Hillary Bets On Socialism's Appeal in 2008

Hillary Clinton is often touted as the “most intelligent woman in America.” I have an aunt who is practically salivating (or is that foaming at the mouth?) over the prospect of a Hillary presidency, as Hillary will surely solve all of America’s inequalities with a woman’s touch. Political pundits like Dick Morris insist that the “Clinton Machine” is unstoppable and will make no significant errors while piloting her over any rocky reef en route to the White House in 2008. If one accepts any of these paradigms, Hillary’s speech to the Manchester (NH) School of Technology this week was quite a conundrum; it was either a major and suicidal campaign sinker or it signaled that the Democratic Party believes America is ready to abandon its 231 year experiment with self-determination and capitalism.

Here are a few highlights from the AP/Yahoo story:

Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an ownership society really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."

…"There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets. But markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed," she said. "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies."

Karl Marx? Lenin? Stalin? No, these are the views of Hillary Rodham Clinton, socialist extraordinaire. The only chance “workers” have for success is when the government steps in to “help.” It isn’t fair that some get rich while others remain poor. “Fairness doesn’t just happen,” the government must make life fair by punishing achievers for having too much success. These are the tenets of socialism, with “fairness” serving as the emotionally charged catchphrase slogan to disguise the intended vehicle for Hillary’s version of “fairness.” Had this Manchester speech been a slip-up or something taken out of context, it would still stand out as particularly socialist. However, Hillary has gone down this road before. This is what she said in June 2004:

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Now that’s an inspiring campaign slogan for a potential American president!

I recently wrote that America’s leaders are becoming more French while France’s leaders are becoming more American. Newly elected French President Nicolas Sarkozy was elected on a platform consisting of the following: Fight the War on Terror as America’s ally; reform France’s immigration system, particularly as it applies to the influx of Muslim immigrants; shrink the government’s role in providing social services (including socialized medicine) to its citizens; eliminate the 35 hour work week and promote more work, greater achievement, and less dependence on government subsidies for the unemployed and business owners.

Contrast that winning French platform with what Hillary is proposing for America in 2008: retreat from Iraq and giving al Qaeda victory in the War on Terror; “reform” America’s immigration policy through amnesty and citizenship for 12-20 million illegal aliens; increase the role of government by providing massive new services such as “universal health care” (socialized medicine) and replacing economic self-determination with “shared prosperity” through government intervention (socialism).

When considered from this perspective, electing Hillary would place America on a sure path to becoming socialist France, while the French electing Sarkozy placed them on a course to emulate capitalist America. Hillary’s GOP opponents should wield these contrasts like a political bludgeon, hitting her hard every time she utters a phrase that espouses socialist tendencies and bluntly referring to her as a socialist. This is why her speech was a conundrum. The “Clinton machine” so ominously reverenced by Dick Morris must surely know that the majority of Americans will reflexively vote against someone who can effectively be branded as a socialist, yet they do nothing to curb her references to “shared prosperity” or government provided fairness. Why is Hillary speaking so openly of her socialist ideas during a primary campaign cycle when it can so easily be used later in the general election cycle by the GOP nominee to paint her (accurately) as a socialist?

Two reasons come to mind. First, Hillary must earn the nomination of her party, which embraces Euro-socialist ideals, and she will not be the nominee without establishing, at least verbally, her socialist credentials. Instead of “street cred”, the DNC demands “Soc cred,” the promise that all people will be given everything they need or want through government services. Second, Hillary’s advisers truly believe America is ripe for a socialist harvest in 2008. Despite record stock market growth and peaks, despite record low unemployment (4%), and despite the highest percentage of Americans owning their own homes in the nation’s history, Hillary’s camp is preaching the gospel of class envy and apparently is betting that they can convince voters by 2008 that the economy is failing, everyone is out of work, no one can afford health insurance, and the rich are grinding the faces of the poor every chance they get.

