If you want to be shocked you must read this article by  Stephen Prothero, a professor [I guess. It just says he chairs a department] at Boston University who describes a US which is fighting a losing battle to justify its Christianity which is withering away. This is not the usual Liberal attempt to relegate religion to obscurity; rather it seeks to create a history of a US steadily changing in its spiritual beliefs and the picture drawn is just plain weird.

Firstly, according to Prothero, Nazism and Fascism gave Christianity such a bad name that we as a nation took to calling ourselves Christian -Judeo after WWII as opposed to just Christian. Now I have read alot of history, and am familiar with the charges against the Church regarding their lack of effort against Hitler, but NEVER have I seen a statement like this.  I am not even sure what it's significance is within the context of Prothero's attempt to demonstrate the widening of the religious tent in the US since this would only seem to be a cosmetic change.

Next he says after 9/11 the inclusion of Islamic references, which had begun before that date, only increased, so that we have become a Christian -Judeo-Islamic nation , or what he calls Abrahamic, since all trace back to Abraham and share monotheism and certain other characteristics.

So according to his theory  we have in the last 60 years gone from Christian to Abrahamic with all that implies which for him means that we are denying the Buddhists, Hindu's and other non-Abrahamic religions their rightful due. in his words:

Or, as Supreme Court Justice William Douglas put it in 1965, we are “a nation of Buddhists, Confucianists, and Taoists, as well as Christians.”

That's right people, the 85% of this country that is Christian is just another sect among all the others, which we are oppressing by refusing to acknowlege their existence and importance. Rather we are lamely holding onto the fiction that Christianty holds a special position in our nation.  Prothero is sure that this is futile and with time all these other faiths will demand and get their rightful place at the table.
 
As for me, I am not sure if I find this depiction more disturbing or the attempt to deny all religions which I have come to understand as the Liberal position. That at least is consistent with 250 years of Leftist ideology, while this rewriting of history and refusal to accept the fact that the vast majority of this nation is Christian seems more than delusional, it almost seems like a psychotic break with reality.  

While the ignorance of this hypothesis is self evident, the fact  that it is being made by a guy who chairs a religion department at a major university and is appearing on the WaPo website means it cannot just be brushed off. I guess we have to consider it another front in the multicultural war as academia again spins from whole cloth "truths" with no basis in fact.  In the meantime enjoy Christmas which I guess only a few of us celebrate anymore.

This article from American Thinker reports how money given for tsunami relief actually wound up being used to enforce Muslim laws, including the lashing of women for violations of Sharia law.

The point is that as moral and uplifting as it is to give charity, there are instances where it is counterproductive if not downright antithetical to our interests and values. Subsidizing  a militant Muslim government as in this case is an obvious instance of this paradox, but it is hardly alone.  Supplying food to North Korea is something that has never made sense to me, as it props up a government which is threatening to spread nuclear weapons throughout the world.

Yes, it is horrible to see those people suffer, but are we doing them or us any favors by helping to maintain an authoritarian regime that oppresses them while endangering us? Regardless of what some say, I believe a people should be held responsible for their governments, whether they voted them into office like Hamas, or they just accept them docilely like in North Korea.

If the population arose in revolt even Kim Jong Il would have to take notice, as did the Ukrainian leaders during the "orange" revolution. Yes, it will be difficult to get citizens who have lived under a  dictatorship to express their outrage, but starvation is one of those motivators that might just work. We won't know until we stop providing food which is used to pacify the people and keep them servile.

The point is that charity should not be a knee jerk response which ignores the government that is receiving it because it is for the "people".  As hard as it is for Liberals to understand, the rulers always wind up benefitting from any kind of aid, and it is usually to our's and their people's detriment. Like our military policies which seek to prevent short term disruptions and damage and instead cause  long term havoc, our charity is often shortsighted and results in consequences which can be more harmful than those which we sought to ameliorate. It's time to be more responsible, even if in the world's eyes we seem callous.

As proof that some things never change,  France has decided that fighting the Taliban is a little too tough, and is withdrawing it's 200 troops [part of a 38,000 man Nato Force ] from an Afghan city [see article ].
 
