Is America a Declining Power?

That was the tenor of the first two segments of the O'Reilly Factor last night. With rising deficits, unemployment, and the war in Afghanistan going poorly, O'Reilly made the thesis that we, as a nation, are in decline. He had on Lou Dobbs to concur with this opinion and then Ellis Henican to counter.



Unfortunately, the whole thing took on a partisan tone and so the point was lost. Dobbs is no fan of President Obama and so he agreed with O'Reilly's statements. He pointed to many of Obama's policies which are weakening the dollar and causing deficits we can't handle as evidence that we're declining. Meanwhile, Ellis Henican, himself a supporter of the President, sees our president as reestablishing our place in the world and so he sees Obama reestablishing us as a power.

Ultimately, whether we're a declining power is not a partisan issue. It's much bigger than President Obama. In fact, when a fellow blogger, Shanika Chapman, interviewed me, she asked me just this question and here's how I answered it.

I have no fears for the United States of America? This country has overcome so
much. It defeated the tyranny of the Monarchy of Britain. It overcame the evil of slavery and the country eventually gave women the full rights of men. In the long term, this country not only survives but it thrives.

The idea that America is in decline must be set into historical context. For instance, a $12 trillion debt is nothing compared to a country at war with itself. That's exactly what happened in 1861. The country not only survived that but thrived as a result. We spent the entire decade of the 1930's with double digit unemployment. It peaked at 25% and never fell below 13% during FDR's entire first two terms. We not only survived that but thrived through it.

Look at what awaited us in the beginning of the 1980's. We had just lost our first war not a decade earlier. We had double digit unemployment and inflation. Yet, we ended the decade with a thriving economy and having defeated the Soviet Union.

In the 1880's, the economy got so bad that we were facing a state of deflation for the first and only time in our history. In other words, goods and services were getting cheaper. We not only survived that period in our history but it ushered in the industrial revolution.

So, this country has been here before. It's faced challenges just like this before. No doubt there were plenty of pundits that claimed, much like O'Reilly now, that we were in decline then. Each and every time, we faced those challenges and thrived.

We have tough times. There's no doubt about that. There are no easy answers. There were, however, no easy answers in previous times of challenges. We made it through and I am fully confident we'll make it through again.

Our "Extraordinarily Intellectual" President

(H/T to Power Line) In this Washington Post story, there appears to be another reincarnation of the media's reminders of the public that President Obama is extraordinarily brilliant.

The president is a very sophisticated thinker and understands the implications of these decisions and events. . .I think he is making sure he makes the best decisions and sometimes you cannot just wipe the slate clean. You have to deal with what the facts are or you have to actually try to make sure you can ascertain the facts, as opposed to some of the hyperbole that is out there.

...

There are some things [Obama] recognizes are the attorney general's prerogative to do, but at the same time it's not like he just says, "well, whatever he does, he'll do. [Obama] wants to make sure we take into account those decisions and take the appropriate steps within the White House to deal with them, particularly from the standpoint of making sure we maintain that very capable, robust counterterrorism capability."

This has been repeated by some in the media that it's turned into a mantra and a broken record. The fixation by some to convince the public that President Obama is uniquely intelligent in a way no president has ever been before is equally misleading and totally without context. First, if geniuses made the best presidents, then all our presidents would have been geniuses. Second, it's far from clear that President Obama is uniquely intelligent in a way that no other president has ever been before.

Whenever anyone starts to measure the intellect of a president and use that intellect to try and prove some larger political point, I go back in history. First, Andrew Jackson could barely read. Jackson was far from an intellectual. While we can debate his place in history, it's hard to argue that Jackson was a unique and transformative president. Clearly, his lack of intellect didn't hurt him that much. Ronald Reagan graduated from Euraka College, not Harvard. No one is saying that Reagan was dumb, but he was certainly not a president of uniquely extraordinary intellect. Yet, he also was a transformative president. Abraham Lincoln wasn't necessarily a man of extraordinary intellect and yet he was instrumental in ending slavery.

I have no doubt that President Obama is extremely intelligent. I don't even doubt that he's more intelligent than the overwhelming majority of citizens of the U.S. I also don't doubt that most presidents are smarter than most of the citizenry they serve. No one has shown how Obama is somehow much smarter than most presidents. More than that, no one has show why it would even matter.

