travisthornton.net

Foreign policy is a curious and delicate thing.  Presidents set the tone and the State Department implements the policy.  In this era, we face a global threat in the War on Terror, as well as a number of individual threats that are too easily grouped together as one.  The challenges we face are numerous and complicated.  Every country we face in conflict has its own set of issues with its own set of solutions; therefore, trying to apply history to our present and future can be tedious.  There are, however, lessons to be drawn from our history of successes and failures.

The quote, “We should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate” is attributed to our youngest President to date, John F. Kennedy.  Indeed, in his short Presidency, he faced some of the most gripping foreign policy decisions, with threats from Cuba and the Soviet Union culminating into the Cuban Missile Crisis.  He demonstrated a strong, unbending will that ultimately kept our country safe during our most dangerous time.  He also sat down to negotiate with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, and held his ground while doing so.  (My Comment)

Ronald Reagan met numerous times with Mikhail Gorbachev during the 1980s.  He correctly tethered our foreign policy with the Soviet Union to their domestic policy and the freedoms of the Russian citizens.  As the Soviets gave their citizens more political freedoms, the USSR withered away, the regime eventually toppled, and the Berlin Wall came down.  The first political prisoner released by Gorbachev, Natan Sharansky, in his book The Case for Democracy, sums up the linkage Reagan made, stating:

“In fighting with the Soviet regime, we dissidents came to appreciate the power of the solidarity of the free world.  We believed that a state’s respect for the rights of its own citizens should be the criterion by which to measure the state’s intentions.  In the readiness of democratic leaders to link their relations with other states to the extent those states respected human rights, we saw great potential for the development and expansion of freedom across the globe.”

In my admittedly novice opinion, this should be the basis for all foreign policy decision-making.  As citizens gain freedoms, they will internally push the nation towards true democracy, which is the foundation for a lasting peace.  Both Kennedy and Reagan understood the power of proper negotiation, and the implications of anxiety or appeasement.  They understood the moral implications of just diplomacy, as Hans Morgenthau to “bend, not break” the will of our opponents.  Most importantly, Kennedy and Reagan understood that their words and deeds represented a free society and would convey the benefits of joining in their ranks.

Improper negotiations can have devastating effects.  Before the onset of the American Revolution, Patrick Henry warned us of improperly negotiating with the British, saying, “I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.  And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House.  Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received?  Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet.  Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss.”

History Repeats Itself

Last month, before Israel’s Knesset, President George W. Bush parsed, “Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.” 

I encourage you to read the entire transcript, located here.  In saying these words, the President was indicting a mindset that has repeatedly failed throughout history for purely human psychological reasons.  When you give up a little bit to a megalomaniac, it becomes difficult for them not to ask for more.  If you back off a line drawn in the sand, your opponent will continue to advance.  Those who fail to realize this are destined to fall victim to repeat the lessons of our past.

Bush’s comments obviously made Barack Obama jump up in his proverbial chair, as those words hit a particularly raw nerve.  It is common knowledge that in the CNN-YouTube Debate, Barack Obama agreed that he would meet – without preconditions – with Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as President.  While it’s true that mere diplomacy is not appeasement, negotiation without preconditioning can easily lead to exploitation, and either embarrassment or appeasement.

On this point, Obama veered off-course, refused to admit his misstatement, and made this stance his doctrine.  He will certainly hear about this up through November.  In the debate, he went on to reference Reagan and Kennedy, as I did in the introduction, but obviously he is not aware of the mechanisms behind their negotiations.  Take a look:

“Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire.  And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.

“And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them.  We’ve been talking about Iraq – one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they’re going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.

“They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point.  But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region.”

These statements, along with Obama’s willingness to meet with dictators without preconditions, may have been the target of President Bush’s comments in Israel.  Obama would pull troops from Iraq, based on a timetable, with no regard for the situation on the ground.  This fits the mindset of his liberal upbringing, and his true policy supporters (not the ones fainting as a result of his Messianic oratory and tendencies).

To be sure, not all Democrats, or even liberals, favor appeasement or antiwar sentiment.  Appeasement – in the name of peace – seems to be the agenda of the far left, and the antiwar movement in particular.  It is of note here that the ultraliberal organization MoveOn.Org endorsed Barack Obama long ago, an endorsement he concurrently accepted.  This organization is so antiwar it was opposed to American intervention in Afghanistan.  After 3000 Americans died in 9/11, MoveOn.Org began a petition calling for “justice, not escalating violence” in Afghanistan.  These instances expose the naivety from which the antiwar movement has sprung.

