The Trap of the Imperial Presidency

Historians will often use the phrase "Imperial Presidency" to describe a personal style of rule that some chief executives assume. When thinking about this concept, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt often come up in discussions. Debates arise over whether or not personal rule is best for the country because it gets things done quickly, or whether it violates the balance of powers set in the Constitution.

The main instrument in the hands of an aspiring imperial president has been the executive order. This has the force of law and can claim indirect lineage from the Middle Ages era power of the monarch to make statutes. In recent years executive orders have proliferated and encompass a much broader scope than in the past. Obama exacerbated the problem of expanding presidential power by appointing powerful bureaucratic chieftains nicknamed "czars" to direct policy. These men and women, unlike official advisors, do not require Senatorial consent.

Lincoln and Roosevelt have this in common. They used their expanded powers during a time of national crisis. After Lincoln, the power of the president, for various reasons, shrank. During the Cold War and after it has expanded. Yes a president needs the authority to meet national emergencies, but too many use that power in more mundane situations.

Much of this is our fault. We expect our presidents to be superhuman. They must maintain economic prosperity, national security, protect innocents around the world, and attend to every issue that we think is important. When crises occur, we expect him or her to do something. We are not sure what, but we want something done, even when it would be better to do nothing.

In this way we resemble Rome at the end of the Republic. They had elected consuls that could not solve every social problem. When the dictator Julius Caesar acted forcefully, the people approved even though it broke their constitution. After Caesar came civil war and the establishment of the empire. Augustus was everything his people could have wanted in a leader, just, wise, effective. He seemed to affirm the positives of the imperial ideal. However when less scrupulous, and then downright insane people inherited the throne, the power Augustus used for good was bent towards evil goals.

We must put the brakes on the imperial presidency through constitutional amendment. First, kill off the czars. No major appointments without the "advice and consent of the Senate." Second, cap executive orders. No executive order may remain in force for more than five years without congressional affirmation. That is enough time for a president to address an emergency. Executive orders involving the seizure of land must be approved by the state legislature, or territorial, or Indian reservation authorities before they go into effect. This is the first step in restoring balance to our system and saving our Republic.

Time to Constitutionally Reform Executive Orders

I do not like Executive Orders. I don't care who is president, I do not like them. They reek of monarchical, if not dictatorial, government and it is time to put some limits upon them.

Executive Orders are issued by the president and have the force of law unless Congress says otherwise. Franklin Roosevelt interned thousands of American citizens of Japanese descent by Executive Order. Clinton seized hundreds of thousands of acres of land in the final months of his presidency.

Here is my proposal. Constitutionally define what an Executive Order is. Then say that unless Congress approves it in three years, it is off the books. This allows the president to respond to emergencies and gives him or her enough time to sell the action to Congress.

Additionally any presidential executive order that involves the taking of land would need the approval of that state's legislature before going into effect.

This would have the effect of balancing presidential power while allowing for them to respond effectively to immediate emergencies.

Obama's recent moves againt West Virginia coal mining methods reveal that federal regulatory law may also need some congressional oversight.

Not Hard to See Why Kids Don't Know History

Last week I spent eight hours a day in Louisville, Kentucky grading Advanced Placement exams. Even when you count the fact that the test takers are no longer mostly a hand picked elite, the results are stunningly bad. I am pretty sure that I am bound by some confidentiality arrangement to not discuss specific numbers, but many, many times, the people at my table saw essays where students believed American blacks were still enslaved at the time of World War II. That was only one example. Another repeated mistake was confusing the Vietnam War and World War II's Pacific Theatre. All too many, I would say I saw almost a hundred myself, believed that FDR interned the Japanese because they were Communists.

No, the teachers are not teaching it this way. The kids are tuning out. And in some cases you cannot blame them.

Another overriding issue was the self-hatred that came out of too many essays. Not individually, but hatred of their country, hatred of Caucasians, belittlement of national leaders such as Franklin Roosevelt and Thomas Jefferson. On a question about Japanese internments during World War II, FDR is portrayed by some students as equal to Hitler in brutality. Jefferson is described as having raped his female slaves in another (even his worst detractors and rumor mongers say his one affair was consensual, if it even happened at all which David McCullough among others finds very debatable.) Why would students want to learn history if all they hear is how horrible their ancestors and national heroes were? Even if the teachers do not present it this way, the textbooks do. Meanwhile they showed little understanding of the fundamentals of the American ideal except in cases where it was violated.

I will say this, one of the questions that we did not grade did invite the students to say positive things about the early formation of the Republican Party. I glanced at some of those and of course saw mass confusion. The Republican Party was formed in the 1850s, some of them said, to fight slavery at home and Communism abroad.

