More on Social Security Reform

George Will says that Alan Greenspan should be made the next Secretary of the Treasury in order to oversee Social Security reform.

Another interesting article discussing success in Social Security privitization.

Social Security Reform in the Times

I'm shocked to see that the New York Times printed a piece which makes the case for common-sense Social Security reform:

There was no "economic" transition cost, because there is no harm to the gross domestic product from this reform (on the contrary, there is a huge benefit). A completely different issue is how to confront the "cash flow" transition cost to the government of recognizing, and ultimately eliminating, the unfinanced Social Security liability. The implicit debt of the Chilean system in 1980 was about 80 percent of the G.D.P.

We used five "sources" to generate that cash flow: a) one-time long-term government bonds at market rates of interest so the cost was shared with future generations; b) a temporary residual payroll tax; c) privatization of state-owned companies, which increased efficiency, prevented corruption and spread ownership; d) a budget surplus deliberately created before the reform (for many years afterward, we were able to use the need to "finance the transition" as a powerful argument to contain increases in government spending); e) increased tax revenues that resulted from the higher economic growth fueled by the personal retirement account system.

Since the system started on May 1, 1981, the average real return on the personal accounts has been 10 percent a year. The pension funds have now accumulated resources equivalent to 70 percent of gross domestic product, a pool of savings that has helped finance economic growth and spurred the development of liquid long-term domestic capital market. By increasing savings and improving the functioning of both the capital and labor markets, the reform contributed to the doubling of the growth rate of the economy from 1985 to 1997 (from the historic 3 percent to 7.2 percent a year) until the slowdown caused by the government's erroneous response to the Asian crisis.

Personal accounts have become the "third rail" of Chilean politics and the system has been accepted, and even marginally improved, by the three center-left governments of the last 14 years. But it must be said that some labor market problems have increased unemployment and short-term labor contracts, reducing participation in the system and making the future safety net more expensive to maintain.

When the system was inaugurated, one-fourth of the eligible work force signed up in the first month. Today 95 percent of covered workers participate. For Chileans, their retirement accounts represent real property rights. Indeed, the accounts, not risky government promises, are the primary sources of security for retirement, and the typical Chilean worker's main asset is not his used car or even his small house (probably still mortgaged) but the capital in his retirement account.

Since they have a personal stake in the economy, workers cheer the stock market's surges rather than resenting them, and know that bad economic policies will harm retirement benefits. When workers feel that they themselves own a part of their country's wealth, they became participants and supporters of a free market and a free society.

I'd simply add to this my mentioning what isn't said in the article: this was a reform instigated by the government of Augusto Pinochet. It's yet another example of the proud legacy of that great man.

How Hillary Clinton Can Save the Democratic Party and How to Stop Her

On September 11th what was Hillary Clinton’s greatest liability became the asset which may yet win the Presidency for her and save her party, if only for a few years. Think about it for a second: what word is most associated with Hillary Clinton in the popular imagination? “Bitch” is the first one that comes to mind for me and, apparently, I’m not the only one seeing as a search for those two words returns 161,000 hits in Google. But, it must now be asked: is being seen that way such a bad thing for Hillary?

It occurs to me that Hillary Clinton is almost ideally positioned to run for the Presidency as a sort of American version of Margaret Thatcher. I say this without any great enthusiasm, since I love Maggie and hate Hillary, but I see it as true nonetheless.

Is there anyone in America who doesn’t think that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a cold and tough woman? That’s certainly what I think. Frankly, if given a choice of possible Democrats, I’d rather have her confronting the terrorists than John Kerry, John Edwards, or Howard Dean. John Kerry would probably try and tell the terrorists about Vietnam, John Edwards would probably sue them, and Howard Dean would probably have a panic attack. It says something about the emasculation of the Democratic Party that, in my judgement, Hillary is probably the toughest dude among potential Democratic candidates for President in 2008.

Unless something dramatic changes, the 2004 election marks the ratification of Republican dominance of the American electorate. What’s generally been ignored is this: Bush, in terms of ability as a politician, was about as weak a candidate as the Republicans could have won. George W. Bush is a first-rate CEO, but he’s a terrible press spokesman. Moreover, President Bush suffered through the most virulent attacks launched against any President since Nixon and was plagued by a war which, by Election Day, was a wash at best. It’s worth bearing in mind that, all other things being equal, had there been no Iraq War and had the Republican candidate been Jeb Bush instead of George W. Bush, the odds seem high that the election results would have probably looked like those of 1984, 1972, or 1964.

That is not, of course, to say that the Iraq War wasn’t the right thing to do: it’s just to say that it had political costs. Unique political costs, I’d say, because the American public simply isn’t yet ready to comprehend the full implications of the war. By 2008, either it will have come to accept those implications or be dull to them. Either way, I’d simply note that it’s unlikely that such an issue will strike at Republican fortunes four years from now.

As things stand the Republican Party holds a substantially better hand than the Democrats. The Global War on Terrorism returns national security issues, a field in which Republicans dominate, to the front of the line. Republicans also hold a natural advantage on value issues and most economic issues.

Equally important, but almost totally ignored, is the fact that it appears likely that, in the next few years, President Bush and the Republicans in Congress are likely to enact the most sweeping reforms of entitlement programs since the Great Society and, perhaps, since the New Deal itself.

All of this adds up to a new and long-term Republican majority, especially as it appears increasingly likely that the Republican Party will be successful in its efforts to woo Hispanics.

As I see it, the Democrats have only one chance to win: move to the right of the Republicans on national security, steal their ideas on entitlement reform, and try and turn “values” issues back against the GOP.

The problem with this strategy is this: the base of the Democratic Party would never countenance a right turn on national security. Unless, I think, it was Hillary leading that turn.

From the Democratic perspective the wonderful thing about Hillary Clinton is that she’s already earned the loyalty of the base of the party. A fair chunk of the Democrat Party, especially after three major defeats in a row (and, from the early looks of 2006, probably four in a row) will be ready to march behind anyone named Clinton.

Hillary, with her time on the Armed Services committee, can present herself as an expert on military and defense issues, using any of the many open lines of attack from the right on terrorism. At the same time, she can appeal to the “values voters” of the left who, with the right effort, can be mobilized as well as those of the right can.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I don’t think that Hillary would look silly making tough pronouncements on terror. You and I probably wouldn’t believe her: but other people would. She wouldn’t look absurd proclaiming her intention to kill terrorists as John Edwards and John Kerry both did.

Republicans are wrong to be overconfident about the possibility of facing off against Hillary in 2008. Frankly, I think that she’ll be a hard candidate to beat. In fact, I only see four Republicans that I think would have a good shot of beating her: Rudy Giuliani, Arnold Schwarzenegger, John McCain, and Jeb Bush.

Of these, I think that Rudy is probably too liberal to win the Republican nomination without the support of the entire Republican establishment: something that he’s unlikely to get.

If the Constitution were to be amended, I think that it’s very probable that Arnold Schwarzenegger would easily be elected President, but I don’t think that it’s all that likely to be amended in time. Remember: Arnold still has to get re-elected as Governor in 2006, leaving him very little time to get a Constitutional Amendment pushed through and launch a campaign for 2008.

John McCain remains an attractive candidate but, in my view, by 2008 he’ll probably be too sick and too old to run for President and, in any case, I suspect the media won’t find as much to love about him as they did in 2000 if he runs against Hillary.

That leaves one man, I think, who can be counted on to hold the White House in 2008: Governor John Ellis Bush of Florida, the President’s brother.

To begin, Jeb is simply a better politician than his brother. He’s more articulate and has proven appeal in a key swing state. Better yet: he’s demographically appealing. A Catholic two-term Governor of the nation’s third-largest state (and largest swing state) with a Mexican-American wife and two Hispanic children, were his last name not “Bush” he would, at this point, be the runaway front-runner for the Republican nomination at this point.

Thankfully for us the, “the President’s brother shouldn’t run for President” argument won’t go very far when the other candidate is the previous President’s wife.

