Andrew Hagen

Keith Thompson is the latest to walk away from the Left. (*) (†)

He now blogs at Sane Nation. (‡) (§)

Let’s briefly consider what President Bush says he aims to do in the next four years:

• privatize Social Security
• end progressive income taxes
• end all federal inheritance taxes
• stop illegal immigration
• grant amnesty (and ultimately citizenship) to almost all illegal aliens currently in the US, with numbers estimated between 8 and 20 million
• prevent another 9/11–scale attack
• refrain from environmentalism and drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
• embark on a manned mission to Mars
• win the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
• bring peace to the Middle East
• stop nuclear proliferation
• end all forms of tyranny around the world
• balance the budget

Does something smell a little fishy? Can you say the word overreach?

Leonard Steinhorn believes Democrats need not worry about the “values voters.” Younger voters lean Democratic on social issues. The more time passes, the more values issues will favor Democrats. (*)

Fred Barnes’s analysis diverges, however. His Republican heart warms to signs that a grand realignment has begun toward conservative social mores. (†) Mirror.

If it bears out, what Barnes observes would nullify the current Democratic youth demographic advantage among values voters.

For years, the Democratic Party hung on despite voters favoring the GOP on foreign affairs and the military. The Dems were on the majority side of social issues, from affirmative action to abortion. Now those healthy Dem margins have slipped. In the future they look uncertain at best.

If the Democratic advantage on social issues fully slips away, the Dems will lack a cachet, a narrative, a single big reason for people to vote for them.

Unless something changes, we are seeing the decline and fall of the Democratic Party.

There is reason to believe that the Democratic Party stands a better chance when it nominates a Southerner to the top of the ticket.

Democratic candidates for President who were Southerners: (*)

Those who won:

• Bill Clinton, Arkansas, 1992 & 1996
• Jimmy Carter, Georgia, 1976
• Lyndon B Johnson, Texas, 1964
• James K Polk, Tennessee, 1844
• Andrew Jackson, Tennessee, 1828 & 1832

Those who lost:

• Al Gore, Tennessee, 2000 (contested)
• Jimmy Carter, Georgia, 1980
• Andrew Jackson, Tennessee, 1824 (contested)

Note: William Jennings Bryan was a northerner. (†)

Secularist Christopher Hitchens turns in another scorcher. (*) He rips the Left for criticizing fundamentalist Islam less than it criticizes conservatives.

In this country, we have (mostly) civil arguments about whether a religious reference should be in the Pledge of Allegiance. In theocratic Islamic states a single word spoken in private against the dominant religion can mean execution.

Michael Barone provides historical perspective on Bush’s attempted historical shift. (*) The reelected President has the best chance of passing his program into law in the first or second year.

In the wake of Tuesday’s election, the Democratic Party has no leader. Kerry is just a Senator again. Daschle is ousted. Bill Clinton is sick. Al Gore is angry. Terry McAuliffe has announced he is stepping down as Chairman of the DNC effective in February. (†) Harold Ickes and Howard Dean are rumored as possible successors. Harry Reid will be the new Senate minority leader.

That leaves Nancy Pelosi. CNN reports: (‡)

House Democratic leader Pelosi put it another way. “Quite frankly, I think the table is set for us in the next election,” she said. “We have lost just about everything that we can lose.”

Meanwhile, President Bush deftly held a major news conference Thursday. He performed with great confidence and skill. (§) President Bush stated he will push (conservative) judicial nominees, partial privatization of Social Security, an overhaul of the tax code, and so on.

In response, the Democrats have nothing to say, even if they had a recognizable leader. The Democratic Party has committed itself to deeply unpopular positions against the war, for gay marriage, and for lax enforcement of immigration laws. I don’t see any plan so far to keep the Democrats from falling to permanent minority party status.

President Bush’s path to reform is clear. What can the Dems do?

