3/10/10: Examining Declinism

Writing from his perch at the New York Times (2/8/10) Paul Krugman notes “We’ve always known that America’s reign as the world’s greatest nation would eventually end. But most of us imagined that our downfall, when it came, would be something grand and tragic.”

It isn’t clear who the “we” is in this paragraph, nor is “downfall” as obvious as Mr. Krugman infers. But the position is part of a declinist stance that has insinuated itself into elitist positions. And there is some justification for it.

After all, the Obama administration acts as if the U.S. should engage in withdrawal from all international obligations except those channeled through the United Nations or other international organizations.

With Obama’s 2010 budget, 42 cents of every dollar the federal government spends will have to be borrowed. In the last decade, foreign investors wound up lending the U.S. about half of the federal debt – with China and Japan providing about 50 percent of that sum through the purchase of U.S. Treasury securities. In fact, China is the largest holder of U.S. dollars in the world, a position that might compromise U.S. foreign policy decisions in the Pacific and elsewhere.

It is also evident that U.S. educational institutions have failed to keep American students competitive with foreign rivals in science, engineering and technology – the drivers in the global economy. With the exception of one or two nations, the U.S. students score near the bottom on international math and science tests.

These conditions are wrapped into a culture of debasement as American “bread and circuses” become a national preoccupation. Most young people are more likely to know the name of the “American Idol” winner than the name of the Secretary of Defense.

Clearly these arguments are salient, but what they overlook is just as salient. Americans are conspicuously resilient. The liberties built into the national founding may be dormant for a time, but they have not evanesced.

President Obama may act as if the U.S. must engage in preemptive conciliation. So too did President Jimmy Carter, but his successor, Ronald Reagan, saw the world differently and restored U.S. power and prestige. My guess it could happen again.

The financial obligations we have with China are worrisome. However, China is as dependent on the U.S. as we on it. Americans buy Chinese imports and help to stir China’s remarkable growth. China’s trade policy is dependent on keeping the American consumer buying its products in Wal-Mart stores.

While American students score unfavorably on international tests, the best and brightest can take advantage of the nation’s openness to start new businesses and engage in technical breakthroughs. America’s advantage in relatively free and open markets has not been duplicated by any of our economic rivals.

It might appear that the nation is amusing itself to death with debased television programming like “Jersey Shore,” but the United States remains a complex nation with evidence of a resurgence in historical matters and even signs of resistance to the insidious influence of political correctness.

It wasn’t so long ago when former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger reportedly told Admiral Elmo Zumwalt that “The day of the United States is past and today is the day of the Soviet Union. My job as Secretary of State is to negotiate the most acceptable second – best position available.”

We now know that President Reagan contended that claims of America’s second best position were greatly exaggerated.

There was a time in the 1980’s when it was widely believed by many economists that the Japanese economy would bypass the United States as the world’s leading economic force. I doubt anyone would make that argument today.

Needless to say, there are areas of concern in the national culture, political system and the economy. But, as I see it, decline is a choice elitists like Paul Krugman have chosen to adopt. Most Americans would prefer to fight rather than decline and it would be a grave mistake to underestimate their strength and determination.

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

3/3/10: Free Speech as a Casualty of Intimidation

Jake Witzenfeld, president of Cambridge University’s Israel Society cancelled a talk by Benny Morris, a distinguished Israeli historian, for fear the Israel Society would be portrayed as a mouthpiece for Islamophobia.

The trial of Geert Wilders, in Holland, has received almost no attention from the media panjandrums in the West for fear the issue might lead to Muslim incitement, particularly in cities like Rotterdam where the Islamic population is near a majority.

Yale University Press refused to publish cartoons about the Prophet Mohammed in a book about the cartoons and the aftermath of the original publication, for fear of a possible violent response from Islamic adherents.

Yes, these craven responses all appear with the word “fear” since that word has trampled the meaning of freedom in nations that have fought for its defense over centuries. In one moment, intimidation has trumped free speech and cowardice has subordinated any display of courage.

I find it astonishing that a heralded center of learning, a major university press and a nation that once fought against totalitarian impulses could so easily justify their actions. Whatever happened to a belief in freedom of speech and a faith in the power of debate to reveal the truth that counters censorship?

It is instructive that the fear someone might claim you are racist or Islamophic – even if you know you aren’t and if you know the speaker isn’t – may justify a refusal to hear someone’s point of view. Following this precedent, any serious discussion of Middle East politics, or Muslim inspired terrorism of religion itself should be banned since there are invariably those who will portray opinions they don’t like as hateful and, yes, racist.

What these three illustrations demonstrate is that slander can be converted into an effective weapon to stifle expression. When Muslims are concerned about opinions that don’t fit with their worldview, they can raise the specter of retaliation and attack a speaker with epithets, such as Islamophia, and mirabile dictu speech is silenced.

It is hard to know exactly when this form of preemptive capitulation began. However, when the United Kingdom refused to admit Geert Wilders for a public presentation fearing his speech might be a source of incitement, this nation that carried the banner of free speech from the Magna Carta to the defense of liberty in World War II seems to have lost its way. Apparently the most basic right, the one generations had taken for granted, is now in jeopardy in the very venues liberty once found a congenial home.