This is probably not surprising to anyone who has studied French history, which has demonstrated over and over again that the country had made  a speciality out of surrendering at the first sight of just about any other nation's military, even if they are just parading, but to retreat out of fear of the Taliban has to be  a new low.

If they collapse before an enemy that is still fighting on horseback, against whom, exactly, is their military prepared to fight?  I guess their strategy is for preparing against an attack by aboriginal forces using sling shots and blow darts [ though if they use curare the enemy has an excellent chance of occupying Paris. After all, just about everyone else has].

To quote the story:

France has been reluctant to have its forces in Afghanistan, a total of 1,100 troops, serve outside the relatively safe Afghan capital, Kabul.

There you have it. The leader of the new Europe and proponent of developing a countervailing world force to US power is the country you want with you in a foxhole as long as it is safe and you cannot be attacked there. And this is the country Liberals look to for international cooperation in the war on Terror. Unbelievable.

John McWhorter is one of the most perceptive commentators on race in America today, and his independent , almost iconoclastic , ideas reflect a growing black  viewpoint that includes Shelby Steele, Juan Wiliams , Larry Elders and  perhaps the most preeminent of them all, Thomas Sowell.

In a great article Mr. McWhorter takes a look at the Sean Bell affair in NYC, where the usual demagogues are shouting "racism" regarding the killing of Bell by police in a hail of bullets, and finds a different picture entirely. As opposed to the knee jerk Liberal response , he shows that , while it has to be investigated, it is not that unusual or unreasonable  for young black males to be treated with great caution by the authorities given historical and practical facts and their behavior.

Regarding that behavior, McWhorter does what he does best, and that is dissect and critique what black culture has come to accept as "normal" which includes the idea that regular jobs are an exception and that making a living selling drugs is acceptable.  Using historical facts as well as observations and pragmatism, McWhorter indicts black behavior for normalizing activity that other races would never accept.

And he especially criticizes the "identity" politics of the  Black leadership which would rather blame racism than look at the true, underlying causes of the problems confronting their people, an accusation I have made in a previous post. 

As an extremely intelligent Black writer, Mr. McWhorters conservative views are especially trenchant and probably carry more weight with the Black establishment and hopefully rank and file than if he were White. I hope so, for his insight and prescriptions are what Black society need to move beyond the Liberal plantation of ideology they have been stuck on for decades and finally give them the freedom and opportunity that will come from both being held responsible for their actions while at the same time enjoying the fruits of their efforts and talents.

 In considering the crusades waged by Liberalism today, a complex of policies and beliefs can really be reduced to simple animosity towards the successful  who have accumulated wealth and the religious. Everything else ,as the the saying goes, is commentary. The Left wages a constant battle against these groups as it seeks to create a better world, and oddly enough, for a party of progress, this is the same war they have been engaged in since their founding.

To understand this, you must realize the Enlightenment was a reaction to the corruption and overwhelming power of the most influential  institution in Western Europe, the Catholic Church. As such it was the  intellectual offspring of the Reformation which also attempted to cleanse policies it found offensive, such as the granting of indulgences.
 
Many believe the rediscovery of the works of the Greek philosophers set off the Renaissance which led to the Enlightenment, but St. Aquinas was mulling Aristotle in the 13th century, much before Italy flowered with the "Rebirth". No, those works were around a long time before they were used to justify a secular approach to the world which sought to negate Papal influence. That time came with the Enlightenment.

 Rousseau, Voltaire, Diderot , Montaigne and others came to see the Catholic Church as a problem which had to be removed before man's lot could be improved. Their work continued on that of Erasmus and others who ,while not quite so blatant, also began to do what was unthinkable: question ecclesiastical teachings.

Using the only force powerful enough to confont faith, Reason, they began to build the intellectual construct which came to  secularize life, in the process establishing liberties and freedoms where none had ever been contemplated. As they continued, they ran up against the other foundation of the medieval caste society which constrained men, the Aristocracy, and so it, too, became a target in their crosshairs against which they used the concept of equality as ammunition.

With the success of the French Revolution the Church and Aristocracy were basically outlawed as a Utopia was sought through raw mob Democracy tempered by the Reason of the Intelligentsia. Sound familiar?

