IS THIS WENDELL WILLKIE REDUX? DUCK!
*Published in altered form ("Barack Meet Wendell") on American Thinker*
In 1940, one of the most unlikely political ascensions in history occurred when Wendell Willkie came out of nowhere to claim the Republican nomination and challenge Franklin Delano Roosevelt for the Presidency. I wanted to do a little comparison with our own election: Willkie vs. Obama. Of course, a lot of things DON’T compare well in the general situation of each time, but the personality, experience and choices of Willkie seem eerily reminiscent of Obama to me. Others have seen this before me, such as Alexander Heffner of TIME magazine. Here is my take on it in light of recent developments.

Willkie’s experience consisted of being a soldier, corporate lawyer and company president of an electric utility company. He served as a delegate to the Democratic convention and supported FDR and the New Deal. However, when Roosevelt intruded into utilities matters by instituting the Tennessee Valley Authority, and when FDR began to lean towards war, the isolationist Willkie re-acted forcefully. He became a liberal Republican and began to campaign nationally. At 48 years old, he broke upon the national consciousness with an ‘electrifying’ (!) appearance on the “Town Hall” radio program. In 1940, Willkie stumped furiously around the country and caught fire in the popular imagination. In light of the apocalyptic threat posed by the Nazi threat to the Continent, the gist of his appeal was the isolationist cant, “WE MUST AVOID WAR”. “Willkie clubs” began to spring up everywhere. Millions signed petitions for him. It was a true phenomenon.

At the Republican convention, in what was probably the most dramatic event in convention history, Willkie came out of nowhere, in a multiple-ballot thriller, to upset the presumed sure-fire nominee, Thomas Dewey (who would famously lose eight years later in another similar upset to Truman).

During the campaign, Willkie’s inexperience began to show. He chose as a main theme the lack of preparedness of the military by the administration, perhaps to offset his isolationist reputation as it became more apparent that war was inevitable. Roosevelt easily outflanked this by expanding contracts and instituting a draft. Willkie then tried to capitalize on backlash to the draft, by changing the support he had announced for it to opposition. On the domestic front, he began to claim that he could run the New Deal programs more efficiently than the Roosevelt Administration and that he could work with business leaders more effectively.

Willkie lost 27 million votes to 22 million in an electoral landslide, carrying only ten states. Why did Willkie lose when the enthusiasm for him had been so massive? I think the fact of his lack of experience began to dawn on a lot of people, for one thing. How could he claim he could run things much better than a solid veteran of administering things? Also, he had ridden largely upon the wave of isolationist, anti-war sentiment which was by far the dominant opinion until 1940; this changed drastically as 1940 went on. The situation on the ground changed. Willkie tried to have it both ways, keeping the enthusiastic anti-war people revved up by charging FDR of secretly trying to dupe us into war AND by also trying to appear PRO-military to a higher degree than FDR.

From our privileged position using hindsight, we can see how this belied the whole basis of the movement in the first place, replacing the cause with the charismatic anointed leader. The closer to the election people got, sober-thinking Americans decided it was not time for an experiment or to try someone so inexperienced. Now, Willkie actually got a record number of votes for a Republican and inspired millions to vote who might not have otherwise. However, he also inspired millions more to vote against him because they thought – I think, rightly so – he was risky.

He eventually changed his world view again and became somewhat of a spokesman for internationalism, writing the book, ‘One World’. He died tragically of heart disease in 1944 as his comeback campaign was hopelessly faltering.

Looking through this story, a lot of comparisons have probably already occurred to you. Let me spell some of them out.

Obama, like Willkie, came ‘out of nowhere’ w/little political/administrative experience. Wilkie actually comes out better on that score. Let’s compare:

Willkie               Obama
1. Administrative  comp. president     none
2. Military              soldier                   none
3. Education          history prof.            law prof.
4. Employment     corp. lawyer          “comm. organizer”
5. Legislative         Conv. delegate      Sen.; StRep

They both launched themselves with one seminal performance, Obama with his 2004 Convention Speech, Willkie with his “Town Hall” radio broadcast. They both rode the wave of a powerful popular movement, specifically anti-war movements. For number of people involved and apparent depth of enthusiasm, both probably stand out uniquely in our history as the top two in each category. They both defeated ‘inevitable’ candidates in their Party who were each perhaps actually hamstrung by their own inevitability, Clinton and Dewey.

Now, we are in the middle of the present campaign, so, we obviously have no way to draw an ultimate or even, technically, a penultimate comparison. Nonetheless, we can see certain trends that match pretty well. Notice that both Willkie and Obama had to jump off a powerful wave that got them their nominations. The “Willkie Clubs” were joined by other fast-growing, money-making, issue-driven isolationist groups; Obama, without doubt, was powered by the new, fast-growing, money-making, issue-driven anti-war groups like Soros’ MoveOn, the Daily Kos and Media Matters. The change in the world situation in 1940 and in 2008 forced each candidate to reverse, adjust or otherwise fudge their policy statements on war in ways that, in the end, appeared to be on two sides of issues, contradictory or disingenuous. Wilkie’s campaign seemed to become more about him as a sort of anointed figure of destiny. Of course, since the early primaries, Obama has made the same sort of transformation, even being called a Messiah, and battling a growing perception of arrogance. Each became pressured to claim they could do better at something despite their great lack of experience. Willkie could run New Deal programs better; Obama can run the war in Iraq and Afghanistan better.

Wendell Willkie and Barack Obama were both popularity-driven agents for “change” but when you examine the specifics of their policies they became not really all that different in substance from their opponents. Wilkie’s eventual position favoring internationalist support for England just short of war became virtually the same as Roosevelt’s position; the difference became merely an anti-war slogan. Obama has ended up supporting much of what he opposed, despite being nominally against the war. Both chose to flip on key principle positions in order to model themselves on newly popular positions.

My hope and my prayer is that the final result of this year will be the same. If I had been around in 1940, I would have voted against Wendell Willkie. The choices he made in the crucible of the campaign revealed that his lack of experience was a fatal flaw. He was not a champion of any one unshakeable principle in the end, but an untried celebrity riding a cultural wave. If he had been elected, it would probably have been catastrophic.

Obama, too, has been riding an emotional cultural wave of celebrity. His campaign has devolved for the reasons given above into a cult of personality like Willkie’s. We, once again, face an implacably evil enemy who threatens to employ even worse weapons than those we faced in 1940. We’ve seen this bullet coming at us before; let’s dodge it one more time. It’s Willkie ‘redux’: DUCK! 

I’M PROUD OF MY HUMILITY!
*Published on Flopping Aces*
My friend, Coach Mac, who grew up in Boston in the 30’s and 40’s, often tells the story of how his grandmother used to say to anyone who was trying to act really humble, “You’re not big enough to act so small!” or something to that effect. Or else, he often says, “There’s no one anywhere who’s more humble than me anywhere”, with tongue firmly planted in cheek, of course! What I have to report today makes me think of this.

All of our fears and intuitions about the pride and narcissism of Barack Obama are being seemingly re-confirmed over and over again almost daily, today at least twice. His behavior today (July 30, 2008) in Washington was that a conquering hero through the triumphal gates of Rome! The Secret Service was corralled to block intersections for his SUV motorcade. Arrangements made only for the President himself till now, were for the first time made with great excitement on behalf of Obama. He then declared himself (before a triumphant group of Democratic legislators) the symbol of all that is great about America about to come with his glorious ascendance. Maybe a supporter might be able to explain this away by believing that Obama himself is faultless; this had to be mostly the overeager response of a rightly enthused populace. However, the second story of the day puts any question of Obama’s complicity in this idolatry beyond doubt. Several Israeli publications are reporting an incident. Here it is:

Report: Obama Publicized 'Secret' Prayer at Wailing Wall

By Tim Graham
July 29, 2008 - 23:23 ET 

"Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. Thus, when you give alms, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward." – Matthew 6:1-2 

The publication of Barack Obama’s supposedly secret prayer at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem was a scandal in Israel. James Taranto noted the newspaper Ha’aretz reported calls for police investigations into the removal and publication of the Obama note, published by the newspaper Maariv. But Maariv said it was Obama who authorized the unveiling of his temporarily private message to God.