For Obama, being antiwar in general – that is against any war – means in the case of Iraq, he would be sure to get it right once in a while.  This indeed has been the basis of his Presidential campaign.  Obama’s Iraq War dissent set him apart from the other Congressmen running for President, as he opposed the war before he entered the Senate in 2004 (For the record, Representative Dennis Kucinich also dissented the decision, and voted in the negative in October 2002). 

Is Peace Progress?

No war sure sounds nice.  So, on a side note here, ask yourself:  Is there ever a just war?  It sure would be hard to explain these antiwar sentiments to the living veterans of our World Wars, who stood up in the face of tyranny, and in the case of World War II, fought two wars at once.  Explain it to our Civil War ancestors, from the North and the South, who simultaneously fought for freedom.  Explain it to the Sons of Liberty, who declared independence and fought a much larger military – a literal empire – for the freedoms we enjoy today.

War is not an easy thing.  It was not easy then, and is still not easy for the rough men who stand ready to do violence on our behalf.  This truth is reflected in Thomas Paine’s famous words from the American Crisis, December 1776:  “These are the times that try men’s souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value.”

Furthermore, contrary to the summer soldiers and the campaign posters, Peace is not Progress.  Peace is what kept the Soviets quiet when their neighbors were marched in the Gulag.  Peace is what kept dissenting Germans quiet as the Jews were beaten into the railcars, into Auschwitz, into the incinerators, never to be heard from again.  It’s for these souls, these freedom fighters, that others have given up their personal peace to fight.  Explain to them there is no just war.

Proper Negotiations

If peace is not progress, how do we progress in diplomatic efforts without bending our will or breaking the will of our opponents?  Well, the Bush Doctrine states that, “We don’t negotiate with terrorists,” and “You are either with us or against us,” allowing no neutrality in the War on Terror.  In President Bush’s own analogy, those who would test America’s resolve would find it firm.  As we progressed into Bush’s second term, however, we have been confronted by multiple threats, with multiple treaties broken by North Korea and Syria, and in fact, acts of war, or casus belli, committed by Iran against our soldiers in Iraq.  While we have not responded to these countries with military strikes in the sense of “Cowboy Diplomacy,” we have not sought peace through appeasement, either.  Thanks to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, we may ratchet our sanctions, or conduct multilateral talks, but we do not bend.  At least, we haven’t in the last eight years; who knows what tomorrow might bring.

Looking back, we realize Neville Chamberlain tried to find peace through appeasement.  As Prime Minister of Great Britain, he tried to tell the British citizens that Hitler would not attack them as he marched across Europe.  (If you’re ever on Chris Matthews’ Hardball, it would be good to know the following).  In giving up half of Czechoslovakia in the Munich Agreement, Neville Chamberlain believed Hitler would stop there, and peace would prevail, and to the joy of the Britons, stated, “My good friends, for the second time in our history a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour.  I believe it is peace for our time.”  He thought wrong, though, and it cost him his legacy, as well as the countless lives of an averted history. 

Delta of Difference

The lesson to be learned from the hyper-diplomacy we have recently endured is to be firm, but present when necessary.  Condoleezza Rice admits to negotiating with Iran behind the scenes, effectively jettisoning the Bush Doctrine.  Not a bad move on her part, actually.  The distinction to make between this Administration and the Obama doctrine is that President Bush himself does not – and will not – meet unconditionally with Ahmadinejad, or the Castros, or Kim Jong Il.  In the parlance of our times, we don’t roll like that. 

This distinction needs to be specifically drawn between Obama and the far left, and the Republican candidate, John McCain.  In my opinion, McCain and his less-than-excited conservative wing cannot hammer enough on this singular point.  For the far left, peace is more precious than freedom and security better than liberty.  The naivety, and subsequent hazard, of those who would sacrifice our standing in the world while exploiting the presidency beckons exaggeration.  Put frankly, their misconception of foreign policy endangers global democracy.  On my next and final post of this series, I will stress the necessity of a coalition for success in November against the ideals of big government discussed in the last post, and antiwar sentiment discussed here.

“Posterity!  You will never know how much it cost the present Generation to preserve your Freedom!  I hope you will make good use of it.  If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it.”             - John Adams, April 1777

My grandfather recently told me a story from his childhood, when in the wake of Pearl Harbor, his father silently retreated to his Houston backyard, and began turning up the soil in December 1941.  Although puzzling, his intentions were simple:  plant vegetables.  He later built a coop and a pen, bought pigs and chickens, and soon, his family was self-sufficient.  In an age of minimal networking, most didn’t know where Pearl Harbor was, as the Wikipedia history lessons weren’t readily available as they are today.  He only knew the Japanese had bombed American territory, and in case of enemy invasion, he would be ready. 