Newt Gingrich last week at a GOP fundraiser issued a call to reemphasize American History. I would go farther and say we must get back to teaching American values from the start. If nothing else replace one grade of elementary school with Schoolhouse Rock videos. As you have seen on here each Monday, kids could learn more about history, capitalism, and other necessary things from these well-produced videos than they can from almost any other source. Seriously though, we must return to old style history. Put Washington and Lincoln's portraits back on the wall. I mean prints, not some goofy cartoon looking thing. Teach about our heroes, including the people who led, the people who fought, the people who innovated, and the people who risked. We must teach that Thomas Jefferson, Franklin Roosevelt, J. P. Morgan, Andrew Carnegie, and others were not these horrible oppressors but men who did the best they could with the material God gave them. Without the legacy of Morgan, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, and others we do not defeat fascism in World War II, simple as that.

I agree with Newt Gingrich's call to restore American History. But we cannot let the left wing masochists control it.

Thanks to all the Veterans on Day D

Thomas Jefferson, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy Are "So Yesterday" According to Hillary Clinton

Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights . . ."

Woodrow Wilson: "I have called the Congress into extraordinary session because there are serious, very serious, choices of policy to be made, and made immediately . . . Our motive will not be revenge or the victorious assertion of the physical might of the nation, but only the vindication of right, of human right, of which we are only a single champion. . . . To such a task we can dedicate our lives and our fortunes, everything that we are and everything that we have, with the pride of those who know that the day has come when America is privileged to spend her blood and her might for the principles that gave her birth and happiness and the peace which she has treasured. God helping her, she can do no other.

Franklin D. Roosevelt: "Our national determination to keep free of foreign wars and foreign entanglements cannot prevent us from feeling deep concern when ideals and principles that we have cherished are challenged."

John F, Kennedy: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge—and more."

Hillary Clinton: "Ideology is so yesterday."

Great. The ideology of Marx, the principles of a vacuum, the foreign policy of Richard Nixon, and the speech patterns of a valley girl. Ladies and gentlemen, this is your secretary of state.

Congratulations.

An Article Written About West Virginia By A Connecticut Journalist With a Reply By Yours Truly

Lessons learned in West Virginia
By Christina Cio cca
Posted: 02/19/2009 08:17:54 PM EST

"West Virginia? WOOF."

This blunt and biting phrase is representative of my friends' response when I told them I'd be away for a couple of days on business in Charleston, W.Va.

"Oh, I'm so sorry," is another.

And so, with a heavy heart, I boarded my Delta shuttle at LaGuardia. My dejection came less from leaving the New York metro area, where a deathly pallor has descended on Park, Madison and even Greenwich avenues, but more because we're talking about West Virginia. For business. In my mind, there were few things further from the definition of "fun." Call me short-sighted, but the only things I have associated with West Virginia are mountains, coal mines and Habitat for Humanity.

But 24 hours later, I was encountering a different emotion. This time, it was that small euphoria that awakens when you realize that some of your deepest preconceptions are dead wrong, that you just have been taught something you didn't even know you needed to learn. These lessons are worth sharing.

First and foremost, Charleston reassured me it's possible to maintain a friendly manner, a peaceful demeanor and a low-stress lifestyle even when the country is facing "some of the largest challenges since the Great Depression," as we've heard. Speaking with some of West Virginia's business and political leaders, as I had the good fortune to do, it became clear that this news is not enough to erase a sense of optimism and hope for the future -- qualities that are
going down the drain in Washington, D.C., and the New York metro area.

Why? Perhaps because West Virginia is one of the few states that still maintains a budgetary surplus, retains a greater sense of commonality among its citizens, and borders on being "small." But I also have the feeling, after asking some questions, that it's a result of leaders joining together and approaching their state's challenges as a rational, involved, tightly knit community, one that would like to conserve what many described to me as "low-stress corporate and political life." I admit I have been working in corporate America for approximately 1 1/2 years. But I already strongly believe that this "low-stress" mentality is worth deep consideration and preservation where it already exists.

Another lesson: Leadership goes a very long way. One of my stops while in Charleston was a "viewing party" for Gov. Joe Manchin's State of the State Address. Again, I approached the experience somewhat tentatively -- how much detail did I really want or need to know about the state of West Virginia?

But as I watched the popular Democratic governor report on his state's progress, I found my mind engaged and my spirits uplifted. Here was a leader still capable of celebrating his state's achievements and laying out a series of forward-thinking, long-term goals, even while recognizing the vast challenges and sacrifices ahead. Not only was the speech delivered with energy and inspiring rhetoric, but the governor really was rooting for his state, from the lowest wage earners to those teachers responsible for raising the state's dismal educational performance to the top executives running key industries. He even gave a tribute to a University of West Virginia football player just drafted into the NFL.

