If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
This is why I don’t want the U.S. to turn into just another European nation. Because their status quo is unsustainable. And because, when I look north, I see what happens when a North American country plays euro-wannabe.
Would that all conservative pundits stood strong (Parker, Noonan, Buckley) like Mark Steyn.
McCain vs Obama is not the choice many of us would have liked in an ideal world. But then itâ€™s not an â€œideal worldâ€, and the belief that it can be made so is one of the things that separates those who think Obama will â€œheal the planetâ€ and those of us who support McCain faute de mieux. I agree with Thomas Sowell that an Obama-Pelosi supermajority will mark what he calls â€œa point of no returnâ€. It would not be, as some naysayers scoff, â€œJimmy Carterâ€™s second termâ€, but something far more transformative. The new president would front the fourth great wave of liberal annexation â€” the first being FDRâ€™s New Deal, the second LBJâ€™s Great Society, and the third the incremental but remorseless cultural advance when Reagan conservatives began winning victories at the ballot box and liberals turned their attention to the other levers of the society, from grade school up. The terrorist educator William Ayers, Obamaâ€™s patron in Chicago, is an exemplar of the last model: forty years ago, he was in favor of blowing up public buildings; then he figured out it was easier to get inside and undermine them from within.
All three liberal waves have transformed American expectations of the state. The spirit of the age is: Ask not what your country can do for you, demand it. Why canâ€™t the government sort out my health care? Why canâ€™t they pick up my mortgage?
In his first inaugural address, Calvin Coolidge said: â€œI favor the policy of economy, not because I wish to save money, but because I wish to save people.â€ Thatâ€™s true in a more profound sense than he could have foreseen. In Europe, lavish social-democratic government has transformed citizens into eternal wards of the nanny state: the bureaucracyâ€™s assumption of every adult responsibility has severed Continentals from the most basic survival impulse, to the point where unaffordable entitlements on shriveled birth rates have put a question mark over some of the oldest nation states on earth. A vote for an Obama-Pelosi-Barney Frank-ACORN supermajority is a vote for a Europeanized domestic policy that is, as the eco-types like to say, â€œunsustainableâ€.
More to the point, the only reason why Belgium has gotten away with being Belgium and Sweden Sweden and Germany Germany this long is because Americaâ€™s America. The soft comfortable cocoon in which western Europe has dozed this last half-century is girded by cold hard American power. What happens when the last serious western nation votes for the same soothing beguiling siren song as its enervated allies?
â€œPeople of the world,â€ declared Senator Obama sonorously at his self-worship service in Germany, â€œlook at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one.â€
No, sorry. History proved no such thing. In the Cold War, the world did not stand as one. One half of Europe was a prison, and in the other half far too many people â€” the Barack Obamas of the day â€” were happy to go along with that division in perpetuity. And the wall came down not because â€œthe world stood as oneâ€ but because a few courageous people stood against the conventional wisdom of the day. Had Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan been like Helmut Schmidt and Francois Mitterand and Pierre Trudeau and Jimmy Carter, the Soviet empire (notwithstanding its own incompetence) would have survived and the wall would still be standing. Senator Obamaâ€™s feeble passivity will get you a big round of applause precisely because itâ€™s the easy option: Do nothing but hold hands and sing the easy listening anthems of one-worldism, and the planet will heal.
To govern is to choose. And sometimes the choices are tough ones. When has Barack Obama chosen to take a stand? When he got along to get along with the Chicago machine? When he sat for 20 years in the pews of an ugly neo-segregationist race-baiting grievance-monger? When he voted to deny the surviving â€œfetusesâ€ of botched abortions medical treatment? When in his short time in national politics he racked up the most liberal â€“ ie, the most doctrinaire, the most orthodox, the most reflex â€” voting record in the Senate? Or when, on those many occasions the questions got complex and required a choice, he dodged it and voted merely â€œpresentâ€?
The world rarely stands as one. You can, as Reagan and Thatcher did, stand up. Or, like Obama voting â€œpresentâ€, you can stand down.
