Category Archives: Government & Politics

What Culture is it that the Politics have caught up with

In recent articles I have argued that the method by which the Left has captured nearly complete control of the country over the last century was to radically alter the culture of the nation, after which ‘the politics caught up with the culture.’ One of the goals of this article is to elaborate on that thought.

Most of us have a clear understanding of the different stances of the political Left and Right and what it means to assert that the policies of the Left are in ascendance, while those of the Right are in decline — which certainly seems to be the case in 2009. Just to citethe most conspicuous evidence for that assertion, we observe that: government is expanding, not contracting; taxes and spending are increasing, not declining; government regulation and control of our lives is growing, not shrinking; our defense posture ebbs and negotiations are favored over even the threat of force; secular humanism is on the rise and the observance of traditional religion is weakening; industrial planning and crony capitalism are in vogue while free markets are under a cloud; the Constitution is malleable, its original intent irrelevant; the belief in American exceptionalism withers while the view of America as just another country, moreover one that has made serious mistakes historically, gains popularity; social justice is more important than individual liberty; and multiculturalism is in favor while ‘traditional culture’ wanes.

It is the last mentioned manifestation of the Left’s trampling of the Right that I wish to focus on here. In order to do so, we need to have a clear picture of the massive cultural changes that have engulfed the country during the last century, especially in the last 40 years. In order to identity and understand them, let us try to be specific about what we mean by ‘culture’ or the culture of a society. Consulting my trusty Merriam-Webster, I find that the noun, culture, has the following definition:

the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations; the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life) shared by people in a place or time; the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organization; the set of values, conventions, or social practices associated with a particular field, activity, or societal characteristic.

Distilling that robust definition, I think we can agree that the key point is that the culture of a society or nation comprises the beliefs, social forms, traits, features, attitudes, values, goals and practices that are shared by a majority of the members of the society. A culture is strong if that majority is overwhelming. A culture is weak if the majority is a bare one, and a culture is fractured if the majority does not exist — that is, there are few beliefs, behaviors, etc. that are common to large proportions of the society; or said alternatively, there are competing values, goals, etc., none of which is held commonly by nearly all members of the nation.

The United States had a very strong culture throughout the 18th and 19th centuries. During the 20th century a powerful new culture emerged to challenge the established one. My goal in this article is not only to outline the contents of these two competing cultures, but also to venture an assessment as to the extent of the success of the new culture; that is, does the US have a strong new culture, a weak new culture or is the culture of the United States badly fractured?

The culture of a society has many components, some parts of which are more firmly entrenched than others, and different observers might identify varying pieces as among the strongest or weakest. But I believe that there would be a broad consensus that any description of traditional American culture, from the nation’s birth through 1900, would include at least the following (in no particular order):

  • The English language as the mother tongue of the vast majority of citizens, in which virtually all business, politics, literature, entertainment, law, education and discourse of the nation is transacted.
  • A Constitutional legal system derived from British common law, epitomized by the rule of law as opposed to the rule of man.
  • A reverence for and loyalty to Western Civilization, meaning that guidance for how society is to be organized is sought from the historic tenets established in ancient Greece and Rome as well as during the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods in Western Europe.
  • Freedom of worship, but morals grounded in the Christian religions of Western Europe, rebranded later with the designation ‘Judeo-Christian heritage.’
  • The United States conceived of as a federal republic — more precisely, a representative democracy in which there is a balance of power between the central government and that of the States, and that the power of the federal government would be kept in ‘check and balance’ by division between three separate branches.
  • The traditional family as the center of life and to which the individual owes his primary allegiance.
  • A belief in American exceptionalism, meaning that the new experiment in freedom and liberty conceived in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights rendered the United States different from any nation before or since and that America has a special role to play as an example to the rest of the world for how man should be governed and society organized.
  • Faith that the people of the nation could govern themselves, and a commitment to the principle that the government derives all of its powers only from the consent of the governed, and therefore that the powers of the government should be limited to those granted it in the Constitution.
  • An economy grounded in free markets, laissez-faire capitalism, respect and appreciation for the profit motive and the sacredness of private property.
  • An understanding that human beings are flawed creatures, given to greed and other deadly vices, and that the best method of keeping their transgressions under control is through a robust and fair legal system as well as through the moral checks of a common religious faith.
  • Similarly, an understanding that nature could be violent, fate could be fickle, and that the method of dealing with life’s vicissitudes was the same two remedies as in the last bullet.
  • Admiration for the classic British traits of modesty, humility, thrift, grittiness and the Protestant work ethic, and the elevation of those traits to aspirational ideals that should be taught to one’s children.
  • Promotion of science and technology and adoption of the fruits of the creativity of those who practice them, but a healthy skepticism that scientists or engineers have solutions to problems that are primarily spiritual, moral or ethical.
  • Three more — harmony of interests, rugged individualism and civil society, all of which I will describe by quoting from Mark Levin’s book Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto:

Like the Founders, the Conservative also recognizes in society a harmony of interests, as Adam Smith put it, and rules of cooperation that have developed through generations of human experience and collective reasoning that promote betterment of the individual and society. This is characterized as ordered liberty, the social contract,or the civil society.

* * *

In the civil society, the individual is recognized and accepted as more than an abstract statistic or faceless member of some group; rather he is a unique, spiritual being with a soul and conscience. He is free to discover his own potential and pursue his own legitimate interests, tempered, however, by a moral order that has its foundation in faith and guides his life and all human life through the prudent exercise of judgment. As such, the individual in the civil society strives, albeit imperfectly, to be virtuous — that is, restrained, ethical, and honorable. He rejects the relativism that blurs the lines between good and bad, right and wrong, just and unjust, and means and ends.

In the civil society, the individual has a duty to respect the unalienable rights of others and the values, customs, and traditions, tried and tested over time and passed from one generation to the next, that establish society’s cultural identity. He is responsible for attending to his own well-being and that of his family. And he has a duty as a citizen to contribute voluntarily to the welfare of his community through good works.

Are these the components of a good culture? Well they certainly were good for the people of the United States, and secondarily of the world. Operating under these cultural axioms, the United States grew to fill a continent, underwent an industrial and technological revolution that made it the wealthiest, most dynamic and powerful country on Earth, saved the world from the scourges of Nazism and Communism, welcomed and assimilated vast numbers of oppressed peoples from around the world, and proved that the concepts of individual liberty and freedom enshrined in our founding documents were viable and a workable model for all mankind.

But it is not a one-sided picture. Certainly there were some warts. Under the traditional culture I’ve described, there also occurred the maltreatment of the indigenous people that we supplanted, the horror of slavery, limitations on the roles that women were allowed to play In society, the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, and the blemish that, in retrospect, caused the most consternation: the fact that the culture, with its individualistic and competitive nature ,inevitably leads to winners and losers, success and failure, wealth and poverty, and thus to inequities, which are perceived as unfair and unacceptable.

