Some hard truths

Fellow conservative blogger Donald Douglas has an interesting post up that cites Robert Bork's recent book entitled: A Time To Speak:Selected Writings and Arguments. Many of you will remember Bork as having been an unfair victim of left-wing demagoguery during his 1987 Senate confirmation hearings after Ronald Reagan nominated him for the U.S. Supreme Court. Though beaten in that instance, Bork has been unbowed in using his prodigious intellectual talents to influence the national debate via his writings over the past 20 years. As Douglas recounts, Bork wrote back in 1995 with uncanny prescience in his essay Hard Truths About the Culture War that we face a real and growing threat from liberalism that is destroying our culture: Modern liberalism is most particularly a disease of our cultural elites, the people who control the institutions that manufacture or disseminate ideas, attitudes, and symbols-universities, some churches, Hollywood, the national press (print and electronic), much of the congressional Democratic party and some of the congressional Republicans as well, large sections of the judiciary, foundation staffs, and almost all the "public interest" organizations that exercise a profound if largely unseen effect on public policy. So pervasive is the influence of those who occupy the commanding heights of our culture that it is not entirely accurate to call the United States a majoritarian democracy. The elites of modern liberalism do not win all the battles, but despite their relatively small numbers, they win more than their share and move the culture always in one direction ....

What we are seeing in modern liberalism is the ultimate triumph of the New Left of the 1960s - the New Left that collapsed as a unified political movement and splintered into a multitude of intense, single-issue groups. We now have, to name but a few, radical feminists, black extremists, animal rights groups, radical environmentalists, activist homosexual groups, multiculturalists, People for the American Way, Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union, and many more. In a real sense, however, the New Left did not collapse. Each of its splinters pursues a leftist agenda, but there is no publicly announced overarching philosophy that enables people to see easily that the separate groups and causes add up to a general radical left philosophy. The groups support one another and come together easily on many issues. In that sense, the splintering of the New Left made it less visible and therefore more powerful, its goals more attainable, than ever before.

In their final stages, radical egalitarianism becomes tyranny and radical individualism descends into hedonism. These translate as bread and circuses. Government grows larger and more intrusive in order to direct the distribution of goods and services in an ever more equal fashion, while people are diverted, led to believe that their freedoms are increasing, by a great variety of entertainments featuring violence and sex ...

As Douglas also notes, the "splintered" left-wing groups that Bork described in 1995 look a lot like the various liberal organizations that have now organized to make change within the Obama Administration.

An excellent example of this can be found in Ben Smith's recent article at Politico.com entitled: Unity '09 -- Dem Groups Quietly Align:

A broad coalition of left-leaning groups is quietly closing ranks into a new coalition, "Unity '09," aimed at helping President Barack Obama push his agenda through Congress.

Conceived at a New York meeting before the November election, two Democrats familiar with the planning said, Unity '09 will draw together money and grassroots organizations to pressure lawmakers in their home states to back White House legislation and other progressive causes.

The online-based MoveOn.org is a central player in the nascent organization, but other groups involved in planning Unity '09 span a broad spectrum of interests, from the American Civil Liberties Union to the National Council of La Raza to Planned Parenthood, as well as labor unions and environmental groups.

The obvious point to be made here is that the most radical of left-wing interest groups are organizing to have a major impact on public policy in the Obama White House. What follows logically from this is a pro-choice, pro-illegal immigration, pro-tort/pro-defendant and pro-union orientation that will systematically weaken the foundation of our nation and our economy. Just today, for example, it was revealed that estimates for Obama's "Cap and Trade" environmental protection regime will cost the economy well over $1 trillion over the next several years -- a huge tax on business in the name of satisfying the global warming alarmists who seek curbs on carbon at any cost.

With the Obama presidency we have opened the West Wing to the worst kind of single-minded interest groups -- for whom the word "compromise" and "in the national interest" have absolutely no meaning. There is no quid-pro-quo among the true believers, who have organized their lives around unyielding belief in the importance of a single issue -- be it abortion, immigration, torture, civil liberties or the environment.  For these disciples, there is no second place  -- total victory is the only option.  And for those of us who believe in open, honest debate, this is a hard truth, indeed.