The actions of my father’s father’s father are telling.  They embody a level of commitment and a realization that, yes, we are at war.  He also decided to “eat locally;” today, our food travels an average of 1500 miles before hitting our plates.  Inflated food prices are at their highest in 18 years.  Ethanol mandates receive a lot of the blame for this.  According to the US Department of Agriculture last week, however, food prices have only risen 3% due to the President’s mandate to produce 30 million more barrels of ethanol.  In actuality, due to the high gas prices, it costs more to put that food on your plate than it did yesterday.  Gas prices have caused across-the-board inflation.  Today, we don’t even realize we’re at war. 

So let’s look at some of the facts at hand.  Since 9/11, oil prices have more than quintupled.  It’s not hard to conceive, however, when you look at the roster of the Oil Producing and Exporting Countries, an opaque list of dictatorships and kingdoms known as OPEC:  Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela.  Obviously, some of these countries are bigger players than the others, but when you look for the cause of our woes, consider the source. 

These select countries collectively set the price of oil, based on… well, not supply and demand in the United States.  Global oil production is up, and US demand dropped 0.8 percent since last year, so the price should have gone down.  However, since international demand has risen due to India and China’s growing impact, prices have risen due to speculation and global fear.  The past year should be an indication of the direction we are heading:  for the first time in history, more cars were purchased in Asia than in the United States.

I remember paying 85 cents a gallon for gas in high school (in the Nineties) and “driving around” all night.  It was possible to fill your gas tank then for ten dollars or less.  Today, it may cost $300 a month or more just to drive back-and-forth to work.  It is now feasible to pay less a month for your car than you do for the gasoline you put in it. 

We are being held hostage by a handful of foreign countries. 

We are literally being held over a barrel. 

Crisis Evolving 

To date, sixty-five percent of our oil is imported.  Consider the fact that (on May 21, 2008) gas is $3.70 a gallon in America, while in Venezuela, it is 12 cents, in Iran, 40 cents, in Saudi Arabia, 45 cents, and in Libya, 50 cents.  Among these countries, only Saudi Arabia is considered a real ally; more on that later.  Europeans pay more than we do for gas, averaging eight dollars a gallon.  Which raises the question:  would we pay eight dollars for a gallon of gasoline?  I guess it depends on how far you drive to work.  At some point, you will see negative returns on commuting to work.  Let’s suppose OPEC continues to ratchet the price: what would happen when gas costs five, or ten, or twenty dollars a gallon?  Would we pay twenty dollars for a gallon of gasoline?  Hopefully, we won’t someday look back fondly at these days, when gas was less than four dollars a gallon, or wish we could simply get gasoline at all.   

What happens when OPEC says oil is no longer for sale?  What if we reach “peak oil” with our remaining economic allies?  It’s enough to pontificate starting a strategic reserve of your very own.  A gasoline outage wouldn’t just affect your driving, though.  Food prices would skyrocket.  Cross country shipments would come to a screeching halt.  Planes would be grounded.  Work and production nationwide would cease; what would happen to the Stock Market?  Are we seeing these effects now?  If it were to become unavailable, what would people do just for a gallon of gasoline? 

Friends Like These 

Some claim Big Oil is responsible for the high price of gasoline.  According to the Department of Energy data from March 2008, 12% of what you pay at the pump goes to taxes, 16% goes to oil companies for refining, distribution, and service stations, while 72% pays for the crude oil.  That variable is set by OPEC.   

Where does our imported oil come from?  Most comes from Canada.  Saudi Arabia is by far the largest known supply of oil in the world.  Roughly seventeen percent of our oil comes from Saudi Arabia. Behind Canada’s twenty-six percent contribution, Saudi Arabia is the major supplier of American oil.  Without Canada, our silent partner and consequently the second largest known supply of oil in the world, we would be putty in the hands of the Middle East.  We currently have a discordant foreign policy in place throughout the entire region due to oil economy.  Instead of basing our relations on human rights, the foundation of freedom, we lay our money down for the Saudi regime.

It’s no mystery that we have a rocky relationship with Saudi Arabia.  Since their discovery of oil, we have sought business with the regime.  After the death of King Fahd in 2005, half-brother Crown Prince Abdullah advanced to the throne.  This position was sought after by half-brother Prince Nayef, now the Interior Minister, who is seen as the heir apparent of the crown.  As King Abdullah is now 84 and Prince Nayef is 75, this shift could happen sooner rather than later. 

