The final paragraph of Andrew Roberts' 2007 book, A History of the English-Speaking Peoples since 1900, reads as follows: “It is in the nature of human affairs that, in the words of the hymn, ‘Earth’s proud empires pass away’, and so too one day will the long hegemony of the English-speaking peoples. When they finally come to render up the report of their global stewardship to History, there will be much of which to boast. Only when another power—such as China—holds global sway, will the human race come to mourn the passing of this most decent, honest, generous, fair-minded and self sacrificing imperium.”

In fact, Roberts' book is intended to convey the idea that the ascendancy and influence of the English–speaking peoples (primarily Great Britain and the USA) over the last quarter millennium has brought a great boon to the world in the form of liberal democracy, free market capitalism, the rule of law, individual liberty, the defeat of totalitarianism (OK, Nazism and Communism are buried, but the last manifestation in the form of Islamic radicalism has yet to be tamed), life-saving scientific and medical discoveries, and a sort of pax englishana that has brought more peace and prosperity to more corners of the Earth than could have been imagined.

The book is an unabashed recitation of the achievements of the Brits and Yanks during the twentieth century. In line with the title of his book, Roberts also points out that, with the exception of Ireland, all the other English-speaking nations of the world—namely, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and even the tiny nations of the British West Indies—have made salutary contributions to the epic ventures pursued by England and America. Naturally, he asks what is it about the English-speaking peoples of the world that has allowed them to defeat their mortal enemies, create enormous wealth, advance the arts, science and engineering to great heights, and to manage growth (both in size and diversity) of their populations in such a way as to create multi-cultural, yet harmonious and dynamic societies? Roberts' answers are not totally transparent or definitive, but he does offer several thought-provoking possibilities:

• A single-minded pursuit of mastery of the sea and air;
• Laissez-faire capitalism—invented by the Dutch, but adopted and perfected to a high degree by the sea-faring English-speaking peoples;
• The cultivation of spirituality among the people and the promotion of virtue and morality according to commonly accepted spiritual guidelines;
• Trust in people and their entrepreneurial skills with a concomitant program to limit the size and power of government;
• Military prowess and innovation, and a patent ruthlessness in deploying same;
• Understanding the role of prestige in world affairs, and protecting that of the English-speaking peoples.

With those as backdrop, Roberts presents an episodic description of the main ideas, movements, catastrophes and triumphs, and heroes and villains that strode the world stage during the twentieth century—always with a focus on the role played by the English-speaking peoples. He is careful not to ignore their warts and failures. In particular, he highlights: the too long fight to end segregation in America; the plunge into a centrally managed economy, following the 1929 Stock Market crash, which only intensified and prolonged the Depression; the mismanaged peace following World War I; military calamities such as Gallipoli, Pearl Harbor, and of course 9/11; the tendency to rely on appeasement (of Nazis in the 1930s, of Communists in the 1970s and of Islamists in the 1990s); the occasional failure to live up to our own ideals (e.g., the incarceration of innocent Japanese-American citizens during World War II); and the also occasional failure to maintain the unity of the English-speaking peoples (e.g., in the Suez crisis in 1956).

Despite these failures, the power, global influence and supremacy of Great Britain, and then the USA only grew during the twentieth century. Roberts postulates that at the inception of the century, this was not foreordained. Other powers, such as Germany, France and Russia could have grabbed the mantle of leadership. Well, despite the fact that two of the three tried to do so, they fell short and in the end, the century belonged to the English-speaking peoples. Moreover, according to Roberts, that this occurred was a blessing for mankind—the English-speaking peoples have been in the main, a force for good around the globe.

Since its publication, the book has come under scathing attack from the Left. Here is a representative example from amazon.com: "The [sic] is, unfortunately, a long history of some of these talented writers getting wrapped up into the politics of others and for the most part getting it wrong. There is a surplus of such writers who became expatriate parts of the neo-con revolution that catapulted conservatives into power—and brought such shame and disgrace to the United States with torture, incompetence and block-headed stupidity. Mr. Roberts may be stupid or flip or just careless. This book is unworthy to be associated with a title connected to Winston Churchill, who knew how to write and how to use facts, even if he did on occasion spin them to his advantage."

Nevertheless, to me—and I believe to most Americans—the fact that America has been a force for good (far more often than the reverse) is totally self-evident. Alas, it appears that a substantial number of American people disagree. I think this is unprecedented in our nation's history. From its beginnings, most Americans shared President Reagan's vision of America as a "shining city on a hill," that we had reinvented the world with our concepts of a federal republic, individual liberty, limited government, freedom and justice for the people and that our exportation of our political and economic ideas and practices has brought great progress and joy to those portions of the globe that saw the value of our ways. Not any longer—at least not for the segment of the population I hinted at above. The last assertion would definitely have been false a hundred years ago, and probably similarly false fifty years ago. Not any more. What happened during this period to cause a large number of American citizens to lose faith in the role, even in the "mission" of the United States of America? Such discontent with our society's role in the world, even in the nature of the society itself is a calamity for our country. How did it come about?

I believe the answer is found in two monumental transformations that occurred in the US—the first during the first half of the twentieth century, the second in the latter half. In my recent book, "Liberal Hearts and Conservative Brains," I argue that America, from its founding through the end of the nineteenth century, was a fundamentally conservative society. There was a broad consensus about the limited role of government in the lives of the people, a deep reverence for the traditional culture, and an acceptance that the rules laid down by our founding fathers were to govern us for the indefinite future. (For more on this argument, see Chapter 5 in the aforementioned book, which can be found online at http://home.comcast.net/~ronlipsman/excerpts.html). The first major cracks in the consensus occurred early in the twentieth century under the leadership of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, aided and abetted by various muckrakers and "social reformers" like John Dewey. In short, for the first time, the country questioned its fundamentals: the federal system of government, the WASP culture, but especially laissez-faire capitalism. Many of the new ideas and attitudes on these subjects were imported from Europe with the massive waves of immigration that swept our shores on both sides of the turn of the twentieth century. Some of the manifestations of the revolutionary work of these reformers included: anti-trust legislation and two Constitutional amendments that legalized a federal income tax and converted the election of Senators from the State legislatures to popular vote. The concurrent movement toward a collectivist government and a centrally directed (if not planned) economy accelerated greatly under Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and, arguably even more rapidly, under Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. Though the changes wrought in American society were profound, the "reformers" are not yet satisfied. They seek to take America further down the road toward a European-style socialist society, but they have been held in check to a tremendous extent by a conservative counter-revolution over the last quarter century.