From Voltaire to Jefferson warnings about the way free speech can be imperiled filled the pages of various broadsides. It is remarkable that the canon on free speech can be so easily overturned by the masters of political correctness. Alas, if free speech can be denied to Geert Wilders or leading intellectuals, it can be denied to anyone. Would I be permitted to speak at Cambridge University if I did not comply with the prevailing intellectual orthodoxy? Could I publish a book that points to the imperial goals in Islam? Would it be possible to invite an Israeli scholar who defends his nation’s policies to a forum at a Middle East Studies program anywhere in the West?

After all, a few sentences twisted into an incendiary comment by a concerned listener can result in violent repercussions. Or, claims about the speaker – true or not – may result in the withdrawal of an invitation. Universities are so skittish at the moment that even the appearance of potential controversy is conspicuously avoided.

Tolstoy once noted that “The opinion of a revered writer or thinker can have a deep influence on society; it can also be a big obstacle to understanding the truth.” Indeed that is the case with many venerated thinkers. But it is also true that the biggest obstacle in pursuit of the truth, is the systematic interference of free speech, an interference that becomes particularly lamentable when it is done voluntarily, when the invocation of fear is sufficient to drown out expression.

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

2/23/10: Remembering Liberty

There is a shift occurring in the United States, a tectonic shift that is imposing statism in a land predicated on limited government.

In the past, the not very distant past, mediating structures served as a barrier against managerial despotism. But these structures have been under assault for decades and are showing signs of weakness and decay.

The family has been undermined by divorce and illegitimacy. Schools have eroded rigor and standards. Churches resemble social institutions more than religious centers. And associations like Rotary and Lions are suffering from insufficient enrollment and a lack of interest.

The America Tocqueville described in mid-nineteenth century is largely gone, a testament to the past when national identity was being refined. The New Hampshire slogan “Live free or die” is great for license plates, but not for contemporary politics.

Some would argue that big government is a natural consequence of living in a bigger and more complex nation that was the case a hundred years ago. Needless to say, this is obvious. But what is not so obvious is that incrementally the government has assumed the position of granting rights to citizens instead of having citizens grant rights to the government. During this onset of the recession it was believed by members of both parties that extending government power was essential in dealing with the economic vicissitudes of the moment. In doing so, however, the politics of grievants has emerged. If the government uses its largesse to address social woe how are rights determined and who allocates the benefits? A government insistent on hand-outs will be a government that encourages grievance.

Let me not overstate the case. Despite an inclination to support limited government as the nation’s founders did, my issue with the Obama administration, to cite one example, is that it is weak where it should be strong and strong where it should be weak.

For example, the president has put his prestige and influence behind a health care proposal that a majority of Americans oppose and that willy nilly will shift health care to the public sector. By contrast, Iran has violated the non-proliferation agreement, has abused its citizens for contesting electoral manipulation, and has been the leading state sponsor of terrorism. Yet the president who should recognize and resist these challenges seems weak and unresponsive.

The road to serfdom is paved with rights and benefits. People want more of whatever someone else will pay for. The casualty in this assessment is personal responsibility and liberty.

We are not yet an authoritarian state and my hope is that America never will be one, but it is imperative we guard against that eventuality recognizing that the rights we invent come with a corresponding withering away of freedom. Big government may not be a problem if it exercises power judiciously and in ways that promote American interests. Yet it is also true that government has a stake in perpetuating itself. It may not always be the problem, but it is rarely the solution and all the programs that the American people covet may in the end alter the America they once loved and admired.

Now let me comment on the other side of the coin. Despite a breakdown in personal responsibility, a dumbing down of the population and defining cultural deviancy down, the U.S. with all its flaws and imperfections, is, in my judgment the exceptional nation. A common misperception is that the U.S. is in decline. In fact, there is a “declinist” school of historical analysis comprised of Dean Koh, Ann Marie Slaughter, Geoffrey Hodgson, Amy Guttman, Richard Sennett, Andrew Bacevich, Farid Zakaria among others who believe in historical inevitability, a Marxist view that the forces of historical determinism are not on our side. But, like Charles Krauthammer, I think declinism is a choice. Americans are the most resourceful and resilient people on the globe. We don’t shrink from challenges. The biggest mistake any politician can make is to underestimate the people of this great land. I realize things often look bleak and indeed are bleak, but it is important to realize the U.S. is the land of miracles. We turn detritus into energy; failure into success and we do it routinely.

I’m reminded, at this moment, of verses from Lee Greenwood’s “I’m Proud To Be An American.”

“I’m proud to be an American where at least I know I’m free and I won’t forget the men who died who gave that right to me.

And I gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today for there ain’t no doubt I love this land, God bless the U.S.A.”

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

2/17/10: The Spiritual Dimensions of Nationhood

I’ve said this before but no matter how many times it is said, it bears repeating: the threats that the United States face from a fanatical Islamic foe are made possible by our devotion to positions that undermine our heritage, accomplishments and founding.

It is not coincidental that I’m reminded of this condition by the passing of Howard Zinn, author of A People’s History of The United States. This bestselling book, memorialized by the pseudo intellectual rants of the actor, Matt Damon is among the most influential textbooks ever published. Bob Herbert of the New York Times wrote a saccharine eulogy which suggested Zinn was a “national treasure.” If so, it was a treasure of fool’s gold.

Zinn was not a historian in any real sense, but an ideologue who would envision only the blemishes in America’s past. For him, the American experiment was predicated on colonialism, imperial aims, exploitation and enslavement. But the curious matter is that Zinn’s brand of contemptuous nihilism, his anti-American posture and hatred of capitalism, have caught on among American elites.

