I just wrote a blog on Victor Hanson's speculations that President Obama may not be as successful as many have thought as righteous anger springs forth from the grassroots.

I commented that,

"I think he may be a bit off, however.  There is real anxiety mounting, but Obama has a lot of charisma and a lot of support among the media and intellectual elite.  If he gets any of his reforms such as cap and trade and a vast modification of healthcare, he can get himself back on track.

Most worrying is that if he does fail, it will be due to his extreme rapidity in movement.  He probably could get a lot of this piecemeal if he proved himself a bit more patient.  This raises the question whether we are still sliding down the path of Obamaism, just a bit slower than some of us had thought.

I don't see any fundamental changes.  The battlelines of the future are being drawn and favor the young and the non-classically liberal.  Conservatives are still playing defense and will be for some time to come."

Right after that post, I came across a new Spengler piece which says the following,

"Regarding the prospects for recovery, please see “Dave’s Top 10 Reasons the Recession Will Last Forever” over at my Asia Times’ financial blog, “Inner Workings.” The number two reason is that America is entering a demographic black hole comparable to Japan’s at the start of the “lost decade.” As I wrote,

'American demographics look suspiciously like Japan’s in 1990, at the beginning of the “Lost Decade.” Japan’s elderly dependent ratio jumped from 18% to 26% over the 10 years; between 2010 and 2020, America’s will rise from 19% to 25%. In other words, a huge component of the labor force is nearing retirement. They have no savings to speak of and what they thought was their nest egg (home equity) just vaporized. Their savings requirements are bottomless. The combination of demographic and wealth shocks should produce a loop-de-loop in the “marginal propensity to save” such as we have never seen before, except, of course, in Japan.'

But the number one reason that America won’t recover is that Obama has no incentive to foster a real recovery:

Bill Clinton, the last Democratic president, thought in effect, “Let’s get economic growth so I can tax it and pay for all my toys and games.” That was the “New Democrat” approach. Obama knows that if the economy crumbles and he’s the only one left with a checkbook, then everyone has to come to him. Where is the independent base of entrepreneurial business to which the Republicans might to to raise money against Obama? The banks, the hedge funds, the manufacturers, the municipalities, in fact everyone who is left standing in the economy is beholden to Obama. This is Chicago city politics writ large. Leave aside all of the individual things that Obama is doing that harm economic growth: Obama is the first American president (with the possible exception of FDR) to actually benefit from economic weakness...


Pardon the excursion into the sort of technicalities I usually relegate to the “Inner Workings” venue. But there is an important political point here: the only way to make seriously money in this market is to get in on a government handout. If you have a big balance sheet, and if the Treasury selects you as a money manager for one of its programs, and if the regulators treat you nicely, you will make money in the financial business. But woe betide anyone who gets out of the good graces of the administration.

Come 2010, from whom are Republicans going to raise funds? There aren’t any entrepreneurs out there. They are lying face up on the beaches with swollen bellies and vacant eyes. There aren’t any independent financial institutions. There’s only a long  line of prospective monopolists looking for a handout from the federal government. And the worse the economy gets, the longer the line gets. That’s the way banana republics work."

This is not "socialism", but it does strike me as a variant of "fascism."

Obviously, this does not mean that Obama is some sort of a "Nazi" any more than Bush was (despite the feverish imagination of those on the fringes of the Left).  Indeed, using this term, while I am certain controversial, should be viewed dispassionately.  Consider what "fascism" really is when not linked to "nazism" as is so often the case.

A quick perusal of the web allows one to see the key distinctions between these terms without being bogged down in academic minutiae.

From WikiAnswers,

"The central theme of Fascism is the state. The state is supreme and everything revolves around the state. The central theme of Nazism is the race. The race is the "master race" and all other races must either serve the "master race" as slaves or must be eliminated from existence."

Further distinctions can be found at http://everything2.com/title/Fascism+vs.+Nazism

"Corporatism –- medieval guilds warmed over

The Italian fascists regarded both parliamentary democracy and socialist class struggle as elements that were bound to cause divisiveness in a nation. Hence they introduced the idea of corporatism, a kind of modernised version of the medieval guild system. Here representatives of all trades and industries, employers as well as employees, could settle matters based on mutual understanding. Of course, in reality this was mostly ideological window-dressing. Mussolini was Il Duce (= The Leader) and had the last word.