Over the decades many specifics have changed, but this obsession with religion and wealth,  which today includes Big Business, still hold center stage for the modern descendants of the Revolution, our Liberals. Religion which once had been opposed for its corruption has become the embodiment of absolute values and ethics which is anathema to the social engineering so near and dear to a Leftist's heart. 

Business as representative of success and wealth accumulation is the obstacle to the Liberal quest for the elimination of all inequities, something they never seem to realize is as natural to man as his instinct for survival. It is always so curious to me that a group that will forgo energy independence to preserve the natural habitat of a caribou seems to think man's nature is made of silly putty, able to be stretched into any shape they want.  The party that trumpets the omniscence of Darwinian evolution  nevertheless believes it can ignore it in constructing society. Someone will have to explain that to me someday.

And so, as I said at the beginning of this piece, the party that prides itself on it's progressive beliefs and ever onward spirit of  accomplishment actually is stuck in the mindset of 250 years ago as it continues to wage a war against ancient enemies.  If they believe Iraq is a mistake because it has taken over 3 years, perhaps it is time they realized their campaign against faith and accomplishment  is a study in futility.

Fred Barnes is reporting that Bush is reviewing a plan put together by experts which redirects the policy in Iraq. No, it's not that  plan, but rather one formulated by military experts [what a quaint idea-asking  people who know something about warfare, as opposed to a motley crew of accomplished individuals with next to no such expertise].

According to Barnes the gist of the new strategy is increasing troop levels substantially, and using them to pacify and hold Baghdad, something which we have not been able to do in the past due to limited manpower.
[ Frederick Kagan , one of the authors of the new study, has posted it here for anyone who wants more detail].

After Baghdad is secured and sectarian violence contained it is believed that the establishment of a national government can continue and the political part of the process can finally be successful.

Now this is certainly not a new approach, and many have been amazed we haven't done it sooner. In fact, this is much more in line with the kind of policy espoused by Shelby Steele  [ see post ] which recognizes our responsibility to finish what we start as opposed to the half hearted efforts that result from our refusal to accept our hegemonic role.  As nice as it is to think we can allow the Iraqis to take it from here, that is delusional and suicidal to believe and it is up to us to provide the power to recreate this country.

Inevitably there will arise the clamor from those who say this is exactly the opposite of the approach of the ISG, which calls for us to assume an increasing training role and the Iraqis doing the legwork. Well I can't think of a better vote of confidence in a plan than to have it compared unfavorably with that travesty of bipartisanship.

The key question is why would Bush do this now when he has resisted in the past? I think he knows we are down to the "put up or shut time", and with his Presidency winding down and no elections for two years he , hopefully, will make the judgment that it is now or never if his vision  of the Middle East is ever to be given a fighting chance. We have this one last chance before the Liberals and their allies can begin their effort to emasculate us once again and appease the Islamic Terrorists by having us withdraw with our tail between our legs. We have to make this count or risk the trauma to our national psyche that many of us remember after Vietnam. When faced with a determined enemy we cannot allow that to happen.

As opposed to the ISG report which is idealism and fantasy falsely packaged as Realist because of the reputation of its leaders, this article by Doug Bandow detailing a non -military strategy for responding to North Korea's nuclear threat shows what "realism" in foreign affairs actually should look like.

Bandow's idea is not new, but rather an elaboration of the "tit for tat" approach which others have bandied about but I have never heard fleshed out as well as here. Simply put, we have to get the Chinese to deal with North Korea for only they have the leverage to do so without firing a shot. To do this we have to align the Chinese interests with ours, which means giving them a vested interest in seeing that North Korea not go nuclear which is stronger than their fear of collapse of that country's regime which will flood their country with a tidal wave of immigrants. It is the belief that , like many extremely weak authoritarian governments, if Korea cannot constantly increase its military capabilities it has a good chance of falling as it's people lose faith in the only thing it seems to do well.

To accomplish this redirecting of the Chinese interests, Bandow goes farther than most, and suggests the US pull back it's nuclear umbrella while giving a tacit green light to the development of nuclear weapons by not only the Japanese, but also the South Koreans and Taiwanese. This should give the Chinese the same warm fuzzy feeling that North Korea is causing us, and hopefully the game of chicken would end with the North Koreans being put in their place by their Beijing masters.

