Why did the Dems go Euro?

The elitists who dominate the Democratic Party have embraced the New Europe and its world view. The fawning reception of Barack Obama in Europe illustrated this. They see him as the anti-Bush, their best bet ever to lash “rambunctious” America to the collectivist chariot of Europe’s “Brave New World”. [So writes Bill Moloney in his overview of liberalism's trans-Atlantic convergence and its significance for Election 2008. Here's the piece in full. - Editor]

The Europeanization of the Democratic Party

In the 19th century Americans took very seriously Washington’s warning against “entangling alliances” which might interfere with the country’s unfolding “Manifest Destiny” of dynamic growth and expansion. A corollary to this belief was that the “Great American Democracy” was a unique-perhaps even divinely inspired-form of political organization vastly superior to the Old World’s tired regimes of aristocratic privilege and downtrodden masses.

In the 20th century America entered upon the world stage powerfully and decisively coming to the aid of embattled European democracies and leading them to victory in two World Wars and the Cold War. Launching these extraordinary interventions were three memorable Democratic presidents- Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman.

Though American actions in the two centuries were starkly different- isolationism in the 19th, and intervention in the 20th-one compelling theme was constant: American Exceptionalism- a general notion that foreigners were a source of problems and Americans were a source of solutions. This attitude was often naïve, and jingoistic, but it provided a sturdy foundation for American patriotism through most of our history.

This enduring national consensus, however, collapsed during the “perfect storm” of the 1960s when a toxic brew of social, military and political convulsions tore gaping holes in the fabric of our national life-self-inflicted wounds that remain unhealed to this day.

Out of this turmoil there emerged a powerful body of left wing opinion and activism that turned the old national consensus upside down. Rejecting Henry Clay’s “my country-right or wrong”, the left substituted “my country-always wrong”. More extreme elements declared their country to be the most oppressive society in history- racist at home and imperialist abroad-while discovering sublime virtues in genocidal tyrants from Mao Tse-Tung to Pol Pot.

While this raging ideological virus infected in varying degree a wide range of American institutions-e.g. media, academia- its principal victim was the national Democratic party.

In less than a decade the party that boldly sponsored the Berlin airlift, the Marshall Plan, and the NATO alliance went from the confident activism of the hawkish John Kennedy-“pay any price, bear any burden to assure the success of liberty”- to the “Blame America First” defeatism of George McGovern-who aptly themed his 1972 acceptance speech as “Come Home, America”.

Betraying allies in Viet Nam, ignoring genocide in Cambodia, accepting communist aggression from Angola to Afghanistan, and bowing to humiliation in Iran, America’s defense of liberty abroad was reduced to Carter’s pathetic gesture of boycotting the Moscow Olympics.

The sorry Democratic mismanagement of both economic and foreign policy led to a series of landslide Republican Presidential victories and finally a decade of GOP Congressional dominance. Yet, amazingly none of these severe reality checks halted the Democrats steady leftward drift.

To understand this hostile take-over of the Democratic Party it must be seen in the context of what happened to all “parties of the left” in Europe in the second half of the 20th century. Traumatized by the shocks and dislocations of World Wars and Cold War the entire European political spectrum moved decisively leftward. While the Socialist parties led this progression, the parties of the Center and Right- shaken by their own crises of confidence- succumbed as well. European Capitalism and Nationalism was decisively weakened and the door opened to a continent-wide shift to collectivism and the trans-nationalism represented by the United Nations, and the European Union.

Today the elitists who dominate the Democratic Party have embraced the “New Europe” and its world view. On virtually every issue- Iraq, taxes, abortion, global warming, energy, hostility to religion, suspicion of Israel, regulation, U.N. worship etc. etc.-difference are only of degree not kind.

The fawning reception of Barack Obama in Europe illustrated this perverse harmony. Clearly Obama’s view of the future fits with Europe’s. They see him as the anti-Bush, their best bet ever to lash “rambunctious” America to the collectivist chariot of Europe’s “Brave New World”.

While heir to Western Civilization, America has always stood apart in the degree of its faith, patriotism, individualism, opportunity, and vitality. Most basically the Presidential election will decide whether this American Exceptionalism will endure or not. The Democratic Party has already given its answer. In November, ordinary Americans will give theirs.