And so the country harbored many persons and, as the twentieth century progressed, clearly an increasing number of such, who felt that the culture was wrongly conceived and needed to be altered. Beyond the inequities, these malcontents believed that American culture was: too religious and therefore too restrictive, male-dominated and so unfair to women, too unpredictable and chaotic, too materialistic and too dour in its assessment of the perfectibility of humans or nature. They set out to change the culture. And they succeeded. Now, as with the traditional culture, it is a challenge to encapsulate briefly the principles of what I shall call the counterculture that was invented and deployed by the revolutionaries. But here we go; once again I believe the following roster is a good summary of the ingredients of the counterculture that has been battling the traditional culture:

  • Recognizing that the inequities resulting from unfettered capitalism impose unfair hardships on too many worthy members of society, the nation tempers those abridgments of people’s rights to a proper education, a suitable home, adequate health care and gainful employment at a living wage by empowering a strong central government to equalize standards of living and to provide affordable access to education, employment and health care.
  • The justification for doing so is inherent in the nation’s founding documents, which, properly interpreted by the judiciary, grant the executive and legislative branches the authority to implement laws to guarantee these rights.
  • Acknowledges legitimacy in the pursuit of spiritual beliefs by individuals, but decrees that religion has no place in the public square and so no government or government-supported activity can have any religious component.
  • Accepts that Western Civilization has made contributions to the welfare of mankind, but is deeply troubled by its egregious failures — namely colonialism, religious oppression, aggressive war, suppression of women’s rights, slavery, segregation and exploitation of labor and capital. Therefore, it encourages the introduction of other civilizations and cultures into American society and believes the resulting diversity thereby created will build a more enlightened and just society.
  • In particular, the mass immigration of Latin peoples to the US enriches our culture. Moreover, there is nothing holy about the English language and the emergence of a multinational, multicultural, multilingual populace will improve our society and guard against our perpetrating some of the excesses of Western Civilization enumerated above.
  • Claims that the classic principles of Christianity have placed too great a restriction on the nature of human association — in particular, on family formation, and so places maltreatment of homosexuals on par with racial discrimination; therefore, all manner of familial formations can be as constructive and helpful to society as the traditional family.
  • While the government has the obligation to do more than level the playing field in society in general, it has no right to proscribe an individual’s behavior in the privacy of his house or with regard to his person — in particular, it cannot restrict abortion, drugs, adult entertainment, etc.
  • While it acknowledges the legitimacy of private property, it believes the government has an obligation to control the means of production in its quest to guarantee equalization and the rights enumerated above.
  • The nature of modern society is so complex, so multifaceted and so intricate that it is beyond the ken of the normal individual. It is far too complicated to be understood and intelligently addressed by John Q. Public, whether acting individually or as a member of a vast electorate. Only those who are wise, well-trained and accredited, i.e., experts, are competent to direct our affairs. Only those politicians who appreciate this need and who can tap into that expertise are fit to govern us.
  • Government has a major role to play in correcting man’s ill behavior toward his fellow man and toward nature. Crime, pollution, obesity, to name only a few of man’s failings, can be arrested by proper government policies and laws. When this is done, man will live in harmony with his fellow man and with nature.
  • While liberty and freedom are important, they are not nearly as important as equality and fairness. The pursuit of equality is the noblest endeavor. By doing so we create a society that emblemizes social justice — our highest goal.

Before turning to an assessment of how far America has progressed toward replacing its traditional culture with the counterculture, let me comment on the ‘politics follows the culture’ observation earlier. In previous articles I have spelled out in detail the political agendasof the Left and Right. (See for example, prior articles in this journal, ‘Different Visions,’ or ‘A Conservative’s Thoughts as Obama Ascends to the Presidency.’)

Let’s not rehash those. Readers of this essay will surely be well aware of those agendas. Then the following point should be self-evident. The traditional culture aids and abets a conservative political viewpoint. If you accept all, or even only most of the principles of the traditional culture, it is impossible to imagine that you will want to support a liberal or leftist political agenda. Well, it is just as self-evident that if you subscribe to the countercultural principles as I’ve outlined them, then you surely will support a leftist agenda.

And that is the point of the ‘politics caught up with the culture’ comment. The counterculture is so deeply ingrained in sufficient numbers of the population that they naturally voted for the Obama-Pelosi-Reid team in the last election. In fact, unless conservatives can engineer a reversal of the current cultural tide, the electoral trends of ’06 and ’08 are likely not only to persevere, but actually grow stronger.

The last remark suggests that I believe that countercultural adherents do indeed constitute a majority of the electorate. Actually, until recently I would have said, ‘No, the culture of the country is fractured; neither side has a majority.’ But I was mistaking politics for culture. We are politically divided. But I have come to believe that culturally, although we are divided, the countercultural forces have indeed gained a majority in the nation. And thus my assertion that in the last two elections, ‘the politics caught up with the culture.’ On the other hand, I do not believe the new culture is strongly entrenched yet.

The strength of the counterculture appears to be growing at the expense of the traditional culture. This transformation is aided by the media, the education establishment, the entertainment industry, the legal profession, the foundations and virtually all other opinion-molding organs of society, all of whom are compliant and complicit in the cultural revolution. Thus, we seem to be heading toward a strongly leftist culture which I believe will be a monumental disaster for America and could signal the end of the glorious experiment in human liberty that our country has represented.

But let me not end on a note of despair. Yes, these are grim times for our republic. Levin’s book lays bare how America no longer is a Constitutional republic, nor is it a representative republic or a federal republic, but rather a ‘society steadily transitioning toward statism,’ or as others have christened it, a soft tyranny. He lays out a program for recapturing the culture and the politics (as have I previously). But can there be any hope of succeeding? Our country has seen dark days before — the Civil War, the Great Depression, World Wars, stagflation in the late 60s/early 70s. We coped. We survived three great leaps to the left under Wilson, Roosevelt and Johnson —although with a greatly weakened culture.

Now we are in the initial stages of the age of Obama and the fourth great leap to the left. Can we survive again? What will survive? Perhaps it’s an act of faith over reason, but I believe with Reagan that, ‘God had a divine purpose in placing this land between two great oceans to be found by those who had a special love of freedom and courage ‘ We may have abandoned Him, but I don’t think He is ready to abandon us just yet.

Conservatives in Retreat—On Many Tracks

This is not a happy season for American conservatives. The executive, legislative and, to a large extent, the judicial branches of the federal government are almost completely under the control of liberal Democrats. Moreover, as conservatives feared, our liberal masters are pursuing a far left agenda that will catapult the United States much further down the road toward Euro-socialism. We are not doing any better in the culture wars. The media, academia, legal profession, foundations, public schools, libraries and virtually all other opinion molding organs of American society remain firmly in the grip of the Left and, thanks to their influence, perversion (e.g.,pornography, infanticide, same sex marriage) is flourishing while traditional culture (e.g., religion, the family, patriotism) is under attack. When we pass from politics and culture to economics, matters do not improve. The tandem of Bush-Obama, like its predecessors Hoover-Roosevelt and Nixon-Carter, has eaten away at the classic conservative notions of limited government intervention in the economy, laissez-faire capitalism, low taxation and a strict control of the money supply. The only unresolved issue remains: shall we have, as a consequence of their profligate and irresponsible economic policies, a reprise of the Depression of Hoover-Roosevelt or the Stagflation of Nixon-Carter? What a wonderful choice!

