Live Video

3/30/11: Decline and Revival of Western Civilization

I used to assume that decline of Western Civilization was manifest in the unwillingness of elites to discriminate. The idea of "the discriminating man," the one who weighs concerns and assets has been transmogrified into "sensitive man," the one who resists criticism.

Of course arbitrary discrimination based on superficial concerns, e.g. skin color, should be opposed. But this is rarely the case. We live in an era in which any attempt at judgment is cause for arousal. To suggest that the willful integration of homosexuals into the military services will destroy morale and the very spirit needed to maintain discipline, is regarded as hogwash, the view of some antiquated past without universal understanding. A collapse of monumental proportions has been engineered and there is scarcely a word of protest across the land. Is that because almost everyone buys into the prevailing judgment or is it because so many do not want to be the target of opprobrium?

Whatever the proposition, discrimination has suffered yet another blow. But while an unwillingness to take a stance is one dimension of civilizational decline, it does not compare in passion or intensity to preemptive capitulation, a desire to support the very movements that exist to undermine the West. In fact, the more extreme the movement, the more you find ardent defenders. For example, jihadists in the United States and Europe state without equivocation a desire to create caliphates across the globe and to introduce sharia as legal precedent.

Remarkably those on the left, who once renounced orthodoxies of any kind, now embrace the totalistic dimensions of Islam. They insist that the full panoply of civil rights be given to foreign combatants (read: terrorists). They contend that the Islamic faith promotes peace, even when every school boy knows Islam is designed to place the non-believer in a position of submission.

The Danish government that once stood up to Islamic intimidation has seemingly collapsed. Now one minister after another finds some justification for Islamic violence; a rationalization that makes common sensical defense of Western traditions untenable. And this is rapidly becoming the European defense model as many judicial officials opt to maintain order rather than confront extremists.

Can the West withstand this dual attack, one a breakdown of judgmental standards and two, a capitulation to the most radical forces on center stage? My answer is "yes," if the West awakens from its ideological slumber and attempts to slaughter the dragon of intimidation.

As Adam Smith noted "there's a great deal of ruin in a nation" and I might add, in a civilization. "The future is unknowable," as Winston Churchill pointed out in A History of The English Speaking Peoples, "but the past should give us hope."

As I see it, overcoming war, poverty, tragedy, brutality and murder suggests that mankind possesses the instinct for self preservation, even if it isn't immediately apparent. We root for self realization even as we fail to see our failures. Can history resort to a turning back, a dark ages where standards of any kind are in disarray except the standard of might making right?

For a time, like the one we are in, it may seem that way, but recovery may be around the corner as an anti-toxin for what ails us. History has a way of being pliable and unpredictable, stretching out before us unimagined scenarios of replenishment just as the hour is darkest. That is the condition that offers hope amid the sundry examples of contemporary despair.

Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and author of the bookDecline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/.

Back to the Top

3/23/11: The Horror of Killing One's Own

Yemen's security forces killed more than three dozen protestors in the last few days. Qaddafi has announced that Allied efforts to destroy his anti missile defenses are a form of terrorism and as a consequence, he is prepared to decimate the rebels in Libya. It seems to me that it is time to ask a question that haunts the history of our time: Are there limits to dictatorial power?

Since the Holocaust, the international community has given lip-service to the idea that mass murder by dictatorial leaders should never be tolerated. Yet remarkably there are instances in Africa and Asia where this is common practice. In the Arab world where Sharia prevails, the killing of apostates is a routine practice.

Based on recent events, it would appear that conditions across the globe are sliding back to a barbaric period in which murder of one's own people for the retention of power is permitted or at least ignored. The argument is we cannot possibly intervene whenever atrocities occur. Or perhaps more logically, sovereignty trumps atrocity.

It is instructive that U.S. State Department officials employed the latter position for a time by suggesting we should not insinuate ourselves into a Libyan civil war. In other words, however sanguinic the attacks may have been and continue to be, there is not a justifiable role for the US. Needless to say, that position has been modified by our stance on the "no fly zone."

As I see it the basic Obama foreign policy thrust is based on an incremental U.S. withdrawal from regional influence. The withdrawal, I should hastily note, is both emotional – an unwillingness to defend our interests and our allies – and physical – a drawdown of troops based on the belief we cannot afford these foreign ventures.

That strategic version, or lack thereof, has created a situation in which our enemies believe we are ineffectual and our allies believe we are untrustworthy. Instead of hastening to carve out a defensive stance for the U.S. one that recognizes our foreign interests, the administration has decided to channel our foreign policy through the United Nations. In doing so, the leverage that emerged in the past from the assertion of national power is lost. We are at sea as one nation in an international armada that has lost its way.

The new concept of America opting out of unilateral action has implications for nations with imperial goals. Iran has become the "strong horse" in the Middle East neighborhood by default. Our emerging position encouraged its evolution. Ortega y Gasset once noted, "To create a concept is to leave reality behind." Our concept of multilateralism is a chimera surrounded by a fantasy.

Winston Churchill warned that when democracies triumphed in World War II they "were able to resume the follies which has so nearly cost them their life." It seems we are at it yet again.

We watch with horror as power hungry barbarians kill their own people. But we generally tolerate these actions. We are overcome by the magnitude of evil and the inversion of certitudes, but are helpless in their wake. We seek fresh creeds, but do not know how to deal with the revulsion in our collective gut. And all the while our leaders tell us this will pass and, after all, there is nothing we can do.

Is the world turning to savagery? Is the 1930's a scenario for the new century? Are we to allow shamefacedly the death and horror we have the capability to prevent? The derision of death lurks in our imagination, but the will to reverse it has not emerged. America cannot police the world, but the U.S. is still the only anchor that can assure international stability. It seems to me that role must be recognized and given the attention history has placed on it.

Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and author of the bookDecline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/.

Back to the Top

3/16/11: A Test of U.S. Mettle

Two Iranian warships travelled through the Suez Canal on their way to Syria with weapons material on board in defiance of American government restrictions and there is barely a word of denunciation from our State Department.

Radical Sheikh Yousef al Qaradawi spoke to a million Egyptians in Cairo's Tahrir Square urging the new Egyptian government to open the Rafah border into Gaza so that "we can facilitate aid to our brethren" in their effort to defeat our enemy (Israel) and "capture Jerusalem." Qaradawi extolled the Muslim Brotherhood calling for "freedom and democracy" as a vehicle for an "Islamic state based on sharia." Yet remarkably neither the State Department nor most intellectuals condemned Qaradawi's speech.

In Libya Colonel Muammar Khadafy has used overwhelming force including air bombings to resist the national movement of rebellion. Despite the use of military weapons to kill his own citizens, it took five days before the Obama administration responded to the bloodshed, and even then the response was divided with Secretary of State Clinton saying the U.S. would consider a "no fly zone over Libya" and Secretary of Defense Gates arguing that is not a policy option.

In his 1928 book La Trahison des Cleres (The Treason of The Intellectuals) Julien Benda explained how the abandonment of truth abetted totalitarian ideologies in the twentieth century. He noted with prophetic accuracy how a denial of reality led directly to World War II. Clearly one can extrapolate from this analysis 93 years ago to the present, a present in which intellectuals and government leaders deny the reality of radical Islamism, including sharia, jihad and infidel hatred.

With Arab government roiled by rebellion, the question that emerges is whether this is the moment for the efflorescence of democratic sentiment or a slide back into a past in which violent theological states are created for the essential purpose of creating caliphates. How conditions will unfold remains unclear, but on one matter there isn't any confusion: the United States has a stake in the outcome.

Yet to the regret of many the U.S. has not asserted any leadership. It is as if we are mere observers of a revolution that has the potential to alter international relations permanently. The level of institutional blindness was evident when intelligent chief Clapper argued the Muslim Brotherhood is largely a secular organization. I wonder if Mr. Clapper asked why it is not named the Secular Brotherhood.

This response may not be treasonous, but it assuredly is inept. The lack of coordination; the many voices claiming to speak for the administration and the striking and conspicuous silence of the president have produced an air of uncertainty.

Most significantly, it has produced in the mind set of our enemies in Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and even Turkey a U.S. that is weak and ineffectual. Its rhetoric is inconsistent with its action or lack thereof.

In the film "First Knight" an antagonist of the hero played by the late Heath Ledger says "You have been weighed and measured and found wanting." The hero's courage and will were being tested. It is not farfetched to contend that our national will has been weighed and measured and it appears as if we have not met the challenges of our time.

Instead of playing the role of a key protagonist, we are mere spectators confused by what we see on the global stage and in a state of denial. History is passing us by the way it did for a generation in the 1930's that had the opportunity to forestall war, but couldn't marshal the will to do so. This drama has not yet reached its final act and it is certainly not too late for decisive action. However, the curtain may close soon enough revealing a world condition distinctly inhospitable to our interests.

Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and author of the bookDecline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/.

Back to the Top

3/9/11: Social Psychology Faces Its Bias

As you might guess, discrimination is high on the agenda at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology conference where psychologists discuss racial prejudice, homophobia, sexism, etc. Yet remarkably the most controversial speech at this year's meeting was by Professor Jonathan Haidt from the Universityof Virginia.

After polling his audience on political views, Haidt found that almost all were politically liberal. He counted a grand total of three conservatives. "This," he noted, "is a statistically impossible lack of diversity," after pointing out that the 40 percent of Americans describe themselves as conservatives. To the consternation of those in attendance, Professor Haidt concluded that social psychologists are a "tribal-moral community" united by "sacred values" that hinder genuine research and damage the credibility of the discipline. Furthermore, this insularity blinds researchers to the hostile climate they've created for non-liberals.

When women or minorities are underrepresented by a factor of two or three in social psychology research, discrimination is invariably employed as an explanation, but when conservatives are underrepresented by a factor of more than 100, alternate explanations are sought. Almost all the research on the Academy points out the overwhelming liberal bias that prevails among the professoriate. In so many instances I am familiar with, young conservative scholars are fearful of expressing their political views since this could be used against them in tenure and promotion decisions.

Dr. Haidt argues that disciplines such as sociology, psychology and anthropology have long attracted liberals, but they became exclusive after the 1960's when the fight for civil rights against racism became a "sacred cause." According to him, if a group circles around sacred values, it will evolve into a "tribal-moral community" in which science will be embraced when it supports the cause and dismissed when it doesn't.

All one has to do to affirm this conclusion is recall how Larry Summers, former president of Harvard, was ostracized for wondering whether the preponderance of male professors in math and science might be due partly to the variance in I.Q. scores among men and women. This was simply not a permissible hypothesis for many academics.

Dr. Haidt has urged his colleagues to focus on shared science rather than shared moral values. And to the surprise of many, the Society did vote to put a statement on the group's home page welcoming psychologists with "diverse perspectives." In some quarters this is a notable victory.

While I applaud Dr. Haidt's efforts, and note that he is a former liberal turned centrist who did not deliver his remarks out of some political bias, there is still much to be done and spoken about in institutions of higher learning. Despite the fact, Democrats outnumber Republicans by nearly 12 to one in American universities is not on its face cause for concern. It is the translation of political views into specific curriculum orientations that poses the great challenge.

After all, if education is to be open and predicated on rational exchange, sacred causes should not influence the character of instruction. Those students recruited into the circle of moral doctrine are in fact detached from the essential elements of scholarship.

Professor Haidt has revealed a foundational truth about his discipline. But this is merely the thin edge of the wedge, since many disciplines are facing the same provincial locution. The question that remains is the extent to which higher education has been compromised by the intrusion of sacred values over scientific dispassion and the extent to which recovery is possible.

Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and author of the bookDecline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/.

Back to the Top

3/2/11: Social Transformation and Culture: A Wilburforcian Scenario

The great Russian social philosopher Pitirim Sorokin argued that when societies reach a sensate stage of historical evolution, it is inevitable that ideational impulses will percolate to the center of culture. This cyclical interpretation of history is driven by forces in the stream of history, a kind of quasi Marxian belief in historical inevitability. While religious zeal often does emerge when sensual pleasures cannot satisfy the soul’s longing for transcendence, the questions that emerge are: what is the catalyst for change and how are ideational beliefs channeled into socially empowering ideas.

As I see it the catalyst for social transformation is found in the culture, yes even the debauched popular culture. The consumption of popular culture represents a powerful medium for change if the message is transferred from the degrading sensate presentations to the uplifting ideational. A lapse into the personal, into cultural narcissism, is a function of disbelief in the transcendent. If there isn’t a God, anything is possible noted Dostoyevsky, including the belief that people can be gods. The restraints that God imposed on human behavior have been lifted by the belief we can recreate the world in man’s image. An existential light suggests there is no wrong except for the limitations we impose on ourselves. Taboos are the social conventions that arbitrarily restrain us from the lure of sensate pleasure.

From these assumptions the institutions that once mediated between the individual and the state have been rendered weak and battered. The family is in disarray and even terms like mother and father have been put through the cauldron of political correctness with terms as parent one and parent two the substitutions. Schools no longer teach social conventions when what counts is expression, the noise of recognition. Churches are less religious centers and more social organizations there to promote the latest fad emerging from the Zeitgeist. The Tocquevillian view that these mediating structures give America unique qualities seems anachronistic against the backdrop of present reality.

How then can the wave of sensualism be reversed? As I see it there is the distinct possibility for a Wilburforcian revolution, a moral turning based on the literal capture of popular culture (Wiburforce and his colleagues did transform British social norms in the 19th century, including the abolition of slavery). Suppose, for the sake of argument, films for television and movie consumption subtly adopted the stance of honor, courage, sacrifice, civic virtue. Suppose our heroes were not those who flouted the law, but those who defended freedom. Suppose the dark and sinister lyrics of misogynistic rap music were replaced by romance and courtship. Is it possible that a degraded culture which has had a profound effect on shaping public attitudes can be transmogrified into the vehicle for capturing the culture and serving as the vanguard of an ideational era?

For the United States to survive as a democratic republic we must examine the endogenous threats, not merely the exogenous challenges. In fact, our inability to withstand external threats is due in large part to our unwillingness to consider the cultural decay around us. It certainly isn’t easy to envision the transformation I believe is necessary, especially when the models for youthful emulation sell debauchery and sensual pleasure at any price (Pace: the tv program “Skins”). But there are Wilburforcians in our midst who understand the historical stakes and are willing to tease out of the American past the romance and excitement that led directly to the establishment of this exceptional nation.

If there is a cycle to history, catching this ideational wave will not only promote a desirable social outcome, it may even have commercial possibilities. It isn’t coincidental that PG rated films invariably do better at the box office than R rated films. America is poised for change if only the channels of popular culture can be opened to consider that which is uplifting. One can never be entirely sure of what the future holds, but reclaiming liberty, defending the republic and appreciating the noteworthy in our history are goals worth realizing through the influence of cultural expression.

Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and author of the bookDecline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/.

Back to the Top

2/23/11: Multiculturalism In Retreat

At long last a European politician, Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron, lifted the curtain on the pernicious dimensions of multiculturalism. After several decades of home grown terrorism and an acceptance of separation by Muslim groups in the United Kingdom, the prime minister said, “enough.”

A new course will be charted that moves from accommodation to integration. There may be a risk of xenophobia with the Cameron approach, but it is a worthwhile trade-off if terrorist impulses are thwarted.

Mr. Cameron called his strategy “muscular liberalism,” to wit: confronting extremist Islamic thought and challenging those efforts that attempt to undermine Western values. For example, the prime minister made special mention of zero tolerance for the subjugation of women, a practice permitted because of Islamic separation and application of sharia.

The notion that different groups within a society should be encouraged to pursue their own cultural paths is a formulation based on religious tolerance. But as George Santayana, among others, noted the first duty of the tolerant man is to exercise intolerance for intolerance. In other words, a proverbial line in the sand must be drawn when religious groups use societal tolerance to promote intolerance.

For at least two generations Europeans have failed to integrate immigrants into their societies. These are recent immigrants who don’t speak the language of the host country and have not accepted the basic historic and cultural background of the nation in which they now reside.

After observing the corrosive influence of multiculturalism a consensus is beginning to emerge. In addition to Cameron’s comments, German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared multiculturalism a “total failure.” Swiss voters approved a ban on the construction of new minarets on mosques. French authorities have issued a prohibition on burqas and other full body robes worn by some Muslim women. And the Swedish Democratic Party, which had almost no influence in the politics of the country, gained 5.7 percent of the vote in national elections after campaigning on a platform of anti-multiculturalism.

France, which has about 10 million Muslims, has introduced mandatory courses for all immigrants on “French values,” women’s rights and an overview of the national history. Whether national identity can be imbibed or transcend religious imperatives remains to be seen.

From a sociological perspective integration represents a compromise between the traditions of the mother country and the host nation. Presumably one can be French, share the tradition of liberalism and at the same time be a Muslim. But is this compromise realistic? Will Islam allow for sharia to coexist with liberal traditions?

On the other hand, assimilation demands the acceptance of the host nation’s values and the shedding of the past. This is an all or nothing position that forces a stark and unalterable choice. Put bluntly, “if you want to join us, you will do so on our terms. After all, no one has forced you to enter our shores.”

Clearly Europeans have a right, some would argue an obligation, to defend their Christian heritage against an onslaught from radical Muslim intrusion. The question is how best to defend those traditions. Cameron’s well stated diatribe against multiculturalism is the sound of national tocsin, a battle cry to preserve British culture. On this side of the Atlantic it is a welcome statement that sets the tone for the challenges the West now face and will be facing in the decades ahead.

Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and author of the bookDecline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/.

Back to the Top

2/16/11: What Are Undergraduates Learning?

By now almost every American has heard the lamentation about American primary and secondary education: our children are failing to meet even minimal standards of performance. However, it was widely believed that higher education is different. If one relies on the claims made by almost all colleges, students are expected to synthesize knowledge, interpret data and make arguments coherently. But in a newly published book, Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses, the authors contend that student performance on basic skills generally do not improve during their college years.

The authors, sociologists, Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa, found that more than a third of the college seniors in their study (more than 2000 were in the study population) were no better at reasoning and writing than they had been in their first semester.

If one were to consider the findings in this study, the conclusions are hardly surprising. On average, students do not invest much time in studying. Many students avoided demanding courses. Students in science and math, social science and humanities tended to make stronger gains in their writing and reasoning skills than those majoring in education, business, communication and social work.

Despite claims of methodological bias, the professors engaged in this study without a preconceived idea of student attainment. But the evidence drove them to incontrovertible conclusions, conclusions I might add, that were borne out by my 38 years in the Academy.

