Author Archives: Dennis Gallagher

About Dennis Gallagher

Dennis Gallagher is a Republican Committeeman and the founder and editor of Political Policy at www.politicalpolicy.net. He is a traditional conservative, and his chief inspirations on political thought are Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk and William F. Buckley, Jr. Russell Kirk is widely regarded as the principal intellectual founder of the American conservative movement. To quote Kirk, “The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata.” Dennis Gallagher has a B.S. and M.S. in Business Administration from Drexel University and is pursuing a M.A. in History with a concentration in American History at American Public University.

COMBATING THE SOCIALIST’S MARCH ON AMERICA

fight socialism

 

My two cents (if it is worth that much in an Obama economy) for victory over the Republican party opposition is as follows. I’ll preface my comments by saying I do not purport to be another Lee Atwater, Mike Murphy, Karl Rove or James Carville when it comes to political strategy. I, however, like many who are actively engaged in the political process, have strong opinions on what I believe works and what doesn’t work as far as successfully promoting Republican and conservative candidates into elected office.

I’ll begin by saying that in America today there is no longer a Democratic party. That party has been expunged for well over two decades. There are no longer any Harry Truman’s, Adlai Stevenson’s, JFKs, RFKs, Eugene McCarthy’s, Scoop Jacksons or Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s governing or legislating within the Republican’s opposing party. They are long gone.  The six-time presidential candidate of the Socialist party Norman Thomas is quoted as saying in 1944,

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism,” they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform.” 

Mr. Thomas was prescient. The party that Republican’s oppose today, and for some time now is the Socialist party. That is clear, plain and simple. JFK’s party of fiscal conservatism, union crime-busting and identifying and opposing enemies to America has been removed and replaced with a political party that has no interest whatsoever in those concerns nor in fact with America’s system of government. The socialist’s have no respect for the tenets of our Declaration or regard for the canons of our Constitution. They eschew any reference to natural law or natural rights that are identified within our Declaration and view America’s cause of order, justice and freedom only from a moral relativistic perspective. The Socialist party determines what America’s “cause” is based on what side of the bed they awake in the morning in order to consolidate their power.

Along with the above characteristics of the Socialist party there is a fundamental common denominator that can be ascribed to virtually every one of them, and that is they are predominantly agnostics or atheists. I challenge anyone to conduct an informal survey on a group of socialist’s (or progressives as they like to spin) and I’ll bet dollars to donuts that most of them will either admit to being atheists or agnostics, or at best will hedge on any adherence to a Judeo-Christian philosophy. Without this characteristic the socialist cannot have the guiltless freedom to employ their brand of moral relativism across all socio and economic fronts. And of course America is founded on Judeo-Christian principles; that is not an opinion my friends, but an irrefutable fact. Ergo by renouncing those principles they grant themselves the freedom to employ their moral relativism as a tool to advance their amoral social agendas and to turn on it’s head one of America’s core principles, that being government is limited and it’s sole purpose is to protect our natural rights, not manufactured rights. Atheism, agnosticism or, at a minimum, severely compromised Judeo-Christian principles are absolutely necessary in order to animate the socialist ideology. Everything  “comes and goes” from it.

Of course none of what I just mentioned is new to any of us. In fact Orestes Brownson was warning about how socialism is infecting America in his book The American Republicwhich was published in 1865. Brownson wrote in his text the following, “The tendency of the last century was to individualism; that of the present is to socialism”. Brownson crafted that language 150 years ago. The socialists have been creeping around the baseboards of America like so many roaches for quite some time, and their policies have been seeping into America’s socio, political and economic fabric causing destruction and waste at every turn. It is now that they are front and center, have selected their leader and are bold, brazen and on the attack to turn America out.

Proof for the above is self-evident in the policies, rhetoric and history of the current President and the public policies brought forth by his Socialist party. When the leader of the Socialist party says, “America is not just a Christian nation…” his implication is that one of the underpinnings of America’s founding, a Judeo-Christian ethos, is not necessarily relevant any longer. A preconceived comment such as that is simply one of many evidences that the Socialist party has an anti-American mindset and will take any steps necessary to undermine America’s cause.

Along with many other comments and his actions, the following comment in 2001 by Barack Obama clearly capsulizes how the Socialist party finds our Constitution to be nothing more than a grand annoyance.

The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society… [The Supreme Court] didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. [It] says what the states can’t do to you. [It] says what the federal government can’t do to you, but [it] doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.”

The Socialist leadership was careful to select someone like Obama as his or her flag bearer. Why? Because Obama has no affection, regard, respect or admiration for America and it’s proud heritage.  Obama’s caretakers indoctrinated him as a child to have disdain and derision for everything America represents. Also, he doesn’t understand America. That is key. Without an understanding or appreciation for America Obama is an empty vessel. He is free of any guilt in his quest to “transform” America into his neo-communist, collectivist world vision wherein America is simply a bundle of resources to be redistributed around the world, with a central world government to dictate the division of said resources. Not unlike the socialist atheistic/agnostic who must free him or her from any principles or standards of virtue in order to practice their moral relativism, they must also free themselves of any knowledge, understanding or appreciation of America and it’s rich heritage in order to undertake their mission to dismantle America and redistribute it’s resources across the world based on their “omnipotence”.

