Cronkite better before he was anchorman

The recent passing of CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite was the occasion for considerable media navel gazing, most of which either waxed nostalgic or sought to channel his luster. The best commentary was by Dorothy Rabinowitz at the Wall Street Journal. Rabinowitz agrees that Cronkite was a major force in broadcast journalism, but her more nuanced analysis recalls the days before Cronkite became famous and signed off every night with the portentous judgment that "that’s the way it is, [fill in day and date]." Millions of people hung on every word "Uncle Walter" uttered with such authority, which he ultimately abused. (More below.)

As much as Rabinowitz is willing give Cronkite kudos for his dedication to getting facts straight, she admires more, as do I, the journalist who, in World War II, not only rode in a B-17 Flying Fortress above Germany but was also in uniform "wielding a machine gun at the enemy." Less hazardous, but surely patriotic, was Cronkite’s willingness, along with other TV network commentators such as NBC’s Chet Huntley, to narrate documentaries showing the evil of communist regimes.

My favorite was "Revolt in Hungary," in which Cronkite chronicled the desperate attempt of Hungarian patriots to drive the Russians out of their country in 1956, along the way indicting the United Nations and the United States for inaction.

By the time Cronkite assumed his lofty network perch, journalism had succumbed to the conceit of "neutrality," which forbade its practitioners from taking sides between the country which secured their freedom (and everyone else’s) and regimes which crushed it.

Hence, it was only a mild surprise when, after three years of America fighting the Vietnam War with a combination of World War II tactics and presidential micro management, the enemy in 1968 launched its Tet Offensive, Cronkite concluded that the war was unwinnable.

President Lyndon Johnson was reported to have said that "If we’ve lost Walter," then we’ve lost the American people. But Cronkite was wrong. Tet temporarily overran our positions but culminated in a massive defeat–and the virtual extinction–of the Viet Cong.

Naturally, liberals applauded Cronkite for his negative judgment, for it was theirs too. Conservatives, of course, were critical not only because he was wrong but because he had departed from the canons of "objectivity."

But I don't credit the "objectivity" that Cronkite himself said he was stepping away from in 1968. There is no obligation to avoid drawing conclusions from facts available, although one may be in error. Cronkite was in error, but he had not, merely by stating his opinion, stepped away from objectivity. There is no point in gathering facts just for their own sake.

The "obligation" is self imposed by journalism, not out of any lofty regard for the truth but in order to obtain advantages by appearing to be above the fray. First, the objective pose gets more readers, listeners and viewers than any partisan truth. Second, it provides some protection against political or legal challenges. Third, neutral objectivity is an imitation of the natural and social sciences, which also claim to be unbiased.

The journalistic version, which also involves a method known as who, what, where, when, etc., is always questionable. Concealing partisanship by careful selection of facts is a tried and true tactic.

Cronkite and many others jumped to conclusions about the Tet offensive because it fit in with their anti-war sentiment. Had he paused until the effects of the offensive were clear, he might not have been so mistaken. His rush to judgment was never recanted, of course. Once liberals gave up on the war, they turned with a vengeance on President Nixon for having the audacity of trying to clean up the mess they left behind.

As to Cronkite's alleged professionalism, I think it's more appearance than reality. Support for the freest nation in the world and commitment to freedom for all peoples is real objectivity, not that pious, phony, above-it-all neutralism that disgraces modern journalism. Facts are the basis for drawing reasonable conclusions, but they do not exhaust objectivity. Good citizenship requires repairing to the true principles of republican government, the "laws of nature and of nature's God."

We won't care to win wars or preserve our nation unless we ground ourselves in the objectivity of the principle that all men are created equal and free. There is no neutrality between good and evil, or right and wrong, however much people may disagree about them.