It is ironic that the same liberals who insist that Darwin was right about evolution and natural selection refuse to accept capitalism as economic Darwinism, with the survival of the fittest as the linchpin of a free market system. Are animals that cannot adapt through evolution allowed to survive out of “fairness?” Should businesses that produce a product no longer wanted in the market be protected from their competitors who are meeting market demands for new and better goods? Should workers who are incompetent or unproductive be protected from termination out of “fairness?” For that matter, what should be done with candidates who lose elections? After all, it isn’t “fair” that one should prosper while another languishes in defeat. Who decides what is “fair,” the government? No thanks.

The government has never been the solution to poverty, unemployment, racism, or any of the other social ills that can infect society. Poverty has proven much more virulent war opponent than terrorism. FDR could not eliminate it, Johnson waged a “war on poverty” but poverty, like the impervious cockroach, seems to survive all threats to its existence. Could it be that poverty survives because economic “fairness” is a socialist utopian dream that runs counter to nature? There have always been, and will always be rich and poor people in every society, but do the poor need rescuing? It is the arrogance of the wealthy (and most liberal socialists are rich, like Clinton) to assume that success in life must be measured by the accumulation of wealth. There can be dignity in poverty, usually far more dignity and humility than is found among the affluent. If success is measured, as it should be, by living an honorable life, then one does not need income redistribution or “fairness” in economic opportunity to be successful in life.

Socialism has failed in every respect in every society that has ever attempted to live by it, yet the DNC, and Hillary in particular, continue to aggressively foist it upon America as the magic medicinal tonic that will cure all of society’s ills. Rather than taking Hillary’s or Obama’s or any other American liberal’s endorsement of socialism at face value, we should consider some dissenting opinions:

"To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, 'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.'" - Thomas Jefferson

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” - Winston Churchill

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” – Winston Churchill

“Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” – Alexis de Tocqueville

“The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer's money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family- which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions- began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to ‘help.’” – Thomas Sowell

“You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream -- the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order – or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, ‘The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.’” — Ronald Reagan

The “Clinton machine” would have us believe that a vote for Hillary is a vote for “fairness,” but as Reagan stated, there is only an up or down. Voting for Hillary is voting for Marx, rather than Jefferson. The Founding Fathers defined fairness as the opportunity to succeed or fail based on the inherent capacities of the individual (see Jefferson above). Hillary wants to assure that no one can fail, thus clearly she has abandoned the intent and content of our founding documents. Socialism does not just happen. We do not wake up one morning, fire up the Internet and read on Capital Cloak that America became a socialist nation overnight. However, if we continue to embrace government programs as the solution to poverty or social problems, the addiction to socialism will become unbreakable while we were sleeping.

Technorati: Hillary Clinton Socialism Shared Prosperity Presidential Campaign

America Overrun By "Crazy" Optimists

Brit Hume has a knack for mining precious gems from the vast caverns of media hysterics to share with Special Report viewers, and yesterday he did it again by exposing Newsweek senior science editor Sharon Begley’s criticism of President Bush for being (inhale sharply!) too optimistic. I remember that the media had similar criticisms of President Reagan, apparently preferring the dour demeanor of Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale to confidence, a cheery disposition, and hopeful expectations for the future. Begley, who Hume points out has no credentials in the field of psychology, psychiatry, or any other field related to mental illness, declared that the president is “in a state of denial” about the Iraq War. Of course, it is common for presidents to inspire their countrymen when times are tough. Yet Begley does not see inspiration or leadership in the president’s unshaken belief that the war will be won. Instead, she sees what she perceives as symptoms of mental illness. From Brit Hume’s Political Grapevine:

Sharon Begley offers as proof the president's insistence the war will succeed, despite what she calls "setback after setback." She continues: “While it's always risky to psychoanalyze a politician from afar, a few things in his past are consistent with the capacity for denial."

She offers up the fact that as a seven-year-old boy, the president tried to comfort his mother after his baby sister died of leukemia. Begley writes: "The tip-off for denial is perpetual optimism, a pathological certainty that things are going well." She also cites the fact that Mr. Bush has battled alcohol abuse, saying such people, "typically need to see the world in black and white in order to stay on the wagon."