Leftist intellectual Noam Chomsky was the subject of the criticism of City Journal back in 2002. Let’s scrutinize a passage listing some of Chomsky’s views. (*)

Here’s a small but representative sample. The goal of America, Chomsky charges, “is a society in which the basic unit is you and your television set. If the kid next door is hungry, it’s not your problem. If the retired couple next door invested their assets badly and are now starving, that’s not your problem either.” Prisons and inner-city schools, Chomsky maintains, “target a kind of superfluous population that there’s no point in educating because there’s nothing for them to do. Because we’re a civilized people, we put them in prison, rather than sending death squads out to murder them.” Another example: “When you come back from the Third World to the West—the U.S. in particular—you are struck by the narrowing of thought and understanding, the limited nature of legitimate discussion, the separation of people from each other.”

Assume that Chomsky speaks absolute truth. American people are savages, brutes.

The only natural conclusion to Chomsky’s thought is that American people are sub-human, or animals, and ultimately that American people deserve nothing less than death.

Chomsky has given the world a warrant for genocide of Americans.

The current poverty of left-of-center thought resides in part in its lack of subtlety. Take it at face value and an absurd conclusion results, such as a warrant for genocide.

Bush whipped Kerry. Now liberals and Democrats face reality. The whole progressive platform, from the New Deal on down, lies in jeopardy.

The left-wing Nation editorializes: (*)

The progressive movement in this country has suffered a huge reversal. But the struggle for the country’s future–and its very soul–was anything but settled. . . . There must be a fierce, protracted resistance in defense of democracy. . . .

What might the Democratic Party learn from this election? First, that a posture of meekness, resignation and accommodation leads to failure.

Regarding democracy, Bush won the popular vote. Hence, democracy carried the day for Bush and against Kerry. Democracy lies not in jeopardy; progressive politics does.

Those who believe that the Kerry campaign was anything less than viciously intense have lost their sense of perspective. There have been more negative campaigns in American history, but not many. Do not forget Michael Moore and his lying Fahrenheit 911. Do not forget the Hollywood libertines who pushed Kerry. Do not forget the overwhelming media bias in Kerry’s favor. Kerry could have repudiated the excesses of his followers. He could have had a “Sister Souljah” moment, like Bill Clinton in 1992. Kerry chose not to.

Nor should we forget the Mary Cheney gay-baiting that both Kerry and Edwards engaged in during nationally televised debates.

The editors of the Nation and other establishment Left figures do not get it. Kerry lost because of their antics, not in spite of them.

On Tuesday, America soundly rejected the would-be revival of the 60s counterculture. They were not tricked or fooled. They knew what they were rejecting. They contemplated it. They cast their vote accordingly.

Now the worst tendencies of the Left will have their worst effect at the worst moment. At the very time when a freethinking reexamination of liberal political philosophy and political theory is in order, the decades-long tradition continues of disallowing internal dissent in the liberal camp. Those liberals who criticize the gay marriage agenda or immigration or Islam or relativistic morality will not be allowed to speak to other liberals.

Instead liberals are ordered to fight harder; and so they will even as the tactics and strategies of the Left and liberals have become counterproductive. The lemmings are sent over the cliff, and liberal dreams with them.

Independent progressives have an alternative. They can think for themselves.

Christopher Hitchens gives account of his political journey from the Left to independent neoconservative-like thinker. (*)

He is one of the most interesting political figures of our time.

Daniel Gross sees welfare capitalism in full collapse, along with its remarkable set of private sector benefits, from pensions to private health insurance. In exchange, he says, we will have more government-run social safety nets. (*)

Bigger government would be the result if Kerry can beat Bush, and then if the Democrats can somehow climb out of their hole and become the majority party again.

More likely, however, is the continued ascension of the Republican Party and in particular George W Bush’s vision of the “ownership society” as a replacement for FDR’s New Deal. Kerry can only delay the inevitable. The Democrats simply do not have a viable 21st century political-economic strategy to update the now dated New Deal.

What is clear is that the New Deal is old and on the way out. What remains to be seen is the result of this “ownership society.” Will it preserve and even enrich the middle class, or will it polarize the country into haves and have-nots and nasty Dickensian outcomes?

