April, 2005 Feature--Truth Based Logic

The Clinton/Bush Era: How We Got Here. How Do We Escape?

Synopsis

Presidents Clinton & Bush, political rivals from different backgrounds and parties, in fact, demonstrate precisely the same basic underlying assumptions as to the nature of man, his fundamental interests & the course of history--assumptions fundamentally at variance with essential aspects of the American tradition: Academic stultification & how this came to pass? What issues remain; their relative significance, and how to establish a Conservative opposition.

Obviously, if one must take the rant and bluster at politically oriented American Web Sites seriously, there is a popular perception that we are divided into two very contentious camps; that Republicans and Democrats represent opposite positions as to a projected course for future action; that they have different values, and offer very different philosophies. Certainly, there are differences that relate to priorities in spending and questions of taxation. Certainly there are differences as to the extent to which religious perspectives--as a generic concept--should be involved in our political processes. And certainly, there are very robust differences, indeed, as to whose set of would be office holders, actually are to hold office, at the various levels and venues of Government.

Yet all issues do not have equal weight. There are issues that may or may not fire men's minds or their avarice, as they perceive the interests of the moment, but do not seriously alter the future prospects of a people; and there are issues, the determination of which, effect the course of history, the very nature of a civilization. Individuals struggling to get ahead, may care passionately about those things (such as high taxes) that deprive them of the present and future enjoyment of their current enterprise; or, conversely, may enthusiastically seize near term opportunities (such as sources for cheap goods or cheap labor) that provide new ways to cut the costs of their operations or supply their wants more cheaply. But such immediate concerns pale into virtual insignificance, in the historic perspective, when contrasted with those developments--including aspects of those very immediate concerns that may be underappreciated at the moment--which alter cultural values or change the fundamental demographics of a population.

Underlying Concepts

There is an old saying that people are what they eat. The obvious aspects of that should be clear. And it is no less true that a nation is defined by the people that comprise that nation; the community, the people that comprise that community; a State the composite of the nations and individuals that comprise that State. So, too, the internal health of any civil society, reflects the moral values and attitudes of its members. And the relations of such civil society to other societies and peoples depend to a very large extent both on how that society treats others, and on how others perceive that society.

Peoples and policies are not interchangeable. Every nation on this earth reflects its indigenous population. For an obvious example, each of the far-flung Anglo-Saxon peopled nations is more like the other Anglo-Saxon peopled nations than it is like any other nation, in between. And so, also, with other settling peoples. French Canada is more like France than it is like British Canada, even after two hundred and forty years of being separated. The Afrikaners in South Africa more closely resemble the true Dutch stock in the Netherlands--albeit a selective, most hearty group from that stock--than they do any people in the vast regions, in between. On the other hand, they still retain aspects of French culture, derived from the French Huguenots, with whom they intermarried at the end of the Seventeenth Century.

There is a myth that something referred to as the "American Melting Pot," has somehow altered this truism. That notion--and we can not dignify it by suggesting that it is anything more profound than a notion--is clearly belied by evidence apparent across the length and breadth of the American Union. Virtually without exception, in those areas where a large portion of the preponderant population is descended from the American stock at the time of the Revolution (Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Dutch, Huguenot, etc.), there remains strong popular support for the traditional American values of the Founding Fathers. As you move into areas, where the stocks of later arrivals predominate, this pattern shifts in the direction of the values--often brought with them--of those newer arrivals. When one actually examines the centers of the claimed "Melting Pot," such as New York City, you not only see the greatest deviation from the values of the Founding Fathers, you find an additional factor present, which needs to be better understood.

A popular mindset in New York, has long evidenced a concern which may, in fact, arise in the interaction of diverse peoples, rather than actually come from any particular ethnic background: An almost compulsive fear that the whole complex will fragment, unless a collectivist and coercive element is introduced to force congeniality among the varied ethnicities. Thus New York enacted so called "Civil Rights" legislation, forbidding ethnic or religious discrimination in employment or housing, long before such restrictions on individual freedom became more generally accepted elsewhere. They were, in this, closely followed by other States with large immigrant and second generation populations--hardly a sign that the "Melting Pot" was or is a natural and spontaneous cure to the problems involved, when diverse peoples are thrown together in a single community. On the other hand, there is absolutely no evidence that an immigration policy, which ignores the question of whom shall be allowed to immigrate, makes any sense at all.

[A personal note, here. In calling attention to significant facts that effect the American future, we do not intend to disparage any people, or their contribution. Three of our grandparents were immigrants, who did not arrive in Cincinnati until the post Civil War era, the last not until about 1901. We bear no ill will towards any people on earth; but to suggest that they are interchangeable is the ultimate insult to each of us. It is also a threat to the survival of any civilization.]

Once one determines just who constitutes a State, nation or community, there are two more very basic--foundational--phenomena, which will define the ongoing nature of any society: The relationship of the resident individuals and families to the Government or collective leadership, and the relationships of those same individuals to each other. As to the first of these, in the American context, the articulated values of the Founding Fathers have always provided the litmus test for our political discourse. As to the second, the single greatest area of interest has always centered on questions that arise out of human sexuality--the division of every race into two sexes, each absolutely necessary to the other;-- on sex-roles and standards of behavior between men and women. Institutions such as marriage, the family, the acquisition of property and inheritance rights, education of children, etc., all flow from the coming together of the sexes in the mating quest, which, in turn, reflects the ongoing dynamic of Creation. One can go all the way back to the Bible, to substantiate that point. The very first directive, therein, as to how Man shall govern himself, goes to the relations between Man and Woman.