So who is Prince Nayef, and how is he different from King Abdullah?  To peel this onion is to reveal a certain “Saudi paradox.”  King Abdullah is a proponent of rapprochement between Muslims and Non-Muslims, known in Arabic as “taqarub.”  He is an ardent supporter of the theory of “Great Capitalist Peace,” in which free market drives foreign policy.  Prince Nayef, on the other hand, is closer to the Wahhabi than King Abdullah, and as Interior Minister oversees the funding of worldwide extremist political groups like Hamas, and various madrassahs, or schools, throughout Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and various parts of the world, including Gibraltar, shown below.  Put simply, Salafists teach hatred for the West to young children.  From an early age, children are taught that jihadi martyrdom is divine.  From all this, you can deduce that while we are engaged in a Global War on Terror, we are funding both sides of the war. 

Let me include a couple of historical examples to personify Prince Nayef.  As Interior Minister, he is head of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (CPVPV), or as we would call it, the Religious Police.  The CPVPC walk the streets and carry sticks to flog those not praying at proper times, as they are responsible for enforcing Islamic law in Saudi Arabia.  On March 11, 2002, a dormitory at a girl’s school in Mecca caught fire, and the Religious Police beat back schoolgirls as they tried to leave without their proper Islamic headdress.  More than a dozen girls died as a result, an act which Prince Nayef defended, saying the CPCPV prevented “mistreatment” of the girls.  In June 2007, the Religious Police beat a man to death in front of his family on suspicions he possessed alcohol. 

We turn a blind eye to the actions of an evil regime to get that oil, and while these actions vilify Nayef on the home front, his interference in the Global War on Terror makes him a more immediate threat to the United States.  Fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.  In November 2002, he absolved the hijackers of all responsibility, and instead blamed Israel of a conspiracy to rouse the Zionist-Crusader Alliance against the Muslim world.  This is the future of U.S.-Saudi relations. 

Maybe last week we saw the beginning of the end.  With impending out-of-control gas prices, the Department of Energy halted sending oil to the nation’s Petroleum Strategic Reserve, located along the Gulf Coast (in great places like Winnie, Texas), to begin in July and to remain in effect through the rest of 2008.  Experts say this action could lower gas prices as much as twenty-four cents.  Earlier that day, President Bush met with his Saudi friends, including King Abdullah, and asked for an increase in production from the Saudis, which would provide some relief at the pump here in the U.S.  The answer was no.  Our economic ally drew a proverbial line in the desert sand.   

Energy Dependence 

We can have our own opinions, but we can’t have our own facts.  One fact is no new oil refineries have been built in this country since 1976.  Years ago, some in Congress suggested oil companies stalled construction to build up their profits.  Congress does not help in this matter, though, while the oil companies debate the sensibility of investing in new refineries and cite ethanol or other alternative fuels as reasons why not to build them. 

This back-and-forth between Congress and Big Oil is not new.  It came to a head today in a Senate Judiciary Hearing as oil representatives testified on Capitol Hill.  Senator Dick Durbin charged the executives, saying, “You have to sense what you’re doing to us.  We’re on the precipice here, about to fall into recession.  Does it trouble any one of you, the costs you’re imposing on families on small businesses, on truckers?”  The President of Shell Oil retorted that federal restrictions on drilling have caused the problems, stating, “If the nation set a goal of increasing domestic production by two to three million barrels a day by opening up new sources of exploration and production, we could demonstrate to the world that we are in control of our own destiny.” 

The fact I submit is this:  as we search for ways forward, any barrier to energy security of any kind is now a national security issue.  With friends like the Saudis, no additional chokepoints are needed.  To protect America and guarantee our foreign policy is not tainted by our energy needs; we must break our dependence.  We are addicted to oil, and we compromise our values in order to get it.  We cannot gain energy independence overnight, though.  Experts project it would take years to render results from new sources.  As we pay over $200 million dollars a minute on foreign oil, and borrow nearly $500 billion a year to pay for it, we import more than 9 million barrels a day, making up twenty-seven percent of the world’s energy demand.  Ninety-seven percent of our transportation infrastructure depends on oil.  These facts add up to show how extremely vulnerable we are.  

Declaring Independence 

What sacrifices have we really made during this war?  Our dependence on foreign oil has steadily grown, and debate over environmental issues has bitterly sharpened.  To advocate raising Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards brands you a hippie.  Consider the fact that doubling our vehicle efficiency would reduce oil consumption by 3.6 million barrels of oil per day; we import 2 million barrels per day from the entire Middle East.  The somewhat bipartisan cap-and-trade proposal by Senators Warner and Lieberman focuses on climate, and is a start to negotiating a path forward, but are not the absolute answer.  However, when coupled with Senator Domenici’s plan to increase production of oil within the United States, it seems Congress is beginning to realize the dire straits into which we stare.