It all ties into the slow death of the nation-state, as described by commentators like Philip Bobbitt.

Capitalism is a dynamic system. With technological growth, globalization, and other changes, energetic capitalism is reshaping the whole world before our eyes. Who can ride the tiger? Who can tame the beast? Time will tell.

Progressives need to deal with the swiftly changing reality. There are many opportunities in the new landscape to change the world for the better, but they are not the same opportunities as previous generations enjoyed. They are different in nature.

World Net Daily covers a rumor that the federal government seeks to electronically track every single automobile in the US. (*)

The subject of the rumor is the Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office, part of the Department of Transportation.

This should be investigated further by privacy advocates.

Michele of A Small Victory has written an elegant and devastating short essay on the seething, irrational rage of the establishment Left. (*)

They have abandoned all of the highest left-wing ideals expressed since the Enlightenment. It is left to us, that remnant that clings to our ideals, to tend to the banners of peace through victory, liberty through strength, prosperity through transparent markets, freedom through law and morality, and democracy through duty and courage.

It was a good year, says Mark Steyn, as he comically lances the extreme leftist boils growing on the skin of the democratic republic. (*)

It’s ironic how these things develop.

The media of the world hates America, especially despising our country’s strength. Yet, without America’s victories in World War II and the Cold War, the media would not have freedom; and unless America defeats radical Islam, the media of the world will lose its freedom.

Liberals, left-wingers, and multiculturalists are worried about the tens of millions of newcomer immigrants who have arrived on America’s shores since 1965, when the doors of immigration were temporarily re-opened. They say the immigrants, many of them from Third World countries, are victims in American society. Once they get to America, they are discriminated against. Yet, liberals, left-wingers, and multiculturalists want immigration to America to continue indefinitely at its present extremely high rate.

Opponents of the War on Terrorism oppose going on the offensive by liberating Iraq, and oppose going on the defensive by implementing terrorism-preventing legislation like the Patriot Act. Yet, they are not taking crash courses in Arabic.

Feminist multiculturalists want women’s rights here and abroad. Yet, they uncritically embrace traditional cultures, especially the ones that treat women as property.

Blue state people criticize Christianity for the excesses of some of its faithful, and call Islam “a religion of peace.” Yet, I don’t see many of them converting to the religion of Mohammed Atta.

Hard-core Democrats hate George W. Bush, calling him moronic and stupid, comparing him to a chimpanzee. Yet, their man Howard Dean is at about the same intellectual level.

The establishment Left and the paleoliberals criticize the independent Left and the real liberals for supporting the Iraq war, which killed 10,000 civilians. Yet, they don’t talk about the over 270 mass graves found since Saddam was kicked out.

The anti-Zionist, dhimmi Left strongly supports full civil rights for the terrorists detained at Guantanamo. Yet, they say the one sovereign state in the Middle East that provides civil rights to its citizens, Israel, should cease to exist.

The antiwar crusaders are against Israel’s terrorism-prevention wall, and were very upset with Ronald Reagan for saying in West Berlin, “Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” Yet, they take pride in defending humanity’s freedom.

Turn Left has a number of reviews of American cities from the left-wing perspective. (*) (†) Some are informative, some unintentionally humorous, and some offensive.

Illinois congressman and Senator Paul Simon has died at the age of 75. (*) (†) He was known for his bow ties and his dedication to improving government and helping people. He ran for President in 1988. He retired from the Senate in 1997. He was a great liberal.

Paul Simon leaves behind his legacy of smart governance and the ethic of caring. He also wrote over a dozen books. (‡)

Porphyrogenitus attacks libertarianism for its tolerance of racism. (*) Taking the Hayekian view, he says that community interests should sometimes override liberty interests. The same reasoning could work for the liberal view.