Begley is not the first media personality to equate optimism, also known as faith, with mental illness. Bill Maher referred to religion as a neurological disorder, and placed biblical stories were on a par with other fantasy tales like Jack and the Beanstalk. Maher would surely agree with Begley that President Bush’s “perpetual optimism” is akin to religious faith. I do not know if Begley is an avowed atheist like Maher, but clearly she understands little about the relationship between optimism and religious faith. Most people who are actively involved in religion live life with the certainty that a power greater than themselves is watching over them and all that unfolds in life is part of a plan that will ultimately benefit humanity. That belief is what places setbacks or even suffering into perspective. Knowing that even terrible things happen for a reason makes them tolerable or even turned into opportunities for growth.

Bill Maher and Begley have forgotten the lessons of history. The three most successful wartime leaders in American history, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt, suffered nearly overwhelming defeats in the early years of their wars, and they had no illusions that things were going well when they were not. They had disputes with their generals; they faced citizen unrest and dissatisfaction with how the wars were conducted; they were inundated with depressing reports of lost battles and massive casualties. However, they remained optimistic that ultimately their cause would win because it was just, and they did the only thing they could: they pushed forward with “pathological certainty” in eventual victory. President Bush’s approach to the Iraq War is no different. He has acknowledged many times that Iraq has not gone exactly as planned and has adjusted strategies accordingly. Only permanent pessimists like Begley or Maher, or political opportunists like Pelosi or Reid would declare the new surge policy a failure before it has been fully implemented. America should appreciate optimism in its presidents, and beyond appreciation, should desire it from its leaders.

America was founded in a spirit of “pathological certainty.” The Declaration of Independence and Constitution are perhaps the most perpetually optimistic documents ever crafted by mankind. They set forth the certainty the Founders exuded that they were acting out the will of God and that man’s rights came from God rather than government. By placing the care of the nation in God’s hands, the Founders expressed their optimism, or faith, that their efforts would succeed regardless of any temporary setbacks or direct threats from within or abroad.

The compassionate conservative in me feels sorrow for Begley and Maher. If optimism is a mental illness, then what would pessimism be considered? Chronic negativity and a “doom and gloom” outlook which never exhibits hope of eventual success are signs of depression, which is an actual, medically classifiable mental disorder treatable with medication. There is a reason psychiatrists do not prescribe medications for optimism: “perpetual optimism” is a sign of a sound mind and an indomitable will. It is only when all other possibilities are exhausted that a cancer patient must face the reality of pending death. Until that point is reached, the patient presses forward, relying on the only truly dependable source of strength: optimistic faith. With that faith, even death itself cannot conquer the human spirit. Was Winston Churchill psychotic because he vowed that Britain would “never surrender?” The only thing crazier than pressing forward when all seems lost would be retreating when difficulty is encountered.

I am glad that the current president is an optimist who is not easily cowed by challenging decisions or violent attacks. What kind of nation would America be without “perpetual optimism?” The Wright brothers would have stuck with ground transportation in Begley’s version of psychotic America. Every entrepreneur takes a leap of faith when a new business is launched. There will be lean years, and stiff competition, and possible failure at every turn. “Perpetual optimism” is what separates successful Americans from those who live in constant fear of failure, and thus never take risks. Pessimists are the armchair quarterbacks of the world, sitting comfortably in their mediocrity criticizing the performances of those who willingly face seemingly insurmountable odds with faith and cheerful optimism.