After you get past such foundational determinations, on which the nature of any political society must depend, you have the question of how to preserve that society. You cannot realistically address such preservation, without considering the continuity of patterns of individual identification--identification with that society, with its lines of descent, its moral values, with particular ongoing communities, etc.;--and, derived in turn from that pattern of individual identification, the level of loyalty to that society, and the degree of perceived and assumed individual responsibility for its preservation, at every level of community. This would seem to imply some corollaries:

Such a concept, currently tolerated in the United States, as "dual citizenship," where a foreign national obtains American citizenship without permanently renouncing his foreign citizenship, undermines the most essential aspect of the State or Nation. (There is, of course, no conflict in the same individual being a citizen of both his State and of the United States, if that State is a constituent member of the American Union.) So, also, does teaching the concept that it is inappropriate to honor lines of descent (race and ethnicity), the past accomplishments of your nation or its heroes; or encouraging students to think of themselves as "citizens of the world," rather than of their homeland.

So, too, does the idea that in trading freely with the rest of the world--something clearly in our best interest, and recognized as being in our best interests by the Founding Fathers--or in seeking business opportunities overseas, that the only concern should be to maximize profits. In going into business, one does not cease to be a citizen; does not cease to have duties towards the preservation of his own society; does not cease to owe loyalty--allegiance--to the society that has nurtured him, that has protected even his acquisitive nature. In supporting Laissez Faire Capitalism, as we certainly do at this web site, we can never excuse betrayal of American interests to increase the "bottom line." Nor do we imagine that "American interests" begin and end with either the Gross National Product or the average income of our citizens.

In Chapter 16 of the Conservative Debate Handbook, which treats some of the academic myths dominant in American education, we have dealt with the intellectual legerdemain of such Leftist icons as Ashley Montagu and Gordon Allport (online version linked below). Each of these subjects embraced "one-world government" as a goal. Each attacked the normal and traditional preferences of human types, yet from slightly different perspectives. Montagu affirmed the gargantuan lie--a mantra of the Left in various manifestations since the days of the French "Reign of Terror"--that all human subspecies have, for all practical purposes, the same potential. He cited no evidence for this point of view--there is none;--but offered instead verbal assertions and flights of fancy, coupled with studied insults directed at those scientists who had actually studied the real and persistent differences among the human sub-species.

Allport, on the other hand, took the position that almost any personal identification with race, tribe, nation, religion, community or (in some cases) even immediate family, was a "prejudice" to be condemned. Thus, in terms of our analysis above, the Professor sought to destroy the most essential element to the survival of any political society--the individual's identification with that society! But that did not prevent his writing from continuing to be used, for decades after his death, on campuses across America, as part of the Leftist pursuit of multi-cultural diversity.

Interestingly, Professor Allport, so ready to condemn patriots, who identified with their own nation and its lines of descent, had a quite different perspective on those who went across the seas to identify with Marxist elements in other nations' internal struggles. Thus he involved himself in Communist front activity in support of the so called "Spanish Loyalists," in the 1930s. Thus, he later sought to excuse other Fellow Travelers, who had also identified with Communist values earlier, when such activities came to be investigated in the 1940s and 1950s.

While Montagu and Allport represented the hard Academic Left, in their respective "disciplines," cultural anthropology and psychology, their efforts received definite assists in what might be described as the "soft Left" in American journalism. Norman Cousins was Editor of the Saturday Review of Literature and leading spokesmen for the United World Federalists, in the middle years of the last century. During the 1950s and 1960s, he toured the United States, addressing College student assemblies and conventions of public school teachers, urging a changed emphasis for teaching in the Social Sciences; a shift from focusing on the differences between peoples to focusing on the traits they had in common. While not so dogmatic as Montagu, Cousins would first scare his audience with terrifying images of nuclear war, and then introduce his suggestion, as the way to promote peace and his admitted pursuit of World Government.

As we moved into the 1960s, those intellectuals who questioned the Montagu and Allport dogma, came more and more to be simply shouted down on American campuses--often, interestingly enough, in the name of "Civil Rights." And so, serious inquiry into the nature of man and the differences among men, came to be stultified in American academia. Millions of young Americans attended College for four or more years, and graduated without ever hearing an effective challenge to the really absurd mantra that the Academic Left was promoting.

The Clinton/Bush Era

So much for background. Does our caption, "The Clinton/Bush Era," correctly define the past twelve years? Our thesis is that once in Office, both Presidents William Jefferson Clinton and George W. Bush have demonstrated virtual total conformity to the dogma Montagu and Allport advanced, on all relevant issues. What is most striking about this is that before taking office, Clinton was understood to be a "social liberal," while Bush was supposed to be a "social conservative." Yet what does the recent history of American public affairs tell us?

President Clinton had no sooner assumed the Oval Office, than he initiated a proposal to reverse the Defense Department policy against accepting known Homosexuals into the armed forces of the United States. This was immediately challenged, and eventually Clinton retreated to a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. But he was not finished with the attack on traditional concepts of sex, sex roles and sexuality. In his second year in office, Clinton directed that women be assigned to combat units of the armed services, compromising an over thousand year Chivalric tradition. In the West, it has been the accepted role of the honorable man, for at least that long, that men protect the women and children. While Clinton's "Liberal" and Feminist supporters may have applauded these initiatives, Conservatives were outraged. Yet the President persisted, and by late in his second term, went so far in an open mockery of traditional standards as to actually declare, first June, 1999, and then June, 2000, to be "Gay Pride" months--using "gay" in the sick sense employed by those advocating acceptance of flaunted homosexual conduct.

President Clinton not only supported Feminist causes and concepts, throughout his Administration, he only considered female candidates to be Attorney General; and in his second term, even appointed a female Secretary of State. While women have been in the President's Cabinet since the days of FDR, there are two very sound reasons why it is not appropriate to name a woman to be our Chief Diplomat. The first goes to a general perception, that conducting foreign affairs at the highest level requires a more masculine presence--frankly a father figure--able to dress in modes that would look rather strange on any woman. While some might argue that such considerations are superficial, the second reason, a kindred perception in many foreign quarters, that women, generally, should not be handling Affairs of State, can hardly be laughed off; not if the intention is to advance American interests, rather than a factional agenda. (Granted, a truly exceptional woman, such a Lady Thatcher, might have risen above such perceptions; Clinton's choice was very far from being a Maggie Thatcher.)

