WE HAVE A CHANCE TO
RESTORE OUR COUNTRY
Obama hasn’t failed. On the contrary, he’s made enormous strides toward fulfilling his stated goal of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
Understanding what Obama has done is essential to understanding what we would face under a President Hillary Rodham Clinton.
During my ’60s college days many people were convinced that reducing the military strength and economic dominance of the U.S. would be of great benefit to the world.
Our “aggressive” conduct in launching “wars of oppression,” our “cruel exploitation” of struggling “Third World Peoples,” our “arrogant imposition” of “Eurocentric Western Culture” — such assertions were offered as proof of why we needed to be knocked down a peg or two.
Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were steeped in this way of thinking by the atmosphere of those days as well as by various acquaintances of Leftist inclination. In fact, they each received specific mentoring in that worldview. For Obama Communist activist Frank Marshall Davis was a seminal influence; for Hillary, radical theorist Saul Alinsky.
A visit to post-colonial Africa apparently solidified Obama’s convictions. Hillary’s years at Wellesley College were a true epiphany for a onetime Goldwater Girl.
It’s not hard to see evidence of reductionist intent over the past eight years. Can decimation of our military forces, ruin of border and immigration controls, chaos in Europe and the Middle East, destruction of the health insurance industry, soaring labor force non-participation, worsening race relations, and oh-so-many other crises all be attributed to incompetence?
I don’t think so. Not when Obama has shown himself brilliant at circumventing the Separation of Powers and undermining the Constitution through executive orders, extra-legal policy “czars,” political pressure, and artful manipulation of the media.
He’s a smart guy, make no mistake.
If Hillary becomes our next President, she will be well equipped to build upon the base Obama has laid. Sharing the globalist attitude that disdains American leadership — and having woven a web of mutually sustaining (and self-enriching) relationships that spans the world (via her Clinton Foundation) — she can only take us further along the path of international weakness and internal malaise.
That’s my expectation, anyway. And I think it’s reasonable.
Which brings us to Donald Trump.
He wasn’t my choice to head the GOP ticket. Actually, if someone would have asked me whom I thought had a chance of reversing our slide into national disintegration, an egocentric billionaire reality show host wouldn’t have come immediately to mind.
I was pulling for Ted Cruz — he of the Dick Cheney sneer and a scholar’s knowledge of the Constitution (and fierce devotion to it in the bargain). Cruz was exactly what I thought we needed at this perilous moment.
Alas, he revealed a petty side that made The Donald look noble. So Ted got a well-deserved trumping, along with all those other once-promising GOP pretenders.
At the end, it was Donald Trump who proved himself the only candidate who fully understood the mood of righteous anger abroad in the land, and who was able to channel people’s feelings into a genuine movement. In the process, he showed a certain kind of innate electoral genius.
This outlander, this interloper, this political prodigy won the nomination — and he deserved to win it.
Trump has driven me crazy throughout the debates. His recurring pattern of inching toward a cogent point and never quite getting there with coherence and finality brings me close to screaming. But I’ve come to recognize a core of inner awareness under all that free-association, stream-of-consciousness jabber.
I don’t think it quite takes the form of a life philosophy. It’s something more basic and raw, much like the spark of native political instinct that emerged during the campaign.
It may have something to do with God and faith, even though religious sensibility doesn’t seem to have been a centering point in The Donald’s life so far. But if he can clarify it, refine it, and allow it to give him direction, he could rise to fill the office of President quite well.
He might even save the country.
If Trump should find himself ensconced in the Oval Office, he’ll have plenty of things to keep his mind off building new hotels and casinos — not least avoiding war with Russia, and undoing all the other damage of the Obama years. But I’ll suggest a few which should receive priority.
First, he must deliver on his promise of appointing Constitution-loyal jurists to the Supreme Court and all the other federal benches that come open during his term. This would restore balance to our three-branch system of government by curtailing the distorted practice of legislating by court decision and administrative regulation. Only by that can we hope to purge the injustice and the psycho-social idiocy that have infected our culture.
Second (and related), Trump must free the academic / media / publishing world from the grip of this perverse ideology that goes by the sobriquet, Political Correctness.
Controlling language, avoiding disturbing ideas, protecting favored groups — these do nothing to shield anyone’s feelings or encourage anyone’s progress. It’s all just a sham, intended to restrict consideration of ideas that don’t conform to the reigning orthodoxies, and to limit the influence of anyone out of step with the ideological agenda.
I think Donald Trump’s decidedly unorthodox nature and his inclination to mock people and things he sees as stupid make him the perfect guy to take on PC culture. Mockery from the President’s “bully pulpit” is precisely what’s called for in attacking this pretentious and destructive intellectual conformity.
