Right Wing Nut House

Civil War historian Bruce Catton relates a story in his powerful book Glory Road about Confederate prisoners being marched northward through Virginia, passing a plantation where several slaves had gathered near the road to watch the procession.

One older slave viewed the scene with immense satisfaction, calling out to the dejected southerners, “Bottom rail on top, now.” His reference to the fact that the ante-bellum south had ceased to exist and that the world had turned upside down probably didn’t go over very well with those southern troops.

Nor will the idea that the tables have now turned and Democrats have been handed the ammunition to refer to Republicans as “unpatriotic” and America haters.The liberals must be feeling the same kind of grim satisfaction that old slave felt when they toss around the epithet that conservatives are anti-American, after having endured this calumnious charge for a couple of decades.

What goes around comes around is a cliche that is especially true in politics. And it appears to me that opposition to Obama has so unhinged some on the right that, while the charges are ridiculous on their face, they will probably resonate with some Americans who have had just about enough of this silly, childish gameplaying when it comes to quantifying patriotism.

As the only conservative in a family of 10 children, I have always been comfortable attesting to the fact that liberals love America as much as conservatives do. To me, it was never a question of patriotism, but rather strength vs. weakness, common sense vs. suicidal idealism, and reality vs. wishful thinking. I believe that people like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck - who, along with other pop conservatives, regularly make the point that liberals and Obama hate America - are so besotted with ideological fervor and blinded by unreasoning partisan hate of their opponents that they are unable to think rationally about exactly what liberals are saying when they criticize America.

Is it proof that the left hates America when they opposed the Iraq War? There are genuine pacifists on the left who hate all war. There was also a legitimate case to be made not to go to war with Iraq. I didn’t agree with it then and don’t agree with it now, but Iraq was a war of choice, and to take an honorable disagreement over policy and twist it into a charge of anti-Americanism is a stretch.

Having said that, the left has never been honest enough to admit that some of their opposition to the war was as shallow and dishonest as the right’s opposition to Obama’s failure in Copenhagen and his receiving the peace prize. To deny the element of partisanship - which is just as virulent and hateful as that on the right - inherent in many of the critiques of the war emanating from blogs and other partisan pundits is hypocritical. Wanting Bush to fail was just as prevalent on the left during his term in office as the right wanting Obama to flounder today.

Of course, this is the problem with politics today and anyone who can’t see it is too partisan themselves to admit it. The idea that one side or the other is to blame for this sorry state of affairs is ludicrous on its face.

But I would never say that the rank partisanship demonstrated by the left or right and directed toward the object of their disaffection means that either side is unpatriotic, or hates America. There are certainly some on the fringes of both sides that fit that description, but for the vast majority who allow excessive ideology to dominate their thinking, there is no question of love of country. Nor is there any litmus test that would gauge the depth of one’s devotion to America either. That fantastical notion that you can measure something like patriotism is irrational.

Then what of the idea that the left has now adopted the right’s tactic of accusing the opposition of hating America? The New America Foundation’s Michael Cohen writing in Politico has some thoughts:

Twenty-five years ago, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick famously lambasted Democrats as “blame America firsters” and a party plagued by “self-criticism and self-denigration” of America. It was a speech at pace with an emerging political stereotype that suggested Democrats weren’t quite patriotic enough and didn’t love their country as much as Republicans did. This image of Democratic weakness and self-doubt became one of the most effective attack lines for Republicans — and Democrats’ greatest political liability.

But today the tables are turning. Democrats have narrowed the Republican advantage on national security. They are seen as more effective when it comes to improving global respect for America and working closely with the country’s allies. And in a poll result that would have raised eyebrows only a few years ago, President Barack Obama is more trusted on foreign policy than he is on the economy and health care. Today, more than seven in 10 Americans consider him a strong leader.

A look across the aisle tells a more sobering tale for Republicans. Conservative leaders have been lambasted for cheering America’s defeat for losing the 2016 Olympics and disparaging an American president’s receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. Others can decide whether charges of unpatriotic and un-American behavior launched by the Democratic National Committee against Republicans are appropriate, but the very fact that the DNC felt it had the ammunition to launch such an attack speaks volumes about the changing political dynamics of national security.

I would quibble with Cohen about one thing; Kirkpatrick was not accusing liberals of hating America but of blaming America first for most of the world’s problems. This fits into the idea that liberals criticize America when they believe that the nation is not living up to its high ideals. Kirkpatrick’s critique was that this sensible, patriotic notion had been tossed aside in favor of an ideological, and wholly nonsensical school of thought - advanced by the Communist Euro-left - that tensions in the world were created by American policy and American actions.

The reason it resonated with the voting public was because Kirkpatrick’s charges were true. Ignoring Soviet mischief making around the world to which America was reacting most of the time, while pointing to real or imagined shortcomings in our own policy (or going so far as refusing to delineate a moral difference between the superpowers), was the standard critique on the left until well into the Clinton years. They didn’t love America any less than anyone else. They simply allowed ideology to cloud their judgment.

Sound familiar? It should. It is this same notion that is driving the right over a cliff. Of course they don’t hate America. But in their ideological zeal to lay the president low, they have taken the position that anything bad that happens to Obama - even if it reflects badly on the country - is good.

From a political standpoint, it’s “bottom rail on top” as the Democrats have been handed the ammunition to make conservatives look like they are cheering against America. I would hasten to add that you could easily oppose President Obama’s efforts in Copenhagen by simply pointing out that handing billions to the Chicago political machine to spend is akin to handing the keys to your car and a bottle of Chivas to a drunk teenager. And I have seen several solid criticisms of Obama’s peace prize from the left. You don’t have to hate the president or America for that matter to believe Obama didn’t deserve it.

But many on the right went overboard - way beyond rational criticism and ended up gloating over Obama’s Olympic failure, and trashing the president in a very personal way over the peace prize award.

Cohen cogently points out the danger for the right in this kind of behavior:

The problems for Republicans are threefold: First, many on the right seem overtaken by a visceral dislike of Obama that is faintly reminiscent of Democratic attitudes toward President George W. Bush. This partisanship is manifesting itself in dangerous ways. It’s one thing to oppose Obama’s initiatives; it’s quite another to be seen as rooting against American interests.

Second, Republicans continue to engage in the same sort of knee-jerk attacks on Democratic “weakness” and naked appeals to American militarism that, while once resonant, have lost their political luster.

Third, Bush-administration-era views — and political appeals — on national security continue to dominate the GOP.

“Faintly reminiscent?” Holy Jesus, someone kick Mr. Cohen in the shin and tell him he can wake up now, that a 9 year nap is entirely too long. From where I’m sitting, it is all eerily familiar - down to some of the same language being employed today by the right that was de rigueur on the left during the Bush years.

