Monthly Archives: October 2011

Two Visions, but Blindness Everywhere

A common lament these days is that Washington is so polarized that it cannot get anything done. It is observed that the Democratic Party is completely dominated by its ultra-liberal wing – with the further recognition that this has been true at least since the nomination of George McGovern. The leftward bias is reflected in the Dems’ insatiable appetite for large government and increased federal spending, and their obsession with multiculturalism, gay rights, affirmative action, global warming and “Wall Street greed.” Simultaneously, the sense is that the Republican Party is controlled by its right-wing constituents – although that dominance can only be traced back to Reagan, or perhaps only to Gingrich and maybe only since the advent of the TEA Party. Whenever its inception, the members of the GOP are now, theoretically, intractably committed to lower taxes, reduced federal spending, deregulation, anti-abortion policies and the repeal of Obamacare. This extreme divergence of fundamental views explains why compromise is increasingly impossible, resulting in a paralytic government gridlock that prevents the nation from addressing its most pressing problems.

Superficially, this analysis is correct. But it glosses over an important historical fact implicit in the dates supplied above for the origins of each Party’s coalescence into a single mindset. It also misses the fact that the national political/cultural conversation has been totally skewed for a very long time because of the vast discrepancy in those dates of origin. Indeed, the Left’s capture of the Democratic Party began during the Progressive Era – especially under Woodrow Wilson – and was arguably complete by the time of FDR – i.e., long before LBJ, McGovern or Obama appeared on the scene. On the other hand, the Republican Party has been adrift from its conservative moorings since the administration of Teddy Roosevelt, continuing right up to that of George W Bush – with some countervailing trends evident only during the Coolidge and Reagan eras.

The point is that while it is indeed true that today there are two very distinct visions for America competing for the allegiance of the American people, that dynamic has not been in play for most of the last century. As I described in an article published several years ago, Different Visions, the Leftist playbook was written by the Progressive Era Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci, who asserted: One need only capture the culture. The politics will follow. And that is exactly what the leftists did over the last century. Through an unremitting assault on many fronts, the Left took control of all the opinion-forming organs of American society: the media, educational establishment (lower and higher), the legal profession, foundations and libraries, the government bureaucracy and the unions, the marketing industry and (to a certain extent) the upper echelons of big business. Once the people’s mindset was converted from individual liberty to collective equality, security and order, it was easy to convince them to implement the political changes that enabled the conversion of America from a free society into a statist society.

The Left’s cultural assault was broad, sustained, relentless and purposeful. The Right – naively assuming that things would naturally stay the way they always had been – wasn’t even paying attention. A few noticed (e.g., William Buckley), but for the most part, traditionalists and conservatives did not appreciate that the fundamental organs of society that supported and maintained the traditional American culture were being subverted and diverted to something radically different. It is only in recent times that a substantial portion of traditional America has awakened to the radical leftist revolution that has swept the country and which threatens to kill the historic society that America embodied. Previously – and perhaps still – the framework for the national political/cultural conversation was set entirely by the Left and it was little noted – by any on either side – that the axioms assumed by all who engaged in the conversation were biased strongly towed the left end of the spectrum.

Now, how has the one-sidedness of our national political/cultural conversation been accorded recognition across the land? Simple; it hasn’t! With few exceptions, the American people have been largely blind to the vast transformation that occurred in our society over the course of the twentieth century. Does anyone ever question the legitimacy of Social Security? How many doubt that the FDA is critical to keeping America’s prescription drug supply bountiful and safe? Walter Cronkite was the most trusted man in America, but the mainstream media dubs Rush Limbaugh a fascist. Does anyone recognize that American pop culture is best described as a cesspool? And why exactly are they putting those condoms on cucumbers in the classroom? In presidential debates, candidates argue over how to run the government more efficiently, or who will start or streamline which program that that will most “benefit” the public. But the question of the nature of our Republic, how or even whether we should remain true to our founding principles, or which is more important – liberty or equality; these questions never come up. It does not occur to the moderator to ask them, nor does the failure to do so disturb the candidates.

It may be that there is some clarity regarding political vision today; but in the recent past, America’s perception of where it stood politically and culturally in relation to its historical practices has been that of a blind man. Moreover, the blindness manifests in somewhat different ways according to one’s place in the political spectrum.