At least 45 percent of students in the sample did not demonstrate any statistically significant improvement in College Learning Assessment performance during the first two years of their four year program. In addition, 36 percent of students did not show any significant improvement over four years. Hence the title of the book, Academically Adrift.

Clearly many, if not most of those in the study will graduate, but having a degree does not mean these students have developed higher-order cognitive skills, presumably the goal of a college education.

For many, the college experience is a rite of passage having more to do with social development than learning. Very few institutions place more than modest academic demands on their students. The so-called core curriculum has increased exponentially, including popular culture courses, to accommodate the lack of student seriousness.

While we should not ignore the fact that limited learning in colleges has a long and venerable history, students today are competing with others across the globe. As President Obama noted in his State of The Union address our competitive edge is dependent on innovation and technical acumen which emerge from institutions of higher learning.

In fact, the changing global context facing contemporary college graduates suggests that “limited learning” qualifies as a major problem and impediment to future economic success. Yet curiously, none of the actors in this higher education system are interested primarily in undergraduates’ academic growth. Administrators are concerned with retention, admissions and, of course, the bottom line. Professors are eager to pursue their own scholarship and professional interests.

Decades ago Thorstein Veblen argued that most college students are “trained in incapacity.” If one were to rely on the Arum, Roksa study, it doesn’t appear as if students today are trained in any way, shape or form. The university experience has become a trivialized way to enter adulthood or perhaps attenuate adolescence. But on one point there isn’t doubt: undergraduates are actually learning very little and if one were to consider this learning a precondition for competitiveness, the United States if falling behind other nations, even as the number of graduates increases.

Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and author of the bookDecline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/.

Back to the Top

2/9/11: Egypt and The Obama Administration

A million people are standing in Tahir Square in Cairo protesting against the government and arguing Hosni Mubarak must go. The military representing the most stabilizing influence in Egypt, has immersed itself into the protest, at least to some indeterminate degree. The nation’s most notorious prisons have been emptied of criminals and Islamic extremists and roving bands have destroyed art treasures and looted private property.

While words of freedom and liberty are in the air, there is the distinct danger these protests, could result in less freedom for Egyptians than what they have known, especially if those who harbor Islamist goals (read: the Muslim Brotherhood) gain a foothold in government.

Despite the confusion surrounding these protests, Foggy Bottom was completely blindsided. On one occasion Secretary Clinton said “Mubarak is a friend;” on another occasion Vice President Biden denied Mubarak is a dictator. But as the protests persisted, Washington’s tone changed. Now the State Department refers to an “orderly transition” to “a democratic, participatory government.”

But there is still not an unequivocal call for liberty consistent with the president’s Cairo speech. In fact, President Obama has put a greater emphasis on engagement than freedom as his tactics with the Iranian government suggest. Admittedly a democratic election in Egypt could result in one vote, one time with the Muslim Brotherhood gaining control and, like their Hamas cousins, institute religious dominance of the nation.

Of course, not everyone views the Muslim Brotherhood as a threat. Bruce Riedel, at the Brookings Institution, argues the Brotherhood might be troublesome, but not a cause for anxiety. This position overlooks the Brotherhood’s basic attitude to subjugate women and the threat to the 30 year peace with Israel.

As I see it, Brotherhood power in Egypt, even if exercised behind the political curtain, would be calamitous for U.S. interests in the region. For the Brotherhood, violence is justified when it is consistent with the cause and that cause is jihad. History is written in blood, not Western law. In 2007, so called reform minded leaders argued that all government decisions must be vetted to ensure they are consistent with Islamic law.

However, it is not clear how much influence the Muslim Brotherhood has among the protestors or the military forces or even among the peasantry. Therefore, keeping your powder dry seems a reasonable position, until the movement of historical forces carries ti away on the tide of change. The problem, at the moment, is it is not clear what the Obama administration has in mind. On the one hand, it is calling for stability which could be interpreted as endorsing Mubarak; on the other hand, it is continually making reference to “transition,” which suggests Mubarak must be ousted.

Clearly the U.S. wants or should want a stable, civil society in Egypt that is aligned with U.S. regional interests If that is not possible, the U.S. should curtail its economic and military assistance in excess of $1 billion and bolster the only enduring democracy in the Middle East neighborhood, Israel.

Should Egypt become dominated by extremist forces, the likelihood of war increases and the resultant chaos will work to the advantage of Iran. Even though a Persian nation distrusted by Arabs and a Shia state distrusted by Sunnis, Iran is the strong horse in the region that garners support through its messianic belief in violence.

If the evolving Egyptians story reveals anything, it is how destabilizing a weak and ineffectual U.S. can be. At another time in the distant past, the U.S. would have recognized its interests and know exactly what it must do to secure stability. This, however, is not that time and the U.S. no longer recognizes its strategic interests or how to protect them.

Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and author of the bookDecline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/.

Back to the Top

2/2/11: Abbas Reveals His True Agenda

In a recent discussion of the anticipated Palestinian state Mahmoud Abbas, leader in the territory, said he “would not tolerate one single Jew in his new country, Palestine.” Speaking before journalists in Ramallah, he clearly and unequivocally noted, “We have already said completely openly, and it will stay that way: If there is a Palestinian country with Jerusalem as its capital, we will not accept that even one single Jew will live there.”

Abbas rejected any suggestion that Jews in Judea and Samaria, who have lived in their homes for decades, could remain under Palestinian rule. Meanwhile in all negotiations, the Palestinian position is that “Palestinian refugees” have the right of return to Israel. Therefore, according to the Abbas proposition, Israel should open its borders for Arabs while Palestine closes its borders for Jews.

Here is the unvarnished truth. Arabs can live in Israel as full fledged citizens with all the rights that status confers. They can have their own political parties, settle in their own communities and represent about twenty percent of the total Israeli population. But on the other side of the political ledger not one Jew, including those who reside on the West Bank, can remain once Palestine becomes an independent nation.

What more does one have to know about the Arab mentality? Sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander. There is and will remain different standards for Arabs and Jews. Hence, what precisely is a two state solution? An Arab state immediately becomes a threat to the very existence of Israel since Jews are recognized as the enemy and, by virtue of law, must be ostracized.

To make matters even more absurd, Abbas is considered an ideological moderate. After all, he doesn’t call for killing Jews, only for a form of apartheid, of absolute separation. Should such a Palestinian nation be created, how long would it take for open hostilities between the two states to break out? Can an Israeli government that encouraged its citizens to move into the West Bank after the culmination of the 1967 war, now tell these residents that they must depart? Is the government prepared to extricate 250,000 people from this region?

These questions, and a host of others, will have to be addressed to meet the demands of a two state solution. But even more fundamental is the attitude of the Palestinians themselves. If Jews aren’t permitted there, then presumably Jewish tourist dollars and investment capital are not welcome either. Where does one draw the line?

Clearly modesty is in order. If Abbas didn’t have to mollify radical sentiment in the West Bank, these unmistakably racist comments would be an embarrassment and uttered only in private, if then. But his are the views of a radical sensing that the tide of world opinion is with him. Alas, he may be right since condemnation from the media elite over his forthright apartheid stance has not been forthcoming.

If this Palestinian state is created, Israelis should not have any illusions about what it will mean. Further isolation, increased hostility, border tension and suicide bombers are all in the cards. In fact, the deck is stacked against Israel and Abbas has made that fact patently clear.

Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and author of the bookDecline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/.

Back to the Top

1/26/11: Fraudulent Scoring In NYC Schools

Anonymous interviews with New York City teachers can be very revealing. What you find is that most instructors are persuaded that achievement test scores are manipulated so that Mayor Bloomberg’s judgment about educational improvement can be confirmed.

It was reported recently that the city’s “highest ranking school” is being investigated for what was described as its “nonfailure policy.” The city’s Department of Education is engaged in an investigation to determine whether the Theater Arts Production Company High School in the Bronx attained its unique ranking by fudging student grades.

I can assure those in the investigation that they don’t have to look too hard. One senior in the school reported “my average is 30, but in three days I can bring it up to 95.” “The teachers will give you sheets that are already filled out, and you can just copy them. It’s for the school so it doesn’t look bad with failing grades.”

Another senior noted that when the principal, Lynn Passarella, announced the school ranked first on the city progress report ratings “we all started laughing. We all know it’s a bad school.”

Even the rationalizations for fudging are hard to accept. Some students contend the school maintains “a second chance policy” for those struggling with academic subjects. As one teacher argued, “the kids are given every opportunity to turn grades around… but there is a time frame. It’s not like its open ended.” Of course, if that means fill in the blanks with answers that are provided, it should be done in a timely fashion.

Most students in the school realize that the 93 percent graduation rate and off-the-charts grading results were too good to be true. One student summarized it best: “The school is made easy. I don’t even bring textbooks home.” Another student contends, “the nonfailing policy is taking away our education in a way. If we could just go in and sit there in a classroom and they’ll pass us, it doesn’t help prepare us.”

For obvious reasons this story about fraud is different from others that have appeared. This is about a high school with the highest rating in the city. It suggests that the mayor’s claims about “sky rocketing” achievement improvement in student performance is bogus. It suggests as well that teachers and administrators are complicit in this numbers game.

In fact, the nonfailing policy at Theater Arts Production Company High School is duplicated on a de facto level at many schools across the city. Grades are largely a function of politics and perception, rather than performance.

When there are teachers who blow the whistle on this practice – and there have been a few – they are ostracized by colleagues and invariably conform.

It seems to me a real investigation of this fraud across the five boroughs is warranted. New Yorkers should get more for their tax dollars than smoke and mirrors and the appearance of success. Furthermore, I think the mayor and chancellor of the school system should be held accountable. In their Wizard of Oz world, they maintain that in short order scores would improve because the mayor seized management control of the schools. Alas, scores did improve because everyone had an incentize to manipulate that improvement. Real results were something else again.

It’s time to know what is really going on and whether one school in the Bronx is the embodiment of a system wide effort at fraud and deception.

Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and author of the bookDecline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/.

Back to the Top

1/19/11: Coptics Under Siege

The remorseless and sanguinic Joseph Stalin once noted, “the murder of one is a tragedy; the murder of millions, a statistic.” Alas if recent events are any indication, there is truth in this perverse claim. Recently there have been random attacks on Christians in Egypt and the Middle East.

On New Year’s Day a bombing took place in Alexandria at a Coptic church that left 23 dead. No one has claimed responsibility for the attack, which came after threats from an al Qaeda linked group in Iraq and a deadly attack on a Bagdad cathedral on October 31.

At the same time Pope Benedict has called on Egypt and other Muslim nations to protect their Christian minorities, a new round of violence has emerged. An off-duty police officer in upper Egypt checked train passengers for the green cross tattooed on the wrist of Coptic Christians in Egypt. After identifying those who were Copts, he killed one and injured five others firing his handgun at innocent civilians simply because they are Christians. According to eyewitnesses, the gunman sought out Christians on board the commuter line and shouted Allahu Akbar (God Is Great) as he opened fire.

What are we to make of this break with the code of civility? A police officer discharged with the responsibility of protecting all citizens of the state including the Christian minority; takes it upon himself to kill Christians wantonly, seemingly because they are Christian. Moreover, it would be one thing if this were the random act of a crazed, lunatic. However, the assailant is an officer of the law, there to provide stability.

Of course this was an aberrational act note Egyptian authorities, but how random was it? It didn’t trigger a response from the Cairo paper and it did not generate a stir in the media. In fact, the only noticeable response came from the Coptic population in which 200 went to the hospital where the wounded were taken and were later dispersed by the local police.

When the Pope’s emissary raised an issue about the safety of Egyptian Christians (numbering about ten percent of the population), the Mubarak government reacted by recalling the ambassador to the Vatican and noted “We will not allow any non Egyptian party to intervene in our internal affairs under any pretext.” Presumably that includes the targeting of Christians for slaughter.

The brazen manner in which Christians are targeted throughout the Muslim world from Sudan to Iran and Egypt to Afghanistan should be a source of concern for the United Nations. However, the rights of minorities are only honored in the breach among Muslim states. When the reverse occurs, when a Muslim minority in a non-Muslim state is mistreated, it becomes an issue for the Muslim bloc nations and is immediately inserted into the Security Council agenda. However, I am sure the recent murder of Christians and the Pope’s appeal will fall on deaf ears.

Clearly, it is time for Christians to assert themselves, by speaking out against the continued abuse in Muslim nations. Mubarak may have lost control in Egypt, but it is not too late to restore order in other Muslim nations. In some cases, the Copts are pawns to promote civil unrest with political realignment the ultimate goal. But whatever the motives, these murderous conditions should not be permitted to prevail.

Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and author of the bookDecline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/.

Back to the Top

1/12/11: Viewing U.S. Foreign Policy In 2011

The new Start Treaty embodies, in my judgment, the emerging mood in American security policy circa 2011. As the preamble to the treaty indicates the Russians will have a veto over the deployment of anti-missile systems. Despite President Obama’s assurance to the Senate that this will not be a unilateral concession, the Russian diplomats see it differently. After all, this is not a treaty between the United States Senate and the president.

Since the Reagan negotiations in Iceland, missile defense has been a U.S. trump card in all strategic discussions. Defense changes the correlation of forces, a point made axiomatic by the Russian unwillingness to accept deployment. But Reagan remained steadfast as did his successors – until now. The preemptive capitulation on radars in Poland and the Czech Republic was the first sign of a new strategic direction and the resistance to force modernization is confirmation of the president’s tack.

On a larger global stage these decisions suggest American withdrawal, both a physical withdrawal from international commitments and a psychological withdrawal from the U.S. role as world policeman. It is already clear that the withdrawal from Iraq will soon be completed and the withdrawal from Afghanistan will be accelerated this year. What this military vacuum creates may be in the realm of speculation at this point, but surely Iran, as the region’s “strong horse,” will gain advantage at our expense.

While a butterfly fluttering its wings in one part of the globe, may not affect events in another region, this can, and often does, occur. You can be sure that the Chinese, who have developed a formidable blue water navy, have been biding their time, waiting for a downgrade in U.S. capability and our willingness to influence Asian affairs.

In an effort to compensate for the lack of U.S. assertiveness, the Obama administration – inclined to a form of transnational progressivism – has relied more heavily than was previously the case on U.N. intervention. Yet it is clear from the use of the veto in the Security Council to an air of anti Americanism in the General Assembly that U.S. interests cannot be promoted in this multilateral body. The consequence, of course, is that a new world order is emerging without American leadership or a clear design.

This is most effectively seen in American paralysis over prospective Iranian nuclear weapons. Torn between roll back and deterrence; confused over sanctions and negotiations, the U.S. seems unsure of its position. Moreover, this Obama administration has convinced itself and several Arab states that a peace treaty between the Palestinian territory and Israel will make it easier to clamp down on Iranian nuclear ambitions. Of course, this is fatuous on several levels. Iran’s surrogates Hezbollah and Hamas, do not want peace with Israel and Iran can use this anti-zionist sentiment to foster alliances within radical political groups in the region.

While I am both perplexed and pessimistic about directions in American foreign policy, the hearings announced with the new Republican House leadership are a welcome additions to the national debate. It is doubtful the Obama administration will adopt a new course of action, but it is noteworthy that the American people will have the opportunity to consider alternative tactics.

Foreign policy may not be the bread and butter issue that determines campaign success. However, it is the matter that can determine the triumph of nations and international stability. This is a moment to revisit the deployments that served American interests with an honest discussion of pros and cons. In an atmosphere uniformly bleak, this may be all that passes for a ray of sunshine.

Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and author of the bookDecline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/.

Back to the Top

1/5/11: Everyone Knows...

There is a decidedly arrogant claim engendered by the horde of progressives which starts with the words “everyone knows.” For example, everyone knows the Tea Partiers have a racist agenda. And everyone knows patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.

Presumably if everyone knows, evidence to buttress one’s argument is unnecessary. Dissent is a function of those conservative know nothings, the grass roots mob wallowing in ignorance. If the Tea Partiers display none of the characteristics attributed to them, the labels still persist. After all, “everyone knows.” If demonstrators avow their loyalty to the nation, but disavow President Obama, they are ipso facto scoundrels. Who doesn’t know that?

That there is a natural order to opinions is manifest in what elitist ideas embrace. Free speech is desirable until you say something elite opinion – makers disapprove. Suppose you say homosexuality is related to nurture, not nature; observe how the panjandrums of free speech use their free speech placards to beat you into submission. When “everyone knows…,” dissent is beside the point.

It takes courage to stand up to the bromides masquerading as current truth. Until the environmental movement was unmasked over global warming, those who challenged the prevailing sentiment were perceived as cranks. That tag hasn’t evanesced despite evidence of wrong doing by the so-called environmental scientists.

Similarly, Mayor Michael Bloomberg invokes libertarian principles when he wants to burnish his liberal credentials, then considers it appropriate through ukase to impose his view on what New Yorkers should eat and drink. While he doesn’t quite say “everyone knows,” it is implied in his public commentary. “Everyone knows transfats are bad for you.”

President Obama is not inoculated against this condition. In fact, his economic policies are usually defended as “everyone knows.” Everyone knows something had to be done to save the nation from financial ruination after “the destructive policies of the Bush administration.” It is too bad I hadn’t received this doctrinal statement in my morning reading fare.

It is also axiomatic that everyone knows steps had to be taken to control the increase in healthcare expenditures and to provide insurance coverage for the uninsured. The fact that Obamacare increases healthcare expenses and imposes insurance on those who may not want it, is merely a pettifogging critique. After all, everyone knows it had to be done.

The experts in foreign affairs know that everyone knows: the U.S. cannot afford to play its traditional role of stabilizing global influence. Of course defense spending is 4.5 percent of GDP and pales in significance to entitlement expenses, but not everyone knows that.

There is little doubt that “everyone knows” is a conversation stopper. It puts the naysayers in the penalty box. It says you cannot possibly have an informed opinion. It is comparable to reading a Frank Rich column or a New Yorker article in which the cognoscenti contend “everyone knows” the truth.

That there may be other points of view, that no one has a monopoly on the truth, are conditions rarely considered by those who reflexively invoke “everyone knows” in argumentation. Needless to say, the reliance on this phrase isn’t an argument, but for those who assume their positions are in the orbit of natural order, it seems likely that this phrase will continue to be relied on.

Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and author of the bookDecline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/.

