Regular TRR reader David sent in a link to this article in AmericanThinker, which supposes that the outcome of the midterm elections amounts to little more than a brief pit stop on the path of inevitable decline and collapse down which America is rushing. Here's an excerpt....[emphasis mine]
Elections matter only in the short term. Every long-term social index I am aware of is negative. The plain fact is that the American people are too morally degenerate to be capable of effective self-government. The Roman satirist Juvenal understood. "The people that once bestowed commands, consulships, legions and all else, now meddles no more and longs eagerly for just two things -- bread and games!" I can find no reason to be optimistic. It is only our blind vanity that lets us pretend that the United States can endure forever. Rome fell, and so will America. For all intents and purposes, it is already over.
Pretty powerful stuff. Take a minute and click on the link and read the article as you reflect on where American came from and where we're going. Maybe you agree that America is a lost cause already and there's no stopping it. Certainly the forces of moral decay, liberalism, and degeneracy are powerful and many, including Alexander Tyler, have predicted that free people will always tend toward selfishness, apathy, and dependence along the cycle of democracies only to end up under the boot of tyranny once again. Is that where America is headed or can she be rescued?
17 comments:
Ed, this is what I responded to David via e-mail:
"Waayyy too pessimistic. How would he have written in 1968, 1934, 1862, or 1813?"
For you who slept through American history, those years saw a "few" significant challenges, as did such years as 1941, 1917, 1786 and others. We sometimes fall into the fallacy of thinking history began with our birth. Recall how Rahm recently said Obama had faced the "hardest times of any president?"
Bill, I fall somewhere in the middle between "America will once again be a Constitutional republic" and "game over". It is human nature, unfortunately, to want to rule the lives of others, and unless you know that it's our nature and consciously decide to resist it, you become what we call a liberal.
I've heard Rush describe it best by saying that liberalism is in relentless, 24/7 advancement because it's the path of least resistance and requires no thought or effort. Liberalism is for stupid people. Conservatism requires effort, knowledge, and desire to resist our own flawed nature. So we can only delay the encroachment of liberalism, never really defeat it.
It does sound pessimistic when I think about it but can you envision a time in the future when we'll have a smaller government, less regulation, lower taxes, more freedom to succeed or fail in a truly free-enterprise market economy? Frankly, I cannot. That doesn't mean I stop fighting the good fight and fall of the grid, but I don't hold much hope for my kids enjoying a more free nation than we have today.
I can envision those things, Ed. The current regime has set back the cause of "progressivism" more than they can imagine by awakening a whole generation of people.
I am not a libertarian or anything like one, so I can live with some reasonable level of regulation, etc. quite happily. It's a balancing act and growing the prosperity of the country can help to make it all work. We have a great country now and can have one for a long time to come.
What I fear is that as always, people who run as conservatives become entrenched in office, enjoying the trappings of power and the lure of media and DC cocktail-hour popularity, and end up working for re-election rather than reducing the size and intrusiveness of government. I'm cynical and jaded, I admit, but until they actually do what the promised to do, I'll remain skeptical about our future.
You left out another force that bodes ill for the survival of America … conservative nationalism.
The early voters in my area are a good sign...I think. But how long will their zest persist.
Liberalism (the modern pejorative definition) uses the sloth as a model. Just as slowness is a defense mechanism for the sloth, the (slow) incrementalism of the liberal agenda - or any other cause (good or bad) is pretty effective unless the opponent stays alert.
As Ed (and Rush) mention, the battle requires 24/7 vigilence and I'm not sure we are willing or able to sustain the resistance.
Elections are important but I find it distasteful to vote for Republicans - which is really a vote against Democrats - when both are culpable for this mess. Voting for a third party in most cases a vote against the so-called conservative Republicans.
For example, I cannot stand one of my incumbent Senators: Johnny Isaakson (R), he's not conservative except maybe in comparison to is opponent. (He was a de facto proponent on Amnesty!)
But I have no choice but to vote for him in an attempt to defeat his Democratic opponent.
David, I agree with you.
Glenn......what?
By conservative nationalism I assume you mean the notion among conservatives that America is special and exceptional in the world? That we inspire, or used to inspire, other nations to be better, to strive for more? That our Constitutional representative republic is a near-perfect model of government for which all free men should yearn?
What's wrong with that?
Glenn [sic]......what?