But Cohen has correctly diagnosed the right’s problem. Quite simply, the country has moved on with the election of Obama. Are we going in a direction the American people support? Evidently so, if polls and surveys can be trusted. Until the president’s policies prove themselves to be as naive and overly idealistic as many critics believe them to be, he will no doubt continue to receive the support of the people.

Conservatives are stuck in a time warp. In many respects, the right has failed to appreciate where the country is today relative to where it was in the Bush years. They have yet to get their legs under them following the Obama tidal wave that rolled over the country last year, and this is reflected in our inability to develop a cohesive strategy to oppose him. The arguments are there - logical, hard hitting critiques of everything the president is trying to do have appeared in all the usual magazines and think tanks.

But as far as translating those arguments into an effective opposition, we have failed. With the movement in full throated howl against anything and everything Obama, fear and loathing have become the right’s strategy du jour.

And the left is finding it easy pickings to turn the tables on their conservative foes and make them appear to hate America as well as the president.

No less than 5 recent articles (and a spirited debate between two very smart conservatives in David Frum and David Horowitz) have taken on the question regarding the demise of intellectual conservatism and the rise of movement or “populist” conservatives.

The intellectuals go under several names, depending on which side of the divide you sit. They are “reformers,” or RINO’s, or “Elders,” or “squishes.” And to varying degrees, they have either died off, disappeared, or been marginalized by the populists.

Or not.

With such a huge divide between the two camps in even trying to define conservatism, much less agree on what the public face of conservatism should look like, it is apparent that there will not be a meeting of the minds anytime soon. Nor will the two sides be pooling their intellectual capital to fight the liberals on the battlefield of ideas where it would do the most good, rather than in the arena of soundbites and bitter, exaggerated denunciations that only makes the right look like angry kooks or worse.

I will examine each of these articles and critique them, beginning from the premise that the intellectual right is not dead, but made quiescent by the surge of the populists and their ability to dominate the discussion through the sheer brutality of their critiques which drown out the far more reasonable, and reality based analyses of - what should they be called? I guess “reformists” is as good as any moniker although it doesn’t exactly speak to the critique of movement conservatives whose whole idea of reform seems to be kicking the reformists in the teeth.

Let’s start today with an excellent defense of Glenn Beck and the populists tactics by David Horowitz, who took part in an informal “Symposium” at FrontPage.com:

There are two issues here. One is a remarkable conservative outburst against the broadcaster Glenn Beck which includes you, Mark Levin and Pete Wehner among others, and which collectively wishes for his early self-destruction. The message from the three of you is that for the good of the conservative cause he should be silent — and the sooner the better. Wehner expresses the judgment I detect in all three of your blasts in this sentence: “The role Glenn Beck is playing is harmful in its totality.”

More than anything else, it is this is that I am reacting to. I think this attitude is wrongheaded, absurd, destructive to the conservative cause and a blatant contradiction of the “big tent” philosophy which you otherwise support.

[...]

Glenn Beck is daily providing a school for millions of Americans in the nature and agendas and networks of the left – something that your fine books do not do, and Mark Levin’s fine books do not do, and Pete Wehner’s volumes of blogs and speeches and position papers – all admirable in my estimation, also do not do. How are conservatives going to meet the challenge of the left if they don’t understand what it is, how it operates and what it intends? And who else is giving courses in this subject at the moment?

Now I have to confess my own vested interest in this. Because the fact is that I have been attempting to do this from a much smaller platform than Beck’s for many years. Five years ago I put an encyclopedia of the left on the web called Discover the Networks. It details the chief groups, individuals and funders of the left and maps their agendas and networks. Since I put it up five years ago, 20 million people have visited the site, many of whom have written articles and even books from its information. So far as I can tell, this site has never been mentioned by you or Wehner or Mark Levin or National Review or the Weekly Standard or the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. But it has been read by and profoundly influenced the producers and anchors at Fox News. Among these no one has used it so systematically and relentlessly and to such great effect as Glenn Beck.

Horowitz gives David Frum what has become the standard attack on moderates and intellectual conservatives:

It seems to me you are suffering from a kind of political Stockholm syndrome. You inhabit a mental universe shaped by media like Newsweek and the New York Review of Books, in which you are a hostage of the Left. As a result you’ve absorbed some of their attitudes, and look at Palin and other non-U conservatives through their eyes, instead of your own.

Spoken like a true believer. Of this argument, I will say this; Hogwash!

Horowitz presupposes that all news media is biased and that only he and his band of intellectual dilettantes can see it. That notion, by itself, is ignorant. It rejects the idea of professionalism of any kind in the media, while insulting the intelligence of the American people who, sheeplike, are led to feed at the liberal trough without a clue that they are being “indoctrinated.”

I prefer to take my biases one reporter/writer at a time, thank you. There are good, solid, objective (as possible) correspondents and then there are biased ones - both liberal and conservative. To lump them all into a liberal universe is ridiculous - as is the notion the only good source of news is Fox or some other conservative outlet. It seems to me that people who accuse me of being held “hostage” by a liberal media are themselves in thrall to a one note, equally biased media where they get most of their information from Fox News and ranting talk show hosts.

Come back and see me when you are able to discuss an issue from all angles, thus proving to me that you have taken the time to truly understand the subtleties and nuances - the clash of interests and ideology. It is my belief that unless you can argue both sides of an issue effectively, you don’t know it and should keep reading. Those who see only black and white, good or evil, suffer from one dimensional thinking - a disease far too prevalent among Horowitz and those he is defending.

I am not an intellectual - obviously. But I think it important to rigorously examine both your own biases and predilections as well as your opponents before coming to any conclusions. Any other approach is shallow sophistry, knee jerk emotionalism which has become the hallmark of the Glenn Becks, Rush Limbaughs, and Sean Hannity’s of the right.

David Frum says something important about this that Horowitz doesn’t address:

It is true that I have criticized some famous conservative talkers like Rush Limbaugh and now Glenn Beck, just as I have previously criticized right-wing opponents of the war on terror like Pat Buchanan and Lew Rockwell. But my “crusade” as David Horowitz calls is not a crusade to criticize. It is a crusade to repair and modernize a very troubled conservative movement.

I agree with David’s implied point that a thriving conservative movement needs a variety of talents: politicians and academics, thinkers and activists, intellectuals and popularizers.

Both have their appropriate roles. But it seems to me that latterly the conservative intellectuals have not properly fulfilled theirs.

And the result is that the conservative intellectual movement has become subservient to the political entertainment complex – with seriously negative consequences for conservative political success. It’s very sobering to compare how much conservatives got done in the 12 years before the creation of Fox News in 1996 with how little they have achieved in the 13 years since. And the problem has only intensified since the election of 2008, with the conservative entertainment complex helping to trap conservatives in a cycle of shrillness, rage, and paranoia that radically off-putting to the centrist voters who will choose the next president and Congress.