No, these are not happy days for conservatives. Unfortunately, in many ways. In fact, in this piece, by fleshing out the themes implicit in the paragraph above, I would like to outline five tracks along which we have been getting our fannies handed to us lately—and by lately, as you will see, I mean over the last one hundred years. This might be cause for despair, but I will argue at the end that if we can mount an effective counteroffensive in a specific one of these tracks, the battle might fall to us in the others as a natural consequence.

The tracks are: politics, culture, economics, sources of power and the nature of man and Nature (the play on words in the last is intentional). What I mean by the first three should be clear and they are already touched upon in the lead paragraph. The last two are more opaque and remain to be explained. But before that, allow me a few more observations on the first three.

Politics. The political positions of conservatives and liberals are well-worn terrain in the US today. There are few surprises and it is not difficult to distinguish between the species based on stated policies and concrete actions—although occasionally, professed conservatives espouse liberal policies, and even more occasionally, the reverse occurs. With no attempt to be comprehensive, let me just say that the political philosophy of conservatives embraces: limited government; low taxation; cuts in government spending; a robust national defense; strict Constitutionalism; a belief in the superiority of the form of government established by the Founding Fathers over any others tried or pending; checks and balances between the branches of government and between the federal government and the States; a trust in the people to express their political will clearly and in their ability to govern themselves; a belief that courts should adjudicate and interpret the law, not legislate it from the bench; the view that crime should be punished, not ‘understood’; and also that ‘international law’ and international organizations have no legal standing in America, particularly when in conflict with US law.

On the contrary, liberal philosophy encompasses: a very powerful and intrusive central government; high taxation, especially on the wealthy; extensive government spending, especially in a weak economy (Keynes); a national defense rooted in multilateralism with force seen as a seldom used, absolute last resort; a ‘living’ Constitution; an emphasis on America’s historical mistakes (slavery, maltreatment of American Indians, limitations on women, internment of Japanese-Americans) and a lack of confidence in America’s special role in the world; getting the branches of the federal government, together with those of the States, onto the same page; judicial activism; trust in ‘experts’ rather than the people to make wise decisions in formulating national policy; the rehabilitation of criminals and understanding of their actions in the hope of alleviating societal conditions that engendered the criminal behavior; and America’s reliance on the UN and other international entities for help and guidance in formulating foreign policy.

The facts that with the exception of Ronald Reagan, every Republican President elected since Calvin Coolidge has largely failed to uphold the conservative principles expressed above and that every Democratic President since Grover Cleveland—without exception—has ardently tried, (with varying degrees of success) to promote the liberal agenda above, those facts should be of grave concern to conservatives. They help to explain the ascendancy of liberalism in the fabric of American life over the last century. Of course, the current Democratic President might be the most Left wing resident of the WhiteHouse in our nation’s history.

Culture. Once again, the differences are stark and well known. Conservatives believe that our culture should continue to be characterized by its original nature, established nearly 400 hundred years ago in Jamestown and Plymouth—namely: a British legal system; English as the mother tongue; a reverence for and adherence to Western Civilization; freedom of worship, but morals derived from our Judeo-Christian heritage; the British traits of humility, modesty, grittiness and the Protestant work ethic; life centered around the traditional family; and above all else a devotion to individual liberty. Liberals, on the other hand, are more interested in a culture that: is multicultural, ecumenical and global rather than parochial; treats religion as purely a private matter, totally divorced from state affairs; values fairness and equity before liberty and freedom; in fact, thinks of individual liberty more in terms of freedom of the individual to do anything he pleases—so long as it does not injure another—rather than as liberty from the coercive powers of the State; and finally, a reverence for ‘change’ over tradition. You only need to spend a few hours in front of the TV or at the movies to see who is winning this battle.

Economics. The picture is not any prettier here. While conservatives advocate free markets, democratic capitalism, respect for the profit motive, control of the money supply, low taxation, limits on government spending, encouragement of the entrepreneurial spirit and the fostering of small  business, the power of the pricing mechanism to choose winners and losers in the market and finally a firm control of the national debt; liberals, on the other hand, believe in Keynesian principles, strict government regulation—and (more than) occasional control—of the means of production, redistribution of wealth to address the inevitable inequities that result from unfettered capitalism, a soft money policy, virtually no limit on government debt, industrial planning—i.e., allowing the government to pick winners and losers in the economy by subsidizing segments it favors and penalizing those it opposes, taxation at whatever level is necessary to support a highly activist and interventionist government and wage and price controls. Yet again, if you cast your eyes across the current scene—i.e., what Bush just did and what Obama has started to do, it is not hard to discern the wining side.

The previous paragraphs addressed the three principle topics according to which the differences between liberals and conservatives are usually identified. Now I wish to add two more.

Power Source. Here I take my cue from the basic idea in an article, ‘Scientific Pretense vs. Democracy’ by Angelo Cordevilla in the April 2009 issue of the American Spectator. He argues that the fundamental philosophy of our Founding Fathers was that the ultimate authority, the basic source of power, the true ruler ofthe realm in the American experiment in self government was not a monarch, not an oligarchy of nobles, not an established church—but the people themselves. Perhaps the most revolutionary idea in the Declaration of Independence was that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Prior to that groundbreaking concept, no ruler ever thought of his authority as any different from that of a parent toward a child—namely, an innate right (derived from his divine status or class status or ecclesiastical status) to do to or for his subjects as he saw fit. Not in America! Its government can only exercise powers that its ‘subjects’ see fit to grant to it.

Well, Codevilla explains, the Left has a new and different idea. Namely, the control of society shall be ceded to ‘experts.’ The nature of modern society is so complex, so multifaceted, so intricate that it is beyond the ken of the normal individual. The economy, foreign relations, the welfare of the heartland, not to mention general issues such as education, health, energy, transportation, housing and agriculture as well as special issues like climate change, Islamic radicalism and the future of entitlements are far too complicated to be understood and intelligently addressed by John Q. Public, whether acting individually or as a member of a vast electorate. Only those who are wise, well trained and accredited, i.e., experts, are competent to direct our affairs. Only those politicians who appreciate this need and who can tap into that expertise are fit to govern us.

And so for a fourth time, take a look at what prevails today in the body politic and decide who is winning this argument. It would appear not to be us.

Nature of Man andNature. I will develop this theme more fully elsewhere; here I only give a capsule summary, indicate the diametrically opposed views of conservatives and liberals, and once again point out that liberals seem to be carrying the day. (Some of the ideas are developed in my book, Liberal Hearts and ConservativeBrains—see http://home.comcast.net/~ronlipsman). In short, the view of man normally adopted by conservatives is that he is a limited creature, prone to make mistakes, given to violence and greed and that what is exceptional about him is when he overcomes these tendencies to behave with charity, goodness, consideration and graciousness. Society might progress technologically and so man lives better and longer, but his inherent nature as a flawed creature is immutable. In a parallel way, the conservative view is that despite our great technological progress and evolving political structures (from despotism to democracy), there really is nothing new under the sun. The world has been, is and will continue to be threatened by natural calamities (earthquakes, cyclones and the like) and man-made atrocities (genocide and terrorism). The best we can do is to try to avoid or prevent these disasters and when we fail, to cope with them as best we can. We can improve ourselves and the world, but fundamentally it’s an almost impossible task that flies in the face of who we are and where we live.

