IS OUR NATIONAL WILL ‘WILTING AWAY?’
An interesting discussion piece in today’s Washington Times by Big Hollywood’s Andrew Breitbart that tries and make the case that Americans today, compared to the “Greatest Generation” that fought World War II, are a bunch of weak willed wimps, enamored of wealth and privilege while being frightened of our own shadow. In short, we are a bunch of self-indulgent philistines who lack the capacity to deal with the numerous crisis in our midst.
We’ve all heard this rant before - as I’m sure the “Greatest Generation” heard it from their elders back in the 1930’s and the generation before them, and on backwards to the founding of the republic where as early as Washington’s administration, ministers were bemoaning the loss of the “revolutionary spirit” and the desire by a majority of the populace for “material possessions” rather than seeking spiritual uplift. I guess it goes without saying that the more things change, the more likely the previous generation sees a danger that American values are threatened.
The question: Is it truer today than it was in the past? Has something “gone out” of America in the last decade or two?
Breitbart cites 9/11 as clear evidence that something has:
Signs of our collective weakness emerged after 9/11 when only part of the American population took seriously that we were at war with an evil and motivated enemy determined to destroy our way of life. Since then, al Qaeda has refused to quit despite debilitating losses.
Clearly, our national will is wilting away.
Following the tragic lead of Europe, too many Americans no longer want to engage our external threats head-on. And on the domestic front, we are confronting the economic crisis of our lifetime with the same full-steam-ahead spending-spree mind-set that got us into the mess to begin with.
We say: Let’s create more government dependency, reward the incompetent and print more money.
That’s doubling down on stupidity.
We are a trust-fund nation (picture Tori Spelling in the Lifetime Channel role of her career) whose BMW has run out of gas in the middle of the Mojave Desert after a pointless 115-miles-per-hour joy ride. The credit cards are maxed out. We’re out of cell phone range. And dad, who just got taken by Uncle Bernie Madoff, wouldn’t take the call anyway.
I would say that Mr. Breitbart is off base. Much more than a “part” of the population wants to confront al-Qaeda. The question up for debate - and still being debated - is what is the best way to go about doing that? There are those of us who believe that we must hit them militarily and keep hitting them no matter where they hide. Many others believe that this strategy “creates more terrorists” and wants to see a more studied approach to the threat that would rely almost exclusively on intelligence and law enforcement actions to break up terrorist cells before they can strike.
Is one approach “wimpier” than the other? Is the law enforcement path less in tune with our values and national character? I have been struggling with this question since 9/11 and I still don’t have an answer as far as which path would keep us safer although the biggest drawback to the law enforcement/intelligence argument is that it isn’t proactive enough, that it presupposes we will be hit and that the response to terrorism should be grounded in bringing the perpetrators to “justice.” In the nuclear age, this is myopic in the extreme which is why I come down on attacking al-Qaeda and keeping them constantly off balance and unable to mount a serious attack.
But that’s not the question. Breitbart is positing the notion that people who oppose this kind of war lack intestinal fortitude and other qualities that made the World War II generation the “Greatest.” I reject that idea as silly - turning a political/policy argument into a litmus test for who better represents the “real America.” (Liberals and others who support the police/law enforcement approach are equally silly when they accuse those of us who support a more proactive approach as being “warmongers.”) Ideally, a combination of the two policies would probably work best although it is never that simple.
But the argument over how to confront terrorism after 9/11 is symptomatic of something much deeper and Breitbart continuously misses the boat when he lays out arguments like this in describing the Baby Boom generation:
We are a trust-fund nation (picture Tori Spelling in the Lifetime Channel role of her career) whose BMW has run out of gas in the middle of the Mojave Desert after a pointless 115-miles-per-hour joy ride. The credit cards are maxed out. We’re out of cell phone range. And dad, who just got taken by Uncle Bernie Madoff, wouldn’t take the call anyway.
The silent generation, which learned valuable lessons from the Depression and World War II, is not here to guide us through these difficult times. The narcissistic baby boomers, who probably think this song is about them, are now firmly in charge. And that’s the rub.