Optimism is our only choice

Editor: One of the great things about blogging is the way it brings forward new voices, bypasses credentialism, and stirs the currents of thought in valuable, unexpected ways. I never expected that lunch in the university dining room with CCU's young soccer coach, newly transplanted from Wisconsin to the Rockies, would connect me with a conservative kindred spirit and fiery patriot who also blogs entrepreneurially on personal finance issues. But that's how it went on the day I met Josh Caucutt. Backbone America is delighted to welcome him as a new contributor. Optimism is our only choice

“Always after a defeat and a respite, the Shadow takes another shape and grows again.” “I wish it need not have happened in my time,” said Frodo. “So do I,” said Gandalf, “and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.” --The Fellowship of the Ring, Tolkien

I believe we are in difficult days. I believe that history shows us that we might be headed for some of the worst days that the United States has ever known. This Congress has added a huge weight of debt around the neck of every man, woman and especially every child. Furthermore, all of the talk of the future seems to hold only the dim promise of new taxes, higher taxes, more debt and greater levels of government involvement in our daily lives. We are on the precipice of socialism. In the name of crisis, our government is choking the lift out of small businesses, entrepreneurs and all who desire to pursue life, liberty and happiness with as few government entanglements as possible. Even a great thinker like Thomas Sowell is in the clutches of pessimism.

These forces conspire to pull us ever closer to total government dependency and inevitable total government control. Sometimes it seems like we are caught in that frequent science fiction movie plot where the townspeople are slowly being turned to zombies or possessed by aliens until the hero is the only person left with his senses intact. He runs around looking for help, but everyone to whom he turns is already working for the evil that he seeks to defeat. He struggles and flails until some glimmer of hope motivates him to act and eventually he obtains the Hollywood ending that we all expect. Except we are not guaranteed an “ever after” ending in real life.

Yet American culture has always held that glimmer of hope - that belief that everything is going to turn out all right. We find it in our history, our literature, in our movies and in ourselves. We must be optimistic about the future, it is our only choice. To wallow in pessimism or apathy is to give up and admit defeat. Optimism spurred the War for Independence, optimism emancipated a race of people, optimism carried the day on June 6, 1944 - optimism and a commitment to duty no matter the cost.

It's true that recently my own little blog has focused on what is wrong with the direction of our country -- but while I believe there is cause for concern, I want to personally act optimistically and I hope that my readers will do the same.

Don’t make excuses for coming up short. Find a way to get it done. Fear can be a good motivator. We don’t know how far we can stretch until we are really pulled. Quitting never fed a family, never ran a business, and never got someone out of debt. Avoid allowing government to take credit for your success. Be the difference in your life and the lives around you. Don’t let government be your excuse for failure. Government can make things difficult for people, but government can never squelch the drive, innovation, creativity and independent spirit that is alive and well in this country.

Freedom is difficult to win and difficult to keep, but if there is any group of people on the earth who can accomplish both, it is us.

Joshua Caucutt blogs three times a week at Rocket Finance.

No need to panic, Republicans

(Nantucket, Mar. 15) The wild wintry desolation of this small island is not everyone’s ideal for a seasonal getaway but nonetheless it is a supportive environment for thinking, reading and writing. Clutching a steaming mug of coffee at 5 AM and listening to the howling wind and the pounding surf one finds few excuses for failing to confront that old demon “Writers Block”.

For reading I chose as companions George Orwell and Harry Truman.

Reading Orwell’s Collected Essays from the Nineteen Thirties incisively indicting the Western Democracies for their confusion and moral cowardice in failing to stand up to Fascism, one is struck by the similarity to those same Democracies today in their flaccid equivocations and rationalizations in the face of Islamo-Fascism.

In his memorable account of his participation in the Spanish Civil War Homage to Catalonia Orwell penetratingly explored the reality of totalitarianism and also the peculiar inability of the left-wing mindset to see Stalin’s Russia as the nightmare state it was-- themes he brilliantly developed in his classic novels Animal Farm and 1984.

David McCullough’s Pulitzer Prize winning biography Truman superbly portrays an often misunderstood President.

Truman’s Presidency is a startling illustration of the stunning volatility of the American public’s political temper.

Suddenly thrust into the Oval Office by the death of Franklin Roosevelt, Truman’s approval ratings for the remainder of World War II were higher than any President before or since. Yet within a year after war’s end a rising sea of labor and political discord utterly collapsed those approval ratings and resulted in a Republican sweep of the 1946 elections. So dismal was Truman’s repute that both left and right of the Democratic Party exerted themselves mightily to deny him the nomination for 1948. He would be saved only by their inability to agree on a substitute.