Not so, says the liberal. Humanity and the world it inhabits are susceptible to serious improvement, indeed both are perfectible. We just have to be smart about it, recognize the limitations of nature and negative impulses of man and through our ingenuity and observation of what has failed in the past, we can devise methods to conquer the failings of man and the vicissitudes of nature.

I am sorry to say that, as liberalism prospers and conservatism pales, the latter view seems to prevail.

So, we conservatives are getting our teeth kicked on all five fronts. Where do we look for succor? What shall we do to preserve our viewpoint, convince more Americans of its value and rescue American society? I believe I gave the answer in a recent post. I encourage the reader to consult that source, but let me recall it briefly here. The liberals achieved their supremacy over the last hundred years by following (accidentally or on purpose) the advice of the Italian socialist and philosopher, Antonio Gramsci. He argued that if liberals could capture the culture, then the politics would follow. That is exactly what has happened. I suggested in the article that the redress was to take back the culture. Then once again the politics would follow. My point here is that the other three pegs on which I have hung the differences between liberals and conservatives would also follow. That is as clear for economics as it is for politics. But it is also clear regarding the sources of power and the nature of man and the world. If one’s view on the culture of American society conforms to the conservative model I presented earlier, it is unquestionably the case that one’s opinions in the two latter categories will also gravitate to the conservative side. That is, we the American people will come to understand how foolhardy it is to allow the country to be ruled by experts, and we will attain a better perspective on humanity and nature, and thereby throw off any false confidence in the perfectibility of either. Of course, as it was for the liberals, it might very well be a hundred years project. So get busy conservatives. As I said in the above cited article:

‘We need to have conservative philosophers and cultural icons that state the case for and epitomize the worth of traditional Western culture. More mundanely, we need to nurture conservative film makers, fund conservative law schools, build conservative foundations (like Heritage, but more of them), defend and expand talk radio, establish conservative newspapers (like the Washington Times, but more of them), concoct an organization to counter the NEA in the minds of the country’s teachers, abandon the mainline churches and support religious institutions that champion traditional values, etc. … If we don’t do this, then the America that we have loved and which has proven to be such a boon to the peoples of the world will surely — perhaps slowly, but maybe not so slowly — wither into one more Euro-socialist State. Then the light from mankind’s last best hope will have gone out.’

Different Visions

There is no doubt that the onset of the Obama administration has energized conservative intellectuals. A year ago conservatives were trying to reconcile themselves to the McCain candidacy — an eventuality that filled us with dismay as we contemplated yet another fake conservative presidency and the further dilution of the Reagan brand of conservative republicanism. Then, as the threat of an ultra-liberal Obama presidency loomed larger in the summer and fall of 2008, we exhorted ourselves to a more fervent support of John McCain — realizing that his election, dismal as the prospect might be, was the only hope of preventing the catastrophe that we believed an Obama presidency promised. But our hearts were not in it. When Obama triumphed, we licked our wounds, muttered pathetic excuses like ‘Bush and the Republican Congress brought this on with their profligate spending and betrayal of bedrock conservative principles,’ and took some solace from the ‘moderate’ or’ centrist’ feints that Obama engaged in during the transition period. We were hoping against hope that the newly arrived messiah — a designation not inappropriate to the manner of treatment accorded him by the media — might turn out to be more of a pragmatist, perhaps even a centrist, than his meager record and public utterings predicted that he would be. The dispirited nature of many of our columns, blogs and op/ed pieces during that period reflected the depth of our disappointment, the dejection we were experiencing and the slim reeds of hope at which we were clutching. Alas, not surprisingly, the reeds were ephemeral and the age of Obama has ushered in precisely the far left agenda that we feared.

Therefore, we are no longer able to deceive ourselves that President Obama might govern to some extent like Clinton did — i.e., from the center (sort of). And worse still, the new messiah might not — as many of us hoped — turn out to be as incompetent as the feckless Jimmy Carter. So now that we are truly frightened by the prospect of the great damage Mr. Obama might wreak in the next four or eight years, our juices have started flowing again, our batteries are charged and conservative outlets are overflowing with spirited, passionate and fervent pleas to the American people to recognize Mr. Obama for the dangerous, leftist radical that he surely is and barely attempts to conceal.

The examples are legion, but I would like to cite one specific piece by David Limbaugh in the Washington Times (3/28/09) entitled ‘Capital Arrogance.’ There is much in this trenchant column that highlights the threats posed by Obama and his Congressional allies, but I wish to focus on one specific paragraph:

The liberals see they now have a chance to actualize their vision for an America remade in their image and radically at odds with the vision of this nation’s Founders. It doesn’t matter that there couldn’t be a worse time in our history for implementing their reckless policies. They know they may not get another chance in their lifetimes to work such mischief. Even though it will break the federal bank, us, our children and our grandchildren, it’s all going to be OK because they will finally have achieved their statist vision for America.

There are four critical points raised here by Limbaugh:

  • Obama and his liberal henchmen have a fundamentally different vision for America from that of our Founders.
  • They perceive that this period presents them with perhaps a unique opportunity to implement that vision.
  • The damage to our country by the actualization of that vision, while calamitous at any time, will be especially bad at this time because of the severe economic distress in which we find ourselves.
  • The Obama regime is oblivious to the consequences that the realization of its vision will have on the people of our country; its adherents care only that their utopian dream of a society of equals (their brotherhood of man), guaranteed by an all powerful, ‘benign’ State, is in their view the right way to organize society, and that even if it means a lower standard of living, a diminished status in the world, and an erosion of our individual liberties, the new society will be a far fairer, more just and healthier nation than it was or ever could be under the old system.

Unfortunately, Limbaugh, like many conservative pundits, offers us little or nothing in the way of advice for preventing the calamity that he so acutely predicts. Many fear– and I worry that they might be correct — that there is no forestalling the radical remake of the USA that the age of Obama will usher in. Well, I am not ready to surrender just yet. I would like to make a strategic suggestion for combating Obama’s false nirvana. But before I do, let me say a little more about Limbaugh’s four points — especially the first and last.

Different Visions. One could go on at great length here; let me just say that the Founder’s vision of the USA incorporated: a limited government, empowered primarily to ensure the liberty of the people — thus, to defend the homeland, maintain the worth of the currency, guarantee the validity of contracts, ensure the rule of law, and not too much else; a virtuous populace, whose morals were derived from traditional Western religion and whose primary organization was based on the family (in the classic sense); an economy characterized by free markets and democratic capitalism; checks and balances between the federal government and those of the States, with all unenumerated powers reserved to the States and the people; a set of precious individual rights (life, liberty, freedom of speech, assemblyand religion, and the right to bear arms) that could not be circumscribed by the government; and a respect for and adherence to the Constitution as the fundamental law of the land that could only be altered through an elaborate process, which required a broad consensus of the people.

