By Ken Blackwell
Saturday, June 04, 2011
Note: This piece was coauthored by Bob Morrison
President Obama deserved high praise for bringing Osama bin Laden to justice. Or, more accurately, for ordering Navy SEALs bring justice to him. But, the president threw away all the international stature he could rightly claim when he delivered his disastrous May 19th speech at the State Department. In that speech, he called on the Palestinians and the Israelis to return to the bargaining table—with Israel’s indefensible 1967 borders as a starting point.
The Obama administration has been desperately back-pedaling on that one, plaintively reminding all who will listen that the president’s call for 1967 borders included an important qualifier—with agreed upon swaps.
Swaps are sops. What the world heard was 1967 borders. For Israel, those were the borders of war. Three times, the Israelis had to fight for their lives because those borders left them dangerously exposed to Arab aggression.
Mahmoud Abbas, the putative leader of Fatah, has just formed an axis with Hamas. Hamas is the openly terrorist outfit that rides roughshod over Gaza. They’re the wonderful folks who stole the Nobel Peace Prize of Abbas’s late boss and mentor, Yasser Arafat. The award had unconscionably been given to Arafat, the inventor of terrorist airline hijacking. (Come to think of it, there is some justice in the world.)
You would think U.S. policymakers would take advantage of Abbas’s showing his true colors and cut him loose (and cut him off from billions in Western aid). Not so. Instead, Abbas gets a reward for climbing into bed with terrorists. The only “agreed upon swap” that Abbas is interested in under the worn-out land-for-peace formula is this one: Give us all your land, Israel, and only then will you get peace. Swap.
Now, Abbas is planning an end-run around the pesky Americans. He plans to go direct to the UN. He wants the anti-Israel majority in the General Assembly to vote him and his Hamas Big Tent partners in as the UN’s 193rd member state.
Abbas knows that that process cannot be completed at the UN unless the Security Council approves. And he knows that the U.S. has a veto in the Security Council.
President Obama is nervously reassuring friends of Israel here that he will use that veto to protect Israel from a terrorist state on its borders, but he has to be crossing his fingers, hoping he doesn’t have to cast that veto.
If he does, what will become of his much-vaunted “outreach to Muslims?” If the U.S. casts the only veto against Palestinian statehood, it will look like Obama’s Mideast Policy is in shambles. Well, that’s because it is.
Here’s another idea for concentrating the minds of the General Assembly delegates. President Obama has already perfected the pose of “leading from behind.” It’s working so well in Libya. And he’s already on record as saying the U.S. is no more exceptional than, say, the Greeks or the Brits.
By the president’s logic, therefore, the United States has no exceptional right to host the UN for 65 years exclusively and no exceptional right to pay 24% of the UN’s annual budget. If we’re not exceptional, then let’s pay our fair share of the UN budget—6%.
Let’s just be one of those pleasant countries whose flags are proudly displayed outside UN headquarters. We can salute Old Glory somewhere between the banners of United Arab Emirates and Upper Volta.
And let those headquarters be moved to Geneva. Or to Dubai. But definitely out of New York. Let those UN diplomats run up thousands of parking tickets with the Swiss or the Emirs.
President Obama should tell the UN General Assembly that if they really want to sit next to the delegates of a recognized Palestinian nation, they can do so. But they’ll have to pony up a lot more money in UN dues for the privilege and they’ll have to pay a lot more rent in Geneva. Geneva is pricier, even, than New York City.
Like our current president, Theodore Roosevelt won a Nobel Peace Prize. Like him, T.R. favored African proverbs. But unlike Mr. Obama, the Rough Rider knew which African proverb to apply: “Speak softly and carry a Big Stick.” The UN General Assembly could surely use an American Big Stick.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
We Need True Entitlement Reform—Now
By Matt Kibbe
Friday, June 03, 2011
We cannot solve our nation’s financial problems without addressing the growth of entitlement programs. Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid are the largest and fastest growing part of the federal budget. If present trends continue, these three entitlement programs are expected to consume the entire federal budget by 2050. The U.S. government has just hit its statutory debt limit of $14.3 trillion. The official national debt figure does not reflect what the federal government has promised to pay Americans in entitlement benefits later on. In reality, the true national debt is actually as high as $119.5 trillion when the unfunded liabilities of Medicare and Social Security are factored in. The U.S. government will never balance the budget without tackling entitlement programs head on.
We’ve been warned about the coming entitlement meltdown for many years. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) warned in 1995 that “if we do not plan for the future, entitlement spending promises will exceed federal resources in the next century. The current trend is unsustainable.” In the sixteen years since the CBO’s warning, Congress has only enlarged our entitlement system. The time for bold reforms to entitlement programs is now. Simply tinkering with the entitlement system won’t cut it. We must face the reality that the federal government won’t be able to keep its entitlement promises in the future.
The number of younger taxpayers for each retiree has continued to decline. When the Social Security Act of 1935 passed, life expectancy was approximately 58 years for men and 62 years for women. Most people did not live long enough to collect entitlement benefits at the age of 65. Americans’ life expectancy has surged over the past seven decades. Life expectancy today is roughly 75.5 years for men and 80.5 for women. Despite the fact that Americans live 30 percent longer on average, the Social Security retirement age has never changed. Social Security was not originally designed to subsidize retirees for a third to a half of their adult lives.
Massive entitlement programs have been enacted while both parties were in control. A Republican controlled Congress passed Medicare Part D in 2003 and a Democratic controlled Congress passed ObamaCare in 2010. FreedomWorks (then Citizens for Sound Economy in 2003) actively opposed both unconstitutional pieces of legislation. Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, then co-chairman of Citizens for a Sound Economy, wrote in December 2003, “this Medicare bill is misguided and will ultimately do more harm than good. Unfortunately, the end result will be that many seniors will have fewer choices and will end up losing their existing drug coverage.” Medicare Part D adds nearly $16 trillion to our national debt and will cost taxpayers one percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2030. Former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker has called the unfunded prescription drug benefit “the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s.” If lawmakers are indeed serious about addressing entitlement programs, they will propose repealing ObamaCare as well as Medicare Part D.