It’s a clever metaphor but hardly the point. Mr. Breitbart hasn’t been paying attention because what he is describing is nothing new. Since the mid 1980’s, Americans have been in hock up to their eyeballs and the economy has been wholly dependent on how willing consumers have been to pile on personal debt. There is nothing new in Americans buying more house than they need or can afford nor is there anything earth shattering in the extraordinary number of citizens who try and escape their bad personal financial decisions by declaring bankruptcy which has been on the rise for a quarter century. It’s not just the boomers who have become irresponsible but their children and now grandchildren.
We are coming up on the 64th anniversary of the end of World War II. In those 64 years America has seen the rise of democratic socialism in the form of a very large and intrusive welfare state that has destroyed the notion of “self reliance” and substituted dependency for the underclass. What of the rest of us? Are we, as Breitbart suggests, a “trust fund nation?” Andrew must lead a very sheltered life. I look around me and see my neighbors struggling - in good times and bad - to make their way through life, raising their children, finding happiness wherever they can, and still believing in an America that he and I would definitely recognize.
These and tens of millions of other families outside of Andrew’s Hollywood bubble have not abandoned the ideals of prudence, independence, self-reliance, and the American way of life. They have not given up on helping their neighbor. They refuse to yield on moral questions about which they feel passionately. They haven’t completely lost faith in our institutions although the last several years has tested that faith.
There is a small percentage of irresponsibles who do not share these values and have totally abandoned them. And yet Mr. Breitbart sees fit to lump the rest of us in with these profligates? Is it because so many voted for Obama?
When the going gets tough, the weak go on Leno.
I can’t get out of my head that the leader of the free world gave the British prime minister 25 films on DVD that don’t even work in U.K. machines.
I can’t wrap my head around the fact that the commander in chief tried (for a minute anyway) to require injured warriors to pay to have private insurers take care of their treatment.
I can’t believe the president would allow the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to dictate the terms of his budget - and Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd, the symbols of government kowtowing to Wall Street - to be spokesmen for his financial bailout.
And did President Obama really produce a YouTube video to appease President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the mullahs of Iran?
Yes, he did.
These aren’t beginner’s mistakes. These are his core incompetencies.
So because we voted an incompetent into office, this proves that our “national will is wilting away?” Pardon me if I am completely unimpressed.
What Mr. Breitbart is really railing against are our elites. Many of them have indeed become overly cynical, hypocritical, greedy, grasping and acquisitive. There has been a massive failure of leadership in America - both parties, the business world, in organized labor, the intelligentsia, and most especially, the political class that includes politicians, bureaucrats, big media, and the loosely defined gaggle of academic intellectuals, policy wonks, and think tankers who play such a large role in actually governing the country. To say that they have all let us down is an understatement. Be as partisan as you like but no one can escape blame for our current mess.
It seems our elites have got it in their head that once they reach a certain level of achievement in America, they have a license to rob, cheat, and steal everything that isn’t nailed down. This sense of entitlement is perhaps the most damaging aspect of modern America. And I would say to Mr. Breitbart that this is a cross-generational phenomenon and not confined to the boomers. The president of the United States is making the argument that it is “greed” that is to blame. Such simple minded idiocy we might expect from a sophomore in high school (or a liberal). Greed is a symptom of the much larger problem that we refuse to face; a loss of faith in our institutions and, more directly, in each other.
At bottom, we don’t know who we are anymore. The old verities - as comforting as an pair of old shoes - don’t describe what we have become the last 50 years; a modern, industrialized nation, wired from one end of the continent to the other, that has destroyed regional differences (which played such a huge role in our development) and united us as we have never been united before. What does “self reliance” mean when we depend so much on government for such mundane things as making sure we have clean water to drink or safe highways, or bridges that won’t collapse, or prevent us from buying products that might kill or injure our children? You can claim “self reliance” all you want but how meaningful is it when you can’t even turn on the faucet without the help of government?
We have yet to translate these American values into modern nomenclature. The values aren’t anachronistic, only the way we define them. This is something I have been preaching for many months as I have struggled to redefine conservatism for my own aggrandizement. I’m not sure how to go about doing it, only that it needs to be done. We are, most of us, looking at an America through a spyglass that is giving us a view of the past, not an America is it exists today. And the biggest rub is we wouldn’t know how to describe it even if we could see it. There are no touchstones, no signposts that can aid us in coming to grips with this brave new world.