I believe Americans should be able to judge their own transportation needs, and do what they feel they should do.  More than half a century ago, my great-grandfather found it necessary to produce his own food; that American spirit of sacrifice should be within all of us now.  I think when tackled deliberately, fuel economy can be raised without punishing Americans through tax burdens or through employment woes.  It will take a certain amount of understanding on the part of the American people.  Ultimately, a public and determined deliberation will be necessary between private industry, our government bodies, and the people they serve.  I just hope it happens before it’s too late.

I recently took a hiatus from this website to rethink what its purpose has been.  I realized that through this website, I have been able to define my own views on the news that will inevitably become history.  Some of the news has been minutiae, and some has been grandiose, but all is now part of our nation’s history.  I’d like to look at some minutiae of the 2008 Presidential race now, and by drawing from it some historical lessons, show some of the ideological implications the finer details may carry.

News

This week, the “bitter” comments of Senator Obama drew much attention.  Obama claims that Pennsylvanians are bitter about government, and as a result, “cling to guns and religion.”  These two symbols are separately representative of most Americans freedoms and faith.  In his claim, Obama comes across as condescending and ultimately Messianic.  You see, Obama wants to assume the role of guarantor, bringing Americans their security and salvation, as they will come to know it.  Obama is debunking dogma, while simultaneously wallowing in it.  He wishes to displace actual hope with a sense of reliance upon himself; “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for,” the time is now, as he “asks us to believe” in him.  According to Obama, “If changing our hearts and minds is the first step, we cannot stop there.”  Sorry to break it to you, Obama, but if this society collapses, most Americans will be clinging to our guns and Bibles, and as a little bit of campaign advice, as you try to “change” things, you should leave that cold fact alone.

Also on the campaign trail, echoes of shared prosperity, shared responsibility, and a supposed assault on the middle class can be heard from a certain side of the aisle.  Earlier this week on C-SPAN, I heard Hillary Clinton ask college students to pursue “good middle class jobs.”  What’s wrong with upper class jobs, Hillary, especially after paying for years of college?  But Democrats will get their way, even if they have to tax the upper class back into the middle class.  I’ve heard this line before.

I understand that “Change” is a concept all Americans want after the last eight years endured.  It is true, that today many Americans believe that, “to achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.”  As to not plagiarize, that quote is the mission statement of the Democratic Socialists of America (www.dsausa.org).  Needless to say, we need to exercise caution in the kind of change we want here in America.

History

The campaign rhetoric is scary, but not new.  With all this talk of a rising “collective voice,” “fighting for the common good,” I am reminded that the world has seen political characters that could unite nations, in personalities such as Mussolini, Mao, and Hitler.  To be fair, not all of Germany agreed with Hitler’s press onward, which indeed outpaced the world’s imagination, but collectively, silent Germans haphazardly participated in the nationalist movement by not speaking out, by not fighting back, and by remaining silent.

The “Silent Majority” Richard Nixon spoke of in the seventies is alive and well (albeit sedated in front of reality television) now in 2008.  This year is indeed attracting younger people to politics, and sure, more people are interested in this election than ever before, but for all the wrong reasons.  Political issues of concern are lapel pins, pariah Reverends, Bosnia sniper fire comments, McCain’s age, Obama’s race, Clinton’s sex, and any slue of personal issues.  Policy is rarely approached, and it seems ideology is never, ever, discussed.  The Iraq War may be discussed, but just war theory is not.  Social Security may be discussed, but the current efficiency of our welfare state is not.

Historically, it takes a war (or a rocky economy) for Americans to be interested in the government process.  A frightening point I’d like to make is that under the shroud of war, social welfare legislation passes through Congress with ease.  The same can be said about economic concern.  We can turn to history for examples.  During the Great Crash, FDR was able to implement a tremendous amount of “New Deal” policy, of which we inherited Social Security as legacy.  During the Vietnam War, LBJ was able to push his “Great Society” agenda, of which we now have Medicare and Medicaid.  America is so entrenched in these policies that now we cannot imagine not having these programs as part of our thread.  Never mind the fact that Social Security has swollen to twenty-two percent, and Medicare and Medicaid now constitute twenty percent, of our federal budget.  Compare that to fifteen percent for education, and thirteen percent for our military budget and national security.  Now, we have both a global war and a rocky economy.  What additional programs will be added to the load of the government, and inevitably, its people?  Health insurance, then what?  Meanwhile, the American people plead, “Nolo contendere,” while Congress stalls on the major issues and passes temporary solutions to major problems for political gains.  Consider the “Economic Stimulus Package” an example of a temporary solution.