Shortly after taking office, President Clinton demanded an overhaul of Federal Medicare, and appointed his wife to head an investigation into what was "needed." It is perfectly obvious that the Constitution of the United States does not authorize any Federal role in civilian health care; the Founding Fathers never dreamed that the Central Government, they created, would ever be asked to fund medical services for civilian populations. One of the clearest examples that the oath to uphold the Constitution--required of every office holder in America--is no longer being honored by those in Washington, is in the endemic discussion of how to "save," "improve," or "fund" Medicare, or provide more comprehensive medical services to the civilian public. While it may be possible to contrive tortured interpretations of the Commerce Clause to justify some very questionable Federal regulations; there is no rationalization able to even verbally justify Medicare. Nor, as we have demonstrated in the article on the subject, linked below, can it ever prove anything but a fiscal disaster.

President Clinton also embraced an interventionist foreign policy, which replaced a former West Point graduate and true friend of American values and interests in Haiti, with a Marxist demagogue, in the name of promoting "Democracy." He worked closely with Britain's socialist Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to turn N.A.T.O. from a Defensive alliance into an aggressive threat to national sovereignty--an International bully, intervening in the Serbian Civil War. And in another foreign policy excursion, he went over to Africa to apologize for American Slavery--proclaiming his apparent guilt complex to the world, on a Continent which, more than any other in recent centuries, has promoted the institutionalization of human bondage.

Vocal enough on his special projects, Clinton never showed the slightest interest in preserving the heritage of the American mainstream, or honoring the lines of descent of those who had won and preserved our independence, and directed our formative years. Not only did he do nothing to arrest the flood of immigration across the Southern border, he flaunted a clear awareness of the ethnic consequences by announcing in his last State of the Union address--with that customary boyish smirk--that current demographic projections indicated that the White or Caucasian population would be a minority in California before 2010; while by 2050, Whites would be a minority in the United States, generally. A year earlier, he had endeavored to trivialize the whole question of human differences and lines of descent--which by implication is virtually to deny the existence of a nation--by asserting that the DNA mapping project was about to show that all humans had 99.99% of DNA markers, in common.

Of course, Clinton invoked a logical fallacy to trivialize those things, which make a people unique. It does not matter how many separate DNA determinants govern the differences between humans. What matters are the resulting differences. As we quipped at the time, "Well, Clinton and a warthog share over 98% of the same DNA." That does not mean that Clinton, cast on his own with the same lack of civilized advantages, could compete with a warthog in the latter's homeland. But Clinton clearly had embraced the dogma presented by Ashley Montagu.

George Bush has never challenged the Clinton policy on immigration or the ethnic transformation of America. Indeed, the Republican Convention in 2000 showed as much or more evidence of a South of the border culture, than of the settler ethos of the Founding Fathers. In the years since, Bush has yet to show any clear identification with an American ethnicity, and has expressed far more concern for establishing a legal basis for the mass employment of Mexicans and others foreigners in America, than any interest in preserving the traditional character of our native population, or controlling our Southern border.

Nor, after originally claiming to be a "strict constructionist" in the initial campaign, has he offered much comment on traditional Constitutional issues, with the exception of some questions on abortion. Bush defeated Albert Gore, Clinton's Vice President, in large measure because both Conservatives and religious Americans rallied to the campaign, hoping to reverse what was seen as Clinton's lack of character and his identification with an immoral asexual agenda, a weakened military, and an embarrassing posture towards the rest of the World. What has followed?

Bush has put on something of a show, proposing a Constitutional Amendment--one he had to know would be very unlikely to even get through Congress, much less obtain ratification in its present form, in the present climate--to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Forgive our cynicism, because we agree that the Leftist assault on marriage does indeed need to be addressed. But the Bush proposal is a bit like suggesting an Amendment to provide that a grave digger's shovel may not be called an "ambulance," or one to define "black" and "white," in terms of the color spectrum.

While a homosexual Judge--or doctrinaire "Liberal"--might define marriage as something other than as the President's Amendment would define it; there is such a thing as reality. Merely playing word games cannot change that reality. While we jocularly speak of people being "married" to their jobs, or to something other than their actual mates, marriage as an institution has always referred to a sanctification of the human mating quest; an institutionalization of success in the procreational, ongoing dynamic of God's Creation in assortive interaction between the sexes in any particular human society. Where consummation is impossible--that is, where it is not possible for the married couple to perform an act which can lead to conception (whether or not it actually does)--there is no marriage. Indeed, the inability to consummate has always been a ground to annul a marriage.

It tends to demean the Constitution to adopt trivial Amendments that merely state the obvious. There is also a problem, with adopting Amendments that appear intended to simply restrict the freedom of the individual States under our Federal system; that tend to diminish the ability of our constituent States to manage their internal affairs. However, the concern over aberrant local Court decisions, or bizarre legislative enactments, is real and legitimate, because of specific language in Article IV, Section 1, of the Constitution. This provides that, Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings of every other State. How, then, can this problem be addressed in a manner that does not make this generation of Americans look absolutely ridiculous, by that which would be equivalent to defining a shovel or an ambulance in the Constitution? The answer is in addressing the generic problem, the misuse of language, in general, rather than a particular misuse. This approach could cover both the present absurdity and any future effort to pervert the use of words.