The practical effect of this is it has unmoored so many and set adrift the idea of a shared American experience so that morals and values become meaningless. This leads to excesses in our culture, hedonism, a catering to our own pleasures, and a destructive selfishness that goes beyond simple minded ideas of “greed” and warps the fabric of our national polity.
All of this, for lack of leadership.
Breitbart believes he has the “answer:”
The last time I felt this hopeless was when the Democratic Party and its cohorts in the media sold us on the false premise that we lost the war in Iraq. In the process, they also sought to demonize the very man that led us out of our peril.
His name is Gen. David H. Petraeus.
Less than two months into the Obama presidency, which appears to be lost somewhere in the Mojave Desert, I have decided to try to soothe my anxieties by placing my hope in a political surge.
In the election of 2010, Republicans should run heroic veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom who exhibited the will and fortitude to defeat the enemy and to rebuild a torn nation, even while too many of their fellow countrymen wrote them off.
And in 2012, the man President Obama’s staunchest allies called “General Betray Us” should come in with guns blazing and defeat the man whose only weapon to lead us to victory is a teleprompter.
Generals make lousy presidents, generally speaking and politically inexperienced generals have been disasters. The exception is Eisenhower who lived and breathed politics for 3 years as Supreme Allied Commander, working the miracle of keeping a coalition together that featured ultra-capitalist and ultra-marxist states, not to mention maintaining a good relationship with some of the prickliest, most outsized personalities in world history including FDR, Churchill, Stalin, and DeGaulle. Ike was born to be president and made a damn fine one.
But Petreaus? He may in fact be an improvement as far as leadership is concerned over the current occupant of the White House (whose interview on 60 Minutes was almost surreal in the way he giggled about economic disaster), but it is ridiculous to believe the good general is the answer to a prayer. General Petreaus would almost certainly be just as dependent on a teleprompter as President Obama given his extraordinary lack of experience in the political arena. And the fact that Obama depends on the device isn’t the problem; it’s that we were sold a bill of goods on how articulate he was without one. How Petreaus would be an improvement in that regard is immaterial to whether he could do a better job with the economy. Since we don’t have a clue what the General thinks on that issue, the whole idea of him running for president is moot.
None of this deals with the core problem I mentioned above - of an America that is in the midst of a gigantic upheaval of which we have yet to come to grips. I imagine time will be the balm that soothes our distress. This is generally true of all big historical changes. But in the meantime, we are apparently in for a very rough ride, being led by a president with his own ideas of what values and traditions are important in America. He will decide which are important enough to save and which should be tossed under the bus.
First off, President Obama is too inept to lie well let alone to decide which American traditions and values will survive.
As for the thrust of Breitbart’s column, I have to agree with him about the Boomers and their progeny. We are pale reflections of our forefathers. If anything, the children of Boomers are even more reprehensible than their parents. Given our younger citizens have never lived through even a light recession, their opportunity to disprove this perception is here. I won’t hold my breath.
Breitbart’s thoughts on the GWOT were expressed clumsily but dead on if he meant what I think. I don’t think he drew up the police matter/military solution distinction. Instead, Breitbart acknowledged something we all have seen–large swaths of this nation chose to ignore the threat. It wasn’t a matter of what worked best. I also was appalled that so many of my fellow citizens decided it was best to pretend things were just fine and the threat overblown or non-existent.
As for Petraeus, who knows? I agree with you about generals. One this is for certain, though. Petraeus has at least run something. Given the flailing about of the current White House occupant, that is something to commend him.
Comment by jackson1234 — 3/23/2009 @ 9:25 am
Greed isn’t a symptom of anything. It’s a fundamental part of the human condition, and is the very reason that the government must protect our water, highways, and bridges.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 3/23/2009 @ 10:34 am
So, Breitbart thinks we need a new triumph of will? And he already has a designated fuhrer, er, leader picked out. Petraeus is a terrific general. So was US Grant. As you point out, success in one job does not guarantee success in another. (President Patton anyone? President Sherman?)
In terms of war fighting what we lack now that we had back in the good old days is a willingness to completely dehumanize our enemies. Now, before I get jumped on as a pansy leftie, let me say that I argued that targeting Mecca was a legitimate threat to put on the table, and I was yelling for more troops and more willingness to use an iron fist in Iraq way back when righties were telling us that Rumsfeld was a genius.