Stalemate

Somehow, in the face of so many serious domestic social and economic issues, as well as foreign policy, energy, and environmental issues, our Congress seems to be at an impasse.  Each party has its “party line opinion,” but these opinions are dominated by fringe elements within a party’s wings.  This is true for both parties, as Conservative radio, of which I am a fan, dictates the Republican Party line, and far left liberal groups such as MoveOn.org determines the Democratic Party line.  The majority party opinions are not too far from each other, but rarely do politicians cross those lines to accomplish crucial business in Congress, as they will be subsequently bashed by the fringe elements, and may lose the support the fringe provides.  Meanwhile, the American people, who embody a moderate majority, are disenfranchised.  See graph below for a visual description of this situation. 

Fringe elements are responsible for the current Congressional stalemate.  Representative government is gone.  Often, I feel as though a High School Student Council meeting could render better results.  Our Congress is disconnected from the society it serves, and what’s worse, they believe merely throwing money and legislation at our problems will fix them; from housing foreclosures, to college costs, to credit card debt and airline delays, bailouts and bills of rights seem to be the comfortable answer for many Congressmen.  I see it as legislation for the sake of legislation.  How does it affect our individual freedoms?  I believe there must be another way.

This shift away from a federal system, where state and local governments and private industry has control, and towards a central government is not the only directional evolution we can observe; Congressional leadership has allowed our government to shift from Legislative Branch power to an Imperialist Presidential post.  This is evident when we listen to the statements of the Congressional leaders themselves.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi rely on the President to set the tone, and blame him for any and everything wrong with government.  The power lies with the Legislative Branch, but is often relinquished through fast tracking, and frankly the tone of rhetoric used by Congressional leaders.

Personally, Harry Reid reminds me of a modern day Henry Wallace.  Henry Wallace was VP to FDR, and was seen by many liberals to be the natural successor to the Presidency.  He challenged Truman for the Presidency on a third-party ticket in 1948.  In his party’s acceptance speech, Wallace condemned American foreign policy repeatedly while never once citing the threat of the Soviet Union.  He publicly sought the appeasement of Stalin.  This ultimately led to his defeat, as he was not trusted by the moderate majority.  His skepticism seemed an indictment of America itself, and a denial of American exceptionalism.  We must ask ourselves what truly makes America exceptional; I believe it to be the freedom we thoroughly enjoy.  Freedom has pushed this society to have the highest standard of living in the world, as it has since this nation’s conception.

Liberty

I hold the personal belief that conservatism serves the public good better than liberalism, but I also believe that individualism does more than conservatism.  I hope not to offend liberals, or conservatives, but I believe progressivism is contrary to the spirit of liberty, and individual liberties are paramount to the survival of our society.  Let me explain why.  In progressive codependency, our government and its citizenry invest in each other, and during trying times, one feels like it owes the other something.  This state of “mutual entitlement” marks the beginning of a march downward, from a free society to a fear society, and from individual liberties to collective liberties, then from collective liberty to the securities of progressivism, down into collectivism.  Then, as liberties become displaced by securities, the government gains tighter control over its subjects, and totalitarianism takes root.  If you don’t believe my assessment, take Adolf Hitler’s word for it:  “Our nation can achieve permanent health only from within on the basis of the principle: The common interest before self-interest.”  In light of this historical reference, I get antsy when I hear Barack Obama say, “Our individual salvation depends on our collective salvation,” or Hillary Clinton, when she says, “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” 

There must be another way, or so our founding fathers believed.  For them, balancing freedom and security was a crucial reality.  When deciding on this society’s genetic makeup, our founding fathers erred on the side of liberty.  Our laws, and even the Constitution, may be tweaked throughout the history of this country, but we should always heed our forefathers intentions for freedom’s survival.  Patrick Henry asked us in 1775, “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?”  Security comes in the word, “Surrender.”  Maintaining freedom is more difficult than that.  It is the work of the American people, and is accomplished through our votes.

In essence, this is not a rant.  This is not a condemnation of one party, or an endorsement of another.  This is connecting the struggles of history to the current ideological struggle of this society.  This is a call to pay attention and preserve our country and its liberties.