One libertarian position he discusses holds that the law should neither promote racial discrimination nor prohibit it. That position ignores the history of our society. In America, racism has deep roots. Some day, like Martin Luther King said, our attitudes will change. At that time, the libertarian vision would become compatible with racial justice. Until then, laws prohibiting racial discrimination are necessary to achieve the goal of a fair society where equal opportunity is available to all. If competition were to eviscerate racism, as libertarians say, those states that did not have Jim Crow or segregation laws in the post-bellum period should have quickly seen racial justice. Of course, that was not the case. The roots were too deep. Laws against racial discrimination were the answer. They will remain the answer for some time to come.

One can’t help but draw some striking parallels upon reading Richard Pipes’ historical account of the curious Western academic discipline known as Sovietology, a field dedicated to studying the Soviet Union. (*) It’s tempting when reading it to just replace “Soviet Union” with “radical Islam,” “Sovietology” with “current academic thought,” and “Richard Pipes” with “Daniel Pipes” (his son) (†) Note this passage of the elder Pipes:

The Sovietological community was first and foremost committed to bringing the the [sic] adversaries together and in so doing ignored or downplayed whatever ran counter to this objective. As a result, it grossly misunderstood the nature of communist regimes and the forces that animated them.

This approach enjoyed popularity because it carried a comforting message. It appealed to those who had no sympathy for communism but were frightened of nuclear war and liked to think that patience and understanding would persuade the Russians to adopt a more friendly stance. Evidence to the contrary was rationalized.

Sound familiar? Note importantly the word rationalized. This is exactly the reaction to Islamist terror attacks like 9/11 by the Western Left, which is now little more than a bunch of professors and intellectuals anyway.

So many people ask: why do they hate us? They are asking that question because they are personally afraid of the terrorists, and they want to do anything but stand up to the terrorists. These people are behaving in a cowardly manner.

Cowardice is the real motivation behind Bush hating. The President is taking the offensive against terrorism. In the cowardly, irrational mindset of many liberals, however, taking the offensive is liable to provoke further attack. The mindset becomes, “Bush is going to get us all killed. Better to just play defense.” This leads battle shirkers to direct their ire not at the enemy, radical Islam, but at their own president.

In the Cold War, as today, the “enemy within” was not malevolent and truly hostile, as the Ann Coulters and the David Horowitzes believe. Instead, the most strident dissenters are essentially cowards, preferring to run and hide rather than stand and fight.

It is of great importance to have a leader who can unite the people with a common objective against a real enemy like radical Islam, Communism, or the fascist powers. A great leader can stiffen the backbone of a people and channel society’s energies into establishing victory. FDR did this in World War II. Only a few intellectuals dissented. People in both parties trusted him with the country’s security. Ronald Reagan also inspired this level of trust, and partially as a result, won the Cold War. Unfortunately, George W. Bush has not risen to such heights of inspiration in the War on Terrorism. Perhaps Gephardt, Clark, or Kerry could. Perhaps not.

Noam Chomsky has angrily responded to Johann Hari, who is writing at Harry’s Place. (*) To me, there could be but little higher achievement on the scale of honor than that for a writer, but this goes beyond mere vitriol. Chomsky goes so far as to compare him to Stalin’s commissars. Could it get any better? What pride Johann Hari must have.

Why can’t Chomsky swing by my web site and attack me? After all, I’ve exposed his double standard on East Timor and Bali. (†) Based on Google, I am the first one to do so. I suppose he won’t bother, however, because I was applying his logic to Australia. Chomsky’s politics are anti-American and anti-Zionist. Australia doesn’t usually factor in.

Perhaps one day Noam Chomsky will honor me with a diatribe.

Dare to dream.

In contrast to the angry Left, Hillary Rodham Clinton has established a record of responsible positions on the War on Terrorism, finds Howard Owens. (*) Constructive criticism of foreign policy is presidential. Now even conservatives are beginning to understand. HRC has the makings of a great president.

Let’s be optimistic. Perhaps Howard Dean’s campaign will somehow falter, and HRC will somehow become the Democratic nominee in 2004. Imagine another round of Bush against Clinton. That went well in 1992. Realistically, though, George W. Bush will cruise to victory over the antiwar granola brigade. Only then will my fellow liberals see the the truth and stop supporting the personification of the angry Left, Howard “Hitman” Dean.