Donald Trump: More Balls Than Sense. And That Ain't All Bad

Read more!

Photo by Gage Skidmore

Trump's critics tell us a lot more about themselves than the man they criticize.  John McCain and his love child, Lindsay Graham head a long list of pussified Republicrats who see a threat in anyone who dares to commit the heresy of truth-telling in public.  Donald Trump has joined Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton and (too few) others.  At least for the moment.

There is no Serious Problem -- Social, Political or Economic -- that is not Either Caused by or Made Worse by Big Government

Read more!

The Course of Empire Destruction (Thos. Cole, 1836)

For a number of years now I have been posing the title statement as a question.  In print and in conversation.  Crickets and bullfrogs; the query might just as well have been rhetorical.  Few have responded, and no one has ever offered an apposite answer. Big-government types occasionally make an attempt, but only after they've changed the question to suit a prepared answer. The most common response, for example, is to reply that government does some things right, which I've never denied and which is entirely outside the scope of the question.

Illegal Immigration: Seen and Not Seen

Read more!

Frederic Bastiat

As with most things in Western politics, America's illegal immigration question is argued within contending narratives.  The Marxist Left points to cultural enrichment, tolerance, virtuous altruism, abundant and cheap labor and "diversity".  Conservatives point to enormous burdens on Federal and local governments in the areas of healthcare, public education, law enforcement and revenues.  Given that both are imperfect, which narrative is more correct?  Does either go beyond what is easily seen?

2012: Testing the American Narrative (Part II)

Read more!

As I said in Part I, this election -- more than most because of unusually clear contrasts -- will test the the American ethos, the narrative, the vision that tells us who we are.  For those of us who, contrary to a century of Marxist/progressive indoctrination, have managed somehow to maintain a reverence of founding principles, this is a make-or-break affair.  Many will say that ideas of the American Founders were but temporal signs of time and place and that we have evolved and matured in matters social, political and economic.  We have put away old ideologies.  And they may be correct in their assessment.

2012: Testing the American Narrative (Part I)

Read more!

Who are we and what were we as Americans?  Today, there are competing narratives.  Two, though divergent, are organic, in that they grew out of the American Revolution and the founding principles. A more recent narrative that emerged out of European Marxist philosophy is being grafted onto one of the native strains.

The Historical Roots of Statism in America

Read more!

Opposing Statism: The Incomplete Conservative Argument 

Until recently, I had never been satisfied with with conventional explanations of the steady rise of American statism.  Within the conservative pundit class there seems to be general agreement (or, at least, emphasis) that beginnings lay in the presidencies of Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson and the rise of the Progressives.  To be sure, anti-Jeffersonian policies flourished in their administrations as it later did with F.D.R., Lyndon Johnson.  But the nagging question for me was how, after the Founding period, did this trend -- more or less suddenly -- emerge?  Say with Theodore Roosevelt...?  So recent?  What about the Hamiltonians, the Federalist Party?  Some of our conservative voices, Glenn Beck, for example, will talk about Alexander Hamilton (a good start), but then they seem compelled to leap over a big chunk of history to the late Nineteenth Century.  Why is that?  What are they avoiding?

Tea Party Metaphor and the Clueless Left

Read more!

The Left [1] doesn't like the Tea Party; not one little bit.  No sirree bob!  They're, by God, extreme ultra right-wing fascists; violence waiting to happen.  They're a hate group.  And racists to boot.
The list goes on. [2]

The Institutional American Left, Conservatives and the Debt Ceiling Battle

Read more!

Our politicians are engaged -- not in debate but in ideological war over the conditions for raising America's debt ceiling.  A game of brinkmanship is being played out as the deadline (variously defined) approaches.  Both sides agree that the US credit rating hangs in the balance and that the ceiling must be raised.  At issue are government spending and taxes.  The Right is intent on reductions as a quid pro quo for an affirmative vote, and it has offered numerous good faith proposals, while the Left is equally intent on the continuation of deficit spending and raising taxes.  On the one hand, there is concern for putting the nation's fiscal house in order and on the other there is a real fear that the continuation of political power is at stake.

Obama vs. Arizona: It Begins

Read more!

Actually, it has already begun but so far without clear resolution.  I am referring to a definitive showdown between the central government and the states.  Conflict between the states and the federal government has been escalating for some time in the form of de facto nullification on the part of some states and the rapidly increasing evidence of contempt for constitutional limitations on the part of the federal government.
Perhaps the best-known current examples of nullification center around the refusal of states to enforce laws pertaining to immigration (sanctuary cities) and to state legalization of medical marijuana -- both in direct conflict with federal law.  Those issues have been before federal courts and found some legal resolution, generally favoring central government.  But federal court rulings against the states have had virtually no effect, and the liberal Washington political class has not evinced enthusiasm for enforcement of laws (especially immigration) when violations coincide with its political ambitions. (1) 

The Fundamental Significance of the Tea Party Phenomenon

Read more!