Our suggestion would read something like this: The Full Faith and Credit, to which the public Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings of every State shall be entitled, shall never be construed to include definitions of institutions, contractual undertakings or relationships, that employ or depend upon usages of language, neither employed nor accepted in any of the original States that established this Constitution, at the time of their ratification of same; and any State shall be free to refuse recognition to any institution, contractual undertaking or relationship, so defined.

Yet aside from the "Definition of Marriage" proposal, just what has been President Bush's attitude towards the ongoing efforts to force acceptance of Homosexual conduct as normal? Well, not much different than President Clinton's! For example, Bush appointed an Ambassador to Romania, who openly flaunted his male companion at public functions. Was that merely a mistake? Well in 2003, after allowing the annual celebration of "Gay Pride," begun under Clinton, to continue for another two years in the Justice Department, Attorney General Ashcroft finally ordered a halt to the open mockery of traditional standards. Almost immediately, that order was revoked from above by the Bush White House.

Only recently, we gained a new insight into how George W. Bush actually viewed the underlying issue. An interviewer on behalf of a Christian religious group, who had talked to Bush in private back in the late 1990s, revealed that he had secretly taped the then Governor of Texas, and made available the coming President's response to an inquiry as to whether he would refuse to hire avowed homosexuals for important positions. No, Bush had told him, in what he had understood to be a private interview. He could not agree to do that, because it would be "discrimination." Some of the President's more enthusiastic supporters among radio talk show hosts, praised the President for speaking in private the same as he talked in public, even as they denounced the perfidy of the interviewer for taping the interview. But, what really does that choice of words, "discrimination"--as applied to a rejection of homosexual behavior--tell us about George W. Bush?

Discrimination, the act of applying discernment, personal taste and intelligence to decision making, was always understood to be a virtue, before the "Civil Rights" movement sought to outlaw all distinctions based upon race, ethnology or religion, and equated the term "discrimination" with bigotry and hate. Yet, every right of decision making, that a free and intelligent man or woman exercises, involves the right to discriminate. And the fact that George Bush would see "discrimination" as something to be avoided, even when applied to giving respect to moral values, accepted in most of the West from Biblical times onward, casts very serious doubt on this President's discernment and judgment.

We do not advocate cruel treatment for avowed homosexuals--and certainly no "witch hunt" to ferret out those who keep their problem private. But unlike President Clinton, President Bush has gotten a great deal of political mileage out of the idea that he is a religious Christian; and this attitude, that it is wrong to discriminate against those living a homosexual "lifestyle," does not square with his religious representations. Granted, many religious Christians have held out a believed path to redemption for sexual deviants of many sorts. The late, well loved NFL football star and Christian minister, Reggie White--who offended the Left by acknowledging that racial and ethnic differences are a good thing, showing the Creator's design for Mankind--had the courage to both condemn homosexuality in Biblical terms, yet hold out that path to redemption. And White actually worked in a rehabilitative outreach for those who wanted to change their ways. What a contrast to the Bush position, which displays an emptiness, both intellectual and spiritual, that has continued the Clinton assault on traditional values.

As to women in combat units of the Armed Forces? There was talk of a shift away from the Clinton policy, even as the Bush Administration sought to increase the levels of military preparedness. Yet in the event, young women repeatedly found themselves in "harms way" in Iraq. Girls died or were maimed, because the Bush Administration lacked the will, courage or understanding to move back towards the traditional Western concept--the essential premise of the Chivalric code--that men protect women and children; that honor and manhood call for America's men to fight her wars, with her daughters acting only in supporting roles, moral and physical. It is in that perception of the male role, that service above and beyond the mere call of duty, has usually arisen. It calls upon what is best and noblest in each of us in ways that the Feminist demand for equality can only undermine.

While President Bush may have been less aggressive than President Clinton, in identifying with Feminist projects here at home, and has at least supported limitations on abortion options, he has been almost as aggressive in appointing women to executive positions. Whether these appointments were honest attempts to find the most qualified person, willing to serve, or reflected a form of "Affirmative Action," is an open question. But perhaps some insight may be obtained from the President's frequent references to Feminist issues, when discussing his projects for the Islamic world. He must feel very strongly, indeed, to risk the long term hatred, which such remarks about other peoples' culture invite. Now, like Clinton, Bush has appointed a woman to be his Second Term Secretary of State. His promotion of Feminist issues overseas, has gone a step beyond even Clinton.

On the subject of the growing, but still unconstitutional, dependence of modern Americans on their Federal Government in such fields as health and education, President Bush has clearly outdistanced Clinton. The Medicare prescription drug coverage, scheduled to lock in next year, promises to prove the single most extravagant Federal spending program ever, with virtually incalculable potential damage to the economic and social infrastructure of America. Readers are again urged to consider the Chapter on "Medicare--Panacea or Death Potion?" in our Debate Handbook (below).

The Bush educational excursion, the "No Child Left Behind" Act, is pure Ashley Montagu in theory. It has a totally flawed premise, in addition to being a foray into areas of American life, simply never intended to come within the Constitutional purview of the Federal Government. Of course, given the fact that no two children are alike, some children are going to be "left behind"; and their prospects are not likely to be appreciably improved, by placing another layer of wasteful Federal bureaucracy over local education. Such intrusion will inevitably result in the assignment of more local personnel, to local layers of bureaucracy, to interact with the Federal bureaucracy, to obtain benefits and supervise compliance. The multiplication of bureaucracy has been the previous history of all such programs.

Lost to both the Clinton and Bush Administrations has been the lesson--so well understood by Americans in earlier eras: That the less dependent a people are on their Government, the more responsibly they act; and the higher the level of their own efforts, both in improving their own lots and, via their interaction with other personally responsible individuals, in building a dynamic society in all its aspects, the more that society prospers in all areas of public concern.

