It was December of 1992. And the New York Times was furious. In the November election that had occurred a month earlier, while most Americans were fixated on the presidential race between President George H.W. Bush, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton and businessman Ross Perot, in Colorado something else was going on. That something else was known as Amendment 2. On election day, by a margin of 100,000 votes, Coloradans, in the words of the Chicago Tribune : “amended their constitution to outlaw ordinances in Denver, Boulder and Aspen that banned discrimination in hiring and housing on the basis of sexual orientation.” Gay rights groups were apoplectic. Barbra Streisand vowed a celebrity boycott — no small threat in Colorado ski havens like Aspen where stars like Cher, Jack Nicholson, Michael Douglas, and other Hollywood power names vacationed. The Times was frothing. So there was a decision to strike back at Colorado. Fumed the Times in a December 21st editorial titled “The Case for the Colorado Boycott”: Deciding where to go for a skiing vacation ordinarily poses no moral dilemma. But this winter it surely does. Colorado, site of some of the finest ski areas in the nation, adopted a bigoted anti-gay initiative last month, shattering the state’s reputation for tolerance. Gay groups and others are urging a boycott; their call deserves to be heeded. Duly noted. So the obvious question. On Tuesday North Carolina voters overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the state constitution banning same-sex marriage.
Infantile. The characteristics of a baby or child, says Webster’s. Being infantile is a charming characteristic — in a baby or child. In adults? Adults charged with the serious responsibility of discussing or actually running public policy? Never good. As seen here in this story about Occupy Wall Street, replete with photo of a protester defecating on a police car. R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. has been observing and writing about this kind of ludicrous behavior that he terms the “Infantile Left” for some 40-plus years through the magazine that he created and you are reading, The American Spectator . What brought this memorable photo of a defecating Occupy protestor to mind was reading the stunning, pull-back-and-survey-the-battlefield book that is Tyrrell’s new book, The Death of Liberalism . The book is nothing less than an autopsy conducted while the battle still rages. An astute recognition that Liberalism’s defenders are being reduced by the day if not the hour to the political equivalent of the survivors of Pickett’s Charge at Gettysburg, the latter known to history as the high-water mark of the Confederacy. A great swarming, savage last-assault across the political battlefields into the incessant cannon and rifle fire of the American majority. Leaving in the aftermath not only massive Liberal casualties on the battlefield, but inducing a sense of crippling psychological failure among the Liberal survivors, of which at the moment the Occupy Wall Street debacle — they of the defecating-on-police-cars and rape tents crowd — is the most vivid example. The irony? It wasn’t always so. Classical liberalism, as Tyrrell states, originally “stood for adherence to individual liberty, to tolerance, to reason, and for many of us, to empiricism.” The classic liberalism of a George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and the others known today as the Founding Fathers but one example, if the example most familiar to Americans. Tyrrell cites this wonderful definition of classical liberalism given all the way back in 1873 by England’s Sir William Harcourt, who made the point in a talk at Oxford. Liberty, said Harcourt, …does not consist in making others do what you think is right. The difference between a free Government and a Government which is not free is principally this — that a Government which is not free interferes with everything it can, and a free Government interferes with nothing except what it must. A despotic government tries to make everybody do what it wishes, a Liberal Government tries, so far as the safety of society will permit, to allow everybody to do what he wishes. Harcourt anticipated the reign of Obama and Pelosi by 139 years. In the style of true conservatives everywhere, he understood the eternal human nature — and its temptations with centralized power. Tyrrell employs a literary device that originated with the late William F. Buckley, Jr. To wit, separating the original meaning of “liberal” in its classic sense from today’s term by capitalizing the word to “Liberal” or “Liberalism.” It is a useful device to differentiate what has come to mean two very, very different belief systems, one of them appallingly nuts. For a small sample of just how infantile one can see the Infantile Left at work here in Oakland, California in 2011, in Chicago at the 1968 Democratic National Convention, at the Pentagon in 1967, in Los Angeles in 1992 or all manner of places in 1986 when Ronald Reagan bombed Libya in response to an attack on U.S. military