Whenever anyone makes the claim that Obama is really, really, really, really smart, what they are really saying is don't worry about his policies because you just don't get it. Obama, you see, just understands the world better than us simpletons. So, when we are concerned about his policies, that's because we don't get it.

I would challenge all of it. If Obama is so smart, why did he think that saddling the country with overwhelming debt was the only way to move us out of a recession. Warren Harding, no intellectual heavy weight, cut spending and taxes when he faced a severe recession in the beginning of his administration. That recession did not lead to a depression and in fact ushered in a decade of outstanding growth. If Obama is so smart, why does he think that a big government overhaul of health care is the best option? Furthermore, if he's so smart why can't he see that his health care reform package has no hope of passing?

The reality is that alluding to Obama being extraordinarily intellectual is a trojan horse. It's a way to change the debate from the subject at hand. In the Washington Post piece, the story was actually about AG Holder's appointment of a special prosecutor for the CIA investigation. In this case, Obama's intellect should be of no relevance. The decision was supposedly entirely that of Holders. So, who cares how smart Obama is? This is a constant technique of many in the media. It's subtle justification for a policy. It isn't the job of the media to offer justifications for Obama's policies. His intellect is irrelevant. As such, his policies need to be analyzed on their merits not on his supposed extraordinary intellect.

Mr. President: If You Really Want To Emulate Abraham Lincoln...

President Obama has a keen desire to emulate Abraham Lincoln. For instance, he took the oath of office on the very same Bible that Abraham Lincoln took it on. He took a train ride that mirrored the train ride that Lincoln took in anticipation of his own inauguration. They are of course both from Illinois. No doubt, President Obama would like nothing more than to one day be revered much like Lincoln was. The comparisons between he and Lincoln are rather immense considering that President Obama has only held the office for just more than 48 hours.

Of course, I would like to suggest to President Obama one point upon which he could emulate Lincoln. It is a point that in fact President Obama has decided to take an entirely different direction. During the Civil War Lincoln set up military tribunals to try war criminals. Now, he didn't try Confederate Soldiers in these tribunals. That's because Confederate soldiers, those captured, were considered POW's and held until the end of the war. Instead, Lincoln tried civilians that were illegally helping the Confederacy.

Now, some might claim that there is a difference between what Lincoln did and today. In fact, it is quite the same. The terrorists wear no uniforms. They commit illegal acts of war. So, much like those folks that Lincoln tried, they should be tried in front of military courts as well. Lincoln understood full well that during war time illegally contributing to the enemies' war effort is an illegal act of war.

In much the same way, terrorists wear no uniforms, target civilians, and thus they too are committing illegal acts of war. In fact, Barack Obama could look to a more recent President that he also emulates for guidance. FDR, during WWII, tried seven German saboteurs in a military court as well. These seven German spies entered our waters wearing civilian clothes and their mission was to target civilians in an attempt to create terror.

In the midst of World War II, two German submarines actually put men ashore at both of those locations. The invaders did not arrive with the intent of seizing and occupying territory, however. Their mission was sabotage. Their targets were some of the crown jewels of America’s industrial might: major hydroelectric plants, important aluminum factories, critical railroad tracks, bridges and canals–and the water supply system of New York City.

FDR understood full well that these spies weren't merely criminals. Instead, they were enemies, illegal ones at that, committing illegal war crimes. As such, FDR tried the saboteurs in a military court.

Yet, Barack Obama insists on trying terrorists, many currently held at GITMO, in civilian federal court. By doing so, he lowers their deeds to crimes. They didn't merely steal something, kill someone, or con someone. They attempted to put a plan into large buildings. Such an act is not a crime but rather an act of war, and an illegal one at that.

Barack Obama has maintained that we are in fact in the middle of a war. Yet, he reduces what our enemies have perpetrated, and continue to plot, to merely crimes when he insists on trying them in civilian courts. By lumping the terrorists in with common criminals, President Obama also lumps in their deeds with common crimes. Such thinking is dangerous. Their actions weren't merely crimes. They were acts of war and illegal ones at that. The place where they should be adjudicated is in a military court where illegal acts of war can be properly adjudicated.