The American people are waking to the impending entitlement crisis. Until recently, reforming entitlement programs was a taboo subject in Washington. With the rise of the Tea Party movement, our nation’s long-term debt problem is finally getting the attention it deserves. Last November, the American people elected outspoken supporters of entitlement reform such as Rand Paul, Pat Toomey, Ron Johnson and Marco Rubio to the U.S. Senate. A FreedomWorks poll conducted by Frank Luntz found that 88 percent of Americans believe Social Security needs to be reformed immediately. One cannot be serious about cutting spending without touching entitlement programs that are the main reason for the huge increase in debt to GDP ratio.
I applaud House Republicans for taking the lead to restructure entitlement programs. None of their plans are ideal from a limited government standpoint. The Obama administration and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) however, have yet to introduce any plans to reform or cut entitlement programs. Ignoring the problem won’t make it go away. It’s only going to get worse if lawmakers refuse to do anything to avert the coming fiscal disaster. The Paul Ryan budget plan would convert Medicaid into a block grant system for the states and transition Medicare to a voucher program that increases consumer choice. It’s just a first step to restore fiscal sanity and should be considered a win for the Tea Party movement. We still have a long way to go. The American people are getting serious about entitlement reform but many lawmakers still lack the political courage.
The underlying problem is the role of government in society. Our current welfare state is the antithesis of freedom. Many of us have grown dependent on the government to “take care” of us from cradle to grave. It would be cruel to abolish the welfare state overnight due to the record number of Americans dependent on government programs. We need immediate solutions to minimize human suffering while averting fiscal calamity. Lawmakers ducking entitlement reform now will only condemn future generations to insurmountable debt and despair.
Friday, June 03, 2011
We cannot solve our nation’s financial problems without addressing the growth of entitlement programs. Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid are the largest and fastest growing part of the federal budget. If present trends continue, these three entitlement programs are expected to consume the entire federal budget by 2050. The U.S. government has just hit its statutory debt limit of $14.3 trillion. The official national debt figure does not reflect what the federal government has promised to pay Americans in entitlement benefits later on. In reality, the true national debt is actually as high as $119.5 trillion when the unfunded liabilities of Medicare and Social Security are factored in. The U.S. government will never balance the budget without tackling entitlement programs head on.
We’ve been warned about the coming entitlement meltdown for many years. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) warned in 1995 that “if we do not plan for the future, entitlement spending promises will exceed federal resources in the next century. The current trend is unsustainable.” In the sixteen years since the CBO’s warning, Congress has only enlarged our entitlement system. The time for bold reforms to entitlement programs is now. Simply tinkering with the entitlement system won’t cut it. We must face the reality that the federal government won’t be able to keep its entitlement promises in the future.
The number of younger taxpayers for each retiree has continued to decline. When the Social Security Act of 1935 passed, life expectancy was approximately 58 years for men and 62 years for women. Most people did not live long enough to collect entitlement benefits at the age of 65. Americans’ life expectancy has surged over the past seven decades. Life expectancy today is roughly 75.5 years for men and 80.5 for women. Despite the fact that Americans live 30 percent longer on average, the Social Security retirement age has never changed. Social Security was not originally designed to subsidize retirees for a third to a half of their adult lives.
Massive entitlement programs have been enacted while both parties were in control. A Republican controlled Congress passed Medicare Part D in 2003 and a Democratic controlled Congress passed ObamaCare in 2010. FreedomWorks (then Citizens for Sound Economy in 2003) actively opposed both unconstitutional pieces of legislation. Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, then co-chairman of Citizens for a Sound Economy, wrote in December 2003, “this Medicare bill is misguided and will ultimately do more harm than good. Unfortunately, the end result will be that many seniors will have fewer choices and will end up losing their existing drug coverage.” Medicare Part D adds nearly $16 trillion to our national debt and will cost taxpayers one percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2030. Former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker has called the unfunded prescription drug benefit “the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s.” If lawmakers are indeed serious about addressing entitlement programs, they will propose repealing ObamaCare as well as Medicare Part D.
The American people are waking to the impending entitlement crisis. Until recently, reforming entitlement programs was a taboo subject in Washington. With the rise of the Tea Party movement, our nation’s long-term debt problem is finally getting the attention it deserves. Last November, the American people elected outspoken supporters of entitlement reform such as Rand Paul, Pat Toomey, Ron Johnson and Marco Rubio to the U.S. Senate. A FreedomWorks poll conducted by Frank Luntz found that 88 percent of Americans believe Social Security needs to be reformed immediately. One cannot be serious about cutting spending without touching entitlement programs that are the main reason for the huge increase in debt to GDP ratio.
I applaud House Republicans for taking the lead to restructure entitlement programs. None of their plans are ideal from a limited government standpoint. The Obama administration and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) however, have yet to introduce any plans to reform or cut entitlement programs. Ignoring the problem won’t make it go away. It’s only going to get worse if lawmakers refuse to do anything to avert the coming fiscal disaster. The Paul Ryan budget plan would convert Medicaid into a block grant system for the states and transition Medicare to a voucher program that increases consumer choice. It’s just a first step to restore fiscal sanity and should be considered a win for the Tea Party movement. We still have a long way to go. The American people are getting serious about entitlement reform but many lawmakers still lack the political courage.
The underlying problem is the role of government in society. Our current welfare state is the antithesis of freedom. Many of us have grown dependent on the government to “take care” of us from cradle to grave. It would be cruel to abolish the welfare state overnight due to the record number of Americans dependent on government programs. We need immediate solutions to minimize human suffering while averting fiscal calamity. Lawmakers ducking entitlement reform now will only condemn future generations to insurmountable debt and despair.
Don't Root for Failure
By Rich Galen
Friday, June 03, 2011
The economic news this week has been dreadful:
Housing prices: "Home prices have double dipped, dropping to new post-Recession lows." -- US News & World Report.
Foreclosures: "Foreclosed homes, selling at bargain-basement prices, are dragging the market down, and homeowners are still desperately trying to stay out of foreclosure." -- LA Times
Stock Market: "As of June 1, 2011, the Dow Theory gave a warning of a significant downside correction for the general stock market, as the Dow Industrials and Transports both closed below 5-week lows." -- Inside Futures
More Stock Market: "New stock market formula: Recession + losses = extreme fear." -- LA Times
Manufacturing: "U.S. factory orders fell in April amid weaker demand for big-ticket items." -- Wall Street Journal.
