Loyal To LibertyBeta

Last night I posted as the 'featured link' on this site a link to what purports to be a 2004 article, from the online archives of a Kenyan newspaper, about the withdrawal of Obama's original Republican opponent in the 2004 race for the U.S. Senate in Illinois. What is of interest for present purposes is that both the headline and body of the article refer to Obama as Kenyan born.

Given the sophisticated possibilities for fabrication in both the virtual and real world these days, it would be foolish to assume that by itself this 'proves' anything about Obama's birthplace. Even if the article is authentic, it would simply indicate that some people in Kenya thought (perhaps mistakenly) that he was born there. Kenyan newspaper stories from 2004 (online or otherwise) are no more definitive proof of Obama's birthplace than uninformative birth announcements in Hawaiian newspapers from 1961.

This episode simply illustrates the need for what I and many others have sought:

• a Constitutionally authoritative investigation of the facts;
  
• a similarly authoritative evaluation of its results;
  
• And, based on that evaluation, a Constitutionally authoritative judgment of law and fact as to whether Obama satisfies the Constitution's clear eligibility requirements for the Office of President of the United States.
  

I have received, or read here and there in online exchanges, comments from people critical of those (like my lawyer in the case before Judge Carter, Orly Taitz) who publicized purported birth certificates that have been declared fabricated or fraudulent by unofficial experts. These critics apparently miss the point. The Constitution of the United States is not "unofficially" the Supreme Law of the land. Obama does not "unofficially" claim to be President of the United States. But those who voted in the 2008 general election, whether they voted for or against him, had occasion to do so thanks to his oath or affirmation that he satisfies the Constitution's requirements. Such voters are actually being deprived of the substantive assurance that we have not "unofficially" (i.e., without due process of law) been deprived of the right and privilege of a Constitutionally valid choice at the ballot box. Without this assurance, the electoral process the Constitution establishes, and the scheme of representative (i.e., republican) government it is supposed to implement, will be permanently impaired by the suspicion of lying and fraud perpetrated at the highest possible levels of government.

The establishment of fact required for a credible, Constitutionally authoritative and substantive judgment cannot be supplied by unofficial evaluations of purported evidence, or casual internet discussions of the provisions of law that are relevant to a judgment based upon that evidence. Whatever may be the doubts with respect to any particular testimony or documentary claims, Obama's own actions have surely become the main source of the cloud of uncertainty and suspicion with respect to his Constitutional eligibility. As with any other job applicant, the issue of credentials once raised is rightly dealt with as a matter of course. Applicants who refuse to comply with requests that they produce their qualifying credentials foment doubts, by their own behavior, where doubts would otherwise not exist. Add to this the concerted and unaccountably scurrilous media dismissal of the common sense demand that the issue be authoritatively resolved, and it's not hard to explain the increasingly widespread presumption in the minds of many that something of important relevance to the Constitutional issue is being withheld from public scrutiny.

Seeking to blame and persecute those who are asking public officials to abide by their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution further aggravates the impression of malfeasance. Some continue to insist that this request indicates hostility to Obama. The real hostility (and perhaps even invidious discrimination) is shown by the unwillingness to accord him the same opportunity for resolution of all doubt that John McCain enjoyed. Do some of the power elite think they gain advantage, from perpetuating the impression that only fear of some adverse reaction based on race, rather than undisputed Constitutional authority, accounts for Obama's continued presence in the White House? Like the workplace whispers that resentfully ascribe advancement to "affirmative action", rather than proven qualifications and performance, the ongoing refusal to allow Constitutionally authoritative closure in this matter smacks of more ill will than the honest desire to clear the air of doubt.

As I was working on what became the two most recent postings on this site I came across a Charles Krauthammer offering, Decline is a choice: The new liberalism and the end of American ascendancy. In it he offers a cogent critique of the Obama faction's calculated surrender of America's position of leadership in the world. He also suggests an opposing alternative which begins with the notion that we should "accept our role as hegemon" for the simple reason that "we are as benign a hegemon as the world has ever seen." "…resistance to decline," he declares "begins with moral self-confidence."