Back to the Top

12/29/10: The Mullen War Strategy

Recently the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, said there are “new ways of deterrence that address those factors that make individuals vulnerable to coercion…”. In a speech delivered at the Hoover Institution, Admiral Mullen noted that the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, and al Qaida can be deterred by a traditional method of military retaliation and by nontraditional means of attacking extremism at its core. “Attacking the humiliation, the hopelessness, the illiteracy and abject poverty which lie at the core of the attraction to extremist thought will do more to turn the tide against terrorism than anything else,” he announced.

Presumably an understanding of the Koran, rather than an interpreter’s view, a higher standard of living and understanding wives and friends will convert swords into plowshares. It would seem that even military leaders are vulnerable to Opry-logic.

Surely Admiral Mullen must be aware of several incontrovertible conditions: Muslim leaders who espouse violence are often from wealthy families, vide: Osama bin Laden; being able to read doesn’t translate into understanding; sitting on a couch with a psychologist who identifies with your angst may be comforting, but as a strategy for peace it lacks staying power.

The admiral’s psychobabble has as much validity as alchemy. In fact, one wonders what happened to a military culture predicated on “kill or be killed”? No sensible person wants the bloodshed of war, but there have been times in history when the choice is slavery or battle. Some, perhaps many, prefer battle.

As it turns out Admiral’s Mullen’s words were turned on their head in any case. In Iran, one headline noted that Admiral Mullen wants the “U.S. to deter Qur’an followers.” Hezbollah t.v. in Lebanon reported, U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mile Mullen says “people learning the way of the Qur’an are the subject of new American deterrence.” ‘And the Iran Broadcasting Station accused Mullen of using “insulting words against Islamic scholars.”

Apparently Admiral Mullen has forgotten the incident at Fort Hood in which a Muslim physician wantonly killed fellow soldiers at the base. Was he suffering from deprivation, a lack of understanding, a low standard of living? The part of this equation Admiral Mullen doesn’t address, the part he intentionally ignores, is that violence is inherent in Islamic thought as Verses of The Sword suggests.

How can one deter an enemy when there is a refusal to understand him? Even those in the Arab world are perplexed. Middle East tradition indicates you side with the “strong horse.” But if you do not know how to apply your strength, you become the “weak horse.” At the moment, U.S. psychologizing is having a paralyzing influence in fighting a war against radical Islam.

Can you imagine a strategy in World War II in which we argued the most effective way to deter the Nazis would be classes on Mein Kampf? Or perhaps we should have sent psychologists to Berlin instead of Patten’s army.

It boggles the imagination to consider how misguided military strategists have become. From battlefield action based on lethality we have seemingly moved to Dr. Phil on the military couch. The question that remains is whether the U.S. can subdue an enemy committed to our destruction with psychological, economic and social tactics. Obviously Admiral Mullen thinks we can; I have considerable doubt.

Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and author of the bookDecline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/.

Back to the Top

12/22/10: New York's Traffic Gridlock

A former Commissioner of Traffic several decades ago was asked, “what is the best way to get cross town in Manhattan?” He thought for a moment and said, “Be born there.” That statement was made before bus lanes, bicycle lands, outdoor seating in the middle of Times Square, trains bursting with passengers at all hours of the day and an MTA that puts most of its money into employee salaries rather than infrastructure maintenance.

New York is now at virtual transportation gridlock. There simply isn’t a way to get from point A to point B in the center of this city. As I see it, the best way to get cross town today is to dream about it.

For physicians, the expression “primum non nocere” [first no harm] is axiomatic. But this expression should apply to government officials as much as doctors. In the last three years New York City officials have built 200 miles of bike lanes making First and Second Avenues impassable during rush hour. The attempt to convert New York into a bikers’ paradise is bizarre. Only an elitist who doesn’t ride a bus or walk the streets thinks that this metropolitan city can resemble Amsterdam.

Some New York residents actually believe bike lanes are pedestrian walkways making them extremely hazardous to your health. Moreover, since there aren’t regulations for bikers there is the belief that riding against traffic is permitted. DOT Commissioner Janette Sadikkhan contends, “There’s a new street code out there and we need everyone to look out for one another and be safe.” Is she kidding? In New York, the code is move if you can and let the pedestrian be damned.

Of course, this is only half the problem. Mayor Bloomberg got the inspired idea that tourists need an outdoor seating area in the middle of Times Square and Herald Square making two of New York’s busiest areas into a nightmarish congestion. If God forbid, you need an ambulance or fire truck in these locales to save a life, you can count on dying. There is simply no way to pass.

In addition, our government leaders contend the best way to get around this city is by subway trains, that is if you can get on them. The Numbers 4 and 5 on the east side are always jammed; in fact, I usually consider myself lucky if I can get on the train at all. At the 42nd Street station there isn’t enough room to stand with would be passengers sitting on the steps in the hope they can get on the next train.

Because the east side trains are so crowded I have opted for the R, running along Broadway. However this train is the slowest in the western world. A trip from the Staten Island Ferry to Fifth Avenue and 59th Street, a trip of roughly six miles took me on hour and twenty minutes last week. I am persuaded I can walk more briskly than that pace.

What this adds up to is a city in transportation gridlock. Roads designed for bikers; avenues designed for tourists and trains designed for sloths. I love New York, but I would like to be able to move in this city before I move out of it. I would like to believe that New York was more than a place for those living in zip code 10021.

You would have to be myopic to design a transportation system as chaotic as ours. The cost of getting around has to be factored into the business equation. The frustration of sitting in traffic has to take a toll on drivers. The congestion of trains must be having an effect on passengers.

But New York goes on blithely as if these conditions are “normal.” Let me assure my fellow New Yorkers that the city is coming to a standstill. You will not be able to move cross town or uptown, traffic will be frozen. At that point, the mayor is likely to say use a helicopter to get from one place to the next. Now there’s a practical answer for the city’s transportation woes.

Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and author of the bookDecline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/.

Back to the Top

12/8/10: German Schools Embrace Islam

There is little doubt west European governments are engaged in a form of social suicide. Rather than increased efforts to integrate Muslims into German society, to cite one example, German students will be taught about Islam. In a sense German educators will be engaged in proselytizing for Islam.

The German state of Lower Saxony will start including Islam in its schools’ core curriculum as part of an initiative to counter growing anti-Islam sentiment in Europe. Dr. Bernad Althusmann, Minister of Education in Lower Saxony, announced that schools in the state will start including Islamic education in their main curriculum. “I think we will be able to start implementation by the academic year after the next,” Althusmann said during a visit to an elementary school in the city of Hanover which offers an Islamic education class.

Justifying this approach, Juergen Zoeliner, Berlin Minister for Education, Science and Research, notes, “For years, society and schools have been faced with a variety of new duties and challenges. One of these big challenges is to have people from different traditions, cultural and religion affiliations living together peacefully and respectfully.”

Of course, whether the program in question leads ultimately to a peaceful result is questionable. One might well ask why did the armies of Europe turn back the Turks at the gates of Vienna 500 years ago when programs, like those instituted in Germany, are handing Islam the keys to the future.

German shame over Nazi atrocities has made Hitler’s heritage the end of German history and identity. But should this shame be replaced by preemptive capitulation to a religion with a relentless imperial impulse?

To be sure the Salafists, with Saudi funding, will follow up on their efforts in the schools. But will the full story of Islam be told including the stoning of adulterers, the execution of homosexuals, polygamy, apostasy as a capital offense and the belief that Jews are the offspring of apes and pigs?

It is instructive that “diversity education” is predicated on the belief that we in the West have on obligation to understand Islam. However, the reverse doesn’t follow. One might presume that Muslims in the West should come to know and appreciate Western Civilization. Moreover, students who are not versed in the history and customs of the polity they find themselves in will be handicapped. Yet curiously integration, that was once the overarching strategy for dealing with immigrants, has been replaced by cultural pluralism, “from the one, many” instead of “from the many, one.”

In Germany and throughout western Europe there is an effort to bend over backwards to accommodate the Islamic population. In the process, this effort produces results that counter good intentions. First, the Islamic population believes, with considerable confirmation, that Europeans do not possess the will to assert the importance of their own culture and traditions. Second, the insertion of Islam into German schools suggests tacitly that Islam is on the rise and cannot be denied even in non-Islamic nations.

Preemptive capitulation is nothing more than an attenuated form of defeat. It is noteworthy that Islamic leaders recognize it in this way. The aggressive stance taken by Islamic leaders in Europe is based to an extraordinary degree on the flexibility and weakness of those who might defend the West.

G.K. Chesterton once noted that “an open mind, like an open mouth, should close on something.” As I see it, that something should be the traditions of the West, the Judeo-Christian principles that gave birth to our civilization. If people want to live in this civilization, that is what they should be obliged to learn. Anything else, weakens the West and will usher in continual discord.

Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and author of the bookDecline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/.

Back to the Top

12/1/10: The Korean Nightmare Yet Again

As Secretary of Defense Gates noted any question about North Korea has only one response: “I don’t know.” There is indeed so little we know about this barbarian kingdom with nuclear weapons. Hence almost anything one does say is speculative.

As I see it, the nuclear facility recently disclosed is designed to be inflammatory. What it means is that North Korea can increase its supply of weapons and use them as negotiating instruments. Since there is nothing of value in North Korea, since the economy is moribund, since the government cannot supply basic necessities for the population, nuclear weapons – at least the threat of deployment – is a negotiating wedge for foodstuff, oil and hard currency. By any measure, this is an extortion ploy.

In a curious way, the Chinese government is complicit. China has the ability to clamp down on this backward kingdom, but it averts its gaze. From a Chinese perspective North Korea is an effective pressure point on the United States and its allies in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. What the stalemate with North Korea demonstrates is the relative ineffectiveness of U.S. diplomacy and the obvious fact that the U.S. is an unreliable ally, perhaps even an untrustworthy ally.

What the U.S. cannot deliver – a stable east Asia – emerging Chinese military prowess in the region may. In other words, China uses North Korea as a tool to promote its regional dominance and, in the process, undermine U.S. influence.

This strategy has its advantages for China at the moment, but it could backfire. If Japan uses North Korean sabre rattling and Pyongyang’s deadly artillery barrage on a South Korean island as a catalyst to dismantle Article 9 of its Constitution and start producing nuclear weapons, China’s military dominance could be challenged. Anti Chinese sentiment in Japan should not be underestimated.

North Korean gamesmanship and Chinese cleverness are proceeding down a dangerous path in which an escalation scenario is quite plausible. The world waits to see how this situation will unfold with baited breath and the Iranian regime watches with intense interest. What the U.S. does in North Korea – or doesn’t do – is regarded as a portent of the U.S. position on Iranian nuclear weapons as well.

In yet another unfolding chapter in this tale of conflict, the United States and Seoul began joint naval maneuvers, an unmistakable message that sufficient force exists in the neighborhood to counter North Korean aggression. Moreover, even in South Korea, known for its restraint, there is increasing pressure to respond to Kim Jung Il’s unprovoked attacks. South Korean president, Lee Myung-bak told Chinese emissaries that now isn’t the “right time” to resume disarmament discussions. In fact, President Lee bluntly said Beijing should adopt “a more fair and responsible position” on Korean issues. Furthermore, President Lee said North Korea “would pay a price” for further aggression.

U.S. Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs, said, “It is hard to know why China doesn’t push harder. They clearly are interested in this – in the region not spinning out of control – so my sense is they try to control this guy, and I’m not sure he is controllable.” Of course that is one man’s theory. There are others, including a China that benefits from the chaos by diminishing the U.S. role in the region and creating the impression with U.S. allies that only China can stabilize the unruly situation.

This is a scenario with dangerous implications, but strangely the world has seen it unfold before and diplomats seem to believe it will unfold again.

Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and author of the bookDecline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/.

Back to the Top

11/24/10: Women's Rights Iranian Style

Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani is a name unknown to most Americans. Yet her imminent execution in Iran has elicited protests across the globe. Ms. Ashtiani has been found guilty of adultery; tortured by women-hating barbarians and has become a symbol of Sharia inspired laws that mistreat women.

Ironically and poignantly Iran is on the United Nations Committee for Women’s Rights and will soon join the Executive Committee for the Asian region. Yet remarkably Ambassador Susan Rice has not uttered a word in behalf of Ms. Ashtiani, nor has she said anything about Iran’s representation on the UN committee, a silence that is deafening.

It is simply outrageous that Iran is in a position to negotiate women’s rights when the government routinely violates those rights. This is a condition comparable to having Nazis investigate the human rights violations of Jews. But to make matters worse, the Obama administration through its conspicuous silence is seemingly complicit in the crime against fundamental rights.

Even the New York Times and the Washington Post have covered the story. Mina Ahadi, a spokesman for the International Committee Against Stoning and Execution, has been engaged in non-stop demonstrations against the Iranian government and its perverse judicial decision.

Yet remarkably Ms. Ashtiani probably hasn’t any idea there is vocal support for her cause. Iranian mullahs do not react to appeals of reason and fairness. Only when their positions are watched and challenged, only when nations to whom they wish to appeal respond with condemnation, do the mullahs pay attention.

That explains why the United States’ official inattention to this matter is tragic. Since we have not offered a diplomatic protest and have not uttered a word, to my knowledge, about Iran’s role on the Committee for Women’s Rights, the United States has abandoned its moral leadership in matters affecting all women.

Where is our leadership on this matter? Alas where are the feminists who should be at the barricades over this issue?

This isn’t the first time, and probably will not be the last time, hypocrisy is on display. But it is morally repugnant for a nation that is willing to consider stoning for an alleged legal infraction is in the position of defining rights for women.

If anything, this bizarre set of conditions demonstrates an Iran and its byzantine policies on the ascendency and the United States in decline. If this description is accurate, this can only mean turning the clock back several centuries when women did not have legal rights and were considered “half a man” in a court of justice.

My suspicion is if former Ambassador John Bolton were representing American interests at the United Nations a protest voice would be heard. Unfortunately Ms. Rice, his successor, and President Obama have chosen appeasement as their strategy believing that if we offend the Iranian mullahs, negotiation with them on nuclear weapons and other matters would be impossible.

As I see it, this is a fool’s errand. Our silence on human rights matters is interpreted as acceptance. Every gesture of compliance is a victory for barbarism.

Iranian feminists know what the Obama administration doesn’t: a global campaign against the imminent execution of Sakineh Ashtiani can make a difference. It can cause the mullahs to pause and it can raise questions about the strategy adopted by the U.S. government. It is time to let the world know Iran’s policies belong in the ash heap of history.

Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and author of the bookDecline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/.

Back to the Top

11/17/10: President Obama and America's Core Values

Whatever one thinks about the increasingly partisan politics in the United States, there are, or should be, limits to indecency. However, in my opinion, President Barack Obama has abandoned any semblance of decency in his desperate bid to help Democrats maintain their control of Congress.

Recently, in an attempt to appeal to Latinos about immigration, the president mentioned Senator John McCain as someone stressing border security and strict enforcement of the law. President Obama noted, “Those aren’t the kinds of folks who represent our core American values.”

While a difference of opinion on immigration policy is understandable and while one may appropriately cite McCain’s about face on this issue, the president’s comment smacks of the worst kind of pandering and the most extreme form of indecency. To say a genuine American war hero, someone who spent years in Hanoi Hilton facing grueling torture each day, doesn’t have “core American values” is beneath contempt.

At the time John McCain was captured, Barack Obama was a community organizer with a hard left political agenda that included working for ACORN. To imply he understood or represented core American values, while McCain did not is an exercise in political perversion.

As I see it, remarkable arrogance is on display. Even this president should know that putting one’s life on the line to preserve American’s core principles is the highest sacrifice one can make for his country. The fact that President Obama can make such a statement suggests he doesn’t understand or appreciate American values.

Alas, this president may act outside the boundaries of American history, a precinct of resentment and contentiousness. After all, the radicals house their views in a nation they want to see unfold, not one whose history you can take pride in. Wasn’t it Michele Obama who said “I did not have pride in my country until now (when Obama was elected president)?

Who is this president and what does he really believe? Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton calls President Obama a “post American” president. Whether that applies is difficult to say, but I do believe this president is a transnational progressive, someone who considers the larger global equation before considering American interests. That may explain the many apologies for U.S. actions abroad and the reliance on U.N. support. It might also explain the cavalier use of “core American values” which he seemingly does not appreciate.

As a transnational, Obama is as much a citizen of the world (an oxymoron to be sure) as an American national. It may even explain why there are many Americans who believe he is a Muslim, despite his denials. There is little doubt that he is the first transnational president, even though some historians pin that tag on Woodrow Wilson.

He is also probably the first president sufficiently arrogant to assume he possesses insight into the American character others do not possess. Perhaps this explains why he has called Republican opponents, “enemies” a characterization unprecedented from a president of the United States. From my perspective these statements and characterizations are beneath contempt, but obviously not beneath this president.

Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and author of the bookDecline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/.

Back to the Top

11/10/10: The Rise and Fall of A President

However, one chooses to evaluate the mid cycle 2010 election, there is only one logical conclusion: the repudiation of President Obama and his policies. It was not only what happened at the polls and the transfer of power in the House of Representatives, but investors led a rally with the Dow industrials rising 64.10 points the day after the election results were announced.

President Obama’s ascent from obscurity to prominence was predicated on a calculated expression of bipartisanship, of bringing Americans together. His descent from prominence to political ignominy is based on narrowly focused partisanship, willful debasement of “enemies” and a display of arrogant leadership.

The wholesale Republican victory in the House represents a shift as significant as any in the last 60 years. Moreover, Republicans gained gubernatorial seats and Senate seats as well, albeit Senate control was beyond their reach. Most significantly, those Democrats who ran in relatively safe seats, but were ardent supporters of President Obama were defeated. For example, Virginia Representative Rick Boucher, a rock solid supporter of the president, went down to a surprising defeat. Representative Alan Grayson, a hard charging liberal and ardent Obama acolyte, also lost, despite national support from liberal organizations.

What this portends for the future of this republic is unclear. Will President Obama triangulate, as Bill Clinton did after his electoral loss in 1994, or is he so driven by ideological passion, he cannot do so? Will a divided government set the stage for stasis with little legislative activity or will this lead to a bipartisan alliance of the moderates in both parties leading to surprising activism?