There are reasons the socialists prefer to refer to themselves as “progressives” and not socialists. They certainly are clever with their wordsmithing to hide the results of their hideous and failed ideology. Take for example the name change from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” after the global warming fraudulent science was uncovered. One reason they prefer the word “progressive” is because the word “socialist” still smacks of oppression; the other is that “progressive” implies progress to a man-made secularist utopia that THEY will divine, which historically always leads to a terrestrial hell on earth. And, of course, by referring to themselves as “progressives” requires a refutation of history; a history that documents how socialism, communism, or any form of collectivism is an utter economic failure and was an ideology employed by tyrants in a totalitarian society. Additionally Obama’s Socialist party’s political slogan “Forward” was a slogan utilized by both Stalin and Hitler. From this point on any Socialist party presidential or lower level candidate will be cut from the same cloth as Obama. It is a requirement in order to further their agenda for America and the world.

This is the goal of central planning socialism. A microcosm of its effects is most evident by the ObamaCare debacle. Caught with their socialist pants down ObamaCare is the poster child for a central planning disaster. While the socialist party has scrambled to regroup what are their talking points to cover up their centrally planned disaster? That THEY know what health care plan is best for YOU. Ah hah, socialism’s tyranny uncovered. They had nowhere else to go but show their true colors. The “unwashed” will be cleansed by the “washed” socialist central planners all-knowing hands

Why? Why do the Socialist’s do what they do? In a word-POWER. Their overarching goal is to consolidate power over the populous’ lives. Why? Because they are godless; they truly believe that they know what is best for humankind and there is no God. There is no transcendent higher power higher than them that should direct our lives. And the socialist will work tirelessly to eliminate every intermediary relationship to maintain and achieve their power, whether it be eradicate the family unit, local community associations, Church affiliations or any other associations, guilds or relationships that are barriers between the individual and their central planning socialist regime.

For sure the socialist will attempt to mask their insidious agenda by pulling on the heart strings of the populace by how they care about the “poor”, the “disadvantaged”, “woman’s rights”, “blacks”, “Hispanics or minorities in general”, “self-serving versions of social justice”, “health-care for all”, the “environment” or any other so-called causes to manipulate the electorate. They will attempt to couch themselves as the party that “cares” about gun violence and income inequality. They will constantly market themselves as the party of “nice”, while branding Republicans, Conservatives or Tea Party folk as the party of “mean”. But in reality the Socialist party doesn’t give a damn about any of these people, issues or causes. They will use them simply as tools to divide society, gain and consolidate power and then wield their power as they see fit without any consideration for the useful idiots they used to advance their march to power.

So what does the conservative movement do with all of this? How do we convince the “uninformed”, “indoctrinated”, or “low information voter” to see the truth behind the Socialist party’s nefarious agenda and the truth about conservatism? How do we get them to go behind the “curtain of Oz” and see the reality? Simple. We do to the socialist’s what they have done to us. I humbly submit my four-part strategic plan for victory and truth to save America.

First: conservatives must brand the opposition for what they are. They are to no longer be referred to as democrats; they are to be referred to as socialists at all times. There are some brilliant conservative commentators who I greatly admire that disagree with me on this point, namely Charles Krauthammer and Michael Medved.  They feel it is ill advised to classify the democrats as socialists because it can cause confusion and unnecessary debate. But that is the point. The point to put the socialist’s on the defensive to defend this unseemly moniker. A moniker that does strike fear into the heart of the independent or low information voter who loves America and believes in its Judeo-Christian foundations. It is also a label that happens to be true, is easy to apply, and also ties them up in a knot and wraps them around an axel with having to fend off this label of tyranny.

Second: A thorough understanding of the Socialist’s bible, which is Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Alinsky’s book is a step-by-step, paint-by-the-numbers tactical schematic for messaging and organizing by applying methods of chaos, diversion, lies, branding and polarization. Obama actually taught these tactics in Chicago. It is one of the few actual jobs he ever had, and is ashamed to admit along with most of his past. This book is required reading and it’s tactics should be used by the Republican party and conservatives of all brands to use against the socialists. My advice on this point is best summed up by the following quote,

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

Third: Be proactive and constantly put the socialists on the defensive. Keep them preoccupied with defending and explaining their insidious agendas. We’ve seen this work with ObamaCare, but that was simply a by-product of the horrid legislation, and that is all well and good. But to those who say, “See, they will eventually implode”, I respond by saying “but while we’re waiting for them to implode they are inhabiting office doing their damage. By that point it is too late to undo their harm”. We must be proactive in putting them on the defensive using their hateful, dangerous, anti-American polices against them.  They twist the truth about conservatives and use it against us to great success. I simply suggest using the actual truth about the socialist’s to even greater success.

Fourth: Outreach, outreach and more outreach. Republicans and conservatives have for far too long lived in a little cocoon of frightened superiority. To a greater or lesser degree our attitude has always been “if you’re not smart, sophisticated, enlightened, educated, patriotic and moral enough to get us and come join us, then we’re not going to try and enlist you into our fold”. We have also permitted the socialists to make us uncomfortable with ourselves because of their proactive branding against us based on lies. Because of that we have crawled into a veritable fetal position sucking our conservative thumbs fearful of talking to anyone outside of our little comfort zones.  That must end. It must end for the sake of the future of the conservative philosophy that built America, and for the sake of America itself. We must reach out to each and every person, group, association or demographic that we feel is solidly against us and embrace them. We must invite them to our meetings, ask to be invited to their meetings, and share with them the truth about what we stand for and what the socialists stand for. Again, branding the opposition and ourselves, and in the process expanding our base. This strategy was the key to Governor Chris Christie’s 2013 gubernatorial re-election in one of the bluest of states, New Jersey.

How do we win? By taking the offensive. By growing our base. By thinking differently. By taking ownership of and defining our message. By branding the opposition before they can even think about branding us. By being bold and proud and confident and courageous in our fight to save America from the grips of socialism.