Obama’s and modern liberals’ vision of America is totally different. In short the fundamental guiding principles are not liberty and freedom, but rather equality and fairness; they take their inspiration from the ideals of the French, not the American Revolution. These include: a benign, but very powerful central government that sets and enforces the rules for virtually all aspects of American life; the elevation of tolerance, a non-judgmental perspective and equity far above all else in determining relationships between people; the belief that inequalities between individuals that result from a free market system are absolutely unacceptable and thus the economy must be strongly regulated — and occasionally controlled — by the government in order to spread the wealth and promote the three principles above; the certainty that American culture is no worthier than any other, therefore merits no celebration and should in fact be infused by cultures from around the world; conflict resolution by negotiation only and a strong aversion to military force — even in defense; the further belief that religion is superstition and inferior to rationalism; all forms of family structure are as valid as the ‘traditional’ family; and finally, the Constitution is a ‘living’ document that guides us but does not bind us.

The two long lists above could be fleshed out further, but you get the idea. Plainly, these are starkly different visions for the future of America.

Unique Opportunity. Due to the egregiously poor performance of the Republican Party (in both the executive and legislative branches) over the last decade, the electorate grew fed up and installed an ultra-liberal regime to govern the country. Something like this has happened three times in the last century — the administrations of Wilson, Roosevelt and Johnson. (The analogy is imprecise.) Liberals look back on these as golden ages; conservatives view them as tragedies that have had permanently devastating consequences for American society. We largely avoided permanent tragedies in the last two Democratic administrations – because Carter was incompetent, and Clinton was not a fanatical true believer; besides, he was checked by Gingrich. But today there is no Gingrich, no Reagan, and the overwhelmingly liberal Democratic Party has a good chance to bring about a fourth great leap to the left in America. They sense — not without justification — that this leap might put America irrevocably over the top. Social justice will reign and individual liberty will be a memory, and there will be no going back. They might be right — we will know soon enough.

Special Circumstances. Here I don’t see eye to eye with Limbaugh. Yes, Roosevelt engineered his leap to the left during the Depression and he used it for cover to enact his socialist programs. But both Wilson’s and Johnson’s surge to port were perpetrated in not particularly perilous times. Yet they both still managed to leave us with a sorry legacy. We are still coping with the tragedy of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution that enabled the federal income tax. And the social, moral and economic havoc that resulted from Johnson’s Great Society continues to poison our nation. Obama will almost certainly, like Roosevelt, use the current economic crisis as an excuse to enact his ultra-left program for America. (After all, his right-hand man, Rahm Emanuel, has already informed us that this crisis is too great an opportunity to waste.) But economic distress or not, whichever of Obama’s socialist, collectivist, egalitarian and pacifistic policies he is able to implement will be calamitous for America, even if the Stock Market was not doing a swan dive and the Mullahs were not splitting the atom.

Liberal Motivation. In this fourth point, Limbaugh is spot on. How can anyone survey the history of liberalism/socialismin the world over the last century and not conclude that it has been an abject failure? In its mildest form, Euro-socialism, it has resulted in the decaying societies of Western Europe — plagued by low birth rates, out of control welfare costs, high unemployment and low productivity, inability to project force and defend themselves, and a growing, subversive immigrant population that is needed to fund the entitlement programs. Canada fits that model as well. In its most virulent form, Nazism and Communism, it has resulted in horrors almost beyond human imagination. Well, I believe that liberals can ignore these results and continue to have faith in their leftist ideas for one of three reasons. Either the liberal is blind to the damage; or he sees it but believes the principles have not been applied correctly and that America is a special case in which liberalism can co-exist with classic American ideals in order to improve our country; or he flagrantly does not care.

In the first instance, much of the populace simply does not recognize or does not understand the wreckage of liberalism’s failures. They are so brainwashed by the media, the schools, the librarians, the ad agencies, the lawyers, the foundations and all the other opinion molding organs that have been thoroughly captured by the Left, that they believe — among other fairy tales — that Roosevelt’s New Deal pulled the US out of the Great Depression; that Great Society programs have produced a more just society — not one characterized by welfare dependency, out of wedlock births, rampant pornography, a permanent underclass and wanton crime; and that the Income Tax and the alphabet soup of federal regulatory agencies allow the Federal Government to assume its rightful place as the most important component of US society, providing vital support for education, energy, transportation, housing and virtually every other facet of American life. In the second instance, we encounter the ‘well-intentioned liberal.’ The Democratic Party is well-stocked with them. They are confident that they can fine-tune and spruce up American society according to more humane egalitarian principles in order to smooth the rough edges caused by rugged individualism. They do not believe that the fundamental character of the American experiment in freedom will be altered by their policies, rather it will be perfected. We will acknowledge our past flaws like slavery, maltreatment of American Indians and suppression of women’s rights, and by correcting them and other deficiencies in our society, we will create a more enlightened country that remains true to its fundamental creed as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. Finally, in the third case, doctrinaire liberals/socialists do not care about the carnage because they would have you believe that America is an unjust, unfair, bigoted and corrupt nation that must be completely remade. They do not see prosperity and success as the nation’s primary goals, rather equality and fairness should reign supreme. Liberty and freedom are not nearly as important as social justice, multiculturalism and environmental justice — whatever that is. In which of these three categories Obama fits is a topic for a future article.

All that said, what is my strategic suggestion for turning the tide? The inspiration comes from the enemy. How did we reach this point? Why do the consequences of the Reagan and Gingrich Revolutions seem so meager today? Reagan won the Cold War, rebuilt America’s economy and restored the military. Gingrich — admittedly with Clinton’s help – balanced the budget. How did the Left bear those defeats and rise to the seemingly impregnable heights it occupies today? I believe the seeds were sown roughly a century ago, to a great extent by the socialist, Italian philosopher, Antonio Gramsci, who preached that the way to convert the democratic, capitalistic countries of Western Civilization into socialist utopias was to capture the culture. Take over all the prime cultural institutions of the nation, convert the people to believers in the new culture and the politics would surely follow. Whether on purpose or inadvertently, that is exactly what the Left did. Led by early revolutionaries like John Dewey, Upton Sinclair and Woodrow Wilson, followed over several generations by Roosevelt and the New Dealers and then Johnson and the 60s radicals, the Left took control of all the organs of society that determine the culture: the media, educational system, legal profession, foundations, mainline churches, even big business to some extent. When the average American believes that abortion is a fundamental right, that the wall between church and state should be insurmountable, that Hollywood starlets have something to say about politics that is worth listening to, that it is alright for politicized teachers to have more influence over children than their parents, that soft core porn is acceptable fare for 8PM TV, that business is greedy and the government is competent and fair, that it is OK for athletes to tattoo their bodies, strut like peacocks and be role models for our children, then what chance does conservative politics really have against the liberal onslaught? With that cultural background it is not surprising that people vote for Barack Obama andNancy Pelosi.