We are still a center-right country - but with the emphasis on “center.” People may be of a mind to reject Obamacare but are in no mood to embrace the extremely ideological conservatism that posits the left as minions of Satan and that anything Obama does is not only wrong, but inimical to freedom. It justifies opposing him and the left using the most outrageously exaggerated rhetoric that, if you really believe it, marks you as a paranoid, or more often, uninformed and illogical.

It’s not just a question of “manners,” although keeping debate within the boundaries of respect for others is necessary in a democracy. It is a question of detaching rank emotionalism from reason; it’s rejecting argument by demonization and substituting logic; it’s not employing paranoid exaggeration when realistic descriptions of what the president and the left are trying to do is easily done.

In each case, the former marks one as an unthinking, shrill, unbalanced ideologue who think Americans must be frightened into agreeing with them; the latter, someone who believes that Americans are persuadable without the histrionics employed by cotton candy conservatives on talk radio and elsewhere.

One face of conservatism is off putting to the majority; the other, indicative of a movement that takes itself seriously and doesn’t listen to clowns, and deliberate provocateurs who care more about ratings and ad money than whether conservative ideas triumph. If Rush Limbaugh actually believes that his hysterical view of liberals and Obama (as well as his shallow understanding of conservatism) contributes to conservatism’s popularity and the perception that our ideas should win out over those of the left, he is only kidding himself.

His audience, while huge by radio standards, is still relatively small compared to the number of voters at large. And considering his unpopularity outside of the right, he can’t possibly believe that his rants do anything except resonate with an audience that already agrees with him. The same holds true for the other pop conservatives who, while fulfilling a vital role of “popularizing” conservatism, nevertheless end up being a net minus for the right because of their antics and extraordinarily skewed version of reality.

I am not interested in purging the popularizers. I am interested in reducing their influence - as I am interested in reducing the influence on policy in the GOP by the religious right - and the perception that their methods and views reflect a majority of those of us on the right.

If so, it will be a long road to hoe for reformists who will continue to wander in the wilderness created by the scorched earth conservatives whose excessive ideology poisons the well of ideas from which so little has been drawn in recent years.

Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post must have read my PJ Media column where I speculated that the Obama Administration - like the Bush Administration before it - has all but accepted the fact of a nuclear Iran:

The Obama administration’s positive tone following its first diplomatic encounter with Iran covers a deep and growing gloom in Washington and European capitals. Seven hours of palaver in Geneva haven’t altered an emerging conclusion: None of the steps the West is considering to stop the Iranian nuclear program is likely to work.

Not talks. Not sanctions, even of the “crippling” variety the Obama administration has spoken of. Not military strikes. And probably not support for regime change through the still-vibrant opposition.

For obvious reasons, senior officials won’t state this broad conclusion out loud. But it’s not hard to find pessimistic public statements about three of the four options. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called the prospects for diplomacy “very doubtful.” Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has said military action will do no more than “buy time.” Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, echoing private statements I’ve heard from the Obama administration, told me last week that a strategy of backing the Iranian opposition “would take too long” and might well produce a government with the same nuclear policy.

Diehl points out that far more ruinous sanctions against Saddam Hussein, coupled with regular bombings, failed to move Iraq toward obeying UN resolutions And there are those who point out that sanctions in Iran will even be counterproductive in that support for the opposition will decline in the face of the hardships engendered by a crippling loss of fuel in any gasoline embargo. The regime will easily be able to paint anyone who opposes them as supporting those who are bringing such pain to the Iranian economy.

And regime change? We would do well to remember that even the more “moderate” Iranian clerics are anti-American and anti-Israel. And as we saw in Pakistan, the drive for nuclear weapons, and ultimate possession of them, is a matter of enormous national pride regardless of what kind of government is in power.

By the way, the recently revealed facility at Qom has non-proliferation experts extremely worried. That enrichment plant would need feeder stock for the centrifuges. But the largest known ore processing facility at Esfahan is watched constantly by inspectors. Therefore, the logic goes, a secret enrichment facility would be supplied by a secret processing facility, while that facility would be serviced by other unknown plants and labs. It makes any talks with Iran extremely problematic.

Diehl posits a likely scenario regarding talks with Iran:

In the meantime, talks about the details of inspections and the uranium shipments could easily become protracted, buying the regime valuable time. (On Friday the Associated Press quoted a member of the Iranian delegation as saying it had not, in fact, agreed to the uranium deal.) Meanwhile, Tehran’s tactical retreat has provided Russia and China with an excuse to veto new sanctions — something they would have been hard-pressed to do had Iran struck an entirely defiant tone in Geneva.

The Obama administration and its allies have said repeatedly that they will pursue diplomacy until the end of the year and then seek sanctions if diplomacy hasn’t worked. That sets up a foreseeable and very unpleasant crossroads. “If by early next year we are getting nothing through diplomacy and sanctions,” says scholar Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center, “the entire policy is going to be revealed as a charade.”

What then? Pollack, a former Clinton administration official, says there is one obvious Plan B: “containment,” a policy that got its name during the Cold War. The point would be to limit Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons or exercise its influence through the region by every means possible short of war — and to be prepared to sustain the effort over years, maybe decades. It’s an option that has been lurking at the back of the debate about Iran for years. “In their heart of hearts I think the Obama administration knows that this is where this is going,” Pollack says.

The background to all this is increased interest by the Saudis and other Arab nations in acquiring nuclear technology of their own. The French have been most gracious in this regard and the US has also been involved. This is certainly part of any containment strategy; letting the Iranians know in not so subtle ways that other nations can also crack the nuclear safe and develop their own capability.

I can understand the frustration of some who think that the military option - even if bombing results in only a short bit of breathing space with regard to Iranian nukes - should not be taken off the table by the US. But the risks are so enormous to our interests and friends in the region that the only real justification for bombing, much less invasion and regime change, would be to set back the Iranian program a decade or more; just as Israel did with the Iraqi program by bombing the reactor at Osirak.

This is why I believe we are already in the process of shifting our policy to reflect the reality that, if Iran wants to build a bomb, there is precious little we can do to stop them without risking a general war in the Middle East and having our military and interests in the region suffer severe damage.

I’ve had one of my justly famous “Whither Conservatism” posts scrambling my brains for the past three days but haven’t quite focused on it and given it the time it deserves. Perhaps tomorrow I can tie the threads together from 4-5 separate articles and essays I’ve read recently and make prime rib out of the hash.

Instead, there are a few more things that need to be said about Obama pitching the Chicago Olympics and the reaction on both right and left to both the junket itself and Obama’s failure to sway the IOC to give Chicago the nod.

First, I think the left has a point about misplaced righty triumphalism regarding Obama’s failure. It is unseemly. And regardless of whether you believe the left had similar gloats during the Bush years, this particular effort - one I criticized before Obama even left - did indeed reflect a rejection of America itself. So cheering the failure is akin to cheering a failure of America.

