Optimism is our only choice

Editor: One of the great things about blogging is the way it brings forward new voices, bypasses credentialism, and stirs the currents of thought in valuable, unexpected ways. I never expected that lunch in the university dining room with CCU's young soccer coach, newly transplanted from Wisconsin to the Rockies, would connect me with a conservative kindred spirit and fiery patriot who also blogs entrepreneurially on personal finance issues. But that's how it went on the day I met Josh Caucutt. Backbone America is delighted to welcome him as a new contributor. Optimism is our only choice

“Always after a defeat and a respite, the Shadow takes another shape and grows again.” “I wish it need not have happened in my time,” said Frodo. “So do I,” said Gandalf, “and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.” --The Fellowship of the Ring, Tolkien

I believe we are in difficult days. I believe that history shows us that we might be headed for some of the worst days that the United States has ever known. This Congress has added a huge weight of debt around the neck of every man, woman and especially every child. Furthermore, all of the talk of the future seems to hold only the dim promise of new taxes, higher taxes, more debt and greater levels of government involvement in our daily lives. We are on the precipice of socialism. In the name of crisis, our government is choking the lift out of small businesses, entrepreneurs and all who desire to pursue life, liberty and happiness with as few government entanglements as possible. Even a great thinker like Thomas Sowell is in the clutches of pessimism.

These forces conspire to pull us ever closer to total government dependency and inevitable total government control. Sometimes it seems like we are caught in that frequent science fiction movie plot where the townspeople are slowly being turned to zombies or possessed by aliens until the hero is the only person left with his senses intact. He runs around looking for help, but everyone to whom he turns is already working for the evil that he seeks to defeat. He struggles and flails until some glimmer of hope motivates him to act and eventually he obtains the Hollywood ending that we all expect. Except we are not guaranteed an “ever after” ending in real life.

Yet American culture has always held that glimmer of hope - that belief that everything is going to turn out all right. We find it in our history, our literature, in our movies and in ourselves. We must be optimistic about the future, it is our only choice. To wallow in pessimism or apathy is to give up and admit defeat. Optimism spurred the War for Independence, optimism emancipated a race of people, optimism carried the day on June 6, 1944 - optimism and a commitment to duty no matter the cost.

It's true that recently my own little blog has focused on what is wrong with the direction of our country -- but while I believe there is cause for concern, I want to personally act optimistically and I hope that my readers will do the same.

Don’t make excuses for coming up short. Find a way to get it done. Fear can be a good motivator. We don’t know how far we can stretch until we are really pulled. Quitting never fed a family, never ran a business, and never got someone out of debt. Avoid allowing government to take credit for your success. Be the difference in your life and the lives around you. Don’t let government be your excuse for failure. Government can make things difficult for people, but government can never squelch the drive, innovation, creativity and independent spirit that is alive and well in this country.

Freedom is difficult to win and difficult to keep, but if there is any group of people on the earth who can accomplish both, it is us.

Joshua Caucutt blogs three times a week at Rocket Finance.

No need to panic, Republicans

(Nantucket, Mar. 15) The wild wintry desolation of this small island is not everyone’s ideal for a seasonal getaway but nonetheless it is a supportive environment for thinking, reading and writing. Clutching a steaming mug of coffee at 5 AM and listening to the howling wind and the pounding surf one finds few excuses for failing to confront that old demon “Writers Block”.

For reading I chose as companions George Orwell and Harry Truman.

Reading Orwell’s Collected Essays from the Nineteen Thirties incisively indicting the Western Democracies for their confusion and moral cowardice in failing to stand up to Fascism, one is struck by the similarity to those same Democracies today in their flaccid equivocations and rationalizations in the face of Islamo-Fascism.

In his memorable account of his participation in the Spanish Civil War Homage to Catalonia Orwell penetratingly explored the reality of totalitarianism and also the peculiar inability of the left-wing mindset to see Stalin’s Russia as the nightmare state it was-- themes he brilliantly developed in his classic novels Animal Farm and 1984.

David McCullough’s Pulitzer Prize winning biography Truman superbly portrays an often misunderstood President.

Truman’s Presidency is a startling illustration of the stunning volatility of the American public’s political temper.