We must be tough as nails. Why? Because they are. The Socialist party’s thug tactics win elections and elections have consequences. And in the case of their victories that consequence is, as Churchill said about socialism, is a collective misery. You don’t fight a person using Marquess of Queensberry rules when they are bringing knives, axes and baseball bats to the fight.

We must never apologize for who we are nor give the socialists any quarter whatsoever.  This is a battle for America’s salvation. We have met the enemy and, unfortunately, they are us.

Obama’s Shot At Immanentizing The Eschaton

 

What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it a heaven.  Friedrich Höderlin, German poet (1770-1843).

 Conservatives have relegated President Obama’s standing with his leftist progressive/socialist base to a party joke. The left provides the ammo since they laughably refer to President Obama as their “messiah”, “the anointed one”, and their “Lord and Savior”. Conservative’s certainly enjoy mocking liberals, but what’s disturbing is these are actual accolades from the left praising the president. Conservatives are pretty clever, but they can’t make this stuff up. They can certainly take credit for ridiculing these preposterous tributes but not for concocting them. That dubious acknowledgment belongs solely to the left, and one doesn’t have to search far and wide for the sources of the left’s anomalous adoration for Mr. Obama. Remember, Mr. Obama is the leader of the political party that booed God!

The left’s regard for Mr. Obama’s awesome “messianic-ness” is ubiquitous, and sharing only a few examples of their god-like worship reveals their eerie obsession with the president’s cult of personality. Newsweek’s January 18, 2013 cover has a right-sided profile of the president (I guess it’s his good side) with the caption “The Second Coming”. Numerous celebrities have weighed in on the president’s ability to stroll on water, most notably Jamie Fox declaring Mr. Obama as his “Lord and savior”. If you’re in the market for one-stop “Obama the Omnipotent” shopping there is a website called “Is Barack Obama the Messiah?” devoted solely to the “prophet of the progressive” replete with “Obama conversion stories”. I’m not sure if this website is a gag since it’s effusive worship of Mr. O is so over the top, but given the transcendence conferred on him by his admirers I’m betting it’s for real. If so it captures quite well how Mr. Obama’s acolytes have faith that he will “immanentize the eschaton”.

Immanentizing the eschaton is a phrase lifted from philosopher Eric Voegelin’s book The New Science of PoliticsVoegelin devoted much of his life’s work to exposing what he called a gnostic attack on modernity. Voegelin conducted very intricate work in the field of gnosticsm and, at the expense of oversimplification, interpreted the “gnostic personality” as one that seeks to end history in some everlasting realm here on earth in an attempt to perfect man. Whether the gnostic achieves that goal is of no consequence, it is the effort and the intention alone to achieve a worthy outcome that is of importance to the gnostic.

 Voegelin wrote, “When a Christian transcendental fulfillment becomes immanentized. Such an immanentist hypostasis of the eschaton, however, is a theoretical fallacy.” Translation: any attempt to create a utopian heaven on earth through the instrument of some politician and/or political means is an effort in futility; ergo it is an attempt to immanentize the eschaton. Voegelin explained that these efforts are usually undertaken through tyrannical efforts resulting in totalitarian regimes.

William F. Buckley Jr., after encountering Voegelin’s New Science of Politics, popularized Voegelin’s criticisms of Gnosticism by proclaiming, “Don’t Immanentize The Eschaton”. In fact Buckley’s young followers in Young Americans for Freedom, the organization he founded, proudly wore buttons and T-shirts declaring their mentor’s warning. I’m not sure how Prof. Voegelin would have thought of reducing a significant portion of his life’s work to a catchphrase, but Mr. Buckley’s slogan was popular and it certainly was a conversation starter.

Ironically sloganizing was antithetical to Voegelin’s sensitivities. As Gene Callahan writes in his essay “Know Your Gnostics: Eric Voegelin Diagnosed the Neoconservatives Disease”, 

“The perception of the hollow core of the new social arrangements became the motivation for and the target of a series of modern utopian and revolutionary ideologies, culminating in fascism and communism. These movements evoked what had been living symbols for medieval Europe—such as “salvation,” “the end times,” and the “communion of the saints”—but as the revolutionaries had lost touch with the spiritual foundation of those symbols, they perverted them into political slogans, such as “emancipation of the proletariat,” “the communist utopia,” and “the revolutionary vanguard.”

Slogans brings us full circle to the messianic madness surrounding President Obama. Sloganizing has an interesting history when it comes to regimes that push an immanentization of the eschaton. Mr. Obama, of course, is not averse to advertising his utopian plans. His over-hyped ambiguous 2008 campaign jingles “hope and change” and “change we can believe in” ostensibly heralded a political era of bi-partisanship and transparency to be led by Mr. Obama’s Solomon-like wisdom. Instead those jingles portended an Obama administration that wrought governmental overreach, disdain for the Constitution, economic misery, criminal cronyism, international chaos and elevated political partisanship to unprecedented heights.

Of course every political candidate utilizes catchy slogans to slap on a bumper sticker to capture the essence of why they should be elected. Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign slogan was his patriotic “Believe in America” message. But what differentiates Mr. Obama’s slogans from other candidates is how his messages seems to veer off from a belief in American exceptionalism toward some abstract version of America requiring radical change the details of which Mr. Obama keeps tucked away in his mind, not willing to share the sordid details with the electorate.
 For his 2012 re-election campaign Mr. Obama abandoned his “hopey/changy” mottos, probably because they were rife with ridicule given his atrocious record, e.g., “how’s that hope and change working out for you?” But he replaced his 2008 abstract axioms with a more direct but foreboding one-word mantra that has totalitarian and tyrannical political undertones: “Forward”. It is both interesting and understandable that the President chose “Forward”. Victor Morton of the Washington Times points out the motto “Forward” has a long history in socialist circles. Morton writes that, 

“The name Forward carries a special meaning in socialist political terminology. It has been frequently used as a name for socialist, communist and other left-wing newspapers and publications. The slogan “Forward!” reflected the conviction of European Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism.” 