Now, if I were a lefty, I would be extremely careful about asking why America was rejected. Let’s play with a hypothetical; suppose there was the president of a country, newly elected, who went around the world, in venue after venue, telling anyone who would listen about the numerous faults, mistakes, missteps, and evil perpetrated by his own country. These words would fall upon ears eager to hear about that nation’s dirty laundry because it reinforces their own skewed view of what that nation is all about.

Then suppose the same newly elected president showed up at a forum where it was important that the positive about his country be emphasized to the exclusion of the negative so that a group of judges chose his country to play host to the world at an important event.

He speaks in glowing terms about his country and how the world would be welcomed in his hometown. But the judges aren’t idiots. They have heard this same president speak of his own nation’s many shortcomings for nearly a year.

In all honesty, ask yourself why those judges should choose this president’s country to host an event when they have heard so many negative things about it?

I am not saying that the president’s habit of reciting his version of American history - both recent and ancient - played the decisive role in Chicago’s rejection. But if it played any role at all - and I fail to see how it couldn’t - then the president has himself to partly blame for this failure.

I am put off by the happiness shown by the right over this personal failure by the president. And I am snickering over the left’s charges that the right “hates” America because they are gloating over it.

Excuse me, but we just spent 8 years being told that it was the right’s uncritical patriotism - love of country - that got the United States into so much trouble and fostered the notion that it was the left that actually hates America. Are we to take seriously the idea that all of a sudden, the right hates America because Obama was elected? The premise is laughable on its face. Equating Obama with the country itself is an error made by partisans and those infected with excessive ideology. The president is not America; he is a servant of the people. You can oppose or even hate the president and not be considered traitorous to the United States - unless the Constitution has been changed when I wasn’t looking.

Now it is unhealthy for the nation for a large part of the opposition to hate the president. Unhealthy, but not illegal. And I can understand the left’s eagerness to tar the right with the “unpatriotic” meme. They had to put up with it for 8 years so payback’s a bitch, isn’t it?

Allow me to say once again for the benefit of both sides; trying to quantify how much someone loves the United States is pathetic. Both liberals and Conservatives love America. They just show that love in different ways. This is how I explained it one Fourth of July a few years ago:

Herein lies the great chasm that separates liberals and conservatives when it comes to defining the word “patriotism.” The right sees patriotism as a physical, emotional connection with the past; an open acknowledgment and tribute to those who came before us and guaranteed with their blood, sweat, and tears that we, their progeny, would live in freedom. We are aware that America is not all it could be but rather than dwelling on our imperfections, we celebrate all that is good and decent in this land and its people.

The flip side of the same coin is how liberals define patriotism. They seem to intellectualize their love of country. They distrust outward displays of patriotic emotion, tending to equate fervor with patriotism’s evil twin - nationalism. Liberals see a problematic past for America and are not shy about pointing out where America has fallen short in its promises of liberty and equality.

But does this mean that liberals are less patriotic than conservatives?

Is it unpatriotic to want your country to live up to its extraordinary ideals? Is it unpatriotic to criticize what liberals see as hypocrisy in our history, where we celebrate freedom while keeping millions in bondage? Or speak glowingly of Native American culture while treating them abysmally?

It is nonsensical to have these arguments about who loves America more - or less. We are two sides of the same coin - both liberals and conservatives need each other to complete the essence of what America was, is, and should be. Our view of America and how we love her complements each other - while fostering a healthy contrast that keeps us striving to live up to the best of our ideals.

Aside from this idea that the right “hates” America because they wished Obama to fail, I am at a loss to explain where all the “good government liberals” have gone in recognizing that giving the Olympics to Chicago in the first place would have been a travesty.

Used to be that “progressive” and “good government” went hand in hand. Politicians like Hubert Humphrey, Paul Simon (former senator from IL), and William Proxmire would have been outraged that the president had gone to Denmark to plead the case for investing billions in a city as corrupt and venal as Chicago unless they had some way to make sure that the money was given to the city without it being tainted by contact with the Machine.

So where are the “good government” liberals opposing this monumental opportunity for graft that would have come Chicago’s way if the president had succeeded? At one time, these men and others were not afraid to speak up and challenge their own party when it came to corruption. Recall Connecticut’s feisty, governor Abraham Ribicoff shaming Richard Daley the elder at the podium during the 1968 convention riots in Chicago.

This kind of boondoggle would have been tailor made for good government liberals of the past. But has partisanship so infected both parties that opposition to Obama’s trip to fill the coffers of Daley cronies and friends (not to mention the surety that organized crime would have been in for a slice of the pie), was left to conservatives?

I heard a few liberals after Obama’s failure say he shouldn’t have gone to begin with - for the same reasons that John Cole evidently finds so incredible. Outside of this piece in The Nation, I can find no opposition on the left to the idea of bringing the Olympics to Chicago because of the inevitable cost overruns due to corruption.

This triumph of partisanship over what many believe is an issue of supporting good government is truly sad. It reveals how truly sick our political culture is at the moment. As for a remedy, I have none. Nor, do I suspect, does anyone else.

A lot of things have happened this week that have entered the airy cavity sitting atop my neck and floated around waiting to be recognized as conscious thought.

I can imagine all these little snippets of inner dialogue waiting patiently in some line, bitching about how slow a goose I am at moving them from the dark of my subconscious where they effect my thinking in mysterious ways, to the light of consciousness where I can examine them, caress them, milk them for their illuminating properties.

It’s easy to allow emotion to crowd out valuable insights that appear from time to time. At best, we recognize through reflection that perhaps we shouldn’t have written this, or said that, or made a mistake in judgment when analyzing something else. You end up wishing you hadn’t snapped back at your spouse, or yelled at your kid, or dismissed a co-worker’s attempt to be friendly.

I could start a blog and fill it with such reflections without any trouble - as could most of you, I’m sure. Learning from our mistakes is the essence of being human - probably the major factor in the rise of Homo Sapiens. Don’t get too close to that mammoth or you won’t come home from the hunt. Going after a Saber Tooth cat alone is not a good idea if you want to pass your genes on to the next generation. Trial and error not only advanced human evolution, it forms the basis of modern science and has led to the astonishing outpouring of creative thought we see today in everything from computers to razor blades.

Some venues do not allow for such errors. Political blogging is one of them. As ideology is set in stone and cannot be changed or challenged on either the right and the left, variance with the established themes and theses is not only frowned upon but punished severely. Here, “getting it wrong” does not mean that you are necessarily “incorrect,” only that you are in disagreement with the vast majority who march in ideological lock step. Deviate from the shining path and you are cast out as an apostate.

