In the halls of the Gaylord Hotel at the National Harbor just outside of Washington DC, the scene of CPAC 2013, confusion was palpable. Emotions were mixed as crowds gathered to hear speeches from the Republican Party’s motley crew of aspiring leaders. Organizers frantically tinkered with the schedule, changing times and moving speakers to accommodate competing agendas, messages, and events. In the end, the conference left many wanting and sparked more questions than answers.

Perhaps one question stands out among the rest—what is the future of conservatism in America? The New York Times skewered CPAC, leading with the following byline, “GOP Divisions Fester at Conservative Retreat.” Indeed, divisions were legion: Tea Party against establishment, interventionist against isolationist, and amnesty against accountability.

The disunion manifested in human form. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush implored Republicans to eschew their ant-immigrant, anti-women, anti-gay persona. Sarah Palin charged that Republicans needed a rhetorical facelift. Senator Rand Paul called the GOP “stale and moss covered” while Senator Marco Rubio rebuffed, “We don’t need a new idea.” Mitt Romney, the keynote speaker, somberly asked Republicans to learn from their mistakes, and his.

This leads us to reality. Despite the dubious claims by conservative thinkers like George Will, who claim that the issues tearing apart the GOP are a source of strength, the reality is that the Republican Party is in meltdown. A party divided against itself cannot stand.

The Grand Old Party is undergoing a heart transplant and suffering a stroke at the same time. But before you tremble with fear for the future of America, bear in mind that the principle enemy to conservatism today is the GOP, not the DNC. Republicans caved to the New Deal. Republicans expanded LBJ’s Great Society Programs. Republicans granted the first amnesty. Republicans first exploded the country’s national debt. Conservatives stood by, happy to accept electoral victory even if their candidates failed to follow through on conservative principles.

And now Republicans want to finish off conservatism, this time for good. Senators McCain and Graham want amnesty for illegals, Speaker Beohner and Whip Cantor have conceded on Obamacare, and Representative Ryan’s budget actually increases federal spending for years to come.

But this time the GOP has gone too far. The conservative right has had enough. Conservative radio has grown defiant, filling the air waves with angry Americans who demand representation in Washington. They want a new voice, a new message, and a new party that represents their views, the views of people who are confronting America’s real problems.

The American people are beginning to realize their country is breaking down economically, culturally, and spiritually. Almost 50 million Americans are on food stamps. Over ten million are unemployed or underemployed. Well over 12 million illegal immigrants steal our jobs, exploit our public services, and ignore our laws. Washington is broke. The federal government brings in enough revenue to fund three major programs: Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. The rest of government is paid for with borrowed money, and much of that is printed out of thin air by the Fed.

Conservatism is not dead; it is finally emerging from hibernation. After decades of showing up at the polls to vote for RINOs or liberals, conservatives are walking away. A new party is on the horizon. The question is who will lead us there?

Cameron Macgregor is a former naval officer and USNA grad. He is currently a graduate student a George Mason University.

The fiscal cliff fiasco proved once again that America is unwilling to wean itself off of the gravy train. It also proved that the election this past fall did not alter in any meaningful way Washington’s trajectory toward disaster. The once meager ranks of fiscal doomsayers inside and outside the beltway are recruiting new members with each “averted” crisis. The reasons for conversion post-cliff are legion: no spending cuts, no tax reform, no entitlement reform, and no leadership. The once unshakable faith in Washington’s ability to right the ship is deflating, spurring feelings of anguish and disgust.

Is America sinking? You decide. While Washington struggles through immovable stalemate steady decay has gripped Main Street. A shrinking middle class, stubbornly high unemployment and the explosion of debt levels across the board (public and private/federal and local) to sustain a falling standard of living betray the trembling voices emanating from the Obama White House that we are recovering. Signs of recovery in the housing market and strong holiday season consumption are fleeting and lack the stamina to sustain real growth.

There is a sense of calm before the storm, the feeling that America is closing in on the tipping point. The eye of a tropical cyclone contains gentle winds and clear skies, and it can stretch for nearly 120 miles. Since 2008, America has been sailing inside the hurricanes’ eye blissfully hoping that the worst is behind her. Put differently, the real problems confronting the United States, economic and political, cultural and spiritual have not been resolved.

America’s mess is one of her own making. George Will calls it “decadent democracy.” He believes that our once self-reliant Republic has fallen into a spiral of dependency—a self-destructive urge to satisfy immediate material gains at the expense of future generations whatever the costs. Basically, America’s culture of entitlement has become ungovernable. Will’s assessment captures the form of America’s decline, the substance lies in her spiritual undoing.

The United States is a country upside down. It has become a nation of style over substance where what is “politically correct” has replaced moral truth. America’s unifying culture rooted in common language and values (political and moral) has been jettisoned in favor of diversity, a doctrine of divisiveness that separates Americans according to race, gender, sexual orientation, and language under the guise of equality. Merit, integrity, and truth no longer matter—what matters is getting ahead, securing your own future, and perpetuating false ideals to do so.

Spiritually, America has become a nation of demagoguery. H.L. Menken noted that “The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.” Our politicians preach multiculturalism, socialism, and imperialism, ideas Americans know to be false but its leaders celebrate because they are idiots. The spiritual undoing of America shows a nation lacking self-confidence, social cohesion, and a clear sense of itself.

What happens next? America stumbles forward, moving from crisis to crisis until the system finally gives, and the false utopia of the “Great Society” promised in the sixties crashes on the rocks. For many, the inevitable collapse of the welfare state and the tremendous social cost that comes with it spells doom for America. On the contrary, nations can be strengthened by crisis. Sometimes crisis unearths solutions, identifies the disease, and prepares the way for rapid convalescence.

America did not collapse after its Civil War, still the bloodiest conflict in her history. Parts of the south were completely devastated, especially South Carolina and parts of Georgia, and hundreds of thousands lay dead. But the Union survived, north and south reconciled, and the United States expanded west, becoming the leading industrial power in the next quarter century.

