Newt is Right
I have to admit that I have never been a big fan of former Speak Newt Gingrich. While I do believe that it was his leadership and the Republican controlled Congress (as opposed to President Clinton) that lead to the terrific economic expansion of the 1990s and the near elimination of the national debt, I have always found the former Speaker’s style to be less than, shall we say, polished and diplomatic.
Having said that, I still have greatly enjoyed following his 2012 presidential campaign. Speaker Gingrich is obviously a very intelligent individual and possesses great debating skills. His rebukes of the national media were spot on. And, finally, whether you like him or not or whether if you agree with him or not, he clearly has a lot of interesting things to say.
As someone who was a boy during the Apollo years, one of his proposals that I found most interesting involved building a permanent base on the moon. If you recall, when he made that proposal, he was universally mocked. His opponents and the media called it a “hair-brained scheme” with no chance or basis in reality given our current economic condition.
It’s hard to believe that this reaction came from the same America that tamed the West, won the Cold War and put a man on the moon. Sure, times are tough but that does not mean we can’t still have big dreams and goals. Speaker Gingrich proposed bringing private enterprise into the mix, thereby truly opening up space to commercialization and privatization. We used to call proposals like that “visionary” and “challenges worthy of our efforts” not hair-brained schemes and dumb ideas. Many of our greatest undertakings were accomplished during tough economic times, particularly when we opened up the challenge to the private sector. Perhaps Speaker Gingrich does not have the eloquence that President Kennedy had in the 1960s when he challenged us to put a man on the moon (he certainly doesn’t have the support and adoration of the media that Kennedy had) but he has a vision and has called on Americans to think outside the box and rethink our ideas about the exploitation of space. Our nation needs to encourage, not discourage, such forward thinkers. It is time again that we realize that the biggest obstacle to our ability to achieve great things comes not from economic statistics but from the naysayers and doubters among us who prefer to maintain the status quo. If he contributed anything to the debate in this cycle, Speaker Gingrich reminded us that if we are to achieve great things, then we need to dream and imagine a nation not bound by the mundane constraints that will always exist. In short, Speaker Gingrich reminded us that, as Americans, we should always remember to think big.
Joseph Mendola, a native New Yorker and a graduate of Columbia Law School was the 2009 Republican candidate for NYC Comptroller. He received nearly 200,000 votes, the most of any Republican running for office in NYC in 2009 except for Michael Bloomberg. Joe is licensed to practice law in New York, New Jersey and Florida. He works in the securities industry and holds 10 different FINRA sponsored licenses. A direct survivor of 9/11, Joe lives with his 2 young children in one of America’s greatest liberal bastions, New York City’s Greenwich Village. He may be reached at jmendolanyc@aol.com.
man•date
[man-deyt] noun a command or authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue
I guess that you would have to be living under a rock not to know that this week the Supreme Court is hearing arguments about the constitutionality of the mandate provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (or, as it is more commonly known, Obamacare). The act requires (i.e. forces or mandates) people to buy health insurance or be subject to a monetary penalty.
When all the hyperbole and posturing is set aside, the essential question before the Court is: does the federal government have the power to force people to buy a particular product (in this case health insurance). Let’s stop for a moment and consider that. If the federal government has the power to force citizens to buy health insurance, what else do they have the power to force us to do? If the Court holds that the mandate is constitutional, would there be anything left that the federal government does not have the power to force us to do? It stands to reason that if they can force us to buy something, then they would also be able to force us not to buy something. One can only imagine how those who oppose the Second Amendment could use that argument to further restrict our right to bear arms.
The irony here is that, when proposed, the mandate provision was seen as the “least intrusive” and “most conservative” way to achieve universal health care. The theory was that the alternative, the government actually providing the insurance (i.e. the “public option”) would create a socialistic type government bureaucracy that would take us way beyond the welfare state. Mandating or forcing people to buy health insurance was more acceptable, according to this logic, because what the government was essentially doing was “forcing” people to take responsibility for themselves. And after all, this line of thought concludes, what could be more appealing to conservatives than people taking responsibility for themselves?
No question that the public option would have blown the already dangerously high federal deficit through the roof. It would have destroyed any chance at achieving the fiscal discipline that we so desperately need. But, come on! We Republicans believe in and champion personal responsibility because it leads to optimal innovation and efficiency. To the contrary, we believe that one does not take responsibility for himself if he is being forced to do so. Americans do not need the government to tell us to be responsible. Responsible Americans built this country without the need for mandates. It’s time we again realize that responsibility comes from within and cannot be imposed by a government bureaucracy. If we let this “most conservative” approach to universal health care stand, we will surrender the last bits of freedom and dignity we have left, i.e., the freedom and dignity to be responsible for ourselves and to determine our own destinies.
Joseph Mendola, a native New Yorker and a graduate of Columbia Law School was the 2009 Republican candidate for NYC Comptroller. He received nearly 200,000 votes, the most of any Republican running for office in NYC in 2009 except for Michael Bloomberg. Joe is licensed to practice law in New York, New Jersey and Florida. He works in the securities industry and holds 10 different FINRA sponsored licenses. A direct survivor of 9/11, Joe lives with his 2 young children in one of America’s greatest liberal bastions, New York City’s Greenwich Village. He may be reached at jmendolanyc@aol.com.
2012
The Sermon on the Hill
In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.
Benjamin Franklin, 1787
A little while ago now, in the two years immediately following the coronation of Shah Obama, I remember observing the Glenn Beck agenda from a distance. Although I could never count myself among his dedicated fans, his passion and intellectual curiosity intrigued me; and, so until he was unceremoniously disavowed by News Corp like a hound that could no longer hunt, I tracked the broad arch of his unique brand of journo-evangelism mainly through second hand sources. It seemed he was rapidly evolving from a political neophyte to a serious student of history and political philosophy, and doing so in an unusually public manner. Sometimes I blushed for him. (All conservatives go a little too libertarian for a period, wanting to legalize everything from pot to nuclear weapons, but it’s a rare spectacle to see this transformation in front of an audience of millions.)