Ceding power to Congress: priceless

When I pick up the morning newspaper these days I am often reminded of that old Chinese proverb "may you live in interesting times".  I'm sure that every generation sees their "time" as interesting, and full of change. And so it should be -- with mankind's inexorable march toward the future, change (both good and bad) comes with each tick of the clock. The world moves forward, even if often the "forward" seems more like "backward". Our forward sure seems a lot like backward. Fortunately, it turns out that all this vacuous talk during the campaign about "hope and change" is now catching up to some realities:

-- A majority of the American people don't want a government controlled health care system -- A majority of the American people don't think more government is a good idea -- A majority of the American people have decided that Barack Obama is "more liberal" than they thought he was (big surprise -- not!) -- The economic "crisis" that Obama tried to capitalize on is not as bad as he would like us to think it is -- The failure of Obama to control the agenda -- by ceding power to Congress -- has unleashed the left-wing of the Democrat Party and has led to partisan, left-wing legislation -- That legislation has tanked any chance at bi-partisanship and has turned off the American people

Indeed, the American people are starting to understand that our would-be emperor is wearing no clothes. If you bothered to watch the President's prime time health care news conference this past week you saw a man grappling for answers, talking to "run out the clock" and making very little sense. Makes you long for the simple colloquiums of George W. Bush! Seriously -- the President is so in love with the sound of his own voice and the elegance of his teleprompter that he thinks what he says doesn't matter.

But it does, of course -- and though the left's basic premise is that people aren't smart enough to take care of themselves, the reality is that the American people aren't stupid. They see Congress as a partisan place with parochial interests and where transparency and honesty are in short supply. They thought that Obama would transcend this -- by pledging a "post-partisan" and "newly transparent" government. What they got was just another left-wing politician who has actually moved to strengthen Congress' role -- not weaken it. While this may be admirable for "strict constructionists" who believe that there should be greater balance between Congress and the Executive branch, the reality is that this Congress is run by highly partisan ideologues who aren't interested in consensus. On such huge issues -- like Cap and Trade and health care reform, partisan policy is never good for the country.

By design, of course, there has always been a tension between the executive branch and the Congress, and it is necessary for both branches to be active in balancing each other. But, perhaps one of the reasons why former legislators have rarely become president (and those who have are largely ineffective in the job) is because this balance is easily distorted. When you learn to think like a Senator, with the primary goal of satisfying interest groups, it is hard to put on the CEO hat and understand that your role as president is a unique one. Yes, it is about bargaining, but it is truly (or should be, anyway) about the interests of the nation as a whole and the office of the President. Thus far, Barack Obama's relationship with Congress resembles more like that of a Majority Leader and less like the Chief Executive of the nation.

I'm thankful, of course, that the President has gotten it wrong -- for it shows clearly to the American people that he is a neophyte, without true conviction. I knew that eventually his words would ring hollow, and it would be his actions that would become the focus. We are now at that point, and his actions are clearly not up to the job.

For more along this line of thought: Charles Krauthammer: Why Obamacare is Sinking

Kimberly Strassel: How Obama Stumbled on Health Care WSJ: A Better Health Reform

New polls: "Obamacare" is not inevitable!

We should all hope and pray that Karl Rove is right in his opinion piece today in the Wall Street Journal ("Obama Care in Trouble"). Rove argues that both the polls and the political calendar are working against Obama's attempt to socialize health care in this country: On Monday, the Washington Post/ABC poll reported that 49% of Americans approve of his handling of health care while 44% disapprove. What many people missed is that those who strongly disapprove of the president’s approach on health care now outnumber those who strongly approve by 33% to 25%. That presages further decline. Already, 49% of independents disapprove of the president’s approach, up from 30% in April, a staggering shift in 11 weeks.

As I have written previously ("Are American voters finally catching on"?), this echoes general polling that shows independents and conservative Democrats -- the key swing vote that elected Obama in the first place -- turning away from Obama as well.

According to Rove, Obama's support is crumbling because of a flood of bad news about Mr. Obama’s health-care proposals.

One batch of such news came from a July 17 study by the Lewin Group that was commissioned by the Heritage Foundation. It projects that if the House bill becomes law, 83.4 million people—nearly half of those with private coverage—will lose private insurance as employers drop their plans. Mr. Obama’s promise that you can keep your plan is being left on the cutting room floor with nary a peep from the president.