The coming crisis is an opportunity for spiritual reawakening. America must reaffirm the bedrock principles of her national identity: freedom, self-reliance, family, community, and cultural unity. Perhaps crisis will help put things back in focus, fully exposing Americans to Washington’s upside down reality. Entitlement is not equality, diversity is not unity, and redistribution is not prosperity. America needs a healthy dose of disillusionment, and the tipping point is fast approaching.

Cameron Macgregor is a former Navy officer and USNA grad. He is currently a graduate student at George Mason University.

For the moment, positive economic news has muted these concerns. Cautious optimism has been the theme this month on Wall Street, a feeling buttressed by tentative signs of economic recovery. Specifically, the latest employment report showed 171,000 new jobs, exceeding the 125,000 expected. This news bolstered consumer confidence ratings and the growing faith that the US housing market is beginning to recover, temporarily allaying investor fears.

However, momentary exuberance in the marketplace is not new. In fact, it is part of an overall trend reaching back several years. Investors ride economic roller coasters, euphoric one day and depressed the next. Truly, market rallies come pretty cheaply these days, courtesy of FED QEs or a dip in the “official” unemployment number. But volatility in the stock market, uncertainty among investors and business leaders, and economic slowdowns overseas in Europe and now in China suggest a fragile global economy.

Fragility is the real story. For every modicum of positive economic news, there is a pervasive sense inside the financial sector that America’s alleged economic recovery could easily succumb to any number of major weaknesses in Europe, Asia and at home. In tune with these fears, there is an unspoken truth: America desperately needs across the board reform to sustain a real economic recovery—a new tax code, regulatory modification, a restructuring of entitlements, and deficit reduction, among other things. And there is little confidence that any new Administration beleaguered by partisan paralysis can produce these changes.

The fiscal cliff will be the opening round in a long, potentially devastating struggle for economic recovery. Recent projections by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) predict a mild to severe recession in the first quarter of 2013 if we go over the fiscal cliff. A trillion dollars in spending cuts (sequestration) plus the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, the Payroll tax cuts, the expiration of unemployment insurance, and raising the national debt ceiling (set at 16.4 Trillion) await lawmakers as soon as the election is over. These issues, though severe, only tell part of the story.

The main crisis is the state of the US economy. While official unemployment statistics show a steady drop in unemployment (listed around 7.9%) and a growing economy (however modest), over twenty million people in America are unemployed or underemployed and almost fifty million are living on food stamps. In addition, the collapse in the US housing market during 2008 dramatically lowered household income, eroding the wealth of millions of American families.

The magnitude of these problems is only fully realized when government enters the picture. Today, the US federal government represents 24.6% of GDP, almost one fourth of all economic activity. A century ago in 1912 government represented a mere 2% of GDP. Other comparisons are equally staggering. For example, today Congress controls 33% of the US budget—67% is automatic spending due to legally binding entitlement obligations. One hundred years ago Congress controlled 97% of spending. Simply put, the federal government has grown so big that cutting it significantly is both difficult and extremely painful.

So why not spend our way out? Obama’s solution ignores the national debt in favor of massive government spending and borrowing. But America’s days of borrowing are numbered. Unlike the previous fifty years of deficit spending, US economic growth is flat lining. The pivotal relationship between growth and borrowing is fracturing, fatiguing the bond market until a breaking point. If America cannot return to high growth levels quickly, the US bond market will start to give, interest rates will rise, and the streets of major US cities will resemble those of Greece and Spain.

This impossible scenario is no longer impossible. Weaning America off such incredible dependency in a time of anemic economic growth will be painful irrespective of who wins the election, especially when returning to growth requires offloading America’s disastrous debts. The question is how painful?

Cameron Macgregor is a USNA grad and former naval officer. He is currently a graduate student at George Mason University.

Romney scored some good hits but did not land any killer blows. The debate was mired in policy, largely focusing on the economy and jobs, which played to Governor Romney’s strengths. Romney’s superior understanding of these issues seared Obama. However, outside of some clever wordplay like “trickle down government,” Romney did not capture the hearts and minds of Americans. His appeals were more cerebral than emotional.

In my view, defeating an incumbent president—the toughest challenge in politics—means accomplishing three things. First, a successful presidential contender must demonstrate the mental wherewithal to be president, the capacity to pilot the world’s largest economy and lead the most powerful nation. Second, a presidential contender must persuade Americans that their country is heading in the wrong direction, and requires a new one. Third, and most importantly, to become president means convincing the American people that you offer a better alternative.

Last night, Mitt Romney emphatically accomplished the first task. He conveyed a firm grasp of the problems confronting Americans, particularly on three key issues: job creation, government efficiency, and taxes. Governor Romney’s knowledge was deeper than the President’s, and he overwhelmed Obama with specific counter examples and policy recommendations. But Romney fell short of characterizing Obama’s presidency as a total disaster, and he failed to present a viable, concrete alternative.

The Obama campaign has already reloaded. The President attacked the GOP nominee for “dishonesty.” Their strategy is clear: spin the results and go back on the offensive. Mitt Romney should not play into their hands. He must keep on message and stay on the offensive. Neither candidate plays defense well, but Romney possesses the ability to attack without overreaching. That is how the Romney campaign should run their candidate all the way to November.

Media pundits and political junkies are often guilty of overstating the importance of political trends. Before last night Romney was largely written off because of his imprudent gaffes and lackluster campaign. His debate performance has silenced critics because Romney showed he has the mettle to compete with the President. But to win the election and become the next President, Mitt Romney must sustain this momentum by completely discrediting Obama’s feckless administration and presenting a simple, tangible way forward.

Cameron Macgregor is a USNA graduate and former naval officer. He is currently a graduate student at George Mason University.

A series of violent shootings have dominated the headlines this summer. Tragically, another shooting occurred this week in Old Bridge, New Jersey when a disgruntled employee killed two of his coworkers in a Pathmark supermarket, where he worked. Wearing camouflage and armed with a pistol and an AK47, the ex-marine entered the supermarket after-hours, firing on the entire store before committing suicide. Preceding this event, shootings have erupted in New York City, Colorado, Missouri, and Wisconsin.