One evening, after a long and satisfying discussion with an honest and intelligent friend, I found myself alone ruminating on our political crisis. The Supreme Council (we called it “Congress” in keeping with our American tradition) had just passed Obamacare and the doublethink inspired “Stimulus,” and had “reformed” our financial institutions through regulatory manacles and muzzles. As a student of economics, I knew the arguments against such meddling – their divine inspiration aside – were logically resolved through the reflection of 18th and 19th century economists, “worldly philosophers.” I knew that centralization of daily minutiae leads to poverty, despair, and economic decline. Bastiat, a witness to early French socialism, wrote the proofs long ago, elegantly and with disarming rhetoric. All that was required was for Republicans to dust off the old books, imbibe their wisdom, update the names and places, and deliver rousing homilies to the citizenry; to repackage conservatism, in the classic Burkean manner. Yet they didn’t.
- I got to thinking more about this conundrum, and granted myself the obvious as starting assumptions. Economic logic was faultless and depended ever-so-humbly on self-evident truths. I knew this to be true and so could anybody else who had the courage to follow their convictions.
- Republican leaders at least nominally believed in freedom, and its brainchild, the market, which births not only material abundance but sturdy morals.
- The American people, steeped in a 400 year old culture of independence and self-reliance, instinctively understood that private citizens and not government made America the beautiful country she is and has been.
- Still, Barack Obama ably hypnotized the electorate and was busy dismantling the work of generations with every new industrial strength fatwa.
These were the facts, the reality. Regardless of personal dogma, this much had to be admitted by fair observers. If plain truth were failing to persuade, what then was the malady that had so corrupted national politics?
* * *
I have a confession. I was raised and confirmed in the Catholic Church, but for months, sometimes years at a time, never attended mass. Spiritual life in my teenage years mattered about as much as saving for retirement. Although never an atheist or agnostic, I was a functional agnostic who occasionally prayed… mostly to relieve anxiety. Religion of your youth, however, is something that, like language, never goes away and will unconsciously mold your thoughts despite neglect.
It was that night when, in quiet contemplation, I first understood the power and meaning of spirit. The character of the American people had changed, at least enough to elect a Marxist in a once free republic. Shah Obama’s election was no less significant a moment than when Rome rejected her civic virtues and deteriorated into a land where bread and circuses entertained blissfully ignorant and mean citizens. In the early years of the Roman decline, the people could have reverted and saved the Empire. But history records their choice to embrace a new creed and doom Europe to a thousand years of darkness.
Well, my memory leaves something to be desired, but I believe it was sometime after Beck began to pull back the curtain on Democrat fundraising and associated non-profits, and before his swan song of outing Soros. I remember it was a day or two after I had come to the same conclusion. America, to persevere, needed a spiritual revival. Needed religion. Needed conviction and steely resolve to quash ideological evil that is socialism/collectivism/utopianism –whatever – and that had planted itself in the seat of government. Nihilism would no longer do. Shortly thereafter Beck held a rally in the Capitol to preach just that.
* * *
People get uncomfortable when political writing turns religious. For obvious reasons, many people associate sanctimonious politicians with an older and crueler order. Countless civilizations spanning history have languished under stultifying religious rule of one stripe or another. America remained the peculiar exception. The land of the free was established by emigrants fleeing religious persecution, and grew mightily from their labor. The first generation of Americans wrote the first Amendment, guaranteeing that no monolithic central government would ever impose a theology on the people. Lutherans, Catholics, Presbyterians, Unitarians, Jews, Moslems, for that matter atheists – all worship freely (or don’t) in our blessed land.
Yet operating in parallel with each faith is a common civic religion. It permeates our spirit and binds us like any other creed shared by a people. It was expressed beautifully in the Declaration of Independence, in the immortal words of Thomas Jefferson: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men were created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these Rights are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Behold the uniquely American gospel of tolerance and earthy peace.
From these words grew a nation dedicated to individuals, not classes, factions, or sects. A decade Jefferson’s masterpiece inspired the Constitution, the oldest and most successful political compact in the long annals of failed states. By diffusing power across a meticulously crafted co-equal government of three branches, the Framers harnessed the natural inclination of ambitious men to seize undue authority, and did their best to see that it was stymied by natural jealousies of others. While the national government was in competition within itself, it was also distinct in responsibility from powerful State governments. Distrustful of pure democracy for its tendency to devolve into mobocracy (and finally violence), the Framers conceived a dynamic and vast representative republic that vested enumerated powers on the federal level. In the People, not the President, Congress, or Courts, they reserved ultimate sovereignty. The idea was stunningly simple: if government, while bounded by a strict rule of law, maintains good order and provides protection, then society will tend to and improve itself. America’s glory can be attributed to the grand idea that government should primarily check unsocial behavior, so that humanity’s natural social tendencies may give rise to spontaneous splendor.
* * *
There is nothing menacing in a civic religion whose decalogue sanctifies individual liberty. It is the antithesis of state religion, which demands obedience and subservience of conscience. In America today, nothing typifies a modern state religion quite like Obamacare.
Ah yes, universal healthcare. What could be more humanitarian? If a parallel could be drawn today with the medieval practice of selling indulgences, it would be the mindless and unequivocal support for universal healthcare. A staple of liberalism in Europe and Canada, the self-righteous moralize from high that only in America are we selfish enough not to provide medical services to all citizens (and non-citizens, but that’s a whole other matter). To disagree with the proponents of socialized medicine is to fall from grace. Free speech? Meh, how 1700s. Free healthcare, now that’s caring! Now that’s license!
Repeat:
We believe in one, universal healthcare system.
We acknowledge one provider and the centralization of power.
We look to Obama for coverage,
and the Hope of timely treatment to come.