The second transformation is, I believe, in some sense a consequence of the first. If one accepts that American society is not a beacon or model for the rest of the world, then what right do we have to hold ourselves up as an example to be admired and copied? Indeed, at mid century, the Left seized on the USA's shortcomings—some legitimate, some merely perceived—and broadcast them forcefully to the nation and the world. They harped on: slavery and segregation, maltreatment of American Indians, discrimination against women and minorities, colonialism in the Philippines and Latin America, internment of Japanese-American citizens, the fire bombing of Dresden and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the great disparity in wealth between the country's richest and poorest citizens, industrial pollution, corporate greed, mindless patriotism, urban crime, uptight religiously-dictated morals, and maybe ring-around-the-tub too. Their alienation came to a fever pitch in their opposition to what they viewed as an immoral war in Vietnam. In fact, the Left's stance on the Vietnam War was a major harbinger of the attitude, which still stands today, that in fact the United States of America is definitely not a force for good in the world. So small wonder that copious calumny has been heaped upon poor Mr. Roberts for his ill-conceived and manifestly wrong thesis.

When those who have lost faith in America look at the bulleted list of reasons (third paragraph above) for why the USA and the English-speaking peoples have led the world, they are appalled by and dismissive of all (except perhaps the first). Next January, when Obama is President and a huge left-wing majority has captured control of Congress, they will set out to remake America according to their vision for the country: socialist, highly secular, demilitarized and pacifist, guided by a malleable Constitution, no better or worse than any other of the world's nations, a realization of some sort of utopian "brotherhood of man." Roberts's book is a celebration of America's achievements as he sees them during the twentieth century. I wonder what his great-grandchild will write a hundred years hence about America's role in the twenty first century. I fear it will be a dirge instead of a song of celebration.

In his 1987 book, Allan Bloom bemoaned the Closing of the American Mind. In his densely-written, trenchant and devastating depiction of the average American undergraduate's intellectual equipment, Dr. Bloom laid the blame (partly) on how the nature of "general education" in academia had changed for the worse in the preceding generation. Whereas up until mid century, no university student could escape with a degree without a classical education, that assertion was demonstrably false by 1980. In fact I was an undergraduate student in the early 1960s and to my good fortune, I received such an education. Its components included: mathematics and science; an in-depth history of ancient Greece and Rome; the art, literature, music and architecture of Western Europe from the Renaissance through the 19th century; the economic system of laissez faire capitalism pioneered by the Dutch and British and carried forward by the Americans; the notion of political freedom and liberty under the rule of law, exemplified by England and the USA, and highlighted by the stark differences between the American and French Revolutions; philosophy and morals, with an emphasis on the role played by the Church (sometimes good, sometimes bad); all of it subsumed under the rubric of Western Civilization. There was also a large dose of American history and government and, perhaps to the surprise of today's youngsters, most of it was portrayed in a positive light.

In the 1960s and 1970s, these core components of a classical curriculum in higher education were not so much thrown out as shoved aside. The doyens of higher education decided that, while a classical education might have made sense in a classical age, the progressive times of the latter third of the 20th century demanded that more important ideas be imparted to the eager young minds entering the campus. Furthermore, not only were the components of a classical education obsolete, they shielded the youth of America from much that was unpleasant, even evil, about American history and Western Civilization—e.g., slavery, oppression of women, religious fundamentalism, colonialism and the ubiquitous presence of war. Thus a new, improved general curriculum was developed that embraced: deconstructionism, moral relativism, various "studies" (black, women's, gay & lesbian, urban, environmental, ethnic, etc.), cultures of the underdeveloped world, Marxism, and a de-emphasis, if not denigration of American society and Western Civilization.

I might mention that some of these drastic changes had already crept into the curriculum during my college days. For example, the Bible was still in the curriculum, but only as literature, certainly not in the context of history, philosophy or morals; the emphasis in economics was on Keynesianism; government was viewed as the ultimate arbiter of all American problems—based on the accepted wisdom that the New Deal saved America from the ravages of the Depression (whereas in fact, as most economists now acknowledge, it actually prolonged the Depression); and Soviet Communism was portrayed as a competing economic system, not the brutal totalitarian society that it was. Nevertheless, I would say that the basic underlying nature of the classical curriculum was largely intact at the time of my college education (early 60s). But it wouldn't survive the decade.

The new curriculum introduced in American colleges in the 60s and 70s, in the words of Dr. Bloom, "failed democracy and impoverished the souls of the students." Indeed much of it was specious, sophomoric and subversive. A major undercurrent was that Western Civilization and American society were no better than and maybe worse than almost any other social, political or economic system. The new thinking completely ignored or devalued the achievements of Western Civilization such as ethical monotheism, democratic capitalism, European architecture, literature and art, the English/American concept of the rule of law, sanctity of private property and the economic prosperity that resulted. In their stead, the oppression of peoples of color and women, the evils of colonialism, the economic imbalances that result from free market capitalism and the injustices perpetrated by WASP legal systems were seen as the hallmarks of Western society. Of course, these defects would be corrected when enough of the populace was sufficiently inculcated with the ideas of the new curriculum.

