Views on the News

Views on the News*

October 4, 2014


The left is intellectually dead, and where it is headed is authoritarianism.” according to Kevin Williamson, National Review’s roving correspondent.  The left’s agenda is the destruction of the American system of constitutional, democratic self-government.  The fundamental assumption of the left is the innate goodness of each person.  This assumption means that they are seeking to undermine the Constitution, which is based on a very different view of human nature.  The Constitution pits the different branches of government against each other so that each will keep the others in check.  The Constitution expects selfish ambition and legitimizes it, which is precisely what the left does not want to do.  The left wants to supply not the “defect of better motives” but rather just “better motives.”  Liberals want to set up a system that allows our latent goodness to “flourish,” and the checks of our constitutional system can be discarded in favor of technocratic, centralized disinterestedness that allows each individual to live an authentic life of his choosing.  The result of this pacified citizenry is a loss of the “vigilant and manly spirit” necessary for self-government.  The left would degrade the personal character needed for our constitutional republic.  The left will have to dominate and to control more of society, a tendency that is already in evidence.  At some point we’re going to have to really face in a very difficult way that we’re dealing with a really naked, aggressive authoritarian movement.  The progressive agenda is diametrically opposed to the American political project, as it wants to dismantle the constitutional order and the personal mores necessary for self-government and replace them with a much more authoritarian system.  The left has become largely a “protection racket,” seeking to protect certain interest groups, unions, minorities, and single mothers, from perceived threats, such as the free market.  A free society will always have winners and losers, as people are endowed with different gifts.  Thus, a certain inequality is bound to occur in a free society.  This inequality stands in tension with the founding creed of America—that all men are created equal.  One way to understand the political left in America is as the champion of equality, while the right is the champion of liberty.

(“Liberalism in America” by Andrew Evans dated September 27, 2014 published by Washington Free Beacon at http://freebeacon.com/politics/liberalism-in-america/ )

For several years now we have heard much of the plague of “low information voters,”  those legions of the supposedly ignorant who walk, clueless on the issues, into our polling places, casting their votes for candidates the details of whose programs are as familiar to them as quantum mechanics.  We may have a more significant problem.  There are a number of people  who are at least somewhat cognizant of quantum mechanics to whom the details of the issues of the day are just as unfamiliar, the modern liberal intelligentsia.  I’m talking about the workaday liberal, the well-educated professionals who are our friends, relatives and neighbors, who are, increasingly, low information voters, living in willful or perhaps willed blindness.  Remember, these are people who voted for Obama, twice, and now are just becoming aware that many of us consider him the worst president ever and have pretty good reasons.  Now these are likable people who are decent or better to friends and family, but they are monumentally square and unsophisticated.  They grew up in an environment where certain, now highly old-fashioned, liberal views not only were cool, they were the veritable given, donnée as the French would say, of their society, so they are constitutionally unable to reexamine them.  We are surrounded by a generation of people whose ideas are stuck in 1968, though most of them were just little kids at the time and too young to participate.  They are terrified of it, lest they suffer from alienation of friends and family, loss of work, even personality disintegration.  So they watch MSNBC and nod when some reactionary nitwit says the decapitation in Oklahoma was nothing more than “workplace violence” when the perpetrator had converted to Islam in prison only months before and posted beheadings to his Facebook page.  The liberals we know and love, aren’t bad people, but they’re just so scared of what’s happening they can’t think.

(“Liberals as Low Information Voters” by Roger L. Simon dated September 29 2014 published by PJ Media at http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2014/09/29/liberals-as-low-information-voters/ )

Across the nation, TEA Party conservatives question the wisdom of being tied to a Republican Party that wants them to just shut up and vote for whomever the establishment decides, and it is this indecision on whether to vote at all, that is at the heart of the GOP’s polling woes.  Conservative voters who have traditionally been amongst the most likely people to vote out of a sense of civic responsibility are disgusted.  They are tired of being attacked by the so-called conservative party, and really tired of being treated like second class citizens by the donor and consultant class that controls the official party.  The good news for the establishment is that conservatives want to forgive them for their attacks.  They still believe that voting Republican is their best chance to limit the size and scope of government, and to get the runaway federal branch under control.  They want to rein in the lawless executive branch and restore constitutional government.  They want to believe that the Republican Party is still the conservative political party and is not just a different gang of thieves looking to plunder America’s pocket books.  Conservatives still believe that America is the greatest country in the world, and that our system of government along with the free enterprise system provides the pathway to future prosperity.  Conservatives believe that freedom is worth fighting for, even though, they hate having to do it.  Conservatives believe in the rule of law, and that those who come to our country illegally should not be rewarded for their crimes, being put ahead of those who are waiting in line and following the rules.  The Republican Party has the answer to turn these conservative voters who are currently wondering whether it is worth turning out to vote this election for candidates who have proven to despise them.  All Republicans have to do is read and repeat to conservative voters their own political party platform, and pledge to govern by it, and if the Republican establishment candidates actually ran as Republicans, the number of likely voters would swell, and the promise of a sweeping victory in November would be realized.