The one overarching issue that seemingly untied Republicans with many Independents and Tea Partiers is opposition to Obama’s healthcare legislation. Whether accurate or not, there is the widely held perception that a bureaucrat in Washington will be determining the nature and duration of your treatment should it be necessary. As a consequence, many believe freedom is imperialed and the expansion of government into a command economy is the direction of the future. Will the House leadership take advantage of this sentiment by refusing to appropriate funds for Obama Care?

What this election indicates is that the public does not accept the “change” Obama promised and has acted on it. America is a place different from the president’s understanding. Most people are patient and reticent to turn on a president they once supported, but Mr. Obama has introduced reforms so extreme and a financial commitment so dire that John and Mary Q. Public are in open rebellion.

It is instructive that the president has consistently made claims he has been unable to justify. For example, the Stimulus package was brokered as a way to create jobs, but the unemployment rate has actually increased despite the federal expenditure. The president has consistently ignored or repudiated America’s allies and has embraced the nation’s enemies, but there isn’t any evidence this has reduced global tensions.

At the moment, President Obama has opened a credibility gap as wide as Grand Canyon. The Independents who initially supported the president and accounted, in no small part, for his electoral success, have turned against him. They do not accept his rhetoric and question his decision making capacity.

The question that remains is whether the Republican party is prepared to take advantage of this electoral shift. Can the party design an agenda consistent with “the tail wind” this election has provided? Can the Republicans be more than the Party of No? Can they avoid being the villains in a scenario the president constructs which sets the stage for his reelection in 2012?

It is hard to answer these questions at the moment, but the election opens the door to electoral opportunity. It is now encumbent for Republican leaders to walk through it.

Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and author of the bookDecline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/.

Back to the Top

11/3/10: When Satirists Dominate The Culture

In what can only be described as the corruption of politics Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert had a “sanity rally” recently to energize Democrats and counter the Glen Beck “Restoring Honor” rally conducted in August. With an unofficial crowd estimated at 200,000, Colbert launched the event by arriving on stage in a capsule like a rescued Chilean miner from an underground bunker. He pretended to distrust all Muslims until basketball legend Kareem Abdul Jabbar, who is Muslim, came on stage. “Maybe I need to be more discerning,” Colbert mused, then turning to Stewart to scold: “Your reasonableness is poisoning my fear.”

For many at this rally, it was an opportunity to take control of a the political narrative, if only for one afternoon. The liberals had their moment in the sun. Absurdist views along with protest placards seemed to suggest frustration with the leadership in the Democratic party that many described as timid, fearful and unwilling to stand behind President Obama.

Alex Foxworth, a 26 year old doctoral student from Richmond, Virginia, summed it up by noting: “The battle for the American mind right now is between talk show hosts and comedians. I choose the comedians.”

Alas, that is precisely how many in the nation view politics of the moment. All aspects of life from campaigns to social exchange have become a form of amusement. Serious discussion is immediately thought of as ideology and hence rejected as bias and propaganda. In the final volume of Winston Churchill’s “The Second World War” he has as a subtitle “How the Great Democracies Triumphed and So Were Able to Resume the Follies Which Has so Nearly Cost Them Their Life.” The rally in Washington was merely one manifestation of the follies. It was not an isolated event, but rather part and parcel of a pattern found in all of the mass media: continuous amusement.

Hillel Belloc, observing this contemporary condition, said, “We sit by and watch the Barbarian, we tolerate him; in the long stretches of peace we are not afraid. We are tickled by his irreverence, his comic inversion of our old certitudes and our fixed creeds refreshes us; we laugh. But as we laugh, we are watched by large and awful faces from beyond: and on these faces there is no smile.”

Yes, we laugh at the comic inversions and excoriating certitudes; we admire the comedians. But there is a backdrop for this rally of satirists; it is comprised of historical forces that often do not take kindly to the destruction of normative judgment. It is especially harsh with the display of hubris which the gods never forgive.

In writing about The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism Max Weber noted that in the final stage of this evolution, it might truly be said: “Specialists without spirit, sensualists without heart; this nullity imagines that it has attained a level of civilization never before achieved.” Is this where we are at the moment – laughing at the nullity and assuming we have reached a higher level of civilization?

Oscar Wilde once argued that “when bad ideas have nowhere to go they gravitate to American universities and become courses.” Surely there is truth in this claim, but only a partial truth. Bad ideas emerge as satire when the nation engages in nervous laughter about what to believe and comedians provide the course for the future.

When every condition is a joke, the nation is in trouble. Americans need relief from quotidian tension; they also need serious reflection on the present state of affairs.

Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and author of the bookDecline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/.

Back to the Top

10/27/10: Resistentialism

You have undoubtedly heard of existentialism, a philosophical position based on personal choice without the benefit of normative judgment. Well I reject it since driving through a red light is hazardous to your health.

However, I am a resistentialist, an eponymous condition in which adherents categorically reject the fatuities of modern life. Let me cite several examples.

Automobile manufacturers produce a car with 300 horse power that can easily achieve speeds of 120 miles per hour so that the car can remain stalled on the Long Island Expressway during rush hour.

Art is often described as post-modern, a school that has flash but no pan. However, if modern is new, how can you be post new? In fact, at what point does new go post?

Texting is the communications channel of the young. But from what I can discern it is an addiction to banality since the text hasn’t any substance and the language is puerile shorthand, e.g. RUOK?

The IPod is one of those devices that permits cultural toxins such as rap music to enter the brain without filter. It inflicts a form of Parkinson ’s disease on its adherence who find it very difficult to stand still.

These examples are the symptoms of modernity that resistentialism oppose. Fortunately personal liberty suggests you don’t have to drive a car with a turbo engine or admire Michael Graves’ architecture or use a handheld device to communicate or put any electronic wiring in your ears. But it is hard to avoid the conditions of modernity since they are osmotic, in the cultural air surrounding us.

Hence resistentialists must be tough minded cultural snobs who reject the lure of advertisers and marketing mavens. They are obliged to write their own social scripts. “I won’t go there; I won’t touch that item” is the lamentation of resistance.

When the pressures are great and they will be, especially as the teenage daughter demands her own IPad, the emotional test begins. If the resistentialist concedes he will become a “resentialist,” brow beating himself for the concession. If he doesn’t concede, the children will harangue and display the unadorned bad behavior their uncivilized friends will encourage.

There aren’t many triumphal moments for the resistentialist, but the few he does experience are memorable. I recall with satisfaction my resistance to the plasma screen TV. After all, I noted, is it really so different from the conventional color TV? “Well,” said the salesman “yes it is different and it will change the nature of viewing.” I wasn’t about to change my viewing patterns and would certainly not do so for $2500. So I resisted. A year later this same television set sold for $2000 and despite entreaties from my family, I remained firmly opposed. By the third year the price was $1200 and I conceded, but at least I had the satisfaction of knowing my resistance saved $1300. Needless to say, others didn’t see it that way. “Dad, you denied us three years of viewing pleasure.” That was the price they had to pay for my resistentialist dedication.

I doubt my obdurate stance will catch on as a public philosophy. Camus and Sartre need not worry about the rise of resistentialism as an antidote to their existential views, but one never knows. I am confident there are others who see the silliness in so much of modern life. But I should note before you get the wrong idea that there is much about modernity I embrace including freedom and even many aspects of technology. I am not a Luddite; modern toilets suit me very well.

But absurdities abound. I would like to know what “free range” chickens do that chickens in a coop do not. I would like to know why a player has to dance in the end zone if he scores a touchdown? And I would love to know why the brim of a basketball cap is now worn on the side of one’s head.

I resist all of this, all of the absurdity that accompanies contemporary life. And I have incorporated my beliefs into this philosophical stance. I don’t know if I can stick to my guns, but you can be sure I intend to try. Viva resistentialism!

Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and author of the bookDecline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/.

Back to the Top

10/20/10: President Obama's Abuse of Power

President Barack Obama has descended so far into the thickets of political slime that he may never be able to extricate himself. With massive midterm losses looming and his presidency potentially paralyzed as a result, the president made the startling claim that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was accepting foreign donations to launch a campaign against him, a charge that even the NY Times – a notorious Obama mouthpiece – described as “groundless.”

Having relied on the claim of a left wing blog, the president echoed the charge at a Maryland political rally. “So groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections, and they won’t tell you where the money for their ads come from,” he said.

Tom Donahue, president of the Chamber, immediately denied the accusation, explaining that strict accounting procedures keep foreign and domestic contributions separate. Remarkably, denunciation of the president’s claims spanned the political spectrum with some liberals suggesting the president “went too far” in the direction of stifling dissent. Even David Axelrod, the president’s senior advisor, conceded that the administration has no evidence to support the president’s claim.

Nonetheless, Axelrod and the president stuck to their guns by suggesting the Chamber “may have” violated U.S. laws. Axelrod asked in a classic example of sophistry, “do you have any evidence it’s not [true]?” Overlooked by most members of the press corps were the questionable contributions to the Obama campaign on foreign credit cards, a claim that had more than a semblance of hearsay.

It seems that the president is overreaching in an effort to find a political argument with traction. Allegations against the Chamber fall into the category of a populist denunciation of big business, even though Democratic operatives assure job generating corporations they are on their side.

With Senator Al Frankin calling for a Federal Election Commission probe a campaign is being launched despite the lack of evidence. The Democratic National Committee released an ad castigating the Chamber as “shills for big business.” Of course, the purpose of the Chamber is to represent business interests. That is what it is organized to do.

The underlying issue, the one that has a chilling effect on campaigns, is the unleashing of government power to silence political opponents. By any standard this presidential claim is an abuse of power that should be condemned by every member of the media.

President Obama insists through indirect assertions that “you don’t know. It could be the oil industry. It could be the insurance industry. It could even be foreign owned corporations. You don’t know because they don’t have to disclose.” Indeed since you don’t know, it could be the tooth fairy. This is an example of the Cicero gambit. Since you don’t have any facts on which to rely, make speculative arguments especially with reference to unpopular entities such as the oil and insurance industries.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizens United case allows organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce to advertise for and against candidates of their choice and to accept anonymous donations in order to do so. President Obama indicated he does not support the Court’s decision, but like it or not, it is the law of the land.

That the questionable claims have become an issue may be an effort to shift concern from jobs and the precarious nature of the economy to campaign practices. But without evidence and with the arrogant display of political power this stratagem has backfired on the president and the Democratic Party.

Can the president dig his way out of this matter before November? Can he convince voters that he will not abuse the power of this office? On election day the answers will be evident.

Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and author of the bookDecline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/.

Back to the Top

10/13/10: A Review of After The Hangover: The Conservatives' Road To Recovery written by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.

During the course of an early morning Sunday news program the putative head of House Republicans, John Boehner, was being questioned. His interrogator said, “Congressman Boehner, you are opposed to cap and trade, Obama healthcare, and the stimulus package, please tell us what the Republicans are for.” It struck me that the question was equivalent to giving LeBron James an open lane for a slam dunk. But to my utter astonishment, Boehner was hesitant and seemingly unsure of himself. The moment passed, as did a significant opportunity.

All I could think of at that moment is why didn’t the congressman read R. Emmett Tyrrell’s new book After The Hangover: The Conservatives’ Road to Recovery. In my judgment here is the blue print for Republican success, written clearly and profoundly.

Although Sam Tanenhaus, editor of the New York Times Book Review, argued the Conservative movement is “dead” and interred, the redoubtable Mr. Tyrrell tells us reports of conservatism’s death are greatly exaggerated. With his usual panache, Mr. Tyrrell offers a remarkable distillation of conservative history and, most significantly, how it is unfolding in the United States circa 2010.

Sitting on his perch at The American Spectator, Tyrrell has lanced the boil of contemporary liberalism and has offered a valuable critique of conservatism, both its wisdom and failures. In what can only be described as a tour de force, Tyrrell chronicles the ebb and flow of contemporary politics from the Republican success in the ’94 congressional elections to the defeat in the 2008 presidential election.

Building on more than four decades of battles against the liberal orthodoxy at his home base in Indiana to the beltway in DC, Tyrrell has absorbed the critical lessons of political combat and uses them to great advantage in this book.

Despite an inclination to embrace conservative ideas and what Tyrrell calls the conservative “temperament,” he nonetheless includes a scathing indictment of conservatism as often “pinched by a smallness that has set the movement back and encouraged intramural squabbling.” Alas, based on my own political experience, this is an accurate portrayal.

Without the heavy handed club conservatives sometimes employ to attack media myrmidons, Tyrrell notes that gaffs of a truly amusing variety by President Obama and Vice President Biden are given scant attention by members of the press corps (pronounced as “core” for President Obama’s edification). Tyrrell recognizes the obvious bias, but doesn’t dwell on it; what he does dwell on is the difference between elites and the man and woman in the street, Mr and Mrs. John Q. Public. He recalls with nostalgia a time when there was genuine solidarity among conservatives, the height of what might be called the William F. Buckley era and the founding of National Review.

However, the political ascendency of conservatism in the 1950’s and ‘60’s occurred in large part because the movement was small, united and virtually powerless. Fragmentation insinuated itself into conservatism with the political success of the Reagan years. At that point YAF conservatives saw themselves as the genuine article as opposed to the arriviste neo-cons and the paleos of yesteryear. Liberals, as Tyrrell points out, have “silenced disagreement,” a conspicuous difference from conservatives where internal strife prevails. And yet even after Obama’s election, roughly twice as many Americans claim to be conservative as opposed to liberal, a legacy, I suspect, of first principles on which conservatism was founded. Nonetheless it is important to note, that many, if not most, of these conservatives are not registered Republicans.

What appears to enjoin liberal loyalty is a general cultural understanding ratified by moral sentiment, etiquette and reflexive cues. “Bush lied,” “Joseph McCarthy destroyed civil liberties,” “trickle down economic theory adversely affects the poor,” are homilies that drip from the lips of liberals without the slightest regard for historical accuracy or context. Here is the herd of independent thinkers incapable of nuanced thought. These views sculpted into the national culture through textbooks such as Howard Zinn’s A Peoples History of the United States, represent the conservative challenge for the future. Tyrrell describes it as overcoming “Kultursmog.”

A new generation of conservatives face a challenge their predecessors did not have to consider. Fifty years ago the ideas that threatened America came from outside our borders, now the threat is from within as the servants of a command economy are attempting to impose a behemoth government on every American. Communism may be dead, but leviathan is very much alive. Saul Alinsky and the children of radicalism he sired are persuaded big government helps the poor and downtrodden, but as conservatives understand, dividing the economy doesn’t multiply the wealth. A progressive tax designed to refashion the society doesn’t generate additional income, it merely redistributes it. As Abraham Lincoln noted, “You cannot make a poor man rich by making a rich man poor.”

It is difficult to convince youthful idealists that the road to serfdom (apologies to Hayek) is paved with good intentions. The conservative attitude is predicated on individualism and anti-utopianism, ideas that do not immediately awaken youthful enthusiasm. However, as the ship of state moves relentlessly down an ocean of hazards and icebergs, there will be many looking for a helmsman who can provide a different direction. As I see it, they need look no further than After The Hangover since R. Emmett Tyrrell has outlined a remarkably sensible agenda for the future with his policy prescriptions.

Without the slightest equivocation Tyrrell asserts his belief in American exceptionalism. At a time when “declinists” are on the rise, it is refreshing to read that with all our national imperfections the United States is still the beacon of hope for mankind. By contrast, last year during President Obama’s visit to Turkey, a reporter asked him “[Do] you subscribe, as many of your predecessors have, to the school of ‘American exceptionalism’ that sees America as uniquely qualified to lead the world, or do you have a slightly different philosophy.” President Obama replied. “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” In effect, if all are exceptional, exceptionalism doesn’t exist. Obama’s unprecedented position stands at the core of the liberal/radical agenda that Tyrrell so effectively dissects and refreshingly deflates.

As a conclusion, Tyrrell notes the nation’s political center is shaped by conservatism. There is little doubt that is true, but there is a major task ahead in reclaiming the culture from radical elitists who dominate it. That is the mission this book explores and the reason it should be read.

Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and author of the bookDecline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/.

Back to the Top

10/6/10: A Tea Party Beyond Boston

“They are extremists;” “they are pawns of the Republican party;” “they are revolutionaries,” so it goes with strident leftist attacks on Tea Party adherents. Alarmed at the expansion of the federal government since 2009 and frustrated by the Obama administration’s redistribution schemes, many Americans have taken to the streets.

Most of these people were apolitical before the intrusiveness of Obama political tactics. And, despite what many in the media assume, the majority of these Tea Parties are Independents and Democrats (Republicans constitute 48 percent of the total).

Since the protests began, liberal groups have tried to deny that this is a genuine grassroots movement. They contend that it is a creation of corporate interests and is motivated by racial hatred. But up till now, this effort to discredit the Tea Party has not worked.

In fact, from Delaware to New York Tea Partiers have defeated establishment Republican figures in primaries. Two days before the New York Republican primary Rick Lazio, the designated party candidate for governor, held a two point lead over Carl Paladino, the darling of the state Tea Partiers. To the surprise of the pundits, Paladino won by more than 30 percent.

Paladino’s electoral surprise was due in part to his bold assertions and Lazio’s lackluster campaign. But there were other explanations. Paladino captured the argument of irresponsible state spending. He brought New York politics to “the boiling point,” a condition that led some to call him “Crazy Carl.”

Yet the more he is denounced, the more his popularity grows. As the Tea Partiers see it, Paladino is the embodiment of the grass roots movement – outspoken, frustrated with big government and ready to wield a “big stick.”

Those who speak in his behalf are usually volunteers in local areas who represent a small organizing nucleus. This is by no means a carefully organized association; it is held together by a devotion to fiscal responsibility, limited government and personal liberty. If there is one issue that unites Tea Partiers it is opposition to Obamacare, the administration’s health care bill which relies on enormous expenditures, expansive government and a bureaucratic approach that limits personal liberty.

Despite the more general critique of present political conditions, the Tea Partiers also agree on several specific matters: Enactment of a flat tax; sunset provisions on laws passed by the Congress; constitutionality tests for all proposed bills; statutory caps on federal spending; imposition of a moratorium on earmarks and repeal of the proposed 2011 tax increases. Yet these positions do not constitute a separate party platform; they are merely the issues Tea Partiers employ for solidarity and as instruments for influencing the major parties. As one Tea Party acolyte noted, “The Tea Party movement is not about a party… it’s about finding candidates who are constitutionally minded and fiscally responsible… and helping them win.”