Like other state religions, Obamacare requires blind faith. Supply and demand dictate that as demand grows and supply remains constant, so rises price. But as Lazarus rose from the dead, after the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was made flesh, natural law no longer applies. Now coverage can be expanded to millions (higher demand), hospitals can close (lower supply), and still prices will fall, so help us Obama. Avarice on the part of doctors and insurance companies is no more. The new Priestess, Secretary Sebelius, has taken a veritable vow of poverty. The cathedral of HHS is, believe me, not concerned with profits. They are only concerned with cutting costs – their costs, that is. And their costs just happen to be our surgeries, therapies, and intensive care treatment. We suffer nobly thanks to comparative effectiveness research; we are anointed when sick with euthanasia. Freedom of conscience is protected by the individual mandate. If you can’t see the light, write your Congressman and request your very own copy of this thousand page Sermon on the Hill.
As good as it all sounds, come Judgment Day, Obamacare’s ten million commandments preclude non-state religions entrance to Heaven. And, unlike Revelations, this prophecy has already been fulfilled. The Vatican was recently surprised to learn that Obamacare meant subsidizing birth control and abortions. Rabbis, ministers, and imams quickly realized that their First Amendment too was scheduled for serious revision. Not since the civil rights movement have religious communities been so unified against government policy. Control of healthcare, they said, meant control of the body. But few at the time predicted it also meant control over the Body.
* * *
As you may know it’s the Lenten season. These are the 40 days prior to Easter (excluding Sundays), during which Christians are called closer to their God and Savior. It is customary to “give something up” as sacrifice for Lent, but this year I decided instead to do something – namely, attend Church on Sundays. (Yes, I know, this should be perfunctory.)
When at Church, I pray for my family, friends, and neighbors to be well, to act with virtue, and to take things as they come with grace and resolve. If a loved one is acting foolishly, it’s my wish that they willfully change their habits. I suspect these are common sentiments among supplicants. I’ll also say what I do not pray for. I do not, will not, and never have prayed for my Congressman, Senator, Governor, or President to forcibly make my family, friends, or neighbors change their behavior. I suspect that such prayers are rare; for to do so is to invert good and evil, and deny another of his conscience.
The future of Obamacare, a secular religion with a sordid history and a future that portends grave bureaucratic sin, now sits with the 9 men and women of U.S. Supreme Court. Reports indicate that at least five of nine Justices seem hostile and given to driving the Act out of the Federal Registrar with whips. Let’s hope so. If narrowly saved from Obamacare we should count our blessings. But the sobering fact remains that it was an American Congress and American President, both duly elected, which enacted this monstrous law.
There is reason for hope. Tea Party groups have reawakened the People and sparked in them a curiousness of the Founding. Every day, more ordinary Americans familiarize themselves with Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Franklin, Hamilton, and Madison. Providence has provided a time machine across the Atlantic, and we can see decrepit results of socialism writ large. Though our institutions are badly battered, the safeguards of liberty – free speech, freedom of association, and free elections – ensure that if we are willing to take brave political action, our fate is not yet sealed. Now, not tomorrow, is our time to get religion.
Note to hecklers: You! STOP right there! I don’t believe Obama is a Muslim any more than I believe he is a Jew. For all I know, he could be a Scientologist, a Zoroastrian, a Shaker. Remember satire? P.S., if you want to be an atheist, go right ahead.
2012
On O.W.S.
I received a stream of consciousness note from a friend of mine. He is a Cuban refugee who left Cuba shortly after Castro and his lapdog “Che” overthrew Batista, having witnessed the murderous barbarity of the rebellion in his own neighborhood. The past three years of Obama rule have reminded him of the tumult prior to the so-called “revolucion” en Cuba. It’s easy for Americans to forget how good we’ve have it, and dangerous to remain oblivious on how quickly liberty can be lost. My friend lost his business in this recession, but we’re slotted to lose something far grand if our politics don’t turn around.
One thing – please don’t write me with hysterical complaints pleading the need for “civil” language and political correctness. Political correctness is largely responsible for the Marxist residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., and once in a while it is refreshing to read free speech uncensored… this is a private citizen, so deal with it.
…did you hear the violent encounters overnight in Brooklyn, and Oakland? Surgically precise, and a show of military coordination. Do you still think they are just a loosely knit group of clueless druggies and well meaning “students” fighting for the social injustice perpetrated by society? I hope I’m wrong but I see this becoming more prevalent as the election gets closer ; and god help us when the first casualties begin to appear and reasons are manipulated for political advantage ; I have no doubt the orchestration of the “American Spring” will advance with double time progression with exact timing provided between each individual event so the public has the time to digest the “reason” why this is inevitable because of evil banking practices while ignoring the fact that the financial institutions were by law forced into these actions by the government. repeal of the Glass-Stiegel act of 1934 by the Clinton administration in 1994; as the election year goes forward there will be more of these incidents occurring with such casual frequency that the public will pay no attention, as more “regulations” are put in place for the good of the people; each taking freedom with the eyedropper of political correctness.
Can the elections become compromised as a result o.w.s ? is postponement that unlikely? the dangerous ‘social unrest’ will be the reasoning for amended constitutional interpretations given the desperation to justify the deployment of martial law … with the protection of the “masses” from the radical, religious, and economic persecution, brilliantly orchestrated as the ultimate endgame. While a clueless public watches reality shows and makes decisions based on the hysterics du jour … dictated by any third world nation … after which this administration has modeled itself … so criticism of their policies becomes politically incorrect, and shows the caring nature from this regime and the callous disregard of the opposition who still believe this country is worth saving …
The continued repetition of manufactured distractions worked for Hitler with the Jews. It now works for Obama with the rich … and anybody independent of the government’s teet. Only time will tell.
think i’ll start a blog….only thing is that may become illegal too.
Attacking Each Other
Last week, Rick Santorum said that if Mitt Romney were to be the GOP nominee this fall, the nation “might as well” stick with Obama, implying that, at least in Santorum’s opinion, there is no difference between Romney and Obama.
Wow! A GOP candidate for President says that we should vote for the Democrat incumbent over the GOP candidate if Romney is the nominee.
Now, I am no shrinking violet. I am a veteran of a few campaigns as well as a native New Yorker. I know that politics is a dirty game and things are said in the heat of the moment when candidacies are at stake. Heck, I can even recall Ronald Reagan, who had a famous 11th commandment about not speaking ill of fellow Republicans, saying a few choice words about his opponents like Jerry Ford and George H.W. Bush.