Bloom also pointed out that critical and independent thinking was another casualty of the new curriculum. In the history, philosophy and political science courses of a classical education, students were encouraged to not simply blindly accept what was in the curriculum but to question for themselves the opinions and actions of the peoples and cultures they were studying. The scholars who taught the courses didn't pretend they knew less than their students, but they were willing to listen and give credence to alternate views. In the new curriculum, although great lip service was paid to the idea that students should discover their own truths, in actuality it was made perfectly clear to them that there would be no deviation from the wisdom they were receiving. Bloom decried the mind-numbing conformity and ignorance that resulted. Students graduated without knowing the name of the river that Washington was crossing in that boat and why he was crossing it, who Adam Smith was and what the invisible hand is, who said "Out, damned spot!" and its moral implications, what judicial concept Chief Justice Marshall introduced in 1803 and why it is still so important today, or exactly how many theses Martin Luther nailed on that Church door in Wittenberg or what ticked him off so much to do so. As their minds closed up, the students didn't even know why it was so disappointing that they didn't know these things.

Well another generation has passed and the "new" curriculum is not wearing so well. Impetus for changing it has come lately from students and their parents. Of course in its desire to please its "customers," as many higher education officials are wont to call their students these days, revisions are the order of the day. A high level committee at my university has recently completed a draft of a new core educational program to replace the one that has been in force since the 70s. Alas, an examination of the document reveals that the minds of our students are not about to be pried open, but likely to remain firmly shut. Yes, the emphasis on "studies" is gone; there is little about colonialism and oppression of third world cultures or the moral shortcomings of Western Civilization; and the word "deconstruction" does not even appear. But these awful ideas have been replaced by the modern claptrap that has supplanted them in the minds of today's great thinkers. The new document is shot through with buzzwords and cockamamie notions that have gained popularity in the last decade or so: sustainability, diversity, multiculturalism, equity, social justice, globalism (not the economic variety, rather one world political nonsense) and of course CHANGE. I emphasized the last topic since the word has now become holy. Heaven knows who is to change what to benefit whom, but the status quo is clearly totally unacceptable, we must all embrace change.

A new curriculum! But its components are still specious, sophomoric and subversive, just packaged slightly differently. The monumental achievements of Western Civilization remain off the menu. And the place of America in world history and affairs is not an exalted one. There is no hint of a society that saved the world twice from totalitarianism, created the greatest overall economic prosperity in the history of human existence, and is in fact one of the most tolerant multicultural societies on the planet.

One can take consolation from the following thought. Despite the banalities and inanities of the previous general curriculum, my university and others in the United States have continued to produce first class minds, genuinely creative thinkers and talented scientists, businessmen and artists—some of whom even managed to get a degree. (Sergey Brin, co-inventor of Google, is one of ours.) This means that either there is enough solid meat left in the curriculum to generate and succor terrific minds. Or perhaps the precise curriculum is irrelevant; there are a sufficient number of genuine and independent scholars among the faculty to motivate the most fertile minds among their students toward meaningful and objective scientific, political, economic and artistic pursuits. Either way, I am optimistic that the new drivel will also not prevent the cream of America's youth from rising to the top.

By democratic capitalism I mean the socioeconomic system described vividly in Walter Russell Mead's penetrating new book, God and Gold: Britain, America and the Making of the Modern World. It is the system pioneered in some of the Italian City States nearly five hundred years ago, picked up in the Low Countries thereafter, but adopted and developed with the greatest success by Great Britain and the United States over the last three hundred years. It has many attributes, but for the purposes of this article, let us define it as a society in which the economy is characterized by free markets, private ownership of property and means of production, and respect for the profit motive and the pricing mechanism, all operating under the rule of law guaranteed by a government that intervenes very little in the economic and social life of the people. The people are completely free to decide what to produce, what to charge, where to sell it, and to whom. Contracts are freely entered into and their legal sanctity is enforced by the government. Such an economy can exist only in a democratic society, that is, one in which the people are free to choose their political leaders and means of organization. The overarching structure could be a republic (like the US), a constitutional monarchy (like the UK), or a pure parliamentary democracy (like Estonia), but democracy is a sine qua non. 

History has demonstrated beyond any conceivable doubt that democratic capitalism leads to mass prosperity. Without the stultifying hand of government weighing them down, the people are free to develop new products, open new markets, produce copious consumer goods, trade with their neighbors and with partners around the globe, and lift the overall standard of living far beyond any ever achieved in a planned or centrally controlled economy. This assertion is unchallengeable. The sorry history of societies organized under feudalism, mercantilism, socialism, communism, fascism, absolute monarchy, religious fundamentalism, oligarchy or any system other than democratic capitalism makes the assertion self-evident.

But there is a catch. Because democratic capitalism is characterized by free and open competition, it results in winners and losers. In a general sense, people prosper. Some individuals and groups prosper immensely. Others falter, usually due to their own poor performance, but sometimes just because of bad luck. A classic example of the latter is the individual who invests heavily in a product or technology immediately prior to it being superseded by a newer and better technology or product invented by a competitor. This process of creative destruction that typifies capitalism can convert winners into losers in a brutal and sudden fashion. Well, that kind of phenomenon is often offensive to our sensibilities: "It's not fair. It's inequitable. Why should some prosper at the expense of others? Shouldn't we shield the weak from the predatory practices of the strong?"

Such sentiments are not without merit. People should take no joy in seeing their fellow man fail—at least compassionate people should not. And aren't we all striving to be compassionate these days? Compassionate or not, people often experience guilt feelings when they succeed, but friends and relations do not. Egalitarianism is not a philosophy that is easily compatible with democratic capitalism, but history shows that it runs deep in us.

It seems to me that there are two approaches for dealing with this "flaw" in democratic capitalism. The first approach accepts the superiority of the system, but seeks ways to ameliorate its potential ill effects without disrupting the fundamentals of the system and thereby curtailing the great benefits it yields.

The second approach, while paying lip service to the benefits of democratic capitalism, postulates that either: (a) it is in fact not the ideal system and that a substantial modification of it would be better and fairer; or (b) regardless of whether an improvement is possible, the price that capitalism exacts is just too high and should not be paid. In this approach, in either case, a just-minded and powerful referee must supervise the game, intervening where necessary to ensure more equitable outcomes than would result under unregulated laissez-faire rules.