Whatever the actual intention, people like former President Bill Clinton seemed to equate the Tea Party rhetoric with the hatred that inspired the Oklahoma City bombing when he warned against “crossing the line” that separates anti-government protest from advocacy of violence. However, as someone who has attended Tea Party events across the country, I have found most adherents to be modest in their advocacy and responsible in their behavior, notwithstanding the occasional inflammatory statement. At no point have I ever heard racist commentary of a general nature or a specific racist allegation directed at President Obama. Even Vice President Biden cautioned against resorting to racist claims about the Tea Party.

By reflexively rejecting the Tea Party movement, Democratic Party candidates and office holders are alienating independents whose votes they often need to get elected. An ABC News/Washington Post voter opinion poll found that six in ten registered voters do not have faith in the president’s handling of the economy and many in this category are sympathetic to the Tea Party movement.

A Rasmussen poll found that 41 percent had a favorable impression of the movement and 46 percent believed it was beneficial for the nation (only 31 percent described it as “harmful”). It would seem that insulting the Tea Party hasn’t discredited it in the public imagination. On the contrary, the Tea Party has become the inspiration for grassroots political action across the country.

Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and author of the bookDecline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/.

Back to the Top

9/29/10: The End of Civility

In a recent conversation with a vendor, who I had not spoken to at any point in my attenuated life, my first name was employed. I realized at that moment that I now live in egalitarian fantasy land where familiarity is expected. I recoiled; afterall, this was a raid on my privacy. But it was more than that; in a strange way this was the latest manifestation of civility’s demise.

There have been several recent examples that confirm this opinion.

As a resident of the Financial Community in Manhattan I remember the 9/11 amputation of the World Financial Center as a scar in my memory bank. Those who lost their lives on the fateful day a decade ago made the former World Trade Center site hallowed ground. As a consequence, I have been outspoken about the plan to build a mosque in the shadow of this location, a decision I regard as a stain on the memory of those killed by radical Muslim conspirators.

Whether my position is correct or not however is besides the point. I have been smeared by Mayor Bloomberg as a bigot and compared to nineteenth century Know Nothings and lynch mobs from the Jim Crow era. This is a calumny. Moreover, it is a breakdown of civility. If the mayor is entitled to First Amendment rights, why should they be denied to me?

It is instructive that in this era disagreements lead to insults. Debate and discussion have been relegated to anachronistic concerns. And a mayor who should know better can not contain his ideological fervor and disregard for the opinion of others.

Similarly, several recent books contend that manners harbor tacit power relationships. Courtesy, argue these authors, undermines equality. What these authors really mean is that challenging manners is an appropriate expression of the lowest common denominator. A refusal to cover your mouth when coughing in a crowded subway train is a provocation, a sign that one doesn’t care whether he infects you with his germs. Yet what was once assumed, now must be explained.

For most of my adult life hats were passé, a sartorial expression of an earlier generation. But recently hats appear to be back in fashion. However, in the past, a gentleman took off his hat in-doors. He might even doff his hat in a crowded elevator. Now hats are an adornment, never taken off in or out of doors. Baseball caps are worn as rally caps – upside down, backwards or on the side. Rather than worn rakishly, the hat is worn clownishly. Some might call this inventive; I call it absurd.

Even more absurd is reality t.v. with programs like “Jersey Shore” where moral filters are voided. The expectation is that the principals will say whatever is on their minds, mostly sex, body piercing, drinking and getting high. This is not only t.v. for the mindless, it is t.v. for the morally vacuous.

Then there is language contamination. So many people I meet think that it is appropriate to use the “f – bomb” as an adjectival expression for any deeply felt emotion. Sometimes I think that without that word, expression wouldn’t be possible. In part, this is the egalitarian spirit gone wild. It can also be explained by an impoverishment of language skill. But mostly, I believe, it is a habit, a reflex that suggests civil discourse is unnecessary. This is not solely the province of sailors any longer. Middle class housewives, high school students, salesmen all partake. The “f” contagion is ubiquitous.

Then there is my pet peeve: drivers who insist on being in the left lane even though they will not accelerate beyond 30 miles per hour in 55 mph speed zones. These hogs of the road do not acknowledge passing rules, nor does traffic congestion bother them. They are oblivious to the rules of the road and, most importantly, do not care about others on the highway.

These illustrations are merely a few of the ways civility is in dissuetude. Clearly societies do not rise and fall on the basis of civility. But life is simply more pleasant when conversation is civil and people are courteous to one another. If this seems exaggerated or that I’m off track, ask a subway rider how he feels about the breakdown in civility. I hope he doesn’t drop the f-bomb in response.

Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and author of the bookDecline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/.

Back to the Top

9/22/10: A Vision of Economic Opportunity

Economic opportunity is akin to motherhood: everyone espouses it and everyone believes it is essential. But in the end its forms are variegated and it is not always quite what it seems.

For many egalitarians opportunity should result in similar outcomes. Yet equal opportunity is not the same, nor can it be the same, as everyone crossing the metaphorical finish line at the same time.

What stands in the way of economic egalitarianism is individual liberty. As long as people are free to pursue their goals, the notion of equality as John Rawls among others has defined it, cannot be achieved.

As a consequence, egalitarian goals will inevitably be constrained by freedom. Hence the utopian idea of equality belongs in the annals of fiction, not fact.

Opportunity enters the economic equation, as a way to modify the obvious differences in performances borne of individualism. Societies cannot mandate equality since biology also militates against social engineering, but they can attempt to create a similar metaphorical starting line.

Hence the road to social cohesion is paved with the building blocks for opportunity. Offering every person an education is one such manifestation of this effort. Clearly some will be able to take advantage of this opportunity and others will not, but those who do not, cannot claim the government is unfair or the social order inequitable.

While education is the sine qua non for success, it is by no means the only way to achieve it. Micro loans provided by government can serve as a catalyst for poor people who are eager to start business enterprises. Giving people title to their home, even shanties, often provides an incentive for the generation of wealth.

Of course a major component of the American dream is education. As a consequence, in the United States there is a college for everyone including those who should not be in college at all. However, it is notable that if college passes you by for one reason or another, there are second chance, even third chance opportunities. There is the realization that the higher education experience isn’t reserved for eighteen to twenty-two year olds.

Ultimately the most any civilization can do to level the playing field in the pursuit of success is offer learning opportunities whether they be higher education, vocational education or rudimentary education. The person who cannot read is handicapped for life. And in the modern age, the person who cannot negotiate the world of cyberspace, will be limited as well.

As the Old Testament notes, “all men are created equal.” However, they are not endowed with the same talents, nor are they born into families that can provide the same opportunities. As I see it, great societies should provide opportunities and in the process allow dreams to be realized.

Stifling dreams is indeed stifling progress. For those places with rigid class barriers and an immovable hierarchical structure, tomorrow can only be seen from the rear view mirror. Those nations that offer opportunity and the chance for the imagination to soar will unquestionably inherit the future.

Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and author of the bookDecline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/.

Back to the Top

9/15/10: Facing The Reality of A Religion of Peace

Ignorant opinion is unquestionably on the rise and, from my perspective; there are dozens of examples daily that prove my claim. However the most absurd of these examples, the one employed by government officials, academics, and political candidates, is “Islam is a religion of peace.”

Let me parse this remarkable statement. It is agreed by people who know nothing about Islam that most Muslims do not commit violent or terrorist acts, ergo the religion is peaceful. But that is a classic non sequitur. Most Germans in the 1930’s did not embrace the excesses of Nazism. Most Chinese did not subscribe to the slaughter of millions during Mao’s Long March. Most Russians did not support Stalin’s purges.

It usually takes a minority to start a revolution or “killing fields.” The key feature of radicalization in any religion or political movement is the silence or seeming acquiesce of the majority who are mainly moderate.

When the moderates say I didn’t realize what was happening or it is not any of my business, problems result. A minority controls a majority when the minority acts and the majority waits. It may indeed be true that the majority wants to go about its business without resort to extremism, but that is irrelevant. It is the meaningless fluff that makes us feel better and is meant to diminish a vision of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is the fanatics influence history more than the moderates and, at the moment, the fanatics rule Islam. Invariably well meaning critics of Islam argue the religion needs an enlightenment, a reformation, a period of reevaluation. But overlooked by these critics is that Islam had this moment a century ago and it resulted in the ascendency of Wahhabism, an orthodox interpretation of the most extreme elements of the religion.

There is little doubt the Verses of The Sword and other Medina related suras in the Koran promote violence in order to promote the religion. Many Muslims do not read those passages or take them seriously or regard them as a call to action. However, many do. And these are the fanatics who engage in suicide bombings, beheadings and honor killings. Moreover, because these are the activists in the Islamic faith, they take over mosque after mosque and spread their noxious views.

As I see it, the peaceful majority, the moderates the press representatives invariably reference, are cowed and extraneous. In Rwanda, where bloodshed and butchery reigned for a decade, one could argue Rwandans were basically peace loving people. But the peace loving are made irrelevant through silence. That is the incontrovertible lesson of history.

The group that counts, the group that launches historical trends, is the extremist that threatens everything we hold dear. To deny that is to deny a reality that allows the fanatic to control our very existence.

Needless to say, it is difficult to come to grips with this condition. The comforting notion that most Muslims are just like us won’t fly when one considers who are those moving historical forces. What this adds up to may be difficult to contemplate, but, as I see it, it is better to confront that reality now than at a time when it is too late to resist. Claude Bernard once noted in a somewhat different but useful context that “The secret of function is apparent to us if we look hard enough.” My guess is we’ve been spending more time on delusional ideas, what we would like to believe, than simply looking hard at Islam.

Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and author of the bookDecline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/.

Back to the Top

9/8/10: Bush v. Obama Doctrines

The George W. Bush foreign policy doctrine was predicated on three principles outlined in a host of speeches from 2002 to 2008. These included: challenging radical Islamist havens abroad (what Vice President Cheney called “draining the swamp”); building democratic institutions as a moderating influence in tyrannical states that harbor radical Islamic factions and preemption (attacking those intent on doing harm to us before that harm is inflicted).

Whether one agrees with these principles or not, they were the guiding light for the president’s foreign policy. What is most notable, however, is the dramatic shift from the Bush to the Obama Doctrine. If Bush placed an unyielding faith in democracy as a source of conversion, Obama relies instead on transnational associations, what some have described as the end of national sovereignty.

As I see it the Obama doctrine has four central themes each in its way related to diminished national sovereignty.

The first is a reliance on multilateral organizations such as the United Nations. Elevating the UN Ambassador’s role to a cabinet position was a tell-tale sign. Most significantly, channeling U.S. goals through the Security Council, notwithstanding the veto of any one nation, has been a central focus of this administration. This is the case in the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, as well as the attempt to prevent the nuclear ambition of Iran.

Second the Human Rights Commission. Despite the fact, the commission is populated by the most egregious abusers of human rights, the Obama administration reversed the decision of previous presidents and joined this organization, claiming it was in the national interest to monitor cases the commission is considering.

Third, the Obama team believes it must apologize for America’s previous foreign policy decisions. From Berlin to Cairo, President Obama has made it clear a new dawn is rising in which the mistakes of the past will be redressed. Instead of an unequivocal defense of the national interest, the administration offers mea culpas. The assertion of American power and its stabilizing influence has been subordinated to multilateral understanding and the appeasement of self declared enemies.

Fourth, the government’s suit against Arizona legislation which calls for the enforcement of the law against illegal aliens, is a demonstration of the belief that borders do not matter and sovereignty is in the eye of the beholder. If a state is unable to secure its border against illegal entrants because of a federal law suit, the message is unalloyed: this administration will not support state efforts to defend its borders.

The impetus for these positions is the belief that globalization, i.e. a reliance on multilateral arrangements, will provide greater security for the U.S. than the unilateral assertion of American will. That there isn’t a shred of evidence to support the theory is irrelevant since true believers on the Obama team are pursuing this agenda relentlessly.

For those of us who believe only American influence can serve as a stabilizing international force, these are tenebritic days. The sovereignty Americans fought and died for is now held hostage to the Obama Doctrine.

Of course, supporters of this Doctrine will argue America does not have the resources to be “the world’s policeman.” Alas, it is not the lack of resources, but the lack of will that ultimately determines policy directions. We cannot do everything, but we can surely do something.

The ultimate foundation of a free society is a binding cohesive sentiment. But the difference between the Bush Doctrine and the Obama Doctrine suggests a people divided and a foreign policy in disarray. Ortega y Gasset once noted, “To create a concept is to leave reality behind.” As I see it our foreign policymakers need a dose of reality and the suppression of theory. Doctrines should be based on something more than what you would like to see happen. That may be the most important lesson of this moment.

Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and author of the bookDecline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/.

Back to the Top

9/1/10: Assemblywoman Jacobs and The Death of New York

Rhoda Jacobs is a Democratic Assistant Speaker of the New York State Assembly representing a district in Brooklyn. She, like many of her colleagues, puts a premium on constituent service. In fact, that is her calling card and her campaign mantra.

In most respects she employs her position to help those in her neighborhood and does so with understandable campaign goals in mind. For Ms. Jacobs governing and campaigns are indistinguishable, a condition she shares with her Assembly brethren.

What Ms. Jacobs does not fully appreciate is that someone has to pay for the services she is eager to promote. Many of her constituents, love the services, but most are in the dark when it comes to determining actual cost. I would guess that Ms. Jacobs, despite her elevated Assembly position, cannot determine cost either. In fact, I’m confident about this assertion.

A recent letter Ms. Jacobs sent to one of her constituents crossed my desk. It says implicitly that the Assemblywoman doesn’t appreciate the tax burden necessary to sustain the government services she is eager to promote and it says explicitly that she will use her office to extend these services.

Let Ms. Jacobs speak for herself since what follows is from her letter:

“My office can provide you and your family with information and assistance on a wide variety of issues including housing, landlord/tenant disputes, unemployment, employment referrals, consumer advocacy, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, utility services, food stamps, and food pantry information, voter registration and much more. We can also help you apply for benefits for which you might be entitled.”

As Assemblywoman Jacobs notes “Especially during this blessed month (Ramadan), I extend to you the services of my office to help you to resolve issues and problems that may be causing you hardship.”

However, there is a problem, almost everyone has issues and problems causing hardship. Are all who fall into this category eligible for Ms. Jacobs assistance? And if so, who is going to pay the bill? Think about this for a moment and consider the list of services: healthcare, food, lodging, retirement insurance, employment and “much more.” This is a great country, but it was also once a rich country, a matter very much in doubt because of pols like Ms. Jacobs.

Austerity doesn’t get you elected. It is not surprising that the Assemblywoman’s office offers voter registration information. Do you think the person receiving these benefits will vote for Ms. Jacobs opponent? Will she even have an opponent? And if so, will that person explain the dangers of an expansive government in inexorable combat with the private sector? The more government expands to accommodate Ms. Jacobs constituents, the more capital is driven out of the private economy until you have an economy Lady Thatcher once described as “running out of other people’s money.”

Ms. Jacobs may not realize the fact that New York State is insolvent and it is insolvent because legislators continue to spend and offer services the state cannot afford. But if legislators want to act responsibly and engage in retrenchment, their constituents, now addicted to the state welfare system for their very existence, would turn on them. As a consequence, the state system is self fulfilling: Give constituents what they want and they in turn will keep you in office.

But the jig is up. The state is broke. In New York City one percent of the population pays 55 percent of the taxes and that one percent can flee and is fleeing. Florida without a state tax looks more appealing every day. Of course, Ms. Jacobs doesn’t care, her goals are short term. She votes routinely against any budget cuts. As she would note, “I’m merely looking out for my constituents.” Alas, that’s true. She is also like George Washington Plunkett of yesteryear, a believer in “the greatest good for the greatest number. Starting, of course, with number one.” Yes, she must get elected before she can engage in her “good deeds.” A few more years with Ms. Jacobs and her majority colleagues in the Assembly and their job will be to turn out the lights when the last New Yorker gets on I-95 heading south for Florida.

Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and author of the bookDecline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/.

Back to the Top

8/25/10: The Cliché As Policy

Several weeks ago I attended and participated in a conference devoted to anti-terrorist strategies. MI5 and FBI officials were in attendance as were former terrorists. The meetings were open and reasonably well attended. Yet when it was over, all I could recall was the reliance on clichés as policy recommendations.

One presumptive expert delivered a paper on the “3Es,” education, engagement, enforcement. While I agreed with his sentiment, there was nothing in his paper to which action could be attached. I kept asking myself what is the nature of this education and how effective can it be in opposing theological arguments? Could the relativism and multicultural views that dominate elite circles in the West be converted into logical or emotional instruments to curb terrorism?

Similarly, what does engagement mean? Interfaith seminars that I have attended are based on the premise that those in the Judeo Christian world have an obligation to understand Islam. While that may be necessary, interfaith dialogue, it seems to me, should be reciprocal. I assume that Muslims would want to develop an appreciation of the Judeo Christian traditions as well as the reverse. Yet that condition rarely prevails. If engagement is a one way street, how can it possibly be successful?

Enforcement is yet another cliché that relies on the obvious, but is activated by obfuscation. If terrorists break the law, if they are intent on murder and mayhem, the full weight of the law should be applied. However, legal technicalities often trump common sense. As a consequence, justice is a matter of circumstance and legal wrangling.

It is also the case that President Obama often conflates cliché and policy. Additional insurance for the unemployed, for example, is described as an essential benefit for the needy. How one pays for this benefit or the net effect on the economy are matters rarely disclosed. Perhaps the president doesn’t know, but the barrenness of the commentary is palpable.

On the foreign policy front there is a continuing refrain that smacks of a hackneyed bromide: “We will not tolerate an Iran with nuclear weapons.” Tolerate or not, the Iranian regime has, according to our own intelligence estimates, enough fissionable material to produce several nuclear weapons even though these bombs may not yet be attached to a missile fleet. Of what possible value is this cliché when it doesn’t speak to actual policy and doesn’t conform to current conditions?

That is precisely the problem associated with clichés: they don’t address real policy concerns. They may offer public reassurance; they may even be comforting. But the actual effect, more often than not, is deception.

During the ecological crisis in the Gulf of Mexico charges between the government and British Petroleum were hurled to and fro. When it appeared as if President Obama was negligent or hesitant to act, he responded by noting “I’ve been on top of this matter (the leak) from the outset.” If one were to parse this statement, it becomes apparent it is yet another reflexive cliché. What does it mean to be “on top of the matter”? If the president was in charge, he was unable to provide guidance on how to deal with the issue; if he was “on top” why was there a sixteen day delay before action was taken? Who was responsible for the deception about the amount of oil escaping into the sea?