“My vigor relents.  I pardon something to the spirit of liberty.” - Edmund Burke, Speech on Conciliation with America

Society is a contract, and the government’s duty is its balance.  When individuals agree to sacrifice freedoms for the benefit of many, therein begins the contract, and thereafter lies its balance.  The burden of balancing state economic support with laissez-faire ideology, and balancing social welfare support with individualism, lies mostly with the federal government.  Luckily, its citizenry, that is you and I, can hire and fire those making critical decisions regarding these issues.  Often in times of economic crisis, our citizenry looks upon the federal government to make large expansions in power to aid and assist them.  This is often accompanied by mentally dissociating the coffers of the federal government and the paycheck of the citizen.  People today are more ready to arbitrarily part with their money than ever before.  Mentioning an increase in taxes draws applause, something I find quite awkward.  To forget that the citizen’s money and the State’s money are inseparably related, and to feel a sense of entitlement to or from the federal government, is to begin that dark journey down “the road to servitude” that Alexis de Tocqueville warned us about in 1840.

There comes a time, of course, for the government to act with a moral duty toward its people during a time of struggle.  It is also the government’s duty to maintain moral clarity during a crisis.  This applies to foreign policy as well; the Iraq War proved to abort any feasible, congruent foreign policy in a post-9/11 world, and its origin may prove to be the death of the American statesman.  During times of economic crisis, the urge to undertake vast social program expansion may exist, and may be necessary to a certain extent, as some intervention by Franklin Roosevelt’s Administration was necessary when it implemented the New Deal.  Expansion emboldens our federal government, and drunk off the money its citizenry is more than willing to depart with, it may undertake a wide variety of programs it could never support.  In the case of the New Deal, policy doors were opened that may never be shut.

David Hume warned in an epigraph, “It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.”  Freedoms slip away as the government and its people become more interdependent on each other.  As the people feel entitled to new protections of all sorts, their economic freedoms begin to expire, as the government needs more money from its people.  Being a learned people, we become trained to the world we live in.  Entitlements slowly kill motivation, responsibility, and any State policy based on common sense and incentives.  The State thrives while the individual falters, and economic freedom gives way to economic security.

It is the State’s responsibility to balance security with the freedom of its people; often, strengthening one weakens the other.  This is the burden of the State; to balance the laws of the nation with the liberty of its people.  Often, security and peace are used simultaneously in policy talks; although both are related, I believe there are two distinctly different ways to achieve both security and peace.  From freedom, there is a natural progression toward democracy, and then from democracy to peace, and then from peace, to security, with laws not to infringe the rights of the individual.  This is how free countries bring about security; it is not guaranteed, however.  In contrast, countries that do not enjoy freedom will have security thrust upon them with laws first, bringing relative peace, as long as the laws of the nation are unbroken.  These laws protect the State, and not the individual.  Laws, in themselves, are not evil: to quote John Locke, “The end of law is, not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.  For in all the states of created beings capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom.  For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be where there is no law.”  Laws are not incongruous with liberty, as the two are dependent on each other, caught in a delicate balance.

True freedom can only be achieved with the chance of endangering individual security.  As George Will puts it, “Happiness is a function of fending for oneself.  Happiness is an activity; it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.”  For the State to guarantee otherwise is to march its citizens down a dark path in which they relinquish first their economic freedoms, and then their social freedoms.  This happened shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia.  This was also the goal of many dictators prior to World War II.  Consider the words of Italy’s dictator, Benito Mussolini, in 1929:

“The State, as conceived by Fascism and as it acts, is a spiritual and moral fact because it makes concrete the political, juridical, economic organization of the nation and such an organization is, in its origin and in its development, the manifestation of the spirit.  The State is the guarantor of internal and external security, but it is also the guardian and the transmitter of the spirit of the people as it has been elaborated through the centuries in language, custom, faith.  The State is not only the present, it is also past, and above all future.  It is the State which, transcending the brief limit of individual lives, represents the immanent conscience of the nation.  The forms in which States express themselves change, but the necessity of the State remains.  It is the State which educates citizens for civic virtue, makes them conscious of their mission, calls them to unity, harmonizes their interests in justice; hands on the achievements of thought in the sciences, the arts, in law, in human solidarity; it carries men from the elementary life of the tribe to the highest human expression of power which is Empire.”

It was the stated intent of Karl Marx, and then V.I. Lenin, to abolish the State by bringing the proletariat into power, that is, the Middle Class.  This is the current stated intention of Latin American Communism as well, claiming it wants to empower its mestizo race.  Looking back on Communist Russia, we can see the state was not abolished, but instead empowered, and we can now see the corruption of Latin American Communism in Venezuela, as a dictator tightens his grip on his people daily.  Words may be used to deceive a nation, speaking to our hearts, and not our minds.  Ernesto “Che” Guevera spoke such words, discussing moral duty in 1965, in what was to be his last public appearance:  “The socialist countries have the moral duty of liquidating their tacit complicity with the exploiting countries of the West.”  Karl Marx spoke of the evils of capitalism, with an alienated working class and a clear division of labor in the workforce.  These are issues that the State must confront, and must intercede to prevent human rights violations, monopoly situations, and unfair working conditions, and to ensure the nation is not an “exploiting country.” 