Bandow also points out how so far the administration has taken the exact opposite tack and overtly reconfirmed our protection of our Asian Allies, a noble but morally and diplomatically wrong gesture which is placing us in a worse position than ever to play hardball with the North and Chinese and thus increases the probability of Kim Jong Il brandishing the Bomb. It's so stupid it almost sounds like it was designed by the ISG.

And that gets me back to my main point. Contrast this tough assessment of how to change the dynamics of Asia through the only thing that matters to most countries, their national self interests, to the useless guidelines recommended for pacifying the Middle East, among which is ending the Israel- Palestine Conflict [it's only been going on for 60 years!] and negotiating with the Iranians and Syrians based on their perceived interests in the region which includes reducing the chaos and violence in Iraq. This pie in the sky , Hail Mary attempt at diplomacy overlooks that Syria and Iran are a major cause of said turmoil, and assuming they want to stop it is almost incomprehensible.

Let's not even bring up the  implicit timetable for troop withdrawal, which they then denounce as dangerous for the region. This report is thus not even consistent within its own absurdist Universe, but this is to be expected from a "bipartisan", essentially political effort to wage a war.

If we are going to go the "realist route" as opposed to the "idealism" of fostering democracy , then we better get people who understand conditions on the ground as well as human nature, things the ISG seem to be totally oblivious to, and who are willing to play "tough" and not subscribe to the "feel good" diplomacy which wishes and hopes a lot while seeking to alienate no one, but has no chance of succeeding. Maybe Mr. Bandow should have headed the ISG. Or better yet, maybe he should have been the only member.

 In comparing the Left and Right views of Barack Obama as always I am amazed at the Liberal tendency to twist reality to serve their purposes, while the Conservative perspective is presented in an analytical and logical fashion which arrives at a reasonable conclusion.  Yes, I am not exactly an objective observer, but by contrasting two articles I think this point will be amply demonstrated.

Rosa Brooks of the LA Times has written a fawning paean which is almost Messianic in its emotion, and which seems to come to the conclusion that for him NOT to be President is absurd. If you read her reasoning however you might find it less than persuasive.

For Brooks, Obama's lack of campaign experience is more than made up by the fact that his growing up part Black exposed him to trying times. I am not making this up- for Parks this is logic. As for the fact  that he has only been in the Senate for two years, well that's a good thing. In her own inimitable words:

Obama bashers now complain that his two years in the U.S. Senate have been largely devoid of shock and awe. That's not a bad thing. Obama wisely hasn't tried to hog the limelight; instead, he's focused on issues that are unsexy but important.

Yes you read correctly, he just didn't want to hog the limelight, or else perhaps he would have ended the war in Iraq or at least balanced the budget. I know I much prefer the humble to the successful legislator.

When she does mention one of his "important initiatives" she discusses his work with Richard Lugar [thereby cleverly showing his bipartisanship- Rosa you are subtle!] to step up US programs to control or destroy conventional weapons, which she points out are the real problem in the world, not WMD's [perhaps her credibility is beginning to fade if she thinks a nuke and a bullet are comparable?]. Now what these programs are is left undescribed, and in fact all he has done is helped get them "stepped up" whatever that means. I may be cynical, but I am just not impressed.

Unfortunately all that she says about his other legislative efforts is that he has shown a "similar steady commitment". Again, what does that mean? We are not to find out from Ms. Brooks, who finally equates experience with charisma as being "overrated". I guess she prefers her Presidents boring and unprepared [she must have LOVED Jimmy Carter!].

Now we come to what I found the most amusing section, where she tries to get around Obama'a lack of experience by saying that is not really a problem because President's really only have to learn on the job, listen, and appoint good people, but I guess she realized that this sort of undermines Liberal criticism of Bush so she stipulates that they can't know nothing about everything,  and therefore successfully covers her tracks. Ah these Liberal pundits are slippery aren't they? Just when you thought you had them dead to rights they cleverly escape by- well, by reciting nonsense which contradicts what they were trying to prove. A clever ploy don't you think?

Finally , she mentions how impressed NH people were who attended his book signing, and ends with:

So why not Obama? Contrary to what his detractors suggest, he can offer prose as well as poetry, and this country desperately needs both.