Maariv's response: "Obama's note was published in Maariv and other international publications following his authorization to make the content of the note public. Obama submitted a copy of the note to media outlets when he left his hotel in Jerusalem. Moreover, since he is not Jewish, there is no violation of privacy as there would be for a Jewish person who places a note in the wall."

Taranto added: 

Thus, as IsraelInsider puts it, "what initially seemed to be a journalistic scoop of dubious moral propriety now seems to be a case of an Israeli paper being played by the Barack Obama campaign." Obama's so-called prayer was at best an open letter to God--a sentiment intended for public, not divine, consumption.

Taranto headlined the story "Potemkin Prayer." Obama fans seem very intense in asserting that Obama is a devout Christian, but Obama's act of circulating his own so-called "secret" prayer is an exercise in phoniness and religious vanity. On top of that, the campaign played coy about it. Earlier, the Obama campaign offered a "no comment" when the New York Post asked questions. Will anyone in the "mainstream" media follow up?

—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center

It seems like the campaign circulated the story of someone taking the prayer from the wall in order to create some sort of impression for whatever reasons, but the Israeli papers simply didn’t play along with this. Maybe Obama is used to something else from the Chicago papers, I don’t know, but it is obvious Israeli journalists are less inclined to hide or ignore parts of a story. They knew he had given them copies of the prayer even before he got to the Wailing Wall.

The most ironic part of this scandal is that the ‘prayer’ included the sentiment, “Protect me from pride”!! Perhaps this resembles the young Augustine’s famous entreaty, “Lord, make me a saint, but not now”, or “Lord, take away all my vices and sins…except for this one…”! The media should be shouting this from the rafters. All patriots should be trumpeting that we have someone who cannot be trusted here.  It seems the Obama campaign signs at this sacred place was not an aberration, but part of a now clear pattern of cynical opportunism.

If we translate what Obama is really saying, what would be a good way to say it? Yes, that’s right: ‘I’m proud of my humility”!!

ALERT! July 31, 2008 - In the interest of full disclosure, it has since come to my attention that Ma'ariv is now disputing this story.  They are actually a left-wing secularist paper apparently and IsraelInsider is a right-wing group.  We know why the latter would jump on it but why would someone at Ma'ariv report it?  Curiouser and curiouser.  If a yeshiva student did get the paper and give it to Ma'ariv, why would they print it, knowing as all Israelis do the strong taboo on obtaining it at a sacrilegious time and in such a manner?  The firestorm of protest and boycott, the possible demise of the paper, was certainly not unforeseen.  Why would they damage themselves in this way?  I have a feeling this straight denial might not be the whole story.  Nontheless, this, of course, leaves the whole story in limbo for now and I am obligated to inform you because I quoted Tim Graham's story at length above.  (I am not a reporter, but, in future, I will try to be more circumspect.)

However, the main thrust for the incident remains intact.  Obama supporters held official campaign signs at the Wailing Wall!  For a picture, http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-campaigned-at-western-wall.

Even if the 'prayer' story is completely false, the very same point about hubris applies to this very same incident.

 

Go to http://mlajoie2.blogspot.com/ to vote online

 *Published on Flopping Aces*

POLL QUESTION:

 What is the real meaning behind Barack Obama's multiple stands on many issues?

A.     He is a brilliant thinker; most of us can't follow his excellent logic

B.     He is a 'typical politician' willing to say anything to get elected

C.     He is a secret Marxist or Socialist ideologue trying to mask his true beliefs

D.     He's been affected by his Muslim background which sanctions masking one's beliefs

E.     He is inexperienced and not good at thinking on his feet

F.     I refuse to acknowledge that he does take multiple stands on issues

Feel free to choose more than one answer from this multiple choice.

Visit http://mlajoie2.blogtownhall.com/ for a written blog version OR http://mlajoie2.blogspot.com/ for a chance to vote on line.

Here is an extract from General George Washington's  famous 'eyeglasses' speech which quelled a mutiny that, at the time, looked inevitable.  Notice the amazing command of language and the use of a great vocabulary in strategic places.  The first paragraph is one long spoken sentence, and yet, though it was given orally, it is perfectly constructed.  Notice the appeal to patriotic and human principle and the solid connection of these to shared experiences.  The best commanders-in-chief have the benefit of earned wisdom gained by enduring deep pain and struggle with others and through courage and unwavering principle overcoming with others.  This is not gained by the naive and inexperienced.  This extract is from the very end of the speech:

 

"For myself (and I take no merit in giving the assurance, being induced to it from principles of gratitude, veracity and justice), a grateful sence of the confidence you have ever placed in me, a recollection of the chearful assistance, and prompt obedience I have experienced from you, under every vicissitude of Fortune, and the sincere affection I feel for an Army, I have so long had the honor to Command, will oblige me to declare, in this public and solemn manner, that, in the attainment of compleat justice for all your toils and dangers, and in the gratification of every wish, so far as may be done consistently with the great duty I owe my Country, and those powers we are bound to respect, you may freely command my Services to the utmost of my abilities.

While I give you these assurances, and pledge myself in the most unequivocal manner, to exert whatever ability I am possessed of, in your favor, let me entreat you, Gentlemen, on your part, not to take any measures, which, viewed in the calm light of reason, will lessen the dignity, and sully the glory you have hitherto maintained; let me request you to rely on the plighted faith of your Country, and place a full confidence in the purity of the intentions of Congress; that, previous to your dissolution as an Army they will cause all your Accts. to be fairly liquidated, as directed in their resolutions, which were published to you two days ago, and that they will adopt the most effectual measures in their power, to render ample justice to you, for your faithful and meritorious Services. And let me conjure you, in the name of our common Country, as you value your own sacred honor, as you respect the rights of humanity, and as you regard the Military and National character of America, to express your utmost horror and detestation of the Man who wishes, under any specious pretences, to overturn the liberties of our Country, and who wickedly attempts to open the flood Gates of Civil discord, and deluge our rising Empire in Blood. By thus determining, and thus acting, you will pursue the plain and direct road to the attainment of your wishes. You will defeat the insidious designs of our Enemies, who are compelled to resort from open force to secret Artifice. You will give one more distinguished proof of unexampled patriotism and patient virtue, rising superior to the pressure of the most complicated sufferings; And you will, by the dignity of your Conduct, afford occasion for Posterity to say, when speaking of the glorious example you have exhibited to Mankind, “had this day been wanting, the World had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining.”

After reading these remarks, Washington prepared to read a letter from a Congressional delegate, but then stopped to put on eyeglasses, saying: “Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray, but almost blind, in the service of my country”.  Some of the officers—having been assembled by Washington to check a rebellious spirit among them—were moved to tears.

John McCain has been crippled for love of country so that he is unable to gesticulate or emote in a charismatic manner (like Barack Obama) because of his physical handicaps.  George Washington was no charismatic speaker.  All he had to do was show his eyeglasses, the fruit of eyes grown dim for love of country.  No flourishes, no fireworks were necessary.  Those hearts who loved their country and knew the sacrifice of their leader needed only see those glasses to be moved to tears of recognition. I, too, have been moved to see the, at times, clumsy, yet heartfelt and authentic love of country in John McCain.  Read the testimonials of some of those who actually knew him during their ordeal, too.  He has been a leader in this same mold.  Please do not mutiny against our beloved country's traditions and ideals; rather, imitate the love written in the flesh of those who spent themselves like McCain, with a kindred dedication, honor and devotion.  We will all be better for it.

“OBAMA, YOU’RE NO “JELLY DOUGHNUT”!
Was it my imagination or was this speech by Obama one of the worst you have ever heard? It seemed like a swollen polyglot mass of glop. In terms of American patriotism per se, I also felt like I had gotten a gut sucker punch. Is it just me? I bet it isn’t. Now I have to sit down and analyze why this is so.