Unsurprisingly, the torrent of violence has reignited America’s perennial debate about gun rights. Those critical of US gun laws have pointed to these shootings as evidence that we need more restrictive gun laws. Time’s columnist Joe Klein made this argument in a recent editorial called “How the Gun Won.” Reflecting on the last three decades of gun policy, Klein blamed the absence of tougher gun laws largely on the NRA, whose strength grew from about 2.5 million in the 1980s to over 4 million members today.

The NRA is well funded and one of the most powerful lobbyist groups in the country – it has certainly influenced elections and intimidated politicians on both sides. Interestingly, according to Klein, the NRA’s views on gun control are not as main-stream as people think, including its own members. He cites polling by Frank Luntz that suggests a majority of gun owners in the US support sterner background checks and more gun safety courses despite official NRA positions to the contrary.

Perhaps the most important question Klein raises is why the escalation in violent shootings from people carrying lethal weaponry has not moved the debate decisively in the direction of tougher gun laws. In fact, the Republican Party platform advanced at this week’s Convention is “perhaps the most gun-friendly platform that any party had ever adopted,” said NRA president David Keene. How could this be the case, especially with shootings leading the news and big city Mayors (Bloomberg) openly critical of gun laws?

Don’t advocates of tougher gun laws have a point? If Colorado shooter James Holmes was carrying a handgun instead of a semi-automatic assault rifle wouldn’t fewer people have been killed or wounded (he shot 70 and killed 12)? Is it completely unreasonable to ask people for background checks before they purchase weapons? Further, shouldn’t these shootings at least compel the NRA and other gun supporters to relax some of their rhetoric? Maybe.

Understanding why tougher laws are required may seem at times easier to understand, but there are always two sides to any debate. The starting point for most proponents of gun rights is the second amendment. Though many deprecate the second amendment as an archaic law dating back to a more primitive time, the right to bear arms remains one of the cornerstones of American national culture. Why?

The answer can be found in the American zest for freedom. Freedom does not simply mean the right to do and say as you please as long as it does not infringe on someone else’s freedom to do the same. It also means the right and the capacity to defend yourself and your property. Any State that monopolizes control of violence by stripping the rights of citizens to defend themselves and their property has taken away their freedom.

Does that mean that every American needs an assault rifle to be free? Of course not. But it does mean that Americans are right to be suspicious of putting their personal protection and security solely in the hands of the State, a common sentiment characteristic of free English Speaking peoples since the days of Oliver Cromwell. For this reason, American states have local militias and empower law enforcement to deputize private citizens.

But freedom does come at a price. Just as we tolerate buffoonery in the public square in the name of free speech, expression, and religion, allowing people to own firearms similarly enables crazies to lawfully acquire lethal firearms (Holmes had no criminal record). Although there are limits that should be placed on gun ownership, gun laws should air on the side of freedom, because the alternative is far worse.

As Alexis de Tocqueville said in the 19^th century: “what good is it to me to have an authority always ready…to brush away all dangers from my path if such an authority… is also the absolute master of my freedom.”  More simply put, safety in despotism is not preferable to insecurity in freedom. Fortunately, America is a country that has a good measure of both freedom and safety, and overall the second amendment strengthens our safety while preserving our freedom.

Cameron Macgregor is a graduate student at George Mason University and a former naval officer. He is writing his first book.            

Mitt Romney has been around politics all of his life. His father, George Romney, was governor of Michigan and ran for president in 1968. His mother, Lenore, also ran for office, losing a tough Senate race against incumbent Senator Phil Hart (D-Michigan) in 1970. According to the Times, which headlined its June issue with a story about Romney’s relationship with his mother, Mitt has followed more in the footsteps of Lenore than George.

George Romney was a more ferocious figure than Mitt has become. He was less inclined to hold back his true feelings, a tendency that backfired at times, as in his strident opposition to the Vietnam War. Lenore Romney, on the other hand, though no less commanding than her husband, was said to be more cautious. She was more accommodating than confrontational in her character, and she approached politics accordingly. Like his mother, Mitt is also cautious, and fearful of making mistakes. He prefers predictability and civility to spontaneity and brashness. Ironically, his careful nature sometimes makes him seem awkward and robotic.

The Romney campaign, like most campaigns, reflects the character of its figure head. Romney’s campaign has highlighted his business experience, (how captivating?) portraying him as the pragmatic manager eager and ready to solve America’s economic problems. His campaign managers believe this persona contrasts well with Barack Obama’s image as a detached intellectual, a man who is cerebral but fails to understand how the real world works.

Mitt’s message may strongly appeal to effusive conservatives like Sean Hannity, who is already convinced that defeating Obama, a president presiding over an anemic economy, a failed stimulus package, a high unemployment rate, swelling welfare rolls, and a litany of public relations disasters – from Fast and Furious to Solyndra – will be a walk in the park. But Romney’s campaign has been lackluster, evoking no feeling and missing any real or compelling narrative that can rival Obama’s.

Romney’s campaign strategy thus far smacks of another failed presidential campaign, that of John Kerry in 2004. The Kerry campaign arrogantly dismissed Bush as a reckless dullard who unwittingly led America into the failed and unpopular Iraq War. They discounted Bush’s political acumen and personal appeal. The Left promoted John Kerry as the perfect alternative: in sharp contrast to Bush, Kerry was articulate, a seasoned diplomat, and a decorated war veteran.

But Kerry never moved America. He seemed above it all, remote from real Americans and disinclined to get into the trenches and inspire people to vote for him, other than saying “I’m not Bush.” Bush on the other hand, appeared genuine, oozed commonness, and connected with the average American.

That’s not the whole story of course. Kerry’s very strength, his laurels as a war veteran and his opposition to the Iraq War, was shredded by the Bush team. Karl Rove and company adroitly disfigured Kerry’s image as an upright war hero, recasting Kerry’s outspoken opposition to Vietnam as unpatriotic and questioning his wartime exploits. They also characterized Kerry as a flip-flopper, someone apt to change his position (supporting then opposing the Iraq war). Sound familiar?