To implement the first approach, the people develop civic associations, religious associations and other non-governmental organizations designed to aid the less fortunate in society for whom the competition has not gone well. Their focus is on those who played by the rules; but didn't play very well, or on whom the ball took a funny bounce. Because of the overall prosperity of the nation, the percentage of the population in need of assistance is small. Therefore, the goal of designing and implementing palliatives to help the deserving without compromising the overall system becomes attainable. Such an approach characterized the US for more than two hundred years—until the onset of the Progressive Era in the early twentieth century.

At which point we slipped into the second approach—starting a long slide down a slippery slope ever since, arriving finally at a new destination, the "Modern Welfare State." In which we pay homage to the superiority of democratic capitalism but in practice we countenance the activities of an increasingly interventionist government on the playing field in an aggressive fashion.

The nature of our federal government; it's enormous influence in the everyday lives of the people; the fact that the vast majority of the people approve of this role for the government—all of this would have been unfathomable to and anathema for the American people, certainly at the time of the founders, but even up to the end of the nineteenth century.

That the federal government would have some role in the people's commerce and transportation is stipulated in the Constitution. But that it would have a primary role in the people's health care, education, retirement, housing, and religious, social and business affairs would be astounding to our forbearers. There is absolutely no such role ascribed to the federal government in the Constitution or other founding documents. However, once we assigned it a paramount role in the machinery that drives our capitalistic economy, it is not surprising that we also accorded it a major role in many other aspects of our lives. We have been rewarded with: judicial rulings like Kelo v. New London, Univ. of Cal. Regents v. Bakke and Roe v. Wade that have no legal basis in Constitutional law; congressional actions like Sarbanes-Oxley or McCain-Feingold, which are incompatible with the role assigned to Congress by the Constitution; and an Executive with the ability to initiate warfare, which is in direct violation of the Constitution. All of these transgressions are tamely accepted by the American people. In its desire to ameliorate the sometimes harsh side of democratic capitalism, the people have ceded to the government—in the economic realm and elsewhere—a role never intended for it. We are so far down the road of the second approach that hardly anyone notices the vast distance we have traveled.

The last sentence summarizes one of my two fundamental assertions in this article. Namely, I do not believe that the American people are even pondering the question of which approach to take any longer. A century is a long time. Three (or more) generations have already lived under the rubric of the Modern Welfare State. Few are thinking about the drastic change it represents. Very few are contemplating the philosophical issue it poses. If we are, as our founders intended us to be, a nation whose socioeconomic system is grounded in democratic capitalism, how can that be reconciled with the fact that we have installed the Modern Welfare State, which violates the basic precepts of democratic capitalism?

Now for the second point: What about our political leaders? It is inconceivable to me that someone who stands for the highest political office in the land could be blithely ignorant of the fundamental changes in the nature of American society that I have described. It would be inexcusable for a presidential candidate not to have a deep understanding of the nearly 400 year history of American society, not to have thought philosophically about our Constitution and its role in our society, not to have pondered the nature of our current socioeconomic system and related it to the deep historical thread woven by the American people over its history. My second point is that based on the evidence I see, I have strong suspicion that the leaders of the Democratic Party, and in particular the three current major candidates for that Party's Presidential nomination, fail these tests.

Ms. Clinton insists "it takes a village to raise a child," thereby paying ultimate homage to collectivism, violating the millennia old notion that the family is the basic unit of society, and clearly setting a role for a parental government far beyond what we have experienced to date. Mr. Edwards speaks nonsensically of two Americas, urging us toward class warfare and completely missing the well known point that in our capitalistic system the mobility between the poor and the rich is, and has always been, very robust. Either he is a demagogue or he is totally misguided. And finally, Mr. Obama, with his mindless mantra of "change" without any indication of who will be changing what for whose benefit has no more gravitas than a toothpaste commercial. If one examines what little record he has, it would appear that the change he has in mind would take us much further down the slippery slope.

To conclude, what I see among the leadership of the Democratic Party is at best ignorance of the socioeconomic axioms that have guided our nation and at worst a rejection of them, accompanied by the political intention to further entrench the Modern Welfare State as the paradigm for the American socioeconomic system. It has been thus for a long time. If I asked you to identify the last Democratic Presidential candidate who really believed in democratic capitalism, you might make a case for Kennedy, perhaps Truman. I'm not so sure. The correct answer might be Grover Cleveland.

At this juncture, before the first caucus or primary votes are cast, the pundits tell us that Hillary is almost a lock for the Democratic Presidential nomination. And all the generic polls tell us, furthermore, that the Democrats have an excellent chance to recapture the White House in 2008. Ergo, the probability that Hillary Rodham Clinton will be the 44th President of these United States appears to be rather high.

This thought has women all over America very excited. Many women, regardless of their political proclivities, are moved by the possibility of a female President and it seems likely that a not inconsiderable number of female voters, who would normally vote Republican, will pull the lever for Hillary and then lie to the exit poll takers and to their husbands.

At the same time, there are probably plenty of men, including some that lean left and normally back Democratic candidates, who are so incensed by the prospect of a female Commander-in-chief, that their vote is going to whichever male the Republicans nominate.

Are there more female or male voters whose vote will be altered purely by the sex of the Democratic nominee? Who knows? I suggest that, whatever happens, the 'authoritative' polling numbers on this question that the pollsters and pundits will throw at us afterward will be completely without substance.

In fact I believe our country would be far better served if we all discounted Hillary's gender and cast our ballots based on her (and all the candidates') political beliefs, announced intentions and record of accomplishment. Among those who can get past Hillary's sex, I see two schools of thought:

*Like her husband did, Hillary has placed herself toward the center of the political spectrum and is likely to adopt—again like her husband is reputed to have done—a center-left political agenda.

*Hillary is a life-long socialist, radicalized in her youth, camouflaged as a centrist by her handlers, but once in power will pursue a leftist agenda worthy of FDR or LBJ, and perhaps more radical than either.