Another gold for Coffman

As my guy, the young phenom Wil Armstrong, lost soundly in Tuesday's GOP primary for the 6th congressional district, he and his disappointed supporters had the consolation of knowing they were beaten not by just any "career politician" -- an allowable but less than ideal bit of campaign shorthand -- but by this decade's Mr. Republican in Colorado, Mike Coffman. Coffman has won three times statewide, twice for Treasurer and once for Secretary of State, before prevailing this week over Armstrong's big money and VIP endorsements to step into retiring Congressman Tom Tancredo's shoes. Democrat Hank Eng will battle Mike in the fall campaign, but this is a very safe Republican district.

Despite occasional disagreements with Coffman, I admire his tough conservatism and superb military record. He will be a fine congressman for the south suburbs, and as far as election medal count from the 1980s to the present is concerned, it's fair to call him the Michael Phelps of GOP competitors in our state.

Congratulations on your latest gold, Major Coffman.

Endorsements for Aug. 12 Primary

Coloradans of both parties will choose their candidates in Tuesday's primary election. Backbone America recommends the following on the Republican side. Wil Armstrong Congress, 6th District Best equipped to shake the place up, a political outsider like Pence and Flake, Coburn and Demint.

Carol Chambers District Attorney, 18th District Disliked as too tough by criminal defense bar and the media; what else do you need to know?

Lauri Clapp State Senate, 26th District Reliably conservative. My frequent ally when she was in the House and I in the Senate, 1999-2005.

Doug Lamborn (Incumbent) Congress, 5th District Solid freshman term since winning the seat in 2006. GOP won't regain the offensive by eating our own.

Douglas Bruce (Incumbent) State House, 15th District Makes up in principle and guts what he lacks in charm. Again, purges are no way to party-build.

Joshua Sharf State House, 6th District Impressive resume, understands liberty, loves America; his opponent talks like an Islamist mole.

Mark Scheffel State Senate, 4th District Seasoned and trustworthy, from the first family of Douglas County Republicans.

If you have a vote in any of these races, or know someone who does, please join me in supporting these good Republicans. I respect your choice if it differs from mine. But by all means, participate!

Foreign trip was Obama's Tom Dewey moment

A friend from my school days in Zurich, still living in Switzerland, emailed me about Barack Obama’s recent trip to Europe. He summed up perfectly the prevailing reaction from Europeans about the Democrat nominee for president: “Oh, how wonderful it is [sic] to have a man of the world as America’s president!”

Leaving aside the now-familiar (if in this case unintended) presumptuousness that Obama supporters routinely exhibit, this simple statement validates how desperate the Europeans are for an “anti-Bush” – someone erudite, cultured, elegant in manner, and above all else, eager to embrace diplomacy in all its multilateral glory. Obama’s Berlin speech, while short of an “Ich bin ein Berliner” moment, was tailor made for a Europe that seeks an America in its own image – idealistic, nuanced and profoundly non-confrontational.

Unfortunately for the Obama campaign, however, the European trip, highlighted by his speech to 200,000 adoring Berliners in Germany, seems to have fallen flat here in America. In a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted just after the completion of the trip, Obama’s lead among likely voters evaporated in a 9 point swing, with McCain surging to a 4% lead over Obama -- reversing a pre-trip deficit of 5%.

Significantly, in separate questions, the poll shows that support for the view that he can handle the job of commander-in-chief, that he will do a good job on fighting terrorism and that he is capable of handling the war in Iraq all dropped as well. By these measures, Obama’s trip through the Middle East and Europe, which was designed to show that he was up to the job of dealing with foreign policy issues, must be seen as something of a failure. Many analysts, including The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol, believe that Obama’s speech in Germany and his overall trip abroad may prove to be a negative tipping point in the election – something akin to a “Dukakis in the tank” moment.

Euro Skepticism

There are several reasons why Obama’s trip, so celebrated in Europe, backfired here in America. Many Americans remain skeptical of European values, motivations and judgment -- particularly on issues related to security and the war on terror. As one American recently said to me, “I’ll always love Paris and London as a place to visit; but if the Euros are for something, I generally think I should be against it.” The roots of this go deeper than just the lingering resentment many Americans still feel over French, German and Spanish opposition to the Iraq War. Though France’s President Sarkozy and German Chancellor Merkel have worked to repair some of damage done by their predecessors, many Americans nonetheless feel that Europe can’t be counted on when needed.

The issue of Iran is a case in point: in a recent poll conducted by the BBC, over 60% of Americans favor strong economic sanctions or military action against Iran’s nuclear program, compared to only 34% in the U.K. and 37% in Germany. Europeans are far more likely to have faith in multilateral institutions and negotiations than do most Americans – a particularly important distinction given Obama’s stated willingness to meet with Iranian president Ahmadinejad without preconditions.