Obama’s campaign has followed a similar strategy. The Obama team has utterly eviscerated Romney’s persona, flooding the airways with blistering attack ads tearing Romney apart for his time at Bane Capital, unreleased tax returns, and offshore bank accounts. Romney has not countered these attacks well, reacting defensively and deflecting rather than engaging. The tone of the campaign has been dictated by Obama, not Romney.

Romney will not win this campaign by default. He must roll up his sleeves and hit back if he wants to win. Team Romney must ramp up their own attacks, focus on Obama the person, not just the president. Romney should not jab at Obama but strike at him directly, paint Obama as the socialist, the Ivory Tower Liberal, and the anti-American. And Mitt must verbalize these criticisms himself, not some amorphous surrogate.

Then he must put forth a simple and concrete vision of America, divorced completely from Obama’s. Mitt Romney must tell Americans why he is the man to lead them back from the brink. He must forget about comparing himself to Obama and start communicating to the frustrated, angry, and struggling Americans desperate for change. Obama had “Hope and Change.” Romney needs something similar and ideally more substantive.

Mitt needs, to some extent, to throw caution to the wind. The political atmosphere is charged, not neutral. America is a country enshrouded in uncertainty, waning in confidence, and wanting in leadership. Mitt must recognize that he is not running for Governor in Massachusetts. He is no longer vying for the GOP nomination. Before, all he had to do was hold serve. Now, he needs to serve some aces.

Essentially, Mitt needs to channel his inner George. The American people must get to know this man. Mitt should eschew his reserved nice guy but unfeeling and artificial exterior and confront his critics directly, answer questions about his past pointedly, take assertive positions. Don’t dither and equivocate. Running for president is a big undertaking, and boldness wins elections, not timid fear of mistakes.

Cameron Macgregor is a former Naval officer and USNA grad. His is writing his first book.

The outlook for the global economy continues to get bleaker and bleaker. This week the focus remains on the euro as European leaders are meeting for the twentieth time in two years to discuss and attempt to resolve an increasingly hopeless financial situation. The two day summit in Brussels is more contentious than ever, pitting the embattled profligate countries of Southern Europe aligned with newly elected French President Hollande against the disillusioned Germans eager to distance themselves from any more bailouts or debt exposure.

The situation in the Eurozone is fluid to put it mildly. Spain continues to struggle financially as its banks hover over the abyss of insolvency, ominously watching their short term (6 month government bonds) borrowing costs triple Tuesday. Italy is not fairing any better – their six month borrowing rates rose a whopping three percentage points during a bond auction earlier this week. Meanwhile, the newly elected Greek government is trying to maintain its fledgling coalition by renegotiating a deal with the Eurozone to ease its austerity requirements, their Election Day promise.

With divisions hardening and financial crisis intensifying it is not a surprise that investor confidence is withering and the euro continues to fall in value. At its core, the main issue beleaguering the Eurozone is debt contagion. Spanish Prime Minister Rajoy put it succinctly, “The most urgent issue is the one of financing. We can’t keep funding ourselves for a long time at the prices we’re currently funding ourselves.”

Who will pay Europe’s debt is the principle question. There is a famous saying, “everyone is your brother until the rent comes due.” As Europe’s paymaster, Germany can certainly relate. Hollande and his Italian and Spanish counterparts want Germany to shoulder more of the burden, asking the ECB to issue Eurobonds. The Germans object. “As long as I’m alive,” Chancellor Merkel reportedly said, we will not accept any solution that requires more pooled debt at our expense.

Hard Landings in Emerging Markets

As fractured as things are in Europe, troubling signs are beginning to arise in emerging economies too. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met with government officials Wednesday to discuss souring investor confidence in India. As foreign investment has dipped, the Indian economy has slowed to its lowest growth rate in nearly a decade. The rupee has sunk to all-time lows against the dollar, inflation is high, and the government is struggling to cope with enlarged fiscal and current account deficits.

To arrest these trends, Singh, no stranger to boosting economic growth, has taken charge of the finance ministry. Singh is credited with engineering major reforms in the early 90s, which paved the way for India’s economic jolt. But his task is much more difficult this time around. India’s growth rate has fallen sharply in early 2012 to 5.3%, down from over 9% in the first quarter of last year. If Singh wants to “restart India’s growth story” he will need to implement drastic reform in everything from insurance to tax policy – not an easy task.

With the global economy stressed particularly in the West, China may stand to lose the most. Problems are starting to pile up in Beijing. Chinese leaders continue to wrestle with a property and construction bubble, spiraling local government debt, and huge gaps between rich and poor. Further, government growth projections have been adjusted in the current Chinese five year plan. It projects annual growth at a meager 7%, well below its near steady 10% growth over the last two decades.

Growth is paramount in China. Without it, supporting its huge population is nearly impossible. China’s export based economic model may be their undoing. When foreign markets cannot buy Chinese goods, especially western markets, China falters. The euro crisis is a big problem because Europe comprises 20% of their export market.

Given the worsening situation in Europe and elsewhere China could be headed for what analysts call a “hard landing.” Significantly lower growth rates in China could produce social unrest and major instability. Finance Professor Franklin Allen of Wharton Business School views a hard landing in China as unlikely, unless the euro blows up that is. The IMF agrees with his assessment; they believe a worsening euro crisis could bring China’s growth levels down to a dangerous 4%.

Revised Forecast in US

At home, financial analysts are flexing to the continuously erratic stock market, up one day down the next. US economic indicators have given somewhat mixed signals. Some reports show housing prices are beginning to stabilize, a very positive sign for the US economy. But other news has not been so good. According to Bloomberg, consumer confidence is at five month lows, probably driven by last month’s disappointing jobs report.