So what are we to do? Take back the culture! Simple to say; hard to do. Yes, we have to continue to do battle in the political arena. Reagan’s and Newt’s victories in the political and economic spheres were fantastic. But these two gentlemen did not seriously contest the cultural battlefield. And without some advance in that arena, we are seeing that the political and economic victories cannot be consolidated. They are swept away by the influence of the filthy cultural tide that blankets America from the Left. We tend to see the battle between the Left and the Right as a political battle between liberals and conservatives. It is. But it appears that it is more fundamentally a social, cultural battle. It is good to know that Edmund Burke’s ideas can defeat those of Voltaire, that Adam Smith was wiser than Karl Marx, that Milton Friedman outshines John Maynard Keynes. The problem is that no one on the Right has taken on Gramsci. We need to have conservative philosophers and cultural icons that state the case for and epitomize the worth of traditional Western culture. More mundanely, we need to nurture conservative film makers, fund conservative law schools, build conservative foundations (like Heritage, but more of them), defend and expand talk radio, establish conservative newspapers (like the Washington Times, but more of them), concoct an organization to counter the NEA in the minds of the country’s teachers, abandon the mainline churches and support religious institutions that champion traditional values, etc. It might take a hundred years to achieve success; after all it took the Left a century to reach the dominance it currently enjoys. If we don’t do this, then the America that we have loved and which has proven to be such a boon to the peoples of the world will surely — perhaps slowly, but maybe not so slowly — wither into one more Euro-socialist State. Then the light from mankind’s last best hope will have gone out.

Conservative Thoughts a Month into Obama’s Presidency

Since I unburdened myself of my sentiments on Obama and the Presidency a month prior to his inauguration, I thought it appropriate to do likewise a month following the inauguration. So what can be said two months later?

First of all, it is almost impossible not to like President Obama. He is charming, poised, intelligent, extremely well-spoken, has a fabulous smile and a photogenic family, and just oozes self confidence. I believe that, despite what some wrote during the campaign, he does love America and wants what he believes would be best for all its citizens. Next, as I wrote in my previous article, his election is a great step forward for our country—shining proof that we have laid to rest the terrible legacy of slavery that has haunted us for hundreds of years. He has handled his leading role in that transformation with grace and aplomb, and America owes him a great debt for the skill with which he has managed this accomplishment. Third, he has seemingly recognized that some of the partisan rhetoric that he spewed during the campaign was exactly that, and he has attempted to position himself more centrally in the actual governance of the country. I speak of the few Republicans in his cabinet, his backtracking on several of the unwise promiseshe made in the campaign—such as precipitously withdrawing from Iraq or immediately imposing punitive taxes on the citizenry—and finally his invitation of a few conservative pundits and journalists to dinner. Last, one has to feel for the man who, as he enters the White House, has been dealt one of the cruelest hands any incoming President has ever encountered. That unfortunate fate does not appear to have shaken his confidence, his enthusiasm or his conviction.

All that being said, I still maintain that his administration will be a calamitous occurrence for the United States of America.  I say that because when you strip away the charming veneer, bypass the racial issue, and ignore the feints to the Right, Barack Obama continues to epitomize the liberal mindset that has taken control of at least half the population of America and exerts almost total sway over certain key segments of our society and which, if it continues to cement its dominance over American culture and politics—as Obama’s election certainly suggests it shall—will lead our country to the kind of ruin that is pervasive today in Western Europe. Indeed, I think the signs are already there that the ‘moderate’ or ‘centrist’ image that he has attempted to cultivate since the election is a sham. Deep in his heart he is a card carrying Leftist who not only believes deeply in the secularist state religion that is modern liberalism, but actually has scarcely any meaningful knowledge of the fundamental tenets of conservative thought or opinion that animates unregenerate right wingers like myself. I believe that either consciously, or perhaps even subconsciously—for that is the mode wherein the vast majority of Leftists formulate their opinions of conservative thought—he has been imbuedwith the conviction that conservative principles are fundamentally, irrevocably and demonstrably false and dangerous. No intelligent person should subscribe to such an outmoded way of thinking, which bears little in the way of examination. People like Teddy Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Eric Holder and HillaryClinton just ‘know’ that conservatives are on the wrong side of history. To them, conservatives are at best a bunch of misguided obstructionists who are holding back our country from the nirvana it shall surely become if only true liberal policies are enacted; and at worst a traitorous cabal of reactionaries, no better than monarchists, who want to keep us anchored in an unfair, decrepit and discredited culture, politics and economic system.

What are the early signs of Obama’s doctrinaire liberalism? Well first and foremost is his ironclad belief that the pork-laden ,ill-conceived stimulus bill is indispensable to reversing the current economic downturn, and that anyone who opposes it is essentially unpatriotic. He has drunk from the Kool-Aid. He believes as gospel that similar measures employed by Roosevelt 75 years ago cured the Great Depression whereas it is totally evident in hindsight—and was equally evident then if only people would have looked with objective eyes—that all of Roosevelt’s wild spending and government intervention did nothing but prolong the Depression. Obama’s pseudo nationalization of the US economy will have the exact same deleterious effect, but he finds that thought abhorrent.

Next, while it is true that he has chosen some relative moderates for his administration, they are outnumbered by hard core liberals and radicals like Eric Holder, Elena Kagan, Hilda Solis and of course Hillary herself. The situation is akin to the Clinton administration where moderates like Rubin and Perry were substantially outnumbered by Janet Reno, Warren Christopher, Ron Brown and the like.

Continuing, while Obama’s first month in office has been absorbed with the economic crisis, he and his henchmen have made perfectly clear that pet projects of the Left will arrive on the nation’s docket rather soon: ‘card check,’ i.e., the abolition of free elections in the unionization process; universal amnesty for illegal aliens; ratification of Kyoto, cap and trade, and the pursuit of an energy policy and global climate change agenda that will cripple the economy—all in the misbegotten belief that mankind is destroying the Earth’s environment; socialized medicine; the resurrection ofthe “fairness doctrine” and the attendant destruction of talk radio; curtailment, if not outright abandonment, of any attempt at a missile defense capability; a kindler, gentler foreign policy to endear us to our enemies around the world that will only invite their contempt and abuse; unilateral defense and intelligence disarmament; elevation of “international law” above our own constitutional law; the abrogation of welfare reform (already achieved in the stimulus bill); and the raising of taxes, not only on the rich, by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire.

In his speech to Congress this week, Obama stressed the three main themes of his agenda: health care, education and energy. In each, his vision is that of a centrally directed, government-controlled effort that replaces individual will and free market inputs by the government as the driving force. Our health system will be universal, single-payer, accountable to government bureaucrats and health czars; our education will be financed bygovernment and have its agenda set by the government; and our energy will be “green and clean.” The result will be that our health care will sink to the abominable level it manifests in all countries that have deployed socialized medicine; our propaganda system—er, that is, our school system will program its students—as it already does to a large extent—in favor of Leftist culture and politics; and our energy will be enormously costly, inadequate, scarce and government-rationed. Thank you very much.

In these and other ways, the average American will be reduced to little more than a ward of the State. Indeed, it is well known that already the top 1% of income earners pay 40% of the total income tax take to the IRS, that the top 5% pay 60% and the top 50% pay 97%; whereas more than a third of income tax filers pay absolutely nothing. Obama’s punitive taxes on the rich will skew those percentages even further and it might well be that nearly 50% will pay nothing. Not a recipe for social success when half the population lives off the sweat of the rest.