More Manufacturing: "U.S. manufacturing economy heading in the wrong direction." --- Plastics Today
Jobs: "38,000 private sector jobs added on ADP [in their report for May] was much, much lower than a lot of people were expecting to see." - Morningstar
General Economy: "The weaker-than-expected number follows a string of data that indicate the U.S. economy struggled in May. Regional factory reports were weak, jobless claims remained high, and the Conference Board's consumer confidence index fell sharply last month." - Wall Street Journal
Consumer Spending: "The latest signs of trouble came from major retailers like Target, reporting consumers pulled back on spending in May. Data from MasterCard pointed to the same concern, showing Americans are shelling out less on everything from furniture to electronics to clothing." - PBS Newshour
U.S. Credit Rating: "Moody's Investors Service warned Thursday that it might review the government's Aaa debt rating for a possible downgrade as early as next month if there is no progress toward a deal in Washington to increase the $14.294 trillion federal borrowing limit and cut deficits." - Wall Street Journal
Greek Credit Rating: "Moody's downgraded Greece's credit rating by debt by three notches from a B1 to a Caa1 and retained a negative outlook, indicating that more downgrades could come." - All Headline News
This time last year the Obama Administration assured us we were heading into the "Recovery Summer." Didn't happen. And this won't be a Recovery Summer, either. The question for the Obamas is: Will the economy begin recovering by NEXT summer?
You will note that the Administration no longer blames the state of the economy on George W. Bush. Obama and the Democrats had control of all the levers of Federal power from January 20, 2009 until January 5, 2011 when the GOP took control of the U.S. House in the 112th Congress.
During that time, President Obama spent an extraordinary amount of political capital and Congressional energy on getting the health care legislation passed when, in retrospect, he should have been looking for ways to encourage economic growth.
The rule of thumb for political geniuses like me is: Whatever Americans believe is going on in the economy in August of the election year is what voters will take to the polls with them in November when they vote for President.
By November of 1992 the economy was, in fact, beginning to recover but Gov. Bill Clinton (aided and abetted by my back-door neighbor James Carville) continued to hammer on how bad things were and the George H.W. Bush campaign couldn't convince voters things were looking up.
The result was Bill Clinton taking the oath of office at noon on January 20, 1993.
Every month that slips by with bad economic news like that litany above, is another month that Americans will worry about their family's economic future. Every month that has unemployment - no matter how it's counted - at or near nine percent is another month less to get that measure at or below seven percent by election day 2012.
Here's the quicksand danger for the GOP over the next 17 months: They cannot appear to be cheering bad employment numbers; bad housing numbers; bad manufacturing numbers; bad … everything numbers.
Republicans can't put themselves in the position where voters believe they are applauding continued economic hardship so they can win control of the White House or the Senate or more seats in the House.
Voters have a right to believe - in spite of all the evidence to the contrary - that their elected officials are Americans first and partisans second.
Take care not to be seen rooting for failure.
Friday, June 03, 2011
The economic news this week has been dreadful:
Housing prices: "Home prices have double dipped, dropping to new post-Recession lows." -- US News & World Report.
Foreclosures: "Foreclosed homes, selling at bargain-basement prices, are dragging the market down, and homeowners are still desperately trying to stay out of foreclosure." -- LA Times
Stock Market: "As of June 1, 2011, the Dow Theory gave a warning of a significant downside correction for the general stock market, as the Dow Industrials and Transports both closed below 5-week lows." -- Inside Futures
More Stock Market: "New stock market formula: Recession + losses = extreme fear." -- LA Times
Manufacturing: "U.S. factory orders fell in April amid weaker demand for big-ticket items." -- Wall Street Journal.
More Manufacturing: "U.S. manufacturing economy heading in the wrong direction." --- Plastics Today
Jobs: "38,000 private sector jobs added on ADP [in their report for May] was much, much lower than a lot of people were expecting to see." - Morningstar
General Economy: "The weaker-than-expected number follows a string of data that indicate the U.S. economy struggled in May. Regional factory reports were weak, jobless claims remained high, and the Conference Board's consumer confidence index fell sharply last month." - Wall Street Journal
Consumer Spending: "The latest signs of trouble came from major retailers like Target, reporting consumers pulled back on spending in May. Data from MasterCard pointed to the same concern, showing Americans are shelling out less on everything from furniture to electronics to clothing." - PBS Newshour
U.S. Credit Rating: "Moody's Investors Service warned Thursday that it might review the government's Aaa debt rating for a possible downgrade as early as next month if there is no progress toward a deal in Washington to increase the $14.294 trillion federal borrowing limit and cut deficits." - Wall Street Journal
Greek Credit Rating: "Moody's downgraded Greece's credit rating by debt by three notches from a B1 to a Caa1 and retained a negative outlook, indicating that more downgrades could come." - All Headline News
This time last year the Obama Administration assured us we were heading into the "Recovery Summer." Didn't happen. And this won't be a Recovery Summer, either. The question for the Obamas is: Will the economy begin recovering by NEXT summer?
You will note that the Administration no longer blames the state of the economy on George W. Bush. Obama and the Democrats had control of all the levers of Federal power from January 20, 2009 until January 5, 2011 when the GOP took control of the U.S. House in the 112th Congress.
During that time, President Obama spent an extraordinary amount of political capital and Congressional energy on getting the health care legislation passed when, in retrospect, he should have been looking for ways to encourage economic growth.
The rule of thumb for political geniuses like me is: Whatever Americans believe is going on in the economy in August of the election year is what voters will take to the polls with them in November when they vote for President.
By November of 1992 the economy was, in fact, beginning to recover but Gov. Bill Clinton (aided and abetted by my back-door neighbor James Carville) continued to hammer on how bad things were and the George H.W. Bush campaign couldn't convince voters things were looking up.
The result was Bill Clinton taking the oath of office at noon on January 20, 1993.
Every month that slips by with bad economic news like that litany above, is another month that Americans will worry about their family's economic future. Every month that has unemployment - no matter how it's counted - at or near nine percent is another month less to get that measure at or below seven percent by election day 2012.