Suddenly thrust into the Oval Office by the death of Franklin Roosevelt, Truman’s approval ratings for the remainder of World War II were higher than any President before or since. Yet within a year after war’s end a rising sea of labor and political discord utterly collapsed those approval ratings and resulted in a Republican sweep of the 1946 elections. So dismal was Truman’s repute that both left and right of the Democratic Party exerted themselves mightily to deny him the nomination for 1948. He would be saved only by their inability to agree on a substitute.

Yet once nominated, Truman almost single-handedly waged perhaps the most remarkable of all Presidential campaigns leading to the greatest upset in American political history.

However despite this incredible achievement and heroic leadership at the outset of the Cold War, Truman’s approval ratings soon plummeted to depths lower even than those of George W. Bush. Largely because of a sour public mood over the inconclusive Korean War, Truman left office as one of our most reviled Presidents.

So what does all of this tell us about the plight of today’s Republican Party ?

First, the present ideological divide in our society is actually less polarized than in the 1930s when both Communists and Fascists often held giant rallies in Madison Square Garden and political vilification far surpassed anything we know today.

Second, as Truman’s fortunes illustrate the absolute roller-coaster like swings in public opinion is nothing new. After every decisive election the winners gleefully predict oblivion for the losers and unending political success for themselves.

Republicans, take heart! Had a mere four per cent of the electorate who actually chose Obama (53%) instead selected McCain (46%)- and absent the September economic meltdown at least that number would have- today President McCain would be ramming tax and spending cuts through a panicked Democratic Congress regularly derided as “clueless” and “leaderless”.

Far more than 4% of the electorate--Bush voters who jumped to Obama-- are awakening to the enormity of the radical social and economic transformation that is clearly the Democrats goal. Obama remains a skilled dissembler, but the cat was out of the bag when he weakly relinquished the main agenda to Nancy and Harry.

Obama’s approval ratings are about the same as those of George W. Bush at the same point in his Presidency and much lower then those of Jimmy Carter. This “honeymoon” is waning rapidly-- no surprise given the massive assault on the economic fundamentals of our still “center-right” nation. Tax breaks for those who don’t even pay taxes, rewarding bad behavior in the mortgage market, and looting the Treasury on behalf of every left-wing special interest ultimately will not “play well in Peoria”. Even those lacking health insurance are just 15% of the population. While the other 85% are already suspecting Obama will make their care worse.

Given the stark threat the Democratic program poses to current and future generations Americans hoping for Obama to fail are merely hoping our country will succeed.

In a dark hour for him Harry Truman said:” Forget the news liars, the pols, and the pundits. In the end the people see through them all”.

Our history and some hopeful current signs suggest this may still be true.

------------------------ William Moloney’s columns have appeared in the Wall St. Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore Sun, Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News.

What a difference a great nation makes

The world is not in an all-out shooting war, for which we can all be thankful. But why is this? Is it because nations are less violent than they used to be? Hardly. Is it because they have become more reasonable? Doubtful. Is it because the awful consequences of modern weaponry are too terrible to contemplate? Possible, but not necessarily. I submit that the reason that the world has been spared World War III (meaning a war on the scale of the world wars in the last century) is the character and power of the United States of America. This is our gift to the world, not to be foolishly squandered.

Pax Americana may not sit well with either aggressive despotisms restrained by our dominance or utopian dreamers offended that "hard" power can be credited with bringing peace, but it is an undeniable fact of our age. Just as Pax Romana held barbarians in check for centuries, so has our turn at the helm for most of the last century–and Great Britain before that.

Given the stance of our enemies and the prejudices of our own ideologues, it is not easy to demonstrate the truth of the proposition that domination by great nations brings relative peace. But we know that our entry in both world wars was decisive and we haven’t had a world war since the United States rose to the status of a super power in 1945.

True, the Soviet Union also rose to a powerful position, and the two super powers, as they were called, waged "cold war" against each other for more than four decades. While fear of the horrors of nuclear warfare clearly played a part in discouraging hot war, the more telling reason was that we had the power to deter a Soviet strike.