Debunking The Deified Lee

I was born with a lifelong passion for history, as reflected by my choice of undergraduate and graduate degree programs. I received my M.A. from a university in Virginia, a state in which General Robert E. Lee is worshipped as the embodiment of Jesus Christ and George Washington combined into one hallowed figure. At times I was convinced Lee ranked above both in the minds of some Virginians. Anyone with even a basic history education has been fed the traditional portrayal of Lee: Reluctant to war against his Union brothers; brilliant tactician; beloved by troops and citizens alike; a deeply religious and righteous man; impeccable integrity and southern honor; considered slavery evil. So revered is Robert E. Lee among historians, southerners, and especially Virginians, that nearly every historical portrayal, fact or fiction, has accepted the Lee myths as gospel truth. To criticize Lee is to criticize southern honor and nobility, and few have attempted the Herculean feat of separating Lee’s actual behavior from the larger-than-life stories told of him through print and film.

Having visited Gettysburg again recently after viewing the Turner production “Gettysburg” (1994), starring Martin Sheen as the "venerable" Lee, I was struck by the portrayal of Lee as a pious, tired general who was to be pitied because of his long sacrifice for what he believed to be a noble cause (states rights versus federalism). This states rights issue was the smokescreen put up by southerners to obscure the real issue of racism and preservation of slavery and its accompanying lifestyle of comfort and affluence for the slaveholder. At long last a historical biography is available that did not intentionally seek to destroy the image of Lee as a reluctant warrior and despiser of slavery, but by publishing his own letters and correspondence from his friends and family, the book reportedly allows his own words to demonstrate that Lee was not as noble or saintly as southern apologists insist.

NY Sun reviewer Eric Ormsby reported in today’s issue that Elizabeth Brown Pryor’s Reading the Man: A Portrait of Robert E. Lee Through His Private Letters sheds light on certain aspects of Lee’s personality and belief structure that Lee worshippers, if they are even aware of them, would prefer to keep in the dark. Two paragraph’s from Ormsby’s review capture effectively where history and reality diverged when it came to casting Lee as one who believed slavery was evil or who valued the lives of his troops:

The most disturbing chapters deal with Lee's views on slavery. He thought slavery an evil system not because it stripped slaves of freedom and dignity but because it was such an awful burden on slave owners. For Lee, slavery formed part of some inscrutable providential design through which slaves might someday rise to a higher condition (though never to the level of whites). He was a brutal slave owner, destroying families to make a quick profit. "By 1860 he had broken up every family but one on the estate," Ms. Pryor writes. Once he had a runaway slave given 50 lashes, urging his constable to "lay it on well," and then had brine poured onto the victim's flayed back — this was a slave who had been manumitted at Lee's father-in-law's death but whom Lee refused to free. Despite Ms. Pryor's best efforts to put all this in context, Lee stands revealed as both cruel and hypocritical.

Lee had wit and grace in abundance, as his letters prove. And they display other unsuspected aspects of his personality. He was a lifelong flirt, indulging in startling sexual innuendo with female friends and relatives. He was a domestic tyrant who adored his children, lavishing them alternately with caresses and commands. But despite his considerable charm, something cold, some abstractly calculating tendency, characterized Lee. His troops regarded him as a father, but he let them be butchered by the thousands without so much as a backward glance; most conspicuously at Gettysburg, when even his own generals stood appalled. As Ms. Pryor shows throughout, Lee was simply unable to imagine the lives of others, whether slaves torn from their families or young soldiers squandered in suicidal charges. In crucial ways, Lee the man was more hollow — and more heartless — than the icon he became.

Ordinarily I am an outspoken critic of “revisionist history," as that genre has produced many volumes tearing down the reputations of the Founding Fathers, Abraham Lincoln, and other historical icons for which it is healthy for Americans to hold high opinions. There is something inherently wrong about debunking men who, though hampered by human weakness or error, wore out their lives in service to righteous ideals such as life, liberty, and constitutional government. I am much more forgiving when historians debunk iconic figures who wore out their lives defending evil practices such as slavery, as Lee did. It is never noble to fight for an evil cause. While many of the Founding Fathers were slaveholders, most of them abandoned the practice within years of constitutional ratification. Further, they laid the foundation for a system of government that could later be amended to eliminate slavery, discrimination, and a host of other inequalities over time. The northern colonial representatives in particular recognized that an accommodation for slavery would be necessary if the United States was to be established, and the mechanisms for future change were incorporated.