Looking around the viewing party, I was struck by the number of smiles dotting the room. West Virginians were on board. A sense of possibility still seemed to exist in full force, as did my own feeling that West Virginians actually may join together to tackle the numerous challenges the governor outlined. And this is from a state that consistently has ranked among the lowest in U.S. business development.

Sadly, I am unsure that I can make similar statements about President Obama's first major press conference, where we saw not even a small glimmer of hope that our great country will come out of this crisis stronger, better and no worse for the wear. As a young American, this is a message I long to hear.

One final lesson: Friendliness goes a very long way. Walking the streets of New York City, ill humor and scowls get the gold and silver medals, respectively. Even the quaint streets of Fairfield, where my family now lives after spending most of my childhood years in Darien, have developed a bit of an edge: I recently had the door of a local retailer closed directly in my face by a disgruntled shopper. Granted, both New York City and Fairfield County are facing significant economic challenges bound to throw us all off-kilter.

Yet it was so refreshing in Charleston to have jovial conversations with cab drivers who own blueberry farms, to learn the state's political history from a camera operator while accompanying a client to a TV news interview, and to be greeted by a woman suffering from bronchitis because, "We've had such nice telephone conversations, I just had to meet you in person." These very basic elements of human kindness are not to be underestimated, especially considering today's dismal realities.

So there you have it. West Virginia in fact was one of the best times I've had in weeks. Who would've guessed?
------
Christina Ciocca is a former resident of Darien and a graduate of Greenwich Academy, Georgetown and Oxford. She now lives in Manhattan, where she works in strategic communications and public relations.

Here is my reply, posted on her newspaper:

Much of this is typical condescending Northeastern crap that West Virginians have grown accustomed to reading over the past several decades. Having spent time in Connecticut researching at Yale, I am at a loss to see where you get your heightened sense of superiority. To get there I had to run the gauntlet of the Cross Bronx Expressway, woe unto he who rolls down his or her window. Pheeewww!!!

The writer is dead on about Joe Manchin. I was in Charleston on business during his address as well. The next day I attended a gathering in his reception room where he again spoke. His emphasis on individual responsibility, his criticism of government handouts, his insistence that no one receive any help from the government unless they could prove that they had started helping themselves first were floodlights in a generally gloomy political time. I wished that, if the Democratic Party were destined to win the White House, that they would have nominated someone with experience and rock solid American economic ideals as Joe Manchin has expressed. I am sick of hearing about what I need to fear. We need to hear again that Americans have nothing to fear and will prevail. That is the difference between Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama on one hand and Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan on the other.

Please. Do not send any more young and enlightened journalists to West Virginia for personal learning experiences. Instead we will export people to your state and others to explain concepts such as the balanced budget and restrained government spending. Maybe then, the ethic of good old fashioned common sense and hard work, courtesy of your friends in the Mountain State, will help bring you out of the quagmire you all find yourselves in.

Oh, and enjoy Senator Countrywide while you are at it.

Where Is the Media Now When Robert Byrd Is Criticizing a President?

They are there. Maybe it does not lead the broadcast or make the front page, but the story did spread across the country. Senator Robert C. Byrd compared Barack Obama to Richard Nixon in blasting his use of policy czars. Byrd's fear is that these officials are not subject to the same supervision as Cabinet officials.

Byrd also compared Obama to George W. Bush, a figure that most liberals seem to think is worse than Richard Nixon. Bush operated, like Franklin Roosevelt, to prosecute a war and enhance national security. Obama wants to use such officials to oversee the auto industry and attack coal companies.

Byrd notes that this contradicts the campaign promise to be the most transparent administration in history. Bush made no such promise.

Still one wonders about the process of story placement. Whenever Senator Byrd breathed an anti-Bush word it led the news, sometimes for days. When the defender of the Constitution trains his guns on Obama, the story selection process is slightly different.

Needless to say, the reporters and analysts have tried to do their job. They have done well pointing out the problems and inconsistencies of the Won. Republicans are skillfully staking out their position while playing divide and conquer between the antagonistic presidential and congressional Democrats.

I just keep saying, two more years, two more years. The good ol' USA needs to hang in there. Help is on the way.

If only Senator Byrd would add some useful action to his criticisms. Abandon those people who evicted him from his chairmanship and join the next GOP filibuster. He's will lose nothing, but he can protect his principles.