In general, fascism was an appreciably lighter version of a dictatorial anti-democratic system than the mercilessly brutal Nazism. Fascist Italy never became completely totalitarian, nor did it commit mass murder on the scale of the Nazis'. The monarchy was intact and the bureaucracy, the military and the church remained as complementary power centres. Originally there was no racism in Italian fascism. Due to Hitler's influence this unfortunately changed toward the end of Mussolini's regime."

Note the key concepts of corporatism and the supremacy of the state.  Obama is not having the government run everything, but is slowly making many private enterprises dependent on government and its lagresse.  This is corporatism, ironically of a much more advanced type than anything pushed by the Bush Administration (which again was often referred to as "fascist" with certitude by the Chomskyite wing of the Liberal intelligentsia).

I suspect no few use the terminology I am, largely because the appropriate use of the term "fascism" has been erroneously linked to Hitler.  "Fascism" is a much broader term that encompasses a far greater range of political activity and regimes.  While a "Nazi" is a type of "Fascist", the reverse is not necessarily the case and usually is not.

Keep in mind the distinctions and observe closely the actions of this Administration and I believe you will see the movement in this direction. 

Obviously it is a slow movement and sold softly, largely because I believe the actors, including Obama himself, may be unaware of what he is exactly doing at the deeper level.

America is allowing this to happen due to the spiritual malaise and nihilism I often refer to in my blog.  This is actually a natural process given the fundamental focus on the transient as opposed to the permanent.  It is inevitable that government will become the guarantor of all once the "all" refuses to exercise its own discipline.  If local communities and, most importantly, families breakdown, what is left to provide service except the government? 

I return to my thoughts on Hanson's work and am far from sanguine.  Those who care should in turn take care that they remain steadfast in their legitimate opposition to the direction we are travelling, but refrain from going down the road of extreme rhetoric.  A measured, rational outlining of the indictment against our present status is the only way to succeed.  Otherwise, Nietzsche's quote,

"Everbody wants the same, everybody is the same:
whoever feels different goes voluntarily into a madhouse."

will undoubtedly become the epitaph of the "loyal" opposition.

This is a great article that pretty much encapsulates my views on the wrongheadedness of the entire policy being advanced by President Obama regarding the successor treaty to START.  Here is the most relevant section, though the full piece, courtesy of the Atlantic Council, bears reading,

"The U.S. 2001 Nuclear Posture Review weaned us from tit-for-tat strategic force planning to counter the Soviet Union, later Russia, and adapted strategic planning to a multifaceted and rapidly changing world. Given Russia's belligerent nationalism, China's uncertain future, North Korea's threats to create a "sea of fire," Pakistan's instability and Iran's steady march toward nuclear weaponry, the Obama administration should have thoroughly reviewed likely U.S. requirements before lurching into negotiations with Russia."

Again I ask, what do we really gain except some illusory notion that we are working to establish a "moral highground" from which to negotiate with aspiring nuclear powers? 

Given the new concerns over Burma going nuclear, as unbelievable as that sounds and as early as it is to get too worried yet, it seems proliferation is gaining ground and these token gestures are not only irrelevant, but reduce the one thing we need more of than anything else: maximum flexibility.

George Will  is his usually wonderful self with this piece that highlights the utter absurdity of the current cap and trade plan passed by the U.S. House of Representatives.

While I do not fall into the “global warming is a conspiracy” camp, I am definitely not convinced that it is the great, looming catastrophe so many, typically on the left, feel it is.

I am not adverse to recycling and seeking viable and economical alternative energy resources so that we can reduce our “carbon footprint.”  After all, if there is any truth to the idea that global warming exists, then it would seem to be highly immoral to simply ignore it.  Yet, contrary to the hyperventilation in Washington , the evidence is ambiguous.

Consequently, palcing a crippling tax on an already struggling economy while the other large emitters of the world refuse to “get on board” with our plans on addressing the issue seems to me an act of near lunacy.

As Will makes clear, China will not risk harming its economic growth in order to deal with some potentially ephemeral problem fifty to a hundred years down the road. 

So we’re going to reduce our GDP, probably not dramatically influence the temperature, and further make ourselves uncompetitive with China ?  How does that make sense from any rational point of view?

There must be better ways of incentivizing the private sector to explore other energy options (and just as important, making them economically viable) than slapping together this hackneyed policy from the grandees on the Hill.