Lee, however, was firmly entrenched as a slave owner and was willing to kill other Americans and wage war to preserve his right to white supremacy and a life of luxury at the expense of other humans. The Founders fought a war with Britain to establish a free nation. Lee fought a war to keep other humans permanently enslaved. To revere him on a par with the Founders is to denigrate their ideals and accomplishments. Perhaps Pryor’s new book will help Americans better understand why statues of Lee and other Confederate “heroes” stir sentiments of anger and resentment within local African-American communities. They should stir those same sentiments within each of us regardless of race. Lee should not be considered a historical figure worthy of enshrinement in statue and laudatory biography. If more Americans were aware of Lee’s actual attitudes toward and personal treatment of his slaves, historical justice would be served. The next time you hear someone invoke “southern honor” or “states rights” to describe what the South fought for in the Civil War, you can point to Lee, the ultimate “southern gentleman,” and dispel the historical myths.

CNN: Bitter Dems Target Electoral College

On Monday, a reader submitted a comment on my post “Electoral College in Crosshairs of 39 States,” in which the reader disagreed with my assertion that the impetus behind the current push to abolish the Electoral College was President Bush’s controversial victory over Al Gore despite Gore’s winning the popular vote. I wrote that liberal bitterness over that incident was driving the current movement.

Last night, CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider published an article on this issue, and although writing for a liberal-biased network, he acknowledged that Democrats are championing the Electoral College’s demise and recognized that while the movement did not begin with the 2000 election, that event created a sense of urgency that generated action. He also supported the conclusion that the current movement as described in my Monday post is in fact a legislative method to avoid amending the U.S. Constitution. Schneider wrote:

Those states would agree to appoint presidential electors who would vote for the winner of the national popular vote, no matter who wins the vote in each state. It would be a way to turn presidential elections into a nationwide popular vote without having to amend the Constitution. . . .

The problem is what happened in 2000. George W. Bush got elected by winning the Electoral College, even though Al Gore got more votes. That's happened four times in the country's history.(Watch Schneider talk about the Maryland law )

In our current system, the president is elected by the Electoral College and not directly by the people. The number of electoral votes each state receives depends on its population and representatives are chosen to vote on behalf of the people in the state. To win, a candidate has to win 270 electoral votes, which is a majority. If neither candidate gets that, Congress determines who wins. A few times, the American people's choice for president hasn't actually moved into the White House.

It's mostly Democrats who are behind this move. They're still angry over how Bush got elected, even though in 2004, a shift of about 60 thousand votes in Ohio would have elected John Kerry despite Bush's popular vote margin of over three million.

While there may be a need to engage in national discussion and debate over this issue of a national popular vote, that debate should occur BEFORE states act to circumvent the Constitution because “their man” did not win in 2000. The debate should focus on the merits of the Electoral College and if the support for a national popular vote is as broad as its proponents claim, then advocates should initiate the Constitutional amendment process.

The fact that they are quietly passing state legislative bills to avoid amending the Constitution should be a warning flag that the anti-Electoral College movement is pushing for something not explicitly approved of by a majority of Americans. If it were popular and much needed, a Constitutional amendment would pass smoothly. Advocates are avoiding that process because most Americans do not want to abandon a system established by the Founding Fathers at the request of smaller states to make sure their interests were not completely negated by the largest population centers.

The arguments that a national popular vote would improve campaigns because candidates would be forced to spend more time in “safe” cities and states, are specious at best. The idea of Democrat candidates campaigning hard in liberal Philadelphia to increase their margins of victory to offset losses in the popular vote elsewhere, is as ludicrous as the old “margin of victory” formula used by the BCS in college football. Teams like Florida State would post 77-0 victories over small patsies offering no competition because it was safe, and then BCS poll voters would be impressed by the margin of victory and boost a team’s rankings. A national popular vote would create a BCS system for electing U.S. presidents, a system in which 6-7 large metropolitan areas would determine a winner (just like the self-proclaimed 6 “major” college football conferences dictate participation in the BCS), and smaller states and cities would have little to no influence on national policies that directly affect them (just like the “mid-major” conferences have no opportunity to play in the BCS championship game).

