From Pajamas Media:
The Day After
By Victor Davis Hanson

Reconciliation

I wish President-elect Obama well, and hope that even his critics can concede that he waged a successful and often brilliant (if not shrewdly stealthy) campaign.

It seems to me that conservatives have a golden opportunity to offer criticism and advice in a manner that many liberals did not during the last eight years. By that I mean I hope there are no conservative versions of the Nicholson Baker Knopf-published ‘novel’ Checkpoint, the creepy documentary by Gerald Range, the attempt to name a sewer plant after an American President, or the celebrity outbursts that we have witnessed with the tired refrain of Hitler/Nazi Bush—that all have cheapened political discourse. When I hear a partisan insider like Paul Begala urging at the 11th hour that we now rally around lame-duck Bush in his last few days, I detect a sense of apprehension that no Democrats would wish conservatives to treat Obama as they did Bush for eight years.

In the future, criticism should be offered in unified pro-American tones, rather than anti-Obama screeds. When disagreements arise, they should be couched in a sense of regret rather than ebullition. There should be no conservative counterparts of Bill Maher, Michael Moore, or Al Franken.

That said, read on.

Be Careful of what you wish for…

Note the Iraqis immediately rushing to say Obama surely won’t pull out of the Iraq prematurely. Note secondly that just recently they were grandstanding that we had to leave. I had noted earlier a Zen-like possibility with an Obama victory: those who counted on Bush-Hitler to both defend them and be a big target for their cheap anti-Americanism, might not like going it alone as equal “partners” in the much praised “multilateral” fashion.

Obama may just say “We are right behind you when you deal with Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, etc.” Note again, as Europe goes wild over Obama, the subtext is, “This would never happen here.” After all, we Amis have had African-American secretaries-of-state for eight years (well over a quarter-century ago Andrew Young was UN ambassador)—and still no Turkish-German Foreign Minister or Congolese-French Prime Minister? In some sense, Obama will bring welcome moral clarity to foreign relations, because if he really is a multilateralist, current opportunistic foreign dependencies will be forced to weigh in on multilateralism.

On the Taboo of Race

The landmark consequences of electing the first African-American President dominated the news cycle for the last 24-hours. But just as importantly, we have forgotten that we have chosen the most hard left candidate since Henry Wallace assumed the Vice Presidency, in a transparent fashion without fraud or deception. That marks a landmark shift in American attitudes, like it or not. And no one reported on that anomaly, or on the fact that Obama was the first northern liberal to be elected since JFK—or even the first senator to make it since JFK (and LBJ via the Vice Presidency).

On matters of race, at some point the country will evolve beyond the current narrative of the last day that runs something like—‘You redeemed yourself by voting for Barack, and now we can all say we are truly Americans’. The problem with that understandable sentiment is a number of its corollaries: ‘Unless you support European socialist solutions offered by a charismatic African-American candidate, then you confirm America as a quasi-racist nation.’ And this thought: African-Americans voted for a black candidate at a 95% rate; Hispanics at perhaps 75%; yet the country was judged as free of racial tribalism on the basis of whether whites voted for a black candidate far to the left of any Democratic nominee during the last three decades in pluralities greater than they did for past white Democratic candidates like Gore or Kerry. And they did!

It will be interesting when the first Hispanic candidate wins to see whether Mexican-American citizens en masse reaffirm the country to be finally fulfilling its promise—and what would be the reaction of African-Americans and Asians to such ethnic solidarity.

This solidarity may be a natural reaction, but something is still puzzling about hours of television showing African-American ecstasy based on apparent racial pride rather than glee that someone of Obama’s views was elected—all often editorialized by teary-eyed objective journalists. A person from Mars who watched this post-election celebration, might study the popular reaction to the Obama victory and become puzzled: “Aren’t people now saying pretty much what Michelle Obama said twice, and to great criticism, during the campaign: that the emergence of Barack Obama was occasion for many to have pride in their country for the first time?”

Be careful Barack

When off the teleprompter, natural exuberance takes over. The day before the election, Obama was praising his late grandmother and I heard him say that his grandmother, born in 1922, had witnessed both world wars (including 1914-1918?). In his acceptance speech, Obama mentioned that he might not achieve all his aims in “one term”—so we are talking about dynasties of two terms before even assuming office? We remember likewise he kept saying we are only going back to the Clinton tax hikes (up to 40% on top brackets), while omitting the 15.3% FICA and Medicare taxes once the caps are to be eliminated. And we remember that he kept saying he was going to pay for (a trillion dollars worth of) entitlements in large part by “ending that war” (which even by his figures was running at about $100 billion or so now a year (we would need to be in Iraq another 10 years to waste enough that would have gone to new social programs?))

Second Stimulus

After running up the annual deficit to a near half-a-trillion dollars in stimuli rebates and bailouts, now we are to send checks out again for subsidies for food, housing, and power? And how to pay for it? And the consequences of looking for others to channel money to be redistributed? At some point, there should be some overarching exegesis to explain all this. Something like: ‘Compensation is arbitrary and not based on either fairness or logic. So government is necessary to make the needed corrections and to redistribute in the way a flawed market cannot.’ At least then we could learn the logic involved.

Internal Struggles

We are going to witness a gargantuan struggle among the Obama camp in the next 90 days. On the one hand, the following argument will be advanced:

“Look, Barack, we have a historical opportunity with the Congress, the honeymoon, voter momentum, and your communicative brilliance. Carpe diem!”

“Liberals will never have such a window again, so let’s move full blast with Axlerod, Emanuel, and the Chicago Boys before they know what hit them: make lots of hard-left appointments for agency heads, executive branch controllers and cabinet posts; restore the fairness doctrine and get talk radio out of the picture as it was pre-1987; empower unions with an end to secret elections; move on de facto amnesty and keep the borders porous, given how the continually replenished illegal alien community, with periodic amnesties, evolves into Democratic constituencies in key states; go for BOTH tax increases on income up to 40% and ending the FICA caps so you can get another 15.3%. That way we can pay for some of these new programs. Try to create a national health care system akin to Canada’s. Don’t just go for the agenda, but for structural changes that will make it almost impossible for conservatives to win again. Now with incumbency, restore campaign financing in all its manifestations, lest some Republican gets smart and emulates our money-raising strategies. And while we are at it, why not call in Cheney, Rumsfeld and the Bush neocons and charge them with war crimes for Guantanamo and water-boarding?”

Realists will counter:

“Wait! LBJ, Nixon, and others all blew their mandates. Festina lente (‘make haste slowly’). Remember the Clintonian 1993-4 debacle with gays in the military, Hillarycare, Les Aspen at Defense (cf. his no armor in Somalia decision), Travelgate, etc, so we don’t need more hubris that means calling in another Dick Morris and triangulation to save the Obama presidency. Either raise income tax or lift FICA caps, but don’t do both unless you want to gut, not shear, the sheep. Throw the loonies looking for jobs under the bus where they can join Ayers, Wright, Khalidi, etc. Adopt the Petraeus withdrawal plan, but claim it was really the “Obama” plan all along. Turn over the cabinet to Larry Summers and Robert Rubin types and a few Republican-lites like Chuck Hagel.”

So we will see who wins—or whether Obama votes “present,” and the sides go to and fro, back and forth ad nauseam. Beware, we will hear soon a Reaganesque “Let Obama be Obama!”—if we knew exactly what that would mean?