The collapse of the Soviet regime led some to believe, as Francis Fukayama so famously declared, that "history had come to an end" with the triumph of liberal democracy and free markets. But that glorious new age was "delayed" by the rise of Islamist terrorism. Once again, the responsibility of keeping the peace has fallen to us.

Imagine the world in the absence of the United States or, what amounts to the same thing, its decline to minor power status. Is there any doubt that the Islamists would ratchet up their efforts to subdue the Infidels, limited only by their own ambitions and resources, and the feeble efforts of their intended victims?

And that’s not all. Russia may be a shadow of its former self, having demonstrated an inability to produce armaments under the failed communist system. But none of its weak neighbors would be a match for what remains of its nuclear force. Then there’s China, chastened too by the shortcomings of communism, but shrewd enough to move to a fascist system that permits private ownership but actually controls production.

None of these forces would be sufficient to dominate the world, so their leaders would gain territory and/or resources when they could, sign only temporary peace agreements with each other, and generally keep the world in pretty constant turmoil. Perhaps world wars would be avoided, but recall that world war was not expected in 1914. World trade would decline, if not collapse altogether.

The vacuum generated by the decline of the United States might be filled by still other nations–perhaps India, with its vast resources and certainly Japan, both of which would have to be very concerned about an expansionist China. Possibly Europe would find a way to unite its forces against pressure from Russia, although between its addiction to "soft" power and its declining birth rates (and Muslim birthrates soaring), that is highly doubtful.

These are not abstract speculations, for we have elected a president and a Congress that are so absorbed in aggrandizing the power and influence of the federal government that they treat the world outside as something to be downplayed, or finessed by "smart" diplomacy in which we offer concessions to our enemies even before we meet them at the negotiating table.

Just in the last week we learn that the Obama Administration is "reaching out" to Hamas in Gaza, to the Taliban in Afghanistan, and to Russia over nearby defenses against Iran’s missiles. This is an administration that conspicuously lacks a strategic vision for the world and is putting our survival as a free nation at risk.

The world will not go away, just as it didn’t in 1914, 1941 or 2001. If we don’t assume the responsibilities that have been thrust upon us, we will pay a fearful price.

Obama's kinder, gentler foreign policy

Though much of the focus of Barack Obama's first six weeks in office has been on his trillion dollar economic stimulus and deficit-busting budget proposals, the administration has nonetheless given us some insight into the nation's new foreign policy. If you are someone who believes that the world remains a dangerous place, it is anything but comforting. Many who voted for Obama undoubtedly believed that some of his more radical foreign policy positions during the 2008 campaign were rhetoric designed to appeal to the left-wing base of the Democratic Party -- those who believe that the Iraq War was a grievous error and that the "war on terror" is a Bush construct designed to assert U.S. imperialism abroad and usurp civil rights at home. Unfortunately, his first month as president shows that Obama intends to be largely consistent with the promises he made during the campaign. His first order of business after taking office was to sign an executive order closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, where a number of the most dangerous Al Qaeda terrorists -- including the mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheik Mohammed -- is now housed. He also banned the use of "enhanced interrogation" techniques, limiting our ability to question terrorist detainees to the strict rules of the Army Field Manual. In making these two decisions as a first order of his new Administration, Obama was making clear that he intends to place values -- specifically the democratic ideals of due process and human rights -- at the very forefront of U.S. foreign policy. In closing Guantanamo and banning forms of interrogation that the left views as torture, Obama said "Living our values doesn't make us weaker. It makes us safer, and it makes us stronger."

It is not a stretch to believe that those who are now formulating foreign policy in the Obama Administration believe that the importance of being true to our values warrants a substantial redefining of how America extends its power to the rest of the world. For generations, our foreign policy has been based on the concept of realism and "realpolitik" -- the notion that power should be projected on the basis of our national interest, and that power (as opposed to international law or the United Nations) is the principal currency in international affairs. Realpolitik is, above all else, a practical concept; since power considerations dominate, it often leads to choices that in hindsight seem less than principled. One example that liberals like to use is U.S. support for Saddam Hussein in the war against Iran -- just a decade before the U.S. itself went to war against the Iraqi army in the first Gulf War. The U.S. supported Iraq not because we thought that Saddam Hussein was the "good guy", but because he was seen as less dangerous than Iran, and a potential tool to overthrow the regime of the Ayatollah Khomeini.