Yes folks, what we have been really missing is a good Poet in Chief wielding iambic pentameter verse in the War on Terror. Is that even covered by the Geneva Conventions? And is Maya Angelou available for Secretary of Defense?   Thank you Rosa for enlightening us as to our true needs.

Peggy Noonan on the other hand has written an article which is much more mundane and lowkey, not espousing good poetry or the hardships of an interracial upbringing. Instead she just points out that:

What does he believe? What does he stand for? This is, after all, the central question. When it is pointed out that he has had almost--almost--two years in the U.S. Senate, and before that was an obscure state legislator in Illinois, his supporters compare him to Lincoln. But Lincoln had become a national voice on the great issue of the day, slavery. He rose with a reason. Sen. Obama's rise is not about a stand or an issue or a question; it is about Sen. Obama. People project their hopes on him, he says.

In other words, he is a canvass on which his doting admirers can paint whatever picture they want because he really has accomplished little, and he says even less, preferring grand sounding generalities that make you feel good while really offering nothing of substance, sort of like a "healthy meal" from a fast food restaurant. 

He offers all things to all people [well maybe not Conservatives, but you cannot please everyone] but says really nothing about anything. His confidence is really in his destiny as opposed to his ideas or stands on issues.  He is a hope and not really a candidate, but Noonan realizes we are in a position where that may unfortunately be enough.

There you have a quick overview,and I hope you read the articles to get more depth, but my point remains: in comparing these two  one cannot help but be struck by the Liberal contortions, some of which are pretty funny, some of which are nonsensical, which are necessary to arrive at a conclusion that they seem to have arrived at regardless of facts, which really do get in the way. At the same time the Conservative viewpoint, while it may not be completely objective, remains consistent with the facts and arguments ,which are consistent with each other, that are elicited to support it. Just as a study in logic, the Conservative paper is much more effective, while the Liberal one offers comic relief. As depictions of a man who could be President of the United States,  well if that's the best the Left has to offer Hillary Clinton should be one happy lady.

  "No state can make its own actions legitimate in the eyes of others. When power, especially military force, is used, the world will consider it legitimate only when convinced that it is being used for the right purpose—for broadly shared aims—in accordance with broadly accepted norms."
 
These are some of Kofi Annan'a parting words regarding  US foreign policy, and for me they summarize the Liberal mindset perfectly: only if you get the approval of others can your decisions be correct. Yes, he says legitimate in others' eyes, but the underlying message is that theirs is the only legitimacy that counts since if we all decide that for ourselves there would be anarchy. The mob therefore is the arbiter of truth, pretty much the operating philosophy of the French Revolution, that iconic moment that has spawned more death and destruction than any other single event in history through its authoritarian descendants. Sounds like a role model for me!

If you think about it, all old Kofi is saying is that the jury gives the final verdict, and guilt and innocence, truth or falsity, is just something they decide based on their normative [or maybe not so normative] values. It's just Liberal relativism in different words.

And as we have found in such classic cases as O.J.Simpson, sometimes a jury's definition of truth doesn't seem to hit the mark, but then again, what is truth?  For Liberals, truth is what the majority says it is.

Therefore for a Liberal, and the UN is just the institutionalization of their beliefs writ large, unless you can convince all those other hundreds of countries, each weighing their own interests, that your policy is "correct" , your efforts are "wrong" and illegitimate and have to be undermined.

Now there are reasons to seek international support for your foreign policy, among which is sharing the logistical and military burdens, but to believe that you need the validity bestowed by majority acclaim is as stupid as believing the Sun circled the Earth until Copernicus convinced the masses that it was the other way around. The truth was always there; Copernicus' fight was with the ignorance of the masses, as in our case it is with the stupidity and /or self interest of other nations.

So as Bush continues to wage a war the rest of the world eschews, we should remember that its righteousness doesn't depend on China or Russia or France, but what we believe to be in our's and the world's best interest. The majority rule for establishing legitimacy is a tool which is  used in many contexts, but the greatest leaps forward for civililzation have been made when a single person has refused to accept what most believed to be true, and found the actual truth which others eventually  came to accept . Truth is real, and only history will tell us if our choice was correct, not the votes of a bunch of envious countries.

Senator Bill Nelson has met with the Syrian President in apparently open defiance of the policy that the Administration is following [see article ]. He claims others, including Republicans, are to follow, and if they do they will all be wrong and damaging the US's efforts to stabilize the Middle East.