Some Great Conservative Movies

Unlike a great many other conservatives, I don’t hate Hollywood. By my count, I’ve seen something like twenty to thirty movies in the theatre this year and I typically rent at least two movies a week. So, it goes without saying, I’m not really interested in a crusade against the “Homos in Hollywood”, as James Carville once recently put it.

With this in mind, I thought I’d put together a short list of films that I’d recommend to conservatives. I decided to do this after a search for a list of great ‘conservative films’ turned up a list filled mostly with British movies from five or six decades ago.

1) Network:

Even though this movie won four Academy Awards in 1977, it is surprisingly little-remembered today. That’s a shame because, in my opinion, it’s simply one of the greatest movies of all time. In fact, if I was forced to choose, I’d rank it as my favourite movie.

There are two questions here: first, what’s so great about Network? Second: what makes it a great conservative film?

Network is the story of Howard Beale, the fading star anchor of the “UBS” television network in the mid-1970’s. Fired, as a result of his low ratings, he announced on-air that he plans to kill himself. His lunatic statement results in a spike in his ratings, which results in him being put back on their air, where his increasingly-obvious descent into madness seems to draw ever-higher ratings.

The movie features wonderful performances from Peter Finch, William Holden, Faye Dunaway, and Robert Duvall (among others). Together they tell a story of the casual amorality of the world of entertainment.

Dunaway plays a network programming executive who devises a program (“The Mao Tse Tung Hour”) which serves as a sort of proto-reality show, featuring real-life footage of communist terrorists committing crimes combined with a fictional drama show constructed around that footage.

The harder question is the second one: what makes this a great conservative film? Superficially, it would seem to be a left-wing indictment of the evils of corporate America. Except, I don’t think it is.

The people running UBS aren’t evil for the sake of being evil: they’re evil because a decayed cultural and moral environment in America forces them to be in order to be successful. They, like the people who run the Entertainment industry today, don’t provide depraved material because they’re naturally depraved: they provide it because that’s what the free market will bear.

For the real message of the movie, I think, you should look to Beale’s final speech which, I think, comes closest to the essential truth that the creators were trying to convey.

2) MacArthur:

Mostly overlooked both at the time and today, I list MacArthur because, in my view, it’s one of the best portraits of a great American ever put onto film. While it takes a little bit of time to portrays MacArthur’s faults (and, in so doing, gives us the closest-to-life portrayals of both FDR and Harry Truman that I’ve ever seen on film) it’s clearly sympathetic towards the great General.

Played by Gregory Peck in the film, we see MacArthur as the great-but-flawed man that he was. An egotist with results. A hero who was the saviour of many nations.

That the equally-good Patton won such acclaim while MacArthur sank nearly without a trace (I wasn’t even aware of it until I stumbled on an aging copy in the $1.99 bin at a video store one day in the mid-1990’s) is an enduring mystery to me. The best I can come up with is that between the early and late 1970’s there was a hardening of anti-military attitudes in the country which made the public less open to such films.

3) The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance:

How a John Ford Western starring both John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart can be so little-known is an absolute mystery to me, especially when the movie is as good as it is.

Stewart plays a novice lawyer from somewhere in the East who emigrates to the West during the fading days of the Old West. A believer in law, he shuns the way of the gun, even after he’s robbed at gunpoint on his way into the town of Shinbone.

John Wayne is an aging gunfighter whose day is clearly passing. Both he and Stewart compete for the affections of the same girl.

I won’t spoil the ending, save to say that I think the film teaches two very conservative lessons. First, Stewart’s character learns the necessity of force. Second, the movie shows a strong deference to settled history and tradition, as opposed to the relentless tearing-down of Gods and icons.

4) It’s a Wonderful Life:

Frank Capra’s film is now justly-celebrated as a classic due to one of those happy accidents of history (because of a mistake in its copyright, television networks were able to play the movie for free, thereby allowing the movie, which was initially a flop, to become traditional Christmas viewing for many families). The story of poor George Bailey, whose despair at the state of his own life brings him to the verge of suicide on Christmas Eve, the values espoused by the film are profoundly conservative.

It’s basically the opposite of virtually every other movie I’ve ever seen which touches upon the topic of personal dreams. The message of the average film is, “do whatever you want, responsibilities be damned.” That isn’t what this movie has to say.

Dutiful George Bailey shirks his dreams in order to do what must be done. The manager of the local trust company, he helps house much of his town. When his father suddenly dies, he puts off going to college in order to keep the Building and Loan running. Instead he sends his brother off to college. When a bank panic hits on his wedding day, he forgoes his honeymoon and uses his money to keep the Building and Loan afloat.

As he stands at the edge of the bridge, an Angel takes Bailey to show him what the world would be like without him. He comes to understand how his doing what had to be done, his keeping his place, has made the world a much better place than it otherwise would have been.

It’s truly an anomaly: a movie which suggests that the road to happiness lies in living up to one’s obligations, rather than running from them.

5) Bob Roberts

:An odd movie to add to a list of conservative films, to be sure. So let me explain.

I have a certain theory of movie-watching. Basically, I view a movie as though it were an account of true events as produced by the mainstream media. In the case of Bob Roberts, since the film is presented as though it were a British documentary, this is easier than in most cases.

For those who don’t know (and since the movie only made $4 million as the box office, I’ll assume that to be most of you) Bob Roberts is Tim Robbins’ story of a folk-singer/investment banker who wins election to the Senate from Pennsylvania as a far-right Republican.

The best reason to watch the movie is the songs which, sadly, were never released in soundtrack form (because Robbins, rightly I think, feared that conservatives would adopt them as their own).

Seriously, read the lyrics to some of the songs, they’re simply a blast.

Are We Back in 1938?

By the time I finish writing this, it may already be dated. Events are very quickly spinning out of control in Ukraine. At this hour there are already reports of an imminent general strike… and of tanks on the move. Russian forces are reportedly operating with the Ukrainian in uniforms with Ukrainian markings. We may be on the verge of an East-West crisis of the sort not seen since the end of the Cold War.

I, for one, don’t think that it’s coincidental that the Russians made an announcement about the status of their nuclear arsenal last week. My expectation is that, at the present time, President Putin is waiting for some pre-arranged signal. Probably rioting by opposition protestors which spins “out of control” which will be followed by a request for the assistance of Ukraine’s Russian allies in the restoration of order. Then the tanks will come to Kiev like they did into Prague in ’68 and Budapest in ’56. And they won’t go home.

If everything goes according to plan for the Russians the West will probably impose sanctions, but will only do so half-heartedly. After all, not all that many people will care that much about Ukraine. After the elapse of a healthy period of time, there will probably be a referendum in the Ukraine and it’ll vote to reunite itself with Russia.

If this does come to pass: will it remind you of anything? As much as I hate to say it, a single word keeps creeping back into my head: Anschluss.

Quite frankly, the parallels between the political-historical situation in Nazi Germany and Putin’s Russia are becoming too great to ignore.

Both nations were great powers defeated in lengthy and hard conflicts.

Neither nation was conquered at that end of that conflict, but rather suffered from an internal collapse.

Following that collapse, each nation lost a great deal of territory, some of it acquired relatively recently and some of it part of what it would consider to be its ancestral homeland.

Both nations initially enjoyed the benefits of freedom, only to suffer from an extreme economic catastrophe.

As a result of that collapse, each nation turned away from liberal (in the classical sense) political leaders and towards authoritarian ones.

In both cases, the rise of each leader and his consolidation of power was accelerated by a questionable terrorist event (the burning of the Reichstag and the Moscow apartment bombings).

The ascension of both leaders brought a shockingly rapid economic revival.

Both leaders, given power by legitimate democratic means, soon moved to consolidate their power and crush the opposition.

Both nations were able to make common cause with some in the West by being staunchly against another great enemy of the era (Communism and Islam).

Eventually, each nation began to seek to recover the “lost territories” of the last war.