Yet once nominated, Truman almost single-handedly waged perhaps the most remarkable of all Presidential campaigns leading to the greatest upset in American political history.

However despite this incredible achievement and heroic leadership at the outset of the Cold War, Truman’s approval ratings soon plummeted to depths lower even than those of George W. Bush. Largely because of a sour public mood over the inconclusive Korean War, Truman left office as one of our most reviled Presidents.

So what does all of this tell us about the plight of today’s Republican Party ?

First, the present ideological divide in our society is actually less polarized than in the 1930s when both Communists and Fascists often held giant rallies in Madison Square Garden and political vilification far surpassed anything we know today.

Second, as Truman’s fortunes illustrate the absolute roller-coaster like swings in public opinion is nothing new. After every decisive election the winners gleefully predict oblivion for the losers and unending political success for themselves.

Republicans, take heart! Had a mere four per cent of the electorate who actually chose Obama (53%) instead selected McCain (46%)- and absent the September economic meltdown at least that number would have- today President McCain would be ramming tax and spending cuts through a panicked Democratic Congress regularly derided as “clueless” and “leaderless”.

Far more than 4% of the electorate--Bush voters who jumped to Obama-- are awakening to the enormity of the radical social and economic transformation that is clearly the Democrats goal. Obama remains a skilled dissembler, but the cat was out of the bag when he weakly relinquished the main agenda to Nancy and Harry.

Obama’s approval ratings are about the same as those of George W. Bush at the same point in his Presidency and much lower then those of Jimmy Carter. This “honeymoon” is waning rapidly-- no surprise given the massive assault on the economic fundamentals of our still “center-right” nation. Tax breaks for those who don’t even pay taxes, rewarding bad behavior in the mortgage market, and looting the Treasury on behalf of every left-wing special interest ultimately will not “play well in Peoria”. Even those lacking health insurance are just 15% of the population. While the other 85% are already suspecting Obama will make their care worse.

Given the stark threat the Democratic program poses to current and future generations Americans hoping for Obama to fail are merely hoping our country will succeed.

In a dark hour for him Harry Truman said:” Forget the news liars, the pols, and the pundits. In the end the people see through them all”.

Our history and some hopeful current signs suggest this may still be true.

------------------------ William Moloney’s columns have appeared in the Wall St. Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore Sun, Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News.

What a difference a great nation makes

The world is not in an all-out shooting war, for which we can all be thankful. But why is this? Is it because nations are less violent than they used to be? Hardly. Is it because they have become more reasonable? Doubtful. Is it because the awful consequences of modern weaponry are too terrible to contemplate? Possible, but not necessarily. I submit that the reason that the world has been spared World War III (meaning a war on the scale of the world wars in the last century) is the character and power of the United States of America. This is our gift to the world, not to be foolishly squandered.

Pax Americana may not sit well with either aggressive despotisms restrained by our dominance or utopian dreamers offended that "hard" power can be credited with bringing peace, but it is an undeniable fact of our age. Just as Pax Romana held barbarians in check for centuries, so has our turn at the helm for most of the last century–and Great Britain before that.

Given the stance of our enemies and the prejudices of our own ideologues, it is not easy to demonstrate the truth of the proposition that domination by great nations brings relative peace. But we know that our entry in both world wars was decisive and we haven’t had a world war since the United States rose to the status of a super power in 1945.

True, the Soviet Union also rose to a powerful position, and the two super powers, as they were called, waged "cold war" against each other for more than four decades. While fear of the horrors of nuclear warfare clearly played a part in discouraging hot war, the more telling reason was that we had the power to deter a Soviet strike.

The collapse of the Soviet regime led some to believe, as Francis Fukayama so famously declared, that "history had come to an end" with the triumph of liberal democracy and free markets. But that glorious new age was "delayed" by the rise of Islamist terrorism. Once again, the responsibility of keeping the peace has fallen to us.

Imagine the world in the absence of the United States or, what amounts to the same thing, its decline to minor power status. Is there any doubt that the Islamists would ratchet up their efforts to subdue the Infidels, limited only by their own ambitions and resources, and the feeble efforts of their intended victims?