One would have to suspend disbelief to think it is simply coincidental that the president selected a campaign motto that has such a rich socialist/communist heritage. The Obama machine is very meticulous when it comes to planning their campaign strategies. Think manufactured GOP war on woman.  

There is historical precedence when it comes to sloganizing plans for a utopia. The French, Russian and Nazi revolutionaries also attempted to create nirvanas on earth. The French revolutionaries and communists shared slogans in promoting their plans for paradisos with phrases such as “human rights”, and freedom, equality and fraternity”. Nazi Germany put their campaign word “Forward” to a Nazi marching tune. Another coincidence for the Obama campaign? Hitler’s thoughts on creating the Nazi paradise  were made evident when he stated, “Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way round, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.” 

Michael Oakeshott once remarked, “The project of finding a short cut to heaven is as old as the human race.”  History has borne out the failure of those regimes that sought to create a heaven on earth. Now it’s Mr. Obama’s shot at immanentizing the eschaton. If his presidential record to date is any predictor of his version of heaven on earth, I’m all for a terrestrial hell.

WHY I AM A CONSERVATIVE

 kirk

To condense into a short essay the reason I’m a conservative is no mean feat. From my perspective In order to represent my reasoning I need to address not only what it is about conservatism that first captured my attention, but also how I believe that the principles of conservatism best suit humankind’s natural inclinations and that of society as a whole.

My initial introduction to what conservatism embodies was through Russell Kirk’s magnum opus “The Conservative Mind”. Kirk’s rendering of conservatism’s legacy fascinated me primarily because I found it to be such a noble heritage and I was intrigued by conservatism’s persistent quest for seeking the high moral ground. Kirk’s book was consistent with other works on conservatism I read in their respect for virtue, humility, tradition, and piety grounded in the natural laws of Judeo-Christian beliefs. I found it interesting how those wonderful values are also very much rooted in the formation of local communities that serve as the building blocks for the world’s greatest civilizations, epitomized by America’s founding. I also came to appreciate that conservatism’s respect for ancestral wisdom has served as a guiding principle for leaders from Burke, Washington, Disraeli, and Lincoln to Churchill, Thatcher and Reagan.

However in keeping with the conservative’s propensity for prudence I’ll do my best to refrain from pontificating too much on conservatism’s rich historical heritage or hazard excluding essential elements. I’ll defer to the more capable writings of doyens such as Kirk or George Nash to impart conservatism’s legacy, or recommend the musings of Hawthorne, Chesterton, Tolkien, Orwell or O’Conner or any of the other many brilliant writers with conservative leanings to express the merits of a conservative mindset through life’s lessons.

I’ve mentioned the influences that led me to conservatism, but it’s more challenging to express how I actually became a conservative. To read about a philosophy and admire its principles is one thing, but it is altogether different to actually embrace it as a beacon for how one conducts their life. So I feel the best vehicle for articulating that thought is through the metaphor of sports. Now I was never what one would characterize as a magnificent athlete, but I certainly wasn’t a “spaz”. I wasn’t gifted enough to play on any of my high school squads (for the record I vied with 2,500 other boys for spots on the squads), but I played basketball, football and baseball in pickup games on sandlots and playgrounds with passion and verve, savoring the thrills and tribulations of each stretched out triple, missed layup or Hail Mary reception.

It always appeared to me that athletics represent a microcosm of the qualities necessary to subsist in life. Athletes must develop and hone their skills, be prepared for sacrifice, dedication, self-discipline and exhibit a competitive spirit. Sports also have a communal quality. Coaches, trainers, teammates, family, friends, fans, and even fellow competitors are part of the athlete’s overall community, support system and sphere of influence. Most sports also have time-honored traditions, rules, modes of behavior and conduct that the participants and officials hold in high esteem and are maintained as much as possible in consideration of changing times and events.

The athlete also has a sense of humility and piety. They realize their gifts are special and more often than not express an appreciation to a higher power for their unique talent. And of course the ultimate goal of any athletic endeavor is the sweet sensation of victory. How many times have we heard the star player humbly declare that they would forego individual accolades for a team championship? This is the attitude of the dedicated competitor who places their team above personal gain, and their individual accomplishments are only fulfilled if their team earns the admiration of their peers as the best in class.

The attributes of sports are analogous to the values of conservatism on many levels. If we dedicate ourselves to our missions in life, take advantage of our God given talents, respect our fellow man’s person and place, appreciate our obligations to those truly in need, contribute to our community, have a sense of humility, pride and piety, learn lessons from our own decisions and those of other’s, and in the course of life’s journey accumulate some property then, whether we know it or not, we’ve led a life of conservative values. Conservatism, like sports, is the anti-entitlement philosophy. We are only entitled to the spoils of that which we have earned, and respectful of those who endeavor toward greatness.

Russell Kirk once characterized the conservative life as that which strives to live a life of grace. He wrote, “A poor man, if he has dignity, honesty, the respect of his neighbors, a realization of his duties, a love of the wisdom of his ancestors, and possibly some taste for knowledge or beauty, is rich in the unbought grace of life.” Although I may not always hit Kirk’s marks in how I conduct my own life, I couldn’t craft a better testament as to why I am a conservative.