Clichés can get you into trouble. They may strike a responsive chord, but that doesn’t obviate the ambiguity. Overused expressions have their place in communication, but rarely in policy discussions. The problem, of course, is that politicians reference them because they are convenient, words with familiarity. That the words may not have any meaning or worthwhile application is often lost in the midst of debate and extemporaneous commentary.

For those who listen carefully, identify the tell-tale signs, those gotcha moments. If enough thoughtful listeners could heed the signs, cliché driven policy statements might be infrequently used. I don’t expect them to disappear. After all, they are as familiar as “go along to get along” or “happy as a lark” or “fool me once…” The list goes on as does the way to conceal the policy steps necessary to address an issue.

Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and author of the bookDecline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/.

Back to the Top

8/18/10: What We Think And The Arabs Believe

In a recent 2010 Arab Public Opinion Poll conducted by Zogby International and the University of Maryland for the Brookings Institution one can get a glimpse of Arab opinion in the so-called moderate countries of Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Included in the findings are the following points:

• Arab views hopeful about the Obama administration policy in the Middle East declined from 51 to 16 percent between 2009 and 2010, while those discouraged rose from 15 to 63 percent,
• Those thinking Israel is a huge threat is at 88 percent (down slightly from 95 percent in 2008)
• The idea that the United States is the main threat to Arab countries and societies declined from 88 percent under President George W. Bush to 77 percent under President Obama
• The Iranian threat grew from 7 percent in 2008 to 13 percent in 2009 and down to 10 percent in 2010.
• Asked which foreign leader is most admired, almost 70 percent name an Islamist or a supporter of extremist forces. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan received endorsement from 20 percent, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez 13 percent, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 12 percent, Hezballah’s Hassan Naarallah 9 percent, Syrian President Bahar al Assad 7 percent and Osama bin Laden 6 percent.

Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and author of the bookDecline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/.

Back to the Top

8/11/10: Thought Control At Augusta State University

It often seems as if political correctness hasn’t any boundaries. Recently an Augusta State University counseling student filed a lawsuit against her university claiming it violated her First Amendment rights when she was allegedly told to change her traditional Christian views on homosexuality or leave.

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) filed suit on behalf of Jennifer Keaton seeking to prevent the expulsion from her master’s degree program.

According to David French, the ADF attorney representing Keaton, “They (college officials) made a cascading series of presumptions about the kind of a counselor she would be and have consequently… tried to force her to change her beliefs. It’s symbolic of an educational system that has lost its way.”

The suit claims that program officials were upset that Ms. Keaton stated her belief that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and not a “state of living.” According to the suit, the university wants her to undergo “thought reform” intended to alter her perception. Most significantly, she faces expulsion unless she complies.

To exacerbate matters within the department, Ms. Keaton argued the “conversion therapy” for homosexuals should be entertained, a point of view that departed significantly from accepted norms within the program and according to program officials, from “psychological research.” It is noteworthy that the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) defends the practice Keaton advocates and notes opponents of conversion therapy are often criticized by politically motivated biases, albeit, in fairness, the reverse accusation might also be made.

The Augusta State University counseling program required Ms. Keaton to attend at least three pro-gay sensitivity training courses, read pro-gay peer reviewed journals and participate in Augusta’s gay pride parade. She was also asked to familiarize herself with the Association of Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Issues in “Counseling” webpage, which defines homosexual behavior as healthy and an appropriate way of life. In addition, her professors required “a two page reflection” each month on how her participation in pro-gay activities “has influenced her beliefs” and how future clients might benefit from her experience.

Without getting into the merits of the case and the claims in the lawsuit, it seems to me that if even a portion of the allegation is accurate the Augusta counseling program is engaged in a form of thought control that hasn’t any place in the Academy. As I see it, if there are diametrically different positions on the nature – nurture argument regarding homosexuality both points of view – with empirical evidence marshaled for each side – should be entertained and given a fair hearing. It is not as if one position is dispositive, notwithstanding the position taken by the counseling program.

In far too many instances a university orthodoxy is confused with the rational exegesis of an idea. Proponents of the orthodoxy act as if they are the American version of the Red Guard, incapable of even giving a fair hearing to an alternative point of view; in fact, often going to the extreme of requiring a reeducation program.

Here is the rub: university life predicated on the free and open exchange of opinion has often become a filtering mechanism for politically correct ideas. Those who do not share this view are chastised or, in Ms. Keaton’s case, put through a thought control exercise.

It is interesting that Ms. Keaton’s religiously based view of homosexuality is disregarded, even though one could argue her First Amendment rights are being violated. In the way the university is constituted today, some designated groups have more rights than others. You don’t need a program to know which groups fall into that category; the university catalogue is likely to offer that information.

Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and author of the bookDecline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/.

Back to the Top

8/4/10: The Mosque On Sacred Ground

September 11 lives for downtown residents of New York. The World Trade Center site is a constant reminder of human malevolence. It also speaks to political incompetence, of politicians compromised by double dealing and arrogance.

While the site shows signs of rebirth and a tribute will be built to remind Americans of the 2800 innocent people who lost their lives one crystal clear morning in September, an insult deep and penetrating is being launched two blocks away on Park Place with the building of a mosque that will overlook the World Trade Center site.

Mayor Bloomberg and the Downtown Community Board (by a vote of 29 to 1) approved of this religious center citing freedom of religion arguments. What they overlook, however, is far more persuasive then First Amendment defenses.

Freedom of religion like any freedom is not absolute; freedom is defined by limitations. Indians are not free to use peyote indiscriminately in religious services since drug use violates the law of the land. And religion that promotes hate or is an incitement to violence should be and can be curbed.

In the case of the downtown mosque several questions remain unanswered. If a mosque can be built anywhere, why is it being constructed adjacent to the former World Trade Center? Although denials abound, the title of the mosque, Cordoba House reveals a great deal. In Cordoba, Muslims built a mosque on a Catholic church as a symbol of their triumph in Spain. That symbolism may be evident at the New York site as well.

It is also instructive that the provenance of the $100 million for the project remains unknown. My guess – based on many global examples – is that Saudi petro dollars are behind the underwriting. If true, this mosque is likely to promote Wahhabist beliefs – the most radical brand of Islam.

The promoters of the mosque contend they are Americans who love their country and eschew violence of any kind. Yet they refuse to condemn Hamas and refuse to recognize it as a terrorist organization.

What this episode demonstrates is a form of liberal myopia, an unwillingness to recognize the optics in this situation. For Muslims around the world who deplore the West, specifically the “Great U.S. Demon,” this mosque is the symbol of victory. It shows that America doesn’t have the intestinal fortitude to resist its enemies. It is as if a Shinto temple were to be constructed at the Arizona Memorial or a Nazi cultural center were built at Auschwitz. There are lines to be drawn on the matter of taste, patriotism and appropriateness that transcend reflexive adherence to the First Amendment.

As far as I know, no one is arguing against the construction of mosques albeit when a religion promotes hate against other faiths, believes apostates and other believers are less than human, argues against the separation of church and state, and is eager to undermine the Constitution, an argument can be made that this religion engages in sedition and should be banned or, at least, censured.

At this point, the pols have spoken. The mosque most likely will be built. But for those of us who reside downtown that building will not be an expression of tolerance, but rather a wound on the city and the nation. It will represent despair; it will serve as a permanent insult to those New Yorkers who lost their lives a decade ago.

In the midst of sacred territory there will be a constant reminder that those who despise our way of life and everything this republic stands for can use our hard fought liberties to desecrate this land. No matter what Bloomberg says, this is what New Yorkers will be reminded of whenever they pass the mosque on Park Place. As significantly, this is also what radical Muslims will see whenever television cameras pan to this religious edifice. What a shame; alas, what a disgrace.

Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and author of the bookDecline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/.

Back to the Top

7/28/10: The Arts In The Obama Age

From the origin of the National Endowment for the Arts during the Johnson administration to the election of President Obama the arts community was united in its opposition to censorship. The argument that prevailed is that the NEA should not use funding to restrict artistic expression or deny support for art that might offend bourgeois sensibility.

When a significant segment of the public was outraged to learn that the NEA provided funding for Andres Serrano’s “Piss Christ,” the arts community rose as one decrying censorship over efforts to cut funding for his “art.” The arts community was equally upset at the suggestion that government policymakers might influence the content of its art work. As the arts’ world sees it, the government should pay, but should remain silent about artistic content.

During the George H.W. Bush administration the NEA required grant recipients to sign an anti-obscenity pledge, which sparked a spate of angry comments from the arts community and a generally hostile stance to President Bush.

Now, however, the worm has turned. The NEA under President Obama has expressed a desire to use the agency as a propaganda instrument to promote the administration positions. And astonishingly, the arts world seems all too amendable to political advocacy as part and parcel of its work.

Patrick Courrielche, a film-maker, exposed an Obama administration attempt to use the NEA to build support for the president’s agenda. At a White House meeting artists were encouraged to promote arts activities that “can be used for a positive change.” That, of course, translates into advocacy for presidential policies in healthcare, environment and energy, education, and community service. As Buffy Wicks, deputy director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, noted, “We’re going to come at you with some specific ‘asks’ here.”

One might have assumed that the “asks” to the artistic community would lead to public outrage. After all, the fiercely independent artists are being told that promoting the president’s agenda might result in NEA grants. In fact, it appears that tax payer money is being employed to enlist artists in a promotional campaign for the president. It is hard to imagine what kind of journalistic explosion would have occurred if the erstwhile Bush administration tried anything like this.

NEA funding has always been controversial since there are critics – I count myself among them – who believe the government should not be funding the arts at all. To avoid controversy that emerged from Serrano’s work and Robert Mapplethorpe’s homoerotic photography, the NEA allocated funds to state and local arts agencies where there was somewhat less chance controversial decisions world emerge.

But that is changing with the Obama team. The Stimulus Package, for example, includes an additional $50 million for the arts, presumably to maintain employment in this field. The DC Examiner, however, points out that seven of the groups receiving this NEA funding had representatives on the Obama campaign’s Arts Policy Committee.

In what seems like the very distant past, the NEA explained that it could not interfere with the artworks of those who received grants from the agency. Dana Gioia, former NEA chairman, wrote “the NEA does not dictate arts policy to the United States.”

Of course, under President Obama that is precisely what it does. Is a culture czar far fetched, one who assures us that the arts are needed to enhance presidential actions? Is the Obama team setting the stage for its own Leni Reifenshtal? Where are the artists who celebrate their adversarial role?

Oprah Winfrey recently produced a video urging Americans to take a “presidential pledge” by volunteering “to make a difference.” The lead singer of the Red Hot Chili Peppers says, “I pledge to be of service to Barack Obama.”

Where is artistic defiance when you need it? The comments by the arts community are dripping with hypocrisy. Artistic expression in the Obama era appears to be little more than a compliant political instrument. 1984 may be a quarter of a century in the past, but the sentiments in this book indicate it is back to the future as Obama pays artists to propagandize on his behalf. It is hard to believe this is happening in the United States with the willing acceptance of the artistic community, but there you have it. The ghost of Hermann Goring lives in this Obama White House.

Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and author of the bookDecline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/.

Back to the Top

7/21/10: The Common Man and Common Sense

If there was one overarching goal of the Marxist project, it was refashioning human nature. Whether religion or politics, the Marxists argued that an obsession with God and a belief in national identity had to be challenged and defeated.

An ideology based on the common man ultimately had little confidence in his beliefs. Marxists maintained they were endowed with an understanding others didn’t possess. While Marxism is dead; this distaste for the opinion of the common man persists.

Instead of Marxism, it now takes the form of expert opinion or what I would call the fraternity of experts who are eager to regulate human behavior. These are the new progressives, many of them former Marxists and many who believe that American patriotism should be subordinated to transnational loyalty. Some call these people liberal internationalists who rely on U.N. prerogatives and other international bodies for guidance.

On the home front this fraternity of experts has answers for everything that ails us. If health care is a problem, the experts contend a government engineered system must be put in place, rather than rely on the aggregate intentions of the marketplace.

Similarly, if global warming is a problem – a somewhat contentious point – government regulations should be imposed through a “limited carbon footprint” rather than rely on educated impulses to deliver restraint. The expert always believes public choices are ignorant and therefore decisions must be imposed.

Yet another recent example is the government imposed minimum wage. It is not enough to argue that the market, which is the combined wisdom of the consumer, is sufficient to determine wages. The experts know better; they actually think they can determine the point at which wages meet labor needs.

Of course the United States is not alone in producing members of the expert fraternity. The French are expert at soi disant experts. And the European Union is the exemplar of expert opinion so confident in its assertions that it seeks to regulate everything from truck tonnage to the size of lawn mowers. Moreover, the Union intends to eliminate national loyalty through the imposition of a transnational entity which does not represent the will of the people, but rather the experts (read: bureaucrats) residing in Brussels.

It is instructive that from the ashes of Marxism has emerged a class of elitists not unlike the former members of the Soviet Communist party. They knew what was best for the citizens of Russia and the expert fraternity knows what’s best for us.

Former Democratic candidate for president John Edwards liked to lecture about two Americas, the privileged and the poor. But this quasi-Marxist theme does not describe the real two Americas: one, managed by experts who believe they possess superior knowledge that translates into engineered regulations and the second, the accumulated wisdom of common sense embodied in the common man.

How can elites demonstrate their “superior” wisdom if they are restrained? How can experts flaunt their expertise if their plans for us are rejected?

As I see it, the expert fraternity should be treated with suspicion. The very fact that it distrusts the common man should be cause to distrust it. So when the new big idea emerges from the tombs of government, beware. The expert who wants to regulate distrusts you and your ability to decide anything for yourself. Directly related to the common man is common sense. Although the phrase “common sense” is used reflexively without any real consideration of its etymology, it is the expression of common--generally held-—customs, traditions and manners, the backbone of society.

In this society, common sense refers to conduct grounded in sound judgment, free of emotion and ideological passion. The salutary effects of a thought process rooted in the national patrimony makes “common sense” a basic tenet of American life. To the extent common sense is in short supply, the bonds to the past are being loosened, if not severed.

An attachment to common sense is like belief in common law—the unwritten, customary norms that evolve over centuries—the countervailing force against political and social convulsions, the balance wheel in society.

For most of American history political ideas were evaluated on a common sense barometer. However lofty the ideas, they were invariably tested against the common sense standard. It is, therefore, not surprising that common sense has served as a magnificent bulwark against revolution and until very recently revolutionary zeal of the kind that periodically afflicts France has not been a factor in American politics.

In thinking about the future it is imperative that common sense embodying the national tradition be retained as a guidepost for generations to come. If the cultural continuum is interrupted, society pays dearly in the form of moral confusion. Common sense is an instrument for preserving and promoting the moral principles on which the nation is founded. But it is not a goal in its own right.

Common sense is the north star of social intercourse; it is not however, the constellation of stars that comprise moral sentiment and religious tradition. Common sense is a necessary but not sufficient condition for social order, a point made by George Washington in his Farewell Address.

A danger within our democratic republic is that citizens often believe that freedom of choice can be interpreted as complete freedom of action, that any act not condemned is thereby sanctioned. It is the combination of common sense along with moral beliefs rooted in religion that represents a counter weight to the natural temptation for expansive freedom as license.

Reason is not omniscient. The edifice of social order is built on a foundation of commonly accepted moral principles, Descartes to the contrary notwithstanding.

If one accepts that human nature tends toward evil—what further evidence from history is needed to demonstrate this premise—an emphasis on custom, accepted rules, tradition, and family are the moderating influences that create social equilibrium.

An ability to distinguish between good and evil—the hallmark of education for Thomas Jefferson—assumes an ability to apply common sense and moral judgment. But in a complex world of moral relativism and a natural inclination for ever expanding freedom of expression, there is a social tension between consciousness and conscience. Mankind has the ability to make choices which is both an opportunity for reaching new horizons and a pitfall leading to degradation.

The book of Proverbs maintains “when there is no vision, a people perish,” but that vision must be framed by morality, common sense and traditional norms. National spirit may soar, but it helps if the citizen’s view is planted firmly in the soil of experience, experience that is handed down from parent to child, from teacher to student as common sense.

Existentialists in our midst often fail to appreciate the experience of the past. They search in vain for a tabula rasa on which to imprint utopian goals. For them, history is merely a dream from which they will awaken. Fortunately for the nation, this position is restricted to universities and other warrens of received wisdom.

Common sense is being challenged today, but it is not easily expunged. Like folkways, it exists in stories told to children and the guidance offered by parents.

The United States has the capability and responsibility to preserve and transmit the moral principles that gave this new nation vitality by leading the individual and the public through the thickets of moral confusion and serving as a barrier against descent into the abyss.

This is not easily done, but with a subtle hand, conviction in our legacy and the application of common sense, the past can be a handmaiden of an exalted future vision.

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

7/14/10: Oliver Stone and Hugo Chavez

In what can only be considered the view of a misguided dupe Oliver Stone has released his pro-Hugo Chavez film, “South of the Border.” The Socialist International (SI), not exactly the precinct of Milton Friedman, reports that the oil-rich Chavez is suppressing dissent, interfering with press freedom, mismanaging the economy and destabilizing the region.

One might assume that SI would defend the Venezuelan ruler, but instead this organization argues Chavez is hurting the very poor people he has vowed to represent. Chavez does have his American supporters, e.g. Mark Floyd at the F.C.C., and Mark Weisbrot of the Soros supported Center for Economic and Policy Studies. None, however, are as devoted to Chavez as Stone.

Stone has directed a festschrift that has only a passing relationship to the truth. He relies on the husband of a Chavez government employee who misrepresents many of the facts surrounding the Chavez government. Stone neglects to point out the 30 percent inflation rate, the highest on the continent, or the deepening recession brought about by his incompetent management. Chavez has even abandoned thousands of tons of food in shipping containers despite widespread food scarcity. Most noteworthy is the suppression of dissent and the intimidation of minorities such as the centuries old Jewish community.

Caracas is characterized by a climate of insecurity and fear, conditions that Stone has chosen to ignore. Chavez has subverted democratic procedures while seizing control of the oil industry, electrical production, steel and construction industries, agriculture, telecommunications and banking. He exercises his power through the take-over of private businesses and manipulation of the election laws, unaffected by modulated criticism. On the foreign policy front Chavez is just as confrontational. He has been a leading supporter of FARC, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia and has signed several pacts for the exchange of military material with Iran. At an event for Syrian president Bashar al Assad, Chavez denounced Israel as a genocidal government that is “a common enemy,” a murderous arm of the Yankee empire. Statements of this kind and continual harassment forced the head of the Jewish community, Rabbi Brenner, to leave Venezuela.