O.K., the title seems pretentious; the use of the word "fundamental" in context may suggest that I am laying claim to some special insight. Maybe, maybe not. That's for the reader to decide.
In short, I think what is most important in the Tea Party movement is unity; unity that transcends, and may ultimately overcome, the politically-driven balkanization of America. (1)
This unity, as I see it, is certainly not a lock-step agreement on most issues, but it seems clear that there is a consensus on certain principles, ideas and approaches strong enough to trump other areas of disagreement.  It is the unity suggested by e pluribus unum.

Alien Obama - Part II

Read more!

Given a provenance as dubious and murky as that of our current president, an antique would find no market among careful buyers. Matters of interest include his mentors, associates and academic and professional records. Yet we have invested the treasure and security of our nation in a cipher -- Barack Hussein Obama.
Who is this man? What do we know about him? By deliberate concealment the public record is scant, but to many of us the little that is known is in no way reassuring. What we do not know may be even less so.

"Birtherists" is the derisive term coined (presumably by the left) to mock citizens who have a legitimate interest in verifying the details of his birth. Elitists of all political stripes assert that the question is settled and to pursue it further is unworthy and smacks of conspiracy paranoia. Though attributed to the strawman malign far right, I believe the desire for definitive resolution has popular support.

The verification of Obama's birth alone, however, focuses much too narrowly. It is a proxy for a plethora of other information deliberately concealed or suppressed. The concealment of information, in itself, raises questions.

Those questions include troubling personal and political associations, lack of information (records, grades, papers) regarding his education, early trips to Pakistan and elsewhere in the Middle East, close connections with the Socialist party in Chicago, his communist mentor in Hawaii, the absence of written records.... The list goes on. Yes, these are things we have been able to learn, but only in the most superficial way. The president and persons with whom he was associated refuse to add probative detail. As many writers have already noted, Mr. Obama's record -- opaque as it is -- would disqualify him government employment requiring security clearance.

So in what way is President Obama an alien? I believe (despite K12, academe and the media) there remains a strong current of individualism, common sense and distrust of government among most Americans; core beliefs and opinions that are shared by the great majority but not by Mr. Obama and his cohort on the hard left. Two issues, for example, are the sanctity of life and the second amendment, but those differences with mainstream America are only ideological symptomatic of foreign worldview.

Therein, I believe, lies the clear disconnect that defines Obama as alien. In his speeches, actions, writing and thinking he has shown himself to be postmodernist, Eurocentric and elitist. He views The Constitution (which is at the heart of American values) as a malleable document that impedes the exercise of dirigiste government power. He is not a patriot in the deeply embedded American sense, seeing himself – as do all 'enlightened' persons – as “a citizen of the world”. How much at variance he is with the mainstream is suggested by a citation from the Washington Post:

Traditional values in the United States, Baker found, are very different than in other nations. Unlike nations where collective identity is based on common ancestry, in the United States, he wrote, the imagined community is "a shared set of ideas." These are the ideas of the Constitution: personal liberty, equality, democracy and the rule of law. America was invented, not inherited. Our traditional values don't come from the fatherland, the volk or an ancient regime. Nor are our most basic shared values a selection of moral positions held by conservative American Christians.
Seen in this way, it is clear that traditional American values are alive and well. Constitutional ideals have unchallenged legitimacy, as do the worth of family, religion (or spirituality) and national pride. This is a stark contrast to the countries that have radically rejected their traditional values: Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Japan and the former Eastern Bloc nations.

I close with an anecdotal reference that seems telling. Even allowing for the giddiness of campaign fatigue -- putting myself in the candidate's position -- I simply cannot imagine myself ever uttering the phrase, "57 states" or the revealing, "America as it should be."

Good Government? A Challenge to Readers (Revisited)

Read more!

This is a shot across the bow of the statist ship. Or perhaps a Socratic-style taunt. It poses, in any case, a question (or is it a thought-experiment?) that wants an answer.

This is a challenge that, given the wholly pernicious initiatives of the present administration -- healthcare reform, cap and trade, stimulus doles and nationalization of the private sector -- seems to have more urgent relevance than it did at the time of first posting.

The challenge is simple enough, really. It is this:

Cite an example of a serious problem in contemporary society -- social, political or economic -- that is not caused by or exacerbated by government.

.
To date this challenge has elicited few comments, and no satisfactory answers in any forum. But in this era of trope and chains -- well, who knows?.

Marxist Obama

Read more!

Which is simply calling a spade a spade. While I can only guess at Barack Obama's motives, and motivations -- who he is as a man -- what he is, behind the evanescent mask of language, is plain enough.