OVERCOMING OBAMA’S NEW NORMAL

Going into election day a Romney win appeared imminent. The experts augured a certain victory for Mr. Romney. George Will predicted 321 electoral votes for the Governor, Dick Morris boldly projected 325 and Karl Rove modestly assured 279 electoral votes for a Romney presidency. President Obama had a four year record that was, from any dispassionate perspective, abysmal, if not criminal in nature.

A Romney victory foretold the Republic’s salvation from President Obama’s oppressive and dangerous regime.  This is a president who enacted fiscal policies that reduced America’s credit standing and engendered unemployment, deficits and public debt of record proportions. He was on a quixotic mission to punish productive Americans with greater taxes while cultivating a plantation like dependent state for those suffering under his punitive policies. Mr. Obama has the dubious distinction for being the first president to enlist Marxist class warfare rhetoric by expounding on the evils of America’s free market system. He conducted a shadow unconstitutional government of unelected czars immune to congressional approval after campaigning on a guarantee to have the most transparent presidency in history.

President Obama’s first term was devoid of statesmanship. Instead of demonstrating strong, mature leadership, he displayed petty, childish divisiveness. He blamed his predecessor for his own failures and engaged in inflammatory oratory that pit American against American. The President affronted the Constitution through his obsession for centralizing presidential powers, resulting in massive regulations that stifled business expansion and economic growth. His landmark achievement ObamaCare, although held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court as an enormous tax, is a centralized governmental overreach to control one-sixth of the American economy that will cost $1.7 trillion over the next decade. Additionally, President Obama tramples on the First Amendment rights of the Catholic Church by requiring the Church to comport with anti-life activities of ObamaCare.

Some of President Obama’s most egregious offenses were on the international front. He dishonored America by his disingenuous remarks on his “Apologize for America” tours, and neglected his sworn duty under the Constitution as Commander-In-Chief by refusing to fashion a cogent policy on terrorism. The domino effect resulted in terrorist attacks on American embassies across the Middle East, a dictatorial regime in former ally Egypt, the deaths of four Americans at the American consulate in Libya, and cleared a path for an Iranian nuclear enrichment program putting America’s only Middle East ally, Israel, in harms way.

Many of the President’s 2008 supporters were furious for being enticed by his “hopey-changey” sloganizing. In hindsight they felt duped and their support for him made them feel as though they bought that celebrated bridge in Brooklyn. Their anger was palatable and they would right their wrong by sending him packing from the White House. The burning question that consumed many 2008 Obama voters was whether the President’s dismal record reflected a purposeful effort to denounce America’s Constitution, it’s heritage and reduce its world standing out of pure disdain due to his Marxist upbringing, or was it simply due to sheer incompetence? Neither reason was cause for consolation.

Who would vote to re-elect a President who was only transparent in his capacity for deception and incompetence? Putting aside the suspicion of massive voter fraud, to begin to answer that question it is safe to assume that the President secured his base. I’m referring to the usual suspects who cling to the progressive/socialist democratic agenda every election cycle and cast a democrat vote solely to support some personal mania. They are legion and include the phony celebrity crowd, union thugs, environmental and feminist zealots, the secularist atheists and agnostics infamous for booing God at the DNC convention, abortion enablers, race baiters, anti-gun fanatics, and, of course, the democratic party’s mainstay, the anti-American manic-depressives. His base also includes the “reflexive” democrats. This tragic lot mindlessly votes democrat simply because some influential figure in their life, a parent, teacher, or their butcher, directed them accordingly. This community of misfits is the perennial heart and soul of the democratic base. They are a veritable Neverland of hypocritical pretense, odious self-centeredness and willful ignorance, and fortunately for the Republic this collective operates on the periphery of the American electorate.

Apart from the progressive/socialist extremists wing of the Obama voting bloc it’s important to mine what was the primary issue that was the tipping point for Obama voters. The Third Way performed a study of 800 Obama voters that included democrats, republicans, and independents, and the results showed that an overwhelming number of Obama voters favored increasing taxes on the wealthy and increasing government spending, intervention on “income inequality” issues and government welfare programs. The GOP experts in their search to identify the primary reason for what many believe to be Mr. Obama’s upset victory agree with this evaluation. Former Vermont Governor and ubiquitous GOP advance man John Sununu (R) chalked up the President’s victory to a growing base that’s now “dependent, to a great extent economically, on government policy and government programs.” Linda Chavez, Chairman of the Center for Equal Opportunity, pointed out that individuals and families living well above poverty levels now qualify for numerous government assistance programs. Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute attributes the Obama victory to the growing wave of Hispanic voters who voted for the President by a margin of 75 percent due to the President’s dependent state polices. MacDonald states that, “It is not immigration policy that creates the strong bond between Hispanics and the Democratic party, but the core Democratic principles of a more generous safety net, strong government intervention in the economy, and progressive taxation.”