I’ve thought all of this for a long time. During the 1990’s I used to refer to Russia as “Weimar Russia.” Later, in recent years, I’ve become an admirer of President Putin as a result of the strong action he took to bring Russia back and because of his hard-line stand against the Moslem foe. But even I wonder.

I’m not saying that Vladimir Putin is the next Adolf Hitler. There are, of course, substantial differences.

I’ve seen no evidence of the sort of military build-up in Russia which occurred in Nazi Germany. Of course: just because there’s no evidence doesn’t mean that there isn’t one going on.

From the outside looking in, Putin’s regime doesn’t appear to be even 5% as repressive as that of Hitler was and, I have to believe, that, if it was, in this age of the internet and international human rights groups we’d hear about it. But then: how can one be sure?

Thankfully, even if the darkest fears of more than a few come to pass, there’s one thing we can be thankful for: George Walker Bush is no Neville Chamberlain. If this is 1938 again, George Bush can be counted upon to stand for freedom before it is too late to do so.

That means standing against this election fraud, to the point of deploying US forces back into Eastern Europe if that becomes necessary. A line must be drawn across the Russian-Ukrainian border. “This far,” we must tell the Russians, “and no farther.”

Others might counsel appeasement here: there’s already so much going on in the world, from Iran to Iran to North Korea. Doesn’t America have enough to do?

It’s true that we live in a dangerous world, but something else is true as well: Putin isn’t another Hitler, but encourage him and he might turn into one. I’ve no doubt that, if given the choice, he’d like to see the whole of the former Soviet Empire restored. Were I a young Russian today, I would be an arch-nationalist, demanding the peaceful (or not-so-peaceful, whatever) return of Russia’s various “lost territories” from Ukraine, to Latvia, to Kazakhstan. Even in my present station, I’m sympathetic to that position. Russia is a country with a great history, but it needs more than words in dusty books to be a great nation.

The solution here must be to stand with democracy in the Ukraine: not only because it is the right thing to do, but also because it is the practical thing to do. We do not wish to see Russian influence creep back towards Western Europe, an event which would require counter-moves on our part. And while, after the last few years, I wouldn’t much mind if the Russians conquered Germany and France and reduced their respective populations to serfdom, I would mind if they did it to the emerging democracies of Eastern and Central Europe, one of the places where the greatest hope for the future of Western Civilization can be found today.

A stand in the Ukraine will teach President Putin the limits of America’s patience. I, for one, don’t mind if the Russians conquer all of Central Asia again or if they adopt truly Carthaginian tactics to settle matters in Chechnya. But I do care if they destroy freedom in one of our allies.

Why Barack Obama Won’t be President

On at least a hundred occasions, I’ve heard the election of Barak Obama to the Senate trumpeted as one of the few pieces of “good news” for Democrats in the recent elections. While I’d agree that the take-over of a formerly Republican Senate seat ought to be considered “good news” I’d disagree with those who imbue the arrival on the scene of Senator-elect Barack Obama with greater significance. Despite the fantasies of more than a few Barack Obama will never be the President of the United States.

To begin with, there are some obvious problems. Leaving aside whether a black man would have specific difficulties in being elected President (and, frankly, I think that most of the disadvantages of skin color would be offset by other advantages), I think that someone whose name is one letter removed from “Osama” and whose farther was a Moslem will obviously be starting with some serious disadvantages.

And, while I’m at it, I’ll also ad that there are (unconfirmed) rumours that Obama himself is secretly a Muslim. Now, I don’t believe them but, if Obama ever runs for President, I won’t mind spreading them. There’s also the more serious matter of his father’s reported involvement with Mau Mau terrorists in Kenya, something else which would probably come up in a Presidential campaign.

But let’s leave all of that aside for now: the “Imams for Truth” are least four (and more probably eight or twelve) years away. The real thing which will ensure that Barack Obama will never be President is much simpler than that: he’s an ultra-liberal.

Osama (I mean Obama) is so liberal that he makes John Kerry look like Bob Dornan. In fact, the odds are that he would have ended up being rejected as too liberal for Illinois were it not for the three fortunate occurrences:

1) The bizarre fall of GOP Senate candidate Jack Ryan.

2) The strong (but mostly platitude-filled) speech that Obama gave to the Democratic National Convention.

3) The even more bizarre decision to select Alan Keyes as the Republican candidate for the Senate in Illinois.

Let’s face it: Keyes did literally as badly as a candidate could do. If the Republicans picked a mentally-disabled homosexual named “Adolf Stalin Bin Laden” they probably would have won about as many votes. We should not confuse Republican folly for Democratic strength.

A tough campaign would have outed Barack Obama as a liberal extremist on every issue from abortion to gay marriage to social spending to taxes to the War on Terrorism. When his views are examined, it’s entirely clear that Obama falls into the same category as other far-left Democratic Senators, such as Barbara Boxer of California or Patti Murray of Washington who no rational person considers a possible future candidate for the Presidency.

I think that it’s far more likely that Obama will turn out to be a one-term Senator like Carol Mosley-Braun and be defeated in 2010 than it is that he’ll manage to make his way to the White House.

So why the “Obama for President” surge in some quarters? The reason for this must be obvious: the Democratic benches, especially those of the left-wing of the Democratic Party, are pretty much empty at the present time.

The striking thing about the race for the Republican nomination in 2008 is the depth and diversity of the field. Plausible contenders for the Presidency in 2008 on the Republican side include everything from liberal Republicans like the heroic former Mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani, to center-right stalwarts like John McCain, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, to reformist conservative Governors like Bill Owens in Colorado, Mitt Romney in Massachusetts, Hayley Barbour in Mississippi and Mark Sanford in South Carolina, to conservative heroes like Kansas Senator Sam Brownback or Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum.

All that, I might add, leaves out the three big names which could potentially shake up the race: Florida Governor Jeb Bush, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Vice President Dick Cheney. Jeb Bush says he won’t run, but he might. Arnold would like to run, but the Constitution says that he can’t, but it might well be changed. Vice President Cheney has said he isn’t running, but you should never believe someone when they say “never” in politics.

Further down the road, Republicans like Representative Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and former Congressmen JC Watts of Oklahoma might someday be contenders for the White House.

Compare this to the Democratic field which consists of a number of largely uninspiring or flawed personalities. New York Senator and former First Lady Hillary Clinton is the obvious front-runner but, beyond her, just who is there?

Former Vermont Governor and certifiable nutcase Howard Dean will probably run again, but I doubt if he’ll even get half as far as he did the last time around. John Kerry might try, but I doubt if the Democrats will make that mistake again. John Edwards, without an office for four years and with an unimpressive Vice Presidential campaign in his past might try, but he’ll fare as well as Joe Lieberman did this year or as Bob Dole did in 1980.

Who else do the Democrats have waiting in the wings? New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who couldn’t even carry his own state for John Kerry even after it went for Al Gore four years ago? Evan Bayh, who seems to come up whenever this is discussed without generating any enthusiasm on the part of anyone?

The Democratic talent pool literally pretty much dries up at this point. Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm might make an attractive candidate, but she can’t run without the Constitution being amended. Al Gore could conceivably run again, but the odds of him being committed to a home for the criminally insane are much higher than those of his winning the nomination. Harold Ford Jr. might be an attractive candidate someday but, to date, he’s won no office higher than US Representative (and, unless he wants to take on Majority Leader Bill Frist or run against a Democratic Governor in a primary in 2006, he won’t have a chance at one for some time) and, in any case, he’ll be thirty-seven years old on the day of the New Hampshire Primary in 2008. Mark Warner has been mentioned by a few people, but a single term as the tax-raising Governor of Virginia does not make someone a contender for the Presidency.

So it’s little wonder that some Democrats have eager embraced Obama: they’re running out of options. A drowning man will hold onto anything.

Those not paying attention to the present happenings in the Ivory Coast are, to say the least, a large majority. This does not mean, however, that these events are insignificant or undeserving of our attention.