personnel in then-West Germany. Here’s an interesting one with Infantile Left expressing itself on the environment. And who could miss these two bookmarks to the career of Massachusetts Senator John Kerry doing the Infantile Left gig here (as captured in a Swiftboat ad) and here , where he windsurfed as a presidential candidate. And there’s Hillary as potential president The examples are endless, and you can’t make it up. The details of the Liberal autopsy begin immediately, with Dr. Tyrrell walking slowly around a figurative steel table examining the lifeless political corpse, diligently recording the life of the deceased. Just who were these Liberals, anyway? After 40 some odd-years of experience, Tyrrell knows them well. Liberals: …who began as the rightful heirs to the New Deal, have carried on as a kind of landed aristocracy, gifted but doomed. They dominated the culture and the politics of the country, unchallenged from the beginnings of the Cold War to the first Nixon Administration. So dominant were they that they could totally pollute the culture with their prejudices and their views. In its place they created Kultursmog , a Kultur whose contaminants were everywhere in the media, among the literate classes, even among illiterates — everywhere. Kultursmog is the only form of pollution to which the Liberals never object. In fact, they deem it healthy. While Tyrrell doesn’t say it here, the saga of Liberals is not unlike the saga of the late Whitney Houston. At one time the very essence of raw talent refined, polished, sparkling and dominant. Followed by the inevitable results of decline evident after years of what might be called snorting political cocaine — the dependence on sheer racism, a culture that glorifies sexual gratification, a wild addiction to the idea of feel-good emotions replacing hard science, economics and plain common sense. Followed by the inevitable…political death. No, one does not crap on a police car to make a point about economics. Rational political actors do not get drunk and leave a girl in a car to drown then resume a lifelong Senate career as if nothing untoward had happened. One doesn’t fan riots or anti-Semitism that results in death and destruction of property, gain fame by making preposterously false allegations of a racial rape — and get to host an MSNBC television show as a reward. Paying off a pregnant mistress with tax-deductible funds after exhibiting one’s streak of anti-Semitism by musing aloud to a reporter about New York City as “Hymietown” shouldn’t make one a serious player in a serious political party. Not to mention that fiddling with an intern and lying about it to a grand jury should cause more than an “ahem” from a party that insists it is fighting some grand war for women. As Tyrrell documents, the list of infantile behavior by the left is long, well beyond the specifics of behaviors by the late Senator Edward Kennedy, the Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and, of course, President Bill Clinton. Not to mention the monkey business of one-time presidential hopeful Gary Hart with Donna Rice and the still imploding reputation of ex-Senator and 2004 vice-presidential nominee John Edwards. The plagiarism scandal of Joe Biden has elevated him to the vice-presidency. But there is more to this behavior that has caused the Death of Liberalism . There are those pesky fundamentals called issues, approached by Liberals with what Tyrrell correctly calls the real objective of the “Stealth Socialist.” (Interestingly, Tyrrell points out that when Republicans are presented with political leaders who engage in likeminded personal misbehavior, they reject them — two of the more prominent examples being the presidential run of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and the exploded career of South Carolina’s Governor Mark Sanford.) One by one Tyrrell examines issues and events that served as the proximate cause of Liberalism’s death . And the Stealth Socialist issues and events are as momentous if perhaps not as memorable as the personal behavior is tawdry. • Henry Wallace: The rise and fall of FDR’s Liberal Vice President Henry Wallace, whose Liberalism even in 1944 touched off alarm bells with the powers-that-be within the Democrats’ own party hierarchy. Replaced by Missouri Senator Harry Truman (and in the nick of time — FDR died a bare four months after being inaugurated, placing Truman, not Wallace, in the White House) Wallace set about leading the opening round of what became the Liberal civil war within the party. Eventually, Wallace departed, becoming the 1948 nominee of the Progressive Party. • The Big Lie: Combined with a laughable yet disturbing sense of moral superiority, the Big Lie is now routinely used as Pickett’s armies used the bayonet. In hand-to-hand political combat the sharp end is pointedly used to accuse of racism those who question Liberalism’s latest panaceas or by shrieking, as Tyrrell notes, that “anyone questioning their latest scheme of alleviating poverty hates the poor.” This use of the Big Lie began with the fiction that Alger Hiss was not