It’s not national will, it’s a somewhat enhanced sense of decency. We are no longer willing to burn women and children alive as we did in Germany, and to a much greater extent in Japan. If we were, I’d submit that we could solve the Pakistani FATA problem in an afternoon and throw Iran in too.
On the 1-10 ruthlessness scale with 1 being Timothy Leary and 10 being Curtis LeMay I’m probably an 8. But the American people are a 5. And I have a hard time despising people just because they won’t act as brutally as I might.
You’re not an 8 - maybe a 6. Most supporters of Iraq who comment here are 8’s. And I might be a 4-5. Beyond that, I don’t think Americans give a hoot for anyone but our own guys. They like Desert Storm actions where we kill 50,000 of the enemy to our 30 dead.
ed.
Comment by michael reynolds — 3/23/2009 @ 11:58 am
My feelings on this is that Americans, like probably all people, become self-satisfied and content when conditions are good but when adversity strikes we all seem to work together, to pull together in harmony to accomplish whatever goals are needed.
This has been demonstrated many, many times throughout the history of this country and continues to this day to still be an integral part of our psyche. Natural disasters are a prime example. How many times have you seen an area wracked by some natural disaster and everyone drops whatever they were doing and does whatever is required to help others survive.
That inbred philosophy will lead us through the difficult times ahead as long as we keep our freedom and free will. The Katrina disaster is an example of this. Some of the affected people who lived off of the government’s beneficence. These people expected the government to take care of them after the hurricane and had no idea what to do on their own. It is important that we as a country do not fall into this trap of convenience and attitude of entitlement.
If a national disaster befalls us, one of such a magnitude where everyone is literally fighting for survival there may be a Darwinian selection that separates those who can from those who choose not to. Nature is sometimes hard but trials and tribulations help us to grow stronger.
Comment by Wramblin' Wreck — 3/23/2009 @ 12:23 pm
Breitbart is not correct, but what he says does contain a grain of truth. For the first time in the history of this nation, we are approaching a point where 50% of the contry is on the public dole. In that sense, we have lost our will, our American spirit, the grit and drive that have propelled us to becoming the world’s sole superpower, both militarily and economically.
Liberalism does threaten our American will, but not in the sense that Breitbart suggests. Your example of the debate on the method of fighting terrorism misses a larger point. While there are some who legitimately believe the best way to fight terrorism is via a law enforcement method, the majority of the left (not the majority of Americans or even the majority of Democrats) believes that America is to blame for Islamic terrorism. The lack of will refuses to identify what the nature of the threat is (a radical religious ideology hell-bent on subjugation or annihilation of all other ideologies foreign to it) and instead couches the threat in euphemisms.
The threat is both a loss of will by those who are on the public dole, and as you point out, a failure of our elites. Events in the last 20 years have caused the American spirit to dampen, but I think it is starting to reawaken.
Comment by Sal — 3/23/2009 @ 12:33 pm
I tend to agree wtih Breitbart. We are wimpy nowadays.
We are a country can’t build much of anything anymore. Instead, we litigate and use endless marketing 24/7.
Men have become feminized.
Consider: We can’t even agree to all speak one, common language, not even in public schools for fear of upsetting the “newcomers” from south of the border, who are to a very large extent, identity stealing, social security fraud commiting illegal aliens. We are afraid to enforce our own laws for fear of being called “bigot”, “racist”, etc.
Consider: We were attacked by fundamentalist muslims on 9/11 and since then, muslim immigration into the USA has been increased? Does this make sense? Islam is not only a religion but a political ideology as well and one very strong and antithetical to the Western and US tradition.
Instead we use “wussy words” like “terrorists”, “extremists”, etc. We pretend there are just a few Islamic crackpots, when in fact, 9/11 represented a strategic, military attack.
Comment by Nessus — 3/23/2009 @ 1:09 pm
Nessus said:
What you call identity stealing, social security fraud committing illegal aliens, I call people taking their lives into their own hands and doing everything they can to find and build a better life for themselves and their families. When you get right down to it, that’s the epitome of what it means to be American.
You know, as opposed to bitching and moaning about a common language or lost jobs, these people are out there busting their asses to improve their lives. Again, sounds pretty American to me.