  • On the Left: Anyone who has sat in on a university committee meeting, or glanced at the front page of the NY Times, or attended a back-to-school night, or listened to Nancy Peolosi pontificate, knows that the Left takes absolutely for granted that a progressive agenda is the only agenda that is suitable for America. Moreover, those on the Left take it as axiomatic that any intelligent person recognizes and accepts the appropriateness of that agenda. In that committee room, it never occurs to the lefties in attendance (i.e., virtually everyone) that anyone in the room might think differently from them. Having achieved a dominance of the American political/cultural scene that they could only have dreamed of in 1911, the Left considers it normal and permanent, and an abomination (not to mention a surprise) whenever it is challenged in any way by someone on the Right. The horrific idea of returning to the conventions of 125 years ago is tantamount to the restoration of slavery and oppression of women – sins that have irrevocably stained America and which we have finally overcome only by implementing an unchallengeable, progressive agenda.
  • In the middle: This is likely the largest category of people. Those who don’t see themselves as ideological leftists or rightists – but rather practical, sensible, compromise-friendly independents – are blithely unaware that the conversation has tilted tremendously. Such people often have a weak sense of history, little appreciation for the social and economic consequences of a century of collectivist programs, and are easily swayed by the bromides of a slick politician. They do not see how the fulcrum on the political spectrum has been shifted precipitously to the Left. They consider themselves centrists, but do not understand that the positions they take and programs they support are collectivist. A lifetime of exposure to the leftist-dominated opinion-molding organs of society has shifted their fulcrum as well.
  • On the Right. This might be the smallest contingent. In the past, the practitioners were marginalized and ostracized. A few like Buckley were accorded respect. But in truth they were viewed as quacks to be tolerated for amusement’s sake – but they were not to be taken seriously. What is worse, but sadly true, is that many in these ranks were imposters, faux conservatives. For example, George W Bush, who was viewed by nearly all of society as a conservative, serves as a perfect metaphor. Bush expanded the government and exploded the debt as badly as any card carrying leftist (well until his profligate successor appeared). Incidentally, exactly as Bush begat Obama, so did Hoover beget FDR and Nixon beget Carter. Heaven save us from conservatives like Bush, who, in terms of the visions we have been describing, was blind as a bat.
The hope is that the Obama-Pelosi-Reid axis of evil has behaved so egregiously and so transparently that a substantial portion of America can now at last see. A new cadre of true conservatives has been created. Their task is to somehow reach the vast muddled middle. If that contingent can be awakened to what has happened and their complicity in it, perhaps there is a chance to right the ship. Perhaps then people will realize that the competing visions for America held by the Left and Right are irreconcilable. It makes no sense to be “in the middle”; it does not reflect a coherent worldview, but rather a non-Solomonic willingness to split the baby. It is the job of those with the “Right” vision to bring sight to those in the middle who are willing to see.
____
A somewhat abridged version of this article appeared in The American Thinker at:

Which is the Real Rick Perry?

I just read Rick Perry’s 2010 book, Fed Up. Actually, I’ve been reading the books of all the Republican presidential contenders – at least those who’ve published one recently. That includes Cain, Gingrich, Paul, Pawlenty and Romney; Huntsman and Santorum have books that are several years old and Bachmann’s book is coming out in November. The impression offered by a book is very different from what we glean from a televised debate – as we shall see momentarily.

In fact, Perry’s book surprised me very much. In short, it is terrific. He makes an articulate, impassioned, well-reasoned and well-documented argument for a staunchly conservative America. He is particularly strong when discussing the tenth amendment and states’ rights. He skewers the unlimited spending, over-regulating, unconstitutional mode of (national) government that has gripped the nation. Perry’s writing is forceful, coherent and convincing – and even humorous on occasion. One senses a person who is in command of his facts, who marshals his arguments in a cogent fashion, who speaks from a great deal of relevant experience and who is supremely confident of his analysis and recommendations.

So who the h— is that guy impersonating Rick Perry in those televised debates and what have they done with the real Rick Perry? The person I have seen on the boob tube several times now is inarticulate, unsteady in his elocution, seemingly unsure of himself, and generally rather less than impressive. It makes me wonder how he has been repeatedly re-elected Governor of Texas.

How can this be? The disparity between Perry’s performance as an author and his TV debate persona is glaring and mystifying. I can think of a few reasons:

·        He didn’t really write the book. He wouldn’t be the first national politician to employ a ghost writer; our current president is reputed to have done so.

·        He has been woefully unprepared for the debates. There is a school of thought that either he expected to run away with the nomination and didn’t think the debates could trip him up or he just doesn’t do well in an unscripted, spontaneous environment.

·        Both performances are genuine – i.e., he is a deep thinker and writer, but a poor public performer.

I have no idea which of these (or something else) is the accurate explanation. But I find it incomprehensible that the man who wrote the startling clear words below is unable to articulate them on stage. From the point of view of philosophy and what the country needs in the next president, I find Perry’s positions (as expressed in his book) superior to those of his competitors. But if he can’t improve his stage act, he won’t get the nomination – or if he somehow does, Obama will clean his clock.

“The statists believe in a powerful, activist central government that advances a radical secular agenda in the name of compassion. They hide behind misguided notions of empathy and push token talking points about fighting for “the little guy,” all the while empowering the federal government to coercively and blatantly undermine state-, local-, and self-governance.