No matter. I came to the conclusion years ago that I could try to be honest with myself and my beliefs, incurring the wrath and disapprobation of those who consider themselves guardians of the Ya-Ya Conservativehood by challenging the underlying assumptions of their excessive and blindered ideology; or toe the line, betray my true beliefs, and enjoy the warmth of fellowship found in their ever narrowing definition of the “true conservative” path.

Lest some believe I am nailing myself to a cross by wallowing in self pity and whining about conservatives - most anyway - not taking me seriously, allow me to disabuse you of that notion. I celebrate my freedom from conformity every fu**ing day. I will lord it over those who, when confronted with a new issue, a new attack, feel lost and alone until they are told by others how they must think, be it Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, or other “movement” leaders.

To be fair, most conservatives don’t really need to wait for the word coming down from on high. All they have to do is unthinkingly, uncritically, hold a mirror up to whatever the left is saying about an issue and simply reverse the image. That’s what the Limbaughs of the world do anyway. There’s no reason or rationale to it. That comes later - at least the rationale - as the right congratulates those whose “insights” are the most vitriolic and hateful.

The ideological screen through which most opinion on the right is washed has become internalized so that favorite themes regarding the left - unpatriotic, hate America, socialists, communists, liars, traitors - can be pulled off the shelf and slapped on to any “analysis” to make it conform to the “right thinking” brigades of hysterical paranoids who believe themselves guardians of Reagan’s legacy or, in extreme cases of delusional thinking, of conservatism itself.

(I hasten to add that there are exceptions to be found in the writings of some conservatives like Ed Morrissey, Allahpundit, Victor Davis Hanson, and several other independent thinkers on the right. But as a general rule, I believe my analysis stands.)

In this way, ideology at the expense of rational thought is celebrated and rewarded.

And yes, we find the exact same kind of irrational, nonsensical paranoia on the left. There is no difference. One is not worse than the other, except perhaps there is a bigger responsibility generally recognized throughout history for the majority to treat the minority with respect. But this hasn’t been true in American politics for decades so why bother discussing it?

Barack Obama, to his credit, said yesterday that opposition to his policies is not based on race, but on the fear of change:

In a number of interviews that will air in fuller form Sunday morning, the president also addressed the tone of a heated summer debate over health-care, and the contention of one former president that much of the criticism Obama faces is because he is black.

Some of the most heated opposition to the president’s initiatives are not racially motivated, Obama suggested in response to comments that former President Jimmy Carter had made earlier this week, but rather reflective of the turmoil that is common “when presidents are trying to bring about big changes.”

“Are there people out there who don’t like me because of race? - I’m sure there are,” Obama told CNN’s John King. “That’s not the overriding issue here.”

Instead, Obama maintained, it is concern about sweeping government change that has fueled much of the “passion.”

“It’s an argument that’s gone on for the history of this republic,” Obama told NBC News’ David Gregory. “Wbat’s the role of government?… This is not a new argument, and it always invokes passions.”

He is absolutely correct, of course. Not sure that “fear” is exactly the right word to describe what conservatives are feeling. Anyway, I am very glad he said this. But we must demand he go much farther in condemning the wild, out of control explosion of charges being made by his supporters that tar opposition to his policies as motivated solely by race. I realize this is very difficult for him to do because he benefits politically by this ridiculous, false, and hateful rhetoric coming from the left. But as long as his allies continue to deliberately, knowingly, and smugly raise the issue of race and use it as a political club, he will be seen as giving such deceitful arguments credence by the wink and the nudge.

In response to a comment from my brother Jim on my Mary Travers remembrance post, I tried to make the point that there are acceptable and unacceptable ways to engage in political combat, and they all boil down to this:

I joke about lefty folkies, of course - more playing to stereotype than reality. But we are of a generation that perhaps learned valuable lessons about civic disagreements and how they can truly lead to bloodshed unless we all remember that we are Americans who love our country and wish only the best for it. If only we could all start from that premise, I think a lot of the ugliness in our politics would be muted and we could get down to the business of truly addressing some of the problems facing the country today.

Does believing this make me any less passionate in my opposition to what I see are the wrongheaded, dangerous polices and politics of Barack Obama? Does not calling the president a Communist or Marxist disqualify my opinions because they are not hateful enough?

To some, yes. And those who cannot see what this kind of rigid, uncritical, self-defeating thinking is doing to our country - both right and left - may live to see the day where useful dialogue and reasoned debate become an impossibility and our country dissolves into weak, divided, quarreling bunch of ideologues who prevent us from facing vital challenges both at home and abroad.

A dragon lives forever
But not so little boys
Painted wings and giant rings
Make way for other toys.

“Puff the Magic Dragon”
Lyrics and music by Leonard Lipton and Peter Yarrow
Released in 1963

Social progress in America has never come easy. We are a nation in love with the past, wedded to tradition, and curiously schizophrenic about our notions of freedom and justice.

We were born proudly proclaiming our liberty from tyranny while at the same time, holding 3 million human beings in bondage - a situation that moved English author and compiler of the first dictionary Samuel Johnson to wryly remark during the Stamp Act controversy of 1765, “How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?”

We spent more than 150 years glorifying American womanhood while denying them the vote and other rights. We patted ourselves on the back for a 100 years about how we had rid ourselves of slavery, only to hold their children through their great, great, grandchildren in the even more insidious embrace of Jim Crow. We put on our most iconic symbol - the Statue of Liberty - words of welcome to immigrants, asking the world to send “…Your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…” — only to put up “No Irish Need Apply” and other signs, visible and invisible, to make their treatment a blot on our collective conscience.

We don’t keep our history locked in a closet, guarded 24 hours a day by CIA agents. Neither do we take that history out and dust it off often enough to relearn the lessons it teaches us about ourselves, and how social progress in America never comes cheap, or easy, or bloodless.

The point is not that we aren’t a perfect society and never have been. The point is that the revolutionary nature of our heritage and history has always held out the promise that we can be better. Not the absolute certainty of designed outcomes that enamors many on the left today. Not the “perfect” equality sought by the Utopians. Rather, simply the promise that if enough of us demand change — demand it loudly enough and long enough - progress toward making the words of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution mean what they say will occur.

These reflections were rattling through my head this morning after the news reached me that Mary Travers died. The New York Times may be decidedly biased in their political coverage, but few match them when it comes to obits of the famous:

Mary Travers, whose ringing, earnest vocals with the folk trio Peter, Paul and Mary made songs like “Blowin’ in the Wind,” “If I Had a Hammer” and “Where Have All the Flowers Gone?” enduring anthems of the 1960s protest movement, died on Wednesday at Danbury Hospital in Connecticut. She was 72 and lived in Redding, Conn.

[...]

Ms. Travers brought a powerful voice and an unfeigned urgency to music that resonated with mainstream listeners. With her straight blond hair and willowy figure and two bearded guitar players by her side, she looked exactly like what she was, a Greenwich Villager directly from the clubs and the coffeehouses that nourished the folk-music revival.