However, in all my years following GOP politics I have never heard a Republican candidate say on national TV that we should vote for the Democrat over the Republican. Ronald Reagan would be rightfully ashamed of Mr. Santorum.
Don’t get me wrong. I am not arguing that Gov. Romney is the perfect (or even preferred) standard bearer for us this fall. But we are all Republicans and we shouldn’t be here if we don’t believe that Governor Romney or any other GOP candidate is preferable to Mr. Obama.
For the sake of ego, Santorum is exploiting the potential schism which has simmered within our party for some time. He is encouraging the unraveling of the party by bating those in our party who spend their time calling fellow Republicans names like “RINOS” and identifying a strict code which one must swear to if he or she is going to be deemed a “true” Republican. Santorum makes us forget that the fundamental reason why we are Republicans is because we believe in a free economy and a limited government which does not overly intrude into our lives. All those who believe the same should be welcomed into our party in the same way that Ronald Reagan welcomed so many new Republican voters in 1980 and 1984 and stitched together a winning coalition which gave him a mandate to cut taxes and limit the size of government. If alive today, I imagine that President Reagan would be appalled to hear fellow Republican calling each other RINOs. I imagine that he would also be disgusted by the comments made by Rick Santorum.
Joseph Mendola, a native New Yorker and a graduate of Columbia Law School was the 2009 Republican candidate for NYC Comptroller. He received nearly 200,000 votes, the most of any Republican running for office in NYC in 2009 except for Michael Bloomberg. Joe is licensed to practice law in New York, New Jersey and Florida. He works in the securities industry and holds 10 different FINRA sponsored licenses. A direct survivor of 9/11, Joe lives with his 2 young children in one of America’s greatest liberal bastions, New York City’s Greenwich Village. He may be reached at jmendolanyc@aol.com.
All My Sons
Last week, President Obama commented on the death of Trayvon Martin. Obama said that if he had a son, his son would look like Trayvon.
I found this comment to be extremely disappointing and totally inappropriate.
First, what does Obama’s comment mean? Is it because Trayvon was black that he looks like Obama’s hypothetical son? Suppose Obama was white and looked like the now son (once daughter) of Cher. Would the President have said that if he had a son, his son would look like George Zimmerman? (As an aside, doesn’t the most frequently shown photo of Mr. Zimmerman bear a striking resemblance to Chaz Bono?) In either case, what does this mean? How is the physical resemblance of any individual an appropriate factor in this case?
Instead of pandering, what Obama should have said was that we should reserve judgment until we know all of the facts of the case and, as things stand now, we still need to learn what actually happened that night. Obama should have reminded people that, in America, one is innocent until proven guilty and that Mr. Zimmerman has a right to remain silent in the face of the current ongoing media maelstrom. He should have reminded us that Mr. Zimmerman’s silence is not indicative of his guilt, but rather, may be a carefully planned legal strategy. (As both an attorney and a law professor, Obama knows darn well that any lawyer worth his salt who may be advising Mr. Zimmerman would tell him to keep a low profile given the current situation.)
As the President of all the United States, Obama could stand to take a lesson from Joe Keller, the protagonist of the 1947 Arthur Miller play All My Sons. After cheating on a government contact which resulted in the death of Americans, Joe Keller realizes that his greatest sin was not cheating the government but rather was failing to realize that all Americans are his (and, by implication, our) sons. Unlike Joe Keller, Obama is wrong not to realize that George Zimmerman could just have easily been his son too.
Joseph Mendola, a native New Yorker and a graduate of Columbia Law School was the 2009 Republican candidate for NYC Comptroller. He received nearly 200,000 votes, the most of any Republican running for office in NYC in 2009 except for Michael Bloomberg. Joe is licensed to practice law in New York, New Jersey and Florida. He works in the securities industry and holds 10 different FINRA sponsored licenses. A direct survivor of 9/11, Joe lives with his 2 young children in one of America’s greatest liberal bastions, New York City’s Greenwich Village. He may be reached at jmendolanyc@aol.com.
2012
The Death of a General
“‘When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits-not animals.’ And he said, ‘There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.’”
Ronald Reagan, quoting Winston Churchill, 1964
April 29, 1775. April 12, 1861. July 28, 1914. These dates are memorized by school children as signifying the apparent outbreak of three major wars. Yet to merely know the date that hostilities began is not to understand the cause conflict. During the years that precede any armed combat, factions are engaged in a largely non-violent struggle on the battlefield of ideas, vying for the loyalty and support of citizens. Zealous partisans engage in campaigns whose main weapons are rhetoric, propaganda, and, occasionally, truth. Leaders employ not military tactics, but calculated stratagems designed to enhance their own standing and erode their opponents’ support. Famous battlefields in this eternal war of ideas include Religion, Politics, and Ideology.
In the decades before the Declaration of Independence, the American colonies had developed a system of self- government, a model we can recognize clearly in Mayflower Compact. Religious refugees from Europe left their home countries and established self-rule, and for the first time put sovereignty in the People. European natural rights theorists throughout the 17th century expounded the newly recognized Laws of Nature as they pertained to Man, looking across the ocean for inspiration. In America, the great English philosopher John Locke saw a system of self-government that respected the rights of the individual in society. America had no Sovereign; new taxation therefore required the consent of the governed; without representation, legislation was illegitimate. These ideas, the American contribution to political thought and posterity, were hostile toward an English Parliament and King who viewed the colonists as subjects rather than citizens, and in this fundamental disagreement sparked the American war for independence.
The political disconnect that led to the Civil War was a cousin of that that led to the American Revolution. The Constitutional Convention had resulted in a truce on slavery. Many in the North wished it did not exist, but in fact, aside from Vermont and Massachusetts, all States had slaves at the time of ratification. No less than John Jay wrote in The Federal in 1786, “It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused.” Although the Framers ensured that the importation of slaves would end in 1808, this did nothing to address the question of slaves already in America. Ultimately the question of human rights crystalized as the nation expanded: while the North did not want to extend slavery into the territories, the South did. Each side sharpened their pencils and their theories of man. Many in the North, referencing the Declaration, insisted that rights applied equally to all races. The South, unable to convincingly argue that blacks were not men, argued the issue under the cover of States rights. A people can only tolerate a glaring inconsistency for so long, and in 1861 the festering wound burst and resulted in the bloodiest war in history up to that point. Only after the death of 625,000 Americans was the question that confounded many prior generations finally settled.