(“Republican Key to Victory: Run as Republicans” by Rick Manning dated September 26, 2014 published by American Clarion at http://www.americanclarion.com/republican-key-victory-run-republcians-33873 )


If poor blacks cannot correlate money and possessions with work, there is no wonder that they think that they are not entitled to the same things as working people.  Most liberal voters are immature and live in a fantasy world.  They believe that everything that working people have fell from the sky, and they somehow were not around to catch some of it.  Therefore, they believe that it is not fair that they do not have the same things.  Liberals have inoculated these individuals against work and responsibility by continuously plying them with government handouts.  Poor blacks have been programmed to believe that jobs are only for white people and not for them, so therefore they do not apply.  A young black man was lamenting to me about the lack of job opportunities for black men in corporate America, because even with a college degree, he was unable to obtain employment.  When I asked him where he had applied, he told me that he had not applied anywhere.  I asked why had he not applied and he said that he did not fit the description that the employers were looking for.  I cannot logically understand why someone would not at least apply for jobs.  Most of the things that individuals are taught comes from the culture in which they were raised, whether it be work ethic, habits, or beliefs.  I often talk with successful blacks who think that they do not deserve what they have.  One black male friend that lives in an affluent neighborhood told me that when he and his family are walking around in the town center, he feels that he is not supposed to be there.  Until the black community looks inward to solve its problems, nothing will change. Many problems in the black community are the result of a self-imposed inferiority complex. That is why it infuriates me so much to hear race baiters telling poor blacks that they are victims. The victim mindset causes complacency and impotence of action in an individual. One reason that the black community has regressed instead of progressed is due to the victim mindset that has caused cognitive blindness and mental paralysis. Blacks cannot continue to blame society for how blacks Americans are perceived, because they must examine its culture and its effect on the lives of the individuals in the black community.

(“Poverty in the Black Community is the Result of Culture Not Racism” by Patricia L. Dickson dated September 30 2014 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/09/poverty_in_the_black_community_is_the_result_of_culture_not_racism.html )


Aside from declaring war few responsibilities are more basic or important for our national legislature than appropriations.  Under the rules of the House of Representatives, those appropriations (with certain exceptions) are supposed to be passed in one of twelve appropriations bills.  The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires Congress to act on appropriation bills by June 30 of each year, or at least before the start of the new fiscal year, October 1st.  Yet Congress has not passed all twelve appropriation bills since 1994, and this year, Congress passed exactly none.  The House did manage to pass 7 of the 12 appropriation bills, just nudging itself over .500.  On the other hand, the Senate, under the dynamic leadership of Harry Reid, failed to bring even one to the floor for a vote.  This September, Congress again resorted to funding the government through a continuing resolution, a catch-all bill, that will fund the government through December 11th, when a lame-duck Congress can come back and pass another continuing resolution.  Although generally touted as maintaining 2015 spending at 2014 levels, the bill actually includes increased “authorization” for spending on disaster relief, “overseas contingency operations” (read: war), and other areas, without corresponding offsets. While exact spending on these items won’t be known for some time, it is likely that final spending in 2015 will exceed 2014 levels.  The increase in OCO spending, while understandable, is particularly problematic since it is not subject to normal budget rules.  In the past, Congress has treated OCO money as something of a slush fund.  Most significantly, the CR authorizes the President to arm the Syrian rebels.  Thus Congress managed to duck its responsibilities for both war and spending in a single bill now that is efficiency.  The CR is also notable for what it did not do.  It did not reform the entitlement programs that threaten to bankrupt this country in the future.  It did not reduce corporate welfare.  It did not eliminate wasteful or failed programs.  It simply rubber-stamped the status quo that has brought us a $17.8 trillion national debt.  Conservatives rightly criticize President Obama for avoiding his responsibilities and ducking the hard choices. Meanwhile Congress, including most congressional Republicans, may not have a lot of room to talk.