But there is cause for solace for the GOP.  Despite The Third Way’s results showing that the President’s non-base voters support a social democratic welfare state, his voter turnout dropped appreciably from 2008.  The president’s dreadful record caused many who voted for him in 2008 to suffer from what could only be described as voter remorse, and the 2012 voter results reflected that sentiment. The Bipartisan Policy Center reports that despite an increase of eight million eligible voters in 2012 voter turnout dipped from 62.3 percent of eligible citizens voting in 2008 to 57.5 percent in 2012. This reduction in turnout was mostly in the democrat camp where the democrats had 4.2 percent less turnout in 2012 than in 2008 compared to the GOPs dip of only 1.2 percent.  The Pew Research Center’s long view shows that Mr. Obama received less of the popular vote in 2012 than 2008 and was flat or down from 2008 in virtually every age group. Obama is the first president in U.S. history to win re-election despite (a) winning fewer electoral votes, (b) a diminished popular vote total, and (c) a lower aggregate vote nationwide.  Guy Benson reported that, at the end of the day, only 406,348 swing state votes separated Obama and Romney, and if Romney would have garnered those votes in the swing states in the right proportions he would have had 275 electoral votes.  Additionally, the 2012 election resulted in conservatives retaining control of the House of Representatives, 30 Governorships and in 24 states Republicans control both the Governorships and the legislatures. Therefore conservatives indeed are certainly not relegated to the wilderness of the American polity.

Notwithstanding the President’s atrocious record and his reduced support in 2012 he seduced a particular faction of America to embrace his vision of a new normal of high unemployment as a means to foster widespread government dependency. Thus his obsession to inhibit America’s free-enterprise system is the method to his maddening mission.  President Obama’s policies of dependencies caused America’s welfare state to increase 19 percent under his administration. According to the Heritage Foundation’s Senior Research Fellow Robert Rector there are 79 means-tested federal welfare programs, at a cost approaching $1 trillion annually. In his report, Rector said the increase in federal means-tested welfare spending during Obama’s first two years in office was two-and-a-half times greater than any previous increase in federal welfare spending in U.S. history, after adjusting for inflation. President Obama’s lure of dependency infects those who take the bait with lethargy and despair, ultimately requiring them to repay the price of inducement in the form of higher taxes and depressed communities.  Mr. Obama’s “handout hell” brings to mind the sagacious quote, “The American Republic will endure until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money”.

The President’s ideological vision for a socialist welfare state is a mandate for mediocrity not excellence, and a program to punish success and enable failure. Russell Kirk said, “…to seek for utopia is to end in disaster”. America has bore the brunt of the Obama “hope and change” utopian vision and must now endure four more years of polices that foster decline, fear, and discord. The President will undoubtedly continue his mission into his second term to ignore the Declaration’s First Principles, circumvent the canons of the Constitution, and exert his energy to sully the principles of conservatism that forms the basis these founding documents.

But in the face of such malaise there is promise. The 2012 Obama turnout was markedly reduced and the fundamentals of his socialistic welfare state are baseless and its results have been in free-fall failure since his 2009 inauguration.  If, under the Obama mandate, America’s stagnant GDP, which is now less than it’s debt, a loss of American credit worthiness and consistent high unemployment and profligate spending is not sufficient evidence, one must only look to other nations to see the dire effects of a socialist state. The mainstream media can run protective cover for the Obamas regimes rage against America for so long. The public’s conscious awareness of the calamitous ramifications of his socialist policies are at critical mass and his reduced voter turnout, albeit sufficient for victory, is evidence of that realization.

The solution for America’s Obama woes is not more doses of failed socialist ideologies, but a rekindling of the conservative sentiment that enlivens the spirit of American greatness.  The principles of conservatism are the foundation for America’s cause of order, freedom and justice. America’s cause provides the unfettered opportunity to reap the practical and moral rewards of our concerted efforts, recognize natural law, and exercise our natural rights.

America was ordained to unleash in humankind the “moral imagination”, the imagination that inspires one to lead a virtuous life. The moral imagination was described by conservative philosopher Russell Kirk as aspiring to the “apprehending of right order in the soul and right order in the commonwealth”, and that the moral imagination “informs us concerning the dignity of human nature, which instructs us that we are more than naked apes”.

Russell Kirk also referred to those “permanent things” that animate a fulfilling life as, “…things in society: the health of the family, inherited political institutions that insure a measure of order and justice and freedom, a life of diversity and independence, a life marked by widespread possession of private property. These permanent things guarantee against arbitrary interference by the state. These are all aspects of conservative thought.” John Attarian aptly describes the permanent things as “… norms of courage, duty, justice, integrity, charity, and so on – (that) owe their existence, and authority, to a higher power than social good”. American conservatism inhabits these ideals inherent in the moral imagination and the permanent things. These ideals are central to conservatism and foster a society that preserves freedoms and inspires the best in our nature, and they take their cues from the Judeo-Christian traditions that form the underpinnings of America’s system of justice.

Conservative values and principles forged the American idea, but progressive/socialist’s have been successful in shaping the conservative narrative. The progressive/socialist’s capacity to fashion destructive public policy is matched only by their talent for canards when defining conservatism in the public square. This is where the conservative’s natural inclination toward restraint, decorum and an assumptive attitude for public acceptance of time honored and successful conservative principles has been turned against them by the intimidating prevarications of the progressive/socialist mob mentality. In order to distract the public from the horrendous results of their policies the progressive/socialist must depict the conservative through a smudged lens of lies and deceits.

In an era of Obama-driven socialist policies destined to damage America but lauded by a liberal educational establishment and its negative ramifications shielded by over 80 percent of the American media, the conservative can no longer assume the public will, as a matter of course, recognize the inherent benefits of the conservative course for America. Conservatives must endeavor to be aggressively proactive with their message and principles.