We will be exceedingly fortunate if in the ensuing campaign we are exposed to enough evidence for the voters to decide which of these descriptions of Hillary's political inclinations is more accurate. I doubt that will happen. For if the second is the more accurate description of Hillary's political philosophy, then she and her advisors—knowing that its revelation would guarantee electoral defeat—will construct the camouflage so effectively as to mask the truth. Whether it is true or not—that is, Hillary is really a flaming leftist—her election is completely contingent on enough voters deciding that it is not true. Well, either it is not true and Hillary will be comfortable in her campaign shoes; or it is true, in which case we will witness one of the most duplicitous political campaigns in the history of our nation. Perhaps we are already witnessing it.

There is ample precedent for a President to govern to the left of his campaign position. Richard Nixon comes to mind, as does George W Bush. Incidentally, would someone please give me an example of the reverse phenomenon? I'm not sure it exists.

Anyway, my advice to the voters of America—especially to those men and women who are motivated by the fact that Hillary wears a brassiere—is the following: Please set that fact aside. Instead, ponder this question. Are your prepared to entrust the presidency to conceivably one of the most radical leftists ever to seek the office? That possibility cannot be ruled out; indeed I think it is at least 50-50 that it is true. If Hillary is the radical leftist that many assert, and more suspect, then when she occupies the Oval Office, you can expect: a weak and meager defense of Western Civilization before the onslaught of Islamofascism; gargantuan government highlighted by socialized medicine, nationalized education and punitive taxation; loss of US sovereignty to the UN, the International Court of Justice and other multilateral organizations; business bashing, labor coddling, high tariffs and an overregulated economy; toadying to environmentalists, race baiters and media buffoons; amnesty for illegal aliens; Supreme Court justices as radical as Bader-Ginsburg; gun control, partial birth abortion and abolishment of capital punishment; and the conversion of our free market system into a European style welfare state susceptible to the same suicidal forces that are ravaging the continent. Are you willing to take that chance?

My 65th birthday approaches. Unbelievable! It doesn't seem so long ago that I looked in the mirror and for the first time realized that I was not a kid any more. Actually, that moment was about thirty five years ago. It was very disturbing then to not look young since I still felt young. Well, now not only do I not look young, I don't feel so young either.

Father Time and Mother Nature have taken their toll. Knee problems have forced me to abandon tennis and they are threatening my cycling "career" as well. My wife—who has her own physical issues—and I rarely go dancing any longer, and when we do, it is pretty tame. I won't speak of other physical activities at which we formerly jointly excelled. Incredibly, although of course we are not biologically related, we both suffer from similar forms of IBS and our diet has become so bland that eating is no longer the unmitigated joy that it once was. We still remember each other's names, but where the keys are, whether today's medication has been ingested yet or not, and exactly why I got out of that chair and where I intended to go—well, those are too much to ask.

When I allow my gaze to lift from my progressively decrepit physique to the state of the world, the view does not improve. I see a European continent whose people are intent on committing cultural, religious and demographic suicide. I see a vicious and evil new adversary whose depraved visions embrace suicide bombing, public executions, oppression of women, religious bigotry and a feudal society devoid of the rule of law. I see a beleaguered and increasingly exhausted State of Israel whose continued existence is in grave doubt. Domestically, I see political acrimony of extreme proportions between two increasingly divergent philosophies for governing our fair land. I see out of control entitlement programs; a behemoth known as the federal government that does more harm than good; an educational system that does not inculcate American youth with pride and love of country; a media that poisons the cultural atmosphere with unspeakable violence and filth; and a nation that seems to grow weary of our lonely and unappreciated role as the protector of the free world. Finally, the Redskins stink, and since they are saddled with a young, stubborn and arrogant owner, they might be consigned to mediocrity for decades.

It's enough to make me depressed. But fortunately, when I am drawn in that direction, I try to think more positively. That mirror reveals not only an "old guy," but also someone with all his teeth, most of his hair, and a still slim figure. My wife's dance card and dietary choices might be limited, but she still has the same beautiful face and captivating smile that felled me for life 50 years ago. I have two wonderful sons, devoted daughters-in-law and three fantastic grandchildren—all of whom live nearby. I also have siblings, nieces, cousins and many great friends with whom I am close—and a healthy octogenarian parent who is an inspiration to all of us. In addition, my wife and I recently found the wherewithal to purchase a vacation home, about which we have dreamed all our lives. I've traveled the world and I had, and still have, a great job. Finally, the Redskins might stink, but I did personally attend two of their Super Bowl victories. All of these experiences, relationships and memories more than compensate for the aches and pains and misplaced keys.

A similarly revised assessment of the "state of the world" is in order. During my lifetime I have been privileged to witness my country lead the free world to victory over fascism, and then over communism. I saw the conversion of bloodthirsty dictatorships in Germany and Japan into friendly democracies. We almost pulled off the same feat in Russia—not quite, but the situation is still far better than during the Cold War when nuclear destruction threatened the world. More people live in free societies today than one could have imagined several decades ago. The economic prosperity that we enjoy—fueled by a combination of imaginative technological innovations and a magnificent American work ethic—is spreading around the world. Life expectancy is up, the air and rivers are cleaner, and despite the fact that our country's population is more diverse (in terms of race, ethnic identity and religion) than ever before, we live in a peaceful society, governed according to the rule of law. All of America's citizens enjoy unprecedented liberty and the freedoms guaranteed to us by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We are privileged to live in a truly unique society in the history of the world.

So what's the moral of the story? For me there are three:

1. Human beings come in two varieties—the 'glass is half empty' type and the 'glass is half full' type. In which group you sit is largely a function of your intrinsic nature; you don't really have a choice about it. To those of you in the latter category, count your blessings. It's wonderful to be inherently optimistic, cheerful and upbeat—even when the situation doesn't warrant. But for those of us in the former category, we live with the curse of involuntarily seeing the dark side of all situations. We cannot avoid anticipating the potentially doleful consequences of uncertain circumstances, our pessimistic thought processes always crowding out the possibility of cheery outcomes. The point is that even with self-recognition, it is difficult to control the impulses toward unfavorable assessments of event outcomes. But outlining both sides of the coin—personal and general—as I did above helps me to suppress my natural inclination toward accentuating the negative when contemplating my or my country's condition.