Perhaps, a grand, multi-national public-private partnership with seed money donated by the largest emitters that would funnel money through academic institutions around the world would be the first place to start.  Also, believe it or not, space exploration may be a place to go as well.

Solar energy may be better tapped outside our atmosphere and then distributed to earth than laying panels across miles and miles of desert.  Obviously, we’re not there yet, but that’s why we do things like go to space- so we can learn new lessons and then, implement them.

I’d rather spend money on exploring those types of possibilities than putting a damp squib on our waterlogged economy.

An amusing piece in Forbes discusses the rise of a new culture war.  Instead of the proverbial "right wing religious zealots" driving the agenda, the new culture warriors are going to be quasi-theological left wingers espousing and enforcing their doctrines on global warming and the evils of trans fat and lack of exercise.

I would just point out, at least the christian conservatives so hated by the urban, intellectual elite had a broad history and tradition to draw upon that also just happens to speak to man's inner needs.  This new, left wing variant is a vapid materialist mess. 

I often do not agree with Pat Buchanan as I find him often to be too much of a “paleoconservative” unable to come to terms with some of the realities we now face. However, as I watch the direction this country is moving in, I cannot help but feel he is much more right than wrong in his recent analysis,

“While the hardest working and most productive are bled, a third of all wage-earners pay no U.S. income tax, and Obama plans to free almost half of all wage-earners of all income taxes. Yet, tens of millions get Medicaid, rent supplements, free education, food stamps, welfare and an annual check from Uncle Sam called an Earned Income Tax Credit, though they never paid a nickel in income taxes.

Oh, yes. Obama also promises everybody a college education.

Coming to America to feast on this cornucopia of freebies is the world. One million to 2 million immigrants, legal and illegal, arrive every year. They come with fewer skills and less education than Americans, and consume more tax dollars than they contribute by three to one.

Wise Latina women have more babies north of the border than they do in Mexico and twice as many here as American women.

As almost all immigrants are now Third World people of color, they qualify for ethnic preferences in hiring and promotions and admissions to college over the children of Americans

All of this would have astounded and appalled the Founding Fathers, who after all, created America—as they declared loud and clear in the Constitution—“for ourselves and our posterity.”

China saves, invests and grows at 8 percent. America, awash in debt, has a shrinking economy, a huge trade deficit, a gutted industrial base, an unemployment rate surging toward 10 percent and a money supply that’s swollen to double its size in a year. The 20th century may have been the American Century. The 21st shows another pattern.

“The United States is declining as a nation and a world power with mostly sighs and shrugs to mark this seismic event,” writes Les Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, in CFR’s Foreign Affairs magazine. “Astonishingly, some people do not appear to realize that the situation is all that serious.”

Even the establishment is starting to get the message.”

We are living in a dream world where obsession with celebrity anesthetizesthe pain of coping with catastrophic failure which is barreling towards us at unprecedented speed. We are on the verge of making decisions that will result in our irrevocable failure. 

The portents for the world truly are disillusioning. America is willingly allowing itself to sink beneath the same sands of time that have covered past great powers. Our opportunities for limiting this are becoming more limited by the day.

 

So now we have one of the first “big think” speeches meant to outline President Obama’s nascent vision of foreign policy.  Ironically enough, the person tasked with this grand unveiling was his former rival for President but now partner, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

This article by Thomas Barnett is very approving of the vision outlined by Clinton and zeroes in on this portion of her recent speech to the Council on Foreign Relations:

“Our approach to foreign policy must reflect the world as it is, not as it used to be. It does not make sense to adapt a 19th century concert of powers, or a 20th century balance of power strategy. We cannot go back to Cold War containment or to unilateralism.

Today, we must acknowledge two inescapable facts that define our world:

First, no nation can meet the world's challenges alone. . . . Second, most nations worry about the same global threats. . . .

So these two facts demand a different global architecture -- one in which states have clear incentives to cooperate and live up to their responsibilities, as well as strong disincentives to sit on the sidelines or sow discord and division. . . .

And here's how we'll do it . . . We'll use our power to convene, our ability to connect countries around the world, and sound foreign policy strategies to create partnerships aimed at solving problems. We'll go beyond states to create opportunities for non-state actors and individuals to contribute to solutions. . . .