Why empower states instead of a single, powerful national government? The simplest answer is this: Americans want to live free. They want to gather together with people of common beliefs and goals to establish communities in which they can prosper. They do not want to be told how to live their lives. They certainly don’t want some far away bureaucrat, judge, or representative of a different community to tell them how to live. That liberty has been the essence of America ever since the colonists came here.

Our fight is to save America from Washington. The idea of America – enshrined in the greatest founding document of all time – is worth fighting for. We just need a few good patriots who are fed up with the status quo, armed with the Constitution, and fueled with courage to stand in the gap for future generations and to preserve for them the greatest beacon of hope, freedom, and prosperity the world has ever known.”
_______________
This post also appeared in The American Thinker at:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/10/which_is_the_real_rick_perry.html

Contrary Thoughts on a Thousand for One

The Israelis just agreed to swap more than a thousand Palestinian terrorists for the kidnapped Israeli soldier, Gilad Schalit. Schalit, his family and friends – indeed all Israelis – have suffered under the terrible burden of his captivity over the last five years. It is wonderful that he will at last be free. But the price is fearfully and unacceptably high. For there is no question that other Israeli blood will be spilled by some of the terrorists that Israel is releasing. The torment that future victims of this wicked deal will bear might exceed those borne by the Schalit family – at this point one only lacks the names of the victims. Furthermore, the Arab terrorists learn from this deal that kidnapping Israeli soldiers pays a handsome dividend in the form of the eventual release of scores of their bloodthirsty comrades. It will only increase their incentive for carrying out more kidnappings. Israeli soldiers will be taken – we lack only their names.

These thoughts are explored more fully and eloquently by Caroline Glick in the Jerusalem Post. Here is just a portion of her thoughts:

The deal that Netanyahu has agreed to is signed with the blood of the past victims and future victims of the terrorists he is letting go. No amount of rationalization by Netanyahu, his cheerleaders in the demented mass media, and by the defeatist, apparently incompetent heads of the Shin Bet, Mossad and IDF can dent the facts.

It is a statistical certainty that the release of 1,027 terrorists for Schalit will lead to the murder of untold numbers of Israelis. It has happened every single time that these blood ransoms have been paid. It will happen now.

Untold numbers of Israelis who are now sitting in their succas and celebrating Jewish freedom, who are driving in their cars, who are standing on line at the bank, who are sitting in their nursery school classrooms painting pictures of Torah scrolls for Simhat Torah will be killed for being Jewish while in Israel because Netanyahu has made this deal. The unrelenting pain of their families, left to cope with their absence, will be unimaginable.

This is a simple fact and it is beyond dispute.

It is also beyond dispute that untold numbers of IDF soldiers and officers will be abducted and held hostage. Soldiers now training for war or scrubbing the floors of their barracks, or sitting at a pub with their friends on holiday leave will one day find themselves in a dungeon in Gaza or Sinai or Lebanon undergoing unspeakable mental and physical torture for years. Their families will suffer inhuman agony.

The only thing we don’t know about these future victims is their names. But we know what will become of them as surely as we know that night follows day.

_______
This post also appeared in The American Thinker at:

Getting America Back on the Tracks

In a recent article in this journal, I argued that the United States has increasingly abandoned the basic principles upon which our nation was founded. I pointed out three strains around which those principles were organized: political, moral and idealistic. Then I described the components of each. A simple comparison of those components (see below) with the salient trends of modern American society makes it painfully evident that the wheels are coming off – America is morphing into a political/cultural entity radically at odds with the vision laid down by our Founders.