In truth, the ongoing violence in the Ivory Coast offers the United States an excellent chance to fight against the Islamic takeover of an old friend of the West, a chance to punish France for its consistent meddling in the affairs of its former colonies, and a chance to make the French realize the full cost of standing alongside the enemies of the Untied States.

Let’s briefly review the history of the Ivory Coast. A French colony up until 1960, it has traditionally been Western-aligned and relatively free. In recent years, however, the nation has faced increasing chaos. In 1999 the democratically-elected government was overthrown in a coup which ended a year later after a popular revolt following rigged election installed Laurent Gbagbo as the nation’s President.

In 2002 a rebellion began, centered in the largely-Islamic northern portion of the country. This rebellion is supported by the predominantly Moslem nation of Burkina Faso. One of the factors most commonly cited as a cause of this rebellion is the decision of the government of the Ivory Coast to impose laws requiring that both parents of a Presidential candidate be born within the country. This law is considered particularly offensive by the Moslems within the north because they (or at least their parents) tend to originate from other nations.

Late in 2002 the French became deeply involved in the settling of the crisis. They imposed a “peace agreement” upon President Gbagbo which forced him into a “power sharing” agreement with the rebels and left them in control of a large portion of the country. Their intervention (and the subsequent involvement of the UN) was objectively in favor of the rebels for the simple reason that, in the face of any rebellion, using outside force in order to force a settlement is an action which legitimizes such a movement.

Given that the actual population of the Ivory Coast, if you include foreigners living within the borders of the country, is majority-Islamic, it seems natural to assume that, if the rebels eventually get their way and President Gbagbo is removed and nationality laws are modified that the Ivory Coast will be drowned by the forward-rushing Islamic tide.

Virtually all stories I’ve seen have played down (or failed entirely to mention) the role of Islam in this or the obvious fact that France’s real aim in the Ivory Coast is not to simply maintain a peace agreement, but rather to install an (Islamic) government which suits its own needs.

It’s essential that we face the fact that, even if Islam itself is not an enemy of Western Civilization (a proposition which I do entirely endorse), that the advance of Islam and the installation of pro-Islamic governments anywhere upon the Earth is not in the interests of the United States or, for that matter, that of all free and moral men.

President Gbagbo and the present government of the Ivory Coast deserve our support both because they are the legitimately elected government of that country, but also because they stand against our enemies. If an Islamic government, even a relatively benign one, is installed in the Ivory Coast there can be little doubt that it will quickly become a haven for terrorists and other Islamists.

So: what is to be done? Obviously it would be less than desirable to send US troops to fight the rebels (and possibly the French). Leaving aside the political difficulties of such a move, it isn’t really necessary.

President Gbagbo needs two things to defeat the rebellion: money and weapons. A few hundred million dollars can go a long way in Africa. Such aid could even be disguised as “humanitarian aid” upon which a not-very-vigilant watch is kept.

The second thing is a little more difficult. To begin, there’s a UN Security Council resolution banning the shipment of weapons to belligerents in the Ivory Coast. While it is true that UN Security Resolutions have about as much practical effect as the resolutions of the Oxford Union, it does mean that we probably shouldn’t ship those weapons overtly.

Instead, I propose, the US Government should undertake a covert operation to transfer a few thousand tons of captured Iraqi weapons to the government of the Ivory Coast with the assistance of a number of third parties. In addition to the weapons which will be necessary for the defeat of the rebels, such shipments should also include SA-7 or SA-14 shoulder-fired missiles for use by the government in case the French get any more ideas about deciding to use their Air Force inappropriately. A few crates of anti-tank missiles, should the French army stand in the way of any offensive to crush the rebels, might be a good idea as well.

Finally, if increased violence forces the UN mission out of the country, the US might consider lending air support to an offensive designed to crush the northern rebels. The very sight of a Navy F/A-18 might be enough to send a lot of the people fighting on the rebel side into retreat.

There is, of course, one large risk inherent in this proposed strategy: we might end by inadvertently in confrontation with France that could compel their surrender and leave us with the challenge of managing the EU.

Is Proliferation the Solution in North Korea?

Just what is to be done about North Korea? During the Presidential campaign President Bush advocated the continuation of the present multilateral talks. John Kerry called for direct talks between the US and the DPRK. In other words: a choice between endless (and pointless) talk and bribery. Neither solution is satisfactory. But what else is there?

The military options run the range between the dangerous and the insane. Given that North Korea possesses long-range missiles, a nuclear arsenal, and a massive collection of artillery pointed at a modern metropolis (Seoul) the only real military option would be to attack them with sudden and overwhelming force, probably including the use of tactical nuclear weapons. This is a sub-ideal option.

Obviously the other option would be some sort of operation to assassinate Kim Jong Il. This is also a dangerous option for several reasons. The first is the obvious fact that, if we shoot and miss the odds are rather high that Kim John Il will shoot right back. The second, of course, is the concern that we just don’t know who would get the reigns after him. They, after all, might even be crazier than him.

Military force and assassination both have to remain on the table as options, but they can’t be our primary means for resolving this crisis. More than anything else, North Korea demonstrates the very real perils of allowing our enemies to become nuclear powers: once they’ve got those nukes ready for launch, we have to treat them differently.

So what are our options? A prolonged stand-off? Hopelessly dangerous military strikes? A risky assassination?

I don’t consider it desirable that American troops should spend the next five decades sitting within range of a Madman (and then a Madman’s son’s) nuclear bombs. Nor do I think that there’s any negotiated way out of this: our best option is to sit back and hope that the Korean regime collapses in on itself.

So, what are we to do to assure peace and security in the meantime? I have a one word answer: proliferate.

That’s right: so far as I can tell, the best solution to nuclear proliferation is what I like to call “Positive Proliferation.” So long as the United States treats all potential nuclear states equally it will find itself practically obligated to resist every third-rate power which seeks nuclear weapons for regional or national reasons.

Look at who North Korea’s neighbours are: Japan, South Korea, China, and Russia. Does anyone seriously think that those four countries aren’t capable of handling the problem on their own?

South Korea and Japan, the two nations to which North Korea poses the most serious threat, are both not nuclear powers at the moment. I see no real reason why this state of affairs should be perpetuated: let both of those nations become nuclear powers in order to change the balance of power in Asia. Let both of them deal with the North Korean problem.

In fact, it might not even take the acquisition of nuclear weapons by those nations to actually solve the problem. China very much does not wish to see the emergence of a nuclear Japan. Seriously suggest to them that the Japanese are planning to acquire nuclear weapons and they might well move on their own to end the reign of Kim Jong Il.

But the real issue at hand is that of North Korea. This urgent problem must be acted upon and such action must come with a shocking rapidity. The longer we wait the older and crazier Kim Jong Il gets and the more nuclear weapons he controls. Pen him in now and let others deal with the problem.

We cannot have an unconditional loathing for the bomb. While they are frightening, nuclear weapons can have their uses. One of those uses is the fact that they tend to have a stabilizing effect on any situation. Put nukes in the hands of Japan and South Korea and, at the very minimum, we are relieved of the difficult problem of being expected to use American nuclear weapons to guarantee the safety of nations that are more than capable of taking care of themselves.

Better yet, this solution might solve problems outside of Korea. Japan has for far too long been constrained by the bitter memories of the Second World War and the pacifist constitution and ideas imposed upon her in the years after that war. Japan will never again be a threat to the United States. So let us then let the sun rise again and see that nation restored to its former greatness.

China is rising and someday we shall have to face the threat that she poses to American power. What better way to do this than by truly getting the Japanese back into the fight? Japan’s beaten China and Korea before. It can do it again, if the need comes.

Despite the present focus on terrorism, the hard truth is that the greatest foreign policy challenges of this century are likely to emanate from Asia. And that challenge too can be summed up in a single word: China.

The sooner we can get our Asian policy turned away from dealing with a dumb little country like North Korea and focused instead on the inevitable confrontation with the emerging Chinese menace, the better.