Obama Executive Branch Called Dangerously Top Heavy

An analytical story that crossed the wires yesterday afternoon raised an alarming point. Obama has not only appointed traditional Cabinet secretaries, but also an amazing number of issue "czars," special advisers, and special diplomatic envoys responsible only to him. An expert noted that Obama seemed "addicted to czars." Five separate executive branch officials can claim a leadership role on the climate change issue, which many Americans by now have come to understand is no issue at all. Special envoys will be sent to Pakistan and other Middle Eastern countries, a move that undercuts the ambassadors to those nations and Her Royal Hillariness in the State Department.

Obama did not invent this style of government and it remains to be seen if this is intentional, or just the president muddling through, building legitimacy by appointing as many experts as he can find to do the same jobs. Franklin D. Roosevelt intentionally followed this pattern. Several people worked the same job independently, meaning that if a conflict arose, FDR would arbitrate, ensuring that he was kept informed and maintained his power. Accomplishing this meant that FDR presided over one of the most secretive and deceptive administrations in history at a time when the press was not only friendly, but by and large served the function of adoring accomplices. Obama will get no such treatment if he continues to try and intimidate hardened White House reporters with stare down tactics.

Other historical figures who have created ponderous and unwieldy systems such as Obama's include Russia's Czar Nicholas I and Adolf Hitler.

Obama is likely trying to establish these special offices and departments to get around his own Cabinet selections. He certainly wants to keep Hillary's wings clipped. His opposition includes the moderate and conservative Democrats as well as Republicans. Obama may believe that these special positions will lead to him keeping control of his own policy. Unless he has the intellect of FDR, it will more likely lead to a jumbled mass of ego, contradiction, and inactivity.

Of all the possibilities of a left leaning administration, socialist policies caught in the quicksand of a byzantine Executive Branch sounds like a less horrible result than others.

********************************************************************

I read yesterday where Obama and other local elites dined at Washington's Georgia Brown's. We walked past that place the other weekend. It had $30 entrees. Was this fancy food? Nope. $27 or so for a meal that included fried chicken, mashed potatoes, biscuits, and collard greens. It must be nice to be able to pay $30 for a meal you could get for one third the price at the same quality. Combine this with $100 per pound beef and you see how differently Obama and his friends are used to living than the rest of us.

Last Word on the W Movie

No, I haven't seen it yet and I don't plan on doing so.

However I read a review in Fox News's website that was almost gushing about how even handed it was. Oliver Stone expressed sympathy towards President Bush in a manner that astounded the writer of the review. It was sympathy with a cruel edge though.

Oliver Stone is a master propagandist. His film about the president undermines George W. Bush's legacy in a manner much more effective than the juvenile Michael Moore could ever comprehend. Stone states that he felt sorry for President Bush, citing the effects of a domineering father and a supporting cast of evil geniuses such as Condoleeza Rice. Here is the final liberal position on George W. Bush, a good but weak man manipulated by evil conservatives. Such "sympathy" could destroy the historical legacy of this administration, at least in the short term.

Stone asserts that every statement made by the president in the movie is true and backed by at least two sources. Such is the basis for arguing against inaccuracy. However words can be given context or have context taken away. Words can be delivered by an actor in such a way as to change the original intent of the speaker.

George W. Bush's legacy will remain as controversial as that of Harry Truman. Both men will have their presidencies interpreted very differently for the foreseeable future. Take two of the many looks at Truman made in the past fifteen years. David McCullough's biography, Truman and Arnold Offner's Another Such Victory.

Offner condemns Truman as a backwards provincial whose narrow vision led to disastrous results. Those results included the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan and America's early moves in the Cold War. Using the same statements and facts, McCullough celebrates Truman's middle American common sense as a strong factor in a successful foreign policy. Both men look at the same man's words and deeds to produce wildly different conclusions. Those who disapprove of America's leadership role in world affairs will side with Offner, while those who see the US as a positive force shaping the world will agree with McCullough.

Typically, Offner brushes aside critics of his denunciation of Truman by claiming they are blinded by "Fourth of July" triumphalism. Any idea that someone could legitimately and intelligently believe that Truman made good decisions about US foreign policy is laughed off. One sees the same response to arguments that Reagan played some role in ending the Cold War or that George W. Bush made the nation safe from terror in his presidency.

Hopefully academics will look at Bush's presidency with eyes not blinded by hatred to see the accomplishments made. It took a long time for FDR to get any credit from Republicans. Only recently has Truman earned grudging respect. Reagan is only now being described in positive terms by such unlikely people as Obama. Bush's day should come, but it will be a very long time.