Sarah Palin

There was something bothersome about the treatment of Sarah Palin. Her final campaign appearances and interviews showed calm, poise and competence. Her charm galvanized the base. And yet the hard Left on day one reduced her to a Neanderthal creationist. The DC-NY Republican grandees demonized her as a cancerous bimbo who spoke in a patois and represented a culture that was an anathema. Now after heroic campaign work, she returns to Alaska with leaks that she was a diva, appeared in a bathrobe, and threw things, as failed strategists grasp at scapegoats for their lapses. I hope she completes her term, runs for Senate, and comes back to DC to haunt her critics. Long after 2008, we shall remember that an Atlantic Mazagine blogger for days on end trafficked in rumors that her own daughter delivered her mother’s Down Syndrome child. That smear says it all.

Good/Bad John McCain

Let me understand the current media analysis of John McCain: 2000—“Old” John McCain runs against the more conservative George Bush and loses, so he’s declared principled and good; mid-2008—“new” John McCain runs against a messianic Barack Obama and could win, so he’s ruthless, quasi-racist, and bad; late 2008—“new-old” John McCain loses against Obama and makes a typically gracious speech, so suddenly he’s the new ‘old’ John McCain again?

Creepy People

We, of course, wish to be liked abroad. But there are reasons why in many cases we are not. That is, many governments welcome authoritarians. They prefer tribal, religious, and racial chauvinism compared to our diverse plurality. They like class hierarchies and resent our mobility. They prefer statism, are anti-democratic, and have contempt for consumer capitalism. So why would we wish governments currently composed of radical Palestinians, Iranians, Venezuelans, North Koreans, Syrians, or Russians to like or admire us? While we would wish not to gratuitously excite their ire, their empathy toward us should make us worried not relieved. Who cares whether the royal House of Saud is happy over the election, or those in the Iranian parliament or the activists of Hezbollah?

Campaign casualties

1. No one will again trust the media to report objectively a general election. Turn on NBC or CNN or read the front page of the NY Times, and you will expect an editorial for the more liberal candidate without pretense of objectivity.
2. Public financing is over as a bipartisan tradition. The Democrats may try to resurrect it, once as incumbents they see advantages in limiting fund raising, but no one will ever again believe the mantra of big money + big politics = sleaze
3. Colin Powell. Now a tragic figure. His endorsement of Obama came too late to appear principled (at a time of Obama’s soaring ratings rather than, say, in mid-September when McCain was ahead). And when he had nicer public things to say of the crooked Ted Stevens than he did the principled hero John McCain, one remembered that his former subordinate Mr. Armitage once apparently knew that Mr. Libby had been charged with a crime that was not a crime, and if it were, Mr. Armitage himself had privately admitted that he was the culpable party. Surely Armitage should have been fired or at least reprimanded by Mr. Powell.
4. Obamacons. The timing and rationale for conservatives jumping for Obama became suspect not because of their decision per se, but because it came late, and was often without an explanation of why Obama’s tax or spending plan, or foreign policy, or proposed new entitlements were superior to John McCain’s.
They will be orphaned since there are too many more liberal in line ahead of them to enjoy Obama’s graces, and they burned their bridges with their former conservative supporters. Had any of them simply said in March, “I am for Obama since I think he is a superior candidate to Clinton, Giuliani, Romney and McCain because his preference for a European-model is to be welcomed”, I think they would seem mavericks and issue-orientated thinkers rather than opportunistic.
5. Beltway Republicans. When the conservative party spends wildly, runs up deficits and justifies them by citing percentages of GDP rather than apologies for trillions borrowed, gives us the likes of the criminally-minded such as Cunningham, Abramoff, and Stevens, the morally dubious like Craig and Foley, and the sycophantic like a Scott McClellan or FEMA’s “Brownie” and the other incompents in high-profile administration jobs, then don’t they naturally lose?

Fiscal restraint.

The promises of bailouts and fiscal reprieves from the two candidates were like two Roman emperors outbidding each other for the services of the Praetorian Guard in order to become coronated. Not a word where the borrowing would ultimately come from, how it would be paid back, or how the indebted incurred their obligations in the first place.

As a self-interested columnist, I would hope Obama reassumes his natural hard-left position of his 1996-2005 period that would provide both plentiful column topics and prove counterproductive to his I fear scary agenda. But as an American, I surely hope he doesn’t, and so wish him personally well, and success as a possible centrist commander-in-chief that advances American interests.

Interesting times…

From NationalReviewOnline:
Preventing National Suicide
Tips on conserving and protecting from across the pond.
By Melanie Phillips

In Britain, there is a collective swoon over the election of Barack Obama. Media superlatives have exhausted the lexicon of cliches. Journalists wept with joy over his acceptance speech. Even members of the Conservative shadow cabinet are firmly in the fan club. There’s been nothing like it since... well, I was going to say Dianamania, but actually the person who most comes to mind at this moment is Britain’s former prime minister, Tony Blair.

Like Obama, Blair took the country by storm when he won the first of his three general elections in 1997and threw the Conservative party completely off balance (indeed, it still hasn’t recovered). Like Obama, Blair was charismatic, eloquent, hip, and relaxed, in cruel contrast to the bunch of sleazy, incompetent throwbacks to the paleolithic era in the departing Conservative administration. Like Obama, Blair was seen as a messiah figure, who would lay his hands upon a broken nation and bring healing where there was discord. And like Obama, Blair had an agenda of change.

Blair was widely considered to be a conservative cuckoo in the Labour nest. Indeed, he came to power because he symbolically trashed the party’s commitment to state-control socialism, thus establishing his credentials as a centrist. What few realized at the time was that in fact he was a radical of a different stripe. He wanted to remake Britain and even change human nature itself, wiping out prejudice and ushering in a new world order of progressivism.

Accordingly, his government either directly promoted or did nothing to stop the long march through Britain’s institutions — the systematic undermining of the country’s fundamental values and traditions, in line with the cultural Marxism strategy of the philosopher Antonin Gramsci. It tore up Britain’s (unwritten) constitution, devolving power to Scotland and changing the composition of the upper parliamentary chamber, the House of Lords, destroying the delicate equilibrium of the balance of power.

It also set about changing the identity of the country. Promoting the doctrine of multiculturalism, it opened Britain’s doors to mass immigration. In the state-controlled schools, teachers no longer saw their role as the transmission of Britain’s historic culture, which was “racist”; accordingly, children were not taught the history of their country, but instead a concept of ‘citizenship’ which was all about changing the values of the country. It undermined marriage, promoting instead “lifestyle choice” by incentivising lone parenthood (official forms no longer refer to husband and wives, merely “partners”). It discouraged prison sentences because criminals were said to be victims of life and jail would make them worse.

Obama has talked about remedying what he sees as the flaws in the U.S. Constitution which promotes only “negative liberties,” or freedom from something rather than positive rights to something. Well, through human-rights legislation Britain has exchanged its historic concept of “negative” liberty — everything is permitted unless it is actively prohibited — for the ‘positive’ European idea that only what is codified is to be permitted.

As a result, freedom has shrunk to what ideology permits. Equality legislation has cemented a “victim culture” under which the interests of all groups deemed to be powerless (black people, women, gays ) trump those deemed to be powerful (white people, men, Christians). Since this doctrine holds that the “powerless” can do no wrong while the “powerful” can do no right, injustice is thus institutionalized, and anyone who queries the preferential treatment afforded such groups is vilified as a racist or bigot.