Enlightenment

The election, it would seem, has led to the useful enlightenment of at least one individual.

Bill Clinton Cannot be Allowed to Become the Secretary-General

A quick note: Updates may be somewhat sluggish this week, as, unlike Mr. Yoshida, I have to deal with the real world.

Rumors have been spreading for some time that former President Clinton wishes to become the Secretary-General of the United Nations. According to a recent UPI report the former President, “definitely wants to do it.” We must stop him. Letting Bill Clinton become Secretary-General would be much worse than letting John Kerry become the President.

Right now the UN is about where it should be: mostly ignored and generally despised. Certainly, only a very few deluded individuals think of it as they once did: as an embryonic world government. However, if Clinton were to be placed in charge, I think that would rapidly change.

Think about it for a second: what kind of treatment would Secretary-General Clinton get from the world media? It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that they would, the moment he took office, begin to treat him as though he were the President of the world.

It’s a disaster waiting to happen. Clinton knows a thing or two about PR. The scary thing to think about is this: he has the people around him with the skills to make it happen.

Once Clinton gains that office, everything changes. I don’t find it at all hard to imagine Secretary-General Clinton requesting world-wide television time to address the world from the UN Headquarters in New York City and getting it. It doesn’t seem at all difficult to imagine the Secretary-General’s address to the UN General Assembly transformed into the equivalent of a State of the Union address.

So: what is to be done? I propose a two track approach.

First: we must lay down a framework within which to oppose Clinton if the day should come when a push for him comes. This means laying out reasonable arguments which, to the public, do not sound as though they’re being devised by people who are getting ready to hand you a pamphlet about the threat posted by the Zionist Occupational Government.

We know how the Democrats will cast any effort to oppose the selection of Clinton: they’ll claim that it’s a manifestation of Republican partisanship and, as they tend to do, all sorts of ‘moderate’ Republicans looking to get a kind word from the New York Times will be more than happy to take a contrarian position and provide full support for Clinton.

Arguments about personal morality cannot be used to sink Clinton because the people are already tired of them. And, in truth, it won’t fly if we attempt to argue against him on partisan lines because, first, Clinton remains very popular at home and, second, it will be the rest of the world seeking to put him into power.

So, what sort of arguments are we to make against this appointment? We must, I think argue, very carefully, upon the grounds of national sovereignty. This will be a delicate minefield to walk, since a very fine line separates ideas which are seen as legitimate and those that are seen as black helicopter talk: but it is an area we manoeuvre in nonetheless.

We should not argue that the United Nations has ambitions to take over the United States, but rather this is could, under Clinton’s leadership, start to act as a sort of globalized version of the European Union (at least in the First World). We need to explain the sort of social agenda advocated by the United Nations and which could, conceivably, be imposed upon the United States by treaty and by “international law.” In particular, we need to emphasize that the United Nations has plans to tax Americans and that, with Clinton in there, it might actually get done.

Worse come to worse, President Bush can simply use US influence over the UN to block any such appointment. But that solution is, to say the very least, sub-ideal.

The second track is to give former President Clinton something else to do. Whatever may be said about his personal conduct (and there is a very great deal which may be said), there is no denying the fact that he’s an intelligent and capable man who could be usefully put to work for the sake of the country.

One way to ensure that he doesn’t take the United Nations posting would be simply to get him out of the way by giving him some other job that he’d like and in which he could creditably serve the country.

The obvious area where these objectives could be achieved is in the Middle East. Clinton could form a sort of Good Cop/Bad Cop team with President Bush. We could make Clinton the “Special Envoy for Democratic Reform” and dispatch him to various Middle Eastern regimes to tell their leaders, in all frankness, “if you don’t reform, then someone is going to make you reform.”

During this process he could also be sent into the Israeli-Palestinian morass, where the need for some action now seems to be evident. Not only would this tie up President Clinton for years, but he might also get some useful work done.

The foundation of peace did not exist when Clinton was the President. The Palestinians were ascendant, the Israelis weak and a murderous thug was in command among the Palestinians. Now, everything has changed. The Palestinian murder machine has been shattered. Israel is increasing strong and secure behind its new defenses. Israel has won its victory against terror.

While my preferred solution remains the expulsion of the Palestinians from the territories, even I recognize that such a thing is not likely to come to pass. Send in Clinton and perhaps he can do some good. Or, just as good, he can achieve nothing but be out of our hair for a few years and safely as far away from the UN in New York as possible.

I warn you: if Clinton is allowed to become Secretary-General it will be a disaster for our civilization. He’ll made that damned place visible and more relevant.

It can’t be allowed.

The State of Our Culture: Television and The Way Things Ought to Be

To borrow moderately from Gerald Ford, I think it would be fair to describe the state of our culture today as “not good.” Popular movies, music, books, and television are all agents of cultural destruction. They spread pernicious notions about our history and our government. By example, they erode our moral values.

I think it’s significant to remember the whole Dan Quayle/Murphy Brown “scandal” of 1992. For those who don’t remember, this is basically what happened. Vice President Quayle (a man who never caught a break if there ever was one) criticized the television program Murphy Brown on the not-unreasonable basis that, by depicting the title character as happily having a child out of wedlock, it was contributing to a general moral decline and, worse, it was unrealistically suggesting that single motherhood was an easy thing. Shortly thereafter, all of the legions of post-modern moralists descended upon the Vice President for his insensitivity and, in essence, turned the whole thing into a gigantic joke.

What I find most notable about the whole thing is this: it was only twelve years ago. It was recent enough that I can remember following the story. Consider that for a second. Think about just how much has changed in so short a period of time. A female character having a child out of wedlock on television today is a totally unremarkable event. As a matter of fact, one of the few major television shows with what might be characterized as a strong family message, The Gilmore Girls, revolves around a character who had a child while both unmarried and a teenager. This fact is treated simply as a matter of course and as, other than her relative youth, entirely unremarkable. Where Vice President Quayle was mostly attacked by the left in 1992, if Vice President Cheney made such remarks today he would be attacked by everybody.

Television matters. It’s an agent of change in our society. Virtually everyone in the country watches television and more people than not watch several hours of the stuff a day. In the absence of other institutions which once defined the realms of personal behavior (most notably the Church- but also other traditional community groups, which were once much stronger) is has become the central regulator of our values.

Don’t believe me? Well, just watch. Frankly, I’m quite confident that if NBC were to air a pro-incest sitcom which turned into a mega-hit (All in the Family: 2004?), it wouldn’t be more than two months before newspaper op-ed pages started filling with columns with titles like “Incest is the Best” and New York Times editorials with titles like “Individual Choice.” I have no doubt at all that the rise in support for homosexuality can be directly linked to the amount of pro-gay content on TV (rather than the amount of pro-gay content on TV linked to popular support for homosexuality).

This definitively does not mean that the people themselves approve of homosexuality or of any of this rest of this. A Gallup Poll in May of 2003 showed that 46% of adults think that having a baby outside of marriage is morally wrong. The same poll said that 52% of people think that homosexual behavior is immoral.

When people bother to ask (and they often don’t, because they don’t know what the answers will be) they find that a significant minority thinks that homosexual acts themselves ought to be illegal. One 2003 Quinnipiac survey found that 35% of Pennsylvanians feel that way. The same level of opposition was found in a national Gallup survey from the same time period.

So: if more than half of the people think that gay behavior is immoral, if a third want it to be illegal, and if roughly half of all people think that it’s immoral to have a child out of wedlock: why aren’t these views being reflected on our televisions screens?

Why do people sit by as their culture is transformed into something alien to them? It’s simple: they’re scared. They don’t see the polling data that I and others see. They only know what they know. They only see what they see spewing from television and on movie screens and in the newspapers. So they think that they’re alone. They think that they’re the only ones that feel that way. Thus it is that those who would normally set the boundaries of what is acceptable in civil society stand aside and thereby are those who would destroy all limits given a licence to advance their cause and ennobled by the incorrect belief that they are in the majority.