Is it any wonder that a multi-cultural stance that denigrates our national experience and superordinates the goals of other nations is now the prevailing orthodoxy in our schools and colleges? If the United States is the world’s exploiter, the despoiler of the environment and the hegemon that restrains the impulse for liberation, why should it be admired? Alas, in many universities, the United States is the enemy. This condition cannot be laid at the doorstep of Mr. Zinn solely, albeit he is a central contributor.

However, the drumbeat of criticism has taken its toll. Students very often can tell you that Jefferson was a slaveholder, but know nothing about his framing of the Virginia Constitution. According to many, Columbus came to the New World in order to dominate and exploit the indigenous population.

That the United States has been the beacon of hope for mankind, that it has afforded its citizens an unprecedented degree of liberty and that its openness has yielded technical breakthroughs that have enhanced people across the globe, are conditions that students of an earlier time imbibed as if mother’s milk.

That has changed. The pseudo sophisticated cynics have come to dominate the academy. American history has been put through the cauldron of political correctness. At best, the U.S. is merely one of 192 nations with its own history that is neither special nor exceptional; it is simply unique. At worst, American history is a steamy tale of conflict: workers versus bosses, plantation owners and slaves, guardians of the status quo and change agents.

Invariably many of those who are force fed these arguments ask logically, “why should I defend this nation?” If the United States is an outlier whose history infers struggle, the spirit necessary to sustain the nation may not be evident.

I often observe this spiritual enervation; this belief that our time, our glory has passed. In my judgment that explains, at least in some part, why radical Islamic ideas have gained traction in this nation. How do those who have lost confidence in the national heritage defend against a fanatical faith that has precise goals and direction?

The relentless critics of the nation may not have anticipated this result, but our homegrown radicals invariably express despair with what America stands for, or should I say, what they think America stands for.

Of course, not every American shares this anti-American sentiment, but I am confident a large segment of elitist opinion embraces it. The manifest form it takes varies. There are the cultural warriors who see America as depraved. There are the academics who win plaudits for nihilistic expression (vide: Howard Zinn). There are the radicals ready to leap into anarchy. And there are jihadists – homegrown jihadists – who have been radicalized by a faith that preaches triumphalism and a justification for violent behavior.

Our vulnerability does not stem from a lack of resources or even inept leadership, but rather from a void that emanates from not knowing what we believe. Our real enemy is a lack of confidence, of not believing in our own national achievements. Arnold Toyabee argued that civilizations die as a result of suicide, not murder. I am not yet willing to concede death, but there isn’t any doubt that America is at risk because of a loss of self confidence. What ails us internally is at least as threatening as the forces found externally.

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

2/10/10: Iranian Influence In Iraq

In an ironic twist of fate the future of Iraq may be dependent on the good will of Iran. A Shiite-led government commission in Iraq is currently examining which Sunni politicians are eligible to participate in upcoming elections. This is disconcerting because the last time Sunnis were restricted, using a debaathification policy to do so, the Sunnis launched an insurgency drive for political influence. A potential Shia-Sunni split represents an opportunity for Iran to assist its Shiite brothers with political, intelligence and military assets, including, of course, the prospect of nuclear weapons.

For Iran, history appears to be moving in its direction. The desire to influence, indeed to dominate, Iraqi politics has long been a strategic goal going back to the Iran-Iraq War several decades ago. One might even contend that the nuclear weapons program is linked to its ambitions in Iraq.

In the days leading to Iraqi elections, Iran’s influence in this neighboring nation is palpable. The Iranian seizure of the al Fakkah oil well in southern Iraq was a poignant example of encroaching dominance, an event that received almost no attention in the United States and one in which Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki averted his gaze. In fact, to demonstrate that Iraq’s government and Iran were dancing to the same tune, a government spokesman said any U.S. attempts to save a place at the government table for the Sunnis would “not achieve anything.” Our State Department may not read the signals and the Obama administration seems mired in domestic program concerns, but the message being delivered loud and clear is that Tehran, not Washington, has the upper hand in Iraq.

Based on its influence in Iraq, Iran is using this development as a bargaining chip with the U.S. in nuclear negotiations. Since the Obama administration has made it clear it wants to disengage from Iraq, Iran holds the key to regional stability and must be considered a negotiating partner in any future arrangement. A potential Sunni insurgency could upset U.S. withdrawal plans. Hence Iran has the ability to assist or thwart U.S. goals, a position that complicates negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program and puts the U.S. in the position of seeking assistance on the one hand and chastisement on the other.

This leverage gives Iran an enormous negotiating edge. If the U.S. wants to avoid an eruption in Iraq that is tantamount to a civil war, then according to Iranian leaders, Washington will have to meet Tehran’s terms on the nuclear weapons issue and forestall any military option by the U.S. or Israel. As Iran sees it at the moment, it is holding all the cards. Arguably the ace in the deck is the apparent cooperation between Prime Minister Maliki and the Iranian mullahs. Since Maliki understands he cannot rely on U.S. forces to maintain stability – with withdrawal the overarching goal – he has thrown in his lot with the Iranians.

It is apparent the Obama administration has not considered the law of unintended consequences. The announced plan for withdrawal has set in motion actions American military commitments were designed to prevent. It is ironic that the United States is dependent on Iran to bail it out of a dicey situation at the same time it claims to oppose Iranian nuclear ambitions.

