Columnist.
If the Iranian government doesn't frighten you, you haven't been paying attention. The regime in Iran has been killing Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan for many years and has sworn countless times in the past 30 years to preside over the destruction of the United States. If it wasn't for a lucky break, Washington D.C., this autumn, would have been the scene of a massive explosion detonated at a high-end restaurant, with scores and perhaps hundreds killed and maimed. The principal target of this terror attack was to be the Saudi ambassador to the United States, but as one of the plotters told another during the planning: "They want that guy (the ambassador) done (killed), if the hundred go with him f**k 'em." The FBI suggests that several U.S. senators are also known to frequent the restaurant.
Amid the expressions of grief at the passing of one of America's greatest innovators -- Steve Jobs -- one offhand comment by someone on CNN was jarring. Describing his brilliance, his inventiveness, his business genius and his inspired leadership, one host added, "And his parents didn't want him! They gave him up for adoption, if you can believe that!" It is one of the enduring misconceptions of modern life that birthparents who make adoption plans for their children "don't want them" and that this "rejection" scars the adoptee for life. Social science data refutes this. But even before considering the statistics about adoption, consider the absurdity of characterizing adoption this way in an age of widespread abortion. There are countless women who say, "I could never give up my baby for adoption" but who, strangely, see no impossibility in aborting their unborn babies.
Two new sets of Republicans are feeling deflated today -- the Chris Christie hopefuls and the Sarah Palin stalwarts. The Christie decision didn't surprise me, perhaps because I grew up in Jersey. In fact, Christie and I attended the same high school! Anyway, Jerseyans are many things (not all of them nice), but slick dissemblers we are not. When Christie said, repeatedly, and in ever more colorful terms, that he wasn't running, I believed him. And, while I understand the boomlet for him, I'm also a little relieved to see that he is indeed a truthful guy.
President Obama is excessively fond of defining "who we are as a nation," which is interesting coming from someone whose campaign was based on bringing sweeping and profound changes to the country. He has resorted to this formulation when urging government-controlled, universal health care. He has used it to explain his (reasonable) decision not to release photos of the dead bin Laden. He used it when supposedly rebutting the argument that we should "tear apart families" by deporting 12 million illegal aliens (a straw man since no leading American has proposed such a thing). He has invoked "who we are as a nation" to justify vast new stimulus spending and higher taxes on the rich. It's pretty well guaranteed that when this president invokes WWAAAN he has once again mounted his high horse, chin tilted up.
The Southern Poverty Law Center is appalled by the results of a new study finding that states are not teaching the history of the civil rights era. The SPLC, which commissioned the study of state curricula, concludes that students in at least 35 states are missing out on important facts about our history. And even in states that include units on civil rights, "their civil rights education boils down to two people and four words: Rosa Parks, Dr. King and 'I have a dream.'" On one hand, you want to welcome disgruntled liberals to the club of those worried about historical amnesia among the young. We conservatives have been worrying about it for decades. On the other hand, it's tough to believe that American students are being cheated of knowledge about civil rights, compared with say, knowledge about World War II, or the progressive movement or the nullification crisis. One of my sons, who has been educated in public schools most of his life, offered that in his experience, American history is taught as "the Revolution, the internment of the Japanese during World War II and the civil rights movement."
Do not suppose for a minute that Herman Cain's victory in the Florida straw poll will alter the liberal narrative about the Tea Party and Republicans. No, we will continue to be instructed by the Congressional Black Caucus, the Today Show and The New York Times that the eruption of the Tea Parties is a reflection of the dark id of American conservatism; that it is primarily racist and xenophobic; and that the Tea Party movement is radical and extremist. Waving the "bloody shirt" of racism has been the most reliable workhorse of Democratic politics for at least a generation. Remember the wall-to-wall coverage of the "epidemic" of black church fires in the 1990s? Remember George W. Bush's "insensitivity" regarding the ghastly lynching of James Byrd? The epidemic turned out to be imaginary and Bush was happy to sign the death warrant for one of Byrd's murderers, but the tactic is too precious for Democrats to abandon.