a Communist, something that has now been positively affirmed by the release of the Venona files. The longer Hiss lied, the angrier Liberals became at those charging him with lying. More recently when Bill Clinton as president lied under oath about Monica Lewinsky, the Big Lie was employed to insist that “it was a minor infraction of the law, like double-parking one’s tractor in downtown Little Rock.” • McGovernism: In 1972, a young delegate to Henry Wallace’s Progressive Party convention of 1948 was South Dakota Senator George McGovern — the Democrats’ presidential nominee. Tyrrell examines a now obscure but key moment for the Liberals, that being the formation of the “McGovern Commission.” Formed after the pitched battle between Liberals and the battered remnants of the old FDR-Truman Democrats in 1968 — and it was a battle, with Infantile Liberals taking to the streets of Chicago during the party Convention and getting into a furiously bloody battle with the police of the old line Mayor Daley — McGovern’s task was to reform the party’s delegate selection process. He did — by obliterating the idea that individuals should be elected as delegates to the party’s national convention and replacing it with the now-sacred cow of identity politics. If you were black — and X percent of your state’s population was black — you have a delegate’s seat based on skin color. Ditto with gender, etc. Running himself four years later, using the rules he himself had engineered, McGovern not only trounced the party Establishment and won the 1972 nomination but permanently ousted the dwindling remnants of what FDR historian and ex-JFK aide Arthur Schlesinger once termed The Vital Center . • Class Warfare: If FDR employed a bit of class warfare during the Great Depression, it was McGovern who immersed the party in this pernicious cycle of greed and envy. The greed for government money — taxpayer money or “free” money as it is called today — combined with the envy of those who achieved without it. McGovern proposed three policies in particular that caught Tyrrell’s eye in his autopsy, three policies he notes that “stand out as beyond the wildest hallucinations of Henry Wallace” — began instantly to clog the Liberal artery that normally channeled a sensitivity to the sensibilities of working Americans. They were: — “a government grant of $1,000 annually for every man, woman, and child, rich or poor”; — ” a 37 percent reduction in the Pentagon budget…the savings going to social welfare programs…”; — “a rise in taxes, most strikingly on inheritance — no one would be able to receive more than half a million dollars from one’s family in a lifetime or at the time of one’s death!”
Hillary Clinton On Charges America Is Anti-Muslim: “That Hurts Me So Much”…
Hurts? — Really? (INN) — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Sunday she was deeply hurt by charges that the United States was biased against Muslims, adamantly defending America’s record in protecting minorities. Clinton, visiting the world’s third largest Muslim-majority country Bangladesh, was asked by a student at a public forum about perceptions that the
Read more:
Hillary Clinton On Charges America Is Anti-Muslim: “That Hurts Me So Much”…
Spiking the Bin Laden Football
In May 2011, when asked by CBS News about why he would not release photos of the killing of Osama bin Laden, President Obama said, “We don’t need to spike the football.” How much things have changed in a year. As we’ve approached this week’s third anniversary of that happy moment when the mass murderer was lobotomized by a Navy SEAL’s bullet, bin Laden-related chest thumping has become the administration’s campaign tactic-of-the-week. At the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner on Saturday night, Barack Obama touted that “last year at this time — in fact, on this very weekend — we finally delivered justice to one of the world’s most notorious individuals.” Even Hillary Clinton has been waxing nostalgic about the bin Laden raid, evoking images of sleep-deprived heroes (such as herself) being revived by crowds cheering outside the White House gates following news of the terrorist’s death. In a new web ad called “One Chance,” former President Bill Clinton — oddly chummy with Obama of late — says that Obama “took the harder and the more honorable path” by ordering the raid on bin Laden’s Pakistan compound. The ad goes on to quote Mitt Romney’s 2007 comment that “It’s not worth moving heaven and earth, spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person,” implying that a President Romney might not have ordered the assault on bin Laden given the same information that Obama had. It is a reprehensible — and literally incredible — assertion. Not surprisingly, the Obama ad does not mention Romney’s clarification a few weeks later: his point was that bin Laden would be replaced and that killing him would not mean the end of al Qaeda. During a 2007 debate , Romney made his view on bin Laden crystal clear: “We’ll move everything to get him. But I don’t want to buy into the Democratic pitch that this is all about one person. Because after we get him, there’s going to be another and another.