Such "situational" principles drive liberals and idealists crazy, of course, because the left generally sees the world through a lens that doesn't lend itself to the pragmatic use of American power. Liberals have always been more idealistic about how the possibility of peace-through- negotiation. Power -- especially of the military variety -- should only be used in the most extreme cases of self defense, and then only as a last resort. And when we do use military force, we should do so in a way that is consistent with our values. Realpolitik is now valuespolitik.

Valuespolitik is entirely consistent with how Barack Obama views the world -- and appears now to be the underlying principle of our new foreign policy. At the center lies the promise of negotiation -- of finding some shared basis of interest and understanding that can lead to first engagement and then reconciliation. Here are a few examples:

-- In some of his first comments to the media as reported in the New York Times, Obama stated his "determination that the United States explore ways to engage directly with Iran", even as he confirmed Tehran is pursuing nuclear weapons and is supporting terrorist groups destabilizing Iraq and the Middle East. In this same article, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is quoted as saying “(that) there is a clear opportunity for the Iranians to demonstrate some willingness to engage meaningfully with the international community", and stated that "there could be some form of direct communication between the United States and North Korea."

-- According to a recent piece by Claudia Rossett in Forbes, the President's hand-picked Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke (has) "been talking about Iran's reach into Afghanistan not as part of the problem, but as part of the solution. Despite allegations, some by NATO officials, that Iran has been helping Taliban "extremists"--as Obama labels the terror-dedicated Taliban -- Holbrooke opined recently on an Afghan TV station that Iran (yes, the same Iran run by the totalitarian mullahs who applaud Palestinian suicide-bombers, jail and torture dissident bloggers, and execute children and homosexuals) has a "legitimate role to play in this region, as do all of Afghanistan's neighbors."

-- Rossett also notes in her Forbes article that despite overwhelming evidence of the Iranian-backed terror nest that Gaza has become, the U.S. seems less interested in ending the terrorist reign of Hamas than in bankrolling its territorial base. “Reports earlier this week, citing an unnamed U.S. official, said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton plans to attend a funding conference in Cairo next week where she will pledge $900 million in U.S. aid for Gaza. At a Tuesday press briefing, a State Department spokesman confirmed that while details, including the exact amount, are still being worked out, a whopping pledge is indeed in the offing: It'll be, you know, several hundred million."

The pattern that emerges from these examples is that valuespolitik assumes that interests between the U.S. and the rest of the world can somehow be aligned in a way that will result in a more secure geopolitical situation – and that we can achieve this while not compromising our own democratic values. In Obama's view, valuespolitik is achieved principally through direct engagement and negotiation. Never mind, of course, that the United States and Europe have been negotiating with Iran for the past several years on their nuclear weapons program, offering all manner of economic incentives to encourage the Iranians to join the peaceful international community. The result of all this talk has been that the Iranians are now closer than ever to achieving both a nuclear warhead and the means of delivering it.

The failure of past efforts at negotiation doesn't sway our new president, however. Barack Obama genuinely believes that he is the one the international community has been waiting for; that his unique ability to communicate -- and the power that Clinton, Holbrooke and others will have speaking on his behalf -- can bring Iran, North Korea and even Hamas in from the cold. Some would call such a belief naive, others would call it hubris. I would call it both. But whatever you call it, this strategy lies at the center of the Obama foreign policy.

Thinking about Obama's foreign policy reminds me of an old story about Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnam War. LBJ was the consummate deal maker and believed that given an opportunity, there wasn't anyone he couldn't convince to see things his way. As the situation in Vietnam deteriorated and protests began heating up at home, LBJ offered to Ho Chi Minh a "Great Society" program for Vietnam, using American dollars to give the Vietnamese people food, shelter and prosperity. “A TVA for the Mekong Delta” he liked to say. It was all part of a fundamental belief that everyone has a price. Jack Valenti, a Johnson aide once recounted LBJ saying to him: "If I could just sit in a room with Ho Chi Minh and talk to him, I think we could cut a deal."