As I see it, the die is cast. The United States’ government will allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons, notwithstanding rhetoric to the contrary. Furthermore, it will seek to obtain Iranian influence as a regional stabilizer even if it means the mullahs will insinuate themselves into Iraqi politics.

Clearly the spin doctors in Washington will attempt to put the best possible gloss on this situation, but as I see it, this is a loss-loss for American diplomacy and a significant blow to U.S. policy in the Middle East.

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

2/3/10: Words Can Mean Whatever You Choose

The contemporary spokesmen for government, business and the academy have taken a page out of Alice in Wonderland: Words mean whatever you choose to have them mean. At some point, words had meanings detached from the user. They were ideas incarnate that stood on their own buttressed by Webster’s Dictionary. Now, of course, they are unmoored, set adrift by sophists who employ words for advantage or even to change meaning. The Orwellian reversal of language, e.g. “war is peace,” has been taken to a new level of manipulation.

Let me cite examples.

President Obama no longer refers to enemy combatants; they are now “isolated radicals.” This is a blinkered attempt to suggest that it isn’t jihadists we are opposed to, but the most radical elements within this category. Similarly, we are not in a war against terrorists; we are rather in overseas operations.

On the homefront the word “stimulus” has been exhumed from public usage since it doesn’t stimulate and is now effectively “spending.” “No new taxes” – a campaign pledge – has been converted into “new taxes,” albeit all for a good purpose. “Transparency,” as in all government action will be transparent and visible on C-Span, has been transmogrified into secrecy as in this Healthcare bill of 2000 pages that will not be made available for public review.

The redistribution of wealth – a clear government objective – is well understood as taking from Peter to give to Paul, a condition with which Paul rarely objects. Bonuses, even if built into iron clad contracts, are little more than manifestations of “exploitation.” This is an argument often made by community organizers who, if there were truth in advertising, would be called “radical adherents.”

In an effort to appear conciliatory almost every spokesmen refers to Islam as a “religion of peace,” even though it is a “religion of submission.” Moreover, it is also known, but rarely stated that not every Muslim is a terrorist, but almost every terrorist is a Muslim. In the same vain, jihad can be a source of spiritual fulfillment or an act of killing apostates in the name of Allah.

To put the best possible cast on any government action the words “previous administration” are now a code for “its Bush’s fault.” If the president says “we’ve run out of money,” he really means “we’ve run out of money for things I do not want to fund.” On the education front, the administration is keen on “a race to the top,” but if one were to consider results, it is really “a race to the middle” with the “best” student category shrinking and the lowest scoring students improving slightly leading to a compression at the mean.

It is also instructive that the word “rights” is employed at least ten times more frequently than “duties.” Rights have become what others give or confer; duties, by contrast, have entered the realm of desuetude. A related word is “privilege, “which based on K Street influence, is something you “buy,” comparable to the Middle age practice of buying Indulgencies to assure salvation.

There has also been a brouhaha over the Attorney General’s desire for civilian trials for those accused of terrorist activity. Whether one agrees with this stance or not – and I am in the “not” category – this decision means, in effect, the people all around the globe, in every circumstance, are protected by provisions of our Constitution. The Founding Fathers must be turning in their graves on this one.

I suspect that they may also be distressed to learn that “elections” are not the expressed will of the people, but instead represent the will of some people after Census manipulation and the intervention of ACORN operatives. Democracy is, therefore, not the will of the majority, but the will of a minority that knows how to hold on to power. For pragmatists who maintain “realpoilitc,” democracy itself is a casualty since the goal is the status quo at any price.

For the cynic, any time a politician says I believe in “honoring my commitments,” he really means “dishonoring commitments.” But then again you really don’t have to be a cynic to smile at the former and believe in the latter.

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

1/27/10: Presidential Denial

Denial is a powerful influence in public life. It is obviously a major influence in the Obama administration, which may explain why a Republican party and conservatism which were declared dead institutions and philosophies have risen as a phoenix with life and vitality.

In response to Scott Brown’s remarkable Senate victory in Massachusetts, President Obama said, “The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry, and they’re frustrated. Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.”

Here is the blame George W. Bush gambit yet again, even though Scott Brown is a Republican who ran against Obama’s policies in a state that is overwhelmingly Democratic.

To make matters even more risible, the president went on to say, “If there’s one thing that I regret this year, is that we were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crisis that were in front of us, that I think we lost some of the sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are and why we have to make sure those institutions are matching up with those values.”

Well, the question remains, what precisely did he get done. He did get a stimulus bill through the Congress that has done nothing to stimulate national employment, even though that was the promise. For a man busy with getting stuff done – a curious rhetorical position – he had the time to deliver 411 speeches, 52 on health care alone, which by presidential standards is unprecedented. Moreover, the president, who often speaks of core values, ignores the obvious fact that so many Americans repudiate his healthcare bill because it imperils the core value of personal freedom to select a physician and treatment they prefer.

Instead of facing questions directly, the president invariably engages in scapegoating. If there weren’t a George W. Bush to rely on, he would have to invent one. Moreover, there is a barely veiled effort to suggest the public is angry, a kind of generalized anger unrelated to policy concerns. What Obama cannot admit is that much of this anger is directed at him and his policies. Instead of a psychological response, he needs a mirror.

President Obama seems to believe that the personality cult he created during the campaign will carry over to his government. He is so busy doing good stuff that he lost focus. Does that include vacationing in Hawaii, dates with Michele in New York, frequent appearances on the golf course, and basketball games in the White House gym? The president doesn’t have a communications problem, he has a credibility problem. The issue with this White House is competence. Is this president competent to govern, is the question that has emerged in recent campaigns in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts. That is something the president either doesn’t understand or, as I see it, chooses to deny.