Triumph of the Shrill

In the 1930s Leni Riefenstahl became the filmaker tapped to document the political rise of Adolf Hitler. Tremendously talented, she crafted an image in her Triumph of the Will for the new leader that distracted Germans from his bizarre beliefs and buffoonery and manufactured a vision of a powerful, wise, all knowing savior. Joseph Goebbels masterminded this image production and helped by staging spectacles. The larger the stadium, the more attendees, the more references to German and classical history and culture, the better Hitler could appear. In other words Goebbels and Riefenstahl sought to clothe the inadequacies of a lunatic in the robes of a demigod.

The 2008 Democratic Convention is no Nazi spectacle and Obama is no Hitler. This attempt at savior manufacturing looks more like a Mel Brooks parody of Riefenstahl's work. You half expect to see "PREZ" emblazoned in white on Obama's back. The goal is to unite the loud, neurotic, Bush haters with moderate and loyal Democrats in a last ditch effort to derail the McCain train.

Fortunately, Americans rarely accept this kind of stage handling in their politics. Anything so packaged raises suspicion in the eyes of most American voters. Only George Washington and, to a much lesser extent, Franklin Roosevelt ever enjoyed demigod type popularity and loyalty. Washington actively shunned any material manifestation of his authority, preferring to maintain tones of republican simplicity.

In 2008 the choice is clear. In McCain we have an accomplished man who acts in Washington's mold of republican simplicity. In Obama we have a demagogue seeking to win the presidency through the triumph of the shrill.

The Brilliance of President George W. Bush

It's not fashionable to say it, even amongst the conservatives who voted for him. The truth is inescapable, though. When it comes to foreign policy and bolstering American credibility in the world, President Bush and his administration have performed brilliantly.

After eight years of mollycoddling by Bill Clinton, President Bush's unabashedly aggressive policies worked like a bucket of ice water on a soundly sleeping child. Europe especially had to wake up and recognize the new sheriff in town. President Bush after 9/11 then named the three most wanted malefactors against world peace. His "Axis of Evil" address offended the sensibilities of liberals and professional diplomats in the same manner as President Reagan's "Evil Empire" analogy. In the long run, this kind of labeling when applied to rogue regimes is difficult to shake.

President Bush in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrated American resolve. Bill Clinton issued threats just as when the National Weather Service issues a thunderstorm threat. It may or may not come. President Bush along the same line issued warnings; in other words the storm is coming.

The world got used to an America ready to defend the interests of real peace and it responded. Anti-American governments fell in nations such as Germany and France despite the fact that the world press labeled the people as literally hating the United States. Perhaps they understand better than academics and the press who the real threat is. Meanwhile some states such as Libya abandoned their previous policies of seeking WMDs and supporting terror. Palestinian terror has dropped significantly since its major benefactor Saddam Hussein was expelled from power. Vietnam sought a partnership with the US against Islamic terror.

Dominoes continue to fall. Europe backed out of any support of Iran as its frightened president turned up the rhetorical heat. North Korea negotiated its way out of the Axis of Evil by succumbing to regional pressure led by the US. Now Iran stands virtually alone, even Chavez has not been his usual boisterous self lately. All this has happened quietly without a lot of saber rattling by the US. Once we proved that we would act, the rest of the world friend or foe knows they can count on American resolve.

Had Congress listened to the president's wishes domestically, our position would be even stronger. Imagine if we had followed President Bush's wishes from his first months in office when he warned us about upcoming energy shortages. We could be almost self-sufficient if we would only tap our own sources. His only flaw has been his inability to sell his policies in the same manner as Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, or Ronald Reagan. This reflects a businesslike mentality in the White House, but the result has been an electorate easily convinced by emotional appeals from his opponents.

At the end of the day, the Bush foreign policy has worked miraculous change. Europe stands with an aggressive United States. Even moderate anti-war activists have to accept the fact that the United States has almost succeeded in Iraq. Iran stands alone without support from any of its previous benefactors. Japan, Britain, and Australia stand with us as firmly as ever.

Hats off to President George W. Bush, a president who was not afraid to act and who has given the world real solutions rather than band aids.

Ed Koch Continues to Support George W. Bush

Former Mayor Ed Koch represents a dying breed. He is one of the last of the nationalist Democrats that once dominated American politics. Starting with Woodrow Wilson and continuing through Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy, these Democrats supported a strong American foreign policy. They learned the lessons of Munich and Pearl Harbor while fashioning the policies that Reagan eventually used to win the Cold War.