"When it comes to war, the patriot realizes that the rest of the world can't be turned into America, because his America is something specific and particular — the memories and traditions that can no more be transplanted than the mountains and the prairies. He seeks only contentment at home, and he is quick to compromise with an enemy. He wants his country to be just strong enough to defend itself.
But the NATIONALIST, who identifies America with abstractions like freedom and democracy, may think it's precisely America's mission to spread those abstractions around the world — to impose them by force, if necessary. In his mind, those abstractions are universal ideals, and they can never be truly "safe" until they exist, unchallenged, everywhere; the world must be made "safe for democracy" by "a war to end all wars." We still hear versions of these Wilsonian themes. Any country that refuses to Americanize is "anti-American" — or a "rogue nation." For the nationalist, war is a welcome opportunity to change the world. This is a recipe for endless war." –Joseph Sobran
By your definition, I am not a nationalist. As a libertarian, I think we should stay out of the business of other nations unless we are invited or otherwise provoked into meddling. I agree that the exportation of freedom into every dark corner of the globe being the manifest destiny of America is nonsense.
If African nations want to starve their citizens and embrace tribal warfare that kills millions, why should we care? If Muslims and Christians in Bosnia want to ethnically clense each other, it's not our business. And if drug cartels in South America are slaughtering people by the thousands as part of the drug trade to the US, why should we care? Right? Like Pat Buchanan thinks, we should not undertake a single military adventure unless that country actually attempts to invade our physical shores. Otherwise the entire rest of the world can go straight to hell for all we care? Isn't that the alternative?
Ed, I'm a little confused. Are you endorsing the Pat Buchanan foreign policy? When the NORK's poured across the border into SK in 1950, should we have let it happen? If they went on into Japan (assuming our occupation forces were out by then), same thing? The Third Reich takes over a UK unsupported by US lend-lease in 1940, no problem? (I think this is close to Buchanan's theory of WW2)
How about if the Iranians promise to only nuke Israel but not us. Or, China seizes Taiwan and tells the USN to stay outside the "2nd island chain" or else?
I think you can see that I consider these extremely dangerous positions.
Regarding Joseph Sobran, quoted above, I am sometimes surprised when a somewhat obscure name or concept reaches out to me simultaneously from two seemingly unrelated directions. It just so happens that Mr. Sobran recently passed away and the current issue of National Review has both a short RIP article and a lengthy rememberance of him written from a position of sad loss over his briliant early career with the magazine and his 20 year old complete falling out with William F. Buckley and subsequent career implosion over the issue of anti-semitism. The essay is far longer than I can recount and better written that I can paraphrase, but I recommend it to readers of TRR who might, like me, wish to learn more of Mr. Sobran and perhaps the origins of some of the thoughts expressed by some other readers of this blog.
No Bill, I am not endorsing Buchanan. I'm asking rhetorical questions to you as a response to your statement that the US should not export our brand of freedom and democracy around the world. Sometimes we are compelled to inject ourselves into the business of others. My point is that we should do it judiciously, when the threat is existential, and only as a last resort. Some of our military adventures did not meet those criteria, others obviously did.
Hey, Ed, be assured that Bill is not Glen and did not write anything about not exporting our brand of freedom.
I didn't think you were a "Buchananite", just wanted to clear it up.
I think the proper line to be drawn is between things in our vital national interest and those things we may deplore but not get militarily involved in.
Bill, by existential threat, of course that is extended to our close allies and vital national interests. If Iran the Saudi's, or Canada, or Mexico for instance, decided to cut us off from their oil, it would be in our national best interests to invade their countries, kick their asses, and take their oil.
"...kick their asses, and take their oil."
I certainly hope your tongue was planted firmly in your cheek when you wrote that, Ed. I have trouble sometimes telling when your outrageous (IMHO) comments are serious and when they are in jest.
That was said mostly in jest, Glen. I say mostly because I can imagine scenerios in which I would support invading or bombing another country for taking actions against us that are outrageous, but that didn't include military aggression.
"…his (Sobran's) … career implosion over the issue of anti-semitism."
"…perhaps the origins of some of the thoughts expressed by some other readers of this blog."
Dearest Bill,
When I condemn the violence and brutality of La Cosa Nostra … nobody calls me anti-Sicilian. When I decry the criminality of the Bloods and Crips … nobody calls me anti-black. When I say that MS-13 should be wiped off the face of the Earth… nobody calls me anti-Mexican.
But when I oppose Israel, that crime syndicate posing as a nation, you label me an anti-Semite.
Hmmm.
Post a Comment