World War I, and its sequel World War II, were the direct results of nationalism. Although many people are unaware of the true meaning of nationalism, it actually signifies pride in a linguistic identity. The Germanic people were spread throughout Eastern Europe, in Austro-Hungary, Poland, and the Baltic States. Germany, at the time viewed as somewhat backwards, was lagging in industrial development compared to other European powers. As a direct result, German wages were falling relative to the other great European powers. This injured their pride. The German academy could not come to terms with this economic reality rationally, and instead enacted protective barriers aimed to support wages. Like other acts that aspire toward autarky, they were ultimately counterproductive. However, what Germany did possess was the finest standing Army in Europe at the time. This combined with millions of German speaking people across Europe was enough to convince German leaders that war would be a profitable endeavor.
Winston Churchill, that great defender of Western civilization, is known as a warrior. And indeed, a warrior he was. He saw active duty in British India, the Sudan, and was a hero in the Second Boer War. There was no question that Churchill believed in the righteousness of the Empire, and he never compromised away her interests for political expediency. In the lead up to World War I, few European leaders recognized the German threat like Churchill. While Home Secretary, Churchill had visited Germany and seen the Imperial Army (Reichsheer) first hand, and was terrified (Johnson, Paul. Churchill. 2009.). He remarked, “I can only thank God there is a sea between England and Germany” (ibid). Furthermore, Great Britain’s uncontested control of the seas was being challenged with passage of the German Naval Law of 1912, “which increased their battleship construction rate by half again” (ibid.). Churchill did not want war, but he did accept the obvious: Germany was preparing for war, and Britannia had to duly react. Much to the consternation of politicians at home, and at great cost to British taxpayers, Churchill, as First Lord of the Admiralty, commissioned the largest battleships ever made, the Queen Elizabeth class, weighing 27,500 tons (ibid.). If not for this precocious precaution, Germany may well have won the war. Though during this time period Churchill endured one of his worst failures, the Gallipoli campaign, his determination for victory and later genius as minister of munitions undoubtedly helped the Allies to victory (ibid).
“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” – George Orwell
Today the United States is engaged in a political battle that will determine whether we perpetuate as a Constitutional Republic or continue the drift into despotism, and the political division is clear. The election of 2012 is the grandest of battles in this long war against the Constitution that began in earnest during the Progressive Era, and won decisive and major victories under Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson. On one side there are those who believe in individual sovereignty, our founding principles, and limited government; the other crows for an elite, dedicated to supplanting the decisions of individuals with their own detailed plans. The latter group of political professionals coalesce around one of America’s dominant political parties, the Democrats. They and their allies and supporters are serious and disciplined, using a potent mix of propaganda, class warfare rhetoric, and manipulation of government institutions, which they largely control. While the tactics and goals differ among Democrat constituent groups (e.g. environmentalists vs. GLBT vs. peacenicks vs. et al), they share a common overarching strategy: expand the reach, scope, and budget of the Federal government. For only can additional control by an enlightened political class curb greenhouse emissions, end pollution, mandate same-sex marriage to the States, end war, and wring out the imperfections of man… or so they believe.
To be sure, there is a serious and disciplined opposition to these (what radio host Mark Levin terms) Utopian Statists, but it is not the Republican Party. They include the giants of talk radio, like Levin, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh; sturdy think tanks such as Heritage and Cato; academic institutions like Hillsdale College (and their eminently likable President Larry Arnn) and the Claremont Institute; public intellectuals like Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, and John Lott; authors and journalists like Mark Steyn, Joseph Curl, David Limbaugh, and Michelle Malkin; activists like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck; outspoken members of Congress like Michele Bachmann, Jim DeMint, and Paul Ryan; and finally the backbone and muscle – Tea Party activists and leaders. Currently, and all-too-tellingly, they spend equal amounts of time criticizing a bland and impotent Republican Party as they do the real political enemy.
The individuals listed above are Generals in their own right. They rouse not armies but communities; inspire rallies, not charges. These individuals in particular target the essence the left’s delusions: that the world would be a better place but for the messiness of democracy and capitalism. These veiled attacks echo the left’s ideological forebears, the Marxists, who viewed capitalism as anarchistic. Many of them expose the left as hypocrites and liars. For all these reasons they are despised, maligned, attacked, and intimidated by their increasingly hardened and emboldened adversaries in the Democrat Party.
Excuse Me While I Save the World
Perhaps none infuriated and enraged the left like the late Andrew Breitbart, who died on March 1 this year. Talk about walking into the line of fire – Breitbart stepped out into a firestorm with each new scandalous exposé. Whether it was ACORN, Shirley Sherrod, or Anthony Weiner, Breitbart did not miss his mark. In addition to attracting ire from the political left, Breitbart never failed to ignite an almost obligatory raucous, self-serving frenzy about what constituted “legitimate” journalism across the mainstream media. Listening to Breitbart speak, his eyes flashing and pointer finger raised in defiance, it was clear that he was more passionate for his cause than virtually all others. To get a sense of how Breitbart viewed his role, and his disdain for the left and their pliant media, look no further than the title of his last book: Righteous Indignation: Excuse Me While I Save the World.
Over the last two weeks, much has been speculated about Breitbart’s death at 43. Breitbart had a known history of heart disease, and, according to friends, suffered a prior heart attack. Larry Sinclair, who met Brietbart on February 9 this year, reported that Breitbart had told him, “Wait till they see what happens March first.” We now know that Breitbart intended to release a video showing Obama holding a rally for the racially motivated professor, Derrick Bell. (Note: the video was released – posthumously – on March 7.) Sinclair also relays odd inconsistencies with the information he received from UCLA Medical Center. Moreover, recall that at CPAC, Breitbart promised to vet the President this election season. The autopsy is apparently complete, but a search on Google News for “breitbart autopsy” and “breitbart cause of death” shows nothing since March 2. A strange news blackout, given the man’s place in national politics and media. The more inquisitive and conspiracy-minded can see here a video offering one ostensibly plausible scenario. I leave the reader to draw his own conclusions, whatever they may be, because the media hasn’t provided any for the public.