When New York's District 9 went Republican, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, explained that the district, which has been in Democratic hands since 1923, is "a very difficult district for Democrats." By that standard, the entire nation may go Republican in 2012. Democrats hold a 3-seat majority in the U.S. Senate. But two-thirds of the contested 2012 seats are in Democratic hands. Having to defend so many seats would be challenging at any time (funds have to be spread more thinly), but with a president whose approval ratings are sinking steadily, the prospects for continued Democratic dominance look even worse. Most prognosticators put North Dakota in the likely Republican pick-up column, while Florida, Michigan, New Mexico, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Missouri, Virginia, West Virginia and Nevada are considered toss-ups. Ohio, where first-term Senator Sherrod Brown is seeking reelection, is considered a "lean Democrat" race. We'll see.
President Obama and the Democrats are finally happy. Liberated from thoughts of compromise with Republicans, they can fully indulge their most lascivious pleasure -- trashing rich people. "We simply cannot afford these special lower rates for the wealthy," President Obama declared in his Rose Garden message Monday. "Give 'em hell, Barry," cheered Hendrik Hertzberg of The New Yorker. Hertzberg was chipper. Not so of Paul Krugman from The New York Times, the Democratic Party's choleric scold: "The rage of the rich has been building ever since Mr. Obama took office," he glowered. ". . .And among the undeniably rich, a belligerent sense of entitlement has taken hold: It's their money, and they have the right to keep it." Imagine.
The Columbia Spectator is the student newspaper at Columbia University, the school I was once proud to call my alma mater. A report in that newspaper raises the following question: Are leading American universities producing moral illiterates? According to the Spectator, a group of students who are members of the Columbia International Relations Council and Association has been invited to attend a private dinner with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when he travels to New York for the United Nations General Assembly meeting next week. A student spokesman for the group, when asked whether the invitation had provoked controversy within CIRCA, seemed surprised by the question. "Everyone was really enthusiastic," said Tim Chan. "They're thrilled to have this opportunity."
You might suppose that a political book, appearing less than six months after Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels indicated that he would not run for president, must have been written as a campaign prop. But that's not Daniels' style. "Keeping the Republic" is a deadly serious, though frequently witty, effort to lay before the American people the perilous state of the nation. Be prepared -- the first few pages of Chapter 2 can turn your blood to ice. America's decline, Daniels writes, may not be a gradual slide, but instead a sudden plunge into chaos. Sketching what a financial collapse could look like if we fail to control our debt, he writes, "Monday, 6 a.m.-- a Chinese official issues a statement saying that China will no longer be buying Treasury securities because 'we see no evidence that the U.S. will take the steps necessary to grow its economy or limit its spending so it can afford to repay' . . . Monday 9:30 a.m. -- the dollar drops 10 percent . . . New York stock market opens in free fall . . . Monday afternoon -- . . . other nations' central banks begin to sell off U.S. Treasuries. . ."
There is a brand of Republican who looks at President Obama's vulnerability on the economy and says "go for it." They argue that the overriding issue of the campaign should be jobs -- and that everything else should be a distant second. There is another kind of Republican who sees the 2012 election as a tipping point for the nation -- a do or die moment when we will either pull back from the precipice of debt and national decline or fall off the edge. This second brand of Republican is hoping that a candidate will emerge who can lay before the American people the nature of the challenge we face in a direct and forthright way. If a campaign is run and won on the need to reform our obese government, the new president will have a mandate to take the necessary steps, once in office.
When a deranged gunman shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 20 others in January, partisan Democrats leaped at the chance to blame Republican rhetoric for the crime. The New York Times columnist Paul Krugman was among the first warning, "You know that Republicans will yell about the evils of partisanship whenever anyone tries to make a connection between the rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh, etc. and the violence I fear we're going to see in the months and years ahead. But violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate. And it's long past time for the GOP's leaders to take a stand against the hate-mongers."