All this constitutes a profoundly illiberal culture in which no dissent is permitted, group is set against group and intimidation is the order of the day. And this also happens to be the culture of ACORN, of the radical groups funded by the Annenberg Challenge and Woods Fund, and the ‘educational’ or criminal justice ideas of William Ayers, endorsed by Barack Obama.

Just as Britain thinks the “powerless” can do no wrong at home, so it thinks the third world can do no wrong abroad — and even when they fly planes into American buildings, the blame therefore lies with America for behaving badly in the first place. It is hard to exaggerate the virulent hatred of America that has been coursing through Britain these past eight years. The reason was that America had dared to defend itself by use of force, riding roughshod over the U.N., and thus, it was said, putting the rest of the world at risk; and that it wanted to export its values to countries which did not live under democracy and the rule of law because it thought that these values were superior to their own. Britain thought this was an imperialism which had cost thousands of lives — and that America was to blame for Islamic violence in the first place because it supported Israel.

Now, however, the refrain in Britain is that “now we can all love America again.” Britain is ecstatic that America has elected an apparently antiwar president in a time of war. Some might think this is a form of national suicide. But Britain recognizes Obama as one of its own. That is because Britain’s intelligentsia and political class is signed up to “transnational progressivism” which holds that the nation is the source of all the ills in the world because it is inherently racist.

Obama believes America has to expiate its sins: both its original, Founding sins of slavery and racism, and its latter-day sins against the world of Islam. Britain likes the sound of that. It wants America to be humbled. Nations, it thinks, cause wars. Arrogant, hubristic, imperial nations like Bush’s America cause big and horrible wars. By contrast transnational institutions — such as the sacred UN or EU — promote civilised “engagement” with the enemy to discuss grievances and reach compromises. So it is thrilled that Obama will get out of Iraq and talk to Iran and may even force wretched Israel (which Britain blames for Everything Bad in the World) to give away the disputed territories and half of Jerusalem to the Arabs.

The fact that such actions would leave Iraq in chaos, empower Iran still further, destroy Israel’s security and imperil the free world doesn’t trouble it at all. And if Obama, under the responsibility of office, should change from an appeaser to a war leader in America’s national interest, then Britain’s new found love for America would revert once again into rage and disdain.

Of course. transnational progressivism, multiculturalism, victim culture, pacifism. and all the rest of it do amount to a national suicide note. The reason Britain has embraced them is because, for the past several decades, it has lost belief in itself as a nation and so has been systematically hollowing out its values and its defences.

The result is a cultural vacuum which is steadily being filled by radical Islamism. Paralyzed by its “universal” value system of multiculturalism and minority rights, Britain is failing to assert its own civilisational principles against the cultural onslaught being mounted by Islamists. Accordingly, it is permitting the spread of Muslim enclaves governed by a parallel jurisdiction of sharia law — the steady creation of a “state within a state” — encouraging the development of sharia finance, and permitting Saudi money to fund British universities and other institutions.

Millions of Britons are appalled by the implosion of British culture, identity, and values. But they find themselves politically disenfranchized, because the Conservative party does not understand that British values are under attack. And Republicans should take careful note of this in order to recognize a similar danger and dilemma facing them following their defeat.

The British Conservatives think that, to regain power, they have to show they have broken with cultural conservatism and go instead with the way society has changed — gay rights, green politics, anti-racism. What they have failed to grasp is that such change has turned values such as right and wrong, good and bad on their heads and has produced a sentimentalised, cruel, oppressive and perverse society — one where burglars go scot-free but householders are prosecuted for putting the wrong kind of garbage in the trash can, and where people are too frightened to protest at the erosion of British, Christian, or Western values because of the opprobrium that will follow.

The Conservatives don’t realize that by embracing such “change” they are endorsing a kind of enslavement. They don’t realize that the first duty of a conservative is to conserve that which is precious and protect it against attack. The result is that millions feel betrayed and abandoned by the absence of conservatism, and yet more still think the Conservative party is just a bunch of opportunists who don’t have any principles. Why vote for the progressive wannabes, after all, when you can have the real thing?

The challenge for conservatives on both sides of the pond is to find a way of conserving the essential values of Western Civilization and defend them against the onslaught being mounted against them both from within and from without — but to do so in a way that is generous and big-hearted rather than narrow and sectarian, and embraces rather than repels.

— Melanie Phillips is author of Londonistan.

From NationalReviewOnline:
The Possibilities of President Obama
In historic victory, he reaches out to the loyal opposition.
By Andrew C. McCarthy

For one night at least, it was all about possibilities. Possibilities that Barack Obama, America’s new president-elect, weaved in a tapestry of patriotism and change, with his trademark eloquence — in that effortless baritone that starts from someplace down here.

For one night, a night of smashing victory unseen in American politics in nearly a generation, he exuded a confident humility that was beyond his years but seemed, in him, so natural and alluring.

It was a night that invited haughtiness. And make no mistake about it: His core supporters yearn for payback — over the Clinton impeachment, over what their lore says was stolen from them in 2000, over the frenzy into which each Bush initiative seemed to drive them these eight long years. But on this night, to his great credit, our new president would have none of it.

Be under no illusions: The president-elect knows where he came from and who got him to this point. “Change” has come to America, he proclaimed to a waving sea of jubilant supporters. Exactly what that change will be is not yet clear, but it would be foolish not to feel the ground beneath us shifting. Change will lean leftward. It will be statist. The questions are how far and how fast — and with his sweeping coattails that solidified Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, how far and how fast will really be up to President Obama.

It is here, though, that Obama, at least for one night, was at his most gracious. He addressed himself directly to us — to conservatives and other skeptical Americans who opposed him, often stridently.

On a night of glorious triumph for him and his ravenous supporters, the message could easily have been: Time for you bitter clingers to get with the program. It wasn’t. Instead, the new president spoke humbly to those whose votes he said he had not yet “earned.” He promised to be our president too — to listen with a heightened attentiveness especially when we disagree, which, to be certain, will be often.

Does he mean it? Here’s hoping so. What is so unnerving is that even now, after the longest presidential campaign in American history, in a country whose deep divisions should lend themselves to the media vetting of candidates from both sides, Obama remains an enigma.

The mainstream press, with its Watergate-bred self-image, its Sixties-driven J-school mission of sculpting rather than reporting news, and its intoxication by the historic moment, became Obama’s palace guard — determined to get him to the palace. Basic information about him remains unexplored: the circumstances of his birth, his immersion in a radical environment, his affiliation with a socialist political party in the mid-Nineties, his fringe opposition to medical care for infants who survive attempted abortions, and so on.

Is he the quietly effective radical strongly suggested by his hard-edged record and his confederation with anti-American revolutionaries? Or is he the centrist healer of his aspirational, inspirational rhetoric? We don’t know for sure. That’s why many of us opposed him, even against a deeply flawed (albeit personally heroic) Republican, the slim prospect of whose victory was as much a source of anxiety as enthusiasm.

Is Obama a Leftist revolutionary? He denies ideological mooring, insisting he is a pragmatist. That should bring some comfort, but it doesn’t really. In his formative community-organizer days, our new president mastered the groundbreaking work of Saul Alinsky, who made pragmatism the clarion call of a systematized, disciplined radicalism.