The fate in store for us is laid out starkly in two recentbooks, The End of Prosperity by Laffer, Moore and Tanous and The Great Depression Ahead by Dent. As much of the world (think India, Ireland, former Soviet vassal states in Eastern Europe, some in “old” Western Europe and even China) adopts pro-growth, low tax, free trade, deregulatory policies, the exact policies that propelled the US to great wealth in the 1980s and 1990s, we revert to the failed policies of the 1930s and 1970s. I have wondered how the people of Venezuela could freely vote themselves a dictatorship. What stupidity! But we might be no smarter. We have freely and enthusiastically elected a government that will punish us with proven failed policies, and Obamaand crew, during the campaign, made no secret about their intentions to do so. What we have sown so shall we reap.

Obama has been compared by various pundits (on both the Left and Right) to Carter, Clinton and Roosevelt. To my way of thinking, the first was totally incompetent, the second largely irrelevant and the latter one ofthe most consequential Presidents in US history—although, at least domestically, I believe those consequences have been disastrous for America. Which of these three shall Obama ultimately resemble? Conservatives are desperately hoping the first and that like Carter, Obama will be succeeded by a Reaganesque hero who will rescue us. If it is Clinton, then we are in for two years of helter-skelter Leftist thrusts, followed by a checkmated President who will inadvertently pursue policies beneficial to the country. But alas, I predicted that Obama’s administration would be a calamity for the country because I fear he is liable to be another Roosevelt: immensely popular, shielded from criticism by an adoring and complicit media, uncaring about or oblivious to the harm he is causing and the instigator of programs that further tighten the grip that the Left has on the culture, politics and economic system of these United States. For, as I said in the first article, I subscribe to Thomas Sowell’s assertion—since endorsed by many conservative pundits—that Obama’s election will be a tipping point propelling America irreversibly past the point of no return down the path to socialism.

A final thought: The age of Obama represents not so much the political defeat of conservative Republicans by liberal Democrats as much as it solidifies the triumph of the multicultural, multi-lateral, strongly secular, pacifistic anti-Western civilization radicals over those who champion traditional American culture. In fact that cultural triumph actually happened some time ago. The main thing that Obama’s election signifies is that the nation’s politics have caught up with its culture.

A Conservative’s Thoughts as Obama Ascends to the Presidency

One overarching theme and three difficult questions occupy my thoughts as Obama prepares to assume the mantle of the Presidency.

1.      This is indeed a moment of great pride for America.

2.      What does it now mean to assert that America is a center-right country—an assertion bolstered by the exit polls in November which revealed that, as has been the case for decades, far more voters characterize themselves as moderate or conservative than liberal—given that we have enthusiastically turned the executive and legislative branches of the Federal Government over to hard-core liberals?

3.      What were the long term effects of the Reagan and Gingrich revolutions of 1980 and1994? Have the consequences of those epic electoral landslides been completely swept aside by an Obama/Pelosi/Reid tidal wave?

4.      What’s a conservative true-believer to do now?

1. Aside from the politics, the divisiveness, the potential for sweeping changes in the American political, economic and cultural spheres, there is no question that January 20, 2009 will represent a momentous and historic achievement for the United States of America. Barack Obama is not the descendant of American slaves. In fact he is of mixed racial parentage and his black father had no trace of American blood. But Obama considers himself, and he is considered by the electorate to be an American black man, and it is as such that he has attained the Presidency.

The past treatment of the black race in these United States is a shameful blot on the history of our country—a part of our history that has tormented our society for generations. That torment has been greatly alleviated by Obama’s election. The non-black portion of the electorate (white, Hispanic, Asian) has proclaimed that the mal-treatment of, and bias and discrimination against black people area thing of the past, and that America shall judge a black politician—and by implication, any black person—by that person’s credentials and character, not by his racial heritage. It is a goal achieved by precious few societies in the history of the world. That we can lay claim to the achievement should be a source of enormous pride to all Americans. It bears testimony to the uniqueness and greatness of our beloved nation. There is no longer any reason why any child in America cannot reasonably aspire to become President.

Of course, I wish that Obama’s political leanings were not so left wing. I would have been happier if Thomas Sowell or Clarence Thomas or Walter Williams or Ken Blackwell, or even Colin Powell or Michael Steele had achieved the heretofore unthinkable. Nevertheless, it does not change the fact that America has demonstrated its enlightenment and tolerance to the world, and I hope that the world appreciates it for the fantastic accomplishment it represents.

2. Conservative pundits have been consoling themselves and their loyal readers with the assertion that, despite the liberal electoral successes of 2006 and 2008, the electorate is still ‘center-right,’ and they point to the exit polls to back them up. I am not convinced that they should be so sanguine. Yes, your average voter thinks of himself as a moderate, maybe even slightly conservative. But I have come to believe that we have a truth-in-labeling problem here. Indeed, the notions of conservative and liberal have shifted drastically over the last century.

As I argued in my book, Liberal Hearts and Conservative Brains (iUniverse, 2007), the United States of America was basically a conservative country throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. But beginning with the Progressive Era (encompassing the very liberal administrations of T. Roosevelt and Wilson), continuing through F. Roosevelt’s New Deal and reaching its previous apogee in LBJ’s Great Society, the USA has undergone a massive shift to the Left. Moreover, during the interim periods when conservatives or moderates led the country, little or nothing was done to reverse the trend. Thus the political center of gravity has shifted dramatically to the Left. What we consider moderate or even conservative today would have been pegged as flagrantly leftist 125 years ago.

Space prevents a full development of the previous claim. Let me simply say that if conservatism means: limited government; free market capitalism; respect for and adherence to traditional American/English culture; low taxes; a robust national defense; and individual rights, then it is anomalous that your average ‘moderate/conservative’ voter is perfectly comfortable with: a gargantuan government; extensive government regulation of business; gay rights, abortion and a porno-saturated media, one of the highest corporate tax rates in the Western world; a multi-lateral foreign policy; and group rights. Only flaming liberals are advocating: nationalized health care; industrial planning; gay marriage, gun control and the banning of religion from the public square; appeasement of Islamic radicals; soak the rich taxes; and world citizenship. But the latter causes are considered merely liberal, whereas the former are thought of as mainstream. On the other hand, basic conservative ideas such as: federalism and States rights; national politics infused by religious morality; free markets and free trade; restraint in public spending; a strong military; and an emphasis on individual liberty, ideas which were once considered mainstream are now viewed as ultra right wing. In other words, what was once denounced as left-wing socialism is considered mainstream liberalism; and what was left of center liberalism is now considered centrist or even center-right; and of course tame right of center notions are deemed to be retrograde fascism.

In short, I do not believe that we are a center-right country in any meaningful sense any longer. We might not have traveled Left as far and as fast as our cousins in Western Europe, but we are certainly headed in that direction. By any objective measure, Obama is further left than McGovern or Dukakis, both of whom were trounced by the electorate. Today, Obama is poised to assume the Presidency and the pundits are claiming—and the far Left is worrying—that he is really a closet moderate. Puleez! If Obama is moderate and our fake conservative president George W. Bush is a right-wing fanatic, then what in heaven’s name were Reagan and Gingrich? I suppose somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun.