… It’s more than Osama bin Laden. But he is going to pay, and he will die.” (See Romney’s remarks at about 6:40 into this video of the May 3, 2007 Republican debate.) The Miami Herald notes several instances of Barack Obama saying that the issue of bin Laden should not be used by himself or by others (such as Hillary “Do I look as tired as I feel” Clinton) to score political points. But of course, that’s just what the president is doing now. Desperate times call for desperate measures. The Herald also reports the Romney camp’s response to the “One Chance” ad: “The killing of Osama bin Laden was a momentous day for all Americans and the world, and Governor Romney congratulated the military, our intelligence agencies, and the President. It’s now sad to see the Obama campaign seek to use an event that unified our country to once again divide us, in order to try to distract voters’ attention from the failures of his administration. With 23 million Americans struggling for work, our national debt soaring, and household budgets being squeezed like never before, Mitt Romney is focused on strengthening America at home and abroad.” As if the web ad weren’t hypocritical and pathetically self-serving enough, the president sat down with NBC’s Brian Williams for an “exclusive interview” to be aired on Wednesday. The interview is, according to MSNBC, “the first for network television” to be filmed inside the White House Situation Room, from where the administration’s national security team watched the bin Laden raid take place. This is almost as much an indictment of NBC News as it is of the president, but complaining about liberal media bias is like complaining about a puppy peeing on your rug: it’s just what they do. If you don’t like it, don’t buy a puppy — and don’t watch NBC News. The Obama administration is flustered by the lack of traction by his other recent divisive campaign tactics. It’s doing anything it can to distract from Obama’s record, pointing to the one rousing success of his administration — but one that would be hard to imagine any other president not grabbing should the same opportunity have arisen. As Republican strategist and Romney advisor Ed Gillespie said on Meet the Press , “this is one of the reasons President Obama has become one of the most divisive presidents in American history. He took something that was a unifying event for all Americans, an event that Governor Romney congratulated him and the military and the intelligence analysts in our government for completing the mission in terms of killing Osama bin Laden. And he’s managed to turn it into a divisive, partisan, political attack that former Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci for President Reagan called ‘sad.’ John McCain called ‘shameful.’ I think most Americans will see it as a sign of a desperate campaign.” Indeed, if there is one thing that Americans should learn from the Wednesday interview, it is that President Obama simply has nothing else he can talk about that will appeal to the broader American electorate. His record is one of economic suppression and radical leftist policy that only energizes his “Progressive” base. Even many of those can’t be too pleased with their employment prospects after more than three years of an Obama presidency. And ironically, they are the people (other than terrorists themselves) least pleased with Obama’s aggressive use of drones to kill terrorist enemies of America, one of the few laudable policies of this administration. With friends like that… Perhaps Romney, with his response to the Obama web ad, is following the advice of Jed Babbin who suggests on these pages that in order to beat Barack Obama in November, “Romney will have to be much tougher in his own right, and ready to respond with the appropriate level of vehemence to Team Obama’s attacks.” This goes hand-in-glove with Michelle Malkin’s advice to Mitt Romney to stop saying that Obama is a “nice guy” and instead discuss this administration’s many (non-terrorist) victims. With that in mind, a few ideas for Romney on this anniversary of bin Laden’s death: “If only President Obama weren’t as effective at killing the economy as he is at killing terrorists…” (Substitute “freedom” for “the economy” occasionally, especially when trying to capture libertarians, Tea Party activists, and Ron Paul supporters.) “It’s unfortunate that President Obama thinks that the EPA’s relationship to jobs should be the same as the Navy SEALs’ relationship to Osama bin Laden.” “It’s too bad Barack Obama won’t go outside his leftist comfort zone to help all Americans the way he does to hurt a few terrorists.” And slightly tangential to bin Laden: “If President Obama were doing such a good job, why is he having so many of his campaign messages delivered by people named Clinton?” The recent hype about the killing of bin Laden is a sign of Obama’s weakness, not his strength. Obama knows it, NBC News knows it, and it’s time for Mitt Romney to make sure voters know it — and make sure it sticks.