There is no doubt that the intent was to force comparisons to JFK’s and Reagan’s speech. An amusing fact about John F. Kennedy’s famous speech in Berlin in 1963 (“Ich Bin Ein Berliner”) is that because he used the wrong article in the phrase “I am a Berliner”, he actually ended up saying “I am a jelly doughnut!” because ‘Berliner’ was a nickname in Berlin for a doughnut! {I am indebted to Rush Limbaugh for this tasty tidbit.} Kennedy really appreciated the self-deprecating humor involved in that. I doubt Barry would be so amused. Now Obama wants to wrap the JFK mantle around his speech there. Let’s take a look at what Kennedy actually said there. Here is a sample of the speech:

“There are some who say -- There are some who say that communism is the wave of the future.
Let them come to Berlin.

And there are some who say, in Europe and elsewhere, we can work with the Communists.
Let them come to Berlin.

And there are even a few who say that it is true that communism is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress.

Lass' sie nach Berlin kommen. 
Let them come to Berlin.”

Does this sound like the “no preconditions” appeasement we heard from Obama? Does this sound like the “withdraw while we can” anti-surge dirge Obama gave us in Iraq? Does this amazing moral courage in any way resemble the shallow, craven “waffling” (pun intended), flip-flopping and spinelessness we’ve seen from Obama?? (Is there any liberal today, much less the most liberal of them all like Obama, who could give this speech today?)

One further point is that John F. Kennedy gave his speech as President of the United States with a crucial geopolitical crisis hanging in the balance right there in Berlin as did Reagan with his similarly strong words (“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this Wall!”). What pressing need was waiting for him there that Obama had to go and give a speech right there right now? It seems this whole trip is for the political purpose of looking ‘Presidential’. It is symbolism over substance, all the way. Even Andrea Mitchell, who was once trained in the old ways of journalism, had to admit that she never remembered anything quite like it for vacuousness, in its timing, its sheer volume and its extremity: audacity indeed! Even the press was beginning to bristle on this trip, often having to remind the staffers, “He’s not the President of the United States yet”!

Yes, the hubris is breathtaking in its arrogance! Who does Barack Obama think he is giving this speech when he isn’t even the nominee of his party yet? Is he trying to grind the faces of those more than half of Democrats who voted not for him but for Hillary Clinton into the dust of humiliation before the convention even meets? Who brings campaign signs to the Wailing Wall, a place of humility, prayer and reflection much less to Berlin? Several gaffes on this trip have betrayed his mental assumption of the mantle of world rule already.

At first the campaign was claiming vociferously this speech was NOT a political campaign event, but in the end they were forced to admit it. (The State Department then forbade government employees to go.) Then, in the speech, Obama claims he is NOT speaking as a candidate (!) but as a “citizen of the world”. Which is it?

And, then, the speech….Ah, yes, the speech….He gave one of the most vague, pointless speeches I’ve ever heard. His recounting to Berlin their own history of the 1948 airlift was inaccurate and failed to point out that it was Truman, virtually alone, who stood up to the Communists (something Obama has yet to prove he could come close to doing). [The contrast between Truman and this guy couldn’t be deeper.] The nations of that time were NOT "unified" as one together, thank God.  They recognized the unavoidable divide in the world that demanded no compromise.  Obama's vague Kumbaya "one world" pronouncements betray not idealism but a serious 'reality deficit'.  In fact, despite his protestations to the contrary and many sub-themes and noise-making, many specifics in the speech were veiled political criticisms of the United States on “torture” [I’m sure he didn’t mean Cuba, China or Saudi Arabia], on “equitable distribution of wealth”, on global warming, on immigration. He spoke aloud of ‘tearing down walls’ and ‘building bridges’, but the strong undertow was the world will be a better place if I can defeat these evil Republicans. Why are you taking our dirty laundry to someone else’s yard, Barack?  There's certainly nothing wrong with cricizing one's country, but why did you have to go overseas to do it?

He sounded much more like a “citizen of the world” than a citizen of the world’s greatest hope and shining city on a hill. It was a speech that tried to wrap its arms around all of the world’s problems and say, indeed, I AM the ONE who can lead us and inspire us ALL to solve ALL of these problems. Can you tell me why he could not say the word “Americans” when he mentioned the slaughter of 9/11? Tell me why? Why did he HAVE to say there were “thousands from all over the globe” killed on 9/11 when quite literally 99% of them were AMERICAN CITIZENS??!!? {I apologize. I don’t usually lose it like this but this is really getting to me! Does this man really have such little patriotism?}

Great speeches are inextricably linked with the crisis situations that provoke them. Washington’s “eyeglasses” speech was a direct and necessary calming of the mutiny of his army. The Gettysburg Address was the turning point of the Civil War. Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” Speech was at the crest of a very particular movement in a particular time and place. Now, many great speeches end up acquiring universal significance because the great lessons learned in them can often be applied to many other human endeavors. However, they were born honestly out of very particular struggles that tested great people directly and called from them blood, sweat, tears, commitment of conscience, virtue and character.

In this speech, Obama has proved he is a Sophist of the worst kind. The repeated phrase, “This is the moment, this is the time” (borrowed from Bono), was merely a classic rhetorical trick to manufacture some urgency this speech was plainly lacking. This is the moment for what: saving the whole world from a long list of general problems? This speech is a whole collection of classic ‘tricks’ but it is ALL tricks and no soul. Some of Obama’s earliest speeches were actually pretty good. And there was the possibility they could even be great if there was some sort of reality to correlate the great rhetoric to. But we have since seen that this was a chimera all along. And this speech is the awful train wreck of reality crashing into Obama’s swollen self-absorption. It’s all about the presentation; it’s all about cult of personality. Obama has not lifted a finger much less shed 'blood, sweat, tears, commitment of conscience, virtue and character' to lead anyone anywhere, much less solve all the problems of the world! In his vainglorious blindness, he proposes to remake the whole world to stand alone against all forces when he couldn’t even stand the heat of the Iraq crisis and said we had to cut and run and accept defeat, when he flips at the slightest criticism from anywhere! This speech shows me this man is dangerous (probably, hopefully, not from ill intent) if only because he is so myopically, who knows, maybe clinically narcissistic. What damage could he do in so many ways? It seems Jesus summed up the danger posed by those who crave recognition but do little to earn it:  

"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in!" – Matthew 23:13.

Please, my fellow Americans, I am not speaking as a partisan, a Republican or anything else right now besides a concerned, extremely worried, American who loves his country.

JFK had the bona fides to give his speech. Let me, once again, do some of the basic comparisons.

JFK was an honest-to-God war hero. Look at the story of the PT-109 again. (His Ambassador father wasn’t there doing it for him!) He proved HIMSELF. The “community organizer” and his nutty ACORN friends had minimal impact by consensus.

JFK served several terms in the House and a full term in the Senate. He was known for getting things done, especially as a Cold Warrior. He recognized the unavoidable division in the world and that we were at war.  He had a clear record of accomplishment BEFORE running for President. As for Obama, with all due respect, Obama's record in Illinois featured an unprecedented number of non-votes. In his short Senate stint, he has NEVER convened the committee he supposedly runs and inarguably he has once again avoided votes and taking stands. His voting record: the most liberal, not conservative like JFK.  Obama's speech betrayed a totally different world-view from Kennedy's.

Obama’s books are about HIM and rely on rhetoric; patriotism is nothing but a disturbing question mark. JFK's book, "Profiles in Courage" is a classic. It is about virtue and character and what OTHER people did for love of country.

John F. Kennedy lived, breathed and sacrificed for true American patriotism. Obama knows the words but he doesn’t know the tune; in fact, he’s obviously tone-deaf. His ‘showplace’ patriotism is worth precisely one big fat zero-shaped DOUGHNUT!

“UH UH UH UH UH UH UH UH UM UH”

Here are excerpts from the Messi-uh’s Presidential & Triumphal Parade in Europe. From various sources I have taken some extemperaneous comments or interview answers.  I report…you decide….

OBAMA: Uh, uh, are, uh, uh, uh, um. That's -- that's a bunch -- so -- so let me tick these off. Deh... Uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, um, uh. So the issue is not a perception that, uh... Weh, weh, let me put it this way. Uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, We're -- we're trying to -- you know, we've got a bipartisan group here and -- and -- and, uh, uh, uh, uh, um, uh, uh, uh.  Although this paragraph was edited, it is all from one news conference!}

[How can you argue with that?]