That — and withholding federal funds from institutions enforcing any kind of speech code or employing so-called trigger warnings or safe spaces.
Attacking PC is part of a longer-term imperative, more formidable but in its way even more necessary: Trump should promote legislation to eliminate the concept of hate crimes.
As lawyers would express it, Hate goes to motive. That is to say, the element of hatred is a factor in determining intent, and thus the degree of offense (first-degree murder, and so on), as well as in setting the level of punishment.
However, the ability to label a particular act as — in itself — a hate crime is Political Correctness on steroids. It’s the power to prosecute not behavior but thought. It gives government a potential weapon to curtail anybody’s freedom.
As I wrote in a 2013 blog post, punishing thought is “the very definition of tyranny.”
Naturally, I want The Donald to clean up our immigration mess. But I’m realistic enough to understand that there are plenty of things that can, and should, be done before taking on The Great Wall of Trump (rounding up criminal aliens and eliminating the Anchor Baby gambit come to mind). And if he does those other things well — strengthening border security and restoring the integrity of our immigration and naturalization mechanisms — the wall might not even be necessary.
I could go on adding to my list. But then, you could offer your own suggestions as readily as I can. And of course, Trump has plenty of his own ideas.
A small bit of advice, however, specifically to my traditional-values friends: Don’t expect too much energy to be expended on social issues. If the awareness I sense within The Donald should grow over time, maybe then we’ll see the emergence of genuine moral conviction.
For now, it’s enough that he saves the country.
Election day is Tuesday. Our mission is to break the back of the Leftist cabal that has so thoroughly reduced our nation. We must change the trajectory of our shared destiny. We must seize this chance at true reform in the name of authentic American Constitutionalism.
You know how you need to vote.
God bless America.
And God bless Donald Trump.
I will make two recommendations for related reading…
First is a September essay in the Claremont Review of Books. The anonymous columnist who styles himself “Publius Decius Mus” (after a famous Roman consul) sparked a hailstorm of criticism for his assertion that the Conservative Movement has failed in its mission to counter the Leftist jihad.
Titled “The Flight 93 Election,” his article compares this current election to the desperate attempt by passengers to rush the cockpit and retake their doomed plane from its 9/11 hijackers. The effort may have been futile, but under the circumstances it was worth a try.
Like myself, “Publius” recognizes all of Donald Trump’s flaws, but acknowledges that…
“Trump, alone among candidates for high office in this or in the last seven (at least) cycles, has stood up to say: I want to live. I want my party to live. I want my country to live. I want my people to live. I want to end the insanity….
“The alleged buffoon is thus more prudent — more practically wise — than all of our wise-and-good who so bitterly oppose him…”
Finally, “Publius” offers this challenge to voters…
“The election of 2016 is a test — in my view, the final test — of whether there is any virtù left in what used to be the core of the American nation. If they cannot rouse themselves simply to vote for the first candidate in a generation who pledges to advance their interests, and to vote against the one who openly boasts that she will do the opposite (a million more Syrians, anyone?), then they are doomed. They may not deserve the fate that will befall them, but they will suffer it regardless.”
Read it. Read the whole thing…
My second recommendation is a guest essay in the Toronto Sun by Dr. Jordan Peterson, psychology professor at the University of Toronto. Peterson is currently embroiled in a controversy over his refusal to use so-called “preferred pronouns” to address or describe people who regard themselves as transgendered.
His personal drama demonstrates the dangerous intersection of political correctness and hate crimes. It’s a glimpse into what the future holds for us here in the United States if Donald Trump cannot bring about the correctives needed in the federal judiciary. An excerpt…
“I believe that when the formulators of Bill C-16 [currently under consideration by the Ontario Parliament] and the writers of the Ontario Human Rights Commission originally conceptualized the doctrine of ‘personal pronouns,’ they had no idea that two genders would immediately mutate into, say, the more than 30 that now have legal protection in New York City.
“In the Big Apple it is now a crime, punishable by fines of up to $250,000, to ‘misgender’ someone. Perhaps our use of two pronouns, he and she, could be expanded to 2.1, or something like that. Perhaps we could even learn to use ‘they’ to refer to persons who request it, because they do not fit well into the traditional categories.
“But 30 is clearly impossible — and there are now lists that include many more so-called gender identities than 30. Thus, we appear to be in a position in Ontario where the government has made it a hate crime not to speak in an impossible manner.”
Peterson concludes with this warning…
“The demand for use of preferred pronouns is not an issue of equality, inclusion or respect for others. It’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It’s a purposeful assault on the structure of language. It’s a dangerous incursion into the domain of free speech. It’s narcissistic self-centeredness. It’s part and parcel of the PC madness that threatens to engulf our culture.”