As though President Clinton's attack on Haiti's educated minority and intrusion into a Serbian civil war were not bad enough, George Bush has used the excuse of attacks by one particular terrorist organization, to take an increasingly truculent posture towards much of the Islamic world, vowing to change their culture and instill "Democracy"; asserting that we have embarked on a generation spanning "mission," to promote "Freedom" in every land. Unfortunately, it is impossible to develop any real clarity as to the President's intentions, for, as developed in our feature for March, 2005 (the Debate between George Washington and George W. Bush), Mr. Bush uses the word "freedom" in at least six different, distinct and even contradictory senses!

It would be difficult to exaggerate the seriousness of the error involved in imagining that it is in our interest to seek to alter any other people's culture. Some of the aspects should be obvious to anyone with normal intelligence and a fair measure of empathy:

1. It is far more insulting to another nation, to pretend that we know better than their forebears or native leaders, what is culturally right for them; far more insulting than if we were simply to use our enormous power at the present time, to force more favorable trade conditions, or even exact tribute! Nothing could be better calculated to infuriate and create long-term resentment than a forced application of "do-gooderism." The attack, there, is not only on another people's customary way of thinking and acting; it is upon the heritage of those whom they have been taught from earliest childhood to honor--their role models and heroes.

2. Since every recognizable folk, tribe or nation, have their own distinct character, with cultural norms derived from that character; it is unlikely that foreign meddling with such culture will result in any net benefit to even partially offset the heightened resentment, referred to.

3. America has had a centuries old policy of treating others with respect; of recognizing and honoring the long established principle of the Law Of Nations, that each sovereign nation must be the sole judge of its own internal affairs, and that "no State has the smallest right to interfere in the government of another" (Vattel, II, Sec. 54). Our consistent acceptance of those principles had been the source of an enormous reservoir of good will for Americans across the globe for many generations. The Clinton/Bush arrogance is rapidly eroding what is left in that reservoir.

4. When, as is now the case, the intention to meddle in other cultures has actually been proclaimed to the world, as an American national purpose-- putting our history, prestige and credibility on the line;--the "pride that goeth before a fall" sets in, and it becomes that much more difficult to abandon what may have become a self-perpetuating folly.

It is amazing that almost no one has asked either President the most obvious of all questions in discussing "Democracy:" Who is to be qualified to vote in one of the new "Democracies," for which they have determined to risk the lives and expend the wealth of the American people? Would any rational person run a business by hiring personnel--management, decision makers, at any level--without inquiring into the mental competence of those decision makers? Would anyone enter into a business partnership with anyone, without consideration of their mental capacity? And in assessing mental capacity, one must be concerned, not alone with the level of intelligence. There are other, sometimes neglected factors, which may decisively influence the quality of decision making, such as the degree and nature of one's sociability. Does not reason urge that these also be considered?

Obviously, someone with an almost compulsive need to agree with others, or to be loved by a group or collective, will never exercise the independent, rational judgment of one without such need. (Could it be that the shift in the perception of what is "good" in Government, reflects a very practical aspect of this consideration, as America has become more crowded, with more folk perfectly content, even comfortable, to live in urban complexes?) There are people who are very happy in the midst of a mob, while to others, such placement would be very nearly the ultimate nightmare. Often the real champions of human liberty, are those who do their most serious thinking in reflective solitude; hence the preferences of the Jeffersonians for an agrarian society.

Bill Clinton never sought answers to such questions before he threatened to invade Haiti, if the intelligent, West Point educated, pro-American General Cedras, did not surrender his position, abandon his landed estate, and leave the homeland he had valiantly saved from a Marxist swarm. Clinton was implacable, General Cedras had to make way for the return of the "Democratically" elected Aristide. No one ever told us, what percent of the Aristide voters could read or write; what percent had even that which could be classified within the "normal range" of intelligence in the United States; what percent could have explained the duties of the head of a modern Government, had their very lives depended upon the exercise. No! In defense of "Democracy," Clinton felt fully justified in forcing an Haitian patriot, who had tried to protect the civilized minority from mob rule, to leave his home and native land, in virtual disgrace!

George Bush has been equally cavalier, equally arbitrary, in his approach to "Democracy." With a straight face; with a demeanor which suggested that he actually believed he had proven something, he claimed triumph for his policy in Afghanistan, because people had actually voted in an election. But again, no inquiry was had as to the qualifications of the voters; as to the reasons they had voted as they had; as to the competence of those elected. Rather the President pointed out that the first voter was a nineteen year old girl! No, he didn't recite her qualifications. We seriously doubt if he knew whether she had any qualifications other than her age and sex. It seemed enough to him that he had extended the electorate in a land on the other side of the globe, to persons who would not have been allowed to vote in the United States, through most of our history! Does "Democracy" rhyme with "hypocrisy?" It doesn't rhyme with arrogance or absurdity; but if imposed on others at the point of a gun, it demonstrates a degree of arrogance not seen in the West since Spain introduced its version of Christianity into what is now Spanish America, in the days of the Inquisition.

We have dealt with some of the crueler aspects of the policy that would force "Democracy" on varied peoples, in the Debate Handbook Chapter on "Democracy In The Third World," linked below.

In other actions, which demonstrate the consistent shared world views of policy makers in the Clinton and Bush Administrations, as well as their common lack of intellectual integrity, President Bush called upon Congress to appropriate Fifteen Billion Dollars to treat AIDS in Africa. No argument was offered as to why it would be Constitutional, no suggestion that fighting the disease in Africa would be more likely to contain a public health threat to the Western Hemisphere--our Hemisphere--or North America, or the Federation that is actually Bush's business, the United States of America, than would some expenditure closer to home. But the move was virtually contemporaneous with a trip that Bush made to Africa, and he may well have wanted to make sure that he would be welcome. While there, he demonstrated another close parallel to the behavior of his predecessor: He delivered a speech in Senegal, in which he denounced slavery as a great evil.