OBAMA: How many questions -- okay. That's a bunch. I'm going to have to get a pen for all these triple questions you guys are -- you know, it-it-it's always a bad practice to say always or never. These are difficult questions. I'm just trying to get to everybody. I'll take the second question first. I've been very clear on that. I -- I was gonna save some of these comments until I -- I actually have these conversations tomorrow. Uh, it wasn't that we were avoiding the issue. I need you to speak up. You were speaking up very loudly when you wanted me to call on you.

[“Always” claim clarity and consistency even when there is none.  And never say "always" or "never".]

OBAMA: With respect to the surge, you know, we don't know what would have happened if the plan that I put forward in January 2007 to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive at a political reconciliation to begin a phased withdrawal, what would have happened had we pursued that strategy. I am pleased that as a consequence of great effort by our troops -- but also as a consequence of a shift in allegiances among the Sunni tribal leaders as well as the decision of the Sadr militias to stand down -- that we've seen a quelling of the violence.

OBAMA: Everywhere we went, one of the biggest concerns right now is the fact that you've got scores of unemployed Iraqi men -- uh, and women -- who are not getting the kind of opportunity that I think is going to be important.

OBAMA: I don't have doubts about my ability to apply sound judgment to the major national security problems that we face. These are difficult questions, and, you know, I don't think that anybody believes they have the perfect formula for solving some of these very difficult foreign policy problems, but I feel very confident in my worldview and my ability to -- to shape a discussion that takes all arguments and facts into consideration and then come up with the best answer.

OBAMA: Let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel's. It will be a strong friend of Israel's under a McCain government, administration. It will be a strong friend of Israel's under an Obama administration. So that policy is not going to change.

[“Israel is a strong friend of Israel’s.” Is Obama too old? Er, excuse me, I mean, too young to know the political geography?]

In an interview with ABC's Terry Moran, Obama said that he "did not anticipate, and I think that this is a fair characterization, the convergence of not only the surge but the Sunni awakening in which a whole host of Sunni tribal leaders decided that they had had enough with Al Qaeda, in the Shi’a community the militias standing down to some degrees. So what you had is a combination of political factors inside of Iraq that then came right at the same time as terrific work by our troops. Had those political factors not occurred, I think that my assessment would have been correct."

[Our soldiers did a great job, but they didn’t have any effect. {[(I was wrong)]} BUT I WAS RIGHT.]

Moran noted that Obama had claimed that the surge "would not make a significant dent in the violence." 

Responded Obama: "In the violence in Iraq overall, right. So the point that I was making at the time was that the political dynamic was the driving force between that sectarian violence. And we could try to keep a lid on it, but if these underlining dynamic continued to bubble up and explode the way they were, then we would be in a difficult situation. I am glad that in fact those political dynamic shifted at the same time that our troops did outstanding.”

[Did he really make these rationalizations…er, points…”at the time”?]

"But," asked Moran, "if the country had pursued your policy of withdrawing in the face of this horrific violence, what do you think Iraq would look like now?"

Obama said it would be hard to speculate. "The Sunnis might have made the same decisions at that time. The Shi’as might have made some similar decisions based on political calculation.

[What motivation would there have been to do so?  They say they still need US help!]

There was ethnic cleansing in Baghdad that actually took the violence level down," he said.

[Huhhh??!?!?]

Your honor, I rest my case….

ARE “GAFFE” PRICES TOO HIGH?

Politicians, even the most skillful of them, will make ‘gaffes’. These are minor errors in factual, grammatical or elocutionary expression. Fair or not, some have changed history. When Ford took away half of Europe in one single gaffe, it just might have doomed his close comeback to failure. Admiral Stockdale’s debate musings (“Who am I? Why am I here?”), left Perot without a place in the race. (In Stockdale’s case, it was particularly unfair. He is one of the great heroes in our history and actually was making a point but was cut off and never allowed to finish. His reputation will never recover from that one gaffe for which he bears absolutely no responsibility.) Who can hear the name Dan Quayle and not remember the word ‘potato’ (did I spell that right)? And we all remember Al Gore not being able to identify a bust of Washington. (You don’t remember that? Oh, that’s right, that gaffe wasn’t repeated over and over for two months!)

Yes, one small error can change history. That’s why all campaigns are always searching for such gaffes, hoping they might be the ‘silver bullet’ that wins it all. This campaign is no different. Lately, the Obama talking points have included a couple of gaffes by McCain: he’s called the Czech Republic by its old united name [w/Slovakia] a couple of times (“Czechoslovakia”) and he mixed up Shi’ite and Sunni a couple of months ago. All right, tell you what. I’ll take those two gaffes in exchange for the Sixty United States and some dead people in the audience at Arlington and we’ll call it even, OK?

On second thought, I don’t think there’s an even exchange rate between Obama gaffes and McCain gaffes. Why do I say that? Think about it. For decades, McCain has had a virtual open-door policy in a way that’s unprecedented. He’s done hundreds upon hundreds of unscripted town halls and opened himself to hours of free questioning by reporters on his bus. Over and over, he has let reporters ask questions until they can’t think of anymore or their voices are raw. What about Obama? All the press corps agrees: his has been one of the most closed campaigns in terms of access in history. (It’s ironic that the two most polar opposites should be running in the same year.) “C'mon, guys, I just answered, like, eight questions.” “Can’t I just eat my waffles?” This present trip to Iraq has been far more scripted than a Broadway play.

As a matter of percentages, even if the number of gaffes were totally even, McCain wins this comparison. It would be like saying, ‘Babe Ruth’s lifetime batting average is .342; this rookie is 35 for 100 this year; therefore, this rookie is better than Babe Ruth: reductio ad absurdum. All that being said, I think Obama would win the most gaffes crown handily on quantity alone this cycle. But is anybody going to waste the time sitting down and counting? Even if you did, how does one evaluate the severity of each gaffe and what they mean as an aggregate? It seems like a pretty petty procedure.

However, when you put Obama’s gaffes together with the evidence for a lack of core principles (being on both sides of issues, never admitting a substantive mistake, never saying “I am sorry” or “I was wrong”, claiming total continuity at all times, etc.), the gaffes seem to be part of a pattern. In one recent gaffe he said he was on the banking committee and passed a bill there. He’s not on the banking committee. It reveals a pattern of stretching the truth. McCain’s gaffes that I’ve seen seem to be simply ‘mistakes’. We all do that, but we don’t all have a pattern exaggerating like Obama’s gaffe illustrates. I think Obama’s supporters weren’t BANKING on this.

So, gaffes in themselves are usually not much in themselves but they, tragically, unfairly at times, can cost some people everything. That notwithstanding, the kind of character revealed by Obama’s gaffes within the general pattern of his presentation shows us that he is a political product we just shouldn’t buy. In terms of gaffes, the price is too high….

BARACK WAS WRONG!

That isn’t the title of this is it?? You can’t say that! Why, I won’t listen to that! Lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala….I can’t hear you and your blasphemy! Lalalalalalalalalalalala…..Messiah! Messiah! Ohmmmmmm….

All right, I was just having a little fun, there. This little phrase cuts right to the heart of the whole ‘flip/flop’ principle question. One very basic measure of character or devotion to principle is the ability to say, “I was wrong”, “I am sorry”, or to admit that my words or actions did not fit with my principles. (That assumes you have principles, of course!)

One basic rule of practical social interaction is to avoid someone who can never admit they are wrong. (Yes, liberals, I have seen some of that in this administration, too!) The once common wisdom was that such a person will certainly be untrustworthy and should be avoided. This means there is something wrong with their character formation. (Psychology gives us many insights into such symptoms). This applies to friendship, marriage, employment and any number of things we have to do socially as human beings. Unfortunately, in our culture, it seems like many parents are not teaching their children this and other basic life lessons. We want to be our children’s friends; we want them to like us. We don’t want to have to grow up and act like adults and actually set limits of etiquette, respect and honesty. This is horribly unfair to our children and to humanity.