After a somewhat promising start to the New Year, the US economy is returning to its recent sluggishness. As a result, the FED revised its rosy projections for 2012, predicting that unemployment will remain high and growth tepid for the next couple years. US corporations have felt the pinch too, seeing declines in overseas revenues resulting from the global slow-down.

Nevertheless, it’s the US banking industry that has received most of the attention of late. Earlier this month Moody’s Investors Services downgraded 15 major financial institutions, Citigroup among them, dealing yet another blow to Wall Street’s already sullied reputation. JP Morgan has also come under fire not just for losing billions in risky bets but for suppressing a report on the municipal bond market completed last year. JP Morgan’s report, which was only distributed to privileged investors, revealed that the municipal bond market is far more indebted than originally suspected. It is worth noting that JP Morgan underwrites many US muni bonds.

Bad to Worse?

In the aggregate and that’s all that matters at this point, the world economy is steaming into rough seas ahead. Though there is a possibility that the Eurozone could survive, that emerging markets could return to sustainable levels of growth, and US markets could rebound sooner and stronger than anticipated, the chances of that happening are remote. The more likely outcome will be a global economic rebalancing, a restructuring of the world economy. It would unquestionably be a painful process, but a more sustainable and healthier world may emerge in the end.

Cameron Macgregor is a former naval officer and USNA grad. He is writing his first book.

Who actually carried out the massacre is unknown, but as the death toll rises, pressure to take more action builds. From the campaign trail in tones reminiscent of “Dubya”, Romney is calling “for more assertive measures to end the Assad regime.” On the Hill, Senator McCain has criticized the President’s “feckless foreign policy” for punting on Syria. On the Left, UN Ambassador Rice, after months of tabling the military option, now believes the international community may have to take “action outside” the failed UN peace plan. Anxious to stay in the public eye, Secretary of State Clinton entered the fray this week insisting that with each passing day the case for military intervention looks stronger.

Sadly, despite the series of disastrous, self-defeating interventions over the last twenty years from Somalia and Haiti to Iraq and Afghanistan, most inside the US government are convinced American military power is always the “global force for good,” regardless of the outcome. The idea that US national interests are not furthered by more interventions in the Middle East or anywhere else in the third world does not seem to matter. It’s time America’s warmongering policymakers took a short trek down memory lane.

The list of botched US overseas missions is long, ignominious, and tragically for many, not memorable. It includes America’s bungled operation in Somalia in 1993, when a humanitarian intervention to referee a civil war Somalia is still fighting degenerated into urban combat, killing over a thousand Somalis, 18 US troops, and resulting in public embarrassment for the United States.

Our foolishness continued in the Balkans in the mid-nineties. Under the NATO umbrella US forces intervened in Bosnia to stop ethnic cleansing and build democracy. So we deployed peace keeping troops, bombed the Serbs, and tried Slobodan Milosevic for war crimes. Thanks to our efforts, Douglas Hague, the British Foreign Minister warns Bosnia is on the brink of relapsing into chaos and ethnic conflict.

Haiti makes the list too. Remember the mission to Haiti in 1994? “Operation Uphold Democracy” was just one of many US humanitarian missions to establish order in a country with no fire department. Again the results are similar, Haiti remains the same as it was before we intervened –backward, poverty stricken, and systemically corrupt.

For the moment, however, US interventions are focused on the Middle East, a region rapidly succumbing to Islamist rule aided in some measure by US air power, armaments, and no fly zones. Here too, America’s abysmal record hasn’t deterred us. US occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan set the bar high in terms of wasting US blood and treasure, inciting hatred against America, and leaving countries in worse shape than we found them.

After occupying Afghanistan for over a decade, the US is so unpopular amongst the local population that aid packages are stripped of any US markings to ensure Afghans will actually accept them. US military advisors training the Afghan army are constantly on alert, fearing that the people they are training may instantly turn and kill them. Just a few months ago US forces came under attack across the country and angry mobs gathered in Afghanistan’s capital, Kabul, to vent their rage after US troops burned already defiled copies of the Quran.

The US debacle in Iraq is only just now beginning to materialize. After installing a “democratic” government in Baghdad, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki thanked us for our efforts and said goodbye, rejecting the Obama Administration’s request to permanently station several thousand US troops in the country. With US forces completely out of the picture, Maliki and the Shia population he represents have consolidated control of the government, making Iraq ripe for civil war and extending the Iranian sphere of influence at the same time.

Fortunately, since the Arab Spring began last year the US has refined its involvement in mid-east affairs, now focusing on replacing secular authoritarian regimes with Islamist ones. Let’s recount some recent events.

First, it was Egyptian President Mubarak who had to go – so we sided with the protesters in Tahrir Square and encouraged democratic elections, putting the Muslim Brotherhood in charge. Next came Libya, but this required more direct action. Leading an international coalition, US air power set up a no fly zone and bombed Muammar Gaddafi’s forces into submission. Victory was secured when rebel forces reclaimed the capital Tripoli, killed Gaddafi, and declared Libya an Islamic state governed by Sharia Law.

Now US attentions are fixed on Syria. The interventionist drum beat began months ago when the usual bi-partisan coalition of the willing to bomb anyone, anywhere, anytime, for any reason, consisting of Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Joe Lieberman, called for direct US involvement.

McCain said that assuming Assad would ultimately be overthrown is a “convenient way to abdicate responsibility.” Responsibility to do what exactly? McCain’s answer – launch air strikes or arm the rebel opposition. Of course, who the opposition is and what US forces would achieve by intervening on their behalf are questions that go unanswered, but these are trivialities that don’t concern McCain’s triumvirate.

This brings us to the most important question –after all of these ruinous interventions under our belt and no sign we are letting up what is the end game? When will the interventions to no-where stop? Will interventionist supporters be content when the Middle East is dominated by democratically elected anti-Western Islamist governments? Will they rejoice when Assad’s regime is ousted, an outcome that will almost certainly plunge Syria into a full blown sectarian civil war?

Or will sober minded Americans remember that America is a republic not an empire, and compel Washington to invest in America, a country fast resembling the failed states we are desperately trying to fix?