The Constitution gives the Executive Branch the right to control foreign policy, and by obviously indicating that there are internal rifts and disagreements, Nelson has given  Syria and perhaps Iran hope that they can convince us to negotiate with them, something which would absolutely be in our worst interests [see excellent post by V. D. Hanson here ]. 

And the pilgrimage of an American Senator on bended knee asking Arabs for help will only feed the narcissistic delusions  and confidence of the Islamic fanatics who are waging war against us.

Yes the MSM is all too ready to announce to the world that these divisions on policy exist, but by traveling to Damascus Nelson has given them that much more credence, and is encouraging a nation which is supporting the insurgency in Iraq and is therefore our enemy. This is disgraceful and while there is apparently nothing that can be done about it, I hope the people of Florida are paying attention  for they are the only ones who can eventually punish him.

Hillary Clinton continues to methodically assemble the pieces for her Presidential run, now adding a strategist who specializes in wooing evangelicals and social values voters to the Democratic party. How very spiritual of her.

According to the article, Clinton has "always" been a religious person who even attended prayer  group meetings as First Lady . Wow, I find that so impressive. I know I am convinced.

What's that you say. How is this reflected in her policies and programs?C'mon,  is that really  important? Can't we just take her at her word. After all, she is religious, so she wouldn't lie, would she?

The article also pointed out that Kerry, too, among other Dems, is busy burnishing his spiritual side, and getting the message out that he believed in God before he seemed to stop...well whatever.

Getting past all the announcements and strategizing and prostrations before various altars, I do think it will be interesting to see how all these Liberals who blanche at the thought of government support for faith based initiatives and become hysterical at the sight of the Ten Commandments hanging in a government building are going to demonstrate their religiosity. As the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding no matter how many strategist you have spinning for you in the media.

Will Democrats now become anti abortion, or anti Gay marriage, two keystone issues that many evangelical Americans use to discern those who are spiritual from those who aren't? I don't see that happening, do you?

More likely, they will try to impress us with a version of Liberation theology. For those who don't remember, that was the Leftist theological attempt to make Christianity "pertinent" in Latin America in the 80's. In place of sacraments and Jesus it substituted socialistic policies for the poor with the message that helping the destitute was the real work of the Church. All the rest was just window covering I guess.

This approach has been tried by Liberals here, as when they "preach" that income redistribution and entitlement programs are certainly in the spirit of Christian teaching.  Expect this to be magnified over the next two years, as suddenly every Liberal initiative suddenly is hailed as a revelation from the Holy Spirit.

Will the American people buy this repackaging of the same old Democratic "wine" in a new skin? Will we be willing to overlook their espousal of killing fetuses to empower women,  or destroying the traditional family to empower Gays as they insist their motives are holy and sacred?  Will we point out that as religious as they claim to be they seem to have an aversion to the word "God", and seem uncomfortable in it's presence? Will we stand idly by while they hijack the concept of spirituality for their own uses,  completely distorting it's meaning while engaging in the same double speak that allows them to say "We support the troops but not the War"? Will we allow them to say "We support religion without recognizing the sacredness of Life or the Mystery of the Divine"? 

There is more to being religious than making an appearance in Church every now and then, and the fact that the Libs don't understand this, and need a strategist to guide them,  shows how far off the mark they really are. And now we get to watch them as they try to convince us otherwise.

Nile Gardiner , who is always informative to listen to or read, has absolutely excoriated Kofi Annan in an article which leaves no rock unturned in revealing the harm this man has done due either to inepitude or worse.  While I usually seek to analyze or add something to the information I reference, this is such a comprehensive piece that I am just presenting it to you to enjoy. If you think as highly of Annan and The UN as I do, I have no doubt you will.

 In my ongoing effort to understand the enemy, recently I have been contemplating the Liberal infatuation with “groups”, categorizing people by what they perceive to be commonality of interests, whether it be Black, females, Gays, or whatever. This Group Think mentality I have always ascribed to their effort to eliminate friction in society by removing individual traits, with the added benefit that it helps them to target their constituencies. However, recently I have begun to realize that it is more than that, much more. If I am right, it is the key to their governing philosophy, and if it is threatened they recognize their Big Government philosophy is doomed.