Now it seems we have a whole generation who exemplify attitudes like this. That is why if a public person seems to have deep problem admitting he was wrong, it hardly causes a ripple of concern among many [if the person is ‘politically correct’, that is], while it deeply troubles others. Well, I think we should re-educate ourselves for the sake of the nation and the world. You should be big about it and be a good example to others by admitting when you were in error, apologizing, and making changes in line with your principles.

John McCain has been notable in his ability to do this. This kind of ‘stands out’ in the world of politics! One time in particular, he went to Memphis to honor Martin Luther King Jr. on the anniversary of his assassination. It was a very large crowd that was almost exclusively African-American. In terms of political calculation, he had no business being there, because there was little hope he (especially as a Republican) was going to win their votes in a year the first African-American had a chance at the Presidency. He confronted head on the fact that he had opposed a Martin Luther King Day in his state. They booed him lustily. He went on. He said he was wrong. He apologized. He said he understood why he was wrong and then explained how he was wrong because of the principles he believed. I believe the colloquial description for this kind of bravery is ‘cojones’! This shows he took some lessons and convictions away with him from his wartime ordeal. He learned something from the heroism he needed to show during the fire on the aircraft carrier, the courage needed to refuse to go home when offered.

He was man enough to take the personal hit on immigration reform; he listened, he admitted what he was trying to do wasn’t going to work and tried to move on to something that WOULD work. He could have stood on ceremony, blamed it on someone else, he could have denied that it WAS a failure or any number of cop-outs. He didn’t.

Before I began this essay, I tried to do a search for any instance when Obama has admitted he was wrong, said he sorry or otherwise showed the kind of courage I’ve described with McCain. As I looked around I found a tidal wave of people apologizing TO Obama about all kinds of things, some of which I doubt were appropriate or seemed obsequious, fawning and servile. The image of all the Soviet leadership feverishly clapping for Stalin (unable to stop because NO ONE wanted to be the first to stop and be doomed) comes to mind. This total one-way apology is certainly not a sign of a HEALTHY dynamic; indeed, it is not a little unsettling and creepy.

Maybe I’m not looking hard enough, but I found NO instance where Obama apologized. When he did “apologize” or when the press TOLD us he apologized, it was never a matter of admitting a personal failure in thinking or principle like I’ve described above. It was always a matter of having “misspoken” or unfortunate language or something of which he was unaware, a misunderstanding by his staff. Perhaps you are nodding your head now in knowing assent. ‘Yea, he’s right! I’ve noticed that…’ He was asked during one of those many debates to say something he regretted, do you remember? The man was totally flummoxed!

The final point I want to make is: Obama was WRONG about Iraq! He was wrong. He reassured us like an oracle that the surge was doomed to failure; go back and listen; he guarantees it like Joe Namath. His confidence is almost breath-taking. He was wrong. But that is not objectionable in itself. The big thing here is he has not ADMITTED he was wrong in any way. He scrubbed his website. He dodged the ABC interviewer’s question about the surge in Iraq today. HE WAS WRONG. WHY hasn’t he admitted he was wrong? From what we’ve seen, I think it’s because he CAN’T admit he was wrong.

[McCain decided to visit Iraq several times, be with the soldiers on the scene, to consult with the generals, to talk to military experts and others before trying to commit to a course of action. . (Obama mapped out a whole policy this week without consulting anybody in Iraq. Obama seems to have a rookie’s penchant for speaking first and making things fit later.) On the basis of all his experience and knowledge, he became convinced what was right and threw himself into a full-scale battle to turn the predominant tide of the Administration against Bush and Rumsfeld. He did it because he felt it an urgent matter of national security, because he loved his country. Most said he couldn’t do it. The powers that be in the Administration were too firmly entrenched. Practically no one else believed it was right or they thought it could not be done. Well, guess what. He did it. HE DID IT! And he was right. Thank God he did it. The foreign press is reporting this as a great victory for Iraq. Our MSM is curiously muted.]

This is extremely revealing! If only we had paid more attention to Richard Nixon and his signs of character flaws. Bill Clinton betrayed flaws (similar to this flaw of Obama) about truth-telling. Yes, “mistakes were made”? Why should we make the same kind of mistake about choosing a President again? If you were impressed by Obama at first and step-by-step have been feeling more and more uneasy, you probably realize what the problem is by now. He isn't what he seemed to be at first. You were mistaken. You should have been a bit more circumspect. It’s OK; you can admit it. You can say it: YOU WERE WRONG!

Paste the following from Time and watch this video!

 

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/07/mccain_unloads_on_obama_over_i.html

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/07/mccain_unloads_on_obama_over_i.html

FLIP, FLOP OR PRINCIPLED “CHANGE”?

In recent weeks, the ‘flip/flop’ has become extremely important as a center of attention. Mr. Obama, in particular, even in the eyes of many of his supporters, has gone “Barack and forth” (as one blogger put it!), changing a dizzying amount of positions and opinions. The predictable, probably planned, counter-attack on McCain has pointed out that he has flip-flopped a lot, too, implying a total equivalency. The result would be a negation of a weakness for Obama. That’s pretty smart politics.

We should concede that being a good politician has to be part of the package for the job of President. There’s nothing wrong in itself with being good at rhetoric or political strategy. There’s nothing wrong in itself with changing positions to adjust to real situations or political realities. However, as Americans, for the good of the country, we have always prized good politicians who are ultimately motivated by principle.

Some don’t realize Washington and Lincoln were pretty good at doing politics! Nothing wrong with that, but what made them great was how much their principle motivated them, how consistent and understandable their changes or adjustments were.

One example is Lincoln and the Abolition argument. His initial principled reaction to his encounters with slavery on the Mississippi was the conviction that it had to be ENDED. However, as time went on, it became clear that it was not politically possible to actually end it without utter chaos. So, without giving up the idea that it had to end, he made judgments (excellent ones) as to how much he could push for actions that could ultimately reach the goal. Everybody knew where Lincoln stood and they knew what kind of person he was. He may have changed how he framed this and other issues and the proposals to pursue it, but there was no confusion as to what he believed, where he stood and who he was.

The timing and the structure of the Emancipation Proclamation is a case in point. Radical Republicans were furious with Lincoln for not issuing a proclamation sooner and for how it was set up. It was at this time he told his famous anecdote about the dog.

“If I called a dog’s tail a leg, how many legs would he have?”
“Five!”
“No. Calling a tail a leg don’t make it so.”

He realized the real situation trumped the power of his rhetoric. This showed humility in the true sense of the word. ‘Humility’ means seeing things the way they really are. The abolitionists, though sincere and correct, showed political arrogance in contrast. On the face of it, Lincoln was accused of being a flip/flopper; but, in the end, he could never be accused of flip/flopping on matters of PRINCIPLE.

In my own life, I have always been pro-life. (In my view, as Martin Luther King’s niece recently said, the slavery and abortion issues have a similar moral urgency.) However, I came to the conclusion some lines of action were just not feasible because of the political realities. I don’t think anyone who knows me thinks I’m a flip/flop artist because I changed my mind on this or that policy or action. Everybody knows what I believe.

This picture of Lincoln contrasts sharply with the kind of policy changes Obama has been performing like a gymnast. For instance, when the Supreme Court upheld the Partial Birth Abortion Law, Obama attacked the decision with a passion we’ve never seen in quite that way with him. He insisted as a CORE principle of his that the right to perform the procedure HAD to be preserved. Recently, he intimated that NOW he would oppose late-term abortions done for reasons of “being blue” or mental distress. (Very soon after that he made a vague reference that could be backing off on that?) What he has flipped on is not merely a humble reaction to policy or action, to what is possible. It is flip on PRINCIPLE. It puts into question what he really believes.

The far-left wing now knows this is true because of the FISA issue. Obama made it a matter of personal core belief that some of the surveillance techniques in the FISA bill were wrong on the basis of 1st Amendment PRINCIPLE and that he could not support it….and then he voted for it. It should be clear to anyone with a brain that this is in NO way comparable to the kind of flips Lincoln did. It puts into severe question what this man really believes. There is no way to deny this. Obama has made MANY such flips on PRINCIPLE. (The latest July 16 Dick Morris letter contains a list of some of them.) That’s why the equivalence attack on McCain is the only option their campaign has.