President Obama should look to the example of two icons of the Presidency, two folks he clearly aspires to be, for guidance on this matter. If he really wants to emulate Lincoln and FDR, I would start with keeping the trials Al Qaeda in a military court where they belong.

Bush, Iraq, and Winston Churchill

Among his many accomplishments, Winston Churchill is author of two of my favorite quotes

History is written by winners

and

History will be kind to me for I intend to write it

Both these quotes were used by Churchill during WWII. Chruchill is now rightly lionized the world over but there were dark days during WWII when things looked really bad for his own legacy not to mention the country he lead. Yet, Churchill knew then that ultimately warfare is the fairest being there is. All that matters are the results. Churchill understand that ultimately his fate and legacy rested in victory. Through its darkest days, Churchill never lost sight of this and always believed that in the end he would be on the right side of history. Ultimately, he was proven right.

In fact, that is the nature of the beast in warfare. Lincoln has rightly been lionized. So much so, that most people don't know just how difficult the Civil War was. They don't know how close he came to losing. Most don't know that for four years he fumbled through the war and made mistake after mistake. In fact, most don't know that Lincoln's opponents not only chided his incompetence but called the Civil War a war of choice. Here is how his Democratic opponents characterized Lincoln and the Civil War in 1864.\

Resolved, That this convention does explicitly declare, as the sense of the American people, that after four years of failure to restore the Union by the experiment of war, during which, under the pretense of a military necessity of war-power higher than the Constitution, the Constitution itself has been disregarded in every part, and public liberty and private right alike trodden down, and the material prosperity of the country essentially impaired, justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand that immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities, with a view of an ultimate convention of the States, or other peaceable means, to the end that, at the earliest practicable moment, peace may be restored on the basis of the Federal Union of the States.

It is in this context that I view the never ending criticism of Bush by pundits and opponents. There is a near never ending stream of criticism of his entire Presidency. His legacy will no doubt be complicated and certainly the current state of the economy will be an x factor. That will be determined by how deep this recession gets. Yet, Bush's critics would also like to reverse the natural order of things on warfare as well. Now that the Iraq War has clearly been won, his critics seem to think that they can will his legacy on this matter negatively regardless. This piece by Steve Chapman is a great example, though one of many.

Bush insisted on fighting a war that didn't need to be fought, on the assumption it would be easy, for purposes that could have been achieved without getting more than 4,200 Americans killed and 30,000 wounded, not to mention squandering upward of a trillion dollars.

The problem is not that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction (as UN weapons inspectors in Iraq were on their way to confirming before the war began). It's that even if he did, they would have been militarily worthless, because using them would have guaranteed his immediate annihilation -- which explains why Hussein didn't use chemical weapons in the first Gulf War. WMD or not, he was a danger we could easily contain.

His critics call it a distraction, a waste of money, and a waste of treasure. Of course, his critics won't decide how its viewed. This war, like all wars, will be viewed through a very simple prism, who won. With the long and frustrating failure of four years of Rumsfeld policy still fresh in our minds, his critics seem to think that this is also how history will judge him. It won't. Lincoln had a similar run of failure and history has made those four years a footnote as well. FDR's first two years of WWII were no picnic either, yet, that's barely more than a footnote now. So, too, will the Iraq War be written by its winners as well. That winner is the United States of America and it was led by George Bush.

History will be kind to Bush on Iraq much like it was kind to Lincoln. History doesn't focus on his four years of failure. Instead, history focuses on him finally getting it right. History will spend very little time on the four years that Bush fumbled through the war with Rumsfeld, and instead, it will focus on Bush changing strategy and having that strategy work.

Frankly, history should do this. Everyone understands that war is tough and no one comes out of it without making all sorts of mistakes. Ultimately, what matters are the results. It matters not that Lincoln couldn't figure out a good strategy for four years. What matters was that he finally found U.S. Grant and lead the North to victory. In the same way, it won't matter much that Bush got it wrong for four years. What will matter was that once and for all he got it right.

Furthermore, the spoils of victory will be long lasting. Iraq will be free for generations. The dictatorship has turned into a Democracy. Removing a tyrant and replacing that tyrant with a Democracy is a legacy we'd all like to have. That is the legacy that awaits George Bush regarding the Iraq War. That legacy awaits him because like all wars, history will be written by the winner.

