Nixonian Foreign Policy and Obama

A couple of days ago, I described Hillary Clinton's foreign policy as being that of Richard Nixon and the more I thought about it, the more I felt that point needed clarification.

Nixon's main achievements came in the field of foreign policy. Lyndon Johnson's tax and spend approach to welfare combined with his mismanagement of the Vietnam War led to a period of American weakness. High inflation, breakdowns of social cohesion, and a declining ability to project power meant that by the late 60s, that weakness was real. Nixon adjusted US policy accordingly. For the first time since World War II, we dealt from a position of weakness rather than one of strength. This required Nixon, more so than other presidents, to engage enemies with despicable domestic records. Mao Tse Dong was the worst of the lot. However, Nixon did this with an overall vision of m,aking our enemies (USSR and China) more afraid of each other than of us. It worked, giving us breathing room before the American Renaissance of Ronald Reagan.

Obama has insisted that we show disrespect to our friends and love to our enemies (who use the opportunity to slap us in the face when they get the chance.) It is the Nixon concept of engaging enemies, without the overall plan of how to use that engagement to secure security. What is most galling is that at the end of 2008 the United States was the most secure and strongest power in the world. Obama's excessive borrowing has placed us at the mercy of our adversaries. His policy of apologizing for every slight, real or imagined, has dissolved the international respect so carefully established by Bush and Rice.

So a point of clarification. I used Nixon to describe Clinton and Obama's policy because liberals believe that Nixon is worse than Hitler and Judas Iscariot rolled into one. However it does use some aspects of Nixon's process without the overall vision or savvy that will lead to an enhanced American security.

If West Virginia's Obama Voters REALLY Want Change . . .

Sure they are a minority, but they will make up perhaps 40% of West Virginia's voters in this coming election. Obama voters have latched onto a candidate who has promised nothing substantial beyond "change." Yet those same voters will:

Vote to re-elect a Commissioner of Agriculture who has held the office since the days of Lyndon Johnson. Gus Douglass is not a bad guy. However J. Michael Teets has fresh ideas that will invigorate our agricultural sector and take advantage of emerging market opportunities in the "field."

Vote to return Joe Manchin for four more years as governor. Again, Joe Manchin is not a bad guy. He has not done a bad job, nor has he really made an impact on changing the political culture of the state. Russ Weeks promises to attack the culture of cronyism and corruption that strangles state government, but Obama voters will not choose his kind of change.

Vote to bring back Darrel McGraw for another term. McGraw launches frivolous lawsuits and distributes much of the money to political allies who in turn throw him major fundraisers. I guess we should not change that either.

Vote for Natalie Tennant instead of Charles Minimah for Secretary of State. Betty Ireland has been changing our state's political culture and Minimah has committed himself to continuing her fight. Minimah is outside of the traditional old boy network, also.

Vote for Democrats running in state legislative races. Now there is a vote for change. The same party has been pulling the same shenanigans for over seventy-five years. Definitely continue to vote for these guys if you seriously want change. Oh, by the way, while in charge, Democratic rule of West Virginia has seen our state plummet in population, economic indicators, and congressional representation. Thanks Ruling Party!

Obama liberals are entitled to vote for what they think is change (even though it is really for Chicago machine politics sporting a Cheshire cat grin.) However, they ought to at least be consistent. If they really want change, beneath that presidential box vote a straight Republican ticket. Now the GOP in West Virginia really is change we need.

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.

West Virginia Ranks Second in Obesity. So What?

State media and hand wringers have jumped all over the numbers that say West Virginians are the second most obese people in the country by state. Around the nation no state reduced its obesity rate. One group called for "systemic change" in how we approach the subject.

I doubt I am overwhelmingly old just because I remember that in the not too distant past that our main problem in Appalachia was people not having enough to eat. Lyndon B. Johnson based a lot of mistaken, but well-intentioned ideas on eradicating hunger. Welfare did not eradicate hunger. America's productive economy has made food cheaper and more accessible than ever before. Advances in technology mean that fewer people have to perform as much manual labor. More people have a college education, meaning that they have less physically strenuous jobs.

Many studies link poverty to obesity. This should not be a surprise. Many healthy foods benefit from agricultural price supports. When a poor single mother has to choose between paying about a quarter for a gallon of Kool Aid versus three dollars for a gallon of juice, who can blame her for her choices. Hamburger Helper costs about five dollars with the meat included and it feeds an entire family. How much does fish and chicken breast cost? Many act as if the poor are ignorant, but in reality they make rational choices about scarce resources. Potatoes and bread are very inexpensive and most importantly very filling, yet they do tend to make people gain weight.

Outside of the poor, everyone else has choices. Many simply choose to not restrain themselves and frankly it is their God-given right. It always worries me when people start saying something ought to be done about the free choices people make. Obesity is a life choice. So is avoiding it. We need no laws, nor do we need any government programs outside of education. We certainly do not need lawsuit legislation. America needs to remember what freedom of choice means. It is a right, and also a responsibility.

So many countries in the world would love to have a dire social problem like having too much to eat and no reason to perform daily back breaking exercise.