To follow my reasoning, first it must be realized that effective laws are predicated on the consensus of a large part of the population, hence things like murder, robbery, rape and other major crimes are no brainers. Up until the 20^th century, these were the kind of laws we had, and government was relatively small and constrained. Most Americans were treated as individual units, and common interests were relatively few, so forging laws was difficult.

With the Depression suddenly there was a huge poor population with needs, and the Liberal mentality of Big government offering solutions arose to answer the call of these people. FDR’s administration saw the birth of Liberalism as we understand it today, and for that he will forever be remembered, for good or bad.

After the war, with the demise of the destitute masses, Liberals latched on to the Black population and began applying their paternalism to another group which demanded action for inequities that affected most of them. The civil right actions of the 1970’s was the result.

However, as the Black population began to diversify , the Liberals realized that they had to define new groups who had mutual needs which were easily definable, or trying to pass laws and government programs would become difficult if not impossible. Developing laws for a nation of individualists is harder than herding cats, and unless the Liberals could create new block constituencies that were "victims" needing to be saved they could see the era of big government fade.

So they latched unto women, as if all females share the same needs and aspirations, other ethnic minorities, Gays and just about any other group that they could convince should “stick together” for the cause, whatever that was. Again, aside from finding voters, this driving urge to group people into categories with actuarial precision and identify their “needs” allowed Liberals to perpetuate Big Government by providing the critical mass needed to pass more and more arcane laws.

As a result of this, Liberals fear the fracturing of any of their "victim" constituencies, and so when a Michael Steele threatens to show Blacks they do not all have the same goals or dreams, Dems immediately go on the offensive to disparage him. After all, think how many government programs and laws have arisen from addressing perceived Black needs, and imagine if suddenly they were not a source for Liberals to tap into to justify affirmative action , quotas and more educational spending.

And the day women are treated as individuals as opposed to a group is the day the rationale for a female Supreme Court Justice, representing “Women’s Views” becomes an anachronism, relegated to the dustbin of historical nonsense. Consider the good job Ginsberg does representing conservative females today and you begin to understand that the invented need for a female justice is based on a farce.

And so the party which nominally espouses personal liberty and freedom and the value of the individual finds itself needing blocks of victims all identified as having the same needs and wants to justify and implement its big Government beliefs. Torn by this internal struggle Liberals, like many mentally tormented people, manifest contradictory and destructive behavior as they seek to reconcile that which cannot be conjoined, fearing the day that our individualism once again relegates them to obscurity, supplanted by Conservatism's gospel of limited government. When there are no more  group "victims", the need for Liberals will be no more.

 

To recap a hectic two weeks, William [$90,000 in the freezer] Jefferson, who everybody expects to be indicted, won reelection with 57% of the vote, Gerry  Studds was eulogized  by his Congressional compatriots as a champion of the environment and gay equality [see article ] ,  which he helped heroically to accomplish by sodomizing a teenager , an act which he defended as " a consensual connection with a young adult.", and the Mark Foley email scandal , which resulted in Foley's almost immediate resignation, saw a bipartisan report reprimand the House leadership for not doing "more"  when they originally found out about the emails, and that they:

 "failed to exercise appropriate diligence" in the matter, the committee's report found, and tried "to remain willfully ignorant of the potential consequences of Foley's conduct."

Please note that the drastic action taken during the Studd's "incident" was that he got a slap on the wrist censure and was reelected to office. Yes, maybe the committee is right, and the House leadership didn't handle it anywhere like the Dems did back in 1984. Unfortunately.

Anyway, this is all old news to most of us, and hardly warrants a post. What does, however, is the reaction this information ellicits from those maybe not quite as politically attuned as we chronic bloggers. To experiment, I told my 21 year old daughter and my wife the above information, and with laser like intensity studied their reactions.

My daughter said "Really?" with the same bored expression she wears when I tell her just about anything. For her this was neither earth shaking or particularly egregious. Rather it seemed acceptable more than anything else, even expected.

My wife, on the other hand, was genuinely shocked and I had to verify my information with online articles [yes, she doesn't always trust me!]. When I had finally allayed her doubts she was angry and upset. And she is far from an extreme right wing partisan.