Why did this President, elected from a former slave state, feel constrained to denounce what had not existed in any of the United States for 138 years, but which still existed in Africa even as he spoke, and which had existed in Senegal for roughly half the population, long after it ceased to exist in the United States? Was he lecturing the Senegalese on the morality of their grandparents or great grandparents, who had owned slaves; deliberately insulting Texans, better rooted than he; trying to make a fool out of himself; or was he pandering to the same mindset in American academia, to whom Clinton had pandered throughout his Presidency?

Neither Clinton nor Bush has had much to say, beyond words intended to deflect concern, over the growingly disruptive consequences of what has come to be termed "globalization"; which we addressed, in passing, in our introduction. While we recognize the apparent economic advantages for optimizing factors of production, utilization and commerce, in general, in a maximum freedom of movement across borders; there is a very serious oversight in the cost analysis that has gone into many business decisions being made today. Both in purchasing products and services (out-sourcing) overseas, or south of the border, costs and values are being calculated only in terms of the immediate monetary factors. While it is recognized that unemployment has resulted from such across border movement of procurement; it is argued that, even as earlier innovations to improve utilization of resources resulted in dislocations, soon more than offset by the resulting opportunities, much the same may be expected under the present dispensation. But that reassurance, correct to a point, completely misses the real problem.

Nor is the real problem addressed by the traditional argument for protective tariffs, that they protect the wage level of American labor. There is certainly some truth in that supposition; but it is countered by the general advantage to all segments of the population, which result from freer trade. The cost factors that no one seems willing to address lie in the destruction of what might be called the social or societal infrastructure, and in the potential effects, both psychological and industrial on the future Defense capability of America. Obviously the long range effect of geographic fragmentation of the factors of production and of enterprise undermines many facets of the sense of community. So too, geographic dispersion of factors for weapon system production, can only restrict the potential for rapid procurement of armaments, necessary in an emergency.

Each of us is a member, more or less, of a series of communities, both concentric and overlapping. These go, of course, from the immediate neighborhood in which one lives, to a town or township, to a County, to one's State, to a common interest, with the citizens of other American States, in being an American. But they may also include a psychological identification with a particular congregation within a broader level of identification, both denominational and within a theological grouping of denominations that share a kindred perspective, etc.. They may also include communities of ethnic identification, subsidiary to a common American identification--assuming that you have the latter--as well as communities related to the nature of your employment, a specific company you may work for, etc..

People tend to take most of such community identifications for granted, and never bother to consider the practical day to day significance. Almost no one bothers to think of what the effect would be, if those communities of common interest and identification were to break down, until they actually do. But such breakdown is precisely what the real, unrecognized, cost of globalization is truly about.

In the early industrialization of America, in the days before the New Deal sought to Federalize Labor/Management relations--and require that they be adversarial;--we had a generous sprinkling of industrial towns, where at least one local entrepreneur, in each, had built a sizable enterprise that employed a significant portion of the able bodied population of that town. As many of these enterprises later merged into major, multi-venued Corporations, or folded from increased competition or the obsolescence of products, there were major local dislocations. But both labor and management retained at least some of those concentric or overlapping community identifications, in common. There were still personal ties, on which to call in times of crisis or emergency, where the solution to problems was within the ambit of fellow American decision making.

The consequences of these common identifications, went well beyond any immediate benefit in the effect on the factors of production and utilization. In many instances, they helped define one's sense of purpose in relation to the non-material aspects of life, had profound influences on how individuals perceived their personal "pursuits of happiness." Consider, for illustration, historic examples--really very clear in the pattern of settlement in some of the original North American colonies; where people who had led prosperous lives in the Old World, elected to come hence, to begin anew, just to have their own communities; just to associate with those with whom they felt most comfortable or congenial--for which comfort and congeniality, they were willing to pay almost any price.

So, too, in time of War, almost all of the factors of production necessary for a sustained war effort, were available within the continental United States--including a production capacity necessary for rapid retooling, to enable us to quickly convert new weapon systems from the drawing board to production. Obviously, outsourcing parts or services related to such production to distant lands, is totally inconsistent with such capability. It is also a potential trap for American business in general. In place of those sometimes hostile, yet generally friendly, fellow Americans performing tasks as part of an at least usually cohesive enterprise, with whom to deal in times both good and bad; there may now be contract personnel, sitting at tables in warehouses in Bombay or Calcutta, working phones or computers to provide service operations for major multi-National Corporate conglomerates, with whom no true cohesion is likely. The potential, long term, consequences of such developing dependence, may be as catastrophic as they are perhaps unintended.

Both at home and abroad, the Clinton/Bush era represents the greatest deviation yet from the traditional values of the American mainstream. The fact that this goes virtually unremarked inside the "Beltway," and in the popular media, simply demonstrates the results of the more than a generation long corruption of American academia, previously referenced. Do we blithely accept this new dispensation, or do we resolve to do something about it? How we resolve that question, may determine whether there even is an American future.

The Road Back To America

The fantasy that academics such as Montagu and Allport promoted over a generation ago, has been the orthodoxy on American campuses for forty or more years--in some places over seventy years. Like a glacier, slowly moving down from the mountains, it has crushed first dissent; and without dissent, has stultified the reasoning ability of a large portion of the population currently living in these United States. How did America come to the Clinton/Bush era, where we have emotional exchanges--one can scarcely dignify them as arguments or debates--on superficial issues, where no one asks critical questions or seeks to probe into foundational issues, which will ultimately determine whether the proposed nostrums can possibly work? We came here on the back of academic stultification and the intimidation of dissent. Is there a path back? Or must we go forward to chaos, with perpetual conflict between incongruous factions?

