'Toujours de l'audace'

Editor: "Ever more audacity," the French motto for doubling down your bet when losses mount, has a mixed connotation, but it more often suggests the nerve of a burglar than the daring of a hero. Ken Davenport had in mind the former meaning when he put that title on this analyis of Mr. Audacious himself, the Democratic presidential candidate. 'Toujour de l'audace'

It is has always been clear that Barack Obama has a huge ego. After all, how else can a half-term U.S. Senator with little relevant experience convince himself to run for president of the United States? You have to have a very high opinion of yourself, to say the least – an opinion that has no doubt been considerably raised by the cult-like following he has engendered among those who seek a Messiah rather than a president.

Obama clearly believes he is the “one we’ve been waiting for” – and it doesn’t hurt when the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi recently introduces him as a “gift from God”. That’s a strange thing for a liberal to say, I admit – but it has to go to your head when everyone keeps telling you how unique, brilliant, scholarly and intellectual you are (etc. etc. etc.).

In any event, he certainly got the title of his recent memoir right, for there is no better word to describe Barack Obama than “audacious”, which is defined as “recklessly bold in defiance of convention, propriety, law and the like”. He certainly has defied convention with his grass-roots campaign that was able to slay the Clinton dragon, and his comments on the campaign trail have often violated a sense of propriety, at least in the opinion of all those working class voters clinging to “guns and religion”.

His most recent performance in the Saddleback Church debate against McCain, for example, was nothing if not lawyerly; in the great tradition of Bill Clinton (remember his famous “it depends on the meaning of the word ‘is’”?), Obama attempted to split the middle on virtually every answer, hemming and hawing in an effort to be the perfect accommodator. The result was that he appeared to be vague, indecisive and unsure of himself.

In fact, his meteoric rise has made him famous, but when you push him on the issues, his answers are painfully shallow. When compared to John McCain, the difference was quite striking. McCain was concise, concrete and clear. He so obviously knows what he thinks and believes, and isn’t particularly interested in splitting the atom to make sure he covers all his bases.

When Rick Warren, the moderator of the Saddleback event, asked both candidates whether evil exists and if so, what should be done about it, McCain said three words: “yes” and “defeat it”. Obama, on the other had, gave a rambling answer that shows both his shallow understanding of the world, and more importantly, his true feeling about America. He said that evil does exist, citing Darfur and “the evil in American cities”. No mention of Islamic terrorists who fly airplanes into buildings, or suicide bombers who blow up innocents. He then went on to say that we must be careful in confronting evil, because in the name of opposing it, America has often committed evil acts itself – a prototypical response from the left, which is enamored with blaming America first. It was an appalling answer for a man who would be president.

Of course, such an answer fits perfectly with the previous comments of both Barack and Michelle Obama, and with their former pastor Reverend Wright and friend William Ayers – the former Weather Underground terrorist. It’s a familiar narrative, now – even if it is being conveniently ignored by the mainstream media. And it provides a striking contrast to John McCain.

McCain’s personal story is well-known, as was his willingness to go against public opinion and argue in favor of the surge in Iraq. While Obama still can’t bring himself to admit that the surge has worked and America will win in Iraq, McCain rightfully deserves credit for both his courage and judgment, and his willingness to make the tough decisions in order to safeguard our interests. McCain knew then (and knows now) that our defeat in Iraq would be devastating to America, to our military and to the Middle East.

Obama, by contrast, seems strangely invested in our defeat – maintaining his intention to withdraw our combat forces upon taking office, irrespective of events on the ground – a position that he reaffirmed most recently in an August 19th speech before the Veterans of Foreign Wars. It is also a policy that ignores the success of the surge. It’s a denial of reality, and it’s audacious given the very serious American interests involved.

Recent polling seems to suggest that the American public is catching on. The most recent Rasmussen poll shows McCain now with a five point lead over Obama in the wake of the Saddleback debate – reversing what had been a 3-5 point deficit. It is still early, and Obama will get a bump out of both his choice of Veep and his well scripted speech at the Democrat National Convention this next week.

But McCain will get a bump as well the following week, and if he moves to solidify the Republican base with a strong VP choice, he will have a lot of momentum going into the remaining three months of the campaign. My bet is with McCain, because Obama can’t be protected from himself, no matter how well scripted he is 99% of the time. It will only take 1% of the real Obama to come out to turn the election.

One final note: it was particularly telling when Rick Warren asked both Obama and McCain about their personal failings. While McCain copped to infidelity in a failed first marriage, Obama answered (after a long pause) that he is “sometimes focused too much on himself” (I’m paraphrasing here).

How appropriate that answer is given the fact that his campaign is all about him, and not about us. And how interesting a contrast it is to McCain, who has given a lifetime of service to this country and was rewarded with a broken body as a POW in the “Hanoi Hilton”. McCain has his foibles, to be sure. But he’s been tested. And he hasn’t been found wanting.