Mr. Krauthammer accurately summarizes the moral view that undergirds the Obama faction's determination to abdicate America's leadership position.

But the liberal internationalism of today is different. It is not center-left, but left-liberal. And the new left-liberal internationalism goes far beyond its earlier Clintonian incarnation in its distrust of and distaste for American dominance. For what might be called the New Liberalism, the renunciation of power is rooted not in the fear that we are essentially good but subject to the corruptions of power--the old Clintonian view--but rooted in the conviction that America is so intrinsically flawed, so inherently and congenitally sinful that it cannot be trusted with, and does not merit, the possession of overarching world power.

For the New Liberalism, it is not just that power corrupts. It is that America itself is corrupt--in the sense of being deeply flawed, and with the history to prove it. An imperfect union, the theme of Obama's famous Philadelphia race speech, has been carried to and amplified in his every major foreign-policy address, particularly those delivered on foreign soil. (Not surprisingly, since it earns greater applause over there.)

And because we remain so imperfect a nation, we are in no position to dictate our professed values to others around the world. Demonstrators are shot in the streets of Tehran seeking nothing but freedom, but our president holds his tongue because, he says openly, of our own alleged transgressions towards Iran (presumably involvement in the 1953 coup). Our shortcomings are so grave, and our offenses both domestic and international so serious, that we lack the moral ground on which to justify hegemony.

He then proceeds to give an excellent summary of the policies― dangerous and perhaps even fatal to American survival― that arise from Obama's self-righteous degradation of America's moral standing. But while proposing that the reassertion of moral self-confidence is the first step toward correcting these destructive policies, Mr. Krauthammer offers no account of the alternative understanding of America's actions and history that provides the basis for it. He does not address the obvious questions. What moral understanding produced what he describes as America's benign "hegemony"? What morality therefore provides a reasonable basis for the reassertion of moral self-confidence?

In the absence of such an account, Mr. Krauthammer's prescription risks being mistaken for nothing more than a proposal that we cling to American ascendancy for its own sake. Perhaps he believes (understandably so, given the real peril involved) that the mere fact that the alternative is so dangerous makes further moral reasoning superfluous. We may seem to be like the ancient Athenians, whose almost inadvertent establishment of an empire in the wake of the Persian Wars appeared to bring them to a point where they faced an inescapable choice: embrace their imperial vocation or see their way of life destroyed.

Sadly, Thucydides' sobering depiction of Athens' tragic fate in The Peloponnesian War suggests that this was a false appearance that resulted from the failure of statesmanship that in the natural course of things afflicted the Athenians, as it now unnaturally afflicts the United States. The policy consonant with the way of life Pericles so eloquently epitomizes in his famous funeral oration precisely eschewed the ambition of empire, even while acknowledging and relying upon the strength Athens derived from its commerce with the cities that had come together under her leadership to forestall the threat from Persia's perennial imperialism. Thucydides relates that after Pericles' death, shortsighted panderers for power misled the Athenians into "allowing private ambitions and private interests…to lead them into projects unjust both to themselves and to their allies―projects whose success would only conduce to the honor and advantage of private persons, and whose failures entailed certain disaster on the country…"

It has always been tempting to look for parallels between the situation of ancient Athens and that of the United States during the twentieth century. Ironically, that temptation may in part account for the susceptibility of America's educated elite to the Obama faction's sordid view of America's actions in the decades since the Second World War. (A view largely parroted by some who supposedly stand at the opposite end of the political spectrum, as I mentioned in the article The USA- a special nation with special responsibilities.)