Here's the quicksand danger for the GOP over the next 17 months: They cannot appear to be cheering bad employment numbers; bad housing numbers; bad manufacturing numbers; bad … everything numbers.
Republicans can't put themselves in the position where voters believe they are applauding continued economic hardship so they can win control of the White House or the Senate or more seats in the House.
Voters have a right to believe - in spite of all the evidence to the contrary - that their elected officials are Americans first and partisans second.
Take care not to be seen rooting for failure.
Friday, June 3, 2011
It’s Education, but Higher Is a Misnomer
As the University deteriorates, parents send their children off with anxiety.
Mona Charen
Friday, June 03, 2011
I will not get sentimental, or so I keep telling myself. Well, maybe a little sentimental, but never maudlin at the approaching departure of my 17-year-old son for college in the fall. Fall? Did I say fall? No, he leaves in August — cruel calendar!
If I sometimes find myself leafing through photos of him at ages two, five, and eleven — here nodding off in the stroller, there in his Harry Potter costume — and if there’s a smile at the memory of how enthralled the preschool David was with the Triassic, the Cretaceous, and the Jurassic and its fearsome denizens, well, that’s the way of mothers. One video I happened to pick off the shelf featured an eight-year-old David narrating a tour of the backyard, with, as he put it, grinning, “my dimwitted assistant, Ben.” That would be his little brother, who knew well how to give it back. “Mom,” Ben called on another occasion, “David hit my hand with his face. Can you punish him?”
Now we count the days until David is off to college. A liberal parent may glow with excitement and pride at the prospect of his child attending college. Isn’t that why she got straight A’s, crammed for the SATs, played travel soccer, and dug wells in Guatemala during summer breaks? But no conservative can be entirely cheerful at the prospect of an impressionable youth being bundled off to a university in the United States. Academia is a conquered land — the playground of the ultra left.
A recent report by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education counts David’s college as among the seven best for free speech in the nation. That such a list is required speaks volumes. The seven are Arizona State, Dartmouth, William and Mary, the University of Pennsylvania, Carnegie Mellon, the University of Tennessee Knoxville, and the University of Virginia. Not that these seven are moderate in their political or social views. Don’t make me laugh. Not that they have more than one or two Republicans on the whole humanities faculty. Ha! No, these schools excel simply because they don’t exert the kind of totalitarian thought and speech control so commonplace on American campuses.
We scrape together our hard-earned income (lots of it) to deposit our cherished offspring at schools that are determined to teach them to despise everything we revere — even learning.
Three decades ago, at Stanford University, Jesse Jackson led chants of “Hey hey, ho ho, Western Civ has got to go.” If you were in any doubt, the National Association of Scholars reports that the mob was wildly successful. The institutions that are (or were) one of the glories of Western civilization — universities — now no longer see the worth of teaching the history of the West. In The Vanishing West, the NAS examined the curricula at 50 leading colleges over time. In 1964, all of them required some sort of Western civilization survey course or interdisciplinary course treating the same themes. They began with Greek civilization and encompassed Rome, the rise of Christianity, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, literature, art, music, the history of science, political philosophy, the modern era, and so forth. By 2010, none of the 50 colleges required any course in Western Civ. Even for history majors, survey courses on Western civilization are rarely required. The same is true for American history.
Students can still find courses on these subjects, but only as choices in a vast cafeteria of offerings that also includes courses like “Lesbian Queer Media Cultures” (University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign), “The Living and the Undead: An Inquiry Into Zombies in Cinema and Literature” (University of Mississippi), “The Militarization of American Daily Life” (Oberlin), and “The American Sexual Past” (Temple University). The term “higher education” is fast becoming a misnomer. American students are graduating with scads of courses on zombies and queer theory — which is why we’re importing an ever-larger number of our Ph.D.s.
David, thankfully, will have little time for nonsense courses (not that we’d pay for them anyway) because he will be studying music — specifically trumpet performance. Like the hard sciences, music remains a realm largely uncontaminated by the absurd political and sexual obsessions that afflict so many other disciplines.
Someone who aspires to play in a symphony orchestra has a sheaf of requirements: Music Theory, Keyboard Studies, Harmony, Solfege, Eurhythmics, and (huzzah!) survey of Western Music History. That’s in addition to studio, ensembles, and practice time. He will have time for just one elective in his first semester (and that must fulfill a distribution requirement).
We are thrilled for David — and relieved that because he has chosen music, the corrupt culture of American “higher” education will get very few opportunities to miseducate him.
Mona Charen
Friday, June 03, 2011
I will not get sentimental, or so I keep telling myself. Well, maybe a little sentimental, but never maudlin at the approaching departure of my 17-year-old son for college in the fall. Fall? Did I say fall? No, he leaves in August — cruel calendar!
If I sometimes find myself leafing through photos of him at ages two, five, and eleven — here nodding off in the stroller, there in his Harry Potter costume — and if there’s a smile at the memory of how enthralled the preschool David was with the Triassic, the Cretaceous, and the Jurassic and its fearsome denizens, well, that’s the way of mothers. One video I happened to pick off the shelf featured an eight-year-old David narrating a tour of the backyard, with, as he put it, grinning, “my dimwitted assistant, Ben.” That would be his little brother, who knew well how to give it back. “Mom,” Ben called on another occasion, “David hit my hand with his face. Can you punish him?”
Now we count the days until David is off to college. A liberal parent may glow with excitement and pride at the prospect of his child attending college. Isn’t that why she got straight A’s, crammed for the SATs, played travel soccer, and dug wells in Guatemala during summer breaks? But no conservative can be entirely cheerful at the prospect of an impressionable youth being bundled off to a university in the United States. Academia is a conquered land — the playground of the ultra left.
A recent report by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education counts David’s college as among the seven best for free speech in the nation. That such a list is required speaks volumes. The seven are Arizona State, Dartmouth, William and Mary, the University of Pennsylvania, Carnegie Mellon, the University of Tennessee Knoxville, and the University of Virginia. Not that these seven are moderate in their political or social views. Don’t make me laugh. Not that they have more than one or two Republicans on the whole humanities faculty. Ha! No, these schools excel simply because they don’t exert the kind of totalitarian thought and speech control so commonplace on American campuses.