In short, we will lead by inducing greater cooperation among a greater number of actors and reducing competition, tilting the balance away from a multi-polar world and toward a multi-partner world.”

Clearly, Clinton is saying that any resurrection of the old school “balance of power” must be resisted as must all other major strains within the American foreign policy tradition- containment and unilateralism.

I suppose this is an interesting vision, but I think it’s a dishonest one.  I find it devoid of the all important conservative insight that man simply doesn’t fundamentally change his nature and that “interests” and perceptions of interests clash. 

Cooperation is all fine and good and a “global architecture” may seem like a reasonable idea, complete with “incentives” for those who wish to create solutions to our transnational problems.  But what happens when individual state interests inevitably clash?  Cooperation is only possible when interests at some level coincide. 

It is quite likely our interests with nations like China and India will coincide on substantial issues (though not all like “global warming”). It is far less likely our interests with Russia, Iran, or North Korea will coincide.  Consequently, all this talk of a “multi-partner” world seems as quixotic to me as the old Bush era nostrums regarding the prevention of the rise of “near-peer” competitors.  In fact, it may be even more so.

At least Bush recognized that stability is brought when there is no power vacuum for a competitor to seek to fill.  While predicated perhaps too much on “hard” military power, at least this had a historical basis for understanding strategic realities. 

All this talk about cooperation has no real basis in historical fact.  It is a dream that intellectuals and even many policymakers have articulated for years (think of Kant’s “perpetual peace” or Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations ).  Yet it remains today still a dream.  We can’t even get the United Nations to take meaningful steps in a place like Sudan because there are too many differing interests looming behind the scenes.

 If President Obama and Secretary Clinton don’t understand this, they are immensely dangerous due to a misguided and inaccurate view of reality.  If they do understand this reality, then the speech is nothing more than pretty words put together to pacify the intellectual class and those tired by the exertions required of a superpower.

The article lays bare the problems inherent in America ’s education system and is unabashed about the dire consequences,

“As a nation we are crippling the next generation of visionaries by retarding their intellectual growth with bad educational policy as surely as we might if we were adding lead to their drinking water.

Scientists and inventors, philosophers and artists, entrepreneurs and statesmen, individuals who conceive of and accomplish great things do not emerge from schools and colleges that emphasize low-level thinking and a curriculum without intellectual depth or rigor. They emerge in spite of them.”

In essence, this piece argues that our education system is weakening its educational standards in order to meet the guidelines established by things like “No Child Left Behind.”  By doing this, schools are lessening the challenge of the material being taught and leave children often with only rote memorization as the sine qua non of achievement.

Rather than working to educate the best and brightest, schools now are merely teaching the “fundamentals” so that everyone can succeed. 

Unfortunately, this means that some of those that really do fall into the category of “best and brightest” are not being challenged and not being forced to really grapple with the higher level thinking that will be necessary as America continues to embark on a voyage into the strange and unchartered territory of globalization, international finance, terrorism, WMD proliferation, disease pandemics, rising inequality, etc.

This should be a cause for immense concern.  If America is to retain its position, it will need good minds that have been forged through the trials of rigorous education as opposed to merely promoted along in order to avoid conflict.

I think this should be required reading for each and every education policymaker.  The stakes are too high to continue allowing complacency to set in.  Indeed, if “Strategic thinkers need to be able to see “the big picture” and handle uncertainty, or they cannot be said to be strategic thinkers,” we must offer them the opportunity to do just that.  Otherwise, we will fail because our most precious resource has been irreparably diminished through our own malign neglect.

 As a classical military historian, Victor Davis Hanson always bears reading.  His recent entry reflecting on our most recent (post-Kennedy) presidents is another "classic" read.

This time he uses arguably the greatest english language historian, Edward Gibbon, to provide perspectice on our presidents and on what America itself expects of its presidents.  Unsurprisingly, he finds that "greatness" is no longer what it once was and makes the unfavorable comparison to our era as being analogous to the post-Marcus Aurelius age in Roman imperial history.

He specifically cites the historical Commodus (not quite what the movie Gladiator portrays but close enough) as being an emblem of Rome's downward spiral:

"Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower were all re-elected. While contemporaries were critical of all three, they proved successful, stable executives.

In contrast, there has been no such stability during the last 50 years in this country, even as we have become ever more wealthy."