But the United States is not Athens. Its moral understanding differs from that of the ancient polity precisely with respect to the fact that greatness and the prideful sense of honor that results from it do not essentially define or shape the American character. This difference is eminently clear when we compare Pericles' funeral oration with the archetypal American oration for soldiers who met death in battle. Lincoln's Gettysburg address deals not with the habits or achievements of the American people, but with their common allegiance to certain principles of right. The nobility of their war dead does not shine in the light of merely national pride. It rises in light of God's goodwill toward creation, and the lustrous hope of all humanity for liberty, dignity and justice.

It does potentially fatal injustice to this nobility to use the benignity of American "hegemony" as moral cover for a reassertion of American leadership based on little more than an expedient hunger for preeminence. To attempt to restore America's moral confidence by discarding (or is it benignly neglecting?) the morality that justifies it is a project that can only reproduce in foreign and national security policy the fruitless futility and ultimate failure characteristic of the barren, 'hollow Republican' betrayal of our political process and institutions.

After WWII America did in fact show a degree of restraint in the use of its preeminent position of power in the world that is without precedent in human history. The use of unaccustomed power inevitably entails some abuses, just as people who grow into great physical strength or stature sometimes hurt others before they "know their own strength." But had America behaved as every other preeminent power in history behaved, we would not today be living in a world filled with nations robust and confidently independent enough to applaud and ruthlessly exploit Obama's dangerous policies of national derogation and appeasement. Japan would not only have endured the awful experience of the first demonstration of nuclear war making power, it would still languish in subjection because of it; so too would others who only witnessed it, like Germany and even the the countries that once made up the Soviet Union. A whole host of nations, including most of those in the Middle East who now are willing incubators of the terrorist threat against us, would never have tasted anything but perpetual colonial subjection and oppression.

Mr. Krauthammer inadvertently discredits this historically unique American repudiation of power enforced global supremacy with the use of terms like "hegemon" and "hegemony" which imply a Caesar-like dismissal of what is actually coveted and enjoyed. (He even tacitly assumes moral equivalency by using the term "co-hegemon" to refer to the U.S. post-war position in relation to the Soviet Union.) Whatever may have been, and may now be, the arrogant caesarism of America's power elites, most of the good and decent Americans, from all walks and stations of life, laid to rest near now quiet battlefields of wartime sacrifice and courage did not thirst for power, or glory or fame. They simply did their moral duty. Whether they lived or died they did so longing for no possession but the safety of their own home and life and liberty, and to restore to humanity a decent share of hope that all might in peace enjoy the same.

America did not rise to world leadership in the twentieth century because the American people thirsted for domination and preeminence. Neither will we strive to hold on to leadership for such reasons, no matter how often Mr. Krauthammer or others obliquely flatter us with good assurances of what a good master we proved to be. Real American common sense acknowledges the simple truth that people who genuinely reject being slaves to others reject with equal fervor the claim to be their masters. Human nature is as much degraded by the one as the other.

Mr. Krauthammer is right, though, about the benign intention that distinguished and ought still to distinguish America's leadership among nations. But by neglecting to recount the connection between that intention and the self-evident truths from which it arose, he is led to neglect the wise symmetry of the self-evident truths that make this distinction possible. We assert liberty on the basis of moral ideas that constrain power within the confines of justice. It was no accident that in our use of supreme power, we were mindful of that constraint. Being all too human, we were and are from time to time misled, as were the ancients, by people serving only their own power, wealth and pride. But time and again, we withdrew our confidence from such people, sometimes even when expediency would have said it was not wise to do so. I have no doubt that Mr. Krauthammer and others like him are sincerely seeking to oppose the unwisdom of just such a withdrawal from our special responsibility for 'the last best hope' of earth. But there can be no success for such opposition until the false hope of surrender and abdication again faces the true hope grounded in the faithful commitment that defines our identity both as Americans and as human beings. It is not a willful commitment to maintain the hollow ascendancy of power, but rather a reverent determination to keep faith with the principles of liberty, and with the will of the Creator God whose justice makes us free.

[This is the follow-on to my previous post and must be read in context with it.]