Square Deal for America
My father was a unique character. I never met a man who was more set in his ways or more unwilling to change them, especially when it came to his looks. His one ill-advised attempt at updating his wardrobe — my mother’s really — was the purchase of an awful Nehru jacket sometime in the late 1960s. It just didn’t fit him; not in a sartorial manner, but because pandering to something so trivial as current fashion would have undermined his air of authority and diminished our trust in his rock-solid dependability. I’ve always felt that there is something comforting in a man who disdains passing fads while I’ve never wholly trusted one who is a slave to fashion. This must have run in my family, because my youngest sister once said that Ronald Reagan — who, though a well-tailored movie star, never altered his appearance with the changing styles — always made her feel “safe.” Likewise, I instinctively mistrust anyone who has been tagged with the puerile sobriquet of “rock star”; a paean to cool and hipness that is truly a symbol of all that is wrong in America. I suppose there is something to be said for hipness when you’re a teenager and peer pressure demands the need for such foolishness, but when your bank account is overdrawn or the IRS comes a’knockin’ at your door, who do you want to handle it? Do you want a bling-bedecked hipster or do you want a nerd with a pocket protector full of pens and pencils? Or when the bogeyman sneaks up on you in the middle of the night, is it a rock star you’d want to protect you? George W. Bush, with his dreary vacations in Crawford, Texas and his penchant for being in bed by 10:00 PM, was the epitome of what was once known as “square,” but even the most ardent lefties were glad he was in charge during 9/11. It may have been the cool rock star who gave the order to kill Osama bin Laden in flashy, video-game style, but it was the slow, plodding and sometimes painful ways of the dull Bush that laid the groundwork. Since the culture-busting days of the ’60s, our nation has been schizophrenic in its choice between style and substance, starting with the first paparazzi president, John F. Kennedy and his wife Jackie; the first First Lady to assume the role of stylish trendsetter. Although JFK was far more credentialed than the current cool cat in the White House, many felt that his election was the product of marketing his attractive family background and his ruddy, New England good looks. After JFK came the dreary career politician, Lyndon Johnson, followed by Richard Nixon, a man so square that when he appeared on Laugh-In during the 1968 presidential campaign, I’m pretty sure he didn’t even know what “Sock it to me” meant. Next came the enigmatic Jimmy Carter, with a personal style that was chock-full of corn yet whose policies were the stuff that liberal dreams are made of. The two terms of Reagan brought to fruition a synthesis of elegance and gravitas which had probably not been seen since George Washington, and might never again grace the highest office of our land. He naturally attracted the “beautiful people” of Hollywood, yet they remained only on the fringes of his social life and had no bearing on his presidency, unlike the next rock star, Bill Clinton, the first “black president.” Clinton, who followed on the heels of George H.W. Bush — so unhip that his nickname was “Poppy” –was the first president to use the cool and the hip to advance his career; famously using Hollywood producers to make videos for his campaigns. While Reagan actually was a movie star, Clinton merely played one in the White House. Then came George W. Bush who, as I said, would never be mistaken for being hip, cool or in any way a rock star. Together with his wife, a down-to-earth schoolteacher who nonetheless carried herself with exceptional grace, he was about as exciting as white bread but was fundamental to the nation’s need for emotional stability and leadership at a time when this was desperately needed. No, some men are just not destined to be “hip” nor is this spurious attribute one that voters should seek in a man who is to lead us out of our deadly moral and economic decline. We’ve danced and slow-jammed around our problems enough for the last four years. It is time for a square deal for America.
Here is the original post:
Square Deal for America