When I raised the example of incest above, it wouldn’t be accepted because most people would approve of it. It would be accepted because people who didn’t approve would be too frightened of the stabs of the pseudo-moral majority to speak. It’s just the same with homosexuality: it isn’t that more people suddenly want to engage in gay acts than did decades ago (though, I suppose, that might be a factor as well in some cases) it’s that they feel free to do so because those who would normally condemn them are too afraid to do so openly. People are afraid to defend the borders of our culture because they believe that they would be alone in doing so.

Forget the politics of it: there’s a business opportunity here. There’s money to be made here. Look at how quickly the Fox News Channel and Rush Limbaugh came to dominate their respective fields. In both cases it was for a simple reason. People who had previously been forced to accept the products of a cultural monopoly heard something new and, on hearing it, had a single thought: “this is what I think, but am afraid to say.”

That, in fact, is the most common e-mail comment I get (well, save for, “I hope you die of Ebola” or some variation on that theme). It’s exactly how other Rush fans that I speak to describe the moment of revelation. It was how I felt the moment I started reading a friend’s copy of The Way Things Ought to Be sitting in a sixth-grade classroom at lunch on a rainy day in 1994. From that moment on, I knew that I was a conservative and a Republican and that I’d be one for life. Better than that (at least from Rush’s perspective) I also knew that I was going to go out that afternoon and use some of the money I earned delivering newspapers to buy a copy of See, I Told You So and that soon I’d be staying up until Midnight to watch Rush’s television show on a Fox affiliate out of Seattle and that I’d be finely tuning a portable radio to, throughout the day, listen to a static-filled version of his show as played on a radio station in distant Bellingham.

I don’t think that anyone can deny that a conservative entertainment television network would be financially lucrative. Look at the success of The Passion of the Christ. People lined up to watch that movie not only because they wanted to see the story of Jesus Christ and not only because Mel Gibson was involved, but because seeing the movie was an act of cultural affirmation and solidarity. People went to see the movie because, in so doing, they wanted to show what side of the culture war they were on.

The fact that nearly a year has passed without another studio trying to follow up on that says something. So does the fact that no studio has seriously attempted to produce a pro-War on Terror film. It says that the present bosses of Hollywood care more about ideology than they care about money. Fine. That’s their prerogative.

But we have our rights as well. We’ve got room to make money and to promote the things that, in our hearts, all decent men know to be right.

In the days to come, I’m going to talk more about the need for a conservative counter-culture as part of an all out effort to reduce and destroy the last real bastions of left-wing control in this country.

We’ve got a good power base in half of the institutions which matter: the Federal Government, the State Governments, and the Military. Now we need to take back the universities, the television networks, the newspapers, and the movie studios. The time is ripe and our cause is just. Deus vult.

Four More Years: Revisited

About a week ago, after several exhausting days, I wrote a piece entitled “Four More Years: AKA Take That You Sons of Bitches.” It was written in a state of rage. It was also, in my personal opinion, the least well-written and least-coherent major piece that I’ve written in quote some time. Naturally, then, it also quickly became the most read. In a week, it’s received about 50,000 views and climbing. It seems certain to me that more people have read it than would have if I’d managed to have it published in any average big-city newspaper.

Combining these two features (my feelings about the inadequacies of the essay and its higher readership) I decided to take it upon myself to give the same themes a second glance. In particular, it was inspired by the few individuals who, after reading the article, sent me rational e-mails which made coherent points, as opposed to tens of thousands of words worth of foul and often hypocritical abuse.

To begin, let me restate what I should have explicitly stated last week. I do not consider the present, undeniably poisoned, political environment to be a positive thing. Far from it: I consider it an utter catastrophe which has spread desolation across the land.

That being said: I don’t feel that we of the right began this. The true origins of the modern cult of Presidential destruction lie mostly in the Nixon years, when the left destroyed Richard Nixon for doing far less than the two previous (Democratic) Presidents had done. It resurfaced again in the Reagan years, when the Democrats turned one of the biggest nothing scandals in memory into a near-impeachment. The Republicans tried to replay the Democratic assault during the Clinton years, but their nerve failed at the last minute.

History is, of course, written by the victors and, as a result of that unfortunate state of affairs, we have forgotten key points about this history. First: because the Democrats wrote the history of the downfall of Richard M. Nixon, the man has been transformed into a monster whose offenses seemingly threatened democracy itself. Second: Bill Clinton has been turned into the innocent victim of a well-organized campaign to destroy him which ended only because of popular opposition. Neither of these popular images is quite true.

Richard Nixon’s actual offenses were minor. A break-in of which he had no knowledge and a half-hearted cover-up. A Democratic President, I am certain, would have fallen. Nixon fell only because of the consistent fact that a certain faction of the Republican Party, having campaigned upon their own moral righteousness, insists on actually applying those principles at politically inconvenient times. The result of this is that Republicans are more anxious to turn on their own in times of trouble, in all probability as part of a misguided effort to confirm the personal virtue of the individual.

Bill Clinton’s offenses, however, were much worse than is otherwise recalled and, had the campaign against him not been badly botched by senior Republicans, it seems certain to me, in retrospect, that he would have been removed from office. Three things of significance are now generally forgotten. First: the Republican leadership foolishly limited the inquiry to simply the Lewinsky scandal, instead of opting for a broader assault on Clinton’s record and thus allowing the Democrats to spin that the entire thing was “just about sex”. Second: the Republicans moved much too slowly, allowing the 1998 Congressional elections to intervene. Third: the Republicans hesitated and failed to publicly disclose evidence against Clinton (regarding the alleged rape of Juanita Broderick) which was damning enough to privately convince many wavering House Republicans to vote for the impeachment. Had the Republicans been a bit more clever, or the Democrats a little less sure-footed, Clinton would have been removed from office or forced to resign.

This lengthy digression has a point. The cult of Presidential destruction reached its epitome in this last campaign. Every resource at the disposal of the left was thrown into the effort to destroy this President. Every dirty trick possible was attempted. The Democrats even, on multiple occasions, resorted to real physical violence and vandalism in their effort to destroy this President.

For some reason, in my e-mail exchanges, I remembered a scene from the brilliant play/film A Man for All Seasons:

Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?

This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down (and you're just the man to do it!), do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?

Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

Traditional standards of decorum that existed in Presidential campaigns were there for a reason. Not so much for the sake of the other side: who is traditionally regarded, in almost any intense campaign, as a reasonable substitute for the Devil: but for the sake of your own side.

Democrats spent three decades cutting down every one of those rules through their relentless assaults on every Republican President. When, in 1998-99, the Republicans’ turn came, just enough of the traditional restraint remained to keep them from truly going in for the kill.

Having cut down all the laws, they cannot call upon their protection.

Better yet, because the Republicans control Congress, President Bush is likely to escape the trouble which dogged previous second-term Presidents. Since Nixon, every President to see a second term has faced a serious assault during their second term. Nixon and Watergate, Reagan and Iran-Contra, Clinton and Monica.

As a result, we have the chance for an unprecedented assault on the Democratic Party. We can defeat them now and here, now and forever, because we are now free to abandon traditional restraint.

The Florida 2004 Fraud Lie

The tin-foil hat brigade is thrilled tonight to see that some of their delusions have crossed over into the semi-mainstream with a report tonight on MSNBC by Keith Olbermann. While the report isn’t titled “The ReThuglicans Stole the Election!!!!!!!”, it might as well be. For the most part it takes the heavy-breathing approaching, spending a long time reading out numbers which sound off and treating them as ipso facto proof of fraud.

Basically, one of the guests reads off a long list of County by County results from this year wherein President Bush won overwhelmingly in counties with heavily Democratic registration.

Baker County, Florida, on the Georgia border for instance. 69 percent of voter registered Democrats. 24 percent Republicans. Yet President Bush got 7,738. And Senator Kerry, just 2,180. Sounds damning, yes? Oh: wait.In 2002 Jeb Bush got 4515 votes in Baker County to Bill McBride’s 1961.