Fortunately for America, the Founder’s wisdom foresaw the need to protect rural and suburban communities from being swallowed by the political domination of a few large cities concentrated in certain regions. The Electoral College assures that Philadelphians, who through no fault of their own know nothing about the needs of ranchers in the west or farmers in the Midwest, are not selecting our president simply because they outnumber the residents in less densely populated areas. A national popular vote would concentrate power too narrowly, and like the BCS, once power is obtained, it is stingily, if at all, shared.

Despite token BCS appearances by the University of Utah and Boise State (both resounding victories for the "mid-major"), the current BCS system still assures that no team outside of the 6 self-proclaimed "major" conferences will ever receive enough votes to play in the BCS "Championship" Game. It is not difficult to predict that America's 6-7 largest cities would operate in a similar fashion, choosing election participants and eventual winners with no regard to the needs or preferences of "mid-major" states and regions. We can do better than a BCS or American Idol popularity contest. The stakes are too high for such sophomoric and cavalier selection processes.

If you missed Monday’s post on this topic and the reader comments, I encourage you to take the time to examine the issue and make your voice heard by your local legislators. With 39 states debating bills similar to Maryland’s, chances are high that your legislators may be pondering an end run around the Constitution. We have a Constitutional amendment process for a reason. I urge readers to make your local representatives adhere to it.

Electoral College in Crosshairs of 39 States

Is your state legislature quietly working to discard an important Constitutional provision established by the Founding Fathers? It may be, but it is hoping you will not notice until it’s too late. Several state legislatures have already done so and 38 states at last count were considering passage of legislation to destroy the work of the Founding Fathers with no fanfare and minimal public outcry or even awareness. What is this pressing issue that states are moving rapidly to address, and in many cases embrace? Eliminating the Electoral College and our republican form of government currently in place in favor of a winner by popular vote democracy.

The provision gradually being voted out of existence is important, as it balances power between large and small states in national elections and limits the influence that one highly populated region can wield in determining who will be President of the United States. The Constitutional provision is commonly misunderstood, as most voters never take the time to read Article V of the Constitution, and is thus easily misrepresented in the media by groups who favor eliminating the Electoral College. These groups cite arguments for the change that are disingenuous statistically and historically, yet they rely on voter ignorance to achieve their goal.

Americans should always be wary of any movement that claims the Founding Fathers could not have envisioned a particular circumstance and thus the Constitution must be altered to reflect “reality” or “modern developments.” In the case of the movement to abolish the Electoral College, the motive of the movement’s ardent supporters should be closely evaluated. In sound bites and news articles, the leaders of this movement claim to be fighting for minorities, for “making votes count,” and for the winner of the popular vote to automatically be elected. What is the reason for this renewed any rapidly advancing campaign to eliminate the Electoral College and republican system? Why, George W. Bush, of course.

Four times in American electoral history, the winner of the popular vote did not win the Electoral College and was denied the presidency, in 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000. While some dissatisfaction with the Electoral College system arose from the first three of these occurrences, the 2000 election which denied Al Gore of victory generated multiple recounts, court decisions, and accusations of dishonesty unparalleled in U.S. history. No president since Abraham Lincoln took office with more animosity and bitter division confronting him than George W. Bush. Opponents immediately declared his presidency to be illegitimate because “the people” had chosen Al Gore. The rancor this electoral environment produced has hampered the Bush administration and has given added impetus to the current drive to abolish the Electoral College. Although that movement disguises itself as an innocent lamb Constitutional improvement, it is in reality a dangerous wolf counting on Anti-Bush sentiment to assure the desired change.