It would not be surprising to find that I agree with much of what Hanson says here.  The wisdom of our leaders does not seem so great, nor does it seem that we are producing such men today.  Perhaps, part of the problem is that we no longer teach classics with the same reverence we once did.  This automatically eliminates so many worthwhile models for emulation.  It also eliminates a few good examples of hubris that do a better job exemplyifying human frailty than our current crop of "hollow men."

This is indispensable reading on Robert McNamara, MAD, and nuclear deterrence.

As for my thoughts, I believe deterrence will become essential in the near future as the "Golden Age of Proliferation" continues. However, it must be done in conjunction with missile defense.  President Obama is wrong on this as I believe we need ultimate flexibility on offense and defense. By contrast he wants to limit offensive flexibility by negotiating down our stockpiles with the Russians while simultaneously considering the downgrade of defense by underfunding missile defense technology and reexamining  our plans for deployment of such systems in eastern European .

The tragedy of this entire issue, is a "promethean" tragedy.  We can't unlearn how to make this hellfire and despite its potential for burning all who touch it, the prestige it brings to the table in international relations is significant.   For some, it may be perceived as  a hedge against future aggression and a lever to press their own agendas or redress grievances.  We can't wish that away or negotiate from imaginary positions of moral righteousness.

It is almost shocking how ridiculous the recent controversy over the "secret CIA" plans to assassinate al-Qaeda members is.

This cool-headed analysis by Stratfor showcases why such programs are kep secret from Congress and with good reason.

"Loose Lips Sink Ships

As trite as this old saying may sound, it is painfully true. In the counterterrorism realm, leaks destroy counterterrorism cases and often allow terrorist suspects to escape and kill again. There have been several leaks of “sources and methods” by congressional sources over the past decade that have disclosed details of sensitive U.S. government programs designed to do things such as intercept al Qaeda satellite phone signals and track al Qaeda financing. A classified appendix to the report of the 2005 Robb-Silberman Commission on Intelligence Capabilities (which incidentally was leaked to the press) discussed several such leaks, noted the costs they impose on the American taxpayers and highlighted the damage they do to intelligence programs.

The fear that details of a sensitive program designed to assassinate al Qaeda operatives in foreign countries could be leaked was probably the reason for the Bush administration’s decision to withhold knowledge of the program from the U.S. Congress."

So, we should tell Congress what we're getting ready to do so that it can be and most likely will be leaked by political opponents of the Administration?  Now, we're going to haul people to testify before special committees and maybe appoint special prosecutors?  How unserious is the debate in Washington?  Apparently very unserious.

Note this interesting bit about how 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed escaped capture in 1996, 5 years before 9/11 thanks to a leak,

"A prime example of this occurred in 1996, when the United States asked the government of Qatar for assistance in capturing al Qaeda operational mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was living openly in Qatar and even working for the Qatari government as a project engineer. Mohammed was tipped off to American intentions by the Qatari authorities and fled to Pakistan. According to the 9/11 commission report, Mohammed was closely associated with Sheikh Abdullah bin Khalid al-Thani, who was then the Qatari minister of religious affairs. After fleeing Doha, Mohammed went on to plan several al Qaeda attacks against the United States, including the 9/11 operation."

Granted this was a leak apparently by a foreign government, but it is illustrative of the problem. 

If Congress is so upset, maybe its members should think long and hard about the next leak they give to the New York Times to embarass a political opponent. 

From First Things Post Modern Conservative blog, a clarion call to defend human nobility from the vast dehumanizing impact of secular humanism:

"And to re-enthrone an “alternative” understanding that for our Founders was so firm that it could remain largely implicit, namely, that a good human existence, a truly humane existence, requires acknowledgement of “sacred limits” (Strauss) to individual self-expression, and therefore some shared horizon that is essentially religious, however general, that is, to re-enthrone “virtue,” this is a philosophical-political project, a kind of regime re-founding that cannot be defended or pursued by the via negativa of resisting federal incursions and praising family farms (which I think I like). We cannot break the compulsive grip of individualization/centralization except by confronting the understanding of the good from which it springs. (This of course does not mean constructing an alternative Pure Theory of the Good.) Lincoln was right about this at least: public opinion is everything, and I see no hope for our country short of a sea change in public opinion. I don’t know just how or even whether such a change is possible, but I am convinced that “all who remain enamored of the genuine greatness of man should unite and do combat” against this compulsive grip of extreme secular liberalism."