“She was obviously the sex appeal of that group, and that group was the sex appeal of the movement,” said Elijah Wald, a folk-blues musician and a historian of popular music.

Ms. Travers’s voice blended seamlessly with those of her colleagues, Peter Yarrow and Paul Stookey, to create a rich three-part harmony that propelled the group to the top of the pop charts. Their first album, “Peter, Paul and Mary,” which featured the hit singles “Lemon Tree” and “If I Had a Hammer,” reached No. 1 shortly after its release in March 1962 and stayed there for seven weeks, eventually selling more than two million copies.

I have written previously of our family’s immersion into the Folk revival of the 1950’s and 60’s, commenting on the passing of the Kingston Trio’s Nick Reynolds and the Clancy Brothers Tommy Makem. (My brother Jim’s emotional tribute to KT’s John Stewart can be found here.).

And now, another link in the chain stretching back to my early childhood and my exposure to the Great American Songbook of traditional folk tunes has been broken with the death of Travers. We don’t realize at the time how childhood experiences shape our lives, our thinking, or our interests. My fascination with American history surely is at least partly the result of learning and listening to the traditional Scotch-Irish folk tunes, the sea shanties, the songs to which men marched off to war, performed backbreaking manual labor, dreamed of freedom, lived, loved, and died over the centuries.

They are songs mostly about ordinary people - a social history of the United States set to music - and it fired my imagination, spurring me to discover more about an America you don’t usually find in grammar school textbooks or High School reading assignments. What really happened in Harlan County, Tennessee Kentucky? How did the Underground Railroad work? Why are the Irish so fatalistic?

Mary Travers, Peter Yarrow, and Paul Stookey sang songs that posed questions about American society - and the human condition - that demanded answers. And around campfires, and library sing alongs, our family belted out the music, harmonizing and sharing our sheer joy of being together, learning, laughing, loving. This is why the death of these folk icons are almost like a death in the family to me. The memories the songs they wrote and sang are so powerful, so sweet, so full of the things that make life worth living for all of us, that I cannot help but allow a tear or two to course down my cheek.

As a musical group, Peter, Paul, and Mary were polished, professional, and chose their music with the utmost care. Their manager/producer, the legendary Milt Okun saw to that. With his keen ear and unfailing sense of a commercially viable package, Okun made Peter, Paul, and Mary into a hugely popular act whose success lasted almost a decade. Okun would go on to manage other iconic folk groups like The Chad Mitchell Trio, the Brothers Four, and John Denver.

It was their rendition of Dylan’s Blowin’ in the Wind that launched their careers. At once beautifully harmonized and featuring a driving rhythm, the song - along with their other huge hits If I had a Hammer and Where have all the Flowers Gone - became anthems of the civil rights and anti-war movements. It is perhaps telling that Hammer and Flowers were both written and originally sung by Pete Seeger and his 50’s era group The Weavers, who were banned in many jurisdictions for their left wing sympathies.

When you’re a kid, you don’t think much about the politics of a song. You sing it because it’s good music and stirs emotions in your breast. Today, I probably don’t agree with 90% of the politics promoted by Seeger, Travers, Baez, and the rest of the folkies from that time. But you can’t argue with the fact that they were dead right about civil rights, and I still think they were mostly right about the Viet Nam War.

I learned long ago you can love left wing writers, artists, singers, and actors by admiring the talent while ignoring the politics. Barbara Streisand is a putz about politics, but an extraordinary talented singer. Joan Didion writes achingly beautiful prose (as does John Updike), but I wouldn’t give a fig for their political opinions. That’s how I feel about Mary Travers and Peter Paul and Mary.

Perhaps our favorite PPM song was not about politics, or protest, but rather the magical imagination of a little boy named Jackie Paper who conjured up a friendly dragon with whiom he had wonderful, exciting adventures. No, Puff the Magic Dragon is not about smoking dope or tripping on LSD. It is a classic American folk song rooted in celebrating a child’s imagination and how, sadly, we all grow up and move on to other adventures.

Together they would travel
On a boat with billowed sail.
Jackie kept a lookout perched
On Puff’s gigantic tail.
Noble kings and princes
Would bow whenever they came,
Pirate ships would lower their flags
When Puff roared out his name. Oh!

(Chorus)
Puff, the magic dragon
Lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist
In a land called Honah Lee. Oh!
Puff, the magic dragon
Lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist
In a land called Honah Lee.

Today, somewhere near Honah Lee, Jackie Paper read of Mary Travers death and is weeping.

UPDATE: 9/18

A shout out to all the good people at Kingston Crossroads who come here because I paid my brother Jim an exorbitant fee to promote my blog with all you left wing folkies. After all, he’s just a poor teacher, poisoning the minds of our young people with his Marxist claptrap and needs every cent he can get just so that his subscription to The Daily Worker doesn’t expire.

Don’t worry. There’s not much chance of contamination as long as you don’t breathe the air or touch anything. And please watch where you step. I recently slaughtered a few liberals and I haven’t had time to clean up yet…

As far back as 1999, it was apparent to anyone who listened closely to what he was saying that George Bush was not much of a conservative. This despite the lip service he gave to some conservative ideas (I wouldn’t say he was a study in advocating conservative principles), and his ability to excite the party’s evangelical base.

True, he was “more conservative” than Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. But so was about 70% of the country. It took about 5 years for the scales to fall from the eyes of many conservatives (some have never lost their true belief) for them to see that George Bush was a crony loving, big government elitist whose tangential connection to conservatism was more for convenience and political calculation than any belief in the efficacy of its principles.

Were we taken in? Partly, yes. But an honest appraisal of my former support for the man must include the fact that I was fooling myself more than anything. The writing was on the wall all along regarding the man’s faux conservatism - not to mention his many screw ups including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the prosecutors fiasco, justification for torture, and his curious habit of promoting and appointing incompetents for important jobs in government who also happened to be big campaign contributors or other cronies.

Now a book has been written by a former Bush speechwriter which has pretty much confirmed what most on the right now think of the ex-president. Matt Latimer reveals Bush to be an arrogant, self centered, elitist who looked down his nose at the conservative movement:

Latimer is a veteran of conservative politics. An admirer of Republican Sen. Jon Kyl, for whom he worked for several years, Latimer also worked in the Rumsfeld Pentagon before joining the Bush White House in 2007.

The revealing moment, described in “Speechless: Tales of a White House Survivor,” occurred in the Oval Office in early 2008.

Bush was preparing to give a speech to the annual meeting of the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC. The conference is the event of the year for conservative activists; Republican politicians are required to appear and offer their praise of the conservative movement.

Latimer got the assignment to write Bush’s speech. Draft in hand, he and a few other writers met with the president in the Oval Office. Bush was decidedly unenthusiastic.