We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar
Shape without form, shade without color,
Paralyzed force, gesture without motion;

T. S. Eliot, The Hollow Men

I recently read a newsmax.com article (California Becomes Fiscal Basket Case) summarizing California's fiscal woes that included an observation from USC professor Kevin Starr that "California is on the verge of becoming the first failed state in America."

Recounting the history of California's current woes, the article notes that "Had California lived within the limitation imposed under the 1979 Gann Amendment, which limited the growth of spending to the rate of economic growth, some analysts say the state would be in a far better fiscal situation today. But former Gov. George Deukmejian allowed exemptions to budget items, such as education, before leaving office in 1991, which began the state's current fiscal trend." With this permission from a Governor wearing the label that supposedly represents fiscal discipline, "California' spending increased 180.9 percent between 1991 and 2001, and the state budget ballooned from $51.4 billion in 1991 to $144.5 billion during the past fiscal year, according to the Reason foundation."

In recent months California pols have belatedly and desperately tried to medicate the state's economic ills with a dose of spending restraint. "Under the budget deal Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Democratic-controlled Legislature cut this summer to close California's $26.3 billion dollar budget deficit, billions were slashed from the education budget, and 60,000 state employees were slated to be sacked."

Asked about all this, Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, chimed in with the silver lining: "The one thing that comes out of this is that California can be an example of what not to do for the rest of the country." Sadly I wonder if Mr. Norquist would include in his list of things to be avoided, the election of a pro-abortion, pro-gay "rights" governor touting the Republican brand name, who wooed support from conservatives with half-hearted promises to implement fiscally responsible spending policies.

Like a lot of principled conservatives around the country, I supported then California state Sen. Tom McClintock, not Arnold Schwarzenegger, in the special election to replace Gov. Gray Davis back in Oct. 2003. At the time, McClintock combined proven and experienced fiscal conservatism with an equally proven commitment to carry out the moral understanding that demands respect for God-ordained natural rights (including first of all the unalienable right to life) and the prerogatives of the God-ordained natural family. On the other hand, somewhat successful comedic actor Arnold Schwarzenegger (his other movies delivered action, not acting) combined a proven record in the profession of physical narcissism with an equally proven commitment to Hollywood's profoundly superficial but politically correct ethical code, which combines the profitable stupefaction of sex and violence with occasional bouts of self-congratulatory altruism.

The circumstances of the 2003 special election eerily foreshadow what may be the national political situation in 2012. A Republican's (Deukmejian) surrender of conservative principle unleashes a Democrat imposed era of unsustainable growth in the size and expense and outstanding debts of government. The inevitable shortcomings of this era offer Republicans an opportunity to reclaim political leadership. Will they choose an alternative that offers proven fiscal conservatism combined with moral principle (McClintock) or the half-hearted promise of fiscal conservatism combined with moral surrender (Schwarzenegger)?

Right after the general election last year Donald Kent Douglas offered an excellent analysis of electoral realities which suggest that when it comes to a truly conservative political choice Grover Norquist is exactly right: California provides a good example of what not to do. In his article Douglas points to "a useful three-fold scenario" offered by "political scientist Marvin King in the Clarion-Ledger. He thinks the Republicans might focus on a 'Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee' path to power; they might seek a path in a 'Grover Norquist/Club for Growth' agenda; or they might seek a route that 'goes west' - that is, a moves in the direction of Arnold Schwarzenegger." In the electoral analysis that follows, Douglas rightly rejects the Schwarzenegger model. But he limits his analysis to political facts (which groups of voters might vote for which of the alternatives). He therefore neglects to consider whether any of these three alternatives has a substantive logic true and persuasive enough to shape voters' convictions. To produce a political result that will actually restore the integrity and strength of American liberty, Americans need to rediscover the deeply reasonable convictions that were the foundation for the integrity and strength of American liberty. Without this restoration of freedom's creed, the 2012 election will just decide which bunch of self-serving politicos presides over its final interment.