Lincoln's Moral Clarity

Winston Churchill once famously said that history is written by winners. Nowhere is that true than in the history that surrounds Abraham Lincoln. By winning the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln insured that his place in history was cemented in a lionized manner. That isn't to say that his awesome legacy isn't well deserved. Still, history overlooks Lincoln's repeated dismissal of the Constitution. It dismisses the great difficulty that victory was achieved with. Yet, it is all those things that history has minimized that gave Lincoln his moral clarity.

Throughout the prosecution and the aftermath of the Civil War, Lincoln only used the Constitution when it became convenient for goals that he saw as more overriding. In fact, the whole premise of the Civil War was a usurption of the Constitution. Slavery, at the time, was written into the Constitution. In order to amend the Constitution, it would have taken three fourths of the states to ratify an amendment. Of course, this was never going to happen since the Southern states would vote in unison against changing the Constitution. At the time of Lincoln's inauguration, he planned on including several more states into the Union and each would likely vote to ratify an end to slavery. Before this could happen Southern states began one by one to secede.

The American Civil War (1861–65) began because leaders of Southern states were unhappy with the outcome of the 1860 presidential election, which was won by Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865). Fearful of losing their economic system, which was based on agriculture and dependent on slave labor, the Southern states began to act on their promise to secede (withdraw) from the United States (called the Union) and form their own nation. South Carolina was the first to secede, in December 1860. Five more states—Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana—followed in January 1861. When representatives from the six states met the next month in Montgomery, Alabama, they established the Confederate States of America (commonly called the Confederacy) and elected Jefferson Davis (1808–1889) as president. Two days before Lincoln's inauguration...

All of this was in fact perfectly within their rights as states. Lincoln forced the Civil War on the South even though they did everything within the confines of the Constitution.

In 1862, Abraham Lincoln not only declared martial law but suspended habeas corpus.

Along with a declaring martial law, President Abraham Lincoln ordered the suspension of the constitutionally protected right to writs of habeas corpus in 1861, shortly after the start of the American Civil War. At the time, the suspension applied only in Maryland and parts of the Midwestern states.

The Supreme Court eventually ruled that Lincoln was acting outside the confines of the Constitution in suspending habeas corpus though this ruling came after the war ended.

Finally, the 14th amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

which effectively ended slavery was also ratified without the proper seventy five percent of the states ratifying the amendment. Lincoln faced roughly the same problem as he faced in attempting to end slavery prior to the war. The Southern states were never going to go for such an amendment. The first confrontation lead to war. After the war, Lincoln simply ignored the guidelines laid out in order to add an amendment. Rather than following the Constitution, Lincoln simply imposed the 14th amendment on the defeated Southern states who were then in no position to argue.

Besides the bouts with a lack of Constitutional clarity, Lincoln also faced an ever more tenuous war effort. Here is how the 1864 Democratic Party platform...the platform of his opponents.

Resolved, That in the future, as in the past, we will adhere with unswerving fidelity to the Union under the Constitution as the only solid foundation of our strength, security, and happiness as a people, and as a framework of government equally conducive to the welfare and prosperity of all the States, both Northern and Southern.

Resolved, That this convention does explicitly declare, as the sense of the American people, that after four years of failure to restore the Union by the experiment of war, during which, under the pretense of a military necessity of war-power higher than the Constitution, the Constitution itself has been disregarded in every part, and public liberty and private right alike trodden down, and the material prosperity of the country essentially impaired, justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand that immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities, with a view of an ultimate convention of the States, or other peaceable means, to the end that, at the earliest practicable moment, peace may be restored on the basis of the Federal Union of the States.

Before finally attaining victory, Lincoln faced many dark days in which victory was not only not inevitable but frankly never in sight.

So, why did Lincoln subvert the Constitution and how did he get through all those dark days? Of course, only Abraham Lincoln himself really knows. I firmly believe though that Abraham Lincoln knew in his core that slavery was the great evil of its time. He knew that it must be confronted and that's what brought him into politics to begin with. He knew that even the Constitution itself could not be an unwitting accomplice in perpetuating this evil. Even in his darkest days, he knew that he was on the side of good against evil and that's what got him through. It was this moral clarity that got him through, and it's that moral clarity that has lionized his legacy. It was that moral clarity that allowed him to confront the evil of slavery without flinching. It's that sort of moral clarity that we need more of now.