What Johnson failed to realize is that Ho Chi Minh was never going to accept a permanent partition of his country into North and South, and that North Vietnam would never cease their struggle for a unified, independent Vietnam. It just wasn't open to negotiation.

One guesses that this would be an instructive lesson for Barack Obama in dealing with Iran and other Islamic fundamentalists. The goal of Iran is the destruction of Israel and the West. The goal of Al Qaeda and Islamic radicals is the death of all non-believers and the establishment of a world caliphate based on Islamic law. These are not deal points to be negotiated away. These are fundamental beliefs that defy bargaining. No focus on shared values can lead to success, for we have no values in common.

And this is the core weakness of valuespolitik. While negotiation can achieve certain gains on the margins, it has the effect of blinding our policy to the true, non-negotiable threats that face us. And we pursue it at our own peril.

Why we revere the name of George Washington

Sunday was the birthday of George Washington, honored for two centuries as the father of his country. What we should always remember must include his character and his judgment, as well as his great accomplishments. Although born (in 1732) to a prominent family, the young George’s father died, followed soon by his older brother. He was home schooled. He was a surveyor, farmer and superlative soldier before he became the statesman that presided over the framing of the Constitution and served as the first president of the United States.

George Washington’s character is revealed not only in what he did but in what he refused to do. He showed extraordinary leadership qualities while still a young man and quickly rose in the ranks of Britain’s army in the North American colonies. Several incidents tell us volumes.

Although British interference in the government of the colonies, including Washington’s native Virginia, aroused passionate protests and even calls for independence, he did not join in them. His neighbor, George Mason, soon to be author of the Virginia Bill of Rights, pressed him to support independence, but to no avail. As a soldier, Washington knew the high cost of that fateful step would be destructive war which he was already thoroughly familiar with.

But once Washington concluded, as the Declaration of Independence would put it, that "The history of the present King of Great Britain [wa]s a history of repeated injuries and usurpations all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States," he did not look back.

Better known is what Washington decided at war’s end. Having led the colonial armies to victory, the country was immeasurably grateful. This commanding general could have ruled as a dictator. But he resigned his commission and returned to private life. Hearing of this act of self denial, Britain’s King George III called Washington "the greatest man in the world."

Rivaling this act of surpassing virtue, Washington in 1784 personally intervened to prevent a mutiny by his fellow officers over the failure of the Continental Congress to pay their long-overdue salaries. He read his prepared remarks only after he produced his glasses, necessary he said because of the cost of "service to my country." That gesture alone may have convinced these angry and dangerous men that, however just their grievance, they should respect the authority of the Congress, the only government they had and the one they fought for.

And then there was the unfortunate fellow who suggested, in light of the weakness of the confederacy and the early state governments that preceded the national government under the Constitution, that Washington should become king. His reply not only was righteously indignant but was a reprimand for which the recipient apologized for the rest of his life.

Washington was a man of great dignity that he knew was necessary for the leader of a new nation. Gouvernor Morris of Pennsylvania, a delegate to the Federal Convention of 1787 won a bet with fellow delegate Alexander Hamilton that he would have the nerve to slap Washington on the back in a display of close familiarity. But when Washington gave him a cold stare, he knew his triumph came at a very steep price.

Washington, like the Roman general Cincinnatus that he admired and modeled himself after, was reluctant to take on duties and honors of which he graciously declared himself unworthy. He had to be persuaded to attend the Federal Convention, at which delegates unanimously elected him president. He seldom spoke, his August presence being enough to discourage frivolous speech or behavior.

Twice Washington was unanimously elected President of the United States by the electoral college, the only person ever to be so honored. His voluntary retirement, despite the fact that the Constitution placed no limits on the number of terms served, is in perfect harmony with his prior decision to resign his commission after leading America to independence. He had launched the government and could move on.

The detractors of government by the people believe that it is fatally prone to instability and confusion, not to mention ineptitude. But Washington’s life and actions teach us that the completion of our form of government consists in the elevation to office of the greatest characters. Washington’s greatness is not incompatible with self government. It is indispensable to it.

It is no accident, then, that James Flexner, author of a recent biography of Washington, should have called him "The Indispensable Man." For government is not just about power, rule and authority but requires good character.