativism, secularism, multiculturalism, pacifism and environmentalism dominate campus thought. Federal government money and influence only fosters that dominance.

·       There is absolutely no justification whatsoever in the Constitution for the federal government’s interference in higher education. But no one seems to care about that.

I believe I have heard or seen each of the above items—even the last two—in public venues in the last few years. 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 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.
 
This piece also appeared in The American Thinker under the title, ‘Federalized Higher Education’; see:
 

Betrayed by My Own Country

For the second time in my life I am feeling betrayed by my own country. The unwarranted imposition of government-controlled health care constitutes the betrayal.

The first betrayal occurred nearly forty years ago. My wife and I had just purchased a new house in a nice (integrated) neighborhood within walking distance of the university in which I was on the Mathematics faculty. Actually, a prime attraction of the house was that it was located close to an outstanding public elementary school that my kindergarten-age eldest son would attend. But less than three months into the school year, a myopic federal judge ordered my son bussed to a far away, inferior school in a ghastly neighborhood—all in furtherance of racial integration, whereas my neighborhood and my son’s school were already completely integrated. I could not believe it. My liberties, my rights were being usurped. No county, state or federal legislator or executive did anything whatsoever to halt this gross miscarriage of justice.

This incident caused me to reevaluate all the political and social axioms that had governed my life. Suffice it to say that I emerged from the exercise converted from a misguided liberal into an ardent conservative. Nothing that has happened in the last four decades tells me that I made an incorrect decision.

I have felt many disappointments in that time as I watched our country slide ever closer to a Euro-socialist state. The people of the country do not appear to draw the right lessons from our: Ponzi-scheme entitlement programs; spiraling, out of control debt; government intrusion into virtually every aspect of our lives; crumbling free market system that is increasingly replaced by crony capitalism and socialist practices; debauched culture that undermines the morals, which our founders asserted were necessary for our Republic to survive; and our blatant and wanton violations of the Constitution.

But I have not felt personally betrayed as I did in the 1972-3 bussing incident—until now. I feel that the impending government takeover of health care is a personal threat to my liberty. When it is implemented, I will not have access to the doctors, hospitals and medicines that I might need in the latter part of my life. I will not be able to make the free choices that might enable me to live a longer and healthier life. Despite the clear and overwhelming opposition of the people, the radical in the White House and his socialist cronies in Congress are ramming their oppressive system down my throat. Betrayal! Whither my country?
 
This post also appeared in The Intellectual Conservative blog at

http://intellectualconservative.blogspot.com/2010/03/betrayed-by-my-own-country.html

 
 

How Smart is Obama and is that the Right Question?

I should have realized that it was going to be a recurring theme when a liberal friend of mine said to me in January 2009 that ‘it will be a welcome change to have an intelligent occupant of the White House.’ From his arrival on the scene until today, we are repeatedly told that Obama is very smart and that this will enable him to be a very good President. There are two assertions of fact in that last sentence and I would like to test both.

Regarding his intelligence, it seems clear that Obama is above the mean. But his supporters suggest much more—implicitly and often explicitly—namely, that he is one of the smartest men ever to be President. The evidence for that is hardly conclusive. Pro: he ran a masterful campaign, both in the primaries and in the general election; he demonstrates a commanding knowledge of facts and figures about areas in which he has little background or experience; he handles himself with great poise in public arenas; and he can be quite eloquent in prepared speeches. Con: he has resisted making his academic record public; there is no evidence at all that he is an avid reader; he is apparently oblivious to the arrogance he displays toward those who disagree with him; his misreading of the American public over the last year is breathtaking; his eloquence dips precipitously when making extemporaneous remarks; and he has placed his trust (recently and in the past) in characters of dubious integrity.

Well, I’m sure he is smart, maybe even very smart. But the point is: whether he is or not is not terribly important. History has shown conclusively that the raw intelligence of our Presidents correlates not at all with their success. It is often asserted that Woodrow Wilson was the smartest President of the 20th century. Now it has taken history a while to catch up with his reputation; in fact, we know today that Wilson’s ideas and ‘achievements’ helped to ensure the onset of WWII and the modern welfare state. Spare me more brilliant chief executives like him. Others who have been anointed as highly intelligent include Kennedy, Nixon and Stevenson. Kennedy was an insignificant President, Nixon was a disaster and Stevenson’s wit and intelligence were insufficient to get him elected. No one ever claimed that FDR, LBJ or Reagan were paragons of intellect. Yet they were the most transformative Presidents of the century.

Continuing in this vein, Adams was smarter than Washington and maybe than Jefferson too; but he was a far less effective President than either. Madison was brilliant, but his Presidency was much less successful than that of his successor, who did not have a reputation for brilliance. Lincoln was bright and effective. Andrew Johnson was a dolt and a calamity. Truman was no scholar, but his reputation is holding up. Hoover was clever, but an unmitigated horror.

What matters in a President is not his IQ, but his ideas together with his leadership, management and motivational skills. Obama might or might not be very smart. Who cares! More to the point, his ideas are terrifying. Moreover, the leadership, management and motivational skills he has displayed thus far are pathetic. I don’t know about you, but I am grateful for that.
_______
This posting also appeared in The Intellectual Conservative blog at
 

The Democrats are not democrats: And Obama is not a Socialist—He is a Sheafist

Last month we celebrated the 99th anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s birth. Barack Obama claims to admire the Gipper, citing him as a transformative president—an appellation that Obama aspires to. Woe is us if he succeeds! Whereas Reagan inspired the American people and pointed us toward prosperity and national strength, Obama scares the hell out of us and is leading us to penury and mediocrity. But these two presidents differ in a fundamental way that transcends just their leadership capabilities. They represent vastly different points on the political spectrum. Yet Obama’s ability to cast himself as somehow analogous to Reagan is symptomatic of our confusion about the actual components of the political spectrum. It is my purpose to clear up that confusion here.