Alinsky, too, rejected ideological dogmatism. He taught that the successful radical is the wolf in sheep’s clothing: burrowing into the institutions of Western capitalism, altering their character from within, seducing the society with a high-minded summons to “social justice,” “participatory democracy,” and, yes, “change.” Is Obama following this stealthy roadmap? If that is his intention, it’s hard to imagine how he could have done so more perfectly.

On the other hand, people I know and respect, including some who knew Obama when he initially made history as The Harvard Law Review’s first black editor, insist that he is most decidedly not a radical. They say he is just what he now purports to be: a consensus builder whose “progressive” leanings are undeniable but do not render him deaf to persuasive arguments from the other side. On this accounting, the Ayers, Klonskys and Khalidis in his closet are to be understood not as kindred spirits but merely as voices of the hard Left that a confident Obama can hear out, and occasionally even collaborate with, while maintaining his safe, pragmatic distance.

Which is right? We don’t know, or at least I certainly don’t know. But I admit to worrying. A few days ago, as the contest wended toward the finish line with the outcome no longer much in doubt, Obama asserted that he sensed a “righteous wind” at his back. Some sloughed this off as campaign cant. Others among us, having studied Obama’s background, couldn’t help but hear Chairman Mao.

Is that paranoia or well-informed dread? Alas, the jury is still out, and that shouldn’t be. We ought to know the manner of man we are installing in the world’s most powerful office before the installation takes place.

Yet for one night, I was impressed. Impressed most by the dignity with which he bore the weight of his historic achievement: satisfied but not gloating, victorious but magnanimous, gratified by what he has accomplished and what it so obviously means to African Americans, but mindful of the enormous burdens he has assumed and the duties he now owes to all Americans, including the loyal opposition.

Emphasis here on loyal. President-Elect Obama correctly but no less honorably said he still needed to earn our support. For our part, we need to offer our support earnestly.

He is our president now, the president of our beloved nation. Too many have given their lives for this union, and too many are risking their lives for America even now, for us to shrink from honoring their sacrifice. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fight President Obama when we think he is wrong. In fact, it means we must fight him. Fighting him when he is wrong will make him a better president, which in turn will make our country stronger. That’s the opposition part, and the freedom to oppose is our nation’s greatest strength.

Still, the loyal part means we must support our president when we think he is right. We must meet him when he reaches out to us. We must try to guide him toward what we believe is best for national security and prosperity. Just as we demand that President Obama put America first, we must be Americans first ourselves.

Our country has had an election. Our side got trounced. We’ve strayed far from our principles. We’ve too often failed to make our case even when it was right there for the making. If the best we have to offer America is Democrat-lite, Americans can’t be blamed for deciding they’d just as soon have the real thing. If we operate in stealth and incoherence, abdicating our duty to convince our fellow citizens of the rightness of measures taken for our security, they can’t be blamed for suspecting we are in the wrong.

It is on us to fix these things. They urgently need fixing if we are to offer the country something worthy.

For the moment, however, let’s accept defeat with the same purposeful grace President Obama exhibited in victory. And as power once again shifts peacefully from one hand to the next, from one party to the other, let’s remember how blessed we are to live in the greatest nation in human history.

— National Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy chairs the FDD’s Center for Law & Counterterrorism and is the author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad (Encounter Books 2008).

The Reign of Lame Falls Mainly on McCain
by Ann Coulter

Last night was truly a historic occasion: For only the second time in her adult life, Michelle Obama was proud of her country!

The big loser of this election is Colin Powell, whose last-minute endorsement of Obama put the Illinois senator over the top. Powell was probably at home last night, yelling at his TV, "Are you KIDDING me? That endorsement was sarcastic!"

The winner, of course, is Obama, who must be excited because now he can start hanging out in public with Bill Ayers and Rev. Jeremiah Wright again. John McCain is a winner because he can resume buying more houses.

And we're all winners because we will never again have to hear McCain say, "my friends."

After Bill Clinton won the 1992 presidential election, Hillary Clinton immediately announced that, henceforth, she would be known as "Hillary Rodham Clinton." So maybe Obama can now become B. Hussein Obama, his rightful name.

This was such an enormous Democratic year that even John Murtha won his congressional seat in Pennsylvania after calling his constituents racists. It turns out they're not racists -- they're retards. Question: What exactly would one have to say to alienate Pennsylvanians? That Joe Paterno should retire?

Apparently Florida voters didn't mind Obama's palling around with Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, either. There must be a whole bunch of retired Pennsylvania Jews down there.

Have you ever noticed that whenever Democrats lose presidential elections, they always blame it on the personal qualities of their candidate? Kerry was a dork, Gore was a stiff, Dukakis was a bloodless android, Mondale was a sad sack.

This blame-the-messenger thesis allows Democrats to conclude that their message was fine -- nothing should be changed! The American people are clamoring for higher taxes, big government, a defeatist foreign policy, gay marriage, the whole magilla. It was just this particular candidate's personality.

Republicans lost this presidential election, and I don't blame the messenger; I blame the message. How could Republicans go after B. Hussein Obama (as he is now known) on planning to bankrupt the coal companies when McCain supports the exact same cap and trade policies and earnestly believes in global warming?

How could we go after Obama for his illegal alien aunt and for supporting driver's licenses for illegal aliens when McCain fanatically pushed amnesty along with his good friend Teddy Kennedy?

How could we go after Obama for Jeremiah Wright when McCain denounced any Republicans who did so?

How could we go after Obama for planning to hike taxes on the "rich," when McCain was the only Republican to vote against both of Bush's tax cuts on the grounds that they were tax cuts for the rich?

And why should Republican activists slave away working for McCain when he has personally, viciously attacked: John O'Neill and the Swift Boat Veterans, National Right to Life director Doug Johnson, evangelical pastors Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and John Hagee, various conservative talk radio hosts, the Tennessee Republican Party and on and on and on?

As liberal Democrat E.J. Dionne Jr. exuded about McCain in The Washington Post during the Republican primaries, "John McCain is feared by Democrats and liked by independents." Dionne proclaimed that McCain "may be the one Republican who can rescue his party from the undertow of the Bush years."

Similarly, after unelectable, ultraconservative Reagan won two landslide victories, James Reston of The New York Times gave the same advice to Vice President George H.W. Bush: Stop being conservative! Bush was "a good man," Reston said in 1988, "and might run a strong campaign if liberated from Mr. Reagan's coattails."

Roll that phrase around a bit -- "liberated from Mr. Reagan's coattails." This is why it takes so long to read the Times -- you have to keep reading the same paragraph over again to see if you missed a word.

Bush, of course, rode Reagan's ultraconservative coattails to victory, then snipped those coattails by raising taxes and was soundly defeated four years later.

I keep trying to get Democrats to take my advice (stop being so crazy), but they never listen to me. Why do Republicans take the advice of their enemies?

How many times do we have to run this experiment before Republican primary voters learn that "moderate," "independent," "maverick" Republicans never win, and right-wing Republicans never lose?

Indeed, the only good thing about McCain is that he gave us a genuine conservative, Sarah Palin. He's like one of those insects that lives just long enough to reproduce so that the species can survive. That's why a lot of us are referring to Sarah as "The One" these days.