Obama, Hobbes & that 3am call

Events of the past week -- Russia invading Georgia, the repeated failure of the diplomatic efforts to stop Iran's nuclear program, and the impending departure of Pakistan's Musharraf -- should reinforce for any sensible voter just how dangerous the world remains. While the United States has been focused on Iraq, Afghanistan and the wider war on terrorism, other nations have consolidated power and made substantial moves against our interests. And, while the world has focused on the idealism of diplomacy to curb the expansionist goals of rogue regimes, Thomas Hobbes has been working overtime: proving that the international system still does resemble the "state of nature", and that life is consequently "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". For all those enamored with Barack Obama, this should also constitute a reality check, for this is no time for a neophyte as president. The geopolitical challenges that will face the next president are complex, highly volatile and full of potential peril. Take Russia, for example. For the past decade, Vladimir Putin has acted to consolidate authoritarian power in the Kremlin by crushing dissent and vacating the system of free elections. He has effectively made himself "leader for life" and has turned Russia from an emerging democracy into a dictatorship on a model that the Soviets would be justly proud of. At the same time, Russia sits on the second largest oil reserves in the world, is awash with wealth and has much of the West reliant on its energy exports. Its an envious position to be in if you are interested in empire-building.

And make no mistake, Putin is interested in rebuilding Russia into a global power. Though its export may no longer be socialism, Russia has designs on bringing the former Soviet republics back into the fold, while actively working to defeat American power. It is, on a lesser scale, the return of a Cold War-style conflict: Russia working to support many of the enemies of America, Western Europe and Israel, while consolidating power at home -- which in Putin's mind includes the former Soviet republics. The invasion of Georgia fits perfectly into this picture.

Similarly, the Iranian nuclear program represents a critical threat to world security and will be a central test to the next administration. Our record on Iran during the Bush presidency has been poor: because of the difficulties in Iraq, we have been unable to credibly deter Iran with the threat of force. Because of this, we have been forced to rely on a purely diplomatic approach, led by the Europeans. While this has cheered the left in the U.S. and fits perfectly with the prevailing pacifist approach in Europe, it has met with absolutely no success. While we talk, Iran has played for time, continuing to enrich weapons-grade uranium while supposedly "seriously considering" the myriad offers of economic and political incentives. It has thus far been a disaster: only the most idealistic among us could possibly believe that Iran is truly interested in an agreement that will result in suspending their nuclear weapons program.

Unfortunately for the security of the United States, one of those idealists is Barack Obama. Obama has consistently supported the European-led negotiations, and has famously offered to meet personally with the Iranian regime "unconditionally" should he become president. Obama, like many on the left, believes fundamentally that Iran wants to join the community of nations, and thus is interested in a deal that would bring them deeper into the international system. Such a view is a serious misreading of history, and shows a mius-understanding of the goals of the Iranian regime. Iran is a revolutionary state that seeks not accommodation with the west but rather its destruction. Whatever the interests of the moderates who live in Iran, the leadership wants to export Islam to the rest of the world. It is their raison d'etre. The creation of a nuclear weapon and the means to deliver it will make that goal that much easier -- holding the Mideast hostage and presenting a direct threat to the existence of Israel. This is the absolute objective of the Iranian state -- and it isn't negotiable.

How, then, do you effectively deal with regimes like Russia and Iran? You take a page out of the Hobbesian view of the world and counter aggression with the credible threat of force. That means the willingness to use force if and when necessary -- as a means of making more effective the process of diplomacy. Alexander George coined the phrase "coercive diplomacy" almost a generation ago -- it is hardly a new concept. But it takes leadership with the courage to see the world realistically, and to admit that evil does exist in this world. Force in the defense of our security and our values is sometimes necessary when faced with an enemy that actively seeks our destruction. It does no good to unilaterally take force off the table as Obama has offered to do. It makes the cherished process of diplomacy completely ineffective.

It is time for the U.S. to collectively dust off its copy of Hobbes' Leviathan and get serious about both the nature of the threats facing us, and the qualities we need in the next leader of the free world. The challenges that we face are multi-faceted and complex; its no time for an untested idealist with zero foreign policy experience and a very poor understanding of the world to be president of the United States

My nightmare: BHO as Hugo Chavez

Senator Obama recently said: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." I'm serious, here's the citation. What would a “Civilian National Security Force” secure against? In Jonah Goldberg's new book Liberal Fascism, he defines fascism as “a mass movement that combines different classes but is prevalently of the middle classes, which sees itself as having a mission of national regeneration, is in a state of war with its adversaries and seeks a monopoly power using terror, parliamentary tactics and compromise to create a new regime, destroying democracy."

One can imagine the end of our traditional democracy all too clearly. Obama and the progressives sweep the Presidency and both houses of Congress. Before long, the “Civilian National Security Force" becomes Obama's “Red Guard” to intimidate and sweep away any vestige of opposition. The opposition would be defined as “the rich," “the polluters," “loony right- wing Christians”, or “big business" -- in other words, the productive members of society.

The army, the only institution that could save the democracy, is paralyzed by its adherence to the rule of law. This would give Obama time to replace the officer corps with party hacks loyal to his “new revolution”. Red Army style of indoctrination and control would soon follow.

It's possible to envision President Obama declaring a "constitutional crisis” and demand passage of laws giving him “emergency powers”. That would be the end of our 220-year experiment in liberty and prosperity. President Obama would become the Hugo Chavez of America, nationalizing businesses and assets, establishing and filling concentration camps with the “reactionary elements” and “non-believers," plunging the country into chaos and poverty.

The history of the United States would be given a Marxist rewrite. The genius of our founding Fathers and our Constitution would be buried and misconstrued as a government of old fogies who protected polluters and oppressors of the people.

But if the truth were to survive somehow in some latter-day Dead Sea scroll, it would say the fatal flaw was to fail to teach the young about true self-government. If the writings of Lincoln, Jefferson, and the other architects of liberty were revered, the young would not have been swept away by the “Obama Revolution”, a return to a tyranny of darkness.