Sarah Palin Religious Zealot?

Let's do a thought experiment and pretend that the likes of the Daily Kos and the current crop of MSM were around while some of our leaders of yester year were around. Let's just do a thought experiment about how the Kossacks and their MSM allies would have responded to some of these statements.

The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party - and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect His purpose

...

Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude, or the duration, which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes

...

My friends, no one, not in my situation, can appreciate my feeling of sadness at this parting. To this place, and the kindness of these people, I owe everything. Here I have lived a quarter of a century, and have passed from a young to an old man. Here my children have been born, and one is buried. I now leave, not knowing when, or whether ever, I may return, with a task before me greater than that which rested upon Washington. Without the assistance of the Divine Being who ever attended him, I cannot succeed. With that assistance I cannot fail. Trusting in Him who can go with me, and remain with you, and be everywhere for good, let us confidently hope that all will yet be well. To His care commending you, as I hope in your prayers you will commend me, I bid you an affectionate farewell

Can you imagine how the current crop of liberal media acolytes would have responded to a President linking a war to the hand of God the way in which Abraham Lincoln did? He would have been referred to as a religious zealot immediately.

Now, let's look at how some of our founding fathers would have been referred to by the same folks.

John Adams

It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more. You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not

Patrick Henry

It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here

Samuel Adams

We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom all alone men ought to be obedient. He reigns in Heaven, and with a propitious eye beholds his subjects assuming that freedom of thought, and dignity of self-direction which He bestowed on them. From the rising to the setting sun, may His kingdom come.

So, if the same media forces were around during the Revolutionary War, our founding fathers would also be branded as religious zealots.

What would the current media players call U.S. Grant when he made a holiday celebrated the birth of Jesus Christ a national holiday? So, I think it's clear that if the same media structure were always around most of our most influential would have then been painted as religious zealots. Here is an Associated Press story entitled "Palin: Iraq War is a Task From God"

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told ministry students at her former church that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a "task that is from God."

In an address last June, the Republican vice presidential candidate also urged ministry students to pray for a plan to build a $30 billion natural gas pipeline in the state, calling it "God's will."

Palin asked the students to pray for the troops in Iraq, and noted that her eldest son, Track, was expected to be deployed there.

"Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," she said. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."

So, let's put this in perspective. Sarah Palin, in the confines of a religious establishment, sees the hand of God during war time, much like Lincoln, Adams, and Patrick Henry, and the media sees this as implying some sort of religious zealotry.

Of course, that is only one story. Here is how the Miami Herald describes it. (H/T to Hot Air)

Sarah Palin often identifies herself simply as Christian.

Yet John McCain’s running mate has deep roots in Pentecostalism, a spirit-filled Christian tradition that is one of the fastest growing in the world. It’s often derided by outsiders and Bible-believers alike.

Palin was baptized Roman Catholic as a newborn. She was then baptized in a Pentecostal Assemblies of God church as a teen and attended that church until six years ago, when she and her family adopted a different home church, an independent evangelical church.

The nutroots are no different.

Speaking before the Pentecostal church, Palin painted the current war in Iraq as a messianic affair in which the United States could act out the will of the Lord.

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

Religion, however, was not strictly a thread in Palin's foreign policy. It was part of her energy proposals as well. Just prior to discussing Iraq, Alaska's governor asked the audience to pray for another matter -- a $30 billion national gas pipeline project that she wanted built in the state. "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said.

So if you are a member of today's media elite, any politician that hopes that God watches over them as they make decision that affect millions, then that makes said politicians religious extremists. In fact, if a person of faith ever hopes that the hand of God guides any of their decisions, then to the media elite that makes that person a religious zealot. Well, frankly, Sarah Palin should wear the tag of extremist and zealot as a badge of honor because based on the current guidelines for entry into zealotry, the list would also include such folks as Abraham Lincoln, U.S. Grant, Samuel and John Adams, and Patrick Henry. Frankly, that is a fraternity I would like to be a part of as well.