Yet despite the evidence and the arguments of eyewitnesses, Stone and his collaborator Mark Weisbrot, who co-wrote the screenplay, insist the charges against Chavez are “nonsense.” They contend that U.S. media have unfairly depicted Chavez as a dictator; oligarch and friend of terrorists, even through Chavez himself defended ties to FARC and military agreements with Iran.

Asked by the New York Times to explain factual inconsistencies in the film and the failure to acknowledge fair criticism of Chavez’s human rights record, Tariq Ali, another script writer, said, “It’s hardly a secret that we support the other side. It’s an opinionated documentary.” Of course, he could have said it’s a propaganda vehicle designed to sanitize the actions of the dictatorial Chavez regime.

This new Stone feature comes on the heels of Stone’s usual anti-American refrain in film after film. According to Stone Wall Street is filled with amoral, greedy entrepreneurs, the CIA plotted to kill JFK and, the U.S. deserves to be defeated in war. Never mind that Stone has enjoyed wealth beyond the imagination of Croesus, undeserved fame and status for his obsessive conspiracy theories. He is an exemplar of a new breed: the critic who achieves fame and fortune for attacking the government that affords him freedom to attack.

If Stone were ever successful in achieving his goals, he would put himself in the position of irrelevance. It is a good thing for him that America remains resilient. If that weren’t the case, Stone would soon be out of work.

Herbert London is president of the Hudson Institute and the author of the newly published book Decline and Revival in Higher Education.

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

7/7/10: The Wild Turkish Card

The arrival of the USS Harry Truman Strike Group in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea and its war games with France and Israel, as well as reinforcements for American forces in Azerbajan (on the Iran border) could be mere saber rattling or a prelude to an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Whatever the motive, it is also clear that Turkey, as a NATO member, has access to a wide array of American military technology that could reveal our aims to adversaries in the Middle East. With a dramatic shift in its political orientation and increasingly close ties to Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran, Turkey has the potential to cause great damage to American regional interests and even forestall possible military action.

Yet the Obama administration has shown little interest in the radical reorientation with Turkey and its relationship to NATO according to a JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) report. The recent arrest of past and present military figures who are defenders of secularism should have promoted comment from the White House. Instead, there has been conspicuous silence. Similarly, the Turkish role with the Gaza flotilla and the inflammatory rhetoric that emanated from the Turkish corridors of power received very little attention from the State Department.

Clearly the Obama team does not want to jeopardize its alliance with Turkey, but it is also clear that Turkish intelligence services are working overtime to separate the military from Israel and former western allies. From the U.S. perspective, a key concern is whether these moves lead to the sharing of information with our enemies, information that could undermine any action against Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah.

It should be noted that Turkey has the third largest air force in NATO with 230 F-16s. It has several refueling tankers, four AWACs to direct air battles and a navy with diesel submarines, and amphibious capability. Moreover, the United States has not taken any steps to reduce or eliminate the flow of military technology or systems to Turkey. On the contrary, because Turkey has a small contingent in Afghanistan, the U.S. regards this commitment as critical to its counterinsurgency program. But this commitment comes with serious risks. Turkey’s growing closeness to Iran could complicate Afghanistan’s future, particularly if ideological collaboration trumps all other strategic concerns.

That the U.S. appears to be dithering as Turkey moves away from its former friends is alarming to other nations in the region. It also foreshadows a U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East. General McChrystal argued that in his meetings with President Obama, the president seemed disengaged and uninterested. It may be that this too was sign of America’s emotional as well as physical disengagement from the region.

If that is true – and there is little reason to doubt it – it augurs for a dangerous period. A political vacuum is always filled. Iran is the emerging “strong horse” in this neighborhood and everyone from Maliki to Erdogan realize as much.

Can the U.S. recapture its influence after displaying a lack of interest? Will it allow Turkey to use its strategic association with NATO in order to advantage Iran? Will Turkey interfere directly or indirectly to thwart any military operation against Iran’s nuclear facilities? These questions are not answerable at this time, but in the answers rest the fate of the Middle East and perhaps the world. As the French poet Charles Pegury noted: “Everything starts in mystery and ends 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/.

Back to the Top

6/30/10: Death of A State

The sound you hear on Wall Street at noon isn’t bells chiming, but rather the death knell for New York State. The once proud Empire State that was the engine for capital investment across the country is gasping for breath. Wall Street, that paid the state’s bills, is a shell of its former self. A combination of the 9/11 attack and a credit meltdown have left Wall Street a different and less vital place. Goodbye Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch. Yes, this is a different place.

Upstate is no better, perhaps worse. The only economic activity in cities like Elmira can be found in state run hospitals and prisons. The citizens of these towns are ostensibly wards of the state. Taxpayer levies keep these towns afloat since there isn’t any sign of private enterprise.

That is an understandable condition wrought by extortionate taxes and onerous regulation which strangulate wealth creation. I have yet to meet a young entrepreneur who in assessing investment opportunities decides to put his capital in New York. With the capital gains rate near the highest in the country, you cannot afford to invest in New York, live in New York or die in New York.

What you can do is use the political system for personal advantage. Sheldon Silver, leader of the Democratic led Assembly or Al D’Amato, former Senator and registered state lobbyist, have milked the system for personal gain and advantage. If you wish to promote the interest of a municipal union, you see Silver. If you want a state construction contract, you see D’Amato. Both men have become enormously wealthy feeding at the public trough. Of course, they aren’t alone, the nomenklatura in Albany have an array of ties to law firms, accounting organizations, construction companies, consultants, etc.

The recent scandal involving a gambling casino in Aqueduct Race Track is merely the tip of the proverbial corruption iceberg. There is scarcely a political figure in the state capital who is unblemished by sub rosa deals. Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public shake their heads in despair, but there is little they can do about it.

A political force of enormous power has emerged based on municipal employees. Between New York City and New York State there are approximately 625,000 public service employees. Assume that there is at least one other voting member in their families (a conservative estimate) the 1,250,000 means in effect, that this voting bloc controls two-thirds of an election since it is estimated that two million votes are needed for a statewide position. This bloc invariably votes for the party or candidates that will extend public benefits and raise taxes. The reality in New York is that the extension of public expenditures has driven private capital out of the state or out of existence. And while it is assumed the Democratic party is culpable of fiscal irresponsibility, a claim that is clearly justified, the Republicans under Governor George Pataki and the majority in the State Senate have been as irresponsible.

Surely if the next governor decides to take on the municipal unions and the lavish pension system and follows a fiscal program outlined by E.J. McMahon among others, the state may be on track for solvency. But I wouldn’t place a bet on that scenario. Financing the debt accounts for a substantial portion of the annual budget. Reducing state jobs would exacerbate the economic environment in areas already suffering from blight and joblessness. And political reality makes it unlikely anyone outside of New Jersey Governor Christie will attack union benefits.

New York State government has for decades engaged in a seduction of its residents until almost everyone is sucking on the public breast. Medicaid sustains grandma in a nursing home. The state version of the Community Reinvestment Act allows workers with modest assets to buy homes they can ill afford. The State health plan relieved small business owners from the burden of providing healthcare for their employees. Johnny and Mary attend public institutions of higher learning where tuition is a fraction of what it would be at private universities like Columbia or NYU. The list goes on until everyone is touched by the long arm of government even when they don’t realize it.

There is no doubt New York State has extraordinary assets: an educated workforce, potable water, cheap hydro-electric power, magnificent scenery. But these assets have been surpassed by manipulative leadership, profligate spending, and the appeasement of municipal union demands.

As I see it the once magnificent Empire State is now the Vampire State with the Albany government sucking the blood of working men and women who are trying to eke out a living. It is not surprising that the average municipal worker with salary and benefits has an income of $97 thousand dollars and he is being supported by a worker in the private sector with an income at $51 thousand.

This is not a sustainable arrangement which, as I see it, explains, in large part, why the death rattle is heard around the state.

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

6/23/10: The Coming Crisis In The Middle East

The gathering storm in the Middle East is gaining momentum. War clouds are on the horizon and like conditions prior to World War I all it takes for explosive action to commence is a trigger.

Turkey’s provocative flotilla often described in Orwellian terms as a humanitarian mission has set in motion a flurry of diplomatic activity, but if the Iranians send escort vessels for the next round of Turkish ships, it could present a casus belli.

It is also instructive that Syria is playing a dangerous game with both missile deployment and rearming Hezbollah. According to most public accounts Hezbollah is sitting on 40,000 long, medium and short range missiles and Syrian territory has served as a conduit for military material from Iran since the end of the 2006 Lebanon War.

Should Syria move its own scuds to Lebanon or deploy its troops as reinforcement for Hezbollah, a wider regional war with Israel could not be contained.

In the backdrop is an Iran with sufficient fissionable material to produce a couple of nuclear weapons. It will take some time to weaponize missiles, but the road to that goal is synchronized in green lights since neither diplomacy nor diluted sanctions can convince Iran to change course.

Iran is poised to be the hegemon in the Middle East. It is increasingly considered the “strong horse” as American forces incrementally retreat from the region. Even Iraq, ironically, may depend on Iranian ties in order to maintain internal stability. From Qatar to Afghanistan all political eyes are on Iran.

For Sunni nations like Egypt and Saudi Arabia regional strategic vision is a combination of deal making to offset the Iranian Shia advantage and attempting to buy or develop nuclear weapons as a counter weight to Iranian ambition. However, both of these governments are in a precarious state. Should either fall, all bets are off in the Middle East neighborhood. It has long been said that the Sunni “tent” must stand on two legs, if one, falls, the tent collapses.

Should that tent collapse and should Iran take advantage of that calamity, it could incite a Sunni-Shia war. Or feeling its oats and no longer dissuaded by an escalation scenario with nuclear weapons in tow, war against Israel is a distinct possibility. However, implausible it may seem at the moment, the possible annihilation of Israel and the prospect of a second holocaust could lead to a nuclear exchange.

The only wild card that can change this slide into warfare is an active United States’ policy. Yet curiously, the U.S. is engaged in both an emotional and physical retreat from the region. Despite rhetoric which suggests an Iran with nuclear weapons is intolerable, it has done nothing to forestall that eventual outcome. Despite the investment in blood and treasure to allow a stable government to emerge in Iraq, the anticipated withdrawal of U.S. forces has prompted President Maliki to travel to Tehran on a regular basis. And despite historic links to Israel that gave the U.S. leverage in the region and a democratic ally, the Obama administration treats Israel as a national security albatross that must be disposed of as soon as possible.

As a consequence, the U.S. is perceived in the region as the “weak horse,” the one that is dangerous to ride. In every Middle East capital the words “unreliable and United States” are linked. Those seeking a moderate course of action are now in a distinct minority. A political vacuum is emerging, one that is not sustainable and one the Iranian leadership looks to with imperial exhilaration.

It is no longer a question of whether war will occur, but rather when it will occur and where it will break out. There are many triggers to ignite the explosion, but not many scenarios for containment. Could it be a regional war in which Egypt and Saudi Arabia watch from the sidelines, but secretly wish for Israeli victory? Or is this a war in which there aren’t victors, only devastation? Moreover, should war break out, what does the U.S. do?

This is a description far more dire than any in the last century and, even if some believe my view is overly pessimistic, Arab and Jew, Persian and Egyptian, Muslim and Maronite tend to believe in its veracity. That is a truly bad sign.

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

6/9/10: Doctors Who Compromise With Islam

In a policy shift that smacks of appeasement, the American Academy of Pediatrics suggested American doctors should be given permission to perform a ceremonial pinprick on girls from Muslim culture in order to keep their families from imposing full circumcision, cliterdectomies.

The academy’s committee on bioethics justified this stance by noting federal law “makes criminal any nonmedical procedure performed on the genitals” of a girl in the United States, thereby driving some families to take their daughters overseas to undergo mutilation. Presumably the ritual “nick” is a compromise to avoid greater harm.

But whatever the intention, this policy shift vouchsafes legitimacy to a practice that should not be permitted. How much bloodletting will satisfy parents? And at what point do compromises end?

If Muslim countries allow wife beating and slavery do we allow a little of these practices in the United States in order to avoid more extreme examples? Perhaps a punch or two would be acceptable.

The argument that saying the practice is wrong, unacceptable and barbaric indicates “insensitivity” to another culture. But as I see it there are humane considerations which transcend cultural practice and that should be honored everywhere.

Currently 130 million females worldwide have undergone genital mutilation according to the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. It is mostly performed on girls under the age of 15. Very often this procedure results in severe complications with pregnancy and sexual dysfunction.

Where are the feminists? It seems to me if there were ever an issue that brings them to the barricades, this is it. Moreover, a compromise that legitimates even the recognition of this monstrous practice should be seen for what it is, the thin edge of the wedge that will allow for other barbaric acts.

On a larger front this decision by pediatricians reveals a sentiment widespread in Europe and now gaining traction in the United States: a desire to avoid conflict through preemptive compromises. Since intimidation is a backstage theme, Western nations prefer conciliation to violence, even if it means undermining the fabric of society. That explains why British and Danish representatives, have discussed acknowledging sharia in legal matters. Of course, reconciliation isn’t possible since sharia is not capable of accommodating common law and Constitutional principles. For Muslims, it is all or nothing and, since they recognize the vulnerability of Western institutions, it is more “all” than “nothing.”

That an intelligent group of doctors do not recognize the implications in their action is truly puzzling. But then again, so many are blinded by fear and hope a “modest” measure of compromise will satisfy the demanding voices. Rarely, of course, does reciprocity enter the equation. What is good for the goose, should be good for the gander. Unfortunately that is not the way Islam is treated in most Western capitals.

This is not the end of this cultural tale; there are and will be further compromises I submit and from many surprising sources. Where this is leading is frighteningly clear: the incremental adjustment in Western standards will lead ultimately to civilizational change, unless a cataclysm awakens Western societies to the imperial reality of extremist Islamic sentiment.

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

6/2/10: The Road To Armageddon

The road map to Armageddon has been established. Recently the Obama administration gave Moscow two concessions that in my judgment could have alarming influence on the course of current history: lifting sanctions against the Russian military complex and agreeing not to ban the sale of advanced anti-aircraft batteries to Iran.

Presumably these concessions were given as “carrots” after Russia agreed to a package of United Nations’ sanctions against Iran. While the U.N. resolution bans weapons sales to Tehran, it would not prohibit Moscow from completing the sale of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles, a contract that was suspended due to pressure from the U.S. and Israel, but not cancelled. This sophisticated defensive system complicates any military option against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

These concessions are the latest moves by President Obama to bolster U.S.-Russian relations and might be considered an adjunct to the Start agreement on nuclear delivery systems. However, administration spokesmen said this understanding was not a quid pro quo for Russian acceptance of sanctions, a denial that seems inconsistent with the timing of the decision.

Most significantly, the concessions are “premature and unwarranted” according to David Kramer, a former State Department official. A Russian transfer of the anti-missile system is far more significant by any standard than the resolution of sanctions. John Bolton, former acting Ambassador to the United Nations, argued that the Russians got the upper hand. They sensed desperation on the Obama team and “extracted all that the traffic would bear.”

If the Russians do deliver the S-300 missiles – now that the U.S. has granted a green light – Israel will be placed in an untenable position. Either Israel attacks before the system is employed or it is obliged to consider logistical complications and more losses than anticipated in any raid. For months Israeli diplomats have been shuttling to Moscow in an effort to prevent deployment. Now the U.S. – its presumptive ally – has undermined, perhaps thwarted, the Israeli military option.

What this U.S. decision suggests is that the U.S. will do whatever is necessary to secure Russian assistance on sanctions even if it means subverting Israeli military options. However, if past history is any guide and if the Turkey – Brazil initiative on Iranian nuclear refinement is taken seriously, sanctions emanating from the Security Council - even with Russian acquiescence – aren’t likely to have any effect. It would appear that U.S. diplomacy on this matter has failed with the concessions to Russia as a kind of “hail Mary” pass into the end zone.

An objective reading of this scenario indicates U.S. weakness on every level. The Iranian aren’t the least bit perturbed by the prospect of sanctions because they know once the Chinese get their hands on the final document, “teeth” will be removed. The Brazilians and Turks aren’t worried about their effort to out-maneuver U.S. diplomacy because the Obama administration has neither the stomach nor the will to punish them.

The only casualty is Israel, an ally the Obama team has consistently repudiated or attempted to weaken. Now the ball is in the Israeli court and while the consequence of war is horrific, the failure of U.S. diplomacy has left Israel without an alternative. Facing an existential threat now exacerbated by the likely deployment of the S-300 system, the timetable for attack has probably been accelerated.

For those who thought the world would be more peaceful after Obama was elected, look again. War clouds are gathering as diplomats dither. Alliances are made with concessions; the other side of these transactions gives very little and gets a lot. And our enemies are bemused by the apparent weakness of the United States and its continued retreat from the realities of global events.

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

5/26/10: Austrian Complacency and The Movement for Sharia

Vienna is a city bursting with history. The sounds of Mozart pulsate in the streets. Tourists abound. Apple strudel and local sausage are unparalled. The Vienna of jack boots and swastikas is a distant memory. Even the Vienna as a sanctuary for escapees from communism is long forgotten. On the surface, the contemporary Vienna is prosperous, peaceful and civilized.

But there is another Vienna percolating beneath the surface, a dark threatening presence that has the potential to undo the tranquility Austrians have come to accept as the norm. This is the Austrian version of banlieus, the areas populated by Muslims, mostly Turkish Muslims. In these areas, crime is on the rise, resentment is palpable and building facades are marred with graffiti.

Most significantly, the average person refuses to recognize the potential problem these communities represent. If one is audacious enough to point out the dangers, the specter of Islamophobia or racism is raised as a chilling censor. It is instructive that defenders of Enlightenment ideas such as individual rights, property rights and the rule of law are castigated as right wing fanatics when they insist on applying these principles to Muslim minorities.

So preoccupied are establishment figures with maintaining the peace or, at least, the Austrian form of tranquility that they prefer to avert their gaze and criticize the democratic debunkers. It is obvious, or should be obvious, that sharia is inconsistent with Enlightenment ideas. But when it comes to peace versus principle, authorities opt for the former, fearful that any other stance will exacerbate public attitudes.