The State must also utilize moral clarity to protect the rights of the individuals of the working class, without flashy language to simply draw votes.  In fact, the citizenry should be cautious when politicians speak of “strengthening the Middle Class;” Robin Hood economics will impede production and creativity throughout the nation.  Citizens should also beware of increased interdependence with government.  The “father of modern conservatism,” the Englishman Edmund Burke, expressed his concern over his government’s economic power in 1774, while discussing American taxation:  “To join together the restraints of a universal internal and external monopoly, with a universal internal and external taxation, is an unnatural union; perfect uncompensated slavery.”

So, what is to be done?  We look at our economic situation, coupled with the current over-extension of the federal government and the future proposals that officials are trying to sell to the American people, and it is painfully obvious taxes will be raised to pay for social programs, both the new ones and the old, dying ones.  How did we get here?  Friedrich Hayek, the libertarian economist, explained in 1944, “We are ready to accept almost any explanation of the present crisis of our civilization except one:  that the present state of the world may be the result of genuine error on our own part, and that the pursuit of some of our most cherished ideals have apparently produced results utterly different from those which we expected.”  This is true today, but a new burden exists:  How do we move forward now, in 2008?

To propose discontinuing some our current social programs is seen as cold-hearted, and in some cases, simply impossible.  For example, every American who reaches 65 years of age expects to collect Social Security, and free Medicare health insurance.  There is a sense of entitlement here.  It would seem a heinous crime to discontinue welfare checks to those unwilling to seek out jobs.  It would seem even more callous to expect those on welfare to submit to random drug testing, like all other government employees, subject to the same screening.  Soon, this country will be calling for universal health care, as yet another entitlement program.  Where does this end?  The recently-deceased William F. Buckley stated that his life’s mission was to “stand athwart history, yelling, ‘Stop!’”  All of us need to look down this road, for as Ronald Reagan stated in a 1964 speech I’ve borrowed from before, “Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.”

It is time for people to start asking the hard questions:  How much is this going to cost?  Where will this take the country?  What will this program do to the American spirit?  Most of those asking these questions will obviously be the “intellectual conservatives” and the libertarians, but I think it is time for college liberals and working class Democrats to do the same.  This country was founded on economic ideals far different than those of today.  Consider Jeremy Bentham’s words, from 1798:  “The general rule is that nothing ought to be done or attempted by government; the motto or watchword of government, on these occasions, ought to be – Be quiet… The request which agriculture, manufacturers, and commerce present to government as that which Diogenes made to Alexander:  Stand out of my sunshine.”  These sentiments are echoed in our Constitution and Bill of Rights, with positive-individual rights, and restraints put on the State itself:  “Congress shall make no law…”  Returning America to her ideals transcends partisan politics.  As Natan Sharansky concludes in his book, The Case for Democracy, “We must recapture moral clarity by recognizing that the great divide between the world of fear and the world of freedom is far more important than the divisions within the free world.  At a time when freedom and fear are at war, we must move beyond Left and Right and begin to think again about right and wrong.”  At some point, people must stand up for freedom and take a chance, reject the Nanny State, and live the American dream.

“Nothing is inevitable in America.  We are the captains of our fate.  We’re not a country that prefers nostalgia to optimism; a country that would rather go back than forward.  We’re the world’s leader, and leaders don’t pine for the past and dread the future.  We make the future better than the past.  We don’t hide from history.  We make history.  That, my friends, is the essence of hope in America, hope built on courage, and faith in the values and principles that have made us great.  I intend to make my stand on those principles and chart a course for our future with greatness, and trust in the judgment of the people I have served all my life.  So stand up with me, my friends, stand up and fight for America – for her strength, her ideals, and her future.  The contest begins tonight.  It will have its ups and downs, but we will fight every minute of every day to make certain we have a government that is as capable, wise, brave and decent as the great people we serve.  That is our responsibility, and I will not let you down.” – from John McCain’s victory speech, 4 March 2008

Presidential candidate Barack Obama, in the throngs of his campaign blizzard, may be growing a bit snow-blind.  A common theme you will hear from Senator Obama is the expansion of national programs, albeit universal health care, or his recent proposal to let those stuck in the Subprime Mortgage crisis to “be able to stay in their homes;” I guess I should h