Nobody denies that, in promoting himself from â€œcommunity organizerâ€ to the worldâ€™s President-designate in nothing flat, he has shown an amazing and impressively ruthless single-mindedness. But the path of personal glory has been, in terms of policy and philosophy, the path of least resistance.
Peggy Noonan thinks a President Obama will be like the dog who chases the car and finally catches it: Now what? I think Obama will be content to be King Barack the Benign, Spreader of Wealth and Healer of Planets. His rise is, in many ways, testament to the persistence of the monarchical urge even in a two-century old republic. So the â€œNow what?â€ questions will be answered by others, beginning with the liberal supermajority in Congress. And as he has done all his life he will take the path of least resistance. An Obama Administration will pitch America toward EU domestic policy and UN foreign policy. Thomas Sowell is right: It would be a â€œpoint of no returnâ€, the most explicit repudiation of the animating principles of America. For a vigilant republic of limited government and self-reliant citizens, it would be a Declaration of Dependence.
See also Pete Du Pont on the “Europeanization” of America and what an Obama presidency might look like.
If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at email@example.com.
A question posed in the comments section of a recent blog by our beloved critic and friend of this blog, Raisin, prompted us to write a series of questions that ended up far larger than we intended. These, then, are a series of inconvenient questions we, in turn, would like to pose to the liberal-left (or angry left or loony left, whatever), netroots, Democrats in Congress and certain Republican Senators. You’ll excuse us if they are (mostly) rhetorical.
We start, therefore, with Raisin’s question.
Must we or anyone watch every film Moore produces? Who is Michael Moore that every American should watch and value his opinion? Does anyone believe that the lies of earlier films give this one or any future film any degree of credibility whatsoever? Do you really believe that 9/11 was a Bush/CIA/Mossad/Oil conspiracy to get us into a shooting war? Do you really believe that Bush lied about intelligence to get us to go to war? And this, despite the overwhelming amount of intelligence supporting his decision? And the overwhelming support of everyone in Congress (including the dems)? And the overwhelming popular support?
Should we listen to Moore or anyone else just because he hates President Bush and opposes the current war? Is that enough? Is our credibility standard so low? Is it possible that we are so disenchanted with the current administration that we will listen to anyone who opposes Bush? Is this why the loony left likes Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez or believes Kim Jong Il and Ahmadinejad, simply because they too hate George W. Bush?
Has the Patriot Act denied you any freedoms or infringed on your privacy? Have you or anyone you know lost any of their civil rights? Has the economic boom of the last 4 years put you in a tighter financial spot than you were in under Clinton? Have Bush’s “tax cuts for the rich” made you poorer? Has free trade cost you your job?
So, you didn’t think we should have gone to war, do you think leaving now will erase that “mistake?” Do you really think things will get better? That Al-Qaeda wont thrive in the vacuum or launch new terror attacks from its new hom in Iraq? Or Iran? Or that Shiites wont kill Sunnis and Sunnis kill Shiites? Or that the Kurds wont declare independence and cause war with another American ally, Turkey? In sum, do you honestly believe that American withdrawal wont result in complete regional chaos?
Do you really believe that the loss of life in Iraq since the war began will be anywhere near the loss of life if American troops withdraw prematurely? Have you learned nothing from America’s history of retreat in Vietnam, Beirut, or Somalia? Do you think that the EU or the UN will help guarantee world peace and safety–like they did in Rwanda (oh wait, bad example) or finally did in the former Yugoslavia (oh wait, that was largely the US that solved that “european” problem) after more than 250,000 people had been killed or they are now doing in Darfur? For those of you who think we should be doing more in Darfur: how can you ignore the logic of your argument in favor of intervening in Darfur while also arguing for withdrawal in Iraq? Aren’t we even more responsible to the people of Iraq?
Do you really believe that European hate of America is anything new, that it started with George W. Bush? Are you familiar with the “peace” movement of the ’70’s and ’80’s? Or perhaps the opposition to Reagan’s attempts to win the Cold War? Or, to take another tack and put you in their shoes, if you owed your WWI and WWII liberation (and subsequent loss of power and prestige) and winning of the Cold War and the brunt of fighting Islamofascism to another country and people, wouldn’t your initial gratitude also turn into resentment?
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at firstname.lastname@example.org.