“What is this movement you keep talking about in the speech?” the president asked Latimer.

Latimer explained that he meant the conservative movement — the movement that gave rise to groups like CPAC.

Bush seemed perplexed. Latimer elaborated a bit more. Then Bush leaned forward, with a point to make.

“Let me tell you something,” the president said. “I whupped Gary Bauer’s ass in 2000. So take out all this movement stuff. There is no movement.”

Bush seemed to equate the conservative movement — the astonishing growth of conservative political strength that took place in the decades after Barry Goldwater’s disastrous defeat in 1964 — with the fortunes of Bauer, the evangelical Christian activist and former head of the Family Research Council whose 2000 presidential campaign went nowhere.

Now it was Latimer who looked perplexed. Bush tried to explain.

“Look, I know this probably sounds arrogant to say,” the president said, “but I redefined the Republican Party.”

Yes, Mr. Bush. You certainly “redefined” the Republican party by showing the GOP could be even more careless with the public purse than Democrats, as well as being a political cynic of the first order by pandering to the base of the party - the “movement” - while sneering at what it represented.

The charge of “patrician” made against his father back in the day should also be applied to the son. Here, the blue blood shows why you can’t trust elites. At bottom, their arrogance directed toward ordinary people is so profound as to cloud their judgment.

Given everything we now know about Bush, would I have pulled an Andrew Sullivan and voted for Kerry in 2004? Definitely not. But, as I did in 1992 when his father ran for re-election, the chances are pretty good that I would not have voted for president at all.

True, Bush’s fiscal profligacy was known back then, but weighed against the war on terror and what most of us believed was a slowly improving situation in Iraq, it would have been enough to dissuade me from voting against him.

Now we have a different story - that of Bush the hypocrite who had few, if any, guiding principles save “Whatever’s best for George Bush, is best for the party and the country.” That kind of selfish conceit may be endemic among presidents - it certainly was for Nixon, and probably Johnson - but it explains a lot as far as Bush’s cronyism as well as his cozying up to Wall Street, his sticking with Rumsfeld long after he had outlived his usefulness, and other stubborn acts that many conservatives still mistake for resolve. Quite simply, it didn’t matter if all the wise heads in government were telling him to change course in Iraq. He, George Bush, knew better. And the United States paid a bitter price in blood and treasure because of this hubris.

And, it explains Karl Rove to some extent. No doubt that Clintonites like James Carville had vast knowledge about the intricacies of American politics. But Rove is a human computer - a veritable font of information about the most arcane, and fractional tidbits of political trivia. There may never have been his like in the White House.

But Rove was decidedly not a creature of ideology. He possessed a burning desire to win as all good political consultants have. Beyond that, Rove eschewed the idea of using the movement for anything except what he termed a “permanent Republican majority” that combined massive numbers of evangelical Christians energized by relying on “wedge” issues like gay marriage and abortion to turn them out, as well as the foreign policy hawks. Fiscal conservatives could come along for the ride if they wished but it was clear that neither Rove nor Bush gave a tinker’s damn about them. Add supply siders and libertarians and Rove believed he had his “permanent” majority - a majority not based on conservative issues as much as on political expediency.

The results were predictable; a fracturing of the “permanent” coalition within two years of his 2004 victory. The corruption, the spending, and the war between libertarans and evangelicals over the Terri Schiavo matter exploded any hope that Rove’s makeshift, rickety political construction would outlast his boss.

So here we are in the wilderness with many conservatives still clinging to the notion that Bush made some mistakes but was still a good president. I have said in the past that fingering Bush as the “worst president in American history” is ridiculous. In the bottom ten, yes. But I abhor those who would use history for political purposes and the facts simply do not bear that judgment out.

Until conservatives can let go of Bush and his checkered legacy, we will not learn the lessons from supporting him and probably end up voting for someone similar. That is the mistake Democrats made when they were in the political badlands and we would do well not to repeat it.

(Note: Please do not crow in the comments “I told you so.” What - you expect me to listen to partisan lefties at the time? That’s unreasonable and you know it. Your verdict on Bush was reached looking through the prism of partisanship just as mine was. Just because the left was right about some of Bush’s shortcomings does not mean they had - or have today - a corner on truth when it comes to criticizing him. I would also add that their hate of the man - as virulent a hate directed against another politician I had not seen before, even against Clinton - disqualifies most on the left from making any rational judgment on Bush that a reasonable person could agree with.)

I penned a special column for PJ Media on the 9/12 protests yesterday, pointing out the historical significance of the event; that it represents the first truly mass movement of conservatives in American history.

A sample that will no doubt bring the wrath of the right down on my head:

It is definitely an opposition movement, however. Certainly there is mass unhappiness with President Obama and his policies. And there is opposition to the Democrats in Congress. But does this really translate into electoral strength for Republicans? I am going to go out on a limb and say no. The anger here is a reaction (reactionary?) against a growing government, higher taxes, and the sense that the country that they grew up in is slipping away right before their eyes.

This is all fed, of course, by the pop conservatives on talk radio who have ginned up outrage against Obama and the Democrats. I say “ginned up” because what the president and his party have already done doesn’t need the added fear mongering being promoted by Beck, Hannity, Rush, and Savage in order for conservatives to rally. Raised taxes, cap and trade, health care reform, bailouts and takeovers, and other liberal agenda items should be sufficient to outrage anyone on the right and motivate them to protest these horrific policies. It is unnecessary to brand Obama a “communist” or even a “socialist” to realize that his policies spell disaster for individual liberty and the free market economy.

Getting caught up trying to guess the number of attendees at Saturday’s protests (as I and many others are doing today and will continue to do) is irrelevant. This is history in the making, something the United States has never seen: a genuine grass-roots conservative mass movement, activated by the new technologies, communicating effectively using the new software and hardware — and it is growing.

I received an email from a long time reader yesterday who was concerned I couldn’t see that the protests were, at bottom, “anti-American, racist, and dangerous…” There’s nothing “anti-American” about protesting anything. We are, after all, a nation born out of protest, nurtured in the bosom of contrarianism, and defining progress by going against the grain in order to right significant wrongs in our society. This is not “dangerous” by any stretch of the imagination - except to the comfort of the elites who always believe it dangerous when the hoi polloi become restless and disagree that only they in their superior wisdom are fit to tell the rest of us what to do.

As for the charge of the protest being “racist,” well, that’s nonsense. If you’re going to tar an entire movement with that epitaph based on the beliefs of a tiny fraction, then you should have no trouble referring to the civil rights movement of the 1960’s as a “Communist” movement since the CPUSA played a prominent role in the SCLC and other civil rights organizations. The same holds true for the anti-war movement where you couldn’t attend a protest without tripping over a Communist or two.