2. The following is trite but true. Life's a ride; enjoy the ride! Most people upon reaching senior citizen status can count a multitude of good times, and of bad times, over the course of their life's journey. More of the same is probably in store for the rest of the trip. Well, we ought to appreciate the fact that the scenery has been interesting rather than boring on our journey. Life is a magical gift and the trip through it is an adventure, which, although sometimes painful, is to be savored.

3. Finally, I recall a lesson that the aforementioned octogenarian tried to teach me when I was a kid growing up in the tenements of the Bronx. I'm not sure we qualified as poor, but we lived at a standard of living that was significantly below that of many of America's poor today. When I would complain about things I could not have or about unfortunate life occurrences, said parent would counsel me to be "grateful for what you've got." A simple lesson that is not as easily taught in today's culture, which emphasizes the acquisition of material goods and the alleviation of every societal and financial problem by a "benevolent" government. Invoking that lesson, I assert that reaching 65 is not so terrible. As they say, it sure beats the alternative.

I don’t know why they don’t change the name of the Democratic Party to the Socialist Party. After all, each of its numerous candidates for President in 2008 espouses ideas straight out of the socialist playbook. They make no secret of the fact that they believe that:
* the US should have a big government, empowered to deal with any and all problems in American society. (Of course these include those that are real and those dreamt up by the liberal special interest cohorts.)
* there is absolutely no issue in or aspect of American life, which should not be subject to the purvey of the federal government.
* government bureaucrats and the elite intellectuals that advise them are better equipped to deal with America’s problems than are consumers, businessmen and investors who actually encounter the problems.
* said bureaucrats and intellectual advisors are more trustworthy than local political officials, policemen, clergymen, community leaders and certainly than any businessman.
* issues like global warming, the fairness doctrine, teenagers without health insurance and a prison housing jihadist murderers in Cuba are far more important than the impending collapse of our entitlement programs, the fear of a repeat attack on the mainland by Al Qaeda, the filth that pervades our popular culture and an avalanche of indigestible aliens who pour across our borders.
* those who create the economic opportunities in the US should shoulder a disproportionate share of the burden of caring for those who compete less effectively—in short, the successful should be compelled to share their bounty with the less successful. (This amounts to redistribution of wealth; nothing could be more socialistic.)

It is true that the Democratic candidates are not advocating the nationalization of banks, airlines, utilities and General Motors. And although many of the policies they advocate would severely limit the individuals’ right to do with his property as he wishes, they do claim to respect the sanctity of private property. But that is why I label their philosophy socialism lite instead of flat out socialism. In some sense it is an even more insidious version of government control of the means of production than is the method of pure socialism. Indeed, it is a huge burden on the government to manage all the industry, farms, utilities and finances of a nation. The experience of those countries that have tried to do it reveals how poor a job the government does and, as explained in F.A. Hayek’s classic book, The Road to Serfdom, inevitably must do. So instead of taking over the machinery of society, the viceroys of the Democratic Party have decided to let those better equipped to run things do so, except that the government will put them in a severe straight jacket of rules, policies, laws and regulations—backed up by sharp penalties if they fail to comply. In this way, the feds can effectively control almost everything, and thereby achieve the socialists' collectivist and redistributive goals, without explicitly running much of anything. It might be lite, but as we have come to see in Europe, it is remarkably effective in establishing “the modern welfare state,” or what I have called socialism lite.

Through government legislation, taxation, borrowing, spending, regulation and jawboning the redistributors get to achieve their objectives and, since private property is still permissible, the elites get to keep their dachas in Hollywood and Manhattan.

But here is the kicker that fills conservatives with dismay. The opponents of the socialist-leaning Democratic candidates, that is the slew of Republican candidates for the presidency, does not present a fundamentally different picture. Which of those candidates asserts that the socialist path, which the country has trod over the last century, is flawed and should be abandoned? Which of them points out that the collectivist policies of the New Deal, Great Society and whatever sequel Hillary has in store for us run completely counter to the ideals of our founding fathers and represent a betrayal of core American values? Which of them proclaims as did Ronald Reagan that “Government is not the solution, government is the problem?” Some of them pay lip service to these ideas, but rendered cynical by experience with two faux conservative Bush presidencies, conservatives find it hard to believe that any of them really mean it. In the years since the Gingrich revolution in 1994, but especially during the years in which the Republicans controlled both the White House and the Congress, we have seen an explosion in federal programs, borrowing and spending. We have a massive new government bureaucracy in the Department of Homeland Security, intrusive and interventionist measures like McCain-Feingold “campaign finance reform,” business-bashing processes under Sarbanes-Oxley and the complete failure of the federal government to deal with illegal immigration. It isn’t a total disaster—e.g., taxes have been lowered—but by any reasonable measure, the expansion of the government, the acceptance of the pervasive role of government in the life of the citizenry, the collectivist approach to problems, all of these have advanced under the Republicans. Again, Republican policies have not been as egregious as those of their liberal Democratic colleagues—e.g., they are more respectful of the traditional culture, they appoint judges who do not willfully attack the Constitution, they are willing to pursue a strong national defense, and by in large they are not protectionists. But they are big government Republicans. Some call them big government conservatives, but that is an oxymoron. I believe the name socialism lighter is an apt handle for their governing philosophy. (This issue is explored in greater depth in my book, Liberal Hearts and Conservative Brains, see http://home.comcast.net/~ronlipsman)

Among the potential Republican candidates perhaps only Gingrich fails to earn the epithet (i.e., socialist of the lite, or lighter variety). But he has taken himself out of the race. (He was probably unable to secure the nomination and even if he had, the liberal media would have done such a hatchet job on him—comparable to Goldwater’s thrashing—that it is highly doubtful he could have been elected). So it will come down to Rudy against Hillary or Fred against Obama or maybe even Romney against Edwards (now that guy really scares me). In the end, like conservatives all over the country I will hold my nose and pull the lever next to the elephant. Oh how I rue one of Reagan’s few mistakes—he neglected to groom a successor.  The US is paying dearly.