We must convince the present generation, and most definitely the future, of what "greatness" is.  Otherwise, we will continue a slide into mediocrity and future historians will definitively place America in the same pantheon with other fallen great powers.

I've been thinking a great deal about Henry Kissinger lately.  Kissinger is truly a towering figure in the history of American foreign policy and is probably THE embodiement of the foreign policy "establishment."  So many future foreign policymakers began their careers under Kissinger and so many Presidents (including the current one) have solicited his advice, that it is imperative to examine his career and his philosophy in detail.

With this in mind, I just completed reading a book that sought to make sense of his philosophy of history and have been listening to reenactments of now declassified transcripts of his conversations with leaders like Brehznev, Mao, and Deng Xiaoping. 

A quick primer on his views on contemporary events can be found in this Der Spiegel interview.  Several interesting sections below highlight his views about how the intrnational system should operate:

SPIEGEL: The Treaty of Versailles was meant to end all wars. That was the goal of President Woodrow Wilson when he came to Paris. As it turned out, only 20 years later Europe was plunged into an even more devastating world war. Why?

Kissinger: Any international system must have two key elements for it to work. One, it has to have a certain equilibrium of power that makes overthrowing the system difficult and costly. Secondly, it has to have a sense of legitimacy. That means that the majority of the states must believe that the settlement is essentially just. Versailles failed on both grounds. The Versailles meetings excluded the two largest continental powers: Germany and Russia. If one imagines that an international system had to be preserved against a disaffected defector, the possibility of achieving a balance of power within it was inherently weak. Therefore, it lacked both equilibrium and a sense of legitimacy.

SPIEGEL: In Paris we saw the clash of two foreign policy principles: the idealism embodied by Wilson who encountered a kind of realpolitik embodied by the Europeans which was above all based on the law of the strongest. Can you explain the failure of the American approach?

Kissinger: The American view was that peace is the normal condition among states. To ensure lasting peace, an international system must be organized on the basis of domestic institutions everywhere, which reflect the will of the people, and that will of the people is considered always to be against war. Unfortunately, there is no historic evidence that this is true.

SPIEGEL: So in your view, peace is not the normal condition among states?

Kissinger: The preconditions for a lasting peace are much more complex than most people are aware of. It was not an historic truth but an assertion of the view of a country composed of immigrants that had turned their backs on a continent and had absorbed itself for 200 years in its domestic politics...

Kissinger: Cynics treat values as equivalent and instrumental. Statesmen base practical decisions on moral convictions. It is always easy to divide the world into idealists and power-oriented people. The idealists are presumed to be the noble people, and the power-oriented people are the ones that cause all the world's trouble. But I believe more suffering has been caused by prophets than by statesmen. For me, a sensible definition of realpolitik is to say there are objective circumstances without which foreign policy cannot be conducted. To try to deal with the fate of nations without looking at the circumstances with which they have to deal is escapism. The art of good foreign policy is to understand and to take into consideration the values of a society, to realize them at the outer limit of the possible.

I wrote on some of these themes last year after reading Kissinger's doctoral thesis which was turned into a book: A World Restored that focused on the post-Napoleonic balance of power.  In this book, now nearly 50 years old, Kissinger hits on the theme of prophets and statesmen as he does in the Der Spiegel interview,

"But the claims of the prophet are sometimes as dissolving as those of the conqueror. For the claims of the prophet are a counsel of perfection, and perfection implies uniformity. Utopias are not achieved except by a process of leveling and dislocation which must erode all patterns of obligation. These are the two great symbols of the attacks on the legitimate order: the Conqueror and the Prophet, the quest for universality and for eternity, for the peace of impotence and the peace of bliss.

But the statesman must remain forever suspicious of these efforts, not because he enjoys the pettiness of manipulation, but because he must be prepared for the worst contingency."

This ongoing concern with the distinctions between "prophets" and "statesmen" is a recurrent theme within Kissinger's corpus of written and spoken work.  Why?

Kissinger is different from most major American policymakers because he views the world through a different lens than practically any other leader of his stature (we are talking about the only person to serve as both Secretary of State and National Security Advisor contemporaneously). 

Kissinger was Jewish and born in Germany.  Indeed, he was deeply scarred by the Holocaust, having lost family members in the concentration camps of the Third Reich.  This left Kissinger seemingly cold to providence and faith in the transcendent, at least of a "cosmic" transcendence.  These quotes from his undergraduate thesis reinforce this pessimistic strain,

"Life is suffering, birth involves death...