Now, is there really equivalence between the Obama and McCain flip/flops? Let’s use the immigration example for McCain. He proposed a bill with Sen. Kennedy that tried to address the problem. The public reaction was viscerally antagonistic. (By the way, the characterization of the bill as ‘amnesty’ was not technically accurate; Reagan’s bill was ‘amnesty’.) The bill could not be passed, and McCain’s campaign was mortally wounded largely on the basis of the rejection of his bill. McCain admitted he was wrong – wait a minute, let me repeat that – he admitted he was wrong. (What a concept!) He never admitted he was wrong about what had originally motivated him. He continued to say that we should remember that “we are all God’s children” and he feels we have to take note of humanitarian situations. Now, he favors solidifying the border first before beginning the still necessary process of attacking the immigration policy itself. He changed his POLICY not his PRINCIPLE. He has even felt confident enough on this to use quotes of his from the debates on this issue in a political ad. He hasn’t tried to hide the change.

There’s no need to prosecute a case-by-case analysis. Anybody who has been in politics a long time will have a lot of ‘flip/flops’, but, from what I’ve seen, our example is a template that seems to fit in general. You might not like some of his principles, but McCain’s changes or flips reveal that he DOES have them. Obama’s changes leave in serious doubt what his real principles are and if he has them at all.

Authentic “change” can only come from UNchanging principles, including authentic changes in policy. And, for me, that belief in the path of true human progress will never change.

“WELL, IT IS AND IT ISN’T…A TROJAN HORSE?”

One good friend of mine, Pepe, used to always say one phrase whenever all of my friends would discuss something that required some comparison. Before he would launch into the possible answers to the question, he’d say, ‘Well, it is and it isn’t…’! Lately, this phrase has come to my mind a lot as we have all listened to Barack Obama talking. As I have been reading around the blogs and sampling Obama speeches, a few other sayings have been mentioned or have come to mind: the Emperor has no clothes, do as I say not as I do, some are more equal than others, etc. One writer I just read gives us the image of Obama leaving us a Trojan horse. Even his own followers have been up in arms and protesting on his website. (The Obama campaign has now mysteriously wiped the site clean over the course of a day, so no inconvenient discrepancies remain, we can guess.) What is at the root of all these observations?

I see a direct comparison to the main philosophical battle of ancient Athens and Greece: between the Sophistic and the Socratic lines of thought. I’ll try not to bore you too much with details. Let’s give a thumbnail sketch.

The Sophists (from a word whose root is ‘wisdom’) began in Athens as a group of professional teachers of rhetoric (the art of how to express oneself and convince others). They were usually otherwise unemployed. Since democracy had been born in Athens and involved mass meetings centering totally on verbal persuasion, this was no theoretical need. You could get power, influence and wealth if you could learn how to master rhetorical technique.

Unfortunately, we don’t have a whole lot of what Sophists wrote but we have enough along with references to them to say some things. Several of the earliest people identified as Sophists were and are actually considered pretty legitimate thinkers (e.g. Gorgias). However, as time went on, the class of sophists seems, on some testimony, to have devolved into a pretty lowest common denominator group. The ability to persuade itself became the total focus, many boasting they could argue both sides of an issue and win, that they could make any group do anything they wanted, all of this with no regard for ‘facts’ or ‘truth’. Some apparently became agnostics or atheists in belief as in practice.

Plato later depicts the famous Socrates as battling these Sophists (although many then and now have allowed that in some sense Socrates was a Sophist). The basis of his battle with them was the difference between ‘techne’ and ‘arete’, between knowing ‘how to do things’ and how to be a virtuous, self-integrated person rooted in the truth. Plato’s analysis was that the Sophists’ mistake was placing all emphasis on the former and totally discounting the latter. (The Book of Wisdom makes a very similar contrast between the good and the wicked.) The Marxist dictum ‘the ends justify the means’ is exactly this kind of calculation. Aristotle would continue the criticism. The impact of Plato and Aristotle is why the word “sophistry” or “sophistic” is now so pejorative, implying deception or the skillful if dishonest use of verbal argument.

It seems to me that Barack Obama has staked most everything on the power of his rhetoric! It’s hard to see if he could ‘walk the talk’ because he has so assiduously avoided ‘walking’ at all! All the actions he points to have been words, yes, “just words”. Despite his jibe at us for objecting, most of us would like to see words lived and acted out by those urging us on to action. (Washington was there at Valley Forge and Trenton. That’s why, though his words were few, they were powerful.) Obama was a record-setting vote avoider in Illinois; later in his tenure there he got someone to put his name on some bills he didn’t work on so he could look good. As long as he can give the right impression, phrase things just right to the right group or in the right place, get people to believe in and be affected by the rhetoric and expression, then people won’t really pay much attention to the logic or argument or evidence (or lack thereof) in what he is saying. In large part, Obama is precisely right. A culture that devalues logic, thought, argument, or objective truth and ethics, as ours does, is absolutely ripe for such public relations demagoguery.

There are so many instances of direct contradictions being glossed over with rhetoric that I am not even going to bother going through them all. It’s overwhelming; one feels like one is drowning in them. Look them up for yourself. One current example of this is the success of the surge in Iraq. He is on tape saying he was against it and predicted its failure. As of yesterday, he has scrubbed his site of these statements; he is now praising the success of it; he wants people to just forget about what he said; perception is truth. Why doesn’t he admit he was wrong; why should he not explain why he changed his mind? Usually, when he says certain key phrases like, “as I have consistently said”, you know what’s coming by now: a ‘truth adjustment’, shall we say?

In short, Obama, more than anyone I can think of in recent memory, epitomizes exactly what we all think of when we think of the Sophists. Rhetoric can do it all; the ends justify the means. For all his faults, and despite being a typical politician in some senses, McCain’s ‘techne’ seems to be a whole lot more in tune with his ‘arete’! His core self has had to ‘walk the walk’ in several significant instances. This is called ‘wisdom’ and we need it in our leaders.

You know what? Why don’t I just give up and believe in Obama? It would be a lot easier. Just trust in the Leader. No matter what the issue or topic, it is AND it isn’t, and if it is and isn’t – or is - or isn’t - that’s just fine with me. Let me help wheel the Greek Sophist horse into the Trojan inner sanctum of the organs of power in our country. Who cares what is – and/or ISN’T – inside? Let’s just push it in there and open it up. It doesn’t matter what kind of change it brings: I can believe in it.

WAR! HUNNH! WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR?

“War! Good god, y’all! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing! – Edwin Starr

“Whatever you do don’t mention ‘the War’! I did once, but I think I got away with it.” 
– John Cleese as Basil Fawlty in “The Germans” episode of “Fawlty Towers”

My purpose here is to tackle the question of war and how it relates to our political situation this year. In 1970, Edwin’s Starr’s protest song asks this famous question about war. If the question were reworded a bit so as to read to read ‘Is war good?’ the classic theological answer would always be: “No, it is evil by definition.”.

Shouldn’t we all be pacifists, then? Well, I think all Jews and Christians should be pacifists at heart, even if it is not possible technically. I come from a military family and I’ve often heard that the best generals or officers are the ones who hate war the most. Every believer looks forward to that day in history predicted by Micah when “they will study war no more”, “they will beat their swords into plowshares” and “the Lion will lie down with the Lamb”. Many saints as well as Biblical prophets have been unanimous in saying a Time of Peace will come in history before the end of time.

All that may be true, but it should be pretty clear, as long as evil exists in the world like we see today, we are not there yet. We all have the right to live as pacifists; sometimes, it may even be our moral calling. However, if we were all full-fledged technical pacifists we would have a real problem. The paradigm case is Mahatma Gandhi. His advice was to LET Hitler conquer the world! In other words, ‘everyone should be a strict pacifist like me’. Thankfully, though everyone respected his integrity, they didn’t follow him on that. Though war is always evil, there is no doubt letting Hitler conquer the world would have caused exponentially MORE evil than the alternative. Now, don’t worry! I’m not going to go into a treatise on the mechanics of Just War Theory, but this one example shows us pretty clearly that there are times we just have to do war. Revenge, wealth, love of violence for itself, hatred, among many reasons, do not justify war. Avoiding far greater evils make it sadly unavoidable at times.