Not a surprise, of course, since Obama's true goal is to provide an American version of Britain's National Health Service. Nevermind, of course, that the NHS led to substandard care, rationing and long waits for basic procedures. In the true hubris that only an American president can muster, Obama thinks "we can do it better". That same kind of thinking, by the way, has led us to ignore the disaster that befell the Japanese economy in the 1990s when it undertook government stimulus to right its massive recession -- more than 15 years of stagnation and anemic growth. But nevermind. The left has its ideological orthodoxy and let's not get bogged down in details or facts.

We should be thankful that at least somebody in Washington has the courage to tell the truth, even if he was called on the carpet afterward by the President for deigning to provide an honest evaluation of Obama's plan. Douglas Elmendorf, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, testified last week that

"...the White House’s health-care proposals would not “reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount.” This shattered the central claim Mr. Obama has been making: that his health-care plan controls costs. In a July 17 letter, Mr. Elmendorf added that the House’s health-care bill would result in a “net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion” over 10 years. That’s likely a low-ball estimate because it assumes that Congress will increase taxes by $583 billion over the next decade."

Ahh, but of course -- new taxes. In the end, this is the heart of the Obama mission -- to tax the productive into submission so that the poor (Democrat voters, all) will have their free lunch. This is no surprise (or shouldn't be, anyhow), since Obama told "Joe the Plumber" that his ultimate goal is to "spread the wealth around". He wasn't lying about that, my friends.

I do sense that a tide is turning. Yesterday I attended a meeting of the local GOP club here in Colorado. It was a packed house on a Wednesday afternoon, and the energy in the room was palpable. Several of those who were there were Democrats who apparently have seen and heard enough of Obama, and who are now committed to seeing the defeat of his big government plans.

It's encouraging. But we must keep up the pressure. Show up at meetings. Go to protests. Write and/or call your Representatives. The time to fight is now -- before its too late.

When kindness is against the law

[T]he fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law.- St. Paul In the face of domination of the world by the Roman Empire, the most energetic of the Christian apostles asserted that moral virtue was still lawful. Of course, Paul knew that virtues were not widely practiced or held in high regard. Are virtues any more safe to practice now than they were two millenia ago?

This question may strike some as perverse, for are we not living in a society, as Abraham Lincoln once said, "conducing more essentially to the ends of civil and religious liberty than any of which the history of former times tells us[?]" And are we not committed to caring for the less fortunate through vast government programs?

It is true that, while the tribulations of the human condition are not absent in our country, the daily practice of the virtues by millions of people–in families, at work and play, in government and the private sector–make self government not only possible but eminently desirable.

But no blessing can be taken for granted. Virtuous living, like any other great and good thing, requires practice and even habituation. Are there any threats here and now to the continuing beneficial effects of human virtue in our midst?

Let’s focus on the virtue of kindness. Some years back, genuine concern was expressed about the utter lack of kindness implicit in the random acts of violence too often committed in our inner cities, college campuses, places of business and governmental offices. The not entirely playful response by some was to urge everyone to engage in random acts of kindness instead.

No doubt the suggestion was well meant. But a moment’s reflection makes it clear that violence can be discouraged much more by habitual acts of kindness. In a well-governed political community such as ours, it is no accident that people tend to be kinder to each other than in tyrannical regimes in which the rulers treat their subjects as if they were a lower order of being.

Indeed, when slavery was legal in America, even the most benevolent slave master was free to indulge his whims. Thomas Jefferson, a slave master himself, wrote, "The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other."

Classical philosophy and Christianity both teach that friendship is the cement that holds societies together. The Greek philosopher Aristotle observed that democratic societies, which are based on the principle of equality, are more conducive to friendship than any other. Jesus taught us where we can to make friends out of enemies.

Those of us living today, as Lincoln observed in 1838, "toiled not in the acquirement or establishment of [these fundamental blessings]." As in antebellum days, so in ours, we have the obligation to pass moral virtue on to our descendants.

The most fundamental threat to the lawfulness of the most gracious virtues lies in widespread rejection of what Jefferson called "the moral law.". Clearly, portrayal of gratuitous sex and violence in the popular arts does not teach kindness. For if other persons are merely the objects of one’s unbridled will, no kindness will be shown except by accident or cold calculation.