We scrape together our hard-earned income (lots of it) to deposit our cherished offspring at schools that are determined to teach them to despise everything we revere — even learning.
Three decades ago, at Stanford University, Jesse Jackson led chants of “Hey hey, ho ho, Western Civ has got to go.” If you were in any doubt, the National Association of Scholars reports that the mob was wildly successful. The institutions that are (or were) one of the glories of Western civilization — universities — now no longer see the worth of teaching the history of the West. In The Vanishing West, the NAS examined the curricula at 50 leading colleges over time. In 1964, all of them required some sort of Western civilization survey course or interdisciplinary course treating the same themes. They began with Greek civilization and encompassed Rome, the rise of Christianity, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, literature, art, music, the history of science, political philosophy, the modern era, and so forth. By 2010, none of the 50 colleges required any course in Western Civ. Even for history majors, survey courses on Western civilization are rarely required. The same is true for American history.
Students can still find courses on these subjects, but only as choices in a vast cafeteria of offerings that also includes courses like “Lesbian Queer Media Cultures” (University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign), “The Living and the Undead: An Inquiry Into Zombies in Cinema and Literature” (University of Mississippi), “The Militarization of American Daily Life” (Oberlin), and “The American Sexual Past” (Temple University). The term “higher education” is fast becoming a misnomer. American students are graduating with scads of courses on zombies and queer theory — which is why we’re importing an ever-larger number of our Ph.D.s.
David, thankfully, will have little time for nonsense courses (not that we’d pay for them anyway) because he will be studying music — specifically trumpet performance. Like the hard sciences, music remains a realm largely uncontaminated by the absurd political and sexual obsessions that afflict so many other disciplines.
Someone who aspires to play in a symphony orchestra has a sheaf of requirements: Music Theory, Keyboard Studies, Harmony, Solfege, Eurhythmics, and (huzzah!) survey of Western Music History. That’s in addition to studio, ensembles, and practice time. He will have time for just one elective in his first semester (and that must fulfill a distribution requirement).
We are thrilled for David — and relieved that because he has chosen music, the corrupt culture of American “higher” education will get very few opportunities to miseducate him.
More Facts on the Myth of "The Palestinian People"
By Michael Brown
Friday, June 03, 2011
My May 28th article, “Five Simple Truths about the Mideast Conflict,” elicited some passionate responses from those on both sides of the debate, with the first point in particular proving to be the most controversial: “There is no such thing as a historic ‘Palestinian people” living in the Middle East.’”
Let’s unpack two of the most common responses to that assertion, separating myth from fact. Of course, we know that there are several million people living in the West Bank and Gaza who identify as Palestinians today, and regardless of their historic pedigree, they are human beings with real needs. But when a misleading “history” is presented so as to delegitimize Jewish claims to the Land, the falsehoods must be exposed.
Myth #1. The modern Palestinians can trace their lineage back to the ancient Philistines, who were living in the land of Canaan (= Palestine) long before the Israelites had arrived on the scene.
This is completely false as to any lineal or ethnic connection between modern Palestinians and ancient Philistines.
First, the Philistines were Aegean (or Cypriot) sea peoples who migrated to the southern coast of Israel/Canaan in the 12th century BC. It is unclear what relationship they bear with the Philistines who are mentioned in Genesis, hundreds of years earlier. In short, they were not a Semitic people, as the Israelites and Arabs were. Second, from the 8th-5th centuries BC, they were crushed or ruled by the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians, ultimately being absorbed by these populations and entirely disappearing from history. In other words, there was a distinct, end of the line for the Philistines roughly 2,500 years ago.
Third, six hundred years after the extinction of the Philistines, and after putting down a Jewish revolt, the Romans changed the name of Judea to Palaestina (in Latin) in order to discourage Jewish patriotism. So, there is absolutely no lineal or ethnic connection between the (earlier) Philistine people and the (later) land called Palestine. In fact, the Philistines had previously lived in the western part of the country, on the Mediterranean coast, whereas Palestine originally referred to the eastern part of the country, on the West Bank of the Jordan river.
Fourth, some Muslim leaders have claimed that there was a continuous Arab presence in Palestine dating back to Muslim conquests in the 7th century AD. But this dubious claim, even if true , would still mean that the continuous Jewish presence in the land predated the first major Arab presence by at least 2,000 years, and it would also underscore the fact that there is no connection between the later Arabs and the earlier (extinct) Philistines.
Myth # 2. The whole argument about there being no historic, “Palestinian people” is meaningless, since there’s is no such thing as a historic Iraqi people either. Borders were artificially created after World War I.”
This is false, as to the overall argument and only partially true about the artificial borders.
Anyone who knows the history of the modern Middle East will recognize the names of nation-states that did not exist as such before (such as United Arab Emirates). But not all national identities in the Middle East are of recent origin.
There has certainly been an ancient, historic Egyptian people in the region, to the south of Israel, and an ancient, historic Syrian-Lebanese people, to the north of Israel, while the Iraqi people often traced their heritage back to the ancient kings of Babylon as well as to the golden age of Islam that flourished in their region 700 years ago. In contrast, the Arabs living in Palestine had no such national identity because they had no such ancient, historic roots, not to mention the fact that there were dozens of other (non-Arab) peoples living in Palestine, some of whom had ruled the region for centuries.
In the oft-quoted words of the celebrated Arab-American historian and Princeton University professor, Philip Hitti, testifying before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, “There is no such thing as ‘Palestine’ in history, absolutely not.” And so, if there was no “Palestine” in the pre-1948 Arab consciousness, there was no Palestinian people. The only people living in Palestine who traced their pedigree back to ancient, biblical times and who awaited the restoration of their ancient homeland were the Jewish people.
But why bother with facts? The old myths and lies are so much more effective.
Friday, June 03, 2011
My May 28th article, “Five Simple Truths about the Mideast Conflict,” elicited some passionate responses from those on both sides of the debate, with the first point in particular proving to be the most controversial: “There is no such thing as a historic ‘Palestinian people” living in the Middle East.’”
Let’s unpack two of the most common responses to that assertion, separating myth from fact. Of course, we know that there are several million people living in the West Bank and Gaza who identify as Palestinians today, and regardless of their historic pedigree, they are human beings with real needs. But when a misleading “history” is presented so as to delegitimize Jewish claims to the Land, the falsehoods must be exposed.