Each of the three alternatives falls short of what is needed, and for the same reason. The logic is missing. The Grover Norquist/Club for growth "fold" most perfectly represents this deficiency. They rightly champion fiscal restraint, low taxes and in general the idea of limited government that has been the key to implementing the constitutional sovereignty of the people. But while pretending to deal with the practical requirements of successful limited government, they neglect a simple, very practical truth often reiterated by those who framed, and then argued for, the adoption of the U.S. Constitution: There can logically be "no limitation of a power destined to effect a purpose which is itself incapable of limitation." (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #31)

James Madison later (Federalist 51) alludes to the general purpose of all government when he first asks "But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?" and then observes "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." Government owes its existence to a purpose imposed by the human tendency toward behavior that selfishly violates right and justice. Without restraint, this tendency leads to perpetual conflict and disorder. Given this purpose, unrestrained human viciousness implies unlimited government power.

But restraint may be internal or external. Madison alludes to angels as the archetype of perfect internal restraint. That presumably puts devils at the opposite extreme, with human beings somewhere in between. If as Madison suggests, angels require no government then devils require the maximum application of government's restraining power. But if Hamilton is right, this means that limited government makes no sense when dealing with devils. It is only necessary and appropriate when dealing with human beings. Humans have a tendency to behave like devils, but oftentimes have the will and desire to behave like angels as well. (Rather like the bad boys and girls who go off to Hollywood. There they play at being destructive, self-indulgent devils, all the while longing to be the angelic saviors of the world.)

The difference between men and angels is not that angels are good and men are not. It is that angels are perfectly good, while men can only strive to be. For human beings, perfection (whether of good or evil) is always a work in progress; a question of acting according to a model or standard of perfection, rather than fully attaining that standard. (The wisdom of Christ suggests this duality. We strive to be perfect even as our heavenly Father is perfect. But we pray as those who always miss the mark (sin) and must beg the Lord's forgiveness.) Limited government depends on the extent to which people, in their overall behavior, approximate the standard without having to be constrained by government force. The more they act out their unruly passions, the more untenable limited government becomes.

What is it that keeps some people who profess to be proponents of limited government from accepting this simple, practical fact? Their alliance with those who seek to defend the God ordained standards of right conduct should not be a matter of electoral calculation. It is a natural and logical necessity. Someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger cannot be a consistent champion of limited government (and therefore of conservative fiscal policies) because his acceptance of 'political correct' moral anarchy contradicts the practical prerequisite of limited government. The more people lie, cheat steal and kill, the more pervasive and heavy handed the police powers of government must become. The more people seek sexual pleasures without regard to the responsibilities of procreation (childbearing and rearing) the more intrusive the caretaker role of government must become. The more people seek and indulge in stupefying pleasures (drugs, sex and rock n' roll) the more government dictation (in health care as well as other economic sectors) must compensate for their indolent, selfish and counter-productive habits (like sloth and overeating for example.)

It is a self-evident and self-defeating sham to champion limited government, feign moral indifference, then give real support to moral licentiousness and collapse. Inevitably, the rhetoric of limited government must surrender to insistent and ever increasing demands for government action, until the possibility of just government is swallowed up in a maelstrom of economic/social bankruptcy and confusion. As part of the United States California may for a time postpone the worst effects of the maelstrom. But like Gov. Deukmejian, President G.W. Bush abandoned conservative principles, pushing the bank bailout that opened the door to Obama's debt financed spending frenzy. So the U.S. now stands at the edge of a national version of California's ills. Electing a national version of Schwarzenegger's deadly 'moderation' will no more allay the coming storm in the U.S. than it did in California. Tragically for all of us, the storm probably portends the reemergence of age old tyranny, albeit armed with new technology for repression. This the Obama faction eagerly prepares to impose.

Does the proffered Palin/Huckabee fold of the "three-fold scenario" promise a really different result? I'll be thinking about that in my next posting.