They cannot help themselves, The New York Times that is. With absolute regularity, they continue to report certain issues in the most biased and fact-avoiding way possible. An Aug. 31, 2011, story by Al Baker covers a federal judge's ruling that a case challenging the New York Police Department's, NYPD, "stop and frisk" policy can go forward. But the story is so one-sided that it practically topples over as you're reading it.
The Hurricane Irene story ought to, but won't, shed light on our prejudices regarding science. The favored liberal Democratic narrative -- we've seen it trotted out against Rick Perry in the past two weeks -- goes like this: Democrats are the party of the enlightenment. They believe in science and facts. They know that Darwin was correct about the origin of species, and that human beings are responsible for potentially catastrophic global warming through production of carbon dioxide. Republicans, on the other hand, are the pre-modern party of superstition, religious explanations for natural phenomena and global warming denial.
This was not a gaffe. This was a disgrace. In a speech at Sichuan University, Vice President Joe Biden said "Your policy has been one which I fully understand -- I'm not second-guessing -- of one child per family . . ." But, he continued, this policy is creating demographic difficulties, such that "one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people. Not sustainable." Following criticism, Biden's spokesperson, Kendra Barkoff, insisted that Biden, along with the entire Obama administration, finds the Chinese government's population control regime "repugnant." But she seemed confused as to what the fuss was about. "He also pointed out, in China, that the policy is, as a practical matter, unsustainable. He was arguing against the one-child policy to a Chinese audience."
"The best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity." -- W. B Yeats Actually, contra Yeats, our best are full of passionate intensity -- except when it comes to running for president. The Tea Party shows no sign of obliging the media by fading away. Yet one after another, each of several promising prospects on the Republican bench -- Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan -- has begged off . . . or seemed to.
Much of the interpretation of the Standard and Poor's downgrade of U.S. debt focused on the "dysfunction" of the U.S. political process. And certainly the S and P (which, let's not forget, contributed to the 2008 financial crisis by failing to downgrade bad mortgage debt) invited such analysis by citing "the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate . . ." Yes, the confrontation over raising the debt ceiling was ugly, but not nearly as ugly as the underlying policies that are carrying us to the brink of insolvency. This focus on the contentiousness of the debate, rather than on debt, is dangerous and obtuse. It's reminiscent of those liberals during the Cold War who were more upset about someone being called a communist than about someone actually being a communist.
Anticipating his entry into the presidential race, the Washington Post ran a long piece on Texas Governor Rick Perry's ideas about higher education. "A man of grand plans," the headline warned, "criticized as not sweating the details." Are the headline writers at the Post on summer break? Did the temps have to dust off headlines from the Reagan era? Reagan's ideas were constantly dismissed by the bien passant as "simplistic." So anyone who gets tagged as simplistic by the Post gets an immediate benefit-of-the-doubt from me. As Margaret Thatcher said at Reagan's funeral, " . . . his ideas, though clear, were never simplistic. He saw the many sides of truth."
There are some on the right who believe that Barack Obama is intentionally steering the United States into disaster -- that he privately rejoices in the dismal economy because it partially fulfills his objective to bring the country down. This strikes me as, at the very least, overwrought. One would have to accept the idea that Gene Sperling, Timothy Geithner and the president clapped one another on the back when the latest GDP figures arrived. ".04 percent growth in the first quarter. 1.3 percent last quarter. Way to go! We'll be in recession again in no time."
It is true, so true, as Judson Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation, argues in the Washington Post, that the doyens of liberal media have been attempting to paint tea party members as the villains of the debt-ceiling confrontation. But this shouldn't surprise. From the inception of the movement, liberals and Democrats have purported to see dark and dangerous trends afoot. The movement has been insulted as stupid and radical, and slandered as racist and nativist.