Myth #1. The modern Palestinians can trace their lineage back to the ancient Philistines, who were living in the land of Canaan (= Palestine) long before the Israelites had arrived on the scene.
This is completely false as to any lineal or ethnic connection between modern Palestinians and ancient Philistines.
First, the Philistines were Aegean (or Cypriot) sea peoples who migrated to the southern coast of Israel/Canaan in the 12th century BC. It is unclear what relationship they bear with the Philistines who are mentioned in Genesis, hundreds of years earlier. In short, they were not a Semitic people, as the Israelites and Arabs were. Second, from the 8th-5th centuries BC, they were crushed or ruled by the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians, ultimately being absorbed by these populations and entirely disappearing from history. In other words, there was a distinct, end of the line for the Philistines roughly 2,500 years ago.
Third, six hundred years after the extinction of the Philistines, and after putting down a Jewish revolt, the Romans changed the name of Judea to Palaestina (in Latin) in order to discourage Jewish patriotism. So, there is absolutely no lineal or ethnic connection between the (earlier) Philistine people and the (later) land called Palestine. In fact, the Philistines had previously lived in the western part of the country, on the Mediterranean coast, whereas Palestine originally referred to the eastern part of the country, on the West Bank of the Jordan river.
Fourth, some Muslim leaders have claimed that there was a continuous Arab presence in Palestine dating back to Muslim conquests in the 7th century AD. But this dubious claim, even if true , would still mean that the continuous Jewish presence in the land predated the first major Arab presence by at least 2,000 years, and it would also underscore the fact that there is no connection between the later Arabs and the earlier (extinct) Philistines.
Myth # 2. The whole argument about there being no historic, “Palestinian people” is meaningless, since there’s is no such thing as a historic Iraqi people either. Borders were artificially created after World War I.”
This is false, as to the overall argument and only partially true about the artificial borders.
Anyone who knows the history of the modern Middle East will recognize the names of nation-states that did not exist as such before (such as United Arab Emirates). But not all national identities in the Middle East are of recent origin.
There has certainly been an ancient, historic Egyptian people in the region, to the south of Israel, and an ancient, historic Syrian-Lebanese people, to the north of Israel, while the Iraqi people often traced their heritage back to the ancient kings of Babylon as well as to the golden age of Islam that flourished in their region 700 years ago. In contrast, the Arabs living in Palestine had no such national identity because they had no such ancient, historic roots, not to mention the fact that there were dozens of other (non-Arab) peoples living in Palestine, some of whom had ruled the region for centuries.
In the oft-quoted words of the celebrated Arab-American historian and Princeton University professor, Philip Hitti, testifying before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, “There is no such thing as ‘Palestine’ in history, absolutely not.” And so, if there was no “Palestine” in the pre-1948 Arab consciousness, there was no Palestinian people. The only people living in Palestine who traced their pedigree back to ancient, biblical times and who awaited the restoration of their ancient homeland were the Jewish people.
But why bother with facts? The old myths and lies are so much more effective.
The GOP Field v. The MSM Meme Police
By Hugh Hewitt
Friday, June 03, 2011
Republican primary voters have a very strong field of potential opponents for President Obama in November 2012 from which to choose. Three governors with great executive experience –Jon Huntsman, Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney—are certain to make the race and two others, Sarah Palin and Rick Perry are still looking at the contest. A two term senator with deep roots in the conservative movement, Rick Santorum , and a new voice of a new political dynamic, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann bring passion and energized constituencies to the battle. Herman Cain excites new voters and former Speaker Newt Gingrich has an army of virtual activists ready to assist his campaign.
It is a deep field, and the president is on his heels with another round of terrible economic news buffeting his poll ratings which ought to be soaring into the 60 percent approval territory after the killing of bin laden.
But tune into to most network news and cable coverage and all you hear is doom and gloom about the prospects of the GOP prospects.
Mitt Romney is “weak frontrunner” burdened by “Romneycare” which birthed Obamacare. Pawlenty is boring and was for cap and trade. Huntsman is unknown and burdened not just by past support for cap and trade but also by having been Obama’s ambassador to China. Newt has crumbled, Santorum tangled with John McCain on torture and Palin and Bachmann are competing against each other for a small and shrinking slice of the electoral pie.
All of these canards reflect the Manhattan-Beltway media elite’s obsessive need to talk down the Republican Party and its agenda while striving mightily to prop up a failed presidency.
That’s “failed presidency,” not “failing presidency.” The employment cake is already baked for 2012, and the country will still be near or at the 8% unemployment mark --or even higher!-- 18 months from now, and even if home prices stage a modest rebound in the next year they can’t recover to anywhere near 2008 values by the time the votes are cast. The high-flying IPOs are making new billionaires but America’s middle class is staring at flat wages and higher health insurance premiums and the many promises of Obamacare haven’t materialized.
President Obama’s three signature laws—the “stimulus,” Obamacare, and the banking “reform” have all failed to do anything except burden America with an astonishing and dangerous debt that is growing like a lethal malignancy. While the president ordered the killing of bin laden, everything else about his leadership abroad has been feckless, flaccid and full of apologies for American power and purpose. The president’s hostility towards Israel has shocked even his own party’s base voters.
That is the storyline of 2012 –the referendum on a president who makes Jimmy carter look strong and decisive. All of the Republicans in the race will be making these points each day from now until the party selects a nominee and then all of them who didn’t succeed will continue the effort to unseat Obama because they are each committed to the country’s future and the U-turn the country so desperately needs.
All of the candidates and every conservative needs to battle the MSM memes on behalf of the entire GOP field from now until Iowa and New Hampshire. Certainly elbows will be thrown among the candidates, and supporters will trumpet their favorites’ strengths, but the MSM’s tropes should be denounced by all people seeking the exit of Obama from the Oval Office in January 2013.
The weakest candidate in the field is the incumbent, and the election is a referendum on him. That is the story of 2011, and 2012.