Like Sarah Connor in "The Terminator," Sarah Palin is destined to give birth to a new movement. That's why the Democrats are trying to kill her. And Arnold Schwarzenegger is involved somehow, too. Good Lord, I'm tired.

After showing nearly superhuman restraint throughout this campaign, which was lost the night McCain won the California primary, I am now liberated to announce that all I care about is hunting down and punishing every Republican who voted for McCain in the primaries. I have a list and am prepared to produce the names of every person who told me he was voting for McCain to the proper authorities.

We'll start with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist. Then we shall march through the states of New Hampshire and South Carolina -- states that must never, ever be allowed to hold early Republican primaries again.

For now, we have a new president-elect. In the spirit of reaching across the aisle, we owe it to the Democrats to show their president the exact same kind of respect and loyalty that they have shown our recent Republican president.

Starting tomorrow, if not sooner.

From the Los Angeles Times:
Obama's post-racial promise

Barack Obama seduced whites with a vision of their
racial innocence precisely to coerce them into acting
out of a racial motivation.

By Shelby Steele

November 5, 2008

For the first time in human history, a largely white nation has elected a black man to be its paramount leader. And the cultural meaning of this unprecedented convergence of dark skin and ultimate power will likely become -- at least for a time -- a national obsession. In fact, the Obama presidency will always be read as an allegory. Already we are as curious about the cultural significance of his victory as we are about its political significance.

Does his victory mean that America is now officially beyond racism? Does it finally complete the work of the civil rights movement so that racism is at last dismissible as an explanation of black difficulty? Can the good Revs. Jackson and Sharpton now safely retire to the seashore? Will the Obama victory dispel the twin stigmas that have tormented black and white Americans for so long -- that blacks are inherently inferior and whites inherently racist? Doesn't a black in the Oval Office put the lie to both black inferiority and white racism? Doesn't it imply a "post-racial" America? And shouldn't those of us -- white and black -- who did not vote for Mr. Obama take pride in what his victory says about our culture even as we mourn our political loss?

Answering no to such questions is like saying no to any idealism; it seems callow. How could a decent person not hope for all these possibilities, or not give America credit for electing its first black president? And yet an element of Barack Obama's success was always his use of the idealism implied in these questions as political muscle. His talent was to project an idealized vision of a post-racial America -- and then to have that vision define political decency. Thus, a failure to support Obama politically implied a failure of decency.

Obama's special charisma -- since his famous 2004 convention speech -- always came much more from the racial idealism he embodied than from his political ideas. In fact, this was his only true political originality. On the level of public policy, he was quite unremarkable. His economics were the redistributive axioms of old-fashioned Keynesianism; his social thought was recycled Great Society. But all this policy boilerplate was freshened up -- given an air of "change" -- by the dreamy post-racial and post-ideological kitsch he dressed it in.

This worked politically for Obama because it tapped into a deep longing in American life -- the longing on the part of whites to escape the stigma of racism. In running for the presidency -- and presenting himself to a majority white nation -- Obama knew intuitively that he was dealing with a stigmatized people. He knew whites were stigmatized as being prejudiced, and that they hated this situation and literally longed for ways to disprove the stigma.

Obama is what I have called a "bargainer" -- a black who says to whites, "I will never presume that you are racist if you will not hold my race against me." Whites become enthralled with bargainers out of gratitude for the presumption of innocence they offer. Bargainers relieve their anxiety about being white and, for this gift of trust, bargainers are often rewarded with a kind of halo.

Obama's post-racial idealism told whites the one thing they most wanted to hear: America had essentially contained the evil of racism to the point at which it was no longer a serious barrier to black advancement. Thus, whites became enchanted enough with Obama to become his political base. It was Iowa -- 95% white -- that made him a contender. Blacks came his way only after he won enough white voters to be a plausible candidate.

Of course, it is true that white America has made great progress in curbing racism over the last 40 years. I believe, for example, that Colin Powell might well have been elected president in 1996 had he run against a then rather weak Bill Clinton. It is exactly because America has made such dramatic racial progress that whites today chafe so under the racist stigma. So I don't think whites really want change from Obama as much as they want documentation of change that has already occurred. They want him in the White House first of all as evidence, certification and recognition.

But there is an inherent contradiction in all this. When whites -- especially today's younger generation -- proudly support Obama for his post-racialism, they unwittingly embrace race as their primary motivation. They think and act racially, not post-racially. The point is that a post-racial society is a bargainer's ploy: It seduces whites with a vision of their racial innocence precisely to coerce them into acting out of a racial motivation. A real post-racialist could not be bargained with and would not care about displaying or documenting his racial innocence. Such a person would evaluate Obama politically rather than culturally.

Certainly things other than bargaining account for Obama's victory. He was a talented campaigner. He was reassuringly articulate on many issues -- a quality that Americans now long for in a president. And, in these last weeks, he was clearly pushed over the top by the economic terrors that beset the nation. But it was the peculiar cultural manipulation of racial bargaining that brought him to the political dance. It inflated him as a candidate, and it may well inflate him as a president.

There is nothing to suggest that Obama will lead America into true post-racialism. His campaign style revealed a tweaker of the status quo, not a revolutionary. Culturally and racially, he is likely to leave America pretty much where he found her.

But what about black Americans? Won't an Obama presidency at last lead us across a centuries-old gulf of alienation into the recognition that America really is our country? Might this milestone not infuse black America with a new American nationalism? And wouldn't this be revolutionary in itself? Like most Americans, I would love to see an Obama presidency nudge things in this direction. But the larger reality is the profound disparity between black and white Americans that will persist even under the glow of an Obama presidency. The black illegitimacy rate remains at 70%. Blacks did worse on the SAT in 2000 than in 1990. Fifty-five percent of all federal prisoners are black, though we are only 13% of the population. The academic achievement gap between blacks and whites persists even for the black middle class. All this disparity will continue to accuse blacks of inferiority and whites of racism -- thus refueling our racial politics -- despite the level of melanin in the president's skin.

The torture of racial conflict in America periodically spits up a new faith that idealism can help us "overcome" -- America's favorite racial word. If we can just have the right inspiration, a heroic role model, a symbolism of hope, a new sense of possibility. It is an American cultural habit to endure our racial tensions by periodically alighting on little islands of fresh hope and idealism. But true reform, like the civil rights victories of the '60s, never happens until people become exhausted with their suffering. Then they don't care who the president is.

Presidents follow the culture; they don't lead it. I hope for a competent president.

Shelby Steele is an author, columnist and senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.

From The American Spectator:
Conservatism Can Rise Again
By Philip Klein

11.5.08

America is not as conservative as it seemed in 2004 and it isn't as liberal as it looks this morning.

What happened is that four years ago, voters put their trust in one political party to run the country and they didn't like the results, and so, over the course of two elections, they systematically threw out that political party and turned to a different one. If Democrats disappoint the public, they could be waking up on a not so distant November morning just as devastated as Republicans are today.

Those who are in the profession of writing the first rough draft of history would have us believe that a single election result can signal the end of an intellectual tradition, but actual history instructs us otherwise. This is especially true for conservatism, which rose from the staggering defeat of one its own in 1964, to a glorious triumph 16 years later.