The rebel, the person with "an attitude," has been glorified in movies and television for years. More, the Constitution and laws of the country have been perverted by the special protections that have been carved out for anyone who does as he pleases with no regard for the rights of others. We are enjoined by elites to be kind to such obnoxious persons rather than expecting them to be kind to us.

The massive government programs that take the responsibility of caring for the needy from families, friends and neighborhoods and assign it to impersonal bureaucracies have made kindness almost unnecessary. Kindness depends on reciprocity as well as good intentions, for people more freely come to the aid of others when they know that, if circumstances were reversed, they could count on that aid. In fact, we are coerced into being compassionate by the law. Is that kind?

There is no law against kindness or the other virtues, but we are living on the edge, so to speak, pushing matters to such an extreme that, as Alfie was inclined to believe in the popular song of that name, "only fools are kind" and "it is wise to be cruel."

Our language controls our political thought

"Modern English . . . is full of bad habits which spread by imitation . . . If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration."–George Orwell, 1946 Had George Orwell, author of those dystopian classics 1984 and Animal Farm, lived long enough to notice the gradual academic takeover of the English language I do not doubt that he would be highly critical. The questionable academic terms now used by practically everyone, whatever their politics, are Culture, Values and Ideology. These terms not only mischaracterize those basic American principles and institutions which are most near and dear to us but actually undermine them.

Let us begin with culture. Today this term, the contribution of 19^th century German philosophy, is used as a synonym for society (or any group of people), which makes little sense. Originally culture meant deliberate cultivation of plants, as in agriculture. But if agriculture were understood in the same way as, say, gang culture, then agriculture could be the growing of weeds with perhaps a few whiskey bottles strewn about. Political philosopher Leo Strauss had this insight many years ago.

Not long ago culture referred to the realm of good taste, especially the fine arts. A cultured person could appreciate the best products of human art--e.g., music, painting, sculpture, plays, operas-- whereas an uncultured person did not. Of course, this is inconsistent with the popular idea that all tastes are equally legitimate, one man’s art somehow being another man’s vulgarity. This cheapens what is truly excellent.

This leads us to values. The term cannot be understood without reference to its supposed opposite, namely facts. The German social scientist, Max Weber, taught what he called the "fact-value distinction," which holds that facts are irreducible realities, while values are merely subjective tastes.

Only a boorish person would insist that what he likes is what everyone else should like, but value is a very broad term that includes not only taste but moral and political principles. We may prefer republican forms of government over despotic ones, but other peoples may feel otherwise. "Who are we," it is so often said, "to impose our values on others?"

If this is so, then not only do we not have a right to impose our political system on others; our preference for rule by the people is intrinsically no better than any other. Thus, it is unsurprising that many Americans' attachment to our Constitution is now lukewarm at best.

Finally, we come to ideology. This too is a contribution of German thought, particularly Karl Marx, who understood ideology as the rationalization of the ruling class for its dominance. He is famous for describing politics as nothing more than the organized oppression of one class by another. The real force in human life, he argued, was control of the means of production. With the Communist revolution, supposedly no one would control production and the state could be reduced to mere administration with no more politics.

What a cruel joke that turned out to be! The fact that Marx was wrong in his analysis did not stop his followers from imposing tyrannical regimes in Russia, China and elsewhere which never led to a "withering away of the state." Nor did it stop a lot of non-Communists from adopting his understanding of ideology for their own purposes.

Whenever someone influenced by the alleged insights of Marxism seeks to discredit an opposing viewpoint, he will call it an ideology. The object may be similar to Marx’s, viz., that the opposing view rationalizes a class interest, or that the viewpoint is unrealistic or at variance with the facts.

Ideology is surely not with difficulties, but it is often applied unfairly to political philosophies which are not only not rationalizations, unrealistic or at variance with the facts, but which are grounded in human nature. The best known to us is found in the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men by the consent of the governed . . . "

The terms, Culture, Values and Ideology, are inconsistent with and subversive of free republican government. Free society is not any old culture but one which is in accordance with human nature. Liberty is not merely a value but the right of every human being. And the political philosophy of the Declaration is not an ideology but based on "the laws of nature and of nature’s God."

If we would perpetuate our precious heritage, we need to watch our language. Academic weasel words won’t cut it.