While we ponder what could be taking that coroner so long, a fair postmortem assessment can be conducted on the reactions to his death across the political spectrum. Most on the right lamented the death of an invaluable ally, though there were some exceptions. The RINO’s RINO David Frum, for example, took the opportunity to smear Breitbart’s career as “poisonous.” The left, meanwhile, danced eagerly on his grave. Rolling Stone’s resident leading light and practitioner of yellow journalism, Matt Taibbi, entitled his grotesque reaction “Death of a Douce” and wrote “Good! Fuck him. I couldn’t be happier that he’s dead.” Blogger and bore Matt Yglesias tweeted “world outlook is slightly improved with @AndrewBrietbart [sic] dead.” These are only the most prominent of many, many more indecent examples. It’s clear the professional left rejoiced because Andrew’s fighting spirit was a serious threat to their agenda.
Another recent event exemplifies the political divide, but differently. In Rush Limbaugh’s Slutgate we observe the seriousness of the Democrats et al., and the insouciant unseriousness of Republicans. The left’s reaction was sadly predictable, especially by Limbaugh. No less than President Obama encumbered himself in the controversy, claiming he did so for his daughters. The shrill witch Pelosi sanctimoniously claimed “I wouldn’t want those words repeated in my office,” before claiming that Limbaugh and Republicans were against women’s health. Ethically-compromised Rep. Claire McCaskill accused him of waging a “war on women.” The Democrat National Committee used the occasion to raise cash. Hack attorney Gloria Allred and enemy of free speech even went so far as to suggest Limbaugh face criminal prosecution. For more than a week the national discourse revolved around a man calling a woman a slut, relegating the imperiled republic’s grave problems to back page news. You see, walking in lockstep has its advantages, and the Democrats do it so well.
What about Republicans and conservatives, for whom Limbaugh does so much? They were of two minds. Mark Levin would not pass any judgment on his friend, except to say that he approved of Limbaugh’s apology. Squish Senators John McCain and Scott Brown weren’t so diplomatic. The 2008 Republican candidate for President called the remarks “totally unacceptable” “in every way” and said they “should be condemned.” Brown, occupying the late Ted Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts, tweeted “Rush Limbaugh’s remarks are reprehensible. He should apologize.” Is it any wonder why Levin went on to admonish fellow conservatives for turning their back on the nation’s most popular conservative? (For my money, nothing beats Mark Steyn analysis, who plainly declares we have gone nuts.) With friends… no, with brothers-in-arms like this, who needs enemies?
Question: In a political battle in which one side fights as a single unit, and the other shoots their compatriots in the back, who would you bet on winning the day? The left, in their apoplectic giddiness, sacrificed free speech, reasonable discourse, and even threatened prosecution. Half the right all but joined them.
Disarm and Conquer
Given the choice between going to battle or the preemptive surrender of the opposing force, why fight? If you’re wondering why Republicans cannot seem to mount an effective counteroffensive, allow me to suggest that they’ve succumbed to Democrat political correctness. Want to cut welfare? You hate blacks and other minorities. Want to reform entitlement programs before they go broke? You hate senior citizens. Want to limit unemployment payments? You lack compassion for those in need. Want to reduce the number on food stamps? You’re kidding me, right… you really want to starve the poor? And so it goes.
Republicans are tongue-tied and stupefied, rendered inert, and consequently trampled underfoot.
And then there’s double standard, a magical tactic. Recall when that schizophrenic maniac murdered six people and injured thirteen others in Tucson, Arizona in January 2011. Democrats could not have been quicker to denounce harsh political talk, even blaming Sarah Palin. President Obama, the ringleader as usual, squandered the opportunity to bring together the nation and instead pontificated on what was acceptable speech. Americans, he said, should speak to each other “in a way that heals, not in a way wounds.” This would be the same Barack Obama (thankfully there’s only one) who encouraged Latinos to “punish their enemies” and said the Republican victory in the midterms meant “hand-to-hand” combat. James Hoffa, Obama ally and Teamsters Union leader said just a few months later in May, “President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march…Everybody here’s got a vote…Let’s take these sons of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong.”
To too great an extent, political correctness has destroyed the potency of the Republican message. The noose tightens with each new regulation, executive fiat, and entitlement program. Hope is lost when speaking of liberty is tantamount to libel.
No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as a manor of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man’s death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
John Donne (1572 – 1631)
The author of that famous verse is John Donne. Donne was an English Catholic who lived in the decades after Henry VIII banned Catholicism. His family had long history of martyrdom, and Donne himself knew well the meaning of religious persecution. The poem inspires us to act out of duty to one another.
Surveying the political landscape today in America, it is clear that both sides in this epic clash are hardening their views. The difference is that while one side controls a political party and its apparatuses, the other is almost homeless, or at least in the guest room. Lest you think this exaggeration, consider that the federal debt is growing faster after the Republican victory in the 2010 midterms. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell cannot effectively wield power, and this is disheartening their constituents. I believe there is a reason that Reagan chose to title his speech in which he quoted Churchill “A Time for Choosing.” More than identifying with one party or another, it was imperative to support the cause with a definite end in mind: like Churchill would gesture with his two fingers, that end is Victory. In his time, Reagan meant victory over the welfare state and the Soviets. With the current crop of Republican leaders, our latest was hollow.
Winston Churchill signals V for Victory
Each generation is tested and judged by their response to societal danger. Generations prior sacrificed their lives to establish and defend this land of free people from external foes. Rather than soldiers pitched in mortal combat, America today needs a spiritual awakening. Abraham Lincoln asked, “At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” Breitbart, in his “Big” way, did much in life to see that our way of life should not perish from the earth.