 

One should think of the political spectrum like we do the optical spectrum, that is, as a line, but instead of running from Red to Violet, the political spectrum runs linearly from Left to Right. The confusion comes about in deciding what the entries are and where to place them on the line. Terms like liberal, conservative, progressive, reactionary, communist, fascist, monarchist, democrat, theocrat, republican, anarchist and others are candidates for inclusion. That’s complicated enough. But where they are in relation to one another is the real source of the confusion.

 

For example, it is nearly universally accepted that Soviet Communism was on the extreme left of the political spectrum while German Nazism was situated on the extreme right. But the latter categorization is wrong. How so? This is simple to explain if we think of the political spectrum as measuring the role of government in society. The left end of the spectrum represents total government control of society. How the control is exercised is far less important than the extent of the control. When the politics, economic system, social contracts and virtually every other aspect of a society is controlled by the government, it doesn’t matter much whether the government is a Soviet-style dictatorship, a monarchy, an oligarchy, a theocracy—or a fascist dictatorship. Any such government lies on the extreme left. The correct label for it is totalitarian.

 

But if fascism is on the left, what is on the right? That too is simple—anarchy! The complete absence of government control is clearly the logical opposite of total government control. Most of the anarchical examples today are found in Africa, but Yemen is coming closer and Haiti is a legitimate candidate. Now there are all means of gradations between the two extremes, but let’s keep it simple and limit ourselves to five: totalitarian societies on the far left, anarchical societies on the far right and three in between. What are they?

 

To the right of totalitarian but to the left of center are authoritarian regimes—those that control many aspects of society, but do not aspire to total control. The most obvious examples are various military dictatorships that sprout up all over the world. Other authoritarian regimes are found among the monarchies that dot the third world. I might mention that the distinction between totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, and the consequences for their subjects, as well as the differing possibilities for change in both, was explored in depth by Jeane Kirkpatrick in the 1970s.

 

What is the analog on the right; that is, right of center but left of anarchy? Clearly such a society must be characterized by very loose government control; the people themselves control the society. Power to the people! Sounds like democracy to me. Usually we characterize democracy as a society in which leaders are chosen by fair elections with the outcome reflecting majority rule. I think that confuses process with philosophy. For me, democracy is a society in which the people determine their fate far more than any remote government. The ancient Greek city-states are the classic model. But pre-revolutionary New England villages with their town meetings are another good example. In a democracy in this sense, how the people rule (via elections, town meetings, mobs, gangs or warlords) is not nearly as important as the fact that the central government is weak and the people are strong. France after the Revolution comes to mind. Current examples are again found in some African countries; and Afghanistan is another candidate.

 

What’s in the middle? We are! Ours is a Constitutional Republic where power resides with the people, but—following guidelines specified in the Constitution—the people empower a limited government to rule with their consent. The people of such a society enjoy the freedoms of those in a democracy, but avoid the chaos and disorderliness that is inevitable in a pure democracy. Orderliness is also found in authoritarian regimes, but the people of a Constitutional Republic don’t have to put up with the ruthlessness and constraints on freedom characteristic of authoritarian regimes. Unfortunately, the term Constitutional Republic does not uniquely specify all the societies in the center of the spectrum. Constitutional Monarchies, like those of many of the countries in Europe, have forms of government very reminiscent of ours wherein the rights and freedom of the people are preserved by limiting the powers of a representative parliament and a (constitutionally) restrained monarch.

 

What we recognize as the West is made up largely of Constitutional Republics and Constitutional Monarchies firmly in the center of the political spectrum. But what has been happening in the West in the last 125 years? Virtually all its societies have been marching steadily to the left. Europe has been in the lead, but Obama and the Democrats are pressing hard for us to catch up. Every one of Obama’s policy objectives involves greater government control over the people. Obama and the Democratic Party are moving America inexorably to the left—toward authoritarianism and away from democracy. Thus, the Democrats are not democrats.

 

Finally, what is the proper label for Obama? I think he aspires to be an authoritarian, but the usual pejorative bestowed on him by conservatives is ‘socialist.’ However, according to the specifications of Jonah Goldberg, author of Liberal Fascism, Obama should be classified as a fascist, not a socialist. What is the difference? Both believe in robust government control of society—sometimes authoritarian, sometimes totalitarian. In order to achieve that, a socialist advocates government ownership of the means of production and all property. A fascist is willing to permit—even prefers—private ownership of property and business, but structures society, through crony capitalism and other means, to ensure government control of at least the country’s political and economic systems. According to Obama’s professed disdain for government ownership of the means of production, he is not a socialist but a fascist. However, the word fascist is so incredibly loaded that it is unusable. For the vast majority of people, it conjures up jack-booted thugs arriving in the middle of the night. To call someone a fascist is to label him a maniacal, genocidal, Hitler wannabe—which Obama manifestly is not. So let us hearken back to the origin of the term, the Italian word fasci—which means bundle or sheaf. Bundlist doesn’t work so well, therefore I think the best term to describe the political philosophy of our president is Sheafist. Let’s see whether it sticks.

 
This piece also appeared in the Intellectual Conservative at
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/03/03/the-democrats-are-not-democrats-and-obama-is-not-a-socialist%e2%80%94he-is-a-sheafist/