In addition, other polling seems to reinforce the notion that Americans, though clearly invested in a strong Atlantic Alliance, understand that there remain divisions with Europe. A recent poll by GlobeScan sponsored by the British Council found that “on average Americans characterize their views of Europeans as cooler than a friend but warmer than a casual acquaintance”.

Americans have generally lukewarm views of France (48% positive, 31% negative, 15% neutral), Spain (47% positive, 16% negative, 26% neutral) and Poland (41% positive, 15% negative, 30% neutral). Views of Turkey lean slightly negative (29% positive, 35% negative, 23% neutral). Only opinion of the UK (72% positive) and Germany (62%) were above 50%. Not exactly a love fest.

The Audacity of Hubris

This Euro-skepticism may provide some context to the Obama trip, but it is not in itself dispositive. The Obama campaign designed the trip as something of a pre-election “victory tour”, with all the elements of a state visit. The candidate spent time with heads-of-state, conducted presidential-style news conferences and soaked up the adulation of throngs of Europeans who came to catch a glimpse of him. It was covered by a fawning global media that literally gushed with his every appearance. In a sign of just how (self) important Obama saw his trip to Berlin, the campaign originally considered giving the speech from the Brandenburg Gate – the site two historic presidential speeches: JFK’s “Ich bin ein Berliner” in 1963 and Ronald Reagan’s “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” speech of 1987. Both of these speeches were given by actual sitting presidents who had proven their bona fides in the Cold War, not by a presidential candidate who hasn’t even become the official nominee of his party. Apparently, only after German Chancellor Merkel called the request “inappropriate” did the Obama campaign relent, finding another location for the speech.

Obama’s desire to speak at the Brandenburg Gate smacks of hubris, but it paled in comparison to his actions while in Berlin. His now infamous decision to cancel his visit with the wounded troops at the Ramstein and Landstuhl Medical Centers because he couldn’t turn it into a campaign event, was a PR disaster of the first order – particularly since he decided to work out at the gym at the Ritz Carlton instead. For a candidate that has stumbled badly among Clinton supporters in the heartland, and who famously made the “cling to religion and guns” remark in reference to them, Obama still doesn’t seem to understand that Americans dislike elitism. Not visiting U.S. troops wounded in battle because he couldn’t get any campaign mileage from it says to the American people that he doesn’t appreciate the sacrifices of ordinary Americans in uniform, and that consequently, he may not be fit to be commander-in-chief.

Another Dewey?

Finally, Obama’s European and Middle East tour had an air of presumptuousness about it. He flew in with his entourage as if he had already won the election, meeting with General Petraeus in Iraq and making it clear that, though the general opposed a withdrawal timetable, he as the future commander-in-chief knew best. The media coverage, which a majority of Americans now feel has been unfairly biased in Obama’s favor, was nothing short of fawning. His trip was a state visit in everything but name, even providing daily schedules that looked like carbon-copies of the schedules provided when George Bush travels abroad.

It is obviously news to the Democrats -- who are already redecorating the Oval Office -- but there is still an election to win in November. Americans are famous for rooting for the underdog – a position that John McCain has already won from in the Republican primaries earlier this year. The more the campaign, aided by the media, acts as if Obama’s victory is inevitable, the more they run the risk of appearing arrogant in the eyes of many voters. Many of the voters that Obama must win to achieve victory in this election still need to be wooed, convinced that Obama is worthy of their vote. They don’t want to be talked down to, taken for granted or dismissed. These voters aren't going to vote for him simply because he's black, or because he talks about "hope". In the end it will come down to real issues -- like national security, energy policy, the economy, taxes -- and Obama must have real answers. “Change" just won't cut it.

It might be wise for the Obama campaign to remember the story of Tom Dewey. Running in the 1948 election against an unpopular incumbent president (Harry Truman), Dewey ran well ahead the entire election. After 16 years of Democrat Party rule, it was widely seen to be a Republican year – it was time for change. The post-war economy was stagnant, the Soviet Union was ascendant, and the country was struggling with rebuilding Europe and Japan. Truman was seen to be competent but dull. Dewey, on the other hand, was the dashing Governor of New York, well-spoken, well-educated. A thoroughly modern man. The media was so convinced of a Dewey victory, that the Chicago Tribune went to press with that famous headline, “Dewey Beats Truman”, before all the votes were counted.

You already know the rest of the story.

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.