7/1/09: The Celebrity Circa 2009 Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 6/24/09: The Iranian Election In Historic Terms The 2009 election in Iran has exposed the problematic dimensions of President Obama’s “soft power” approach. By any standard this election of Ahmadinejad appears to be a sham. Millions of votes were counted in just two hours after the polls closed. Internet sites were shut down. Protestors were beaten and arrested. And in the village where Mir Hossein Mousavi, the chief rival to Ahmadinejad, resides, anecdotal evidence indicates widespread tampering. Yet, even though Vice President Biden said there is “some real doubt” about the election result, the United States’ government is committed to continued efforts at negotiation in order to halt Iran’s nuclear weapons program. “Talks with Iran,” it was noted, “are not a reward for good behavior, they are only the consequence” of President Obama’s decision that talks with Iranian leaders are in our national security interest. But is that really the case? A thunder storm of protest across Iran clearly demonstrates that many Iranians, perhaps most Iranians, feel cheated. It appears as if the so-called “green revolution” has traction with a passion for change evident among youthful demonstrators on the streets of every major Iranian city. Despite efforts at suppression by government authorities, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter among other outlets offer a communications network for the disenchanted. As I watched YouTube clips from the comforts of my home, I heard crowds shouting, “Death to the dictator.” Mousavi has formally asked the Guardian Council to annul the election result he described as a fraud. But there is little doubt his plea will not be heeded. How this discontent will unfold remains to be seen, but a network of young, middle class dissenters could emerge as a force putting pressure on Ahmadinejad and Iran’s theocracy to take a less confrontational posture toward the West. This, of course, is precisely the dilemma President Obama now faces. On the one hand, he has staked out a position as a negotiator with the Guardian Council – the twelve member clerical body associated with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. On the other hand, he must recognize that overtures towards the existing regime run headlong into the emerging grassroots spirit for change. If, through negotiation he legitimizes the mullahs, he will lose the youthful demonstrators who have put their lives on the line for liberalization. The question the president must address is which side of history will he be on. Will he consider the passion for change inexorable or will he, like Ahmadinejad, consider the demonstrations like the unrest after a soccer match? The backdrop for President Obama’s stance is the Iranian enrichment of uranium and probable development of nuclear weapons. Should the president embrace the view of demonstrators, his negotiation position will be compromised. Should he negotiate with the mullahs lending legitimacy to the present regime, he will be seen as the opponent of democratic reform. What if the negotiations do not result in the cessation of Iran’s nuclear program? Will this investment of political capital be viewed as a foolish gesture that only alienated those who might bring about a regime change? Clearly history has a way of intruding on grand designs. The demonstrations on the ground could be the beginning of a major shift in the fortunes of Iran. A stable Iran, without imperial goals, could set in motion reforms that might cascade through the region. Is this the beginning of the end for the Iranian theocratic state or is this merely a momentary poise in the move for ever tighter controls on the Iranian people? President Obama had better be prepared to answer these questions since the pace of change could be unpredictable. On one matter there cannot be any doubt: the confidence in “soft power” espoused by the president has been called into question. He sits on the horns of a dilemma and historical movements will decide questions he has only started to consider. Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 6/17/09: Do I Live In America? In Edward Bellamy’s novel Looking Backward the principal character is mesmerized and put to sleep for decades. When he awakens, the world has changed; the socialist impulses of Bellamy and his technological predictions (quite accurate it turns out) are very much on display. Most noteworthy, individual aspirations have been converted into collective designs; wealth has spread and new forms of technology litter the landscape. While I find myself disagreeing with much of Bellamy’s philosophical disposition, it strikes me the exercise of looking back is a useful one. Suppose for example, I was mesmerized in 1965 and awakened in 2009. How might the nation appear to a pilgrim who has been asleep for more than four decades? For one thing, I might ask if I live in America. The civil rights legislation of the 1960’s was predicated on the idea that race and ethnicity should be neither a handicap nor an asset in public life. In 2009, by contrast Ms. Sonia Sotomayor, despite a lackluster record as a judge, is likely to be confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice because of her Hispanic background and her “empathetic” experience with the poor and downtrodden. In the 1960’s it was clear despite growing cynicism, that the United States was founded on Judeo Christian principles. Our founders recognized the nexus between biblical prescriptions and political institutions. By 2009 America has become a nation that has deracinated the Judeo Christian tradition from public life. In fact, President Obama said, the United States is one of the largest Muslim nations in the world even though roughly 3 million Muslims live in this nation of 320 million people. In the 1960’s SDS and many anti- Vietnam supporters marched in candle light vigils to protest the war in Vietnam, but despite hardcore radicals, most Americans and certainly most legislators supported their country. By 2009 a substantial number of Americans want to see the U.S. lose a war in Iraq and be forced into an ignominious surrender in the Middle East. In the 1960’s General Motors was the world’s largest car manufacturer and a company that stood as an example of the nation’s economic strength. In 2009 G.M. is in bankruptcy, more than 60 percent of the company is owned by the government and half of its brands have been removed from the market. Moreover, the nation’s free market – described by Europeans pejoratively as Anglo-Saxon capitalism – has now been replaced by the command economy with Washington largely in control of the means of production. Eighty percent of American International Group is now owned by the Federal Government; 30 percent of Citicorp is in the same position; federal authorities imposed a merger on the Chrysler Corporation and, if President Obama has his way, health care representing 17 percent of the economy will be controlled by the federal government as well. In 1963 American students reached the apogee on SAT tests and international exams in science and math vis-à-vis foreign competitors. By 2009 the U.S. students scored near the bottom in these international tests, notwithstanding an enormous increase in educational spending in the last four decades. There are days when I think it would be best if I could remain asleep in 1965. The nation was somewhat innocent, as was I. Socialism was a concept mocked here and abroad, even in the Soviet Union by home-grown intellectuals. The United States was a hegemon on the world stage, often criticized, but also recognized as a world power. It was inconceivable that any president, in the presence of world leaders, would apologize for the transgressions in American foreign policy. Race was being subordinated as a concept for employment and college admission in the sixties, despite the Jim Crow legacy of the past. God was in his heaven and much was right in the world. Now I question whether the America of 2009 is American at all. Is this merely an aberrational moment or are we headed down a new and, in my judgment, a dangerous direction, one inconsistent with our traditions and principles? Perhaps someone will wake me from this disturbing dream and say, yes, America is well and still the land of the free. But I’ve come to learn that being mesmerized can be very discomforting. Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 6/3/09: A D-Day Reminder The skies over Normandy are invariably filled with dark rain clouds. But on one day in late April the sky was cloudless and the English Channel tranquil. Youngsters built sand castles on Omaha Beach and dogs romped playfully in the surf. This was a vastly different day from the bloodshed and violence on this same beach roughly 65 years ago. In an effort to recall what the GI's experienced on that fateful day on June 6, 1944 I climbed from the beach to the plain on a hill which rises at a forty-five degree angle, but I didn't carry an 80 pound pack on my back, and even though I observed German fortifications on my way, no one was firing at me. These fortifications are a reminder that despite faints to Calais and bombing along the coast prior to the invasion, Nazi forces were well ensconced when the U.S. and its allies landed. Most of the bombs aimed at these German installations landed several kilometers inland, a condition that distinguished Omaha Beach from Utah Beach. Omaha Beach was bloody Omaha, a scene of such lurid death and sanguinity that it was unprecedented in American history. As one soldier noted "there were body parts everywhere and the sea turned red with blood." Many leaving landing crafts never made it to the shore line. Some were shot and some drowned, not realizing that if you wear a flotation device around your waist instead of under your arms, it may not be possible to stand in the turbulent surf with a heavy pack. There was panic, confusion, camaraderie and bravery on the beach that day that changed the world. The cemetery for the fallen overlooks Omaha Beach. As I stood before the gigantic statue that casts a shadow over row after row of the graves, it was noon, a time when the bells play "God Bless America." There was a burly fellow wearing steel frame glasses standing in front of me, most likely an octogenarian. As the bells sounded out this melody our eyes met, I wanted to say something to him but he removed his glasses and wiped the tears from his eyes. Words were unnecessary; he and I shared a silent understanding. There is simply no way to describe the sacrifice Americans engaged in on the D-Day invasion to reclaim Europe from the grip of totalitarianism. Even the notoriously dispassionate Europeans realize this is consecrated ground, a place where angels spread their wings to honor the deeds of youthful warriors. No St. Crispin speeches were necessary here, for this Band of Brothers knew what need not be stated: they were saving Europe from enslavement. As a local Normandy resident wrote during the occupations, "A German lieutenant said 'we are your masters.' Well they were, until the Americans arrived." General Eisenhower was a twentieth century Moses who led Europe from darkness to light. Patton's Third Army fanned out across the northern tier of France and, even though he had his detractors, the General knew how to fight and how to win. As he noted, "we will move across Europe like crap through a goose." He lived up to his words and the liberation proceeded. We have grown complacent as a people in the last six and a half decades since the war in Europe reached the beginning of the end. But it is hard to remain unemotional at the hilltop cemetery that honors those young men who made the ultimate sacrifice so we may live in freedom. The world owes these men a debt it can never repay. These are not men to mourn, but men to honor. It is not time to grieve, but to remember. And it is not appropriate to concentrate solely on the devastation when it is the bravery we should recall. That bravery can still inspire if the story of D-Day is told with passion and honesty. The world offers new challenges each year since freedom frequently is tested by a new generation of pharaohs. We need the guardians of liberty to remind us how precarious that freedom is. We need to rise to the occasion the way young American soldiers did on June 6, 1944. We must tell ourselves that those lives were not lost in vain; they are a constant reminder that liberty requires vigilance and courage if it is to survive. I hear those bells at Normandy in my sleep. Yes, I believe in God Bless America and I believe it because of those who died so that I may sleep in the land of the free. Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 5/27/09: The Ugly American Listening to the American tourists traveling in France, it is apparent we are in the “age of Obama.” The Ugly American has morphed into the Apologetic American, the one who is sorry for everything. This American apologizes for breathing French air; for being colonists; for appearing arrogant. It is hard to fathom how this new American can apologize to the insufferable French for arrogance or colonialism, but there you have it. American tourists merely ape their president. In this period, Americans are unequivocally sorry. Now in order for these tourists to appear genuine, they must impose historical amnesia on themselves. Forget the role nineteen and twenty year old soldiers played in liberating France during World War II. Forget American blood that seeped into the sands at Normandy. Forget the Marshall Plan that rebuilt wore torn France. In fact, forget much of the twentieth century. Rewrite history so that the French appear as sophisticates and Americans hopelessly “nouveau arriviste.” Not only must you rewrite this history, it must be rewritten by the Americans themselves. They will be their own revisionists. From any point of view, this is sickening. The American apologist has nothing for which apology is necessary. If anyone should be bowing and offering thanks it is the French. When a Frenchman recently upbraided Americans for only speaking English, he should have been reminded that were it not for Americans the French would only be speaking one language as well, German. Admittedly the French generally know more about wine than Americans, but when it comes to manners, what the French call, “politesse,” Americans generally beat them at their own game. Every time an American apologizes for Vietnam or “wrecking the Atlantic alliance” (to quote President Obama) I want to slap him into sensible thought. It was the French who left Vietnam with their tail between their legs and President Eisenhower and Kennedy who bailed them out. It was De Gaulle who refused to join NATO and demanded a “force de frappe,” a toothless response to Soviet nuclear threats. And it is the United States that is responsible for putting teeth in the European fighting force. Although probably uncharitable, some have argued that the French gave the United States the Statue of Liberty because she has only one arm in the air. Now that President Obama has become an instant hero in France, ala J.F.K., it is not uncommon for a Frenchman to say at last America has put race behind it and selected a black man. Whenever I hear this comment I always ask, when will France elect an Algerian. My comment is usually greeted with silence. President Obama has given impetus to the contemporary French argument that the United States may not be so bad after all. But this is an America that refuses to flex its military muscle; an America that appears confused and without direction. If one can find a stance in the new administration, it is the accommodative spirit that cannot distinguish between an enemy and a friend. It is an America that says pleasantries about Iran and castigates Israel. It is an administration that wants to turn back the clock in its dealings with Muslim nations, but refuses to mention the sacrifices Americans made for Muslims in the Balkans and Iraq among other places. Although it is an unpopular position, I prefer the Ugly American to the Apologetic American: the one wearing the horribly garish Hawaiian shirt, the one who brags about American accomplishments, the person who knows America bailed out France and isn’t afraid to say so, the one who interred political correctness and the one who refuses to apologize for American actions. Americans sacrificed blood and treasure for Europeans. That is nothing to be ashamed of. As I see it, we need a dose of Yankee-first patriotism. That surge of nationalistic fervor might do us some good and might even have a chastening effect on the French (Notice I said might). It is strange that I long for the Ugly American I once criticized, but whenever I hear the Apologetic American on the Champs Elysee, I only wish the past can be resurrected. Give me the Ugly American any day of the week rather than his contemporary counterpart. Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 5/20/09: Obama on D-Day On June 6, 1944 the United States and its allies launched the largest air and sea armada in world history. The purpose of this mission was clear: liberate Europe from the grip of Nazi despotism. The landings on the Normandy beaches led to unprecedented death and destruction. American soldiers leaving their amphibious landing crafts measured their life expectancy in minutes. In the first hour of battle hundreds lost their lives and in succeeding waves thousands were killed as the beaches at Omaha and Utah were soaked with the blood of young men in their teens and early twenties. At Pointe du Hoc Rangers scaled the sheer cliffs on rope hangers. When one was killed by German bullets another stepped on the precarious rungs. Of the 224 Rangers who scaled those cliffs only 90 survived, but as historians observed rarely in history has there been such a display of courage, fortitude and sacrifice. This was the beginning of a great epoch in history that led ultimately to the defeat of Hitler’s Germany. But history has a way of describing the big picture and leaving out the tales of individual bravery by young men who a year or two earlier were playing high school basketball, working on a farm or applying to college. History called their number and they responded. Tom Brokaw called them “America’s greatest generation.” It is hard to know if they made history or history demanded heroic deeds from them. Perhaps it was a little of both. But standing in the cemetery at the Normandy Beach and observing row after row of those who gave their lives for a cause greater than themselves, I am humbled by those who died so future generations could live freely. There is another thought that crossed my mind in this crowded necropolis. I don’t understand how anyone, much less the president of the United States, could apologize for American actions abroad in the last century or this one. With all the mistakes and miscalculations, there has never been a force for good more notable than the United States’ military. Ask the citizens of Caen, Bayeux, St. Lo, Archante what they thought about G.I.’s in their midst. Residents of these towns were saved from enslavement by Americans who fought Panzer divisions in their backyards. Generals Eisenhower, Patton, and Bradley left devastation in their advancing wake, but they brought with them armies that yielded freedom and set the stage for a level of prosperity Europe has enjoyed ever since. It is difficult for most Europeans to remember the past. After all, who wants to remember an uncle that bailed you out of a jam? Here in Normandy, however, conditions are different. Citizens of this region were there on the front line. Omaha Beach is Bloody Omaha to them and the American flag still stands as a reminder. This June, the 65th anniversary of D-Day will be celebrated. For most Americans and most Europeans it is simply another day in late spring. Some octogenarians may remember that fateful day when the liberation of Europe began. Many, however, knowing nothing about history will be disinclined to pay any special attention to the day. I recall seeing Steven Spielberg’s film “Saving Private Ryan,” in which, with extraordinary verisimilitude, the director recaptured the events at Omaha Beach. As the film began and the bloodshed was evident, a young lady seated behind me asked her friend “what war do you think this is?” For the fallen heroes lying in their graves this ignorance is lamentable. Perhaps it explains why President Obama can apologize and apologize again and many Americans can applaud, or at the very least, accept his gesture for foreign consumption. I cannot. I am appalled that we can ignore, forget or rationalize away American heroism. I don’t think we should ever apologize for what the United States has done to extricate millions from the yoke of totalitarian control. It is not arrogance to recall the limbs that were shattered and the bodies broken to set history on the course of democracy, imperfect as it is. Before President Obama stands supinely before the G-20 again and engages in a form of national self-flagellation, I would urge him to stand amid the crosses and stars in Normandy cemetery and recall the sacrifices made by those youngsters so that he could be president of the United States and breathe an unadorned version of freedom. Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 5/13/09: Obama's French Revolution If the French Revolution represented anything, it was a break with the past. The revolutionaries rejected the monarchy, Christianity and historical antecedents. They wanted a tabula rasa on which would be printed a new view of history. Change was in the air. The calendar was refashioned; clothes were redesigned and even historic reliquary was demoted in importance. For example, the Bayeux tapestries depicting the tale of William the Conqueror and the battle of Hastings in 1066 were used as tarpaulin to conceal weapons. While history never reproduces itself exactly, one gets the impression, reinforced each day, that the Obama administration is intent on revolution of its own. If one were to boil down the essentials of American nationalism, they would be individual liberty, a respect for private property, the rule of Constitutional law and the customs, traditions and history that make the United States unique. It is instructive that there are signs President Obama views himself as a twenty-first century Robespierre seemingly eager to overturn the conditions of American uniqueness. First, his Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, has deemed “rightwing extremists” a threat to the nation without defining either “rightwing” or “extremist.” Is the liberty to express oneself to be carefully monitored by Ms. Napolitano who has seemingly arrogated to herself the judge of threats to America? Is this so different from St. Just who decided through the Committee for Public Safety the enemies in the French Republic? Second, the president by calling for the ouster of the president of General Motors and reneging on contractual obligations with AIG officials violated Constitutional provisions against ex post facto decisions. Third, the president has made it clear along with his Democratic led House Finance Committee that he has the power to determine the salaries of all employees in companies receiving TARP financing. Moreover, the president has also indicated the system of taxation will be employed for the redistribution of wealth, a notion antithetical to the founding of the nation. Fourth, by apologizing for American actions in the past and agreeing to a vision of the Kyoto Accord, the Treaty of The Seas and other multilateral pacts, the president is engaged in challenging national sovereignty and erasing U.S. accomplishments from the collective memory bank. The era of the guillotine has not arrived, but there appears to be a hint that this administration is more intent in stifling internal dissent than fighting against America’s declared enemies. America’s original revolution was modest in nature. The founders wanted “to cut the umbilical cord” with England, but they did not envision an existential change in the character of government. Although it is obviously too early to assess the full magnitude of the Obama changes, there is little doubt the change that has already occurred and the change that is anticipated are truly revolutionary in scale and scope. Should this continue, the American people both Republicans and Democrats, will demand a Brumaire, a restoration of Constitutional principles and national traditions. The French Revolution also revealed that revolutions “devour their own,” by tossing them on the ashheap of history. Will President Obama be remembered as the president who tried to renounce his national history and in so doing, almost lost what Americans most value? Surely there are blemishes in our historical past and present and these should be recognized and addressed. But we should do so by recognizing as well national achievements and, yes, our exceptional character. By tearing this nation down, we tear it apart. The United States will not be one nation indivisible, but many nations, balkanized and divided. During the 2000 campaign former vice president. Al Gore mistakenly said “e pluribus unum” is “from one, many” instead of “from many, one.” It was a slip. In the Obama era, it may be a direction. The nation is in unchartered waters facing a sea of turbulence. Our president is firm in his conviction that he knows where the nation is going. But there are many who are concerned that we are headed for a Second American Revolution that might resemble the French Revolution more than the American Revolution that gave birth to this great nation. Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 4/29/09: Is Iowa at the Cusp of "Change" Here in the heart of the heartland in Sioux City, Iowa a “pitchfork mentality” is emerging. In a town that has stockyards and a meatpacking company that yields what locals call “aroma alley,” the Republican base, which has been in retreat since the presidential election, is energized and the Democratic majority is growing angry at its own leaders. Two issues have emerged as critical: a government plan to prevent the deductibility of state taxes on the federal tax form and a state Supreme Court decision to mandate homosexual marriages. If subject to a vote these proposals would lose 85 to 15 percent according to recent polls. Yet the state court is seemingly oblivious to public sentiment and is intent on making the law rather than interpreting it. And the Democratic majority in the legislature anticipates a revenue windfall if the tax proposal passes, a windfall it cannot resist. These two issues are the front burner matters in a state that voted for Barack Obama in the presidential election. But this support for the president is evaporating quickly. In Sioux City even the Democrats at a recent rally contend “he is moving too fast and too far.” Iowans believe America is sliding into a command economy that imperils freedom. Despite the claims by hard-core leftists like Janine Garafalo that these cross-country tea parties are nothing more than discontent with the president’s race, I couldn’t find a scintilla of evidence to support this claim. The concern is real and deeply felt uniting most Republicans and many Democrats. These are rumblings in the heartland that President Obama should heed, although that doesn’t appear to be the case. Iowa farmers don’t know John Maynard Keynes, but they do know a power grab when they see one. Fiercely individualistic Iowans are resistant to a Washington bureaucracy that wants to tell them how to live and work. Priming the pump is seemingly acceptable as a method for kicking the economy into gear until the decisions affect personal behavior. I don’t know if Americans are yet ready for a second American Revolution as some bloggers are suggesting, but I do know that in a state conservative in outlook and disposition, anger is building that may be unprecedented. The “I’m angry and won’t take it any more” refrain at rallies is often bipartisan with some Democrats saying if we only knew “this is the change we’ve been waiting for,” they might have kept on waiting. Admittedly the Iowa caucus launched the Obama campaign for president about which some Iowans are quite proud. Many state Democrats argue it is still too early to assess the president’s performance. That may be true, but the policy directions established with the Stimulus Bill, the Appropriations Bill and the budget proposal indicate an enormous transfer of capital from the private to the public sector and an accompanying transfer of power as well. This change cannot be overlooked even for those inclined to support the president. It is possible that if there is an uptick in the economy, the public mood may change. However, it will soon be obvious blame cannot be leveled against former President Bush for the problems Obama inherited. Both the proposals and the state of the economy will soon belong to President Obama and his team. Therefore excuses and rationalizations are not likely to fly. As I see it, the tea parties are a genuine cri de coeur. They arise as a plaintive eruption from the grass roots. Where this will lead is anyone’s guess since these events are dispersed across the country. At the moment, no one to my knowledge, has attempted to translate the evident frustration into a political movement. But that could happen. President Obama has chosen to ignore or dismiss these actions. That is a major error. He would be far wiser to address the concerns directly. The longer the anger festers, the more it becomes an impediment to his political fortunes. 2010 isn’t far off for a congressional realignment and 2012 isn’t far either for a Republican in the White House. These tea parties may auger a change as formidable as the one America once experienced in Boston Harbor. Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 4/22/09: Journalistic Cupidity When Chris Matthews of “Hardball” indicated that it was “our job” to get Obama elected and then to make him look good, a new chapter in national journalism emerged. By any stretch of the imagination this is cheerleading, not journalism. And in the several months since Barack Obama acceded to the presidency, Americans have witnessed the equivalent of the Adoration of the Magi. This schoolgirl crush knows no bounds. Obama’s reliance on the teleprompter is explained as a desire to assert a tightly knit and well thought through message. One might just as well argue the president cannot deliver a message extemporaneously. His mistakes are viewed as timing issues. During a G-20 speech in London the president attempted to equate the language in the Declaration of Independence with sloganeering during the French Revolution – a dubious analogy to begin with. However, after saying “liberté” he stopped and seemingly lost his way. This awkward pregnant pause was thwarted when his eyes found the teleprompter and the words “égalité and fraternité.” Members of the press, however, described this as a pause for “emphasis.” Even the president’s odd apology to the assembled nations which legitimized anti-American sentiment (“the U.S. was sorry for wrecking transatlantic relations”) was greeted as the beginning of a healthy relationship with our allies. The New York Times, caught in the Messiah syndrome, rationalizes every word from the president’s lips as thoughtful and articulate. Moreover, as A.A. Gill noted (4/5/09) when the president stepped up to 10 Downing Street, he shook the hand of a police officer standing guard and as a consequence, “showed the British how to be classlessy classy.” Maureen Dowd argued that Barack Obama “grew up learning how to slip in and out of different worlds – black and white, foreign and American, rich and poor.” He “knows how to manipulate.” As opposed to George W. Bush who was “manipulated.” As ever, Bush is the handy stooge, the polar opposite of Obama. For the Times’ columnists Bush is the exemplar of everything that went wrong, the cowboy rough around the edges. But suppose, for the sake of argument, Bush shook the hand of the bobby standing guard at the Prime Minister’s residence. My guess is the headline would have read “the unclassy Bush does it again and violates diplomatic protocol.” Surely the press should point out positive things a president does, but journalism and cheerleading aren’t compatible. The president has his public relations flaks who attempt to put a positive spin on everything he says and does. He doesn’t need a sycophantic press corps. In fact, an honest portrayal of presidential action is what the country requires. Instead the American public is getting a consistently worshipful tone. Writing in the Washington Post, Tom Shales describes a presidential press conference in the following way: “Most of the facets of President Obama’s personality that have made him intensely popular were on display last night during his second prime-time news conference, and so he emerged from it still every inch ‘President Wonderful,’ as it were, untouched and intact.” Because of this cupidity, policies are overlooked, policies that are changing the face of America. What we have in its place is a personality cult with image replacing substance and press bias substituting for reportage. If this honeymoon continues unabated Americans may witness the most formidable policy shifts in the history of this nation without journalistic accounting. The press love affair with Obama may make him look good, but whether this is a healthy state of affairs for the nation remains questionable. I prefer to pray for the Messiah rather than pray to the Messiah the press corps has invented. Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 4/15/09: Human Rights and Free Speech The United Nations is at it again. Recently the human rights organization approved a proposal launched by Muslims to protect Islam from criticism. A simple plurality of 23 members of the 47 nation Human Rights Council voted in favor of the resolution. Eleven Western nations opposed it and 13 abstained. The resolution urges states to provide “protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation, and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religions hatred in general.” According to Terry Counier, the Canadian representative, “it is individuals who have rights and not religions,” a criticism echoed by most European Union countries. But the council is dominated by Muslim and African nations that have argued religion, in particular Islam, must be shielded from criticism in the media and other areas of public discourse. Specific reference was made to the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed as an example of “unacceptable free speech.” The resolution noted that “Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism.” The United States did not cast a vote on the resolution because it is not a member of the Council. Bush administration members voiced disapproval of the Council’s reflexive anti-Israel posture and its failure to act on abuses in Sudan and elsewhere. This latest resolution will undoubtedly have a chilling effect on free speech whatever the intent of the Council. Geert Wilders’ “Fitma,” a film depicting violence in many Muslim nations, would be treated as a crime. Even the use of terminology such as Islamo-fascism might be interpreted as incitement. Could one even condemn suicide bombers, shahadists, who believe they are acting in the Prophet’s name? Moreover, the blanket assertion that Islam is wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism is contradicted by the Koran itself and events in the news. Unless one embraces sharia -- the abuse of woman, the stoning of adulteresses and honor killings are clearly violations of human rights. And while most Muslims do not engage in acts of terror, those who do frequently justify this behavior with reference to the Koran, specifically the Verses of the Sword. The other curious, arguably hypocritical, matter is that some Islamists use free speech provisions in the West to attack Christianity as polytheism and an unworthy religion and Jews as apes and pigs. If criticism of Islam is banned, does that resolution apply to all religion? At stake with this Human Rights Council resolution is the essence of western civilization which rests on a foundation of open expression of different and even unpopular opinion. If the nations of the world concede this point, Islamic religion would be provided a free speech sanctuary, and opinion of any kind that might violate the sensibility of mullahs would be relegated to a criminal offense. While this may appear to be an innocuous development, its implications are profound. Europe, already in an accomodationist mood, would slide even further into the Eurabia scenario described by Bernard Lewis, among others. Muslims would be treated as a separate, and to some degree, privileged category and the Christian civilization, Winston Churchill argued we must defend, will have engaged in a form of preemptive surrender. At this point, the Europeans have opposed the resolution which passed. Does that mean they must acquiesce in the resolutions’ provisions? Is the intent of this action to impose Islamic will on the world? And if this is to be the standard, how will violators be punished? Can a critic of Islam travel to Pakistan? The questions pose a dilemma for anyone who believes in free and untrammeled expression. Is the metaphorical door closing on Western freedom? The signs at this Geneva based Human Rights meeting are not hopeful. Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 4/8/09: Atlas Ready to Shrug In a little over two months since the inauguration of President Barack Obama, the United States has become a different nation. It is not merely the transfer of trillions of tax payer dollars from the government to designated industries. It is not only the deleveraging in the private sector and the re-leveraging in the public sector. It is not solely the dramatic increase in aggregate debt. The primary issue, as I see it, is the method employed to achieve these goals and the disregard for personal liberty and the Constitution. Atlas is getting ready to shrug. Let me cite an example. On March 24th, 2009 House Financial Services Committee Chairman Rep. Barney Frank’s committee passed a bill giving Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner extensive control over the salaries of employees working at companies receiving bailout funds. This bill goes well beyond the removal of Richard Wagoner as President of General Motors. The “Pay for Performance Act of 2009” would impose government control on the salary of all employees – not just senior executives - of every company receiving a capital investment from the government. Presumably the legislation is designed to prohibit “excessive compensation” – a somewhat obscure standard to say the least, but one to be adjudicated by Mr. Geithner. This legislation will soon be coming before the full House of Representatives for a vote at a time when the populist tocsin of anti-elitism is in the air we breathe. Yet it is interesting that Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution -- which enumerates the powers of Congress -- does not mention the power to determine salaries in the private sector, nor does it mention bailouts and the extra-Constitutional authority these bailouts confer. It is remarkable that the Democratic-led Congress and the Obama administration consider it appropriate to assume such power and equally remarkable that no one, to my knowledge, has pointed out the unconstitutional nature of this decision. This, of course, is not the only example. The Obama administration, through TARP allocations, permitted bonuses at AIG in those divisions that generated a profit. In fact, contracts were signed to this effect. However, when the story leaked that $150 million would be allocated to AIG executives in the company that had received billions in bailout funds, an outcry arose from the public so shrill the White House was obliged to respond. Rather than note that our Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws and bills of attainder (the so-called “bonus tax” being one of the latter) and that the bonuses were given with forethought from the administration, President Obama joined the chorus of angry citizens and demanded a return of the money. Surely this president, who has taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago, must know that such bills of attainder provisions are illegal. If our Constitution means anything, contracts that are conducted legally and in good faith require an obligation by both parties to meet the terms of the agreement. The Fifth Amendment states clearly that “No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty or property with the due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” Yet here is America in Constitutional denial as the Obama administration marches blithely into a Brave New World of expansive government control over the private sector. Whether socialism has come to this land of the free or whether this is an invasion of European leveling is too early to say. But it is already clear that the change Mr. Obama discussed during the course of his presidential campaign is here and it is transformative. Moreover, despite the claim that this is a temporary shift of priorities in order to ameliorate the meltdown in the credit markets, it is instructive to recall Milton Friedman’s admonition that there is nothing more permanent than a temporary government decision. My great grandchildren will be dealing with the changes initiated today a century from now. And even though I hope my prediction is wrong, these actions taken in haste by the President and the Congress are altering the foundational principles of our nation into the indefinite future. No wonder I see tears flowing down the cheeks of the Statue of Liberty. She doesn’t recognize her country. Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 4/8/09: Atlas Ready to Shrug In a little over two months since the inauguration of President Barack Obama, the United States has become a different nation. It is not merely the transfer of trillions of tax payer dollars from the government to designated industries. It is not only the deleveraging in the private sector and the re-leveraging in the public sector. It is not solely the dramatic increase in aggregate debt. The primary issue, as I see it, is the method employed to achieve these goals and the disregard for personal liberty and the Constitution. Atlas is getting ready to shrug. Let me cite an example. On March 24th, 2009 House Financial Services Committee Chairman Rep. Barney Frank’s committee passed a bill giving Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner extensive control over the salaries of employees working at companies receiving bailout funds. This bill goes well beyond the removal of Richard Wagoner as President of General Motors. The “Pay for Performance Act of 2009” would impose government control on the salary of all employees – not just senior executives - of every company receiving a capital investment from the government. Presumably the legislation is designed to prohibit “excessive compensation” – a somewhat obscure standard to say the least, but one to be adjudicated by Mr. Geithner. This legislation will soon be coming before the full House of Representatives for a vote at a time when the populist tocsin of anti-elitism is in the air we breathe. Yet it is interesting that Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution -- which enumerates the powers of Congress -- does not mention the power to determine salaries in the private sector, nor does it mention bailouts and the extra-Constitutional authority these bailouts confer. It is remarkable that the Democratic-led Congress and the Obama administration consider it appropriate to assume such power and equally remarkable that no one, to my knowledge, has pointed out the unconstitutional nature of this decision. This, of course, is not the only example. The Obama administration, through TARP allocations, permitted bonuses at AIG in those divisions that generated a profit. In fact, contracts were signed to this effect. However, when the story leaked that $150 million would be allocated to AIG executives in the company that had received billions in bailout funds, an outcry arose from the public so shrill the White House was obliged to respond. Rather than note that our Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws and bills of attainder (the so-called “bonus tax” being one of the latter) and that the bonuses were given with forethought from the administration, President Obama joined the chorus of angry citizens and demanded a return of the money. Surely this president, who has taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago, must know that such bills of attainder provisions are illegal. If our Constitution means anything, contracts that are conducted legally and in good faith require an obligation by both parties to meet the terms of the agreement. The Fifth Amendment states clearly that “No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty or property with the due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” Yet here is America in Constitutional denial as the Obama administration marches blithely into a Brave New World of expansive government control over the private sector. Whether socialism has come to this land of the free or whether this is an invasion of European leveling is too early to say. But it is already clear that the change Mr. Obama discussed during the course of his presidential campaign is here and it is transformative. Moreover, despite the claim that this is a temporary shift of priorities in order to ameliorate the meltdown in the credit markets, it is instructive to recall Milton Friedman’s admonition that there is nothing more permanent than a temporary government decision. My great grandchildren will be dealing with the changes initiated today a century from now. And even though I hope my prediction is wrong, these actions taken in haste by the President and the Congress are altering the foundational principles of our nation into the indefinite future. No wonder I see tears flowing down the cheeks of the Statue of Liberty. She doesn’t recognize her country. Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 4/1/09: What's Good For The Goose Isn't Good For The Gander One might assume that standards which prevail on one part of the globe might be applied equally to another part of the world. One might assume as well that what is good for the goose might be good for the gander. Well you might assume that, but in contemporary life you would be wrong. Some behavior tacitly and vehemently accepted by radicals within the Islamic community is rejected when applied by others. According to erstwhile president Jimmy Carter, Israeli checkpoints on the Gaza border designed to forestall terrorism are an example of “apartheid.” However, the former president has not said a word about Saudi Arabian policy that bars non-Muslims from Mecca and from holding Saudi citizenship. Any criticism of the Koran such as the Geert Wilders’ film “Fitna” is greeted with a fatwa and a variety of death threats. But Muslim claims that Christians are polytheists and infidels and Jews are the progeny of apes and pigs – comments routinely made in many mosques – are presumably protected by free speech provisions. American universities (Georgetown, Columbia, Harvard) have been encouraged to promote programs that encourage toleration and understanding of Islam. Yet not one major university in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan has a Western studies program that engender toleration and understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Geert Wilders was denied entry into England, after receiving an invitation to speak at the House of Commons for fear that his speech might incite a Muslim protest. Yet a grandson of the Muslim Brotherhood who routinely provides an apologia for terrorism has an appointment at Cambridge University. When officials in the state of Florida asked a Muslim woman to remove her hijab for an ID photo, they were accused of Islamophobia. However, Muslim nations demand that even the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and the First Lady cover their hair when visiting their countries. After the revelations of Abu Garaeb – horrible as they were – the United States was excoriated in the Muslim world as “the vilest of nations.” Yet when Muslim men hang and flog women for adultery, we are told – using a standard of cultural relativism – that we have no right to judge these actions. It has been noted at Gitmo that a Koran in the toilet is a hate crime. However, burning the contents of the Library of Alexandria is legitimate because it is an expression of Muslim views of non-Muslim literature. A Christian who becomes a Muslim is honored by the members of his adopted faith. A Muslim who wants to convert to Christianity is an apostate who faces the death penalty. Prejudice against Muslims is deemed unacceptable in every major news outlet in the Western world. Yet Muslim prejudice against Jews, women, Christians, homosexuals, Buddhists, Hindus, and atheists elicits scarcely a word of condemnation. Clearly hypocrisy reigns, but the real problem is that these illustrations – which only touch the tip of the proverbial iceberg – suggest that Muslims want a free pass to treat negative commentary as Islamophobia. On the other hand, these same people feel free to use the institutions in the West to express hatred of others and support for terrorism. Remarkably the avatars of political correctness often agree with them. If a Danish cartoonist cannot draw pictures of Mohammed, then Muslim protestors should be restrained from calling for his murder. Tolerance cannot be a one-way street. If Arab protestors can stand in front of the Israeli Knesset carrying Hamas flags, then Israeli protestors should be free to carry banners in behalf of the IDF in Ramallah. As I see it, Muslims have grown too comfortable in raising the specter of Islamophobia. Unless there is mutual respect – a claim President Obama is making – there cannot be any respect. Unless there is genuine reciprocity, tolerance is an empty word. It is time for the West to not only assert the foundational traditions of its history, it is also time to argue that our institutions cannot be employed to destroy our civilization. Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 3/19/09: The Obama Doctrine An official eminento, Roger Cohen, writing on the pages of the International Herald Tribune has arrived at the conclusion based on President Obama’s recent comment that “the war on terror is over.” As he notes “the with-us-or-against us global struggle… in which a freedom-loving West confronts the undifferentiated forces of darkness… has been terminated.” The presumption is that we are not fighting a war – which we refuse to acknowledge – we are merely engaged in “a strategic challenge.” Goodbye Bush Doctrine; hello Obama rapprochement with the Muslim world. Obama argues “the language we use matters.” Of course it does, but action speaks louder than words. If the recent language of respect is to be taken seriously, arms will be converted into plowshares and good-will may seize the globe. The only problem with this analysis is al Qaeda doesn’t buy into Obama’s rhetoric and most in the organization don’t read the Herald Tribune. Mr. Cohen, caught up in celebratory notions, tells us Obama understands the need for respect and self critical analysis, something omitted from Bush speeches, albeit scant evidence is provided for this claim. Now that President Obama says “Americans are not your enemy,” there is little to fear from the Muslim world. Mr. Cohen is convinced President Obama is inclusive as opposed to Bush’s supremacist views, clearly a move in a realistic direction. According to Cohen “Bush had the ideological framework wrong. Obama has transformed it by ending the war on terror.” Alas, one side may declare a war over, but that declaration hasn’t any bearing on those who choose to continue fighting. Words may influence a policy, but they rarely influence what happens on the ground. Clearly President Bush made tactical errors, but he did understand there is a global struggle with radical Islam that will test our mettle. His strategic vision included the use of forceful opposition where it will make a difference internationally, the use of democracy as an instrument for stabilization and preemption in order to avoid the catastrophic loss of life. When President Obama said he would turn the clock back twenty or thirty years in examining our relationship with the Muslim world, what could he possibly be thinking? Was it the orchestrated violence of Khadafy that we should want to revisit? Or perhaps the kidnapping of American diplomats in Tehran? Does President Obama actually believe that “soft power,” namely his persuasive arguments, will substitute for battleships or fighter jets? Has a new age commenced because he wills it? Will Osama bin Laden or Ahmadinejad accept his well meaning rhetoric as signs of an accommodating America? And even if we are accommodative, why should our enemies adapt a similar stance? What do they gain in doing so? President Bush didn’t disrespect Iran; he merely recognized the imperial aspirations of the mullahs – a point often made by Arab leaders in the Middle East. Perhaps the new approach President Obama has adopted and people like Richard Cohen countenance, will work. I certainly hope so. But common sense suggests the Obama overtures are naïve and troublesome. They foreshadow a United States unwilling to stand by its commitments and foreign interests. As everyone knows, talk is cheap. It is even discounted in diplomatic channels. If negotiation serves as cover for the Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons, it is also dangerous. As Vice President Biden indicated during the campaign season, this president will be tested. Well, the tests have begun, Roger Cohen may believe President Obama has started down the track of a new paradigm. But there are others – and I fall into this category – who believe we are on the road to appeasement and accommodation that failed us in the past and led to the dislocation and death of millions in the last century. Words can soothe and they can harm. If the Obama Doctrine is speak softly and don’t carry a stick, I’m afraid it cannot be effective. Evil hasn’t disappeared from world affairs because Obama has willed it. If anything, his rhetoric suggests the triumph of belief over reality or the naïve notion that hope and truth are interchangeable. Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 3/4/09: The Obama Plan for America's Future On February 24th in President Obama’s address to the joint houses of Congress, he said that we should not impose a debt on the next generation it cannot pay. As the father of three girls I found myself applauding that statement. Yet there are undeniable facts that go beyond fluorid rhetoric. Although Mark Twain once noted, “There are lies, damn lies and statistics,” there are statistics worth noting in the context of present conditions. In order to meet the demands imposed by the so-called stimulus bill, we, the American people, must borrow and, as any debtor knows, there are two costs to borrowing: financing and opportunity costs. Interest payments on the $787 billion stimulus package will be about $500 billion over a 30 year period, a total expense of about $1.3 trillion. As the president pointed out this should generate or retain about 4 million jobs at a cost of $325,000 a job. Think about that number. If the president gave $100,000 debit card to every unemployed person he could save two-thirds of the expense. When the government borrows money, it means capital is divested elsewhere. American investors buying debt do so at the expense of other investments, thus reducing money available for private economic activity. As government spending expands, private spending contracts. If banks buy U.S. securities, there is less money available for lending. Even if foreigners, namely the Chinese, purchase U.S. bonds, it takes money from private investments, thus slowing down long-term recovery. If the Federal Reserve buys the debt, it will result in either higher interest rates – reducing economic activity – or inflation, a hidden tax on purchasing power. With the stimulus bill enacted as law a family of four with a median income of $61,223 will have per capita debt burden of $140,989 – and that number is rising as I write it. Keep in mind this figure does not include state, local and personal debt. The national debt last year was 75 percent of GDP, higher than what it was in 1943. After the stimulus plan the ratio will be 84 percent and, if one were to anticipate the passage of Secretary Tim Geithner’s Financial Stability Plan designed to stabilize bank problems, the U.S. ratio will be over 100 percent. The only time in our history that occurred was at the end of World War II, 1944 and 1945. At the moment, there are only five nations with debt to GDP ratios in excess of 100 percent: Zimbabwe, Lebanon, Japan, Jamaica and Italy. It seems to me that with the Obama fiscal package economic principles have been expunged from the political world. Apparently few people can recall the arguments in the twentieth century about public ownership of the economic infrastructure, the means of production. I feel as if I am looking into a glass darkly without any memory of capitalism’s basic structure and the need for private property ownership. Where is John Locke and Adam Smith when you need them? Or are we witnessing the efflorescence of a national dumbing down so profound that Americans no longer understand or appreciate how wealth was generated in our economic system in the first place? Admittedly unfettered markets can generate an excess of greed and fraud. That explains why even the most ardent defenders of the free market called for a regulatory regimen. Now, however, a Democratic majority has lost sight of economic principles and is intent on the retention of present comforts even if it exhausts the capital accumulation of the past. How does a political leader balance desire and needs? How does he consider the reality of the present without bankrupting the future? Todays policy is a rescue of capital markets and growing unemployment As I see it, the policies now being enacted may have short term gains – throwing so much capital at our problems is bound to have a marginally positive effect – but the long term consequence, is an ossified economy that will not have the freedom or capital to innovate. President Obama tells Americans he is concerned about imposing a debt on the next generation. Well, he may be concerned, but when you consider the numbers, his conviction is contradicted by reality. Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 2/25/09: Transformative Change As a candidate President Obama promised change, formidable change; alas a break with the past. Little did anyone appreciate how committed the president is to transformative change. With the $787 billion bill now the law of the land, more money will be transferred from one group to another than any point in American history. The government will emerge as the central architect in the economy and the notion of limited government as the premise for this “new nation” has been tossed on the ash heap of history. Newsweek editors claim “we are all socialists now.” Perhaps that is true for the majority in the Congress, but I doubt it is a view shared by the majority of Americans. Intuitively most people realize that the expansion of government spending reduces the influence and size of the private sector. In fact, there is a tipping point at about 30 percent of government spending that drives private initiative downward. We are now at that point. Moreover, without any analysis both houses of the Congress embraced the 1400 page legislative agenda with alacrity in order “to avoid a catastrophe.” Yet, the much overused word “stimulus” turns out to be a euphemism for special interest allocations and pork barrel appropriations. The greed once attributed to Wall Street can now be found on K Street. Most disturbing is that the final tab is not $787 billion as advertised. That is merely the first year’s tally. As the Congressional Budget Office noted the real expense based on years two, three, and four – as newly created programs are sustained – is on the order of $3.2 trillion. Keep in mind that the nation’s annual gdp is $14.5 trillion. The consequence of this act is to place on the next generation the greatest financial burden the country has ever encountered; a burden so great that no one can be sure of how we will emerge from the indebtedness. Yes, we are changing from a nation that relied on the ingenuity of its citizens and incentives that drive innovation, to a nation that relies on government to determine “winners” in the economy. Yes, wealth is being spread around, as candidate Obama promised. But what he and his media courtiers don’t seem to appreciate is that this legislative action will destroy the incentives for wealth creation. Socialism may distribute wealth according to its philosophical commitment to egalitarianism, but it doesn’t know how to build the institutions that inspire wealth in the first place. Abraham Lincoln wisely noted that “you cannot make a weak man strong by making a strong man weak and you cannot make a poor man rich by making a rich man poor.” This obvious lesson – once regarded as axiomatic – has been lost on the Obama team. They see a stagnant and faltering economy and assume spending will solve the problem. It hasn’t occurred to this president and his congressional acolytes that the solution may be worse than the problem. Instead of corporate leaders making decisions for their companies, Congressman Barney Frank will determine how assets should be deployed in the economy. Instead of risk takers operating out of a local garage, entrepreneurial activity will be monitored by Senator Schumer. This isn’t merely a disgrace; it represents a dramatic fall in the fortunes of the nation. Recognizing the tyranny that could result from big and intrusive government, President Gerald Ford once noted that “a government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have.” It may seem exaggerated but the new president is dangerously close to taking everything away as government devours the private sector and America is transformed into a Marxist utopia. Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 2/18/09: Did President Bush Lie? For at least five years there has been one consistent cri de coeur in the liberal community: “Bush lied.” Presumably he justified the invasion of Iraq by suggesting Saddam Hussein was attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. Never mind the fact that the Clinton administration agreed with this Bush assertion; IAEA inspectors concurred and the subsequent Dulfer report indicated Hussein was intent on acquisition of these weapons. But enriched uranium was not found; hence Bush lied. Conventional wisdom has it as failed intelligence and Bush, willy nilly, is held culpable. Yet on July 5, 2008 the Associated Press (AP) released a story, almost completely unnoticed, that “a secret U.S. mission hauls uranium from Iraq.” The opening paragraph in the story notes: “The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program, a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing the oceans.” Included in this “haul” was 550 metric tons of yellowcake used for nuclear weapons enrichment, a staggering sum that could have been used to produce dozens of nuclear weapons. According to recent accounts the uranium was discovered in 2003, but the administration did not reveal the discovery fearing that terrorists would attempt to steal it. It was guarded in a 23,000 acre site with sand beams surrounding the area. It would seem that this story would vindicate the Bush administration once the AP details were released. In fact, I waited and waited for precisely this result, but it hasn’t happened. Could it be that media leaders would be obliged to admit they were wrong about Bush? Might the entire Move On campaign against the Bush presidency be called into question if these facts were revealed to the public? One might well ask at this point, who did the lying? Since yellowcake did exist in Iraq it might appear that Valerie Plame and her husband Joseph Wilson, who have become darlings of the left by arguing Bush did not tell the truth about Hussein’s nuclear ambitions, were lying. Wilson wrote a piece in the New York Times slamming Bush, despite the fact President Mayaki of Niger said Hussein did try to buy yellowcake. Now we know the yellowcake did exist and it was held in Iraq, notwithstanding Wilson’s claim to the contrary. It is often argued the truth will set you free. However, this episode suggests that may not be true. Interpretations of recent history by the president’s detractors would have to be rewritten. Clearly the Iraq war could still be opposed, but the argument that the president engaged in dissimulation won’t fly. That conclusion simply does not sit well with anti-war activists. In the case of these government detractors the bromide silence is golden applies. In most respects this is a remarkable news story that very few want to touch. It is a demonstration that for many ideology trumps facts. It is evidence that the hatred for President Bush defies rational judgment. And this story indicates that for a segment of the population evidence will not, cannot, change a fixed opinion. Unfortunately the casualty in this tale is not merely George W. Bush and the Republican party, but American history and those students who are obliged to study it. The past is prologue to the present. And in the present context the issue of nuclear material and the Iraq war was a significant feature of the last presidential campaign. Had the truth been known, had the media exposed the facts, the election might have turned out differently. Yes, there is something to be said for complete transparency, even in politics. Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 2/11/09: The French Workers Strike On January 29th, 2009 Paris came to a halt. The Metro wasn’t running, the garbage was not collected, the Louve was closed and thousands of union members assembled in front of the Galleries Lafayette for a march expressing worker discontent with the Sarkozy government. Of course this nation-wide strike and march are very French, but this time the level of economic unease cuts across class and ethnicity. The eight largest unions have called on the government to make employment (read: guaranteed employment) its highest priority and to bolster household purchasing power. “Everybody knows we are living through a worldwide crisis of the like that hasn’t been seen for 70 years,” said Bernaid Thibault, head of the CGT union. But he adds, “Wage earners had nothing to do with the creation of the crisis and we can’t accept that workers are the only ones to suffer the consequences.” Of course, workers aren’t the only ones to suffer the consequences, but subdued rhetoric isn’t appropriate at a union rally. Yet the public appears to be behind the strike despite the fact services are being disrupted. Faced with the expectation the French economy will contract by two percent this year, Sarkozy announced a 26 billion euro stimulus plan. Needless to say, the left attacked the plan as a effort to stabilize the banking industry and reward profilage money managers. The leader of the Socialist opposition party has proposed an alternative 50 billion euro plan aimed at providing cash for low income workers and increasing the spending on public housing. In France the majority party and the minority parties all embrace socialism of one kind or another. The banks are dominated by the public sector and in most industries, the government’s progressive tax structure militates against “excessive profit” (i.e. what bureaucrats deem appropriate). From the Legislature to the streets, the French are obsessed with income inequality. At the union rally one speaker after another denounced the “unfair” income of some and the lowly wages of others, primarily, of course public service employees who encompass most of those on strike. That market conditions may determine the price of labor or that productive employees deserve more than unproductive ones are arguments that never entered public discourse. Is it any wonder French dirigist views stifle economic growth? Clearly the French people love their month summer vacation and the cradle to grave security the government provides, even if the country cannot afford these amenities. Even more insidious are the growing job guarantees that legislative diktat has imposed on the employment market. It hasn’t occurred to anyone in authority that if you can’t fire, you can’t hire. The French employment pool is stagnant with guaranteed service the equivalent of tenure in the Academy. The union march proceeds past the Opera House. Members of the gendarmerie are mildly amused at the overheated rhetoric, but are largely sympathetic to their confreres in the municipal workforce. It is another day and another strike. Sarkozy contends that the French are so accustomed to these marches that no one notices them. Well, this one is noticed, in part because so many have been adversely affected by the downturn in the economy. But life goes on as elegant women parade on the Champs Elysee carrying Fendi bags and wearing Chanel suits. However, this may not go on forever and, despite the reflexive quasi Marxist rhetoric at the rally, there is the foreshadowing of something sinister in the air. Could a deep recession be emerging, one that affects worker and banker alike, and one, I might add, that calls into question the very socialist assumptions the French have embraced over the last half century? It is too soon to say, but I would guess the French may argue, in the not too distant future, we can no longer afford what we are accustomed to having. Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 2/4/09: Aid and Radical Islam I recently attended a meeting in New York devoted to the proposition that terrorist acts be thwarted with economic development projects. One bien pensant after another waxed lyrical about the benefits of an improved standard of living as a means of modifying radical sentiment. As the chairman of the event noted: "people who have jobs and a decent standard of living are less inclined to commit violent acts against others." Surely I thought these educated and experienced policy analysts might consider empirical evidence which belies the economic determinist position. After all, the terrorists on 9/11 were not desperately poor or impoverished. In fact, the leader of hijacked flight 93 came from one of the wealthiest families in Lebanon. It was also the case that the British nationals who were trained in the terrorist activity that led to the devastation of 7/7 were ostensibly middle class Muslims living in a suburb of London. Similarly, the bloodshed in Mumbai, in which at least 170 people were wantonly murdered and close to 400 injured, was conducted by young men who, from all accounts, were not economically impoverished. In a desperate attempt to postulate a cause for what are seemingly irrational acts many in the West assume that violence is a function of despair, a reaction to poor conditions. It seems implausible that rational people acting out of religious conviction would murder because it advances their faith. Surely there must be another explanation. As a consequence, they have seized on the idea that if the West transferred capital in an effort to improve economic conditions, the reason for acts of desperation would evaporate. But suppose violence is wound deeply into a fanatical religious belief system that no amount of capital transfer can ameliorate. Suppose as well that these cash outlays are regarded as western guilt and a sign of weakness. Winston Churchill, after fighting a war in the Sudan, described Mohammedanism (his word for Islam) as a fever that could not be addressed through rational discourse or improved living conditions. He analogized this fanatical faith to hydrophobia in which the lack of water leads to madness. It is natural for a rational people to search for rational answers to the international plague of our time. But it is foolish, arguably insane, to keep applying the same policy prescriptions to a problem and expecting a different outcome. Radical Islam must be defeated on every battle field it establishes. Its ideas must be vanquished as well. And most significantly, the West must separate itself from this malignant force before it metastasizes throughout the globe. It is patently naïve, in my judgment, to contend that if only the unemployment rate were lower, if only apartments could be built, the radicals will abandon their dreams of conquest and the establishment of caliphates across the globe. There may indeed be a justification for philanthropy. Helping others is what a nation built on principles of justice and fair play is bound to do. In some instances it may help to mitigate poor conditions. But philanthropy to help the poor should not be conflated with philanthropy to dissuade radical thought. No matter how many dollars are thrown at Muslim fanaticism, it will still be fanatical. To assume any other result flies in the face of historical experience. Until the radicals are defeated with arms and ideas, a threat will persist. There is no getting around this fact, however unpleasant it may seem. Admittedly I have lost patience with the do-gooders who believe money is the magic elixir for peace. As I see it, peace in our time comes with a very high price tag in blood and confrontation. If we believe there is an easy way out of this war, Americans may be shocked by the ultimate outcome. Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 1/28/09: Terrorist Returning to the Battlefield For several years human rights activist and defense attorneys have argued that the detainees at Guantanamo pose no security threat and should be released. President Obama, based on a campaign pledge, issued an executive order closing the controversial prison. In a recent report the Brookings Institution examined hundreds of pages of declassified military documents and arrived at the conclusion that many of the prisoners held without charges are innocent. The report concludes that only 87 of the 250 detainees have any relationship with al Qaeda, the Taliban or other armed groups hostile to the United States. Several days later, however, the Pentagon released a report indicating that suspects who had been held, but subsequently released from the Guantanamo prison are increasingly returning to fight against the United States and its allies. Sixty-one detainees released from the U.S Naval Base prison in Cuba are believed to have rejoined the struggle against the United States. The total is up from the 37 reported in March 2008. Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell indicated that “There clearly are people who are being held at Guantanamo who are still bent on doing harm to America, Americans and our allies. So there will have to be some solution for the likes of them, and that is among the thorny issues that the president and his new team are carefully considering.” Furthermore Mr. Morrell said, the new numbers show a “substantial increase” in detainees returning to terrorist missions, from 7 to 11 percent. Presumably intelligence, photographs and forensic evidence such as fingerprints and DNA were used to tie the detainees to terrorist activity. These contradictory reports raise important questions: Is Brookings right, is the Pentagons report on target or do both have valid positions however different in orientation? One thing is clear: the notion of 61 or even one released detainee trying to kill Americans is unacceptable. Moreover, the trend is in the wrong direction. If the president ultimately closes Guantanamo, what will he do with the 250 detainees? Will they be released on the streets of the United States? Will they be sent abroad to fight against American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan? Human rights attorneys representing the detainees often claim most are innocent of terrorism, but if that were true they wouldn’t return to the battlefield as soon as they are released. It is instructive that most of the activists are persuaded the detainees pose no threat. That may even be the case with a few of them. Overlooked in their calculation is that these prisoners were apprehended on the battlefield. They aren’t criminals who robbed a supermarket; they are trained as killers intent at mayhem. For most Americans, holding these terrorists is a good idea and, to assume they have the rights of American citizens, a very bad idea. So despite all the declarations suggesting these detainees can be trusted, I demur. Let those go who have incontrovertible evidence they aren’t a threat. The rest, however, should be kept in prison weather it is Guantanamo or any other venue that will have them. Guantanamo made sense, but since it has been caricatured and denounced, alternatives must be found. But the idea that all of these detainees should be released is absurd on every level, a point even President Obama has come to appreciate. Far better to deny the rights of terrorists then to have them on the battlefield attempting to kill American soldiers. Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 1/22/09: The American Exceptionalism Debate Godfrey Hodgson, a British journalist and associate fellow at the University at Oxford, has a new book, The Myth of American Exceptionalism, that is an attempt to undermine the deeply held belief that the United States is a morally and politically superior nation. In his treatise he accuses Daniel Boorstin, Fredrick Jackson Turner, Perry Miller among others as perpetuators of a self congratulatory myth, a myth that has shaped the popular imagination of Americans throughout history. From Hodgson’s perspective the apostles of exceptionalism see the United States as a nation of “unrivaled virtue, a chosen hand with a special destiny and a duty to spread liberty, democracy and the rule of law, ‘a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom’ in the words of President George Bush.” Hodgson sees himself as a debunker. He notes, “Not all ideas about America exceptionalism are untrue, but important pieces are untrue, and it is very unhealthy for a society to believe things about itself that are not true.” As I see it, Hodgson has created a red herring and then beats it till it is disfigured. The United States is an imperfect nation. Its government has made mistakes, overplayed its hand at times, even corrupted its principles at various moments in the past, yet a case – a valid case – can still be made for American exceptionalism. After all, only one nation on the globe has assimilated millions of immigrants who sought refuge on American shores. The Europeans are generally incapable of integrating new immigrants into their nations as enclaves across the continent suggest. The United States is the only true racial laboratory on the globe, notwithstanding its history of Jim Crow. Could a Barack Obama be elected anywhere in Europe? Could a Jamaican be the next prime minister of Great Britain or an Algerian president of France? When the demonstrators at Tiananmen Square built a monument to their aspirations was it the Eiffel Tower they tried to duplicate or perhaps a tribute to the Prophet Mohammed? No, they constructed a statue of liberty because the American symbol embodies the spirit and vision they hoped to achieve. No major nation on the globe has distributed wealth across the board as effectively as the United States. Even the poorest elements of the American population enjoy privileges and material things that are the envy of most Africans and many Asians. While Hodgson glibly asserts “the thuggishness” of American foreign policy, he consciously overlooks the sacrifices the United States made in two world wars to save Europe from dictatorship and, despite his criticism of the Bush foreign policy he calls imperialistic, an argument can be made that the United States today is attempting to create a stable democracy in the midst of backward tyrannies. Notwithstanding the obvious fact that Europeans have at long last come to love freedom, they still seem to be incapable of defending it. They depend on the United States to provide the backbone for NATO and whenever there are wars or battles somewhere on the globe, Europeans ask what will the Americans do. If the Hodgson thesis has any meaning, it is as an exemplar of a new genre of historiography called “American Declinism.” Rather than admire American accomplishments, the revisionists like Hodgson emphasize the flaws. Rather than see national greatness, Hodgson sees only arrogance. Rather than fulfill The Promise of American Life, to borrow a title from Herbert Croly, the declinists see delusions. Should the Hodgson thesis gain traction it will be yet another nail in the national coffin by those convinced that history must pass into an era of transnational loyalties. Somehow I don’t see how that vision can inspire Americans. I may be wrong, but either we come to appreciate American exceptionalism or we end up with American mediocrity. Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 1/8/09: The Evolving Drama In The Middle East The world is now witnessing the reappearing drama of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with each of the parties playing their assigned role. In the background are the contemporary Sirens, the media organs who have only one lyric in their musical composition: proportionality. The United Nations stands in high dungeon as it sends thunderbolts at Israel that reflect its considerable bias. Hamas is the true villain who in Orwellian fashion has become the victim. One certainly gets the impression in this drama that no one has read Othello. The vicious acts precipitated against civilian population in Israel are a direct violation of the U.N. rule of distinction (attacking civilian populations intentionally instead of military targets). Hamas started this war as if it is Iago and then begs for international sympathy. Israel has the right, that every nation possesses, to defend itself. It doesn’t have to rationalize or prevaricate. All the nation has to do is destroy the threat that challenges its very existence. It should be tone deaf to the ludicrous protestations of Navi Pillay, the U.N. High Commissioner of Human Rights, who condemned Israel’s disproportionate use of force. [There is that word again. What, after all, is proportionate force?] One of the leading characters in this drama is the two-faced Mahmoud Abbas, the self proclaimed moderate, who for months has been urging the Israeli government to take action against Hamas and when it does, he issues a statement condemning Israel. Presumably he still has to mollify the militants in his Fatah camp. The other actors in the Middle East read from their scripts with monotonous repetition. Egypt is publicly upset, even though conversations in back channels suggest it is very happy with Israeli actions. Saudi Arabia is appalled, yet can barely conceal its exuberance at the prospect of defeat for one of Iran’s proxies. Leftists of various stripes on both sides of the Atlantic play their role as useful dupes. If they had the capacity to examine conditions dispassionately, they might realize that Hamas represents a fascist and totalitarian ideology. But instead they can be found in Union Square Park or the Champs Elysee handing out literature which targets “Israeli aggression” and the “ventriloquist” United States that has sold sophisticated weaponry to the aggressors. Remarkably the so-called aggressor is treating wounded Palestinians in its own hospitals. Moreover, Israel has allowed a convoy of trucks into Gaza so that food and medical supplies can be delivered. And Israel has permitted electricity to be continued so that Gazan lights can stay on. What other nation at war has treated its enemies with this kind of humanitarian concern? Yet Israel gets no credit. In fact, the more it does to prevent collateral damage, the more risks it takes in mitigating unnecessary bloodshed, the more media Sirens sing of disproportionate violence. By contrast, Hamas has placed its rocket launchers directly in population centers. It has gone into hospitals and shot those suspected of giving intelligence to the IDF. It has refused to treat wounded Gazans. And it has used the termination of the ceasefire to fire dozens of rockets into Israeli population centers in an effort to trigger a response. Yet Hamas is the victim, alas even the martyr as far as the U.N. and world press are concerned. How does one explain this casuistry? For one thing Israel is seen as an ally of the United States and in the warped view of western intellectuals Israel, ipso facto, is wrong. Facts need not stand in the way of an ideological judgment. Second, there are many in the Middle East who will never countenance the existence of the Jewish state. Despite Israel’s democracy, successful economy, rule of law and remarkable spirit, it is anathema to Arabs who live in tyranny, privation and backwardness. And last, despite a reluctance to raise the issue of sheer bigotry and racism, it cannot be denied. Generation after generation of Arab and Persian children read in their textbooks and hear in sermons at their mosques and madrassas that Jews are the persecutors and exploiters. Even worse, they are told that Jews are the progeny of monkeys and pigs, that they are less than human. At some point these lies, this blood libel, has had an effect. There are literally millions in the Middle East who believe it is appropriate to kill Jews and, those at the U.N. and media panjandrums, are complicit in these crimes as they avert their gaze to the criminal acts against Israel. If this is Act II in this latest drama, my hope is that the IDF, will avoid the usual prevarication, will destroy every rocket site in the Gaza strip and will say that self defense has nothing to do with proportionality, but has everything to do with survival. Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 12/31/08: The Censorship Justification In what can only be described as a perplexing review Lorraine Adams, New York Times Book Review 12/14/08, examines The Jewel of Medina, the Sherry Jones novel about the Prophet Mohammed and his marriage to the nine year old A’isha. Employing a sneering tone, Ms. Adams skewers the book as “historical romance,” a swipe recognizable to the cognoscenti. What makes the review notable is that Random House, the original publisher refused to issue the book on the grounds it would offend the Muslim community and might result in a violent reaction. As a consequence, this decision planted the novel squarely in a free speech controversy. Ms. Adams seems to suggest that since the novel doesn’t have literary merit, the Random House decision was appropriate, notwithstanding the fact officials at the publishing house did not use merit or lack thereof as a reason to suspend publication. Ms. Adams employs a form of moral equivalence in her review suggesting that both Satanic Verses and Martin Scorsese’s film Last Temptation of Christ resulted in violent reaction from Muslim and Christian communities. Presumably when religious groups are offended by an unflattering presentation of doctrine or prophets, violence results. However, this judgment is skewed in an unrecognizable direction. While there was an incident that resulted from the showing of the “Last Temptation of Christ,” it is difficult, alas implausible, to contend that Christians engage in violent behavior when Jesus is besmirched or Church doctrine is violated. In fact, Dan Brown’s DaVinci Code also promoted the blasphemous idea that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, but I could not find any evidence of violence against the book or the film. Criticism, yes; violence, no. Contrast that stand, with the consistent pattern of violence when Muslims are offended. In fact, to suggest that the two religious responses to offense are comparable enters the realm of the absurd. Quoting a professor of Islamic history at the University of Texas Ms. Adams notes, “I don’t have a problem with historical fiction. I do have a problem with the deliberate misinterpretation of history. You can’t play with a sacred history and turn it into soft-core pornography.” Well, yes, you can as Dan Brown demonstrated. Moreover, even well meaning professors of Islamic studies do not know the full story of the Prophet Mohammed and A’isha. Why isn’t Ms. Jones entitled to poetic license in a novel? Since Lorraine Adams cannot defend Random Houses’ imposition on free speech, she contends “Jones’ prose is lamentable.” And “An inexperienced, untalented author has naively stepped into an intense and deeply sensitive intellectual argument.” But when did it become unacceptable for an author to step into a sensitive intellectual argument? One doesn’t have to applaud Ms. Jones’ effort to approve of the publication of her book. Nor does one have to regard it as art in order to countenance publication. I am often astonished at the trash that makes the New York Times best seller list. As a final fillip Ms. Adams notes that “It is telling that PEN, the international association of writers that works to advance literature and defend free expression has remained silent on the subject of the novel.” Could it be that PEN is also intimidated by the prospect of violence? Or might PEN be so inured to political correctness, it only defends free expression when it happens to be consonant with prevailing sentiments at this august body? Ms. Adams has delivered another in a long line of patronizing reviews in the Book Review section. But this one, in my opinion, crosses the line of fair play. Whether Jones has written a masterpiece or an historical romance is of little consequence. After all, historical romances do get published. What is noteworthy is that a writer at the Times has attempted to justify censorship using a qualitative standard of her preferences and relegating violence to an incidental concern of the Random House officials. No wonder many of us think free speech is imperiled. Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 12/24/08: Israel's Nuclear Umbrella Based on Vice President elect Joseph Biden’s comments to Israeli officials and back channel discussions with the Obama team, the new administration will offer Israel a “nuclear umbrella” against the threat of a nuclear attack by Iran. Presumably any attack on Israel will be followed by a devastating U.S. attack against Iran. Needless to say, how this will actually play out is anyone’s guess, but the presumption is that the guarantee makes deterrence increasingly robust. It is the Obama team’s response to the alternatives of “doing nothing” or the military option. In effect it is an admission that Iran will most likely acquire nuclear weapons and despite claims that this is unacceptable, the nuclear guarantee suggests we will do nothing to prevent this development. While this decision is less belligerent than the so-called military option, it can not allay Israeli fears. After all, as one Israeli official noted, “What kind of credibility would this guarantee have when Iran is nuclear capable?” If Iran will not acquiesce without this weapon of mass destruction, why should it acquiesce with this weapon? Moreover, the chatter about this deterrent reinforces the Iranian position that the West is unprepared to thwart nuclear weapons development. Perhaps the most curious feature of this policy is attempting to convince a resident of Pierre, South Dakota that he should be embroiled in a nuclear war if Haifa is attacked. The obvious point is that an unthinkable act, might not lead to an unthinkable retaliation. Suppose you can’t be sure where the bomb came from. Suppose as well, it is a suitcase bomb assembled and set off by a terrorist organization without a home. And suppose further that China and Russia oppose any retaliation at the U.N. Security Council. What would President Obama risk? Would he be willing to kill millions of innocent people to stand behind his pledge? From the Israeli standpoint, the assurance is meaningless. If deterrence works at all with a theological state intent on Armageddon, it is the independent Israeli nuclear force that might make a difference, not a pledge from the United States. Moreover, to the extent the Obama administration insinuates itself directly into Israeli security matters is the extent to which independent Israeli action is diminished. Ultimately policy options are limited, as the Bush administration realized. If a regime change is not in the offing or a very tough embargo defying Russian and Chinese sentiments is not enacted, the military option is the only real policy alternative that is left. And every signal from the Obama team is that this option will not be entertained. Hence an American nuclear umbrella is nothing more than a ploy to appear tough and discourage the mullahs intent on weapons acquisition. However, it is so shallow in scope that even the most gullible Persian will see right through it. This is less a policy and more a public relations gambit. Should this be the Obama foreign policy perspective, “the tests” will come fast and furiously. Deterrence works when claims are credible. When they enter the realm of the imaginary, they are laughable and undermine future options. A nuclear umbrella as a strategy to forestall an Iranian preemptive strike belongs right next to the Maginot Line in the annals of misguided defensive strategies. Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 12/17/08: Racism Revisited Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is quoted recently as noting that the election of Barack Obama will make the United States “an honest nation and not a hypocritical one.” He went on to note that “Even those who voted against him, like me, say “We’re very thankful this has happened. This is the consolation prize. In having lost in terms of the ideology we wanted, or the person we wanted – John McCain – the benefit that we got was an America that can say to the world we’ve overcome the worst thing in our history.’” “If you look at America which I believe is a great nation, a beautiful nation, a nation of altruistic goals and very often great altruistic accomplishments – one of the terrible marks against us is slavery and racism, and I think that’s a great thing for America to have overcome.” “And I believe that will gain us a tremendous amount in the world community. We can now be an honest nation and not a hypocritical one.” As I see it this comment is representative of a stripe of conventional opinion. Presumably the issue of race is now behind us. How can people criticize America on this score when its people elected a person of color. While I understand the sentiment; I don’t understand the logic. Michele Obama once noted she didn’t have any pride in America until now, the moment her husband was nominated for president. In a sense, Mayor Giuliani is in agreement for at last we can “overcome the worst thing in our history.” Remarkably this comment is devoid of historical texture. Barack Obama may be the first black president, but he is not the first black to serve in public life. After all Virginia, the seat of the Confederacy, elected a governor who was the grandchild of slaves. The 13th and 14th Amendments were designed specifically to provide rights to blacks emancipated during the Civil War. American forces were integrated during World War II. The color barrier in major league baseball was eliminated in 1947. While racism was not eliminated, in fact cannot be eliminated through fiat, the United States has been a remarkable racial laboratory for a century, even though these accomplishments have often been ignored, very often, of course, by those who might benefit most from pretending the accomplishments didn’t exist. It is remarkable that this society bent over backwards to address racism by emphasizing race as a source of privilege with affirmative action programs for university admission and job applications. Sure, slavery, using contemporary standards, was an abomination, but that along with hideous Jim Crow laws were eliminated long before Barack Obama was born. If one were to take the Giuliani argument at face value, strides against slavery and racism weren’t meaningful until the Obama election as president. This statement, perhaps inadvertently, is yet another example of reflexive American defensiveness. Americans are so inured to criticism that they accept without response the claims made against this nation. Yes, America is an imperfect nation, but with all its blemishes it has done more to establish equality among the races than any place on the globe. Consider Africa itself where tribal warfare, race hatred and religious intolerance are rampant. Consider Europeans, who often point fingers patronizing the United States, yet discriminating in wholesale fashion against Laplanders, Moroccans and Turks. Recently a French friend said, “At long last America overcame racism and elected a black man.” My response: “Please let me know when the French will elect an Algerian president.” We have been cowed into submission by the continual drum beat of guilt. And even Giuliani, who should know better, has fallen into the ideological trap. Having made mistakes, doesn’t mean we should feel guilty about our past. I think we should hail the Chief of State and our President Elect Obama, but he is not the messiah; he did not end racist thought and he isn’t the first example of the American spirit for fair play. Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 12/10/08: Compression at The Mean: The American Way From the founding of this nation to the present there has been an understandable tension between equality and individualism. Clearly we, as Americans, want both assuming they are reasonably defined. Equality presumes equal before the law, equal or roughly equal opportunity and even equal in the eyes of God. But it does not mean or should not mean equal in the race for success and equal economic results. Yet curiously the nation is moving from the safety net designed to assist those in peril to redistribution or the attempt to equalize economic results, i.e. “spread the wealth around.” This condition I would describe as a belief in compression at the mean, a belief that has penetrated almost every aspect of American life. It is the egalitarian project launched by John Dewey in the 1920’s and embraced by President-elect Barack Obama. Take education as an example. Almost all recent funding in this arena is designed to assist those in the bottom quartile of performance. Schools that are not performing well receive more funding than schools that meet state guidelines, based on the assumption that additional funding can influence performance. And in some cases, this has proven to be the case. The bottom moves closer to the middle of the pack. Yet totally ignored in this distribution scheme are those in the highest quartile, those who might be described as excellent. The consequence, of course, is decline at the top of the achievement pyramid, some upward movement at the bottom and a bulge in the middle. Assume a similar set of conditions in the tax structure where those who earn over $250,000 (or is it $150,000?) are taxed at a higher rate than those who earn less. Since rebates will be given to those in the bottom quartile of the income structure paid for by those in the top quartile, it would appear that progressivity in the tax system is designed to promote compression at the mean. No one too rich and no one too poor. The problem with this arrangement is that if you eviscerate the incentive for wealth, those who have the capacity to attain it will be disincentivized. Why earn more if the government intends to take it away and give it to others? The same situation is emerging in the financial and industrial areas. By offering to jump start a faltering economy, Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson has advocated assisting some financial houses, but not others. The government assisted J.P. Morgan with the purchase of Bear Stearns, but let Lehman Brothers fail. Consideration is being given to a loan for the Big Three auto-makers, but not to computer manufactures. Aside from the fact that government officials can play God and determine who stays in business and who doesn’t, these bailouts are predicated on the simple proposition that those companies capable of generating profits and paying taxes will be obliged to assist companies that are failing and need a handout. The danger is that at some point every company will be asking for assistance. In fact, the egalitarian project will inevitably fail because it destroys the incentive to succeed. By homogenizing economic rewards, government is instituting mediocrity. The society is suggesting that meritorious results should not be sought or valued. Imagine a situation in which baseball players earning the highest salaries based on performance have to subsidize those who are “200 hitters.” What would baseball become? Who would bother attending games or even watching on t.v.? Yet the movement for compression at the mean continues unabated. Where it will lead is clear. Unfortunately, its devotees don’t seem to mind. Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 12/3/08: Taking From Peter to Pay Paul: International Redistribution The long road to serfdom seems to be getting shorter with each passing day. At the recent G-20 meeting there was virtually unanimous support for the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (point number 14) and a reaffirmation of the development principles agreed to at the 2002 U.N. Conference on Financing for Development held in Monterrey, Mexico. Acceptance of this proposition commits the United States to an official foreign aid formula of 0.7 percent of Gross National Product, a goal envisioned in President-elect Barack Obama’s Global Poverty Act. In the aggregate this will cost $845 billion of taxpayer assets. Additionally, it is anticipated that President Obama will lobby for the Jubilee Act designed to cancel as much as $75 billion of foreign debt. Not only are we discussing bailouts of the mortgage industry, financial services, the insurance business, car manufactures, but we are soon to be the bailout artist for the globe. Some have hailed this as the dawn of a new era in which contributions to the International Monetary Fund and the U.N. Development Fund will increase exponentially. For many adversaries, the United States is being cut down to size. But this is actually a voluntary diminution. As the economy falters, it is only a matter of time before America’s military dominance declines as well. Alas, change is just over the horizon. But this is revolutionary change that not only involves the redistribution of wealth at home, but the distribution of American wealth abroad. Where does it end? In fact, the more pertinent question is how does the United States sustain a sound economy when capital is being dispensed in an almost feverish fashion? Presumably this capital flush will stimulate liquidity and put the global economy back on track. This, of course, is hoping for the best. But as P.T. Bauer, among other economists of development, has noted, foreign aid rarely affects those most in need and, in most instances, creates a level of dependency that militates against the development it was designed to produce. This proposal, however, has little to do with sensible policy and a lot to do with ideology and a global equalization program. For decades Americans have been besieged with a drum beat of have and have-not nations, Northern hemisphere v. Southern hemisphere disparities and those who luxuriate in wealth and the dispossessed. To some degree, it is understandable that the urge to spread the wealth around is irresistible. But taking from Peter to give to Paul may make Paul happy, but it doesn’t do much for Peter. In fact, it doesn’t help either of them if Paul becomes dependent on Peter for assistance and Peter grows tired of handing over his wealth. How long before Peter also asks for a handout? This global equalization program concentrates solely on the role of government, a point made by U.N. officials and the proposed Obama legislation. Yet most foreign assistance is organized by churches, unions, foundations, universities. In fact, contributions coming from the private sector dwarf those from government. That condition means very little for those who are persuaded a reallocation of world resources is necessary. What these activists overlook is that their program is essentially beggar thy neighbor. Their plan for redistributing wealth implicitly argues for a static economy, one in which growth is unlikely to occur. Of course, economies that cannot grow ultimately fail. If taxes are used as the method for redistribution, workers will pretend to work and employers will pretend to pay wages. Envy becomes the prevalent theme and opportunity is relegated to the back burner of economic life. We are a long way from that practice, but if the legislative path we are on isn’t curbed the American economy could easily become Europeanized, i.e. stagnant, static and filled with free loaders. Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 11/26/08: The Autopsy of 2008 The autopsies of the 2008 presidential campaign are the story of the week as pundits put on their thinking caps to explain the Obama success and the Republican failure. On one matter there appears to be consensus: bread and butter issues dominated this election. Contrary to the widely held opinion that youthful voters were caught in the whirlpool of Obamamania, it turns out they were principally concerned with the price of consumer products. To my astonishment, the 18 to 25 year olds were not motivated to support Obama because of the war in Iraq or Oprah Winfrey’s endorsement. It came down to the standard of living they either want or expect. So much for the new idealism. As for older voters, the manifest opinion is that the Bush administration did not govern conservatively. Despite claims about fiscal responsibility, “compassionate conservatism” turned out to be big government programs, such as the prescription drug program, which resembled previous Democratic administration initiatives. Some voters argued that if the Republicans are 70 percent Democrats, why not vote for the genuine article. It is instructive that Senator McCain who was persistent in his opposition to earmarks and government spending, could not make the argument that he was better prepared to deal with the economic issues than his political rival. Nor could he make the case that the credit meltdown is directly related to political decisions made by Democrats. I would hazard a guess that perhaps one in a hundred voters was aware of the Community Reinvestment Act and its insidious influence in providing uncollateralized mortgages to unqualified borrowers. Clearly there were other issues in the campaign. A majority of voters has a sense that the culture is moving in the wrong direction, but this is a vague feeling of unease over-shadowed by the economic concerns. Similarly, the war against radical Islam and the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon has faded in the public consciousness. Americans take a great deal for granted, including their security. Neither the war nor homeland security played a critical role in this election, a curious testimonial to the Bush administration’s success in Iraq an vigilance against terrorist threats. On the matters that were emphasized by the public at large: spending, taxes, energy and the current economic crisis, a majority believes Obama and the Democratic party is in a better position to address these issues than their Republican counterparts. Apparently Obama’s ambiguous rhetoric played well, notwithstanding the fact he will most likely raise taxes, increase spending on government programs, apply an expensive “cap and trade” policy on the energy bureaucracy, and continue the present commitment to adding government liquidity to the market. To conceal his costly spending impulses, Senator Obama raised the specter of a tax rebate for 95 percent of Americans, a curious measure since 44 percent of the population does not pay taxes. Yet remarkably, McCain did not take advantage of this obvious contradiction, mentioning it once in a throw away line during the third debate. What the opinion polls seem to suggest is that this election, like the 1992 election of Bill Clinton, was a referendum on the economy and McCain, willy nilly, was perceived as a proponent of Bush policies which inaccurately were associated with the market downturn. There will be much handwringing in the Republican party about this loss. And, as I see it, refashioning perceptions of the party is necessary. However, the essential prescription is that when Republicans act like real Republicans they have an excellent chance of gaining public acceptance, i.e. adherence to limited government, sensible expenditures and low taxes. The key to future success is for Republicans to remember what led to success in the past and apply it to conditions in the present. Obama may be on the ascendancy at the moment, but political fortunes rise and fall. As Democratic policies fail – and they will – the Republicans should be poised to take advantage of the opportunity. This is the issue for Republicans: regroup, consider basic party positions and organize them in a manner that the public will embrace. Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 11/19/08: The Obama Enigma President elect Barack Obama is an enigma, despite the fact he has gone through a grueling two year campaign for the presidency. The sealing of his birth certificate, Columbia and Harvard transcripts and even his baptismal certificate suggest he has something to hide. However, all of that is probably behind us now. What lies ahead is another conundrum. Is Barack Obama a pragmatist who merely used affiliations with his church, community groups and questionable friendships to advance his career or is he an ideologue who was influenced by Farrakhan, Ayves, Wright, Khalidi and others on the hard left? If the former, then many (most?) of the promises made during the campaign will have to be postponed or forgotten. Realists in the Obama camp, even the Keynesians, know that raising taxes in a recession only exacerbates economic conditions. Similarly, an attempt to redress the structural dislocation of some workers by redrafting trade agreements such as NAFTA is the equivalent of a 2009 Smoot-Hawley tariff. Therefore the question is will Obama tack to the center or will he by nature, inclination and association retain a redistributionist psychology. In most circles, there is the hope that Obama is a dissimulator, put more politely, an opportunist who will say whatever is necessary to advance his position. However, this “optimistic” scenario suggests, he will do what is necessary to retain power, but will not veer to an extremist stance. On the other hand, there are constituencies in the Democratic party that got Mr. Obama to where he is and expect to be rewarded. Union leaders want to abandon the secret ballot; ACORN and other community groups expect to receive government largess; the teachers’ unions expect significant allocations for education; welfare organizations expect tax standards that encourage “spreading the wealth around.” These groups will have to be mollified or an internal revolt in the Democratic party will ensue. Can Obama steer a course between the Scylla of pragmatic policy decisions and the Charybdis of ideological commitment? Will this tension be addressed through some compromise or will it undermine his goals? Since both the candidate and his policy perspectives are largely unknown, the resolution of this dilemma remains very much up in the air. Moreover, while President elect Obama has displayed the temperament of a patient man during the campaign, it is not at all clear whether he will maintain his equilibrium in the White House when the pressure is far more intense than the campaign trail. Similarly, will President Obama withdraw from Iraq in fifteen months as he promised or will intelligence estimates suggest that such an accelerated move will trigger renewed violence jeopardizing the success achieved with the “surge?” Again he will be put on the horns of a dilemma, notwithstanding the obvious condition of the media giving him a free ride whatever he decides to do. Yet expectations among his adherents run high. A messiah is supposed to move mountains and divide the sea, not simply offer compromises even if those compromises are shaded by fluorid rhetoric. This will not be an easy adjustment for Obama. After the first year in the presidency, the fashionable racial argument will have worn thin, political correctness will most likely be less valuable as a defense mechanism and a public entranced by Camelot on Lake Michigan will be searching for answers to tough questions. Clearly one hopes for the best and I certainly want to see Barack Obama succeed, but the questions looming ahead are tricky and the road to the future is filled with pitfalls. Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 11/12/08: I Lost My Country The results are in and my candidate lost the presidency. Since I love this country, I wish the newly named President Barack Obama every success. But this was an election unlike any other. I don’t think the Republicans merely lost an election, I believe many of us lost a country. This was a land that once rewarded hard work and enterprise. A place where one’s word was his bond. America was the land of opportunity. If you can’t do it here, you cannot do it anywhere. We were a people to be envied, not only because we had the highest standard living, but because we had the greatest degree of stability. Americans were notoriously optimistic because we counted on tomorrow being better than yesterday. We were an open people dependent on fair play and a free market bounded by a standard of virtue. With all the blemishes in our past and breaches in our own ethics, we were a model of civic rectitude. “Dems that gives, gets;” those who wish to bilk the system will be discovered and isolated. There was a time not so long ago when people did not depend on government to bail them out of financial difficulty, a time when the nanny state bred apprehension, not affection. Now, it seems, in the new America almost everyone wants a free ride. The non-tax payer wants a rebate from the taxpayer. The poor man wants everything the rich man has and he wants the rich man to give it to him. Enemies of the nation, it turns out, are not enemies at all; we merely defined them as adversaries. Had we been clever in the past, we could have defined them out of existence. All we have to do is engage in “soft power,” diplomacy and clever negotiating skill. Surely those who want to kill us will be persuaded that swords should be converted into plowshares. It’s odd, but Osama bin Laden doesn’t seem to embrace this position. The America of “now” is one where Orwellian logic rules. Redistribution of wealth is fairness. Taxes are patriotic. The free market should be a regulated market. Big government is good for you. Politicians know what kind of health care is best for you. Choice should be limited, except when it comes to abortion. Power comes from being powerless. Progressive education is designed to promote progress toward socialism. Race doesn’t count unless a person of color tells you it counts. Higher education gets lower each year. Those who create our problems should be asked to solve them. Religion should be a private matter that does not inform public morality. Liberal is radical. Free speech is selective speech. Courage is impetuousness. Yes, Americans – many Americans – want change. The level of dissatisfaction runs deep. But the national cri de coeur hasn’t a direction. That’s what makes it so dangerous. Americans live better than at any moment in our collective history, notwithstanding the meltdown on Wall Street, yet despair is ubiquitous. Admittedly observing 401K accounts disappear as soap bubbles will make anyone angry. Nonetheless, it is a privilege to live in the land of the free, a privilege now regarded as an entitlement. It was once wrong to use community groups such as ACORN to steal an election. It was once wrong to conceal one’s past in order to invent an identity. It was once wrong to use the instrument of government finance to satisfy a constituency and then claim an unregulated market is what ails us. It was once wrong to lie in a campaign and still is except when the media panjandrums avert their gaze for the lies of a favored candidate. Surely we face threats across the globe that cannot be easily forestalled. Arguably the most significant threat is from within in the form of an unregulated government, a government large, intrusive and seductive. This is the new American government that promises everything and demands very little from its citizens. “Shop until you drop” is the national anthem. After all, you don’t have to fight if you don’t want to and you don’t have to sacrifice if that’s too much for you. All you have to do is visit malls and keep opinions to yourself. Opinions are important since Truth Squads want to be sure you don’t criticize the chosen candidate. Where is my America, the place of fair play, individual rights, the rule of law and respect for private property? Was the past merely a dream from which I have awakened? Can that America of exceptionalism return? Can it find its way back into the public consciousness? I have my doubts. Now the change agents scream “everything will be different.” Alas, they are right. It appears as if everything will be different, most especially the end of an America I loved. Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 11/5/08: Combating the New Anti-Semitic Threat While governments in Europe officially condemn Holocaust deniers and even the United Nations solemnly commemorates Shoah, there is emerging on the world stage another bout of vicious anti-semitism. To make matters eerily familiar, sectors of the Jewish community are in a state of denial preferring to opt for their reflexive liberal sentiments rather than a defense against the potential horror. Obviously the most virulent form of anti-semitism is to be found in radical Islam. It is not at all coincidental that Ahmadinejad’s threats against Israel are given a polite, indeed a respectful hearing in the United Nations. After all, 57 Muslim states in the international organization routinely condemn Israel, notwithstanding the adamantine refusal to consider atrocities in their own nations. What has given the latest brand of anti-semitism its especially dangerous edge is a combination of petrodollars that can influence world opinion, a cult of death and martyrdom and a messianic fervor. In Iran the enrichment of uranium in anticipation of nuclear weapons is the springboard for Holocaust II, even as its leaders deny the existence of Holocaust I. Yet remarkably the latest iteration of Hitler is treated politely by the World Council of Churches, Quaker organizations, even Larry King who considered it a coup getting Ahmadinejad on his CNN show. From Syria to Egypt, Christian blood libel is promoted in the media. European anti-Semitic imports such as the Protocols of The Elders of Zion are disseminated. Full fledged conspiracy theories, such as Israel orchestrating the attack on the World Trade Center, are given respectful consideration. Television series such as “Horsemen Without A Horse” borrow freely from Nazi propaganda cinema of the 1930’s. Yet astonishingly neither Israel nor the Europeans do enough to expose these diabolical acts. It is as if Jews and non-Jews want to avert their gaze. Far better to deny than confront an ugly reality, a reality grounded in ideological dehumanization. Israel is the prime target of course. And Ahmadinejad says it is the Zionists he opposes, not the Jews. Where have I heard that canard before? Now one encounters in legitimate journals, e.g. The New York Review of Books and the London Guardian unreflective negation of the Zionist narrative from Jewish intellectuals. Clearly Israeli leadership contributes to the problem as do journalists on both sides of the Atlantic paralyzed by political correctness. In the draft document for the UN’s so-called anti-racism conference, Durban II the accusation is made that Israel is guilty of apartheid and genocide. It raises the ugly claim that Zionism is racism by referring to a “racially based law of return.” Clearly, it is time for Jews to realize we are in a war we must win. The way to prevail is to shake ourselves out of complacency and regain the convictions associated with the origin of the Jewish state, our history and identity. Natan Sharansky is right when he says the Jewish identity is part of our intellectual and moral armor. Why should others be with Jews, if Jews are not with themselves? Jewish leaders often look helpless in the face of this Islamic propaganda campaign. But they are not. First and foremost, they should connect with their roots, i.e. the meaning of Jewishness in the world. It is this ideological vacuum that very often provides an opening for pernicious claims of Israel as an anachronistic national enterprise or a vestige of European colonialism. Second, Jews must launch their own propaganda campaign here and in Europe to counter the grotesque demonization. And they must do so even if it means confronting “progressive” Jews who undermine the Jewish nation. And last Jews should anchor their ideas in the Judeo Christian tradition that gave birth to the liberal democracies of the West and provides the hope for mankind. It is obvious that anti-Semitism and a generalized rejection of the West has held Arab nations back. Yet there are enlightened voices in the Muslim world who understand and they should be cultivated. Clearly this effort will not be easy. But what are the alternatives? A determined effort might contribute to containing the anti-Semitic infection. As I see it, either one fights or one dies. I prefer to fight remembering, the now forgotten cry of “Never Again!” Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. Back to the Top 10/29/08: The American Socialist Republic (?) Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. Back to the Top 10/22/08: The Invasion of History Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. v10/15/08: Exceptionalism v. Universalism Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 10/8/08: Presidential Politics Circa 2008 Now that we are within striking distance of an election partisanship is in the air. Well funded “attack dogs” will seek to besmirch the reputations of the candidates, notwithstanding claims to the contrary. The Democrats will attribute the economic downturn to the Bush administration, soon to be described as “the Bush-McCain recession.” By contrast, the Republicans will say that Obama is inexperienced and an empty vessel without a record of accomplishment. While there are unquestionably arguments to be made, both of these accusations miss the point. There is unquestionably an economic downturn; it is not at all clear who is responsible for it. Blame falls on many parties, Democrats in the House of Representatives and several greedy folks on Wall Street. It is true that Barack Obama has an unimpressive resume as a candidate for president. But while experience is something, it is not everything. Inexperienced candidates have occasionally emerged as competent presidents. It seems to me that the Republicans would be better advised to concentrate on Obama’s left wing orthodoxy, a combination of redistributionist economics and transnational progressivism. Senator McCain cleverly distanced himself from the unpopular Bush administration at the Minneapolis Convention. This was artful political legerdemain in which the party controlling the presidency is also leading a campaign for change. To establish his bona fides as a foreign policy expert – clearly his weak hand – Mr. Obama has said repeatedly we must disengage from or least drawdown forces in Iraq and increase America’s commitment to the stabilization of Afghanistan. But it was the surge that accounted for the remarkable improvement in the Iraqi campaign, a surge Senator Obama opposed. Is he now arguing that what he opposed in Iraq makes sense in Afghanistan? Is this an admission that he was wrong in the past or are the two campaigns unrelated in the senator’s mind? Invariably political campaigns seize on a theme. In most instances in American political history, there have been two themes: “four more years” or “its time for a change.” What distinguished this presidential season from those in the past is that both candidates see themselves as change agents. Since change is in the political air, the real question is who of the two is prepared to bring it about. To lend a degree of legitimacy for his change agenda Senator Obama has borrowed the game plan from the ’92 Clinton campaign. At the time, Governor Clinton engaged in a drum beat of lugubrious descriptions about the economy relying heavily on any story of woe or statistical downturn. He put President Bush on the defensive even though most of the claims were wildly exaggerated. Senator McCain, by contrast, has revisited the Reagan campaign of 1980. In that year, Governor Reagan argued that President Carter did not advance U.S. interests on the world stage using as evidence captive U.S. diplomats in Iran and an ineffectual reaction. Now McCain points out that his opponent is eager to engage in negotiation with some of the world’s tyrants without preconditions, a sign of his immaturity and lack of sophistication. In fact, notes the McCain team, Obama believes negotiations are an end in themselves, not a process to achieve an end. How much truth one attributes to these positions depends to some degree on a personal starting point. If you believe McCain cannot free himself from the web of Republican politics, you are inclined to believe in Obama’s call for change. If, on the other hand, you accept the McCain contention that Obama is unprepared to lead a nation in parlous times, your vote will be with the Senator from Arizona. The real agents for change are the marketers who sculpt these arguments into marble busts. For average Americans, credibility is everything, but in the era of spin doctors it is often hard to know the authentic from the inauthentic. Recognizing that distinction is the test for the voter and obscuring the distinction is the challenge before the handlers. Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 10/1/08: The British Press Love Affair With Obama Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 9/17/08: Nuclear Disarmament From The Gang of Four Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 9/10/08: Sarah Palin and American Traditions Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 9/03/08: American Denial Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 8/27/08: Islamic Intimidation and The Random House Fiasco Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 8/20/08: The Chinese Olympic Mask Many Chinese who have entered the ranks of the middle class are fond of collecting masks made of porcelain or jade. Having observed the Olympic events in Beijing, I am not surprised by this fetish. For what one sees in these Chinese sponsored Olympics is a mask that conceals an unpleasant reality. From fireworks that were artfully computerized at the opening ceremony even though they weren’t real, to the ages of gymnasts that are falsified and the faux singer who merely looked like the right Chinese representative, these Olympics are a well rehearsed Chinese mask. Or should it be described as a Chinese Potemkin Village? Clearly China wants to create a global impression as an emerging economic power, not unlike Germany in the 1936 Olympics and the Soviet Union in 1980. And with few exceptions, NBC spokesman, inured to politically correct commentary, have been complicit. It is instructive that a description of the “twenty year old” captain of the women’s gymnastic team informed the viewing audience that she was taken from her home, and brought to a training facility after having been identified as a prospective Olympic athlete. After a year, she wanted to return to her family, but was told her training is for the greater glory of China and she must constrain her adolescent nostalgia for hearth and home. This story was related without the slightest hint of criticism. Compare the ebullient, youthful American gymnastic team that embraced after every event, shouted encouragement and consoled teammates who didn’t perform well with the almost automaton-like Chinese girls who feigned smiles and could barely conceal their fear of failure. I am reminded that the Olympic tradition is based on amateur sports with the Latin root of amateur being love. But the athletes from China and other dictatorial nations are not amateurs, neither, of course, are American basketball players, and few display love of the games which was the initial purpose behind them. Now the Olympics are a political spectacle designed for effect. The athletes are mere pawns, somewhat like actors, in a staged event for the delectation of viewers. Surely there are spectacular moments such as Michael Phelps’ medals and the performance of the men’s relay swim teams. But on the whole, there is too much that is formulaic and staged. Any sport where judges decide the quality of performance enters the cauldron of political judgment. Clearly the Chinese hoped to influence world opinion with these games. But what the Olympic mask concealed is as notable as what it revealed. Demonstrators were rounded up and in several instances beaten by baton bashing Chinese police officers. Tibetan sympathizers were mistreated from the outset. And with all the hoopla, China comes across as a gray, joyless society, notwithstanding occasional spurts of enthusiasm from fans. Even the attendance figures are fraudulent as the number of empty seats in the stadium and gyms attest. It has been argued that the Olympics should transcend politics. In fact, I agree. Yet it is notable that IOC (International Olympic Committee) is politicized. There is no escaping the reality that these Chinese Olympics were designed as and for a political agenda. Whether the public will buy the idea that China is a world power poised to lead the global community in the twenty-first century remains to be seen. On one matter, however, there isn’t an doubt: The Chinese mask offers the world only what it wants you to see. Once the mask is removed much of what you observe is false, misleading and manipulated. Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 8/13/08: D-Day For Israel Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 8/6/08: Cultural Contrasts On Two Continents Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 7/30/08: Biopolar Foreign Policy Theory Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 7/23/08: The Rise and Fall of Private Equity Markets Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 7/16/08: How We Fought Communism and How We Are Fighting Islamism Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. 7/9/08: Imperialism Chinese and Russian Style Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/. |
Midday Magazine Vox Pop The Legislative Gazette The Capitol Connection Northeast Report Other Resources: |