Don’t worry though, your irrational fear of Mexicans is built into your DNA. And if it wasn’t Mexicans you were terrified of, you’d find something else to project your fear onto. The only people I know who are afraid of being called “bigot” or “racist” are bigots and racists.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 3/23/2009 @ 1:24 pm
I refuse to surrender my faith in the American people - not the coastal craven critters but the ones in the South and the middle - all the “flyover country” people. I live in Virginia and we’re quickly departing our wimpish sojourn and remembering that we are Americans first and Republicans/Democrats second. If you don’t have the one, you’ll not be able to maintain the other!
I’m pretty much ready for whatever comes in the next few years - and I’m hoping that my readiness is unnecessary. We have the opportunity to vote the s.o.b.s out in 2010 - and it’s high time we started working on that little old project!
Bless your hearts!
Comment by Gayle Miller — 3/23/2009 @ 1:39 pm
The Botox princess and the Cadaver from Nevada need to be the first to go!
Comment by Gayle Miller — 3/23/2009 @ 1:40 pm
I nuy into the idea that elites are the culprits using their money and influence to steer America into positions favorable to their future, and ignoring the population in general.
But, I have a huge problem with this targeting of “elites”. No one, to my knowledge, has created a reasonably complete listing of these Elites, and their profiles, so that we could actually put them under a spotlight of unfavorable comments and actions on a continuous basis. By using the collective term, we are hiding the problem of identification of these elites until it may become too da*m late to change course.
Does this remind anyone of the French revolution, and the abiding hatred of the aristocrats, as shown by the tumbrils rolling…
Someone step up and create the list! Then we can start to figure out what to do.
Comment by mannning — 3/23/2009 @ 3:11 pm
oops! buy, not nuy.
Comment by mannning — 3/23/2009 @ 3:12 pm
Chuck Tucson writes: “What you call identity stealing, social security fraud committing illegal aliens, I call people taking their lives into their own hands and doing everything they can to find and build a better life for themselves and their families. When you get right down to it, that’s the epitome of what it means to be American.”
In a word, wow. So let me get this straight, ol’ Tucson Chuck, breaking numerous laws is ok as long as you are doing it “to put food on the table” as the cliche’ goes? So by your iron-clad reasoning Tucson Chuck, everyone in the world has a God-given right to “migrate” to the United States, since we’re “all immigrants” and “we’re a nation of immigrants”. Unfortunately for you, both of those cliche’s are incorrect.
Your beloved illegal aliens are CITIZENS OF OTHER NATIONS, duh. It’s not our responsibility to provide them a job, healthcare in the ER and schooling for their children. If we do not CONSERVE our nation, with it’s laws and borders, we will not HAVE A NATION. Then we will become simply a PLACE FOR FOREIGNERS TO COME AND WORK. Geez, are many people foolish.
Comment by Nessus — 3/23/2009 @ 3:55 pm
I dunno Nessus, I just have a hard time blaming Mexicans seeking a better life for the ineptitude and failings government programs in my country.
I understand your situation though. It gives you something to rail against. It makes you feel like you’re part of a select collective, and that inclusion is important for your self esteem and overall feeling of security. I get that.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 3/23/2009 @ 4:10 pm
Not over 20% of the population could be described as patriotic. 30% only care about the $ not the welfare of anyone other than self, the other 50% are democrats who hate everything
America has accomplished without them.
Comment by Scrapiron — 3/23/2009 @ 5:30 pm
great non-partisan article Rick. You hit all the key points and didn’t try to point fingers at anyone.I have yet to meet an American that doesn’t want to destroy Al Queda, Breitbart raises the “strawman” on that one. Again, thanks for a great read.
Comment by Joe — 3/23/2009 @ 5:47 pm
The ‘Greatest Generation’ was tested in a time when socialist ideas were much more en vogue than today. The United States will be just fine. Come on, people rise with the challenges they are faced with. I just don’t believe all this doom and gloom.
And Gayle: that’s a pretty unpatriotic statement about the most productive people on the two coasts (includes Virginia BTW). The South as the new savior, good heavens!
Comment by funny man — 3/23/2009 @ 6:17 pm
I strongly suspect Mr Breitbart is deluded. It is a very old tradition to moan about how the current generation is weak and spineless compared to the virtuous and brave heroes of old. It is much more likely that memories are being used selectively.