Comments that ignore the obvious political reality only make White House denials seem petty and foolish. Perhaps the president actually took seriously the fatuous New York Times editorial that the Scott Brown victory was not an indictment of the Obama administration. Democratic Senator Jim Webb certainly sees things differently. He called the Massachusetts race “a referendum not only on health care reform, but also on openness and integrity.”

At this point, the president desperately needs a large dose of humility. It is discomforting to have a president so reluctant to listen to what Americans are saying. Instead of being obliged to consider his positions based on the Brown victory, President Obama seems to be feeling sorry for himself since the public doesn’t appreciate the “good stuff” with which he is preoccupied. As I see it, humility is a good way to attempt to resuscitate this presidency along with a sustained reality check.

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

1/20/10: Terrorism's Victory

As George Orwell noted the first duty of intelligent people is “the restatement of the obvious.” It is obvious or should be obvious that the goal of terrorists is terrorism. What that means precisely is not clear based on recent news accounts.

According to reports the United States escaped an enormous tragedy when a Nigerian, Umar Abdulmutallab, was apprehended when he attempted to blow up a KLM flight from Africa to America via Amsterdam. Alas, that is accurate as far as it goes. Overlooked in this calculus is that a terrorist who gains access to a commercial flight has already achieved his goal, i.e. promote the fear of terrorism.

When Richard Reid attempted to blow up a Boeing 767 between Paris and Miami by detonating his sneakers, he too was restrained by fellow passengers, but in the process he promoted fear. The risks of air travel may be miniscule – if one relies on the comments of F.A.A. officials – but for the average person Reid and Abdulmutallab have had a profound effect. The notion that any passenger can be a human time bomb has entered the consciousness of the public.

Moreover, it hardly establishes confidence when Ms. Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, assures the public “the system worked.” Clearly a risk free air flight doesn’t exist, but newly instituted measures like magnetic resonance scans and banning blankets and bathroom visits during the last hour of a flight are not likely to mitigate anxiety about flying.

To compound the fear, the Obama administration has been briefed about the bombing technique attempted on flight 253 and about the Nigerian carrying the explosives. Since 2001, there have been a reported 28 failed terrorist attacks against the United States. It is obvious, that despite administration claims to the contrary, this was not an isolated incident of “human error.” It is a failure up and down the proverbial food chain, from the White House to the clerk who issued a visa.

The president, as commander and chief, has the responsibility for national security, but the issue at hand is not only protecting lives; it involves the maintenance of psychological equilibrium. With each airborne thuggery, timidity sets in. This is the victory terrorists seek. When ordinary people are afraid to leave their homes, terrorism is gaining traction.

I cannot tally the number of trips not taken or the business ventures cancelled because of flight fear. But I am sure, based on anecdotal evidence, that the numbers are substantial. One may fly through the sky, but flying friendly skies as the commercial suggests is not as likely as it once was.

Terrorism has altered our way of travel and our way of life. And in a sense has forced almost every traveler to ask, “is this flight safe?” Well, yes, most flights are safe, yet trepidation about terrorism has entered the equation and it is not going to disappear in the short term.

Being on an airplane may lead to uneasiness, but terrorism has led to a special concern. As I see it, that special concern is terrorism’s victory. All the effort to thwart a full scale attack is obviously necessary. However, the very fact that a known terrorist, whose father warned U.S. authorities about his son’s radical views, can gain access to a commercial flight has escalated the risk factor and the fear of flying.

Every time I enter an aircraft I look suspiciously at the other passengers. Are there terrorists on board? How would I know? What are the tell-tale signs? The very fact that I ask these questions indicates terrorism has gained entry into my mind set. That is the price we pay for conciliation and political correctness, a price that undermines the freedom we once enjoyed.

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

1/6/10: 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 Goering lives in this Obama White House.

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

12/30/09: Tightening The Noose On Foreign Policy

As the plans for American foreign policy are being debated in the White House and the corridors of Congress, it is increasingly apparent that the options are limited.

It is not that options are limited by the lack of imagination, albeit that is a factor. The overarching concern is that foreign policy options are limited by the lack of resources.

The Obama initiatives to stimulate the economy and insinuate the government into the banking, financial services, automobile, insurance and health care industries are tied inextricably to the decisions on the foreign policy front.

It would appear that intentionally or inadvertently domestic decisions are driving national security and foreign policy goals. How can you build a 300 ship navy when you require resources for universal health care? And how can you pay for sustained military deployments when the deficit is ten percent of g.d.p.?

It may be convenient for this administration to have an aggressive domestic stance, one that devours the bulk of the budget so that the president can pursue his desire for the incremental withdrawal of forces abroad and the cessation of new military hardware. Why even consider the F22, for example, when there are insufficient funds for the construction of this aircraft?

This is the pursuit of a global strategy using capital limitation as its justification. Just as it was fashionable in the 1990’s to discuss overreach – the worldwide deployment of troops that drained our resources – it is now appropriate to describe present policy as underreach – the belief that any deployment is beyond our present resource capability.

Where this strategy leads is obvious. The United States is on the highway to Great Britain of 1990, a once great power that ruled the seas, but is relegated to marginal military status in the present. Should the U.S. pursue this goal to its logical conclusion, there will no longer be a global hegemon capable of shaping world affairs; there will only be regional powers and international instability.