Koch compares President Bush to Harry Truman. Both men had a number of difficult decisions forced upon them by an unfriendly and changing world. Both men acted from the principle that American power wielded justly would deter the forces of tyrannical aggression. Certainly this required sacrifices that were not easy on the American people. History looks kindly on Truman today for his strength; Koch believes that George W. Bush will be remembered similarly. Bush's stand for a democratic Israel combined with his recognition of the threat posed by Islamofascism won him Koch's praise.

*************************************************************************

One of the last active nationalist Democrats is Joe Lieberman. Since his defeat as part of the Al Gore ticket in 2000, the Democratic Party has sought to purge him from his US Senate seat because he dares to support President Bush. Lieberman strongly supports John McCain in this election and a large silent percentage, if not a silent majority, of conservative and moderate Democrats will likely follow him. Interestingly, Hillary Clinton has turned full circle from her Vietnam War protest days and looks increasingly like a Democrat of old. However the radical MoveOn.org organization's money will defeat her in the end.

**************************************************************************

Looks like it might be a little while longer before we find out who Ruth Rowan will face this fall in the 50th delegate district. Alan "Mitch" Davis came within twenty votes of Royce Saville. Although declining to request a recount initially, Davis eventually decided to ask for one.

Rowan is a two term Republican incumbent.

It's the Same Old Thing Over and Over

Yesterday I came across an old book entitled American Revisionists. When I started reading it, I came upon a tired old refrain. The president lied to get us into a war. His lies were meant to make his friends in big business richer. It was none of our business. The people we were fighting for were the real enemies and their freedom was not worth the blood of our soldiers. Our president lied to us and betrayed us to start a war that killed young men for no reason. Try and guess who they were talking about.

It could have been Lyndon B. Johnson. Vietnam was certainly an unpopular war that invigorated the anti-war movement like none we had seen since the 1860s. For that matter it could have been Abraham Lincoln who had to brave angry torrents of public opinion when he revised the meaning of the Civil War to include the freedom for slaves. Joe Kennedy, father of John, Teddy, and Robert, held those same attitudes about Franklin D. Roosevelt his entire life.

The target this time was Woodrow Wilson. He led us into World War I after an escalating series of moves by Germany to threaten the United States and cut off its trade with Europe at a pivotal point of vulnerability for the Allies. Until Germany started sinking our ships and trying to talk Mexico into a war with us, Wilson urged all Americans to keep an open mind. His goal going into the war was a breathtaking crusade to use American power to change the face of Europe and end their seemingly eternal cycle of warfare. The end of fighting saw the British and French ignore Wilson's ideals and impose upon Germany a treaty guaranteed to start another war in two decades.

Intellectuals and left wing editors slammed Wilson after research showed the Allies more guilty than originally thought and Germany to be more foolish than evil. Some of the criticism was valid, but by the 30s it reached a shrill crescendo. Some intellectuals blamed France for the war and Wilson for supporting them. France actually tried to avoid the war and was drawn in when Germany invaded it! Emotion had supplanted reason and it started affecting policy. Trouble in Europe inspired Congress to pass a series of acts to restrain Franklin Roosevelt's hand. Some even proposed that the US never enter a war without a national referendum.

Unfortunately this tied FDR's hands at the very moment that he needed freedom to act against the most deadly enemy we had ever faced. Years in which US action might have cowed Adolf Hitler were spent by FDR patiently undoing the damage caused by hysterical intellectuals and their effect upon the public. The lesson we learned between 1941-45 was that the world is smaller and potentially more dangerous. Our president needs to act to forestall aggression, not wait until it hits our shores.

The legacy of the Bush presidency is still playing out. Certainly he headed off a potentially disastrous problem that Saddam Hussein's psychopathic sons would have presented. At the same time he demonstrated the American will to act that enhanced our credibility among those that hate us. History should reflect that as a positive step in our history.

Keeping It In Perspective

MSNBC exploded into my living room last night to announce that Election 2008 will be the most critical in our history. It then "treated" me to shots of Keith Obermann, Chris Matthews, and other screaming meemies it plans to use to cover this year's cycle. This represents one of those rare events that outhypes the Super Bowl.

Honestly the news has completely lost its credibility. When Dan Rather uses very questionable evidence to attack a president and elections are treated like ballgames, you can see that the media creates stories as much as reports them. The hype machine for this year's election started in 2006 and has resulted in frenzied coverage of every potential aspect, right down to how Chelsea Clinton responds to reporters.

Actually this election may be one of the less eventful or important in terms of the presidency compared to others in our nation's history. The election of 1800 was important because we transferred power from one party to another peacefully for the first time. In 1828 white men without property voted in many states for the first time, opening a new era in national politics complete with slogans and mudslinging. Both of Lincoln's elections addressed major national questions, in 1864 quite possibly whether the Union would win the Civil War or allow the Confederacy to live. Of course FDR's first election in 1932 brought on the New Deal and our world would look very different if the results of 1980 had been anything other than a Reagan victory.