Comment by Frivolous — 3/23/2009 @ 6:26 pm
I tend to agree with the author here. The more things change the more they are the same. I can imagine that my parents parents railed on them for the same things they railed on me for. Each generation believes the next is losing touch and so on. We have a great many problems to deal with for sure, but the arguments made by Breitbart seem to paint our population with a broad brush. There are a good many in this country who hold “old fashioned” values and would gladly stand up for this country. They are lost behind the noise created by the media and vocal minorities. When the crap hits the fan these people are the ones volunteering to go in and clean up. They are not limited by age or socio economic stereotypes they are just Americans.
Comment by Robert — 3/24/2009 @ 1:48 am
The only patriots I encounter these days are “good ole boys” here in Virginia - and when I refer to the coastal critters, I’m referring to New York, California, State of Washington, sometimes Oregon and The District! I do know one thing for sure: most of the people I know are prepared to defend themselves with vigor from any attempt by anyone to abrogate our rights as citizens. That resistance and protest is now taking place as “tea parties” around the country.
Comment by Gayle Miller — 3/24/2009 @ 9:30 am
“Vocal minorities”?
“Patriotism is the last refuge for scoundrels”. So it is that the denizens of the far right minority party question the patriotism of Americans who live in cities, and support President Obama who won by a landslide.
Obama supporters far out number you. So called Red states voted for Obama in record numbers. Just who areyou calling patriotic? Patriotism exists on both siders of the political spectrum and you can’t truly expect this Us vs Them attitude tohelp anyone.
This will not return you to national power. One of the reasons you lost was because you fling your poo at people who’s only crime is that they disagree with you and rightfully so.
Comment by gayleisarealgash — 3/24/2009 @ 9:53 am
I don’t see us wimping out any more than we have previously. It’s just that the wimps are increasingly vocal. Consider Vietnam. Korea and WWII are examples also where not everyone was on board with our actions. Idiots, probably. Naieve, certainly. But there it is; What Andy’s seeing is nothing new. Worth dealing with and worth eliminating to the degree possible by the sheer force of logic… but hardly new.
Comment by Eric Florack — 3/24/2009 @ 10:26 am
“Americans today, compared to the “Greatest Generation” that fought World War II, are a bunch of weak willed wimps”
On top of that, Attorney General Eric Himpton Holder, Jr. called me a coward.
What’s a mother to do?
Comment by CZ — 3/24/2009 @ 6:47 pm
#1. Oh, those reprehensible Baby Boomers! I challenge Jackson to go to DC and stand in front of the Nam Wall, and tell those 58,000 guys whose names are carved there that they were “reprehensible” Boomers.
Comment by LC — 3/24/2009 @ 9:45 pm
Weds. morning links…
Are we becoming a nation of spineless weenies? RWNH
In poor taste: Ted Kennedy memoir book covers
From our friends up north:
NDP President Anne McGrath said [Marshall] Ganz stressed the left needs to do a better job of connecting its message wit…
Trackback by Maggie's Farm — 3/25/2009 @ 4:56 am
I find Breitbart’s arguments more persuasive than yours.
Comment by Wendy Laubach — 3/25/2009 @ 11:49 am
“It’s not just the boomers who have become irresponsible but their children and now grandchildren.”
Ah, there’s the rub: what’s tolerated in one generation is accepted in the next and encouraged in the subsequent.
Comment by Dewey — 3/25/2009 @ 12:02 pm
1. We are seeing the payoff from several generations of liberal-directed education on our nation. Naturally, Obama wants more of the same, and well-funded at that.
2. We really seem not to know who the inside enemies are—the so-called elites, and the leftists–listed by their proper names, and their influences on government, legislation, the economy, foreign relations, and the administration spelled out for all to see.
3. We do know that many of these enemies of the nation use the shameful rules of the radical Saul Alinsky to foster dissention and create confusion.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_alinskys_rule.html
WHO ARE THEY?
Comment by mannning — 3/25/2009 @ 12:44 pm
And, by the way, why are commentors ducking the challenge to name names and tell others just who the “elites” are? Is it because they are afraid? If that is so, we are really in worse shape than I thought. I can see where leftist leaning people would shy away from this, but not the conservative crowd.
WHO ARE THEY, THESE ELITES?
Comment by mannning — 3/27/2009 @ 10:51 am