In 2000 President Bush got 5610 votes in Baker County and Al Gore got 2392.

In 1996, when Bill Clinton carried Florida 48% to 42%, Bob Dole received 3684 votes to Clinton’s 2273.

In Holmes County, in the panhandle, seven Democrats for every two Republicans in the district. Bush beat Kerry 6,410 to 1,810.

In 2002 Jeb Bush won Holmes County 3580 to 1986.

In 2000 George W. Bush won 5011 to 2177.

In 1996 Bob Dole won Holmes County 3248 to 2310, with Perot getting about 1200 votes.

In Dixie County, 77.5 percent registered Democrats, Bush 4,433, Kerry 1,959.

In 2002, Jeb Bush won Dixie County 2273 to 1722.

In 2000, the President won 2697 to 1826.

Dole lost Dixie County in 1996 to Clinton 1731 to 1398.

Lafayette County, 83 percent Democratic, Bush, 2,460. Kerry, 845.

Jeb won Lafayette1461 to 1060.

In 2000 it was 1670 Bush to 789 Gore.

In 1996 it was 1166 Dole to 829 Clinton.

In Liberty County, Bristol, Florida, 88 percent of registered voters there are Democrat. 8 percent Republican. Bush, 1,927. Kerry, 1,070.

In 2002, McBride won Liberty County 1433 to 932.

But in 2000, Bush won it 1317 to 1017.

Even Dole won it in 1996 by a narrow 913 to 868 margin.

Five examples in 29 counties with decided Democratic margins that suddenly voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Bush. In Florida counties where optical scanning of paper ballots was not used, no such violent swings were reported.

So, in other words, out of in four different elections these five counties combined went Republican eighteen times and Democrat twice. That’s not a swing: it’s entirely consistent with what we know.

It’s really very simple: the Republican turn-out machine worked almost perfectly this year and the Democratic one underperformed. In addition, careful Republican campaigning resulted in the turn-out of those much ballyhooed “values voters” who, not unnatural, would come from the sort of small counties described here. The high Democratic registrations are essentially meaningless: these counties are mostly part of the Florida that remains a part of the South.

MSNBC should be ashamed for airing such blatant scaremongering without doing some very basic research.

Death of Europe Alert

The Belgian Supreme Court today banned Vlaams Blok, a party which got 24% of the vote in Flanders during the most recent elections in that country.

Don't think that the same thing isn't coming to Canada and to the rest of Europe.

The Whiff of Sedition is in the Air

When I read the postings at Democratic Underground these days I am struck by two emotions: delight and fear. These both originate in a single thought: Bush’s victory has caused many of these people to become unhinged. Initially, despising Democrats as I do, I am delighted at the prospect. However, when I think further about the implications of what I am reading I reprise the original thought in a difference tone: these people are unhinged.

As I predicted, we’ve already seen one Democratic suicide as a result of the election results. That’s not what I’m worried about. What I’m concerned about is this: what happens if one of these people doesn’t turn their gun on themselves first?

Browsing this evening I came across two threads which gave me pause and set me further contemplation of the matter.

The first was a poll which asked the member of this site, arguably the most popular Democratic site on the internet, “which was worse 9/11/01 or 11/02/04 (Election Day)?” As of this writing the poll, with about a hundred respondents, was virtually tied with 51% opting for 9-11 and 49% opting for the day of the election.

The second was another poll, even more alarming than the first, which asks respondents if secession from the United States is the answer if, “all else fails to remove Bush.” In this poll, to which 150 members have responded to date, 86% voted in favor of succession as an alternative to Republican rule.

This is all made more significant by the fact that the residents of Democratic Underground and other sites on the far left are presently in the midst of convincing themselves that the election was stolen from them by fraud. The basis of this claim is flimsy, at best (the results don’t match with Exit Polls!), but a majority has already bought into it.

Unfortunately, the internet has given people who believe in a “conspiracy so vast” a place to gather and feed eachother’s delusions. Thanks to the internet, people can convince themselves and others of massive multi-layered conspiracies with ease and act jointly to ensure that reality does not intrude into the cocoon.

In order to believe that millions of votes were altered and that the election was thereby stolen you’d have to believe that:

1) No one involved in the theft of the election would speak up or come forward, when doing so would allow them to escape serious potential punishment and offer potentially great rewards.
2) No one, save for a select elite, would notice the massive fraud.
3) That no one involved in this fraud, which would have been quite the coup (pun not intended) would have bragged to the wrong person at some point.

In a less-fevered climate this bizarre mass delusion might simply be amusing. In this day and age, however, it’s dangerous. I’ve very little doubt that these sort of mass-delusions and hysteria will lead to violence. And it seems probable that this violence will begin to occur sooner rather than later.

I fully expect to see a final, last-ditch effort to steal this election emerge from the swamps of the Democratic Kingdom. Give it a few days: they’re going to try and foist this upon the people. I suspect that some prominent people may even be involved. The two I view as most likely to sign on to such a project are former President Jimmy Carter and filmmaker Michael Moore. Former Vice President Al Gore would be another possibility. Whatever they’ve got up their sleeves isn’t going to work: the Republicans, after all, control the state legislatures in the states in question and, even if they find a Federal Judge somewhere who might step in, the odds are that either the Supreme Court will crush such a challenge or that, in the worst case, a State Legislature (most likely the Ohio or Florida State Legislature) will directly appoint Republican electors. But I don’t think that winning is the point for these Democrats.

The effects that such actions will have on the increasingly-paranoid extreme-left of the Democrat Party are potentially calamitous. These people are seriously convinced that, with the re-election of George Walker Bush, a dark night of fascism has descended upon America. I don’t know what they’d do next, but it wouldn’t be pretty.

Traditionally the role of party leaders and prominent citizens was to discourage this sort of paranoid lunacy. But, so far as I can tell, the leaders of the Democratic Party are doing nothing of the sort. In all probability, they hope that these unsubstantiated charges will hang in the air and taint the clear and convincing mandate which the President earned last Tuesday.

These irresponsible individuals must understand something: whatever happens now, the blood be upon them. Prior to the election, prominent leftists predicted riots and Weatherman-style terrorism if Bush won. Well, if it occurs, the responsibility lies upon those who have created the atmosphere which will allow such things to occur.

If John Kerry had any decency, he’d get upon on stage somewhere tomorrow, before this nonsense advances any further, and convincingly declare that he will not support any challenge and that he thinks that claims of massive voter fraud are “utterly irresponsible and moronic conjecture.”

The Democratic media should do the same. Instead of whipping up this lunatic frenzy, the hosts at Air America radio should be trying to calm down their listeners. If Rush Limbaugh were, after a Kerry win, obviously driving his listeners down a road that would lead to violence, there would be calls for action from both left and right. Those same calls must be made now.

Life Lessons for Liberals

1) Sitting in front of moving bulldozers is a bad idea.
2) Sitting in front of moving trains is a bad idea.

Of course, nothing has stopped the left from following their own bad ideas in the past and it is my sincere hope that nothing will inhibit them in the future.

Shattered Glass: Is Europe Doomed?

As President Bush begins his second term, it may well be time for him to turn towards the European Theatre of Operations in the Global War on Terrorism. By this I do not, of course, refer to any attempt to mollify those European nations who foolishly opposed this President and his initiatives, but rather to the more insidious problem which threatens the very future of European freedom and, by extension, the security of the rest of the world.

That threat, to put it simply, is Islam. What their ancestors failed to win by the sword the Moslems of today are conquering by infiltration. If present trends are allowed to continue it seems inescapable to me that, in no more than a few decades, much of Europe will be Islamic.

It is believed that roughly 13% of France’s population consists of Moslems. Up to a third of young people in France today are of the Islamic faith. Think about that for a second. Our media doesn’t like talking about this because they fear being accused of bigotry and the like, but it’s important. The rise of Islam in Europe is the one of the most important news stories of our age and, certainly, one of the least reported-on.