It is virtually axiomatic that what man has created in the past, he can create again. Assuming that we still have potential leaders with the mental competence to restore the benign institutions of our Founders, we can return to reality--if we but have the will to do so. What are the major hurdles to be overcome? The greatest problem is that we have had several decades, in which the historic roots of America have been largely ignored in our children's education. The first objective, then, must be to determine how to recreate the images--the perceptions of an ongoing historic dynamic--to reawaken a clearer understanding of those roots and experiences, which led the now neglected architects of the America we are losing, to the wise decisions that gave us the necessary, yet almost forgotten, foundation for a unique American ethos. In achieving that understanding, we will overcome a whole succession of ideological hurdles that have arisen because we lost the clarity of purpose which flowed from the appreciation of a dynamic history.

How, then, to restore to public consciousness, empirical evidence of the original American dynamic, not taught for over a generation--whether by neglect or design? How to replace the mental frames of reference, necessary to properly understand the heritage we seek to vindicate? Certainly, it can be done. If the Russian people, oppressed by Communist dogma for over seventy years, can suddenly become fascinated once again with their lives under the Romanovs; surely America can rediscover a reality, suppressed by her Academic Left over a mere forty to fifty years. Yet, we would suggest that it must start with each of us. The methodology required is actually fairly simple.

Wherever possible, Conservatives and patriots need to work specific references to the early settlement of America--to the developmental history of the Colonies, which became the original States--into their arguments on contemporary issues. This accomplishes two things. It helps counter the neglect of American history and ethnicity, resulting from the Montagu/Allport/Cousins type distortion, in what has been taught. And it relates the contemporary argument to dynamic vivid images, that are far more convincing than the verbalized rationalizations of the Left.

This Web Site has employed the technique, recommended, on many issues. Let us illustrate the point, here, in a way that intentionally addresses multiple objectives in our quest:

The most compelling arguments, both for understanding traditional American attitudes towards Government and to explain why a free market will out perform any planned economy, arise in a dynamic visualization of the original settlements. There, the colonists built new societies, very literally, from the ground up; learning first hand, by daily struggle to a purpose, how little an adventurous, individually responsible, people need a distant collective--either for their economic development or to control their conduct as to other concerns.

By painting clear, moving pictures, of the unique qualities of early American societies and economy, and how they were reflected in later institutions, in every address or discussion of the nature or role of Government or Society; you help counter the ignorance of American history and roots, that is a such a major part of the problem. In correctly projecting the images of settlement and growth, you instill the foundation for understanding American Federalism, and countering not only the general tendency towards a more intrusive Government in Washington, but the misuse of the concept of "diversity" by the organized Left; as well as refuting any claimed justification for the long-standing efforts to dictate attitudes towards religion and secularism, race and ethnicity, at the Federal level.

It is in those correct images, after all, that one begins to truly appreciate why our Federal Constitution sets up an entity with enormous Governmental powers, for the common defense of the Americans against all the earth, and for controlling the measures of commerce, protecting the value of money, and the sanctity of interstate business connections, yet with no role, whatsoever, as to dictating moral standards, or protecting the health, safety or morals of local communities with respect to their own people; why the language of the First Amendment, in restricting Congress, actually forbids any Federal role "respecting an establishment of religion"-- that is one that could either establish a Federal religion, or interfere with an already established State religion. (That last is, of course, why the prohibition is worded in the precise manner that it is, whether your teachers in school ever acknowledged the point or not.)

The significance of the patterns of settlement is not only essential to an understanding of what the Constitution says and what it does not say; it is essential to the formulation of a sound immigration policy, one which protects rather than sabotages the preservation of cultural norms and identifiable lines of descent. Consider, if you will, why the Pilgrims--for one of the best known examples--gave up the prosperous life styles, which as skilled artisans they had obtained in Europe, to come to America, at enormous risk, to start over from scratch? It was precisely not to enjoy "cultural diversity." To them "freedom" meant the freedom to have a theocratic system of their own choosing. Consider the subsequent pattern of New England settlements, in the Seventeenth Century, where those who dissented founded their own communities rather than agitate their former neighbors.

Consider why various waves of British Cavaliers, sought the more genteel and far less restrictive society of the Old Dominion, or the Carolinas; why Catholics settled in Maryland, Quakers in Pennsylvania, the mercantile interests in Manhattan and the Dutch gentry in the great Patroon estates up the Hudson valley in New York. These people, while mostly of neighboring Northern and Western European stocks, were very different. They identified with distinctive groups that had been killing each other in 16th and 17th Century Europe--even in Civil Wars. What they discovered, in common, at the time of the American Revolution, was a common animosity towards distant but intrusive Government. It is that animosity which is exuded in the Declaration of Independence. It was that shared, common animosity towards the intrusion of distant Government, that galvanized them into a common identity as Americans.

Those values ring through loud and clear in the Constitution. Obviously, the drafters wanted to leave moral values to the States, even as they set up a Federal structure to promote their common economic interests and provide for their common defense. They never agreed on moral values, other than that primary American moral value: The right to local self-government, the right to determine the social and moral values, community by community; with only the State Governments able to override those communities, and establish a general State policy. Of course such men elected not to try to dictate standards of conduct to other nations--to lead by example, but never by imagining that there was only one way to do things. Not only was the price of our Federal Union, mutual respect for the different value systems of each State. That mutual respect for the common right to be left alone, in each particular society, was one of the dynamic motivations for seeking a Federal Union; one that could secure to each of its constituents that very right. To such men, the Clinton/Bush era would represent a veritable death sentence to their hopes and aspirations; a betrayal of their sacrifice and commitment.

In making history come alive as a succession of dynamic images of interacting forces and ideas--images of how people actually progress, illustrating why certain concepts are important-- you will not only over-power the mere verbal argument; you will create in each mind, a resource center, from which one can call up a virtually limitless supply of persuasive points; points as may be suggested by the issues in any particular confrontation. These will provide an arsenal to illustrate the flawed reasoning of those who would tear down, what better men have built.