Cameron Macgregor is a former naval officer and USNA graduate. He is writing his first book, America Resurrected.

The controversy surrounding both cases attracted large crowds gathered outside the courtroom, showing a level of excitement and interest in the Supreme Court not seen since the sixties. By choosing to hear these cases the judicial branch has launched itself into the political fray, sharing in the intense polarization of America’s public square. In a sense, the Supreme Court embodies America. It composes 9 justices – 4 conservative, 4 liberal, and 1 wild card (Justice Kennedy), the conservative leaning independent that tends to render the decisions.

SB 1070 and PPACA are about two completely different topics (immigration and healthcare) that boil down to a singular issue, federal versus state power. PPACA centers around the individual mandate, the right of the federal government to require citizens to buy health insurance, while SB 1070 focuses on the preemptive clause, the supremacy of federal over state immigration law.

Interestingly, after both hearings a common theme has rapidly emerged – a legal sea change may just be underway, something President Obama hinted at when defensively urging conservatives not to press for the kind of judicial activism they often bemoan. Of course the President, an erstwhile constitutional law professor, seems to be conflating activism with judicial review, the primary function of the Supreme Court.

President Obama’s malarkey has extended to the courtroom. Whereas government attorneys made inconsistent and at times incoherent arguments under scrutiny from justices unsatisfied with their positions, the other side seemed to quickly gain the upper hand.

Last month government lawyers came under fire from Justice Kennedy who argued pointedly that compelling Americans to buy health insurance “changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way.” Indeed, justices expressed overall concern about the expansive authority PPACA grants the federal government, possibly outstripping constitutional limitations.

Government attorneys fared even worse during Arizona v. United States hearings this past week. One of the memorable highlights occurred when Justice Sotomayor, the first Hispanic justice, remarked “You can see it’s not selling very well” to Solicitor General Donald B. Vorrilli Jr. And for good reason, the federal government is arguing that the states cannot enforce federal law because they aren’t enforcing it themselves, a completely untenable position.

The importance of winning these cases cannot be overstated. Presidents and lawmakers come and go but laws endure. As Alexis de Tocqueville noted almost two hundred years ago “There is no country in the world where the law has a more absolute voice than in America.” The linchpin of liberal dominance in American politics since the sixties has been the “rights revolution” that lay at the heart of it; what Democrats could not win at the ballot box they won in the courtroom. However, if the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare and upholds Arizona’s immigration law it would decisively halt the relentless growth of federal power unimpeded for almost a century.

Predicting a Supreme Court decision is always precarious business. Both hearings seemed to favor the states but decisions will likely break along partisan lines. Plus Kennedy is well known for his unpredictability, meaning he could lean either way. That being said, there is the sense that the federal government and its advocates are losing momentum, embattled not just in the courtroom but fiscally, administratively, and in the minds of the American people.

If the Supreme Court upholds SB 1070, a host of new states will implement tougher immigration laws based on Arizona’s model. If Obamacare is repealed, the most celebrated achievement of Obama’s administration will have been refuted and another unaffordable entitlement averted. In the end, winning in the courts could do more to arrest the expansion of federal power now and in the future than a moderate Romney administration will.

Cameron Macgregor is a USNA grad and former Naval Officer. He is writing his first book America Resurrected.

The Spanish government introduced a mix of spending cuts and new taxes amounting to roughly 27 billion euros in public sector cuts. The Spanish government plans to raise corporate tax rates, which will augment higher income and capital gains tax rates already implemented in December. Civil servants will see pay increases stop and consumers will pay higher fees to use electricity and gas. To be sure these are tough pills to swallow, especially in a weak Spanish economy suffering unemployment levels above 20% – the highest in the eurozone.

Tensions flared Thursday between the estimated 800 thousand protesters and riot police, causing injuries, detentions, and burned trash containers. Despite these disruptions Spanish officials have remained steadfast in their commitment to austerity.

Economy Minister Luis de Guindos, commenting from Copenhagen, said “Spain is going to stop being a problem, especially for the Spanish people but also for the European Union.” The new conservative government, less than 100 days old, has put concerns over the debt at the top of their priority list.

De Guindos and his government’s main concern is averting a financial disaster. The danger of rising interest rates on government bonds threatens total economic collapse. The bond yield on ten year Spanish bonds was at 5.4% last week though it was only 4.96% just a month ago (the US is about 2.2%). If investor confidence is shaky borrowing costs soar, something already witnessed in Greece where rates on government bonds exploded. When borrowing costs go up financing becomes very difficult if not impossible, particularly in times of sluggish economic growth and falling revenues.

But Spain’s situation, like that of Greece, is soon to be repeated throughout the Eurozone. Like it or not the austerity express is scheduled for trips to Italy, Portugal, Ireland, and even France and Germany. Even said, the eurocrats continue to discuss still more bailout funds with plans to combine ESFS (European Financial Stability Facility) and ESM (European Stability Mechanism) funds while others are pushing for greater IMF lending capacity all in the hopes of strengthening the euro “firewall.”

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic conservative lawmakers in Washington continue to fail to make any headway with major budget reform. House Republicans like Representative Paul Ryan and Congressman Jim Jordan of the Republican Study Committee have put forth viable proposals that could prevent a financial crisis in America, but none of them have any chance of passing.

Plus, as long as prominent Keynesian economists like Paul Krugman and Larry Summers continue to demote budget problems as “long term,” many Americans will remain convinced that Washington’s fiscal problems are remote from what is happening in Europe – an utter fallacy.

Ironically, instability in the Eurozone has been a source of strength for America’s bond markets thus far, making them a safe haven for investors fleeing Europe. However, that blessing won’t last long. What very few people in the Eurozone and in the US realize is that the game is over, the markets have already decided. As such the developed countries of the world face a very difficult choice: painful austerity now or financial catastrophe later.

Cameron Macgregor is a USNA grad and former Naval officer. He is writing his first book America Resurrected.