Of course it should be noted that all foreign policy decisions are constrained by available capital. A nation incapable of generating wealth can only be a military power if it impoverishes its people. For democracies this tactic is unacceptable. If we have guns, we insist on butter as well. Hence an Obama plan that promises a lot of butter, limits and eliminates guns.

What differentiates President Obama from his predecessors is that domestic spending drives his agenda and offers a rationale for international timidity and conciliation. He embraces a view of U.S. imperial impulses that must be subdued, and he seeks to do so by spending on the domestic front, thereby forcing decisions on the international stage.

As the president has noted “we have run out of money.” But we have only run out of money for defense preparations. The domestic agenda proceeds in an unrelenting fashion, oblivious to asymptotes. One Obama aide noted the only limit to our spending is in our imagination. Presumably that imagination has the dollar printing presses working overtime.

This condition has alarmed our putative allies and given comfort to our enemies. The president may appear as a sensible man doing only what the budget dictates. But in truth, the budget is a political instrument that can be used to drive policy decisions. The nexus between domestic and foreign spending is palpable. In the Obama age only the former counts; it is the manifestation of his philosophical underpinnings and the rationale for his foreign policy decisions.

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

12/23/09: The Triumph of Hope Over Reality

President Obama went to Copenhagen with proclamations about reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, the first time in more than a decade that an American administration has offered even a tentative proposal to reduce production of so-called climate-altering gases, the spin meisters in the White House have announced.

But what do these proclamations mean? Five major nations, India, China, South Africa, Brazil and the United States, forged a climate deal that doesn’t legally commit any of the nations to gas emission targets. The deal asks the parties involved to list how they will cap emissions with set amounts, among other general and vague goals. Friends of the Earth tore into the arrangement as “a sham agreement with no real requirements.” Moreover, the conference also turned into a bash capitalism festival. The biggest applause line came when Chavez among others said capitalism accounts for global warming and socialism is the cure.

In effect, the Copenhagen meeting has been transmogrified into a giant extortion racket with the poor nations demanding a pay-off for the profligacy of the West, a profligacy that accounts, in their febrile minds, for the problem. The president of the Sudan had the audacity to suggest that the $140 billion the U.S. offered to deal with global warming in the developing world was “not enough.” In addition, such stalwart leaders as Mugabe and Chavez have demanded funding to deal with the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions in their respective nations, nations that have wantonly exploited environmental integrity.

The absurdity of the posturing in Copenhagen demonstrates a great deal about the hubris in the developing world, the naiveté of President Obama and this administration and an inability to distinguish between hope and reality. It has often been said that one of the great lies of our time is “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.” I guess there may have been times when the government has helped. The problem, of course, is that most issues are local and Washington is far away in distance and emotion, and Copenhagen is now a center for political rhetoric, not for addressing issues.

Just as William Buckley once said “I’d rather be ruled by the first one hundred names in the Boston telephone directory rather than the Harvard faculty,” it is also the case that Harvard faculty, metaphorically of course, ends up in Washington and does make judgments for the country. And as one might guess, hope invariably trumps reality.

The entire healthcare bill is also predicated on hope: hope that the expense can be absorbed without rationing; hope that adding the uninsured to the hospital rolls will not lead to an additional expense and hope that the elderly who need care will still be able to receive it after Medicare is cut by $455 billion. Congressional Budget Office estimates provide a reality check which suggests none of these hopes can be realized.

The government promised the American people that a $787 billion stimulus bill would create or save 3 million jobs, a number that gets smaller in size each week. Yet the unemployment rate has gone from 8 percent when the bill was enacted to over 10 percent at the moment. There were, of course, many detractors who argued that this stimulus is little more than pork barrel legislation that cannot possibly influence the unemployment rate. It seems these people were right. But does the government care? It operates on hope and continues to contend the stimulus is working.

Perhaps President Obama thinks his decision moves us closer to a solution for the dubious proposition of global warming. I’m sure he believes his actions will do so. But first the problem should be well understood. Exaggerated claims must be addressed. And most significantly, the president should say that extortion is something Americans don’t countenance. We should not transfer $140 billion dollars to satisfy feelings of guilt or to justify the manifestations of capitalism. Our economic engine benefitted the entire world. That is nothing for which we should apologize, nor is it a condition that warrants an extortion payment.

One of the first rules of public policy should be don’t let hope trump reality. I only wish this administration in its legislative overreach and the crowd in Copenhagen had taken this advice seriously.

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

12/16/09: "Race To The Top" Merely Another Education Gimmick

In the 11/25/09 issue of the Wall Street Journal three eminences of public education, Harold Ford Jr., Louis Gerstner Jr. and Eli Broad reflect on ways to improve public education, “Race to the Top in Education.” Alas, over the last several decades there has been a lot of racing, significant funding and abysmal achievement. “Now, however,” they note, “President Obama has launched ‘Race to the Top,’ a competition that is parceling out $4.35 billion in new education funding to states that are committed to real (my italics) reform.” This package note the authors augurs well for meaningful change.

I beg to differ. Despite the emphasis on so called “performance standards and competition,” clearly goals that are needed, my guess is this initiative will fail as all of its predecessors have.

As I see it there are three principal reasons for failure: democracy, unions and the culture.