This election so far has sputtered and puttered along. No candidate really has grabbed the imagination of their party while the presumed nominees from about this time last year have hit some obstacles. America's mayor has great leadership qualities, but what are his core beliefs and how will they affect his decisions? The former first lady right now seems to frighten some liberals almost as much as conservatives, although despite Iowa, she is a likely shoe in as the Democratic nominee. Obama will give her a scare early, as McCain did Bush in 2000. However she has been preparing this for too long.

That being said, this election does not seem to feature great national questions. Iraq is winding down towards a positive conclusion although the Middle East still has severe problems. Suddenly Democratic nominees want to debate the economy again. The Republicans have a pretty good track record there, despite the media attempts to paint it otherwise. Bush's administration has secured America from attack for almost seven years now, enabling the population at large to put the homeland security issue on the backburner. In other words, what are the great issues of this cycle? They are important, but they do not compare to the nation torn in two or crippling economic depressions.

Don't get me wrong, that does not mean that this election is not important. There are many reasons to be concerned about who will run the country for the next several years. However, overhyping anything produces mental callouses on the intended audience. How can presidential candidates seriously debate important issues when the media overhyping has caused too many to tune out? Then the media will wring its hands and wonder why so many voters ignore the elections altogether.

Presidential Prerogatives

Secrecy versus the right to know has grown into an important debate in terms of the restriction of presidential papers.

During the Watergate hangover years, lawmakers sought to reduce the aura of secrecy that existed around presidential papers. After Richard Nixon's administration, zealously guarded secrecy was seen as a catalyst for presidential misdeeds. Perhaps if presidential communications saw more scrutiny, they might themselves act in a more transparent manner. Additionally historians rejoiced in the idea that they could access crucial records more quickly.

The last two presidents have come under fire for restricting access to their papers. The New York Times recently blasted President Bush for adhering to a family "mania for secrecy." Five years ago he wrote an executive order placing many of his personal papers under restriction for the immediate future. During recent Democratic debates, Hillary Clinton's competition of stuffed shirts blasted her refusal to release her personal correspondence between herself and her husband. Historians despise both measures because they want access to these documents as soon as possible.

Historians may be hurting their own efforts. Our record of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia was locked up for fifty years so that the participants could speak freely. What if they believed their thoughts would appear in print within a few years? This would alter what was communicated and written down. Future historians will not have those rare finds of politicians actually communicating their real unguarded thoughts. Because Franklin D. Roosevelt did not trust that his papers would remain inviolate, he communicated everything through speaking. We rarely have any idea what was really on his mind at any given point.

Additionally personal papers, especially those between a husband and wife regardless of position, are personal. Hillary Clinton and her husband wrote things to each other on important issues that I personally would be interested in seeing. However these are personal communications and so long as no criminal investigation exists, these papers ought to remain private for the time being. They especially ought not be fodder during a presidential campaign.

George W. Bush's communications come during wartime, something that liberals and the media seem to haver perpetual ammnesia about. They reflect strategies and ideas that could help our enemies if released, even after his term is over. Again, this is a situation where historians want to write their books and political folks want mud to smear.

Bush and Clinton both deserve the right in the short term to limit access to their personal papers so long as there is an eventual date that everything end up in the public eye. It may be years, it may be decades, but that is the price we pay so that these people can feel free to record their thoughts.

How Democracy Dies

Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez took another step towards the final strangulation of democracy in his country this week. He announced a proposal to eliminate presidential term limits and the rubber stamp National Assembly will undoubtedly approve enthusiastically. Venezuela's people will again suffer from Chavez's quest for absolute and permanent power.

Wealthy people, private enterprise, and the middle class definitely suffer. A business climate requires the rule of law and protection of private property. Without these guarantees, investment dwindles and people lose opportunities. The poor suffer as well. They may appreciate the crumbs thrown their way by the government, but the opportunity for real advancement (except through the government) disappears. Even though Venezuela sits atop a major oil pool, the state ownership of much of that resource means that the private sector must kowtow to Chavez. One wonders if Jimmy Carter received a gift basket for his certification of the rigged vote that assured Chavez of continued power.

Term limits have generally defined the limits of our presidential system. George Washington rejected pleas for a third term because he wanted to avoid the precedent of a man serving until he died. Washington died in 1799, two years before his possible third term would have ended. Franklin Roosevelt broke the third term barrier due to an unusual national emergency and served until his 1945 death. Since then a constitutional amendment bars third terms.