Why is Islam a threat? Simply put: Islam, as it is practiced today in Europe and most of the world, appears to be incompatible with Western democracy. It is possible to combine Islam with democracy: Turkey and Malaysia will attest to that. But it is only possible to create this combination under certain conditions.

But what do Turkey and Malaysia have in common? I can answer in one word: authoritarianism. When Islam and democracy have been combined it has been with the presence of both authoritarian leadership and in the absence of any major religious strife. The world’s major Islamic democracy, Indonesia, is too young too make any judgements. The same goes for Afghanistan and, God willing, Iraq. But, if they do succeed, it will only be with a strong hand to guide them.

The question that we must ask is this: are Islam and democratic pluralism compatible? My best guess is that they are not. In a society where a strong leader exercises a high degree of control it’s possible that an Islamic democracy may survive and prosper. But is it likely or possible for Islam and a liberal, Western, democracy to co-exist? I’m not so sure.

Take a look at Holland. A filmmaker produces a film critical of Islam (specifically the beating of women in Islam!) and, in response, he’s murdered by a gang of thugs. Now, I’m sure that Holland’s Moslems will officially condemn this act, I’m quite sure they will. But I’m also certain that what they have to say privately will be different altogether.

It’s a familiar pattern now for those of us who’ve been following this closely over three long years. Moslems commit some crime or atrocity. Then Moslem authorities express shock and explain to us that hacking off heads and putting the video on the internet is a violation of Islam. Then, when they think no one’s watching, they go into their Mosque and shout that God is great, the Jews are vermin, and the infidel must be fought. Then, when it’s all exposed, all the congregants explain what a wise man their Imam is and how they’d never heard him say such a thing. Then whoever said that thing which wasn’t supposed to be heard says that they were misunderstood. Then the media drops the matter. Then the process repeats.

The problem is this: Islam is both a religion and a political ideology. Since the leaders of the “tolerant” West have a particular fondness for non-Christian (and these days, non-Jewish) religions, they’re unwilling to face up to Islam’s political implications. Thus, they’re willing to take pronouncements made by Islamic leaders in less-than-good faith at face value. And so the cycle goes on.

Because of the nature of Islam, it takes a degree of authoritarianism to keep it in check that Western leaders are incapable of exercising against anyone, let alone a religious minority. Thus, the problem continues to fester.

So long as Moslems are only a small percentage of the people this is a threat, because it may breed terrorism, but probably not a mortal one. However when, as in Europe today, Moslems are a major component of the population: then the threat becomes much more serious. I really don’t see how France as we know it survives with a population that is a third Islamic.

Already, this is a major factor in French decision-making. Don’t think that the French intransigence over Iraq or their support for the Palestinians is simply a matter of French anti-Americanism and corruption. Far more important in the matter was France’s Islamic population. Whole sectors of Paris are already essentially no-go zones for the police. What would have happened in those places had the French government supported the invasion of Iraq? France is becoming more anti-American not simply because that is how France is, but because France is becoming Algeria North.

So, what is to be done? I don’t think that Le Pen has the answer. Though, I hasten to add that, were I a French patriot, I’d probably support him. Simply put: deporting as many as eight million people in a population of sixty million is not a practical solution. I don’t think it’s practical for the three hundred million Americans to deport eight million illegals- and I don’t expect that the American illegals would become suicide bombers if we tried! Calls for deportation in France are, at this point, essentially calls for a Yugoslavian-style Civil War.

It may come to that: I don’t know. It may come to that in Holland too: I don’t know. The situation is a grim one and some sort of horrific end may be inescapable. There is still hope, but it’s fading.

If there is hope, I’m not sure where it can be found. In France the situation appears to be inescapable. In other parts of Europe perhaps a freeze on immigration from Islamic nations might help. But something must be done. This must be talked about.

Even North America won’t escape. In Canada the numbers of Moslems soared from just over 200,000 in the 1991 census to about 600,000 in the 2001 census. It’s entirely possible that, within a decade, Moslems might be 10% of the Canadian population. And who knows where we go from there?

The greatest demographic change in generations is occurring and we’re not talking about it out of a misplaced sense of sensitivity.

It’s time to talk.

"You Won - So Surrender"

The basic thrust of the media coverage of Bush’s victory goes something like this, “congratulations on winning, now it’s time to emulate the French.” Bush didn’t win this election by appealing to the center. He won it by bringing millions of conservative voters, especially Christian conservatives, out to the polls. Those four million Evangelicals who stayed home four years ago showed up on Tuesday and made their voices heard. Now is not the time to tack left: we’ve won and to the victors go the spoils.

For the past four years the Democrats and their allies have used every dirty trick in the book against this President. The election that we’ve just seen was filled with stories of violence and voter intimidation: almost universally on the Democratic side. If the numbers in Ohio had been just a tiny bit closer, I’ve no doubt in my mind that Senator Kerry would have tried to steal the election just as Al Gore did. After an election where Republican offices were stormed, Republicans were repeatedly assaulted, windows shot out: do you really expect us to feel kindly towards the left? After the Democrats spent four years hurling all manner of obscene abuse at a sitting President in the midst of a war, why should we be the ones who have to play nice?

Some have told me that I, among others, was a little too harsh yesterday: I don’t think I was. The Democrats waged an unprecedented campaign of personal destruction against this President. And they failed. If I was loud yesterday, just wait until the people who feel the way I do in Washington get to start acting. We’re not messing around here anymore. We, for the most part, have always obeyed the traditional unwritten rules of Washington politics. You didn’t. The Democrats broke every tradition and every convention of modern American politics in their unrelenting question to destroy George Walker Bush and, having shattered those traditional protections, cannot expect that we will observe and obey them now.

A basic rule of the new American democracy should now be clear: no matter how hard they try, no more than 60% of the people will ever be sufficiently roused to go to the polls. That seems to be the voter turnout ceiling in America. In all probability, it’ll have a hard time even getting that high again. So the secret of success for Republicans is not to have or try to win the support of a majority of the people: it’s to win the fanatical and undying loyalty of 20% of the overall population, to make sure that 20% shows up at the polls at every election, and to win forever. You can win with just the conservative base in America.

This changes things. I think that the President should lead off his second term with a push for the Federal Marriage Amendment. It probably won’t pass, yet. But it’ll get more votes. And we can trust that a great many Democrats, if torn between representing their actual constituents and representing the collection of special interests which makes up the Democrat Party will choose the latter. And, when that happens, we can use those votes to campaign against them with unprecedented fury and force.

In 2006 there will be Senate elections in places like Nebraska, North Dakota, West Virginia (where hopefully, “Sheets” Byrd won’t run again), Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida, and Minnesota. All socially conservative states where seats are presently held by Democrats. If we can maintain and increase our momentum, maybe we can grab five extra seats which would, of course, give us filibuster-proof control of the Senate.

The real prize is, of course, the Supreme Court. This appears to have given us control there for a generation or more. Bush will get to appoint at least two and possibly as many as four or five new Supreme Court justices and, with the Republican majority in the Senate, he’ll probably be able to appoint whomever he wants: even if the so-called “nuclear option” has to be used.

This is a great day in history. We have done great things together.

Magnificent!

MSNBC is reporting that Yassir Arafat is on his way to Hell.

Truly, this has been a good week.

Dick Morris Makes an Interesting Point

In The Hill, Dick Morris tackles the question of those exit polls:

Next to the forged documents that sent CBS on a jihad against Bush’s National Guard service and the planned “60 Minutes” ambush over the so-called missing explosives two days before the polls opened, the possibility of biased exit polling, deliberately manipulated to try to chill the Bush turnout, must be seriously considered.

At the very least, the exit pollsters should have to explain, in public, how they were so wrong. Since their polls, if biased or cooked, represented an attempt to use the public airwaves to reduce voter turnout, they should have to explain their errors in a very public and perhaps official forum. This was no mere mistake.

Exit polls cannot be as wrong across the board as they were on election night. I suspect foul play.