In the 20th Century, we encountered a new, unprecedented problem: totalitarianism as expressed in Nazism and Marxist/Leninism. For Western civilization with its Judeo-Christian background, the value and role of diplomacy had to immediately be changed. These philosophies espoused injustice & destruction on a scale never seen before. (e.g. Marxists believe ‘the ends justify the means’.) Millions were enslaved, demeaned, slaughtered and oppressed. They expressed every intention to conquer the world. You can’t ‘negotiate’ with such a mortal, implacable enemy. Maybe you can technically do diplomacy with some of the governments or some of the representatives at times, but Western civilization CANNOT ‘talk to’ a philosophy that is in essence a maniacal killer! Many on the Left thought there WAS a moral equivalency, an idea almost universally touted by our Press. ‘We are the same as them or comparable’. (Famously, Mao’s killers were called ‘agrarian reformers’ by the mainstream press as if this were objective journalistic reporting.)! Now we know better. John Paul II and Reagan called evil what it was and outlined a path of moral and cultural standards – that’s what really won the Cold War. Despite evils the West has done there is no moral equivalency with evil like this. Really, unless we were to let them take over, our only choice was the Cold (and not-so-cold) War, with all its evils and corruptions.

There is no doubt in my mind that the radical Islamic movement is the same kind of enemy. I am praying every day for a conversion of attitude among them, and we’ve actually seen some of that starting to happen. Nonetheless, we are pretty much forced into a state of war because of the stated intentions and known practices of these people. Hitler warned us in Mein Kampf what he was going to do; many refused to listen. Lenin told us what the Comintern was going to do; for decades, many couldn’t see it. (“Witness” by Whittaker Chambers tells of a former Communist fighting an oblivious world). We have to wake up, just as they finally did with Nazism & Communism, to the horrible possibilities. The extremists have told us ahead of time again and there is no way to ‘talk to’ such a way of thinking. We’re ‘at war’, whether we want to be or not.

How does all this fit with the current political situation? Well, I think the next President has to have at least a simple understanding of what I’ve just outlined above. I’ll never forget watching the Democratic Debate and hearing Obama saying we should negotiate with Communist Cuba and Iran and others (fully imbued with the attitudes listed above) without preconditions at all! My jaw literally dropped. ‘He didn’t really say that, did he?’ Yet, when pressed, he did not qualify or equivocate. It brought back for me images of Neville Chamberlain waving a piece of paper (after letting Hitler seize land and treasure) saying, “Peace in our times!” He has made other similar statements that seemed to betray a pattern. Obama has since flip-flopped furiously, saying what he said was not what he meant. (By now, we’ve all seen this as a persistent pattern.) He has since been helped in filling in a more sensible approach: negotiation and diplomacy, yes but with rigid preconditions and positioning, following the tested patterns of Reagan & others in the Cold War. What bothered me more was the almost complete initial lack of recognition of the evil and the threat.

So, Obama has given clues that he simply does not understand this. Why? Maybe it’s just youth and inexperience. Maybe it has to do with the many major Marxist influences in his life: Frank Marshall Davis, Trinity Church liberation theology, Ayers & Dorn, etc. Even if he is not a Marxist himself, perhaps he never had a chance to see Marxism the way I have outlined it. Maybe he actually has sympathy for some of what of the Islamic extremists are saying: he used Rezko, after all, to channel money to the radical Hamid Dabashi and has made several statements that have heartened some of the radicals. It’s unfair to Obama to try to state outright what his motives actually are but it’s perfectly fair to list the rational possibilities as we have done here. No matter what the truth is about how it got there, this blind spot is a major possible disqualifier for Leader of the Free World, emphasis on “free”.

For all his faults, and despite some disagreements I have with him, McCain has proven he understands several things:
- he knows war is evil; he with his POW friends know it in their bones & in their souls; he will keep a war for survival as Cold as he can; with my ears I heard him say as much at a town meeting here in New Hampshire;
- he understands fully the kind of threat Communism or this new radical Islamic extremism is and how to deal with it
- and, he has shown the kind of doggedness and determinism needed to stick with a course of action regardless of party or personal political cost.

With no disrespect to the historic achievement Barack Obama has made becoming the first black nominee, he does not have enough experience and there are clues he does not have the judgment for the job. Even John Kennedy, who was far more prepared, had a terrible time adjusting through the Bay of Pigs Fiasco. In my opinion, the times call for someone more like John McCain. Unlike Basil Fawlty, I intend to mention THIS life-or-death war more than “once” and I hope people DO notice….

‘YOU’RE TOO OLD!’ IS THAT SO, YOUNG TURKS?
*Published on TalkingPointsMemo Site*
It’s clear what the main line of attack has been and is going to be on John McCain (besides the puerile ‘McSame’ mantra or the sacrilegious ‘McLame’ libel!): he’s too old! Obama’s surrogates, one after another, label every misstep, adjustment and even simple disagreements with the word ‘confused’ or ‘confusion’ or something similar. Read this as Alzheimer's or dementia, of course.

On the factual face of it, this seems pretty absurd. McCain’s best argument has been his 96-year old mother. Have you seen her!? She’s far sharper than the profane, ad hominem, bullies who have proliferated on the blogs in recent months and has far more energy than most young people I know.  Not that we could make a purely genetic argument, of course.  Good training can be contagious, too.  McCain could never have managed the miraculous turnaround he did here in New Hampshire and the country if he were not remarkably energetic and sharp. My wife and I saw him personally at a couple of his 100+ town halls here; believe us, there is no truth in these insinuations.

However, I fear the attacks will have some effect simply because of some bad cultural habits we have developed. My purpose here is to contrast the present attitude with that of a saner past. I will then offer a paradigm case which I think applies pretty well right now.

Age in most all cultures and times within civilized history has been highly valued, and for very good reasons. The Wisdom books of the Bible, for instance, mention it quite a bit as well as countless other touchstone sources of Wisdom for every civilization. This doesn’t just apply to very fancy or esoteric types of knowledge; a lot of it is very practical or mundane. One way to put it is the old saw “why reinvent the wheel”. It’s not youth’s fault it’s inexperienced; youth, by definition, IS inexperience. So, shouldn’t youth take advantage of knowledge gained by mistakes already made? St. Therese of Lisieux in her Story of A Soul puts it this way: everyone loves the Mary Magdalene figure for making such big mistakes and then being forgiven, delivered from her demons and healed. Wouldn’t it be a lot more heroic and laudable, with God’s grace, to avoid the mistakes in the first place?

One example of this was enshrined in the idea of a 'Senate' which comes from the Latin "senax" for 'old'. The bicameral model balances the enthusiasm and immediacy of a House with the wisdom and ‘cooling saucer’ effect of a Senate. The word "presbyter", the canonical word for a Catholic priest, is a Greek New testament translation of "zaqen" from Hebrew Scriptures , each meaning 'elder'. This is not to say, by the way, that no youth can have any wisdom. When Paul appointed the young Timothy as Bishop, he was an ‘elder’ who was much younger than most to whom he ministered! However, a lot of the wisdom of youth lies in relying on those older. Paul urged Timothy several times to “hold fast to the Tradition” he was taught by the Apostles and to study their life example constantly.

Now, where have we gone wrong in our culture? We should study the writings and remember the heroic end of John Paul the Great to get a whole picture. He was one who dignified and witnessed to the value of age with every cell of his body. His ‘theology of the body’, ‘personalist’ philosophy and ‘civilization of life’ he contrasted with the ‘culture of death’ we see around us. The way I would sum it up is we have made an Idol of physical health. There is a lack of faith in deeper values like Virtue, Character, Ethics, etc. There is a lack of faith in the eternal worth of our ‘soul’. As Jesus said, “Do not fear those who can only kill the body, but cannot kill the soul.” What value is there left in being old without that knowledge, belief or attitude? When you no longer believe in such a thing, all you have LEFT is physical health. Why bother learning in the school of hard knocks? Life sucks and then you die. The one who dies with the most toys wins the game. Enjoy it while you can. If it feels good, do it. Don’t trust anyone over 30. The cult of youth has given us hundreds of STD’s, 50% divorce, high crime, abortion and the death of etiquette among other things. The tragic irony is that when all you have left is physical health, even that is destroyed. We weren’t made that way. Natural Law & the Commandments tell us that respecting elders and not reinventing the wheel is about as Wise as we can get.