As a consequence, official state numbers suggest the Islamic population in Austria has remained stable at 500,000 over the last decade, even through the birth rate among Muslims is more than twice the replacement level of 2.1. Far better to deceive than alarm the public at large.

The same condition prevails on the crime rate. Since crime statistics aren’t broken down by race or ethnicity, the average person may intuit a disproportiate crime rate among Muslims, but it isn’t part of the public record.

When Elisabeth Sabaditch-Wolf, a Vienna resident spoke out against Muslim practices that threaten democracy, she was labeled a right wing fanatic and is facing prosecution for public incitement. Rather than honor her for defending civilzational principles, she has been marginalized as an extremist by Austrian authorities. These prosecutions – even if unsuccessful – have a chilling influence on free speech and open debate.

It is remarkable that sharia has won a psychological victory since it cannot be challenged without judicial investigation. Yet sharia, in essence, cannot tolerate apostasy. Apostates, according to Koranic principles, must either convert, submit or die. This is a direct contradiction of democratic ideals and a violation of liberal religious practice established over centuries of bloodletting. Now without a shot being fired, the Austrians have seemingly conceded. All it took was the possibly of violence and the osmotic ambience of intimidation.

One gets the impression a nation that has grown to love freedom and prosperity has grown complacent. And with that complacency, Austrians will engage in almost any rationalized arabesque in order to maintain tranquility. Without fully realizing it, this strategy is leading inexorably to the totalitarianism it fought so hard to avoid during the Cold War. Sharia disavows secular prescriptions, but in its political agenda it is intent on transforming Western institutions. Signs of that goal are already evident in Austria today.

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

5/19/10: The EU and Its Likely Breakup

There isn’t any need to say “I told you so” for Euro skeptics. They knew what few would admit about the European Union. The fractures in the union now apparent were there all along merely waiting for one crisis to make them self evident.

With demonstrations over tough austerity measures in Greece, the E.U. is experiencing the first of what could be a host of violent reactions across the continent. In a sense, Greece is the canary in the proverbial mine foreshadowing what might occur in Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Ireland.

In conversations in Austria the typical response is “why should we bail out the Greeks for their profligacy?” Alas, this is the typical German response as well. The Germans were willing to be an underwriter of the Greek bail-out, as long as the IMF is a major partner. But there are limits. Borrowing costs for Europe’s most vulnerable countries are soaring and the euro’s value is plummeting. E.U. officials warn of “high uncertainty” surrounding the region’s economic recovery. Despite a $141 billion rescue package offered the Greek government, it is not clear this sum will cauterize the problem or stop its spread elsewhere.

It is instructive that pensioners took to the Athenian streets in protest against financial retrenchment. In news interviews, the point was often made that these aging citizens saved for retirement and counted on a pension during retirement. Now they find themselves in a financial quagmire they did not create.

Should Spain, with an economy considerably larger than Greece, face similar economic pressure – a condition that seems inevitable – Europe could face an unprecedented banking crisis. While the bailout could help Greece and might be needed for Spain, it is already widening the divide between Europe’s southern area where the financial problems are concentrated and the northern tier, which contains most of the industrial exporters best positioned to take advantage of a weak euro.

Some European economists contend that devaluation will serve as a spur for exports, growth and a return to balance of payments equilibrium. But this scenario overlooks the fact that 27 euro-zone countries are inextricably linked to the euro which militates against individual trade strategies. What might be desirable for Sweden could be undesirable for Spain. This is the E.U. dilemma in a nutshell.

Bailouts come with prescriptions, specifically deep austerity cuts to compensate for generous government hand-outs. However, this measure has and probably will spark social anger wherever it is applied. While Greece has been in the forefront in this financial crisis, the IMF has raised the possibility Spain could be next on the road to insolvency. It is estimated that a bailout for Spain could cost five times the sum allocated for Greece. According to Mark Kirk, a U.S. congressman on the committee that oversees financing for the IMF, “that amount of money is far more than is available to lend.”

One Vienna merchant described the crisis personally and poignantly “I do not feel any responsibility to assist a welfare recipient in Barcelona or Lisbon.” Whether he feels responsibility or not, the E.U. locks him into a confederation that imposes a level of responsibility. That union cannot continue if the taxes in industrious areas rise to assist nations that are or soon may be insolvent. The complication of regional multiplication is that it penalizes the strong members of the union so that they can assist weak members. By any political calculation this is an unsustainable arrangement.

When the E.U. falls victim to these centrifugal forces is difficult to say, but in my judgment it will happen, and with it, the euro will be a casualty as well, returning Western Europe to its traditional status as a continent with individual states, languages, histories and economic conditions.

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

5/12/10: ACT Reviews Edcuation In America

To cite a cliché, the more things change the more they remain the same. This applies to many areas of life, but arguably it is the essence of educational reform.

Recently the ACT, an independent organization that provides assessment, research and program management in broad areas of education, issued a statement on the “essentials for college and career readiness.”

What it found is precisely what evaluators of education in the United States have been saying for decades. Despite an enormous per capita national expenditure for education, exceeded only by Switzerland, “high school learning standards are still not sufficiently aligned with postsecondary expectations.”

Across the curriculum, college instructors and high school teachers differ on the level of preparation for college assignments with many more high school teachers than college instructors reporting that graduates are prepared. At the same time, while college math and science instructors agree that reading is one of the most important skills needed for success in this century, “overwhelming majorities of them report spending little or no time teaching reading strategies in their courses.”

Apparently findings indicate that students are shortchanged in high school and post secondary courses, despite the fact many high school teachers believe their students are adequately prepared for higher education study. There is simply a huge disparity between skill level and performance expectations.

To address this concern the ACT contends high school standards should focus on fewer – but essential – college and career readiness conditions and a rigorous core curriculum should be mandated for all high school graduates. These are sensible recommendations that have been advocated for at least half a century. The key question is why haven’t these recommendations been put into practice if everyone – or almost everyone – knows what should be done.

There are several factors that account for this state of affairs. One, student readiness is not related to faculty compensation. In fact, merit pay, which could be related to readiness, is consistently opposed by the teachers’ union. Second, relatively little time is spent on “hard subjects” such as math and science. The curriculum is, to some degree, a mirror on national social conditions. If there are fatalities on our highways, driver education is encouraged. When rates of illegitimacy rise, sex education is emphasized. As rates of drug abuse assail us, drug education is introduced. And, of course, political correctness is a time consuming theme that crosses all disciplines, even the sciences.

There are, in most high schools, pep rallies prior to the Friday night football game. There are announcements of various kinds during the school day and, of course, the required weekly assembly program.

In addition, distractions prevail. Texting is the nemesis of concentration. There are video games, e-mails, Facebook, sororities, fraternities, parties, television programs that trump serious study. It is also the case that high school teachers are among the most marginal students in their college classes. Although there are superb teachers, the profession lacks the status and prestige that accompany other professions.

Last, perhaps most noteworthy, is the nation’s dysfunctional social life. Divorce, illegitimacy and various forms of social deviancy have disrupted home life so that mom at the kitchen table with cookies and milk at 3 pm is as rare as two dollar bills. Mom is probably working; no one is there to guide Johnny and Mary when they return from school except Oprah Winfrey. Homework is for autodidacts and, most teachers do not count on homework assignments, a bygone vestige of education in another era.

The “Leave It To Beaver” family is interred and with it have gone attention to student performance. Parents may retain expectations for their children, but the conditions necessary to achieve these goals are lacking. Now schools do not concentrate on subjects that matter, distractions make learning a chore and the mediating social structures that aided educational attainment are in trouble.

Clearly the ACT should be commended for pointing out what should be done to improve educational performance, but I’ve heard all the claims before. Until there is recognition of what ails us, there will be many more reports in our future, but little progress in student attainment.

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

4/28/10: Darwinism and The American Future

In Darwin’s Origin of The Species the theory of evolution through natural selection is made to appear simple and inevitable. Certain biological variants argued Darwin, are more robust than others, i.e. better suited to survive and thrive in the environment in which they find themselves. Over time the robust variants supplant the less robust varieties. In a world of limited resources, the better adapted versions stand a better chance of survival. Darwin assumed that natural selection could transform one species into another and eradicate some species, leaving the field to its tougher competitors.

While social Darwinism attempted to take Darwin’s theory and apply it to social settings (“Root, hog or die”), the lack of compassion and the imposition of human needs sent the social version of Darwinism into the political interstices. However, since evolution ultimately deals with success and failure, survival and disappearance, it may be appropriate to resuscitate Darwinism to explain global conditions of the moment.

Needless to say, there is a logical danger in pushing the analogy too far, but on some level the Darwinian model offers insight, even if the conclusions are not dispositive.

In an effort to appease or comfort America’s foes, the Obama administration is attempting to redefine, perhaps transform, our system of government, law and basic economic assumptions. Presumably Obama adherents would contend that this adaptation is necessary for survival in an evolving global stage. However, the question that emerges is whether this conscious transformation enhances survivability. Is America more robust or less robust as a consequence of the change? Can this nation transform other national variants or will other nations transform the United States?

It is evident in the global war for survival the U.S. government refuses to see jihadism, or violent efforts against it, as a function of Islam. It is also evident that the government is intent on treating enemy combatants as “criminals” with the attendant Constitutional privileges vouchsafed to U.S. citizens.

The system for rooting out those intent on imposing violence against Americans is saddled with bureaucratic weariness and inefficiency. A Nigerian with a history of radical Islamic sympathies and someone identified by his father as a potential threat was still granted a visa to enter the United States. Moreover, Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of Homeland Security, noted after the aborted attempt to blow up an airplane, that “the system is working.”

A government that is seemingly incapable of dealing effectively with national security questions has nonetheless undertaken to manage the complex American economy. In one year Washington D.C. has replaced New York as the center of economic transactions. Astonishingly the government is now directly involved in the insurance, banking, credit card, automobile and healthcare industries. While socialism has failed wherever it has been undertaken, the Obama administration is intent on proving its version can defy historical precedent.

The last year has also seen the American military star in eclipse. Signs of withdrawal from international commitments have led former allies to scramble in an effort to secure new alliances, an alternative to the American nuclear umbrella and security pacts. The so-called schism between Shia and Sunni Muslims has been trumped by the emerging correlation of international forces, particularly the prospect of an Iran with nuclear weapons.

If the Darwinian analogy holds, perhaps it is time for readaptation, a return to a time when American exceptionalism was understood here and abroad. How can a seemingly weak America eager for isolation be sufficiently robust to compete against a fanatical strain of Islam? How can allies count on an American commitment when we often pull the rug out from under our friends (vide: abrogating the anti-missile treaty with Czech republic and Poland)? In what sense is the United States a nation, indeed an idea, to be emulated?

Natural selection has its obvious points and logical gaps, but as a model for prediction on the international scene, it has advantages and lessons to be learned. Unfortunately unless the public rises and stops this historic movement for change, there will be an inevitability about the current state of affairs that would convert an American Darwinian into a Cassandra.

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

4/21/10: Brzezinski, Obama and Foreign Policy Reconceptualization

In the January/February issue of Foreign Affairs Zbigniew Brzezinski outlines the ambitious efforts of the Obama administration to redefine the foreign policy of the United States and, as he puts it, “reconnect the United States with the emerging historical context of the twenty-first century.” According to Mr. Brzezinski, President Obama has done this remarkably well reconceptiualizing foreign policy in several areas which he outlines:

• Islam is not an enemy, and the “global war on terror” does not define the United States’ current role in the world;
• The United States will be a fair-minded and assertive mediator when it comes to attaining lasting peace between Israel and Palestine;
• The United States ought to pursue serious negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, as well as other issues;
• The counterinsurgency campaign in the Taliban-controlled parts of Afghanistan should be part of a larger political undertaking, rather than a predominantly military one;
• The United States should respect Latin America’s cultural and historical sensitivities and expand its contacts with Cuba;
• The United States ought to energize its commitment to significantly reducing its nuclear arsenal and embrace the eventual goal of a world free of nuclear weapons;
• In coping with global problems, China should be treated not only as an economic partner but also as a geopolitical one;
• Improving U.S.-Russian relations is in the obvious interest of both sides, although this must be done in a manner that accepts, rather than seeks to undo, post-Cold War geopolitical realities;
• A truly collegial transatlantic partnership should be given deeper meaning, particularly in order to heal the rifts caused by the destructive controversies of the past few years.”

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

4/14/10: Start Up May Be A Start Down

“Aquarius,” the show, is in revival on Broadway and in revival in the Obama administration. The utopian idea of “the zero option,” of eliminating nuclear weapons, of an apollonian globe where lions and lambs live in harmony, is alive and well and evident in the new Start treaty.

Of course it would be wonderful if we had a world without nuclear weapons, but the genie is out of the bottle and weapons of mass destruction offer influence, prestige and power even for nations that cannot adequately feed their people.

While the Start treaty reduces delivery capacity of Russian and the U.S. missiles, planes and submarines using arcane accounting methods, the real issue, as I see it, is that Russia reserves the right to withdraw from the treaty if it deems missile defense deployment in Eastern Europe threatening.

The obvious question is why should the United States Senate ratify a “conditional” arrangement? If the treaty is ratified (a likely prospect) the United States is committing itself to unilateral compliance. In other words, Russia determines on its own whether the treaty remains in effect. This is a truly unprecedented matter, one that may indeed violate national security interests.

Moreover, in an effort to convince other nuclear powers that they should embrace our disarming impulse the president has circumscribed “no first use policy” to only those adversaries employing nuclear weapons and has announced that the U.S. will not develop a new generation of nuclear weapons. I’m sure that this heartfelt gesture has resonated appropriately with Kim Jung Il and Ahmadinejad. It would take a leap of illogical proportions to assume that if the U.S. does not modernize, China, Iran, North Korea and Pakistan will follow suit.

This treaty also means in effect that President Obama will not upgrade U.S. missile defenses. If he were to do so, the Russians would pull out of the treaty. The one major bargaining chip former President Reagan had in his negotiations with the Soviet Union was Star Wars or missile defense. Now the Obama team is willing to give it away and receive nothing in return. The only way to describe this negotiating strategy is political ambition wrapped in the cellophane of naiveté.

One gets the impression that the president operates from a view of what he would like the world to be, not what the world is. Unfortunately the globe is an unwieldy place where national interests invariably trump international equilibrium. There is no way to eliminate nuclear weapons so long as rogue nations cheat, the non-proliferation treaty is ignored without penalty and nuclear weapons offer nations political clout. Who would care about a backward nation like North Korea if it did not possess nuclear weapons?

The fear for those of us who believe in “peace through strength” is this Start agreement is merely the beginning of a unilateral disarmament campaign following Obama’s life long adolescent vision for a world without military tocsin in the air. It is already rumored that the president will attempt to join the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and limit defense deployment in space. What can allies like Taiwan, Japan, Canada, to cite a few examples, be thinking when the U.S. nuclear umbrella that affords deterrence is now laden with holes?

The voluntary abandonment of U.S. superiority in space technology and nuclear weapons could haunt our people and our allies. It is as if the U.S. is suffering from leadership fatigue and wants to halt the course of history. However, historical forces march to their own drumbeat. What we may want – whatever utopia we may envision – is often undermined by the constraints of reality. As I see it, President Obama hasn’t learned that lesson. I can only hope our enemies aren’t looking and listening too closeby.

There is a Russian tale that takes place in a zoo where a lion and a lamb reside together in the same cage. Onlookers are astonished to see this unlikely union. At one point, a sightseer asks the zoo keeper how this happens. “Oh,” he notes it isn’t difficult, “we put a new lamb in the cage each morning.” If only President Obama knew this Russian tale.

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

4/7/10: The College Basketball Fraud

Now that the college basketball season is in full swing this former jock, who played at Columbia in the late ‘50’s, is fixated on the game. In fact, March Madness is built into my annual schedule.

But as I watch extraordinary athletes hit three point shots and fly to the hoop, I realize that hypocrisy is very much on display. These players are described as “student athletes,” a designation that jolts my credibility quotient.

During a recent Kentucky–Louisville game several players were interviewed. Almost every one described his major as “communications,” yet remarkably none could communicate effectively. Most sentences began with the phrase “me and the guys” or “we gonna win it all.”

It has been apparent for some time that the NCAA winks at this condition. The truly gifted players understand that college basketball is the minor league for the NBA. They use college as a showcase. As some athletes have noted it is “one and done” or “two and through,” in other words they will play college ball for a year or two and then enter the draft.

One might hope that in that year or two a spark is lit in the classroom. And in some cases, e.g. Duke University, that may happen. Unfortunately for most Division I teams the student is so subordinate to the athlete that there is only a vague and distant relationship to the classroom.

In some cases, the highly sought after basketball player is so coddled that his emotional development is arrested. This may explain why a disproportionate number of college basketball players are in trouble with the law. Coaches, who in some instances earn millions each year, concern themselves primarily with victories. They too understand that the truly good players are with them for a short time.

Most television analysts ignore the unsavory elements of the game concentrating solely on X’s and O’s and the evident talent of the players. But there is a story line beneath the surface that should be told. Only a tiny proportion of good college basketball players will make the pros. For those who thought college was a playground and a virtual slam dunk for the next level of play, disappointment can be devastating.

Sonny Dove was a terrific basketball player at St. Johns. He led his team to several very successful seasons and was named to All American teams. But Sonny could not make it in the pros, despite opportunities that were provided. He ended up driving a cab in New York City, despondent over his failure to make it with a pro team and lacking the education to do anything but drive a cab.

Now I don’t have anything against cab drivers, but most either do not have an education or drive a cab in order to obtain an education. Sonny was different; he drove a cab out of despair.

In my opinion, college basketball produces many Sonny Doves, players who luxuriated in the college limelight, but fell on their faces afterward. Clearly the choice is theirs. But coaches and college administrators have an obligation – it seems to me – to give these athletes a chance to succeed in a venue other than a basketball court. If the phrase student –athlete is to have any meaning, introducing study into the equation might be a reasonable way to proceed.

Instead of winking at this state of affairs, the NCAA might be engaged in thinking about how to assist college players who aren’t successful at the next level. I love to watch the games and the gifted athletes, but there is a part of me that laments the manner in which so many of these young men are being used. Perhaps it’s time to translate some of the March Madness income into a fund to promote genuine education for college basketball players.

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