If you were to ask a pundit to identify the most liberal state in the nation, the answer would likely be Taxachusetts or Vermont. While these are excellent choices, I would like to argue that the People’s Republic of Maryland should receive serious consideration for this dubious honor. Here is the evidence:

 

1. The State legislature is more than 2-1 Democratic (nearly 3-1 in the House) and has been that way for decades.

2. There were no Republican governors for more than 30 years and the one elected in 2002 was very far from conservative. That did not prevent his defeat by an ultra-liberal Democrat in 2006.

3. The State income tax is very high and has none of the investor-friendly features recently incorporated into the federal income tax (e.g., reduced rates on dividend or capital gains income).

4. The State’s other taxes and fees are high also.

5. The State has been on a drunken spending binge (not unlike that of the federal government) during the long reign of liberal Democrats, and there is no evidence that its exorbitant expenditures on various programs dear to the hearts of liberal special interests groups has improved the quality of life for State residents—even those targeted by the profligate spending.

6. The State’s less than business-friendly atmosphere has discouraged business development and economic growth. Two examples of this phenomenon, the punitive HMO tax and the Wal-Mart tax, are discussed at some length in my book, Liberal Hearts and Conservative Brains (see http://home.comcast.net/~ronlipsman).

7. It has been 20 years since Maryland voted Republican in a presidential election.

8. State officials have laid out the welcome mat for illegal aliens, setting up day laborer centers, issuing drivers licenses, providing generous welfare benefits, accommodating language inadequacies and offering in-state tuition.

9. The abortion rates in Maryland rank in the top ten in the nation, and in the top five depending exactly on how they are measured.

10. The new Democratic governor has proposed a sweeping series of tax increases and new spending programs that absolutely reek of “redistribution of wealth.”

 

Well, Maryland might or might not be the most liberal state in the nation, but it is certainly in the top five. Actually, the liberal hegemony that it enjoys is a consequence of a remarkable concentration of power. This is best illustrated by the gubernatorial election of 1994. A very liberal Democrat was pitted against a female Republican, who was actually conservative. Of the State’s 24 counties, she won 21 of them—but narrowly lost the election. There is so much power and population concentrated in Baltimore city and the two suburban DC counties that the three together outweighed the remainder of the State. This urban/suburban vs. suburban/rural dichotomy reflects the situation in the nation as a whole as was clearly represented in the dramatic, color-coded maps of the Bush-Kerry vote on a county-wide basis. In land mass the country is overwhelmingly conservative, whereas in population we are almost evenly divided. But not in Maryland since 1994. The few blue counties have far more people than the more numerous but declining number of red ones. Many are predicting that the country will experience a similar trend—the election of 2006 is cited as proof and 2008 is expected to ratify it. We’ll see.

 

But if it turns out to be true, then as they experienced in the 1930s and 1960s, the people of the United States are about to witness a frantic leap to the left. Our “modern welfare state” will lurch even further toward collectivism—a polite euphemism for socialism—wherein the people are hypnotized to look to the government (federal and state, and local too at times) to solve all their problems, real and imagined. The notions of a laissez faire free market economy, limited government, low taxes, respect for the traditional culture, and need for a strong national defense, all will be shunted aside in a whirlwind expansion of the nanny state. Yes the country does have many serious problems: it is under attack by a virulent form of Islam; it has constructed unsustainable entitlement programs to which it is addicted and refuses to face the fact that they are Ponzi schemes headed along the tracks toward a brick wall; and there is too much moral rot (rampant pornography, encouragement of teen promiscuity, partial birth abortion and assisted suicide, denigration of the traditional family). Should the liberals regain a firm hand on the reigns of power, they will fix these problems by instituting recycled versions of the same policies that caused the problems in the first place. Equally bad, they will set the wheels of government in motion to fix problems that don’t even exist: the uninsured health care crisis, global warming, lack of diversity and corporate greed. As with the original “crises,” their collectivist and heavy handed government schemes will create real problems that they will urge we fix with yet more government intervention.

 

Those of us who believe in individual liberty, limited government and free markets will find the going mighty unpleasant should the collectivist, big government, social justice crowd take control of the farm again. It will be particularly hard on those of us trying to keep our heads above water in the People’s Republic of Maryland.

I just finished reading two excellent books dealing with the two topics in the title: Amity Shlaes new study of the Great Depression, The Forgotten Man (HarperCollins, 2007) and Walter Laqueur's The Last Days of Europe (St. Martin's Press, 2007). The former contains a close examination of several key players in Roosevelt's New Deal, what motivated them, what they wanted to achieve, what they actually did, and a penetrating look at the consequences of their actions. The latter presents an objective description of some of the severe problems that plague European society at the beginning of the twenty first century—problems which have been declared insoluble by some writers and which promise to radically transform the continent, perhaps forever. These include: a startling low birth rate accompanied by the explosive growth of a Muslim immigrant community; the failure to assimilate those immigrants; a crumbling welfare system that is exacerbated by the aforementioned demographic trends; barren churches in comparison to crowded mosques; the inability to project military strength; weak labor productivity, which, together with other ominous business indicators, portends a precarious economic future; and the surrender of sovereignty to an unelected, unresponsive and authoritarian European Union.

 

There are two disparate features that tie the books together in my mind. First, they are both written in a curiously dispassionate style with an extremely limited amount of editorializing, personal opinion and prescriptions for solutions. Both authors state the facts as they see them and largely leave it to the reader draw his own conclusions. The second feature they share is an enormous undercurrent of collectivism, a powerful political and economic force, which, both authors reveal, motivates and animates the main protagonists in both books.