He is a Marxist. 1. To elaborate I would add, consequently anti-American 2. and devoutly anti-capitalist.

Now the president's liberal (and robot conservative) defenders will object to the term -- arguing, as is their custom, only at the margins -- but the evidence is plain enough. His earliest and subsequent associations point us toward making that judgment, but his words and the policies he favors can leave no doubt. Obama's policies and his stated intentions to re-shape America (the world, if it cooperates) reflect clearly those of Marxists past and present.

Besides definitional objections, certain 'conservatives' who carry the memes of the 60's (comity at any cost) will say there is nothing to be gained politically by using the term. That may be so, but, as the left amply demonstrates, denying the truth of a matter does not make the truth go away. Denial is a refuge of comfort, but it carries danger. 3.

I make my case by examining Mr. Obama's policies, pronouncements and actions in the context of his work.

Foreign Policy. Honduras provides a telling current example of the president's views. Here the president chooses to view the lawful (constitutional) ouster of President Zelaya as a coup. It is hard to imagine a reason other than his wish to preserve congenial relations with Zelaya's communist allies, the Castros and Hugo Chavez and his contempt for democratic government. The popular uprising against the theocracy in Iran -- a provocative sworn enemy of the US -- barely drew Obama's notice. He has been hostile toward toward the only fully functional democratic government in the Middle Easy and our traditional ally, Israel.

The US Economy. As famously and unintentionally revealed in a recorded statement to 'Joe-the-plumber' Mr. Obama believes that justice is achieved by the redistribution of wealth. He encourages class warfare by his words and taxation policies. He has seized private business, abrogated the sanctity of contracts by fiat and uses every means further to accrue power to the federal government. The obscene 'stimulus' package, the drive toward socialized medicine and the devotion to taxing by 'cap and trade' in response to the mythical anthropocentric global warming are designs to destroy the US economy. Obama's repeated claim that he intends to rebuild the economy "from the bottom up" fairly boggles the mind. Paving the Road to Serfdom is a shovel-ready job.

Obama's Church. Liberation Theology is a religious denomination created in Latin America about 50 years ago. It is the result of a Faustian bargain between leftist Catholics and Marxists designed to suit their mutual purposes. The publicized preachments of Rev. Wright
supported by his colleague, Father Pfleger, are not aberrations, but rather the mainstream of the politicized church. And doubtless congenial to Mr. Obama.

There is much more to be said about President Obama, but I want to confine myself to the case at hand. If he succeeds in his pernicious objectives -- domestic and foreign -- the future, as game theorists say, will cast no shadow.
--------
1. The matter of political definitions is not an easy one. It is complicated by the fact that Marxist nations and movements have, absent any structural or philosophical change, taken to calling themselves Socialist -- presumably because the term is seen as more benign. But by far the greater problem is the fact that no combination of political, social and economic systems and the ideas that drive them will precisely fit a general definition. I view Marxism as the political heritage of the theories of Marx: dialectical materialism, critical theory of capitalism and revolutionary theory. Ideas that form a consistent thread from Gramci to Alinsky. To be sure the lines between the various surviving forms of collectivism blur, but the Marxist strain -- the most virulent -- tends to unify them.
2. "American" in the sense of the Founders and of history through the middle of the last century. -The America he may be for is a Utopian construction, centrally planned.
3. Denying the existence of a threat -- small, medium or existential -- is to yield the means and readiness to combat it. A herpetologist who calls a rattlesnake by another name and attributes to it innocuous qualities is unlikely to enjoy a long career.
The avoidance of properly descriptive language often makes us feel safer. I was once a jury foreman in a murder case. The case was simple and the evidence clear, but one juror could not agree with the verdict. "I understand the evidence and the law, but when I look at the defendant I just can't believe he's a murder."

The Presidency: Above Obama's Pay Grade

Read more!

Last night's preemptive prime-time performance was an exercise in vagueness, evasion, dissembling and sophistry. He preached the liberal vision to the media choir, but he did not inform.

Perhaps the dog ate his homework. Whatever the case, He was clearly (and typically) unprepared with the facts or details ("specificity") of even the fundamental issues bearing on the healthcare (now called 'insurance') 1. reform he ardently advocates.

In his opening remarks he offered the standard complaints about the economy he inherited and congratulated himself on progress contradicted by evidence. The American economy, he asserted, cannot compete in this century; that's because we have not reaped the (illusory) windfall of good jobs that will inevitably follow from investments in clean energy. He went on to note poor graduation rates, how much money is spent on healthcare and claimed that his reforms would (somehow?) be an integral and essential part of a new, robust economy.

It is plain that Mr. Obama is comfortable with his grand, statist Utopian vision; less so that he understands economics, Western history, human nature writ large and individualism in contrast to collectivism. When he speaks the sheer breadth of his empirically incorrect assumptions is stunning.