Maryland’s legislature recently approved a measure that will guarantee its Electoral College votes will automatically be given to the winner of the popular vote. Some Maryland legislators questioned the wisdom of giving away the state’s 10 Electoral College votes to a candidate the majority of its own voters may not have chosen, but the anti-Bush hotheads succeeded in passing the measure. State legislators have cleverly understood that changing the U.S. Constitution to abolish the Electoral College is a very lengthy and difficult process, while changing their own state constitutions can achieve the same end by simpler means. By automatically assigning a state’s Electoral College votes to the popular vote winner, the Electoral College would no longer have the ability to serve the purpose for which it was created: balancing power between large (highly populated) and smaller states. The Electors’ votes would be meaningless.

The recent World Net Daily article about this issue refers to two groups: one, National Popular Vote, is spearheading the drive to abolish the Electoral College. The other, Wallbuilders, is advocating against the change and for preservation of our government as a republic rather than a true democracy. The Wallbuilders Internet site offers historical explanations for the origins of the Electoral College, and detailed counterarguments to the claims that the Electoral College is undemocratic, outdated, unfair, discriminatory, or ineffective in balancing power. It is worth reviewing, as this movement to destroy our republican form of government appears to be gaining momentum.

Of equal importance, Wallbuilders also debunks the dangerously false assertion that the Founding Fathers would embrace the proposed change to a virtual democracy rather than a republic. Those who argue that the Founders never intended for a popular vote winner to lose an election have clearly never read, or are choosing to ignore, both Article V of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, both of which strenuously work to convince Americans to avoid a popular democracy. The founders, in fact, mandated that all state governments also be republics rather than democracies. The following quotes from Founders illustrate that they knew the difference between a republic and a democracy and wisely chose a republic, courtesy of Wallbuilders:

[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. James Madison

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. John Adams

A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way. The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness [excessive license] which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be, liberty. Fisher Ames, a framer of the bill of rights

We have seen the tumults of democracy terminate . . . as [it has] everywhere terminated, in despotism. . . . Democracy! savage and wild. Thou who wouldst bring down the virtuous and wise to thy level of folly and guilt. Gouverneur Morris, signer and penman of the constitution

[T]he experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating, and short-lived. John Quincy Adams

A simple democracy . . . is one of the greatest of evils. Benjamin Rush, signer of the declaration

In democracy . . . there are commonly tumults and disorders. . . . Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth. Noah Webster, responsible for article i, section i, ¶ 8 of the constitution

Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state — it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage. John Witherspoon, signer of the declaration

The desire for large, densely populated states to wield more influence on elections has not changed since the days of the Founders. One need only look at the recent decisions by California, Florida, and several other large states to move their election year primaries to February to see why small states need protection. Why was this done? Simply, large states felt that smaller, insignificant (in their view) small states like Iowa and New Hampshire were having too much influence on national elections through their early primaries and caucuses. These same large states are also championing the back door approach to abolishing the Electoral College by passing state legislation dictating that Electoral votes are given to the popular winner nationwide.

If you are unsure whether you reside in a state that is acting behind the scenes to eliminate the Electoral College, contact your state legislators and voice your opinion. While it is true Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000, President Bush carried 2436 counties nationwide as opposed to only 676 for Gore. Gore’s support was concentrated in a few densely populated cities on the East and West Coasts. President Bush’s appeal was truly national in scope, indicating that the majority of localities felt he best represented their interests and values. Spy The News! encourages voters to educate themselves about this issue and why the Founders established the Electoral College. Readers should work to prevent state legislatures from destroying a measure the Founders applied as a cement to hold the large and small states together despite population concentrations or popular trends.

Avoiding Mistakes in Iraq by Revising "Quagmire Quixote" Histories of Vietnam War

Napoleon Bonaparte once stated that “history is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon.” During the Vietnam War, and in the intervening years since, liberal academia, in bed with liberal media, embarked on a joint operation I refer to as “Quagmire-Quixotism,” in which they tilted their collective eggheads against windmills of truth in Vietnam and published news headlines, body counts, and historical textbooks that ultimately convinced a majority of Americans that the Vietnam War was a mistake and the threat of Communism in the region had been exaggerated. American universities, including the one from which I obtained an M.A. in History many years ago, remain under the unyielding (even to facts) liberal rule of professors drunken with the wine of quagmire hysteria to the point that college course on the Vietnam War are anything but exercises in historical research or original thought.