Transitoriness is the fate of existence. No civilization has yet been permanent, no longing completely fulfilled. This is necessity, the fatedness of history, the dilemma of mortality."

Some have argued that the Kissinger that survived the Holocaust and emigrated to America was a doom and gloom "Spenglerian." This view holds that he was desperately attempting to keep America afloat after the debacle in Vietnam in order to stall a general "Decline of the West."  While the above quote offers some solace for this view,  I believe this has been debunked by any careful reading of Kissinger's cirticisms of Spengler. 

Rather, Kissinger's superficially cynical attempts to maximize power seem to be an effort of will and nearly artistic creation.  In this sense, he strikes me as a somewhat Romantic German, alomst Nietzschean.  He seems to to have found meaning in self transcendence and used the stage of international diplomacy as a canvas.  He wanted to be a true architect of a long lasting (though as I am sure he would admit limited) international system.  His disdain for "prophets" was his understanding of their innately destructive characteristics.  They destroy the existing order in a messianic fervor that leaves no room for stability and the erecting of a structure that can withstand the passage of time beyond that which occurs in the mere blink of an eye.

Evidence that Kissinger appreciated a statesman's ability to find freedom of action within themself, can be found in his undergraduate thesis,

"An analysis if historical phenomena reveals but the inevitability inherent in completed action.  Freedom, on the other hand, testifies to an act of self-transcendance which overcomes the inexorability of events by infusing them with its spirituality.  The ultimate meaning of histoy- as of life- we can find only within ourselves."

So Kissinger desired to be a statesman to discover meaning in a world where meaning was difficult to find through the ashes of a devastated Europe and in the midst of a contest between two superpowers with the ability to reduce the rest of the world to ashes as well. 

I think there is more to transcendence than an act of human will as reflected in creativity.   I believe creating a stable world order, one underwritten by power, is a moral act in a grand sense.  I believe this is so even if the roads travelled towards this objective are poorly illuminated and murky.

Kissinger offers many lessons, many of which are essential for a nuanced understanding of diplomacy behind the obligatory facades.  But I think we must ulimately find transcendence and the meaning to history outside of ourselves, lest we be forever trapped in a historicist prison with no key. 

I wonder, is this where Kissinger still finds himself today?

This Spengler piece that argues that President Obama's desire to retrench American power in the wake of the "misdeeds" of the Bush Administration will cause a vacuum to materialize and numerous new dangers.

In large measure, I think this is true on a wide variety of fronts.  America IS the grand stabilizer.  Even its misdeeds are relatively benign in comparison to most outcomes.   Obviously in this context, "relative" can become a loaded term as outcomes are often not "good" in the sense we might prefer and often are in an absolute sense "bad."

All that said, to look at America as the fountainhead of evil imperialism is an extremely misguided view.  As Spengler asserts,

"Obama's continuing obsession with America's supposed misdeeds - deplorable but necessary actions in time of war - is consistent with his determination to erode America's influence in the most troubled parts of the world. By removing America as a referee, he will provoke more violence than the United States ever did. We are entering a very, very dangerous period as a result."

President Obama wants to remake America to be more fair and more just, yet by piling on the debt, creating larger government bureaucracy that will only lead to sclerosis and a required retrenching from global affairs, he will create a world far more unjust.  This won't be a world of enlightened cooperation, it will be a world  where Hobbesian rules gain influence and fill the global power vacuum left by the self imposed limitation of a self interested, self absorbed, and deeply confused former superpower.

I'm all for "realism", but realism is intended to preserve one's capital for later expenditure.  Does President Obama see where things must move rather than where he thinks they should move to be "just?" 

Renewal at home, strength abroad.  That is the burden history places on America today.  President Bush did not live up to that burden in the final analysis.  I do not think President Obama will either.  So prepare yourself for the sucking sound of global power disappearing into a neo-Middle Ages of instability, chaos, and violence.

As with any moment in time, the future is not yet written, we have choices to make.  Will we as Americans make the right ones?

This interview with James Poulos, whi is a doctoral candidate in political theory at Georgetown University and founding editor of obne of my new favorite blogs,  Postmodern Conservative, is the kind of reading all thoughtful conservatives should do.  It confronts a very serious dilema that we face- how do we live as individuals in the current modern and "Liberal" with a big "L" (as opposed to a classical liberal of the Burke or even Adam Smith variety).