The story of the Great Depression and the consequent New Deal that FDR unleashed to tame it has been etched, indeed burned into the consciousness of any American who was educated in the United States since the 1940s. The story asserts that: the Depression was a phenomenon brought on by the excesses of business, the greed of corporations and the individuals that controlled them, and unsavory practices in the financial industry; the inability of the little or "forgotten man" to deal with the cataclysmic events that overwhelmed him was total; therefore, the need for a counterweight was compelling and that role was naturally assigned to the US Government; in fulfilling that role, the imaginative and heroic programs instituted by the New Deal—which reversed the disastrous policies of Herbert Hoover—conquered the Depression and turned the economy around; and finally, its proven success legitimized the paradigm of the modern welfare state in which the government—through taxation, regulation, borrowing and spending, and jawboning—serves as a powerful check on the excesses of big business and helps to ensure the prosperity of the country, but in a much more fair and equitable fashion than an unrestricted free market could deliver. All of us absorbed these "truths" from our teachers, from the media, and from the politicians—of both parties, until they became self-evident and beyond dispute. There have been some lonely voices crying out over the years that it was all a myth—Milton Friedman comes to mind—but by in large this interpretation of the Great Depression and the New Deal survives virtually unchallenged in the educational and media institutions of the United States.

Ms. Shlaes clearly does not accept this received wisdom. But she undercuts it not via a political polemic, or through the presentation of mountains of contrary data or by citing experts or higher authorities; rather, she offers an in-depth and fascinating portrayal of some of the key players in both the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations. Through a dispassionate presentation of their professed beliefs and, more importantly, their actions, she leads the reader to some unmistakable conclusions: while it was true that Hoover's actions were disastrous (e.g., his support of the horrendous Smoot-Hawley tariffs), he in fact engaged in the same kind of interventionist, aggressive regulatory, business-bashing and collectivist schemes that his successor deployed; Roosevelt did not have a firm game plan in mind, instead he made it up as he went along and many of his schemes were mutually contradictory—but a constant throughout his first two terms was an extreme animus for business and businessmen; contrary to the myth it seems highly probable that not only did Roosevelt's laws, agencies and programs not alleviate the Great Depression—they in fact deepened it and prolonged it; the so-called "depression within the depression" that hit the country in the mid/late 30s was a direct consequence of his policies (e.g., the undistributed profits tax) and is clear proof  that the New Deal prolonged and intensified the economic downturn, rather than rescued our country; and finally, by the end of the thirties, large segments of the public and even members of the administration—inspired by the arguments of people like Wendell Wilkie, who were originally sympathetic but could not ignore the damage the New Deal was doing—turned against the failed policies of the New Deal, leading to a gradual ease up on the regulation, business bashing and collectivist approach. If not for that late 30s "course correction" and if the world had not clearly been descending into a major war, Roosevelt might very well have been defeated in 1940. The point is not made in Ms. Shlaes' book, but others have asserted that the national emergency of World War II in the 1940s, in which the federal government played a dominant role, institutionalized the phenomenon of massive government intervention in society—a phenomenon whose roots were established in the collectivist policies of the New Deal in the 1930s. By the end of the War, the expansive government that we know today was a permanent fixture, and since then it has gone almost unquestioned that the federal government has a vast role to play in the economic and social life of the American nation.

Ms. Schlaes says virtually none of this explicitly. Rather, by letting the movers and shakers of the New Deal, as well as certain private citizens, act and speak for themselves, she makes the conclusions I've indicated painfully evident. It is amazingly understated and very subtle, yet crystal clear; quite a feat to bring off.

Much of the same can be said of the book by Mr. Laqueur.  He examines the history, movements and trends over the last generation that have brought Europe to its current perilous state. He highlights: the carnage that Europe inflicted upon itself in two world wars; the determination not to ever subject themselves to a repeat performance; the intention to achieve that goal by creating economic, social and political structures that would guarantee it; the overwhelming impulse to establish a virtually utopian welfare state—very long on social guarantees, very short on hard work, profit, competition and military capabilities.  Furthermore, their idealism led Europeans to divest themselves of their empires and to the desire to do well by their former subjects, including inviting them into their home and asking little from them in the way of good behavior. Mr. Laqueur engages in no screaming about demographic calamities, racial and religious polarization, indigestible minorities, stagnant economies held back by a poor work ethic, burning jealousy of the United States, or appeasement of the Soviet Union followed by an equally appalling appeasement of Islamofascism. There are only cool presentations of facts, attitudes and trends, descriptions of relevant organizations in European minority communities (factually done without obsessing about the fact that many are seditious and traitorous), and a somewhat laudatory explanation of attempts to build a more enlightened and peaceful European society. Once again the understatement is remarkably effective. The reader is left to draw his own conclusions, but the path Mr. Laqueur leads them down doesn't leave a lot of room for diverse conclusions. The title of the book indicates clearly what Mr. Laqueur sees as Europe's destination.

Thus we have two books dealing with very different subjects, but very much alike in writing style and in underlying theme. And both are important books for Americans to read. How can we understand where we want to go and how to get there if we misunderstand where we have been? School children are ignorant of the names Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, but they learn a great deal about John Dewey, John Maynard Keynes, Sinclair Lewis and even Karl Marx. The views of the latter crew would be anathema to our founders and if we set our sails according to the charts laid out by these collectivists, we will create a society vastly different from what has been the nature of American society from its inception until the twentieth century. The exhortation toward collectivism and aggressive state power embodied in the ideas of the men who concocted the New Deal and the European Union represent a mortal threat to the nature of the American society that our forefathers created. The lack of respect for individual freedom and liberty also constitute a violation of the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Ms. Schlaes book, in its understated way, makes a powerful case for reexamining the Great Depression and the New Deal. Similarly, Mr. Laqueur's book should cause the bureaucrats in Brussels and the citizens of the continent to rethink their course of action over the last generation. Much of Europe's dilemma is due to its collectivist mentality, its utopian philosophies, and its fear of rugged individualism and laissez faire economics. (Its fear and betrayal of its classic Christian religious heritage is playing a role too, but that is not addressed in Mr. Laqueur's book and I shan't say more on that here.). These forces are also present in the United States although we have resisted them more effectively than has Europe. For how much longer? If we pay attention to the cliff off of which Europe is about to plunge, and if we correctly assay the philosophy and legacy of the New Deal, then maybe we can avoid Europe's fate.