Several years ago I was an advisor on educational matters for a midwestern state that had competency exams for 3rd, 5th, 8th and 12th graders. I reviewed the exams which had reasonable requirements, although hardly excessive by Korean standards. In the first year this program was instituted less than a third of the students in the aggregate passed. Parents were outraged. “My Johnny is very bright; the exam is a foolish exercise,” wrote one parent; letters of a similar variety came pouring into the governor’s office like a gusher.

A governor, like every elected official, wants to be reelected. As you might guess, he asked to have the exams “modified,” (read: made easier). Alas, this was done, not once but twice, until the reading and math passing scores exceeded 80 percent. Like those in Lake Woebegone everyone must be above average. It’s good for politicians and a conclusion that satisfies parents. Unfortunately Johnny doesn’t read, write and compute as well as mom and dad think.

Then we have the unions whose leadership is concerned with their constituencies solely. As Al Shenker of the A.F.T once noted “when students start paying dues I’ll be as interested in them as my teachers.” Hence competition of any kind among teachers, such as merit pay, is anathema. Unless the NEA’s grip on public education is broken, competition, genuine competition, cannot be implemented. Moreover, how can this administration, already beholden to the teachers’ union for financial support, challenge the NEA?

Last, it should be noted that even the most dedicated and effective teachers cannot compete with the osmotic effect of the culture. Television, computer games, Facebook, sports, texting, diversions of every variety the mind can conjure vie for attention with scholarship. And if the general level of cultural ignorance is any measure, guess which side is winning?

Although it is unfair to generalize from a sample of one, I viewed a Jay Leno program in which he asked a teenager the country Christopher Columbus was from. His response, “Ohio.” Well at least he knew Columbus is in Ohio. Admittedly my experience is anecdotal, but as I visit American universities I find students are more familiar with the words to the latest rap music – if you can call it music – than a Robert Lowell poem or the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. As Thorstein Veblen noted “students are being trained in incapacity.” In large part, this is the case because the culture forces deviancy down. This is America’s accelerated dream of egalitarianism in which the bottom quartile moves slightly upward and the top quartile moves down creating a compression at the mean.

The gang of three, Ford, Gerstner, Broad, mean well. They are sincere in their desire to improve public education. But “Race to the Top” is no different from “No Child Left Behind” and dozens of predecessors. Until the real issues are addressed – if they can be addressed – don’t count on any more success in education than we’ve encountered before.

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

12/9/09: Fighting Jihadism At Home

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) recently revealed that the Ansar Al-Mujahideen jihadist forum issued a statement in praise of the Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Hassan. This statement was aimed at Muslim associations in the United States that condemned his murderous acts.

The statement reads: “…We issue this statement in support of the actions of brother Nidal Malik Hassan, as a congratulations for his brave and heroic deed, as well as the jealousness (i.e. zeal) he displayed for the pains suffered by the Muslim Ummah as a result of the modern Zionist-Christian Crusades against it. May Allah reward you brother Nidal. We ask Allah to accept this great feat of yours and make you an example for others to follow.”

As this statement goes on to note, Hassan’s actions are not contrary to the religion of Islam, but are encouraged by it. Furthermore, there is the call for Muslims in the United States Army to repent for their apostasy and think of Hassan as a role model, instilling fear in the enemies of Allah and taking them by surprise wherever they may be.

What is one to make of this statement? It is obvious that Islam, or a branch of it, is at war with the United States and will use any method to threaten or destroy American assets and interests. Surely this situation cannot be tolerated. If the allegation that Saudi money has persuaded Muslims to join the Army as a quisling force aiding and abetting our enemies, Pentagon action is certainly warranted, albeit evidence for this allegation has not yet been uncovered. However, the complacent response of the FBI to incendiary emails sent by Colonel Hassan represents an intolerable “what me, worry” attitude.

There is little doubt we must be vigilant in ferreting out enemies ensconced in our military services. If this violates General Casey’s dedication to diversity, so be it. It is inconceivable that American soldiers should be put in harm’s way in their own barracks.

If one accepts the febrile mental state of the jihadist, any act against the Zionist-Christian Crusade is acceptable. Presumably, it doesn’t have to involve a crusade since the Koran specifically cites antipathy to apostates, i.e. nonbelievers of Islam. Once you are defined as less than human, any act is permissible. Here is the moral perversity of Holocaust logic all over again.

In a curious way American tolerance is the enemy when it cannot draw lines of acceptable behavior. There isn’t any excuse or rationalization for Nidal Hassan’s murders. If his religion compelled him to act, then we must reject that form of religion from the precincts of protected faith. The First Amendment should not tolerate murder.

That there are jihadists who value killing is evident from any reading of a daily newspaper. But we cannot allow this bloodthirsty sensibility to insinuate itself into our lives or institutions. Those who contend we can talk these people out of their fanatical beliefs, do not understand our enemy. The best we can do is defeat these people on the global battlefield and separate ourselves from their potentially dangerous actions at home. To do any less plays directly into their hands, hands already covered with the blood of innocent American soldiers.

Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and a Professor Emeritus at NYU. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001). London maintains a website, http://www.herblondon.org/.

Back to the Top

11/18/09: Organized Protests Over Healthcare

Playing hardball has become the calling card of the Obama administration. When it doesn’t get what it wants, threats emerge, what some now call the Rahm Emmanuel method. But it isn’t only the formal apparatus of government that is used in a coercive way. The Obama team has apparently unleashed its informal allies, i.e. union organizers, ACORN and its alliances.