Friday, June 03, 2011
Republican primary voters have a very strong field of potential opponents for President Obama in November 2012 from which to choose. Three governors with great executive experience –Jon Huntsman, Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney—are certain to make the race and two others, Sarah Palin and Rick Perry are still looking at the contest. A two term senator with deep roots in the conservative movement, Rick Santorum , and a new voice of a new political dynamic, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann bring passion and energized constituencies to the battle. Herman Cain excites new voters and former Speaker Newt Gingrich has an army of virtual activists ready to assist his campaign.
It is a deep field, and the president is on his heels with another round of terrible economic news buffeting his poll ratings which ought to be soaring into the 60 percent approval territory after the killing of bin laden.
But tune into to most network news and cable coverage and all you hear is doom and gloom about the prospects of the GOP prospects.
Mitt Romney is “weak frontrunner” burdened by “Romneycare” which birthed Obamacare. Pawlenty is boring and was for cap and trade. Huntsman is unknown and burdened not just by past support for cap and trade but also by having been Obama’s ambassador to China. Newt has crumbled, Santorum tangled with John McCain on torture and Palin and Bachmann are competing against each other for a small and shrinking slice of the electoral pie.
All of these canards reflect the Manhattan-Beltway media elite’s obsessive need to talk down the Republican Party and its agenda while striving mightily to prop up a failed presidency.
That’s “failed presidency,” not “failing presidency.” The employment cake is already baked for 2012, and the country will still be near or at the 8% unemployment mark --or even higher!-- 18 months from now, and even if home prices stage a modest rebound in the next year they can’t recover to anywhere near 2008 values by the time the votes are cast. The high-flying IPOs are making new billionaires but America’s middle class is staring at flat wages and higher health insurance premiums and the many promises of Obamacare haven’t materialized.
President Obama’s three signature laws—the “stimulus,” Obamacare, and the banking “reform” have all failed to do anything except burden America with an astonishing and dangerous debt that is growing like a lethal malignancy. While the president ordered the killing of bin laden, everything else about his leadership abroad has been feckless, flaccid and full of apologies for American power and purpose. The president’s hostility towards Israel has shocked even his own party’s base voters.
That is the storyline of 2012 –the referendum on a president who makes Jimmy carter look strong and decisive. All of the Republicans in the race will be making these points each day from now until the party selects a nominee and then all of them who didn’t succeed will continue the effort to unseat Obama because they are each committed to the country’s future and the U-turn the country so desperately needs.
All of the candidates and every conservative needs to battle the MSM memes on behalf of the entire GOP field from now until Iowa and New Hampshire. Certainly elbows will be thrown among the candidates, and supporters will trumpet their favorites’ strengths, but the MSM’s tropes should be denounced by all people seeking the exit of Obama from the Oval Office in January 2013.
The weakest candidate in the field is the incumbent, and the election is a referendum on him. That is the story of 2011, and 2012.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
In Defense of American Exceptionalism
America is the indispensable nation.
Clifford D. May
Thursday, June 02, 2011
Some years ago, John Podhoretz, a right-of-center writer, now the editor of Commentary, admonished his colleagues on the left: “We speak liberal as well as our own tongue. Why don’t you speak conservative?”
I was put in mind of this quip while reading a recent column by the Washington Post’s Richard Cohen. In “The Myth of American Exceptionalism,” he boldly posits that the “problem of the 21st century” is “the culture of smugness. The emblem of this culture is ‘American exceptionalism.’ It has been adopted by the right to mean that America, alone among the nations, is beloved of God.”
Cohen provides no evidence that anyone on the right defines exceptionalism as he does. What do those of us who use, defend, and advocate exceptionalism mean instead?
Among other things, that America is simply different from other nations. It is a nation of immigrants from every corner of the earth, a nation bound not by ancestral blood but by revolutionary ideas and beliefs brilliantly articulated more than two centuries ago in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
The founding of the United States ushered in the modern democratic experiment, along with new concepts of freedom and human rights. In the 20th century, the Greatest Generation fought for the survival of that experiment against its totalitarian enemies, Nazi, Fascist, and Communist alike. Today, the challenges posed by Islamic totalitarianism test a new generation.
America has been a uniquely productive nation: a font of invention, creativity, and economic dynamism. In America, tens of millions of people have risen from poverty. The United States has been a singularly generous, if not always effective, provider of assistance to other countries, including those where Americans are not popular.
But, most of all, exceptionalism implies that the responsibility for global leadership rests on America’s shoulders, not because Americans hunger for power but because there is no good alternative.
At the conclusion of World War II, the British rejected Winston Churchill — without whose vision and determination Hitler might well have triumphed — and turned inward to focus on building a welfare state. That meant relinquishing global leadership. They could do that because they could pass the torch to America.
If that torch has now become too heavy for Americans, or if it is seen as unfair for America to continue to lead, who is prepared to take America’s place? Those who rule Iran, China, and Russia are no doubt eager. But they are despots, as Cohen ought to appreciate.
There are those on the left known as “transnational progressives.” They believe the United Nations and similar organizations should be recognized as a world government to which America will increasingly cede power and sovereignty. To favor that option requires willfully ignoring the corruption, financial and moral, that infects the U.N. and the extent to which it is manipulated by dictators and such anti-democratic and supremacist blocs as the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
In other words: At present, there is no substitute for American leadership. America is the indispensable nation. That is what makes it exceptional.
Cohen goes on to link exceptionalism to such maladies as America’s high murder rate, execution rate, and dysfunctional education system — rather a stretch, it seems to me. But he is most peeved by what he sees as the theological implications of exceptionalism, what he calls the “huge role of religion in American politics.” He contends that those who invoke exceptionalism — he specifically cites “Mitt Romney, Mike Pence, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee and, of course, Sarah Palin” — claim to know what God wants and therefore insist: “What God prefers should not be monkeyed with.”
To bolster his case, Cohen sets off on a historical digression, writing that “in the years preceding the Civil War, both sides of the slavery issue claimed the endorsement of God. . . . Within five years, Americans were slaughtering one another on the battlefield. . . . Therein lies the danger of American exceptionalism. It discourages compromise, for what God has made exceptional, man must not alter.”
Is it really Cohen’s view that the abolitionists were wrong to oppose slavery on moral grounds? Does he actually think Lincoln should have compromised on slavery in the hope of settling the conflict between the North and South nonviolently?