Solutions have been aplenty for conservatives to take back the presidency to counteract the progressive/socialist assault on conservative America, and the central theme is coalition building. Erick Erickson of RedState proposes that conservative must focus on preserving the conservative brand. Erickson believes that the movement must extricate itself from conservative organizations that are more fixated on the GOP leaders in their groups and not the conservative movement. The focus needs to be on the conservative cache of ideas, not the leaders. Erickson says, “Conservatives need to take their brand back from the GOP and disentangle themselves from the ego driven side of conservative institutions that make it about the leaders of the organizations and not the ideas these claim they’re promoting once they get back off their next donor funded book tour selling books to other donors”. Along with applying state of the art political technology Erickson suggests that conservative grassroots coalition building is imperative. Resolute conservative groups such as Heritage’s Action for America and Club for Growth should be leveraged to build coalitions and grassroots support.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich presented a 25 point report to the RNC that outlines a host of viable propositions, amongst them are campaigns built around “coalitions, long term party building and team efforts versus consultant-based campaigns”. One of the former Speaker’s tactical suggestions is for conservatives to become fully acquainted with the democrat’s strategies by “…build(ing) a library of must reads” that are the blueprints for the democrat’s strategic approach to campaigning. I suggest that number one on that reading list should be “Rules for Radicals” by Saul Alinsky. Alinsky’s tome is the bible for the democratic party’s electioneering efforts, and Barack Obama has the dubious distinction of teaching its tenants while he worked for the criminal, and now defunct, ACORN organizing group.

Conservatives must realize they can execute on all the well thought out strategic and tactical plans they devise, but their best laid plans to take back the White House will fall short if their message misses the mark. Messaging is the means for success. As distasteful and untruthful the democrats messages and candidates may be, as a party they stand aligned daily with the mindset that the perception of their message becomes a reality for voters. The GOP must emulate their opponents vigilance with a conservative message that is clear, relatable and uplifting to the voters.

There will forever be factions of the American electorate that opt to take advantage of its well-intended welfare systems than their own God given talents. And there will always be politicians such as Barack Obama that promise the electorate false utopias energized by destructive policies, cherry coated with bribes, lies and divisiveness. Conservative makes no such promises. Conservatism recognizes humankind’s innate desire to maximize their God given talents and endeavors to lay the foundations for a society to enable man’s potential. This was the vision for America’s founders that caused America to be the greatest country in the history of humankind.

Conservatism rejects the Obama-led progressive/socialist new normal that inhibits potential and is designed to lull Americans into a catatonic state of mediocrity. To quote Pope John Paul II, “Do not be satisfied with mediocrity! The world will offer you comfort. But you were not made for comfort. You were made for greatness.” In the GOP’s quest to craft a coherent message that represents conservatism and resonates with the electorate, the late Pontiff’s remarks are an excellent starting point.

AN UNREDEEMED PRESIDENCY

As election day draws near and the presidential campaigns execute their final strategies the winds of success appear to be at the backs of the Romney/Ryan team, and it’s not too imperious to envisage a Romney/Ryan victory. It appears that a significant part of the electorate agrees with the title of Niall Ferguson’s cogent essay entitled “Obama’s Gotta Go”. As we eagerly await their promising triumph on November 6th and, risking impetuousness, we deign to contemplate what a Romney presidency will resemble in its maiden year.

From any perspective, looking forward, President Romney will undoubtedly have to play the part of America’s master repairman.  He has the unenviable task of repaving America’s avenue of exceptionalism, a road rendered potholed and fractured by the Obama administration. There are considerable fixes Romney the new renovator-in-chief must undertake, and if anyone is deserved of a “blame Obama” free pass it will be the new Chief Executive. But leaders don’t blame, they take responsibility for their actions, so it’s doubtful President Romney will exhibit behavior beneath his character and the office of the presidency.

President Romney will have to refurbish America’s ruptured domestic economic environment laden with Obama’s absurdist wealth redistribution policies and profligate spending sprees. He will have to remake a hegemonic America in decline due to President Obama’s feckless appeasement of America’s enemies and indifference and disregard towards its allies. But perhaps President Romney’s most daunting task for renovating America’s path of exceptionalism will be to restore a united America torn asunder by an Obama-led class warfare crusade. A crusade pitting American against American to assuage his personal disdain for a hallmark of Americanism embodied by the freedom loving rugged individualist who takes personal responsibility for their successes and failures. These are the very Americans President Obama fears and derides because he cannot control their independent spirit, intimidate their freedom of thought, nor render insecure their confident natures.

While a Romney presidency is committed to a renewal of American exceptionalism, the Obama presidency is only a remembrance of unfulfilled promise. The 2008 Obama pledges are legendary for their hollowness and now have the status of a parlor joke, to wit, “how is that hope and change working out for you?” Space does not permit the entire smorgasbord of utopias (over 500 by some accounts) offered up by candidate and President Obama. But because of their far-reaching consequences a few warrant call outs to capture the essence of his disappointing term. Candidate Obama professed he would revolutionize American governance by replacing backroom political cronyism with a presidency that would be “the most transparent administration in the history of our country”. It was candidate Obama who swore that he would reduce the national deficit in half by the end of his first term. In 2009 President Obama guaranteed that unemployment would be at 5.2% at the end of his first term and there would be 3% to 4% GDP growth in the final three years of his first term. There were the President’s infamous assurances that his ObamaCare legislation would be budget neutral, reduce premium costs and allow individuals to keep their existing coverage. The President avowed he would commence a “new beginning” between America and the Arab world through his policies of appeasement toward America’s enemies. These and the preponderance of other hopeful pieces of paradise promised by an Obama presidency are relegated to a wasteland of deceit and deception.