Let us rally to the task ahead. Can America recover her perspective and purpose from sixteen years of the stultified thinking, we see in Washington today? We believe that she can. But it is going to depend upon a lot of dedicated effort on the part of that remnant of Americans who still understand the real issues.

William Flax

[Note: On December 10, 2006, General Pinochet, the heroic patriot who rescued his beloved Chile from a Marxist takeover in 1973, passed away at the age of 91. Lady Thatcher, a genuine British Conservative, who long acknowledged Pinochet's friendship & the importance of his actions, expressed her sorrow. In disgusting contrast, the Bush White House, fresh from entertaining Britain's Socialist Prime Minister Tony Blair, issued a statement through one Tony Fratto, which included the following:

Augusto Pinochet's dictatorship in Chile represented one of most difficult periods in that nation's history. Our thoughts today are with the victims of his reign and their families.

The White House had no praise for the man who had originally acted to save his people--and indeed the rights of Americans in Chile, also--from Communists & Socialists, who were already well advanced in stealing the fruits of many generations of labor by successful Chileans. The hue & cry against Pinochet on the Left, ever since, has been from those who may sincerely believe that thugs & theorists have a right to plot crimes against other people's fundamental rights with impunity; but that position is not rational. The Pinochet Government showed that there can be consequences for plundering other people's resources. Those who engage in such activity are not "victims" when Conservatives retaliate.

Of course, in addition to suppressing the criminal element, General Pinochet introduced the freest economy in Latin America! He deserves the enduring gratitude of all, who love & understand Freedom everywhere.

We append this note as one more example of the fact that the Bush Administration accepted the same warped, Leftist assumptions, as did the Clinton Administration.]




Novel: Antithesis To Obama On Political & Social Issues>>
Return Of The Gods

Conservative Intelligence Center


August, 2014>>
To Respond To Anti-American Lies

June, 2014>>
Prosperity & Peace Depend On Mutual Respect

April, 2014>>
Significance Of Crimea's Return To Russia

March, 2014>>
Another Variation On Demonic Theme

February, 2014>>
Variations On Demonic Theme

January, 2014>>
Short Term/Long Term: Perspective Governs Values

September, 2013>>
Corporate Managers & "Immigration Reform"

July, 2013>>
Compassion Or Compulsion?

The Price Of Egalitarianism

June, 2013>>
Jason Richwine & An Assault On America's Future

May, 2013>>
Agenda Serving Bullies, Crack-Pots Betraying Duty?

April, 2013>>
Implied Powers? Clear Limitations!

March, 2013>>
Compounding Disintegration

February, 2013>>
Missing Link To An Armed Citizenry

January, 2013>>
Missing Link To Reality

December, 2012>>
Whither American Conservatism?

November, 2012>>
Obama Or America--Irreconcilable Differences

October, 2012>>
Losing America's Multi-Generational Purpose

August, 2012>>
Social Reform: Confusion & "Unintended Consequences?"

July, 2012>>
Cloud Dancing Revisited--A Spreading Contagion

May, 2012>>
Blame & Envy Cocktail--Demagogues' Path To Power

April, 2012>>
"Diversity" In Context: Reality vs. Leftist Fantasy

March, 2012>>
World Government? Surrender By Subterfuge!

February, 2012>>
Conflicting Premises For A Social Order

January, 2012>>
Pseudo Pragmatism--Political Folly, Foreign & Domestic

December, 2011>>
"Occupy Wall Street": Fruits Of Corrupt Education

November, 2011>>
Paths To Success & A Path To Failure

October, 2011>>
Socialist Policy Effects On Specific Groups

September, 2011>>
Debt Default In America

August, 2011>>
Egalitarian Collectivism Sabotages Human Potential

July, 2011>>
Pursuit Of "Diversity": Return To Babel?

Gold & Money In America

Freedom Of Choice? Gulliver Discovers America

Social Security? Enemy Of Social Security!

Greatest Mischief Ever Wrought

Time--Neglected Dimension In Social & Economic Analysis

Cloud Dancing--Social Medium For Scoundrels & Neurotics

Answer >>
America, Built On Experience & Reason

Keynesian Harvest, 2008 & Beyond

Trust In Government Or Education?

a href="gaming.htm">Gaming The Question--Staple of Demagogues

"Liberal" Or "Mipip?"

"Social Justice"--Not Social & Not Just

A True Sociopath: Keynes & The Keynesian Appeal

Addiction: An Economy Dependent Upon Easy Credit

Function Of Money--A Medium Of Exchange

Keynes At Harvard (Quacks In Education)

Congress & The Regulation Of Commerce

Leftwing Chickens Coming Home (Obama)

Race & Ethnic Politics--America, 2008

Playing With Matches, 2008: Peter Pan In The Great Rift Valley

Liberty: The Basics

The Responsibility Factor

Redefining Victory--Turning Quick Victory Into Pursuit Of Fantasy

Reason Or Compulsion--The Future

Promoting Hate--SPLC In Action

Death Of Community

'Clueless'In 2006--Dangerous Intellectual Confusion Of A President

A Corkscrew In Heart Of America

2006--George Bush Grovels To NAACP

Shameful: President Bush On Immigration

George Washington vs. George W. Bush On Foreign Policy

Neo-Con Phenomenon

Destroying Cultural Continuity--Leftist War On Social Cohesion

Conservative Debate Handbook--Instant Access, All Chapters

Immigration & The American Future

Myths & Myth Makers In American "Higher" Education

Medicare--Panacea Or Death Potion?

Democracy In The Third World--Destructive Egalitarian Myth

Declaration Of Independence--With Study Guide

"How The Welfare State Works"

Conservative Resource Menu--180+ Items