(“The CR Charade” by Michael Tanner dated October 1 2014 published by National Review Online at http://www.nationalreview.com/article/389229/cr-charade-michael-tanner )


Environmentalism in America has been completely co-opted by the International Socialist Organization (ISO) and the Communist Party USA.  Climate alarmism is all about killing capitalism and replacing it with a left-wing dictatorship.  “System Change Not Climate Change” is the new rallying cry for a socialist revolution.  Under a system that imposed heavy government regimentation upon the economy, direct government ownership of the “commanding heights” of the economy, a socialist vision of property, the environmental results were nothing short of catastrophic.  Setting aside the direct human costs of socialist environmental policy in the twentieth century - the famines, the deformations, the horrific birth defects, socialism was a disaster from the purely environmental point of view, too.  Since capitalism is an economic system separate from government, as opposed to socialism, there are checks and balances in place.  Some of these come from government regulation (which ideally should be minimal), but are primarily derived from the forces of competition within the market.  To much fanfare from the left media, Naomi Klein, who passes for a leading intellectual on the left, published a book that openly states that capitalism must be destroyed in order to save the planet.  Forget everything you think you know about global warming.  The really inconvenient truth is that it’s not about carbon - it’s about capitalism.

(“It’s All About System Change (to Socialism) Not Climate Change” by Andrew Thomas dated September 26 2014 published by American Thinker at http://americanthinker.com/blog/2014/09/its_all_about_system_change_to_socialism_not_climate_change.html )

Wars usually end only when the defeated aggressor believes it would be futile to resume the conflict.  Lasting peace follows if the loser is forced to change its political system into something other than what it was.  America defeated Nazi Germany, fascist Italy and Imperial Japan, inflicting such damage that they were all unable to continue their resistance.  Then, unlike its quick retreat home after World War I, America occupied, and still has bases in all three.  The controversial Korean War succeeded in saving a non-communist South Korea.  The U.S. military inflicted terrible punishment on communist Korean and Chinese aggressors.  Then, America occupied South Korea to prevent another attack from the North.  The world of Samsung and Kia eventually followed.  In contrast, examine what has happened when the United States pounded an enemy, then just up and left.  By 1974, South Vietnam was viable.  A peace treaty with North Vietnam was still holding, but after Watergate, the destruction of the Richard Nixon presidency, serial cutoffs of U.S. aid and the removal of all U.S. peacekeeping troops, the North Vietnamese easily walked in and enslaved the south.  It was easy to bomb Moammar Gadhafi out of power, and easier still for President Obama to boast that he would never send in ground troops to sort out the ensuing mess in Libya.  What followed was a Congo-like miasma, leading to the Benghazi attacks on our consulate and the killing of four U.S. personnel.  When Obama entered office, Iraq was largely quiet.  Six years of American blood and treasure had led to the end of the genocidal Saddam Hussein regime and the establishment of a constitutional system that was working under the close supervision of American peacekeepers.  Then, for the price of a re-election talking point, "I ended the war in Iraq" Obama pulled out every American peacekeeper. The result is now the chaos of a growing Islamic State.  After expelling Saddam Hussein's forces from Kuwait and leaving Iraq in 1991, no-fly-zones, a resurgent and conniving Saddam, and Operation Desert Fox followed.  The aim of the second Iraq war of 2003 was to end the conflict for good by replacing Saddam with something better than what we had left after the first war.  Obama now promises to destroy the Islamic State in Syria, solely through air power, and he assures that he will safely pull nearly all U.S. troops out of Afghanistan at the end of the year.  More likely, Syria will remain a dangerous mess like Libya, and Afghanistan will end up like Vietnam or Iraq.  Victory on the ground and occupations can end a problem but are unpopular and costly. Bombing is easy, forgettable and ends up mostly as a temporary Band-Aid.  If we cannot or will not solve the problem on the ground, end an enemy power and then reconstitute its government, then it is probably better to steer clear altogether than to blow up lots of people and things and simply go home.

(“Wars Don’t End by Wishing Them Over, But by Enemy’s Defeat” by Victor Davis Hanson dated October 1, 2014 published by Investor’s Business Daily at http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/100114-719821-peace-happens-when-loser-must-change-its-political-system.htm )


* There is so much published each week that unless you search for it, you will miss important breaking news.  I try to package the best of this information into my “Views on the News” each Saturday morning.  Updates have been made this week to the following issue sections:

·  Homeland Security at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/dp/homelandsecurity.php

·  Terrorism at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/fp/terrorism.php


David Coughlin

Hawthorne, NY