John McCain is an honorable man who sacrificed more for this nation than most of us can imagine, but he's also eccentric and idiosyncratic. During the campaign, he railed against Wall Street greed and excessive CEO pay on the one hand and against his opponent's plans to redistribute wealth on the other; he called for a spending freeze while proposing that government spend hundreds of billions of dollars to freeze home foreclosures by partially socializing the housing market.

Of all the ways to put these election results in broader historical context, it's quite a stretch to equate the defeat of John McCain with the end of conservatism.

At the same time, it would be irresponsible and unhelpful to ignore the severe challenges conservatism faces in both the immediate and long term.

---

WHEN HE ENTERED the presidential race nearly two years ago, most conservatives didn't give Barack Obama a chance against the vaunted Clinton machine. After he finally emerged victorious from the protracted primary, many conservatives clung to the belief that disgruntled Clinton voters and working class whites in rural areas would deny him the presidency. To date, Obama has proven all of the skeptics wrong.

The sooner conservatives realize that Obama is not merely a gifted orator, but an incredibly talented politician with the potential to be a transformational liberal leader, the better prepared they will be to resist his agenda. In a time of economic crisis, with Democrats having overwhelming control of both chambers of Congress, stopping him will be difficult, but it won't be impossible.

Although Obama has radical liberal roots, he was elected president by papering over his past, and convincing Americans that he was a pragmatic moderate who would cut their taxes and be more fiscally responsible than President Bush. Democrats won Congressional races in traditionally conservative districts in much the same way. If, once in power, Obama and his Democratic allies cater to their liberal base, it will be jarring to Americans who had something different in mind when they voted for the abstract concept of change.

Conservatives won't thwart Democrats by name-calling, but by articulating to the country why liberal proposals will have disastrous implications, and emphasizing that there is little room left to expand social programs when the government has to fund a $700 billion bailout -- just as tax revenue falls as a result of the shrinking economy.

While the network of conservative think tanks, journalists, and activists will have to spend the foreseeable future on defense, trying to contain the march of liberalism, it will also be a time for the movement to engage in long-term thinking, so that it will be in a position to reassert itself when the political conditions are right.

Many conservatives would agree that the basket of issues that led to Ronald Reagan's historic victory don't have the salience that they did in 1980, when the top marginal tax rate was 70 percent and the Soviet Union still loomed large. But that's where the agreement ends.

Some of those who identify themselves as conservatives would have us believe that the conclusion to draw from this is that the era of small government conservatism is over, and that the only option is to fight for a conservative welfare state to replace a liberal welfare state. But that was the driving force behind President Bush's brand of "compassionate conservatism," which led us to a fiscal disaster that critics now want to blame on traditional conservatism.

Those of us who still believe in fighting for limited government cannot allow this to happen. It's one thing for the Republican Party to embrace statism, but once the conservative movement does so at the philosophical level, it will no longer have a reason to exist. If people want big government, they'll support liberalism -- conservatives simply cannot beat the real thing.

---

IT WOULD BE ESPECIALLY shortsighted to make such concessions given that conservatives can make small government ideology more relevant to contemporary challenges without abandoning their core beliefs. With all the focus on the financial crisis that hit in this fall, the candidates all but ignored the far more substantial financial crisis that is staring us in the face.

The United States faces a long-term deficit of over $53 trillion that is set to bite us in just a few years, as Baby Boomers begin to retire and current payroll taxes are no longer sufficient to subsidize their retirements. By the time government gets around to doing anything, the choices will be limited. Either lawmakers rein in social programs, or they turn America into a European welfare state, with unconscionable tax rates, high unemployment, a stagnant economy, and a shrinking military budget. Not since Reagan's landslide in 1980 will there be a better time for conservatives to make the case for a smaller government with limited functions.

Lost in all of this is a discussion of national defense. Liberals would like for us to behave as if the September 11 attacks never happened. They portray the threat of Islamic terrorism as something the Bush administration invented -- or, at least, exaggerated -- in a cynical ploy to scare up votes.

More than seven years have passed since that fateful day, and so it's only human nature that Americans would move on and focus on their own economic concerns. But unfortunately, our enemies have not moved on, and if liberalism fails to adequately confront this and other threats to our national security, then just like during the Cold War, it will be up to conservatives to respond.

The road ahead for conservatives is long, dark, and perilous -- and there are no guarantees that the movement will reemerge in the years to come or return to its former glory. But it certainly isn't dead. Not even close.

Philip Klein is a reporter for The American Spectator.

From CanadaFreePress.com:
Dangerous Illusions—
Shadow World by Robert Chandler
By William Kevin Stoos

Americans are slumbering in a cave of indifference
and complacency, unaware of the reality outside

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

“This is the way the country ends…not with a bang but a whimper.” Had T.S. Eliot read Shadow World, he might well have written this tag line for Robert Chandler’s comprehensive, thought-provoking expose of the three major threats facing the American Republic which Chandler so masterfully documents.

While Americans live comfortable lives insulated partly by luck, the vigilance of our law enforcement authorities, and the sacrifice of our soldiers engaging enemies in foreign lands, forces seen and unseen are mounting against our country. Some are external; some internal, but all are engaged in a war against our country, its core values and our way of life. While we are captivated by Dancing with the Stars, American Idol, vacuous pop stars, and reality TV, as the War in Iraq drops to fifth place on the list of things that most concern us, we are oblivious to the fact that forces bent on the destruction of our Republic are shaping our future. Like the chained man in Plato’s cave who watches the dim shadows dancing on the walls and thinks them reality, we are being deceived. We see the shadows and think they are real; when in fact the world outside the cave is far different. There are indeed things out there—people, countries, movements—that we have reason to fear, if we only knew it. But it is easier to remain in the cave watching the shadows, and there is comfort in not facing reality.

Chandler’s use of Plato’s allegory works well. Americans are slumbering in a cave of indifference and complacency, unaware of the reality outside. Chandler’s book grabs you by the collar, wakes you up and drags you into the sunlight. Shadow World is a comprehensive analysis of the three major threats facing America today: A powerful consortium of countries (Russia, China, Iran, and Venezuela–“The Quadrangle”) whose common goal is to reduce the economic, political, and military influence of the United States—the sole superpower after the purported collapse of the Soviet Union—and change the world from a unipolar to a multipolar world in which the United States is weakened or even neutralized; The Islamic Salafist/Wahhabist movement financed by our purported “ally” Saudi Arabia, motivated by a seething hatred of the United States and liberal western democracy and whose goal is to establish a worldwide Islamic caliphate ruled by mullahs who want to revert to the good old days when the Prophet ruled by the sword, everyone studied the Koran and non-believers (Christians and Jews ) converted on pain of death; and a Socialist Fifth Column—a “progressive” (socialist-marxist-communist) movement within our own country, influenced not by classical Marxist-Leninist doctrine, but rather by revisionist Marxist Antonio Gramsci.

Gramsci held that powerful liberal Christian democracies such as ours cannot be overcome directly by open revolution but only by attacking the country from within--subverting and replacing its values, institutions, and most of all, its religious traditions with secular humanism and, in time, a socialist state. Shadow World is the bible on the subject of the threats to America and its standing in the world. Unless we read the bible, we may well go out with a whimper. Worse yet, we will not even see it coming.