Remember, it tolls for thee.
2012
Election Day 2012 and The Remnant
Have you soon the conservative books of late? Here are some of their titles: Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?, After America: Get Ready for Armageddon, Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America. Not the cheeriest of predictions, even by political standards. But Pat Buchanan, Mark Steyn, and Mark Levin, the authors of each of these books respectively, have compelling reasons for their dour assessment of contemporary America. Unlike other challenging periods in modern American politics, this time seems different. To capture the complexity of the problem in a sound byte is simply not possible. The structural rot of our institutions combined with a massive national debt suggest not beleaguering by external challenges but instead cultural suicide. To reverse our democracy’s drift into a kind of benign totalitarianism is the challenge facing this generation of Americans. Yet, with the election only nine months away, there are precious few signs that the majority of the country has come to grips with the gravity of the moment. Will we survive as a free people? And if we choose to stay the course on this journey to guaranteed chaos, who will pick up the pieces after the collapse?
The implosion of an empire is always complicated, the perspectives controversial like all Monday morning quarterbacking. Take Rome: St. Augustine blamed Rome’s decline on the moral corruption of her citizens, mainly attributable to an inherently immoral paganism. Edward Gibbon blamed deteriorating civic virtue and Christianity. Others have blamed militarism and high taxes, which eventually led to the serfdom and the breakdown of trade. America’s problems are likewise complex. There are several notable pathogens with discernible effects.
Finances: The federal government is more than $15 trillion in debt, and running trillion dollar plus deficits. On the current path, the Congressional Budget Office predicts a “shut down” of the economy in 2027. To relieve the pressure of massive deficits, the Federal Reserve has America’s printing press running in hyperdrive, and is keeping interest rates at historic lows. It’s estimated on average that each private sector worker (not citizen, worker) owes $38,721 in state debt, on top of federal debt. In 2011, the cost of one government program alone (Obamacare) soared by $111 billion, approximately one-quarter the value of total outstanding Greek debt ($436 billion). Meanwhile, the Chinese continue to offload our bonds, suggesting that they’re not so sure we’ll pay it all back.
Control of daily life: Federal bureaucracies of one stripe or another manage and control virtually all aspects of life, from security, to consumer products, to health insurance to health care. Citizens are no longer free to buy certain light bulbs, or send their child to school with homemade lunches that don’t conform to the official federal nutritional schedule. Toilets are under strict guidelines to conserve water. Tobacco smokers are treated like second class citizens. Weekly, we learn of new bills aimed at curtailing internet freedom. The taxpayers richly reward their harassers; with each new quarterly deficit report, government administrators make more money than workers in the private sector, and are entitled to extravagant benefits and guaranteed vacations.
Institutional decay: The Constitutional principle of separation of power is quickly eroding with each new executive branch fiat, such as implementing cap and trade through the EPA (rather than law-making Congress). Obamacare, still young, is already making mincemeat of the Founding ideal of limited government; religious organizations now must violate their consciences and provide cost-free contraception and abortions. The Constitution is flouted routinely. For example: the administration’s appointment of officials without the consent of the Senate, Obama’s refusal to implement all parts of a bill, declaring them unilaterally to be unconstitutional (after signing the bill into law), and the non-defense of the Defense of Marriage Act, passed under President Bill Clinton. The executive branch – the President and his czars – is beginning to act as a legislative branch as well, severing the Constitution’s connection to the ideas of the great Montesquieu.
Blind watch dogs: There are several high profile scandals that the media, for the most part, ignore – Fast and Furious, Solyndra et al., and the willful and politically motivated misrepresentation of deportation records. The press eagerly reports the trivial gaffes as well as decade old writings and speeches of Republican candidates, but can’t seem to figure out that the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has it in for us.
Activist judges and scorn for the Constitution: Federal courts are all to eager to comply and push the left’s agenda, twisting and contorting long-established legal interpretations to advance left-wing political goals. If the recent overruling of California’s Prop. 8 doesn’t make that clear, what would? Recently, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg derided the American Constitution and praised foreign sources of law as more modern. The New York Times features op-eds that dismiss the Constitution as embarrassingly outmoded and in need of significant revision. Americans are told to look to Canada, Sweden, and South Africa for inspiration.
Broken system: The United States Constitution established a federal government based on representation, limited government, and separation of powers (note: an excellent, free course about the Constitution is available from Hillsdale College). Today there is a sovereign executive branch and compliant judiciary, rendering Congress nothing more than a rubber stamp at best. At worst, they act to aggressively leapfrog the executive and prove themselves even more “progressive” than the bureaucracy and courts. Unfortunately, there is no representation through bureaucracy; bureaucracy, by definition, makes and enforces rules. If Congress care not to stop them, then the rules multiply by institutional inertia. As the saying goes, “The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.” Obama and the Democrat party couldn’t be happier about this expanding leviathan, for they control it. All pillars of Constitutional government are thus systemically undermined.
. . .
In a well-functioning democracy the natural check against such egregious abuses would be the opposition party. They would spell out the dangers to the electorate and rally the citizens to begin a gradual process of reform – before it was too late. Presently, this should be the role of the Republican party. Sadly, it’s apparent that only some candidates are focused on what is at stake this election, while others are more content slinging mud and playing politics as if there were no looming catastrophe. It speaks volumes that while unemployment remains officially over 8% (the actual number being much higher) and food stamp recipients stands at an all-time high, the national media and half of the Republican party are talking about free birth control and Rush Limbaugh’s (accurate) terming of a 30 year old student and political hack as a “slut.” They say Nero fiddled while Rome burned, and to many this may have once seemed like anecdotal hyperbole. Yet after witnessing interminable Republican pettiness and insufferable media nonchalance while the American spirit chokes to death, to think an Emperor would entertain himself while his capital was swallowed by flames no longer seems far fetched. Perhaps Obama will blame Rick Santorum as Nero blamed the Christians?