On October 28 protestors organized for the third time in front of the New Jersey Blue Cross. On this occasion protestors were intent on creating a sit-in in the building’s lobby. There were eight arrests and pandemonium broke out when the police arrived. The building was shut down for most of the workday, but what is most interesting is the coordination of these protests in twenty locations around the country.

At several locations in New Jersey, Newark, Trenton and Camden, so-called “trick or treat” bags are being distributed in which a case is made for a single payer medical plan for the country and an argument is laid out against private insurance companies. The trick is the hateful practices of insurance companies and the treat is the introduction of a government operated system.

As a believer in “sunlight as the best disinfectant” I’m persuaded free speech on public issues is not only necessary, but a condition to be encouraged. However, there is a difference between educating, persuading and convincing and sit-ins, protests and intimidation.

I have now seen the latter used as an approach to the healthcare issue and I find it reprehensible. Buses filled with angry protestors have been transported to healthcare debates in an effort to intimidate those opposed to government sponsored programs. Who is responsible for hiring these buses and from where do these protestors come?

There isn’t any way of knowing whether the government has been actively promoting this activity, countenancing it or simply averting its gaze. But it is ugly and it appears to be planned and systematic.

Recognizing the positive role of a minority to foment change Samuel Adams said, “It does not take a majority to prevail…but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”

It is also true that there is an obverse observation: A tireless and irate minority can foment revolution and destroy freedom by setting brushfires in the minds of men. Those committed to undoing an existing system can do so based on the level of commitment and risk tolerance. The Bolsheviks called themselves “the majority,” but they were a tiny minority willing to put lives on the line to destroy the Russian monarchy. What they put in its place may have been even more monstrous, but it affirms the view a minority can prevail.

The danger with the contemporary protestor is he doesn’t have to assume much risk in a system that is tolerance crazy. You might think after two disturbances in New Jersey, the third wouldn’t be tolerated at all, but you would be wrong.

As a consequence, minorities can dictate to majorities that are acquiescent or complacent. In my judgment that explains why one is somewhat suspicious about these organized protests, particularly when there isn’t transparency about the sponsors.

Samuel Adams may have been speaking about the American Revolution, but at the moment there are malevolent influences applying the same method. It is a matter about which we should take heed.

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

11/4/09: Taiwan and China's Buildup

Despite “the era of good feeling” that has emerged between Taiwan and China, tensions in the Taiwan Straits have not disappeared. There are 1500 missiles aimed at Taiwan. It is also the case that Beijing’s military posture toward Taiwan has hindered efforts to create a thaw in the relationship. China has not given up the notion of using force against Taiwan.

In the latest edition of its biennial military review, the Taiwan Ministry of Defense released a metaphorical bombshell. It noted that with China’s continuing and unrelenting military buildup, “it can now deter foreign militaries from assisting Taiwan.” This, of course, is a euphemism for deterring the United States. Since the U.S. deployed an aircraft carrier in the Straits a decade ago when conditions heated on both sides of the divide, China has vowed to thwart any American military assistance for Taiwan. And if the report is accurate, that moment may have arrived.

Taiwan and China have been ruled as separate nations over the last 60 years, but Beijing claims the island must eventually unify with the mainland. The only question that remains is what is meant by “eventually.” Whenever the word independence has been used by Taiwanese politicians, China ratchets up the threat level.

Since the election of President Ma Ying-jeou, who is noticeably cautious in reference to independence, Taiwan relations with China have improved. The two nations now have regular commercial flights and are negotiating a possible free trade deal. What has not received much publicity is the fact that Taiwanese business investments in China have led to the employment of millions of Chinese mainlanders. However, these developments exist against a backdrop of China’s insistence Taiwan is part of “one China.”

Holding China at bay is Taiwan’s most important international ally, the United States. According to the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act the U.S. government has noted it will provide defensive weapons and would intercede if China attacked the island. This report by the Taiwan Ministry, however, indicates that vows of intercession are meaningless gestures now that China’s military strength is sufficient to deter U.S. involvement.

It is also the case that Obama administration impulses to withdraw from foreign commitments make it extremely unlikely the U.S. would respond militarily to Chinese adventurism. For all practical purposes Taiwan is a literal and figurative island at the mercy of Chinese leadership.

This is not to suggest that China is prepared to attack Taiwan. Such an event would poison Chinese ties to the West and its position in the World Trade Organization. What it does mean, however, is that China can apply pressure on a vulnerable Taiwan thereby accelerating the goal of unification and forcing Taiwanese leaders to make concessions of various kinds.

Presumably Taiwan can seek military alliances in Asia with Japan, South Korea and India in an effort to thwart Chinese ambitions. But, with the exception of India, most nations in Asia recognize putative Chinese regional leadership in the face of America’s evanescing Asian presence. The new Japanese, government, for example, is already making overtures to Beijing in an effort to forestall Chinese inroads into the Sea of Japan.

It is instructive that a world with a less powerful United States leads to political instability in many parts of the globe. The Taiwanese are a resilient and remarkable people who have taken a once largely barren island and converted it into one of the most vigorous economies on the globe. Yet this development could not have occurred without the protective shield of the United States and one can only wonder how it can be sustained without active American assistance.

To learn that the Taiwanese now recognize checkmate in the Straits of Taiwan is upsetting for any of us who admire the fierce determination of the island’s people. A new day is dawning and from the perspective of democracy and prosperity, it is a very gray day indeed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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