The Unholy Quadrangle

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, one superpower was left standing. But now we face an alliance formed by sometime enemies/allies by convenience, Russia and China. Along with their surrogates, Iran and Venezuela, they seek to weaken the United States and change the world balance of power in ways we do not want. While George Bush gushed about his relationship with Putin, “looked into his heart” and saw a democratic idealist, in truth Putin stacked all levels of Russian government with communist cronies from his old KGB days, had his enemies (reporters, critics, and wealthy industrialists alike) killed, tried or banished, took control of powerful industries, passed laws making it a crime to “publicly slander public officials,” and parlayed his resources and political power in ways that would make the Czars blush with envy. But to the world, Putin is a democrat, and we delude ourselves into thinking that Russia will somehow turn into a benign western-style liberal democracy. We see the shadows of democracy and good will when the reality is something far different. Chandler drills deep and painstakingly analyzes how Putin and Russia seek hegemony over the region and the world, using its pipeline to Europe and billions of petrodollars and foreign investments to finance Russia’s historical dreams of conquest. Chandler’s treatment of the unseen but growing Chinese threat is equally sobering. We grant China favored nation status, feebly protest its repression of religion and free speech and look the other way while China buys the United States piece by piece. While we treat the world’s largest country and fastest-growing economy as a partner in progress, and watch the shadows of hope dance on the wall, the reality is far different. Chandler goes to great lengths to expose the true threat—the reality outside the cave: China is growing the greatest economy on earth, building its military into the strongest in the world, spreading money and influence in Africa and South America, and arming our enemies. Even more alarming, as Chandler notes, is the fact that a recent poll of Chinese citizens revealed that a majority consider the United States not as a friend, but as China’s number one enemy.

While we naively treat China as a friend and partner, captivated by the dimly lit images of friendship and cooperation, the brutal reality is that China is our greatest competitor. Our sanguine thoughts of friendship and cooperation are sadly delusional—and not reciprocated. Shadow World offers a keen insight into the Chinese efforts in the world today to undermine our country and supplant us as the world’s superpower. The Chinese and Russians have found willing allies in their campaign to change the polarity of the world’s balance of power. Iran (our second greatest Islamic enemy) , itching to step into the vacuum created when a Democrat president keeps his or her promise to pull out of Iraq—is encouraged and financed by both Russian and China who have invested millions into the country, to design reactors, supply weapons and build infrastructure. That the United States cannot count on Russia or China to dissuade Iran from building nuclear weapons should come as no surprise; as Chandler points out, they are strategic partners, joined at the hip. They seek to build a powerful surrogate in the region which will fill the vacuum created by our departure, ensuring influence, access to oil, and the ability to strangle the world economy.

The implications of a nuclear capable Iran, flush with billions in oil revenues, bent on the destruction of Israel (our eternal ally), armed by China and Russia, and able to choke the world the gas pump, are simply too frightening to imagine. In our own back yard, Chandler chronicles the rising threat of Hugo Chavez, a surrogate of the Chinese government, who seeks to export terror, revolution and socialism throughout the region in ways that Fidel only dreamed. The man who would be the next Castro is not merely the next Castro—but Castro on steroids-- more dangerous, more ruthless, and infinitely richer—controlling huge oil reserves that enable him to finance his hemispheric subversion. Also joined at the hip with China, whose influence is increasing throughout the region, Chavez boasts of his desire to destroy America. Chandler’s book explores the depths of Chavez’ influence in the region, his desire for hegemony in the South American continent and his ties to Russia and China which few have studied as extensively as Chandler. No American should doubt that Russia and China seek world domination and are actively seeking to extend their influence into our own hemisphere. Chandler’s treatment of the unholy quadrangle is an eye opener and a unique study of the truth outside the cave. It would be a mistake to dismiss Russia as a second-rate power defanged by the break up of the Soviet Union, to regard China as a friend and partner, or to assume that Iran and Venezuela are simply third world countries run by crazy dictators. The harsh reality is that we face a powerful cabal of nations intent on doing us in, and Chandler exposes the true nature of the threat.

Saudi Arabia and Worldwide Jihad

Building on his own knowledge of geopolitics, his extensive study of the historical roots of Islam and the basis for the intense hatred of the West which is shared by a dangerous segment of Muslim jihadists bent on our destruction, Chandler has penned an expose on radical Islam that all Americans must heed. Radical Islam is here, now and in our own back yard. And the threat did not end with 9/11. Shadow World traces the historical, political and religious bases of radical Islam–Salafism/Wahhabism, and how it has spread from the Mideast to our shores. He details how our ostensible “ally”—Saudi Arabia (arguably our greatest enemy, contrary to the slick public relations campaign by the Saudi family to convince us otherwise) has financed the spread of radical, western--liberal –democracy-hating Salafism/Wahhabism across the Mid East, Europe, and into the United States. Ironically they finance their vitriolic anti-western propaganda with petrodollars sent by the billions from Americans who refuse to allow drilling in ANWAR and never stop to ask why nineteen of the twenty-one terrorists involved in 9/11 were Saudis. Chandler exposes the threat to our country from the Saudi-financed spread of radical Islam, and reveals how the Saudis finance mosques and madrassas, and use their billions to influence public education in United States.

Our so called friends preach hatred of the United States, Israel, and all non-believers and actively indoctrinate millions of young Muslims who will grow up hating the West–supplying recruits for the next generation of jihadists bent on destroying our civilization. While the Saudis pretend to be our friend, pay lip service to helping the United States track down terrorists and their sources of financing, they finance terrorism through a myriad of non-profits and innocuous-sounding businesses. Awash in billions of petrodollars, insulated from terrorism as protectors of the two holiest places in Islam, the Saudis are at once a terrorist state and “ally” of the United States. Deceived by the illusion of friendship and cooperation, Americans do not see the reality outside the cave—that the world’s richest country with the largest oil reserves, is actively financing jihad against America while we suppose them to be a staunch ally in the region. As Chandler warns, the Saudis are financiers, active participants and “cheerleaders” for radical Islam. While the Saudis and the jihadists they train dream of a caliphate that stretches across Europe and some day across North America, we finance those dreams and buy their bullets. Chandler warns of the dangers lurking right here at home, where terrorists cells planted years ago await further instructions from a shadowy enemy controlling a large terrorist network sworn to destroy this country. If we do not listen to experts like Chandler then in a sense, we deserve what is coming.

The Fifth Column—Gramsci Socialists and Their Useful Idiots

No one knows exactly the origin of the term “fifth column,” but Chandler cites several historical examples of “fifth columns”–dedicated, clandestine--waiting in the wings to wreak havoc on the enemy. They wait to rise up, working behind the scenes, lying in wait, ready to attack or sabotage or weaken the structure of a city, a country or a society. Not by frontal assaults do fifth columns prove their worth, but by intrigue, subtle maneuvering, and deception. Chandler’s book exposes the uncomfortable but indisputable fact that there is an active “progressive” (socialist) fifth column in the United States. It is well-financed, discreet, motivated, and, one might say—legitimate, or respectable, at least to all outward appearances. It is a group of fellow travelers, “progressives,” “marxist-leninist-communists, “ spelled in small type, and their “useful idiots” (as Lenin would say) including some well meaning protestors, activists and decent Americans who have no idea that they are being manipulated by more sinister forces. As Chandler teaches, these are not your classical “rise up and throw off your chains,” violent revolutionary Marxists. Socialism has become more subtle, more sophisticated, more urbane. It has long since evolved from defeating capitalism through violent confrontation to gnawing at its innards through subtle conversion or subversion if you will, of the host society.