Yes, letting youth take over completely, uniformed with little input from those who’ve been there, can get pretty ugly. One example is the original “Young Turks” from which we get the axiomatic phrase. One result of their “change we can believe in” was the Armenian genocide among other mistakes that had already been made.

The one paradigm example I want to use, however, is the story of Jeroboam from the First Book of Kings in the Bible. God had delivered a warning to Solomon: do not turn to false gods and do not oppress the people under your care (love God and love your neighbor) or your Kingdom will be split at your death. Well, guess what he did. He married hundreds of wives and ‘multi-culturally’ joined in with their worship as time went on. This struck at the very identity of the nation, of course; what made it what it was, WAS its faith in the One Creator. Further, in building his vast Empire with its many palaces and drafted army, he imposed crippling taxation and indentured servitude. You were forced into ‘public service’.

When Solomon died it became clear that he had not formed the character of his son and heir, Jeroboam, very well. All of the tribes came to Jeroboam and begged him to lighten the crushing load of taxation and forced service. Jeroboam had two sets of advisors: one group of holdovers from his father who had managed the Empire, and his group of young friends. The older group advised Jeroboam: make a compromise, give them something they want for now until the leadership can figure out what to do next. Pretty basic and smart governance, that. On the other hand, his younger friends advised him to show them all who was boss and make a big splash for himself. Jeroboam told them: ‘you thought my father was harsh? Well! My little finger is thicker than his whole body! He used whips? I’ll use scorpions!’ Hindsight being 20/20, we can all see how utterly STUPID this was! But these youths, disconnected from the wisdom of their elders, could only see brilliance and enthusiasm. The Kingdom was split, never to be what it had been again.

Compare this with the present Obama phenomenon: change almost for change’s sake, a FEELING of brilliance and enthusiasm. It seems to be a rejection of past ways of doing things in a general sort of way, almost a rejection of age itself. (This has been tempered in recent weeks by some furious flip-flopping to the center but as Dick Morris points out Obama will be forced in large part to govern in the way he has first presented himself.) Notice he has worshipped at the shrine of diversity and multiculturalism. There have been many worrisome signs about his faith in the national identity most of us accept. Further, he has placed public (government) service as the highest good. Michelle Obama intimated we would all be forced to do what is right in good in their eyes. I think you can probably fill in the rest of this comparison yourself.

One further point is that many people in history have started and accomplished their life’s mission at an advanced age. Moses didn’t even get started until he was 80 years old. St. Patrick was in his 70’s. There are many such examples in modern history, too. William Gladstone started his final ministry at 83. There is no reason to reject someone who is old if there is no real evidence of impairment.

So, McCain is old. That might not be such a bad thing. In fact, it may be a GOOD thing!

YOU’RE NO ABRAHAM LINCOLN!

In his continuing ‘symbolism or substance’ offensive, Obama and his advocates like to draw the appealing comparison to Abraham Lincoln: he is another tall man from Illinois who is above politics, or who is very appealing, etc.

There are problems with this analogy. The main contradiction I would like to point out is that of oratory and presentation. Many have pointed out Lincoln’s Cooper Union speech in New York as launching his political career and that is true enough. What they fail to point out is that Lincoln undoubtedly succeeded in spite of his appearance and presentation, not because of it. It was what he was saying and not how he was saying it at all that helped Cooper Union launch Lincoln.

Carl Sandburg in his famous biography of Lincoln describes his “high, squeaky voice” with its Western nasally twang, which immediately put him at a disadvantage with the Eastern bigwigs. His appearance was off-putting to say the least: he was gangly, over-tall and long, awkward and most said ugly. We now suspect this jarring impression might have been caused by disease.

There is no doubt really as to who the most hated President was in history (when he was serving). It was Lincoln. What was the main subject of the vitriolic, vicious attacks? It was his appearance and presentation. His speeches, for instance, were routinely panned as an embarrassment to the country. One famous example is the Gettysburg Address. Edward Everett’s lengthy address was universally acclaimed; he was an oratory artist of the highest degree. Comments on Lincoln included the observation that he might have saved everyone the trouble by not speaking.

On the other hand, Lincoln was a master of the informal debate, the small group, one-on-one discussions, etc. In the free-form give-and-take of the courtroom or the town hall meeting, Lincoln had no peer. He knew his Bible and his Shakespeare on demand and used favorite anecdotes with adaptation for the situation. His life experience shone brightly through here like it could not in a speech.

So, Lincoln succeeded in spite of a handicap in prepared speeches. Why then did he succeed? He knew what he believed and why with great intellectual and spiritual depth. That is why his true strength was seen in informal settings where someone like Douglas, great at the prepared speech, was often exposed.

We should note that Lincoln was no political dummy. He had a great instinct for the realities. But he knew the value of consistency in the long run.  He adapted ingeniously but what drove him were his core beliefs.

Now, if we draw the analogy out, the main success of Obama has been in his appearance, prepared speeches and presentation. He is smooth, suave, and handsome in appearance. His long speeches with their choreographed repetition and enthusiasm are his calling card. Everyone agrees about his style and acumen.

How does Obama do at the press conference, town hall meeting, and more informal interaction? I think we all know! Examples are his speaking to the dead in the crowd at Arlington, the 57 states, etc. Despite saying he would meet John McCain anywhere, anytime, when he was actually called on it, it hasn’t happened. His staff is going to try and avoid it because Obama is terrible at it.

I think the bottom line is that, with Obama, there is no ‘there’ there, quite unlike Lincoln. Either he is trying to hide what he believes or he is such a chameleon he just doesn’t know. His ferocious flip-flopping of recent days has given us all vertigo.

If you think about it John McCain is actually a much better fit in this particular analysis. He is pretty bad at the prepared speech, but he excels at town hall meetings because he has had the life experience and he knows what he believes. Love of country and a cause greater than self are not just rhetoric for him. He uses anecdotes to advantage like Lincoln did. He doesn’t have to check what he’s supposed to believe that day.

One other thing that sticks out to me is that McCain has stuck with his beliefs despite significant political risk (e.g. the Petraeus surge) while also being able to adapt and make things workable in the real political world. Lincoln stuck with his anti-slavery stance at great risk but also adapted as he went to make it workable in light of the actual situation.

Obama, like his friend Deval Patrick in Massachusetts, is really much more comparable to the Little Giant, Stephen Douglas from Illinois. They all made quite a big splash with their oratory but in the end each of them is so ambivalent as to their core and soul that they can never make the impact that Abraham Lincoln made.

For anyone who knows anything about JFK, the comparison is laughable! 

He was an honest-to-God war hero. If you've never heard the story of the PT-109, do yourself a favor and pick it up.  (The point is he proved HIMSELF; his Ambassador father wasn’t there doing it for him!)  

He served several terms in the House and a full term in the Senate. He was known for getting things done, especially as a Cold Warrior (even working with a young Republican Richard Nixon!). He had a clear record of accomplishment before running for President. His philosophy would probably be characterized as 'conservative' today: cutting taxes, strong military, aggressive confrontation with the Communist threat. As for Obama, with all due respect, Obama's record in Illinois featured an unprecedented number of non-votes. In his one and a half years in the Senate, he has NEVER convened the committee he supposedly runs and by consensus he has once again avoided votes and taking stands.  

His book, "Profiles in Courage" is a classic; it's not just about himself and relying on rhetoric like Obama’s books, but about others, their virtue and character and what they did for love of country. 

Go through each of these points and compare them with Obama. The only comparisons Obama can make are superficial ones: ‘I'll announce in a stadium, too. I’ll go to Brandenburg Gate, too!’ As young as he was, younger than Obama, JFK was leagues above what Obama could hope to be. Despite his historic achievement becoming the first black nominee, for the sake of the country, we shouldn't find out what Obama can do with on-the-job training!