The previous article noted that prior attempts to restore America to its constitutional moorings – under Coolidge and Reagan – met with temporary success, but ultimately were swamped under the tidal wave of leftist malarkey that dominates our national conversation. I attributed those failures to the fact that the counter attacks did not address all three strains, or tracks. I postulated that for any counter attack to succeed, all three tracks must be in the crosshairs, and I promised more details in a forthcoming article. Here they are.
There are two parts to a counter attack: (i) what changes do conservative restorationists want to bring about; and (ii) how to do so. The program for item (i) is simple to state. Basically, conservatives wish to restore the constitutional principles that provided the foundation for our society until the leftists of the Progressive Era and succeeding generations began to undercut them. Here are the fundamental goals – specified in the three tracks:
(a) Political. The Founders established an unprecedented political system that has retained its uniqueness to this day. The Constitution provides for a federal Republic, whose government derives its powers purely from the consent of the people; it is made up of distinct branches with carefully delineated, complementary powers, replete with checks and balances – between the branches and between the national and State governments. The system was designed to establish a national government of VERY limited powers that would maximize individual liberty, establish the rule of law and dispense equal and unbiased justice. Moreover, it was intended to do so in perpetuity. The goal is to abolish the current practice of behemoth government that we have pursued over the last century and return to the vision of government bequeathed us by the Founders.
(b) Moral. By placing the onus for the continued success of the American experiment on the people’s shoulders, not the government’s, the Founders understood that the desired success would depend upon the maintenance of a high moral fabric among the people. The system would only work if the people were generally “good” – meaning that they had a clear understanding of and could distinguish between good and evil, just and unjust, honesty and dishonesty, responsibility and irresponsibility. If the people made the right choices when confronted with moral opposites, the system would work well and the nation would thrive; if not, then corruption, vice and malfeasance would surely follow, with tyranny the ultimate outcome. The people would learn to make the right choices because they were embedded in a society that prized strong families and communities, charity and good works, universal education, a powerful work ethic and the fear of God. The goal is to abandon the moral relativism, multiculturalism and secular humanism that dominate our culture and to restore the moral values and traditional culture that characterized our society in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
(c) Idealistic. The Founders also understood that they were creating something unique and revolutionary. They expected that their descendants would guard it zealously and hold it up as a beacon for the peoples of the world to emulate. In short the Founders were the first believers in American exceptionalism. They saw the American people as the “new Hebrews,” a people chosen by God to provide, by their example, a light unto the nations in regard to how a just and free society should be organized and governed. Without that type of faith and pride to complement their upstanding morals, the Founders feared that it might prove difficult to sustain the experiment in limited government. The goal is to turn away from the shame and apologetics that mark the Obama view of American society and return to the shining city on a hill vision of our Founders, so well articulated by President Reagan.

In fact, the program for the second part – how to actually restore these principles – is also fairly easy to state – albeit, not easy to implement. In order to do so, I shall combine (b) and (c) into one bracket that I will designate as culture. The components that determine a people’s morality and ideals are precisely the contents of their culture. The key point is then to acknowledge the insight of the Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci from the Progressive Era: One need only capture the culture. The politics will follow. And that is exactly what the leftists did over the last century. Through an unremitting assault on many fronts, the Left took control of all the opinion-forming organs of American society: the media, educational establishment (lower and higher), the legal profession, foundations and libraries, the government bureaucracy and the unions, the marketing industry and (to a certain extent) the upper echelons of big business. Once the people’s mindset was converted from individual liberty to collective equality, security and order, it was easy to convince them to implement the political changes that enabled the conversion of America from a free society into a statist society.

The cultural assault was broad, sustained, relentless and purposeful. The Right – naively assuming that things would naturally stay the way they always had been – wasn’t even paying attention. A few noticed (e.g., William Buckley), but for the most part, traditionalists and conservatives did not appreciate that the fundamental organs of society that supported and maintained the traditional American culture were being subverted and diverted to something radically different. It is only in recent times that a substantial portion of traditional America has awakened to the radical leftist revolution that has swept the country and which threatens to kill the historic society that America embodied. The issue is how to resuscitate the latter.
Note that I am not proposing a new revolution, but rather a restoration of America’s past political/cultural system. I maintain that conservatives can do so by recapturing the culture. Of course, I am not suggesting that we return to 1811; clearly society cannot ignore two centuries of history and advances in technology. But we can restore the fundamental principles that determined the nature of our society those many years ago. As I said, we do it exactly as we lost it, i.e., by retaking control of the culture, reestablishing the moral/idealistic themes that animated the American soul for more than two centuries. Here are some concrete suggestions:
• Fox News has proven a valuable counterweight to the mainstream news media. We need many more such venues.
• Similarly, conservative newspapers like the Washington Times have provided some balance in the print news media. We need more such conservative newspapers, magazines, periodicals and online journals.
• The Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute have arisen to challenge the Ford, Rockefeller and other left-wing foundations and think tanks (which ironically were established by conservative businessmen). The former must be multiplied many-fold.
• In the same vein, Regnery has provided a conservative counter punch in the book publishing industry. More such outlets are required.
• We need to have law schools that champion strict constitutional interpretation of the law; public libraries that display conservative books more prominently than liberal ones; movie producers that explore patriotic themes and other genres that extol the virtues of traditional culture; and highly successful businessmen (unlike Bill Gates, e.g.) who promote conservative ideas and resist the lure of crony capitalism.
• This suggestion is more political than cultural, but the American people must return to the idea (most clearly articulated by the arch leftist, FDR, ironically) that unionization of public sector employees poses a grave threat to the nation. Unions like SEIU must be decommissioned. When that happens we might be able to address our explosive and crippling entitlement programs in a rational way.
• And finally – and most importantly – we must take back our schools. The damage that the Left is doing in our public schools is amply documented in Marybeth Hicks’ recent book, Don’t Let the Kids Drink the Kool-Aid. Whatever the medium – charter schools, vouchers, or something else – we must break the back of the monopoly that the NEA has on the education of American children and enable schools to reinstill traditional American values into our children, and so into our future.

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