3. Whatever they were, it would seem that Reagan and Gingrich were blips in the straight line to the Left that America has been trodding lo these 100 years. In fact Reagan was one of only two (perhaps three) genuinely conservative presidents we have elected in the last century. Calvin Coolidge was the other, and William Howard Taft was perhaps the third. Yes, our so-called center-right country has elected conservative presidents for perhaps 10% of the time over the last century, and only one in the last 80 years. Doesn’t seem like much of a center-right track record to me.

In that context, let me address then the question of whether Reagan and Gingrich had any lasting effect in arresting the liberal tide that has been sweeping the country for so many years. Reagan entered office with three major goals: (i) bring down the Soviet Union and end the Cold War in victory for the West; (ii) restore the American economy through lower taxes, less government spending and deregulation; and (iii) reduce the size and scope of the federal government. He succeeded brilliantly in (i), had a great deal of success in (ii) and failed completely in (iii). We enjoy today a huge reward because of his success in (i) as we have been freed from the nuclear terror of the Cold War. Of course a new evil threatens us in the form of Islamic radicalism, but so far it does not pose the existential threat that the Soviets did. As for (ii), we had a quarter century of barely interrupted economic prosperity due primarily to Reagan’s economic policies, but the streak might have run its course. The combination of foolish liberal  policies—like making the privilege to own a home into an entitlement right—together with putative conservatives whose greed and stupidity converted liberal policies into flawed economic instruments, aided and abetted by spineless RINOs (i.e., Republican In Name Only), has caused the greatest real estate and stock market collapses since the Depression. And regarding (iii), well during and since the Reagan and Gingrich revolutions, the government has continued to grow at a phenomenal pace. Bill Clinton’s pronouncement notwithstanding, the era of big government is definitely far from over.

Only history will judge, and my pessimistic nature might be getting the better of me, but I am hard pressed not to conclude that today, 20 years after Reagan left office, the liberal mentality that governs the United States is stronger, more accepted as the norm, and poised to steer the ship of state as sharply to the left as it did during the Wilson, Roosevelt and Johnson administrations. The New York Times assures us that Obama, Pelosi and Reid are mainstream and that Dick Cheney, Clarence Thomas and Tom Coburn are dangerous right-wing fanatics. And a majority of Americans buy it. Sorry Gipper, but your influence appears to have been fleeting.

4. Finally, how does a conservative weather the onslaught? Is there any hope of reversing the 100 year trend, especially as it seems to be entering an accelerated phase? Many conservatives expect that Obama will prove as incompetent as Jimmy Carter and that a new Reagan will emerge to rescue us. Maybe. It’s nice to hope so. But Barack seems to me much cleverer than the anti-Semitic oaf from Georgia. Although both gained the presidency because the country was so fed up with what it had that it was willing to take a reckless chance on a complete unknown, I am not so sure that history will repeat itself. Eight years from now the liberal hegemony that we ‘enjoy’ might be even stronger. So by now you have guessed that I am not terribly optimistic about a conservative resurgence in America. In fact I agree with Thomas Sowell, the eminent black economist and journalist, who asserts that Obama’s election is historic for more than just the obvious reason–namely, ‘an Obama-Pelosi supermajority will mark ‘a point of no return.’ It will not be, as some naysayers scoff, ‘Jimmy Carter’s second term,’but something far more transformative.’ Alas, I fear he is right and it is just a matter of time before we become like Europe. Not a consoling thought when you contemplate where Europe is today and where it will be very shortly.

And yet! And yet! I am trying to imitate the Gipper and be cheerful and optimistic. America has faced grave crises before, from which it emerged stronger and more vibrant. We barely survived the Revolutionary War, but we did and over the ensuing 50 years we created the greatest experiment in human freedom the world has ever known. We barely survived the Civil War, although it took far too long to lay the ghosts of that conflict to rest. Nevertheless we emerged from that dreadful conflict and embarked on an industrial revolution that resulted in the most prosperous nation on earth, again in less than 50 years. Also over roughly a nearly 50-year period, America successfully absorbed and assimilated tens of millions of immigrants who, together with their descendants, not only enhanced our prosperity, but helped to create a world superpower. (Although, as I also argued in my book, it is those descendants who implemented the liberal ideas that their parents brought from Europe.) And finally, we saved the world twice in the twentieth century—from the scourges of Nazism and communism—and emerged as the sole superpower.

You will now charge that I seem to believe that the ascending dominance of liberal thought in America is equivalent to calamities like the Depression and world and civil wars, or has the potential for existential change like industrial revolutions or seismic cultural shifts due to mass immigration. And like the calamities or upheavals, America must rise up and either overcome the calamites or reverse the cultural upheavals, that is the liberal hegemony must be broken if America is to survive. Well yes, I believe exactly that. Let me explain why.

I believe and have believed for 25 years that European civilization is dying. The people of Western Europe are barely getting married, having hardly any babies, are surrendering their independence and freedom to a totalitarian entity known as the European Union, have virtually no military capability and are unable to defend themselves, have forsaken Christianity and converted their churches into museums, created an unsustainable welfare state that promotes laziness and moral sloth, and, worst of all, have imported millions of radical Muslims (to pay for their welfare state) who are not assimilating, but who will destroy what is left of European civilization from within. It is not a pretty picture. And that is what the liberal hegemony in America is pointing us toward. If we don’t wake up and recreate the conservative country that we lost over the last century, our fate will be the same as Europe’s. Europe has survived these last 60 years because we had their back. Who is going to have our back?

So having gotten that off my chest, what then is a conservative to do? Wait for doomsday, or try to take back the country? Do we even have a chance of taking it back? If one believes as the Gipper said, that ‘God had a divine purpose in placing this land between the two great oceans to be found by those who had a special love of freedom,’ that America has realized John Winthrop’s vision of it as a ‘shining city on a hill,’ and that indeed ‘America is the last best hope of man on earth,’ then one must have faith that we will come to our senses, a savior or saviors will emerge and we will recapture our commitment to individual rights, to liberty and freedom, to a government that serves the people and not the other way around.

So what is a conservative to do? Well I can only tell you what this conservative is increasingly doing. Some years ago I bought two CDs of Reagan’s most famous speeches. They sit with my collection of classical and jazz CDs that I listen to on my car stereo on my way to and from work. Periodically, I pop in one of the Reagan CDs instead of the music. They are inspiring and uplifting. The clarity of his thought is breathtaking. Lately, I have also started reading Reagan’s other speeches on various web sites devoted to his memory. A particularly good one is http://reagan2020.us/. To find others try googling ‘Reagan speeches.’ If we could get more people to read and listen to a few of his speeches on a regular basis, I believe it could enlighten people again and we might have a resurgence of faith in the classic, time-tested and successful ideas of conservatism. So, to those reading this, mention this idea to your friends, your kids, your coworkers. You have nothing to lose but your country.