Defeating Barack Obama and restoring Constitutional rule should be of paramount importance in the lives of all Americans of good will. Do you know many people who feel this way? Do you get the sense that the Republican leadership feels this way? Outside the Tea Party, do you many Americans with a genuine sense of political urgency? I suspect not. And I wouldn’t expect it until one major party acknowledges – or validates for others – the existential threat manifested in the debt and lawlessness of our government.
The great worry of so many is that President Obama will be re-elected as a lame duck president, making him even bolder. Let’s assume, as is probable at this time, that Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee. Governor Romney, in collaboration with Ted Kennedy, signed into law proto-Obamacare; he once described himself as a “progressive”; he does not have the support of the party’s base, the conservatives; he can’t call Obama a socialist; his record as a flip flopper is unmatched. Many other concerns exist and are well known by Obama’s reelection team. What happens, God forbid, if the electorate is dispirited and unroused by Mitt Romney, and he loses?
A few things are likely. The economy will almost certainly collapse under the weight of the debt. Nitpicking rules governing the minutia life will multiply without respite, as they are now. America will lose her influence in the world to a great extent, and the currently American dominated world will be replaced by regional powers such as Russia, China, and possibly a Middle Eastern caliphate. The fates of Taiwan and Israel, not to mention several other less powerful democracies (e.g. Eastern Europe) will be serious jeopardy. Politically, the Republican Party would likely fracture, leaving a very dominant, very power hungry Democrat party in control for what would be the foreseeable future. Welcome to not only to the post-American, but post-Western world.
. . .
Civilizations have risen and fallen throughout human history. The duty of the few to preserve the ideas that civilize through periods of anarchy and disorder thus has ancient roots. The biblical name for this group of intellectuals is called the remnant. The prophet Isaiah was told by God, in the charming words of Albert Jay Nock:
There is a Remnant there that you know nothing about. They are obscure, unorganized, inarticulate, each one rubbing along as best he can. They need to be encouraged and braced up because when everything has gone completely to the dogs, they are the ones who will come back and build up a new society; and meanwhile, your preaching will reassure them and keep them hanging on. Your job is to take care of the Remnant, so be off now and set about it.
The monasteries in the middle ages filled this role, preserving the ancient texts from which civilization re-emerged during the Renaissance. Through a millennium of turmoil and anarchy, monks, scribes, and scholastics kept safe the ideas central to Western civilization until the printing press could proliferate them once again. The internet and knowledge won’t die overnight – no. Technology will not regress as it did once Rome dissolved. But liberty will. Prevailing ideas and habits dominate politics, and a society that rears its young in a culture of entitlement, envy, and enmity will not nurture the vital, self-reliant American spirit.
Nock goes on to explain how the Remnant differ from the masses:
The mass-man is one who has neither the force of intellect to apprehend the principles issuing in what we know as the humane life, nor the force of character to adhere to those principles steadily and strictly as laws of conduct; and because such people make up the great and overwhelming majority of mankind, they are called collectively the masses. The line of differentiation between the masses and the Remnant is set invariably by quality, not by circumstance. The Remnant are those who by force of intellect are able to apprehend these principles, and by force of character are able, at least measurably, to cleave to them. The masses are those who are unable to do either.
Notwithstanding Nock’s characteristically misanthropic attitude, the moral of the story we can recognize today. Europe, not yet twenty years ago freed from the yoke and shadow of Communism, finds itself mired in debt, unable to cobble together a lasting solution lest the rioters act up and torch a row of homes. America, for her part, witnesses this transatlantic economic calamity and confidently follows suit. As I write this, 45% of Americans still approve of President Obama, apparently undaunted by his glib abuses of power. Romney, admittedly the likely candidate, leads the President in a hypothetical matchup by a mere 2%. To be blunt: the masses are failing to accurately diagnose the political pathogens that are bringing down civilization as we know it. Without a clarion call from the Republican Party candidate, whomever that may be, the political naifs (that is, the majority of the country) will doom themselves.
There are millions of American citizens who instinctively reject the massive expansion of government. They are patriots who fight, politically, to save their way of life and the traditions of their native land. What they require, practically, is a political leader. Is the Republican Party so broken that it cannot identify such a man or woman to defeat a Marxist? Is the press so ignorant that they cannot recognize a genuine threat to the perpetuity of a free and good people, and instead focus on non-issues like free birth control and the monologues of Rush Limbaugh? Are the people too corrupt to demand accountability from their politicians and seriousness from journalists? On these questions our future and the safety of the free world hangs.
. . .
I was on a Q train to 57th Street yesterday. Looking at the advertisements like a good caged commuter, I began to notice that virtually all were public service announcements paid for by New York City. There were seven different city government ads in total, five viewable from my seat. They “advertised” for:
- Filing your tax return
- Hepatitis C testing
- Public school teachers
- Cat spaying/neutering
- MTA capital improvement projects … walking to the other end of the car now …
- Anti-littering campaign
- Food portion control/anti-obesity
Again, this was one subway car. With the economy in the gutter, can only the city afford advertising space on NYC transportation? Or does it suggest that the people can no longer manage their own lives, and require incessant prodding to adequately perform basic civic tasks, keep hygienic, and be a decent human being who doesn’t litter, cares responsibly cares for felines, and maintains a reasonable weight? Probably both to some extent. But what it suggests undeniably is the psychology of a people that no longer views government as a dangerous servant, but instead as a buddy and partner throughout life. This type of government prefers to keep adult citizens as children, and suspend their privilege of making decisions that involve significant even marginal risk.
I cite this example to demonstrate that the debate over the role of government is no longer academic; the totalitarians have already conquered much ground, and the forces of liberty are in full retreat. There will always be among the people some who resist the stultifying designs of the planners, the health nannies, the busy bodies, and the would-be masterminds. Such men and women – the Remnant – will remain free thinking and morally erect against the tide of politically correctness and state coercion. In their thoughts and actions, they and their children transmit the kernel of civilization through the intellectual darkness of their day. Slowly they argue their cause, build a coalition, and wait patiently for circumstances ripe to seize control of long-neglected institutions and re-establish a free and just order. It could be decades, centuries. Depending on the outcome of the 2012 election, this tragic fate may be ours.