To challenge the Quagmire-Quixotism professors with military facts or to place blame for failure in Vietnam on Congress, the Media, or the anti-war movement was truly a suicidal act for a graduate student, at least if one valued his/her GPA. Under silent protest, I dutifully digested Anti-American apology pieces posing as textbooks, such as America's Longest War: The United States and Vietnam, 1950-1975, The Ugly American, and other quagmire folklore. Liberal academia, of course, did not curb its voracious appetite for debunking and rewriting long-accepted historical records with just the Vietnam War. Not believing any American should be revered, even if doing so might be in the national interest, liberal history professors and eager graduate students set out to discover and publish any and all salacious accounts of presidential behavior. The resulting collection of theses, dissertations, and textbooks provided us with such important “facts” as Jefferson’s alleged sexual encounters with slaves, Lincoln's manic depression and latent homosexuality, and the debunking of the cherished story of Washington chopping down the cherry tree.

The Founding Fathers, under the poison pen of these revisionist historians, went from wise and inspired to white and despised, as historical focus shifted only to their race, their wealth, and their allegedly selfish motives. One of my children once asked, “is it true that Christopher Columbus was an evil man who killed Indians and took them as slaves as gifts for the King of Spain?” That was an interesting dinner conversation, but that was taught as historical fact in our local school. Not content with indoctrinating college age students, academia published texts designed to sow the seeds of liberal anti-Americanism even among the very young.

Fortunately, after decades of indoctrination, serious students of history are ironically using revisionism to debunk the debunkers, and the history of the Vietnam War is fertile ground for rescuing facts that have been slowly drowning in academia’s quagmire. A case in point is Mark Moyar's Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954-1965. Having previously examined sections of the book, I was pleased to see TigerHawk quoting from it to defend the “slow” development of the Iraqi military under U.S. training and supervision. The reminders of General George Washington’s battlefield errors and the pitiful training and organization of American troops in the Revolutionary War should give pause to those who believe that by now Iraq should have assembled a fully functional national military. Our expectations are too high and our patience seems to be shortsightedly wearing thin.

What piqued my interest was TigerHawk’s reference to Moyar’s book as “excellent revisionist history.” That statement caused me to reflect on the idea that while “revisionist history” used to be a pejorative term for works that debunked America’s heroes, history has now been rewritten to such an extent by liberal academics that “revisionist history” today refers to rewriting the rewritten histories and biographies dominating all current textbooks and classrooms. Years ago in graduate school I could scarcely have imagined that I would recommend a “revisionist history” to anyone. Yet when one thinks of today’s alternative media, such as Fox News, conservative radio, and Internet bloggers, it is clear that all of these are in fact current efforts at revisionist history, attempts to assure that liberal-hijacked media and academia cannot provide unchallenged the “version of past [or present] events” people will agree upon in the present or future. There are two sides to every issue, especially depictions of war, lest one focus solely on the horrors of war while neglecting the reality that at times it is a means to a worthy end.

Historical scholarship such as Moyar’s Triumph Forsakenshould be, but is not, welcomed in America’s universities. Spy the News! recommends Triumph Forsaken for anyone who believes Vietnam could have and should have been an American political and military victory. It is also a suggested read for Bush Administration critics who have accepted the oft-repeated mantra that Vietnam and Iraq deserve the quagmire label. The book extensively discusses impatience as perhaps the greatest contributor to America’s disgraceful withdrawal from Vietnam, with that impatience displayed by politicians looking to make names for themselves, the media, and some within the U.S. military itself. Impatience appears once again to be leading the U.S. to potential failure in Iraq, and without proper historical perspective, we may be doomed to repeat previous mistakes. Thankfully through alternative media, unchallenged biased liberal historical perspectives are becoming, ironically, a thing of the past.