Gradually, socialists realized that liberal western democracies with a strong religious grounding and tied together with common beliefs, traditions, and values—culture--could not be attacked from without. The sinews of religious tradition, especially, were simply too strong to overcome. In fact, modern day socialist thinkers believed that religious values were the biggest obstacle to the spread of socialism. For socialism to succeed it had to transform society from the inside out; it could never conquer a strong democracy such as the United States by force of arms, violent overthrow, or even by direct assault on the culture. If socialism were to succeed at all, it must work from within, transform, and eventually replace, the values, customs and beliefs which bind together a strong society. In short, it could only attack and defeat a country like the United States slowly, imperceptibly, comprehensively, and above all, culturally–by convincing us to abandon that which made us great in first place. Norman Thomas, co-founder of the ACLU held that: “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” As Chandler’s book illustrates, this eerily prophetic statement is being played out before our eyes in the United States.

Shadow World reminds us–and most Americans need reminding–that socialism did not dry up and blow away with the collapse of the Soviet Union. In fact it morphed, and adapted, because old-fashioned Marxist Leninist doctrine had proved an historical failure. Classical Marxist doctrine could not bring down a strong democracy with strong religious roots. In time, socialists adopted the thinking of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian socialist, who lived a short but influential life--a portion of it in spent as a political prisoner under Mussolini. Gramsci’s prison writings found fertile soil in the minds of modern day American socialists who run innocuous sounding “charities,” political cover organizations, labor unions, and church groups; organizations like ACORN, the ACLU or National Lawyers Guild, or big money radicals like George Soros. Chandler tells how Gramsci’s writings have influenced thousands of untouchable and now-tenured “progressive” [sic-socialist] college professors across the country (“teachers of destruction” in the book) who were radicalized in the 1960s, and now seek to influence thousands of young Americans who will carry the banner of Gramsci socialism into the next century. Intent on changing America by attacking its fundamental beliefs, economy, values, religions, concepts of marriage, attitudes about human life, and even its national sovereignty; intent on turning it into something it was not, they seek to transform the United States into a secular humanist, socialist state, whose sovereignty and constitutional rights are gradually ceded to international organizations like the United Nations, the World Court, and the International Criminal Court. As Shadow World illustrates, Gramscian theory–that capitalist democracies may be defeated by controlling mass media, mass organizations and public education and transforming society gradually from within--is being implemented by the fifth column American progressive movement today.

Chandler’s work will not be popular among certain presidential candidates, socialist politicians, or left-wing, big money power brokers such as Soros who spent millions of his personal fortune trying single-handedly to defeat George Bush in the last election. It will not be popular with socialist-progressive think tanks and “policy institutes” like the Institute for Policy Studies whose agendas subvert our country’s interests and home and abroad and seek to erode and subordinate our individual rights to the power of the State, in the name of the common good. Chandler names names, details their organizational structures, their agendas, and the people who run them. As Chandler warns, not everything in our country is what it appears to be. Gramsci socialism—which works from within to erode our freedoms, change our values, and subordinate our national sovereignty–is subtly transforming our country every day.

Chandler exposes the shadowy progressive-socialist movement in the United States to the harsh sunlight outside the cave. One has only to consider the incessant attack on our religious traditions, the ACLU’s endless legal assault on the Boy Scouts, the movement to redefine the concept of marriage, the rise of the culture of death, to know Chandler is right. One has only to consider the incessant criticism of the United States whenever it fails to consult the United Nations on any foreign policy decision, the pervasive political correctness that stifles dissent, the shouting down of any college speaker who espouse any views to the right of radical, the propagation of class warfare, and the movement to redistribute wealth, to know that our society is inching slowly, irreversibly down the path of secular humanism and socialism. The sinews of common religion, traditions, values, language and political institutions that strengthened us and made us the world’s greatest superpower, gave us the strongest economy in the world and made us a beacon of liberty and hope are fraying. Chandler’s book tells us why, and outlines perhaps the greatest threat to our society—the one from within.

One has only to look at post Christian Europe, where few attend church, marriage is considered irrelevant, euthanasia is widely accepted, and the countries of Europe have ceded their national sovereignty. One has only to consider that France prevailed upon one third of the signatories of the European Constitution to drop their references to “God,” or “Christ,” or a “Supreme Being,” in their own constitutions and agree to a new European Constitution which grants sovereignty to a European secular humanist government. One only has to see the paralyzing fear of their own Muslim populations which renders Europe unwilling to fight terrorism and afraid that a simple cartoon will set off religious riots, to know that the Gramsci socialists have won in Europe. And one has only to observe the decline of that once great European culture to know we are next.

Chandler’s years of research, investigation and documentation of the threats to our society have resulted in the most comprehensive work to date on the real threats facing this country in the world today. And he should know whereof he speaks. Chandler’s credentials are impeccable and make him uniquely qualified to warn us. Dr. Chandler, who holds a doctorate in political science from George Washington University, is not merely an intellectual with an opinion on foreign affairs like so many talking heads in the mass media. A retired Vietnam veteran and Air Force Colonel, Dr. Chandler has extensive experience in intelligence analysis, defense strategy, and nuclear weapons deployment which few can boast. He has served at the highest levels of the Defense Department, the Strategic Air Command, and NATO Europe, and received the Defense Department’s Meritorious Service Medal. He has advised the White House; the Departments of State, Defense, Energy, and Justice; and the Central Intelligence Agency. During the Cold War he served as strategic analyst in the Air Force “Skunk Works” Strategy Division and as a nuclear weapons planner. Dr. Chandler has written numerous articles and several books, including

The U.S. Propaganda Campaign in Vietnam (1981); and Tomorrow’s War, Today’s Decision on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Few posses his depth of experience and knowledge, or are as uniquely qualified to warn us of the dangers facing this country. And we need to listen to such voices. Whether they be geopolitical, religious, or cultural, our adversaries are real—not illusions—and bound by a common desire: to challenge our power, subvert out culture, undermine our values and destroy the country as we know it.

In the end, we can awaken from our slumber, walk into the light and confront the truth behind the threats outside our cozy cave. We can remain strong militarily; resolve to fight the War on Terror that will last for generations—but about which no one wants to hear. We can expose and confront the creeping socialism that pervades our society and which seeks to wear down our resolve by the grist of constant attacks our every institution—until one day we surrender our freedoms our values, and our sovereignty. If we listen to Robert Chandler and confront the threats that face us, we can save ourselves and our country.

Most of us “lives in being” will never know how America will look fifty or a hundred years from now. We should care for the sake of ourselves, but most importantly for the sake of our children and grandchildren. If we do not heed Chandler’s warnings, then America may look like a far different place. Whether the change comes from the geopolitical forces arrayed against us, the jihadists, or our own internal socialist movement; whether we become a second rate world power subordinated to the United Nations or the will of a new superpower, whether our kids learn religion only from textbooks and churches and synagogues become museums, whether our grandchildren speak Farsi and bow to Mecca five times today as required by the government, or whether we become the United Socialist States of America—all because we refused to see the light and take control of our own destiny--is still within our power to determine. If our freedom, our power, our wealth, and national identity become a distant memory because we failed to keep the faith with past generations who fought to preserve this great country, then don’t blame Robert Chandler.

Because we were warned.