Under certain circumstances, the President's rhetorical style -- speaking confidently in sweeping generalities, using class and group stereotyping, offering anecdotal strawmen to inspire sympathy or condemnation -- is effective. Those favorable circumstances consist, simply, in not being called to account. On the rare occasion that one of his generalities or assumptions is timidly challenged, he simply replies with more generalities and assumptions. Because he is quick to show a subtle, masked anger (a new meaning for 'bully pulpit'), he tends to intimidate those who question him.

Which brings us back to the press conference. The questions about healthcare reform remain not only unanswered but increasingly muddled.

A few observations.

In connection with costs Mr. Obama said they would not be borne "on the backs" of the middle class. That phrase is generally attested to collectivists who believe that the economy is a zero-sum game. It is not.

The president, using his customary anecdotal strawman, advanced the idea that physicians are driven by financial considerations (an unnecessary tonsillectomy) rather than the welfare of the patient. If that is true, what evidence do we have? An example of stereotyping and assumption.

Based on the information of record, the Cambridge police officer who arrested Prof. Henry Gates acted prudently, legally and with admirable restraint. Mr. Obama -- having admitted he didn't know the facts -- was quick to seize the moment to voice a litany of racial canards not apposite the case, and condemn (as chief law-enforcement officer) the intelligence, motives and lawful actions of Sgt. Jim Crowley. As is often the case, the Bible (if nothing else, an insightful and enduring study of the human condition) offers a terse and cogent bit of wisdom: He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him. 2. In the case at hand the presumption of shame may be without merit.

This press conference ('presser', now viral among media) demonstrates a significant contrast between Mr. Obama and recent former presidents. They were interested and in easy command of the issues at hand; he was not.
-----
1. Lexical morphing in the service of obfuscation

2. Prov. 18.13

Suicide by Government: The Obama-Kavorkian Connection

Read more!

Most readers will remember that Dr. Jack Kavorkian came to public notice because he was overtly engaged in the medical specialty of euthanasia. His clients, who were terminally ill and/or in constant, unbearable pain, engaged him to hasten their demise in a quick and humane manner. The courts ruled that his activity was illegal and ordered him to desist. He did not, and he was consequently imprisoned.

Mr. Obama and his party are similarly engaged, but with multiple “clients” – the American polity. Similarly, the plurality of that polity has entered a contract with government to assist them in the matter of assisted suicide. This analogy is sound but limited. When we broaden our examination we find notable differences between Dr. Kavorkian and the Obama government.
First, the polity is reasonably healthy and without severe pain. Second, the manner of death will be neither humane nor quick. Third, and most importantly, there is the matter of informed consent. Dr. Kavorkian, to his great credit, was careful in the extreme to ensure that those under his care (and their families) were perfectly informed regarding alternatives to suicide, and what could be expected in the final moments if they opted for death. And finally, the government will not be subject to prosecution.

We have proceeded from analogy to metaphor. Now, let us consider facts.
Security – economic, political and existential – has and continues to be aggressively undermined. We begin with economic security. The conceit of piety rather than the care of probity drives policies that are certain to weaken or destroy the economy. The wanton spending and printing money in the name of a litany of Utopian purposes seizes money from those who have earned it and distributes it among those who are content to live on government largesse in lieu of honest labor. Under current economic policy America is destined to become a third-world nation – Obamastan, if you like. Despite the stated intention of narrowing the gap between rich and poor, that gap will remain. But it will now be between a ruling bureaucratic aristocracy, on the one hand, and everyone else on the other. Worse than the loss of wealth will be the continuing and accelerating usurpation on personal liberty. Once liberty is surrendered the state will become totalitarian and ultimately murderous. (1)

In the matter of defense diplomatic and military decisions are being taken that make America appear weak in the eyes of our enemies. A posture of appeasement invites challenge from other nations on fronts military, political and economic. The most immediate threat, Islam (2), seems to have escaped this administration's notice; or, perhaps, they seek the comfort of denial. In either case failure to confront aggression in the Middle East serves only to encourage it. (3)

Voting for the services of Dr. Obama seems to have been unwise.

(1) The reader may ask if I am not taking an eschatological view of the world. I would reply that one has only to glance over his shoulder at recent history to note the appalling number of deaths in totalitarian (esp. Socialist/Communist) states. Excluding Nazi Germany, a million times 149.

(2) I use 'Islam' rather than the PC circumlocutions such as, 'Islamist', 'Militant Islam', etc. Diana West has a good article on the matter of corrupted language and the assertion of the right to free speech.

(3) It is vital that we recognize that Islam, in particular, is the natural and enduring enemy of liberty and democratic forms of government that flow from it and – ideally – support it. Where Islam does not threaten violence, it is corrosive to representative government (as we see clearly in Western Europe and increasingly in America).