And that’s not all. Russia may be a shadow of its former self, having demonstrated an inability to produce armaments under the failed communist system. But none of its weak neighbors would be a match for what remains of its nuclear force. Then there’s China, chastened too by the shortcomings of communism, but shrewd enough to move to a fascist system that permits private ownership but actually controls production.

None of these forces would be sufficient to dominate the world, so their leaders would gain territory and/or resources when they could, sign only temporary peace agreements with each other, and generally keep the world in pretty constant turmoil. Perhaps world wars would be avoided, but recall that world war was not expected in 1914. World trade would decline, if not collapse altogether.

The vacuum generated by the decline of the United States might be filled by still other nations–perhaps India, with its vast resources and certainly Japan, both of which would have to be very concerned about an expansionist China. Possibly Europe would find a way to unite its forces against pressure from Russia, although between its addiction to "soft" power and its declining birth rates (and Muslim birthrates soaring), that is highly doubtful.

These are not abstract speculations, for we have elected a president and a Congress that are so absorbed in aggrandizing the power and influence of the federal government that they treat the world outside as something to be downplayed, or finessed by "smart" diplomacy in which we offer concessions to our enemies even before we meet them at the negotiating table.

Just in the last week we learn that the Obama Administration is "reaching out" to Hamas in Gaza, to the Taliban in Afghanistan, and to Russia over nearby defenses against Iran’s missiles. This is an administration that conspicuously lacks a strategic vision for the world and is putting our survival as a free nation at risk.

The world will not go away, just as it didn’t in 1914, 1941 or 2001. If we don’t assume the responsibilities that have been thrust upon us, we will pay a fearful price.

Obama's kinder, gentler foreign policy

Though much of the focus of Barack Obama's first six weeks in office has been on his trillion dollar economic stimulus and deficit-busting budget proposals, the administration has nonetheless given us some insight into the nation's new foreign policy. If you are someone who believes that the world remains a dangerous place, it is anything but comforting. Many who voted for Obama undoubtedly believed that some of his more radical foreign policy positions during the 2008 campaign were rhetoric designed to appeal to the left-wing base of the Democratic Party -- those who believe that the Iraq War was a grievous error and that the "war on terror" is a Bush construct designed to assert U.S. imperialism abroad and usurp civil rights at home. Unfortunately, his first month as president shows that Obama intends to be largely consistent with the promises he made during the campaign. His first order of business after taking office was to sign an executive order closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, where a number of the most dangerous Al Qaeda terrorists -- including the mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheik Mohammed -- is now housed. He also banned the use of "enhanced interrogation" techniques, limiting our ability to question terrorist detainees to the strict rules of the Army Field Manual. In making these two decisions as a first order of his new Administration, Obama was making clear that he intends to place values -- specifically the democratic ideals of due process and human rights -- at the very forefront of U.S. foreign policy. In closing Guantanamo and banning forms of interrogation that the left views as torture, Obama said "Living our values doesn't make us weaker. It makes us safer, and it makes us stronger."

It is not a stretch to believe that those who are now formulating foreign policy in the Obama Administration believe that the importance of being true to our values warrants a substantial redefining of how America extends its power to the rest of the world. For generations, our foreign policy has been based on the concept of realism and "realpolitik" -- the notion that power should be projected on the basis of our national interest, and that power (as opposed to international law or the United Nations) is the principal currency in international affairs. Realpolitik is, above all else, a practical concept; since power considerations dominate, it often leads to choices that in hindsight seem less than principled. One example that liberals like to use is U.S. support for Saddam Hussein in the war against Iran -- just a decade before the U.S. itself went to war against the Iraqi army in the first Gulf War. The U.S. supported Iraq not because we thought that Saddam Hussein was the "good guy", but because he was seen as less dangerous than Iran, and a potential tool to overthrow the regime of the Ayatollah Khomeini.

Such "situational" principles drive liberals and idealists crazy, of course, because the left generally sees the world through a lens that doesn't lend itself to the pragmatic use of American power. Liberals have always been more idealistic about how the possibility of peace-through- negotiation. Power -- especially of the military variety -- should only be used in the most extreme cases of self defense, and then only as a last resort. And when we do use military force, we should do so in a way that is consistent with our values. Realpolitik is now valuespolitik.