What’s more, Cohen conspicuously ignores the view Lincoln himself expressed on precisely this matter. In the midst of the Civil War, the first Republican president was asked by a clergyman if God was on his side. Lincoln’s reply: “Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side. My great concern is to be on God’s side.”
Such humility is implicit in the idea of American exceptionalism. Americans value freedom not least because we don’t think anyone has a monopoly on truth or the private e-mail address of the Almighty. This is the polar opposite of Cohen’s interpretation of exceptionalism as a word “that reeks of arrogance and discourages compromise. American exceptionalism ought to be called American narcissism. We look perfect only to ourselves.”
No, we exceptionalists do not think that. What we think instead: Americans will never perfect themselves or “form a more perfect union” by letting transnational bureaucrats, politicians, and professors run our lives.
Exceptionalists do not deny that America has many faults and that Americans have made many mistakes in the past and are likely to do so in the future. But that doesn’t make the United States the equivalent of Norway, Uruguay, Burkina Faso, or New Guinea. That doesn’t lead us to the Lake Wobegon all-children-are-above-average view of the world expressed by President Obama two years ago in Europe: “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”
We exceptionalists look instead to President Reagan, for whom exceptionalism meant that America remained “the last best hope for a mankind plagued by tyranny and deprivation.” To keep that hope alive will require efforts — one might say exceptional efforts — on the part of Americans. It also will require that pundits such as Richard Cohen try harder to understand what his friends on the right are saying.
Clifford D. May
Thursday, June 02, 2011
Some years ago, John Podhoretz, a right-of-center writer, now the editor of Commentary, admonished his colleagues on the left: “We speak liberal as well as our own tongue. Why don’t you speak conservative?”
I was put in mind of this quip while reading a recent column by the Washington Post’s Richard Cohen. In “The Myth of American Exceptionalism,” he boldly posits that the “problem of the 21st century” is “the culture of smugness. The emblem of this culture is ‘American exceptionalism.’ It has been adopted by the right to mean that America, alone among the nations, is beloved of God.”
Cohen provides no evidence that anyone on the right defines exceptionalism as he does. What do those of us who use, defend, and advocate exceptionalism mean instead?
Among other things, that America is simply different from other nations. It is a nation of immigrants from every corner of the earth, a nation bound not by ancestral blood but by revolutionary ideas and beliefs brilliantly articulated more than two centuries ago in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
The founding of the United States ushered in the modern democratic experiment, along with new concepts of freedom and human rights. In the 20th century, the Greatest Generation fought for the survival of that experiment against its totalitarian enemies, Nazi, Fascist, and Communist alike. Today, the challenges posed by Islamic totalitarianism test a new generation.
America has been a uniquely productive nation: a font of invention, creativity, and economic dynamism. In America, tens of millions of people have risen from poverty. The United States has been a singularly generous, if not always effective, provider of assistance to other countries, including those where Americans are not popular.
But, most of all, exceptionalism implies that the responsibility for global leadership rests on America’s shoulders, not because Americans hunger for power but because there is no good alternative.
At the conclusion of World War II, the British rejected Winston Churchill — without whose vision and determination Hitler might well have triumphed — and turned inward to focus on building a welfare state. That meant relinquishing global leadership. They could do that because they could pass the torch to America.
If that torch has now become too heavy for Americans, or if it is seen as unfair for America to continue to lead, who is prepared to take America’s place? Those who rule Iran, China, and Russia are no doubt eager. But they are despots, as Cohen ought to appreciate.
There are those on the left known as “transnational progressives.” They believe the United Nations and similar organizations should be recognized as a world government to which America will increasingly cede power and sovereignty. To favor that option requires willfully ignoring the corruption, financial and moral, that infects the U.N. and the extent to which it is manipulated by dictators and such anti-democratic and supremacist blocs as the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
In other words: At present, there is no substitute for American leadership. America is the indispensable nation. That is what makes it exceptional.
Cohen goes on to link exceptionalism to such maladies as America’s high murder rate, execution rate, and dysfunctional education system — rather a stretch, it seems to me. But he is most peeved by what he sees as the theological implications of exceptionalism, what he calls the “huge role of religion in American politics.” He contends that those who invoke exceptionalism — he specifically cites “Mitt Romney, Mike Pence, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee and, of course, Sarah Palin” — claim to know what God wants and therefore insist: “What God prefers should not be monkeyed with.”
To bolster his case, Cohen sets off on a historical digression, writing that “in the years preceding the Civil War, both sides of the slavery issue claimed the endorsement of God. . . . Within five years, Americans were slaughtering one another on the battlefield. . . . Therein lies the danger of American exceptionalism. It discourages compromise, for what God has made exceptional, man must not alter.”
Is it really Cohen’s view that the abolitionists were wrong to oppose slavery on moral grounds? Does he actually think Lincoln should have compromised on slavery in the hope of settling the conflict between the North and South nonviolently?
What’s more, Cohen conspicuously ignores the view Lincoln himself expressed on precisely this matter. In the midst of the Civil War, the first Republican president was asked by a clergyman if God was on his side. Lincoln’s reply: “Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side. My great concern is to be on God’s side.”
Such humility is implicit in the idea of American exceptionalism. Americans value freedom not least because we don’t think anyone has a monopoly on truth or the private e-mail address of the Almighty. This is the polar opposite of Cohen’s interpretation of exceptionalism as a word “that reeks of arrogance and discourages compromise. American exceptionalism ought to be called American narcissism. We look perfect only to ourselves.”
No, we exceptionalists do not think that. What we think instead: Americans will never perfect themselves or “form a more perfect union” by letting transnational bureaucrats, politicians, and professors run our lives.
Exceptionalists do not deny that America has many faults and that Americans have made many mistakes in the past and are likely to do so in the future. But that doesn’t make the United States the equivalent of Norway, Uruguay, Burkina Faso, or New Guinea. That doesn’t lead us to the Lake Wobegon all-children-are-above-average view of the world expressed by President Obama two years ago in Europe: “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”
We exceptionalists look instead to President Reagan, for whom exceptionalism meant that America remained “the last best hope for a mankind plagued by tyranny and deprivation.” To keep that hope alive will require efforts — one might say exceptional efforts — on the part of Americans. It also will require that pundits such as Richard Cohen try harder to understand what his friends on the right are saying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)