Several interesting quotes

"The big challenge today, I think, is convincing people—especially younger people—that a life in which political liberty has been readily surrendered in exchange for great cultural or “personal” freedom is not a good life, either individually or socially. The willingness to be carried along to that destination, particularly under the impression that it’s basically inevitable, ought to be something that everyone with anything at all nice to say about NR’s (National Review) editors should unite against...

Conservatives are at great pains to convince themselves and one another that their vision of the good or virtuous life is not a mere lifestyle choice. Conservatives don’t just want to experience happiness or individuality—they want assurances, reliable enough that their souls may rest in them, that their progeny will be able to live, indefinitely, more or less as they do. If there’s no reason to live that way outside idiosyncratic personal choice, they’ll fail to inculcate their way of life, and lifestyle-choosing liberals will turn their children and grandchildren into individuals who could be just anyone."

This piece got me thinking about many different things, not only those specific issues raised by the interview itself.

So what do we "conserve" as "conservatives?"  There is much more to this than just being a "fiscal conservative."  After all a "fiscal conservative" can be an amazingly selfish and greedy person who does not care about anything outside of their own self-fulfillment.

If being fiscally conservative, however, is married, so to speak, with an overall cultural renewal, then, that fiscal conservatism is no longer a means only to one's self satisfaction, but is a morally responsible position that can allow us to give more to our family, our friends, and our community.

So, we conserve money for a greater good than oneself.  But what else?  Isn't conservation about saving things that are vitally important to us, possibly even necessary for life itself?  Isn't that what the "conservation" movement is all about when it comes to "saving the planet?"

So isn't being "conservative" about saving  something that will sustain us, not only materially, but spiritually?  Isn't it about maintaining a connection to our roots, our family, and our cultural heritage that has historically shaped, though not determined, what and who we are?

So conservatives must "conserve" more than their individuality, they must conserve those instituions that transcend, otherwise, do we not lose touch with any sense of eternity?

In this respect, I think the "virtuous life" is much more than a mere "lifestyle choice."  It is a life that attempts to raise our horizons to something much higher than ourselves, and even higher than mere man.  For youth that seek the stimulation of "personal" freedom, conservatives must offer a more comprehensive vision, a vision of greatness, transcendance, and the eternal.  These are that which should be "conserved" because they are what give us true inspiration and bring us closer (if not into the direct presence of) Truth.

Faith, family, and community are where these senses of the transcendent reside and those, even more than the fiscal arena, is what we must conserve.

How we do this is another question.

John Bolton, a scourge to the liberal left, has written a cogent piece that describes the dangers of President Obama and what he terms a "Post American" Presidency.

"Obama is the first post-American President. Central to his worldview is rejecting American exceptionalism and the consequences that flow therefrom. Since an overwhelming majority of the world's population would welcome the demise of American exceptionalism, they are delighted with Obama. 

One student interviewed after an Obama town hall meeting during his first presidential trip to Europe said ecstatically, "He sounds like a European." Indeed he does."

Of course, I have commented at length on the problem represented by President Obama in numerous other posts.  Bolton essentially recapitulates the core line of argument.  I do think President Obama believes America to be like every other nation which makes his views in many ways inescapable.  If there is nothing particularly great about America and it just happened to stumble into its present position of global power (or worse malevolently established its position), then there is not really a good reason not to rein it back in to what would be acceptable to other nations.

I freely admit that America is not sinless.  Indeed it does have blood on its hands over any number of issues.  However, America is a unique country as it is the exemplar of a universal political creed.  Anyone can be "American" if they choose to be such.  This is not so in China, India, Japan, or any European nation (just ask their immigrant communities).

This is exceptional and makes America a beacon to many.  President Obama's universalism, by contrast, equivocates and seeks to become submerged in some globalized stew without mandating assimilation, which is the key to a successful universality.  That is a recipe for disaster.

Additionally, his views on negotiation may appear enlightened in contrast to the "cowboy" that preceded him, but when our enemies stand strong, will President Obama retain the stiffness of spine to counter that, even if it gets him criticized by a formerly adulatory media? 

Will President Obama recognize American interests and realize them to be the key to true universality, or will he play the European game of espousing universality yet coming up perpetually short?