This protest movement encompasses the right in all its contradictions, it’s factions, and its various conceits. From far right nullification supporters to Rand Objectivists, conservatism in all its glory was on display. The dominant theme as it appeared to me was “Don’t Tread on Me” - the words emblazoned on the iconic Gaddsen Flag. This is both a warning and a statement of fact. The truth is, whether due to agitation by talk radio hosts or the very real belief held by millions that President Obama is going too far, too fast, in his quest to “remake” America, there is a sizable segment of the population who has stood up and said “enough.”

In their struggle to define what it is they don’t like about the direction Obama and the Democrats are taking the country, I believe they mis-identify their concerns as fighting “socialism” or “Communism.” But at bottom, I believe above all else, that they wish to “conserve” their own vision of what America is and what it should aspire to be. This vision is no more invalid than that of the presidents’ despite attempts on the left to delegitimize it. It is Burkean in its roots, and has to do with classic conservative values that have been at the root of conservative thought for as long as the republic has endured.

Change is coming to America. Change always comes to America because we are a dynamic society that stands still for no one. But the value of conservatism has always been that, in Bill Buckley’s words, conservatives “stand athwart history yelling Stop!” It is always better to manage change, to channel the revolutionary nature of our society into acceptable, and accepted paths that lead to consensual change. Any other path leads to blood and revolution. Just ask the French.

President Obama and the Democrats are moving too far, too fast. They have exceeded the comfort level for change that many Americans - perhaps most - believe is right and proper. You can argue the merits of the president’s agenda. That’s politics. But the pace of change is structural in our society. We aren’t set up for the kind of rapid, dizzying alterations that Obama and the Democrats are proposing. This is especially true because some of what the president advocates would change the fundamental relationship citizens have with the government.

“Small moves, Ellie. Small moves…” was the advice that Elenore Arroway’s dad gave to the youngster as she fiddled with the dial of her ham radio in the film Contact. By moving the dial in small increments, she was much more likely to be rewarded by making contact with another ham radio enthusiast.

Hundreds of thousands of people at the Capitol yesterday gave President Obama the same message.

No 9/11 remembrance post for me this year. I’ve done four 2000 word articles about where I was when it happened, how it impacted my thinking, how the attacks changed America - I even wrote a 9/11 post on 9/10 Democrats.

In other words, I’ve said it all. I’ve got nothing original to add. About the only thing I feel on 9/11 anymore is a wearying sadness to the bone brought on by the realization that it is going to happen again because we haven’t learned a damn thing. The borders are still porous, the enemy is if anything, more determined to cause us pain (yes - even with Barack Hussein Obama as president). And I’m still waiting for an intelligent discussion regarding civil liberties and security. The absolutist position taken by both sides is depressing to me as we careen wildly between too much in the way of security that infringes liberty and not enough which invites disaster.

So we are going to get hit again - not because Bush isn’t president and Obama is. Not because liberals are in charge and not conservatives. Not because anyone wants it to happen. And not because one side or the other in our childish and destructive politics is incapable of protecting us.

It will happen because our enemies are determined to make it happen. They are willing to die to make us bleed. That makes them impossible to stop. We can foil their plans a hundred times. They only need to succeed once. Torture doesn’t make us safer. Phone taps won’t make us safer. Increased cooperation with other countries won’t make us safer. Prosecuting terrorists - if any survive - after the fact won’t deter them or make us safer. Bringing economic development to poor countries won’t create fewer terrorists or make us safer - not when most terrorists attacking the west come from well to do, middle class families. Negotiating with them won’t make us safer.

Using law enforcement and international cooperation to break up their cells may give us the illusion of safety but for everyone we bust, of how many are we unaware? How many take their place?

The temptation to say “kill them all” is great, despite the fact that we couldn’t do it, even if it was politically viable. And we’d only end up creating an even bigger problem when the inevitable civilian body count inherent in such a strategy skyrockets. For proof of that theory, I present Afghanistan/Pakistan where we are making more enemies daily by striking at the heart of the jihadis.

For the time being, we just have to get used to the idea that there are some things beyond our control in this world and one of them is the timetables and plans of terrorists. It’s either that, or sacrifice our liberty in ways that aren’t necessary to survive as a nation - yet. Once the terrorists get their hands on weapons of mass destruction and use them on us - something almost every expert is predicting will happen - that will almost certainly change.

This may be pessimistic but I think it is well justified. We can’t kill them all, we can’t realistically stop them, and we can’t trade liberty for security in any way that might actually matter. We refuse to guard our own borders, or treat them enemy as “the enemy,” or prevent nations like Syria, Iran, Yemen, or Pakistan from harboring the very terrorists that might strike us at anytime.

If you can come to any other conclusion except we will be hit again, I’d be interested in hearing it.

Please take a moment today to remember the fallen. The least we can do is recall their deaths and vow never to forget how it felt to be an American that awful day.

In case you missed it, here is my latest PJ Media column that was published yesterday. It’s on Pat Buchanan’s wretched column from September 1 in which he seeks to absolve Adolf Hitler of most of the blame for starting World War II.

A sample of Buchanan’s ignorance:

What follows are just a few of the more jaw-dropping errors of fact that Buchanan has included in his article, as well as the answers to some of the many questions that he should have known before even asking them.

After Munich in 1938, Czechoslovakia did indeed crumble and come apart. Yet consider what became of its parts. The Sudeten Germans were returned to German rule, as they wished. …

How could they wish to return to a place that in the entire thousand-year history of that enclave had never belonged to Germany in the first place?

From the 13th century on, the Sudeten Germans (making up about 25 percent of the population of the Sudetenland) had been ruled by the Habsburg Empire. The old Austria-Hungarian province of Bohemia claimed most of the land, and when the empire disintegrated following World War I, the Sudetenland was annexed by the new nation of Czechoslovakia.

Churchill tried without success to get Chamberlain to stop referring to the “return” of the Sudetenland to Germany in order to refute Nazi propaganda which was claiming otherwise. In effect, Buchanan is parroting the Nazi party line on the Sudetenland by claiming that Germany was only threatening war because they wanted their territory back.

It’s not that Buchanan is playing at revisionism that I object to. There has been much scholarship in recent decades that has shed light on pre-World War I British moves against Germany that were to have profound consequences for Europe for much of the rest of the 20th century. That kind of revisionism enriches our understanding of history and can be argued on the basis of fact.

Buchanan’s thesis is without merit because he fails to contextualize his arguments, placing them in a vacuum where the actions of Hitler can be examined without reference to any other events that were occurring simultaneously or in the past. It’s a clever manipulation of chronology - not serious analysis: A writer’s trick and not reasoned argument.

It’s a rather long piece and by no means a complete takedown. Buchanan asks too many rhetorical questions for that. But I think I captured the most egregious errors of fact and logic in Mr. Buchanan’s sad attempt to excuse one of the greatest mass murderers in history his foul deeds.