Obama partisans are chock full of excuses for the president’s fiascos.  Some justify President Obama’s failures due to his executive inexperience, so perhaps Mr. Obama ran afoul of one of the cardinal rules of business, which is to never over promise and under deliver. But his devotees also plead that now since that he has gotten his feet wet give him four more years. But, to quote one of Vice-President Joe Biden’s few lucid remarks, “…the presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.” Some of the president’s acolytes have chalked up his failures as a consequence of his predecessor’s policies igniting the “blame Bush” strategy. If that is at play, and since every president inherits some undesirable policies and unfavorable domestic and geo-political environments, then it is reason enough to man the Oval office with someone who can live up to the challenges of the presidency. Finally, in keeping with the Obama finger-pointing presidency, the President’s disciples accuse the republicans in congress of partisanship and obstruction. This is mendacious and preposterous given that the Obama policies, which laid the groundwork for America’s current decline, were undertaken in the President’s first two years in office, a period in which the democrats controlled both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

The Obama presidency was unique for both it’s promise and it’s fortification. Without any notable experience to speak of on the part of candidate Obama an adoring mainstream media colluded with an ingenious presidential campaign to successfully fabricate the illusion of a candidate that was infallible and omnipotent. Candidate Obama was lauded and praised as the savior for the woes of the American Republic and he would right the injustices of the past with a wave of his majestic hand. From the failed, pork ridden stimulus to the Benghazi tragedy with flyovers to ObamaCare, Solyndra and his Middle East “American Apology Tour” the media’s coddling continued into his presidency while President Obama’s advisers strove feverishly to enable, defend and rationalize his failures. But the President’s aura of entitlement and enablement were ironically the causes of his failures and disappointments.

However it was how he failed that signifies the tragedy of his presidency. America’s post-modern presidential version of the “emperor with no clothes” luxuriated in praise and fumed at criticism. Handed every opportunity to succeed he stubbornly ignored the obvious manifestations of his failed socialist ideologies. He dug in his heels insisting on an economic agenda that wreaked havoc and misery on the middle class, the very group he claimed to champion in his class warfare campaign. His lethargic foreign engagement characterized as “leading from behind” emboldened America’s enemies resulting in a much more dangerous and tumultuous world for America than when he took office.

In spite of the dangers to America’s economic and international well being, the future of the Republic and his disregard for his oath of office the President was obdurate in his single mindedness. The Constitution is clear as to the president’s responsibilities and President Obama disregarded his solemn oath which was “to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Perhaps it is his ability that is at issue.

But the time for entertaining excuses or conjecture is over. In the parlance of the President’s many “let me be clear” moments it is now history’s time to write the Obama epitaph. Historians, unlike the President’s sycophants, will not justify his failures nor inoculate his shortcomings. As with all Presidents Mr. Obama’s presidency will be reviewed and recollected historically on the merits of his accomplishments. He was dealt a hand that he willingly accepted and he failed to deliver. It was President Obama’s personal decision to selfishly satiate his personal dogmata at the expense of his sworn responsibility to act as steward of America’s welfare. For that reason he shall not be forgiven, and for that reason the Obama presidency’s epitaph will forever be known as an unredeemed presidency.

FOUNDING FATHERS HAUNT OBAMA

Founding Fathers Know Best, by Ross Edward Puskar. Hugo House Publishers, 2012 vii + 283 pp., Amazon price $17.95 paperback; $9.95 Kindle.

Have you ever wondered what America’s founding fathers would say to President Barack Obama? Imagine the rhetorical thunder that would ensue from that clash of philosophies. If you’ve been anxiously awaiting such a meeting then you’re in luck. Ross Edward Puskar brings them together in his book Founding Fathers Know Best.

Mr. Puskar’s first foray into political fiction cleverly inculcates American history with current events through a literary narrative that pays homage to Dickens A Christmas Carol. In Founding Fathers Know Best there is a club known as the President’s Club. The club is comprised of the spirits of deceased U.S. presidents, and it’s purpose is for the spirits to visit sitting Presidents so that they may impart their wisdom and counsel. As one may surmise the president of the club is George Washington, who personally selects the apparitions that visit each sitting president.

In the case of President Obama George Washington sends his A-team to visit the White House; the spirits of former presidents Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and James Madison. Given President Obama’s vision to transform America through his “hope and change” mantra over the course of seven evenings the three spirits endeavor to remind Mr. Obama of his obligations and responsibilities as president. Mr. Puskar imbues each founder with their own distinct personality as they embroil the President in their evening deliberations.

The spirits deconstruct for the President the negative impact his domestic and foreign policies have on America’s well being and reinforce to him his sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. They educate him on America’s rich, proud heritage and strong moral fabric that has sustained it over troubled times. It’s a tall task for Messrs. Jefferson, Adams and Madison as they each take their turn to convince the obdurate President of his misguided principles and challenge his administration’s integrity.

Over the course of their seven visitations the three spirits confront President Obama on the gamut of challenges facing his administration from domestic and foreign policy, education, entitlements and unions to race relations, environmental issues, immigration reform, corruption, taxes and leadership qualities. It’s a pressure packed week of give and take as the spiritual incarnations of the founding fathers and the President passionately engage each other and debate solutions for the pressing issues facing America.

Founding Fathers Know Best is a quick and lively read that engrosses the reader in the heated exchanges between three paragons of American heritage and America’s most post-modern progressive president. Through those interactions the reader is also informed of eye-opening facts that may surprise even the most informed political junkie.

In Ross Edward Puskar’s maiden work he blends fun with facts. Founding Fathers Know Best will be enjoyed by young and old as a book that brings to life the timeless argument between preserving or changing America’s socio, economic and political cultures, and it is undertaken in a “spirited’ fashion.