On the surface, this may appear to be good news, but America’s economy remains in terrible shape, plagued mainly by enormous debt that no one – neither Republicans nor Democrats – are prepared to deal with, yet. So what?

Whenever the debt issue is mentioned people react in one of two ways: they either grimace in pain, knowing financial calamity will befall us sooner or later, or they blithely dismiss it as a non-issue, attacking those who fear the worst as ignorant reactionaries unfamiliar with central banking or macro-economics. So what is the truth, which view is correct?

The truth is that debt matters, and has throughout history. Just ask the Greeks right now. Or ask the Argentinians and Mexicans, countries that defaulted within the last 20 years. To find examples of default we don’t even need to look beyond American borders. This past decade alone cities like Harrisonburg, PA and Vallejo, CA have declared bankruptcy, and yet another California city Stockman, is on the verge of bankruptcy as we speak. Even Orange County, CA defaulted, though that happened almost twenty years ago in 1994.

Of course, many of these defaults like the bankruptcies on Wall Street can be quickly salvaged by higher level government support. As long as some level of government can come to the rescue and infuse credit where it is lacking, perhaps things will be ok. Unfortunately, going forward this is less and less of an option. After years of overspending, whether for pensions, union contracts, healthcare, or to combat the recession, America is systemically in debt. Basically, every level of American government and society is in the red.

The mountain of debt piling up in Washington is only part of the story. Everyone knows that the federal government has amassed trillion dollar debts, and is on the hook for tens of trillions more in unfunded liabilities. But the real crisis is at the state, local, and private levels. States are in bad financial shape, strained by rising pension and operating costs coupled with falling revenues. Municipal finances may be the worst. Municipal debt has doubled over the last ten years, which means cities and towns are facing huge cutbacks state governments will be unable to cover.

Then there is consumer debt. Consumer debt is nothing short of gigantic. Since the 1980s US wages have been relatively stagnant, so families across America financed higher standards of living by going into debt, using credit cards or taking out loans. It is hard to estimate the exact amount of consumer debt but some studies report numbers as high as 100 trillion and some say higher. Again, this means that consumers have to save not spend to deleverage, and standards of living will drop as a result, probably for a decade, if not longer.

So if debt matters, and America’s debt is so huge, why hasn’t there been a crisis yet? Part of the answer, ironically, is debt. The only reason America has not fallen into a deep depression is because the US government and to a lesser extent states and municipalities continue to find markets for their bonds, enabling them to continue borrowing. To support this effort the FED has maintained extremely low interest rates, keeping credit cheap. So America’s sluggish economy continues to crawl forward, using debt to finance its debt.

Nevertheless, taking out more debt to finance debt only increases the amount of debt. This is a game that always ends badly. At the moment, let’s refer to the end game as the “Keynesian endpoint,” the point at which America’s revenue will be entirely devoted to paying down debt service (making interest payments), sending investors running for the hills. This idea has been coined by Kyle Bass, a hedge fund manager famous for seeing the subprime mortgage crisis ahead of time and betting accordingly. His sober analysis leads him to conclude that Americans should invest in “Guns and Gold.”

This may sound ridiculous, but it isn’t. There is a massive debt crisis coming, one that has only been worsened by more government spending and the FED’s easy credit monetary policy. Be prepared for a situation worse than Greece. America’s dependency is at an all-time high. According to a recent Heritage Foundation report welfare rolls, public housing assistance, healthcare and retirement, and overall spending on dependency programs accounts for 70% of Federal spending. Meanwhile, states and cities are laying-off government workers, cutting back on police, and reducing basic services. And millions of people are out of work, in debt, or both, making them particularly vulnerable when the crash comes.

To be blunt, America is headed for tough times ahead, something that can no longer be averted, only softened or worsened. The silver lining might be that default leads to recovery, however difficult. But the longer Washington and FED Chairman Bernanke delay the deleveraging process to preserve the status quo, the more painful the recovery period will be.

Cameron Macgregor is a former naval officer and USNA graduate. He is writing his first book, America Resurrected.

The potency of this politically incorrect reality is beginning to sink in with Americans as they gear up for the 2012 presidential election, an election that promises to be one of the most divisive in American history. In contrast to his previous campaign that at least promoted a post-partisan and post-racial America, Obama’s 2012 election strategy is unambiguously designed to divide America not by class, but by race.

People who thought Obama’s 2008 win would re-unify America should have seen this coming. Take one of the key battleground states in 2008 – Ohio. In 2008 Obama won a huge majority, over 80%, of Ohio’s minority vote while he lost the white working class vote by 10 points. The rest of America’s key battleground states followed a similar pattern. Basically, political divisions were synonymous with demographic ones.

Four years later, the Obama campaign derives its main strength from ethno-centric groups. As New York Times writer Thomas Edsall noted in his revealing editorial “The New Obama Coalition,” Democrats have given up on the white working class vote. Obama’s coalition now consists overwhelmingly of blacks and Latinos with a sprinkling of socially-liberal, self-described “progressive” whites. And, despite Obama’s alleged determination to tax the wealthiest among us, the super-rich that live remote from the realities of everyday life in America are likely to be some of Obama’s most ardent supporters come election night.

To achieve victory Obama will stay on message. He will depict the poor as victimized by the rich in a fantasy land where for every one American to be rich millions more must be poor. Obama’s divisive narrative is catching fire in American cities, where pugnacious radicals like Cornel West are urging protesters and paupers to fight for their “entitlements” in the streets.

Obama’s program for victory in 2012 is pretty clear, as are the dividing lines between left and right. The left essentially advocates more of the same, supporting bigger government, amnesty, and higher taxes to redistribute wealth. On the right, the Tea Party continues to set the agenda, demanding less government, reduced Federal spending, tougher border controls and immigration laws, and lower taxes.