America benefits from this limitation. The strain of the job wears down the holder of the job mentally and physically. Few leaders have the kind of political and state responsibilities that the American president has. Early Roman Emperors who shared their authority with other bodies provide a parallel. However the immense power drove many of them mad within their first decade of rule. Being Caesar for too long can mentally unbalance a person, or physically destroy them (like FDR.)

Chavez has few political worries except for a bullet in the head. However he presents a danger to his people and to US influence in the region. Hopefully his murder of Venezuelan democracy will inspire other Latin Americans to hold even tighter to their freedoms. Conversely he has grown into an inspirational figure for loony leftists such as the mayor of Macon, Georgia who requested a partnership with him. Does he think he can inspire revolution here? Likely. His activities require watching.

Whose Constitution?

One of the most dangerous trends in American law over the past several years lies in the blurring of the lines between citizen and non citizen. Maybe it is a failure of education that people for whatever reason assume that "Constitutional Rights" extend to anyone that happens to enter the jurisdiction of the United States.

Nationally the debate rages over detainees at Guantanamo Bay. People who ought to know better complain because those held there have been denied counsel, trial, and other legal remedies available to US citizens. Liberal judges (who are quickly overruled) support this nonsense to make a political statement against the president rather than ruling on the law. Closer to home, West Virginia law enforcement agencies have started distributing Miranda warnings in Spanish. No officer wants to work hard to get illegals off the street just so a liberal judge can wave a legal magic wand and give them Constitutional rights.

The Constitution's preamble has repeatedly been cited as part and parcel of the law of that document. This legal principle lay at the heart of every action taken by Abraham Lincoln to restore the Union. "We the people of the United States" opens the document. "The people" and "persons" used later on denotes United States citizens. Somewhere along the way, a segment of American thinkers has determined that our Constitution applies to those that sneak across our borders illegally. Even worse, they argue that enemies of our country that the military rounds up and detains have rights to our legal system. Imagine if Franklin Roosevelt had to deal with this foolishness when his FBI efficiently rounded up German agents at the commencement of World War II.


We cannot allow non citizens to take advantage of our benevolence. If you are not an American citizen, you do not receive the "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Those politicians that support extending legal protections, social services, and (I am not kidding here) voting rights to illegal non citizens ought to be held to account.

Who Newsweek Says They Want For President in 2008

On the May 14th issue of Newsweek, the magazine placed on their cover the model for their preferred guy to take over the office in 2009. Immediately I recognized his smiling face as one of my personal favorites in the presidency. This man approached the many foreign and domestic crises of his presidency head on. He always formed part of the solution, even if we did not know about his role until much later. Being a strong willed "decider" won him few friends as time wore on, however. This man's determination to follow through with an unpopular war lost him what little personal popularity he ever enjoyed across the board. By the middle of his second term, approval ratings plummeted to near 20%. He held middle American values which earned him the disdain of intellectuals, which he happily returned.


Media elites saw his plain spoken manner as a sign of non intelligence, also often citing his business which failed in the midst of prosperity. Others mentioned the departure of his first secretary of state, a former general who held the public's admiration and respect, as proof that this president's foreign policy had gone wrong. At the end, members of his own party turned on him and compared him unfavorably to a predecessor with a charm, brilliance, vision, and ability to communicate almost unparalleled in American history. By the end of his second term, however, the economy was stronger than it was when he started and America's leadership in the free world was unquestioned.


No, Newsweek did not have a picture of George W. Bush on the cover. Instead we saw Harry Truman under the headline that asked who the next Truman would be. Since the Man From Missouri lies safely in his grave, liberal media types can safely trumpet him as their ultimate president. Truman rightly enjoys high praise from historians now despite his second term unpopularity. Few want to admit that our current president in many ways parallels Truman and deserves the same consideration for seeing the United States through a very difficult period.


The liberal media fails to acknowledge that George W. Bush follows in the foreign policy tradition of the confrontational Harry Truman. If you want to make them fall into a fetal position and tremble, mention Franklin D. Roosevelt's desire at the end of World War II for the United States to stamp out rogue regimes before they become powerful enough to threaten the peace of their regions, much less the US itself. He learned firsthand that we ought to destroy regimes like Hussein's and Hitler's earlier, lest we commit hundreds of thousands of soldiers and uncountable resources later.


Just because liberals today want to claim Harry Truman (and many of them actually did not in his time!) does not mean they have the right. Today's liberalism was not Truman's liberalism of confident American action. Today's Democratic Party is light years away from the one he led.