Valuespolitik is entirely consistent with how Barack Obama views the world -- and appears now to be the underlying principle of our new foreign policy. At the center lies the promise of negotiation -- of finding some shared basis of interest and understanding that can lead to first engagement and then reconciliation. Here are a few examples:

-- In some of his first comments to the media as reported in the New York Times, Obama stated his "determination that the United States explore ways to engage directly with Iran", even as he confirmed Tehran is pursuing nuclear weapons and is supporting terrorist groups destabilizing Iraq and the Middle East. In this same article, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is quoted as saying “(that) there is a clear opportunity for the Iranians to demonstrate some willingness to engage meaningfully with the international community", and stated that "there could be some form of direct communication between the United States and North Korea."

-- According to a recent piece by Claudia Rossett in Forbes, the President's hand-picked Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke (has) "been talking about Iran's reach into Afghanistan not as part of the problem, but as part of the solution. Despite allegations, some by NATO officials, that Iran has been helping Taliban "extremists"--as Obama labels the terror-dedicated Taliban -- Holbrooke opined recently on an Afghan TV station that Iran (yes, the same Iran run by the totalitarian mullahs who applaud Palestinian suicide-bombers, jail and torture dissident bloggers, and execute children and homosexuals) has a "legitimate role to play in this region, as do all of Afghanistan's neighbors."

-- Rossett also notes in her Forbes article that despite overwhelming evidence of the Iranian-backed terror nest that Gaza has become, the U.S. seems less interested in ending the terrorist reign of Hamas than in bankrolling its territorial base. “Reports earlier this week, citing an unnamed U.S. official, said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton plans to attend a funding conference in Cairo next week where she will pledge $900 million in U.S. aid for Gaza. At a Tuesday press briefing, a State Department spokesman confirmed that while details, including the exact amount, are still being worked out, a whopping pledge is indeed in the offing: It'll be, you know, several hundred million."

The pattern that emerges from these examples is that valuespolitik assumes that interests between the U.S. and the rest of the world can somehow be aligned in a way that will result in a more secure geopolitical situation – and that we can achieve this while not compromising our own democratic values. In Obama's view, valuespolitik is achieved principally through direct engagement and negotiation. Never mind, of course, that the United States and Europe have been negotiating with Iran for the past several years on their nuclear weapons program, offering all manner of economic incentives to encourage the Iranians to join the peaceful international community. The result of all this talk has been that the Iranians are now closer than ever to achieving both a nuclear warhead and the means of delivering it.

The failure of past efforts at negotiation doesn't sway our new president, however. Barack Obama genuinely believes that he is the one the international community has been waiting for; that his unique ability to communicate -- and the power that Clinton, Holbrooke and others will have speaking on his behalf -- can bring Iran, North Korea and even Hamas in from the cold. Some would call such a belief naive, others would call it hubris. I would call it both. But whatever you call it, this strategy lies at the center of the Obama foreign policy.

Thinking about Obama's foreign policy reminds me of an old story about Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnam War. LBJ was the consummate deal maker and believed that given an opportunity, there wasn't anyone he couldn't convince to see things his way. As the situation in Vietnam deteriorated and protests began heating up at home, LBJ offered to Ho Chi Minh a "Great Society" program for Vietnam, using American dollars to give the Vietnamese people food, shelter and prosperity. “A TVA for the Mekong Delta” he liked to say. It was all part of a fundamental belief that everyone has a price. Jack Valenti, a Johnson aide once recounted LBJ saying to him: "If I could just sit in a room with Ho Chi Minh and talk to him, I think we could cut a deal."

What Johnson failed to realize is that Ho Chi Minh was never going to accept a permanent partition of his country into North and South, and that North Vietnam would never cease their struggle for a unified, independent Vietnam. It just wasn't open to negotiation.

One guesses that this would be an instructive lesson for Barack Obama in dealing with Iran and other Islamic fundamentalists. The goal of Iran is the destruction of Israel and the West. The goal of Al Qaeda and Islamic radicals is the death of all non-believers and the establishment of a world caliphate based on Islamic law. These are not deal points to be negotiated away. These are fundamental beliefs that defy bargaining. No focus on shared values can lead to success, for we have no values in common.

And this is the core weakness of valuespolitik. While negotiation can achieve certain gains on the margins, it has the effect of blinding our policy to the true, non-negotiable threats that face us. And we pursue it at our own peril.