What this attempt at  a sociopolitical experiment confirmed for me was that this country is developing a real bifurcated view of the political parties which holds the Dems to a decidedly lower set of expectations and it doesn't  divide nicely along political affiliations. Rather the acceptance of  the Dems as the "ethically challenged" group also seems to be more acceptable to younger people [ while I only talk about my daughter here, who  also happens to lean right in her views, I have asked others, and seen the same results].

Considering they came of age during the period when Clinton was coarsening our political dialogue with  the inclusion of  "oral sex" and "White Water"  to the usual topics of foreign affairs and tax policy it is no wonder that they seem to accept the Dems as a sleazier group than the Republicans, and we could almost take this as a compliment.

But as they age, and become more involved in the political process, this is going to be a true problem for Republicans. In any game, if one side has the rules eased for it, whether it be four strikes versus three, or  six men on the ice versus five,  over time that side will win. We saw it this past election when Republicans paid the price for their indiscretions and scandals, while the Dems were just about all reelected. If my daughter and her friends are indicative, this disparity is going to get worse with time, and eventually the "adult" party will find itself ostracized for its very responsibility.  The Liberal 70's was the  time of "Don't trust anyone over 30". Now it may be "Don't trust anyone who acts over 30".

How does one address someone who sees the War on Terror as an imperialistic US's excuse to wage war for gain and power? As stupid and ridiculous as this sounds, some do expound this viewpoint, as seen in an article in the Pittsburg Tribune by someone named Ralph Reiland, who is described as an " associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University and a local restaurateur"  but sounds to me to be , well I hate to write disparagingly of someone who seems to be mentally challenged.

While his political affiliation is not mentioned, I'll eat  my...in his restaurant if he is not a died in the wool Liberal [and if Mr. Reiland does not feel that is leftward enough for him, my apologies]. The absolute nonsense which he puts forth seems like a throwback to the days when Stalin was the hero of the Left , Moscow was the Promised Land, and the United States was seen as a decadent, tottering straw man who was ready to be toppled by the proletariat.  History has put the lie to all that, but it seems some still cling nostalgically to their fairy tales.

Reilland begins by reciting the usual pap about how the State has the right to kill, and how rulers use imperialism to gain wealth and wage wars to distract their subjects while they are being abused  and robbed by their leaders. If this sounds like a rehash of "1984" , well, it is. I guess Reiland just wanted to wake up all us unaware Winston Smiths.

He then describes why the War on Terror is the perfect front for the US to engage in a perpetual war of imperialism. Yes, you heard right, it's all about our greed for wealth and dominance , and we now have an open ended invitation to go anywhere and everywhere to wage battle and take home treasure.

Where does one even start tearing this apart? I guess you could mention 9/11, and   the Jihad  that the  Islamists have declared on us. Or perhaps we could politely ask where is all the wealth and power we are supposed to be accruing if this is all about imperialism?  I may be wrong but last time I checked all this empire building was costing us dearly, and if we are imposing our will anywhere I think it's been overlooked by ... everyone.  Is this anyway to run an nascent empire?

And then of course there is the internal debate which is on the verge of having us retreat from our empire before it has even been born. Picking up the newspaper or reading the ISG report, I find it hard to see any of the triumphalism or conquering mindset of a Roman Empire, which Reiland compares us to.  I guess we just don't have the hang of this Caesar thing yet.

Reiland does attempt to explain all the calls for ending the Iraqi War- he says it is because we are losing, and that if we weren't,  we would be off and running all over the place with our dominating soldiers and devastating weapons and the full support of the stupid, abused citizens who don't realize what a facade this all is.

Of course Reiland never says why we are losing, only that we bungled it . It never crosses his mind that the reason we are where we are is because we are not imperialists and instead shirk from the responsibilities associated with conducting a war [see post ]. By ignoring all the meanings of imperialism, and disregarding the existence of a world wide enemy that is seeking to destroy us, Reiland blithely espouses a view that has absolutely no correspondence to reality and, if believed and followed, would most likely get us all killed. We are probably the most reluctant super power in the history of the world, and yet for people like Reiland we will always be the villain crushing others in our path as we seek to take over the world. It would almost be comical if we weren't facing a life and death situation which just doesn't seem to register with those like him.