As sharp as these political divides are the groups coalescing on either side are perhaps even starker. Minority groups backing the Left are not just racially distinct from their opponents on the right; they are also economically divergent. Obama’s coalition of Latinos and blacks is heavily dependent on government. Tough economic times have hit these groups the hardest. While white un-employment is still under 10 percent, blacks and Latinos experience unemployment rates approaching 20 percent, and higher among youths. Even after years of redistribution, many in these groups regard unemployment insurance, food stamps, and countless other federal programs as the only lifelines keeping them afloat.

The only good news is that both sides are united in their aim to fix America’s broken economy, something indispensable to softening these festering divisions. But they are diametrically opposed about how to do it, and so are the voters they represent.

It would be a stretch to declare the 2012 election a contest between socialism and capitalism, but not much of a stretch. Obama and the progressives who support him are committed to the radical agenda of the 1960s embodied in the confused and extremist views expressed by the Occupy Wall Street crowd. The New Right has already begun its surge, merging into the pro-market and rabidly anti-government Tea Party Movement.

Meanwhile, race looms uncomfortably beneath the surface with 2012 likely to be much more racially divided than 2008. Obama’s electrifying presidential run in 2008 is transforming into a tinder box of economic, cultural and racial conflict. He’s betting that America will succumb to ethnic tribalism at the ballot box, a dangerous tactic that could take America down a potentially destructive path of no return. But if demography is destiny, the Obama team’s agenda of amnesty and redistribution could well prevail. Demographic changes are dramatically changing America’s political landscape, but if Obama’s politics are any indicator they may also destroy it.

Cameron Macgregor is a former Naval Officer and US Naval Academy graduate. He is writing his first book The New American Nationalism.

Talk of American decline is widespread. High employment numbers, wild fluctuations in the stock market, the growing gap between rich and poor, and the S&P downgrade of US treasury bonds are all cited as evidence of our weakening power. This matched with America’s waning influence overseas prompts many to ask what a post-American world will look like. But few are asking why?

It seems people are either missing or perhaps afraid to address the central reasons for our decline, an awareness that is critical to rebuilding America’s prosperity and restoring its greatness. In fact, three pivotal ideas are primarily responsible for the decline in American prosperity and power.

The first and perhaps, the most destructive idea is multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is an outgrowth of the 1960s, an idea designed to help alleviate deep-rooted racial divisions. However, over time, multiculturalism evolved into something far more powerful than repealing segregation laws and destroying unfair racial boundaries. Eventually, multiculturalism symbolized a new American society, a “community of communities.” Multiculturalism rejected the idea that America is a nation that speaks one language, and it refuted the Western values that inspired the Republic and the free market that created our prosperity.

The results are disastrous. A recent study conducted by the Pew Research Center on rising wealth gaps in America paints a bleak picture. The economic gap between whites and the rest of the population is the largest in 30 years. From 2005-2009 black and Hispanic wealth fell by over 50%, while white wealth fell just 16%. The white population is nearly 20 times wealthier than blacks and Hispanics. The Pew Research Center unveils an America society that is increasingly bifurcated – a division that is not simply economic but cultural.

America’s cultural divides run parallel to its economic ones. Essentially America increasingly has a first world population and a third world population. The values, social orientation, and community participation of these populations are fundamentally different and in some cases conflicting. Adding to these divisions are the millions upon millions of illegal immigrant populations who frequently don’t speak English, live in balkanized neighborhoods or, effectively, countries within countries.

The second idea is big government. Before the Great Depression government on every level local, state and federal was a tiny fraction of what it is today. Today, government accounts for nearly 25% of GDP, an astronomical number. Government administers education, provides health-care for the poor and the elderly, is responsible for the retirement of 300 million people, regulates everything from Wall Street to Silicon Valley, and manages (or mismanages) countless federal bureaucracies, redistributive programs, contracts, and defense.

One of the many wondrous things that struck De Tocqueville when he came to the United States in the 1830s was the invisibility of American government. For this reason he appropriately said that in America “the state governs but does not administer.” Today, it does the opposite. Thomas Hobbes’ would be immensely proud of the size, power and intrusiveness of America’s “Leviathan.”

During the infamous battle over the debt ceiling, fear of default terrorized the nation. Obama promised doomsday if the Tea Party refused to be “reasonable” and continue enabling more spending. But few outside the Tea Party are alarmed that America has become a nation systemically dependent on big government, a tyranny Jefferson dreaded and Madison hoped to prevent.

The third bad idea is empire. It’s true, today America has nearly a thousand bases in over a hundred countries around the world – no matter how you spin it we are an empire. We maintain troops in central Europe and continue to occupy Japan while we wage wars in Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq for reasons no one really understands and seldom bothers to find out. Of course, the president usually executes these wars without consulting congress, an irritant most presidents usually avoid.

In addition to commanding forces around the world American policymakers and our institutions play God with the internal affairs of other nations. We pick winners and losers, and usually end up creating enemies instead of friends. America’s meddling in the affairs of others is so extreme that during a February “Jasmine” protest in China the conspicuous presence of a US diplomat – one John Huntsman – led Chinese citizens and government officials to believe that Huntsman was secretly engineering the protests to instigate chaos in Beijing.

One might say that America’s empire exists more from circumstance than intent. That may have been true during the Cold War, but it would be hard to defend that position now. It has more to do with what diplomat George Kennan referred to as “national narcissism.” Kennan was right when he said that American foreign policy was more focused on reinforcing positive images Americans had of themselves than national interests. Americans believe that America, like its Navy, is a “global force for good.”

Yes, the divisiveness of multiculturalism, dependency on big government, and the wasteful cost of empire have finally caught up with us. To recover, rebuild, and re-unify the nation these ideas must be refuted and expunged from the institutions, policies, and especially the psyche of the American people where it has done the most damage.

The reasons for US decline are less policies or political parties than the ideas that animate them. Ideas possess an endurance that far exceeds the imprint of any president or congressional policy. We must stop fighting unnecessary wars, perverting American culture and values, and growing the size of government. Revisiting American history should give us hope because it is not our country that is failing but the perverse ideas that have defiled it.

Cameron Macgregor is a former naval officer and US Naval Academy graduate. He is writing his first book, The New American Nationalism.